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 2,548 sq. ft. single-family residence on a 5,000 sq. ft. parcel located at 286 Second 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

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 1999-00015, 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 the 1999 Design Review standards all of which require consideration of a project’s future impact on the surrounding neighborhood’s character.

BACKGROUND

Proposal: The applicant proposes 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.

The Planning Director approved the subject project’s Design Review Permit in April 2004.

Planning Commission Action: The Planning Director’s approval was appealed to the Planning Commission by 22 neighbors. The appeal was upheld at the November 10, 2004 hearing before the Planning Commission. Based on a review of the project and considering the community’s comments, the Planning Commission found there was not adequate evidence to support two applicable Design Review standards: (1) a requirement that the house be designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural vegetation and landform of the site, and (2) a requirement that the house be in harmony with the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community.

Prior Board of Supervisors Action: The Planning Commission’s denial of the Design Review Permit was appealed to the Board of Supervisors by the applicant. The Board of Supervisors denied the appeal on February 8, 2005. The applicant submitted revised plans in December 2004, which included only minor roof articulation improvements, and which were essentially no different from an earlier iteration submitted by the applicant on May 4, 2000.

The San Mateo County Superior Court set aside the February 8, 2005 Board 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 the April 28, 2009 hearing. The Board 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: 286 Second 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 Second Street, at the corner of Farallone Avenue, two blocks east of Cabrillo Highway. The 5,000 sq. ft. parcel slopes upward from both Second 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

The applicant’s revised plans submitted on April 16, 2009 address essentially all of the design revisions recommended in March 31, 2009 staff report. Below is a summary 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 by incorporating a “step-design” and introducing three distinct plates. The garage plate would remain basically unaltered, but the bedroom, second bathroom and laundry room could be recessed by 18 inches into the ground as a separate plate (i.e., stepped down from the garage by two steps). The third plate (entry, bedroom, first bathroom and family room) could be recessed by another 18 inches (i.e., two additional steps). These modifications would: (1) better follow the natural contour lines of the lot; (2) create a subjective impression of a step-design; and (3) reduce the overall height by 36 inches (3 feet). All three of these benefits would create less visual mass and bulk, and keep the house more in scale with the neighborhood.

Applicant Response: In response, the applicant submitted revised plans on April 16, 2009, which include an overall redesign of the roof incorporating a hip design for the entire roof structure. The garage and the second story above a portion of the garage have been set back an additional 2 feet. The floor plans have been revised to include three separate levels that follow the rise in topography. The entryway has been reduced in size so that it is in better proportion to the size of the building. The projection at the front (east) elevation was removed which reduces the massing of the structure. The building length has been reduced by 2 feet, which reduces the bulk of the house and increases the rear yard setback to 22 feet. The plate height of the second story area directly above the entryway was lowered reducing the overall height of the structure in this area. The elevation at the garage is approximately 1 foot 8 inches lower than previously shown. For a complete description of the applicant’s proposed revisions, please see Attachments C – M.

Staff Analysis: The revisions bring the project into compliance with the 1999 Design Review Standard. The overall height of the house is proposed to be 27 feet 8 inches and the lowering of the garage elevation by approximately 1 foot 8 inches contributes to the reduced height and mass of the house. Additionally, the revised roof design greatly reduces the massing of the structure. A break in the rooflines between the garage section and the main house provides a clear step down between these areas which is consistent with the existing topography. The creation of three separate levels in the floor plan also aids in creating a more stepped design, which reduces the visual mass and bulk of the structure. The reduced elevation at the garage enables an existing graded area to be used for the driveway, which minimizes disturbance of the site. The decreased entryway and lowered plate height also aid in reducing the bulk of the building. The cumulative effect of these revisions is that the mass and bulk of the house would be reduced and it would conform with the natural contours of the site.

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: Staff recommended modifications addressing this 1999 Design Standard included redesigning the house to incorporate the previously discussed step design as well as removing proposed fill from the plans. Staff also recommended that a landscaping plan and color and material samples be submitted in order to evaluate the project’s cohesiveness with the neighboring properties.

Applicant Response: In response, the applicant submitted a revised plan on April 16, 2009, which removes most of the proposed fill at the north elevation. A stone material retaining wall would be placed in this area to create a planting area that will aid in providing a visual buffer for the house from both Second Street and Farallone Avenue. Staff has received an informal landscaping plan, which proposes indigenous plants and trees to be used throughout the site including in new window planter boxes. The applicant has also provided information that the existing mature vegetation at the property perimeter is to remain in an effort to provide additional screening. Information has also been provided indicating that the house will be painted a beige/gray color consistent with the existing development in the area and will emphasize the traditional design theme of the building. The revised design also includes large bead-board style trim above the windows and “stool” style trim below the window trim to further the design theme. The driveway has also been slightly revised to curve off Farallone Avenue to soften the direct approach and utilize the existing entrance and driveway.

Staff Analysis: The revisions bring the project into compliance with the 1999 Design Review Standard. The combination of the existing mature vegetation with the proposed new landscaping and retaining wall will provide effective buffering from the street. The removal of proposed fill will aid in reducing the looming effect of the structure on surrounding properties and streets. The revised design features such as the corbelling under some of the windows, changes to window trims, planter boxes, curved driveway, colors, and materials all aid in providing visual interest to the house and a more cohesive blending with the surrounding properties.

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 now 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 and Design Review Standards

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.

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).

FISCAL IMPACT

No fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

B.

Location Map

C.

Applicant’s Written Summary of Proposed Modifications

D.

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

E.

Second Floor Plan (Submitted April 16, 2009)

F.

Front (East) Elevation (Submitted April 16, 2009)

G.

Front/Left (East-South) Elevations (Submitted April 16, 2009)

H.

Left Side (South) Elevation (Submitted April 16, 2009)

I.

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

J.

Right Side (North) Elevation (Submitted April 16, 2009)

K.

Right/Rear (North-West) Elevation (Submitted April 16, 2009)

L.

Rear (West) Elevation (Submitted April 16, 2009)

M.

Landscaping Plan Details

N.

Board of Supervisors Staff Report from March 31, 2009

Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit File Number: PLN 1999-00015

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 described in this report and indicated in materials formally submitted for consideration by the Board at its April 28, 2009 hearing. These plans supersede all previously submitted and reviewed plans. The Community Development Director may approve minor adjustments to the project 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 approval within which time a building permit must be applied for and issued. Any extension of these permits will require submittal of a request for permit extension and payment of applicable fees no less than 30 days prior to expiration.

3.

The applicant shall submit exterior color samples (no larger than approximately 4 square inches) for roof, 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 colors and materials used shall be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. 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.

4.

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.

5.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide an erosion and sediment control plan, which demonstrates how erosion will be mitigated during the construction of the new addition subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. This mitigation will be in place for the life of the construction project.

6.

The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors minimize the transport and discharge of pollutants from the project site into local drainage systems and water systems by adhering to the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program “General Construction and Site Supervision Guidelines” including:

a.

Stabilizing all denuded areas and maintaining erosion control measures continuously between October 15 and April 15.

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 to a local storm drain system or water body.

d.

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

7.

The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all stormwater quality measures and implement such measures. 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 to a designated, effective infiltration area or structure (refer to BMPs Handbook for infiltration system designs and requirements).

8.

The submitted plans do not indicate any trees to be removed. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a plan showing the location of all existing trees on the property. The applicant shall submit a tree protection plan for the tree located towards the rear of the parcel, near Farallone Avenue. Such measures shall be identified on the building permit site plan and shall be implemented prior to the start of any construction or grading activities on the site. Removal of any additional trees with a diameter equal to or greater than 12 inches as measured 4.5 feet above the ground shall require a separate tree removal permit.

9.

The noise from construction activity shall not exceed that as indicated in the County Noise Ordinance.

10.

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.

11.

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.

12.

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.

13.

The applicant shall, pursuant to Section 5023 of the San Mateo County Code, submit a stormwater control/drainage plan, prepared by their civil engineer or erosion control consultant. The plan shall be included as part of the project’s building permit application and construction plans. The County Building Inspection Section and County Planning Department shall ensure that the approved plan is implemented prior to the issuance of a building permit. 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 minimize the amount and pollutants of stormwater runoff through on-site percolation and filtering facilities to control stormwater runoff from the project site once the project is completed. In addition, the plan shall indicate that:

a.

All landscaping will 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.

b.

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