COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Planning and Building Department

DATE:

October 18, 2010

BOARD MEETING DATE:

November 2, 2010

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

10-Days Notice

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Jim Eggemeyer, Community Development Director

SUBJECT:

Public Hearing to consider a Variance, pursuant to Section 6530 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations to allow a 12-foot front yard setback (where 20 feet is required) on Parcel B of the associated Minor Subdivision. (Appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission to deny this project.)

County File Number: PLN 2010-00221 (Shahidi)

RECOMMENDATION:

Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Variance, County File Number PLN 2010-00221, by adopting the findings of denial included at the end of this report.

BACKGROUND:

Proposal: Variance

Planning Commission Action: Denial

Report Prepared By: Melissa Ross, Project Planner, Telephone 650/599-1559

Appellant/Owner: Ramin Shahidi

Applicant: Paulo Hernandez

Location: 21 Bishop Lane, Menlo Park

APN: Identified as “Parcel B” on the associated Minor Subdivision Tentative Map. New parcel number to be assigned to Parcel B if Minor Subdivision is approved and the parcel map is recorded.

Size: 5,022.5 sq. ft. (excluding flag lot pole); 7,482 sq. ft. (including flag lot pole)

Existing Zoning: R-1/S-7 (Single-Family Residential/Minimum 5,000 sq. ft. parcel)

General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (6.1 – 8.7 density units per acre)

Sphere-of-Influence: City of Menlo Park

Existing Land Use: Two existing legal residences

Water Supply: Existing service to both residences provided by California Water Service Company

Sewage Disposal: Existing service to both residences provided by West Bay Sanitary District

Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Zone C (Area of Minimal Flooding); Panel No. 060311-0265B, effective date July 5, 1984.

Environmental Evaluation: Mitigated Negative Declaration issued; public review period from December 16, 2008 to January 5, 2009.

Setting: The subject property is located approximately 0.9 mile east of Alpine Road and 0.62 mile north of Interstate 280. The parcel has an average slope of approximately 12 percent with natural vegetation and two existing legal single-family residences. The rear property line is the approximate centerline of San Francisquito Creek.

Chronology:

Date

Action

June 14, 2010

-

Variance application received.

August 11, 2010

-

Proposal denied by Planning Commission.

August 20, 2010

-

Appeal, by owner, to Board of Supervisors received.

DISCUSSION:

A.

KEY ISSUE OF THE APPEAL

Indicated below is the key issue of this appeal followed by staff’s response. A copy of the appeal is included at the end of this report.

Without the proposed variance, a creek setback cannot be accomplished nor can there be a feasible building envelope for Parcel B.

Granting of the variance is not necessary to accomplish a creek setback; the setback can be accomplished through approval of the associated minor subdivision.

Were the associated minor subdivision approved with a creek setback and the variance application denied, construction of a single-family residence would be limited to an 830 sq. ft. building footprint. With no floor area ratio requirements, the S-7 Combining District will allow for a maximum three-story 2,490 sq. ft. residence.

With an approved variance, the subdivided Parcel B is restricted to a maximum building footprint of 1,278 sq. ft. Under these conditions, the S-7 Combining District will allow for a three-story 3,834 sq. ft. single-family residence.

While the building envelope is small in size, a residence can be achieved without a variance.

B.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

County Counsel has determined that the mitigated negative declaration, posted December 16, 2008, is adequate and inclusive of the proposed variance. Recirculation of the mitigated negative declaration is not required because no new avoidable significant effects are identified and no new mitigation measures or revisions are required (CEQA Sections 15073.5(b)(1) and (2)) and the variance is a measure or condition of the project added after circulation of the mitigated negative declaration which is not required by CEQA (CEQA Section 15073.5(c)(3)) and that the variance, on its own, can qualify for a CEQA Exemption (Section 15305, Class 5; Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations).

C.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

County Counsel

Building Inspection Section

Department of Public Works

Department of Public Works Utilities – Flood Control – Watershed Protection Section

Geotechnical Section

Cal-Fire

San Francisquito Creek JPA

County Counsel has reviewed and approved the proposed materials as to form and content.

The denial of the variance contributes to the 2025 Shared Vision outcome of a Livable Community by assuring the orderly and beneficial development of residential areas.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No net County cost.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF DENIAL

Permit File Number: PLN 2010-00221

Board Meeting Date: November 2, 2010

Prepared By: Melissa Ross, Project Planner

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:

1.

That the parcel’s location, size, shape, topography and/or other physical conditions do not vary substantially from those of other parcels in the same zoning district or vicinity.

2.

That with denial of the variance, the landowner would not be denied the rights and privileges that are enjoyed by other landowners in the same zoning district or vicinity.

3.

That the variance grants the landowner a special privilege which is inconsistent with the restrictions placed on other parcels in the same zoning district or vicinity.

4.

That the variance authorizes uses or activities which are not permitted by the zoning district.

5.

That the variance is inconsistent with the objectives of the General Plan and the Zoning Regulations.