20040914_m




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:			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 the Design Review application). This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

			County File Number:			PLN 2003-00096 (Galahan)

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Design Review application, County File No. PLN 2003-00096, by adopting the findings listed in Attachment A of this report.

PROPOSAL

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

BACKGROUND

Report Prepared By: Farhad Mortazavi, Design Review Officer, Telephone 650/363-1831

Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Arthur Galahan

Location: Harte Street, Montara

APN: 036-104-510

Parcel Size: 6,262 sq. ft.

Existing Zoning: R-1/S-17/DR/CD (Single-Family Residential/5,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size/Design Review/Coastal Development District)

General Plan Designation: Medium-Density Residential (6.1 to 8.7 dwelling units per acre)

Sphere-of-Influence: City of Half Moon Bay

Existing Land Use: Vacant

Water and Sewer Service: Montara Water and Sanitary District

Flood Zone: Zone C (Areas of Minimal Flooding), FEMA Community Panel No. 060311 0092 B, Effective date: July 5, 1984.

Environmental Evaluation: Categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, Construction of a small new structure.

Setting: The subject parcel is located on the southwestern portion of Harte Street between Cedar and Birch Street (see Parcel Vicinity Map, Attachment C). The 6,262 sq. ft. parcel moderately slopes up from the street covered with brushes and grass, and two significant trees at the front property line. The adjacent parcel and properties across Harte Street are developed with one and two-story single-family dwellings. The parcel to the left of the subject property is vacant.

Chronology:

Date					Action

October 7, 1907				-	Subdivision of area, Amended and Supplemental Map of Montara.

July 18, 2001				-	Lot Merger and Coastal Development Permit Exemption for a domestic well is approved.

February 13, 2003				-	Coastside Design Review application submitted for a new single-family dwelling, for review by the Coastside Design Review Committee.

March 16, 2003				-	Midcoast Community Council’s Planning and Zoning Subcommittee determines the project has no outstanding issues and recommends approval.

May 8, 2003				-	First Design Review public hearing for the project. Due to a conflict of interest, the Coastside Design Review Committee (DRC) community representative for Montara recuses herself. The two remaining DRC members subsequently continued the project, requiring a cross section and a landscape plan.

June 12, 2003				-	The DRC approves the project by a majority vote, with the alternate community representative dissenting.

July 1, 2003				-	Project is appealed to the Planning Commission by the Midcoast Community Council’s Planning and Zoning chair.

March 24, 2004				-	The Planning Commission grants the appeal and refers the project back to the DRC.

April 12, 2004				-	The project is appealed by the applicant to the Board of Supervisors (BOS).

August 9, 2004				-	Alternative plans are submitted.

September 14, 2004				-	Board of Supervisors public hearing.

DISCUSSION

A.	PREVIOUS ACTION

	On March 24, 2004, upon appeal of the DRC approval of the project, the Planning Commission voted 3-1 (Commissioner Kennedy dissenting, Commissioner Nobles absent) to grant the appeal and deny this project by making the following findings for denial: (1) proposed structure is not designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural landforms of the site, (2) varying architectural styles are not made compatible through the use of similar material and colors which blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhoods, and (3) the design of the structure is not in harmony with the shape and scale of the adjacent buildings in the community. The dissenting Commissioner believed the proposal was compatible with the neighborhood.

B.	KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

	The main issues of the applicant’s appeal are indicated below in bold followed by staff’s response. A complete copy of the appeal application is included as Attachment B.

	1.	Inaccurate and/or incorrect findings of PC, regarding the Coastside Design Review Standards (CDRS) Section 6565.7.a, proposed structures are not designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural vegetation and landforms of the site. The mass of the structure has been designed to slope in conformity with the landform, each level setback and terraced into the hillside of the lot. In addition, the siting of the structure on the lot has been optimally selected so as to blend into the sloping lot without unnecessary grading. The design further blends with the natural landform through the employment of similar color.

		Staff’s Response: The Planning Commission was unable to find that the proposed house follows the natural topography of the site, and in reaching their decision, found the project not in conformity with the natural slope of the land and that the living room above the garage, and the master bedroom above it could be pushed further back. The Commission concluded that the applicant could further revise the plans to step up the slope of the site to conform with the natural topography of the site.

	2.	Inaccurate and/or incorrect findings of PC, regarding CDRS Section 6565.7.k, Varying architectural styles are not made compatible through the use of similar material and colors which blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhoods. The majority of the houses on the same street contain the same material as the proposed house, as well as all the principal community heritage structures in the neighborhood. The material is also compatible with the natural setting by selecting a similar color (medium-dark moss-olive) as the surrounding trees. The effect of these design elements reduce the distinction of, and create harmony with, the varying neighborhood architectural styles.

		Staff’s Response: The Planning Commission visited the site prior to the hearing and voted that the use of stucco is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood (houses adjacent and across the street from the site incorporate non-stucco sidings). Therefore, staff believes the Commission conducted a thorough evaluation of the project, and made the finding that the project is not made compatible through the use of a different material that does not blend in with the surrounding neighborhood.

	3.	Inaccurate and/or incorrect findings of PC, regarding CDRS Section 6565.7.I, The design of the structure is appropriate to the use of the property and is in harmony with the shape, size, and scale of the adjacent building in the community. Regarding the scale, the height of the house is lower than the only two adjacent houses, and is also sited to lie in the direct proportion to, and no longer than, the only adjacent house with a long exposure to it. This will have the effect of maintaining light and air, as well as preserving views of, the adjacent houses. Regarding the shape of the structure, there are widely varying shapes of houses, making it impossible to harmonize the structure with another shape.

		Staff’s Response: The use of the property for a single-family dwelling is an allowed use by the Zoning Ordinance. However, although there are 2-story structures located on the west side and further across the street, there are also 1-story houses across the street and within the immediate vicinity of the project. The Commission voted that the proposal’s design is not in scale, shape and character of the surrounding community and could utilize the step-design arrangement to step up the house to be more compatible with the natural slope of the site.

	4.	It was this BOS-created DRC that approved the design and made specific findings that the house was fully in compliance with the findings. The PC made opposite findings, which contradicts the objectives of BOS-created DRC. The PC did not perform a careful review of the project that the DRC conducted at its two hearings, and its decision is contradictory to the decision of DRC which establishes a precedent by over-turning their decision.

		Staff’s Response: The Planning Commission conducts a “de novo” hearing on an appeal, meaning they review the project irrespective of any previous decisions, with complete discretion and independence. The Commission is free to reach a different decision. This, in itself, does not set a precedent. Staff believes that the Planning Commission gave a full and fair review of the application in compliance with its normal hearing requirements. However, since this appeal is a “de novo” hearing by the Board of Supervisors, it is not necessary for the Board to rule upon the process taken by the Commission.

C.	CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN

	The project conforms with the General Plan Policies pertaining to Visual Quality and Urban Land Use, as detailed in the Montara-Moss Beach-El Granada Community Plan as Policy 8.8 (Designation of Existing Urban Communities). A single-family residence is the principal land use and conforms with the General Plan designation of “Medium Density Residential.”

D.	COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) POLICIES

	The parcel is located within the single-family Categorical Exclusion Area, and thus qualifies for Coastal Development Exclusion Certificate, and exemption from LCP requirements.

E.	PROJECT’S COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING REGULATIONS

	The table below shows the project’s compliance with the current R-1/S-17 Zoning Regulation.

R-1/S-17 Development Standards	*Zoning Requirements*	*Proposal*
Building Site Area	5,000 sq. ft.	6,262 sq. ft.
Building Site Width	50 ft.	50 ft.
Minimum Setbacks
Front	20 ft.	30 ft.
Rear	20 ft.	33 ft.
Sides	20 ft. on left, 5 ft. on right	10 ft. on left, 5 ft. on right
Lot Coverage	2,197 sq. ft. (35%)	1,824 sq. ft. (29.1%)
Building Floor Area	3,319 sq. ft. (53%)	3,154 sq. ft. (50.4%)
Building Height	28 ft.	27.5 ft.
Minimum Parking	2 covered spaces	2 covered spaces


F.	PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS

	While the DRC found that the project complied with the following standards, the Planning Commission’s denial of the Design Review was based on the project’s non-compliance with three select standards, as indicated.

	a.	Proposed structures are not designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural landforms of the site. The Planning Commission found the project not in conformance with this standard.

	b.	Where grading is necessary for the construction of structures and paved areas, it blends with adjacent landforms through the use of contour grading rather than harsh cutting or terracing of the site and does not create problems of drainage or erosion on its site or adjacent property. The site requires minimal grading for construction of the structure.

	c.	Streams and other natural drainage systems are not altered so as to affect their character and thereby using problems of drainage channels and other areas subject to inundation. There are no streams or natural drainage systems at the site.

	d.	Structures are located outside flood zones, drainage channels and other areas subject to inundation. The project is not located within a flood zone, natural drainage channel, or other areas subject to inundation.

	e.	Trees and other vegetation land cover are removed only when necessary for the construction of the structures or paved areas in order to reduce erosion and impacts on natural drainage channels, and maintain surface runoff at acceptable levels. The proposal includes the removal of one tree for locating the driveway.

	f.	A smooth transition is maintained between development and adjacent open areas through the use of natural landscaping and plant materials which are native or appropriate to the area. The DRC approved the project’s landscape plan on June 12, 2003, which includes four 15-gallon and 24.5-gallon size trees, appropriate to the area, to smooth the transition between the development and adjacent open areas. In addition, the landscape plan includes 45 one-gallon size shrubs to be planted to soften the impact of the structure.

	g.	Views are protected by the height and location of structures and through the selective pruning or removal of tree and vegetative matter at the end of view corridors. The site is located within an urban area in Montara and does not contain view corridors, in particular the ocean, Devil’s Slide, or Montara hills.

	h.	Construction on ridgelines blends with the existing silhouette and by maintaining natural vegetative masses and landforms and does not extend above the height of the forest or tree canopy. The project is not located on a ridgeline.

	i.	Structures are set back from the edge of the bluffs and cliffs to protect views from scenic areas below. The site is not located on the edge of a bluff or cliff.

	j.	Public views to and along the shoreline from public roads and other public lands are protected. The project is in an urban area of Montara, with Cabrillo Highway located seven blocks west of the project site.

	k.	Varying architectural styles are not made compatible through the use of similar material and colors which blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhoods. The Planning Commission found the project not in conformance with this standard.

	l.	The design of the structure is not in harmony with the shape, and scale of the adjacent buildings in the community. The Planning Commission found the project not in conformance with this standard.

	m.	Overhead utility lines are placed underground where appropriate to reduce the visual impact in open and scenic areas. The DRC approved the project with a condition that all new service lines be placed underground.

	n.	The number, location, size, design, lighting, materials, and use of colors in signs are compatible with the architectural style of the structure they identify and harmonize with their surroundings. There are no signs proposed for this project.

	o.	Paved areas are integrated into the site, relate to their structure, and are landscaped to reduce visual impact from residential areas and from roadways. The proposed driveway requires the removal of one significant tree and accesses the garage up the slope from the street. However, the driveway is curved to reach the garage in order to save one other tree located on the front right side of the property.

G.	ALTERNATIVE

	On August 9, 2004, the applicant submitted revised plans in response to the Planning Commission’s concerns, by moving the second floor further back by 4.5 feet to better conform with the natural slope of the land. Please see the alternative plans in Attachment M.

	If the Board of Supervisors, upon testimony at the public hearing and reviewing the applicant’s alternative plans in Attachment M, believes the project complies with the applicable Design Review Standards, it may make the required findings in Attachment N, and approve the project.

H.	MIDCOAST COMMUNITY COUNCIL REVIEW

	A referral of the project was sent to the Midcoast Community Council (MCCC) on February 26, 2003. The Council’s Planning and Zoning Committee chair informed staff on March 16, 2003, that they had no outstanding issues outside of the Coastside Design Review process, and did not oppose or include any other comments.

I.	ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

	This project is categorically exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, Construction of a Small New Structure.

J.	REVIEWING AGENCIES

	1.	Department of Public Works
	2.	Building Inspection Section
	3.	Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District
	4.	Montara Water and Sanitary District
	5.	Midcoast Community Council

VISION ALIGNMENT

The proposal to construct a new single-family residence, if it is approved, keeps the commitment to offer a full range of housing choices and goal number 9: housing exists for all people at all income levels for all generation of families. This proposal contributes to this commitment and goal by providing more available housing in the County.

ATTACHMENTS

A.	Recommended Findings for Denial
B.	Appeal Letter
C.	Vicinity Map
D.	Location Map
E.	Site Plan
F.	First Floor and Garage Plan
G.	Second Floor Plan and Section Plan
H.	Elevations
I.	Planning Commission and CDRC Decision Letter
J.	MCCC letter
K.	Opposing Letter to Project’s Approval
L.	Supporting Letter to Project’s Approval
M.	Alternative Plans
N.	Alternative Recommending Findings and Conditions of Approval
O.	Applicant’s Supporting Statement for the Alternate Design


Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED FINDING OF DENIAL

Permit or Project File Number:			Board Meeting Date: September 14, 2004
		PLN 2003-00096

Prepared By: Farhad Mortazavi				For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors


RECOMMENDED FINDING

For Design Review:

Find that this project has been reviewed under and found not to be in compliance with the Design Review Standards for Coastside Districts. Section 6565.7 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations. Specifically that:

1.	Proposed structures are not designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural landforms of the site.

2.	Varying architectural styles are not made compatible through the use of similar material and colors which blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhoods.

3.	The design of the structure is not in harmony with the shape, and scale of the adjacent buildings in the community.


Attachment N

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit or Project File Number:				Board Meeting Date: September 14, 2004
		PLN 2003-00096

Prepared By: Farhad Mortazavi					For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors


RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

The Board of Supervisors found that:

A.	For the Environmental Review

	This project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301, Class 1, construction of a small structure.

B.	For the Design Review

	This project has been reviewed under and found to be in compliance with the Design Review Standards for Coastside Districts, Section 6565.7 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Planning Division

1.	The project shall be constructed in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. Any changes or revisions to the approved plans or above conditions shall be reviewed by the Design Review Officer or, where necessary, the Coastside Design Review Committee for approval.

2.	This permit shall be valid for one year from the date of approval. Any extension of this permit shall require submittal of an application for permit extension and payment of applicable extension fees sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date.

3.	The applicant shall provide “finished floor elevation verification” to certify that the structure is actually constructed at the height shown on the submitted plans. The applicant shall have a licensed land surveyor or engineer establish a baseline elevation datum point in the vicinity of the construction site.

	a.		The applicant shall maintain the datum point so that it will not be disturbed by the proposed construction activities until final approval of the building permit.

	b.		This datum point and its elevation shall be shown on the submitted site plan. This datum point shall be used during construction to verify the elevation of the finished floors relative to the existing natural or to the grade of the site (finished grade).

	c.		Prior to planning approval of the building permit application, the applicant shall also have the licensed land surveyor or engineer indicate on the construction plans: (1) the natural grade elevations at the significant corners (at least four) of the footprint of the proposed structure on the submitted site plan, and (2) the elevations of proposed finished grades.

	d.		In addition, (1) the natural grade elevations at the significant corners of the proposed structure, (2) the finished floor elevations, (3) the topmost elevation of the roof, and (4) garage slab elevation, must be shown on the plan, elevations, and cross-section (if one is provided).

	e.		Once the building is under construction, prior to the below floor framing inspection or the pouring of the concrete slab (as the case may be) for the lowest floor(s), the applicant shall provide to the Building Inspection Section a letter from the licensed land surveyor or engineer certifying that the lowest floor height--as constructed--is equal to the elevation specified for that floor in the approved plans. Similarly, certifications on the garage slab and the topmost elevation of the roof are required.

	f.		If the actual floor height, garage slab, or roof height--as constructed--is different than the elevation specified in the plans, then the applicant shall cease all construction and no additional inspections shall be approved until a revised set of plans is submitted to and subsequently approved by both the Building Official and Planning Director.

4.	During project construction, the applicant shall, pursuant to Section 5022 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code, minimize the transport and discharge of stormwater runoff from the construction site into storm drain systems and water bodies by:

	a.		Using filtration materials on storm drain covers to remove sediment from dewatering effluent.

	b.		Stabilizing all denuded areas and maintaining erosion control measures continuously between October 15 and April 15.

	c.		Removing spoils promptly, and avoiding stockpiling of fill materials, when rain is forecast. If rain threatens, stockpiled soils and other materials shall be covered with a tarp or other waterproof material.

	d.		Storing, handling, and disposing of construction materials and wastes so as to avoid their entry to the storm drain system or water body.

	e.		Avoiding cleaning, fueling or maintaining vehicles on site, except in an area designated to contain and treat runoff.

	f.		Limiting and timing applications of pesticides and fertilizer to avoid polluting runoff.

5.	The applicant shall include an erosion and sediment control plan on the plans submitted for the building permit. This plan shall identify the type and location of erosion control devices to be installed upon the commencement of construction in order to maintain the stability of the site and prevent erosion and sedimentation off-site.

6.	All new power and telephone utility lines from the street or nearest existing utility pole to the main dwelling and/or any other structure on the property shall be placed underground.

7.	The applicant shall apply for a building permit and shall adhere to all requirements from the Building Inspection Section, the Department of Public Works and the Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District.

8.	No site disturbance shall occur, including any grading or tree removal, until a building permit has been issued, and then only those trees approved for removal shall be removed.

9.	To reduce the impact of construction activities on neighboring properties, comply with the following:

	a.		All debris shall be contained on site; a dumpster or trash bin shall be provided on-site during construction to prevent debris from blowing onto adjacent properties. The applicant shall monitor the site to ensure that trash is picked up and appropriately disposed of daily.

	b.		The applicant shall remove all construction equipment from the site upon completion of the use and/or need of each piece of equipment which shall include but not be limited to tractors, back hoes, cement mixers, etc.

	c.		The applicant shall ensure that no construction related vehicles shall impede through traffic along the right-of-way on Harte Street. All construction vehicles shall be parked on-site outside the public right-of-way or in locations which do not impede safe access on Harte Street. There shall be no storage of construction vehicles in the public right-of-way.

10.	The exterior color samples submitted to the Committee are approved. Color verification shall occur in the field after the applicant has applied the approved materials and colors but before a final inspection has been scheduled.

11.	Noise levels produced by the proposed construction activity shall not exceed the 80 dBA level at any one moment. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction operations shall be prohibited on Sunday and any national holiday.

12.	The landscape plan, including all listed trees and shrubs, shall be included with the building permit plans, and its implementation shall be confirmed prior to final building inspection.

Building Inspection Section

13.	At the time of application for a building permit, the following will be required:

	a.		Prior to pouring any concrete for foundations, written verification from a licensed surveyor will be required, which will confirm that the required setbacks have been maintained as per the approved plans.

	b.		An automatic fire sprinkler system will be required. This permit must be issued prior to or in conjunction with the building permit.

	c.		If a water main extension, upgrade or fire hydrant is required, this work must be completed prior to issuance of the building permit, or the applicant must submit a copy of an agreement and contract with the water purveyor which will ensure the work is completed prior to finalization of the building permit.

	d.		A site drainage plan will be required which will demonstrate how roof drainage and site runoff will be directed to an approved disposal area.

	e.		Sediment and erosion control measures shall be installed prior to beginning any site work and maintained throughout the project. Failure to install or maintain these measures will result in a work stoppage on the dwelling until the corrections have been made and fees associated with staff time have been paid.

	f.		A driveway plan and profile will be required.

14.	Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant will be required to provide payment of “roadway mitigation fees” based on the square footage (assessable space) of the proposed residence per Ordinance #3277.

15.	No construction work within the County right-of-way shall begin until Public Works’ requirements for the issuance of an encroachment permit, including review of applicable plans, have been met and an encroachment permit issued by the Department of Public Works.

16.	The applicant shall submit a driveway “Plan and Profile” to the Public Works Department, showing the driveway access to the parcel (garage slab) complying with County Standards for driveway slopes (not to exceed 20%) and to County Standards for driveways (at the property line) being the same elevation as the center of the access roadway. The driveway plan shall also include and show specific provisions and details for handling both the existing and the proposed drainage.

17.	The applicant shall prepare a plan indicating the proposed method of sewering this property.

18.	The applicant shall submit detailed drawings showing the “sources of” and the “installation locations for” all the required underground utilities.

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District

19.	The applicant shall comply with all conditions required by the Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District.

PROPOSAL

DISCUSSION

Zoning Requirements

Proposal