COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Inter-Departmental Correspondence
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY
DATE:
October 6, 2006
BOARD MEETING DATE:
October 24, 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:
Consideration of a Coastal Development Permit, Planned Agricultural Development Permit and Certificate of Compliance, Type A, to allow the construction of a 2,480 sq. ft. detached accessory building and legalize a parcel at 323 North Street, in the unincorporated Pescadero area of San Mateo County. This project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission. (Appeal from decision of the Planning Commission approving the project).
County File Number:
PLN 2001-00668 (Ehret)
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Coastal Development Permit, Planned Agricultural Development Permit and Certificate of Compliance, Type A.
VISION ALIGNMENT
Commitment: The proposed project keeps the commitment of “Responsive, Effective, and Collaborative Government.” The Planning Commission, in making its decision, found that the proposed project allows the property owner to more fully utilize his property in a manner that does not significantly impact neighboring property. By upholding the Planning Commission’s decision, the Board would be reinforcing this commitment.
Goal: The proposed project achieves Goal number 20: “Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.” In reaching its decision on this project, the Planning Commission considered the staff report prepared by the Planning Division staff. This document outlined potential impacts of the project and how the project complies with the County’s Zoning Regulations and Local Coastal Program. In making its decision to recommend approval, the Planning Commission determined that this project would have minimal impacts upon surrounding parcels and that such impacts could be mitigated through the conditions of approval, which have been included in this report.
BACKGROUND
Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,480 sq. ft. detached accessory building on his parcel located at 323 North Street in Pescadero. The building will consist of a 4-car garage on the first floor and a recreation room area on the second floor. Construction of the new building will require reconfiguration of the applicant’s driveway. An existing shed on the parcel will be removed to accommodate the new building. Water for the new structure will be provided by an existing domestic well, located in the northeast corner of the applicant’s parcel. There is also a well located northwest and immediately adjacent to the applicant’s parcel. This well is located on the appellant’s parcel.
The project parcel is the remainder of a parcel created in 1907. The majority of the parent parcel was sold to the Pescadero Unified School District in 1956. The subdivision of the parent parcel was allowed per Section 66428 of the State Map Act. The legality of this larger parcel was confirmed by the County in 1989. The proposed COC, Type A for the project parcel will clarify the legality of this parcel and bring the parcel into compliance with Policy 1.27 of the LCP.
Planning Commission Action: Approved 5-0.
Report Prepared By: Michael Schaller, Senior Planner, Telephone 650/363-1849
Appellant: Peter Vanos
Applicant/Owner: Robert Ehret
Location: 323 North Street, Pescadero
APN: 087-042-030
Existing Zoning: PAD (Planned Agricultural District)
General Plan Designation: Agriculture
Sphere-of-Influence: N/A
Existing Land Use: Residential
Flood Zone: Zone C (areas of minimal or no flood hazard), FEMA Panel 060311-0338, Effective Date: July 5, 1984
Environmental Evaluation: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 (new, small structures).
Setting: The approximately half-acre parcel is developed with one main house and two detached accessory buildings. The project site is surrounded by agricultural land on three sides and North Street on the remaining side. The entire parcel contains prime soils as defined by the USDA Soil Survey. The project parcel is within the boundaries of the Pescadero County Scenic Corridor; however, the site is not clearly visible from Pescadero Road due to intervening vegetation and development.
Chronology:
Date
Action
October 1, 2001
-
Application submitted.
November, 2001
-
Applicant informed that submitted plans have been failed by the Building and Planning Division and Public Works.
July 25, 2002
-
Revised plans submitted.
December, 2002
-
Applicant informed that the revised plans do not address previous concerns of the Building and Planning Division and Public Works.
December 15, 2003
-
Revised plans submitted.
January 2004
-
Applicant informed that the revised plans still do not address previous concerns of the Building and Planning Division and Public Works.
July 1, 2004
-
Revised plans submitted.
November 15, 2004
-
Additional revised plans submitted.
November 9, 2005
-
Planning Commission hearing. Project conditionally approved.
November 29, 2005
-
Appeal filed by Peter Vanos.
November 30, 2005
-
Notified applicant of appeal. Planning staff requested the applicant to have pump test performed in order to address the points raised in the appeal.
August 8, 2006
-
Applicant submits requested pump test data showing adequate water supply for the existing house and proposed new building.
October 17, 2006
-
Board of Supervisors public hearing.
DISCUSSION
A.
PREVIOUS ACTION
This project was heard by the Planning Commission at its November 9, 2005 hearing. At that time, Mr. Vanos spoke against this project. According to Mr. Vanos, there is a non-permitted well located on his property that the applicant uses without his permission. After taking testimony, the Planning Commission determined that this matter was a private property issue between the two owners and beyond the purview of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission then approved the project unanimously.
B.
KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL
Mr. Vanos, the appellant, in his letter of appeal (Attachment B) has outlined the basis of his appeal. The following is a summation of the key issues in the letter, followed by staff’s response:
1.
“I am concerned that this project will be using water from an illegally drilled well. The well is on my property and was drilled without a permit. Mr. Ehret claims that the illegal well only provides water for his garden. I believe the illegal well is being used for domestic uses. If the well, as he claims, only provides water for irrigating outside, why cannot he use the water from his legal well for this? I suspect his well cannot provide enough water to meet his needs especially in times of drought. I request that the County thoroughly investigate the water availability of Mr. Ehret’s well before this project is approved. There are also fire requirements and more domestic water uses involving this project.”
Staff’s Response: In response to the issues raised in the appeal, the County requested that Mr. Ehret perform a pump test of the well on his property. On July 22, 2006, Mr. Ehret had a pump test performed on his well. The results are included as Attachment C. The 12-hour pump test resulted in an average production rate of 2.42 gallons per minute (gpm). Staff conferred with the Environmental Health Division regarding this test result. Staff was informed that the 2.5 gpm rate established in the current Well Ordinance applies to new wells. An existing well producing 2.42 gpm is adequate as a domestic water source. A typical household uses approximately 450-700 gallons of water per day; a well pumping 2.42 gpm will produce 3,485 gallons per day. Based upon its review of the data and the proposed project, the Environmental Health Division has made the determination that this well produces sufficient
water to meet the domestic needs of the existing house and detached accessory building.
The County Fire Marshal’s standards for fire suppression water supply in this area do not stipulate a minimum gpm rate. Instead, they address storage. In the case of this project, the Fire Marshal is requiring a minimum 4,000 gallons of storage, in addition to the required domestic water storage requirement (1,250 gallons). This requirement is outlined in Condition No. 24. A building permit will not be issued until this requirement is met. Nor will a building permit be finalized until the storage tanks are in place and the fire suppression system (sprinklers) connected to the new accessory building.
2.
“This water supply issue needs to be resolved before this project can be approved. Mr. Ehret’s dependency on the illegally drilled well needs to be eliminated and this well needs to be taken out of service. Allowing this project to be approved would be turning a blind eye to an already non-complying situation.”
Staff’s Response: The water supply issue was discussed above. The existing well on Mr. Ehret’s property is sufficient to meet his domestic and fire needs, subject to adequate storage. If Mr. Ehret is continuing to use a well on Mr. Vanos’ property, it is not at the insistence of the County. As can be seen in the attached correspondence from 1996 (Attachment D), the County has advised both parties that this is a private matter that must be resolved between themselves.
C.
KEY ISSUES
1.
Compliance with the General Plan
The project, as proposed and conditioned, conforms to the applicable General Plan policies, as discussed below.
Soil Resources
Policy 2.20 (Regulate Location and Design of Development in Areas with Productive Soil Resources). This policy requires the regulation of location and design of development in a manner which is most protective of productive soil resources. As mentioned above, the entire project parcel contains prime soils. However, the parcel is only 21,760 sq. ft. in size and already contains a residence. It is questionable how useful the remainder of this parcel is for agriculture. The applicant is proposing to place the new building as close to the existing house as possible within the constraints imposed by the Zoning Regulations and the County Septic Ordinance.
2.
Compliance with the Local Coastal Program
The proposed project is in conformance with the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Staff has completed a Local Coastal Program Checklist (Attachment E) and the following LCP components are relevant to this project:
a.
Locating and Planning New Development Component
Policy 1.8 (Land Uses and Development Densities in Rural Areas). This policy regulates the density of development that can occur within the rural areas of the Coastal Zone. It requires density credits for all new or expanded non-agricultural land uses in rural areas, including all residential uses. Specifically, it must be shown that the proposed development will not diminish the ability to keep all prime agricultural land in agricultural production. A single-family dwelling (including accessory buildings) is deemed to consume one density credit. There is no limit on how much development, as measured in square feet, can be built with that one density credit. At 21,760 sq. ft., this parcel is limited to one density credit. The existing house is approximately 1,332 sq. ft. There is also an existing shop building that is 195 sq. ft. in size. The new building will be two stories and 2,480 sq. ft. in size. As stated previously, the entire parcel consists of prime soil. No large-scale agriculture is practiced on the parcel, though the applicant does maintain a small garden. The Agricultural Advisory Committee reviewed this proposed development and determined that the project will not significantly increase existing impacts to adjacent agriculture.
Policy 1.27 (Confirming Legality of Parcels). This policy requires the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit when issuing a Certificate of Compliance to confirm the legal existence of parcels. The project parcel was originally created in 1907 as Lot 2 of the “SUBDIVISION OF THE ALEX MOORE RANCH.” In 1956, the majority of this parcel was purchased by the Pescadero Unified School District. The subdivision and sale of this part of the parent parcel were in accordance with Section 66428 of the State Map Act. The County confirmed the legality of this newly created parcel in 1989. However, this subdivision left a remainder parcel, which is the subject of this permit. The County Subdivision Regulations require the confirmation of the legality of all parcels prior to the issuance of any planning or building permits. Confirmation of a parcel’s legality is achieved through a Certificate of Compliance (COC). The subject parcel qualifies for a COC by way of the same Section 66428 of the State Map Act. Staff will record a COC, Type A on this parcel prior to the issuance of any further permits.
b.
Agriculture Component
The entire project site is on lands designated as “Prime Agricultural Lands.” Pursuant to Policy 5.6 (Permitted Uses on Prime Agricultural Lands Designated as Agriculture), single-family residences are conditionally permitted with the issuance of a PAD permit. The County has traditionally considered garages as an allowed use accessory to single-family residences. The County is requiring a PAD permit in this case because the existing house was built prior to the enactment of the PAD permit and thus was not reviewed under the criteria of the Agriculture Component of the LCP. The construction of this new building will intensify the non-agricultural use of this parcel, thus requiring review for compliance with the LCP’s policies.
Policy 5.8 (Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land Designated as Agriculture). This policy prohibits the conversion of prime agricultural land within a parcel to a conditionally permitted use unless it can be demonstrated:
(1)
That no alternative site exists for the use.
The entire parcel is covered by prime soils. There is no alternative location that would avoid converting prime soil.
(2)
Clearly defined buffer areas are provided between agricultural and non-agricultural uses.
The applicant has proposed placing the building on the parcel so that it is 23 feet from the southerly (rear) property line and 56 feet from the easterly (left) property line. The project parcel is surrounded by active agricultural fields on three sides. The Agricultural Advisory Committee reviewed this project on September 12, 2005 and determined that the proposed building would be sufficiently buffered from these adjacent fields.
(3)
The productivity of any adjacent agricultural land will not be diminished.
There is an existing house on the project parcel, which has not prevented farming from occurring on the surrounding parcel. The proposed accessory building will not be substantially closer to the rear property line than the house. The Agricultural Advisory Committee reviewed this project and determined that the productivity of the adjacent agricultural land will not be diminished.
(4)
Public service and facility expansions and permitted uses will not impair agricultural viability, including by increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality.
No public services or facilities will be expanded to accommodate this development.
c.
Visual Resources Component
Policy 8.5 (Location of Development). This policy requires that all new development be located on a portion of a parcel where the development is least visible from State and County Scenic Roads, and is least likely to significantly impact views from public viewpoints. The applicant has proposed placing the new building relatively close to the existing house. To build this new structure, the applicant is proposing to remove a small shed that occupies a portion of the footprint for the new building. Additionally, the existing shop building will remain. The project site is only partially visible, at a distance, from Pescadero Road, which is a County Scenic Road. Staff does not believe that the project will significantly impact public views.
3.
Compliance with Zoning Regulations
The proposed project conforms to the PAD zoning district’s development standards for non-agricultural development. The proposed accessory building will be placed on the parcel with a 70-foot setback from the front property line and 23 feet from the rear property line. The proposed building will be 27 feet tall, which is under the 36 feet maximum height for non-agricultural structures.
The PAD zoning regulations also contain substantive criteria for the issuance of a PAD permit. A project must be found to be in compliance with these criteria before a permit can be issued.
a.
General Criteria
(1)
The encroachment of all development upon land which is suitable for agricultural use shall be minimized.
Analysis: The County’s General Plan Soils Map identifies the soils on the project site as Class I prime soils. Currently, there is very limited farming being practiced on this parcel. The applicant is proposing to cluster the new building as close to the existing house as is possible in accordance with the setback requirements for detached accessory buildings and the County’s Septic Ordinance.
(2)
All development permitted on-site shall be clustered.
Analysis: This is a small parcel with limited opportunities for clustering. However, as stated previously, the applicant has proposed placing the new building as close as possible in accordance with the setback requirements for detached accessory buildings and the County’s Septic Ordinance.
(3)
Every project shall conform to the Development Review Criteria contained in Chapter 20A.2 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code.
Analysis: The project has been reviewed against these criteria. The project complies with the site design criteria by minimizing alterations to the topography and vegetation of the site as much as possible. The development does not encroach on any sensitive habitats, nor will it create any lasting noise or dust producing impacts.
b.
Water Supply Criteria
(1)
The existing availability of a potable and adequate on-site well water source for all non-agricultural uses is demonstrated.
Analysis: There is an existing well on the project site that meets the quantity and quality standards for domestic use, as required by the County Well Ordinance.
(2)
Adequate and sufficient water supplies needed for agricultural production and sensitive habitat protection in the watershed are not diminished.
Analysis: There is no sensitive habitat located on the project parcel. There is currently no significant agriculture practiced on this parcel. The proposed accessory building should not significantly increase water demand.
c.
Criteria for the Conversion of Prime Agricultural Lands
The project site is located on prime soils. The criteria for conversion of these lands is as follows:
(1)
No alternative site exists on the parcel for the use.
Analysis: The entire parcel is covered by prime soils. There is no alternative location that would avoid converting prime soil.
(2)
Clearly defined buffer areas are provided between agricultural and non-agricultural uses.
Analysis: The applicant has proposed placing the building on the parcel so that it is 23 feet from the southerly (rear) property line and 56 feet from the easterly (left) property line. The project parcel is surrounded by active agricultural fields on three sides. The Agricultural Advisory Committee reviewed this project at its September 12, 2005 meeting and determined that the proposed building would be sufficiently buffered from these adjacent fields.
(3)
The productivity of any adjacent agricultural land will not be diminished.
Analysis: There is an existing house on the project parcel, which has not prevented farming from occurring on the surrounding parcel. The proposed accessory building will not be substantially closer to the rear property line than the house. The Agricultural Advisory Committee reviewed this project and determined that the productivity of the adjacent agricultural land will not be diminished.
(4)
Public service and facility expansions and permitted uses will not impair agricultural viability, including by increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality.
Analysis: No public services or facilities will be expanded to accommodate this development.
D.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt, pursuant to CEQA Section 15303, Class 3 (construction of new, small structures).
FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS
A.
Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval
B.
Appellant’s Letter of Appeal
C.
Pump Test Results
D.
Previous Correspondence
E.
Location Map
F.
Site Plan
G.
Floor Plans
H.
Building Elevations