COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

DATE:

April 20, 2009

BOARD MEETING DATE:

April 28, 2009

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 Sections 6565.4 (Coastal) and 6328.5 of the County Zoning Regulations as they existed in 1999, to construct a new 2,982 sq. ft. single-family residence and 400 sq. ft. detached 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.

County File Number:

PLN 1999-00215 (Mahon)

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the applicant’s revised plans submitted to the Planning Department on April 16, 2009, as directed by the Board of Supervisors at its March 31, 2009 hearing thereby approving the Design Review Permit, County File Number PLN 1999-00215, by making the findings and adopting the conditions of approval as listed in Attachment A.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: 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 revised plans further Goal 20 because they now bring the project into compliance with Design Review standards which require consideration of a project’s future impact on the surrounding neighborhood character.

BACKGROUND

Proposal: The applicant proposed to the Planning Commission to construct a new 2,982 sq. ft., two-story single-family residence and a 400 sq. ft. detached garage (a combined total of 3,382 sq. ft.) on a 5,000 sq. ft. parcel. Three trees were proposed to be removed. The proposed residence is oriented towards and takes access from Second Street.

Planning Commission Action: On April 21, 2004, the Planning Commission voted 3-1 (Commissioner Kennedy had recently resigned and had not yet been replaced) to uphold the appeal and deny the decision of the Planning Director to approve the project.

Prior Board of Supervisors Action: The applicant appealed the denial of the Design Review Permit by the Planning Commission and submitted modified plans that reduced the size of the house to 2,504 sq. ft. but attached, relocated and increased the size of the garage to 627 sq. ft. (for a combined total of 3,131 sq. ft. on a 5,000 sq. ft. parcel). On February 8, 2005, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny this project. The San Mateo County Superior Court set aside that decision and required the appeal from the Planning Commission to be reheard.

The Board of Supervisors reheard this item at its March 31, 2009 hearing and after considering staff recommendations, the applicant’s presentation, and public comment continued the item to its April 28, 2009 hearing. The Board of Supervisors continued the item to allow the applicant an opportunity to submit revised plans in accordance with the suggested design revisions discussed in the “Alternative” section of the March 31, 2009 staff report. Subsequently, the applicant submitted revised plans on April 16, 2009, which incorporate essentially all of the recommended design changes. The revisions result in a project that complies with the 1999 Design Review standards that require: (1) structures to be designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural vegetation and landforms of the site and to ensure adequate space for light and air to itself and adjacent properties, and (2) structures to be designed so that they are appropriate to the use of the property and are in harmony with the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community.

Report Prepared By: Angela Chavez, Project Planner, Telephone 650/599-7217

Applicant/Appellant: Thomas Mahon

Location: 284 Second Street, Montara

APN: 036-014-200

Size: 5,000 sq. ft.

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

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 Second Street, near the northwestern corner of Farallone Avenue, two blocks east of Cabrillo Highway. The 5,000 sq. ft. parcel has an average slope of approximately 22%, which slopes in a northerly direction uphill from Second Street. There is one existing pine tree located at the northwest section of the property and three existing pine trees in front of the property within the public right-of-way. The parcel to the east is vacant (pending DR application PLN 1999-00015); the parcel to the west is developed with a two-story residence and the remaining surrounding neighborhood is developed with one- and two-story single-family residences.

DISCUSSION

A.

KEY ISSUES

The applicant’s revised plans submitted on April 16, 2009, address essentially all of the design revisions recommended in the March 31, 2009 staff report. Below is a summation of: the two 1999 Design Review standards that the revisions were required to address; modifications recommended in the March 31, 2009 staff report; the applicant’s proposed revisions; and the staff analysis of those revisions.

1.

1999 Design Review Standard: Proposed structures are designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural vegetation and landforms of the site and to ensure adequate space for light and air to itself and adjacent properties.

March 31, 2009 Staff Recommended Modifications: The primary component of the staff recommendations included redesigning the house to incorporate a “step-design” in which the structure would step back from the top of the garage (as viewed from the right side elevation), and the top floor would step back further than the level below it. Staff also recommended that the structure be relocated further back on the lot and that it be recessed into the natural contours of the parcel, creating three levels that step back from each other. Reduction in the garage plate height was also recommended so that the overall mass of the house would be reduced. In addition, staff suggested that relocation of the house could save three pine trees located in the front portion of the site and that removal of the bay window on the right (west) side elevation could help reduce the mass and bulk of the house on that side.

Applicant Response: The applicant submitted revised plans on April 16, 2009, which moved the first floor of the main structure back 3 feet for a front setback of 23 feet and moved the second floor back another 5 feet for a second floor front setback of 28 feet. The upper and lower decks were redesigned so that they are no longer covered and the traditional railings have been replaced with glass panels. The garage was moved forward by one foot to provide a 9-foot front yard setback, allowed by zoning for garages on steeply sloped lots, and the elevation was reduced by approximately one foot. To reduce the garage elevation, it has been recessed into the slope rather than sitting atop it and the first and second floors above the garage are each stepped back and follow the rise in the natural terrain. The total height of the house is proposed to be 27 feet 9 inches and the roof is a consistent hip-form. In addition, the right (west) side setback has been increased to 8 feet from 7 feet and the bay window on the second floor has been redesigned to meet the regulation for bay windows and is now proposed at 6 feet from the west side property line rather than 5 feet. For a complete description of the applicant’s revisions, please see Attachments C – J.

Staff Analysis: The revisions bring the project into compliance with the 1999 Design Review Standard. The stepping effect has been included in the plans providing obvious breaks at each floor. The redesign of the decks continues the new step design and the incorporation of the glass panel railing rather than the traditional railing removes the visual bulk that was present on the previous plans. The topography around the site changes the most in the public right-of-way adjacent to the front property line where it reaches approximately 8 feet above the centerline of the road. The combination of moving the garage forward one foot, thereby dropping the elevation at which it sits, combined with recessing it into the topography of the site, along with the new step design for the entire structure reduces the overall prominence of the house and allows it to blend more effectively with the natural contours of the site. Although the bay window remains on the right (west) side of the house, it has been redesigned to meet the definition of a true bay window and is set back one additional foot from the previous proposal. These changes, combined with the stepped design, reduce the mass and bulk of the entire house including the west elevation.

All three pine trees staff previously mentioned could be saved by relocating the house are suffering from Pine Pitch Canker disease and are showing signs of the progressing disease. The applicant provided an arborist report in 2001 prepared by Juan Carrasco of Bartlett Tree Experts that identified the trees as having Pine Pitch Canker. The applicant has agreed to provide a two to one replacement for any of the trees removed as well as a full landscape plan to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit.

2.

1999 Design Review Standard: The design of the structure is appropriate to the use of the property and is in harmony with the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community.

March 31, 2009 Staff Recommended Modifications: In addition to the elements discussed above, staff recommended that the house be redesigned to incorporate the following design changes: provide greater overall articulation of the house, remove or redesign the bay window on the west elevation, incorporate a hip roof design on all sides of the detached garage and rear elevation dormer, reduce the size of the lower level deck, introduce a new window on the right side of garage, introduce a bellyband on all four elevations, add a full-size window to bedroom #2, and that the garage maintain the same side yard setbacks as the main house. In addition, color and material samples were recommended in order to evaluate whether or not these items would bring the house into a more cohesive relationship with adjoining properties.

Applicant Response: The applicant submitted revised plans on April 16, 2009 which introduce a sloping roof that follows the rise in terrain from the front to the rear of the structure, incorporate a hip roof design throughout the structure, and revise the entryway to continue the revised roof design. The revised plans also provide additional articulation by revising the rear elevation’s upper level protrusion to include a lower story protrusion directly below it, the rear elevation also incorporates an upper story recessed area, and the bay window on the right elevation has been revised to comply with the design guidelines. The deck at the upper story has been rounded to provide some additional articulation and the lower deck has been incorporated into the revised garage roof design. The applicant also adjusted the setbacks changing the right (west) side setback to 8 feet from the originally proposed 7 feet. A portion of the left (east) side was revised to 7 feet; however, the majority of the left side yard setback remains 10 feet as was originally proposed. The applicant has also indicated that horizontal siding is proposed and that the house would be a gray/green seafoam color. For a complete list of the applicant’s revisions, please see Attachments C – J.

Staff Analysis: The proposed revisions bring the project into compliance with the 1999 Design Review Standard. The stepping effect, as previously discussed, not only aids in the structure conforming to the natural landforms but also provides additional articulation for the front, right, and left sides. The incorporation of the hip roof reduces the bulk of the house and its visual appearance from each of the elevations. The revised entryway, while providing additional articulation and architectural interest, also introduces recessed detail that eliminates the need for a canopy and additional mass at the front elevation. The change to the setbacks provides some additional relief for the adjacent developed property as it moves the proposed structure further away from existing home. In addition, the rear elevation changes which continue the second floor protrusion down through the first floor result in a more cohesive and balanced rear elevation. The elimination of the covered deck elements and the introduction of glass guardrails assist in decreasing the bulk and mass of the house. While a bellyband has been only partially incorporated, it also helps introduce articulation in the building. The other minor changes including the incorporation of new windows and wider window and door trim all help provide visual interest to the building.

The cumulative result of the above revisions is that the proposed house meets the 1999 Design Review standards.

B.

COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY REGULATIONS

1.

Conformance with General Plan

The revised project complies with the Design Review standards in effect in 1999, which are also supported in the County’s General Plan. The following specific General Plan policies are applicable:

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 revised plans show that the project incorporates a design that does blend into the natural landforms and is in harmony with adjacent buildings in the community, which therefore is in conformance with the General Plan.

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 DR Overlay District. The project components comply with all applicable 1999 Zoning Regulations, including setbacks, lot coverage, and height.

b.

Design Review

Section 6565.1 (Coastal) of the Zoning Regulations in effect in 1999 relates to DR districts in the Coastal Zone. Section 6565.7 (Coastal) (1999) sets out the DR standards by which projects are assessed. The project is located within a DR district, and must comply with the Coastside DR standards applicable at the time of the application’s initial submittal in February 1999. The revised plans submitted on April 16, 2009 bring the project into compliance with the required 1999 Design Review standards. See the discussion under Section A for a detailed discussion regarding these findings.

C.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (construction of new small facilities or structures).

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

B.

Location Map

C.

Applicant’s Written Summary of Proposed Modifications

D.

Site Plan and Garage Floor Plan (Submitted April 16, 2009)

E.

First Floor Plan (Submitted April 16, 2009)

F.

Second Floor Plan (Submitted April 16, 2009)

G.

Front/Left Side Elevation (Submitted April 16, 2009)

H.

Front/Right Side Elevation (Submitted April 16, 2009)

I.

Rear Elevation (Submitted April 16, 2009)

J.

Landscaping Plan Details

K.

Board of Supervisors Staff Report from March 31, 2009 Hearing

Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit File Number: PLN 1999-00215

Board Meeting Date: April 28, 2009

Prepared By: Angela Chavez

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

For the Environmental Review, Find:

1.

That this project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303, Class 3, relating to new construction of small structures. A Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County Clerk’s Office and posted as required by CEQA.

For the Coastside Design Review, Find:

2.

That this project has been reviewed under and found to be in compliance with the Standards of Review Criteria as stipulated in Chapter 28.1 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations.

For the Coastal Development Permit Exemption, Find:

3.

That the proposed residence conforms to Section 6328.5.e of the County Zoning Regulations and is located within the area designated as a Categorical Exclusion Area.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1.

This approval applies only to the proposal as described in this report and approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 28, 2009. These plans supersede all previously submitted and reviewed plans. The Community Development Director may approve minor modifications if they are consistent with the intent of and in substantial conformance with this approval.

2.

This permit shall be valid for one year from the date of final approval by which time a building permit shall have been issued. Any extension of this permit shall require submittal of a request in writing, including reasons for the extension and payment of applicable fees for permit extension 30 days prior to expiration.

3.

The applicant shall obtain a building permit and develop in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval.

4.

No site disturbance shall occur, including any grading or tree removal, until a valid building permit has been issued.

5.

This permit allows for the removal of one Monterey pine tree (depicted as Tree #1 in the arborist report dated July 5, 2001). The applicant shall obtain from the County Department of Public Works the appropriate permit(s) for the removal of the pine. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Counter a copy of the permit from Public Works prior to the issuance of the building permit. Removal of any tree with a diameter greater than 12 inches as measured 4.5 feet above the ground shall require a separate tree removal permit. The other two trees recommended for removal by the arborist (Trees #2 and #3) shall be saved unless an arborist report is submitted to indicate that more than 25 percent of the root system of the tree is going to be impacted by development of the approved structure and driveway. If the two trees require removal, a separate tree removal permit will be required prior to removal. If the trees are to be saved, the applicant shall submit a tree preservation plan, prepared by a certified arborist, for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The approved tree protection measures shall be implemented prior to the start of any grading or construction activity on the site.

6.

Depict all the trees along the County’s right-of-way and the 36-inch pine within the front yard on the site plan. Submit the revised plans to Planning for review and approval prior to Planning approval of the associated building permit.

7.

The applicant shall submit exterior color samples (no larger than approximately 4 square inches) for walls and trim to the Planning Counter for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to Planning approval of the associated building permit. The applicant shall include the file/case number with all color samples. Color verification by a building inspector shall occur in the field after the applicant has painted the structure an approved color, but before the applicant schedules a final inspection.

8.

The applicant shall submit a material sample of the proposed roof material for review and approval of the color and material prior to Planning approval of the associated building permit. Roof material verification by a building inspector shall occur in the field after the applicant has installed the approved material, but before the applicant schedules a final inspection.

9.

The applicant shall submit a landscape plan (may be shown on the site plan of the submitted building permit application) depicting the location, type, and size of trees and shrubs for review and approval by the Planning Department. The landscaped areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation runoff and require minimal and appropriate use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. The goal of the required landscape plan is to soften the building elevations and to increase surface filtration. The plan shall include a minimum of two (2) trees (minimum 5 gallons) in the front of the residence, one (1) tree (minimum 36-inch box) in the front of the residence, a minimum of three (3) trees (minimum 5 gallons) in the rear of the residence and a minimum of twenty (20) shrubs (minimum 1 gallon) shall be included in the design. Areas in the front and rear of the property that do not contain trees or shrubs shall be covered with a combination of turf or groundcover and/or a minimum of 2 inches of mulch on all exposed soil areas to minimize erosion.

10.

The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan (including sections depicting method of installation), prior to Planning approval of the associated building permit, to mitigate any erosion resulting from project-related grading activities.

11.

Submit an on-site drainage plan, as prepared by a civil engineer, showing all permanent, post-construction stormwater controls and drainage mechanisms. The required drainage plan shall show the necessary mechanisms to contain all water runoff generated by on-site impervious surfaces and shall include facilities to capture and retain all stormwater runoff through on-site percolation facilities. The drainage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to Planning approval of the associated building permit. The plan shall be included as part of the project’s final building permit application and construction plans. The County Building Inspection Section and Department of Public Works shall ensure that the approved plan is implemented prior to the project’s final building inspection and occupancy approval.

12.

During project construction, the applicant shall, pursuant to Section 5022 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code, minimize the transport and discharge of stormwater runoff from the construction site into storm drain systems by:

a.

Stabilizing all denuded areas and maintaining erosion control measures continuously between October 1 and May 1.

b.

Removing spoils promptly, and avoiding stockpiling of fill materials when rain is forecast. If rain threatens, stockpiled soils and other materials shall be covered with a tarp or other waterproof material.

c.

Storing, handling, and disposing of construction materials and wastes so as to avoid their entry into the storm drain system or water body.

d.

Using filtration or other measures to remove sediment from dewatering effluent.

e.

Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in an area designated to contain and treat runoff.

f.

Limiting and timing application of pesticides and fertilizer to avoid polluting runoff.

13.

If the total land area disturbed by the project exceeds 5,000 sq. ft., the applicant shall, pursuant to Section 5023 of the San Mateo County Code, submit a construction site stormwater management plan to the Planning Counter, for review and approval by the Community Development Director. This plan must be approved by the Community Development Director before the issuance of any permit including, but not limited to, a grading permit, or a building permit. The plan shall illustrate and describe appropriate methods, chosen by the applicant from the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook, to control stormwater runoff from the project site during construction and from land use activities on the site once the project is completed.

14.

The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all stormwater quality measures and implement such measures. Please refer to the attached handout, which details the BMPs. Failure to comply with the construction BMPs will result in the issuance of the correction notices, citations or a project stop order.

a.

All landscaping shall be properly maintained and shall be designed with efficient irrigation practices to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides that can contribute to runoff pollution.

b.

Where subsurface conditions allow, the roof downspout systems from all structures shall be designed to drain into a designated, effective infiltration area or structure (refer to BMPs Handbook for infiltration system designs and requirements).

15.

Noise levels produced by the proposed construction activity shall not exceed 80-dBA level at any one moment. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction operations shall be prohibited on Sunday and any national holiday.

16.

No grading shall be allowed during the winter season (October 1 to May 1) to avoid potential soil erosion unless approved, in writing, by the Community Development Director. The applicant shall submit a letter to the Planning Department at least two weeks prior to the commencement of grading stating when grading will begin.

17.

To ensure the height of the structure and/or structures do not exceed the maximum height permitted, staff requires the applicant to adhere to the height verification procedure during the building permit process. The applicant shall provide “finished floor elevation verification” to certify that the structure is actually constructed at the height shown on the submitted plans. The applicant shall have a licensed land surveyor or engineer establish a baseline elevation datum point in the vicinity of the construction site. The applicant shall maintain the datum point so that it will not be disturbed by the proposed construction activities until final approval of the building permit.

a.

The datum point and its elevation shall be shown on the submitted site plan. This datum point shall be used during construction to verify the elevation of the finished floors relative to the existing natural or to the grade of the site (finished grade).

b.

Prior to Planning approval of the building permit application, the applicant shall also have the licensed land surveyor or engineer indicate on the construction plans: (1) the natural grade elevations at the significant corners (at least four) of the footprint of the proposed structure on the submitted site plan, and (2) the elevations of proposed finished grades.

c.

In addition, (1) the natural grade elevations at the significant corners of the proposed structure, (2) the finished floor elevations, (3) the topmost elevation of the roof and (4) garage slab elevation, must be shown on the plan, elevations, and cross-section (if one is provided).

d.

Once the building is under construction, prior to the below floor framing inspection or the pouring of the concrete slab (as the case may be) for the lowest floor(s), the applicant shall provide to the Building Inspection Section a letter from the licensed land surveyor or engineer certifying that the lowest floor height--as constructed--is equal to the elevation specified for that floor in the approved plans. Similarly, certifications on the garage slab and the topmost elevation of the roof are required.

e.

If the actual floor height, garage slab, or roof height--as constructed--is different than the elevation specified in the plans, then the applicant shall cease all construction and no additional inspections shall be approved until a revised set of plans is submitted to and subsequently approved by both the Building Official and Community Development Director.

18.

The plans submitted at the building permit stage shall clearly show the location of the existing well and that the proposed development complies with the required Environmental Health setbacks from that well.

19.

All new power and telephone utility lines from the street or nearest existing utility pole to the main dwelling and/or any other structure on the property shall be placed underground.