Plans for new housing features tree debate

In an attempt to mitigate concerns around the cypress grove, the Planning Commission resolved that an arborist review the grading plan, said onsite monitoring of work within the vicinity of the cypress trees must occur, mandated the inclusion of a maintenance plan and stipulated a 3 to 1 ratio for tree replacement, should any cypress need to be removed. 

The decision also came with the complete exclusion of Lot 10 at the request of the developer after commissioners could not come to a consensus on whether a variance request for the lot should be granted. 

The Planning Commission was only tasked with regulation surrounding the units themselves, city staff reminded commissioners several times throughout the meeting. The subdivision mapping was already approved by the Half Moon Bay City Council in 2021. Additionally, all the houses are in substantial conformance with single-family residential design guidelines per the Architectural Advisory Committee, Assistant City Manager John Doughty said. 

Doughty said that per an original 2016 arborist report, only 6 inches of dirt should have been removed when creating the street to preserve the trees’ root health. But based on engineering design and soil conditions, a deeper cut was made to make the road structurally sound, creating potential concerns around the current health of the grove.

“Bottom line is that the owner and contractor did not pay attention adequately to the conditions of approval and the mitigated negative declaration … and they should have been more careful,” he said. “Based on what we can tell the grade differential for the street itself was changed substantially, and we reviewed and approved that as the city. We did not pick up and question and challenge the issue of the tree and the root protection, and that is on us.” 

City staff said that a different arborist had recently looked at the grove Feb. 13 and concluded that there was not any “major damage” done to the trees from the dirt removal based on cursory study. If danger became immediate, a tree removal permit could be issued.

Gossett, who originally broached concerns about the cypress tree grove, maintained that the Planning Commission could advocate for their full removal, citing other elements of the 2016 study that found the grove in bad health even before the grade differential. She rejected the idea that the grove should be re-studied. 

“I don’t understand the benefits of bringing in, even if we brought in the same arborist, to come up and tell us the trees are damaged , they’ve been mis-pruned, there’s a current grade differential of the root system — irregardless of what happened with the road system — the trees have canker, he rated them poor,” she said. “What is going to say, that it’s different today? Now the trees are healthy?”

Gossett also pointed to the fact that construction, which is already bad for the trees, would require paving over the remaining half of its root system that is not already under asphalt. 

Other commissioners said concerns could be addressed without immediate removal.

“I don’t see an imminent danger and regardless, the liability would fall on the property owner, not the city, in this situation,” Hernandez said. 

The developer, Gibraltar Capital Inc., indicated it will return to the Planning Commission to re-apply for any changes to the Lot 10 variance, which originally included encroaching on land not zoned for residential development to account for the size of the proposed house and additional detached accessory dwelling unit. 

Planning Commission Chair Rick Hernandez said he was “perfectly comfortable” with the proposed variance on the lot, particularly because ADUs can be a source of affordable housing for the Half Moon Bay community. Two other proposed lots on the site also have ADUs. 

But worries around proximity to Pilarcitos Creek, flooding risk and the potentially unnecessary size of the house were voiced by various commissioners throughout the meeting. 

“That to me does not look like affordable housing. I understand an ADU can be affordable housing, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be,” Commissioner David Gorn said. “What I see there is a huge house, a huge house that doesn’t meet city standards.” 

Developers maintained that the variance was requested to keep the Lot 10 building in conformance with the size of other proposed houses due to pre-existing dual frontage setbacks and narrow lots. 

Hernandez, alongside other commissioners, expressed a general excitement for the site, which features custom designs for each house, rather than a cookie-cutter model home approach. 

“This is a tricky lot. It’s also a spectacular site,” he said. “I applaud the work that’s gone into the design, it’s thoughtful.”

holly@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105