COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

 
 

DATE:

October 6, 2006

BOARD MEETING DATE:

October 24, 2006

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

 

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

 

FROM:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

 

SUBJECT:

Consideration of an appeal of a Coastside Design Review Permit and Coastal Development Permit Exemption, pursuant to Sections 6565.11 and 6328.5 of the County Zoning Regulations, to construct a new 3,500 sq. ft. single-family residence with an attached 655 sq. ft. garage, plus a new 1,152 sq. ft. detached second unit with a 400 sq. ft. carport, and the removal of 15 Eucalyptus trees, on a 22,337 sq. ft. parcel located at the corner of Miramar Drive and Terrace Avenue in unincorporated Miramar. This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

 
 

County File Number:

PLN 2005-00607 (Peterson)

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Board of Supervisors 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 3) “Responsive, Effective, and Collaborative Government” and commitment (number 4) “Offer a full range of housing choices.

 

Goals: The project furthers Goal Number 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 County’s General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and Coastside Design Review Standards. The project also furthers Goal Number 9, which states: “Housing exists for people at all income levels and for all generations of families.” The proposal to construct the main house and second dwelling unit in an urban area furthers this commitment.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct: (1) a new 3,500 sq. ft. single-family residence with an attached 655 sq. ft. garage, plus a new 1,152 sq. ft. detached second unit with a 400 sq. ft. carport; and (2) remove 15 Eucalyptus trees on a 22,337 sq. ft. parcel on a 22,337 sq. ft. parcel in unincorporated Miramar.

 

The second dwelling unit and its carport are ministerial permits and are not subject to discretionary review (California Government Code Section 65852.2, effective July 1, 2003). Since the proposed second unit and associated carport comply with the R-1/S-94 Zoning District and the Second Dwelling Unit Zoning Regulations, these elements of the project are not subject to appeal. Both public notifications for the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission hearings informed of this regulation.

 

Design Review Committee Action: The Coastside Design Review Committee (the Committee) reviewed the project on February 9, 2006, and subsequently approved the project on March 9, 2006, by a unanimous decision. The Committee found that the proposal was consistent and architecturally compatible with other homes in the vicinity, and that efforts were made to minimize the effect of views from neighboring houses.

 

Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission considered the appeal of the proposed project on July 26, 2006, and voted 4-1 to deny the appeal and approve the project (Commissioner Wong dissenting).

 

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

 

Appellant: Tripatinder Chowdhry

 

Owner/Applicant: Steve Peterson

 

Location: Corner of Miramar Drive and Terrace Avenue in Miramar

 

APNs: 048-072-060 and -070

 

Size: 22,337 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 (2.4 to 6 dwelling units per acre)

 

Sphere-of-Influence: City of Half Moon Bay

 

Existing Land Use: Vacant

 

Water Supply: Coastside County Water District

 

Sewage Disposal: Granada Sanitary District

 

Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map designation indicates parcels as Zone C, Areas of Minimal Flooding, Community Panel No. 060311 0113 B, dated August 5, 1984

 

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

 

Setting: The project site is located at the corner of Miramar Drive and Terrace Avenue. The site is very steep sloping downward from Terrace Avenue (parcel’s average slope is 33 percent), and heavily vegetated, primarily with Eucalyptus trees. This block of Miramar contains some ocean views. Parcels in the vicinity are developed with two-story, single-family dwellings.

 

DISCUSSION

 

A.

KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

   
 

As detailed in Attachment B, the appellant raises the following issues (in bold) in his appeal, as summarized below, followed by staff’s response.

   
 

One of the appellant’s key issues of his appeal to the Planning Commission, and subsequently to the Board of Supervisor, is his proposal for a different driveway location, which was brought up at both Design Review and Planning Commission Hearings. This alternative location was not approved. One main concern was that a garage well below the lowest level of the house, as anticipated by the alternative driveway location, would not benefit the tenant. Moving items such as groceries would be more difficult up the stairs rather than carrying them downstairs. Also, the proposed alternative location would create more mass and height for the project as seen from below. In addition, the proposed alternative driveway would be incompatible with other driveways adjoining the property and in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission found that the alternative driveway location is not feasible and would not improve the design of the project.

   
 

The appellant’s other concerns, which are the same as his appeal issues to the Planning Commission except the lot merger issue (item 2 listed below), are as follows:

   
 

1.

The approved plans are contrary to, among other things, various zoning regulations and are also not feasible due to the slope of the hill on which the proposed residence is to be built.

     
   

Staff’s Response: The proposal, in its entirety, complies with the County’s Zoning Regulations. Staff had compared the proposal against all applicable Zoning Regulations prior to review by both Planning Commission and the Committee (see Section C of this report). The site is a steep property abutting two streets and two westerly neighboring properties. The proposal, even on a steep lot, complies with all zoning and Design Review Standards (DRS). The Planning Commission and the Committee, in reaching their decisions to approve the project, found the project in compliance with DRS, in particular, grading, relationship to existing topography, building shape, articulation, architectural style, and is in scale and character with the surrounding neighborhood.

     
 

2.

It appears that the proposed development is a two-lot parcel with the main structure built on one lot and the second unit built on the other lot. The developer claims that there is only one lot. The Planning Commission and their staff apparently believe there are two parcels.

     
   

Staff’s Response: This issue was introduced at the Planning Commission’s Hearing on July 26, 2006. Staff believed, at the time, that the properties were not merged and therefore requested the parcels be merged as an additional condition of approval. The Planning Commission approved the project with the added condition of approval (see Attachment N). This issue was the basis for Commissioner Wong’s decision to oppose the approval of the project.

     
   

Staff has since investigated the applicant’s belief that the properties were merged, and found that the two parcels were merged as part of the Midcaost Merger Program in 1981. Therefore, a parcel merger is no longer required and is not a condition in this staff report.

     
 

3.

The proposed garage and the carport are both located on the property line with no setback. The grade to reach the garage and carport is severe. The drawing submitted by the owner is not accurate in this regard. Locating the garage off of Miramar Drive would allow a level entrance as well as lessened drainage and erosion issues.

     
   

Staff’s Response: The 655 sq. ft. garage is proposed within the front setback. This is allowed by Zoning Regulations, Section 6411(a), since the slope of the parcel exceeds a 1:7 slope or 14.3 percent. The Department of Public Works (DPW) has determined that the 7.5-foot long driveway between the edge of the road pavement and the garage is adequate and long enough in order to comply with their gradient standards.

     
   

The project was reviewed by DPW on January 12, 2006. They conditioned the project requiring: a driveway “plan and profile” shall be submitted to DPW, showing the driveway access to the parcel (garage slab) complying with County standards for driveway slopes (not to exceed 20%) and to County standards for driveways (at the property line) being the same elevation as the center of the access roadway. The applicant submitted driveway profiles on June 19, 2006, and they were reviewed and approved by DPW on June 21, 2006. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed driveway plan and profile and approved the driveways with an added condition of approval regarding stormwater control and drainage issues (see Condition No. 18 in Attachment A).

     
   

In addition, a different driveway location was proposed by the appellant at both Design Review and Planning Commission hearings. The Planning Commission considered the appellant’s proposed relocation. The Commission found that the alternative driveway location was not feasible and would not improve the design of the project. Staff agrees with the Commission’s decision.

     
 

4.

The Planning staff states that the second dwelling unit and its carport are ministerial permits and are not subject to discretionary review. Section 65852.2 of Government Code provides that any local agency may provide for the creation of second dwelling units in single-family zones. The Ordinance may impose standards on second units that include parking, height, setback(s), lot coverage, architectural review, and maximum size limit. County Zoning Regulations, Section 6428, dictates that the carport and second unit must meet the same setback and other zoning requirements applicable to the primary unit.

     
   

Staff’s Response: State of California Government Code Section 65852.2, effective July 1, 2003, known as State’s legislation act to expedite each jurisdiction’s permit process for affordable housing units dictates that, while complying with each jurisdiction’s General Plan and Zoning Regulations, proposals for such housing units are ministerial and not discretionary for streamlining of the process. The Section also directs that the proposed units are not subject to public notifications and, once a decision is rendered, are not appealable. The Code also prohibits such proposals to be reviewed under a discretionary Design Review or Architectural Review process.

     
   

The second dwelling unit and its carport were subject to County’s General Plan and Zoning Regulation requirements, and were found to be in compliance with all requirements (see Sections B through D of this report). Staff found the proposed second unit and its carport are in compliance with all requirements and a ministerial approval of the second unit and its carport was issued on March 13, 2006 (see Attachment O).

     
 

5.

The project also impacts appellant’s view corridor and possibly the view corridor of other neighbors.

     
   

Staff’s Response: The property is located within the area designated as a Categorical Exclusion Area, or San Mateo County’s designated Midcoast Urban Area, and thus qualifies for an exemption from the requirement for a Coastal Development Permit. As such, the project is not subject to review for conformance with Local Coastal Program (LCP) policies including Visual Resources (Policies 8.1 through 8.11). However, the project is subject to Midcoast Design Review Standards Policy regarding views on page 10 of the Standards stating that “when designing a new home or addition, an effort should be made to minimize the effect of the proposal on views from neighboring houses”.

     
   

The issue of neighborhood view corridors was brought up by the appellant at the first Design Review Hearing in February 9, 2006. The Committee during its review of the project requested the applicant erect story poles presenting the mass and height of the proposed house. No other neighbors within the 300-foot radius of the site raised any issues regarding view corridors at either Design Review or Planning Commission public hearings. The Committee, and subsequently the Planning Commission, found that an effort was made by the applicant to minimize the effect of the proposal on views from neighboring houses and that the project was non-obstructive in design and mass, in complied with DSR, and approved the project.

     
 

6.

The appellant would also like input from the County Department in charge of maintaining Terrace Avenue as to the impact this development will have on Terrace Avenue.

     
   

Staff’s Response: Staff contacted DPW regarding the appellant’s request. The following are the department’s response:

     
   

The Miramar Terrace subdivision was created in 1907 (5 M 19). Terrace Avenue and upper Miramar Drive were offered for dedication and rejected by the Board. Joe Guntren, a local developer, subdivided some of the lots in 1996 (68 PM 98) and constructed road improvements along Miramar and the portion of Terrace serving the applicant's and appellant's lots. The as-built plans are entitled “Improvement Plans - Urban Private Street - Miramar Drive.” Mr. Guntren also did road/driveway work associated with BLD 96-1414 (construction of 18 Terrace Avenue - appellant's residence), probably at same time as subdivision improvements. The Board of Supervisors never accepted the roads as public rights-of-way, nor were they accepted into the County maintenance system. That applies to all the roads east of DPW maintenance limits on Miramar just east of The Crossways. DPW has no comment on any impacts the proposed development might have on the existing private road. The appellants would need to hire their own engineers to obtain an opinion on that.

     

B.

CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN

   
 

Staff has determined the project, as proposed and conditioned, conforms with specific General Plan 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 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 Planning Commission found the proposal to be located appropriately and the compatible with other homes in the area, and therefore is in compliance with these policies.

   

C.

COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING REGULATIONS

   
 

The table below shows the project’s compliance with the R-1/S-94 Zoning Regulations (both the main house and the second dwelling unit combined).

R-1/S-94 Development Standards

Zoning Requirements

Proposal

Building Site Area

10,000 sq. ft.

22,337 sq. ft.

Building Site Width

50 ft.

74 ft.

Minimum Setbacks:

   
 

Front

20 ft.

32 ft.

 

Rear

20 ft.

20 ft.

 

Sides

10 ft.

10 ft.

Lot Coverage

6,701 sq. ft. (30%)

4,065 sq. ft. (18.2%)

Building Floor Area

6,200 sq. ft. (28%)

5,707 sq. ft. (25.5%)*

Building Height

32 ft.

27 ft.

Minimum Parking

2 covered spaces

2 covered spaces

*Indicates total of all floors, garage, and carport for both the house and the second unit.

D.

PROJECT’S COMPLIANCE WITH SECOND DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS

   
 

The proposed second unit is an allowable use in R-1 zoning districts and is in compliance with Chapter 22.5, Second Dwelling Unit of the County Zoning Regulations, in particular Section 6428.4, which limits the floor area of the second dwelling unit to a maximum of 35 percent of the main dwelling unit. The 1,152 sq. ft. detached second unit is 32.9 percent of the proposed 3,500 sq. ft. main residence. In addition, the second unit complies with Section 6428.3 of the Ordinance relating to the required off-street parking spaces, where a minimum of one off-street parking space for the second unit is required. The approved second unit includes a 400 sq. ft. carport.

   
 

As stated earlier in this report (see Proposal on page one), second dwelling units that comply with all zoning requirements are not discretionary and cannot be appealed.

   

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 (see Section C of this report) 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 either Design Review or Planning Commission public hearings.

     
 

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 build two structures at the site, and by step-designing the residence, to avoid major grading of the site. The proposed residence does not require harsh cutting since it blends with existing contour lines. The Planning Commission and staff also concluded that the project, as conditioned, will not create problems of drainage or erosion on site or adjacent properties. See Condition Nos. 6, 7, and 18 of this report regarding an erosion and sediment control plan, and a permanent stormwater management plan.

     
 

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 or natural drainage systems at the site.

     
 

4.

Structures are located outside flood zones, drainage channels and other areas subject to inundation. The project is not located within a flood zone, natural drainage channel, or other areas subject to inundation.

     
 

5.

Trees and other vegetation land cover are removed only when necessary for the construction of the structures or paved areas in order to reduce erosion and impacts on natural drainage channels, and maintain surface runoff at acceptable levels. The proposal includes removal of 15 Eucalyptus trees only because they are within the footprint of the proposal.

     
 

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 Planning Commission found that the proposed landscape plan, (see Attachment K), is appropriate for the site and softens the impact of the proposed structures.

     
 

7.

Views are protected by the height and location of structures and through the selective pruning or removal of tree 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 proposal will obscure a small portion of the appellant’s view corridor, and possibly of other nearby neighbors as presented by story poles erected by the applicant. However, at the Design Review and Planning Commission hearings with all nearby neighbors invited to express their opinion, no one, except for the appellant, expressed concern regarding view corridor alteration. The Planning Commission found that the applicant designed the addition to minimize the effect upon neighboring view corridors.

     
 

8.

Construction on ridgelines blends with the existing silhouette and 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 the 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 structure would not adversely affect public views to and along the shoreline from public roads and other public lands.

     
 

11.

Varying architectural styles are made compatible through the use of similar material 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 residence will utilize earth-tone colors and natural materials (i.e. redwood siding, multi-integral color plasters, wood fascia, etc.) to blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhood.

     
 

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 proposed residence is an allowed use in this zoning district. The Planning Commission found that the proposed structure is in harmony with the neighborhood. Therefore, staff concludes that the project is compatible with shape, size and scale of the adjacent buildings.

     
 

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 at the property line from the pole nearest the property line, and therefore this report also includes that condition (see Condition of Approval No. 8, 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. Paved areas are kept to a minimum since, on an average, there is only 7.5 feet of driveway between the residence and Terrace Avenue. The approved landscape plan is to buffer the structure, in particular from the Terrace Avenue side neighbors, and shrubberies to reduce the garage’s left side visual impact.

   

F.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT EXEMPTION

   
 

The proposal conforms to Section 6328.5(e) of the County Zoning Regulations, complies with all zoning district regulations, and is located within the area designated as a Categorical Exclusion Area, and thus qualifies for an exemption from the requirement for a Coastal Development Permit. As such, the project is not subject to review for conformance with LCP policies.

   

G.

MIDCOAST COMMUNITY COUNCIL REVIEW

   
 

A referral of the project was sent to the Midcoast Community Council (MCCC) on December 29, 2005, and they reviewed the project on February 1 and 15, 2006. The MCCC commented regarding the second dwelling unit, and its non-compliance with applicable LCP Policies (which are not applicable since the project is exempt from LCP Policies, see Section F of this report). The second dwelling unit is not subject to discretionary review or public comment including the MCCC (see page one of this report under Recommendation). The MCCC also refers to possible subdivision of the property, which is not the intention of the applicant, and is not part of this proposal. See Attachment P for MCCC’s response letter.

   

H.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

   
 

The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, construction of a small structure in an urban area.

   

I.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

   
 

1.

Department of Public Works

 

2.

Building Inspection Section

 

3.

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District

 

4.

Coastside County Water District

 

5.

Granada Sanitary District

 

6.

Midcoast Community Council

 

FISCAL IMPACT

 

If approved, development of the parcel would increase its assessed property value, which would, in turn, increase the property tax revenue thus generated by the developed parcel.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

A.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

B.

Appeal Letter

C.

Vicinity Map

D.

Site Plan

E.

Upper Floor Plan

F.

Lower Floor Plan

G.

Roof Plan

H.

East and North Elevations

I.

West Elevation

J.

Sections

K.

Landscape plan

L.

Grading and Drainage Plan

M.

Driveway Profiles

N.

Planning Commission Approval Letter

O.

Design Review Continuance and Approval Letter

P.

MCCC Response Letter

Q.

Engineering Storm Drainage Feasibility Letter

R.

Geotechnical Report

S.

Applicant’s Letter Communicating with the Appellant

T.

Neighbor’s Letter

   

Attachment A

 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

 

Permit File Number: PLN 2005-00607

Board Meeting Date: October 24, 2006

 

Prepared By: Farhad Mortazavi

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

 
 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

 

For the Environmental Review:

 

1.

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

 

For the Coastal Development Permit Exemption:

 

2.

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

 

For the Design Review:

 

3.

Find that this project has been reviewed under and found to be in compliance with the DSR for Coastside Districts, Section 6565.7 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations because it: (1) avoids major grading of the site by step-designing the house and by blending with existing contour lines; (2) will utilize earth-tone colors and natural materials (i.e. redwood siding, multi-integral color plasters, wood fascia, etc.) to blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhood; (3) is compatible with shape, size and scale of the adjacent buildings; and (4) will not create problems of drainage or erosion on its site or adjacent property.

   

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

 

Planning Division

 

1.

The project shall be constructed in compliance with the plans approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 24, 2006. Any changes or revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director, Design Review Officer or, where necessary, the Coastside Design Review Committee with applicable fees paid, for approval.

   

2.

This 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 extension fees sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date.

   

3.

The applicant shall include this approval letter on the top pages of the building plans. This would provide the Planning approval date and its contents on the

Approved on-site building plans.

   

4.

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.

Implement colors true to the submitted color pallet.

     
 

b.

Applicant shall document the existing road condition of Terrace Avenue.

     
 

c.

A new tree to be added to the southwest of second dwelling unit (closest to the property line) for privacy.

   

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) 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 Community Development 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 stormwater runoff from the construction site into storm drain systems and water bodies by:

   
 

a.

Using filtration materials on storm drain covers to remove sediment from dewatering effluent.

     
 

b.

Stabilizing all denuded areas and maintaining erosion control measures continuously between October 15 and April 15.

     
 

c.

Removing spoils promptly, and avoiding stockpiling of fill materials, when rain is forecast. If rain threatens, stockpiled soils and other materials shall be covered with a tarp or other waterproof 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 shall be placed underground at the property line from the pole nearest the property line.

   

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 Miramar and Terrace 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 Miramar and Terrace Avenue. 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, 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 or wood burning stoves.

     
 

g.

A driveway plan and profile will be required.

 

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.

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.

   

17.

The applicant shall submit a driveway “plan and profile” to the Department of Public Works, showing the driveway access to the parcel (garage slab) complying with County standards for driveway slopes (not to exceed 20%) and to County standards for driveways (at the property line) being the same elevation as the center of the access roadway. When appropriate, this plan and profile shall be prepared from elevations and alignment shown on the roadway improvement plans. The driveway plan shall also include and show specific provisions and details for both the existing and the proposed drainage patterns and drainage facilities.

   

18.

The applicant shall submit a permanent stormwater management plan in compliance with the County’s Drainage Policy and NPDES requirements for review and approval by the Department of Public Works.

   

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District

   

19.

The applicant shall comply with all conditions required by the Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District.

   
   

FSM:kcd - FSMQ1112_WKU.DOC