Land Use/Project Review Report
February 16, 2011
1. New Project
residence; also, a request for waiver from Vacation Rental Ordinance distance
restriction. Site located at 6063 Brighton Lane, Cambria. APN: 022-013-050.
Planner: Paul Sittig
Link to MUP application:
DRC2010-00034HERB/DRC2010-00034HERB.pdf
: DRC2010-00034 HERB – MUP for an addition to an existing singlefamilyhttp://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/referrals/coastal/Comments:
south two sides of an existing home, as well as replacing windows and doors. No
square footage would be added to living area, though the project would require 34
square feet of TDCs. Part of the deck addition would be a replacement for an existing
screened-in deck.
The new construction, if fully in compliance with current land use rules, would be an
enhancement of the property and its surroundings.
However, the plans as submitted (in both original and revised versions) call for a
projecting deck on the rear (south) side of the structure that appears to violate the
setback requirements of the Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance. The deck would
extend to within five feet of the lot line. This fails to meet the requirement (see below)
that limits the distance to seven feet. This figure is based on a formula allowing the
deck to extend no more than 30% into the required rear setback, which in this case is
10 feet. (On a corner lot such as this one, the “rear” is the side opposite the shorter of
the two street-fronting sides.) The proposed location of the side deck, three feet from
the lot line, appears to meet County standards, which are based on the Uniform
Building Code.
Here is the applicable language from Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance (23.04.116).
The key formula is highlighted:
The proposed project would add second-floor level decks on east anda. Decks: When constructed higher than 30 inches above the surrounding finish grade,
a wood deck may extend into required setbacks as follows (decks less than 30 inches
high are exempt from these requirements – see Section 23.04.104):
(1) Front setback: A deck is not to be located therein.
(2) Side setback: As determined by Sections 1206 and 1710 of the Uniform Building
Code.
(3) Rear setback: A deck may occupy up to 30% of a required rear setback, but is to
extend no closer than three feet to the rear property line.
The Land Use committee recommends that the plans be revised, based on a credible
survey, to ensure that the project meets all applicable ordinance requirements.
Recommendation on MUP for deck addition:
The request for a Vacation Rental Ordinance distance waiver is mentioned only on the
last page of the MUP application package and is not explained. A waiver would be
necessary because an adjacent SFR (to the west) currently holds a Vacation Rental
permit. We have been given no reason, and we can see none, why an exception
should be made to the ordinance in this case.
We also recommend that, in future, any request of this kind be decoupled from
applications for MUPs or other permits. Because it is crucial that neighbors be notified
of any request for a vacation rental permit or waiver, the application and notification
should be for that topic only. In the case of this VRO waiver request, it could easily
have escaped the attention of neighboring property owners receiving their official
notice of an MUP application for the deck additions and other property improvements.
Do not approve.Recommendation on request for VRO waiver:
Do not approve.2. New Project DRC2010-00041 PEARSALL
an existing single-family residence located at 356 Wedgewood Street, Cambria. APN:
023-016-046.
Planner: Airlin Singewald
Link to MUP application:
– MUP for a 159-square-foot addition tohttp://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/referrals/coastal/DRC2010-00041_PEARSALL/
DRC2010-00041_PEARSALL.pdf
Comments:
an existing deck. The project would be within the applicable setbacks, square footage
limits and height limits, though it would require 159 square feet of TDCs. Its visual
impact on other properties would be insignificant.
However, the land use committee found when its members visited the property that a
structure already exists where the addition is being requested. The exterior of it
appears to be recent (and unfinished) construction. It appears to be a non-permitted
addition that would now either have to be brought up to code or torn down and
replaced. The plans are not clear on this point – there is elevation showing that side of
the house in insufficient detail. According to Airlin Singewald, the county at this point
has no information beyond what the applicant has submitted.
At this point, the only recommendation we can make is against approval, because the
plan as submitted does not explain what is to be done about the existing structure. The
MUP application needs to be clarified on this point before it is resubmitted.
This MUP request is for a “proposed workroom” (per the floor plan) underRecommendation:
Do not approve.
