COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

Date:

September 19, 2001

Set Time:

9:15 a.m.

Hearing Date:

October 2, 2001

To:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

From:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

Subject:

Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Coastal Development Permit, pursuant to Section 6328.4 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations, to allow the construction of an 845 sq. ft. addition to an existing single-family residence located at 123 - 7th Street in the unincorporated Montara area. This project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

File Number:

PLN 1999-00090 (Montalbano)

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and approve the Coastal Development Permit by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval listed in Attachment A of this report.

PROPOSAL

The owner proposes to construct an addition to the existing residence that would involve a 105.88 sq. ft. addition to the ground floor as well as a 739.12 sq. ft. second-story addition.

BACKGROUND

Report Prepared By: Sara Bortolussi, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1839

Appellant: Liz Everett, et al.

Applicant: Randy Whitney

Owner: Jim Montalbano

Location: 123 - 7th Street, Montara

APN: 036-057-230

Size: 5,000 sq. ft.

Existing Zoning: R-1/S-17/DR/CD (Single-Family Residential/5,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size/Design Review/Coastal Development)

General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (6.1-8.7 dwelling units/acre)

Sphere-of-Influence: Half Moon Bay

Existing Land Use: Single-Family Residence

Flood Zone: Flood Zone C; Area of Minimal Flooding

Environmental Evaluation: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act related to additions to existing private structures.

Setting: The project is located west of Cabrillo Highway and is the second parcel located east of the cliff's edge. The surrounding vegetation consists primarily of native cypress trees. The surrounding parcels are developed with one- and two-story single-family residences.

Chronology:

Date

Action

March 5, 1999

Application submitted.

April 22, 1999

Planning staff determines that submitted plans do not match a recorded lot line adjustment. Staff calls applicant to discuss the discrepancy.

July 2, 1999

Applicant submits revised plans for the project showing the correct lot dimensions.

October 25, 1999

Letter sent to applicant regarding outstanding items required for processing the application, including a 50-year cliff retreat study and a drainage plan per requirements of the San Mateo County Geotechnical Section.

March 31, 2000

Applicant submitted revised plans, a drainage plan and the cliff retreat study this day. Planning staff routes plans to reviewing agencies.

April 20, 2000

Building Inspection Section requires a pre-site inspection to determine actual extent of proposed work, since it appears to exceed 50%.

May 5, 2000

Geotechnical Section determines bluff retreat study insufficient to show cliff retreat rate locally.

June 13, 2000

New cliff retreat study submitted. Planning staff routes the new study to reviewing agencies.

June 19, 2000

Cliff retreat study deemed satisfactory by the Geotechnical Section.

November 16, 2000

Zoning Hearing Officer public hearing. The item was continued to a special meeting on December 14, 2000, to allow for (1) the applicant to hold a meeting with his neighbors to discuss and attempt to resolve the concerns/issues raised at the hearing, notably view impacts, privacy protection and survey information; (2) staff to confer with County Counsel regarding the ability for the Zoning Hearing Officer to act on this item when there is a dispute regarding the parcel survey; and (3) staff to comprehensively analyze the project's consistency with relevant Local Coastal Program Visual Resource Component Policies, and LCP Policy 1.17 as related to "not detracting from the other developed parcel."

December 14, 2000

Zoning Hearing Officer special hearing. The item was continued to the January 4, 2001, Zoning Hearing Officer public hearing to allow time for (1) staff to recalculate the pre-existing building size (both before and after the 184 sq. ft. addition (1998)); and (2) County Counsel to review the pre-existing building size and the size of the 1998 and proposed additions, and advise on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.

January 4, 2001

Zoning Hearing Officer reviewed the project and included review of the 1998 addition in reviewing the proposed additions and approved the Coastal Development Permit subject to two new conditions to improve coastal views including (1) the requirement to revise the second-story roof design to lower the ridge height by at least one foot while retaining a predominantly pitched roof design and (2) trimming the existing cypress tree located in the front yard to the maximum extent without endangering the health of the tree, to improve visual access to ocean views.

January 18, 2001

Coastal Development Permit is appealed by David Beck, et al.

March 14, 2001

Planning Commission received packet of information from appellants requesting a field trip to the site.

April 9, 2001

Planning Commission field trip to project site.

April 11, 2001

Planning Commission public hearing. The item was continued to the May 9, 2001, Planning Commission hearing to allow additional time for the appellants to review the staff report and allow time for staff to research the size of the neighboring homes for presentation at the next Planning Commission hearing.

May 9, 2001

The Planning Commission unanimously (4-0; Commissioner Silver was absent) denied the appeal and approved the Coastal Development Permit.

May 29, 2001

Appeal filed by Liz Everett, et al.

October 2, 2001

Board of Supervisors public hearing.

DISCUSSION

A.

PREVIOUS ACTION

The Planning Commission voted 4-0 (Commissioner Silver was absent) to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Zoning Hearing Officer to approve this project. In doing so, the Commission modified a condition of approval to minimize trimming of the cypress tree in the front yard. The Planning Commission felt the existing cypress tree was part of the view enjoyed by the community and should not be trimmed to the maximum extent possible as suggested by the Zoning Hearing Officer.

B.

KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

The key issues of the appeal are listed below in bold followed by staff's response. To the degree that the appeal discusses non-compliance with applicable Local Coastal Program (LCP) Policies, there is discussion of the project's compliance. The actual notice of appeal appears in Attachment B.

1.

The appellants contend that there is still no correct project description determining the actual size of the house after the proposed addition. The appellants contend that they can provide evidence that the County and applicant's numbers are incorrect. They contend that without a proper description of the size of the house, it is possible that the house will not conform to Zoning Regulations and limits the County's ability to consider other development options that would bring the house in compliance with the Local Coastal Program.

The appellants have not provided staff with any data contrary to data prepared by both the applicant and staff either with the appeal filed on May 29, 2001, nor after a request made by staff on May 30, 2001. Staff made its determination of the size of the existing residential structure and size of the proposed expanded residential structure by scaling the drawings submitted by the applicant. Without any calculations refuting staff's analysis, staff must rely on the calculations that have already been completed.

2.

The appellants contend that they were denied due process when the applicant proposed an addition in 1998 and their desire is to have the Board of Supervisors include the square footage of the 1998 addition with the square footage proposed with this addition.

The appellants have made this argument at every stage of this project's review. At every stage of review, the situation has been explained. The appellants were not denied due process for the addition in 1998. At the time of application for the addition in 1998, it was determined that the project qualified for a Coastal Development Permit Exemption, which is issued over the counter with no notification required. Since the site is also within a designated Design Review District, the addition was subject to the review process stipulated in the County's Design Review regulations. At that time, the required notification for Design Review was a posting of the site. In addition, staff sent a courtesy notice to adjacent property owners. Research into the files kept on microfiche discovered a copy of the notice as well as mailing labels for those property owners adjacent to the project site. Addresses for mailing notices are provided by the County Assessor's Office. The Planning Division used the most current information available. Notice was provided to adjacent property owners; therefore, due process was not denied.

3.

The appellants contend that there is no consistent standard as to whether the garage area should be included in calculating the existing structure. They contend that the Board of Supervisors should adopt a single standard and that the standard be to exclude the garage area in calculating floor areas for structures.

The zoning regulations that are applicable to this project are the "old" regulations which had no floor area requirement. At the Planning Commission public hearing as well as discussion within prior staff reports, the project was reviewed with the applicable zoning regulations, both the existing regulations and the new proposed regulations recently approved by the Coastal Commission. The applicable regulations for this project have no floor area requirement; thus, the area of the garage is not considered, except for determining the overall lot coverage for the parcel. When reviewing the proposed project with the current regulations (interim regulations) for the urban Mid-Coast area, there is a floor area requirement which exempts the first 400 sq. ft. of garage space for the total maximum floor area permitted for parcels with 5,000 sq. ft. or larger. When reviewing the proposed project with the new proposed regulations, adopted by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and the California Coastal Commission, scheduled to go into effect September 20, 2001, floor area does include the size of the garage in calculating the maximum floor area permitted on a parcel. The important factor is that based on the date the applicant submitted the application, the applicable regulations do not limit the maximum floor area, thus whether or not the garage is included is irrelevant.

C.

KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION

The key issues of the appeal considered by the Planning Commission on April 11 and May 9, 2001, are listed below in bold with staff's response following. To the degree that the appeal discusses non-compliance with applicable Local Coastal Program (LCP) Policies, there is a discussion of the project's compliance.

1.

The appellants contend that neither the County nor the project applicant has been able to provide a correct description of the project and requests that the applicant submit a new set of plans.

This was a contention made by the appellants at the December 14, 2001, Zoning Hearing Officer (ZHO) meeting. At that meeting, the ZHO continued the item to allow staff time to recalculate the building size and correct the project description. This was completed and that information was presented at the January 4, 2001, ZHO meeting. See chart below.

Before 1998 Addition

After 1998 Addition

Living Space

805 sq. ft.

1,032.37 sq. ft. (addition was 227.37 sq. ft.)

Garages

522 sq. ft.

522 sq. ft.

Decks

486.22 sq. ft.

258.85 sq. ft. (square footage added during 1998 addition reduced deck area by the amount of the addition)

Total Floor Area
(living space and garage)

1,327 sq. ft.

1,554.37 sq. ft.

2.

The appellants contend that there is no way to determine the actual height of the project addition due to discrepancies in the actual project and want the County to provide conclusive evidence that the plans do not exceed the height restriction.

There is a method to determine if the proposed addition is in conformance with the maximum height limit of the zoning district. Staff has determined, based on scaled drawings submitted by the applicant, that the proposed addition does conform with the 28-foot height limit of the zoning district. In addition, the Zoning Hearing Officer added a condition of approval which requires the applicant to revise the roof design of the second-story addition such that the proposed ridge of the roof is lowered one foot. See Attachment D for a graphic display of the proposal conforming to the height requirement.

3.

The appellants contend that the project does not comply with LCP Policy 8.13.a.5 of the Visual Resources Component related to public views.

The policy reads, "To the extent feasible, design development to minimize the blocking of views to or along the ocean shoreline from Highway 1 and other public viewpoints between Highway 1 and the sea. Public viewpoints include coastal roads, roadside rests and vista points, recreation areas, trails, coastal accessways, and beaches. This provision shall not apply in areas west of Denniston Creek zoned either Coastside Commercial Recreation or Waterfront." The proposed addition will be visible from Cabrillo Highway at the intersection of 7th Street and Cabrillo Highway. What might ordinarily be a 180 degree unobstructed view will be reduced slightly. However, a majority of the view at that intersection will be retained, thus staff believes that the view will not be significantly impaired. In addition, the policy says "to the extent feasible." The parcel size is only 5,000 sq. ft. which limits the amount of area that can be constructed on while still remaining in compliance with the applicable setbacks. Staff believes the owner is proposing a reasonable house size while still wanting to retain a reasonable yard area that conforms to the applicable zoning regulations.

4.

The appellants contend that the project will affect private views.

With regard to private views, staff has discussed this with County Counsel and the appellants at various public meetings prior. The following is the result of those conversations with County Counsel.

Under California law, a landowner has no right to an unobstructed view over adjoining property (Posey v. Leavitt (1991) 299 Cal. App. 3d 1236, 1250; Pacific Homeowners' Assn. v. Wesley Palms Retirement Community (1986) 178 Cal. App. 3d 1147,1152). "As a general rule, a landowner has no natural right to air, light or an unobstructed view and the law is reluctant to imply such a right [citations]. Such a right may be created by private parties through the granting of an easement [citations] or through the adoptions of conditions, covenants and restrictions ... or by the Legislature [citations]." The County's Design Review Ordinance does not recognize a right to the preservation of private views. At most, the regulations give the decision-maker some authority to regulate height and location of structures to minimize impacting existing views in order to achieve a proper balance with surrounding site conditions.

There is no preservation of private views based on case law, the County's Zoning Regulations and the County's LCP. As stated above, the decision-maker has some authority to regulate the height and location of structures. The ZHO included a condition of approval requiring the applicant to redesign the roof of the second story such that the pitch would drop the ridge one foot.

5.

The appellants contend that the project does not comply with LCP Policy 8.13.a.4 related to the scale and character of the urbanscape.

The policy reads, "Design structures which are in scale with the character of their setting and blend rather than dominate or distract from the overall view of the urbanscape." Staff believes the proposed addition does blend with rather than dominate the urbanscape. The existing building is a one-story residence with one bedroom and one bathroom. The development surrounding this site consists of two-story homes with multiple bedrooms and bathrooms. The proposal adds living space in the form of additional bedrooms and bathrooms while remaining in scale and character with the surrounding residences.

6.

The appellants contend that the project does not comply with LCP Policy 8.5.a related to the visibility of the development.

The policy reads, "Require that new development be located on a portion of a parcel where the development (1) is least visible from State and County Scenic Roads, (2) is least likely to significantly impact views from public viewpoints, and (3) is consistent with all other LCP requirements, best preserves the visual and open space qualities of the parcel overall. Where conflicts in complying with this requirement occur, resolve them in a manner which on balance most protects coastal resources on the parcel, consistent with Coastal Act Section 30007.5. Public viewpoints include, but are not limited to, coastal roads, roadside rests and vista points, recreation areas, trails, coastal accessways, and beaches. This provision does not apply to enlargement of existing structures, provided that the size of the structure after enlargement does not exceed 150% of the pre-existing floor area, or 2,000 sq. ft., whichever is greater. This provision does not apply to agricultural development to the extent that application of the provision would impair any agricultural use or operation on the parcel. In such cases, agricultural development shall use appropriate building materials, colors, landscaping, and screening to eliminate or minimize the visual impact of the development." The policy requires that new development be located where the development (1) is least visible from State and County scenic roads, (2) is least likely to significantly impact views from public viewpoints and (3) is consistent with all other LCP Policies. The new development is proposed in an area on the parcel in the only location which allows the owner additional living space to create a reasonable size home (2,363.9 sq. ft.) and retain a reasonable size yard area while still being consistent with the applicable zoning regulations. There are no regulations which prohibit the owner from adding a second story to his home, as the zoning regulation permits two-story residences. Any development is going to be partially visible from Cabrillo Highway. This proposal will be slightly visible from Cabrillo Highway; however, staff believes that the addition will not significantly impact views from public viewpoints. The proposal is consistent with all other LCP Policies.

7.

The appellants contend they were denied due process for an addition proposed in 1998.

The appellants were not denied due process for the addition in 1998. At the time of application for that addition, a Coastal Development Permit Exemption was processed, which is a permit issued over the counter with no notification required. Since the site is also within a designated Design Review District, the addition was subject to the review process stipulated in the County's Design Review criteria. At that time, the required notification for Design Review was a posting of the site. In addition, staff sent a courtesy notice to adjacent property owners. Research into the files kept on microfiche discovered a copy of the notice as well as mailing labels for those property owners adjacent to the project site. Addresses for mailing notices are provided by the Assessor's Office. The Planning Division used the most current information available. Notice was provided to adjacent property owners.

8.

The appellants contend that the 1998 addition should be evaluated at this time with the proposed addition.

A Coastal Development Permit Exemption was approved and issued for the development on July 2, 1998. A substantial amount of time has passed since that approval, and the statute of limitations for any legal challenge has expired. A building permit was applied for, issued and finalized. According to County Counsel, it is too late to review or reconsider the approval of the 1998 addition itself. In any event, the 1998 addition was considered by the Zoning Hearing Officer in determining whether the current project complies under the LCP, and the Zoning Hearing Officer concluded that the project is in compliance.

9.

The appellants contend that the entire structure needs to be brought into conformance because the addition exceeds 50% of the value of the existing structure.

The applicant was required to have a pre-site inspection to determine the extent of remodel and addition proposed. The Building Inspection Section contends that the addition will comprise over 50% of the valuation of the existing structure. As such, the house will be brought to current building code. This rule does not extend to planning regulations. The Non-Conforming Chapter of the County Zoning Regulations does apply. This chapter says that non-conforming portions of the existing residence may remain provided the new construction conforms to current regulations. The existing residence is a one-story residence that has a right side yard setback of 3 feet 6 inches, where 5 feet is required. The proposed addition will conform to current regulations.

10.

The appellants contend that the project should comply with Section 6133.3.b.3.d of the Zoning Regulations.

The proposed project does not need to conform to this section, Section 6133.3.b.3.d, Development of Non-Conforming Parcels Requiring a Use Permit. This section is related to a use permit finding required for development of a non-conforming parcel. The project is proposed on a parcel that is conforming. The minimum parcel size is 5,000 sq. ft. and the project site is 5,000 sq. ft. This section is not applicable to this project.

11.

The appellants contend that this area is not an urban area, but rather rural in character and should be preserved.

Local Coastal Program Policy 1.3, Definition of Urban Areas, defines what is an "urban area." The policy defines urban areas as those lands suitable for urban development because the area is either: (1) developed, (2) subdivided and zoned for development at densities greater than one dwelling unit/5 acres, (3) served by sewer and water utilities, and/or (4) designated as an affordable housing site in the Housing Component.

The project site is within a designated urban area. The area is developed, the area was subdivided and zoned for development at densities greater than one dwelling unit/5 acres, and is served by both water and sewer utilities. The site is not a designated affordable housing site; however, the criteria say any of the four criteria would qualify as being an urban area. Just because the adjacent parcel is vacant and parcels across the street are vacant does not constitute the area as being rural.

12.

The appellants would like to see story poles erected on the site to determine the extent of the addition.

Staff has previously discussed the possibility of erecting story poles on the property. Story poles do not provide an indication of the massing of an addition, but rather provide a visual indication of the proposed height for the new addition. Staff believes that photo-simulations, provided by the applicant, are a better indication of the extent of the addition. (NOTE: This information was provided by the applicant at April 11, 2001, Planning Commission public hearing.)

13.

The appellants contend that a flat roof is more appropriate than a pitched roof as other houses in the area have flat roofs.

A flat roof design would be inconsistent with Local Coastal Program Policy 8.13.a, Special Design Guidelines for Coastal Communities, Montara-Moss Beach-El Granada, which requires the use of pitched rather than flat roofs. Also, the existing residence has a pitched roof and an addition with a flat roof would be inconsistent with the existing design of the residence. The addition proposes a floor with 8-foot ceilings where the minimum ceiling height is 7 feet 6 inches. The slope of the roof pitch is very slight. In addition, the ZHO added a condition of approval which requires the applicant to redesign the proposed second-story roof which lowers the ridge elevation one foot.

14.

The appellants contend that the non-conforming setbacks should not be allowed to continue for the addition.

The existing residence does have a non-conforming setback of 3 feet 6 inches on the right side where 5 feet is required. The proposed addition, however, does conform to the required setbacks of the zoning district. Section 6135.4 of the County Zoning Regulations, Enlargement of Non-Conforming Structures, states that "a non-conforming structure may be enlarged provided the enlargement conforms with the zoning regulations currently in effect." The proposed addition does conform to the applicable regulations, including setbacks.

15.

The appellants contend that the retaining wall on the property should be removed as it inhibits parking on 7th Street.

The retaining wall in question is a stone retaining wall located in front of the owner's residence that appears to be retaining the front yard area due to the slope of the lot. The retaining wall in question is not a part of this project and was not before the Planning Commission.

16.

The appellants contend that the water main should be brought to code before the CDP is issued.

Citizens Utilities, the reviewing water utility company, would have to make the determination if the water main needs to be upgraded. If this needs to be done, Citizens Utilities will make that determination and the work would be done during the building permit stage. Staff believes it does not make sense to require improvements prior to issuance of a Coastal Development Permit, if the project might then be denied.

17.

The appellants contend that the required fire hydrant be constructed prior to issuance of the CDP.

The requirements of the Fire District including the placement of a new fire hydrant are a condition of approval on the Coastal Development Permit. This would need to be completed during the building permit stage and not prior. If the project is denied, the fire hydrant is not necessary.

18.

The appellants contend that the applicant can construct the addition entirely on the first floor so to achieve the additional floor space and mitigate the appellants' concerns.

There are limited areas on the parcel where the owner can enjoy reasonable yard space and a reasonable house size. Staff has reviewed the potential for constructing an addition entirely on the first floor. Technically, there is potential to add approximately the same amount of square footage. For additional discussion of this, see Section F, Alternative, below. The proposed addition for a second story, however, conforms to the applicable zoning regulations and conditions of approval were added to help mitigate the concerns of the neighbors during the ZHO public hearing.

D.

CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE PLANNING REGULATIONS

1.

Conformance with the General Plan

Staff has determined that the project complies with all applicable General Plan Policies, with specific discussion of the following:

a.

Policy 4.14, Appearance of New Development, discusses the promotion of good design and site relationships. The project proposes to add square footage to an existing single-family residence. The proposed addition is consistent with the design of the existing residence and employs the same finishing materials and colors. The addition is proposed for the rear portion of the structure with minor modifications to the front elevation. Most of the addition will not be visible from the street, nor will it be visible from Cabrillo Highway.

b.

Policy 4.35, Urban Area Design Concept, discusses more specifically that the development in urban areas should be designed and constructed to contribute to the orderly development of the locality. The project is an addition to an existing residence and as such does not involve the development of any vacant parcels, but rather enhances the design of the existing home.

c.

Policy 8.3, Land Use Objectives for Urban Neighborhoods, discusses the need for these areas to be primarily residential uses, however, providing for some commercial land uses for balance and compatibility with surrounding cities. The project is an addition to an existing residence; thus, the existing land use is not changing. The project remains consistent with the objectives for urban neighborhoods.

d.

Policy 8.14, Land Use Compatibility, discusses the enhancement of character of existing single-family areas and protecting these single-family residential areas from incompatible land uses. The project is an addition to an existing home, which will remain consistent and compatible with the adjacent land uses, other single-family residences.

e.

Policy 15.12, Locating New Development in Areas Which Contain Natural Hazards, discusses designating areas where development should be avoided or special precautions taken, giving preferences to development that minimizes the number of people who will be exposed to such hazards, determining appropriate densities of development in these areas as well as requiring a detailed analysis of the hazard risk and adopting appropriate mitigation for any development proposed in these areas. The project addition is located west of Cabrillo Highway, approximately 50 feet from the cliff's edge, with a neighboring single-family residence developed on the lot between the project and the cliff's edge. The project remains a single-family residence and thus the number of people who will be exposed to any potential natural hazards, in this case, cliff erosion, will be minimized. Because of the close proximity of the project to the cliff edge, the applicant was required to submit a 50-year cliff erosion study to the Geotechnical Section for review. The study analyzed, based on aerial photography and rates of cliff erosion, where the location of the cliff's edge would be after 50 years with no precautions taken. The study revealed that the erosion of the cliff within the next 50 years would not affect the project.

Staff has determined that the proposed addition to the existing residence is consistent with the policies of the San Mateo County General Plan.

2.

Conformance with the Montara-Moss Beach-El Granada Community Plan

Policy 2.6, Restrictions on Urban Growth, discusses the encouragement of orderly and balanced development by limiting growth to already developed areas. This project involves an addition to an existing single-family residence and is located in an area that is already developed. The design is consistent with homes in the area and will enhance the design of the existing home. Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the Area Plan's policy.

3.

Conformance with the Zoning Regulations

a.

Conformance with the Development Review Criteria

The proposed addition was submitted to the Planning Division on March 5, 1999, prior to the adoption of interim ordinances affecting development in the Mid-Coast area. The addition is consistent with the development regulations for the R-1/S-17/DR/CD Zoning District, as indicated in the chart below.

The proposed addition to the existing residence conforms to all the development standards. Section 6406(c) of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations discusses encroachments into setbacks. It says that a stairway, landing place or uncovered porch may extend into said front yard a distance not exceeding 6 feet, provided that:

(1)

Such landing place or uncovered porch shall have its floor no higher than the entrance floor to the building.

The proposed extension to the front deck area is located at the same level as the entrance to the residence. The encroachment into the front setback is 2 feet 6 inches, which is less than the allowable 6 feet.

(2)

A railing no higher than 42 inches may be placed around such landing place or uncovered porch.

The railing that surrounds the deck is proposed at 39 inches, which meets the requirement of a railing no higher than 42 inches.

(3)

Such stairway, landing place or porch is unroofed and unenclosed above and below.

The proposed deck extension is unenclosed below and above.

(4)

Such stairway, landing place or uncovered porch shall not reduce the effective side yard clearance to a distance less than 3 feet.

The proposed deck extension does not encroach into the required side yard setback. While it does encroach into the front yard setback, it still retains a front setback of 17 feet 6 inches.

b.

Conformance with Zoning Regulations Recently Approved by the California Coastal Commission

This proposed project is grandfathered under the existing interim regulations as its submittal date was prior the adopted regulations for the urban Mid-Coast area. This information is presented for informational purposes only. New regulations for the urban Mid-Coast area were approved by the Coastal Commission and will go into effect on September 20, 2001, and will be applicable to all new development in the Mid-Coast area filed after that date. The regulations were crafted around the notion of reducing "monster homes" in the urban area of the Mid-Coast. These regulations were adopted by the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and the Coastal Commission after the submittal of this proposal and thus are not applicable. For informational purposes, summarized below is the project's conformance with those regulations. This information was presented in passing at the January 4, 2001 ZHO public hearing and included in previous staff reports to the Planning Commission for their consideration.

The new regulations include a daylight plane requirement. The daylight plane requirement provides two options for compliance. In both options, the daylight plane is measured along setback lines a vertical distance of 20 feet and then angles in 45 degrees until the maximum height of 28 feet is reached. Option 1 allows the daylight plane to be measured along the front and rear setback lines. Option 2 allows the daylight plane to be measured along the side setback lines. As noted above, the proposed addition would comply with Option 1, but would not comply with Option 2.

As evidenced by the chart above, the proposed addition, although not required to, does comply with the zoning regulations approved by the California Coastal Commission. As previously mentioned, these regulations were designed to reduce "monster homes" in the urban area of the Mid-Coast. The notion that the proposed addition creates a "monster home" is not substantiated.

4.

Conformance with the Local Coastal Program

Staff has completed a Local Coastal Program Checklist and determined that the project complies with all applicable Local Coastal Program Policies with specific discussion of the following:

Policy 1.17, Existing Developed Areas, discusses conserving, improving and revitalizing existing residential areas. The project addition will be improving the existing residential area by enhancing the design of the existing house, while not detracting from the other developed parcels.

Policy 8.4, Cliffs and Bluffs, discusses prohibiting development on bluff faces except for public access stairways where deemed necessary or for erosion control structures and placing development far back from bluffs to ensure the development would not be visually obtrusive when viewed from the shoreline. The project addition is not located directly on a bluff face nor is it the closest development to the bluff edge. There is an existing single-family residence located next to the subject parcel between it and the bluff's edge. The proposed addition will not be any more visible from the shoreline than the existing residence.

Policy 8.13(a), Special Design Guidelines for Coastal Communities, Montara-Moss Beach-El Granada, requires that:

a.

Design structures which fit the topography of the site and do not require extensive cutting, grading, or filling for construction.

The proposed addition is mainly above the existing ground floor area and thus will not require extensive cutting, grading or filling for the construction.

b.

Employ the use of natural materials and colors which blend with the vegetative cover of the site.

The existing house employs natural cedar shingles and stone work for walls and chimneys. The addition proposes to use the same materials and colors as the existing residence. In addition, the project will be conditioned to use the same materials and colors as the existing residence.

c.

Use pitched, rather than flat, roofs which are surfaced with non-reflective materials except for the employment of solar energy devices.

The addition will continue the same design of the pitched roof as the existing residence as well as the same non-reflective roof materials will be used.

d.

Design structures which are in scale with the character of their setting and blend rather than dominate or distract from the overall view of the urbanscape.

The proposed addition is in scale with the setting and the other structures nearby. The addition is set back from the front of the house and will blend in with the design of the existing residence. The house will not exceed two stories at any given point, thus is consistent with the design and character of other houses in the vicinity.

e.

To the extent feasible, design development to minimize the blocking of views to or along the ocean shoreline from Highway 1 and the sea.

The proposed addition will not significantly impact views anymore than the existing residence and staff believes the addition will only be partially visible from Highway 1.

Policy 9.8, Regulation of Development on Coastal Bluff Tops, discusses the prohibition of development on coastal bluff tops unless it can be demonstrated that the design and setback provisions for the development are adequate such that the stability and structural integrity of the structure will not be compromised during the next 50 years. The applicant provided a 50-year cliff erosion study showing the location of the bluff top relative to the proposed addition and existing residence and found that the existing house as well as the addition will not be affected by any cliff erosion.

Policy 10.30, Requirement of Minimum Access as a Condition of Granting Development Permits, discusses providing shoreline access for any private or public projects located between the sea and the first public road. The policy also says that the requirements for providing the access are based on: (1) the size and type of development, (2) the benefit to the developer, (3) the priority given to the type of development under the Coastal Act, and (4) the impact of the development. The policy also requires trail improvements for "large developments" such as major subdivisions.

The project addition is on a parcel located between the sea and the first public road; however, the project is considered minor development on an already developed parcel. In addition, there are existing public access points between Seacliff Court and 9th Street, just north of the project site and at the Montara Lighthouse, just south of the project site. Staff believes that the proposed addition will not impact the public's right of access and use of the shoreline at the existing designated access points.

Staff has also researched this issue of access with County Counsel and determined that any requirement under the Coastal Act for dedication of property or exactions must also meet constitutional requirements. There must be a nexus between the burdens imposed by the development and the condition requiring dedication (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 438 U.S. 82.5). The planning agency must also establish a reasonable relationship (proportionality) between the development's impact and the conditions imposed on the development (Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374). Staff believes that the addition to the existing single-family residence is minor and will not impact any existing public access trails nor will it impact any future access trails. The County, therefore, cannot require the applicant to make any improvements to existing access trails or create new access trails.

E.

KEY ISSUES FROM THE DECEMBER 14, 2000 STAFF REPORT TO THE ZHO

1.

Requested Research

This item was originally heard before the Zoning Hearing Officer on November 16, 2000, and was continued to allow the following to occur:

a.

The applicant shall hold a meeting with his neighbors, including Westerfield and Beck, to discuss and attempt to resolve the concerns/issues raised at the hearing, notably view impacts, privacy protection, and survey information.

The owner held a meeting at his home at 123 - 7th Street on Monday, November 20, 2000. The Westerfields, David Beck, Joe Indrisano, the Batstones, Randy Whitney (applicant) and Jim Montalbano (owner) were present at the meeting. It is staff's understanding that the meeting ended in a stalemate with no conclusions or issues resolved regarding view impacts, privacy protection or survey information.

b.

Staff shall confer with County Counsel regarding the ability of the Zoning Hearing Officer to act on this item when there is a dispute regarding the parcel survey.

Staff met with County Counsel on November 21, 2000, to discuss the ability for the Zoning Hearing Officer to act on this item when there is a dispute regarding the parcel survey. The response from County Counsel was that the Zoning Hearing Officer may act on this item in the absence of another survey with contrary information. Further, a survey dispute is a civil issue between the parties.

c.

Staff shall comprehensively analyze the project's consistency with relevant Local Coastal Program Visual Resources Component Policies, and specifically LCP Policy 1.17 as related to "not detracting from the other developed parcel."

Staff has reviewed this proposal with the relevant Local Coastal Program Visual Resources Component Policies as well as LCP Policy 1.17. The discussion of this follows below.

A member of the public stated at the November 16, 2000, Zoning Hearing Officer public hearing that this project was not consistent with the Coastal Act. In late 1980, the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program was certified and approved by both the County Board of Supervisors and the California Coastal Commission. It was with this certification that San Mateo County assumed responsibility for implementing the State Coastal Act in the unincorporated area of San Mateo County. The policies stated in the Local Coastal Program are consistent with the State Coastal Act and are the relevant policies for evaluating projects in the unincorporated coastal area. If the project is consistent with the policies of the Local Coastal Program, then the project is consistent with the Coastal Act.

Policy 1.17 states, "Conserve, improve, and revitalize existing residential, commercial and industrial areas." Staff has reviewed this proposal for an addition to an existing residence and believes that the proposal will improve and revitalize the existing residential area. The existing residence is a one-story home consisting of one bedroom and one bathroom. The majority of the surrounding residences are two-story homes and have multiple bedrooms and bathrooms. Staff believes the addition will enhance the existing residence and make it more compatible, as far as size, with the homes in its surrounding area.

At the November 16, 2000, Zoning Hearing Officer meeting, a member of the public stated that the language used in the staff report, "The project addition will be improving the existing residential area by enhancing the design of the existing house, while not detracting from the other developed parcels," was a false statement. Neighbors on Seacliff Court said that views they currently have will be blocked and that the addition will detract from their homes. Staff discussed preservation of private views with County Counsel and received the following response:

Under California law, a landowner has no right to an unobstructed view over adjoining property (Posey v. Leavitt (1991) 299 Cal. App. 3d 1236, 1250; Pacific Homeowners' Assn. v. Wesley Palms Retirement Community (1986) 178 Cal. App. 3d 1147,1152). "As a general rule, a landowner has no natural right to air, light or an unobstructed view and the law is reluctant to imply such a right [citations]. Such a right may be created by private parties through the granting of an easement [citations] or through the adoptions of conditions, covenants and restrictions ... or by the Legislature [citations]." (lbid.) The County's Design Review Ordinance does not recognize a right to the preservation of private views. At most, the regulations give the decision maker some authority to regulate height and location of structures to minimize impacting existing views in order to achieve a proper balance with surrounding site conditions.

Staff believes the proposal is consistent with LCP Policy 1.17. Staff does not recommend any changes with respect to the height or location of the addition. Staff has observed the existing views from Seacliff Court and believes the addition will have minimal impacts on those views.

The applicable Visual Resources Component Policies that are applicable include Policies 8.4, Cliffs and Bluffs; 8.5, Location of Development; 8.12, General Regulations; 8.13(a), Special Design Guidelines for Coastal Communities: Montara, Moss Beach, El Granada; and 8.32, Regulation of Scenic Corridors in Urban Areas.

Policy 8.4(a) states, "Prohibit development on bluff faces except public access stairways where deemed necessary and erosion control structures which are in conformity with coastal policies on access and erosion." The proposed addition is to an existing single-family residence that is not located on a bluff face. Policy 8.4(b) states, "Set back bluff top development and landscaping from the bluff edge (i.e., decks, patios, structures, trees, shrubs, etc.) sufficiently far to ensure it is not visually obtrusive when viewed from the shoreline except in highly developed areas where adjoining development is nearer the bluff edge, or in special cases where a public facility is required to serve the public safety, health and welfare." The proposed addition to the existing single-family residence is located within a designated urban area with development surrounding it, with the exception of the lot immediately to the east. There is adjoining development that is nearer the bluff edge; thus, this policy is not applicable. However, the proposed addition will not be visible from the shoreline, as the view will be of the Westerfield's house located west of the project site.

Policy 8.5(a) states, "Require that new development be located on a portion of a parcel where the development (1) is least visible from State and County Scenic Roads, (2) is least likely to significantly impact views from public viewpoints, and (3) is consistent with all other LCP requirements, best preserves the visual and open space qualities of the parcel overall. Where conflicts in complying with this requirement occur, resolve them in a manner, which on balance most protects significant coastal resources on the parcel, consistent with Coastal Act Section 30007.5. Public viewpoints include but are not limited to, coastal roads, roadside rests and vista points, recreation areas, trails, coastal accessways, and beaches. This provision does not apply to enlargements of existing structures, provided the size of the structure after enlargement does not exceed 150% of the pre-existing floor area, or 2,000 sq. ft., whichever is greater." This provision does not apply to the proposal because the size of the structure after the addition is approximately 138% of the existing floor area of the structure, as underlined above.

Policy 8.5(b) states, "Require, including by clustering if necessary, that new parcels have building sites that are not visible from State and County Scenic Roads and will not significantly impact views from public viewpoints. If the entire property being subdivided is visible from State and County Scenic Roads or other public viewpoints, then require that new parcels have building sites that minimize visibility from those roads and other public viewpoints." The proposal is for an addition to an existing structure and does not involve the creation of new building sites.

Policy 8.12(a) states, "Apply the Design Review (DR) Zoning District to urbanized areas of the Coastal Zone." The Design Review Zoning District has guidelines and standards for review of projects proposed within designated Design Review areas. The guidelines include:

(1)

Proposed structures are designed and situated so as to retain and blend with natural vegetation and landforms of the site and to ensure adequate space for light and air to itself and adjacent properties.

The proposal is for a second-story addition to an existing residence. The addition will not alter the site by removing any vegetation to locate the second story. In addition, the proposal allows for adequate light and air to penetrate to the residence as well as adjacent residences by adhering to side yard setback requirements of the zoning district (i.e., 5 feet on the right side and 10 feet on the left side).

(2)

Where grading is necessary for the construction of structures and paved areas, it blends with adjacent landforms through the use of contour grading rather than harsh cutting or terracing of the site and does not create problems of drainage or erosion on its site or adjacent property.

Grading is not necessary to construct the proposed second-story addition.

(3)

Streams and other natural drainage systems are not altered so as to affect their character and thereby causing problems of drainage, erosion or flooding.

The project site is not near any streams or other natural drainage systems; thus, the second-story addition will not affect any streams or other natural drainage system.

(4)

Structures are located outside flood zones, drainage channels and other areas subject to inundation.

The project site is located within a Flood Zone C, which is identified as an "area of minimal flooding" as designated by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. A second-story addition will not change the potential for the property to flood.

(5)

Trees and other vegetation land cover are removed only where necessary for the construction of structures or paved areas in order to reduce erosion and impacts on natural drainage channels, and maintain surface runoff at acceptable levels.

No trees or vegetation will be removed to construct the second-story addition; thus, surface runoff will not change from the amount of runoff existing now.

(6)

A smooth transition is maintained between development and adjacent open areas through the use of natural landscaping and plant materials which are native or appropriate to the area.

The project parcel is located in a designated urban area with property zoned for single-family residential development on all sides. There are no designated open areas surrounding the development.

(7)

Views are protected by the height and location of structures and through the selective pruning or removal of trees and vegetative matter at the end of view corridors.

The proposed second-story addition conforms with the zoning district's regulation for structures to not exceed 28 feet in height as measured from the average finished grade to the topmost point of the roof of the structure. The owner has discussed with one neighbor the potential for trimming a tree located on the owner's property to allow the neighbor to view the shoreline from his property.

(8)

Construction on ridgelines blends with the existing silhouette by maintaining natural vegetative masses and landforms and does not extend above the height of the forest or tree canopy.

The proposal does not involve the construction on ridgelines.

(9)

Structures are set back from the edge of bluffs and cliffs to protect views from scenic areas below.

The proposed second-story addition is set back from the bluff edge and in fact is not the closest structure to the bluff edge. The Westerfield residence is located farther west of the project site on the bluff edge. The second-story addition is set back from the bluff edge by approximately 80 feet.

(10)

Public views to and along the shoreline from public roads and other public lands are protected.

Public views are protected from public roads, namely Highway 1. The proposed addition will only be partially visible from Highway 1 as the residence located east of the project site, as well as the significant cypress trees along Highway 1, will help to screen the addition from view. The public lands in the vicinity are the beach areas below the development. Views from the shoreline area as well as from the public viewpoint at the end of Seacliff Court will not be impacted by the proposed addition and thus the views will be protected.

(11)

Varying architectural styles are made compatible through the use of similar materials and colors which blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhoods.

The proposed addition to the existing residence will employ the same materials and colors as used on the existing residence. The existing residence uses natural cedar shingles and stone with minimal use of stucco. The house located east of the project site is constructed of natural wood. The house located west of the project site is constructed of wood siding. The house located south of the project site is constructed of stucco. The houses in the vicinity are constructed from a variety of materials. The materials for the addition are required to be the same as the existing residence so that the addition will blend in with the existing design of the residence. Thus, staff believes the colors and materials are appropriate for the area.

(12)

The design of the structure is appropriate to the use of the property and is in harmony with the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community.

The proposed addition is appropriate to the use of the property. The existing residence is a one-story residence with one bedroom and one bathroom. The surrounding residences are two-story residences that all have multiple bedrooms and bathrooms. The proposal for the addition will allow the structure to be compatible with the size and scale of adjacent buildings.

(13)

Overhead utility lines are placed underground where appropriate to reduce the visual impact in open and scenic areas.

The project has been conditioned to place any new utility lines necessary for the addition to be placed underground starting from the nearest existing utility pole.

(14)

The number, location, size, design, lighting, materials, and use of colors in signs are compatible with the architectural style of the structure they identify and harmonize with their surroundings.

The proposed project does not involve or require any signage.

(15)

Paved areas are integrated into the site, relate to their structure, and are landscaped to reduce visual impact from residential areas and from roadways.

The proposal is for a second-story addition and as such will not increase the amount of paved surfaces on the project site.

Policy 8.12(b) states, "Employ the design criteria set forth in the Community Design Manual for all new development in urban areas." The design criteria set forth in the Community Design Manual are the same criteria, which have been adopted into the Zoning Regulations, Section 6565.7, regarding structures located within a designated Design Review District. The applicable guidelines and their applicability to the proposal are discussed above.

Policy 8.12(c) states, "Locate and design new development and landscaping so that ocean views are not blocked from public viewing points such as public roads and publicly-owned lands." Public views are protected from public roads, namely Highway 1. The proposed addition will only be partially visible from Highway 1 as the residence located east of the project site, as well as the significant cypress trees along Highway 1, will help to screen the addition from view. The public lands in the vicinity are the beach areas below the development. Views from the shoreline area as well as from the public viewpoint at the end of Seacliff Court will not be impacted by the proposed addition and thus the views will be protected.

F.

ALTERNATIVES

The appellants contend that the additional square footage in this proposal could be constructed on the first floor. Staff has analyzed the potential for a one-story addition. Technically, it is possible to construct a one-story addition that results in approximately the same amount of floor area as the proposal, 2,360 sq. ft. Realistically, however, the only usable area is located at the sides and rear of the existing structure and totals 589 sq. ft. bringing a one-story addition to 2,107 sq. ft. This proposal, however, would result in the new one-story structure lacking any articulation as required by the Design Review Guidelines for Coastal Communities and poses constraints to utilizing the existing structure. See Attachment H for a visual representation of the potential first story build-out.

G.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301(e), Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act related to negligible additions to existing private structures and Section 15303(a) related to new construction.

Further discussions with County Counsel have determined that the proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303(a) related to new construction for the following reasons. Section 15301(e) discusses negligible additions to existing structures; however, if the addition is greater than 50%, it would not be considered negligible. Section 15303(a) discusses new construction allowing for up to three new dwellings in urban areas to be constructed under this provision. Building regulations have always treated additions over 50% as new construction, the proposed addition would be considered new construction, thus exempt from the provisions of CEQA.

H.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

Reviewing Agency

Approve?

Conditions?

Building Inspection Section

Yes

Yes

Department of Public Works

Yes

Yes

Geotechnical Section

Yes

No

Half Moon Bay Fire

Yes

Yes

Mid-Coast Community Council

Yes and No
(see discussion below)

No

I.

REVIEW BY THE MID-COAST COMMUNITY COUNCIL

This project was referred to the Mid-Coast Community Council (MCCC) for their review in March 1999. The MCCC did not have any comments regarding the design of the structure but had some reservations about whether the addition would be visible from Highway 1. Revised plans were submitted, which addressed issues that the Building Inspection Section had regarding the design of the house. The revision was very minor in nature and did not warrant a second review by the MCCC. Staff did forward pictures for the MCCC to review regarding the visibility of the structure from Highway 1. No additional comments were received from the MCCC.

During the numerous hearings conducted before the Zoning Hearing Officer, Chuck Kozak re-reviewed the proposed design as a courtesy to the neighbors. The MCCC re-reviewed this proposal on December 20, 2000. At this meeting, the Committee compiled a list of issues they felt might need addressing. The issues brought up at the MCCC meeting on December 20, 2000, are the same issues addressed in the appeal. Discussion of these issues can be found in Section A above. They include:

1.

The actual size of the existing house, the size of the house before the 1998 addition and the size of the 1998 addition.

2.

A concern about piecemealing the project since there was no indication at the time of the 1998 addition, that this addition would be applied for.

3.

The visibility of the addition from Highway 1 and view preservation as discussed in the Community Design Manual.

4.

The erection of story poles or use of photo-simulations to show exactly how the addition will look from various locations.

5.

Availability of water pressure both to service the addition and for continued fire protection.

6.

Request to correct the existing non-conforming setbacks.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

B.

Notices of Appeal

C.

Location Maps

D.

Graphic Representation of the Proposed Height of the Addition

E.

Site Plan

F.

Floor Plans

G.

Elevations

H.

Potential First Story Build-Out

I.

Letter from the Mid-Coast Community Council

J.

Coastal Development Policy Checklist

Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit or Project File Number: PLN 1999-00090

Hearing Date: October 2, 2001

Prepared By: Sara Bortolussi, Project Planner

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

Based on the staff report and evidence presented at the hearing:

Regarding the Environmental Review, Find:

1.

That the project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303, regarding new construction of small structures.

Regarding the Coastal Development Permit Find:

2.

That the project, as described in the application and accompanying materials required by Section 6328.7 and as conditioned in accordance with Section 6328.14, conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program, as documented in the LCP Policy Checklist completed for the project and the staff report, Section B.4 and C.3.

3.

That where the project is located between the nearest public road and the sea, or shoreline of Pescadero Marsh, the project is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Section 30200 of the Public Resources Code), as documented in the LCP Policy Checklist completed for the project and the staff report, Section B.4 and C.3.

4.

That the project, as conditioned, conforms to the specific findings required by the policies of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program, as documented in the LCP Policy Checklist completed for the project and the staff report, Section B.4 and C.3.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Planning Division

1.

This approval applies only to the proposal, documents and plans described in this report and submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission on April 11, 2001. Minor revisions or modifications to the project may be approved by the Planning Director if they are consistent with the intent of and in substantial conformance with this approval.

2.

This permit shall be valid for one year, until September 18, 2002. Any extensions of this permit shall require submittal of a written request and payment of applicable extension fees 30 days prior to expiration.

3.

In order to improve coastal views from public roads, revise the second-story roof design to lower the highest ridge by at least one foot, while maintaining a predominantly pitched roof design, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. This may be accomplished by changing roof pitch, reducing ridge height, creating a small flat roof section, etc.

4.

The applicant shall apply for and be issued a building permit prior to the start of construction, including any grading or land clearing activity. The County Geologist shall review and approve all project-related construction plans and reports prior to issuance of a building permit.

5.

The addition to the house shall employ the same materials and colors as the existing single-family residence, natural cedar shingles. At the time of a final inspection, the building inspector shall verify that the materials and colors used for the addition match those used for the existing residence.

6.

If the exterior material or color of the building changes as part of the proposed construction, the property owner shall be required to submit 4-inch square color chip samples to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to painting the structure.

7.

No tree cutting is allowed by this permit. Removal of any tree with a diameter greater than 12 inches as measured 4.5 feet above the ground shall require a separate tree removal permit.

8.

In order to improve coastal views from public roads, the existing cypress tree located in the front yard of the project site shall be minimally trimmed without endangering the health of the tree, to the satisfaction of the Development Review Services Manager.

9.

All new utility lines, if required, shall be installed underground beginning at the nearest utility pole to the proposed addition.

10.

The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan prior to issuance of a building permit, to mitigate any erosion resulting from project-related grading activities.

11.

During the project construction, the applicant shall, pursuant to Section 5022 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code, minimize the transport and discharge of stormwater runoff from the construction site into storm drain systems and water bodies by:

a.

Using filtration materials on storm drain covers to remove sediment from dewatering effluent.

b.

Stabilizing all denuded areas and maintaining erosion control measures continuously between October 15 and April 15.

c.

Removing spoils promptly, and avoiding stockpiling of fill materials, when rain is forecast. If rain threatens, stockpiled soils and other materials shall be covered with a tarp or other waterproof material.

d.

Storing, handling, and disposing of construction materials and wastes so as to avoid their entry to the storm drain system or water body.

e.

Avoiding cleaning, fueling or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in an area designated to contain and treat runoff.

f.

Limiting and timing applications of pesticides and fertilizer to avoid polluting runoff.

12.

Noise levels produced by the proposed construction activity shall not exceed the 80-dBA level at any one moment. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction operations are prohibited on Sunday and any national holiday.

13.

Height verification shall be required at various stages during construction and confirmed in writing at each stage by the project engineer. The site plan shall show:

a.

The baseline elevation datum point as established by a licensed land surveyor or engineer. This datum point must be located so that it will not be disturbed by construction activities. This datum point shall be used during construction to verify the elevation of the finished floor relative to the site's existing natural grade.

b.

The natural grade elevations at a minimum of four significant corners of the structure's footprint.

c.

The elevations of the proposed finished grades, where applicable.

d.

The ridgeline elevation of the highest point on the roof.

14.

The plans submitted for a building permit shall be revised to show the side yard setback on the left side for the new addition to be 10 feet, and the front deck addition not encroaching into the side yard setback more than 3 feet, thus retaining a 7-foot side yard setback for the side of the front deck addition.

Building Inspection Section

15.

A detailed set of plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Building Inspection Section for approval. These plans shall clearly indicate all proposed work to be performed under this permit and shall incorporate all items identified in the pre-site report. All changes, deviations or modifications to the approved plans shall require approved revisions prior to further inspections. All required engineering letters verifying compliance with design criteria or substantiating changes in design shall be approved by the Building Inspection Section prior to inspections. As a condition of final inspection, wet-stamped copies of all required engineering letters shall be forwarded to the Building Inspection Section for permanent records.

16.

At this time, the project is over 50% and less than 75% of the valuation of the existing structure. If at any time during the construction of the project, any changes or revisions increase the valuation to over 75%, then an approved sprinkler system for fire suppression shall be required throughout the entire structure.

17.

A survey is required for every application for a permit which exceeds 50% of the valuation of the existing structure. A survey is required to be submitted to the Building Inspection Section at the time of application for a building permit.

18.

A drainage and erosion plan is required for all projects that exceed 50% of the valuation of the existing building or structure. The plan is required and shall be incorporated into the construction plans for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.

19.

The applicant is required to comply with all aspects and corrections listed in the Building Inspection Section pre-site report dated October 16, 2000.

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District

20.

As per the Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal Regulations, the applicant will be required to install State Fire Marshal approved and listed smoke detectors which are hardwired, interconnected and have battery backup. These detectors shall be placed in each sleeping room and at a point centrally located in the corridor or area giving access to each separate sleeping area. A minimum of one detector shall be placed on each floor. Smoke detectors shall be tested and approved prior to building final.

21.

Building identification shall be conspicuously posted and visible from the street. (Temporary address numbers shall be posted prior to combustibles being placed on site.) The letters and numerals for permanent address numbers shall be of adequate size and of a color which is contrasting with the background. Such letters or numerals shall be internally illuminated and facing the direction of access.

22.

The roof covering of every new building or structure, and materials applied as part of a roof covering assembly, shall have a minimum fire rating of Class "B" or higher.

23.

There must be a fire hydrant within 250 feet of the property. Hydrants may be spaced no more than 500 feet apart.

24.

The Fire Department recommends that a defensible space of not less than 30 feet be maintained between the home and any combustible vegetation.