COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

DATE:

January 24, 2005

BOARD MEETING DATE:

February 8, 2005

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

10 days within 300 ft.

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

SUBJECT:

Consideration of a Coastside Design Review Permit, pursuant to Sections 6565.4 and 6328.5 of the County Zoning Regulations, to construct a new single-family residence on a 5,000 sq. ft. parcel located on 2nd Street, in the unincorporated Montara area of the County. (Appeal from decision of the Planning Commission denying the Design Review). This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

County File Number:

PLN 1999-00215 (Mahon)

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the Design Review Permit, County File Number PLN 1999-00215, by making the findings of denial as listed in Attachment A.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: Number 9 (Partnerships); “Effective and Collaborative Government.”

Goal: Number 20; “Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.”

The Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the subject Design Review (DR) permit furthers Commitment 9 and Goal 20 because the Planning Commission’s decision that the project did not comply with DR standards suggests that they were considering the future impacts of the project on the surrounding neighbors and were not willing to accommodate the “immediate” gains to the applicant if the house were approved and built.

BACKGROUND

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a new 2,982 sq. ft., two-story single-family residence, including a 400 sq. ft. detached garage. Three trees are proposed to be removed. The proposed residence is oriented towards and takes access from 2nd Street.

This project is one of two DR applications (the other application is PLN 1999-00015) for new single-family homes on two adjacent parcels submitted in February 1999. Both projects had their initial DR approvals rescinded due to inadequate public notification. Upon thorough re-noticing, review and extensive opportunity for comments, both projects have incurred similar degrees of strong opposition from the neighbors and Midcoast Community Council, based on their bulk, size and design relative to applicable DR standards, site topography, and comparative surrounding development. In response to the subject project, the applicant has made few substantial design modifications to the house beyond minor articulation changes to the exterior and various relocations of the garage. Initially, the subject project’s DR permit was approved by the Planning Director in October 2000. That decision was appealed by numerous local residents to the Planning Commission in January 2001, who upheld the appeal and denied the DR application. Upon appeal by the applicant to the Board of Supervisors in August 2001, the Board of Supervisors remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for redesign and the Planning Commission’s reconsideration. Despite the applicant submitting several minor modifications to the project in the interim, the Planning Commission subsequently denied the applicant’s appeal and the DR application in April 2004. The applicant has appealed that decision to the Board of Supervisors.

Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission’s denial of this application on April 21, 2004, included direction to the applicant to: (1) lower the elevation of the lower level, therefore lowering the overall mass of the structure; (2) eliminate the covered element over the deck area on the lower level; (3) step back the upper level such that the structure’s mass is pushed back further from the street; and (4) proposed varying exterior materials and colors to visually diminish the mass of the structure.

For the Planning Commission’s April 2004 hearing, the revised plans showed that the garage had been detached from the main structure and relocated up to the front property line, due to the steep slope of the front half of the lot, as allowed by Zoning Regulations. The upper deck had been reduced in size and the house had been moved 8 feet further back from the street. The exterior siding had also been modified across the front half of the structure, with shingles to be used at each change in articulation.

Although those revised plans were an improvement on the previous proposal in terms of reducing the mass of the structure and improving the articulation, the Planning Commission considered that the proposed design still did not comply with the applicable DR standards and denied the project for the following reasons:

A.

It was not designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural vegetation and landform in that the proposed structure does not blend with the natural contours of the site;

B.

It was not in harmony with the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community in that the proposed structure does not relate to adjacent buildings and to the neighborhood.

The Planning Commission voted to deny the DR application (3-1; Commissioner Kennedy had recently resigned and had not yet been replaced).

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

Applicant/Appellant: Thomas and Alice Mahon

Location: 284 – 2nd Street, Montara

APN: 036-014-200

Size: 5,000 sq. ft.

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

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

Sphere-of-Influence: City of Half Moon Bay

Existing Land Use: Vacant

Water Supply: Existing domestic well

Sewage Disposal: Montara Water and Sanitary District

Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Zone “C” (Area of Minimal Flooding); Community Panel Number: 060311 0092B; Effective Date: July 5, 1984.

Environmental Evaluation: Exempt under Section 15303, Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), construction of a minor structure.

Setting: The project site is located on 2nd Street, near the northwestern corner of Farallone Avenue, two blocks east of Cabrillo Highway. The 5,000 sq. ft. parcel has an average slope of approximately 22%, which slopes in a northerly direction uphill from 2nd Street. There is one existing pine tree located at the northwest section of the property and three existing pine trees in front of the property within the public right-of-way. The parcel to the east is vacant (pending DR application PLN 1999-00015); the parcel to the west is developed with a two-story residence and the remaining surrounding neighborhood is developed with one- and two-story single-family residences.

DISCUSSION

A.

KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

The applicant/appellant has submitted a number of appeal issues. The application for appeal is listed in Attachment G. These are summarized below followed by staff’s response, which also references the applicant’s December 2004 revisions submitted after the Planning Commission’s denial:

1.

The house has been designed to conform and blend with the natural contours of the site by two methods. First, by use of separated floor elevations at each floor. Second, a continued down sloping of the roof and employment of hipped roof style in the direction of the slope of the lot.

Staff Response: The revised plans last considered by the Planning Commission in April 2004, showed that the garage had been detached from the main structure and located to the front property line. This reduced the mass of the main structure that appeared as two stories from street level whereas it had previously appeared to be a three-story house with the attached garage. The upper deck had been reduced in size that decreased the covered deck element on the lower level, with the house having been moved 8 feet further back from the street. The exterior siding had been modified across the front half of the structure, with shingles proposed at each change in articulation. Those revised plans were an improvement on the previous proposal in terms of reducing the mass of the structure and improving the articulation, and the floor area of the house and garage now had been reduced to 2,982 sq. ft., down from the 3,468 sq. ft. house previously reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission.

However, the Planning Commission and staff agree that these changes did not improve the design to the extent where it complied with the applicable DR standards and considered that the house was not well designed to the contours of the site.

2.

The structure is in harmony with the shape, size and scale of the only visible adjacent house. The proposed house is lower in height than and smaller in size than the immediately adjacent house and employs a very similar design, use of exterior materials and massing. The immediately adjacent house is the only house visible on the same side of the street. Other houses are not visible due to dense foliage and trees.

Staff Response: Staff acknowledges that the adjacent house is of a similar size and design as the proposed house. However, the size of the adjacent parcel is significantly larger than the subject parcel and therefore when viewed from the street, it appears to fit more appropriately on the site and is set further back, therefore reducing the mass and visual appearance from the street. The Planning Commission considered that the proposed house would appear overly dominant in the street scene when compared with other houses in the vicinity due to the scale and design of the house. Although there was no maximum floor area limit at the time of the DR application submittal, the Planning Commission considered that the scale of the house in comparison with the size of the parcel would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding residential area.

B.

COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY REGULATIONS

1.

Conformance with General Plan

The Planning Commission found that the project does not comply with several DR standards, which are also supported in the County’s General Plan. Therefore, the Planning Commission found the proposed project is not in conformance with the County General Plan. Staff also agrees with the Planning Commission’s findings. The following specific General Plan policies are applicable:

Visual Quality and Urban Land Use. Visual Quality Policy 4.35 (Urban Area Design Concept) seeks to: (a) maintain and, where possible, improve upon the appearance and visual character of development in urban areas (of which the Montara area is included); and (b) to ensure that new development in urban areas is designed and constructed to contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of the locality. Urban Land Use Policy 8.14 (Residential Land Use Compatibility) seeks to protect and enhance the character of existing single-family areas. The Planning Commission found that the project does not blend into the natural landform and is not in harmony with adjacent buildings in the community, which therefore is not in conformance with the General Plan.

2.

Conformance with Local Coastal Program Policies

This project site is located within the Single-Family Exclusion Area of the Coastal Zone and thus qualifies for a Coastal Development Permit Exemption under Section 6328.5.e. of the County Zoning Regulations.

3.

Conformance with Zoning Regulations

a.

Development Regulations

The project site is zoned R-1/S-17 and is located within a DR Overlay District. The project components comply with all applicable 1999 Zoning Regulations, including setbacks, lot coverage, and height. Although the current Zoning Regulations adopted in September 2001 are not applicable to the proposed project, Table 1 compares the proposed project with both the 1999 regulations and the current regulations.

Development
Standards

Requirement

Proposed

Applicable
Development
Standards
(1999)

Adopted
Development
Standards
(2001)

Lot Width

50 feet

50 feet

Conforms

Conforms

Lot Size

5,000 sq. ft.

5,000 sq. ft.

Conforms

Conforms

Lot Coverage

35%

30.3%

Conforms

Conforms

Building Height

28 feet

27 feet – 4 inches

Conforms

Conforms

Front Yard

20 feet

26.5 feet

Conforms

Conforms

Rear Yard

20 feet

21.5 feet

Conforms

Conforms

Side Yards

Combined total of 15 feet with a minimum of 5 feet on any one side

Right yard setback: 7.5 feet
Left yard setback: 7.5 feet

Conforms

Conforms

Daylight Plane

Any 2 elevations – 20 feet walls then 45 degree angle to roof

Front/rear elevation complies

N/A

Does Not Conform

OR

Façade Articulation

Break up in planes on all 4 sides

4 of 4 sides have good articulation

Proposed FAR

0.53 (parcel size) [2,650 sq. ft.]

59.6%
[2,982 sq. ft.]

N/A

Does Not Conforms

b.

Section 6565.1 of the Zoning Regulations relates to DR districts in the Coastal Zone. Section 6565.7 sets out the DR standards for which projects must be assessed. The project is located within a DR district, and must comply with the Coastside DR standards applicable at the time of the application’s initial submittal in February 1999. The Planning Commission found that the proposed project was not in compliance with select DR standards, as follows:

(1)

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 Planning Commission considered that due to the over-dominant design of the house and the grading required to accommodate the house on the site, that this standard was not met.

Staff does not believe that the applicant’s December-submitted revisions move the project significantly closer to compliance with this standard.

(2)

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

The Planning Commission considered that the overly large scale of the house was not compatible with other properties in the surrounding area and therefore this standard was not met.

C.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (construction of new small facilities or structures).

D.

REVIEW BY THE MIDCOAST COMMUNITY COUNCIL

The Midcoast Community Council (MCCC) has reviewed this project several times (see their comment letters in Attachments H and I). Prior to the Planning Commission’s April 2004 denial, the MCCC reviewed the revised plans at their meeting on September 20, 2002. Their comments included that: (1) the structure should articulate to the topography of the site and the front elevation should step down to fit the natural grade, (2) there is no articulation between the 1st and 2nd stories on the right elevation, (3) left elevation has the appearance of a three-story home, and (4) the pop-out on the rear elevation is not well related to the structure and just adds additional unnecessary bulk.

The MCCC also reviewed the plans again at their meeting on March 17, 2004 (letter listed in Attachment J). They requested that the Planning Commission deny the application on the basis that: (1) the submitted plans do not include any information on materials, finishes, landscaping, tree removal, grading or driveway slope and access; (2) plans show a detached garage in the front yard setback with only a 3-foot side yard setback; (3) earlier issues regarding compatibility with the size, scale and character of the surrounding community have not been addressed; and (4) other issues and alternatives, such as re-orientating the lots, lowering the houses toward grade and increased stepping of the design for better conformance with the topography have not been addressed.

Staff must add that the revisions submitted in December 2004 have not been reviewed by the MCCC (see Alternative section below). However, staff does not believe that the minor modifications shown would alter the primary criticisms posed by the MCCC.

E.

ALTERNATIVE

In anticipation to this project’s appeal being brought before the Board of Supervisors, the applicant submitted revised plans in December 2004 (Attachments L and M). However, aside from some minor roof articulation improvements, these revisions are essentially no different from an earlier iteration submitted by the applicant on October 1, 2001, whereby the garage was attached to the house, but moved 10 feet back from the front property line. Staff’s and the Planning Commission’s previous consideration of that plan concluded that attaching the garage to the house, with no reduction of the second floor bulk, was still not compliant with the select DR standards. It does show some of the improved exterior changes previously recommended by staff, but it does not alter or reduce the massing of the house or articulation of its second story, which has been central to the neighbor’s and Planning Commission’s objections to the project. Indeed, this latest submitted revision indicates on the site plan a floor area of nearly 3,131 sq. ft., which is an increase from the 2,982 sq. ft. house the Planning Commission last reviewed in April 2004. While the applicant suggests that this represents a reduction from a previous proposal, staff does not know what previous plan the applicant is referring to.

Staff does not believe that the applicant’s latest revisions provide enough change to alter staff’s previous responses to: (1) the applicant’s appeal, or (2) the project’s lack of compliance with select DR standards.

As an alternative to staff’s recommendation to deny the appeal, if the Board of Supervisors decides to approve this project, please refer to Attachment B for recommended and revised conditions of approval, including requiring the applicant to move that portion of the second story (including the 2nd Street-facing upper story deck) on the downhill end of the house a minimum of 10 feet back over the first story, as measured from the north-facing wall. These conditions also include changes to windows, window and door trim articulation, roof articulation, upper and lower decking, as well as the submittal of additional information including a landscaping plan and exterior material and color samples.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Recommended Findings of Denial

B.

Alternative Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

C.

Location Map

D.

Site Plan (considered by Planning Commission on April 14, 2004)

E.

Elevations (considered by Planning Commission on April 14, 2004)

F.

Planning Commission Letter of Decision, dated April 20, 2004

G.

Application for Appeal dated May 2, 2004

H.

MCCC Comment Letter dated September 29, 2002

I.

MCCC Comment Letters dated March 18, 2004 and April 12, 2004

J.

Letter from Zumbrum Law Firm dated February 11, 2004

K.

Letter from County Counsel dated March 9, 2004

L.

Revised Site Plan submitted by applicant in December 2004

M.

Revised Elevations submitted by applicant in December 2004

Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF DENIAL

Permit File Number: PLN 1999-00215

Board Meeting Date: February 8, 2005

Prepared By: David Holbrook

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF DENIAL

Regarding the Coastside DR, find that this project has been reviewed under and found to be not in compliance with the Standards of Review Criteria as stipulated in Chapter 28.1 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations. Specifically, with the following standards:

1.

Is not designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural vegetation and landform in that the proposed structure does not blend with the natural contours of the site.

2.

Is not in harmony with the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community in that the proposed structure does not relate to adjacent buildings and to the neighborhood.

Attachment B

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

ALTERNATIVE

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit File Number: PLN 1999-00215

Board Meeting Date: February 8, 2005

Prepared By: David Holbrook

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

For the Environmental Review, Find:

1.

That this project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303, Class 3, relating to new construction of small structures. A Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County Clerk’s Office and posted as required by CEQA.

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 the Coastal Development Permit Exemption, Find:

3.

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.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1.

This approval applies only to the proposal as described in this report and approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 8, 2005. These plans supersede all previously submitted and reviewed plans. 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.

2.

This permit shall be valid for one year from the date of final approval by which time a building permit shall have been issued. Any extension of this permit shall require submittal of a request in writing, including reasons for the extension and payment of applicable fees for permit extension 30 days prior to expiration.

3.

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

4.

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

5.

Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit revised plans showing the following design changes:

a.

The second story portion of the house (including the first and second story decks) on the northern, downhill side of the site, shall be moved back a minimum of 10 feet from the north facing edge of the first story. All resulting roof modifications shall be of the hip roof variety.

b.

Redesign of the bay window on the west elevation to ensure compliance with County Planning Policy as it encroaches within the side yard setback. In order to qualify as a bay window, it must begin its protrusion from the building’s wall not less than 18 inches above the floor level and it must also return to the building’s wall line at some point below the ceiling level.

c.

Incorporate a hip roof design on all sides of the detached garage.

d.

Introduce a bellyband on all four-elevation sides.

e.

Redesign rear dormer to incorporate a hip roof design.

f.

All window and door trim to be a thicker width (1" by 6").

g.

Reduce the size of lower level deck to 5.5 feet wide with rounded edges and revise the upper level deck to include rounded edges to match lower deck.

h.

Introduce a new window on right side of garage.

i.

Add a full-size window to Bedroom #2, located on the right side of the house.

j.

The detached garage at the front of the property must maintain the same side yard setbacks as the main house and therefore must be at least 7.5 feet from the right side property line.

All changes must be included and incorporated into the submitted building permit plans.

6.

This permit allows for the removal of one Monterey Pine tree (depicted as Tree #1 in the arborist report dated July 5, 2001). The applicant shall obtain from the County Department of Public Works the appropriate permit(s) for the removal of the pine. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Counter a copy of the permit from Public Works prior to the issuance of the building 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. The other two trees recommended for removal by the arborist (Trees #2 and #3) shall be saved unless an arborist report is submitted to indicate that more than 25 percent of the root system of the tree is going to be impacted by development of the approved structure and driveway. If the two trees require removal, a separate tree removal permit will be required prior to removal. If the trees are to be saved, the applicant shall submit a tree preservation plan, prepared by a certified arborist, for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The approved tree protection measures shall be implemented prior to the start of any grading or construction activity on the site.

7.

Depict all the trees along the County’s right-of-way and the 36-inch pine within the front yard on the site plan. Submit the revised plans to Planning for review and approval prior to Planning approval of the associated building permit.

8.

The applicant shall submit exterior color samples (no larger than approximately 4 square inches) for walls and trim to the Planning Counter for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to Planning approval of the associated building permit. The applicant shall include the file/case number with all color samples. Color verification by a building inspector shall occur in the field after the applicant has painted the structure an approved color, but before the applicant schedules a final inspection.

9.

The applicant shall submit a material sample of the proposed roof material for review and approval of the color and material prior to Planning approval of the associated building permit. Roof material verification by a building inspector shall occur in the field after the applicant has installed the approved material, but before the applicant schedules a final inspection.

10.

The applicant shall submit a landscape plan (may be shown on the site plan of the submitted building permit application) depicting the location, type, and size of trees and shrubs for review and approval by the Planning Division. The landscaped areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation runoff and require minimal and appropriate use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. The goal of the required landscape plan is to soften the building elevations and to increase surface filtration. The plan shall include a minimum of two (2) trees (minimum 5 gallons) in the front of the residence, one (1) tree (minimum 36-inch box) in the front of the residence, a minimum of three (3) trees (minimum 5 gallons) in the rear of the residence and a minimum of twenty (20) shrubs (minimum 1 gallon) shall be included in the design. Areas in the front and rear of the property that do not contain trees or shrubs shall be covered with a combination of turf or groundcover and/or a minimum of two inches of mulch on all exposed soil areas to minimize erosion.

11.

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 grading activities.

12.

Submit an on-site drainage plan, as prepared by a 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 Planning approval of the associated 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.

13.

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 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 into the storm drain system or water body.

d.

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

e.

Avoid 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.

14.

If the total land area disturbed by the project exceeds 5,000 sq. ft., the applicant shall, pursuant to Section 5023 of the San Mateo County Code, submit a construction site stormwater management plan to the Planning Counter, for review and approval by the Planning Director. This plan must be approved by the Planning Director before the issuance of any permit including, but not limited to, a grading permit, or a building permit. The plan shall illustrate and describe appropriate methods, chosen by the applicant from the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook, to control stormwater runoff from the project site during construction and from land use activities on the site once the project is completed.

15.

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).

16.

Noise levels produced by the proposed construction activity shall not exceed 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.

17.

No grading shall be allowed during the winter season (October 1 to May 1) to avoid potential soil erosion unless approved, in writing, by the Planning Director. The applicant shall submit a letter to the Planning Division at least two weeks prior to the commencement of grading stating when grading will begin.

18.

To ensure the height of the structure and/or structures do not exceed the maximum height permitted, staff requires the applicant to adhere to the height verification procedure during the building permit process. 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. 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.

a.

The 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).

b.

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.

c.

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) garage slab elevation, must be shown on the plan, elevations, and cross-section (if one is provided).

d.

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.

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.

19.

The plans submitted at the building permit stage shall clearly show the location of the existing well and that the proposed development complies with the required Environmental Health setbacks from that well.

20.

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.