COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

DATE:

November 27, 2006

BOARD MEETING DATE:

December 12, 2006

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

300-foot Notice

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Lisa Grote, Director of Community Development

SUBJECT:

Consideration of (1) a Planned Agricultural District Permit and Coastal Development Permit, pursuant to Sections 6353 and 6328.4, respectively, of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations, (2) a Grading Permit, pursuant to Section 8602.1 of the County Ordinance Code, and (3) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, to convert an agricultural well to domestic use, construct a new 6,456 sq. ft. single-family residence, place up to seven water storage tanks for fire suppression, install a septic system, construct and grade a private access driveway, and legalize an existing mobile home as temporary housing during construction, on a legal 143-acre parcel located east of the unincorporated El Granada area of San Mateo County. (Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a more ambitious project). This project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

County File Number:

PLN 2000-00812 (Sterling)

RECOMMENDATION

Certify the Negative Declaration, approve the Planned Agricultural District Permit, Coastal Development Permit and Grading Permit for the construction of a new residence, access road, water tanks and associated grading by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval in Attachment A.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: Responsive, effective and collaborative government.

Goal 20: Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain. This project has undergone full environmental review and no comments objecting to the revised project have been received.

BACKGROUND

Proposal: The project currently proposed includes: (1) convert an agricultural well to domestic use, (2) construct a new 6,456 sq. ft. single-family residence, (3) install up to seven water storage tanks for fire suppression, (4) install a septic system, (5) construct a private access driveway from the end of San Juan Avenue to the house site, (6) grade approximately 690 cubic yards of combined cut and fill associated with the driveway/turnaround, house and water tanks, (7) remove eight significant trees (5 Blue Gum eucalyptus and 3 Monterey pine trees) to accommodate the proposed access drive/turnaround and house site, and (8) legalize an existing mobile home as temporary housing during construction. Attachments D through G illustrate the revised project.

Planning Commission Action: On September 14, 2005, the Planning Commission denied the project, primarily due to its inclusion of a 2-lot subdivision (a 4.8-acre parcel and 138.2-acre parcel) and associated critical visual impacts, as seen from Cabrillo Highway and other public viewing points in and around Pillar Point Harbor, posed by the applicant’s proposed residence in its initial location and that of a future, but not yet submitted house on the proposed second parcel. The applicant’s proposed residence was to have been located on the larger parcel, north of El Granada Creek and accessed via a long private driveway. There had been no house plans submitted for the second smaller parcel. After consideration at three hearings, the Planning Commission ultimately denied the project (see decision letter, Attachment K) because of its non-compliance with critical policies within three Local Coastal Program (LCP) components regarding Agriculture, Locating and Planning New Development, and Visual Impacts.

Revised Project Application: The applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s denial to the Board of Supervisors. However, soon thereafter, they decided to revise the project as previously indicated. By withdrawing the subdivision and relocating their proposed residence, staff concludes that the revised project no longer conflicts with the LCP policies cited by the Planning Commission in its September 14, 2005 denial (fully discussed in Key Issue A.2. of this report). However, the applicant requested that the project, albeit revised, still be considered by the Board of Supervisors, instead of being remanded back to the Planning Commission due to the heightened neighborhood interest and time already spent on the project since 2000. Staff agreed that taking the project back to the Planning Commission would only add more delay as the project would inevitably be brought before the Board of Supervisors on appeal.

Upon submittal of the revised project plans and materials, all interested parties were sent a notice of the revised project, to which there were no comments. Additionally, a revised Negative Declaration was also prepared and circulated.

Report Prepared By: David Holbrook, Senior Planner; telephone 650/363-1837

Applicant: Kerry Burke

Owners: Dan and Denise Sterling

Location: 300 San Juan Avenue, El Granada

APN: 047-320-060

Size: 143 acres

Existing Zoning: PAD/CD (Planned Agricultural District/Coastal Development)

General Plan Designation: Agriculture

Existing Land Use: Residence (mobile home); otherwise undeveloped

Water Supply: There are existing agricultural wells located on-site, one of which is proposed for conversion to a domestic well as a part of this application (although the owners are seeking a water connection from CCWD for fire suppression). The proposed residence will be served by the converted well.

Sewage Disposal: The applicant will be using a septic system for sewage disposal.

Flood Zone: The majority of the property is located in Zone C, area of minimal flooding. There is a small portion of the property that is located within a Zone A along the creek; however, the project is not located in this area. Applicable Flood Zone Maps include 060311 0113B and 060311 0114B; effective date July 5, 1984.

Environmental Evaluation: A revised Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project and circulated from July 10, 2006 to July 31, 2006. The comments received are discussed in Section C of this report.

Setting: The subject property is approximately 143 acres of coastal hillsides and valleys with moderate to steep slopes. The property slopes northwest from San Juan Avenue. The northern portions of the property are covered in brush, grasslands and large stands of mature eucalyptus trees. The eastern portion of the property is bisected by El Granada Creek and helps supply an agricultural water impoundment. The parcel is currently developed with three agricultural wells and a mobile home, which is serving as the current residence for the owners. It was not, however, located on the site with any permits. This unit is proposed to be removed from the site after construction of the proposed residence.

The revised project site (see Attachment D) is bordered to the northeast by El Granada Creek (a perennial creek, referred to in the biology report as Deer Creek), open space Monterey pine woodland to the east, eucalyptus and pine woodland and open space (owned by POST) to the north and existing single-family residential development to south and west. The proposed building envelope is located in an open, disturbed center portion of the property dominated by grassland, between the Monterey pine forest and eucalyptus forest. The site is surrounded by blue gum eucalyptus forest, arroyo willow riparian scrub, non-native ruderal grassland, and Monterey forest.

DISCUSSION

A.

KEY ISSUES

1.

Clarification of the Applicant’s Appeal

As previously discussed above, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s denial of the project based on their initial intention to retain the project is original scope (i.e. the subdivision). However, the applicant then revised the project to delete those project elements that had resulted in the Commission’s denial. Thus there are no appeal issues, per se, to discuss. What follows is an analysis of why the revised project is now either in compliance or no longer relevant to those select policies.

2.

Analysis of Revised Project Against Planning Commission’s Findings of Denial

The project as revised and presently submitted--dropping the subdivision element and relocating the main residence to a far less visible location--is now in compliance, or not applicable, with regard to the following LCP Component policies cited in the Planning Commission’s denial letter (see Attachment K). Each is followed by staff response.

a.

Locating and Planning New Development

Policy 1.8 (Land Uses and Development Densities in Rural Areas)

Response: This policy seeks to: (1) “allow new development in rural areas only if it is demonstrated that it will not have significant adverse impacts . . . on coastal resources, (2) not diminish the ability to keep all prime agricultural land and other land suitable for agriculture,” and (3) ensure that new development doesn’t exceed mandated densities (requiring density credits for and seeks to control non-agricultural uses).

The initial project’s primary adverse impacts on coastal resources were visual, from both the proposed residence on the larger parcel and the future residence on the second, small parcel. The access road proposed to serve both residence sites also posed potential tree removal, erosion and drainage impacts. The revised project--deleting the subdivision (and associated future second house) and relocating the applicant’s residence into a canyon area southeast of El Granada Creek and not visible from Cabrillo Highway--no longer triggers significantly adverse visual impacts, thus no longer conflicts with this policy. In fact, the revised location of the house is actually one that both neighbors and the Planning Commission suggested as the better choice. The applicant studied it as an early location option, but abandoned it due to access to a viable domestic water source, as issue that has since been resolved. Additionally, the proposed access road to the house site is an extension from the end of San Juan Avenue and does not require any significant tree removal. Potential drainage and erosion impacts will be mitigated via recommended conditions of approval.

With the subdivision removed from the application and the relocated residence not converting any prime soils, the project now poses no conflict with this element of Policy 1.8. Finally, the inclusion of a subdivision subjected the density analysis and resulting two density credits to detailed review, due to early calculations of the overall parcel’s size. The parcel’s size and density credit allocation was critical in order to allow the 2-lot subdivision. However, with the subdivision element removed, the issue regarding density credits is no longer critical; the proposed residence requires and consumes only one density credit, which the parcel is clearly allocated.

b.

Agriculture

Policy 5.9 (Division of Land Suitable for Agriculture Designated as Agriculture)

Response: With the deletion of the project’s subdivision element, the current project poses no conflict or relevance with Policy 5.9.

c.

Visual Resources

Policy 8.5 (Location of New Development)

Response: As previously discussed regarding Policy 1.8, the revised project no longer poses conflicts with Policy 8.5.

3.

Legalization of the Existing Mobile Home

The owners seek to legalize an existing mobile home, in which they propose to live in during construction of their proposed new residence. The mobile home is located on its present site without benefit of any permits or approvals from the County. It is presently located on prime soils on what is proposed as Parcel A, the larger of the two parcels. While staff supports its legalization, it recommends (as reflected in the conditions of approval, Attachment A) the following: (a) that the mobile home be relocated (until its removal) off prime soils, to an area whereby its visual impacts will be minimized; (b) that the owners not be allowed to continue to occupy it until they have obtained the required building permit for its legalization from the Building Inspection Section, including compliance with all building requirements and payment of a $10,000 temporary occupancy bond; (c) the mobile home must be removed as a condition of the final inspection approval for the proposed main house; (d) in the event that the building permit for the main house is not applied for and issued within one year of this approval, the mobile home shall be removed within 30 days of that 1-year date (permit extensions not permitted); and (e) in the event that the building permit is applied for but never issued due to its cancellation by the Building Inspection Section, the mobile home shall be removed within 30 days of the date of permit cancellation. Since the mobile home is intended to be used as a temporary structure during construction, it will not be discussed in the ensuing General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Zoning Compliance Sections.

4.

Compliance with the General Plan

The project, as now proposed and conditioned, conforms with the applicable General Plan policies, as discussed below.

a.

Vegetative, Water, Fish and Wildlife Resources

Policy 1.23 (Regulate Location, Density and Design of Development to Protect Vegetative, Water, Fish and Wildlife Resources). The project, as conditioned, will comply with this policy. El Granada Creek runs along the eastern side of the property that supplies an agricultural water impoundment and an associated fresh water marsh area. Based upon the applicant’s most recently submitted biological report, this area has been determined to provide habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog and the San Francisco Garter Snake. There is also an existing eucalyptus grove that has potential for providing habitat for nesting raptors and moderate potential for providing wintering habitat for the monarch butterfly. The proposed driveway/turnaround and residence is located approximately 52 feet and 65 feet, respectively, southeast of El Granada Creek and any potential habitat areas. As added mitigation, staff is recommending conditions of approval related to proper erosion and sediment controls throughout grading and construction, pre-construction surveys for the sensitive species, isolating the construction area and on-going monitoring of the site by a certified biologist during grading and construction.

Policy 1.26 (Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources) requires development to minimize the disruption of fish and wildlife and their habitats. Mitigation measures were included, as part of the environmental review of this project, whish are intended to address potential construction related impacts to sensitive species that could be on the site. These mitigation measures have been included as conditions of approval.

Policy 1.27 (Regulate Development to Protect Sensitive Habitats) and Policy 1.28 (Buffer Zones) call for the regulation of land uses and development activities within and adjacent to sensitive habitats in order to protect critical vegetative, water, fish and wildlife resources as well as establish necessary buffer zones adjacent to sensitive habitats in order to protect them. The biologist’s mitigation for isolating the construction areas from the sensitive habitat areas as well as the 52- to 65-foot buffer will serve to bring the project into compliance with these two policies.

b.

Soil Resources

Policy 2.17 (Regulate Development to Minimize Soil Erosion and Sedimentation) requires development to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation. A condition of approval has been included which requires the applicant to implement an erosion control plan for both the clearing, grading and construction phases of the project. All measures are to be installed prior to grading and construction activities commencing on-site and must be maintained throughout that process.

c.

Visual Quality

Policies 4.1 (Protection of Visual Quality), 4.3 (Protection of Vegetation) and 4.4 (Appearance of Rural and Urban Development) all require protecting the visual quality of San Mateo County and designing aesthetically pleasing development that minimizes tree removal. While the proposed driveway, turnaround and house will require the removal of eight significant trees and involve the clearing of approximately 18,500 sq. ft., surrounding vegetation and contours are maintained. Relative to the total parcel size of 143 acres, this degree of disturbance would occur in a relatively secluded canyon area, resulting in minimal visual impacts, thus in compliance with the intent of these policies. In addition, the house is set back an adequate distance from any sensitive habitat areas. The development is confined to a wooded canyon area. Although some vegetation and tree removal will be required as previously indicated, this location is preferred over previously considered locations that posed critical visual impacts. The site topography and existing surrounding vegetation will screen the proposed residence from both Cabrillo Highway and the adjacent open space lands.

Policy 4.14 (Appearance of New Development) and Policy 4.21 (Scenic Corridors) regulate development to promote good design, site relationships and other aesthetic considerations as well as regulate land divisions to promote visually attractive development, especially when located within a scenic corridor. As mentioned previously, the proposed residence is located on a site that utilizes its topography and vegetation to prevent any visual impacts as seen from Cabrillo Highway (a County Scenic Corridor) or other points west. The applicant is proposing to use horizontal wood siding materials and paint the residence earthtone colors. The use of muted colors and natural building materials will help reduce the visual impacts as seen from any adjacent properties.

Policy 4.20 (Utility Structures) minimizes the adverse visual quality of utility structures, including roads, overhead wires, utility poles, antenna, etc. The project has been conditioned to locate all new utility lines to the proposed residence underground from the nearest existing utility pole able to provide the necessary utility services.

Policy 4.24 (Location of Structures). The location of structures should be designed to carefully conform to the natural topography and natural vegetation, designed to minimize the impacts of noise, light, glare and odors and located adjacent to forested areas. The proposed residence does utilize the existing topography and vegetation within a canyon area which will minimize visual impacts. The development is also designed to minimize noise, light, glare and odor on adjacent properties.

Policy 4.25 (Earthwork Operations). Grading and earthwork operation should be kept to a minimum and, where necessary, make graded areas blend with adjacent landforms through the use of contour grading. The project includes a total of approximately 700 cubic yards of combined cut and fill for the driveway, turnaround, house and water tanks. To the degree feasible, the work will be contour grading. In addition, the use of erosion and sediment controls, required as recommended conditions of approval, will minimize soil erosion during this phase of the project.

Policy 4.26 (Water Bodies) allows for the development of water impoundments, but discourages structures which would adversely impact the appearance of a stream and the associated riparian habitat. As mentioned, there is an existing water impoundment on the property which is fed by El Granada Creek. There is also an associated fresh water marsh area that provides habitat. No changes are proposed to the water impoundment and the proposed development is adequately set back from this area to eliminate adverse impacts.

Policy 4.27 (Ridgelines and Skyline) discourages development on open ridgelines and skylines when seen as part of a public view which is defined as a range of vision from a public road or other public facility. The proposed residence will not be developed on or affect either a ridgeline or a skyline.

Policy 4.28 (Trees and Vegetation) and Policy 4.29 (Landscaping and Screening). The revised project will require the removal of eight significant trees (5 Blue Gum eucalyptus and 3 Monterey pine trees) to accommodate the driveway/turnaround and house construction. Otherwise, surrounding trees and vegetation shall be preserved and protected during construction. All trees shall be replaced with native plant materials or vegetation compatible with the surrounding vegetation, climate, soil, and ecological characteristics of the region. In addition, a smooth transition shall be provided between development and adjacent forested areas. The applicant also plans on the use of native plant materials for use in the landscaping surrounding the proposed residence, which will help provide that smooth transition required by these policies.

d.

Rural Land Use Policies

Policy 9.23 (Land Use Compatibility in Rural Lands) encourages the compatibility of land uses by locating new residential development immediately adjacent to existing developed areas, clustering the development where possible and buffering the development from adjacent recreational uses. The proposed project locates all residential land uses adjacent to the existing residential area while at the same time providing a buffer from adjacent open space recreational lands owned by POST.

Policy 9.28 (Encourage Existing and Potential Agricultural Activities) encourages the continued and future use of agricultural activities as well as considering open space designations for agricultural parcels that are no longer capable of agricultural activities. The proposed project provides for the continued agricultural use by retaining over 142 acres of land (of the 143 acres total) as undeveloped for agricultural or open space use.

Policy 9.30 (Development Standards to Minimize Land Use Conflicts with Agriculture) requires a clear separation or buffer between agricultural activities and non-agricultural uses. As stated above, the proposed development is buffered from any existing and potential agricultural uses of the site.

Policy 9.31 (Protection of Agricultural Land) requires the use of easements or enforceable restrictions to retain and/or expand agricultural activities. Staff has conditioned the project to record an easement, which will run with the land in perpetuity and limits the use of the land covered by the easement to agricultural uses. The easement will cover all land within the parcel, except for the area southeast of El Granada Creek and approximately 200 feet extending outwardly from the proposed driveway, turnaround and house site.

5.

Conformance with the Local Coastal Program

Staff has completed a Coastal Development Permit checklist. The following policies are applicable to this project.

a.

Locating and Planning New Development Component

Policy 1.8 (Land Uses and Development Densities in Rural Areas) only allows new development in rural areas if it can be demonstrated that the development will not have a significant adverse impact on coastal resources, nor will it diminish the agricultural viability of surrounding prime agricultural land and other land suitable for agriculture. As previously discussed in Section A.2. of this report, and as conditioned, the revised project will not have a significant adverse impact on coastal resources. The active agricultural component on this parcel is cattle grazing which will be allowed to continue after construction.

b.

Agricultural Component

Policy 5.22 (Protection of Agricultural Water Supplies) requires that availability of an adequate and potable well water source be provided for all non-agricultural uses and that sufficient water supplies exist for agricultural uses. There are three existing agricultural wells located on-site, one of which is being converted for domestic use to provide adequate well water for the proposed residence. The other two agricultural wells will remain as such to provide an agricultural water source in conformance with this policy.

c.

Sensitive Habitats Component

Policy 7.5 (Permit Conditions) requires, as a part of the development review process, that the applicant submits a biological report prepared by a qualified professional which demonstrates that there will not be any significant impacts on sensitive habitats. The applicant submitted a new biological report (dated December 1, 2005; see Attachment L) prepared by Thomas Reid and Associates. This report found that there are sensitive habitat areas near El Granada Creek which runs along the eastern side of the property and feeds into an old water impoundment. The report concludes that the proposed development will not impact this sensitive habitat area due to the adequate buffer between this sensitive area and the proposed development. The report also includes mitigation measures to avoid any potential impacts during construction. These have been agreed to by the applicant and have been included as conditions of approval.

Policy 7.8 (Designation of Riparian Corridors) requires the designation of riparian corridors for all perennial and intermittent streams in the Coastal Zone. El Granada Creek is identified as a perennial stream. Its section near the project site has no riparian vegetation and is dominated by non-native eucalyptus woodland. As such, Policy 7.11.b. (Establishment of Buffer Zones) requires the establishment of a 50-foot buffer zone from the “predictable high water point for perennial streams” where no riparian vegetation exists. Setbacks of 52 feet to the driveway turnaround and approximately 65 feet to the house is proposed, in compliance with the required 50-foot buffer zone. In addition, mitigation measures, such as fencing the construction area and conducting surveys for sensitive species, will ensure protection of these sensitive habitat areas.

Policy 7.14 (Definition of Wetlands) defines wetland as an area where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to bring about the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of plants which normally are found to grow in water or wet ground. Wetlands do not include vernally wet areas where the soils are not hydric. The biological report for this project identified a small wetland area in and around a pond (a former water impoundment) on the eastern side of the property near El Granada Creek, which is dominated by arroyo willow, sedge, horsetail and a number of other plant species common to wetland areas. The report also concludes that the pond may provide habitat for the San Francisco Garter Snake (SFGS), California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF) and the Western Pond Turtle (WPT). The project site is located approximately 700 feet from this pond, and thus no direct impacts to these wetland areas and associated habitat are expected.

Policy 7.32 (Designation of Habitats of Rare and Endangered Species) requires the designation of habitat for rare and endangered species. The biological report for this project identified El Granada Creek and the associated wetland area as potential habitat for the CRLF, SFGS and WPT along with California species of concern, including the yellow warbler and common saltmarsh yellowthroat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s CRLF critical habitat designation requires a 300-foot buffer around all potential frog habitat. As previously indicated, the project site is approximately 700 feet from this area.

d.

Visual Resources Component

Policy 8.5 (Location of Development) requires new development to be located on a portion of a parcel where the development best preserves the visual and open space qualities of the parcel overall. As previously discussed in Section A.2. of this report and, as conditioned, staff believes the revised project, having eliminated the subdivision element and relocating the house to the least visible location, will best preserve the visual and open space qualities of the parcel. Thus the project is now in compliance with this policy.

Policy 8.6 (Streams, Wetlands and Estuaries) requires setbacks between development and the edge of streams and wetland areas, prohibits structural development which affects the visual quality of streams and requires the retention of existing wetland areas. As mentioned previously, the proposed development has a significant setback to the established sensitive habitat areas and the associated wetland area will remain intact.

Policy 8.7 (Development on Skylines and Ridgelines) prohibits the location of development on a ridgeline or skyline unless no other building site exists. The proposed residence is not located on, nor will it affect a ridgeline or a skyline.

Policy 8.9 (Trees) requires that new development be located so as to minimize tree removal, and Policy 8.10 (Vegetative Cover) requires the replacement of any vegetation removed to accommodate proposed development. As previously discussed, the project will require the removal of eight significant trees and the total clearance of 18,500 sq. ft. of area to accommodate the driveway/turnaround and house. While seemingly significant, this scope of disturbance is weighed against a parcel whose total size is 143 acres. More importantly, the total vegetative impacts will occur within a relatively secluded canyon area and will pose nothing of the visual impacts that the project’s initial iteration as subsequently denied by the Planning Commission in September 2005. Due to potential visual impacts of the development, staff is recommending a condition requiring the applicant to submit a re-vegetation plan showing what types of vegetation and landscaping will be planted within the disturbed construction areas.

e.

Hazards Component

Policy 9.2 (Designation of Hazard Areas). El Granada Creek and the associated water impoundment have been identified as a flood hazard by FEMA. This area is also within the required riparian habitat buffer zone which restricts development in this area. The proposed building site is outside of this designated hazard area.

Additionally, the LCP Hazards Map indicates the subject site is located within an area known for potential shallow landslides. The preliminary soils report indicates the location of the new proposed residence is not in an area subject to major slides. However, as required by Policy 9.10 (Geological Investigation of Building Sites), a more detailed geotechnical report will be required at the time of building permit application.

6.

Compliance with the Zoning Regulations

a.

Permitted Uses

The soils on the project site are categorized as “lands suitable for agriculture.” Single-family residences, as well as domestic wells, are allowed with a PAD permit on lands suitable for agriculture and other lands.

Development Standard

Requirement

Proposed

Front Yard Setback

50 ft.

50 ft.

Rear Yard Setback

20 ft.

1,000+ ft.

Right Side Yard Setback

20 ft.

140 ft.

Left Side Yard Setback

20 ft.

1,000+ ft.

Maximum Height

36 ft.

34 ft.

c.

Substantive Criteria for Issuance of a PAD Permit

Section 6355 of the PAD Regulations lists a number of criteria required to be met prior to issuance of a PAD permit to allow for conversion of land, which is involved with the proposed project.

General Criteria. In general, the encroachment of all development upon which land is suitable for agricultural use shall be minimized, all development shall be clustered, and the project elements shall conform to the Development Review Criteria in Chapter 20A.2 of the Zoning Regulations. The development proposed is outside of any prime soils areas and leaves the remainder of the parcel in open space uses which can continue to be used for animal grazing and other agricultural uses in the future. The proposed driveway, turnaround, residence and water tanks are clustered together. The subject development conforms to all applicable Development Review Criteria. The Development Review Criteria includes such things as also required by the LCP, as discussed in the previous section of this report.

Water Supply Criteria. The Water Supply Criteria for issuance of a PAD permit requires the applicant to demonstrate an adequate and potable well water source on the parcel where development is proposed. The parcel has three existing agricultural wells, one of which will be converted to a domestic well to provide an adequate and potable water supply. The other wells on the property can be used to provide a water supply for existing and future agricultural uses on-site.

Criteria for the Division of Lands Suitable for Agriculture or Other Lands. The project as currently proposed no longer includes a subdivision element. Thus this criteria is not applicable to the revised project.

Criteria for the Conversion of Prime Agricultural Lands. The prime soils on the parcel are located on the opposite side of El Granada Creek and to the north around the pond area. No project elements occur near nor will impact or convert prime soils, thus this criteria is not applicable to the project.

Criteria for the Conversion of Lands Suitable for Agriculture or Other Lands. The criteria for the conversion of lands includes such criteria as a determination that all agriculturally unsuitable lands on the parcel have been developed or determined undevelopable, that continued or renewed agricultural use of the soils is not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, that clearly defined buffer areas are developed between agricultural and non-agricultural uses, that the productivity of any adjacent agricultural lands is not diminished, and that public service or facility expansions and permitted uses do not impair agricultural viability. The land is extremely steep in some areas making it difficult to use for agricultural purposes with the exception of animal grazing and the development utilizes a small area on the parcel leaving the majority of the parcel undeveloped and available for some type of agricultural use. There will be a clearly defined buffer area between any agricultural and the non-agricultural development. The proposed residence will not diminish the ability for neighboring agricultural operations, if any, to be continued.

d.

Agricultural Land Management Plan

Section 6361.C. of the PAD Regulations requires that an Agricultural Land Management Plan be prepared and submitted for parcels 20 acres or more in size before conversion (in this case, the project would convert “lands suitable for agriculture”). The plan shall demonstrate how the land’s agricultural productivity will be fostered and preserved in accordance with Sections 6350 and 6355 of the PAD regulations. Upon submittal of the revised project in March of 2006, the applicant also submitted the required Agricultural Land Management Plan (see Attachment H). Upon review of that plan, staff concludes that it complies with aforementioned sections of the PAD Regulations.

7.

Conformance with Grading Regulations

The County Grading Regulations require that the following findings be made for approval, each followed by staff’s response.

a.

That the granting if the permit will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

As indicated in the mitigation measures recommended for the Negative Declaration (as discussed in Section D of this report below) and as associated conditions listed in Attachment A, the proposed grading for all elements of the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

b.

That the project conforms to the criteria of the Grading Regulations, including the standards referenced in Section 8605.

Section 8605 includes standards for erosion and sediment control, performance standards, geotechnical reports, dust control, fire safety and time restrictions. The submitted grading plans, together their review and recommended conditions by the Department of Public Works and Half Moon Bay Fire District, will ensure that the grading aspects of this project comply with all such standards.

c.

That the project is consistent with the General Plan.

As indicated in the General Plan Compliance Section A.4. of this report, the grading aspects of this project comply.

B.

REVIEW BY THE MIDCOAST COMMUNITY COUNCIL

The Midcoast Community Council was sent a referral for this project on March 13, 2006. As of the date of this report, they have not responded.

C.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

A revised Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment I) was prepared for the project, reflecting the critical changes, e.g. deleting the subdivision and relocating the house. The document was circulated from July 10, 2006 to July 31, 2006. Two written comment letters were received (Attachment J), which are summarized below, followed by staff’s response.

1.

Letter from G.A. Laster (July 31, 2006). Mr. Laster’s letter covered the following three points:

a.

Water tanks. Why are seven water tanks proposed for fire suppression instead of securing water from CCWD? Where would the tanks be located?

Staff Response: Seven tanks are the maximum needed to provide the required domestic and fire suppression water supply. The tanks will be located near the house. The CCWD’s service boundary coincides with the County’s Urban/Rural Boundary, which is located between the R-1 zoned El Granada area and the PAD-zoned Sterling property. The LCP prohibits the extension of water service beyond the CCWD’s service boundaries and Urban/Rural Boundary. While the owners are attempting to secure water from CCWD for fire suppression purposes only, staff is not aware of what provisions would ever allow such a service provision to occur, even for fire-suppression. In any event, the total amount of water storage that would be provided by the proposed water tanks is adequate to serve both the fire suppression and domestic water needs of the project.

b.

Subdivision. Given that the project no longer includes the 2-lot subdivision, why does the Initial Study’s Section 1.g. refer to two parcels? What is the basis for the reference of 1.625 density credits and the number of proposed water tanks suggests future subdivision.

Staff Response: Review of Section 1.g. reveals the reference to cattle grazing “…on the larger of two parcels…” This was a typo and is intended to refer only to the one parcel. While the subdivision is no longer part of this project, the calculation and allocation of 1.625 density credits was presented and discussed at length at the September 14, 2005 public hearing. While staff is confident of that allocation figure, it is not a relevant topic of the project as revised; the proposed residence consumes only one density credit. Finally, the applicant proposes seven water tanks (4,900 gallons each) instead of one or two much larger tanks storing the same volume. Seven smaller tanks are easier to place and locate on the site.

c.

Clearing, Tree Removal and Grading. While clearing, tree removal and grading will be required, where, what and how much are involved? Will there be replacement and restoration of these areas?

Staff Response: As previously indicated, the project will require a total of 18,500 sq. ft. of land clearing. The driveway, turnaround and house would require 565 cubic yards for excavation and 125 cubic yards of fill. The water tanks will require ten cubic yards if excavation. Tree replacement, at a 1:1 basis for each significant tree removed, will be required and has been made a condition of approval. Additionally, conditions of approval are included requiring that a landscape plan be submitted and that all disturbed areas be revegetated.

2.

Letter from Robin McKnight and Allen Olivo (July 31, 2006). While supportive of the revised project as described, their letter covered three issues:

a.

Subdivision. This was the same question that Mr. Laster asked regarding the Negative Declaration’s reference to two parcels. Please refer to staff response to that issue.

b.

Water Tanks. This was the same question that Mr. Laster asked regarding the need for the seven water tanks. Please refer to staff response to that issue.

c.

Visibility of Proposed Structures. Will any structures be visible from Highway 1 or other public viewpoints?

Staff Response: None of the proposed structures (house or water tanks) will be visible from Highway 1, nor should they be visible from nay surrounding County-maintained roadways, given their canyon location and the surrounding dense trees and vegetation.

FISCAL IMPACT

Upon completion, due to the improvements made on the property, the assessed tax revenue on the subject parcel would increase.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Recommended Findings and Recommended Conditions of Approval

B.

Location Map

C.

Boundary & Topographic Survey

D.

Site Plan (also showing septic)

E.

Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan

F.

Floor Plans

G.

Elevations

H.

Agricultural Land Management Plan

I.

Initial Study and Negative Declaration

J.

Comment Letters on the Negative Declaration

K.

Planning Commission 9/14/05 Decision Letter

L.

Biological Report (dated 12/1/05) prepared by Thomas Reid & Associates

Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

REVISED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit File Number: PLN 2000-00812

Board Meeting Date: December 12, 2006

Prepared By: Dave Holbrook, Senior Planner

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

Regarding the Negative Declaration, Find:

1.

That the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of San Mateo County.

2.

That the Negative Declaration is complete, correct and adequate, and prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and applicable State and County guidelines.

3.

That, on the basis of the Initial Study, comments received hereto, and testimony presented and considered at the public hearing, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.

4.

That the mitigation measures, identified in the Negative Declaration and agreed to by the owners and placed as conditions on the project, have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan in conformance with the California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

Regarding the Planned Agricultural District Permit, Find (as discussed in the staff report in Section A.6.c.):

5.

That the encroachment of all development upon land which is suitable for agricultural use is minimized.

6.

That all development permitted on-site is clustered.

7.

That the proposed project conforms to the Development Review Criteria contained in Chapter 20A.2 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code.

8.

That the proposed project meets the substantive criteria for the issuance of a PAD Permit.

9.

That the existing availability of an adequate and potable on-site well water source for all non-agricultural uses is demonstrated.

10.

That adequate and sufficient water supplies needed for agricultural production and sensitive habitat protection in the watershed are not diminished.

11.

That all agriculturally unsuitable lands on the parcel have been developed or determined to be undevelopable.

12.

That continued or renewed agricultural use of the soils is not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.

13.

That clearly defined buffer areas are developed between agricultural and non-agricultural uses.

14.

That the productivity of any adjacent agricultural lands is not diminished, including the ability of land to sustain dry farming or animal grazing.

15.

That public service and facility expansions and permitted uses do not impair agricultural viability, either through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality.

16.

That for parcels adjacent to urban areas, permit conversion if the viability of agricultural uses is severely limited by conflicts with urban uses, and the conversion of land would complete a logical and viable neighborhood and contribute to the establishment of a stable limit to urban development.

Regarding the Coastal Development Permit, Find (as discussed in the staff report in Section A.5.):

17.

That the project, as described in the application and accompanying materials required by Section 6328.7 and as conditioned in accordance with Section 6328.14, conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the San Mateo County LCP.

18.

That the project conforms to the specific findings required by the policies of the San Mateo County LCP.

Regarding the Grading Permit, Find (as discussed in the staff report in Section A.7.):

19.

That the granting of the permit will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

20.

That the project conforms to the criteria of the Grading Regulations, including the standards referenced in Section 8605.

21.

That the project is consistent with the General Plan.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Planning Division

1.

This approval applies only to the proposal, documents and plans described in this report and submitted to and approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 12, 2006. Minor revisions or modifications to the project may be approved by the Community Development Director if they are consistent with the intent of and in substantial conformance with this approval.

2.

The Coastal Development Permit, PAD Permit and Grading Permit are valid for one year from the date of approval, until December 12, 2007, on or before which time the applicant shall be issued a building permit. Any extension requests shall be submitted in writing at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date, with the applicable extension fee paid.

3.

The applicant shall apply for and be issued a building permit prior to the start of construction of the residence and/or water tanks and develop in accordance with the approved plans as well as install all structures to current building codes.

4.

The applicant shall submit a detailed erosion and sediment control plan to the Building Inspection Section for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a building or Grading Permit for the new residence, driveway/turnaround and/or water tanks. The plan shall show what types of measures will be included, where they will be installed, and how they will be installed and maintained throughout construction. All erosion control measures must be installed prior to any grading or construction activities beginning on-site.

5.

Design and implement appropriate stormwater pollution control measures during construction and residential use. All stormwater control measures shall be clearly shown as part of any future submittal to the Building Inspection Section. The goal of the stormwater control plan is to minimize the amount of stormwater pollution into the existing water sources on-site such as the reservoir and associated freshwater marsh area.

6.

The applicant shall submit two copies of the soils report to the Building Inspection Section upon submittal for a building permit for the new residence and prepare building permit plans in accordance with the recommendations outlined in that report.

7.

The applicant shall design the driveway/turnaround to the proposed residence such that soil/root compaction of any nearby trees (to be preserved) is minimized, that runoff does not create erosion problems for adjacent trees, and that tree sapling removal is held to a minimum.

8.

This approval includes the removal of the subject eight significant trees. Tree replacement shall occur with 15-gallon sized trees of an indigenous species suitable to this local environment, at a 1:1 ratio for each tree removed. The proposed location of the replacement trees shall be included and clearly indicated on the required revegetation plan, as stipulated in Condition Number 9.

9.

At the time of application for a building permit, the applicant shall submit a revegetation and landscape plan for review and approval by the Planning Division. The plan shall include a site plan showing the areas to be disturbed and the types of vegetation that will be used to revegetate the areas, clearly indicating the location, size and species of the required replacement trees as required in Condition Number 8. The goal of the revegetation element of the plan is to minimize the visual impacts resulting from the construction of the driveway, turnaround, new residence, and water tanks as seen from adjacent properties. The goal of the landscaping element of the plan is to create a transition between the residence and the pre-existing characteristics of the site helping to blend the structure with its environment. All proposed plantings shall be native and of a type and size to continue to grow and provide this natural buffer. All approved and installed revegetation and landscaping shall be maintained for the life of the structure. Prior to a final inspection on the project, all denuded areas resulting from the construction activities shall be revegetated and landscaped in accordance with the approved plan.

10.

The applicant shall retain English ivy and cape ivy in the grove as nectar sources for the monarch, even though they are non-native and invasive species and often targeted for eradication. These species are valuable nectar sources as they bloom in the fall.

11.

The applicant shall isolate the construction area with a fence made of plywood, or other impenetrable material, and metal posts in order to exclude the California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF) and San Francisco Garter Snake (SFGS). Fence materials shall be 4 feet tall with the bottom trenched 3-6 inches deep and covered with soil. This fence shall be maintained throughout the construction period.

12.

The applicant shall have a qualified biologist conduct a pre-construction survey within the fenced off area for the California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF) and San Francisco Garter Snake (SFGS) and remove any vegetation that may provide cover or conceal these species.

13.

The applicant shall have a qualified biologist brief construction workers on how to identify the California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF) and San Francisco Garter Snake (SFGS). If any are found during work, they are to stop construction activities and contact both the San Mateo County Planning Division and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

14.

The applicant shall have a qualified biologist inspect the work site at least three times per month to ensure the exclusion fence is not damaged and is functioning properly to exclude the California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF) and San Francisco Garter Snake (SFGS). The applicant shall submit the findings of the biologist to the Planning Division throughout construction. Receipt of these findings shall be confirmed prior to a building permit final inspection by the Planning Division.

15.

During the construction and grading, the applicant shall adhere to the Construction Noise Standards as stipulated in the County Noise Ordinance.

16.

At the time of the building permit application, the applicant shall submit information to the Building Inspection Section related to the septic system for review and approval by the Environmental Health Division prior to the issuance of a building permit.

17.

The applicant shall employ natural colors and materials for the proposed residence to help blend the proposed structure with the natural vegetative characteristics of the site. The water tanks shall be painted a dark green. Two copies of color/ material samples shall be submitted to the Building Inspection Section at the time of application for a building permit.

18.

No project-related grading or land clearing is permitted until a Grading Permit hard card is issued from the Planning and Building Division and all erosion/sedimentation controls are fully implemented.

19.

All utilities serving all project elements shall be placed underground from the nearest existing utility pole. No new utility poles are to be installed or shall be allowed.

20.

Prior to the building permit final inspection approval for the proposed residence, the applicant shall remove the mobile home from the site to the satisfaction of the Building Inspection Section.

21.

The applicant shall submit a $10,000 surety deposit, in the form of a Certificate of Deposit, to the Building Inspection Section prior to the issuance of any project-related building or grading permits. The surety shall be released only upon confirmation that the mobile home has been removed from the parcel prior to the final inspection approval of the building permit. In the event the building permit for the new house is not applied for within one year of this approval, the mobile home shall be removed from the parcel within 30 days of that 1-year date (permit extensions not applicable). In the event that the building permit is applied for but never issued due to its cancellation by the Building Inspection Section, the mobile home shall be removed from the parcel within 30 days of the date of permit cancellation.

Building Inspection Section

22.

A demolition permit shall be required for the existing structures (other than the mobile home) and the demolition permits must be finalized prior to final on the building permit for the residence.

23.

Both structures shall be provided with automatic fire sprinklers. These permits must be issued prior to or in conjunction with the building permit.

24.

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

25.

Sediment and erosion control measures shall be installed prior to beginning any earth work. These controls shall be maintained through the entire project and permanent measures shall be installed prior to finalizing the permit.

26.

All proposed water tanks shall be shown on the building plans, including elevations relative to surrounding and immediate topography.

Department of Public Works

27.

Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the new residence, the applicant shall provide payment of “roadway mitigation fees” based on the square footage (assessable space) of the proposed building per Ordinance No. 3277.

28.

The applicant shall submit, for review by the Department of Public Works and the appropriate Fire District, a plan and profile of both the existing and the proposed access from the nearest “publicly” maintained roadway (San Juan Avenue or Columbus Avenue) to the proposed building site.

29.

The provisions of San Mateo County Grading Ordinance shall govern all grading on and adjacent to this site. Unless exempted by the Grading Ordinance, the applicant may be required to apply for a Grading Permit upon completion of their review of the plans and should access construction be necessary.

30.

The applicant shall submit a driveway “plan and profile” to the Department of Public Works, showing the driveway access to the parcel 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.

31.

The applicant shall submit detailed drawings and plans indicating the “source of” and the “installation location for” the undergrounding of all utilities.

32.

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.

Environmental Health Division

33.

Prior to the recordation of the final parcel map, the applicant shall submit two copies of a site plan showing: topography and location of each percolation test holes for the proposed residence at a scale of 1 inch to 20 feet or larger.

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District

34.

As per 2001 CFC, Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1, Fire District approved fire hydrants (Clow 960) must be located within 200 feet of each proposed single-family dwelling unit measured by way of driveable access. As per 2001 CFC, Appendix III-A, Section 4.1, the hydrants must produce a minimum fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for two hours. Contact the local water purveyor for water flow details.

35.

As per San Mateo County Building Standards and Fire District Ordinance No. 2002-01, the applicant is required to install an automatic fire sprinkler system throughout the proposed or improved dwelling and garage. All areas that are accessible for storage purposes shall be equipped with fire sprinklers. The only exception being small linen closets less than 24 sq. ft. with full depth shelving. The plans for this system must be submitted to the San Mateo County Planning and Building Division. A building permit will not be issued until plans are received, reviewed and approved. Upon submission of plans, the County will forward a complete set to the Half Moon Bay Fire District for review. The fee schedule for automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be in accordance with Half Moon Bay Ordinance No. 13. Fees shall be paid prior to plan review.

36.

An exterior bell and interior horn/strobe are required to be wired into the required flow switch on your fire sprinkler system. The bell, horn/strobe and flow switch, along with the garage door opener, are to be wired into a separate circuit breaker at the main electrical panel and labeled.

37.

As per California Building Code, Section 3120.9.1.1, State Fire Marshal Regulations, and Half Moon Bay Fire District Ordinance No. 2002-01, the applicant is required to install State Fire Marshal approved and listed smoke detectors which are hardwired, interconnected, and have battery backup. These detectors are required to be placed in each sleeping room and at a point centrally located in the corridor or area giving access to each separate sleeping area. A minimum of one detector shall be placed on each floor. Smoke detectors shall be tested and approved prior to the building final.

38.

As per Half Moon Bay Fire District Ordinance No. 2002-01, building identification shall be conspicuously posted and visible from the street. Temporary address numbers shall be posted prior to combustibles being placed on-site. The letters/numerals for permanent address signs shall be of adequate size and of a color, which is contrasting with the background. In no case shall letters/numerals be less than 4 inches in height with a minimum 3/4-inch stroke. Such letters/numerals shall be internally illuminated and facing the direction of access.

39.

As per County of San Mateo Building Standards and Half Moon Bay Fire District Ordinance No. 2002-01, the roof covering of every new building or structure, and materials applied as part of a roof covering assembly, shall have a minimum fire rating of Class “B” or higher as defined in the current edition of the California Building Code.

40.

The San Mateo County Department of Public Works and the Half Moon Bay Fire District Ordinance No. 2002-01 shall set road standards. The applicant must have a maintained all-weather surface road for ingress and egress of fire apparatus that meets those standards. Dead-end roads exceeding 150 feet shall be provided with a turnaround in accordance with Half Moon Bay Fie District standards and specifications. Road width shall not be less than 20 feet.

41.

As per Public Resource Code, Section 4291 and Half Moon Bay Fire District Ordinance No. 2002-01, a minimum clearance of flammable vegetation within 30 feet of the proposed structures or to the property line shall be maintained around all structures by the property owners. This does not include individual species of ornamental shrubs and landscaping.