COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE:						September 25, 2008
BOARD MEETING DATE:						October 7, 2008
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:						300 feet
VOTE REQUIRED:						Majority
TO:				Honorable Board of Supervisors
FROM:				Lisa Grote, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT:				Consideration of an “After-the-Fact” Coastal Development Permit, pursuant to Section 6328 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations, to allow the construction of a fence. The project also includes site restoration, which includes 250 cubic yards of excavation. The project site is located diagonally across Date Street along the edge of the State Highway 1 bypass right-of-way, in the unincorporated Montara area of San Mateo County. This project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission. (Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision for approval.)
				County File Number:	PLN 2007-00277 (CalTrans)
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Coastal Development Permit subject to the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission.
VISION ALIGNMENT
Commitment: The proposed project keeps the commitment of “Preserving and providing people access to our natural environment” by removing the chain link fence preserving the open space character of the subject area.
Goal Number: The proposed project achieves Goal Number 14: “Important natural resources are preserved and enhanced through environmental stewardship.” This proposal contributes to this commitment and goal by requiring revegetation of the site with native plant species and installation of rock bollards and/or other natural appearing bollards to restore and preserve the site, thereby enhancing natural resources.
PROPOSAL
The applicant applied for an “After-the-Fact” Coastal Development Permit (in response to VIO 2007-00048) for the construction of a 210-foot long, 6-foot high chain link fence along the property line adjacent to 932 Date Street to prevent trespassing and unauthorized activities occurring on State-owned property. Subsequent to the application, approximately half of the fence has been removed and a site restoration plan for a 10,000 sq. ft. area has been submitted.
BACKGROUND
Report Prepared By: Melissa Ross, Project Planner, Telephone 650/599-1559
Appellant: CalTrans
Applicant/Owner: CalTrans
Location: Public right-of-way: Highway 1 Bypass adjacent to 932 Date Street, Montara
Existing Zoning: R-1/S-17/DR/CD
General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (6.1 – 8.7 density units/acre)
Existing Land Use: Unimproved CalTrans right-of-way
Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Zone C (Area of Minimal Flooding); Community Panel No. 060311 0111 B; effective date: July 5, 1984.
Environmental Evaluation: CalTrans, as lead agency, has prepared a Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion Determination and determined this project to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (see Attachment D).
Setting: To the north of the project site are single-family residences and the continuation of the Highway 1 bypass lands; to the south and west are single-family residences. To the east of the project site are single-family residences as well as agricultural land. At the southern end of the existing fence is a fire truck turnaround. Ground vegetation in the area has been degraded due to vehicle parking and the use of the property as a staging area for construction vehicles and materials. A number of trees show signs of lower limb removal.
Chronology: On March 5, 2007, a violation for construction of a 6-foot high chain link fence without a Coastal Development Permit was submitted. On July 11, 2007, an application for an “After-the-Fact” Coastal Development Permit was submitted for construction of the 210-foot long, 6-foot high fence. The Planning Commission public hearing was held on June 25, 2008, and the Coastal Development Permit was approved with modified conditions of approval. On July 9, 2008, the applicant, CalTrans, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval.
DISCUSSION
A.	PREVIOUS ACTION
	As approved by the Planning Commission, the restoration plan includes:
	1.	the removal of approximately 250 cubic yards of fill material, 18 inches in depth, to return a 5,000 sq. ft. area to original grade,
	2.	debris removal within a 5,000 sq. ft. area, and
	3.	planting or seeding the site with native plants.
	In approving the Coastal Development Permit on June 25, 2008, the Planning Commission modified the proposed conditions of approval, resulting in modifications to the proposed project for compliance with Local Coastal Program policies. Specifically, the conditions approved by the Planning Commission include removal of the existing chain link fence the day following the end of the appeal period, prohibiting the use of an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fence to surround the site proposed for revegetation, a reduction in the amount of proposed rock bollards and/or the use of other natural appearing bollards, and the addition of a tree protection zone condition during site restoration activities.
	On July 9, 2008, the applicant, CalTrans, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s modified conditions of approval imposed on the approval which include the removal of the chain link fence on the day following the end of the appeal period and prohibiting the use of an Environmentally Sensitive Area fence surrounding the restoration site. The appellant also raised concerns that the Planning Commission either misunderstood or failed to appreciate the purpose and reasons for installing the chain link fence and maintaining the chain link fence during restoration.
	The applicant stated the installation of the chain link fence is to prevent unauthorized parties from trespassing onto State property in response to vehicles and construction related equipment and materials encroaching onto the CalTrans’ right-of-way and that the removal of the chain link fence inhibits successful restoration of the site.
	Staff recommends that the removal of the chain link fence and implementation of the restoration plan as conditioned by the Planning Commission complies with the Local Coastal Program Visual Resources Component.
B.	KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL
	The appellant’s basis for appeal of the decision is described below, followed by staff’s response. A copy of the appellant’s appeal is included as Attachment C of this report.
	1.	The Planning Commission made an unreasonable condition ordering removal of the fence by July 11, 2008, at 5:00 p.m.
		Recommended Condition: The existing chain link fence shall be removed, in its entirety, within one year while site restoration occurs, from the date of this permit approval and said removal verified during the staff level administrative review.
		Modified Condition: The existing chain link fence shall be removed in its entirety by 5:00 p.m. on July 11, 2008 (the eleventh working day following this approval).
		Staff’s Response: Staff originally proposed removal of the fence within one year to protect the site during restoration since the applicant’s restoration plan did not indicate if or when the fence would be removed. The Planning Commission modified this condition to require removal immediately following the end of the appeal period. The Planning Commission found the fence not to be in compliance with the Local Coastal Program Visual Resource Policies. Staff agrees with the Planning Commission in that the chain link fence does not comply with Local Coastal Program policies. Staff has modified the condition to require removal of the fence within a week of the Board’s decision. See Condition No. 6 in Attachment A.
	2.	The Planning Commission either misunderstood or failed to appreciate the purpose and reasons for installing and maintaining a fence during restoration.
		Staff’s Response: In reaching its decision, the Planning Commission reviewed staff’s report on this matter and took testimony from the public, including the applicant before rendering a decision. The applicant has stated the purpose of the chain link fence is to prevent unauthorized trespass and activities on State-owned property by non-State personnel and had agreed to remove it within one year of approval. The Commission was aware of the reasons cited by CalTrans for the fence but determined, on balance, to modify the conditions of approval for the Coastal Development Permit, to require removal of the fence.
	3.	The State’s fiscal year began without a budget, limiting the State’s ability to comply with conditions of the permit.
		Staff’s Response: All actions required by the Planning Commission’s decision are pending, subject to completion of this appeal process.
	4.	The Planning Commission’s decision delivers a purely private benefit on the perpetrators of the illegal and unauthorized encroachment, while the State’s proposal benefits the community at large.
		Staff’s Response: The Planning Commission’s responsibility is to review the project as proposed, consider public comments and assure compliance with Local Coastal Program policies which seek to benefit the community at large.
	5.	From a practical standpoint, installing the bollards prior to restoration severely inhibits the ability to excavate alien fill and gravel.
		Staff’s Response: The conditions of approval do not require the installation of the rock bollards prior to excavation.
	6.	In its discussion of the rock bollards, the Planning Commission appeared to request the bollards be buried up to 24 inches deep, leaving 12 inches of the bollard above grade. This defeats the purpose of the rock bollards – to prevent vehicle traffic from entering the State’s right-of-way.
		Staff’s Response: Staff originally proposed the following condition: This approval allows for the installation of 23 two-ton rock bollards (dimensions of 3’ x 3’ x 3’) as depicted in the restoration plan. The rock bollards shall be partially buried a minimum 1/3 of the bollards’ height. The Planning Commission modified the condition to read: …a maximum of 1/2 to 1/3 of each rock bollard shall be exposed, not to exceed 18 inches above grade (see Attachment B for full text).
		The condition, as approved by the Planning Commission, limits the above ground rock bollard height to 18 inches. Because the ground clearance for most vehicles is less than 18 inches, staff believes that 18 inches above grade is sufficient to deter vehicle access to the restoration site.
	7.	The conditions of the permit are inherently inconsistent: the Planning Commission denied the State a temporary, 4-foot high, orange, Environmentally Sensitive Area fence around the restoration area because of looks, yet required the same fence be placed around existing tree driplines.
		Staff’s Response: The addition of a tree protection zone and the inclusion of the 4-foot high, orange fencing around the dripline of existing trees is meant to protect the trees during site excavation activities in which the time frame for completion is considerably less than successfully establishing vegetation in the restoration area.
		In modifying the proposed conditions, the Planning Commission made the determination that the placement of the orange ESA fence around the site for an indeterminate period of time would conflict with the Local Coastal Program Visual Resource Policies.
C.	ALTERNATIVES
	1.	Alternative A
		Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s findings and conditions of approval dated June 25, 2008 (Attachment B).
	2.	Alternative B
		Grant the appeal subject to the findings and conditions of approval recommended by staff to the Planning Commission on June 25, 2008 (Attachment D).
	3.	Alternative C
		Grant the appeal subject to modified conditions of approval. The following modified conditions of approval are offered as a way to balance staff’s recommendations presented on June 25, 2008, and the Planning Commission’s conditions of approval.
		a.	Condition No. 8
			Staff’s recommendation for this condition on June 25, 2008, recommended the removal of the chain link fence within one year to provide protection to the reseeded and revegetated area. The Planning Commission’s decision called for the immediate removal of the chain link fence and the removal of the Environmentally Sensitive Area fence from the restoration plan.
			Modified Condition No. 8: Reinstate the 4-foot high Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fence in the restoration plan and amend the condition to include the removal of the ESA fence after six months, from the date of final approval, to protect the reseeded and revegetated area.
		b.	Condition No. 5
			Amend Condition No. 5 to modify the administrative review from one year to six months from the date of final approval to coincide with the removal of the ESA fence.
D.	ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
	CalTrans, as lead agency, has prepared a Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion Determination and determined this project to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
E.	REVIEWING AGENCIES
	County Counsel
FISCAL IMPACT
No net change.
ATTACHMENTS
A.	Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval
B.	Letter of Decision dated June 27, 2008
C.	Appeal Form dated July 9, 2008
D.	Staff Report Including Documentation dated June 25, 2008