COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

DATE:

October 6, 2006

BOARD MEETING DATE:

October 24, 2006

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

300 ft. radius

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

SUBJECT:

Consideration of Grading, Resource Management District and Coastal Development Permits, pursuant to Section 8600 of the County Ordinance Code, and Sections 6903 and 6328.4 of the County Zoning Regulations, respectively, and certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, to allow the construction of a 3,879 sq. ft. single-family residence with an attached 1,295 sq. ft. loggia (covered porch), attached 2-car garage, water tank, septic field and access driveway, including 860 cubic yards of grading on a 51,519 sq. ft. parcel located at Drake and Elm Streets in the unincorporated Montara area of San Mateo County. The project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission. (Appeal of the decision by the Planning Commission for approval.)

County File Number:

PLN 2005-00116 (Trautman)

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and approve the Grading, Resource Management District, and Coastal Development Permits, and certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration, by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval in Attachment A.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: The proposed project keeps the commitment of “offering a full range of housing choices.”

Goal: Number 9, which states: “Housing exists for people at all income levels and for all generations of families.”

Permitting the proposed home will increase the supply of housing.

BACKGROUND

Proposal: The project includes a single-story 3,879 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with an attached 1,295 sq. ft. loggia (covered porch), attached 2-car garage, water tank, septic field, and access driveway, including 860 cubic yards of grading on a 51,519 sq. ft. parcel.

Report Prepared By: Matt Seubert, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1829

Applicant/Owner: Michael Trautman

Appellant: Montara Water and Sanitary District (MWSD)

Location: Elm and Drake Streets, Montara

APN: 036-163-160

Parcel Size: 51,519 sq. ft. (1.18 acres)

Existing Zoning: RM-CZ/CD (Resource Management-Coastal Zone/Coastal Development)

General Plan Designation: Very-Low Density Residential (up to 0.2 dwelling units/net acre)

Existing Land Use: Vacant

Flood Zone: Zone C, area of minimal flooding. Community Panel 060311-0111-B, revised July 5, 1984.

Water Supply: Water will be provided by a shared well on adjacent APN 036-172-030.

Sewage Disposal: Proposed on-site septic system and leach field.

Environmental Evaluation: Staff completed and circulated an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration on February 28, 2006, and the comment period ended on March 28, 2006.

Setting: The undeveloped project site is in an area partially wooded with eucalyptus and other trees and lower scale vegetation that overlooks an agricultural area surrounding Montara Creek. The Montara Water and Sanitary District’s (MWSD) Drake Well is located near the creek, approximately 57 feet east of the subject parcel.

DISCUSSION

A.

KEY ISSUES

1.

Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision

The Planning Commission’s approval of July 26, 2006, was appealed to the Board by the Montara Water and Sanitary District (MWSD) (see Attachment V). According to the appellant, the appeal is based on potential endangerment to public health, safety and welfare. The appeal is similar to the appeal of the Community Development Director’s approval to the Planning Commission. The appellant also claims that the Planning Commission erroneously discounted critical evidence presented by the MWSD and abused its discretion in approving the project. The appeal requests that the project be conditioned upon preparation of a hydrogeological study meeting the specification of the MWSD and its resulting recommended mitigation measures. Indicated below are the key issues of the appeal, followed by staff’s response.

Appellant’s (First) Argument #1: The MWSD’s Drake Well is endangered by the proposed septic system.

Response: The applicant hired a hydrologist, Geoconsultants, Inc., who produced a report (Attachment L) that concluded that there should be no adverse impact from the project on the District’s well. The report measured the distance between the well and septic field’s outer limit at 156 feet, in excess of the 100-foot setback requirement mandated by the County’s Environmental Health Division, as well as that of the State Department of Health Services. The report also stated that the septic field was down gradient from the well with respect to groundwater flow and that any effluent from the septic field would move away from the well and not toward it.

The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment O) had a similar conclusion, further discussed below under Environmental Review (see Section B). Additionally, a July 21, 2006, letter by Geoconsultants (Attachment S), notes that while the well is located in alluvium, the proposed septic system is in an area underlain by granitic rock. According to this letter, “This hydrogeologic setting creates a local boundary condition to the movement of groundwater, greatly reducing the effective porosity and permeability around the (Drake) well.” Finally, staff is recommending Conditions of Approval 6 and 7 (Attachment A) that will minimize the amount of sedimentary erosion from the project site.

At the July 26 Planning Commission hearing, the MWSD’s consultant, Mark Woyshner of Balance Hydrologics, gave a Power Point presentation (Attachment U) accompanied by oral testimony regarding the specific conditions near the well. As in the appeal letter (Attachment V), Mr. Woyshner challenged the methodology and conclusions of the Geoconsultants’ report. The County Environmental Health Officer, Dean Peterson, also answered questions from the Commission and stated that the proposed septic field met all County requirements and would not present a health and safety danger to the Drake Well.

Appellant’s (Second) Argument #1: The Geoconsultants, Inc., report does not address critical contamination issues.

Response: The Geoconsultants’ report (Attachment L) states that the septic system is down gradient from the well, and concludes that septic drainage would be away from the well. The appeal (Attachment V) states the opposite: that the septic system is up gradient of the well, and that drainage would be toward the well. Although the elevation of the well is indeed lower than that of the septic field, the Geoconsultants’ report states that both the surface and groundwater drainage is from northeast to southwest, thus positioning the septic field down gradient from the well.

Finally, the issue of existing nitrate and MTBE contamination and cumulative impact was discussed at the Planning Commission hearing. Commissioner’s noted that the well itself is in an agricultural setting, and Mr. Peterson stated that the cumulative impact of the proposed septic system, in addition to these existing sources, would not create a health or safety concern.

Appellant’s Argument #2: The County’s minimum 10- foot setback does not provide sufficient separation to avoid contamination.

Response: Planning staff referred this project to the County Environmental Health Division for review, which has jurisdiction over septic systems and wells. Environmental Health determined that the project exceeded the minimum 100-foot setback requirement from the well (the actual distance is 156 feet). Because its requirements were met, the Environmental Health Division recommended approval of the proposed project. Please see discussion under Appellant’s First Argument #1 for additional information.

Appellant’s Argument #3: The Drake Well Drinking Water Source Assessment requires greater separation than the County’s 100-foot setback.

Response: After discussing this item with staff in the County’s Environmental Health Division, Planning staff has learned that the source water analysis (Attachment R) referred to is for information gathering purposes. It is intended to allow the well owner to assess vulnerability to possible contamination and to establish a protection program. The project parcel size is larger than one acre, less than the density that represents a very high danger of contamination. There is another recently permitted septic system on an adjacent 1.2-acre parcel, APN 036 172 030. The density of these two projects taken together does not exceed the one per acre density that represents a very high danger of contamination.

Appellant’s Argument #4: The County’s review of the project does not comply with CEQA.

a.

Land Suitability and Geology: The project site has a slope of 35% and its septic system could adversely affect Montara Creek riparian flora and fauna.

Response: Montara Creek, which flows through this area, has not been identified as a riparian corridor in the LCP. In any case, the parcel is over 100 feet from the creek, the proposed home is set back an additional 20 feet from the parcel boundary, and the edge of the septic field is over 150 feet from the creek. The septic system exceeds Environmental Health Division’s 100-foot setback requirement. The project also exceeds the 50-foot setback from riparian corridors required by the LCP.

b.

Vegetation and Wildlife: No information is provided to support the conclusion that this project will not adversely affect vegetation or wildlife, specifically rare or endangered species in the riparian zone. A registered biologist should be retained to verify the impact of the project.

Response: As mentioned above, the project is not adjacent to an identified or mapped riparian area. In addition, no rare or endangered species are shown on the County’s sensitive habitat maps near the project site. Due to this, a biologist report is not warranted nor mandated by the LCP.

c.

Air Quality, Water Quality, Sonic: The project will generate increased surface water runoff and negatively affect groundwater due to the use of potentially hazardous materials during and after construction through grading and the operation of the septic system.

Response: The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment O) recognize the potential significance of these impacts. For this reason, the Negative Declaration includes Mitigation Measures 6 and 7 under conditions of approval in Attachment A, which will reduce erosion and stormwater impacts during and after construction.

d.

Land Use and General Plans: The project may affect the capacity of the public water supply by contamination of the Drake Well.

Response: The report by Geoconsultants (Attachment L) concluded that there should be no adverse impact from the project on the District’s well.

e.

Responsible Agencies: The District should be listed as a permitting authority or approval agency for this project. Completion of the District septic permit should be a condition of the County’s permit.

Response: The District was consulted regarding this project; however, the project requires neither water nor sewer provision from the District. The applicant has completed a hydrogeological study at his expense as requested by the District, which concluded that there would be no negative impact on the District’s well. With the advice of County Counsel, the Community Development Director has determined that the County will not require the District’s approval of a septic permit before issuing County development permits. The application is complete and adequate under County requirements without the District’s permit. The applicant is required to obtain a septic system permit from the County’s Environmental Health Division under State law and the County Ordinance Code, and Environmental Health has indicated that a permit will be granted. Issuance of a District septic permit is not necessary for County approval of this project. For these reasons, the District is not listed as a permitting authority for the project. This does not change or alleviate any requirement that the applicant may have to comply with the District regulations. All development must obtain any necessary permits whether or not it is a condition of approval by the County.

Appellant’s Argument #5: The project is appealable to the Coastal Commission. The project may have a significant impact on coastal resources and should be reviewed by the Coastal Commission in accordance with Section 30250 of the Public Resource Code. Staff and the Planning Commission have ignored the effect of the septic system in responding to the issue of Coastal Commission jurisdiction, and rely upon zoning and LCP criteria.

Response: The project is not in the appeals jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission because the parcel is not within 100 feet of Montara Creek on the County’s certified Coastal Commission Appeals Jurisdiction Maps as verified by County Graphics staff, and the home itself is set back another 20 feet from the property line. In addition, the single-family residential use is a principally permitted use in the RM-CZ District, and the project is thus not appealable to the Coastal Commission per Section 6328(s)(3) of the Zoning Regulations. The CD District zoning, LCP criteria, and certified maps have been used to determine that the project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

Section 30250(a) of the State Public Resources Code reads, in part, as follows:

“New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources.”

The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment O) state that the project, as mitigated in attached conditions of approval (Attachment A), will not have a significant negative effect on the environment. See Section B of this report for further discussion of this issue. As required by the State Public Resources Code, the project is in close proximity to an existing developed area, being adjacent to the unincorporated town of Montara. In addition, staff has completed a Coastal Development Checklist and has determined that it complies with the Local Coastal Program (LCP), as discussed further in Section A.4 of this report. Additionally, a professional hydrologist has determined that the project should have no adverse impact on the District’s well, as discussed previously. Therefore, the project is in compliance with Section 30250(a) of the State Public Resources Code.

2.

Conformance with the General Plan

Staff has determined that the project complies with all applicable General Plan Policies with specific discussion of the following:

Policy 1.24, Protect Vegetative Resources, requires that development minimize the removal of vegetation, reduce surface water runoff, erosion and sedimentation, and protects trees. The project will not involve the removal of any significant trees. In addition, the project has been conditioned to require erosion and sediment controls to be in place during the construction phase (Conditions of Approval 6 and 7 in Attachment A).

Policy 4.1, Protection of Visual Quality, encourages protection and enhancement of the natural visual quality for all development. The proposed single-story building will not project above the nearby forest canopy and will not degrade the visual quality of the area.

Policy 4.3, Protection of Vegetation, encourages the preservation of visually significant trees and vegetation. The project complies with this criterion by not removing any significant trees.

Policy 4.4, Appearance of Rural and Urban Development, promotes aesthetically pleasing development. The single-story design and quality architectural design are aesthetically pleasing. Condition of Approval 11 in Attachment A requires approval of color and materials by Planning staff.

3.

Conformance with the Montara-Moss Beach-El Granada Community Plan

Staff has determined that the project complies with all applicable area plan policies, with specific discussion of the following:

Policy 7.2.a, Preserving Community Character, requires that new developments are compatible with existing homes in scale, size and design. The proposed home is not out of scale with other recently built homes in the area in terms of size and design, and its single-story design presents a lower profile than some other nearby homes.

4.

Conformance with the Local Coastal Program

Staff has completed a Coastal Development Checklist for this project and determined that it complies with the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Summarized below are sections of the LCP relevant to this project:

Sensitive Habitats Component

Policy 7.8, Designation of Riparian Corridors. Montara Creek is over 100 feet from the subject parcel, and is not a designated riparian corridor.

Visual Resources Component

Policy 8.6, Streams, Wetlands and Estuaries. This parcel is more than 100 feet from Montara Creek, as verified by County Graphics staff, and the proposed home is set back an additional 20 feet from the property line.

Policy 8.9, Trees. This project will not result in the removal of any significant trees.

Policy 8.18, Development Design. The single-story design of the project will not project above the surrounding tree canopy and blends with the surrounding area.

Policy 8.20, Scale. The single-story design of the project is of similar size and similar or lower height than other nearby residences.

5.

Conformance with the Zoning Regulations

Single-family residences are permitted uses in the RM-CZ District, subject to the issuance of an RM permit, pursuant to the Development Review Procedures specified in Chapter 20.A.2 of the County Zoning Regulations. The proposed project is considered a minor development, according to Section 6458.3.a. The project conforms to the setbacks and height limits of the RM-CZ District as indicated in the table below.

Development Standard

Required

Proposed

Front Yard Setback

50 ft.

Approx. 170 ft.

Rear Yard Setback

20 ft.

Approx. 62 ft.

Left Side Yard Setback

20 ft.

20 ft.

Right Side Yard Setback

20 ft.

33 ft.

Maximum Height

36 ft.

18 ft.

The project has been evaluated in the context of the RM-CZ Development Review Criteria of Chapter 36A.2 of the County Zoning Regulations and has been found in conformance with them, with specific discussion of the following:

•

Section 6912.2.d, Site Design Criteria: The proposed home will not substantially detract from the scenic and visual quality of the County, nor will it detract from the natural characteristics of existing major water courses or established mature trees.

•

Section 6912.2.g, Site Design Criteria: The structure will not exceed the height of the forest canopy.

•

Section 6912.2.j, Site Design Criteria: Tree removal is minimized, and no removal of significant trees is proposed.

•

Section 6912.4.a, Water Resources Criteria: As discussed in detail under Sections B.1 and B.2 of the staff report, no nearby water resources will be adversely affected.

•

Section 6912.4.d, Water Resources Criteria: Erosion will be controlled during construction as mandated in Condition of Approval 6 (Attachment A).

•

Section 6912.5, Cultural Resources Criteria: Condition of Approval 9 (Attachment A) will ensure conformity with these criteria by requiring the consultation of an archaeologist should any archaeological traces be uncovered during construction.

6.

Conformance with the Grading Ordinance

Staff has determined that the project complies with the Grading Ordinance with specific discussion of the following:

•

The project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. This has been documented in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for this project (Attachment O), discussed in Section B of this report.

•

The project conforms to the criteria of the Grading Ordinance, including the standards referenced in Section 8605. The Planning Division, Geotechnical Section, and Department of Public Works have all reviewed this proposed project and recommend approval with conditions of approval to ensure that the project will meet standards for erosion and sediment control, dust control, and time restrictions (see Attachment A).

B.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Staff completed and circulated an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project on February 28, 2006 (Attachment O). Staff received a letter from the Montara Water and Sanitary District on March 27, 2006 (Attachment P), disagreeing with staff’s conclusion that the project, as conditioned, will not have a significant effect on the environment. No other comments were received and the comment period ended on March 28, 2006. The District’s objections largely mirror those in their appeal letter and are discussed in Section A.1 of the staff report. The objections not addressed in that section are discussed below.

1.

The District is concerned with the adverse impact the project may have on the District’s Drake Well, one of the principal sources of water for the area. The project’s septic system may contaminate the well due to the topography and geology of the project site. The District’s concerns were brought to the attention of the County immediately when the District was first notified of the project and the County has ignored these concerns.

Response: The County first referred the project to the District on March 22, 2005. On March 31, 2005, the District promptly replied only that the project was outside the urban area and could not be served by District water or sewer (Attachment C).

No other comments were received from the District until the public notification period for the subject permit application, when the District requested on September 26, 2005, that the County retain a hydrologist to determine the impact of the project on the District’s well (Attachment G). The District also stated a requirement for a septic permit at that time. The District’s letter was followed by an October 5, 2005, e-mail (Attachment H) from the District requesting that the applicant retain a registered hydrologist to answer questions regarding the possible impact of the project’s septic field on the District’s well. These questions concerned leachate from the septic field, the result of potential septic system failure, seasonal trends, and the possible impact on the District’s well from the septic system and shared well. The District suggested that it and the County Environmental Health Division should review the report.

On November 2, 2005, staff from the County Environmental Health Division and the Planning Division met with officials from the District to discuss these issues. Environmental Health staff reiterated that the septic field exceeded the County’s 100-foot setback requirement, which was the standard setback statewide. Environmental Health Division staff followed up on this meeting by contacting all California counties and the State Department of Health Services to determine their setback requirements. Of those that replied, none required more than a 100-foot setback. The Environmental Health Division forwarded this information to the District, and received an e-mail reply on November 8, 2005, from the District (Attachment I) reiterating their requirement for hydrologic review.

In addition, on November 8, 2005, the District mailed the applicant a letter requiring a septic permit from the District (Attachment J). This was followed by a letter of November 18, 2005, that reiterated this requirement, and asked for a $500 deposit so that the District’s hydrologist could review the project (Attachment K).

After discussing this matter with County Planning and Environmental Health staff, the applicant agreed to retain a hydrologist, Geoconsultants, Inc., which produced a report on December 15, 2005 (Attachment L). The report measured the distance between the well and septic field at 156 feet, in excess of the 100-foot setback requirement. The report also stated that the septic field was down gradient from the well with respect to groundwater flow and that any effluent from the septic field would move away from the well and not toward it. The report concluded that there should be no adverse impact from the project on the District’s well.

On December 19, 2005, the District’s counsel wrote a letter to the applicant stating that he must now hire the District’s hydrologist to perform the requested study and deposit $1,000 for the work (Attachment M). The letter stated that this had always been the District’s position, although, in fact, the District’s correspondence of September 26, October 5, and November 8, 2005, specified only that the applicant should retain the services of a hydrologist, which he, in fact, did; and the District’s November 18, 2005, letter had only asked for a $500 deposit.

On January 4, 2006, the MWSD responded to the review of the hydrogeologic evaluation by stating again that only their hydrologist could perform the work (Attachment N).

Since the hydrologist’s report concluded that there would be no adverse impact on the District’s well, the Community Development Director approved the application as submitted. This approval was subsequently upheld by the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director did not require the approval of a District septic permit before issuing County development permits. However, the Community Development Director takes no position on the validity of the District’s permit requirements or the applicant’s obligations to meet those requirements, if any. Given the District’s apparent position on this matter, the applicant proceeds with this project at his own risk.

2.

The well is a principal source of water for the area and public health and safety would be jeopardized if the well were contaminated. The well is down gradient of the project and draws on shallow groundwater. The applicant has not shown that the well would not be adversely affected, and the Planning Division’s Initial Study and Negative Declaration do not adequately address the question.

Response: Staff recognizes the significance of the well for the area and the importance of safeguarding public health. It is for this reason that the County Environmental Health Division reviewed the project. Environmental Health found the project in compliance with its requirements. According to the report prepared by Geoconsultants (Attachment L), the septic field is down gradient from the well with respect to groundwater flow, as mentioned in staff’s response to number 1 above. In addition, as mentioned above, the report concluded that there should be no adverse impact from the project on the District’s well.

C.

ALTERNATIVES

The Board could: (1) uphold the appeal and deny this application, or (2) approve the application with an added condition(s) of approval that would require a hydrogeologic study be completed to the satisfaction of the appellant and its recommended mitigation measures made conditions of project approval, or (3) continue the item to allow time for more information to be presented.

D.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

Reviewing Agency

Recommendation

Conditions

Building Inspection Section

Approval

Yes

Department of Public Works

Approval

Yes

Geotechnical Section

Approval

No

Environmental Health Division

Approval

Yes

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District

Approval

Yes

Montara Water and Sanitary District

Denial, discussed above

Yes

Coastal Commission

No response

N/A

E.

REVIEW BY MIDCOAST COMMUNITY COUNCIL

The project was referred to the Midcoast Community Council (MCCC) on March 22, 2005 and reviewed at its April 20, 2005, Planning and Zoning Subcommittee meeting. Staff received a written response from the MCCC on April 27, 2005 (Attachment D), as well as additional e-mails and phone calls concerning the project. In its letter, the MCCC raised the following questions concerning the project, paraphrased below, which are followed by staff’s response:

1.

The project is less than 100 feet from a public water supply and the project must meet setback requirements.

Staff’s Response: The project’s septic field is 156 feet from the water supply and exceeds setback requirements of the County Environmental Health Division.

2.

The project will share a well with an adjacent property in PAD zoning. A well cannot be shared across public rights-of-way, zoning boundaries, and land use designations.

Staff’s Response: Section 6355.B.1 specifies that non-agricultural development on properties zoned PAD must be supplied with well water located on that parcel. There is no prohibition against supplying well water from a parcel zoned PAD to an adjacent parcel zoned RM-CZ (the subject parcel is zoned RM-CZ). The project parcel General Plan designation is Very-Low Density Residential and the parcel with the well is designated Agriculture. There is likewise no prohibition against sharing water across this boundary. Finally, the Department of Public Works approved plans showing water lines from the shared well crossing the public right-of-way of undeveloped Drake Street.

3.

The location of the development in relation to the creek must be clarified.

Staff’s Response: County Planning graphics staff verified that the parcel is over 100 feet from the creek, and the project itself is set back another 20 feet from the property line.

4.

The 1-story design of the house is commended, but must conform to the Development Review Criteria of Chapter 36A.2 of the zoning regulations.

Staff’s Response: The project has been evaluated in the context of these criteria and has been found in conformance with them, as discussed above in Section A.5 of the staff report.

F.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Staff sent a pre-decision public notice for this project on September 14, 2005. The public comment period expired on September 29, 2005. Staff received written comments via e-mail from Mr. George Skegas on September 19 (Attachment E) and from Mr. Andrew J. Vollmer on September 27 (Attachment F). At the Planning Commission public hearing, a letter was received from Kathryn Slater-Carter (Attachment T).

Mr. Skegas had questions about prohibitions against developing agricultural land, removal of vegetation, and the location of the home, driveway, and power lines (Attachment E). County staff followed up with a phone call to Mr. Skegas to listen to his concerns and answer his questions. Staff explained the Planning permit process for the project, and the measures taken to protect vegetation, as discussed in Section A.5 of the staff report. Staff also offered to meet him at the time of the site visit. However, by the time that visit was conducted on March 22, 2006, Mr. Skegas declined to attend.

Mr. Vollmer had questions about the project and a suggestion for the completion of Elm Street. His questions were answered via e-mail on September 28 and his suggestion regarding Elm Street forwarded to the Department of Public Works (Attachment F).

Ms. Slater-Carter’s letter (Attachment T) raises a number of questions that have been addressed earlier in the report (see Section A.1). The letter also notes that the proposed house is five times the density allowed in the LCP. However, the proposed project is on a legal lot that allows one density credit, thus allowing one single-family dwelling.

FISCAL IMPACT

If the new home is built, the long-term fiscal impact would likely be slightly positive due to the property’s increased assessed value.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

A2-1.

Site Plan

A2-2.

Septic System

A2-3.

Grading Plan

A2-4.

Road and Drive Cross-Section and Profiles

A3-1.

Floor Plan

A3-2.

Garage Plan

A4-1.

Elevations

A4-2.

Sections

A4-3.

Roof Plan

B.

General Location and Vicinity Map

C.

Referral Comments from MWSD Received March 31, 2005

D.

Comments from MCCC, dated April 27, 2005

E.

E-mail Comments Received from George Skegas on September 19, 2005

F.

E-mail Comments Received from Andrew J. Vollmer on September 27, 2005 and Staff Response

G.

MWSD Letter to Planning Department, dated September 26, 2005

H.

E-mail from MWSD, dated October 5, 2005

I.

E-mail from Environmental Health Staff to MWSD, dated November 7, 2005 and MWSD Response, dated November 8, 2005

J.

Letter from MWSD to Applicant, dated November 8, 2005

K.

Letter from MWSD to Applicant, dated November 18, 2005

L.

December 15, 2005, Report by Geoconsultants, Inc.

M.

Letter from Law Offices of David E. Schricker to Applicant, dated December 19, 2005

N.

Letter from MWSD to Planning Department of January 4, 2006

O.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

P.

March 27, 2006 Response by MWSD to Mitigated Negative Declaration

Q.

Appeal by MWSD, dated May 10, 2006

R.

Drinking Water Source Assessment for Drake Well of January 2003

S.

Addendum by Geoconsultants, Inc., dated July 21, 2006

T.

Letter from Kathryn Slater-Carter to Planning Commission, dated July 24, 2006

U.

Power Point Slides Presented by Balance Hydrologics at July 26, 2006 Planning Commission Hearing

V.

Appeal by MWSD, dated August 7, 2006

Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit File Number: PLN 2005-00116

Board Meeting Date: October 24, 2006

Prepared By: Matt Seubert, Project Planner

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

Find that:

For the Environmental Review

1.

The Negative Declaration is complete, correct, adequate, and prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and applicable State and County guidelines. Based on the Initial Study and comments received hereto, there is no substantial evidence that the project if subject to the mitigation measures contained in the Negative Declaration will have a significant effect on the environment.

2.

The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of San Mateo County.

3.

The mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration, agreed to by the applicant, and placed as conditions on the project, have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan in conformance with California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

For the Grading Permit

4.

The project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. This has been documented in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration issued for this project.

5.

The project conforms to the criteria of the Grading Ordinance, including the standards referenced in Section 8605. Conformance with standards concerning erosion, sediment and dust control will be ensured by compliance with Conditions of Approval 6, 7 and 8. Conformance with standards concerning geotechnical reports will be ensured by compliance with Conditions of Approval 5 and 15. Conformance with standards regarding time restrictions will be ensured by compliance with Conditions of Approval 6, 17 and 18. Conformance with the grading performance standards will be ensured by compliance with Conditions of Approval 5 through 22.

6.

The project is consistent with the General Plan. As discussed in Section A.2 of the staff report, staff has reviewed the project with all applicable General Plan policies and found that the project complies.

For the Resource Management District Certificate of Compliance

7.

As discussed in Section A.5 of the staff report, this project has been reviewed under and found to be in compliance with the Development Review Criteria as stipulated in Chapter 36.A.2 of the Zoning Regulations. Specifically, as discussed in detail under Environmental Review Questions 1 and 2 above in Section B of the staff report, the criteria under Section 6912.4.a will be met and no nearby water resources will be adversely affected. Condition of Approval 6 will ensure conformity with Section 6912.4.d regarding erosion control during construction. In addition, Condition of Approval 9 will ensure conformity with Section 6912.5, Cultural Resources Criteria.

For the Coastal Development Permit

8.

The project, as described in the application and accompanying materials required by Section 6328.7 and as conditioned in accordance with Section 6328.14, conforms to the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Specifically, the project is not located in a mapped hazard or sensitive habitat area, in accordance with Policies 7.3 and 9.2. In addition, the project is set back more than 100 feet from a stream, in accordance with Policy 8.6. It also minimizes tree removal in accordance with Policy 8.9, as discussed in Section A.4 of the staff report.

9.

The project conforms to the specific findings required by the policies of the LCP. As mentioned under Finding 8 above, the project is not located in a mapped hazard or sensitive habitat area, in accordance with Policies 7.3 and 9.2. In addition, the project is set back more than 100 feet from a stream, in accordance with Policy 8.6, and it minimizes tree removal in accordance with Policy 8.9.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Planning Division

1.

This approval is for the project as described on the plans and documents initially received by the Planning Division on March 9, 2005, with updated revisions and approved by the Planning Commission on July 26, 2006 and the Board of Supervisors on October 24, 2006. Any further revisions to these plans must be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval before implementation. The Community Development Director may approve minor adjustments to the project if they are consistent with the intent of and in substantial conformance with this approval. Any other development of the property will be subject to a separate permitting process.

2.

These permits do not allow the cutting of any significant trees. Per Section 6912.2.j, removal of any tree over 55 inches in circumference at 4 1/2 feet above the ground shall require a separate permit.

3.

If, after one year from the date of County approval, the applicant has not obtained all other necessary permits and made substantial progress toward completing the proposed development, these Resource Management, Grading, and Coastal Development Permits will expire. These permits may be extended beyond one year if the applicant requests an extension in writing and submits payment of applicable extension fees at least 60 calendar days before the expiration date.

4.

The applicant shall apply for and be issued a building permit and comply with all requirements of that permit before initiating and throughout the construction of the project.

5.

Prior to the issuance of both the grading permit and the building permit, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical report in accordance with the standards of the San Mateo County Geotechnical Section.

6.

Prior to the issuance of both the grading permit and the building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a stormwater management plan, which shows how transport and discharge of pollutants and soil sediment erosion from the project site will be minimized. The plan shall emphasize the use of pervious materials and minimize water runoff from the site. The goal is to prevent soil sediment and other pollutants from entering local drainage systems and water bodies, and to protect all exposed earth surfaces from erosive forces. The plan shall clearly delineate the types of measures to be used and the location of where the measures will be placed as well as a sectional drawing showing how the measures shall be installed. All erosion control devices shall be installed on-site before any grading activities. Said plan shall adhere to the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program “General Construction and Site Supervision Guidelines,” including:

a.

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

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 to avoid their entry to a local storm drain system or water body.

d.

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

e.

The approved stormwater management plan shall be implemented before the issuance of a building permit.

7.

The applicant shall submit a permanent 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, directly connected impervious areas shall be minimized, future downspouts shall be directed to landscaped areas and pervious materials shall be used for the access road, if possible, and for any future patio or walkway areas near a proposed residence. The permanent stormwater controls shall be in place throughout the life of the project.

8.

The applicant shall submit a dust control plan to the Planning Division for review and approval before the issuance of both the grading permit and the building permit associated with this proposed project. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following control measures:

a.

Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.

b.

Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind.

c.

Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard.

d.

Apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking and staging areas at construction sites. Also, hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.

e.

Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking and staging areas at construction sites.

f.

Sweep adjacent public streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto them.

g.

Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads within the project parcel to 15 mph.

h.

Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.

i.

Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.

The approved plan shall be implemented for the duration of any grading and construction activities that generate dust and other airborne particles.

9.

The applicant shall ensure that if during construction or grading, any evidence of archaeological traces (human remains, artifacts, concentration of shale, bone, rock, ash) is uncovered, then all construction and grading 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 steps to be taken before construction or grading may continue.

10.

The applicant is required to monitor the noise level at the site so that the proposed construction activity will not exceed 80 dBA at any one moment in time. No construction related noise shall exceed those limits mandated by the County Noise Ordinance.

11.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit color and material samples of the proposed project and its roof for approval by the Community Development Director. The colors and materials shall blend in with the surrounding soil and vegetative cover of the site. The approved colors shall be verified by the Building Inspection Section prior to a final building permit inspection.

12.

The applicant shall be issued a grading permit hard card. This permit shall be issued in conjunction with the building permit and not before it. Prior to a final building inspection, a signed Section 2 by the applicant’s geotechnical consultant of record is required.

Department of Public Works

13.

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

14.

No grading shall commence until the applicant has applied for and been issued a grading permit “hard card” by the Planning Division of the County of San Mateo.

15.

All grading shall be according to approved plans that are prepared by, signed by, and dated by a registered civil engineer. Revisions to the approved grading plan shall be prepared and signed by the engineer, and shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works at the time of building permit submittal for concurrence “prior” to commencing any work pursuant to the proposed revision.

16.

The engineer who prepared the approved grading plan shall be responsible for the inspection and certification of the grading as required by Section 8606.2 of the Grading Ordinance. The engineer’s responsibilities shall include those relating to non-compliance detailed in Section 8606.5 of the Grading Ordinance.

17.

No grading shall commence until a schedule of all grading operations has been submitted to and reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Division. The submitted schedule shall include a schedule for winterizing the site. If the schedule of grading operations calls for the grading to be completed in one grading season, then the winterizing plan shall be considered a contingent plan to be implemented if work falls behind schedule. The applicant shall submit monthly updates of the schedule to the Department of Public Works and the Planning Division. All submitted schedules shall represent the work in detail and shall project the grading operations through completion.

18.

No grading shall be allowed during the winter season (October 15 to April 15) to avoid potential soil erosion unless approved, in writing, by the Community Development Director. The applicant shall submit a letter to the Planning Division at least two weeks prior to commencement of grading stating the date when grading will begin.

However, should the applicant propose to grade under the “issued” grading permit in conjunction with the “issued” building permit, and after implementation of appropriate winterization measures, grading may be allowed between October 15 and April 15, with the approval of the Community Development Director.

19.

Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall submit, to the Department of Public Works for review and approval a plan for any off-site hauling operations. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: size of trucks, haul route, disposal site, dust and debris control measures, and time and frequency of haul trips. As part of the review of the submitted plan, the County may place such restrictions on the hauling operation, as it deems necessary.

20.

At the completion of work, the engineer who prepared the approved grading plan shall certify, in writing, that all grading, lot drainage, and drainage facilities have been completed in conformance with the approved plans, as conditioned, and the Grading Ordinance.

21.

At the completion of work, the engineer who prepared the approved grading plan shall submit a signed “as-graded” grading plan conforming to the requirements of Section 8606.6 of the Grading Ordinance.

22.

Pursuant to Section 8604.11 of the Grading Ordinance, a security for $2,000.00 shall be deposited in a Department of Public Works’ Road Escrow Account before the issuance of the grading permit. This deposit will be used to offset inspection costs incurred by the Department of Public Works due to the grading operations. Any unused balance of the security will be released only upon the satisfactory completion of the work and acceptance of the work by the County of San Mateo.

23.

The applicant shall submit, for review by the Department of Public Works and the appropriate Fire District, a plan and profile of both the existing and the proposed access from the nearest “publicly” maintained roadway to the proposed building site.

24.

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.

25.

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.

26.

The applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works and the appropriate Fire District or Fire Marshal, that the existing road access from the nearest “publicly” maintained roadway to the building site meets or exceeds the County’s minimum standards for an “Interim Access Roadway,” including provisions for existing and proposed drainage and drainage facilities. The applicant must also demonstrate that appropriate turnouts and a turnaround, meeting Fire Marshal’s requirements, exist or can be provided, if applicable.

27.

Should the above plan for access NOT meet the County’s minimum standard for “safe and adequate” as provided by the “Interim Access Roadway,” the applicant shall have designed, by a registered civil engineer, and the applicant SHALL construct an “Interim Access Roadway.” Said roadway shall be a minimum of 16 feet wide with 1-foot shoulders and shall show specific provisions and details for the handling of both the existing drainage and the proposed drainage, including drainage structures. Roadway grades shall NOT exceed 15%. These plans for access shall also meet ALL conditions and requirements of the appropriate fire jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, the construction of turnouts and turnarounds.

Building Inspection Section

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

28.

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.

29.

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

30.

If a water main extension, upgrade or 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.

31.

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

32.

Sediment and erosion control measures must be installed before 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.

33.

No wood burning fireplaces are allowed. The back-to-back fireplaces in the Great Room must be either gas, or EPA certified, or complete masonry from firebox through the chimney.

Environmental Health Division

34.

At the building application stage, the applicant shall submit a septic application along with three sets of plans showing location of the percolation test holes, design of the septic drainfields, expansion area, house and driveway.

35.

At the building application stage, the applicant needs to submit proof of water that meets health standards. Since this property will be sharing a well from APN 036-172-030, the certification for that well will be required.

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District

The following will be required either at the time of application for a building permit or before final inspection approval of the building permit:

36.

As per 2001 CFC, Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1, a Fire District approved fire hydrant (Clow 960) must be located within 250 feet of the proposed single-family dwelling unit measured by way of drivable access. As per 2001 CFC, Appendix III-A, Section 4.1, the hydrant must produce a minimum fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for two hours. Contact the local water purveyor for water flow details. Fire District records indicate that there is an existing hydrant conforming to the above within 250 feet of the property, which may satisfy this condition if the fire flow is confirmed.

37.

As per County Building Standards and Fire District Ordinance No. 2002-01, the applicant is required to install an automatic fire sprinkler system throughout the proposed or improved dwelling and garage. All areas that are accessible for storage purposes shall be equipped with fire sprinklers. The only exception being small linen closets less than 24 sq. ft. with full depth shelving. The plans for this system must be submitted to the County Planning and Building Division. A building permit will not be issued until plans are received, reviewed and approved. Upon submission of plans, the County will forward a complete set to the Fire District for review. The fee schedule for automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be in accordance with Half Moon Bay Ordinance No. 13. Fees shall be paid before plan review.

38.

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

39.

As per the California Building Code, Section 310.9.1.1, State Fire Marshal Regulations, and Half Moon Bay Fire District Ordinance No. 2002-01, the applicant is required to install State Fire Marshal approved and listed smoke detectors which are hardwired, interconnected, and have battery backup. These detectors are required to be placed in each sleeping room and at a point centrally located in the corridor or area giving access to each separate sleeping area. A minimum of one detector shall be placed on each floor. Smoke detectors shall be tested and approved before the building final.

40.

As per Half Moon Bay Fire District Ordinance No. 2002-01, building identification shall be conspicuously posted and visible from the street. (TEMPORARY ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE POSTED BEFORE COMBUSTIBLES BEING PLACED ON-SITE.) The letters/numerals for permanent address signs shall be of adequate size and of a color that contrasts with the background. In no case shall letters/numerals be less the 4 inches in height with a minimum 3/4-inch stroke. Such letters/numerals shall be internally illuminated and facing the direction of access.

41.

As per San Mateo County Building Standards and Half Moon Bay Fire District Ordinance No. 2002-01, the roof covering of every new building or structure, and materials applied as part of a roof covering assembly, shall have a minimum fire rating of Class “B” or higher as defined in the current edition of the California Building Code.

42.

The County Department of Public Works and the Half Moon Bay Fire District Ordinance No. 2002-01 shall set road standards. The applicant must have a maintained all-weather surface road for ingress and egress of fire apparatus that meets these standards. Dead-end roads exceeding 150 feet shall be provided with a turnaround in accordance with Half Moon Bay Fire District standards and specifications. Road width shall not be less than 20 feet. Fire District records indicate that a turnaround will need to be designed and installed to satisfy this condition. The proposed access road and turnaround layout meet our minimum requirements but the surface, slope and signage must be per HMB Fire Standard Details and Specifications Manual FPB-2-1 and County specifications. There appears to be one section of the interim access road that could be steeper than 15% but is not addressed individually in the plans.

43.

As per CFC 2001, Section 1103.2.4 and Half Moon Bay Fire District Ordinance No. 2002 01, a minimum clearance of flammable vegetation within 30 feet of the proposed structures, or to the property line, shall be maintained around all structures by the property owner. This does not include individual species of ornamental shrubs and landscaping.

Half Moon Bay Fire District review is not construed as encompassing the structural integrity of the facility nor abrogating more restrictive requirements by other agencies having responsibility. Final acceptance is subject to field inspection and necessary tests. Please be advised that all access and water supply requirements must be met before combustible materials are brought on-site.