COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

Date:

February 20, 2002

Set Time:

9:15 a.m.

Hearing Date:

March 5, 2002

To:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

From:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

Subject:

Consideration of an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission to approve a Coastside Design Review Permit and a Coastal Development Permit Exemption, pursuant to Sections 6428.5 and 6328.5 of the County Zoning Regulations, to construct a new single-family residence and second unit on a 5,617 sq. ft. parcel, located at the southwest corner of Ninth Street and East Avenue, within the incorporated Montara area of San Mateo County. This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

County File Number:

PLN 2001-00368 (Smith)

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Design Review Permit and Coastal Development Permit Exemption, County File Number 2001-00368, by making the required findings and subject to the conditions of approval contained in Attachment A.

PROPOSAL

The applicant is proposing to construct a new 3-level, 2,483 sq. ft. single-family residence with an attached second dwelling unit and to merge the existing two lots to create a 5,617 sq. ft. standard parcel.

BACKGROUND

Report Prepared By: Adam Gilbert, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1867

Appellant: Jim Unger

Applicant/Owner: Therese Smith

Location: Southwest corner of Ninth Street and East Avenue, Montara

APNs: 036-025-160 and 036-025-290

Parcel Size: 5,617 sq. ft.

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

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

Existing Land Use: Vacant

Water Supply:

Existing well, approved with Coastal Development Exemption in 1999

Sewage Disposal:

Montara Sanitary District

Flood Zone: Zone "C" (Area of Minimal Flooding)

Environmental Evaluation: Exempt under Section 15303, Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), regarding construction of small structures in urbanized communities

Setting: The project site is located at the southwest corner of Ninth Street and East Avenue in Montara, two blocks east of Cabrillo Highway. The parcel is relatively flat with a slight slope to the south and a continual gentle rise to the east. The north side crosses Ninth Street at the same slope until it slopes down hill in the middle of the adjacent parcel. There are no existing trees or substantial vegetation on the property. The parcel to the east is an undeveloped tract of agricultural land. The adjacent parcels to the west and south are developed with single-family residences. The remaining surrounding neighborhood is developed with 1- and 2-story single-family residences.

Chronology:

Date

Action

May 30, 2001

-

Coastside Design Review application submitted.

July 12, 2001

-

Site inspection.

July 16, 2001

-

Public notification sent to property owners within 300 feet of subject property.

July 17, 2001

-

Applicant reminded staff that the project would have to meet the Permit Streamlining Act by August 28, 2001, and as of July 17, 2001, the project was not on the Mid-Coast Community Council's (MCCC) agenda.

July 23, 2001

-

Staff informed the Planning and Zoning Subcommittee of the MCCC that they needed to submit their comments before August 28, 2001, because the project would reach its Permit Streamlining Act deadline. Furthermore, staff informed the Subcommittee that they would be obligated to make a decision on or before that date.

July 28, 2001

-

MCCC reviewed the project at their meeting.

August 29, 2001

-

No comments were received from the Mid-Coast Community Council and the project was conditionally approved by staff, but post-dated for August 30, 2001. A copy of the approval letter was sent to the MCCC.

September 4, 2001

-

The MCCC responded to staff's decision letter and asked that staff rescind the decision because the County had "bypassed an established community review process" and the "issues and recommendations of the MCCC Planning and Zoning Committee must be taken into consideration and addressed before any new decision is issued."

September 6, 2001

-

The Planning Administrator denied the request of the MCCC to rescind approval. Appeal period revised to September 17, 2001.

September 17, 2001

-

Appeal filed.

September 18, 2001

-

Parcel merged; documents recorded.

December 12, 2001

-

Planning Commission public hearing. Item was continued until January 9, 2002.

January 9, 2002

-

The Planning Commission denied the appeal and upheld the decision of the Planning Director.

January 29, 2002

-

Appeal filed.

March 5, 2002

-

Board of Supervisors public hearing.

DISCUSSION

A.

PREVIOUS ACTION

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.

B.

KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

The appellant, Jim Unger, is objecting to the lack of consideration for design review and compliance with the second unit regulations. Listed below are the main points of the appeal and staff's response. A complete copy of the appeal application is included as Attachment B.

1.

The proposed structure is not in harmony with the shape, size and scale of the surrounding neighborhood.

Staff's Response: This project was submitted on May 30, 2000, after adoption of the Interim Ordinance affecting properties in the Mid-Coast area. The lot coverage for the proposed structure is 27.8 percent where a maximum of 35 percent is allowed and is therefore well below the maximum. The proposed project floor area ratio (FAR) is 44.2 percent. This too is well below the maximum allowance of 50 percent in the designated zoning district . The average floor area of the residences within a 300-foot radius of the proposed structure is 2,448 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing a 2,483 sq. ft. structure. This is 35 sq. ft. larger than the average square footage of the existing residences in the vicinity. The applicant's proposal has a 1.4 percent difference above the neighborhood average. Both lot coverage and floor area ratio meet current zoning regulations and the Planning Commission believes the project FAR is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. A majority of the surrounding houses consists of 2-story structures. The adjacent parcel to the west is a 2-story single-family dwelling that is 4 percent larger than the neighborhood average and is relatively the same height above grade as the proposed project. An extended dormer on the third story further enhances the structure's articulation and does not exceed the 28-foot maximum height limit.

The table below compares the County Assessor's known house floor areas for parcels within 300 feet of the proposed project. The parcels are ranked according to total square footage, from largest to smallest. The average developed lot has a total floor area of 2,448 sq. ft. The proposed project will have a floor area of 2,483 sq. ft., which is 1.4 percent above the average.

Parcel

Square
Footage

Lot Size

FAR

Percentage
from Average
(2,448 sq. ft.

036-024-160

4,580

7,200

63.6%

87%

034-025-200

3,720

8,200

45.4%

52%

036-024-180

3,500

12,000

29.2%

43%

036-031-150

2,910

5,300

54.9%

19%

036-025-260

2,700

6,000

45.0%

10%

036-025-230

2,680

6,000

44.7%

9%

034-024-010

2,640

14,000

18.9%

8%

036-031-180

2,580

6,000

43.0%

5%

036-025-240

2,540

6,000

42.3%

4%

036-025-160*

2,483

5,617

44.2%

1%

036-024-220

2,420

9,000

26.9%

-1%

036-095-250

2,400

5,000

48.0%

-2%

036-025-020

2,390

8,000

29.9%

-2%

036-031-210

2,370

6,000

39.5%

-3%

036-025-320

2,350

3,000

78.3%

-4%

036-095-310

2,280

5,000

45.6%

-7%

036-031-260

2,030

6,600

30.8%

-17%

036-095-300

1,990

5,000

39.8%

-19%

036-025-010

1,840

5,400

34.1%

-25%

036-031-250

1,720

5,400

31.9%

-30%

036-031-200

1,540

5,000

30.8%

-37%

036-031-240

1,410

5,000

28.2%

-42%

036-024-020

1,240

9,000

13.8%

-49%

036-310-020

0

unspecified

0.0%

0%

036-095-400

0

15,000

0.0%

0%

036-095-040

0

7,500

0.0%

0%

036-031-280

0

6,000

0.0%

0%

036-031-130

0

6,000

0.0%

0%

036-031-100

0

6,000

0.0%

0%

036-025-270

0

6,000

0.0%

0%

036-025-250

0

6,000

0.0%

0%

036-025-190

0

6,000

0.0%

0%

036-024-170

0

6,700

0.0%

0%

036-024-150

0

9,000

0.0%

0%

036-024-050

0

6,000

0.0%

0%

026-025-330

0

6,000

0.0%

0%

* = Proposed Parcel.

Parcels within 300 feet of proposed project. Information provided by County Assessor's Office.

2.

The parking issues were not addressed fully.

Staff's Response: According to the County Zoning Regulations, Parking Policies and Standards, all residential structures with two or more bedrooms are required to provide two covered off-street parking spaces. This is in addition to any second unit parking, which is a minimum of one uncovered parking space. The project is providing two off-street covered parking spaces and one additional off-street uncovered parking space as required for the second unit. This project complies with all off-street parking requirements.

3.

The historical use of the property and its effect on the neighborhood were not considered.

Staff's Response: There has been no significant historical use related to this property that would be adversely impacted by this project. The parcel once had a home use automotive shop, which has been subsequently torn down and the lot has been left vacant for some time.

4.

Previous problems with lot divisions, building permits, and surveys were ignored.

Staff's Response: The only previous problem with the parcel, staff is aware of, is a lot line adjustment applied for on February 22, 2000, County file Number PLN 1999-00924. The owners of the adjacent parcel immediately west applied to combine lots one and two and half of lot three while at the same time merging lot four and five and the other half of lot three. The project was withdrawn May 5, 2000, because it was found that the house on APN 036-025-200 had an illegally constructed deck which they were unwilling to tear down. This incident has no bearing on the existing case. The merger of the current property has been thoroughly investigated and found to meet all San Mateo County Subdivision Regulations applicable to mergers.

B.

COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY REGULATIONS AND POLICIES

1.

Conformance with General Plan

Staff has evaluated the project for compliance with all applicable General Plan Policies, with specific discussion of the following:

Policy 4.14 (Appearance of New Development) discusses the promotion of good design and site relationships, and Policy 4.35 (Urban Area Design Concept), in part, promotes the maintenance and, where possible, the improvement of the appearance and visual character of development in urban areas. The proposed residence is well articulated on all side planes, including an attractive architectural design and large paneled windows.

2.

Conformance with the Local Coastal Program (LCP)

The proposed structure is located in the designated Coastal Development Exclusion Area and is exempt from compliance with LCP Policies.

3.

Conformance with Zoning Regulations

The proposed project is located in the R-1/S-17/DR/CD Zoning District. This project was submitted on May 30, 2000, after adoption of the Interim Ordinance affecting properties in the Mid-Coast area. See the chart below for the project's conformance with these regulations.

Development Standards

Required

Proposed

Minimum Parcel Size

5,000 sq. ft.

5,617 sq. ft.

Maximum Height

28 ft.

28 ft.

Minimum Front Yard Setback

20 ft.

20 ft.

Minimum Rear Yard Setback

20 ft.

20 ft.

Minimum Side Yard Setbacks

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

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

Maximum Lot Coverage

35%

27.8%

Maximum Floor Area Ratio

50%

44.2%

4.

Conformance with Revised Zoning Regulations Recently Approved by the California Coastal Commission

The revised regulations became effective September 20, 2001, but are not applicable to this project. These regulations are only applicable to new development proposals in the Mid-Coast area, submitted after September 19, 2001. The regulations were approved by the San Mateo County Planning Commission and subsequently adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August 8, 2000. 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 Board of Supervisors after the submittal of this proposal and were adopted by the CCC recently. The chart below, however, shows the proposed project's conformance with the regulations.

Development Standards

Required

Proposed

Minimum Parcel Size

5,000 sq. ft.

5,617 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.

28 ft.

Minimum Front Yard Setback

20 ft.

20 ft.

Minimum Rear Yard Setback

20 ft.

20 ft.

Minimum Side Yard Setbacks

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

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

Floor Area Ratio

53%

44.2%

Lot Coverage

35%

27.8%

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

Option 1: Measure at front and rear setback lines

Proposed residence does not comply with Option 1 (see discussion below)

Option 2: Measure at side yard setback lines

Proposed residence does comply with Option 2 (see discussion below)

Facade Articulation
(two findings required)

All building facades are well articulated and proportioned

Proposed residence does comply (see discussion below)

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

Proposed residence does comply (see discussion below)

The revised regulations (effective September 20, 2001) require that new residential development conform with either one of the daylight plane options or the facade articulation options described above. Staff has found that the proposal would conform with daylight plane option 2 because the house does not intrude into the daylight plane. Staff also found that the applicant's proposal would conform with the findings required for facade articulation, because the residence is designed with horizontal and vertical articulation on all four sides and no facades are broken into multiple layers.

5.

Conformance with Coastside Design Review Regulations

Staff has evaluated the project for compliance with all applicable Coastside Design Review Policies, with specific discussion of the following:

a.

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

·

The proposed structure has minimal surrounding vegetation and provides adequate space for light and air between itself and its neighbor.

b.

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.

·

There is no significant grading involved in this project.

c.

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 proposed project parcel is not near a riparian corridor.

d.

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

·

The proposed project is in Flood Zone C, an area of minimal flooding.

e.

Trees and other vegetative 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.

·

The proposed parcel area is minimally covered with local shrubs and weeds.

f.

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 nearest adjacent open area has a transition zone established by: a single fence, a tapering vegetation buffer, a dirt road and then the proposed parcel.

g.

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 structure is not at the end of a view corridor.

h.

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 proposed structure cannot be seen from Highway 1 and blends in with the silhouette of the surrounding structures.

i.

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

·

The proposed structure is not on a bluff or cliff.

j.

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

·

The proposed structure cannot be seen nor does it block public views along the shoreline or from public lands.

k.

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

·

The project uses similar styles, materials and colors as those in the surrounding neighborhood.

l.

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.

·

This project is in compliance with this standard and is fully discussed in Section A.1 of this report (Key Issues of the Appeal).

m.

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

·

A condition of approval requires all utilities to be placed underground.

n.

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.

·

There are no signs proposed, nor would there expected to be as part of this project.

o.

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

·

The proposed project has two concrete driveways that provide access to the parking facilities on site. Landscaping will be required by the applicant to reduce the visual impacts of the paved area from residential areas and from roadways.

6.

Conformance with Development Standards for New Second Dwelling Units

Staff has evaluated the project for compliance with all applicable Attached Second Dwelling Unit Policies, with specific discussion of the following:

a.

There shall be provided at the time of the erection of any second dwelling unit, a minimum of one off-street parking space for the second dwelling unit, in addition to those required for the 1-family dwelling at the time of its construction.

·

One off-street parking space is provided, in addition to those originally required for the single-family dwelling.

b.

The floor area of the second dwelling unit shall not exceed 700 sq. ft. or 35 percent of the floor area of the main dwelling unit (up to a maximum of 1,500 sq. ft.), whichever is larger.

·

The proposed second unit meets the maximum unit size of 35 percent of the parcel size or 700 sq. ft., with a second unit size of 695 sq. ft.

c.

All second dwelling units shall meet design approval pursuant to procedures and standards of Chapter 28.1.

·

The proposed project complies with Chapter 28.1 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations (see Section B.5 of this report).

d.

For second dwelling units attached to the main dwelling unit, new entrances and exits are on the side and rear only.

_

The second dwelling unit's entrance is located on the side of the house.

e.

To the extent feasible, second dwelling units located in the urban areas shall be visually integrated with the main dwelling unit and located in the immediate vicinity of the main dwelling unit.

_

The second dwelling unit is visually integrated into the main dwelling unit and is located into the immediate vicinity of the main unit.

f.

Notice of second unit development proposals, as related to design review, shall be given within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the application or at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the local decision date, to the applicant, the owner of the property, and the property owners and residents of adjacent properties.

_

On July 16, 2001, public notice was given within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the application or at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the local staff decision date, to the applicant, the owner of the property, and the property owners and residents of adjacent properties.

g.

On the date of the application for a building permit to construct a second dwelling unit on a property that contains a main dwelling unit, the main dwelling unit shall be owner occupied.

_

The owner of the property will be the occupant of the main unit, and will be required to sign the Owner Occupancy Certification.

7.

Recommendation of the Mid-Coast Community Council

The Mid-Coast Community Council had the following concerns: (a) the tall, unbroken, building facades are not appropriate and the location of the project is on a ridgetop, (b) the proposed structure is out of scale and character with the surrounding neighborhood, and (c) the project's parking arrangement could create a future nonconformity. These concerns were reflected in Mr. Kozak's appeal to the Planning Commission (Attachment G).

8.

Concerns of Adjacent Neighbors

Staff received several telephone calls from adjacent neighbors seeking information on the project, i.e., location, type, height, and orientation. There were no objections or opposition to the proposed project, only basic inquires.

C.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

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

D.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

Department of Public Works

Building Inspection Section

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District

Mid-Coast Community Council

Montara Sanitary District

VISION ALIGNMENT

The construction of the single-family residence and second dwelling unit, if approved on appeal, keeps commitment number 4 (Offer a Full Range of Housing Choices) and goal number 9, which states: "Housing exists for people at all income levels and for all generations of families." The project contributes to this commitment and goal since it would provide the applicant with a primary residence on a legal parcel, as well as a smaller second unit for rental purposes, which provides an additional relatively affordable housing option. The project, if approved, also keeps commitment number 5 (Redesign our Built Environment to Increase Vitality, Expand Variety and Reduce Congestion) and goal number 12, which states: "Land use decisions consider transportation and other infrastructure needs as well as impacts on the environment and on surrounding communities." The project contributes to this commitment and goal since it represents the construction of a new and secondary residence proposed as "in-fill" in an existing residential area located two blocks east of Cabrillo Highway. Additionally, the project has been shown to comply with: (1) all infrastructure requirements (water, sewer, energy utility provisions), and (2) all development standards of the respective zoning district, including compliance with both the Second Dwelling Unit and Design Review regulations. Compliance with all of these requirements ensures that the project will have no adverse impacts on the environment and surrounding community.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

B.

Appeal Application

C.

Location Map

D.

Site Plan

E.

Floor Plans

F.

Elevations

G.

Mid-Coast Community Council Comments (Basis of Mr. Kozak's Appeal)

Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit or Project File Number: PLN 2001-00368

Hearing Date: March 5, 2002

Prepared By: Adam Gilbert

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

For the Coastal Development Exemption, Find:

1.

That the proposed residence conforms to Section 6328.5(e) of the County Zoning Regulations and is located within the area designated as a Categorical Exclusion Area.

For the Coastside Design Review, Find:

2.

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.

For Design Review for the Second Unit, Find:

3.

That the proposed conversion of part of the existing house to a second dwelling unit has been reviewed under and found to comply with Chapter 22.5 of the County Zoning Regulations.

For the Environmental Review, Find:

4.

That this project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environ-mental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303, Class 3, relating to construction of small structures in urbanized communities. A Notice of Exemption was filed with the County Clerk's Office and posted as required by CEQA.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Planning Division

1.

This permit shall be valid for one year. Any extension of this permit shall require submittal of an application for permit extension and the required associated fee by August 30, 2002.

2.

The applicant shall obtain a building permit and develop in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval.

3.

No site disturbance shall occur, including any grading or tree removal, until a valid building permit has been issued.

4.

This approval applies only to the proposal as described in this report and materials submitted May 30, 2001. The Planning Director may approve minor adjustments to the project if they are consistent with the intent of and in substantial conformance with this approval.

5.

This permit does not allow for the removal of any trees. 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.

6.

The applicant shall submit a landscape plan (the location, type, and size of trees and shrubs may be shown on the site plan) for review and approval by the Planning Director. The goal of the required landscape plan is to soften the impact of the building from the street and the sides. Areas that do not contain trees, shrubs, or landscape shall be planted with groundcover. An irrigation plan shall be submitted with the planting plan. Upon submittal of the landscape plan, the applicant shall pay a review fee based on the fee scheduled in effect at that time. The landscaping shall be completed and confirmed by the Planning Division prior to Building Inspection Section's final construction approval.

7.

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 by:

a.

Stabilizing all denuded areas and maintaining erosion control measures continuously between October 1 and May 1.

b.

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.

c.

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

d.

Using filtration or other measures to remove sediment from dewatering effluent.

e.

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

f.

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

8.

The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all stormwater quality measures and implement such measures. Please refer to the attached handout, which details the BMPs. Failure to comply with the construction BMPs will result in the issuance of the correction notices, citations or a project stop order.

a.

All landscaping shall be properly maintained and shall be designed with efficient irrigation practices to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides that can contribute to runoff pollution.

b.

Where subsurface conditions allow, the roof downspout systems from all structures shall be designed to drain into a designated, effective infiltration area or structure (refer to BMPs Handbook for infiltration system designs and requirements).

9.

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 shall be prohibited on Sunday and any national holiday.

10.

The applicant shall install all utilities underground from the closest existing utility pole.

11.

The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to mitigate any erosion resulting from project-related grading activities. The plan shall be included as part of the project's final building permit application and construction plans. Compliance with this condition is required prior to Planning Division's sign-off of construction plans.

12.

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 it will not disturbed by construction activity. 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.

13.

At the time of application for a building permit, the following will be required: (1) a survey of the property, performed by a licensed surveyor; and (2) an automatic fire sprinkler system must be installed in both units. Compliance with this condition is required prior to Planning Division's sign-off of construction plans.

Department of Public Works

14.

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 and second unit per Ordinance #3277.

15.

The applicant shall submit, for review by the Department of Public Works and the appropriate Fire District, a plan of the existing roadway access to the proposed building site.

16.

The applicant shall submit driveway "plans and profiles" for both the carport/garage area and the proposed "parking space" to the Department of Public Works, showing the driveway access to these areas complying with County standards for driveway slopes (not to exceed 20 percent) and County standards for driveways (at the property line) being the same elevation as the center of the access roadway. The driveway plans shall also include and show specific provisions and details for handling both the existing and the proposed drainage.

17.

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.

18.

Prior to the building permit final, the applicant needs to obtain a permit to operate the domestic well. In order for this permit to be issued, the applicant must demonstrate that the water quality meets the standard, install a water meter, storage tank, and a backflow prevention device if this property has a public water connection.

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District

19.

A fire district-approved fire hydrant (Clow 960) must be located within 250 feet of the proposed single-family dwelling unit measured by way of driveable access. The hydrant must produce a minimum fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for two hours. Contact your local water purveyor for water flow details.

20.

As per County Ordinance, the applicant is required to install an automatic fire sprinkler system within the proposed or improved dwelling. All areas that are accessible for storage purposes shall be equipped with fire sprinklers. The plans for this system must be submitted to the San Mateo County Planning and Building Division. A building permit will not be issued until plans are received, reviewed and approved. Upon submission of plans, the County will forward a complete set to the Half Moon Bay Fire District for review. The fee schedule for automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be in accordance with Half Moon Bay Ordinance No. 13. Fees shall be paid prior to plan review.

21.

An exterior bell and interior horn/strobe are required to be wired into the required flow switch on your fire sprinkler system. The bell, horn/strobe and flow switch, along with the garage door opener, are to be wired into a separate circuit breaker at the main electrical panel and labeled.

22.

As per the California Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations, the applicant is required to install State Fire Marshal approved and listed smoke detectors, which are hardwired, interconnected and have battery backup. These detectors are required to 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 the building final.

23.

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/numerals for permanent address signs shall be of adequate size and of a color, which is contrasting with the background. In no case shall letters/numerals be less four (4) inches in height with a minimum 3/4-inch stroke. Such letters/numerals shall be internally illuminated and facing the direction of access.

24.

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 as defined in the current edition of the California Building Code.

25.

The applicant must have a maintained all-weather surface road for ingress and egress of fire apparatus. The San Mateo County Department of Public Works and the Half Moon Bay Fire District Ordinance shall set road standards. Dead-end roads exceeding 150 feet shall be provided with a turnaround in accordance with Half Moon Bay Fire District specifications. Road width shall not be less than 20 feet.

26.

The Half Moon Bay Fire District requires a minimum clearance of 30 feet, or to the property line of all flammable vegetation to be maintained around all structures by the property owner. This does not include individual species of ornamental shrubs and landscaping.

Montara Sanitary District

27.

The proposed project will comply with all Montara Sanitary District regulations and requirements.

28.

When public water supply becomes available, the applicant will switch to such services.