MARIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Transcription

1 MARIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALEX HINDS, DIRECTOR STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Dwaileebe Coastal Permit and Design Review Clearance Item No: 5 Application No: CP & DC Applicant: Marc Dwaileebe Owner: Marc Dwaileebe Property Address: 421 Ocean Parkway, Bolinas Assessor's Parcel: Hearing Date: December 10, 2007 Planner: Eric Engelbart RECOMMENDATION: APPEAL PERIOD: LAST DATE FOR ACTION: Denial 5 Working Days to the Board of Supervisors N/A because project is incomplete PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Marc Dwaileebe, applicant and owner, is requesting Coastal Permit and Design Review Clearance approval in order to legalize nine existing, but unpermitted structures totaling 708 square feet on an existing 30,000 square foot parcel. In addition, the applicant seeks Coastal Permit approval for the installation of a domestic water well on the property. The structures proposed for legalization include a 120 square foot greenhouse addition to a previously approved 120 square foot shed, a 120 square foot stucco clad structure with an unenclosed 72 square foot entryway, a 96 square foot lawn tool shed, a 96 square foot storage shed, a 64 square foot solar battery storage shed, a 64 square foot gardening tool shed, a 48 square foot white metal shed, and a 28 square foot tool shed. A Coastal Permit is required because the project site is within the boundaries of the Coastal Commission Appeals jurisdiction; Design Review is required as per Section of the Marin County Code because the structures are located less than 300 feet from the property lines of abutting properties and streets and because the structures are located within the Bolinas Gridded Mesa Planning area s Drainageway Setback Area an area in which the local Coastal Plan mandates that all development be subject to Design Review. GENERAL INFORMATION: Countywide Plan: C-SF5 (Coastal, Single-Family Residential, 2-4 units per acre) Zoning: C-RA:B2 (Coastal, Residential Agricultural, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size). Lot size: Approximately 30,000 square feet Adjacent Land Uses: Residential Vegetation: Mixed, including eucalyptus, poison oak, pine trees, willow, and grasses Topography and Slope: Gently sloping to the southwest, steep slopes at the bank of Alder Creek along the southern property line boundary Environmental Hazards: None identified 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 308 San Rafael, CA Fax

2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to Section of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, CEQA does not apply to projects that are disapproved by a public agency. PUBLIC NOTICE: The Community Development Agency has provided public notice identifying the applicant, describing the project and its location, and giving the earliest possible decision date in accord with California Government Code requirements. This notice has been mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. PROJECT ANALYSIS: Background The subject property was previously composed of historic lots of the Viereggio subdivision of the Bolinas Mesa (found in R.M. book 5, page 51, recorded in May 1927). In 1996, the current property owner received Coastal Permit and Design Review approval for the construction of a 120 square foot potting shed and water tank on the subject property, which still exist on this property today. These structures were approved as accessory structures associated with an on-site garden for the cultivation of fruit trees and vegetable plants. Since the time of this approval, the applicant purchased several adjacent parcels (historic lots , , and ) from surrounding property owners and completed a lot line adjustment & merger in 2006, which resulted in the current approximately 30,000 square foot lot configuration. Subsequent to the above-referenced Coastal Permit and Design Review approval, the applicant constructed nine additional accessory structures on the site without the benefit of County approvals. In addition, the applicant installed kitchen facilities and a composting toilet within two of these structures. Ultimately, a code enforcement action was initiated for this unpermitted work and provided the impetus for the currently proposed project. Since the initiation of this code enforcement action, the applicant removed the kitchen facilities and composting toilet from the site, and has asserted that the proposed structures are needed to support agricultural uses on the property. In addition, the applicant has applied for a domestic water well permit from the Environmental Health Services Division of the Community Development Agency with the ultimate goal of developing the property with a single-family residence. Creek Setback Issues There are numerous factors which have led staff to the current recommendation for denial of the entire project. Firstly, the southern edge of the subject property is roughly bounded by Alder Creek. Although this creek is not a designated blue line creek on the most recent United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps, it does drain into the Duxbury Reef, which is considered by the California State Water Resources Control Board to be an Area of Special Biological Significance. Duxbury Reef is the largest shale reef in the country and supports large populations of unusual marine organisms. In addition, an examination of the creek bank in immediate adjacency to the southern property line reveals that it does support riparian vegetation, and discussions with creek specialists on staff with the Marin County Department of Public Works reveal that Alder Creek qualifies as a Stream Conservation Area (SCA), as defined by the Countywide Plan and Local Coastal Plan. SCA policies require a minimum 100-foot setback from the top-of-bank of creeks. Furthermore, although the top-of-bank has PC Staff Report: Dwaileebe CP & DC DECEMBER 10, 2007 Item No. 5., Page 2 I:\Cur\EE\CP\Dwaileebe CP 07-10\Dwaileebe Staff Report.doc

3 not been clearly delineated on the submitted plan sets, a rough estimation based upon field observations reveals that 7 of the 9 structures that are proposed for legalization through this application are located within this 100-foot setback. Of particular note, proposed structures 2, 3, and 4 as shown on the attached Exhibit A would be closest to the creek bank (approximately feet from the top-of-bank) based upon the plans that were submitted. Additionally, it should be noted that the entirety of the subject property lies within the Bolinas Gridded Mesa Plan s Drainageway Setback Area as shown in Figure 4-2 of the Gridded Mesa Plan. Bolinas Gridded Mesa Plan Program LU 2.1 establishes a setback area along Alder Creek, and specifically states that no new construction shall occur within this setback area except as allowed by Stream Protection Policy 4 of the LCP [Local Coastal Program]. Policy 4 of the LCP goes on to state that Design Review shall be required for all parcels that are located entirely within the stream buffer, and that development shall be located on that portion of the site which results in the least impact on the stream, and shall include provision for mitigation measures to control erosion and runoff and to provide restoration of disturbed areas by replanting with plant species naturally found on the site. Due to the fact that many of the existing unpermitted structures that are proposed for legalization are clustered on the southern portions of the subject property, and therefore are in close proximity to the top-of-bank of Alder Creek, staff does not find the proposed project to be consistent with the abovereferenced Bolinas Gridded Mesa Plan and Local Coastal Program policies. Agricultural use of the site Additionally, it should be noted that the applicant has proposed that the existing unpermitted structures on the site be approved as accessory to an agricultural use. However, an examination of the subject property reveals that minimal agriculture is occurring on the project site. Specifically, the subject parcel currently contains approximately five planter boxes that are being used to support what could be described as a home garden. This limited agricultural use of the site raises the issue of proportionality between the use of the property for a home garden and whether that limited use justifies the need for a total of ten accessory structures. Staff s analysis of this issue has concluded that a home garden does not justify the need for ten structures. Furthermore, the applicant has already vested his 1996 Coastal Permit for a 120 square foot potting shed on the project site whose permitted purpose was to support this home garden. Environmental Health Issues Additionally, it should be noted that the proposed project has been reviewed by the Environmental Health Services (EHS) staff and they have determined that the proposed uses would necessitate the need for a new septic system and permanent water source. As discussed below, the applicant has not demonstrated that such facilities can be provided on the property. In addition to the proposal to legalize the unpermitted construction of the nine structures on site, the applicant has also applied for a domestic water well permit, for which the Local Coastal Program (LCP) requires approval of a Coastal Permit. However, EHS staff have reviewed the proposed well location and determined that it is not consistent with all applicable LCP setback regulations. Specifically, there is no site location on the parcel that can meet the required 100-foot setback to the client s property lines as required by the Local Coastal Program (Marin County Code Section A.1.a). Consequently, EHS can not issue a drilling permit for a domestic well. Without such an approved water source, EHS can therefore not support any plans to build a residence or building with plumbed PC Staff Report: Dwaileebe CP & DC DECEMBER 10, 2007 Item No. 5., Page 3 I:\Cur\EE\CP\Dwaileebe CP 07-10\Dwaileebe Staff Report.doc

4 water. EHS comments related to the domestic well application are contained as an attachment to this report. Access Issues Finally, the subject property does not currently have access that meets current Bolinas Fire Protection District (BFPD) standards. More specifically, as discussed in the attached memorandum from the BFPD, in order to legalize the proposed structures, the applicant would need to install a new, 12-foot wide all-weather surface driveway that is capable of supporting 40,000 pounds of weight with an unobstructed vertical clearance of 15 feet on a grade not to exceed 25 percent. In order for the applicant to meet this standard he would either have to construct a new bridge crossing over Alder Creek that would connect to Ocean Parkway, or he would have to develop the paper street portion of Ocean Parkway that connects the subject property to Opal Road to the north. Both of these options raise significant concerns. Developing a bridge over Alder Creek may result in impacts to the creek resource through construction of the foundations and impervious surfaces within the immediate vicinity of the creek, and would be in direct conflict with the above-referenced policies requiring that development take place on areas of the property that would result in the least impacts to the creek resource. Development of the paper street to the north of the site would raise other significant concerns as well. Specifically, the undeveloped paper street portions of Ocean Parkway that would have to be used to gain access to the site have historically existed as an unimproved meadow area that runs within immediate adjacency to an existing residence located at 2 Opal Road, portions of which actually encroach onto the paper street. Therefore, construction of the new driveway in this area could result in substantial impacts to the residents along Opal Road. Furthermore, it is difficult for staff to even assess the impacts that would result from such an access road because the applicant has never submitted any plans showing where or how this road would be constructed. Conclusion In summary, the structures that are proposed for legalization as part of the currently proposed project raise numerous substantive issues. The structures are clustered within the Stream Conservation Area of Alder Creek; they are inconsistent with Bolinas Gridded Mesa Plan policies & programs; they are proposed as agricultural accessory structures when minimal agriculture exists on the project site; the applicant has not demonstrated that the site can support the requisite septic system and permanent water source, and legalization of these structures would necessitate either further impacts to the creek resource through construction of a bridge or development of a paper street, for which no plans or designs have been submitted. Finally, the applicant cannot demonstrate that the proposed domestic well can comply with the necessary property-line setback requirements that are required by the Local Coastal Program. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the Coastal Permit and Design Review Clearance application in its entirety, and refer the project back to Code Enforcement staff in order to coordinate the removal of the illegal structures from the property. PC Staff Report: Dwaileebe CP & DC DECEMBER 10, 2007 Item No. 5., Page 4 I:\Cur\EE\CP\Dwaileebe CP 07-10\Dwaileebe Staff Report.doc

5 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the administrative record, conduct a public hearing, and adopt the recommended resolution denying the Dwaileebe Coastal Permit and Design Review Clearance. Attachments: 1. Proposed Resolution recommending Denial of the Dwaileebe Coastal Permit and Design Clearance 2. Assessor s Parcel Map 3. Bolinas Fire Protection District Memo, dated 1/2/07 4. Environmental Health Services Water and Sewage Memo, dated 11/2/06 5. Environmental Health Services Water Memo, dated 11/2/07 6. Bolinas Community Public Utilities District, dated 11/21/06 7. Department of Public Works Memo, dated 11/1/06 8. Letter from applicant, dated 12/7/06 9. Letter from Barry Kahnn, dated 12/20/ Letter from Barry Kahn, dated 7/16/ Public Comment Letters 12. Reduced Plans labeled Exhibit A (The following attachments are included only in the Planning Commission report packet. Copies of these documents are available at the Community Development Agency for public review during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. daily.) 13. Submittal packet from Marc Dwaileebe, dated 10/8/ DZA Staff Report for previously approved Coastal Permit and Design Review PC Staff Report: Dwaileebe CP & DC DECEMBER 10, 2007 Item No. 5., Page 5 I:\Cur\EE\CP\Dwaileebe CP 07-10\Dwaileebe Staff Report.doc

6 MARIN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION DENYING THE DWAILEEBE COASTAL PERMIT & DESIGN REVIEW ASSESSOR'S PARCEL OCEAN PARKWAY, BOLINAS SECTION I: FINDINGS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. WHEREAS Marc Dwaileebe, applicant and owner, is requesting Coastal Permit and Design Review Clearance approval in order to legalize nine existing, but unpermitted structures totaling 708 square feet on an existing 30,000 square foot parcel. In addition, the applicant seeks Coastal Permit approval for the installation of a domestic water well on the property. The structures proposed for legalization include a 120 square foot greenhouse addition to a previously approved 120 square foot shed, a 120 square foot stucco clad structure with an unenclosed 72 square foot entryway, a 96 square foot lawn tool shed, a 96 square foot storage shed, a 64 square foot solar battery storage shed, a 64 square foot gardening tool shed, a 48 square foot white metal shed, and a 28 square foot tool shed. A Coastal Permit is required because the project site is within the boundaries of the Coastal Commission Appeals jurisdiction; Design Review is required because the structures are proposed to be used as agricultural accessory structures (i.e. non-residential) and because the structures are located within the Bolinas Gridded Mesa Planning area s Drainageway Setback Area an area in which the local Coastal Plan mandates that all development be subject to Design Review. II. WHEREAS the Marin County Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December 10, 2007, to consider the merits of the project, and hear testimony in favor of, and in opposition to, the project. III. WHEREAS the Marin County Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section which states that CEQA does not apply to projects that are disapproved by a public agency. IV. WHEREAS the Marin County Planning Commission finds that the proposed project would not be consistent with Bolinas Gridded Mesa Plan program LU-2.1, which states that no new construction shall occur within identified drainageway setback areas. V. WHEREAS the Marin County Planning Commission cannot find the project to be consistent with the Local Coastal Plan Stream Protection Policy 4 which states that development shall be located on that portion of the site which results in the least impact to adjacent streams. VI. WHEREAS the Marin County Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is not consistent with the mandatory findings to approve a Coastal Permit (Section of the Marin County Code) for the reasons specified below: A. Water Supply: Page 1

7 The applicant has not demonstrated that a permanent water source that complies with all applicable setback requirements can be provided for the proposed use. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. B. Septic System Standards: The Marin County Environmental Health Services Division has determined that a viable waste disposal system must be provided for the property. The applicant has not submitted any documentation demonstrating that such a system can be provided for the site. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. C. Grading and Excavation: The project is for the legalization of numerous shed structures that were constructed at grade with minimal grading. However, the proposed project would necessitate the construction of a new 12-foot wide access driveway through a currently undeveloped paper street, for which plans have not been submitted. Accordingly, it is currently unknown whether the proposed project can be found consistent with this finding. D. Archaeological Resources: Review of the Marin County Archaeological Sites Inventory indicates that much of Bolinas, including the subject property, is located in an area of archaeological sensitivity. However, due to the fact that the project is being recommended for denial, it will not have the potential to result in any disturbance of cultural resources. E. Coastal Access: The proposed project is for the legalization of several storage sheds on a previously developed parcel that is not adjacent to the coast. Therefore, it will have no impact upon coastal resources. F. Housing: The proposed project is for the legalization of several storage sheds. It would not result in the demolition or conversion of housing affordable to households of lower or moderate income. G. Stream Conservation Protection: The proposed project is for the legalization of numerous shed structures that were constructed within the immediate vicinity of Alder Creek. These structures do not comply with the standard 100-foot setback from top-of-bank and are inconsistent with Bolinas Gridded Mesa Plan program LU-2.1 and Local Coastal Program Stream Protection Policy 4 related to the protection of drainage way and stream setback areas. H. Dune Protection: The project site is not located in a dune protection area as identified by the Natural Resources Map for Unit I of the Local Coastal Program. Page 2

8 I. Wildlife Habitat: The California Natural Diversity Database, prepared by the State Department of Fish and Game, indicates that the subject property is not located in the vicinity of any known habitat areas. However, the project site is located immediately adjacent to Alder Creek, which is a water course that drains into Duxbury Reef, which is designated by the California State Water Resources Control Board to be an Area of Special Biological Significance because it supports large populations of unusual marine organisms. Accordingly, it cannot be found with certainty that the project will not adversely affect any wildlife habitats. J. Protection of Native Plant Communities: The Natural Resources Map for Unit I of the Local Coastal Program indicates that the subject property is not located in an area containing rare plants. Therefore, no significant or adverse impacts to native plant communities would result from the project. K. Shoreline Protection: The project site is not located adjacent to the shoreline or within a bluff erosion zone. L. Geologic Hazards: As with all properties in Bolinas, the project site would be subjected to strong ground shaking during a proximate seismic event. However, the structures on site that are proposed for legalization are being recommended for denial and ultimately will be removed from the project site. M. Public Works Projects: This proposed project does not entail expansion of public roads, flood control projects, or utility service and will not affect any public works projects. N. Land Division Standards: No land division is proposed as part of this project. O. Visual Resources: The proposed structures are minimally visible from off-site and do not create any substantial visual impacts. P. Recreation/Visitor Facilities: The proposed project will not provide commercial or recreational facilities, and the project site is not governed by VCR (Village Commercial Residential) zoning regulations that require a mixture of residential and commercial uses. Page 3

9 Q. Historic Resource Preservation: The property is not located within the designated historic preservation boundaries for Bolinas as identified in the Marin County Historic Study for the Local Coastal Program. VII. Whereas, the Marin County Planning Commission finds that finds that the proposed project is not consistent with the mandatory findings for Design Review (Section I of the Marin County Code), as outlined below: The project is not consistent with the required findings cited above because the proposed project would facilitate the legalization of a conglomeration of nine new accessory structures that were constructed on site without the benefit of permits. Furthermore, these structures are proposed to be accessory to a home garden, a limited use that staff cannot find to necessitate the need for nine new accessory structures. Therefore, they would not be proportionately appropriate to the site. Furthermore, Local Coastal Plan Stream Protection Policy 4 requires Design Review approval for properties in this area to ensure that proposed development occurs in areas which result in the least impact to streams. A review of the location of the proposed structures reveals that they are not located in area that minimizes such impacts. As a result of all the above factors, the project cannot be found consistent with the required findings for Design Review approval. Page 4

10 SECTION II: APPEAL RIGHTS NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this decision is final unless appealed to the Marin County Board of Supervisors. A Petition for Appeal and a $ filing fee must be submitted in the Community Development Agency - Planning Division, Room 308, Civic Center, San Rafael, no later than 4:00 p.m. on December 17, SECTION III: ADOPTION ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Marin, State of California, on the 10 th day of December, 2007: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Attest: WADE B. HOLLAND, CHAIR MARIN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Joyce Evans Recording Secretary Page 5