20091020_m


				COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence Planning and Building Department


DATE:						October 5, 2009
BOARD MEETING DATE:						October 20, 2009
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 Design Review and Grading Permit, pursuant to Section 6565.3 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations and Section 8602 of the County Ordinance Code, to allow construction of a 5,364 sq. ft. single-family residence with an attached 635 sq. ft. garage, grading in the amount of 985 cubic yards, and removal of 12 trees on a 20,001 sq. ft. parcel located on Estrada Place in the unincorporated Palomar Park area of San Mateo. (Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, which denied an appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision approving the project.)

			County File Number:		PLN 2005-00603 (Ehteshami)


RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal, and uphold the Bayside Design Review Committee’s (BDRC) recommendation and the Community Development Director’s final decision to approve the project, by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval as shown on Attachment A pursuant to Section 6565.3 of the San Mateo Zoning Regulations and Section 8602 of the County Ordinance Code.

BACKGROUND

Proposal: The applicants are proposing to construct a 5,364 sq. ft. single-family residence with an attached 635 sq. ft. garage on a 20,001 sq. ft. parcel. Construction requires 985 cubic yards of grading and the removal 12 significant trees.

Planning Commission Action: Motion to sustain the appeal that failed on a two-to-two vote; the Community Development Director’s approval of the project remains in place.

Report Prepared By: Erica D. Adams, Bayside Design Review Officer, Telephone 650/363-1828

Appellants: Kurt Oppenheimer and James Goodrich

Owners/Applicants: Babak and Shahla Ehteshami

Location: Estrada Place, Palomar Park

APN: 051-022-420

Size: 20,001 sq. ft.

Existing Zoning: R-1/S-91/DR (Single-Family Residential/10,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size/Design Review)

General Plan Designation: Medium-Low Density Residential (2.4 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre)

Sphere-of-Influence: City of San Carlos

Existing Land Use: Vacant

Water and Sewage Systems: California Water Service and Individual sewage disposal system.

Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map designation indicates parcel as Zone C, Areas of Minimal Flooding, Community-Panel No. 0603110250 B, dated July 5, 1984.

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

Parcel Legality: The existing parcel was created by a 2004 lot line adjustment which created the subject 20,001 sq. ft. parcel and an adjacent 25,689 sq. ft. parcel (APN 051-022-430).

Setting: The project site is located in the unincorporated community of Palomar Park, at the termination of Estrada Place. The site is adjacent to parcels developed with single-family residences, with the closest one being approximately 75 feet to the southeast of the project site. The subject property is currently vacant except for numerous trees. The site has an average slope of 43%. The area is not served by community sewer services, and requires an individual septic system.

DISCUSSION

A.	PAST ACTIONS ON THE PROJECT

	The applicants submitted a Design Review application for a new single-family residence on December 12, 2005. The project also requires a grading permit. The Design Review application is reviewed by the Bayside Design Review Committee (Committee), and the grading permit must be approved by the Community Development Director (Director).

	The Committee reviewed the Design Review proposal for the single-family residence on May 3, 2006, February 7, 2007, May 2, 2007 and June 6, 2007. At each hearing, additional information and modifications were requested. On June 6, 2007, the Committee considered a revised proposal and recommended approval of the project to the Director. The Director made the required findings for the Design Review application and the associated grading permit, and granted final approval on October 1, 2007.

	On October 11 and 12, 2007, the project was appealed by two individuals, Kurt Oppenheimer and James M. Goodrich, respectively. Mr. Oppenheimer appealed the decision on the basis that: (1) the project does not meet the Palomar Park Design Review Standards, and (2) geotechnical concerns were not addressed. Mr. Goodrich also appealed the decision on similar grounds.

	In the time between the filing of the appeal in 2007, and the May 27, 2009 Planning Commission hearing, there was a change in Planning staff which included the resignation of the Design Review Officer who worked on the project, and the appointment of a new one. Additionally, to address concerns raised in the appeal letters, the appellant conducted a second geotechnical study for the site. The study could only be completed outside of the rainy season. A report was received in April 2008, and was reviewed by the County’s Geotechnical Section in May 2008. These items, in addition to the volume of materials to be reviewed to prepare the report, were factors in the extended time frame for the initial appeal hearing.

	The case for the appeal was presented before the Planning Commission on May 27, 2009. The Planning Commission heard testimony from one appellant, the applicants, the County geotechnical staff, the applicants’ geotechnical consultant, and neighbors. One of the appellants and most of the neighbors explained why they believed the project was not in compliance with the Palomar Park Design Review Standards. The applicants explained why they believed the approved plans did meet the design standards, and that they had revised the plans in accordance with, and with guidance from, the Design Review Committee. The other appellant was unable to attend the public hearing.

	Although additional positions were presented during the Planning Commission’s Hearing by both the appellants and the applicants regarding the project’s conformance with Palomar Park Design Review Standards, in regard to making the required findings, Standards 6565.16.A (Site Planning Regarding Tree Removal), 6565.16.B (Architectural Styles), 6565.16.C (Building Shape and Bulk) and 6565.16.L (Paved areas) were the most discussed. The appellant’s positions, and staff’s responses, are detailed below.

	Design Review Standard Section 6565.16. A - Site Planning

	Appellants: The appellants maintain that the proposed house does not meet the design standards because the house is too big, too many trees are proposed for removal, and privacy is not respected.

	Staff Response: The proposal complies with all zoning standards, and is similar in size to other recently approved residences in Palomar Park. The location of the proposed residence on the parcel is constrained by fire truck access, driveway design standards, a required individual sewage disposal system, and the existing topography on the parcel. The parcel has very little area with slopes of less than 20%, which is the maximum incline allowed for a driveway. Siting the residence elsewhere on the property would not only require the removal of trees to install the leach lines, but would also require an engineered sewage disposal system (one that pumps sewage uphill) to be installed. Seventy-five percent of the trees on site will remain, and of the 12 trees proposed to be removed, six are diseased. Many of the remaining trees will provide privacy for the Oppenheimer’s site, supplementing the 30-foot descent in elevation and approximately 80 feet in distance that separate their existing home from the proposed residence. To further protect privacy, frosted glass is proposed for the bathroom windows and 24 replacement trees will be planted on-site.

	An additional letter, dated September 25, 2009 (Attachment K) was received from Kurt Oppenheimer requesting that three replacement trees, not two as prescribed by the Design Review Committee, be required for each tree proposed to be removed from the site. His request was based on Section 6565.20 Standards for the Protection of Trees and Vegetation. Section B of these regulations state: “The replacement of lost trees when required shall be in a manner prescribed by the Design Review Committee or Design Review Administrator, as is applicable, but shall not exceed” the three-to-one replacement ratio. Twenty-four replacement trees are required for this project, which is a two-to-one replacement ratio. It was determined by the Design Review Committee and the Community Development Director that this number of replacement trees along with the remaining trees on site, will adequately screen the development and is appropriate for this residence and accompanying site improvements.

	Planning Commission Discussion: Two Commissioners stated that since at least six of the trees proposed to be removed were diseased and are recommended for removal with or without construction, the proposed tree removal could be supported. One Commissioner believed more trees could be preserved by moving the residence, increasing the step design, and not reconstructing a17-foot shelf/flat area on the site.

	Design Review Standard Section 6565.16. B - Architectural Style

	Appellants: The appellants have stated that the style is not compatible with this portion of Palomar Park and described the proposed residence as a “Mediterranean Villa.”

	Staff Response: The Design Review Committee commented that there are no houses visible in the immediate area which would conflict with the proposed style, and staff’s review of the surrounding residences revealed that all were constructed more than 22 years ago. Staff also notes that the proposed residence would not be visible from the street or from neighboring residences.

	Planning Commission Discussion: During deliberation, three of the four Commissioners present stated concerns regarding whether the proposed residence would be compatible with surrounding properties because there are no other Mediterranean influenced designs in the immediate area.

	Design Review Standard Section 6565.16. C - Building Shape and Bulk

	Appellants: The appellants assert that neither the original, nor the revised design which was approved, steps or conforms with the existing topography. The design, in their view, results in a massive, bulky structure.

	Staff Response: A proposed wine cellar is located in an area underneath the ground floor of the house. This portion of the building steps down. In addition, the front façade of the building appears to step down with the grade. The Design Review Committee did ask the applicants to redesign the initial proposal. The residence was redesigned and new plans were submitted at the second hearing. No formal requests by the Committee to further “step” the design or re-size the house were made in subsequent hearings.

	Planning Commission Discussion: Two Planning Commissioners stated that the house did not have a step design or conform to the existing topography.

	Design Review Standard Section 6565.16. L - Paved Areas

	Appellants: The appellants state that the approved plans include a 154-foot long driveway and is 3,000 sq. ft. to create a “grand” entrance.

	Staff Response: The project does include the extension of Estrada Place to the subject property. This accounts for nearly 1,000 sq. ft. of the paved area referenced in the appeal letter. San Mateo County driveway guidelines are for a minimum 8- and 12-foot maximum driveway width. The Fire Department requires enough space to accommodate a turnaround and has approved the submitted design. In addition, guest parking is provided on-site and cannot occur in the fire truck turnaround.

	Planning Commission Discussion: Two Commissioners expressed concern about the amount of proposed paving.

	Geotechnical Issues

	To address concerns raised in the appeal letters, the applicants hired a second geotechnical consultant to evaluate the site and specifically address issues raised in the appeal letters. Both geotechnical studies have been reviewed by the County geotechnical staff and meet the standards necessary for a recommendation of approval. The Planning Commission, after some discussion, did not have any further concerns about the geotechnical issues.

	Final Planning Commission Action

	The Planning Commission’s action was a tie two-to-two vote that resulted in the denial of the appeal, leaving the Community Development Director’s approval of the project in effect.

	Kurt Oppenheimer and James Goodrich filed appeals (Attachment I) to the Board of Supervisors within the ten (10) day appeal period stating that the reasons for the appeal remain the same as those stated in the original appeal letter, specifically, that the project did not meet the Design Review Standards for Palomar Park found in Section 6565.16 of the Zoning Regulations, and that additional geotechnical studies were needed. Three other letters (Attachment C) requesting reconsideration of the project’s approval were also submitted with similar concerns.

	Response to Additional Correspondence

	On August 14, 2009 the appellant Kurt Oppenheimer submitted an additional letter (Attachment J) to staff regarding the septic system leach field and grading procedures. Staff met with the responsible departments prior to preparing the following responses to the letter. Mr. Oppenheimer’s questions are summarized. Please see Attachment J for the full text. The planning process is explained briefly prior to the response to the letter.

	The planning documents required for a design review approval are not required to provide construction-detail such as those required for a building permit. Prior to the preparation of detailed construction plans, the applicant will coordinate with their construction team and confirm details and sequence.

	At the planning stage, all relevant departments review the submitted documents for conformance to zoning and building codes and identify areas of concern. The review is thorough enough to ensure that the project, as proposed, is feasible with the use of commonly accepted, standard construction techniques, and that all of the identified areas of concern have been addressed with a proposed resolution. The planning review results in a list of requirements commonly known as Conditions of Approval. The applicant is required to meet the Conditions of Approval before: (1) a building permit can be issued to allow construction to begin, or (2) an occupancy permit issued at the end of construction. Project specific plans, sections and details are developed at the building review stage of the project. Construction-detail plans are required when an application for a building permit is submitted. As the details are submitted, additional information may be requested prior to the start or during the construction process on the site.

	At the planning stage, the Environmental Health Division, in addition to requiring a percolation test, reviews the floor plans to determine if an adequately sized septic system has been designed. The septic system must be shown on a site plan with topography, along with the house footprint and floor plan, and associated developments such as a driveway. At the planning stage, the County Geotechnical Section requires a geotechnical report to identify any site-specific concerns and to propose methods to address them. The Department of Public Works evaluates the driveway grades, any proposed development in the right-of-way, and reviews proposed facilities to address stormwater runoff. Cal-Fire reviews the plans to determine if adequate access has been provided for emergency vehicles. Each agency has the authority to request modifications to the building plans for conformance with the planning stage’s conditions of approval.

	Staff Responses to August 14, 2009 Letter from Mr. Kurt Oppenheimer:

	Question 1: The septic plans that were submitted and approved in October 2006 for this highly constrained lot are only for a three-bedroom house, but the proposed house is and always has been a four-bedroom home.

	Staff Response: The applicant indicated that the initial design was a three-bedroom house. The floor plan has been modified to have three bedrooms. (See Attachment F)

	Questions 2, 3, and 4 are addressed as a group.

	Question 2: Has the County approved putting a leach field in landslide debris, contrary to County policy?

	Question 3: If the leach field is allowed to be placed in landslide debris, please address the exception involving proximity of a stream, changes to the septic system from the approved plans, and revised topographical data?

	Question 4: If the leach field needs to be placed in competent soil below the landslide debris in accordance with County policy, please address the following:

		a.	How much excavation is required for the septic system?

		b.	Is there an impact to the stitch pier with septic installation?

		c.	If the landslide debris is deeper than expected will the septic line be deeper?

		d.	(question ii.a) Is the septic system trenching included in the grading amounts?

	Staff Response: The leach field will not be near a stream or other mapped waterway. The leach field will not be in the landslide debris. It will be located underneath the landslide in competent soil. If the landslide material is deeper than anticipated, the trench lines will still be placed below it in competent soil. Installing the leach field will not impact the stitch pier. However, if modifications need to be made, they will be called for by the applicant’s Geotechnical Consultant. The project civil engineers will work to adequately install stitch piers and the septic system, and all plans and modifications will be reviewed by the County’s Geotechnical Section and Environmental Health Division before they are implemented at the site.

	The Environmental Health Division has reviewed the existing septic system plans. It has been determined that a septic system which can support a three bedroom house can be installed on this site. Prior to the issuance of a permit from the Environmental Health Division, the applicant must submit a final septic design plan that will meet Environmental Health standards. The final plans will include the location of the soil percolation holes, design of the primary and expansion fields, along with the location of the house and driveway.

	The applicant’s civil engineer indicated that the fill for the septic system was included in the initial grading amount of 985 cubic yards. The trenching that will be required will be an additional 110 cubic yards of cut. The current plans call for 830 cubic yards of grading. With the additional 110 cubic yards, the project would require 940 cubic yards of grading, still less than the approved amount.

	Question 5: Construction of both the stitch pier walls and septic system will take place on a slope of 22 degrees… in order to safely operate the construction equipment, won’t benching between the stitch pier walls be required?

	Staff Response: The operation and choice of machinery at the construction site is the responsibility of the property owner and his or her contractors. The County has no reason to suspect that equipment will be improperly used on the site.

	Question 6: Based on the typical cross-section from Macleod and Associates, Drawing C-1, dated 04-08-09, benching for all six septic lines could be over 485 cubic yards. Replacing the benching to the original slope lines requires 485 cubic yards of compacted fill. The approved grading amounts were only for construction of the house and driveway. (Are the grading amounts accurate?)

	Staff Response: The current grading plan is dated June 4, 2007. Earth movement for the installation of a septic system is typically not included in the grading amounts. However, the applicant’s civil engineer indicated that the fill for the septic system was accounted for in the amounts submitted. The trenching amount of 110 cubic yards was not, but has now been added as indicated above, for a total amount of 940 cubic yards of grading.

	Questions 7, 8, and 9 are addressed as a group.

	Question 7: If benching is required for the safe construction of the septic field, then the downhill side of the middle and upper stitch pier wall would be exposed by 5 to 7 feet. (What is the impact of that, and is a there a better location to allow for maintenance?)

	Question 8: What is the impact to stitch pier walls from digging under the pier wall?

	Question 9: Wouldn’t it be wise to require better access to the lower part of the applicant’s property for maintenance?

	Staff Response: Benching may be a technique used by the civil engineer; however, there are no adverse effects anticipated with this process. Stitch piers do not require maintenance. The applicant’s engineers will develop a way to install all of the associated development. A condition of approval has been added to ensure that no stitch piers are exposed. The building plans will be prepared by a certified geotechnical engineer and reviewed and approved by the appropriate departments.

B.	PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY REGULATIONS

	1.	Conformance with the General Plan

		The project conforms to specific General Plan Policies, in particular Policies 4.14 (Appearance of New Development) and 4.35 (Urban Area Design Concept) that require structures to promote and enhance good design, improve the appearance and visual character of development in the area by managing the location and appearance of the structure.

	2.	Conformance with Zoning Regulations

		The project is in compliance with the R-1/S-91 Zoning Regulations as shown in the chart below.


Development Standards	Zoning Requirements	Proposal
Building Site Area	10,000 sq. ft.	20,001 sq. ft.
Building Site Width	50 ft.	50 ft.
Minimum Setbacks
Front	20 ft.	26 ft.
Rear	20 ft.	20 ft.
Sides	10 ft.	10 ft.
Lot Coverage	6,000 sq. ft. (30%)	3,626 sq. ft. (18%)
Building Floor Area	5,600 sq. ft. for residence 400 sq. ft. garage allowance	5,999 sq. ft. (30%)* 5,364 sq. ft. proposed for house 635 sq. ft. proposed for garage
Building Height	28 ft.	28 ft.
Minimum Parking	2 covered spaces	3 covered spaces
*Indicates total of all floor areas and the garage.


	3.		Conformance with Design Review Regulations

			The project complies with Design Review Standards as previously discussed in this report and in the Planning Commission staff report dated May 27, 2009. (See Attachment L)

	4.		Conformance with the Grading Ordinance

			The Community Development Director made the required findings associated with the grading permit based on the following:

			The proposed grading plan was prepared by a licensed civil engineer and reviewed by the San Mateo County Department of Public Works. The grading plan is based on two independent, but concurring geotechnical studies and has been reviewed by the Department of Public Works. The project conforms to the criteria of Chapter 8, Division VII of the Grading Ordinance, including the standards referenced in Section 8605. Finally, the proposed grading will be subject to standard conditions of approval that include pre-construction, during, and post-construction measures to ensure that the project is in compliance with San Mateo County Grading Ordinance.

C.	ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

	The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3(a), construction of a single-family residence, in a residential zone, within an urbanized area.

D.	REVIEWING AGENCIES

	Department of Public Works
	Building Inspection Section
	Geotechnical Section
	Cal-Fire
	Environmental Health Department
	Palomar Park Property Owners Association

The approval of the Design Review and Grading Permits to allow the construction of a new single-family residence, contributes to the Livable Communities 2025 Shared Vision because it is consistent with the County’s land use regulations, including the Palomar Park Design Review Standards, General Plan, and Zoning Regulations. The property is located within the Palomar Park neighborhood.

ATTACHMENTS

A.	Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval
B.	Location Map
C.	Site Plan
D.	Grading Plan
E.	Elevation Drawings and Cross Sections
F.	Floor Plans
G.	Tree Removal Plan
H.	Planning Commission Letter of Decision June 1, 2009
I.	Appeal Letters
J.	Kurt and Sue Oppenheimer’s Letter dated August 14, 2009
K.	Additional Correspondence
L.	Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments


Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit File Number: PLN 2005-00603					Board Meeting Date: October 20, 2009

Prepared By: Erica D. Adams						For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors


RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

For the Environmental Review Find:

1.		That the project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303, Class 3, relating to the construction of a single-family residence, in a residential zone, within an urbanized area.

For the Design Review Find:

2.		That the project has been reviewed and is in compliance with the Design Review Standards for Palomar Park, Section 6565-16 of San Mateo County Zoning Regulations. Specifically, the Board of Supervisors finds that the proposal: (a) minimizes tree removal and blockage of sunlight on neighboring buildings, (b) respects the privacy of neighboring houses and outdoor living areas, (c) is architecturally compatible with the neighborhood, (d) is step-designed to be compatible with the natural topography of the site, (e) has well proportioned and articulated façades, and (f) utilizes earth-tone colors comparable with the natural setting and the neighborhood.

For the Grading Permit Find:

3.		That the granting of the permit will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment due to the fact that the proposed grading will be subject to conditions of approval that include pre-construction, during, and post-construction measures to ensure that the project is in compliance with San Mateo County Grading Ordinance.

4.		That the project conforms to the criteria of the grading regulations, including the standards referenced in Section 8605.

		These standards are addressed through the erosion and sediment control measures that have been required, must remain in place, and will be monitored throughout construction. A dust control plan must be submitted for approval and implemented on the site. The proposed grading was prepared by a licensed civil engineer and reviewed by the San Mateo County Department of Public Works and grading is only allowed from April 15 to October 15. In addition, the project is required to get a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.

5.		That the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan with respect to grading and minimizing environmental impacts.

6.		That the granting of the permit will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment due to the fact that the proposed grading will be subject to conditions of approval that include pre-construction, during, and post-construction measures to ensure that the project is in compliance with San Mateo County Grading Ordinance.

7.		That the project is consistent with the General Plan with respect to grading allowed on land designated as “Medium Low Density Residential” and located within a Design Review District.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Current Planning Section

1.		This approval applies only to the proposal as described on the plans and documents submitted to the Planning Department on December 14, 2005, and resubmitted on January 1, May 22, and an engineered grading plan on May 22, 2007. Any revisions to the approved plans must be submitted to the Planning Section for review and approval prior to implementation. Minor adjustments to the project may be approved by the Community Development Director if they are consistent with the intent of and are in substantial conformance with this approval.

2.		This approval shall be valid for one year from the date of this decision, in which time the grading and building permits shall be issued. The grading permit shall only be issued concurrently with the building permit for the house. If these permits have not been issued within this time period, this approval will expire. An extension to this approval will be considered upon written request and payment of applicable fees 60 days prior to expiration.

3.		The applicants shall forward the following requirements, stipulated by the Bayside Design Review Committee, to the Design Review Officer for review and approval. These changes shall be included on the applicants’ building permit plans:

		a.		Remove the family room chimney.

		b.		The southerly bathroom windows need to utilize frosted glass, to be noted on the rear elevation plans.

		c.		The covered walkway shall be no greater than three feet, six inches wide.

		d.		Tree protection measures are required and shall be implemented prior to any construction or grading activity for the west and south sides of the property to protect the significant oak trees.

		e.		The lower exterior elevations shall include quoins, to be verified as a final inspection by the Planning Department.

		f.		Replacement trees shall be of 15-gallon minimum size of a ratio of two trees for each tree removed (for a total of 24 trees). Tree species shall be live oaks and bays, and shall be planted south and on the southwest sides of the house buffering it from rear neighbors.

		g.		The garage ceiling shall comply with the Building Code of eight feet minimum while the structure’s height and grading will not be affected.

		h.		Any damage to Estrada Place during construction shall be repaired by the property owner.

		i.		As submitted, all mechanical equipment and HVAC shall be contained within the structure.

		j.		The Geotechnical Section of the Building Inspection Section shall review and approve the applicants’ submittal of the geotechnical report, addressing soils, and specifically debris covered by dirt 57 years ago.

		k.		No structural supports (stitch pier) shall remain exposed on the hillside. They shall be covered by earth or vegetation.

4.		The provisions of the San Mateo County Grading Ordinance shall govern all grading on the site.

5.		At the completion of all grading activities, the applicants’ geotechnical consultant shall submit to the Planning Department, a signed Section Two indicating they have observed all grading activities and that the work conformed to the recommendations presented in their report.

6.		These permits do not allow for the removal of any additional trees other than the twelve (12) trees identified on the plans and discussed in the staff report. Removal of any additional trees with a diameter greater than 12 inches as measured 4.5 feet above the ground shall require a separate tree removal permit.

7.		No grading shall be allowed during the winter season (October 15 to April 15) to avoid potential soil erosion unless approved, in writing, by the Community Development Director.

8.		The applicants shall submit a letter to the Planning Department at least two weeks prior to the commencement of grading stating when grading will begin.

9.		The applicant shall implement erosion control prior to the beginning of grading or construction operations. Re-vegetation of denuded areas shall begin immediately upon completion of grading/construction operations.

10.		The Grading Permit “Hard Card” and the Building Permit shall be issued at the same time. No grading shall occur until the Hard Card has been issued.

11.		Noise levels produced by construction shall not exceed the 80-dBA level at any one moment. Construction activity 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 operation shall be prohibited on Sunday and any national holiday.

12.		All new power and telephone lines from the street or nearest existing utility pole to the main dwelling and/or any other structure on the property shall be installed underground. No new or additional utility pole(s) may be installed.

13.		The applicants shall provide “finished floor elevation verification” on the submitted building plans to certify that the structure is actually constructed at the height shown on the submitted plans. The applicants shall have a licensed surveyor or engineer establish a baseline elevation datum point in the vicinity of the construction site.

		a.		The applicants 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.		The datum point and its elevation shall be shown on the submitted site plan. This datum point shall be used during construction to verify the elevation of the finished floors relative to the existing natural or to the grade of the site (finished grade).

		c.		Prior to Planning approval of the building permit application, the applicants shall also have the licensed land surveyor or engineer indicate on the construction plans: (1) the natural grade elevations, and (2) the elevations of proposed finished grades.

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

		e.		Once the building is under construction, prior to the below floor framing inspection or the pouring of the concrete slab (as the case maybe) for the lowest floor, the applicants 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 from the elevation specified in the plans, then the applicants 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.

14.		During project construction, the applicants shall, pursuant to Section 5022 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code, minimize the transport and discharge of stormwater runoff from the construction site into storm drain systems by:

		a.		Stabilizing all denuded areas and maintaining erosion control measures continuously between October 1 and May 1.

		b.		Removing spoils promptly, and avoiding stockpiling of fill materials when rain is forecast. If rain threatens, stockpiled soils and other materials shall be covered with a tarp or other waterproof material.

		c.		Storing, handling, and disposing of construction materials and wastes so as to avoid their entry into the storm drain system or water body.

		d.		Using filtration or other measures to remove sediment from dewatering effluent.

		e.		Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in an area designated to contain and treat runoff.

		f.		Limiting and timing application of pesticides and fertilizer to avoid polluting runoff.

15.		The project shall include water runoff prevention measures for the operation and maintenance of the project for the review and approval by the Community Development Director. The project shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the uses conducted on-site to effectively prohibit the discharge of pollutants with stormwater runoff and other water runoff produced from the project.

16.		The applicants shall submit an erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 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 a sectional drawing showing how the measures shall be installed. All erosion control devices shall be installed on site prior to any grading activities on-site.

17.		The applicants shall submit a stormwater management plan, which shall include a site plan and narrative of the types of permanent stormwater controls that will be installed on site to minimize the surface water runoff. At a minimum, the directly connected impervious areas shall be minimized, downspouts shall be directed to landscaped areas and pervious materials shall be used for the access road, if possible, and any patio or walkway areas near the proposed residence.

18.		No site disturbance shall occur, including any grading, until a building permit has been issued.

19.		Prior to issuance of the grading permit “hard card” and building permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the NPDES permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Building Inspection Section

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

		a.		Prior to pouring any concrete for foundations, written verification from a licensed surveyor will be required confirming that the setbacks, as shown on the approved plans, have been maintained.

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

		c.		If a water main extension or upgrade of hydrant is required, this work must be completed prior to issuance of the building permit or the applicants must submit a copy of an agreement and contract with the water purveyor that will ensure the work will be completed prior to finalizing the permit.

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

		e.		Sediment and erosion control measures must be installed prior to beginning any site work and maintained throughout the term of the permit. Failure to install or maintain these measures will result in stoppage of construction until the corrections have been made and fees paid for staff enforcement time.

		f.		No wood-burning fireplaces unless EPA Phase II certified.

		g.		The room presently designated as Exercise Room must be re-designated as a bedroom due to the closet.

		h.		The building plans are required to comply with the most recent County Green Building Regulations at time of application.

Department of Public Works

21.		Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicants will be required to provide payment of “roadway mitigation fees” based on the square footage (assessable space) of the proposed building per Ordinance Number 3277.

22.		The provision of San Mateo County Grading Ordinance shall govern all grading on and adjacent to this site. Unless exempted by the Grading Ordinance, the applicants may be required to apply for a Grading Permit upon completion of their review of the plans and should access construction be necessary.

23.		No proposed construction work within the County right-of-way shall begin until County requirements for the issuance of an encroachment permit, including review of the plans, have been met and an encroachment permit issued.

24.		A maintenance and operations agreement shall be signed, recorded and run with the land to allow the proposed development within the County right-of-way. A bond (amount to be determined) is required to secure the work and an agreement to hold the owners (present and future) liable for any maintenance, repair or removal work.

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

County Fire Department

26.		The applicants shall comply with the County Fire Department requirements during building permit stage.

County Environmental Health Division

27,		Applicant shall submit current septic design plans that will meet Environmental Health standards. The plans shall include the location of the soil percolation holes, design of the primary and expansion fields, along with the location of the house and driveway. Plans shall have the percolation test data affixed onto the plans with contours. Grading and drainage plans are also required.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence