COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

DATE:

August 27, 2007

BOARD MEETING DATE:

September 11, 2007

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

10 days, within 300 ft.

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Lisa Grote, Director of Community Development

SUBJECT:

Consideration of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and Coastside Design Review Permit, pursuant to Sections 6328 and 6565, respectively, of San Mateo County Zoning Regulations, to construct a 3,159 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1,332 sq. ft. residence and detached accessory building on an 11,103 sq. ft. parcel, including the removal of one significant size cypress tree, located at 324 The Strand, in the unincorporated Moss Beach area of San Mateo County. This project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission. (Appeal from decision of the Planning Commission to approve the project.)

County File Number:

PLN 2005-00504 (Trilevsky)

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Coastal Development Permit and Coastside Design Review Permit.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: Number 9: The proposed project keeps the commitment of “Responsive, Effective, and Collaborative Government.” The Planning Commission, in making its decision, found that the proposed project allows the property owner to more fully utilize her property in a manner that does not significantly impact neighboring property. By upholding the Planning Commission’s decision, the Board would be reinforcing this commitment.

Goal: The proposed project achieves Goal number 20: “Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.” In reaching its decision on this project, the Planning Commission considered the staff report and found the project complies with the County’s Zoning Regulations and Local Coastal Program. The Planning Commission determined that this project would have minimal impacts upon surrounding parcels and that such impacts could be mitigated through the conditions of approval, which have been carried over to this report.

BACKGROUND

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,159 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1,332 sq. ft. residence and detached accessory building. The project consists of a partial demolition of the northerly portion of the 1-story building and removal of the back (north) wall of the garage. A new, 2-story addition will be constructed on the north side of the house, perpendicular to the coastal bluff. The original submittal proposed a 2-story addition constructed at an angle (parallel with The Strand right-of-way). A 268 sq. ft. addition will be constructed onto the back of the garage. One significant size cypress tree is proposed for removal. The project does not involve any significant grading.

Report Prepared By: Michael Schaller, Senior Planner, Telephone 650/363-1849

Appellant: Tom Bruce

Applicant/Owner: Karen Trilevsky

Location: 324 The Strand, Moss Beach

APN: 037-135-200

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

General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (6.1 – 8.7 dwelling units per net acre)

Sphere-of-Influence: Half Moon Bay

Existing Land Use: Single-Family Home

Flood Zone: Zone C (Area of Minimal Flooding); Community Panel No. 060311-0094B, Effective Date: July 5, 1984.

Environmental Evaluation: Categorically exempt, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301, Class 1, relating to the minor modification of existing structures.

Setting: The project site is located at the intersection of The Strand and Beach Street in the unincorporated Moss Beach area of the County, west of Highway 1. The site is relatively flat and is immediately adjacent to the beachside cliff above Fitzgerald Marine Reserve. The street address is on The Strand, a “paper street” no longer accessible by motor vehicles. The existing residence is approached by a driveway off Beach Street, which leads into the rear or southwest corner of the property. The subject parcel is bordered by single-family residential development on all sides. The locality is recognized as being archaeologically sensitive. Landscaping on the parcel includes miniature shrubs, grasses and several large Monterey cypress trees that line the eastern boundary of the parcel.

Chronology:

Date

Action

June 15, 2006

-

First Zoning Hearing Officer (ZHO) public hearing. Public hearing continued. Applicant asked to meet with surrounding neighbors to discuss the proposed addition.

July 11, 2006

-

Neighborhood meeting occurs. Applicant redesigns proposal in response to discussions at this meeting.

October 16, 2006

-

Second community meeting at which time the revised plans are presented to the neighbors.

February 15, 2007

-

Second ZHO public hearing. Revised project approved.

March 14, 2007

-

Appeal to the Planning Commission filed.

May 23, 2007

-

Planning Commission public hearing. Appeal denied, project upheld.

June 5, 2007

-

Appeal to the Board of Supervisors.

August 7, 2007

-

Board of Supervisors public hearing.

DISCUSSION

A.

PREVIOUS ACTION

This project was heard by the Planning Commission at its May 23, 2007 hearing. Many of the same issues in this appeal to the Board were also heard by the Planning Commission. The appellant at that time was Mary Larenas. The appellant now is Tom Bruce. After reviewing the letter of appeal, staff did not identify any new issues not discussed by the Planning Commission, nor has any additional information been provided to staff that would alter the previous recommendation.

B.

KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

Mr. Bruce, the appellant, in his letter of appeal (Attachment B) has outlined the basis of his appeal. The following is a summation of the key issues in the letter, followed by staff’s response:

1.

“We request that the Board of Supervisors halt this project and require the applicant to perform an in-depth environmental review to assess possible damage to the already stressed ecosystem of the James Fitzgerald Marine Reserve. The proposed project is located on the eroding bluff overlooking the Reserve. The current home required coastal armoring to protect it. Coastal erosion is unpredictable and no one can predict the future.”

Response: The appellant’s assertion is that the project does not qualify for a categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) due to its proximity to the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve. The class of exemptions that this project falls into consists of the operation, repair or minor alteration of existing private structures involving negligible or no expansion of use. The appellant has suggested that the close proximity to Fitzgerald Marine Reserve in and of itself should disqualify the use of this exemption. Environmental impacts asserted by the appellant are:

a.

The addition will make the building visible from the beach and tide pools in the Reserve.

Response: All of the bluff top houses in Moss Beach are visible depending upon the angle and distance of the viewer to the subject. Standing adjacent to the toe of the bluff, the project house is not readily visible. As the viewer moves away from the toe of the bluff, the angle of view diminishes, as the distance increases. Based upon the topography shown on the applicant’s proposed drainage plan and the proposed height of the addition, staff estimates that a viewer must be approximately 50-55 feet away from the toe of the bluff before the addition becomes visible. Depending upon the time of day, this distance would put the viewer in the water. Given the distance at which the proposed second story will become visible to people on the beach or in the water, the Planning Commission found that the proposed addition will not detract from existing views.

Additionally, it should be pointed out that LCP Policy 8.4 (Cliffs and Bluffs) requires bluff top development to be set back from the bluff edge sufficiently far to ensure it is not visually obtrusive when viewed from the shoreline except in highly developed areas where adjoining development is nearer the bluff edge. The proposed addition is set back from the top of the adjacent bluff approximately 66 feet. There are several houses in the project vicinity (at the end of Reef Point Road for example) that are substantially closer to the bluff edge. By designing an addition that is set back from the property line significantly more than is required, the applicant has complied with this policy.

b.

The 2-story predominantly glass front to the residence which faces the ocean poses a threat to migratory and local birds. No trees or other obstacles are proposed to act as a barrier to prevent birds from flying directly into the glass. Additionally, glare from these windows may act to confuse birds, again causing them to fly into the glass. Non-reflective glass may not be adequate to prevent this hazard.

Response: There are many bluff-top houses within the project area that have large areas of glass on the ocean side. No evidence from the project area has been presented to verify the veracity of the appellant’s assertion about threats to migratory and local birds.

c.

Only part of the applicant’s property is contained by rock coastal armoring which has areas of disrepair, including large boulders being undermined and collapsing onto the beach below. The current armoring will likely require a permit for repair. The applicant proposes to build on (a) coastal bluff that is experiencing high rates of erosion 100 feet to the north and south of her property line. It is likely that the applicant will require a permit for future coastal armoring to protect her property. Coastal armoring has been shown to destroy sand beaches and the natural habitat of the marine reserve.

Response: There is no relationship between the proposed addition and the armoring of the adjacent bluff. The current bluff protection was installed, under permit, in 1984, by the owner at that time. Additional work was performed on the bluff protection in 1998 to protect the existing house. This armoring would need to be maintained/upgraded regardless of whether or not this addition is constructed. The applicant submitted a bluff retreat study on November 13, 2006. This study does not recommend, nor is the applicant proposing to alter the existing bluff protection. If, at some point in the future, the applicant or an adjacent property owner wishes to expand or repair the existing bluff protection, then a Coastal Development Permit will be required. The potential impacts of that work will then be evaluated at that time.

Prior to determining that this project qualified for a Categorical Exemption, staff reviewed the project against the questions contained within the County’s Initial Study checklist. In its deliberation as to whether this project qualified for a Categorical Exemption, staff was guided by Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines:

“The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.”

Staff did not identify any potential impact that would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, it qualifies for a Categorical Exemption from CEQA. The impacts asserted by the appellant are speculative in nature. Section 15064(d)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines addresses this issue:

“An indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable.”

Staff recommended and the Planning Commission found that the adoption of a Categorical Exemption for this project is appropriate.

2.

“There is no immediate need to approve this project, however, there is a need to protect the local environment and coastal community. This project is moving too quickly to have an adequate review.”

Response: Staff is under the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act to process all applications in a timely manner. This application was received on October 26, 2005. It went through two separate ZHO hearings and two community meetings before being approved by the ZHO. It was subsequently appealed to the Planning Commission at which time the appellant and several of the neighbors spoke, again, in opposition to the project. From date of initial submittal to the Board of Supervisors hearing has been approximately 22 months.

3.

Mr. Schaller has described in his report that “The Strand is a paper street which is rarely used.” This is an incorrect statement. This area is frequently visited by the public and members of the neighborhood. However, the applicant has allowed the area adjacent to her property to become overgrown with non-native vegetation, such as ice plant, which blocks public access. We respectfully request that a complete survey of the applicant’s property line be performed and outlined so that public property will be clearly marked.

Response: A review of the May 23 staff report to the Planning Commission finds no evidence of the statement ascribed to Mr. Schaller regarding the use of “The Strand.” Staff has never stated that the unpaved portion of The Strand is not used by the public, just that it is not accessible by motor vehicles. The Strand is a paper street and is not maintained by the Department of Public Works. Vegetation management in any non-maintained public right-of-way, and vegetation management outside any travel way (i.e., encroachments) are the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. A survey of the property was submitted as part of the project application. This survey is in the file which is a public document. Additionally, a copy of the survey has been included with this report as Attachment I. A review of the survey and photos of the project site indicates that landscaping from the applicant’s property is in fact spilling over into the public right-of-way on The Strand. Staff has added a condition of approval requiring the removal of this vegetation from the public right-of-way prior to a final approval on the building permit.

4.

The small percentage in size reduction has not addressed the concerns of neighbors to the rear of the property who will lose significant views of the ocean resulting in loss of property value. Lowering the height and mass of the project from an original height of 26 feet 3 inches to 23 feet 8 inches, a total reduction of 2 feet 7 inches results in no change in view loss.

Response: San Mateo County does not have a view protection ordinance which protects views from private property not located in a designated scenic corridor.

In addition, under California law, a landowner has no right to an unobstructed view over adjoining property (Posey v. Leavitt (1991) 299 Cal. App. 3d 1236, 1250; Pacific Homeowners’ Assn. v. Wesley Palms Retirement Community (1986) 178 Cal. App. 3d 1147, 1152). “As a general rule, a landowner has no natural right to air, light or an unobstructed view and the law is reluctant to imply such a right [citations]. Such a right may be created by private parties through the granting of an easement [citations] or through the adoption of conditions, covenants and restrictions… or by the Legislature [citations].”

The County’s Design Review Regulations do not recognize a right to the preservation of private views. At most, the regulations give the decision-maker some authority to regulate height and location of structures to minimize the impact on existing views in order to achieve an appropriate balance with surrounding site conditions.

As summarized in the Chronology above, the Zoning Hearing Officer did exercise some level of discretion by encouraging the applicant to re-think the proposal and scale it down. The applicant responded by reducing the size of the proposed house addition by 417 sq. ft., reducing the proposed roof height to 23 ft. 8 in. and reducing the length of the second story addition. Additionally, the ZHO further reduced the impact of the addition by placing a condition on the project that eliminates the enclosed deck on the second floor on the north end of the addition. While these changes did reduce the impact upon views from adjacent parcels, it did not eliminate them. Short of restricting the applicant to a single-story house, there is no way to completely protect views from adjoining private property.

5.

At 4,464 sq. ft. this proposed home is too large for the neighborhood and is double to triple the size of homes in the neighborhood, and is in opposition to the Standards for Design 6565.26, Neighborhood Definition and Character 6565.20BLa(2), which discusses how a house should relate to the visual character and scale of other houses and natural features in the vicinity.

Response: The proposed addition will result in a floor area ratio of 40.2% of the parcel size, where 53% is allowed. The project parcel is 11,103 sq. ft. in size, thus allowing for a greater floor area than surrounding parcels which are generally 5,000 sq. ft. in size. As can be seen in the following chart, all of the surrounding parcels are smaller than the project parcel; however, floor area ratios vary greatly, in part, because older homes tend to be smaller in size and many of the surrounding homes were constructed 20 to 50 years ago.

Owner (Address)

Parcel Size
(sq. ft.)

House Size
(sq. ft.)

Date of Construction

Floor Area Ratio

Trilevsky
(324 The Strand)

11,103

1,332 (existing)
4,464 (proposed)

1962

11.9% (existing)
40.2% (proposed)

Goldfield
(308 The Strand)

5,900

1,520

1962

25.8%

Larenas
(301 Nevada Avenue)

5,000

1,330

1961

26.6%

Hull
(323 Nevada Avenue)

5,000

2,020

1961

40.4%

Bruce
(351 Nevada Avenue)

3,700

1,960

2000

52.9%

Trilevsky
(355 Nevada Avenue)

3,800

1,440

1975

37.9%

Castillo-Fowler
(Vacant)

5,000

Vacant

Vacant

Vacant

Wu
(10 Ellendale Street)

5,000

2,820

1987

56.4%

Smith
(364 S Laguna Street)

7,766

1.280

1910

16.5%

Average
(not including project parcel)

5,880.85

1,767.14

N/A

36.64%

Source: County Assessor’s Office

The completed house will be larger than surrounding homes; however, it is in proportion to the size of the parcel and will have a lower FAR than allowed by the zoning. The purpose of a floor area ratio is to establish a relevant relationship between the size of a parcel and the buildings that can be built upon it. The 53% ratio limit contained in the zoning regulations was established after extensive community discussion.

6.

The proposed design is not consistent with any architecture except for one home with a slight, small curved roof located approximately four blocks away from the project (note: this home also employed a varied architectural design and not a massive, unbroken barrel-shape). No homes in the vicinity have a design of an extreme barrel-shaped roof covered in scaled pattern made of metal.

Response: Although the proposed barrel roof on the second story addition is not common to the area, it was reviewed and approved by the Coastside Design Review Committee. The Coastside Design Review standards state that:

“(T)he design standards are not intended to preclude individual initiative in the design of any particular project, nor to require that substantial additional expense be incurred.”

In addition to review by the Design Review Committee, the compatibility of this architectural feature was also discussed at the ZHO and PC hearings. The project was found to be in compliance with both the zoning regulations and the design review standards, including roof design (see findings in Attachment A).

7.

The proposed design incorporates a predominantly all glass front and rear of the house. This design allows for natural light in but also for excessive artificial light out along with excessive glare. The east elevation of the house has a series of clear glass windows on the first floor and second floor. Although an aluminum trellis is planned to act as a screen and the trellis will be planted with vines, the homes facing the rear of the property will be exposed to excessive light/glare pollution affecting multiple homes.

Response: The proposed window walls result in approximately the same amount of light as a more traditional design which might use “picture” windows. The proposed trellis, to be planted with vines, is designed to address the light and glare issue. Once the vines reach maturity, they will strengthen the role of the trellis in diffusing radiant light from the interior of the house.

8.

The single story structure is planned to have a “sod roof” and a wood burning fireplace chimney. Moss Beach is located in a limited watershed area and residents experience yearly droughts which require restricted water use. The proposed rooftop lawn may become a fire hazard as there is a proposed wood burning fireplace chimney located adjacent to the “lawn.” This proposed lawn may easily become an eyesore if not kept weeded, mowed, and properly maintained.

Response: The plans which were reviewed and approved by the ZHO do not indicate if the proposed fireplace is to be wood burning. Wood burning fireplaces are prohibited in San Mateo County unless they are completely masonry construction or EPA Phase 2 certified. The plans do not indicate a masonry chimney or use of a Phase 2 fireplace. Staff recommended and the Planning Commission added a condition which restricts the project to a Phase 2 fireplace or a direct vent gas fireplace insert. The concept of a sod roof is one of many green building techniques for single-family houses. The ZHO included a condition of approval which requires the sod roof to be reviewed by the Point Montara Fire District. With regard to maintenance of such a roof, the County has not traditionally required active maintenance of any private home. The maintenance and upkeep of a private residence is the responsibility of the owner.

9.

The landscaping design incorporates a 6-foot high “living-fence” planted in a straight line located between the applicant’s northern most borders and to the rear of the property. Such a fence will require constant maintenance to keep it at the required 6-foot height and 4-foot height at the 20-foot setback point from The Strand. In addition, the thickness of the hedge is significant compared to the thickness of a wood fence and will be a source of further loss of ocean view through a narrow between-house corridor.

Response: The concept of a living fence or hedge is a way to promote green building techniques and as with all landscaping on privately owned property in the County, maintenance is the responsibility of the individual owner. Fence heights are enforced by the Planning and Building Department’s Code Compliance Section on a complaint basis.

10.

In addition, the “fence” along the perimeter of the property does not present a natural appearance as shown under Section 6565.20F (Landscaping). The standards for landscaping suggest that vegetation should appear natural and in keeping with the local (coastal) vegetation and kept low so as not to impact adjacent property views. The proposed landscape design also incorporates multiple medium and large size new trees to be planted around the perimeter which again does not take into consideration a natural appearance and “low vegetation” to avoid further impact on adjacent property views.

Response: The proposed landscape does appear to conflict with the referenced policy from the design manual. Staff recommended and the Planning Commission included the following condition:

Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Section. Said plan shall disperse proposed trees across the entire parcel as illustrated in Section 6565.20(F) of the design review manual. Said plan shall also include provisions for irrigation, planting details, and a break down of the proposed species and their anticipated size at maturity.

11.

The applicant proposes to build a structure with a 42’ x 16’ metal trellis and a scaled-zinc barrel shaped roof which has the appearance of a commercial building in a residential area. As this area of Moss Beach is prone to months of fog and drizzle, the proposed metal roof when wet may very well be reflective. In addition, due to the constant salt spray, corrosion of these selected building materials is highly likely. This design is in opposition to the Standards for Design Section (6565.20) Elements of Design No. 1, which states, “long blank walls appear more massive than walls with spaces and corners which create shadows and architectural interest.” A more broken roofline and siding is more in line with standards.

Response: Although the use of barrel roofs is not common in residential structures, the Design Review Committee, the Zoning Hearing Officer and the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed design. They all found it compatible with the Design Review Standards. Zinc has a high resistance to corrosion, and is very durable. Zinc roofing has an expected lifespan of 40-100 years. As zinc and aluminum weather, the materials take on a somewhat dull, dark grey patina that is not reflective. The use of the trellis does break up the east elevation of the house. The central mass of the proposed addition was reduced in scope from 1,426 sq. ft. to 1,049 sq. ft., the associated barrel roof, which only covers a portion of the house, was reduced in height from 26 ft. 3 in. to 23 ft. 8 in. and the length of the second story addition was reduced from 58.5 feet to 54 feet.

C.

KEY ISSUES

1.

Conformance with the General Plan

Staff has reviewed the project for conformance with the policies contained in the General Plan, including those within the General Plan’s Visual Quality, Historical and Archaeological Resources and Urban Land Use chapters. Staff has determined that the project complies with all applicable General Plan policies, with specific discussion of the following:

a.

Chapter 4 – Visual Quality. The applicant’s proposal complies with Policy 4.35 (Urban Area Design Concept). The proposed addition will improve the appearance and visual character of the existing single-family structure. The addition has been designed to complement and enhance the surrounding natural and built environment through the use of earth tones, natural finishes and environmental design strategies such as a living roof and fence, and photovoltaic panels on the garage roof.

b.

Chapter 5 – Archaeological and Historical Resources. The project complies with Policy 5.20 (Protection of Archaeological/Paleontological Resources) that requires a site survey to determine if significant archaeological resources are present on the site. Since the locality is recognized as being archaeologically sensitive, an archaeological reconnaissance and evaluation report was requested for the subject parcel. The report concluded that no evidence of archaeological resources of any kind was found on the property. In accordance with Policy 5.21 (Site Treatment) and recommendations of the certified archaeologist, a condition of approval to suspend construction work, in case any archaeologically significant resources are uncovered, has been added as listed in Attachment A.

c.

Chapter 8 – Urban Land Use. The project complies with Policy 8.38 (Regulation of Development in Urban Areas – Height, Bulk and Setbacks), which states that the height, bulk and setback requirements should be regulated in order to ensure that the size and scale of the development are compatible with the parcel size. The proposed addition to the existing residence and garage will conform to the required setbacks and height limitations of the zoning district. The project complies with Policy 8.42 (Buildings) that encourages the construction of energy efficient buildings, which use renewable resources to the maximum extent possible. The project proposes to harness sunlight for energy through the use of photovoltaic solar panels on the garage roof.

2.

Conformance with the Local Coastal Program

The proposed residential development has been reviewed against applicable LCP policies pertaining to Visual Resources, Location of Development, and Shoreline Access components. A Coastal Development Checklist has been completed and the following LCP policies are relevant to this project:

Visual Resources – The project’s overall design and scale, as conditioned, complies with the following policies:

Policy 8.13 (Special Design Guidelines for Coastal Communities) requires that structures fit the topography of the site and do not require extensive tree cutting, grading or filling on the site; use pitched, rather than flat, roofs; and minimize visual impacts through the protection of natural vegetation and the use of natural exterior surface colors and materials. The proposed addition will not require extensive cutting, filling or grading of the site; the site is relatively flat and any grading done will be minimal in nature. The applicant proposes to remove one 18-inch diameter cypress tree that is in the same location as the proposed addition. However, this removal does not constitute extensive tree cutting. The applicant proposes the use of natural materials and earth tones for the addition/remodel, the color palette for which has been approved by the Coastside Design Review Committee.

The design guidelines call for the use of pitched rather than flat roofs and to design structures, which are in scale with the character of their setting and blend with the overall view of the urbanscape. The building’s 2-story addition employs a barrel vault roof to create an overall low profile and reduce the massing of the structure. Only the garage and remaining portion of the existing house have flat roofs. The Coastside Design Review Committee, Zoning Hearing Officer, and Planning Commission found that the original design blended with the scale and character of the neighborhood.

Policy 8.5a (Location of Development) requires that new development be located on a portion of the parcel where it is least likely to significantly impact views from public viewpoints. Policy 8.15 (Coastal Views for Structural and Community Features) requires the protection of coastal views, and the prohibition of development that substantially blocks views to or along the shoreline. The applicant was required to put up story poles for the proposed 2-story addition to determine if there would be any obstruction of coastal views. During the site visit, staff concluded that no public views of the coast, from adjacent public rights-of-way (Beach Street and The Strand), would be blocked as a result of the proposed project. The Planning Commission, after reviewing the proposed plans and visiting the site, concurred with staff’s assessment.

Shoreline Access – The project was reviewed for compliance with policies pertaining to shoreline access as discussed below:

Policy 10.30 (Requirement of Minimum Access as a Condition of Granting Development Permits) discusses providing shoreline access for any private or public projects located between the sea and the first public road. Staff has consulted with County Counsel regarding this issue and determined that any requirement under the Coastal Act for dedication of property or exactions must also meet constitutional requirements. There must be a nexus between the burdens imposed by the development and a condition requiring dedication (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 438 U.S. 82.5). The County must also establish a reasonable relationship (proportionality) between the development’s impact and the conditions imposed on the development (Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374).

The existing house was constructed in 1962, prior to the approval of the Coastal Act in 1976. There is no evidence to suggest that there has been a historical use of this parcel by the public. There is no legally established public right of use on this parcel, nor can the case be made for prescriptive rights. Because there is no historical basis for public access on this parcel, there is no nexus between the proposed house and an impact upon established public access. The proposed addition to the existing house will have no impact on any existing public access trails. Therefore, the applicant is not required to make any improvements to existing access trails or create new access trails.

3.

Conformance with the Zoning Regulations

a.

Development Standards. The following table summarizes the project’s conformance with the applicable R-1/S-17 zoning district regulations, Section 6300.2:

The existing house and the garage are both legal non-conforming structures. The house is set back 4.91 feet from the property line on the right side and hence is an existing, legal non-conforming structure. The new wall around the fireplace, on the right side of the existing structure encroaches into the side setback by 2 feet, which is allowable for such architectural features.

The existing garage is set back 2.95 feet from the rear property line where the minimum distance required is 3 feet, and is hence an existing legal non-conforming structure. The proposed 334 sq. ft. addition to the garage will be located at 3 feet from the rear property line. Condition of Approval No. 3 has been added to require verification of setbacks for the garage addition, living room corner wall and fireplace wall (see Attachment A).

b.

Conformance with the Design Review Standards. The subject parcel is located on the Coastside within a Design Review District. Planning staff referred this project to the Coastside Design Review Committee, hereafter referred to as the Committee, for its review and recommendation. This project was reviewed by the Committee on March 9, 2006, and they recommended approval of the project subject to conditions specified in Attachment A.

The Planning Commission took the Committee’s recommendation into consideration, as well as public testimony in rendering their decision to approve this project. Overall, the Planning Commission agreed with the Committee and found that the project is in compliance with the DR standards. However, to address concerns raised at the public hearing regarding maintenance of privacy, the Planning Commission placed a condition on the project which eliminated an enclosed deck area on the north side of the proposed second floor. As part of its review of this project, the Planning Commission found that the project complied with the Design Review Standards as outlined below:

(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. These regulations were developed to ensure adequate space for light and air between houses on adjacent parcels. No significant vegetation removal or landform alteration is proposed.

(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 site is relatively flat and access to the parcel is already developed. Construction of the proposal will require less than 25 cubic yards of grading. Conditions of approval have been placed on the project (see Conditions of Approval Nos. 5, 9, and 10), which require the applicant to submit construction phase erosion control plans and permanent stormwater control plans prior to the issuance of a building permit.

(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 other natural drainage systems on the site.

(4)

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

(5)

Trees and other vegetative land cover are removed only where necessary for the construction of structures or paved areas in order to reduce erosion and impacts on natural drainage channels, and maintain surface runoff at acceptable levels. The construction of the addition will require the removal of one 18-inch diameter cypress tree. No large-scale grading or ground cover removal is proposed. The planting of a replacement tree is required as indicated in Condition No. 15.

(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. Adjacent open areas consist of The Strand right-of-way and beach area at the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve. On the portions of the project site adjacent to these open areas, the applicant has proposed using native seaside plantings for landscaping in addition to a meadow grass lawn area. This use of native shrubs will provide a transition between the public area of The Strand and the hardscape of the proposed addition.

(7)

Views are protected by the height and location of structures and through the selective pruning or removal of trees and vegetative matter at the end of view corridors. Public view corridors are located at the end of Beach Street and the end of South Laguna/ The Strand. The proposed addition will not impact these public 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 bluffs and cliffs to protect views from scenic areas below. The 2-story addition is located more than 60 feet away from the edge of the bluff and will not impact views from scenic areas below.

(10)

Public views to and along the shoreline from public roads and other public lands are protected. The applicant was required to put up story poles to show the extent of the proposed 2-story addition and to determine if there would be any obstruction of coastal views. During site visits, staff concluded that no public views of the coast, from the adjacent public rights-of-way, would be blocked as a result of the addition.

(11)

Varying architectural styles are made compatible through the use of similar materials and colors which blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhoods. As discussed above, the proposed design was reviewed by the Coastside Design Review Committee, the Zoning Hearing Officer, and the Planning Commission and found to be in conformance with design guidelines for the Moss Beach area. Houses of similar colors and materials appear in the surrounding neighborhood and community. The proposed structure will utilize colors and materials that blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhood (Condition of Approval No. 11).

(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 adjacent buildings in the community. The project parcel is zoned for single-family residential use. The project is an addition to an existing house. The applicant is not proposing a design or use that would conflict with the designated use of the parcel. As discussed previously in the staff report, the size and scale of the proposed addition comply with zoning regulations established for this neighborhood for a parcel of this size.

(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 (Condition of Approval No. 6).

(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 as part of this project.

(15)

Paved areas are integrated into the site, relate to their structure, and are landscaped to reduce visual impact from residential areas and from roadways. The proposed driveway and paving respond sensitively to the site conditions by winding around the structure in a manner that fits with the topography of the site and bind the structures together. The paved areas are screened from public view through the use of extensive landscaping.

D.

REVIEW BY MIDCOAST COMMUNITY COUNCIL

A referral of the project was sent to the Midcoast Community Council (MCCC) on November 8, 2005, and it reviewed this project at its meeting on December 7, 2005. The MCCC commented on the issues of site runoff, drainage and landscaping of the parcel.

The MCCC, in its March 8, 2006 letter, stated that it would like to see a comprehensive drainage plan for the site since it slopes towards the ocean and Fitzgerald Marine Reserve. In addition, MCCC objected to the use of zinc roofs that are reflective in nature; the color sample approved by the Committee is for the use of non-reflective zinc roofs for the structure.

The MCCC also had concerns about ocean views being blocked because of the location of the proposed addition. As part of the CDRC review process, the applicant was required to put up story poles to show the extent of the proposed 2-story addition and to determine if there would be any obstruction of coastal views. During a site visit, staff concluded that no public views of the coast from adjacent public rights-of-way would be blocked as a result of this addition. In addition, public access points exist along Beach Street and Ellendale Street, to the east and west of the project site that lead to the edge of the bluff. The Planning Commission and Zoning Hearing Officer took into consideration the design aspects and location of the proposed addition when they approved the project. Conditions of Approval Nos. 5, 9, 10, 11, and 12 (Attachment A) of this report respond to the concerns of the MCCC.

E.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act related to minor modifications to existing structures.

FISCAL IMPACT

If the project is approved and constructed, additional property taxes will be assessed.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

B.

Appellant’s Letter of Appeal

C.

Location and Vicinity Map

D.

Site Plan

E.

Floor Plans

F.

Second Story Floor Plan as Modified by the ZHO

G.

Elevations

H.

Landscape Plan

I.

Site Survey

Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit File Number: PLN 2005-00504

Board Meeting Date: September 11, 2007

Prepared By:

Michael Schaller

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

Senior Planner

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

1.

Regarding the Environmental Review, Find:

That the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act related to minor modifications to an existing structure.

2.

Regarding the Coastal Development Permit, Find:

a.

That 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 with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the San Mateo County LCP. The proposed residential development has been reviewed against applicable LCP policies pertaining to Visual Resources, Location of Development, and Shoreline Access components. The proposed project fits the topography of the site and does not require extensive tree cutting or grading of the site. It uses a pitched rather than flat roof and does not block views from public vantage points. Discussion of the coastal access finding is below.

b.

That the project conforms to specific findings required by policies of the San Mateo County LCP. As discussed in the staff report, conditions have been placed upon the project which require the implementation of a landscape plan and the use of a color scheme designed to blend the house in with the surrounding environment.

c.

Where the project is located between the nearest public road and the sea, or the shoreline of Pescadero Marsh, that the project is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Section 30200 of the Public Resources Code). As discussed in the staff report, there is no nexus (as required by the Nollan case) to require the dedication of public access across the project parcel. There is no evidence of historical public use across the parcel, nor is there evidence to suggest that construction of the proposed addition will impact existing public access and recreation on adjacent public lands. There is existing public access at the end of Beach and Ellendale Streets.

3.

Regarding the Design Review, Find:

That the project conforms to the specific design review guidelines and standards as required by Section 6565.17 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations. The Coastside Design Review Committee reviewed the project for conformance with design review standards and recommended approval of the project at its meeting on March 9, 2006. The Planning Commission and staff also reviewed the recent revisions to the project for conformance with the same applicable standards and found that the project complies as outlined below:

a.

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. These regulations were developed to ensure adequate space for light and air between houses on adjacent parcels. No significant vegetation removal or landform alteration is proposed.

b.

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 site is relatively flat and access to the parcel is already developed. Construction of the proposal will require less than 25 cubic yards of grading. Conditions of approval have been placed on the project (see Conditions of Approval Nos. 5, 9, and 10), which require the applicant to submit construction phase erosion control plans and permanent stormwater control plans prior to the issuance of a building permit.

c.

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 other natural drainage systems on the site.

d.

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

e.

Trees and other vegetative land cover are removed only where necessary for the construction of structures or paved areas in order to reduce erosion and impacts on natural drainage channels, and maintain surface runoff at acceptable levels. The construction of the addition will require the removal of one 18-inch diameter cypress tree. No large-scale grading or ground cover removal is proposed. The planting of a replacement tree is required as indicated in Condition No. 15.

f.

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. Adjacent open areas consist of The Strand right-of-way and beach area at the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve. On the portions of the project site adjacent to these open areas, the applicant has proposed using native seaside plantings for landscaping in addition to a meadow grass lawn area. This use of native shrubs will provide a transition between the public area of The Strand and the hardscape of the proposed addition.

g.

Views are protected by the height and location of structures and through the selective pruning or removal of trees and vegetative matter at the end of view corridors. Public view corridors are located at the end of Beach Street and the end of South Laguna/The Strand. The proposed addition will not impact these public view corridors.

h.

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.

i.

Structures are set back from the edge of bluffs and cliffs to protect views from scenic areas below. The 2-story addition is located more than 60 feet away from the edge of the bluff and will not impact views from scenic areas below.

j.

Public views to and along the shoreline from public roads and other public lands are protected. The applicant was required to put up story poles to show the extent of the proposed 2-story addition and to determine if there would be any obstruction of coastal views. During site visits, staff concluded that no public views of the coast, from the adjacent public rights-of-way, would be blocked as a result of the addition.

k.

Varying architectural styles are made compatible through the use of similar materials and colors which blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhoods. As discussed in the staff report, the proposed design was reviewed by the Coastside Design Review Committee, the Zoning Hearing Officer, and the Planning Commission and found to be in conformance with design guidelines for the Moss Beach area. Houses of similar colors and materials appear in the surrounding neighborhood and community. The proposed structure will utilize colors and materials that blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhood (Condition of Approval No. 11).

l.

The design of the structure is appropriate to the use of the property and is in harmony with the shape, size, and scale of adjacent buildings in the community. The project parcel is zoned for single-family residential use. The project is an addition to an existing house. The applicant is not proposing a design or use that would conflict with the designated use of the parcel. As discussed previously in the staff report, the size and scale of the proposed addition comply with zoning regulations established for this neighborhood for a parcel of this size.

m.

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 (Condition of Approval No. 6).

n.

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 as part of this project.

o.

Paved areas are integrated into the site, relate to their structure, and are landscaped to reduce visual impact from residential areas and from roadways. The proposed driveway and paving respond sensitively to the site conditions by winding around the structure in a manner that fits with the topography of the site and bind the structures together. The paved areas are screened from public view through the use of extensive landscaping.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Current Planning Section

1.

This approval applies only to the proposal, documents and plans described in this report and submitted to and approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 11, 2007. This includes the ZHO’s modification of the design which requires that portion of the second floor deck to the north of the hot tub and planter to be removed from the plans. No glass panels or railings will be allowed in this area as shown on Attachment F of this report. Minor revisions or modifications to the project may be approved by the Community Development Director if they are consistent with the intent of and in substantial conformance with this approval.

2.

The Coastal Development Permit is valid for one year, until September 11, 2008, in which time a building permit shall be issued. Any request to extend the length of this permit must be received in writing no later than 60 days prior to expiration of the permit.

3.

The applicant shall provide “setback verification” during the building inspection process to verify that: (a) the wall around the proposed fireplace on the south side of the existing house is no closer than 3 feet to the property line; (b) the proposed wall extension on the lower west side of the existing house is no closer than 5 feet from the property line; and (c) the addition to the existing garage is no closer than 3 feet to the property line.

4.

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

d.

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

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.

5.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project, the applicant shall submit an erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Section. The erosion control plan shall clearly delineate the types of measures to be used and the location of where the measures will be placed as well as sectional drawings showing how the measures shall be installed. All erosion control devices shall be installed on-site prior to any grading activities on-site. The applicant’s engineer shall inspect all erosion and sediment control measures upon installation, periodically throughout construction, and prior to, during and immediately following periods of rain to ensure all measures are functioning properly. The engineer shall certify in writing to the Current Planning Section that all measures have been inspected and are properly maintained. These temporary erosion control measures shall be removed upon final inspection for the building permit and properly disposed of.

The required plan shall also, 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.

6.

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

7.

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 Point Montara Fire Protection District.

8.

No site disturbance shall occur, including any grading or tree removal, until a building permit has been issued, and then, only the one 18-inch cypress tree (adjacent to the rear of the existing garage) is approved for removal.

9.

Based on the recommendations of the Coastside Design Review Committee, the applicant will be required to:

a.

Incorporate a darker color scheme for the structure, samples for which shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Officer. 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.

b.

All proposed exterior lighting shall be the minimum required to illuminate that area of the house exterior for safety purposes, and the lighting shall be shielded in conformance with Policy 4.59 of the San Mateo County General Plan. The applicant shall submit the manufacturer’s “cut sheets” for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.

c.

Incorporate the color sample approved by the Committee for the use of non-reflective zinc roofs for the structure.

10.

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.

11.

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

12.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Section. Said plan shall disperse proposed trees across the entire parcel as illustrated in Section 6565.20(F) of the design review manual. Said plan shall also include provisions for irrigation, planting details, and a break down of the proposed species and their anticipated size at maturity.

13.

One 15-gallon size, cypress tree shall be planted to replace the one cypress tree being removed. Confirmation of the planting of the tree shall occur prior to the final inspection approval of the building permit.

14.

The proposed hedges shall be maintained at a height no greater than that allowed by the Zoning Regulations, i.e., four (4) feet in the front setback and six (6) feet in the side and rear setback area.

15.

The proposed sod roofing material shall not be installed unless approved by the Point Montara Fire District.

16.

The new fireplace shall be of re-enforced masonry construction or shall be a EPA certified Phase 2 fireplace, in conformance with BAAQMD regulations.

17.

Prior to the Planning Department’s final approval of this building permit, the applicant shall remove all encroaching landscaping from the adjacent public right-of-way.

Building Inspection Section

18.

This project clearly exceeds 75% valuation and will be treated as a new structure. A pre-site inspection will be required, as well as fire sprinklers.

Department of Public Works

19.

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.

20.

No proposed construction work, site drainage or landscape planting within any public right-of-way, including The Strand, 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.

21.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project, the applicant shall submit a permanent stormwater management plan in compliance with the County’s Drainage Policy, NPDES requirements and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards for Critically Impaired Areas. Said plan must be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Section and the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the building permit. The plan shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate for the proposed use to effectively prohibit the discharge of pollutants with stormwater runoff and other water runoff produced from the project site.

Point Montara Fire Protection District

22.

Building identification shall be conspicuously posted and visible from the street. (TEMPORARY ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE POSTED PRIOR TO COMBUSTIBLES BEING PLACED ON-SITE). The letters/numerals for permanent address signs shall be of adequate size and of a color, which is contrasting with the background. In no case shall letters/numerals be less than 4 inches in height with a minimum 3/4-inch stroke. Such letters/numerals shall be internally illuminated and facing the direction of access. Please Note: The address should be changed to a Beach Street address to avoid confusion during a 911 response, as The Strand exists only on paper in this area.

23.

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.

24.

The Point Montara Fire Protection District requires a minimum clearance of 30 feet, or to the property line of all flammable vegetation to be maintained around all structures by the property owner. This does not include individual species of ornamental shrubs and landscaping.

25.

As per the California Building Code, local ordinance, and State Fire Marshal regulations, 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 prior to the building final.

26.

As per County and local ordinances, 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 is linen closets less than 24 sq. ft. with full depth shelving. The plans for this system must be submitted to the San Mateo County Building Inspection Section. 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 Point Montara Fire Protection 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 prior to plan review.

27.

An exterior bell and interior horn/strobe are required to be wired into the required flow switch on your 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.

Geotechnical Section

28.

At the building permit stage, the applicant will be required to submit an updated soils report with relevant recommendations.