COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

 

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

 

DATE:

March 21, 2008

BOARD MEETING DATE:

April 8, 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:

Consideration of Design Review to allow construction of a 3,310 sq. ft. single-family residence, placement of a fire hydrant, and removal of nine 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 disapproval). This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

 
 

County File Number:

PLN 2001-00837 (Menasco)

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to disapprove the Design Review application and plans, by denying the appeal, based on the Planning Commission’s findings, pursuant to Section 6565.7 of the San Mateo Zoning Regulations, that the project does not meet design review standards applicable to the area in question.

 

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 design review regulations established for the Midcoast.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval to construct a new 3,310 sq. ft. single-family residence on a 6,250 sq. ft. parcel, and remove nine significant trees.

 

Planning Commission Action: On July 25, 2007, based on information provided by staff and evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission upheld the Coastside Design Review Committee’s (CDRC) decision to disapprove the Design Review application and plans of the project by disapproving the appeal based on the Commission’s findings, pursuant to Section 6565.7 of the San Mateo Zoning Regulations. The Planning Commission also found that three of four items related to the project’s design were not adequately and conclusively addressed by the applicant, as required by the Planning Commission at the January 10, 2007 Planning Commission meeting.

 

Report Prepared By: Dennis P. Aguirre, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1867

 

Report Reviewed By: Lisa Aozasa, Senior Planner, Telephone 650/363-4852

 

Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Ken Menasco

 

Location: Birch Street, Montara

 

APN: 036-103-230

 

Parcel Size: 6,250 sq. ft.

 

Existing Zoning: R-1/S-17/DR/CD (Single-Family Residential/5,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel/Design Review/Coastal Development)

 

General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (6.1- 8.7 dwelling units/acre)

 

Sphere-of-Influence: City of Half Moon Bay

 

Existing Land Use: Single-Family Residential

 

Water and Sewer Services: Montara Water and Sanitary District

 

Flood Zone: Zone C (Areas of Minimal Flooding), Community Panel Number 060311 0092 B; effective date July 5, 1984.

 

Environmental Evaluation: Categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3; construction of a new small structure in an urban area.

 

Setting: The project site is located on Birch Street, between Harte and George Streets, in Montara. The parcel slopes moderately down (11 percent slope) from the street and contains natural vegetation, including pine and eucalyptus trees and shrubs. There is a domestic well located at the rear right side of the parcel, 24 feet from the rear property line and 16 feet from the nearest location of the proposed house. This side of Birch Street has no houses. However, surrounding parcels at the rear and across the street are developed with 1- and 2-story single-family dwellings.

 

DISCUSSION

 

A.

PREVIOUS ACTION REGARDING CURRENT PROPOSAL

   
 

The applicant submitted Design Review applications and plans for two new houses to be built side-by-side, on December 27, 2001. The Committee initially reviewed these projects at two different public hearings on June 14, August 10, 2006, and subsequently disapproved the application and plans for the project at a third hearing on September 14, 2006. The applicant appealed this decision and the Planning Commission considered the appeal on January 10, 2007. The Planning Commission remanded the project to the Coastside Design Review Committee (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 project based on the recommendations provided by the Planning Commission. The applicant installed the story poles on-site. The applicant’s architect considered lowering the second floor plate heights, and at the applicant’s request, lowered the plate height by 1 foot. The plate heights were below the maximum allowed by zoning and lowering them further would be detrimental to the interior flow of the floor plan. The Committee disapproved the revised proposal based on the findings indicated in the decision letter included in this staff report, including the finding that even with reduced plate heights, the proposed house would be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood (see Attachment C). The applicant appealed this disapproval 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 disapprove the application and plans for the project. The Planning Commission was unable to make the findings required to support the project. The applicant appealed the decision to the Board of Supervisors.

   

B.

APPLICANT’S/APPELLANT’S BASIS FOR APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

   
 

The applicant/appellant’s application for appeal to the Board of Supervisors is included as Attachment B. The appellant again reiterates his claims that the four items identified by the Planning Commission at its meeting of January 10, 2007, were completed for the Planning Commission’s July 25, 2007 meeting. Staff’s response is as follows.

   
 

1.

Story Poles. Staff acknowledges that the story poles were installed, as did the Planning Commission and the CDRC.

     
 

2.

Landscape Plan. A landscape plan was submitted only after the CDRC disapproved the Design Review application and plans for the project (Attachment D). The applicant contends that the Planning Commission did not acknowledge submittal of the landscape plan at the July 25 meeting, but in fact it was included as part of the staff report reviewed by the Planning Commission. The CDRC had requested that the landscape plan be revised to change from New Zealand Christmas tree(s) to redwood(s). The report indicated that the landscaping revision included 15-gallon redwood trees in place of the New Zealand Christmas trees.

     
 

3.

Plate Heights. Although the plate heights were reviewed and reduced by 1 foot, the Planning Commission, in concurrence with the CDRC, found that the reduction was insufficient to mitigate the scale of the proposed structure (see Revised Plans, Attachment E).

     
 

4.

Drainage Plan. The drainage plan that the applicant asserts was included in the July 25, 2007 appeal packet was subsequently submitted to staff on November 26, 2007 (Attachment F). Staff routed this plan to Public Works for review and received comments indicating that the plans needed corresponding drainage calculations. As such, it remains incomplete.

   
 

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. Staff’s analysis of home sizes within 300 feet of the subject properties shows that the proposed home is significantly larger than average (see table, below).

   
 

Staff contends that a 300-foot radius provides the appropriate context for comparison, since a neighborhood is defined as the area within 300 feet of an existing or proposed house, in the Standards For Design For One-Family and Two-Family Residential Development In the Midcoast (“Standards”). Although the applicant submitted a total of forty-six (46) sites for comparison, only twelve (12) sites were within the 300-foot radius. The table below shows that the majority of the structures within 300 feet are smaller in scale, averaging approximately 2,680 sq. ft. in gross area, substantially smaller than the proposed 3,310 sq. ft. structure.

   
 

Staff is therefore reiterating that the proposed size of the structure is not representative of the established neighborhood context relative to scale, in concurrence with the findings of the Planning Commission and the CDRC.

APN

Address

Parcel Size
(sq. ft.)

Gross Floor Area
(sq. ft.)

036-103-320

721 Harte Street

9,375

2,990

036-101-320

1280 Birch

6,250

2,760

036-101-420

1296 Birch

5,000

3,200

036-101-430

1294 Birch

5,600

3,200

036-101-130

1256 Birch

6,250

2,560

036-101-310

1216 Birch

15,625

3,150

036-103-300

1250 Cedar

6,250

2,630

036-103-310

1256 Cedar

9,375

2,290

036-105-320

1233 Cedar

6,250

3,550

036-105-310

1265 Cedar

6,250

3174

036-103-520

1220 Cedar

6,250

2560

036-105-270

1205 Cedar

6,250

3,120

036-103-500

1227 Cedar

7,250

2,331

       

Proposed

036-103-230

Birch Street

6,250

3,310

C.

PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY REGULATIONS

   
 

1.

General Plan

     
   

Staff has determined that the project does not conform to specific General Plan Policies, in particular Policies 4.14 (Appearance of New Development) and 4.35 (Urban Area Design Concept), each of which require structures to promote and enhance good design, improve the appearance and visual character of development in the area by managing the location and appearance of the structure.

     
   

The scale of the structure, as determined by the Planning Commission, needs to be reduced to be consistent with the immediate vicinity, including additional stepping down along the contours of the site. Flat wall planes also contribute to the mass and bulk of the structure. Articulation of the wall planes would improve the elevations.

     
 

2.

Zoning

     
   

Although non-conforming with the General Plan as previously indicated, the project is in compliance with the R-1/S-17 Zoning Regulations.

R-1/S-17
Development Standards

Zoning Requirements

Proposal

Building Site Area

5,000 sq. ft.

6,250 sq. ft.

Building Site Width

50 ft.

50 ft.

Minimum Setbacks:

   
 

Front

20 ft.

20 ft.

 

Rear

20 ft.

40 ft., and 8-inches

 

Sides

Combined total of 15 ft., with minimum of 5 ft. on any side

8 ft., on each side

Lot Coverage

2,187 sq. ft. (35%)

1,962 sq. ft. (31.4%)

Building Floor Area

3,312 sq. ft. (53%)

3,310 sq. ft. (53%)*

Building Height

28 ft.

27.5 ft.

Minimum Parking

2 covered spaces

2 covered spaces

*Indicates total of all floors and the garage.

 

3.

Coastal Development Permit Exemption

     
   

The proposal is located within the area designated as a Categorical Exclusion Area, and thus qualifies for an exemption from the requirement for a Coastal Development Permit. As such, the project is not subject to review for conformance with Local Coastal Program policies.

     
 

4.

Design Review

     
   

The project does not comply with Design Review Standards as discussed previously in this staff report, particularly in regard to neighborhood context.

     

D.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

   
 

The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, construction of a small structure in an urban area.

   

E.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

   
 

Department of Public Works

 

Building Inspection Section

 

Point Montara Fire Protection District

 

Montara Water and Sanitary District

 

Midcoast Community Council

   

FISCAL IMPACT

 

No fiscal impact.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

A.

Recommended Findings for Denial of the Project

B.

Appeal Application

C.

Planning Commission Decision Letter dated July 26, 2007

D.

Landscape Plan included in July 25, 2007 Planning Commission Packet

E.

Revised Project Plans included in July 25, 2007 Planning Commission Packet

F.

Drainage Plan submitted on November 25, 2007

G.

Planning Commission Staff Report for July 25, 2007 meeting, with Attachments

   
   

Attachment A

 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL

 

Permit File Number: PLN 2001-00837

Board Meeting Date: April 8, 2008

 

Prepared By: Dennis P. Aguirre

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

 
 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

 

1.a.

The proposed structures are not designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural vegetation and landforms of the site based on the forest-like characteristic of the vicinity not being retained as a result of inadequate landscaping plans to show proposals for planting indigenous vegetation.

   

1.g.

Views are not protected by the height and location of the structures and through the selective pruning and removal of trees and vegetation.

   
 

As conditioned by the Planning Commission at the January 10, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the proposed structure’s height reduction was not adequately addressed at the April 12, 2007 Coastside Design Review Committee meeting in order for the Committee to provide the required findings for approval.

   

1.l.

The design of the structure is inappropriate to the use of the property and is not in harmony with the shape, size and scale of the adjacent building in the community, based upon inspection of the story poles and the neighborhood context, that the proposed scale of the project requires a reduction to conform to the neighborhood context, including a recommendation for at least a 20-foot separation between the two structures.

   

In addition to the full resolution of the following issues:

   

(1)

A landscape plan that includes significant trees such as redwoods, cypress and other trees that would grow to a significant height and address the remaining landscaping issues that are set forth in the staff report dated January 10, 2007;

   

(2)

Review second story height especially the proposed “plate heights”, in order to reduce the apparent height of the structure;

   

(3)

Review the drainage plan in the context of design review issues.