20080909_es

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

DATE:

August 25, 2008

BOARD MEETING DATE:

September 9, 2008

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

300 feet

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority Vote

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Lisa Grote, Director of Community Development

SUBJECT:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny an after-the-fact Coastal Development Permit to correct and mitigate the illegal removal of riparian vegetation performed in June 2004 and certification of a revised mitigated Negative Declaration, on an unimproved 7,070 sq. ft. parcel located on San Carlos Avenue in the unincorporated El Granada area of San Mateo County. This project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

RECOMMENDATION

1.

Grant the appeal and reverse the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the permit, thereby approving the after-the-fact Coastal Development Permit.

2.

Certify the revised mitigated Negative Declaration, by adopting the required findings in Attachment A.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: Number 6 (Preserve and provide people access to our natural environment): The project restores a portion of the Montecito Riparian Corridor, located on the southwest portion of the site.

Goal: Number 13, which states: “Protect the quality of the natural environment by fixing the boundaries between open space and development.” The project delineates the boundaries of the Montecito Riparian Corridor at the property, as determined by a biologist, thereby prohibiting development in this area and its associated buffer zone.

BACKGROUND

A portion of the Montecito Riparian Corridor is located on the southwest portion of the subject parcel. In June 2004, a previous property owner performed illegal clearing of riparian vegetation for which the County’s Code Compliance Section issued a Notice of Violation (VIO 2004-00085). In August 2004, the previous property owners applied for an after-the-fact Coastal Development Permit (PLN 2004-00398) and, subsequently, submitted a biologist’s report containing a riparian corridor delineation for the property. In June 2005, the current property owners, Rodrigo and Liz Lacasia-Barrios, in addition to continuing to pursue the after-the-fact Coastal Development Permit (CDP), applied for a Coastal Development Permit, Design Review and a Variance to construct a single-family residence (PLN 2005-00248, the application for a Variance was subsequently withdrawn). During the review process for the single-family residence, two additional biologists’ reports were prepared. One was an update on the reestablishment of riparian vegetation and the second was a review of the first delineation by a biologist under contract to the County. On April 11, 2007, the Zoning Hearing Officer approved both the after-the-fact CDP for vegetation clearing and restoration and a CDP and Design Review for the new single-family house. Both decisions were appealed by a neighboring property owner, Mr. Mark Aschauer. On March 26, 2008, the Planning Commission granted the neighbor’s appeal, thereby denying both the after-the-fact CDP for vegetation clearing and restoration and the CDP and Design Review for the new house. The property owners have filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on the after-the-fact CDP for illegal clearing, but did not appeal the denial of the CDP and Design Review for the single-family residence.

DISCUSSION

At the Planning Commission hearing, the appeals of the after-the-fact CDP and the CDP and Design Review permit for the new house were heard together and testimony from neighbors covered both the vegetation removal and the design of the proposed home. While the Planning Commission clearly determined that the proposed home design did not meet the design standard requiring compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, its position with regard to the CDP for vegetation removal and re-vegetation was less defined. The Commission did not disagree with the analysis presented in the biologists’ reports, but noted that copies of the biologists’ reports were not available at the hearing. Absent the full biologists’ reports and its decision to deny the accompanying home design permits, the Commission also denied the after-the-fact CDP to approve the vegetation removal and re-vegetation plan. In their appeal, the property owners assert that there is sufficient evidence in the biologists’ reports, which are attached for the Board’s review, to support granting the after-the-fact CDP for the removal and restoration of riparian vegetation. The biologists’ reports support the riparian corridor delineation and restoration plan, and therefore, staff recommends that the Board grant the property owners’ appeal and find that the project conforms to the applicable policies of the County General Plan and the Local Coastal Program (LCP), thereby granting the after-the-fact CDP, allowing the property owners to correct the violation and implement the restoration plan.

FISCAL IMPACT

No fiscal impact on the County General Fund.



COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT


DATE:			August 25, 2008
BOARD MEETING DATE:			September 9, 2008
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:			300 feet
VOTE REQUIRED:			Majority Vote


TO:		Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:		Lisa Grote, Director of Community Development

SUBJECT:		EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny an after-the-fact Coastal Development Permit to correct and mitigate the illegal removal of riparian vegetation performed in June 2004 and certification of a revised mitigated Negative Declaration, on an unimproved 7,070 sq. ft. parcel located on San Carlos Avenue in the unincorporated El Granada area of San Mateo County. This project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

RECOMMENDATION

1.	Grant the appeal and reverse the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the permit, thereby approving the after-the-fact Coastal Development Permit.

2.	Certify the revised mitigated Negative Declaration, by adopting the required findings in Attachment A.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: Number 6 (Preserve and provide people access to our natural environment): The project restores a portion of the Montecito Riparian Corridor, located on the southwest portion of the site.

Goal: Number 13, which states: “Protect the quality of the natural environment by fixing the boundaries between open space and development.” The project delineates the boundaries of the Montecito Riparian Corridor at the property, as determined by a biologist, thereby prohibiting development in this area and its associated buffer zone.

BACKGROUND

A portion of the Montecito Riparian Corridor is located on the southwest portion of the subject parcel. In June 2004, a previous property owner performed illegal clearing of riparian vegetation for which the County’s Code Compliance Section issued a Notice of Violation (VIO 2004-00085). In August 2004, the previous property owners applied for an after-the-fact Coastal Development Permit (PLN 2004-00398) and, subsequently, submitted a biologist’s report containing a riparian corridor delineation for the property. In June 2005, the current property owners, Rodrigo and Liz Lacasia-Barrios, in addition to continuing to pursue the after-the-fact Coastal Development Permit (CDP), applied for a Coastal Development Permit, Design Review and a Variance to construct a single-family residence (PLN 2005-00248, the application for a Variance was subsequently withdrawn). During the review process for the single-family residence, two additional biologists’ reports were prepared. One was an update on the reestablishment of riparian vegetation and the second was a review of the first delineation by a biologist under contract to the County. On April 11, 2007, the Zoning Hearing Officer approved both the after-the-fact CDP for vegetation clearing and restoration and a CDP and Design Review for the new single-family house. Both decisions were appealed by a neighboring property owner, Mr. Mark Aschauer. On March 26, 2008, the Planning Commission granted the neighbor’s appeal, thereby denying both the after-the-fact CDP for vegetation clearing and restoration and the CDP and Design Review for the new house. The property owners have filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on the after-the-fact CDP for illegal clearing, but did not appeal the denial of the CDP and Design Review for the single-family residence.

DISCUSSION

At the Planning Commission hearing, the appeals of the after-the-fact CDP and the CDP and Design Review permit for the new house were heard together and testimony from neighbors covered both the vegetation removal and the design of the proposed home. While the Planning Commission clearly determined that the proposed home design did not meet the design standard requiring compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, its position with regard to the CDP for vegetation removal and re-vegetation was less defined. The Commission did not disagree with the analysis presented in the biologists’ reports, but noted that copies of the biologists’ reports were not available at the hearing. Absent the full biologists’ reports and its decision to deny the accompanying home design permits, the Commission also denied the after-the-fact CDP to approve the vegetation removal and re-vegetation plan. In their appeal, the property owners assert that there is sufficient evidence in the biologists’ reports, which are attached for the Board’s review, to support granting the after-the-fact CDP for the removal and restoration of riparian vegetation. The biologists’ reports support the riparian corridor delineation and restoration plan, and therefore, staff recommends that the Board grant the property owners’ appeal and find that the project conforms to the applicable policies of the County General Plan and the Local Coastal Program (LCP), thereby granting the after-the-fact CDP, allowing the property owners to correct the violation and implement the restoration plan.

FISCAL IMPACT

No fiscal impact on the County General Fund.