20050208_m

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

DATE:

January 19, 2005

BOARD MEETING DATE:

February 8, 2005

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

10 days within 300 ft.

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

SUBJECT:

Consideration of a Coastside Design Review Permit, pursuant to Section 6565.4 of the County Zoning Regulations, to construct a new 2,548 sq. ft. single-family residence on a 5,000 sq. ft. parcel located at 286 – 2nd Street, in the unincorporated Montara area of the County. (Appeal from decision of the Planning Commission denying the Design Review Permit.) This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

County File Number:

PLN 1999-00015 (Mahon)

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the Design Review Permit, County File Number PLN 1999-00015, by making the findings of denial as listed in Attachment A.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: Number 9 (Partnerships); “Effective and Collaborative Government.”

Goal: Number 20; “Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.”

The Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the subject Design Review Permit furthers Commitment 9 and Goal 20 because the Planning Commission’s decision that the project did not comply with design review standards suggests that they were considering the future impacts of the project on the surrounding neighbors and were not willing to accommodate the “immediate gains” to the applicant if the house were approved and built.

BACKGROUND

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a new 2,548 sq. ft. two-story single-family residence including an attached two-car garage on a 5,000 sq. ft. parcel. The proposed house fronts onto and is accessed from Farallone. No trees are proposed for removal.

This project was one of two Design Review (DR) applications (the other application is PLN 1999-00215) for new single-family homes on two adjacent parcels submitted by the applicant in February 1999. Both projects had their initial DR approvals rescinded due to inadequate public notification. Upon thorough re-noticing, review and extensive opportunity for comment, both projects have incurred similar degrees of strong opposition from the neighbors and Midcoast Community Council, based on their bulk, size and design relative to applicable DR standards, site topography and comparative surrounding development.

In response to the subject project, the applicant has made few substantial design modifications to the house beyond minor articulation changes to the exterior. Subsequently, however, the subject project’s DR Permit was approved by the Planning Director in April 2004. That decision was appealed to the Planning Commission by 22 neighbors.

Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission’s denial of this project on November 10, 2004, took into consideration the issues posed by the appellants, issues around the inadequacy of the latest submitted plans (a significant tree and existing well were not shown on the site plan, exterior wall and window details were missing from the elevations) and found there was not adequate evidence to support two applicable design review standards: (1) the house is not designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural vegetation and landform of the site, and (2) the house is not in harmony with the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community.

Report Prepared By: Dave Holbrook, Project Planner, Telephone: 650/363-1837

Applicant/Appellant: Thomas and Alice Mahon

Location: 286 – 2nd Street and Farallone Avenue, Montara

APN: 036-014-210

Size: 5,000 sq. ft.

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

General Plan Designation: Medium Low Density Residential (6.1 – 8.7 dwelling units/acre)

Sphere-of-Influence: City of Half Moon Bay

Existing Land Use: Vacant

Water Supply: Existing domestic well

Sewage Disposal: Montara Water and Sanitary District

Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Zone “C” (Area of Minimal Flooding); Community Panel Number: 060311 0092B; Effective Date: July 5, 1984.

Environmental Evaluation: Exempt under Section 15303, Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), construction of a minor structure.

Setting: The project site is located on the north side of 2nd Street, at the corner with Farallone Avenue, two blocks east of Cabrillo Highway. The 5,000 sq. ft. parcel slopes upward from both 2nd Street and Farallone Avenue. The parcel to the west is vacant (pending Design Review application, PLN 1999-00215). The surrounding neighborhood is developed with one- and two-story single-family residences.

DISCUSSION

A.

KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

The appellant submitted his appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, with the specific grounds for appeal provided through his representative, Dave Beaumont (italicized) (see Attachment G), particularly in reference to the applicant’s revisions submitted after the Planning Commission’s November 2004 denial of the project. The appellant’s issues and staff response follow:

The contention of the Planning Commission is that “... there was not adequate evidence to support: (1) that the proposed structure does not blend with the natural contours of the site and (2) that the proposed structure does not relate to adjacent buildings and to the neighborhood.”

We contend that there was, in fact, sufficient evidence to support both the standards listed for the design submitted for the Planning Commission’s review. Nevertheless, a redesign has been submitted to further support and augment such evidence. The structure as now presented in a redesign subsequent to the November 10 Planning Commission hearing now conforms to and meets both these standards as discussed below:

1.

The rooflines throughout the house have been modified to better blend with the natural slope of the site as follows: (a) gabled roof ends have been changed into hips, (b) there has been a lowering of the roofline, and (c) there is displayed on both of the longitudinal masses of the house a clear transition of the roof from a higher to a lower elevation towards the north side, conforming to the lower elevation of the natural grade below.

Staff Response: After the Planning Commission’s November 10 decision, Mr. Mahon submitted the revised plans referenced by Mr. Beaumont (see Attachment G). The Planning Commission did not review these plans. However, while the roof has been slightly modified as indicated (as shown in by the elevation plans of Attachment E), the roofline was only lowered at some points relative to the natural grade below, and not consistently as shown along the entire east and west elevations. In fact, the downhill end of the house as seen on those elevations is now shown to have been raised on fill, rather than settling down to follow the natural contours of the site. Overall, staff does not believe that these changes go far enough to ensure that the proposed structure “blends with the natural contours of the site.”

As an alternative to staff’s recommended action to deny the appeal, if the Board decides to approve this project, please refer to the Alternative Section of this report and to Attachment B for recommended and revised conditions of approval, including requiring the applicant to lower and reduce the height of the downhill portion of the house.

2.

The maintenance of a mature, towering, heritage tree in the foreground of the street facade at the southeast of the site, gives context to the structure and its reduced prominence in relation to the natural landform.

Staff Response: Staff is not clear what “heritage tree” Mr. Beaumont is referring to. There is a “significant” pine (but not designated “heritage” status) located in the southeast corner of the parcel as shown on Mr. Mahon’s recently submitted site plan. Mr. Mahon has indicated that he intends to preserve that tree.

3.

Improved relationship to adjacent buildings and neighborhood:

a.

All houses adjacent to, and on the same block as the subject project, contain horizontal narrow board siding and trim, and in general could be construed to represent a coastal vernacular. The design now contains those same elements; in addition, a wide trim band now features between the stories, assisting in dividing the visual mass, and presenting a softer facade overall to the neighborhood.

b.

Windows now contain a ‘coastal craftsman’ motif, incorporating a unique divided-light theme that is both softer to the facade and better identifies the house design, as well as being a design found on several houses in this neighborhood.

c.

The principal street-facing elevation (Farallone Street) now presents a softer facade to the street owing to the reduction of roof mass and form. This aids both in reducing prominence as well as better relating to adjacent buildings.

d.

With regard to size, massing of forms, and external appearance, the design as presented closely mirrors the same existing on two new houses located both to the side and to the rear of the property. These houses are identified, as they received decision letters of design conformity to both design review standards as well as LCP design guidelines. The further modifications identified in this appeal, promulgate an even closer affinity to these existing house designs on the same block.

Staff Response: The Planning Commission did not have the opportunity to see the applicant’s latest submitted revisions. However, staff believes that the subject changes identified by the appellant do reflect many of the changes that staff had initially required as conditions of approval. Staff also agrees that the exterior design modifications do improve the look of the house relative to surrounding development. Staff must add, however, that none of these changes reduces the floor area of the house, which is a major contributor to the perceived massing and bulk that has been a constant issue with this project in the opinion of several neighbors who have commented and appealed past decisions, as well as by the Planning Commission. In addition, as previously discussed, these latest revisions now show the downhill end of the house raised on fill, which does not comply with the design review policy that seeks to locate the house relative to the site’s topography.

This project has triggered strong and consistent opposition from both the Midcoast Community Council and many neighbors in the immediate neighborhood surrounding the project site. The rationale for the Planning Director’s April 2004 approval of the design review, despite the opposition, was that requiring additional minor design changes and landscaping (Conditions 3, 4, and 5, Attachment B) would ensure compliance with the design review standards. The Planning Commission’s November 10 decision on the appeal found the project not to be in compliance with select design review standards and included concerns over inadequacies with the submitted site plan and elevations, e.g., a significant tree and existing well were not shown on the site plan and exterior material and window details were missing from the elevations. In response to that issue, albeit after the Planning Commission’s decision, the applicant submitted the revised plans as discussed above (see Attachments D and E). Again, it is not known how these minor modifications would have affected the Planning Commission’s November 10 denial of the design review.

B.

COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY REGULATIONS

1.

Conformance with General Plan

Visual Quality and Urban Land Use. Visual Quality Policy 4.35 (Urban Area Design Concept) seeks to: (a) maintain and, where possible, improve upon the appearance and visual character of development in urban areas [of which the Montara area is included]; and (b) ensure that new development in urban areas is designed and constructed to contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of the locality. Urban Land Use Policy 8.14 (Residential Land Use Compatibility) seeks to protect and enhance the character of existing single-family areas. The Planning Commission’s November 10 denial of the design review application infers that the project was not in compliance with these two General Plan policies. Staff suggests, however, that the recently submitted revisions move the project closer to compliance with these policies, but in staff’s opinion not fully in compliance with these policies.

2.

Conformance with Local Coastal Program Policies

This project site is located within the Single-Family Exclusion Area of the Coastal Zone and thus qualifies for a Coastal Development Permit Exemption under Section 6328.5.e of the County Zoning Regulations.

3.

Conformance with Zoning Regulations

a.

Development Regulations

The project site is zoned R-1/S-17 and is located within a Design Review District. The project components comply with all applicable 1999 zoning regulations, including setbacks, lot coverage, and height. There was no FAR component or daylight plane requirement in the zoning regulations at the time of the application in 1999. Although the current zoning regulations adopted in September 2001 are not applicable to the proposed project, the following table compares the proposed project with both the 1999 regulations and the current regulations.

Development Standards	Requirement	Proposed	Applicable Development Standards (1999)	Adopted Development Standards (2001)
Lot Width	50 feet	50 feet	Conforms	Conforms
Lot Size	5,000 sq. ft.	5,000 sq. ft.	Conforms	Conforms
Lot Coverage	35%	25%	Conforms	Conforms
Building Height	28 feet	28 feet	Conforms	Conforms
Front Yard	20 feet	20 feet	Conforms	Conforms
Rear Yard	20 feet	20 feet	Conforms	Conforms
Side Yards	Combined total of 15 feet with a minimum of 5 feet on any one side	Right yard setback: 5 feet Left yard setback: 10 feet	Conforms	Conforms
Daylight Plane	Any 2 elevations – 20 feet walls then 45 degree angle to roof	Front/rear elevation complies	N/A	Does Not Conform
Proposed FAR	0.53 (parcel size) [2,650 sq. ft.]	50.96% [2,548 sq. ft.]	N/A	Conforms


		b.	Design Review

			Section 6565.1 of the Zoning Regulations relates to DR Districts in the Coastal Zone. Section 6565.7 sets out the DR standards (as applicable at time of application’s submittal in February 1999), for which projects must be assessed. The standards are listed below in bold followed by staff’s response. Please note that the Planning Commission, as previously discussed, found that the project did not comply with select DR standards, as indicated below:

			(1)	Proposed structures are designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural vegetation and landforms of the site and to ensure adequate space for light and air to itself and adjacent properties.

				The Planning Commission found that the house design does not comply with this standard. Staff had earlier concluded that orientating the house towards Farallone Avenue (which the applicant’s latest plans show) reduced the visual impact of the house. However, the Planning Commission still believed that the house design, driven by its bulk, height and site placement, was not adequately stepped up the hill, nor adequately blended with the surrounding topography.

				In regard to adequate space for light and air to itself and adjacent properties, staff believes that the design complies with this standard. The structure is located on the parcel with 5-foot right and 10-foot left side yard setbacks (along Farallone). The design of the house complies with all applicable Zoning Regulations in terms of height, setbacks and lot coverage.

				The measures that staff had previously recommended to improve the design and articulation of the house further are reflected in the applicant’s revised plans submitted after the Planning Commission’s November 10 hearing decision. The revised plans showed some improved roof design and reduced roof height. Staff believes these changes result in the house better blending with the landforms of the site. However, the applicant’s redesign shows the addition of fill placed at the low end of the project site and, therefore, staff believes the redesign still does not blend with the natural landforms; thus, it does not comply with that design review standard.

			(2)	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.

				Some grading is proposed for the construction of the house, garage and driveway. However, as previously discussed, the applicant’s revised plans show the addition of fill placed beneath the low-end portion of the house. Staff does not believe that this change complies with this standard, since it does not blend with the site’s natural landforms. In the event this issue is resolved to comply with this standard, conditions of approval would be recommended to ensure no drainage or erosion problems are created by the construction of this project.

			(3)	Streams or other natural drainage systems are not altered so as to affect their character and thereby causing problems of drainage, erosion or flooding.

				No streams or drainage systems will be altered by this project.

			(4)	Structures are located outside flood zones, drainage channels and other areas subject to inundation.

				The project site is not located in a flood zone.

			(5)	Trees and other vegetation land cover are removed only where necessary for the construction of structures or paved areas in order to reduce erosion and impacts on natural drainage channels, and maintain surface runoff at acceptable levels.

				If your Board approves this project, a condition of approval is recommended (Condition 5, Attachment B) that requires a comprehensive landscape plan be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of the building permit. This plan would show all existing vegetation and proposed landscaping.

			(6)	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 project site is located on the edge of an urbanized area and is surrounded by existing residential development, except to the east, where the property is undeveloped and zoned PAD. A landscaping plan had been requested as previously indicated that would seek to promote a smooth transition.

			(7)	Views are protected by the height and location of structures and through the selective pruning or removal of trees and vegetative matter at the end of view corridors.

				No public views will be affected by this proposal.

			(8)	Construction on ridgelines blends with the existing silhouette by maintaining natural vegetative masses and landforms and does not extend above the height of the forest or tree canopy.

				This project does not involve construction on a ridgeline.

			(9)	Structures are set back from the edge of bluffs and cliffs to protect views from scenic areas below.

				This project is not located on a bluff or cliff.

			(10)	Public views to and along the shoreline from public roads and other public lands are protected.

				No public views will be affected by this proposal.

			(11)	Varying architectural styles are made compatible through the use of similar materials and colors which blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhoods.

				If your Board approves this project, a condition of approval is recommended (Condition 4, Attachment B) to require that material and color samples are submitted for the review and approval by the Planning Division to ensure that they are compatible with the surrounding area.

			(12)	The design of the structure is appropriate to the use of the property and is in harmony with the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community.

				While the design complies with the applicable zoning requirements, the Planning Commission found that the house design does not comply with this standard. The proposed structure will consist of 2,548 sq. ft. of livable area. The average livable area of the nearby residences, within 300 feet of the project site, is 1,852 sq. ft.; in addition, one-third of nearby residences have a livable area of 2,400 sq. ft. or greater. Although the proposed design does not need to comply with the FAR component of the current Zoning Regulations, this calculation provides a good indication of size and scale in the neighborhood. The proposed size of the house is comparable to 50.96% FAR, which complies with the current Zoning Regulations. However, the Planning Commission did not believe that the proposed structure was in harmony with the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community. The applicant’s latest revised plans do not reduce the floor area or general bulk of the house. While they show some exterior design and articulation improvements and slightly reduced roof ridges, staff does not believe these changes are enough to move the project towards compliance with this standard.

			(13)	Overhead utility lines are placed underground where appropriate to reduce the visual impact in open and scenic areas.

				All new utilities would have to be placed underground.

			(14)	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.

				No signs are proposed as part of this project.

			(15)	Paved areas are integrated into the site, relate to their structure, and are landscaped to reduce visual impact from residential areas and from roadways.

				A driveway is proposed as part of this project which will not be highly visible from the street or adjacent properties.

C.	ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

	The project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (construction of new small facilities or structures).

D.	REVIEW BY THE MIDCOAST COMMUNITY COUNCIL

	The Midcoast Community Council (MCCC) has considered this application at several past meetings, but most recently on March 18, 2004 (see Attachment H for their full letter). They objected to the application on the basis that: (1) the submitted plans do not include any information on materials, finishes, landscaping, tree removal, grading or driveway slope and access; (2) earlier issues regarding compatibility with the size, scale and character of the surrounding community have not been addressed; and (3) other issues and alternatives, such as reorienting the lots, lowering the houses toward grade and increased stepping of the design for better conformance with the topography have not been addressed.

	While County staff believed that the project, as originally conditioned, conformed to the design review standards, the Planning Commission concluded differently at their November 10, 2004 hearing. As to the MCCC’s first issue, the applicant has already indicated that no trees are to be removed. The applicant’s recently revised plans (submitted after the Planning Commission’s November 10 hearing, Attachments D and E) do show exterior wall materials (wood siding) and better window articulation. The proposal conforms to the applicable Zoning Regulations for the R-1/S-17 zoning district (applicable in 1999). During the redesign process, the applicant discussed with County staff the alternative lot configurations as suggested by MCCC. Staff believed that the alternative would result in more bulk along 2nd Street, which is on the downhill side. The Planning Director’s previous approval had included a number of conditions that would have improved the design and articulation of the house. Staff also believes that the applicant’s latest revisions further improve the house design and articulation, in addition to recommended conditions (Attachment B) requiring landscaping, tree protection and exterior color and material confirmation. However, still at issue from staff’s perspective is the new fill grading and general bulk of the house as shown on the revised plans. Staff believes additional redesign eliminating this fill and reducing the upper floor area would provide a design more in compliance with design review standards relative to conforming with existing landforms and harmony with adjacent buildings in the community.

E.	ALTERNATIVE

	In response to the Planning Commission’s concerns over the adequacy and clarity of the submitted site and elevation plans, the applicant submitted revised plans after the Planning Commission’s November 10 decision. Those plans (Attachments D and E) include the items identified by the Planning Commission and reflect some of the design changes previously required under the Planning Director’s previous approval. They do not, however, show the degree of redesign that was deemed warranted by the neighbors who had appealed the Planning Director’s decision to the Planning Commission.

	Should the Board of Supervisors decide to conditionally approve this project, staff directs them to Attachment B, Alternative Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval. In such an event, recommended Conditions of Approval 1 and 3 have been revised to both reflect applicant’s latest submitted plans and to require an additional change requiring that the fill proposed beneath the northern half of the house be eliminated, with that portion of the house lowered to the natural grade. In addition, staff is also recommending that the upper floor area be reduced, thus reducing the general bulk of the proposed house. Conditions of Approval 4, 5 and 9 remain to ensure the submittal, review and implementation of exterior siding, roof materials, and colors, as well as a landscape plan and tree protection.

	As previously discussed, the applicant submitted an alternative house design that included: (1) the design changes that the initial Planning Director’s approval had mandated, (2) clarification to several items that the Planning Commission had indicated were missing from the site plan, and (3) additional changes in both the design and height of select roof sections.

	While staff believes these revisions represent improvements to the house in terms of its compliance with select design review standards, the revision of adding fill beneath the low end of the house is not acceptable nor in compliance with these standards.

FISCAL IMPACT

No fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENTS

A.	Recommended Findings of Denial
B.	Alternative Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval
C.	Location Map
D.	Site Plan (Plan Reviewed by Planning Commission on November 10, 2004 and Revised Plan Submitted after Planning Commission Hearing)
E.	Elevations (Plans Reviewed by Planning Commission on November 10, 2004 and Revised Plans Submitted after Planning Commission Hearing)
F.	Planning Commission Letter of Decision for November 10, 2004 Meeting
G.	Appeal from Mr. Mahon, Dated November 23, 2004 (Basis of Appeal Provided by Dave Beaumont, Mr. Mahon’s Representative)
H.	MCCC Comment Letter, Dated March 18, 2004

MR:DH:fc/kcd – DJHP0068_WFU.DOC


Attachment A


COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF DENIAL

Permit File Number: PLN 1999-00015		Board Meeting Date: February 8, 2005

Prepared By: David Holbrook		For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors


RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF DENIAL

Regarding the Coastside Design Review, find that this project has been reviewed under and found to be not in compliance with the Standards of Review Criteria as stipulated in Chapter 28.1 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations. Specifically, with the following standards:

1.	Is not designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural vegetation and landform in that the proposed structure does not blend with the natural contours of the site.

2.	Is not in harmony with the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community in that the proposed structure does not relate to adjacent buildings and to the neighborhood.

MR:DH:fc – DJHP0068_WFU.DOC


Attachment B


COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL


Permit File Number: PLN 1999-00015			Board Meeting Date: February 8, 2005

Prepared By: David Holbrook			For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors


RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

For the Environmental Review, Find:

1.	That this project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303, Class 3, relating to new construction of small structures. A Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County Clerk’s Office and posted as required by CEQA.

For the Coastside Design Review, Find:

2.	That this project has been reviewed under and found to be in compliance with the Standards of Review Criteria as stipulated in Chapter 28.1 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations.

For the Coastal Development Permit Exemption, Find:

3.	That the proposed residence conforms to Section 6328.5.e of the County Zoning Regulations and is located within the area designated as a Categorical Exclusion Area.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1.	This approval applies only to the proposal described in this report and indicated in materials submitted on December 1, 2004. These plans supersede all previously submitted and reviewed plans. The Planning Director may approve minor adjustments to the project if they are consistent with the intent of and in substantial conformance with this approval.

2.	This permit shall be valid for one year from the date of approval within which time a building permit must be applied for and issued. Any extension of these permits will require submittal of a request for permit extension and payment of applicable fees no less than 30 days prior to expiration.

3.	Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit revised plans showing that the downhill, northern half portion of the house (from building’s contact with grade to roof peak, as best represented on the Front/East, Right/ North and Rear/West Elevations), shall be revised and lowered such that the lowest floor of the house follows the natural grade. No fill shall be allowed as was shown on the plans submitted on December 1, 2004. It is understood that such a change may alter the interior floor plan passages, e.g., rooms may be stepped down at various levels to accommodate this revision. In addition, the upper floor area shall be reduced on all elevations to reduce general bulk and improve façade articulation. These design changes will be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director.

4.	The applicant shall submit exterior color samples (no larger than approximately 4 square inches) for roof, walls and trim to the Planning Counter for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to planning approval of the associated building permit. The colors and materials used shall be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant shall include the file/case number with all color samples. Color verification by a building inspector shall occur in the field after the applicant has painted the structure an approved color but before the applicant schedules a final inspection.

5.	The applicant shall submit a landscape plan (may be shown on the site plan of the submitted building permit application) depicting the location, type, and size of trees and shrubs for review and approval by the Planning Division. The landscaped areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation runoff and require minimal and appropriate use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. The goal of the required landscape plan is to soften the building elevations and to increase surface filtration. The plan shall include a minimum of two (2) trees (minimum 5 gallons) in the front of the residence, one (1) tree (minimum 36-inch box) in the front of the residence, a minimum of three (3) trees (minimum 5 gallons) in the rear of the residence and a minimum of twenty (20) shrubs (minimum 1 gallon) shall be included in the design. Areas in the front and rear of the property that do not contain trees or shrubs shall be covered with a combination of turf or groundcover and/or a minimum of 2 inches of mulch on all exposed soil areas to minimize erosion.

6.	Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide an erosion and sediment control plan, which demonstrates how erosion will be mitigated during the construction of the new addition subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. This mitigation will be in place for the life of the construction project.

7.	The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors minimize the transport and discharge of pollutants from the project site into local drainage systems and water systems by adhering to the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program “General Construction and Site Supervision Guidelines” including:

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

	b.	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.

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

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

8.	The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all stormwater quality measures and implement such measures. Failure to comply with the construction BMPs will result in the issuance of the correction notices, citations or a project stop order.

	a.	All landscaping shall be properly maintained and shall be designed with efficient irrigation practices to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides that can contribute to runoff pollution.

	b.	Where subsurface conditions allow, the roof downspout systems from all structures shall be designed to drain to a designated, effective infiltration area or structure (refer to BMPs Handbook for infiltration system designs and requirements).

9.	The submitted plans do not indicate any trees to be removed. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a plan showing the location of all existing trees on the property. The applicant shall submit a tree protection plan for the tree located towards the rear of the parcel, near Farallone Avenue. Such measures shall be identified on the building permit site plan and shall be implemented prior to the start of any construction or grading activities on the site. Removal of any additional trees with a diameter equal to or greater than 12 inches as measured 4.5 feet above the ground shall require a separate tree removal permit.

10.	The noise from construction activity shall not exceed that as indicated in the County Noise Ordinance.

11.	To ensure the height of the structure and/or structures do not exceed the maximum height permitted, staff requires the applicant to adhere to the height verification procedure during the building permit process. 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. 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.

	a.	The 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).

	b.	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.

	c.	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).

	d.	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.

	e.	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.

12.	The plans submitted at the building permit stage shall clearly show the location of the existing well and that the proposed development complies with the required Environmental Health setbacks from that well.

13.	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.

14.	The applicant shall, pursuant to Section 5023 of the San Mateo County Code, submit a stormwater control/drainage plan, prepared by their civil engineer or erosion control consultant. The plan shall be included as part of the project’s building permit application and construction plans. The County Building Inspection Section and County Planning Division shall ensure that the approved plan is implemented prior to the issuance of a building permit. The required drainage plan shall show the necessary mechanisms to contain all water runoff generated by on-site impervious surfaces and shall include facilities to minimize the amount and pollutants of stormwater runoff through on-site percolation and filtering facilities to control stormwater runoff from the project site once the project is completed. In addition, the plan shall indicate that:

	a.	All landscaping will be properly maintained and shall be designed with efficient irrigation practices to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration, and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.

	b.	Where subsurface conditions allow, all building roof downspout systems shall be designed to drain into a designated, effective infiltration or structure (refer to BMPs Handbook for infiltration system designs and requirements).

MR:DH:fc/kcd – DJHP0068_WFU.DOC



COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY


DATE:					January 19, 2005
BOARD MEETING DATE:					February 8, 2005
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:					10 days within 300 ft.
VOTE REQUIRED:					Majority

TO:			Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:			Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

SUBJECT:			Consideration of a Coastside Design Review Permit, pursuant to Section 6565.4 of the County Zoning Regulations, to construct a new 2,548 sq. ft. single-family residence on a 5,000 sq. ft. parcel located at 286 – 2nd Street, in the unincorporated Montara area of the County. (Appeal from decision of the Planning Commission denying the Design Review Permit.) This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

			County File Number:	PLN 1999-00015 (Mahon)


RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the Design Review Permit, County File Number PLN 1999-00015, by making the findings of denial as listed in Attachment A.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: Number 9 (Partnerships); “Effective and Collaborative Government.”

Goal: Number 20; “Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.”

The Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the subject Design Review Permit furthers Commitment 9 and Goal 20 because the Planning Commission’s decision that the project did not comply with design review standards suggests that they were considering the future impacts of the project on the surrounding neighbors and were not willing to accommodate the “immediate gains” to the applicant if the house were approved and built.

BACKGROUND

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a new 2,548 sq. ft. two-story single-family residence including an attached two-car garage on a 5,000 sq. ft. parcel. The proposed house fronts onto and is accessed from Farallone. No trees are proposed for removal.

This project was one of two Design Review (DR) applications (the other application is PLN 1999-00215) for new single-family homes on two adjacent parcels submitted by the applicant in February 1999. Both projects had their initial DR approvals rescinded due to inadequate public notification. Upon thorough re-noticing, review and extensive opportunity for comment, both projects have incurred similar degrees of strong opposition from the neighbors and Midcoast Community Council, based on their bulk, size and design relative to applicable DR standards, site topography and comparative surrounding development.

In response to the subject project, the applicant has made few substantial design modifications to the house beyond minor articulation changes to the exterior. Subsequently, however, the subject project’s DR Permit was approved by the Planning Director in April 2004. That decision was appealed to the Planning Commission by 22 neighbors.

Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission’s denial of this project on November 10, 2004, took into consideration the issues posed by the appellants, issues around the inadequacy of the latest submitted plans (a significant tree and existing well were not shown on the site plan, exterior wall and window details were missing from the elevations) and found there was not adequate evidence to support two applicable design review standards: (1) the house is not designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural vegetation and landform of the site, and (2) the house is not in harmony with the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community.

Report Prepared By: Dave Holbrook, Project Planner, Telephone: 650/363-1837

Applicant/Appellant: Thomas and Alice Mahon

Location: 286 – 2nd Street and Farallone Avenue, Montara

APN: 036-014-210

Size: 5,000 sq. ft.

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

General Plan Designation: Medium Low Density Residential (6.1 – 8.7 dwelling units/acre)

Sphere-of-Influence: City of Half Moon Bay

Existing Land Use: Vacant

Water Supply: Existing domestic well

Sewage Disposal: Montara Water and Sanitary District

Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Zone “C” (Area of Minimal Flooding); Community Panel Number: 060311 0092B; Effective Date: July 5, 1984.

Environmental Evaluation: Exempt under Section 15303, Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), construction of a minor structure.

Setting: The project site is located on the north side of 2nd Street, at the corner with Farallone Avenue, two blocks east of Cabrillo Highway. The 5,000 sq. ft. parcel slopes upward from both 2nd Street and Farallone Avenue. The parcel to the west is vacant (pending Design Review application, PLN 1999-00215). The surrounding neighborhood is developed with one- and two-story single-family residences.

DISCUSSION

A.	KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

	The appellant submitted his appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, with the specific grounds for appeal provided through his representative, Dave Beaumont (italicized) (see Attachment G), particularly in reference to the applicant’s revisions submitted after the Planning Commission’s November 2004 denial of the project. The appellant’s issues and staff response follow:

	The contention of the Planning Commission is that “... there was not adequate evidence to support: (1) that the proposed structure does not blend with the natural contours of the site and (2) that the proposed structure does not relate to adjacent buildings and to the neighborhood.”

	We contend that there was, in fact, sufficient evidence to support both the standards listed for the design submitted for the Planning Commission’s review. Nevertheless, a redesign has been submitted to further support and augment such evidence. The structure as now presented in a redesign subsequent to the November 10 Planning Commission hearing now conforms to and meets both these standards as discussed below:

	1.	The rooflines throughout the house have been modified to better blend with the natural slope of the site as follows: (a) gabled roof ends have been changed into hips, (b) there has been a lowering of the roofline, and (c) there is displayed on both of the longitudinal masses of the house a clear transition of the roof from a higher to a lower elevation towards the north side, conforming to the lower elevation of the natural grade below.

		Staff Response: After the Planning Commission’s November 10 decision, Mr. Mahon submitted the revised plans referenced by Mr. Beaumont (see Attachment G). The Planning Commission did not review these plans. However, while the roof has been slightly modified as indicated (as shown in by the elevation plans of Attachment E), the roofline was only lowered at some points relative to the natural grade below, and not consistently as shown along the entire east and west elevations. In fact, the downhill end of the house as seen on those elevations is now shown to have been raised on fill, rather than settling down to follow the natural contours of the site. Overall, staff does not believe that these changes go far enough to ensure that the proposed structure “blends with the natural contours of the site.”

		As an alternative to staff’s recommended action to deny the appeal, if the Board decides to approve this project, please refer to the Alternative Section of this report and to Attachment B for recommended and revised conditions of approval, including requiring the applicant to lower and reduce the height of the downhill portion of the house.

	2.	The maintenance of a mature, towering, heritage tree in the foreground of the street facade at the southeast of the site, gives context to the structure and its reduced prominence in relation to the natural landform.

		Staff Response: Staff is not clear what “heritage tree” Mr. Beaumont is referring to. There is a “significant” pine (but not designated “heritage” status) located in the southeast corner of the parcel as shown on Mr. Mahon’s recently submitted site plan. Mr. Mahon has indicated that he intends to preserve that tree.

	3.	Improved relationship to adjacent buildings and neighborhood:

		a.	All houses adjacent to, and on the same block as the subject project, contain horizontal narrow board siding and trim, and in general could be construed to represent a coastal vernacular. The design now contains those same elements; in addition, a wide trim band now features between the stories, assisting in dividing the visual mass, and presenting a softer facade overall to the neighborhood.

		b.	Windows now contain a ‘coastal craftsman’ motif, incorporating a unique divided-light theme that is both softer to the facade and better identifies the house design, as well as being a design found on several houses in this neighborhood.

		c.	The principal street-facing elevation (Farallone Street) now presents a softer facade to the street owing to the reduction of roof mass and form. This aids both in reducing prominence as well as better relating to adjacent buildings.

		d.	With regard to size, massing of forms, and external appearance, the design as presented closely mirrors the same existing on two new houses located both to the side and to the rear of the property. These houses are identified, as they received decision letters of design conformity to both design review standards as well as LCP design guidelines. The further modifications identified in this appeal, promulgate an even closer affinity to these existing house designs on the same block.

		Staff Response: The Planning Commission did not have the opportunity to see the applicant’s latest submitted revisions. However, staff believes that the subject changes identified by the appellant do reflect many of the changes that staff had initially required as conditions of approval. Staff also agrees that the exterior design modifications do improve the look of the house relative to surrounding development. Staff must add, however, that none of these changes reduces the floor area of the house, which is a major contributor to the perceived massing and bulk that has been a constant issue with this project in the opinion of several neighbors who have commented and appealed past decisions, as well as by the Planning Commission. In addition, as previously discussed, these latest revisions now show the downhill end of the house raised on fill, which does not comply with the design review policy that seeks to locate the house relative to the site’s topography.

		This project has triggered strong and consistent opposition from both the Midcoast Community Council and many neighbors in the immediate neighborhood surrounding the project site. The rationale for the Planning Director’s April 2004 approval of the design review, despite the opposition, was that requiring additional minor design changes and landscaping (Conditions 3, 4, and 5, Attachment B) would ensure compliance with the design review standards. The Planning Commission’s November 10 decision on the appeal found the project not to be in compliance with select design review standards and included concerns over inadequacies with the submitted site plan and elevations, e.g., a significant tree and existing well were not shown on the site plan and exterior material and window details were missing from the elevations. In response to that issue, albeit after the Planning Commission’s decision, the applicant submitted the revised plans as discussed above (see Attachments D and E). Again, it is not known how these minor modifications would have affected the Planning Commission’s November 10 denial of the design review.

B.	COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY REGULATIONS

	1.	Conformance with General Plan

		Visual Quality and Urban Land Use. Visual Quality Policy 4.35 (Urban Area Design Concept) seeks to: (a) maintain and, where possible, improve upon the appearance and visual character of development in urban areas [of which the Montara area is included]; and (b) ensure that new development in urban areas is designed and constructed to contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of the locality. Urban Land Use Policy 8.14 (Residential Land Use Compatibility) seeks to protect and enhance the character of existing single-family areas. The Planning Commission’s November 10 denial of the design review application infers that the project was not in compliance with these two General Plan policies. Staff suggests, however, that the recently submitted revisions move the project closer to compliance with these policies, but in staff’s opinion not fully in compliance with these policies.

	2.	Conformance with Local Coastal Program Policies

		This project site is located within the Single-Family Exclusion Area of the Coastal Zone and thus qualifies for a Coastal Development Permit Exemption under Section 6328.5.e of the County Zoning Regulations.

	3.	Conformance with Zoning Regulations

		a.	Development Regulations

			The project site is zoned R-1/S-17 and is located within a Design Review District. The project components comply with all applicable 1999 zoning regulations, including setbacks, lot coverage, and height. There was no FAR component or daylight plane requirement in the zoning regulations at the time of the application in 1999. Although the current zoning regulations adopted in September 2001 are not applicable to the proposed project, the following table compares the proposed project with both the 1999 regulations and the current regulations.