COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Inter-Departmental Correspondence
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE:
January 8, 2007
BOARD MEETING DATE:
January 23, 2007
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:
10 days, within 300 feet
VOTE REQUIRED:
Majority
TO:
Honorable Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Lisa Grote, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consideration of a Coastal Development Permit and a Resource Management Permit to remove 27 diseased Monterey pine trees located at 801 June Hollow Road, in the unincorporated Montara area of San Mateo County. (Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision for approval.) This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Coastal Development Permit and the Resource Management Permit.
VISION ALIGNMENT
Commitment No. 14: The Planning Commission, in making its decision found that the approval of the Coastal Development Permit and the Resource Management Permit for the removal of the 27 diseased pine trees concurred with the commitment of “Preserving and providing people access to our natural environment.” By upholding the Planning Commission’s decision, the Board would be reinforcing this commitment.
Goal: Goal No. 14: Important natural resources are preserved and enhanced through environmental stewardship. The Planning Commission determined that the removal of the diseased trees would halt the spread of pitch pine canker to pine trees in the surrounding area, whereby allowing healthy trees to thrive.
BACKGROUND
Proposal: The applicant is proposing to remove 27 diseased Monterey pine trees of various sizes throughout the property located at 801 June Hollow Road, in the unincorporated area of Montara.
Previous Actions: On April 15, 2004, the Community Development Director approved the removal of the diseased trees. On May 4, 2004, Mr. Tom Mahon filed an appeal of the Community Development Director’s approval, and the item was referred to the Planning Commission for its consideration and decision.
On January 11, 2006, the Planning Commission denied the appeal, upheld the decision of the Community Development Director, approved the project, made the required findings and adopted conditions of approval.
DISCUSSION
1.
Appellant’s Basis for Appeal
The key issues regarding this appeal are the parcel’s development potential as a result of removing the subject trees and the CEQA review regarding the application.
The appellant’s other concerns are as follows: (1) Planning Commissioners were given incorrect information from staff at the Planning Commission hearing regarding existing attempts at parcel development and the clear potential for creating opportunity for further intensification of development by this project; (2) Planning Commissioners were not informed by County Counsel or staff as to the existence of a notice of determination by the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission ordering San Mateo County to merge the lots in question; (3) Planning Commission did not properly evaluate the effect of removal of these trees in the context of heightened potential for development; (4) staff did not disclose to the Commissioners the existing conflict between the Coastal Commission and the County regarding this parcel; (5) staff incorrectly informed the Commission that this project was not appealable to the Coastal Commission; (6) no disclosure was made of the Conflict of Interest existing by course of the owner being the same person that county staff relies upon for reviewing the tree removal applications; and (7) a proper CEQA review was not conducted.
2.
Response to Appellant’s Basis for Appeal
The proposal meets all requirements as set forth in Sections 6328.7, 6328.14 and 6328.15 of the County Zoning Regulations regarding standards for application review, conditions and required findings. Further, the application is for the removal of diseased trees with no proposal for new or future development on the subject parcel.
Staff has prepared a detailed synopsis of the appellant’s concerns in the attached staff report.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact.