Owner
(Address)

Parcel Size
(sq. ft.)

House Size
(sq. ft.)

Date of
Construction

Floor Area Ratio

Trilevsky
(324 The Strand)

11,103

2,272
(existing)
3,899
(proposed)

1962

20.5%
(existing)
35.1%
(proposed)

(308 The Strand)

5,900

1,520

1962

25.8%

(301 Nevada Avenue)

5,000

1,330

1961

26.6%

(323 Nevada Avenue)

5,000

2,020

1961

40.4%

(351 Nevada Avenue)

3,700

1,960

2000

52.9%

(355 Nevada Avenue)

3,800

1,440

1975

37.9%

(10 Ellendale Street)

5,000

2,820

1987

56.4%

(364 S Laguna Street)

7,766

1,280

1910

16.5%

(231 Nevada Street)

5,000

1,800

1965

36%

(230 Nevada Avenue)

5,319

1,250

1966

23.5%

(234 Nevada Avenue)

5,227

1,720

2007

32.9%

(262 Nevada Avenue)

3,944

570

1914

14.4%

(278 Nevada Avenue)

5,000

1,890

1980

37.8%

(279 California Avenue)

5,000

2,225

1982

44.5%

(271 California Avenue)

5,000

2,370

1979

47.4%

(Nevada Avenue)

7,500

890

1910

11.8%

(338 Nevada Avenue)

7,500

2,517

1910

33.5%

(346 Nevada Avenue)

6,250

1,120

1972

17.9%

(370 Nevada Avenue)

5,000

2,150

1976

43%

(120 Ellendale Road)

5,000

1,070

1972

21.4%

(379 California Avenue)

5,000

1,200

1982

24%

(363 California Avenue)

7,500

2,200

1967

29.3%

(311 California Avenue)

7,500

1,220

1910

16.2%

(410 Nevada Avenue)

5,000

1,380

1966

27.6%

(422 Nevada Avenue)

7,500

1,680

1972

22.4%

(401 Nevada Avenue)

6,750

1,660

1979

24.6%

(431 Nevada Avenue)

5,508

1,875

1965

34%

(191 Arbor Lane)

11,200

1,990

1974

17.8%

Average (not including project parcel)

5,846.81

1,672.11

N/A

30.24%

Source: County Assessor’s Office

The average parcel size in the surrounding neighborhood is 5,846 sq. ft., whereas the project parcel is approximately 48% greater in size at 11,103 sq. ft. It should be noted that this is the second biggest parcel in the project area. The size of the project parcel would potentially allow for subdivision given the zoning district’s minimum parcel size requirement of 5,000 sq. ft. However, the dimensions and placement of the proposed house on the project parcel would preclude subdivision. The average house size within the study area is 1,672 sq. ft. The proposed addition will result in a house that is 3,899 sq. ft. However, because the project parcel is significantly larger than other parcels within the neighborhood, the resultant house has a floor area ratio of 35.1%, which is compatible with the neighborhood average of 30.24%. The new proposed floor area of 35.1% also is well below the maximum 53% allowed for this zoning district. That maximum floor area ratio was established so that all new development in this district would comply with LCP Policy 8.13(a)(4) and the Coastside Design Review Guidelines, which require structures to be in scale with the character of their setting and blend rather than dominate or distract from the overall view of the surrounding area. Staff considers the proposed changes in the design of the addition to be supportive of a conclusion that the project is in compliance with the LCP and the Design Review Guidelines relating to size and scale of new development.

C.

GEOTECHNICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ISSUES

At the February 5, 2008 Board hearing, supplemental geotechnical and biological reports were presented for the Board’s consideration. In summary, the supplemental geotechnical report found that the geologic and geotechnical aspects of the site and surrounding areas fail to indicate any significant localized anomalies which would affect the erosion rates projected in a 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. Both the geotechnical and biological reports are attached to this Board report.

The biological report concluded that the proposed project will not 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). 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.

D.

COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY PLANS AND ORDINANCE

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 any obstruction of coastal views. During 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 118 sq. ft. addition to the garage will be located at 3 feet from the rear property line. Condition of Approval No. 3 has been proposed 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 its 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, and 20), 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 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.

(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. 9).

(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 complies 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 from the nearest utility pole (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 tie the structures together. The paved areas are screened from public view through the use of extensive landscaping.

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.

F.

ALTERNATIVES

1.

Remand back to the Planning Commission for further review against the policies of the LCP

2.

Remand back to the Design Review Committee for further consideration of the revised project against the Design Review Standards for the Coastside Design Review Committee.

FISCAL IMPACT

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

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

B.

Location and Vicinity Map

C.

Site Plan

D.

Floor Plans

E.

Elevations

F.

Geotechnical and Biological Reports

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 9, 2008

Prepared By: Michael Schaller, Senior Planner

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

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 (barrel roof) 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. 9).

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.

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 September 9, 2008. 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 9, 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 Pt. 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 Pt. Montara Fire District.

16.

The new fireplace shall be of re-enforced masonry construction or shall be an 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 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.

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.