COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

DATE:

August 25, 2004

SET TIME:

10:00 a.m.

BOARD MEETING DATE:

September 14, 2004

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

SUBJECT:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consideration of a request for Design Review, pursuant to Section 6565.7 of the County Zoning Regulations, to allow construction of a new 3,154 sq. ft. single-family dwelling located on Harte Street in the unincorporated Montara area of San Mateo County (Appeal from the Planning Commission’s decision denying Design Review application). This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the Design Review application, County File No. PLN 2003-00096.

PROPOSAL

The applicant is proposing to construct a new 3,154 sq. ft. single-family dwelling including a 388 sq. ft. garage on a 6,262 sq. ft. parcel, and remove one tree.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

The Planning Commission voted 3-1 (Commissioner Kennedy dissenting, Commissioner Nobles absent) to deny the project, based on non-compliance with Coastside Design Review Standards. The Planning Commission concluded that the structure was not designed to retain the natural landforms of the site, was not architecturally compatible with the neighborhood, and was not in harmony with the shape and scale of the adjacent buildings in the community.

The applicant has raised other issues related to the Planning Commission's process in considering the appeal of the Design Review Committee's decision. Staff believes that the Planning Commission's process was legally adequate. However, the Board of Supervisors does not need to address this issue since the appeal to the Board is de novo and any procedural error by the Planning Commission, if there was one, would be moot

SUMMARY

The applicant has appealed the project to the Board of Supervisors, citing: (1) the mass of the structure has been designed to slope in conformity with the landform, (2) the majority of the houses on the same street contain the same architectural style and the use of material as the proposed house, and (3) the height of the house is lower than the two adjacent houses and is in harmony with the neighborhood. The applicant believes that the new house conforms to the Design Review Standards, and that the DRC approved the design and made specific findings that the house was fully in compliance with the findings, while the Planning Commission established a precedent by overturning a decision of the DRC.

In response to the Planning Commission’s denial of the project (3-1), the applicant submitted revised plans for an alternative design on August 9, 2004, indicating stepping back the two habitable floors. If the Board of Supervisors believes the project complies with applicable Zoning Regulations and Design Review Standards, and finds the required findings, then staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors grant the appeal and overturn the decision of the Planning Commission by approving the project.