| ||
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence | ||
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT | ||
DATE: |
January 18, 2008 | |
BOARD MEETING DATE: |
February 5, 2008 | |
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING: |
10 days, within 300 feet | |
VOTE REQUIRED: |
Majority | |
TO: |
Honorable Board of Supervisors | |
FROM: |
Lisa Grote, Director of Community Development | |
SUBJECT: |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consideration of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and Coastside Design Review Permit to construct a 3,159 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1,332 sq. ft. residence and detached accessory building on an 11,103 sq. ft. parcel, including the removal of one significant size Cypress tree, located at 324 The Strand, in the unincorporated Moss Beach area of San Mateo County. This project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission. (Appeal from decision of the Planning Commission to approve the project.) | |
RECOMMENDATION | ||
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Coastal Development Permit and Coastside Design Review Permit. | ||
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 her 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 and found the project complies with the County’s Zoning Regulations and Local Coastal Program (LCP). 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 carried over to this report. | ||
BACKGROUND | ||
Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,159 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1,332 sq. ft. residence and detached accessory building. The project consists of a partial demolition of the northerly portion of the 1-story building and removal of the back (north) wall of the garage. A new, 2-story addition will be constructed on the north side of the house, perpendicular to the coastal bluff. The original submittal proposed a 2-story addition constructed at an angle (parallel with the Strand right-of-way). A 268 sq. ft. addition will be constructed onto the back of the garage. One significant size Cypress tree is proposed for removal. The project does not involve any significant amount of grading. | ||
Planning Commission Action: On May 23, 2007, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the appeal and upheld the Zoning Hearing Officer’s decision to approve the project. | ||
DISCUSSION | ||
At the Board’s public hearing on September 11, 2007, the Board requested the applicant, Karen Trilevsky, to submit a supplemental geotechnical report that fully addressed all relevant policies from Chapter 9 of the County’s LCP and a biological report to address the policies of the Sensitive Habitat Component of the LCP. The applicant has submitted these two reports, which are discussed in the staff report and included as Attachments B and C, respectively. | ||
In summary, the supplemental geotechnical report found that the geologic and geotechnical aspects of the site and surrounding areas do not indicate any significant localized anomalies which would affect the erosion rates projected in the previous 2006 report. The ocean bluff retreat rates and projections identified in the 2006 study remain valid, and may continue to be used for design and support of the proposed residential addition. | ||
The biological report concludes that the proposed project will not have an adverse effect on any special-status species known in the area and will not cause impacts to wetlands, riparian areas, sea cliffs, or marine habitats or their associated buffer zones (as defined in the LCP). Regarding the possibility of bird collisions with the large windows of the proposed addition, the consultant found that the proposed windows are too small in area to have a significant impact on migratory or resident bird populations in the area. | ||
FISCAL IMPACT | ||
If the project is approved and constructed, additional property taxes will be assessed. | ||
