JUNE 8, 2005 PROPOSAL

(1)

PLN990376 (Peter Pan Investors)

PC 03/29/06 1

MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting: March 29, 2006 at 9:15 A.M. Agenda Item: 3

Project: Combined Development Permit (PLN990376/Peter Pan Investors, LLC) consisting of a Coastal Administrative Permit and Design Approval to allow the construction of a new 3851 square foot three-story single family residence, 504 square foot detached garage, retaining walls, septic system, grading (approximately 610 cubic yards cut/295 cubic yards fill), and a drainage pipe and outlet located on an adjacent parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 241-201-023-000); a Coastal Development Permit to allow the removal of four (4) protected trees (36" and 28" landmark Monterey pines and 13" & 6” oak trees); and a Coastal Development Permit to allow development on 30% slope.

Location: 226 Peter Pan Road, Carmel (APN: 241-201-022-000) Plan Area: Carmel Highlands Area, Coastal Zone

Zoning: LDR/1-D (CZ) Flagged and Staked: Yes CEQA Action: Mitigated Negative Declaration

Date Application Deemed Complete: February 9, 2006 Department: Planning and Building Inspection

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) ADOPT a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit D).

2) APPROVE PLN990376 based on the Recommended Findings and Evidence (Exhibit B) and subject to the Recommended Conditions of Approval (Exhibit C).

OVERVIEW:

On June 8, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution to deny the application by Peter Pan Investors, LLC requesting permits to construct a new, 4,807 square foot, three-story single family dwelling on a one-acre lot in the Carmel Highlands Area. Development included tree removal and development on 30% slope. However, on July 13, 2005, at the request of the applicant, the Commission voted to table the application with direction that the structural mass be substantially reduced with less visibility from Pt. Lobos and include additional review from the Carmel Highlands Land Use Advisory Committee.

This revised project proposes to construct a three-story 4,355 square foot dwelling and garage in a residential area of the Carmel Highlands. The proposed structures are located on existing building pads and have been reduced by 452 square feet from the original proposal and redesigned to better fit within the existing building pad. The demolished residence had a 1,895 square foot building footprint with a total floor area of 3,988 square feet. The newly proposed footprint is 1,970 square feet with a total floor area of 4,355 square feet. See breakdown below:

DEMOLISHED STRUCTURES JUNE 8, 2005 PROPOSAL CURRENT/REVISED PROPOSAL UPPER LEVEL 425 SQ FT. 382 SQ FT. MAIN LEVEL 1434 SQ FT. 1687 SQ FT. 1499 SQ FT. LOWER LEVEL 1895 SQ FT. 2191 SQ FT. 1970 SQ FT. DET GARAGE 659 SQ FT. 504 SQ FT. 504 SQ FT. TOTAL 3988 SQ. FT. 4807 SQ. FT. 4355 SQ. FT.

(2)

PLN990376 (Peter Pan Investors) 2 PC 03/29/06

The property is severely constrained because of steepness of its slope, which exceeds 30% except for a pre-existing building pad and driveway/garage pad. The site is exposed because of a lack of trees and is visible from Point Lobos. However, the redesign along with colors and materials help blend into the hillside making the proposed project less visible than the previous proposal.

The project also includes tree removal, and grading and drainage issues related to the steepness of the site and it being adjacent to a seasonal creek with historical landslide events affecting the neighbor below. The proposal previously included a retaining wall in the creek that has since been withdrawn given that it is the subject of a neighbor dispute and the current house proposal is not dependent on the wall construction to alleviate drainage issues. Staff has determined that the tree removal is the minimum amount required given the site constraints, the health of the trees, and the need to maintain adequate structural setbacks. Staff also found that the proposed drainage improvements remedy the drainage concerns by a new drainage system that routes drainage southerly to a more acceptable area of the lot. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for the previous application and staff has determined that the conditions and conclusion remain valid and that the project as mitigated will not have the potential for a significant impact on the environment.

OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT: The following agencies have reviewed the project and those that are checked (“9”) have comments and/or recommended conditions. Conditions from the reviewing agencies have been incorporated into the project recommendations.

9 Water Resources Agency 9 Public Works Department

9 Environmental Health Division 9 Carmel Highlands Fire Protection District

Parks Department

LAND USE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Denial): The Carmel Highlands/Unincorporated Land Use Advisory Committee (LUAC) voted [6-0] to recommend denial of the project on February 21, 2006 (Exhibit F). Staff reviewed the concerns of the LUAC related to design, tree removal, and drainage and found that the project as conditioned address all concerns consistent with County policies and regulations. An expanded discussion is included in Exhibit B.

Prepared by: ___________________________________________

Elizabeth A. Gonzales, Assistant Planner (831) 755-5102 [email protected] This report was reviewed by Jeff Main, Planning and Building Services Manager.

Cc: Planning Commission (10); County Counsel; Environmental Health Division; Public Works Department; Parks Department, Monterey County Water Resources Agency; Carmel Highlands Fire Protection District, Jeff Main; Elizabeth Gonzales; Terry McHenry; John Mandurrago; Sue Snow; Coastal Commission; Interested Parties; File.

Attachs: Exhibit “A” Detailed Discussion

Exhibit “B” Recommended Findings and Evidence Exhibit “C” Recommended Conditions of Approval Exhibit “D” Initial Study (Mitigated Negative Declaration)

Exhibit “E” Public Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration

Exhibit “F” LUAC Recommendation for PLN990376 dated February 21, 2006 Exhibit “G” Vicinity Map

Exhibit “H” Project Plans

(3)

PLN990376 (Peter Pan Investors) 3 PC 03/29/06

(4)

EXHIBIT “A” DETAILED DISCUSSION

PLN990376 (Peter Pan Investors) PC 03/29/06

4 A. INTRODUCTION

Background

Heavy rains during the 1998 El Nino resulted in litigation related to a debris flow that occurred on the subject parcel (APN: 241-201-022-000/Peter Pan Investors, LLC) that led to damage to a down slope property (APN: 241-201-024-000/McHenry). A settlement agreement required the owner of the subject property to correct certain problems related to drainage and erosion. The applicant initially applied for permits (PLN990376) to demolish and construct a new single-family dwelling on the property. Due to unresolved issues which delayed the project, the Planning Commission approved a separate application (PLN030397) on March 31, 2004 to allow demolition of the existing structures required under the settlement agreement. Another application (PLN040587) was submitted for a proposed retaining wall, to further address issues. However, the retaining wall application has since been withdrawn while the applicant examines alternatives or modifications. The application now under consideration (PLN990376) includes the proposed residence and grading and drainage improvements related to the agreement. It should be noted that the proposed house is not dependent on construction of the wall and that drainage issues for the house are separately addressed in the drainage plan submitted with and as part of the application for the house.

Setting

The subject property is located on steep slopes above Wildcat Creek in the Carmel Highlands, east of Highway One. The parcel is one acre in size and located in a residential area with similarly sized parcels, zoned Low Density Residential, 1-acre minimum, Design District, Coastal Zone (“LDR/1-D (CZ)”). It previously contained a 3,329 square foot residence and a 659 square foot detached garage that were demolished under an approved permit (PLN030397). The slope of the property exceeds 30%, except for the building pad graded out for the existing residence and a separate pad for the driveway and garage. The existing house pad is approximately 22 feet lower in elevation than the driveway/garage pad and is reinforced with a concrete retaining wall. The slopes adjacent to the structures are terraced with wood retaining walls. On the eastern side of the property, a natural drainage swale enters the property from above where it drains runoff from residential lots located further up Peter Pan Road. The property contains native Monterey pine and coast live oak trees, several of which are in close proximity to the structures.

B. PROJECT ANALYSIS

The applicant (Peter Pan Investors LLC) requests permits (PLN990376) to allow the construction of a new single family dwelling with accessory structures and tree removal. Monterey County Code requires the following permits for the project:

1. Coastal Administrative Permit and Design Approval for the single family dwelling, accessory structures, and grading;

2. Coastal Development Permit for the removal of four (4) protected trees, consisting of two (2) landmark Monterey pines (36" and 28") and two (2) oak trees (13" and 6"); and

(5)

PLN990376 (Peter Pan Investors) 5

PC 03/29/06

3. Coastal Development Permit for development on 30% slope. New Residence

Proposed new structures include:

• a 3,851 square foot, three-story residence consisting of: - 382 square foot upper floor

- 1,499 square foot middle floor - 1,970 square foot lower floor • a 504 square foot detached garage.

The new structures are located on the existing building pads and in roughly the same footprint as the previous structures. It requires some additional grading into the hillside and in the building pad area. The grading in the building pad area consists of approximately one to two feet of loose fill that will be removed as part of the overall improvements for drainage and erosion control. Loose soils and fill material on the terraces and slopes will be excavated and/or reengineered and existing retaining walls will be removed. The proposed garage is pushed back slightly off of the existing garage footprint in order to meet the required 50-foot front setback from Peter Pan Road. The new residence also includes large patio and deck areas and new retaining walls (Figure 1).

(6)

PC 03/29/06 Visual Issues

The elevation difference between the driveway and building pad creates substantial height differences among the various building elevations. The proposed residence meets development standards and does not exceed the 30 foot maximum height limitation from average natural grade. However, the view of the house from northwest elevation facing towards Wildcat Canyon and the ocean does exceed 30 feet because all three stories will be visible from this side (Figure 2). However, the upper floor is relatively small (382 square feet) and consists of a foyer, stairs and an elevator in order to access the house and cope with the elevation difference between the driveway and building pads.

Although the proposed residence is not visible from Highway One, it is visible from portions of Point Lobos, several miles away. However, the residence is located in the same building pad as the previously existing dwelling and avoids additional visible cuts or grading. Visibility is not substantial because it is located on a forested hillside which contains other residences more visible from Point Lobos. In addition, the colors and materials are consistent with Carmel Area Land Use Plan policies which require the use of natural-appearing materials and that structures blend into the surrounding natural environment. In order to meet this requirement the applicant is proposing a shake, green-colored roof, wood-colored board and batten siding, and Carmel stone veneer/retaining walls. Staff concludes that this combination should provide for a negligible visual impact from Point Lobos.

The proposed lot coverage of 6% is within the 15% coverage allowed for a low density residential district. The 3,851 square foot house with 504 square foot garage is not unlike other dwellings approved in the Carmel Highlands area, including the 6,554 square foot two-story Lehrberg residence (PLN990577) with a plaster and stone veneer exterior and the 4,600 square foot two-story Twohig residence (PLN030134). Also, the proposed structure is comparative in size to the previously existing structure. Mitigation and conditions include landscaping, screening to soften visibility of the structure, restoration of disturbed areas, and minimization of exterior lighting. The proposed structure meets all required County policies, and is consistent with surrounding residences.

Tree Removal

Proposed tree removal which consists of two landmark Monterey pines (36 inches and 28 inches) and two coast live oaks (13 inches and 6 inches) was evaluated in the Forest Management Plan, prepared by Stephen Staub, dated April 9, 2003 and an addendum dated June 2003. The Carmel Area Land Use Plan prohibits the removal of landmark trees except where it is determined that no alternative exists to avoid removal. The forestry report noted that the trees have grown and adapted to the site with the man-made terraces and the previous structures in place, but that they will be severely impacted by the proposed development to include the necessary grading and drainage improvements. See Figure 3.

The 36-inch pine is located adjacent to and above the proposed residence. The forestry report identified high risk features related to the tree which will pose a hazard and includes a heavy lean over the project site, “a forked trunk, basal cavity, beetle attack, raised root system, and position on artificial slope/terrace.” It is located on loose soils where geotechnical engineers have recommended reengineering the soils to ensure soil stability. Impacts to the 28-inch pine relate

(7)

PC 03/29/06

to its location immediately adjacent to the previous garage, its raised root system and overall poor health of the tree, according to the forester. This pine located within the proposed garage footprint is rated in fair to poor health. Given the limited potential to relocate the project due to steepness of the lot and the related need to site the garage near the road, removal of these trees is unavoidable. The two oak trees to be removed are also located in the development area and will be impacted. They are located on the terraced portion where the wooden retaining walls will be removed and the soil reengineered and recontoured to simulate natural grade. For the same reasons given above, the oaks will need to be relocated, or replaced if they fail to establish. Preliminary sites for the relocated oaks are identified on the project plans.

Mitigation includes protection of two existing Monterey pine trees (30 inches and 18 inches) in the development area, pursuant to the Forest Management Plan. Further mitigation specifies relocation of the two oak trees, replacement of the landmark trees at a 4:1 ratio, placement of the planted trees to partially screen the residence, and landscaping with native drought-tolerant species. Removal of vegetation is minimal. Replacement and restoration will minimize visual impacts and maintain the forested setting. The forestry plan concluded that the proposed tree removal would not adversely impact the overall forest habitat. Given the site constraints with the proposed project and site improvements, Staff finds that tree removal is minimized and that there are no alternatives that would avoid impacting the landmark trees and therefore supports their removal.

Grading & Drainage

Geologic and geotechnical investigations of the subject property identified an existing debris flow hazard due to the potential instability of loose soils on the steep slopes becoming saturated. These conditions led to the 1998 debris flow on the property, concentrated in the eastern drainage swale, which resulted in damage to the down slope property (McHenry/Assessor’s Parcel Number: 241-201-024-000). The reports determined the property was suitable for the development, provided the geotechnical recommendations were followed. The reports and experts generally agreed that demolition of the existing structures, management of drainage and runoff to minimize saturation of soils, removal of existing retaining walls, and removal or reengineering of loose fill and soil would reduce the potential hazard. These recommendations have been incorporated as part of the proposed project and results in additional earthwork. Conditions and mitigation includes erosion control measures, restoration and revegetation of disturbed areas, and ongoing maintenance of drainage facilities.

30% Slope

The project site contains steep slopes in excess of 30% with proposed development located on the existing level building pads cut out of the slope. An elevation difference of approximately 22 feet occurs between the existing driveway/garage pad and the building pad with the areas separated by retaining walls and a terraced slope. Development and grading is proposed over the artificial terraces which have a cross slope in excess of 30% and is necessary in order to address the drainage and potential slide issues and to meet required setbacks for the structure. Staff supports the development on 30% slope which is consistent with County policy given that there are no alternatives that would avoid the development on 30% slope and that the project location minimizes potential drainage hazards.

(8)

PC 03/29/06

FIGURE 2. Previously Existing Residence with Staking & Flagging for Proposed Residence

FIGURE 3. Existing Conditions and Trees 28”

18” 36”

30” Oaks

(9)

PC 03/29/06

C. LUAC RECOMMENDATION Land Use Advisory Committee (LUAC)

The Carmel Highlands/Unincorporated Land Use Advisory Committee (LUAC) reviewed the project for the proposed residence and recommended denial of the project (Exhibit “F”). The Committee’s recommendation and concerns are summarized and addressed below.

The LUAC reviewed the project on February 21, 2006 and voted [6-0] to recommend denial. The Committee cited a number of questions and concerns with the proposed project which are addressed below to include staff’s response.

• Drainage: The LUAC stated that they had concerns that the drainage pipe which leads to Peter Pan Drive would be sufficient. They also wanted to see the pipe buried below hillside soil and not allowed to run across surface of adjacent lot where it is presently proposed and can bee seen.

Staff Response: The owner told the committee that he would have the engineer reexamine the plans and see about making the drainage pipe below ground. This change would be made prior to the Planning Commission hearing. As far as sufficiency, Water Resources Agency has approved the proposed drainage system.

• Lighting: The LUAC cited concerns about lighting and wanted to make sure that the lighting on the patio/deck was down lit and low wattage. They also recommended no motion lights allowed.

Staff Response: A condition has been incorporated requiring an exterior lighting plan using low wattage, down-lit fixtures to minimize off-site glare and harmonize with the setting consistent with County standards. The owner/applicant offered to give them a copy of the lighting plan when it was submitted to our office.

• Location of Garage: The LUAC would like the garage moved closer to Peter Pan Drive in order to avoid taking out the 28” Pine tree. And also quoted a setback exception to Title 20, Section 20.62.040.N, “Where the elevation of the front half of the lot at a point 50 feet from the center line of the traveled roadway is 7 feet above or below the grade of said centerline, a parking space, private garage, or carport, attached or detached, may encroach into the front yard setback requirement up to 5 feet from the front line of the lot.”

Staff Response: The Zoning Regulations for LDR requires a minimum 50 foot front yard setback for detached accessory structures. The proposed garage is in a relatively flat area and although Peter Pan Road slopes up to the parcel, it does not meet the 7 foot rise 50 feet from the center line of the road, and therefore, it does not meet the criteria for a setback exception as quoted by the LUAC.

• House Size. The LUAC concluded that the size of the house was not substantially reduced as required by the July 13th Planning Commission meeting. They would like to see the patio to the rear of the house at the first floor level and the rooftop fireplace removed from the plans and the house pulled back closer to the original cut of previous structure.

(10)

PC 03/29/06

Staff Response: Proposed lot coverage of 5% is within the 15% coverage allowed for a low density residential district. The project meets all necessary development standards. There was confusion at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the square footage of the original house. It was a two story 3,998 square foot house, 659 square foot garage with a 1,895 square foot building footprint. The proposal is a 3,851 square foot house, a 504 square foot garage with a building footprint of 1,970 square feet and fits right into the existing building pad. In addition, the proposed structure is not unlike other dwellings that have been approved in the Carmel Highlands area, including the 6,554 square foot two-story Lehrberg residence (PLN990577) and the 4,600 square foot two-story Twohig residence (PLN030134). Exterior colors and materials were changed to a more subordinate board and batten with earth tone colors and a stone veneer. Mitigation and conditions include landscaping, screening to soften visibility of the structure, restoration of disturbed areas, and minimization of exterior lighting. Staff has concluded that the proposed project is carefully sited and designed to minimize visibility which is consistent with the visual resource policies (Policy 2.2.3) of the Carmel Area Land Use Plan.

Other Neighbor Issues

Pubic comments were received at the LUAC meeting along with a letter which is attached to the Committee’s minutes. Of concern was:

1) Reduction of the house was not substantial as recommended; 2) Roof top fireplace in forested area a danger;

3) Drainage issues from the patio, rooftop and driveway; suggestion was to reduce patios;

4) Lighting impacts from the patios and decks which would affect neighbors and can be seen from Pt. Lobos;

5) Traffic issues from Peter Pan Road during construction; 6) Erosion impacts from the drainage pipe to Peter Pan Road; 7) The steep slopes, drainage runoff and soil stability are a concern;

8) The proposed house is approximately 1000 sq. ft. larger than the previous structure; 9) A more substantial reduction is recommended; reduce structure to a 2-story SFD to fit

better into the existing building pad. Staff Response:

Issues with the drainage system have been reviewed and approved by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. Staff also found that the proposed drainage improvements remedy the drainage concerns by a new drainage system that routes drainage southerly to a more acceptable area of the lot. Mitigation and conditions include landscaping, screening to soften visibility of the structure, restoration of disturbed areas, and minimization of exterior lighting. The proposed structure meets all required County policies, and is consistent with surrounding residences.

D. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA) Initial Study (Mitigated Negative Declaration)

An Initial Study (Mitigated Negative Declaration) was prepared for this project and circulated for public review between March 10, 2005 and April 10, 2005 (Exhibit “D”). The Initial Study

(11)

PC 03/29/06

addressed potential impacts related to the proposed residence and the proposed retaining wall. Because the retaining wall proposal is being revised or may be withdrawn, mitigation measures related to that project have been eliminated from conditions of approval for the subject project. Any future proposal for drainage structures in a different location would likely require additional environmental review. Potential revisions to the retaining wall and comments which were received do not change the analysis or conclusions of the Initial Study in relation to the proposed residence. The Initial Study determined that the project as designed and mitigated reduces impacts to a less than significant level. Topic areas addressed in the Initial Study relative to the proposed residence include Aesthetics, Geology/Soils, and Hydrology/Water Quality and are discussed above in the project analysis and LUAC recommendation. The issues and mitigation measures and public comments are summarized below consistent with analysis presented above. Staff has concluded that conditions and facts surrounding the project have not significantly changed and that the conclusions and mitigation measures remain timely and relevant to the proposed project. Primary issues discussed above also were primary topics in the environmental review and are not repeated in this section.

Public Comments

Comments on the mitigated negative declaration were received and raise issues concerning the septic system, drainage, retaining wall in the seasonal creek, project design, landslide issues, tree removal, and the argument for the preparation of an EIR (Exhibit “E”). Comments are addressed below except for the comments received on the retaining wall which is not included in the current proposal.

• Septic System. Comments question the location of the septic fields and potential problems with saturation and seepage.

Staff Response: The location and system have been reviewed and conceptually approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Division of Environmental Health to ensure the protection of public health and safety.

• Drainage Water. Comments cite potential problems with runoff from the 12” drainage pipe saturating and further eroding Peter Pan Road.

Staff Response: Water Resources Agency and the Public Works Department have reviewed the project and recommended mitigation measures or conditions for a drainage plan and a drainage improvement plan which have been incorporated and address any potential problems with drainage exiting onto Peter Pan Road.

• Size of Structures. Comments are concerned that the proposed structures are “too large and imposing.”

Staff Response: The retaining wall structure has been withdrawn from current consideration pending modifications or withdrawal and the current proposal is not dependent on its construction to address project drainage issues. The proposed garage (504 square feet) is smaller than the previous garage by 155 square feet. Although the proposed residence (3,851 square feet) is larger than the previously existing dwelling (3,329 square feet), the project meets necessary development standards and is not unlike the size of other dwellings approved in the area.

(12)

PC 03/29/06

• Upper Floor Issues. Comments address the extra height and visibility of the upper floor, private views, increased noise and lights on patio, the outdoor fireplace, and future expansion.

Staff Response: The upper floor of the residence does substantially increase visibility of the structure. The structure’s size is discussed above. In addition, the upper floor is limited to the foyer, elevator and stairs which are necessary to access the other floors because of the elevation difference between the driveway pad and building pad. The Carmel Area Land Use Plan does not protect private views or address noise from basic residential uses. Lighting is required to minimize off-site glare and will be addressed in the exterior lighting plan. The outdoor fireplace requires a spark arrestor per the Building Code and additional safeguards could be required by the Fire District if warranted. The commenter is also concerned about future expansion of the upper floor on the proposed patio area. Although there is no County policy or regulation that would prevent a future addition provided it meets development standards, any future enlargement is subject to additional permits and review. Currently, the proposed residence is limited to three (3) bedrooms because of the capacity of the septic system and expansion of the upper floor for other uses is not proposed.

• Tree Removal. Comments express concerns about the tree removal, particularly the landmark trees.

Staff Response: The Carmel Area Land Use Plan prohibits the removal of landmark trees except when it is determined that no alternatives exist. According to the consulting foresters, the two landmark pine trees will be impacted because of their proximity to the development, site characteristics, poor health and potential hazard they pose. Based on these reasons, it was determined that no alternatives exist that would avoid impacting them. The comments also claim that the removal of any tree in the forest will affect the health of the whole forest. Reports by consulting biologists and foresters did not note any adverse effect by the project on the forest as a whole. The removed landmark trees will be replaced at a 4:1 ratio to offset any potential temporary impact.

• Red Legged Frog. Comments from a neighbor across the canyon claim to have sited a red legged frog, a federally listed species, on their property in the Wildcat Canyon area. Staff Response: Biological reports prepared by Vern Yadon dated September 1999, and Jud Vandevere dated October 23, 2004, did not note any evidence of sensitive species such as red legged frogs or their habitat on the property. No documented sightings have been recorded in the vicinity. In addition, a standard condition of approval prohibiting grading operations during the wet season unless approved by the Director of Planning and Building Inspection affords additional protection in the event that red-legged frogs are in the area.

• EIR Requirement. Comments state that an EIR is necessary.

Staff Response: The Mitigated Negative Declaration determined that all potential project impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level and that therefore an EIR was not required.

(13)

EXHIBIT “B”

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE

PC 03/29/06 13

1. FINDING - CONSISTENCY: The Project, as conditioned is consistent with applicable plans and policies, the Carmel Area Land Use Plan, Coastal Implementation Plan (Part 4), Part 6 of the Coastal Implementation Plan, and the Monterey County Zoning Ordinance (Title 20).

EVIDENCE:

(a) Plan Conformance. PBI staff has reviewed the project as contained in the application and accompanying materials for consistency with the Carmel Area Land Use Plan, Coastal Implementation Plan (Part 4), and the Monterey County Zoning Ordinance (Title 20). County staff determined that the project is consistent with these policies and standards as they apply to residential development. Staff notes are provided in Project File PLN990376.

(b) Site Visit. Project planner conducted an on-site inspection in January, 2006 to verify that the project on the subject parcel conforms to the plans listed above.

(c) Land Use. The project for a single family residence, accessory structures and associated grading is an allowed use, in accordance with Section 20.14.040.

(d) Zoning Consistency. The parcel is zoned Low Density Residential, 1 unit/acre, Design District, Coastal Zone (“LDR/1-D (CZ)).” The project is in compliance with Site Development Standards for a Low Density Residential District in accordance with Section 20.14.060.

(e) Tree Removal. The project proposes to remove two landmark Monterey pine trees and two coast live oaks. See Finding #6.

(f) 30% Slope. The project proposes grading and development on areas of the property in excess of 30% slope. See Finding #7.

(g) Visibility. The proposed project is located in the viewshed as seen from Public Lands (Pt. Lobos) of Map A in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. See Finding #8.

(h) Land Use Advisory Committee. The Carmel Highlands/Unincorporated Land Use Advisory Committee (LUAC) reviewed the project on February 21, 2006, and recommended denial by a vote of 6 to 0. The Committee cited a number of questions and concerns with the proposed project which are addressed below.

• Drainage: The LUAC stated that they had concerns that the drainage pipe which leads to Peter Pan Drive would be above ground.

Staff Response: The owner told the committee that he would have the engineer reexamine the plans and see about making the drainage pipe below ground. This change would be made prior to the Planning Commission hearing.

• Lighting: The LUAC cited concerns about lighting and wanted to make sure that the lighting on the patio/deck was down lit and low wattage. Staff Response: A condition has been incorporated requiring an exterior lighting plan using low wattage, down-lit fixtures to minimize off-site glare and harmonize with the setting consistent with County standards. The owner/applicant offered to give them a copy of the lighting plan when it was submitted to our office.

• Location of Garage: The LUAC would like the garage moved closer to Peter Pan Drive in order to avoid taking out the 28” Pine tree. And also quoted a setback exception to Title 20, Section 20.62.040.N, “Where the elevation of the front half of the lot at a point 50 feet from the center line

(14)

EXHIBIT “B”

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS & EVIDENCE

PC 03/29/06 14

of the traveled roadway is 7 feet above or below the grade of said centerline, a parking space, private garage, or carport, attached or detached, may encroach into the front yard setback requirement up to 5 feet from the front line of the lot.”

Staff Response: The Zoning Regulations for LDR requires a minimum 50 foot front yard setback for detached accessory structures. The proposed garage is in a relatively flat area and does not meet the setback exception quoted from the LUAC.

• House Size. The LUAC concluded that the size of the house was not substantially reduced as required by the July 13th Planning Commission meeting.

Staff Response: Proposed lot coverage of 5% is within the 15% coverage allowed for a low density residential district. The project meets all necessary development standards. There was confusion at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the square footage of the original house. It was a two story 3,998 square foot house with a 1,895 square foot building footprint. The proposed is a 3,851 square foot house with 504 square foot garage with a building footprint of 1,680 square feet and fits right into the existing building pad. In addition, the proposed structure is not unlike other dwellings that have been approved in the Carmel Highlands area, including the 6,554 square foot two-story Lehrberg residence (PLN990577) and the 4,600 square foot two-story Twohig residence (PLN030134). Exterior colors and materials were changed to a more subordinate board and batten with earth tone colors and a stone veneer. Mitigation and conditions include landscaping, screening to soften visibility of the structure, restoration of disturbed areas, and minimization of exterior lighting.

(i) The application, plans, and support materials submitted by the project applicant to the Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Department for the proposed development, found in Project File PLN990376.

2. FINDING - SITE SUITABILITY: The site is suitable for the use proposed. EVIDENCE:

(a) The project has been reviewed for suitability by Planning and Building Inspection Department, Public Works Department, Water Resources Agency, Environmental Health Division, Parks Department and Carmel Highlands Fire Protection District. All applicable conditions recommended have been incorporated.

(b) The Planning Commission finds that technical reports by outside biological, archaeological, geological and geotechnical consultants remain timely with regards to the date of the subject application and indicate that there are no physical or environmental constraints such as environmentally sensitive habitats or similar areas that would indicate the site is not suitable for the use proposed. In addition, the revised proposal (2006) has been reduced in size and additional aesthetic treatments have been proposed although the footprint location has not changed. Therefore, aesthetic impacts if any have bee reduced and the proposed project does not have the potential for any additional impacts over those originally assessed when the initial study was originally circulated in 2005. Agency staff concurs. Reports are in Project File PLN990376 include:

(15)

EXHIBIT “B”

PC 03/29/06 15

• “Landslide Investigation for 226 Peter Pan Road,” prepared by Steven Raas & Associates, Inc, Consulting Geotechnical Engineers, Watsonville, CA, dated July 1998.

• “Geotechnical Soils-Foundation Report,” prepared by Grice Engineering and Geology, Inc., Salinas, CA, dated October 1999.

• “Geological and Geotechnical Investigation Slope Stabilization and Drainage Measures,” prepared by Stevens, Ferrone & Bailey Engineering Company, Inc., Salinas, CA, dated April 9, 2003.

• “Geologic Reconnaissance,” prepared by Geoconsultants, Inc., San Jose, CA, dated June 2003.

• “Supplemental Geological and Geotechnical Investigation,” prepared by Stevens, Ferrone, & Bailey Engineering Company, Inc., Salinas, CA, dated May 16, 2003.

• “Geotechnical Investigation for Retaining Wall within Eastern Swale,” prepared by Stevens, Ferrone, & Bailey Engineering Company, Inc., Salinas, CA, dated May 4, 2004.

• “Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance,” prepared by Mary A. Doane, B.A., and Trudy Haversat, RPA, of Archaeological Consulting, Salinas, CA, dated November 17, 2000.

• “Biological Report,” prepared by Vern L. Yadon, Pacific Grove, CA, dated September 30, 1999.

• Biological Letter for proposed the retaining wall, prepared by Jud Vandevere, Monterey, CA, dated October 23, 2004.

• “Forest Management Plan,” prepared by Stephen R. Staub, Felton, CA, dated April 2003.

• Letter Addendum to Forest Management Plan, prepared by Stephen R. Staub, Felton, CA, dated June 6, 2003.

• Letter prepared by Glenn C. Flamik, Forest City Consulting, Carmel, CA, dated September 29, 2003.

(c) Staff conducted an on-site visit in January 2006, to verify that the site is suitable for this use and that the reports are relevant and timely and that site conditions have not changed since the reports have been prepared.

(d) Necessary public facilities are available for the project.

3. FINDING - CEQA (Mitigated Negative Declaration): On the basis of the whole record before the Planning Commission there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project as designed and mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. The mitigated negative declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the County.

EVIDENCE:

(a) The Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Department prepared an Initial Study pursuant to CEQA. The Initial Study provides substantial evidence based upon the record as a whole, that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. Staff accordingly prepared a mitigated negative declaration. The Initial Study is on file in the offices of the Planning and Building Inspection Department and is hereby incorporated by reference. (PLN990376).

(16)

EXHIBIT “B”

PC 03/29/06 16

• The application and materials in project file number PLN990376, PLN040587 and PLN030397.

• “Historical Report,” prepared by David S. Byrd of Jones & Stokes, Sacramento, CA, dated March 2003.