Special Notice / Hearing: 10 day/300ft__
Vote Required: Majority
To: Honorable Board of Supervisors
From: Steve Monowitz, Director of Planning and Building
Subject: Consideration of the appeal of the Planning Commission’s failure to adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Coastal Development Permit, Design Review, and Variance, pursuant to Sections 6328.4, 6565.3, and 6531, of the County Zoning Regulations
County File Number: PLN2021-00478 (Lacasia)
RECOMMENDATION:
title
Conduct a public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s failure to approve the requested Coastal Development Permit, Design Review, and Variance to allow a new 1,670-sq.-ft., three-story, single-family residence with an attached 371-sq.-ft. garage and 791-sq.-ft. accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a legal 7,070-sq.-ft. parcel in the unincorporated El Granada area:
A) Open public hearing
B) Close public hearing
C) Grant the appeal and adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Coastal Development Permit, Design Review, and Variance, PLN2021-00478, by making findings and adopting the conditions of approval in Attachment A.
body
BACKGROUND:
The applicant proposes to construct a new 1,670-sq.-ft., three-story, single-family residence with an attached 371-sq.-ft. garage and 791-sq.-ft. accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a legal 7,070-sq.-ft. parcel, in the unincorporated El Granada area of San Mateo County. A Variance is required to allow a front yard setback of 3 feet where 20 feet is required, due to the site location within the Montecito Riparian Corridor. The ADU is a ministerial project that does not require review by the Board of Supervisors. The project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission. The project site is accessed from San Carlos Avenue at the end of the public road. The project includes minor grading and no tree removal. A portion of the Montecito Riparian Corridor (MRC) is located on the southwest portion of the site. The MRC is associated with an intermittent drainage channel sometimes referred to as San Augustin Creek located approximately 116 feet west of the project site.
Appellant/Applicant/Owner: Elizabeth Lacasia
Public Notification: Ten-day advanced notification for the hearing was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project parcel and a notice for the hearing posted in the San Mateo County Times, a newspaper of general public circulation.
APN/Parcel Size/Existing Land Use: 047-105-020; 7,070 sq. ft.; Undeveloped parcel
Water Supply: Coastside County Water District states that there is one 5/8-inch (20 gpm), uninstalled, non-priority water service connection assigned to APN 047-105-020.
Sewage Disposal: Granada Community Services District will serve the parcel from a sewer main located within the San Carlos Avenue right-of-way.
Half Moon Bay Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (HMB ALUCP) Zone: Zone 7 - Airport Influence Area (AIA) where the airport accident risk level is considered low. Residential uses are considered conditionally compatible in areas exposed to noise levels between 60-64 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The project would be exposed to noise levels of less than 60 dB CNEL based on ALUC adopted craft noise exposure contours.
Setting: The undeveloped parcel is located within an existing urban, residential neighborhood and is bordered to the north and east by single-family residential development. A portion of the Montecito Riparian Corridor, a riparian corridor associated with an intermittent drainage, is located on the southwest portion of the site. The site has an average slope of 18 percent.
Chronology (full chronology included in Attachment H):
Date Action
January 2000;
June 2004 - Previous property owners perform illegal removal of vegetation, including riparian vegetation within the Montecito Riparian Corridor located at the rear of the parcel.
June 6, 2005 - Current owners applied for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), Design Review, and Variance (PLN2005-00248) for an earlier design of a residence, along with a CDP for illegal vegetation removal (PLN2004-00398). The Planning Commission denied the permits for the house, stating that the property should be restored first.
September 9, 2008 - Board of Supervisors, on appeal, approve the CDP for after-the-fact clearing and restoration of the property.
August 8, 2013 - Biologist confirms that the restoration of the property and three-year monitoring per PLN2004-00398 is complete. Staff concurs.
December 15, 2021 - Applicant applies for subject permits for a new residence and attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) with a reduced front setback.
April 24, 2023 -
May 15, 2023 - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review. The IS/MND determined that there was potential for a wetland at the site, which requires a 100-foot setback.
May 15, 2024 - Applicant submits revised plans with proper application of the riparian setback.
September 12, 2024 - Coastside Design Review Committee, (CDRC), after reviewing the revised design of the residence and receiving public comment, renders no recommendation on the Design Review permit due to a split 1:1 vote.
October 18, 2024 - Aquatic Resource Delineation Letter Report submitted to County, determining that the property does not support wetlands. The report does not address the potential for off-site wetland areas within 100 feet of the proposed building site.
February 13, 2025 - CDRC recommends approval of the Design Review permit to the Planning Commission.
May 9, 2025 - Biological report concludes that it is unlikely that wetlands are present on surrounding properties within 100 feet of the proposed building envelope.
July 23, 2025 - Planning Commission considered the project and public comments but failed to approve the requested permits as the Commission vote was 2-2.
July 30, 2025 - Owner files appeal with County.
November 4, 2025 - Board of Supervisors meeting.
DISCUSSION:
A. APPEAL
At its regular meeting on July 23, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the project and public comments but took no action on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and failed to approve the requested permits, with a Commission vote of 2-2. Concerns raised by members of the public included the design and mass of the proposed residence, garage location within the front setback, potential project impacts to sensitive habitat, and fire access relative to street and hydrant blockage by project-related on-street parking. These concerns are discussed in this report.
The main concerns expressed by the members of the Commission opposed to the project focused on the large size and height of the residence relative to surrounding residences and the proposed 3-foot setback of the garage from the street. At the hearing, staff stated that the confined building envelope (due to sensitive habitat at rear of the property) and expectation for a reasonably sized house has necessitated the three-story design with a reduced front setback, adding that garages within the front setback are not out of the ordinary, especially for steeper properties in the County.
With respect to the concern regarding fire access, staff notes that the Coastside Fire Protection District has reviewed this project and added Condition 43 requiring designation of this street section as a “fire lane.”
On July 30, 2025, an appeal (Attachment J) of the Planning Commission’s decision to the Board of Supervisors was filed by the owner, Elizabeth Lacasia (Appellant). The Appellant asserts that the project qualifies for a Variance to the 20-foot front setback requirement due to the location of sensitive habitat on the property and that without the requested Variance, the owner would be denied a privilege (reduced front setback) enjoyed by many other neighbors, including residences at 776, 763, 723, and 715 San Carlos Avenue, as well as 107, 130, and 138 Escalona Avenue, and 207 Navarra Avenue. Also, the Appellant asserts that the project is not located in the Coastal Commission’s Appeals jurisdiction, as the ‘potential’ for wetland is not sufficient to establish such jurisdiction.
As discussed in Section B.3.b of this report, the presence of wetlands with 100 feet of the proposed building envelope has not been fully ruled out; therefore, staff have determined that the CDP is appealable to the Coastal Commission. Where there are indicators that a protected resource (i.e., wetland, riparian habitat) is present, the County requires property owners to provide a site-specific analysis, with a definitive determination that the protected resource is not present, in order to bypass application of relevant LCP policies. Without that site-specific analysis and determination, staff assume that the resource is present and applies the LCP regulatory protections (including buffer zones and appeals jurisdiction).
B. KEY ISSUES
1. Conformance with General Plan
The subject parcel is designated by the General Plan for Medium Density Residential use, with an allowed density of 6.1-8.7 dwelling units per acre. The project would result in a density of approximately 6.16 dwelling units per acre (excluding the proposed ADU which is not subject to density limits).
2. Conformance with Design Review District Guidelines
On February 13, 2025, the Coastside Design Review Committee recommended approval of the project, finding the project to be in compliance with the Design Review Standards for the Midcoast, Section 6328 of the County Ordinance Code. For better compliance with design review standards, the CDRC required replacement of board and batten siding on south elevation popout with stucco and removal of the deck support post in the 30-foot riparian buffer zone and cantilevering deck.
3. Compliance with Local Coastal Program (LCP)
A Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required for new development located within the Coastal Commission Appeals Jurisdiction (APJ), or if the project is located within 100 feet of a wetland. Wetland analysis has determined that there are no wetlands on the property and also that it is unlikely that wetlands are present within 100 feet of the proposed building envelope. However, since staff is unable to definitively rule out the presence of wetlands with 100 feet of the proposed building envelope, staff has concluded the CDP is appealable to the Coastal Commission. Staff has determined that the project is in compliance with applicable LCP Policies, as discussed below.
a. Sensitive Habitats Component
Riparian Corridor and Buffer Zone
Policy 7.3 (Protection of Sensitive Habitats) prohibits any land use or development which would have significant adverse impact on sensitive habitat areas. Development in areas adjacent to sensitive habitats shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts that could significantly degrade the sensitive habitats. As discussed in Section 4 of the IS/MND, the subject property is located within a portion of the Montecito Riparian Corridor (MRC). A Riparian Boundary Assessment (Assessment), dated February 14, 2020, was prepared for the project site by Patrick Kobernus of Coast Ridge Ecology, LLC (Project Biologist) (Attachment E2). The Assessment states that the unnamed creek that runs through the MRC is located over 100 feet west of the property. The Project Biologist has determined that the creek is functioning as an intermittent creek.
The Assessment delineates a riparian boundary, based on the presence of riparian species, including Arroyo willow, Sitka willow, and pink-flowering currant. Based on this delineation, the project would comply with the required buffer zone/setback of 30 feet from the riparian corridor for intermittent streams, as set forth in the LCP Section 7.12. The IS/MND describes that, “while a cantilevered deck encroaches into this buffer zone, the deck does not have ground-based supports and would not impact any sensitive habitat in this area.”
Since the publication of the IS/MND, the project has been revised to include other encroachments into the 30-foot riparian setback, including: 1) A covered 60-sq.-ft. deck for the ADU on the Lower Level; 2) a 20-sq.-ft. previous wood walkway and a covered 60-sq.-ft. deck for the main residence on the Second Level; and 3) a 22-sq.-ft. uncovered deck and minor small encroachments (each less than 30 sq. ft.) for the main residence on the Third Level. LCP Policy 7.12 (Permitted Uses in Buffer Zones) does allow for residential uses on existing legal building sites, set back 20 feet from the limit of riparian vegetation, but only if no feasible alternative exists, and only if no other building site on the parcel exists. In general, the project has been designed to comply with the 30-foot riparian setback. After construction, the listed cantilevered encroachments would not be likely to significantly impact sensitive habitat in the covered areas of the buffer zone, as all encroaching decks and walkways are required to be pervious per Condition 6.c, ensuring that encroachments would not significantly impact water and sunlight to the covered buffer zone areas. Alternatively, the Board of Supervisors could require the elimination of the encroachments such that the project would fully comply with the setback.
Wetland Analysis
LCP Policy 7.14 (Definition of Wetland) defines wetland as an area where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to bring about the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of plants which normally are found to grow in water or wet ground. To qualify, a wetland must contain at least a 50 percent cover of some combination of these plants, unless it is a mudflat.
Robert Perrera of Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. (HBG), a wetland regulatory scientist, prepared an Aquatic Resource Delineation Letter Report for the property to assess the potential of the property to support wetland, determining that “based on the steep topography of the property, well drained nature of the soils, absence of hydric soil indicators, and lack of wetland hydrology, HBG determined the property does not support wetlands, as defined by the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program. Therefore, there are no wetlands on the subject property.
In a letter dated May 9, 2025, the Project Biologist describes his recent assessment of lands adjacent to the subject site for potential wetlands based on soils, hydrology, vegetation, and topographic information (LIDAR), using existing available information. The report concludes that “it is unlikely that wetlands (either US Army Corps or Coastal Commission) are present on surrounding properties within 100 feet of the proposed building envelope.” The analysis does not include site-specific analysis of off-site lands within 100 feet of the proposed building envelope for wetland indicators (due to access difficulties related to thick vegetation and obtaining permission from various owners) and is not considered conclusive in terms of the presence of wetlands in the area.
Regarding potential non-compliance with the 100-foot wetlands buffer zone, per California Coastal Act Section 30010, if an applicant for a CDP can demonstrate that denial of the proposed project based on application of Coastal Act policies would constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation, some development may be allowed even where a Coastal Act policy may otherwise prohibit it, unless the project would constitute a nuisance under State Law.
In this case, staff finds that the property owner has a sufficient real property interest in the property (the applicant is the property owner and has an expectation of development based on a documented land purchase price of $310,000); that denial of the proposed project based on application of Coastal Act wetland policies would deprive her property of all economically viable use (full compliance would be financially and legally onerous, involving 1) completion of a wetlands analysis of lands (under various ownership) within 100 feet of the building envelope as well as 2) implementing a 100-foot building setback from any found wetlands); and that the project would not constitute a nuisance under State Law. The subject property is 50 feet wide, and if wetlands were to exist on any of the adjoining lands, the application of a 100-foot wetland buffer would significantly constrain development and prohibit development of a reasonably sized house on the property.
4. Conformance with Compliance with S-17 Zoning District Regulations
The project conforms to the R-1/S-17/DR/CD zoning district regulations, with the exception of the front setback, as shown in the table below:
|
Table 1 - Compliance with the R-1/S-17/DR/CD Zoning District |
|
|
Required |
Proposed |
Complies? |
|
Min. Front Setback |
20 ft. |
3 ft. |
No, a Variance is requested |
|
Min. Rear Setback |
20 ft. |
67 ft. |
Yes |
|
Min. Side |
5 ft. |
Right: 22 ft. Left: 5 ft. |
Yes |
|
Yard Setback |
|
|
|
|
Min. Combined Side |
15 ft. |
27 ft. |
Yes |
|
Yard Setback |
|
|
|
|
Max. Building Height |
36* ft. |
35.5 ft. |
Yes |
|
Max. Floor Area Ratio |
53% |
40% (2,832 sq. ft.) |
Yes |
|
Max. Building Site |
35% |
18.5% (1,306 sq. ft.) |
Yes |
|
Coverage |
|
|
|
|
Min. Lot Size |
5,000 sq. ft. |
7,070 sq. ft. |
Yes |
* The maximum height to be increased to 36 feet (from 28 feet), where the average slope of a parcel (18%) is greater than a 1 foot fall in 7 feet distance (14%) from the established street grade at the front lot line and where a sewer connection must be made uphill from the building location, which are the case for this project.
5. Compliance with Variance Findings
Section 6531 states that in order to approve an application for a variance, the approving authority must make all of the following findings in writing (each finding is followed by Staff’s discussion of project compliance):
a. The parcel's location, size, shape, topography, and/or other physical conditions vary substantially from those of other parcels in the same zoning district or vicinity: The subject parcel varies substantially from other S-17-zoned parcels in El Granada in that it contains a portion of the Montecito Riparian Corridor (MRC). Surveys have shown that a portion of the parcel is outside of the riparian corridor and buffer zone, leaving an area (approximately 23 percent of the parcel) that can accommodate a reasonable amount of development.
b. Without the variance, the landowner would be denied the rights and privileges that are enjoyed by other landowners in the same zoning district or vicinity: Without the variance for the front yard setback, only approximately 16.5 percent (1,165 sq. ft.) of the property would be developable, which is less than the 35 percent lot coverage allowed in the district.
c. The variance does not grant the landowner a special privilege which is inconsistent with the restrictions placed on other parcels in the same zoning district or vicinity: The variance allows for a 3-foot front yard setback for the property. Nearby developed properties are not as substantially located within the MRC. The proposed development is visually consistent with nearby houses, as several other properties on both sides of the subject street have front setbacks of less than 20 feet because garages and carports are allowed within the front setback for properties with a slope greater than 14 percent.
d. The variance authorizes only uses or activities which are permitted by the zoning district: The proposed single-family residential use is consistent with the subject R-1 zoning.
e. The variance is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the Zoning Regulations: The requested variance is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the Zoning Regulations.
C. ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the recommended action, the Board of Supervisors may choose to continue its review of the project to request additional information; deny the project and identify findings for such denial; or approve the project with amendments to the suggested conditions of approval.
D. REVIEW BY THE MIDCOAST COMMUNITY COUNCIL (MCC)
On May 31, 2024, the MCC stated that development should preserve the riparian corridor and that the house should comply with zoning and the riparian setbacks.
The MCC suggests that staff consider requiring that the riparian/wetland portions of the lot be protected by prohibiting vegetation removal. Staff agree that a deed restriction is appropriate to maintain compliance with project parameters and protection of coastal resources. Staff has added conditions of approval requiring recordation of a deed restriction prohibiting current and future owners from constructing further encroachments into the 30-foot riparian area, requiring maintenance of approved encroaching decks and walkways in pervious condition, and requiring compliance with performance standards of riparian area and associated buffer zones.
E. REVIEW BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION (CCC)
In an April 9, 2025, email, CCC staff stated the following, followed by the staff’s response:
1. CCC staff sought confirmation that the identified creek is an intermittent creek with a 30-feet buffer zone. Staff confirm that based on the biological reports submitted, the creek is intermittent in nature.
2. That LCP Policy 7.12 does allow for residential uses within the 30-foot buffer, but only if no feasible alternatives exist, and accordingly CCC staff asked for justification for the encroachments/reduced setbacks, including what alternative designs were considered. Staff discusses encroachment and alternatives considered in Section B.3.b of this report.
3. CCC staff agreed with the findings of the wetland report that the site does not support wetlands and requested any additional wetland analyses completed within 100 feet of the proposed development footprint. Staff discussed additional documents submitted, which were non-conclusive regarding wetlands, in Section B.3.b of this report.
4. That landscaping within the 30 feet riparian buffer complies with LCP Policy 7.13, which requires minimizing removal of riparian vegetation and replacement with native species. Condition 16 requires compliance with Policy 7.13.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for public review from April 24, 2023, to May 15, 2023. The main issue area for this project is biological resources, with public comments and staff responses summarized below.
Staff received comments from the property owner at 771 San Carlos Ave. (Attachment F2), stating that the proposed building appears to come within 15 feet of the riparian zone boundary as evidenced by the “drip line” of the healthy arroyo willow canopy, which is adjacent to, and in some cases extending into, the site, where a minimum 30-foot buffer is required. In a response letter dated February 9, 2025 (Attachment F2), the Project Biologist notes that the riparian corridor boundary is not established at the drip line of the trees, but rather where the 50 percent cover requirement of the LCP is met.
No significant change to mitigation measures of the IS/MND are needed to address comments. Mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval in Attachment A.
G. REVIEWING AGENCIES
County Geotechnical Section
County Drainage Section
County Department of Public Works
Granada Community Services District
Coastside County Water District
Coastside Fire Protection District
Midcoast Community Council
California Coastal Commission
This report and related findings have been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney’s Office as to form.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the County from granting the appeal and approving the requested permits.
Attachments
A. Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval
B. Location Map
C. Proposed Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations, dated October 18, 2024
D. CDRC Letter of Recommendation, dated February 15, 2025
E. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), dated April 24, 2023, available at: https://www.smcgov.org/planning/mitigated-negative-declaration-lacasia-barrios-residence
Attachments to IS/MND provided here:
1. San Mateo County Montecito Riparian Corridor Map
2. Riparian Boundary Assessment Dated February 14, 2020
F. Public Comments received at CDRC meeting and during IS/MND comment period.
1. Comments from Lennie Roberts of Green Foothills dated August 7, 2022
2. Comment letter from Property Owner at 771 San Carlos Ave., Regarding Riparian Boundary on the Lacasia Property (APN 047-105-020) in El Granada, California; and response by Project Biologist.
G. Aquatic Resource Delineation Letter Report, prepared by Robert Perrera of Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. (HBG), dated October 18, 2024.
H. Full Project Chronology
I. Planning Commission Letter of Decision
J. Appeal filed by Owner on July 31, 2025.