20080311_es

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

DATE:

February 25, 2008

BOARD MEETING DATE:

March 11, 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 Design Review to allow construction of a 3,131 sq. ft. single-family residence, placement of a fire hydrant, and removal of two trees on a 6,250 sq. ft. parcel located on Birch Street in the unincorporated Montara area of San Mateo County (appeal of the decision by the Planning Commission for denial). This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Board of Supervisors uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project by denying the appeal, based on the Commission’s findings pursuant to Section 6565.7 of the San Mateo Zoning Regulations, and that three of four items related to the project’s design were not adequately and conclusively addressed by the applicant in time for the Commission’s July 25, 2007 hearing, as originally required by the Planning Commission at its hearing on January 10, 2007.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment/Goal: The vision includes a commitment to be a responsive, effective and collaborative government, wherein, as part of the goals of this vision, decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain. The decision to deny the project by denying the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision will ensure that proposed development does not negatively impact the community in the future by ensuring that the current proposal complies with all relevant regulations established for the Midcoast.

BACKGROUND

The applicant submitted Design Review applications for two new houses, side-by-side, on December 27, 2001. Once a violation on the subject properties caused by a previous owner was resolved and the applications were complete, the Coastside Design Review Committee (CDRC) reviewed the projects at two public hearings on June 14 and August 10, 2006, and subsequently denied the projects at a third hearing on September 14, 2006. The applicant appealed these denials to the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission reviewed the appeals on January 10, 2007. The Planning Commission remanded the projects back to the CDRC for consideration, instructing the applicant to complete 4 items related to: (1) story pole installation, (2) landscape plan, submittal, (3) consideration of second story plate height reduction, and (4) drainage plan submittal.

On April 12, 2007, the CDRC considered the projects again in light of the recommendations from the Planning Commission. The CDRC denied the projects, based on disagreement with the applicant regarding the manner in which the Planning Commission recommendations had been addressed. The applicant then appealed the decisions for denial to the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission considered the latest appeal on July 25, 2007. Based on information provided by staff and evidence presented at the hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the appeal and upheld the CDRC’s decision to deny the projects. The Planning Commission determined that the applicant still had not adequately addressed all of the outstanding issues, and that it was unable to make the findings required to support the project. The applicant appealed the decisions to the Board of Supervisors.

DISCUSSION

The applicant/appellant’s points of appeal are addressed in the attached staff report. To sum, the appellant reiterates that the 4 items that the Planning Commission requested have been completed. The story poles were installed, but the Planning Commission found that the landscape plan and plate height revisions were inadequate, and the drainage plan was not submitted in time for its review.

The applicant/appellant also asserts that data submitted regarding home sizes in the general vicinity demonstrates that the proposed homes are in scale with the neighborhood. In response, staff’s analysis of home sizes within 300 feet of the subject properties shows that the proposed homes are significantly (250 to 450 sq. ft.) larger than average, supporting the Planning Commission’s finding that the proposed designs are not in harmony with the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community.

FISCAL IMPACT

No fiscal impact.



COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT


DATE:		February 25, 2008
BOARD MEETING DATE:		March 11, 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 Design Review to allow construction of a 3,131 sq. ft. single-family residence, placement of a fire hydrant, and removal of two trees on a 6,250 sq. ft. parcel located on Birch Street in the unincorporated Montara area of San Mateo County (appeal of the decision by the Planning Commission for denial). This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.


RECOMMENDATION
That the Board of Supervisors uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project by denying the appeal, based on the Commission’s findings pursuant to Section 6565.7 of the San Mateo Zoning Regulations, and that three of four items related to the project’s design were not adequately and conclusively addressed by the applicant in time for the Commission’s July 25, 2007 hearing, as originally required by the Planning Commission at its hearing on January 10, 2007.

VISION ALIGNMENT
Commitment/Goal: The vision includes a commitment to be a responsive, effective and collaborative government, wherein, as part of the goals of this vision, decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain. The decision to deny the project by denying the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision will ensure that proposed development does not negatively impact the community in the future by ensuring that the current proposal complies with all relevant regulations established for the Midcoast.

BACKGROUND
The applicant submitted Design Review applications for two new houses, side-by-side, on December 27, 2001. Once a violation on the subject properties caused by a previous owner was resolved and the applications were complete, the Coastside Design Review Committee (CDRC) reviewed the projects at two public hearings on June 14 and August 10, 2006, and subsequently denied the projects at a third hearing on September 14, 2006. The applicant appealed these denials to the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission reviewed the appeals on January 10, 2007. The Planning Commission remanded the projects back to the CDRC for consideration, instructing the applicant to complete 4 items related to: (1) story pole installation, (2) landscape plan, submittal, (3) consideration of second story plate height reduction, and (4) drainage plan submittal.

On April 12, 2007, the CDRC considered the projects again in light of the recommendations from the Planning Commission. The CDRC denied the projects, based on disagreement with the applicant regarding the manner in which the Planning Commission recommendations had been addressed. The applicant then appealed the decisions for denial to the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission considered the latest appeal on July 25, 2007. Based on information provided by staff and evidence presented at the hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the appeal and upheld the CDRC’s decision to deny the projects. The Planning Commission determined that the applicant still had not adequately addressed all of the outstanding issues, and that it was unable to make the findings required to support the project. The applicant appealed the decisions to the Board of Supervisors.

DISCUSSION
The applicant/appellant’s points of appeal are addressed in the attached staff report. To sum, the appellant reiterates that the 4 items that the Planning Commission requested have been completed. The story poles were installed, but the Planning Commission found that the landscape plan and plate height revisions were inadequate, and the drainage plan was not submitted in time for its review.

The applicant/appellant also asserts that data submitted regarding home sizes in the general vicinity demonstrates that the proposed homes are in scale with the neighborhood. In response, staff’s analysis of home sizes within 300 feet of the subject properties shows that the proposed homes are significantly (250 to 450 sq. ft.) larger than average, supporting the Planning Commission’s finding that the proposed designs are not in harmony with the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community.

FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact.