20020108_m

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

Date:

December 18, 2001

Set Time:

9:45 a.m.

Hearing Date:

January 8, 2002

To:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

From:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

Subject:

Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of an application for a Coastal Development Permit and Design Review, pursuant to Sections 6328.4 and 6565.1, respectively, of the County Zoning Regulations, to allow construction of a 2,915 sq. ft., 25.8-foot high residence (and attached garage) on a 5,500 sq. ft. parcel. The project site is located at 421 Valencia Avenue near Vallejo Street within the unincorporated El Granada area of San Mateo County. This project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

File Number:

PLN 2000-00385 (Ceschin)

RECOMMENDATION

That the Board of Supervisors uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the Coastal Development Permit and Design Review, by making the findings listed in Attachment A.

PROPOSAL

The applicant previously proposed a 2,915 sq. ft., 25.8-foot high residence (including an attached two-car garage), which was approved by the Zoning Hearing Officer but denied by the Planing Commission on appeal. The applicant's latest revision, submitted after the Planning Commission's denial, reduces the total house size to 2,790 sq. ft., 125 square feet less than what the Commission considered. The Coastal Development Permit is required due to the project's proximity to a nearby creek. Design Review is required for all new development in the Mid-Coast.

BACKGROUND

Report Prepared By: David Holbrook, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1837

Appellant: Nick Ceschin

Applicant/Owner: Nick Ceschin

Location: 421 Valencia Avenue, El Granada

APN: 047-095-090

Parcel Size: 5,500 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: Vacant

Flood Zone: Flood Zone A (Area of 100-year flood); Flood Elevation Certificate submitted and approved

Environmental Evaluation: Categorically exempt under CEQA Section 15303, Class 3, related to the construction of new small structures

Setting: The project site is an interior lot located on the west side of Valencia Avenue between Columbus and Vallejo Streets. The site is basically flat and slopes downward approximately 1% from front to rear. A buried, broken-up concrete slab is located in the middle of the parcel, and a 6-foot high wooden fence is located along the right side, left side, and rear property lines. The parcel is vegetated with grass and weeds, and is shaded in the front by a large Cypress tree located within the public right-of-way, and in the rear by two large trees located on an adjacent parcel. A small creek channel is located on the adjacent parcel to the south of the project site and is carried via a culvert beneath Valencia Avenue, where it is seen as an open creek channel across the street. Adjacent parcels to the rear and the right of the subject parcel are developed with single-family homes, and the adjacent parcel to the left is vacant. Surrounding development includes both 1- and 2-story houses.

Chronology:

Date

Action

May 31, 2000

Coastal Development Exemption and Design Review application received for construction of a 3,147 sq. ft. residence/attached garage. Residence is located with a 9-ft. setback from right side property line, and a 6-ft. side setback from the left property line.

June 14, 2000

Planning Division receives input from adjacent neighbor requesting a 10-ft. right side yard setback to minimize loss of light to her sunroom.

June 21, 2000

Field inspection reveals that a creek is located within 100 ft. of the project site; staff informs applicant that the project will require a Coastal Development Permit.

August 7, 2000

Staff requests the applicant provide a Biological Impact Report (BIR) and Flood Elevation Certificate due to the proposed residence's proximity to the creek.

October 13, 2000

BIR submitted by applicant indicating that the adjacent creek contains riparian vegetation, and that the house should be moved to the north on the parcel to conform with LCP riparian buffer zone policies. The report suggests maintaining a minimum 10-ft. setback from the left side property line, so as to provide the minimum 20-ft. distance required between the residence and the extent of riparian vegetation.

January 25, 2001

Review by Mid-Coast Community Council; comments are that the house is well designed, but is not in scale and character with the surrounding area. The MCCC submits a summary of a scale analysis that they performed for residences within 300 ft. of the project site.

February 9, 2001

Staff conducts independent scale analysis using data from the County Assessor's database, which is in general agreement with the MCCC's analysis, showing that residences within the 300-ft. notification radius have an average Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of approximately 30% (including garage area), while the applicant's proposal would have an FAR of 49.9%.

June 7, 2001

Zoning Hearing Officer (ZHO) hears and continues item to allow time for the applicant to meet with adjacent neighbors to discuss and attempt to resolve the concerns and issues raised at the public hearing. Neighborhood meeting occurs on June 10, 2001.

June 20, 2001

ZHO approves project, with the applicant agreeing to a condition reducing the house and garage to 2,915 sq. ft. and the height to 25.8 ft.

July 9, 2001

Appeal received, filed by Chuck Kozak, states that ZHO's basis for approving project was based on incomplete information and known non-conforming projects.

September 26, 2001

Planning Commission grants (5-0 vote) appeal, stating that they believed the house was generally too large compared to most other houses in the neighborhood, and denies project.

October 9, 2001

Applicant submits revised plans, further reducing total house/garage floor area to 2,790 sq. ft. (125 sq. ft. reduction from that approved by ZHO) and moving the second story section over the garage back 8 ft. Upon subsequent review of revision, MCCC indicates that they still believe house is too large.

October 10, 2001

Applicant appeals Planning Commission decision.

January 8, 2001

Board of Supervisors hearing.

DISCUSSION/KEY ISSUES

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

On September 26, 2001, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to uphold the appeal by Mr. Kozak and deny the Zoning Hearing Officer's decision to approve the project. In doing so, the Commission made the following findings with respect to the project's non-compliance with the following select Coastside Design Review standards:

The project fails to provide for adequate light to the residence to the north due to its height, design and proximity to the common property line.

The design and height of the project creates an abrupt, not a smooth, transition to the property to the south, which consists of a one-story residence with substantial open space and a creek channel on its north side.

The design of the project is not in harmony with the size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community, particularly the one-story residence to the south and the prevailing size and scale of development in the immediate neighborhood, particularly as evidenced by the Floor Area Ratio of those houses as compared with the subject house.

BASIS OF CURRENT APPEAL

The project applicant (also the property owner) appealed the Planning Commission's denial, citing the following (in italics), followed by staff response:

The ZHO required landscape revisions to ensure a blend with natural vegetation and plant forms. The project also meets daylight plane requirements on all four sides (only two are required) to ensure adequate light as stated by the ZHO at his approval.

Staff Response: That the ZHO required a landscape plan as a condition of its approval is a separate issue from the Planning Commission's denial of the project, which was an affirmation that the Commission did not agree with the ZHO's decision, nor did they believe that the conditions imposed (including those for landscaping) by the ZHO would adequately mitigate the project's overall size, design and comparative scale with development in the surrounding area. Also, that the project considered by the Planning Commission complies with the current R-1/S-17 Zoning District Regulations' daylight plane requirements does not, again, get to the Commission's primary concerns over its overall size and design.

Design Review Standard (f) does not reference height, but again, landscaping and plant materials which were addressed by the ZHO.

Staff Response: The appellant is referring to the Planning Commission's decision letter (see Planning Commission Action section of this report) whereby the project was denied based on non-compliance with this standard. The actual referenced standard (f) reads as follows: "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 Commission's decision and reference was intended not to focus on landscaping or plant materials, per se, but to indicate that the "development" - the project's size and design - was such that it adversely impacted the one-story development adjacent to and south of the project site.

Design Review Standard (l) references adjacent buildings in the community, not adjacent buildings to the site. There are several homes in the "community" of equal or larger size. Also, this standard does not have any reference to "immediate neighbors." There is no provision for average as a measurement for Floor Area Ratio (FAR). "Scale" measures from smallest to largest and everything in-between is in scale.

Staff Response: The referenced standard (l) reads: "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 building in the community." The Commission was impressed, upon hearing Mr. Kozak's appeal, by a map and table submitted showing that the proposed project's FAR (53% as submitted at that time) was significantly larger than the houses both immediately adjacent to and within 300 feet of the subject site. Notwithstanding comparison to the broader "community," the comparison of just the houses within 300 feet revealed the following, relative to the proposed project:

Number of total developed parcels within 300 ft.:

Average FAR of those 47 parcels:

27.9%

Maximum FAR allowed by applicable zoning regulations:

53%

Proposed project FAR denied by Planning Commission:

53%

Proposed project FAR as revised by applicant:

50.7%

While the Planning Commission acknowledged that there are other houses in the entire El Granada "community" of equal or larger size, they were not considering such a broad interpretation of "community," nor were they interested in comparing the proposed project to older houses approved prior to adoption of revised regulations (the first Interim Ordinance in 1999). Returning to the referenced DR standard (l), the idea of a structure being "in scale" with other buildings in the area means that a project is similar in that respect. The Planning Commission determined that the project is not.

The Planning Commission's decision does not comply with Section 6565.7 (Standards For Review), Subsection 2.a., which reads "of any particular building or substantial additional expense incurred; rather, the regulation exercised should only be the minimum necessary to achieve the overall objectives as set forth in Section 6565.3."

Staff Response: Design Review Regulations Section 6565.3 lists the purposes of the Regulations, as follows:

To recognize the interdependence of land values and aesthetics and to provide a method by which the County may encourage builders to develop land so that its value and attractiveness will endure;

To encourage development of private property in harmony with the desired character of the community or area in conformance with an adopted set of community design principles as well as the County General Plan and other Precise Plans;

To avoid and prevent community deterioration and to encourage the preservation and enhancement of property values and the visual character of communities and natural resources;

To improve the general standards of orderly and stable development in the County through review of the design of individual buildings, structures and their setting;

To improve and augment the regulations now included in ordinances related to planning, building and health in order to promote development which is in the best interest to the public health, safety and welfare of the County;

To establish standards and policies that will promote, preserve, and enhance building design, proper site development, and other environmental characteristics in communities and areas where previous planning and zoning controls have been found inadequate for these purposes and the economic and physical stability is threatened by new development.

The Planning Commission did not believe that the applicant's proposed size and design of the project represented "the minimum necessary to achieve the overall objectives" above. The Commission believed, instead, that the house could be made smaller and designed better without significantly impeding the builder's reasonable use of his land. The Planning Commission's denial of the project suggests that the project as proposed, due to its overall size and design, does not "encourage the preservation and enhancement of property values and the visual character of communities...", nor does it "encourage development of private property in harmony with the desired character of the community or area in conformance with an adopted set of community design principles..."

The Design Review process has incurred 18 months of interest payments and property taxes, and four design revisions, each meeting all zoning regulations and numerous meetings and time.

Staff Response: Delays incurred in the permit process are unfortunate but are not relevant to consideration of a project's compliance with applicable design standards.

Applicant's Latest Revision Further Reduces Floor Area.

Staff Response: After the Planning Commission granted the first appeal and denied the project, the applicant submitted a revised design, whereby (1) the total floor area was reduced an additional 125 sq. ft. (with the resultant FAR being reduced from 53% to 50.7% ), (2) the second story was moved back 8 feet farther from the front, and (3) the chimney on the right side was removed. Staff submitted the revision to both the previous appellant, Mr. Kozak, as well as the Mid-Coast Community Council (MCCC) for their review. However, neither Mr. Kozak nor the MCCC has changed their positions.

However, staff believes that this revision does slightly reduce the project's impact to the development to the south (identified as one of the Planning Commission's basis for denial), since the floor area reduction came from the second floor, effectively moving it back 8 additional feet from the front property line (as seen on the side elevations, Attachment G). The revision also removed the chimney from the north side of the house in order to reduce the bulk as seen from that side.

BASIS FOR INITIAL APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION

Mr. Kozak's appeal to the Planning Commission on September 26, 2001, was based on the following issues (Attachment N).

The ZHO basis of finding the project is compatible to the "scale and character" of the Community was based on incomplete information and known non-conforming projects.

Staff recommended denial of the appeal, and indicated to the Commission that evaluating the scale of development in a community context is largely a subjective task. In contrast, objective criteria exists for evaluating development bulk (e.g., daylight plane, FAR, setbacks, height, façade articulation). The following Design Review standard was, in the appeal to the Planning Commission, and remains in this current appeal, central to the issue of general house size relative to that of surrounding development:

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.

Staff indicated to the Planning Commission that the proposal conformed with all zoning requirements, particularly that the residence, as conditioned, would be 2,515 sq. ft. (reduced further with latest revision), where 2,750 sq. ft. was allowed (per the Interim Ordinance under which it was filed), and the house height, as conditioned, is 25.8 feet where 28 feet is permitted. Further, the proposal, as conditioned, is generally in scale with Mid-Coast development, specifically 40% of the new houses built on similar sized Mid-Coast parcels between 1995 and 1999 were larger than the proposal. Thus staff believed that the project, as conditioned, was in scale with the surrounding community.

Zoning Hearing Officer's Approval. The basis for the ZHO's approval of the project was as follows:

The proposal conforms with all zoning requirements, and is approximately 9% smaller than the permitted floor area and 8% lower than the permitted height.

The proposal is generally in scale with the adjacent neighbor's house (431 Valencia Avenue).

The proposal, as conditioned, is generally in scale with Mid-Coast development, as 40% the new houses recently built on similar sized parcels were larger than the proposal.

CONFORMANCE WITH INTERIM ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS

This project was submitted on May 31, 2000, after adoption of the Interim Ordinance affecting properties in the Mid-Coast area. The chart below indicates the current revised project's conformance with those regulations.

Development Standards

Required

Proposed

Approved by ZHO

Minimum Parcel Size

5,000 sq. ft.

5,500 sq. ft.

Maximum Height

28 ft.

27 ft.

25.8 ft.

Minimum Front Yard Setback

20 ft.

Minimum Rear Yard Setback

20 ft.

32 ft.

Minimum Side Yard Setbacks

Combined 15 ft. and minimum 5 ft. on any side

5 ft. right side, and 10 ft. left side

Minimum 5 ft. right side, and 10 ft. left side

Maximum Lot Coverage

35%

33%

31%

Maximum Floor Area Ratio

50%

49.9%

46%*

*Garage is not included in the Maximum FAR of the Interim Ordinance Regulations.

CONFORMANCE WITH REVISED ZONING REGULATIONS RECENTLY ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

Revised zoning regulations adopted by the Board of Supervisors and the Coastal Commission became effective September 20, 2001. However, they are not applicable to this project, and are only applicable to new development proposals in the Mid-Coast area, submitted after September 19, 2001. The chart below shows the proposed project's conformance with those regulations for informational purposes only.

Development Standards

Required

Approved by ZHO

Post PC Revision

Minimum Parcel Size

5,000 sq. ft.

5,500 sq. ft.

Building Height (measured as the vertical distance from any point on the natural grade to the topmost point of the building immediately above)

28 ft.

27 ft.

Minimum Front Yard Setback

20 ft.

Minimum Rear Yard Setback

20 ft.

32 ft.

Minimum Side Yard Setbacks

combined 15 ft. and minimum 5 ft. on any side

5 feet right side, and 10 ft. left side

5 ft. right side, and 10 ft. left side

Floor Area Ratio

53%

50.7%*

Lot Coverage

35%

33%

31%

Daylight Plane (20 ft. vertical, then 45 degree angle)

Option 1: Measure at front and rear setback lines

Proposed residence complies with Option 2 (see discussion below)

Proposed residence complies with Option 1 (see discussion below

Option 2: Measure at side yard setback lines

Proposed residence complies with Option 2 )see discussion below)

Proposed residence complies with Option 2 (see discussion below)

Façade Articulation (two findings required)

All building facades are well articulated and proportioned

Proposed residence complies (see discussion below

Each wall is broken up so as not to appear shear, blank looming or massive to neighbors

Proposed residence complies (see discussion below

*Garage is included in FAR of revised regulations.

MID-COAST COMMUNITY COUNCIL REVIEW

The Mid-Coast Community Council (MCCC) has indicated to staff via telephone that there is no change from their previous position, that being that the house is too large compared to the development surrounding it and the overall bulk could be better articulated, particularly as seen from the sides.

The MCCC Planning and Zoning Subcommittee reviewed this application on January 3, 2001. The full text of these reviews is included as Attachment M of this report. The comments received from the Subcommittee relevant to Mr. Kozak's appeal are summarized below:

The committee thought the house was generally well designed and articulated, if not a bit large for the surrounding neighborhood. Extra measures should be taken on the south wall to break up any large surfaces (accented trim, extended sills, shutters, belly bands, etc.), as this will be the most visible side of the house in the new location.

Concern was expressed by members of the committee and neighbors present at the meeting about the size of the proposed house in relation to the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. A quick analysis of the surrounding houses within the 300-foot notification range showed that:

The average house size (total floor area including garage) is 1882.53 sq. ft. The largest house is 4,290 sq. ft. and sits on an 18,400 sq. ft. lot; the smallest is 690 sq. ft. on a 5,500 sq. ft. lot. The houses to the north and south are 1,970 sq. ft. and 1,750 sq. ft., respectively. The average house size (including garage) on a 5,500 sq. ft. parcel within the area is 1604.4 sq. ft.

The average FAR is 29.8 %. The largest FAR is 51.5%, the smallest is 10.3%. The houses to the north and south have FARs of 35.8% and 15.9%, respectively. The average FAR on a 5,500 sq. ft. parcel is 29.17%.

ALTERNATIVE

If the Board of Supervisors, upon review of the applicant's recently modified project chooses to overturn the Planning Commission's denial and approve the project, alternative findings and conditions of approval are found in Attachment B of this report. The conditions of approval are the same as were presented to the Planning Commission, except that some conditions have been modified to reflect the applicant's revised plans as submitted on October 9, 2001, which would: (1) reduce the total house size (including garage) to 2,915 sq. ft. (for a 50.7% FAR), (2) lower the building height 12 inches, (25.80 feet from average finished grade to topmost point of the roof), and (3) eliminate the chimney shown on the right side elevation (north side of the house).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) related to construction of new small structures. A Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County Recorder, if the Board of Supervisors approves the project.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

Department of Public Works

Building Inspection Section

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District

Mid-Coast Community Council

Coastside County Water District

Granada Sanitary District

ATTACHMENTS

Recommended Findings and Denial

Alternative Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

Project Location Map

Project Site Plan

Floor Plans Considered by Planning Commission

Elevation Plans Considered by Planning Commission

Revised Floor Plans (after Planning Commission review)

Revised Elevation Plans (after Planning Commission review)

Applicant's Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision

Staff's FAR Scale Analysis (Presented to Planning Commission)

MCCC's FAR Scale Analysis (Presented to Planning Commission)

Biologist's Map Showing Creek Location

MCCC's Initial Comments on Project

Kozak Appeal to Planning Commission

DH:cdn - DJHL2914_WCU.DOC


Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF DENIAL


Permit or Project File Number: PLN 2000-00385						Hearing Date: January 8, 2002

Prepared By: David Holbrook					For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

Regarding the Coastal Development Permit, Find:

1.	That the project, both as submitted to the Planning Commission on September 26, and as revised and submitted on October 9, 2001, does not conform with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program (LCP). Specifically, the project does not comply with LCP Policy 8.12 (application of Design Review District standards to urbanized areas of the Coastal Zone), as documented in Section B of the staff report.

2.	That the project does not conform to specific findings required by policies of the San Mateo County LCP, as documented in Section B of the staff report.

Regarding the Design Review, Find:

3.	That this project has been reviewed under and found not to be in compliance with the Standards of Review Criteria as stipulated in Chapter 28.1 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations. Specifically, the project does not comply with the following standards, as documented in Section B of the staff report:

	a.		The project fails to provide for adequate light to the residence to the north due to its height, design and proximity to the common property line.

	b.		The design and height of the project creates an abrupt, not a smooth, transition to the property to the south, which consists of a one-story residence with substantial open space and a creek channel on its north side.

	c.		The design of the project is not in harmony with the size and scale of adjacent building in the community, particularly the one-story residence to the south and the prevailing size and scale of development in the immediate neighborhood, particularly as evidenced by the Floor Area Ratio of those houses as compared with the subject house.

DH:kcd/cdn - DJHL2914_WCU.DOC
Attachment B

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL


Permit or Project File Number: PLN 2000-00385						Hearing Date: January 8, 2002

Prepared By: David Holbrook					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, Class 3, regarding the new construction of small structures.

Regarding the Coastal Development Permit, Find:

2.		That the project, as submitted to Planning Commission on September 26, 2001 and as revised and submitted on October 9, 2001, with accompanying materials required by Section 6328.7 and as conditioned by the ZHO on June 20, 2001 in accordance with Section 6328.14, conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the San Mateo County LCP, as documented in the LCP Policy Checklist completed for the project and in the staff report, Section C.

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

4.		That the number of building permits for construction of single-family residences other than for affordable housing issued in the calendar year does not exceed the limitations of Policies 1.22 and 1.23 as stated in Section 6328.19.

Regarding the Design Review, Find:

5.		That this project has been reviewed under and found to be in compliance with the Standards of Review Criteria as stipulated in Chapter 28.1 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Planning Division

1.		This approval applies only to the proposal, documents and revised plans submitted on October 9, 2001, and as conditioned as submitted to the Planning Commission on September 26, 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.		A 10-foot setback shall be required between all structures and the southern property line (left side property line) due to the existence of riparian vegetation located on the adjacent parcel to the south. This may require redesign, relocation, or removal of the bay window shown on the project plans, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. This parcel will be tagged in the County's database, such that 10-foot left side setback will be required for all structures in accordance with LCP Buffer Zone Policies.

3.		The applicant shall revise the project plans to:

		a.		Reduce the total building floor area to no more than 2,790 sq. ft. (including the garage) as reflected by the latest revision submitted on October 9, 2001.

		b.		Lower the building height 12 inches, (25.80 feet from average finished grade to topmost point of the roof).

		c.		Eliminate the chimney shown on the right side elevation (north side of the house).

		d.		The revised plans shall include additional design elements (accented trim, extended sills, shutter, belly band, etc.) on the left side elevation (south side), and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit.

4.		The applicant shall submit a landscape plan in accordance with the "Landscape Plan Guidelines - Minimum Standards" for review and approval by the Planning Director, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The goal of the required landscape plan is to soften the impact of the building as seen primarily from Valencia Street, and to increase surface filtration. The plan shall include at minimum 3 trees and 15 shrubs.

		Two of the trees shall be five gallon minimum and planted in the front portion of the property. The type of tree selected for this location shall be one whose mature height does not exceed 25 feet.

		One of the trees shall be 15 gallons minimum and planted on the south side of the property to enhance neighbor privacy on that side. The type of tree selected for this location shall be one that is known to grow to a minimum 15-foot mature height, and a maximum 25-foot mature height, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.

		Areas in front and the rear of the property that do not contain trees or shrubs shall be planted with groundcover and/or a minimum of two inches of mulch to minimize erosion. All plants shall be native, non-invasive species, and the use of fertilizers and pesticides shall be prohibited on site.

5.		The approved landscaping plan shall be implemented before the Planning Division gives a final approval on the building permit and before the applicant schedules a final inspection.

6.		The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan (including sections depicting method of installation), prior to Planning approval of the associated building permit, to mitigate any erosion resulting from project-related activities.

7.		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.

8.		The applicant shall ensure that if during construction or grading, any evidence of archaeological traces (human remains, artifacts, concentration of shale, bone, rock or ash) are uncovered, then all construction or grading within a 30-foot radius shall be halted, the Planning Division shall be notified, and the applicant shall hire a qualified archaeologist to assess the situation and recommend appropriate measures. Upon review of the archaeologist's report, the Planning Director, in consultation with the applicant and the archaeologist, will determine the steps to be taken before construction or grading may continue.

9.		Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit color and material samples (no larger than approximately a 4-inch square sample) for walls, roof, trim to the Planning County for review and approval by the Planning Director. The applicant shall include the file/case number with all color samples. Color verification by a Building Inspector shall occur in the filed after the applicant has painted the structure the approved color, but before the applicant schedules as final inspection. Acceptable colors for building walls and roofs shall be earthtones and shall be non-reflective.

10.		No tree cutting or trimming of the Cypress trees near the site is authorized 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. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall have a certified arborist, landscape architect, or other qualified professional inspect the significant Cypress tree near the front property line to make recommendations for tree protection during construction. The applicant shall submit the recommendations of the consulting professional for review and approval by the Planning Director. The consulting professional shall monitor construction for implementation of tree protection measures, and report to the Planning Division at the end of project construction on the success of the approved measures

11.		All new utility lines shall be installed underground beginning at the nearest existing utility pole to the proposed residence.

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 sites existing natural grade.

		b.		The natural grade elevations at a minimum of four significant corners of the structures footprint.

		c.		The elevations of the proposed finished grades, where applicable.

		d.		The ridgeline elevation of the highest point on the roof.

14.		The applicant shall submit an on-site drainage plan, as prepared by their civil engineer, showing all permanent, post-construction stormwater controls and drainage mechanisms. The required drainage plan shall show the necessary mechanisms to contain all water runoff generated by on-site impervious surfaces and shall include facilities to capture and retain all stormwater runoff through on-site percolation facilities. The drainage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval by the Planning director, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan shall be included as part of the project's final building permit application and construction plans. The County building Inspection Section and Department of Public Works shall ensure that the approved plan is implemented prior to the project's final building inspection and occupancy approval.

15.		The proposed driveway shall be constructed from permeable medium (such as porous asphalt or crushed aggregate) from the property line to the garage slab, in order to decrease run-off of stormwater from the site.

16.		During 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 materials.

		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.

17.		The project shall include water runoff prevention measures for the operation and maintenance of the project for the review and approval by the Planning Director. The project shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the uses conducted on-site to effectively prohibit the discharge of pollutants with stormwater runoff and other water runoff produced from the project.

18.		These permits shall be valid for one year. Any extensions of these permits shall require submittal of a written request and payment of applicable extension fees, 60 days prior to expiration.

Building Inspection Section

19.		Project located in FEMA "A" Zone. Elevation Certificate submitted shows that the structure will comply. At time of application for a building permit, the following will be required:

		a.		A boundary survey will be required prior to issuance of a building permit.

		b.		An automatic fire sprinkler system must be installed. This permit must be issued prior to or in conjunction with the building permit.

		c.		A site drainage plan must be submitted which will demonstrate how roof drainage and surface run off will be directed to an approved location.

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District

20.		The applicant shall comply with all of the requirements of the Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District, for construction of the single-family residence.

Department of Public Works

21.		Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant will be required to provide payment of "roadway mitigation fees" based on the square footage (assessable space) of the proposed residence per ordinance #3277.

22.		The applicant shall submit a driveway "Plan and Profile" to the Public Works Department, showing the driveway access to the parcel (garage slab) complying with County Standards for driveway slopes (not to exceed 20%) and to County Standards for driveways (at the property line) being the same elevation as the center of the existing roadway. The driveway plan shall also include and show specific provisions and details for handling both the existing and the proposed drainage.

23.		No construction work within the County right-of-way shall begin until Public Works requirements for the issuance of an encroachment permit, including review of applicable plans, have been met and an encroachment permit issued by the Department of Public Works.


DH:kcd/cdn - DJHL2914_WCU.DOC