20030812_m




COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY


DATE:										July 23, 2003

SET TIME:										9:15 a.m.

BOARD MEETING DATE:										August 12, 2003


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 Design Review Permit to construct a new 5,860 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with an attached 661 sq. ft. garage on Lot No. 7 of the Summit Jewel Subdivision located on Summit Drive in the unincorporated Emerald Lake Hills area of San Mateo County.

				County File No.:			PLN 2002-00424 (Summit Jewel Partners/McGowan)


RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision to grant Design Review approval for construction of the new home by making the findings and adopting the conditions of approval listed in Attachment A.

PROPOSAL

The applicant is proposing to construct a new 2-story, 5,860 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with an attached 661 sq. ft. garage on a 20,000 sq. ft. parcel, and remove two trees.

BACKGROUND

Report Prepared By: Farhad Mortazavi, Design Review Officer, Telephone 650/363-1831

Appellant: Melissa Farrell

Owners/Applicant: Summit Jewel Partners, LLC/Kirk McGowan

Location: Summit Drive, Redwood City (Emerald Lake Hills)

APN: 057-212-190

Size: 20,000 sq. ft.

Existing Zoning: RH/DR (Residential Hillside/19,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size with an average slope of 24%/Design Review)

General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (0.3 - 2.3 dwelling units/acre)

Sphere-of-Influence: City of Redwood City

Existing Land Use: Vacant

Parcel Legality: Lot 7, as part of Summit Jewel Subdivision, approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 8, 2002; not yet recorded.

Water Supply: Redwood City Municipal Water Department

Sewage Disposal: Emerald Heights (County) Sewer Maintenance District

Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map designation indicates parcel as Zone C, Areas of Minimal Flooding, Community-Panel No. 060311 0256 B, dated July 5, 1984.

Environmental Evaluation: Exempt from Under Provision of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, Construction of Single Family Residence in an Urbanized Area.

Setting: The subject property (Lot 7) is a sloping, trapezoid-shaped parcel, located on the northern side of Summit Drive. The property is located on the nose of a small spur ridge (see Attachments B and C). The ground surface slopes down to the east and northeast, with an average slope of 24 percent. Portions of the property are in a natural state with native trees and grass groundcover. The property is bounded by developed single-family residential properties to the east, west, northeast and northwest, and by Summit Drive to the south.

Chronology:

Date						Action

July 17, 2002					-	Application submitted for a single-family dwelling on Lot No. 7 for review by the Bayside Design Review Committee.

September 4, 2002					-	First Design Review hearing for six of Summit Jewel Subdivision’s eight parcels (Lot Nos. 2 through 7). The Committee reviewed and approved all projects, and approval letters were sent out the next day. However, the decisions were later questioned by the public due to the method by which these decisions were made. Review of the hearing minutes indicated some confusion on whether the Committee had given final approval for projects or intended that they be continued for further review.

October 2, 2002					-	The Committee, at the recommendation of County Counsel, rescinded the previous approvals, and continued all six projects to October 29, 2002, for a special hearing.

October 29, 2002					-	The Committee approved four of the six projects and continued two of the projects, including the subject project. The Committee’s requirements regarding this project were: (1) submittal of a deer habitat area map, as required by the subdivision’s tentative approval; (2) submittal of a section across the courtyard; (3) a site plan with all viewsheds relative to the two southeast properties; and (4) more information on the voided space below the garage and dining room.

December 4, 2002					-	The Committee continued the project and required: (1) four sets of viewshed plans, and (2) that the landscape architect address issues of the project’s tree selection, their water usage, compatibility and space requirements.

January 8, 2003					-	The Committee approved the project.

January 16, 2003					-	The project is appealed to the Planning Commission.

March 26, 2003					-	At the Planning Commission Public Hearing, the Commissioners approved the proposed design by a vote of 4-1 (Commissioner Silver dissented), but continued the hearing to April 9, 2003 to give parties an opportunity to discuss the landscape plan. The Commissioners subsequently approved the project at that hearing (4-0, Commissioner Silver absent).

April 16, 2003					-	The project is appealed to the Board of Supervisors.

August 12, 2003					-	Board of Supervisors public hearing.

DISCUSSION

A.	PREVIOUS ACTION

	The Bayside Design Review Committee reviewed the project at five public hearings, and approved the project by a majority vote on January 8, 2003. The appellant appealed the Committee’s decision to the Planning Commission. On March 26, 2003, the Planning Commission approved the project by a vote of 4-1 (Commissioner Silver dissented), but continued the hearing to April 9, 2003 for further consideration of the landscape portion of the project to give parties an opportunity to discuss the landscape plan. The Commissioners subsequently approved the project at that hearing (4-0, Commissioner Silver absent).

B.	KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

	The main issues of the appeal are indicated below in bold type followed by staff’s response. A complete copy of the appeal is included as Attachment L.

	The Planning Commission staff report chronology states that the Committee reviewed and approved all projects. This is incorrect, as the transcript of both the September 4, October 2 and 29 hearings clearly indicate the County erroneously sent out a notice of approval. The Committee confirmed that the process to be continued and with senior planner, with consultation with County Counsel, were put in position of apologizing for the mistake and confusion while advising the 50 concerned residents that showed up for the October 2, 2002 hearing to return at a later date for a continuance of the process.

	Staff Response: As indicated in this report’s chronology, the first Design Review hearing occurred on September 4, 2002, for six of Summit Jewel Subdivision’s eight parcels (Lot Nos. 2 through 7). The Committee reviewed and approved all projects and approval letters were sent out the next day. However, the public, including the appellant, later questioned the decisions due to the method by which these decisions were made. Review of the minutes indicated the Committee did not act by motion, and it was not clear whether the Committee had given final approval for projects or intended that they be continued for further review. On October 2, 2002, the Committee, at the recommendation of County Counsel, rescinded the previous approvals, and continued all six projects to October 29, 2002, for a special hearing. At that hearing, the Committee approved four of the six projects and continued two of the projects, including the subject project, which was subsequently approved by the Design Review Committee on January 8, 2003.

	The Planning Commission staff report states that the proposed home steps down the hill following the slope of the land. In fact, it does not step down the hill, and the exposed side of this 5,860 sq. ft. structure that faces my property, presents a 28-foot wall. Further, this response does not address the more salient concerns, expressed by the residents for over two years, that this cluster of much larger than average neighborhood homes is not in harmony with the desired character of the community, and does not encourage architectural design and site planning which will preserve the natural character of the hillside areas, particularly with respect to topography, vegetation, and scenic qualities.

	Staff Response: The Planning Commission, at their March 26, 2003 hearing, believed that the structure could be taller at the front if the applicant chose to propose a second story facing the street. The applicant is proposing a second story downslope from the garage in order to obtain a smaller footprint. The Planning Commission determined that the architectural design and site planning of the project meets the standards for design in Emerald Lake Hills. Furthermore, and as determined by the Bayside Design Review Committee, the Planning Commission also confirmed that the proposed home minimized the blockage of the neighbor’s sunlight and privacy impacts because the proposal will be at least 73 feet from the appellant’s house, while Lot No. 8 of the subdivision is in-between the proposed house and the appellant’s house. The Planning Commission approval of the landscaping plan on April 9, 2003 reflected concern for screening the home from the appellant’s view and to protect privacy, while not impacting sunlight. The Planning Commission also determined that the prairie/ranch architectural style of the proposal is in harmony with the character of the community.

	The Planning Commission staff report states that the Design Review Committee did not express any concerns with the size and scale of the home. The hearings’ transcripts verify that every time this project was discussed, at least one (and on several occasions all three) of the Committee members expressed concern about the size of this particular home, which is the largest of the seven projects reviewed to date. The Committee chairwoman voted against this design at every review, based primarily on the size of the proposed structure.

	Staff Response: The Design Review Committee, at their five public meetings, discussed the project and, as indicated in the Planning Commission staff report, required additional information. None of the requirements included the reduction in the size or scale of the structure. These requirements were: (1) submittal of a deer habitat area map, (2) submittal of a section plan across the courtyard, (3) a site plan with all viewsheds relative to the two southeast properties, (4) information on the voided space below the garage and dining room, and (5) and for the landscape architect to address issues of the project’s tree selection, their water usage, compatibility and space requirements. It is correct that the Committee chairwoman expressed concern and an objection regarding the size and scale of the project. However, the Committee approved the project by a majority vote on January 8, 2003. In addition, the Planning Commission at their two meetings did not express any concerns regarding the size and scale of the proposal, and approved the structure at their first meeting.

	The Planning Commission staff report states that the Design Review Committee did not express any concern with the project’s lack of compatibility with the character of the neighborhood. As verified by transcript, there was significant discussion of the proposed design disharmony with the existing neighborhood at each hearing, and in particular, during the December 4 hearing when the attached letter by Peter Baltay, AIA, was presented.

	Staff Response: The Design Review Committee, at their fourth public meeting on December 4, 2002, reviewed the plans and information provided by the applicant as stipulated by the Committee from the previous meeting. The hearing minutes could provide discussion regarding the design of the structure and its compatibility or lack of it with the neighborhood. However, it is the final decision by the Committee at each meeting that is essential to the process. The Committee, at that meeting, subsequently required the applicant’s landscape architect to provide information regarding tree selection, water usage, compatibility and space requirements. The Planning Commission also did not express any concern regarding the compatibility of the proposal with the character of the neighborhood and subsequently approved the project.

	Confusion regarding number of trees to be removed and decision-makers’ jurisdiction for its approval.

	Staff Response: As reported to the Planning Commission, the subdivision’s pre-application public workshop to review issues and take comments took place in October 2002. The subdivision workshop, environmental review and public hearings clearly indicated the removal of trees as part of the subdivision, and ultimately the Board of Supervisors’ approval of the subdivision included the removal of 52 trees. Construction of the proposed access road and demolition of a residence on Lot Nos. 1, and 3 through 7 will entail removal of 35 trees. An additional 17 trees were identified in the subdivision arborist report to be in state of advanced decline or potentially hazardous and were approved for removal. The proposed house was approved to include the removal of two cedar trees (18 and 21 inches in diameter, also approved for removal by the Board of Supervisors as part of the subdivision) for the placement of the driveway and construction of the proposed cul-de-sac.

	Throughout the Design Review Committee public hearings, the approval of 52 trees by the Board of Supervisors were commented on and challenged by the public. It was made clear to the public by staff and by the Committee that the Board of Supervisors’ decision is final, and the Committee cannot disregard that approval. However, the Committee could approve additional tree removal, based on individual parcel characteristics and proposals, consistent with the Design Review process.

	The Committee, upon review of the six single-family home design proposals of the subdivision, approved an additional 10 trees to be removed for a total of 62 trees. The Committee also approved the landscape plan requiring 186 replacement trees to comply with the replacement ratio of 3 to 1. The project site’s replacement landscape plan includes the placement of 30 (thirty) 15-gallon size trees including: 6 Coast Live Oaks, 5 Valley Oaks, 6 Tristanias, 7 Western Redbuds, 3 Maidenhairs, and 3 Hawthorne trees. In conclusion, it is the opinion of staff and County Counsel that the Committee’s actions on tree removal reconciled with the conditions applied by the Board of Supervisors in their approval of the subdivision.

	This information was included in the Planning Commission staff report and at their first meeting, the Commission requested that the landscape architect work with the appellant to develop a new landscape plan. The proposed landscape plan was presented to the Planning Commission at their second meeting on April 9, 2003, and received their approval (see Attachment L).

	On numerous occasions, the information related to the subjects under review was not made available to the public. The applicant provided information directly to the Committee members, and this information was not placed in the public file prior to hearings. On numerous occasions, many of neighbors within 300 feet of this development did not receive notification from the County. It is understood that mail delivery is not the County’s responsibility, however, these incidents were not isolated and suggest a less than full effort was made to provide the required notification.

	Staff Response: The project file and its contents have been available for public review throughout the design review and appeal process. The Design Review Committee, at their October 29, 2002 meeting, requested a site plan with all viewsheds relative to the two southeast properties. The applicant complied by providing such a plan. This plan was forwarded to the Committee’s Chairwoman for review and consideration a week prior to the meeting scheduled for December 4, 2002. At that meeting, the appellant indicated she was unable to review the plan when she reviewed the project file six days prior to the meeting. The Committee at that point required four more sets of viewshed plans so an extra copy could be in the file, and continued the project to the next meeting.

	In addition to several County site posters placed in front of the parcel, the County public notification, as required, started with newspaper advertisement and a 315-foot neighborhood notification for the first Bayside Design Review meeting conducted on September 4, 2002. This procedure was followed for the second hearing on October 2, 2002, where it was announced by the Committee when the next hearing would occur, and the same announcement was done at the end of each hearing thereafter until the final approval of the project. It is the County’s policy that after public notification and the announcement of a date for the continuation of a project has taken place in a public forum, re-notification to the public is not required. However, due to the controversial nature of the process, staff determined and conducted the public notification for each hearing.

C.	KEY ISSUES

	1.	Project Compliance with Zoning Regulations

		The table below shows the project’s compliance with the Residential Hillside (RH) zoning regulations.

		RH/DR Development Standards						Zoning Requirements	Proposal
		Building Site Area						19,000 sq. ft. minimum	20,000 sq. ft.
		Building Site Width						50 ft. minimum	89 ft.
		Minimum Setbacks:
			Front					20 ft. minimum	20.5 ft.
			Rear					20 ft. minimum	86 ft.
			Sides					10 ft. minimum	10 ft.
		Lot Coverage						5,000 sq. ft. (25%) maximum	3,298 sq. ft. (16.5%)
		Building Floor Area						6,000 sq. ft. (30%) maximum	5,860 sq. ft. (29.3%)
		Building Height						28 ft. maximum	28 ft.
		Minimum Parking						2 covered spaces minimum	3 covered spaces

	2.	Project Compliance with Design Review Standards

		The following standards for design in Emerald Lake Hills of the County Zoning Regulations, Section 6565.15, are discussed.

		a.		As much as possible, site new buildings on a parcel in locations that: (1) minimize tree removal; (2) minimize alteration of natural topography; (3) respect the privacy of neighboring houses and outdoor living areas; (4) minimize the blockage of sunlight on neighboring buildings; and (5) minimize alteration of streams and natural drainage channels.

				The project requires the removal of two significant trees. However, the Planning Commission conditioned the project so the applicant put every effort to save these trees (see Condition Number 1 in Attachment A). The house is a multi-plate design minimizing grading and alteration of natural topography, and includes 10-foot setbacks on each side and an 86-foot rear setback to provide privacy to the adjacent parcels and minimize the blockage of sunlight on neighboring buildings. The house is located at least 73 feet from the appellant’s house and the Planning Commission believes it does not interfere with the privacy and blockage of sunlight of the appellant’s house. The project is not located near any streams or natural drainage channels.

		b.		Design new buildings that are architecturally compatible with existing buildings by requiring them to reflect and emulate, as much as possible, the predominant architectural styles and the natural surroundings of the immediate area (e.g., bungalow, craftsman, ranch). Avoid revivalist historical styles.

				The prairie ranch style architecture of the proposed structure is compatible with the architectural style of the neighborhood that consists of ranch, craftsman, bungalow, some colonial, and a few revivalist designs. The roof and elevations are broken up architecturally to create different plates and interesting massing elements as well as to be in keeping with the architectural style.

				The Planning Commission believes the project is consistent on all four elevations and by utilizing natural materials and earth-tone colors such as brick wainscoting, sandy gray horizontal wood siding, copley gray trims, china white window treatments, spruce blue garage doors and trellis, and cedar shingle roof, it is compatible with the natural surroundings of the immediate area.

		c.		Design buildings with shapes that respect and conform to the natural topography of the site by requiring them to step up or down hillside in the same direction as the natural grade. Control the bulk of the building on hillside by requiring them to be terraced up or down the hill at a uniform height.

				The slope of the parcel is from the front to the rear of the property. The access to the house will be off of a new private street, and the house is situated to take advantage of the views. The garage sits nearly seven feet below the street level conforming to the natural topography. The main structure develops into a 2-story form beyond the garage, utilizing the slope of the parcel, terracing down the hill. Therefore, the Planning Commission believes that the project conforms to these requirements.

		d.		As much as possible, avoid the creation of unattractive, useless space beneath buildings by prohibiting buildings that are predominantly built on stilts.

				The structure does contain crawl space beneath the upper level dining room area. However, the crawl space is not visible because it is covered by exterior walls covered with wood siding. The highest portion of the structure is the rear segment (2-story section), which has minimal crawl space. This crawl space is the minimum required for buildings built with a crawl space, for better access to under-floor piping and wiring. The structure does not incorporate a design that is built on stilts. Therefore, the Planning Commission believes the project is in compliance.

		e.		Design well articulated and proportioned façade by: (1) avoiding the dominance of garages at street level; (2) considering the placement and appearance of garages and the width of garage doors; (3) prohibiting massive blank walls by creating aesthetic and proportioned patterns of windows and shadows; and (4) relating the size, location, and scale of windows and doors to adjacent buildings.

				The garage sits nearly seven feet below the street level, and to minimize the garage door appearance from the street, the 2-car garage is set back from the front of the house, and the 1-car garage does not face the street. The project incorporates different plates creating an interesting roof design which helps the articulation of all four elevations, while avoiding massive blank walls. The compatible and proportioned windows and doors, with treatments, create different patterns and shadows at different times of the day. This adds to the fenestration of the structure and makes it aesthetically pleasing. These windows and doors are also compatible to adjacent buildings.

		f.		Design buildings using primary pitched roofs. Design buildings with roofs that reflect the predominant architectural styles of the immediate area.

				The non-squared floor plans create a broken-up roof design. The roof with a pitch of 4 to 12 enhances the prairie ranch architectural style of the project which is compatible with the architectural style of the immediate area.

		g.		Make varying architectural styles compatible by using similar materials and colors which blend with the natural setting and the immediate area. Avoid the use of building materials and colors which are highly reflective and contrasting by requiring them to blend and harmonize with the natural woodland environment and vegetation of the area.

				Please see Section 2.b. of this report.

		h.		Install all new service lines underground.

				The Planning Commission approved the project with a condition for all new service lines to be placed underground (please see Condition of Approval Number 8 in Attachment A).

		i.		Control the use of signs so that their number, location, size, design, lighting, materials, and colors harmonize with their surroundings and are compatible with the architectural style of the building.

				There are no signs proposed for the project.

		j.		As much as possible, keep the amount of visible paved areas (e.g., driveways, walkways, etc.) to a minimum.

				The downsloping driveway utilizes the County Department of Public Works’ maximum allowance of 20 percent, so it is as least visible as possible from the street. The house and garages are located 20 feet from the street (complying with the 20-foot front yard setback requirement) to minimize the length and square footage of the paved areas.

D.	ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

	This project is exempt from environmental review under the provisions of Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act, regarding construction of a new single-family residence in an urban area.

E.	REVIEWING AGENCIES

	Department of Public Works
	Building Inspection Section
	California Department of Forestry (CDF)

VISION ALIGNMENT

The proposal to construct a new single-family dwelling keeps the commitment to offer a full range of housing choices and Goal Number 9, Housing exists for all people at all income levels and for all generations of families. This proposal contributes to this commitment and goal by providing more housing in the County.

ATTACHMENTS

A.	Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval
B.	General Location
C.	Assessor Map
D.	Summit Jewel Subdivision Map
E.	Site Plan
F.	First Floor Plan
G.	Lower Level Floor Plan
H.	Front Elevation
I.	Rear Elevation
J.	Side Elevations
K.	Site Sections, Driveway Profile, and Roof Plan
L.	Planning Commission Approved Landscape Plan
M.	Appeal Application
N.	Planning Commission Decision Letters
O.	Opposing Letters
P.	Supporting Letters

FSM:kcd - FSMN1010_WKU.DOC

Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit or Project File Number:

Board Meeting Date: August 12, 2003

PLN 2002-00424

Prepared By: Farhad Mortazavi

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

For the Design Review, find that:

1.

This project has been reviewed under and found to be in compliance with the Design Review Standards for Emerald Lake Hills, Section 6565.15 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations.

For the Environmental Review, find that:

2.

This project is exempt from environmental review under the provisions of Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act, regarding construction of a new single-family residence in an urban area.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Planning Division

1.

The applicant shall put every effort to save Trees Nos. 109 and 110 of the arborist report (cedar trees approved for removal by the Board of Supervisors).

2.

The applicant shall submit a $5,000 surety deposit prior to the issuance of the associated building permit. The deposit shall be held for two full years from the date of planting of the trees, and shall be released only upon staff confirmation that all such trees are alive and healthy, and that any dead trees have been replaced in like kind.

3.

A tree protection plan by the arborist is required to be submitted for review and approval. The arborist must confirm in writing that tree protection measures are in place prior to the issuance of the associated building permit.

4.

The project shall be constructed in compliance with the plans approved by the Bayside Design Review Committee. Any changes or revisions to the approved plans or above conditions shall be reviewed by the Design Review Officer or, where necessary, the Bayside Design Review Committee for approval.

5.

The applicant shall provide “finished floor elevation verification” to certify that the structure is actually constructed at the height shown on the submitted plans. The applicant shall have a licensed land surveyor or engineer establish a baseline elevation datum point in the vicinity of the construction-site.

a.

The applicant shall maintain the datum point so that it will not be disturbed by the proposed construction activities until final approval of the building permit.

b.

This datum point and its elevation shall be shown on the submitted site plan. This datum point shall be used during construction to verify the elevation of the finished floors relative to the existing natural or to the grade of the site (finished grade).

c.

Prior to planning approval of the building permit application, the applicant shall also have the licensed land surveyor or engineer indicate on the construction plans: (1) the natural grade elevations at the significant corners (at least four) of the footprint of the proposed structure on the submitted site plan, and (2) the elevations of proposed finished grades.

d.

In addition, (1) the natural grade elevations at the significant corners of the proposed structure, (2) the finished floor elevations, (3) the topmost elevation of the roof, and (4) the garage slab elevation, must be shown on the plan, elevations, and cross-section (if one is provided).

e.

Once the building is under construction, prior to the below floor framing inspection or the pouring of the concrete slab (as the case may be) for the lowest floor(s), the applicant shall provide to the Building Inspection Section a letter from the licensed land surveyor or engineer certifying that the lowest floor height--as constructed--is equal to the elevation specified for that floor in the approved plans. Similarly, certifications on the garage slab and the topmost elevation of the roof are required.

f.

If the actual floor height, garage slab, or roof height--as constructed--is different than the elevation specified in the plans, then the applicant shall cease all construction and no additional inspections shall be approved until a revised set of plans is submitted to and subsequently approved by both the Building Official and Planning Director.

6.

During project construction, the applicant shall, pursuant to Section 5022 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code, minimize the transport and discharge of storm water 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.

7.

The applicant shall include an erosion and sediment control plan on the plans submitted for the building permit. This plan shall identify the type and location of erosion control devices to be installed upon the commencement of construction in order to maintain the stability of the site and prevent erosion and sedimentation off-site.

8.

All new power and telephone utility lines from the street or nearest existing utility pole to the main dwelling and/or any other structure on the property shall be placed underground.

9.

The applicant shall apply for a building permit and shall adhere to all requirements from the Building Inspection Section, the Department of Public Works and the respective Fire Authority.

10.

No site disturbance shall occur, including any grading or tree removal, until a building permit has been issued, and then only those trees approved for removal shall be removed.

11.

To reduce the impact of construction activities on neighboring properties, comply with the following:

a.

All debris shall be contained on-site; a dumpster or trash bin shall be provided on-site during construction to prevent debris from blowing onto adjacent properties. The applicant shall monitor the site to ensure that trash is picked up and appropriately disposed of daily.

b.

The applicant shall remove all construction equipment from the site upon completion of the use and/or need of each piece of equipment which shall include but not be limited to tractors, back hoes, cement mixers, etc.

c.

The applicant shall ensure that no construction related vehicles shall impede through traffic along the right-of-way on Summit Drive. All construction vehicles shall be parked on-site outside the public right-of-way or in locations which do not impede safe access on Summit Drive. There shall be no storage of construction vehicles in the public right-of-way.

12.

The exterior color samples submitted to the Committee are approved. Color verification shall occur in the field after the applicant has applied the approved materials and colors but before a final inspection has been scheduled.

13.

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.

Building Inspection Section

14.

At the time of application for a building permit, the following will be required:

a.

Prior to pouring any concrete for foundations, a licensed surveyor must submit written verification that the required setbacks have been maintained as per the approved plans.

b.

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

c.

A site drainage plan shall be submitted which will demonstrate how roof drainage and site runoff will be directed to an approved location.

d.

A driveway plan and profile must be submitted which must be consistent with subdivision road improvements.

e.

Sediment and erosion control measures must be installed prior to beginning nay earthwork and maintained throughout the project. Permanent measures shall be installed prior to finalization of the building permit.

Department of Public Works

15.

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 building per Ordinance #3277.

16.

The provision of San Mateo County Grading Ordinance shall govern all grading on and adjacent to this site. Unless exempted by the Grading Ordinance, the applicant may be required to apply for a grading permit upon completion of their review of the plans and should access construction be necessary.

17.

The applicant shall prepare a plan indicating the proposed method of sewering these properties. This plan should be included on the improvement plans and submitted to the Public Works Department for review. Upon completion of this review, the applicant and his engineer shall have these approved plans signed by the appropriate Sewer District (Emerald Lake Heights Sewer Maintenance District).

California Department of Forestry (CDF) and County Fire Department

18.

The applicant shall comply with all conditions required by CDF and County Fire Department in the building permit stage.


Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit or Project File Number:				Board Meeting Date: August 12, 2003
	PLN 2002-00424

Prepared By: Farhad Mortazavi			For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors


RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

For the Design Review, find that:

1.	This project has been reviewed under and found to be in compliance with the Design Review Standards for Emerald Lake Hills, Section 6565.15 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations.

For the Environmental Review, find that:

2.	This project is exempt from environmental review under the provisions of Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act, regarding construction of a new single-family residence in an urban area.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Planning Division

1.	The applicant shall put every effort to save Trees Nos. 109 and 110 of the arborist report (cedar trees approved for removal by the Board of Supervisors).

2.	The applicant shall submit a $5,000 surety deposit prior to the issuance of the associated building permit. The deposit shall be held for two full years from the date of planting of the trees, and shall be released only upon staff confirmation that all such trees are alive and healthy, and that any dead trees have been replaced in like kind.

3.	A tree protection plan by the arborist is required to be submitted for review and approval. The arborist must confirm in writing that tree protection measures are in place prior to the issuance of the associated building permit.

4.	The project shall be constructed in compliance with the plans approved by the Bayside Design Review Committee. Any changes or revisions to the approved plans or above conditions shall be reviewed by the Design Review Officer or, where necessary, the Bayside Design Review Committee for approval.
5.	The applicant shall provide “finished floor elevation verification” to certify that the structure is actually constructed at the height shown on the submitted plans. The applicant shall have a licensed land surveyor or engineer establish a baseline elevation datum point in the vicinity of the construction-site.

	a.	The applicant shall maintain the datum point so that it will not be disturbed by the proposed construction activities until final approval of the building permit.

	b.	This datum point and its elevation shall be shown on the submitted site plan. This datum point shall be used during construction to verify the elevation of the finished floors relative to the existing natural or to the grade of the site (finished grade).

	c.	Prior to planning approval of the building permit application, the applicant shall also have the licensed land surveyor or engineer indicate on the construction plans: (1) the natural grade elevations at the significant corners (at least four) of the footprint of the proposed structure on the submitted site plan, and (2) the elevations of proposed finished grades.

	d.	In addition, (1) the natural grade elevations at the significant corners of the proposed structure, (2) the finished floor elevations, (3) the topmost elevation of the roof, and (4) the garage slab elevation, must be shown on the plan, elevations, and cross-section (if one is provided).

	e.	Once the building is under construction, prior to the below floor framing inspection or the pouring of the concrete slab (as the case may be) for the lowest floor(s), the applicant shall provide to the Building Inspection Section a letter from the licensed land surveyor or engineer certifying that the lowest floor height--as constructed--is equal to the elevation specified for that floor in the approved plans. Similarly, certifications on the garage slab and the topmost elevation of the roof are required.

	f.	If the actual floor height, garage slab, or roof height--as constructed--is different than the elevation specified in the plans, then the applicant shall cease all construction and no additional inspections shall be approved until a revised set of plans is submitted to and subsequently approved by both the Building Official and Planning Director.

6.	During project construction, the applicant shall, pursuant to Section 5022 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code, minimize the transport and discharge of storm water 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.

7.	The applicant shall include an erosion and sediment control plan on the plans submitted for the building permit. This plan shall identify the type and location of erosion control devices to be installed upon the commencement of construction in order to maintain the stability of the site and prevent erosion and sedimentation off-site.

8.	All new power and telephone utility lines from the street or nearest existing utility pole to the main dwelling and/or any other structure on the property shall be placed underground.

9.	The applicant shall apply for a building permit and shall adhere to all requirements from the Building Inspection Section, the Department of Public Works and the respective Fire Authority.

10.	No site disturbance shall occur, including any grading or tree removal, until a building permit has been issued, and then only those trees approved for removal shall be removed.

11.	To reduce the impact of construction activities on neighboring properties, comply with the following:

	a.	All debris shall be contained on-site; a dumpster or trash bin shall be provided on-site during construction to prevent debris from blowing onto adjacent properties. The applicant shall monitor the site to ensure that trash is picked up and appropriately disposed of daily.

	b.	The applicant shall remove all construction equipment from the site upon completion of the use and/or need of each piece of equipment which shall include but not be limited to tractors, back hoes, cement mixers, etc.

	c.	The applicant shall ensure that no construction related vehicles shall impede through traffic along the right-of-way on Summit Drive. All construction vehicles shall be parked on-site outside the public right-of-way or in locations which do not impede safe access on Summit Drive. There shall be no storage of construction vehicles in the public right-of-way.

12.	The exterior color samples submitted to the Committee are approved. Color verification shall occur in the field after the applicant has applied the approved materials and colors but before a final inspection has been scheduled.

13.	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.

Building Inspection Section

14.	At the time of application for a building permit, the following will be required:

	a.	Prior to pouring any concrete for foundations, a licensed surveyor must submit written verification that the required setbacks have been maintained as per the approved plans.

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

	c.	A site drainage plan shall be submitted which will demonstrate how roof drainage and site runoff will be directed to an approved location.

	d.	A driveway plan and profile must be submitted which must be consistent with subdivision road improvements.

	e.	Sediment and erosion control measures must be installed prior to beginning nay earthwork and maintained throughout the project. Permanent measures shall be installed prior to finalization of the building permit.

Department of Public Works

15.	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 building per Ordinance #3277.

16.	The provision of San Mateo County Grading Ordinance shall govern all grading on and adjacent to this site. Unless exempted by the Grading Ordinance, the applicant may be required to apply for a grading permit upon completion of their review of the plans and should access construction be necessary.

17.	The applicant shall prepare a plan indicating the proposed method of sewering these properties. This plan should be included on the improvement plans and submitted to the Public Works Department for review. Upon completion of this review, the applicant and his engineer shall have these approved plans signed by the appropriate Sewer District (Emerald Lake Heights Sewer Maintenance District).

California Department of Forestry (CDF) and County Fire Department

18.	The applicant shall comply with all conditions required by CDF and County Fire Department in the building permit stage.

PROPOSAL

BACKGROUND

DISCUSSION

ATTACHMENTS