COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

 

DATE:

February 16, 2006

BOARD MEETING DATE:

March 7, 2006

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 Coastal Development Permit and Coastside Design Review, pursuant to Sections 6328 and 6565 of the County Zoning Regulations, for a new 4,346 sq. ft. single-family residence with an attached 496 sq. ft. garage, and extension of a sewer and water main to serve the 12,000 sq. ft. parcel. The project site is located on Magellan Avenue, in the unincorporated Miramar area of San Mateo County. (Appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the project.) The project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

 
 

County File Number:

PLN 2005-00271 (Stebbins)

 
 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the project by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval listed in Attachment A.

 

VISION ALIGNMENT

 

Commitment: The proposed project furthers commitment (number 9) “Responsive, Effective, and Collaborative Government” and commitment (number 4) “Offer a full range of housing choices.”

 

Goal: The project furthers Goal No. 20, which states that: “Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.” The Planning Commission carefully considered the proposed project and found that the project complies with the General Plan, LCP Policies and Zoning Regulations. The Commission reached a consensus on the key issues under discussion including adequate consideration of LCP Policies and applicability of a CEQA exemption.”

 

The project also furthers Goal No. 9, which states: “Housing exists for all people at all income levels and for all generations of families.” The proposal to construct a new single-family residence in an urban area furthers this commitment.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct a new 4,346 sq. ft. single-family residence with an attached 496 sq. ft. garage, and extend a sewer and water main to serve the 12,000 sq. ft. parcel.

 

Design Review Committee and Director Action: The Coastside Design Review Committee (the Committee) recommended approval of the project on August 11, 2005. The Committee found that the project was environmentally sensitive, consistent and architecturally compatible with other homes in the vicinity. The Community Development Director (CDD) issued a decision letter dated August 24, 2005, approving the Coastal Development Permit and design review.

 

Planning Commission Action: The decision of the CDD was appealed by Barbara Mauz on January 4, 2006. As a result of the appeal the proposed project was presented before the Planning Commission on December 14, 2005. The Commission denied the appeal and voted 3 to 0 in favor of the Community Development Director’s decision to approve the Coastal Development Permit and Coastside Design Review.

 

At the hearing, the Planning Commission found that the project complies with the General Plan, LCP Policies and Zoning Regulations. The key issues raised by the appellant include the drainage channel which the appellant asserts is an ‘ephemeral stream’. The Commission agreed with staff’s conclusion that the drainage channel does not meet the definition of ‘stream’ as contained in the County’s Local Coastal Program based on the evidence that was provided to them.

 

Report Prepared By: Farhad Mortazavi and Surachita Bose, Project Planners, Telephone 650/363-1831

 

Owner: Bruce Stebbins

 

Applicant: Jack McCarthy

 

Appellant: Barbara Mauz

 

Location: Magellan Avenue, Miramar

 

APN: 048-021-230

 

Parcel Size: 12,000 sq. ft.

 

Existing Zoning: R-1/S-94/DR/CD (Single Family Residential/10,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size/Design Review/Coastal Development District)

 

General Plan Designation: Medium Low Density Residential (2.1 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre)

 

Existing Land Use: Vacant Parcel

 

Sphere of Influence: City of Half Moon Bay

 

Water Supply: Coastside County Water District

 

Sewage Disposal: Granada Sanitary District

 

Flood Zone: Flood Insurance Rate designation indicates parcels as Zone C, areas of minimal flooding, Community Panel No. 060311 0225 C, effective date: August 5, 1986.

 

Environmental Evaluation: Categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 pertaining to the construction of a new small structure in an urban area.

 

Setting: The subject parcel is located at the northern end of Magellan Avenue in Miramar on the east side of Highway 1. The parcel has two drainage channels; one is a shallow drainage that runs along the north side of the subject parcel and the other larger drainage runs along the southern edge of the parcel and curves northwest through the parcel. The vegetation on the parcel consists of eucalyptus trees with an under story of small shrubs and grasses. This block of Miramar contains some ocean views. Parcels in the vicinity have been developed with one- and two-story single-family dwellings.

 

Chronology Summary:

 

Date

 

Action

     

December 18, 1905

-

Subdivision of Miramar area approved and recorded.

     

July 7, 2000

-

The California Coastal Commission provided written confirmation to the County stating that the drainage channel that passes through the subject parcel is not a “stream” for purposes of establishing appeals jurisdiction under Commission Regulation Section 13577.

     

June 14, 2005

-

Coastal Development Permit and Coastside Design Review application submitted for a new single-family dwelling with an attached garage, and extension of sewer and water mains.

     

August 11, 2005

-

Coastside Design Review Committee recommends approval of the project by a majority vote.

     

August 24, 2005

-

Community Development Director approves the CDP and Design Review application by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval.

     

September 13, 2005

-

Project is appealed to the Planning Commission by appellant, Barbara Mauz.

     

December 14, 2005

-

Planning Commission denied the appeal by a majority vote of 3 to 0.

     

January 4, 2006

-

The project is appealed to the Board of Supervisors by the appellant.

     

March 7, 2006

-

Board of Supervisors public hearing.

     

DISCUSSION

 

A.

KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

   
 

The appellant has appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project. As detailed in Attachment B, the appellant raises the following issues (in bold) in her appeal to the Board, as summarized below, followed by staff’s response. The key issues of the appeal to the Board are the same as the appeal issues that were brought before the Planning Commission.

   
 

1.

Non-compliance with LCP Policies 8.1, 8.6a, and 7.1 through 7.13 – The project involves coastal resources in the form of an ephemeral stream and a riparian corridor. Applicable LCP Policies have not been considered and hence the approved CDP should be denied or conditioned to mitigate the violations.

     
   

Staff’s Response: The project does not involve an ephemeral stream or a riparian corridor. The California Coastal Commission in its correspondence with staff in a letter dated July 7, 2000, confirmed that ‘the channel east of the drainage culvert on the Mirada surf site near Magellan Avenue east of Highway 1 is not an Appeals Jurisdiction stream as defined by Coastal Commission regulations. There is no stream within 100 feet of the subject development (419 Magellan Avenue, Miramar)….’ The drainage channel in question does not show up on any of the certified LCP maps or the USGS topographic maps and hence does not meet the definition of an ephemeral stream nor does it meet the definition of a sensitive habitat area as contained in the County’s Local Coastal Program.

     
   

The project parcel consists of two drainage channels; one is a shallow drainage, henceforth referred to as Drainage A that runs along the north side of the subject parcel. The other, larger drainage, henceforth referred to as Drainage B, runs along the southern edge of the parcel and curves northwest through the parcel.

     
   

The applicant provided staff with a biologist report prepared by Thomas Reid Associates dated August 3, 2005, which states that no flowing water, standing water or moist soils were evident in Drainage A or B at the time of the field visit. The report states that Drainage B appears to be an ephemeral drainage that transports water only during high rainfall storm events with no evidence of wetland soils or plants within the drainage. The report confirms the following: (1) none of the plants listed in the LCP definitions for riparian corridor or wetland were found on the property or within the upstream or downstream portions of the drainages, and (2) there was a distinct lack of other riparian and wetland species not listed in LCP definitions on the subject site. The vegetation within the channel upstream of the project site consists of common coastal scrub species and invasive plant species.

     
   

LCP Policies 7.1 through 7.13 related to sensitive habitats and riparian corridors are not applicable to the subject parcel as there are no riparian or wetland species found in it.

     
   

Policies 8.1 and 8.6a from the Visual Resources Component of the Local Coastal Program define streams as landforms and require that development be set back from the edge of streams and natural waterways at a sufficient distance to preserve the visual character of the waterway. These policies do not apply to the subject parcel, as the drainage swales (A and B) are not ‘streams’.

     
   

In addition, the proposal responds sensitively to the presence of the drainage channel on the parcel by locating the residential structure at the far end of the property. Access to the structure is via a driveway bridge that goes over the channel to ensure that it remains as an unaltered natural feature of the parcel topography. The Committee and the Planning Commission found the proposal to be in compliance with key design review standards and that the project was environmentally sensitive, consistent and architecturally compatible with other homes in the vicinity.

     
 

2.

Project not exempt from CEQA guidelines due to – Project proposes extension of water and sewer lines, which create a ‘cumulative impact’ i.e., help to facilitate a bigger project.

     
   

Staff’s Response: The project proposes the construction of a new single-family residence plus an attached garage, and extension of a sewer and water main to a 12,000 sq. ft. parcel. The project relates to the construction of a small new structure in an urban area and hence is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3.

     
   

The project parcel is within the service limits of the Granada Sanitary District and Coastside County Water District, and the extension of water and sewer lines is legitimate in the urban area of the Midcoast.

     
   

The appellant argues that the 8-inch water main extension could be used to service a future subdivision. There is no future subdivision being proposed in the vicinity of the subject parcel. This particular development is on a parcel that has been designated for development with single-family homes by the County’s General Plan designation for parcels along Magellan Avenue. The subject parcel is located close to the urban-rural boundary; the land further uphill is owned by a land conservation trust that is involved in the preservation of coastal open space.

     
   

There are no ‘cumulative impacts’ resulting from this particular development beyond those that have already been accounted for in the approved subdivision of 1905, the County General Plan and Local Coastal Program. The water and sewer services being proposed are allocated to development on those parcels that have been identified as developable.

     
   

Additionally, during a site visit, staff found that development along Magellan Avenue is in its final phase and the subject parcel is among the last sites being developed along the street. Several parcels along Magellan Avenue have already been developed with one- and two-story single-family dwellings.

     
 

3.

Because El Granada is listed as a County historic resource, CEQA requires the lead agency to consider possible impacts when a proposed development may involve a historic resource and to require mitigation measures.

     
   

Staff’s Response: The project site is located within the urban boundary of Miramar, not El Granada. This area has not been designated a historic resource by the County General Plan. The appellant has erroneously referenced several General Plan Policies included within the County’s Historic and Archaeological Resources Chapter, the Public Resources Code and the County Historic Preservation Ordinance, none of which are applicable to the subject parcel, as it is not part of the El Granada subdivision.

     
 

4.

Suspension of a 4-inch sewer lateral under the proposed bridge and the possibility of sewage being released into the water flowing underground in the ‘ephemeral stream’ as a result of an earthquake or other natural disaster should be considered.

     
   

Staff’s Response: There are specifications and code requirements that govern the engineering and construction of sewer laterals and these are determined by the respective sanitary districts, which in this case is the Granada Sanitary District. Sewer laterals are designed to withstand a sufficient level of use that take into consideration impacts from traffic, seismic hazards and other forces within reasonable limits of possibility. Moreover, the project site is not located within a geologic hazard area and possibility of an earthquake rupturing the sewer lateral would be minimal in this case.

     

B.

CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN

   
 

Staff has determined that the project, as proposed and conditioned, conforms with General Plan Policies with applicable policies as discussed below. The project conforms with General Plan Policies pertaining to Visual Quality and Urban Land Use, as detailed in the Montara-Moss Beach-El Granada Community Plan under Policy 8.8 (Designation of Existing Urban Communities). A single-family residence is the principal land use and conforms with the General Plan designation of Medium-Low Density Residential.

   
 

Policies 4.14 (Appearance of New Development) and 4.35 (Urban Area Design Concept) require structures to promote and enhance good design, improve the appearance and visual character of development in the area by managing the location and appearance of the structure. The Committee, in its recommendation for approval of the project, and the Planning Commission found the proposal to be located appropriately and the project to be similar in character with other homes in the area.

   

C.

COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) POLICIES

   
 

The proposed residential development has been reviewed against applicable LCP Policies pertaining to location of development, sensitive habitats, and visual quality components. A Coastal Development Checklist has been completed. The project was found to be in compliance with LCP Policies 8.1, 8.6a, and 7.1 through 7.13 as discussed in Section B.1 of this report.

   

D.

CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS

   
 

The table below shows the project’s compliance with the R-1/S-94 Zoning Regulations.

   

R-1/S-94 Development Standards

Zoning Requirements

Proposal

Building Site Area

10,000 sq. ft.

12,000 sq. ft.

Building Site Width

50 ft.

120 ft.

Minimum Setbacks:

   
 

Front

20 ft.

22 ft.

 

Rear

20 ft.

20 ft.

 

Sides

10 ft.

49 ft. on left side and 10 ft. on right side

Lot Coverage

4,000 sq. ft. (30%) (maximum)

3,000 sq. ft. (25%)

Building Floor Area

6,360 sq. ft. (53%) (maximum)

4,342 sq. ft. (40.4%)

Building Height

32 ft.

31 ft.

Minimum Parking

2 covered spaces

2 covered spaces

   

E.

PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH COASTSIDE DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS

   
 

The project was found to comply with the County’s Coastside Design Review Standards (Section 6565.7), with specific discussion 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 proposal conforms to all County Zoning Regulations regarding setbacks and daylight planes to provide adequate space for light and air to itself and adjacent properties. In addition, no neighbors within the 300-foot radius of the site raised any issues regarding adequate space and light at the public hearing.

     
 

2.

Where grading is necessary for the construction of structures and paved areas, it blends with adjacent landforms through the use of contour grading rather than harsh cutting or terracing of the site and does not create problems of drainage or erosion on its site or adjacent property. The applicant is proposing to construct a new 4,346 sq. ft. single-family residence plus an attached 496 sq. ft. garage. The proposal takes into consideration the existing contours of the site and would require grading of 195 cubic yards, which is well within the allowed 250 cubic yards in this zone. By conditioning the approval (see Condition of Approval Numbers 7, 8, 9 and 10), the proposal does not create problems of drainage or erosion on its site or adjacent property.

     
 

3.

Streams and other natural drainage systems are not altered so as to affect their character and thereby causing problems of drainage, erosion or flooding. There are no streams on the site. There is a drainage channel that runs along the southern edge of the parcel and curves northwest through the parcel. The proposal responds sensitively to the presence of this channel by locating the residential structure at the rear end of the property. Access to the structure is via a bridge that goes over the channel, thus ensuring that it remains a prominent feature of the topography of this parcel. By conditioning the approval (see Condition of Approval Number 3), the proposal does not alter the natural drainage channel in any manner.

     
 

4.

Structures are located outside flood zones, drainage channels and other areas subject to inundation. The project is not located within a flood zone. There is a natural drainage channel that runs through the parcel. All proposed structures are located outside the channel at the rear end of the property.

     
 

5.

Trees and other vegetation land cover are removed only when 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 construction of the structure will require the removal of eucalyptus trees, all of which fall under the category of ‘insignificant trees’ (less than 12 inches in diameter measured 4.5 feet above grade) and would thus not require a permit for their removal. Three eucalyptus trees were damaged during the construction of an approved house on the adjacent parcel and an after-the-fact Tree Removal Permit (refer PLN 2005-00355) was approved for the same.

     
 

6.

A smooth transition is maintained between development and adjacent open areas through the use of natural landscaping and plant materials which are native or appropriate to the area. The Committee and the Planning Commission found that the design of the project would maintain a smooth transition area between the structure and adjoining landscape and recommended approval of the project. Condition of Approval Number 3.a requires a landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Midcoast Community Council (MCCC) prior to the issuance of a building permit. However, Planning staff has revised this condition to require the MCCC review and provide comments to the Planning and Building Division within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of the plan. Counsel has advised Planning and Building that the issuance of a building permit cannot be at the discretion of an Advisory Council (MCCC). The Planning Division will consider the MCCC’s comments in their review and decision regarding the landscape plan.

     
 

7.

Views are protected by the height and location of structures and through the selective pruning or removal of trees and vegetative matter at the end of view corridors. The site is located within an urban area in Miramar and could contain some ocean view corridors. The Committee and the Planning Commission took the view corridors into consideration and recommended approval of the project.

     
 

8.

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

     
 

9.

Structures are set back from the edge of bluffs and cliffs to protect views from scenic areas below. The site is not located on the edge of a bluff or cliff.

     
 

10.

Public views to and along the shoreline from public roads and other public lands are protected. The project site is in an urban area of Miramar and the proposal would not adversely affect public views to and along the shoreline from public roads and other public lands due to the presence of other single-family residences between Highway 1 and the subject parcel. Moreover, the proposed structure is located at the rear end of the parcel and oriented in a way that the building mass is screened from public view.

     
 

11.

Varying architectural styles are made compatible through the use of similar materials and colors which blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed project conforms to design requirements including varying architectural styles. Houses of similar colors and materials appear in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed structure will utilize the existing colors and materials of the building to blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhood (Condition of Approval Numbers 3.c).

     
 

12.

The design of the structure is appropriate to the use of the property and is in harmony with the shape, size and scale of the adjacent building in the community. The proposal for a new single-family dwelling plus attached garage is an allowed use in this zoning district. The Committee and the Planning Commission found that the proposed structure is in harmony with the shape, size and scale of the adjacent buildings, for the reasons previously discussed in this report.

     
 

13.

Overhead utility lines are placed underground where appropriate to reduce the visual impact in open and scenic areas. The Planning Commission approved the project with a condition that all new service lines be placed underground (see Condition of Approval Number 5, Attachment A).

     
 

14.

The number, location, size, design, lighting, materials, and use of colors in signs are compatible with the architectural style of the structure they identify and harmonize with their surroundings. There are no signs proposed for this project.

     
 

15.

Paved areas are integrated into the site, relate to their structure, and are landscaped to reduce visual impact from residential areas and from roadways. The proposed driveway responds sensitively to the site conditions by going over the dry channel to ensure that the channel remains as a topographical feature of this parcel without being altered in any manner and this has been ensured by conditioning the approval (see Condition of Approval Numbers 3.a and 3.b).

     

F.

MIDCOAST COMMUNITY COUNCIL REVIEW

   
 

A referral of the project was sent to the Midcoast Community Council (MCCC) on June 15, 2005, and they reviewed the project at their meeting on August 3, 2005. The MCCC commented on the preservation of the channel and landscaping of the parcel. MCCC in its correspondence with staff in a letter dated August 10, 2005, stated that the bridge over the channel should be extended with the bridge’s footers pulled back from the creek’s edge and the approval should be conditioned to ensure that the culvert and channel are preserved during construction and in the future. MCCC also commented on the location of trees, replanting and landscaping requirements on the parcel. See Condition of Approval 3 (Attachment A) of this report that incorporates the concerns of MCCC.

   

G.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

   
 

The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, pertaining to the construction of small new structures in an urban area.

   

H.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

   
 

1.

Department of Public Works

 

2.

Building Inspection Section

 

3.

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District

 

4.

Water and Sewer Districts (Granada Sanitary District and Coastside County Water District)

 

5.

Midcoast Community Council

   

FISCAL IMPACT

 

No fiscal impact.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

A.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

B.

Appeal Letter

C.

Location Map

D.

Site Plan

E.

Main Level Floor Plan

F.

Upper Level Floor Plan

G.

Front and Right Elevations

H.

Rear and Left Elevations

I.

Coastal Development Permit and Design Review Approval Letter

J.

California Coastal Commission Confirmation

K.

Biological Report

L.

MCCC Letter of Recommendation

Attachment A

 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

 

Permit File Number: PLN 2005-00271

Board Meeting Date: March 7, 2006

 

Prepared By:

Farhad Mortazavi, and Surachita Bose

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

 

For the Environmental Review, Find:

 

1.

That the project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303, Class 3, relating to the construction of a new small structure in an urban area.

   

For the Coastal Development Permit, Find:

 

2.

That the project, as described in the application and accompanying materials required by Zoning Regulations Section 6328.7 and as conditioned in accordance with Section 6328.14, conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program.

   

3.

That the project conforms to the specific findings required by the policies of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program.

   

4.

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

   

For the Design Review Permit, Find:

 

5.

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

   

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

 

Planning Division

 

1.

This approval is for the project as described on the plans and documents submitted on June 14, 2005 to the Planning Division. Any revisions to the approved plans must be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to implementation. Minor adjustments to the project may be approved by the Community Development Director if they are consistent with the intent of and are in substantial conformance with this approval. Any other developments on the property will be subject to a separate permitting process.

   

2.

The Coastal Development Permit shall be valid for one year from the date of approval in which time a building permit shall be issued. Any extension of this permit shall require submittal of an application for permit extension and payment of applicable permit extension fees sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date.

   

3.

The applicant shall forward the following list of requirements, stipulated by the Coastside Design Review Committee, to the Design Review Officer for review and approval. These changes shall be included on the applicant’s building permit plans:

   
 

a.

A landscape plan shall be submitted to Planning staff for review and approval. Prior to approval, staff will refer the plan to the MCCC for submission of any comments within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of the plan. Planning staff will consider MCCC’s comments in their review and decision.

     
 

b.

Site plan to include a longer bridge over the natural culvert, with bridge’s concrete footing placed further back from the culvert’s edges.

     
 

c.

Change the proposed gray color to a green-gray color, complementing the accent colors.

     

4.

Noise levels produced by construction shall not exceed the 80-dBA level at any one moment. Construction activity 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 operation shall be prohibited on Sunday and any national holiday.

   

5.

All new power and telephone lines from the street or nearest existing utility pole to the main dwelling and/or any other structure on the property shall be installed underground. No new or additional utility pole(s) may be installed.

   

6.

The applicant shall provide “finished floor elevation verification” on the submitted building plans to certify that the structure is actually constructed at the height shown on the submitted plans. The applicant shall have a licensed 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.

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).

     
 

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 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) 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, 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 from 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 Community Development Director.

     

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 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.

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

   

9.

The applicant shall submit an erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. The erosion control plan shall be located around the parameter of the construction activities and with the drainage channel consideration by placing sediment control barriers around the mouth of the downstream culvert, and clearly delineate the types of measures to be used, the location of where the measures will be placed as well as sectional drawing/s showing how the measures shall be installed. All erosion control devices shall be installed on-site prior to any grading activities on-site.

   

10.

The applicant shall submit a stormwater management plan, which shall include a site plan and narrative of the types of permanent stormwater controls that will be installed on-site to minimize the surface water runoff. At a minimum, the directly connected impervious areas shall be minimized, downspouts shall be directed to landscaped areas and pervious materials shall be used for the access road, if possible, and any patio or walkway areas near the proposed residence.

   

11.

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

   

12.

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 Magellan Avenue. All construction vehicles shall be parked on-site outside the public right-of-way or in locations which do not impede safe access on Magellan Avenue. There shall be no storage of construction vehicles in the public right-of-way.

     

13.

No site disturbance shall occur, including any grading, until a building permit is issued.

   

Building Inspection Section

 

14.

The following will be required at the time of application for a building permit:

   
 

a.

Prior to pouring any concrete for foundations, written verification from a licensed surveyor will be required confirming that the setbacks, as shown on the approved plans, have been maintained.

     
 

b.

An automatic fire sprinkler system will be required. This permit must be issued prior to, or in conjunction with the building permit.

     
 

c.

If a water main extension or upgrade of hydrant is required, this work must be completed prior to the issuance of the building permit or the applicant must submit a copy of an agreement and contract with the water purveyor that will ensure the work will be completed prior to finalizing the permit.

     
 

d.

A site drainage plan will be required that will demonstrate how roof drainage and site runoff will be directed to an approved location.

     
 

e.

Sediment and erosion control measures must be installed prior to beginning any site work and maintained throughout the term of the permit. Failure to install or maintain these measures will result in stoppage of construction until the corrections have been made and fees paid for staff enforcement time.

     
 

f.

No wood-burning fireplaces allowed.

     

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 No. 3277.

   

16.

The provision of San Mateo County Grading Ordinance shall govern all grading on and adjacent to this site.

   

17.

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

   

18.

At time of building permit, the owner/engineer shall extend the access road at the end of the cul-de-sac to a point where the new driveway comes in and to the satisfaction of Department of Public Works.