| ||
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence | ||
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY | ||
DATE: |
February 16, 2006 | |
BOARD MEETING DATE: |
March 7, 2006 | |
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING: |
10 days, within 300 ft. | |
VOTE REQUIRED: |
Majority | |
TO: |
Honorable Board of Supervisors | |
FROM: |
Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services | |
SUBJECT: |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consideration of a Coastal Development Permit and Coastside Design Review for a new 4,346 sq. ft. single-family residence with an attached 496 sq. ft. garage, and extension of a sewer and water main to serve the 12,000 sq. ft. parcel. The project site is located on Magellan Avenue, in the unincorporated Miramar area of San Mateo County. (Appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the project). The project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission. | |
RECOMMENDATION | ||
Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the project, County File No PLN 2005-00271 by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval. | ||
VISION ALIGNMENT | ||
Commitment: The proposed project furthers commitment (number 9) “Responsive, Effective, and Collaborative Government” and commitment (number 4) “Offer a full range of housing choices.” | ||
Goal: The project furthers Goal No. 20, which states that: “Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.” The Planning Commission carefully considered the proposed project and found that the project complies with the General Plan, LCP Policies and Zoning Regulations. The project also furthers Goal No. 9, which states: “Housing exists for all people at all income levels and for all generations of families.” The proposal to construct a new single-family residence in an urban area furthers this commitment. | ||
BACKGROUND | ||
Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct a new 4,346 sq. ft. single-family residence with an attached 496 sq. ft. garage, and extend a sewer and water main to serve the 12,000 sq. ft. parcel. | ||
Planning Commission Action: The proposed project was presented on appeal before the Planning Commission on December 14, 2005. At the hearing, the Planning Commission found that the project complies with the General Plan, LCP Policies and Zoning Regulations. The issue of the drainage channel which the appellant claims is an ‘ephemeral stream’ was discussed and the Commission agreed with staff’s conclusion that the drainage channel does not meet the definition of ‘stream’ as contained in the County’s Local Coastal Program. The Commission voted 3 to 0 to deny the appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision to approve the project. | ||
DISCUSSION | ||
The appeal is based on (1) the proposal not being in compliance with the LCP Policies due to negative impacts on the ‘ephemeral stream’ and ‘riparian corridor,’ (2) non-applicability of CEQA’s categorical exemption due to cumulative impacts resulting from water and sewer line extensions, (3) El Granada being a County historic resource, CEQA requires the lead agency to consider possible impacts when a proposed development may involve a historic resource, and (4) suspension of a 4-inch sewer lateral under the proposed bridge and the possibility of sewage being released into the ‘ephemeral stream’ as a result of an earthquake or other natural disaster. | ||
The Community Development Director approved the project after receiving written confirmation from the California Coastal Commission that there is no stream within 100 feet of the subject parcel. CEQA’s list of categorical exemptions includes the construction of new single-family dwellings in residentially zoned areas. The water and sewer services being proposed are allocated to parcels that have been identified as developable. There are no cumulative impacts resulting from this particular development beyond those that have already been accounted for in the approved subdivision of 1905, the County General Plan and Local Coastal Program. As a point of clarification, the project site is located in Miramar and not in El Granada; the parcel is in an area that is not a designated historic resource. Construction of sewer laterals are per specifications of the sanitary district and are designed to withstand a sufficient level of use that consider potential impacts from traffic, seismic hazards and other forces within reasonable limits of possibility. Moreover, the parcel is not located within a geologic hazard area. | ||
Despite the appeal issues, staff continues to find that the project is in compliance with the Coastal Development Permit requirements and design review standards and recommends that the Board deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project. | ||
FISCAL IMPACT | ||
No fiscal impact. | ||
