COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

 

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

 

DATE:

October 9, 2008

BOARD MEETING DATE:

October 21, 2008

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

10 days, within 300 ft.

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

 

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

 

FROM:

Lisa Grote, Community Development Director

 

SUBJECT:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consideration of a Coastside Design Review Permit, pursuant to Sections 6565.4 and 6328.5 of the County Zoning Regulations, to construct a new 2,982 sq. ft. single-family residence including a detached 400 sq. ft. garage on a 5,000 sq. ft. parcel located on Second Street, in the unincorporated Montara area of the County. (Appeal from decision of the Planning Commission denying the Design Review). This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

 

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the Design Review Permit, County File Number PLN 1999-00215, by making the findings of denial as listed in Attachment A.

 

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: (Number 9; Partnerships); “Effective and Collaborative Government.”

Goal: Number 20; “Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.”

 

The Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the subject Design Review (DR) permit furthers Commitment 9 and Goal 20 because the Planning Commission’s decision that the project did not comply with DR standards suggests that they were considering the future impacts of the project on the surrounding neighbors

 

BACKGROUND

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a new 2,982 sq. ft. single-family residence, including a 400 sq. ft. detached garage and the removal of three trees.

 

Planning Commission Action: On April 14, 2004, the Planning Commission voted to deny the Design Review application (3-1; Commissioner Kennedy had recently resigned and had not yet been replaced). The Planning Commission denied the project because it did not comply with select Design Review standards: (1) it was not designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural vegetation and landform in that the proposed structure does not blend with the natural contours of the site, and (2) it was not in harmony with the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community in that the proposed structure does not relate to adjacent buildings and to the neighborhood.

 

Board of Supervisors Action: The Board of Supervisors denied this application on February 8, 2005. The Board of Supervisors found that the issues raised by the Planning Commission had not been addressed and therefore found that the findings cited by Planning Commission still could not be made. In addition, there was also significant community opposition to the proposed project. The objections were similar to those that were voiced throughout the review process. Specifically, comments focused around the opinion that the design of the proposed residence was not in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood due to its shape, scale, and size. Furthermore, the Board found that the design of the proposed residence would loom over the street due to the lack of articulation and that the design would alter the natural topography of the site rather than utilize the existing contours. The community also felt that the application materials submitted by the applicant were insufficient, as a landscaping plan, color and material samples, and a site plan indicating the location of the well and the trees proposed for removal were not provided.

 

Based on comments provided by the community, the applicant’s unwillingness to agree to the recommended conditions of approval, and the project’s continued non-compliance with the previously mentioned DR standards, the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to deny the applicant’s appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project.

 

DISCUSSION

The project was one of two Design Review (DR) applications (the other PLN 1999-00015) for new single-family homes on two adjacent parcels submitted in February 1999. Both projects had their initial DR approvals rescinded due to inadequate public notification. Upon thorough re-noticing, review and neighborhood comments, both projects have incurred similar degrees of strong opposition from the neighbors and Midcoast Community Council, based on their bulk, size and design relative to applicable DR standards, site topography, and comparative surrounding development. In response to the subject project, the applicant has made few substantial design modifications to the house beyond minor articulation changes to the exterior and various relocations of the garage. Initially, the subject project’s DR Permit was approved by the Planning Director in October 2000. That decision was appealed by many local residents to the Planning Commission in January 2001, who upheld the appeal and denied the DR application. Upon appeal by the applicant to the Board of Supervisors in August 2001, the Board of Supervisors remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for redesign and the Planning Commission’s reconsideration. Despite the applicant submitting several minor modifications to the project in the interim, the Planning Commission subsequently denied the applicant’s appeal and the DR application in April 2004. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s denial of the project to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors subsequently rendered a final decision and denied the applicant’s appeal and DR application in February 2005.

 

FISCAL IMPACT

No fiscal impact.