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:
Consideration of a Coastside Design Review Permit, pursuant to Section 6565.4 of the County Zoning Regulations, to construct a new 2,548 sq. ft. single-family residence on a 5,000 sq. ft. parcel located at 286 – 2nd Street, in the unincorporated Montara area of the County. (Appeal from decision of the Planning Commission denying the Design Review Permit.) This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.
County File Number:
PLN 1999-00015 (Mahon)
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the Design Review Permit, County File Number PLN 1999-00015, 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 Permit furthers Commitment 9 and Goal 20 because the Planning Commission’s decision that the project did not comply with design review 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 2,548 sq. ft. two-story single-family residence including an attached two-car garage on a 5,000 sq. ft. parcel. The proposed house fronts onto and is accessed from Farallone. No trees are proposed for removal.
This project was one of two Design Review (DR) applications (the other application is PLN 1999-00215) for new single-family homes on two adjacent parcels submitted by the applicant in February 1999. At the time that both of the projects were submitted Design Review applications were processed administratively by Planning Staff. At that time the Design Review chapter of the County Zoning Regulations did not include a required public notification. However, an Intra-Departmental Correspondence dated January 14, 1994 did institute a required public notification for Coastside Design Review applications. This differs from the process currently in place, as the Design Review chapter was updated on August 8, 2000 to include the establishment of the Coastside Design Review Committee. This moved the decision making authority from an administrative Staff decision to a publicly noticed hearing with the decision being rendered by the Committee.
Both projects had their initial DR approvals rescinded due to inadequate public notification. Upon thorough re-noticing, review and extensive opportunity for comment, 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. Subsequently, however, the subject project’s DR Permit was approved by the Planning Director in April 2004. That decision was appealed to the Planning Commission by 22 neighbors. The applicant appealed that decision to the Board of Supervisors and again submitted minor modifications to the project in December of 2004. The Board of Supervisors subsequently rendered a final decision and denied the applicant’s appeal and DR application in February 2005 finding that the applicant had not adequately addressed the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Specifically, that neither design reviewed by the Planning Commission in November 2004 or the revisions submitted in December of 2004 blended with the natural landforms or was in harmony with character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission’s denial of this project on November 10, 2004, took into consideration the issues posed by the appellants, issues around the inadequacy of the latest submitted plans (a significant tree and existing well were not shown on the site plan, exterior wall and window details were missing from the elevations) and found there was not adequate evidence to support two applicable design review standards: (1) the house is not designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural vegetation and landform of the site, and (2) the house is not in harmony with the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community.
Board of Supervisors Action: The Board of Supervisors denied this application on February 8, 2005. While the applicant did submit revised plans in December 2004, the plans included only minor roof articulation improvements, which were essentially no different from an earlier iteration submitted by the applicant on October 1, 2001, whereby the garage was attached to the house, but moved 10 feet back from the front property line. These changes did not address the comments or recommendations provided by the Planning Commission in April 2004. 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, 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 utilizing 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.
Writ Proceeding:
Following the Board’s denial of the applicant’s appeal, on May 6, 2005 the applicant filed a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus with a Complaint for other claims including inverse condemnation, civil rights violations, injunction and declaratory relief. By agreement of the parties, the Court bifurcated the case, staying all proceedings relating to the non-writ claims until after the hearing on the Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (“the Petition”).
The Petition was heard by the Court on July 26, 2007. Additional briefing was requested by the Court and submitted by the parties. A Statement of Decision representing the decision of the Court was issued on March 17, 2008. The Statement of Decision found that the applicant had been provided insufficient time at the Board hearing to present arguments in support of the appeal, and that the applicant had not been provided a fair administrative hearing. The Court set aside the decision of the Board denying the applicant’s appeal, and ordered that the Board rehear the appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission.
Report Prepared By: Angela Chavez, Project Planner, Telephone 650/599-7217
Applicant/Appellant: Thomas Mahon
Location: 286 – 2nd Street and Farallone Avenue, Montara
APN: 036-014-210
Size: 5,000 sq. ft.
Existing Zoning: R-1/S-17/DR/CD (Single-Family Residential/5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size/Design Review/Coastal Development)
General Plan Designation: Medium Low Density Residential (6.1 – 8.7 dwelling units/acre)
Sphere-of-Influence: City of Half Moon Bay
Existing Land Use: Vacant
Water Supply: Existing domestic well
Sewage Disposal: Montara Water and Sanitary District
Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Zone “C” (Area of Minimal Flooding); Community Panel Number: 060311 0092B; Effective Date: July 5, 1984.
Environmental Evaluation: Exempt under Section 15303, Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), construction of a minor structure.
Setting: The project site is located on the north side of 2nd Street, at the corner with Farallone Avenue, two blocks east of Cabrillo Highway. The 5,000 sq. ft. parcel slopes upward from both 2nd Street and Farallone Avenue. The parcel to the west is vacant (pending Design Review application, PLN 1999-00215). The surrounding neighborhood is developed with one- and two-story single-family residences.
DISCUSSION
A.
KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL
The appellant submitted his appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, with the specific grounds for appeal provided through his representative, Dave Beaumont (italicized) (see Attachment G). Mr. Beaumont appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, but also submitted plan revisions after the Planning Commission’s November 2004 denial of the project. The appellant has subsequently expressed a desire for the Board to consider only the plan that was considered and rejected by the Planning Commission, and not the subsequent revisions by Mr. Beaumont. Thus, the portions of the appellant’s issues on appeal that relate to revisions to the plans are not summarized here, as they have been abandoned by the appellant. The appellant’s issues and staff response follow:
The contention of the Planning Commission is that “... there was not adequate evidence to support: (1) that the proposed structure does not blend with the natural contours of the site and (2) that the proposed structure does not relate to adjacent buildings and to the neighborhood.”
Staff Response: The Planning Commission found that the proposed structure does not “blend[] with the natural contours of the site” as required by the applicable 1999 Design Review standards. The house’s size and scale in relation to its proposed siting on the lot would cause the house to appear prominently from the street, which is not in keeping with Design Review standard.
As an alternative to staff’s recommended action to deny the appeal, if the Board decides to approve this project, please refer to the Alternative Section of this report and to Attachment B for recommended and revised conditions of approval, including requiring the applicant to lower and reduce the height of the downhill portion of the house.
2.
The maintenance of a mature, towering, heritage tree in the foreground of the street facade at the southeast of the site, gives context to the structure and its reduced prominence in relation to the natural landform.
Staff Response: Staff is not clear what “heritage tree” Mr. Beaumont is referring to. There is a “significant” pine (but not designated “heritage” status) located in the southeast corner of the parcel as shown on Mr. Mahon’s recently submitted site plan. Mr. Mahon has indicated that he intends to preserve that tree. However, the tree does not substantially alter the visual impact of the façade of the house as it is proposed to be situated on the lot.
B.
COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY REGULATIONS
1.
Conformance with General Plan
Visual Quality and Urban Land Use. Visual Quality Policy 4.35 (Urban Area Design Concept) seeks to: (a) maintain and, where possible, improve upon the appearance and visual character of development in urban areas [of which the Montara area is included]; and (b) ensure that new development in urban areas is designed and constructed to contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of the locality. Urban Land Use Policy 8.14 (Residential Land Use Compatibility) seeks to protect and enhance the character of existing single-family areas. The Planning Commission’s November 10 denial of the design review application infers that the project was not in compliance with these two General Plan policies.
2.
Conformance with Local Coastal Program Policies
This project site is located within the Single-Family Exclusion Area of the Coastal Zone and thus qualifies for a Coastal Development Permit Exemption under Section 6328.5.e of the County Zoning Regulations.
3.
Conformance with Zoning Regulations
a.
Development Regulations
The project site is zoned R-1/S-17 and is located within a Design Review District. The project components comply with all applicable 1999 zoning regulations, including setbacks, lot coverage, and height. There was no FAR component or daylight plane requirement in the zoning regulations at the time of the application in 1999. Although the current zoning regulations adopted in September 2001 are not applicable to the proposed project, the following table compares the proposed project with both the 1999 regulations and the current regulations.