COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

 

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

 
 

DATE:

January 18, 2008

BOARD MEETING DATE:

February 5, 2008

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

10 days, within 300 feet

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 the 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: 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 (LCP). 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 amount of grading.

 

Planning Commission Action: On May 23, 2007, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the appeal and upheld the Zoning Hearing Officer’s decision to approve the project.

 

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 filed.

     

September 11, 2007

-

Board of Supervisors public hearing. Item continued to October 16, 2007.

     

October 16, 2007

-

Staff requests that this item be continued to a date uncertain, to provide the applicant sufficient time to gather the requested information.

     

February 5, 2008

-

Second Board of Supervisors public hearing.

 

DISCUSSION

 

A.

BACKGROUND

   
 

At the Board’s public hearing on September 11, 2007, the Board requested that the applicant, Karen Trilevsky, submit a supplemental geotechnical report that fully addressed all relevant policies from Chapter 9 of the County’s LCP and a biological report to address the policies of the Sensitive Habitat Component of the LCP. The applicant has submitted these two reports, which are discussed below.

   
 

To assist in the Board’s consideration of this project, staff has included for your review the initial report to your Board, dated September 11, 2007 (See Attachment K).

   

B.

SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

   
 

The applicant’s geotechnical consultant had previously submitted a bluff retreat study in 2006. This report concluded that there would be minimal bluff retreat during the 50-year economic life of the project. However, this report did not address all parts of Policy 9.8 (Regulation of Development on Coastal Bluff Tops). On October 9, 2007, the applicant submitted a supplemental report that addressed the other nine requirements of Policy 9.8(b). This report is included as Attachment B.

   
 

In summary, the October 9 report did not identify any unusual geomorphic conditions on the project site that would affect the project. The report also found that there is no evidence of historic landsliding at the subject site. Bluff failures appear to be solely due to toppling and slumping failures at the face of the bluff associated with undercutting of the toe of the bluff by wave action, and sloughing associated with surface saturation of weathered marine terrace deposits.

   
 

The consultant does note that there are some localized shallow rills where uncontrolled surface waters spill over the top edge of the bluff and create a minor indentation in the face of the bluff, and a slight cut into the soils at the top of the bluff. However, these sources do not appear to have any significant effect on bluff retreat. The consultant did not observe any evidence of bluff instability associated with daylighting of subsurface aquifers. With regards to the potential effects of seismic forces on the project site, the consultant found that the most probable effect of a large earthquake on the subject bluff would consist of toppling and landsliding failures occurring near (within 25 feet) the crest of any unsupported portions of the ocean bluff. Where the bluff is buttressed by the rock riprap, the potential for bluff failure would be substantially reduced, as the face inclination of the riprap is a relatively flat 40 degrees. Any seismic instability on the riprap protected section would most likely take the form of boulders rolling off the face of the riprap section, and a possible net drop in the top of the riprap relative to the top of bluff.

   
 

In summary, the consultant found that the geologic and geotechnical aspects of the site and surrounding areas do not indicate any significant localized anomalies which would affect the erosion rates projected in their previous 2006 report. The ocean bluff retreat rates and projections identified in the 2006 study remain valid, and may continue to be used for design and support of the proposed residential addition. The 2006 report has been included, for the Board’s consideration, as Attachment L.

   

C.

BIOLOGICAL REPORT

   
 

On December 5, 2007, the applicant submitted a biological reconnaissance report (see Attachment C) for the project site and its surroundings. This report was prepared by LSA Associates. No special-status plant or wildlife species were identified on or adjacent to the project site. No wetlands or riparian corridors were identified on the site or nearby. There is an unnamed drainage approximately 75 feet northeast of the project site. However, none of the plant species listed under Policy 7.7 (Definition of Riparian Corridors) of the LCP are present in this drainage. Because of this lack of riparian vegetation, the required buffer zone is only 30 feet. This places the project site outside of the required buffer zone. The report further finds that:

   
   

“The proposed project is not expected to have an adverse effect on marine habitats or water birds and marine mammals in the nearby Fitzgerald Marine Preserve. The residences along The Strand, and adjacent areas on the cliffs above the Preserve, have been in existence for over 40 years. In addition, the Preserve is frequently used by groups of people and individuals interested in observing marine life. Due to the frequent human use of the Preserve and the relatively long-term presence of homes along the top of the sea cliff in Moss Beach, marine mammals and birds in the area have become acclimated to human activity. The proposed project is not expected to have an adverse impact on the wildlife of the adjacent Preserve.”

   
 

Regarding the possibility of bird collisions with the large windows of the proposed addition, the consultant found that the proposed windows are too small in area to have a significant impact on migratory or resident bird populations in the area. Bird collisions are not expected to be greater in frequency than bird collisions with similar large windows on other residences in Moss Beach and would not significantly increase bird mortality in the area.

   
 

In summary, the report concludes that the proposed project is not expected to have an adverse effect on any special-status species known from the area and will not cause impacts to wetlands, riparian areas, sea cliffs, or marine habitats or their associated buffer zones (as defined in the LCP).

   

D.

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.

Supplemental Geotechnical report, prepared by GeoForensics Inc., dated Oct. 9, 2007

   

C.

Biological Reconnaissance Report, prepared by LSA Associates, dated Dec. 5, 2007

   

D.

Location and Vicinity Map

   

E.

Site Plan

   

F.

Floor Plans

   

G.

Second story floor plan as modified by the Zoning Hearing Officer

   

H.

Elevations

   

I.

Landscape Plan

   

J.

Site Survey

   

K.

Staff Report to the Board of Supervisors, dated September 11, 2007

   

L.

Geotechnical Report, prepared by GeoForensics Inc., dated October 9, 2006

   
   

Attachment A

 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND REQUIRED ACTION

 

Permit File Number: PLN 2005-00504

Board Meeting Date: February 5, 2008

 

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, Hazards and the 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. Geotechnical studies have determined that the site is stable and anticipated bluff retreat will not impact the addition within the economic lifespan of the structure. 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 dated September 11, 2007, 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 their 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. 13.

     
 

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 Preserve. 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 dated September 11, 2007, 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 dated September 11, 2007, 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. A condition of approval has been included requiring 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 February 5, 2008. 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 indicated on Attachment G 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 February 5, 2009, 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 three feet to the property line; (b) the proposed wall extension on the lower west side of the existing house is no closer than five feet from the property line; and (c) the addition to the existing garage is no closer than three 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) 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, 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 Department 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.

   

Building Inspection Section

   

17.

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

   

18.

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.

   

19.

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.

   

20.

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

   

21.

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.

   

22.

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.

   

23.

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.

   

24.

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.

   

25.

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 City 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.

   

26.

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

   

27.

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