COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

DATE:

February 16, 2006

BOARD MEETING DATE:

March 7, 2006

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

10 days, within 300 ft.

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

SUBJECT:

Consideration of a Coastside Design Review Permit and Coastal Development Exemption, pursuant to Sections 6565.11 and 6328.5 of the County Zoning Regulations, to construct a new 399 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1,965 sq. ft. single-family dwelling on a 6,000 sq. ft. parcel located at 930 Ventura Street in the unincorporated El Granada area of San Mateo County (appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving the Design Review application). This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

County File Number:

PLN 2004-00578 (Cook)

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the project by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval listed in Attachment A.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: The proposed project furthers commitment (number 9) “Responsive, Effective, and Collaborative Government” and commitment (number 4) “Offer a full range of housing choices.”

Goal: The project furthers Goal No. 20, which states that: “Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.” The Planning Commission carefully considered the proposed project and found that the project complies with the General Plan, LCP Policies and Zoning Regulations. The project also furthers Goal No. 9, which states: “Housing exists for all people at all income levels and for all generations of families.” The proposal to construct an addition to an existing new single-family residence in an urban area furthers this commitment.

BACKGROUND

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 399 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1,965 sq. ft. single-family residence on a 6,000 sq. ft. parcel.

Design Review Committee Action: The Design Review Committee voted 2-1 to approve the project on April 14, 2005.

Planning Commission Action: As a result of an appeal filed by Yvonne Bedore on May 4, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the proposed project on September 28, 2005, and voted 3-2 to approve the project (Commissioners Bomberger and Wong dissenting).

Report Prepared By: Farhad Mortazavi, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1831

Lead Appellant: Steve Terry

Co-Appellants: Yvonne and Michael Bedor, Elizabeth and Henry Schopp, Chuck Kozak, April Vargas, Kathryn Slater-Carter, and Sara Bassler

Applicant: James McCord

Owner: Paul and Dona Cook

Location: 930 Ventura Street, El Granada

APN: 047-293-080

Size: 6,000 sq. ft.

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

General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 8.7 dwelling per acre)

Sphere-of-Influence: City of Half Moon Bay

Existing Land Use: Single-Family Residential

Water Supply: Coastside County Water District

Sewage Disposal: Granada Sanitary District

Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map designation indicates parcels as Zone C, Areas of Minimal Flooding, Community Panel No. 060311 0113 B, dated August 5, 1984.

Environmental Evaluation: Categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1, construction of an addition to an existing structure in an urban area.

Setting: The subject house is located on a parcel on the west side of Ventura Street between Avenue Cabrillo and Santiago Avenue in El Granada. The parcel slopes down moderately from the street towards the west. The house is a two-story structure, 21.5 ft. high, with a portion of the ground floor not visible from the street. This block of El Granada contains some ocean views. Parcels in the vicinity are developed with one- and two-story single-family dwellings.

Chronology:

Date

Action

November 18, 1907

-

Parcel is created under subdivision Number 1 of Granada.

1934

-

A two-story single-family dwelling is constructed.

November 10, 2004

-

Applicant applied for a 399 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1,965 sq. ft. single-family residence.

April 14, 2005

-

The Coastside Design Review Committee (the Committee) reviewed and approved the project by a majority vote.

May 4,2005

-

The project is appealed to the Planning Commission by Yvonne Bedor.

September 28, 2005

-

The project was presented to the Planning Commission. The Commissioners, by a vote of 3-2 (Commissioners Bomberger and Wong dissenting), denied the appeal of the Committee’s decision and approved the project.

October 18, 2005

-

The project is appealed to the Board of Supervisors by Steve Terry and eight co-appellants.

March 7, 2006

-

The Board of Supervisors public hearing.

DISCUSSION

A.

KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

The Planning Commission approved the project on September 28, 2005 and that decision was appealed by Steve Terry and eight co-appellants to the Board of Supervisors on October 18, 2005. The key issues of the appeal are the project’s non-compliance with Coastside Design Review Standards: (1) elements of design, creating a third story, (2) relationship to existing topography, and (3) architectural style, building mass, shape and scale, neighborhood scale.

As detailed in Attachment B, the appellant raises the following issues (in bold) in his appeal, as summarized below, followed by staff’s response.

The appellant on pages 1, 2, and 3 of his appeal made a comprehensive reference to the County’s definition of a basement and story, and regulatory standards for design review. Staff will not address these issues since there are no disagreements regarding the definitions of a basement and a story, and that the County’s Design Review Standards are the overall regulatory tool for enforcing these requirements. Also, the appellant’s comments regarding the project’s review by the Midcoast Community Council is discussed in Section G of this report. The following are the appellant’s issues:

1.

Although the entire 6,000 sq. ft. lot, taken as a whole, is not level, much or most of the slope is in the front setback Indeed, judging from the elevation drawings, the existing house itself sits on a portion of the lot that slopes relatively little, with only one small corner of the house not on flat ground (i.e., below grade). The contour lines on the site plan drawing suggests the overall slope may be slightly larger – perhaps three or four feet from front to back. Thus, practically speaking, the house currently sits on a relatively level portion of the lot. It is important to note that consideration of the lot, as a whole, to evaluate levelness is largely meaningless as it would imply that a lot which is generally flat, but contains a drop-off on at one end (as do many lots in the El Granada hills) would be entitled to build without the constraints of this DR standard on the flat portion of the property. On the other hand, it is entirely appropriate to consider this standard relative to any portion of the lot that an owner chooses to build on. For this project proposal, the existing house is situated on relatively level portion of the lot and thus this standard is applicable. It is not in dispute that this project proposal makes use of more than two usable floors. The problem is that no effort was ever made to avoid such a design. In response to a neighbor’s suggestion during the public comment period that they build “out” rather than “up,” the CDRC acknowledged that the lot was very deep (50 ft. by 120 ft.), but was remiss in discussing such a design as an alternative – an effort that likely would have led to an avoidance of the third floor thereby satisfying the requirements of this standard.

Staff’s Response: As noted by the appellant, Section 6565.20(D)1.b(2) of the Design Review Standards indicates “On relatively level lots, avoid designs that incorporate more than two useable floors, excluding basements, within the maximum height limit, since this contributes to a massive or boxy appearance for the home and makes it more difficult to be in scale with surrounding one- and two-story homes. Multiple stories are allowed on sloping lots where it is necessary to ensure that the home steps up or down with the slope.” The proposed 399 sq. ft. addition is to add a 196 sq. ft. to the main level of the house and add a 152 sq. ft. (not including 51 sq. ft. of its staircase) loft/view room on top. The Design Review regulation seeks to avoid more than two usable floors on relatively level lots. The regulatory language uses the words “to avoid” and does not use language such as “shall not,” therefore the proposal did not have to comply with the two-story limitation. In addition, the regulation states “on relatively level lots.” As indicated above by the appellant, the 6,000 sq. ft. lot, taken as a whole, is not level; much or most of the slope is in the front setback. Also, the house does not currently sit on a relatively level portion of the lot. The house, built in 1934, was located on a graded portion of the lot. The 120 ft. long parcel includes a 6-foot drop within its first 50 feet, or a 12 percent slope where the front setback is and where the house is located. Thus, the subject section of the Design Regulations would not apply to this project since the parcel, taken as a whole, is not a relatively flat lot. Therefore, the proposal complies with this Design Review Standard.

2.

If the third story of this project proposal were to comply with the Design Review Standard on page 11, it would need to be demonstrated that it arose from a stepped design. In this respect, there are two problems with the proposed design: (1) the third story is on the wrong side (the downhill side) of the house and (2) the house is not situated on the more steeply sloped portion of the lot which might otherwise necessitate the multiple story. As noted in the summary on page 1 of Planning staff’s September 28 report to the Planning Commission, “The Committee’s minority vote expressed concern regarding the project’s non-compliance with the step-design requirement stipulated by the Midcoast Design Review Standards.”

Staff’s Response: The Coastside Design Review Standards’ Policy on page 11 regarding the relationship to existing topography stipulates “To the extent feasible, structures shall conform to the existing topography of the site by requiring the portion of the house above the existing grade to step up or down the hillside in the same direction as the existing grade.” The loft addition of the proposal (third story addition) sits towards the rear half of the existing house and is not step-designed in relation to the existing house and the site’s topography. However, the policy states “to the extent feasible.” The loft addition could be placed forward towards the street in order to comply with the policy, but by doing so, it would have created a 25-foot wall and a larger mass facing the street where it would be more visible, a less articulated façade, and affected more neighbors across the street and their view shed (including the first appellant, appealing the project to Planning Commission, Mrs. Yvonne Bedor). Placing the loft addition towards the rear half of the house, creates a more articulated façade, and a lesser mass viewed from the street.

At the Design Review Committee hearing, one of the Committee members expressed concern regarding the project’s non-compliance with the step-design requirement. However, the Committee as a whole and, in turn, the Planning Commission by a majority vote, approved the project including its third floor loft design. The proposal including its loft design complies with the standards and is in conformance with the design requirement.

3.

Another significant Design Review Standard appears to have been misinterpreted and/or not fully understood by the CDRC and Planning staff. Section 6565.20(D)2.a.(1) of the Design Review Standards on page 17 states: “Use an architectural style and design elements that complement the predominant style of nearby homes, only when such homes conform with the Design Standards. Likewise, avoid the architectural styles and design elements of nearby homes when such homes do not conform with the Design Standards.” This standard is supported and clarified in the associated guidelines in section 6565.20(D)2.a, Elements of Design; Architectural Styles and Features; Architectural Style, also on page 17. It states in part: “Designing a home and choosing a style that is complementary to adjacent homes can be challenging when the homes are of many different styles, have no defined architectural style or do not conform to these Design Standards (e.g., they have architectural details that are inconsistent, out of proportion, or inappropriate for the style). In that case, a project designer should strive for a style that at least is not jarring or disruptive in appearance when compared to adjacent homes.” This concept is further supported and reinforced in section 6565.20(D)1.b, Elements of Design; Building Mass, Shape and Scale; Neighborhood Scale on page 12: “Where adjacent homes are not built to conform to these Design Standards (e.g., they have little articulation and appear out of proportion, boxy or massive), project designers are encouraged to avoid repeating such mistakes in an effort to be in scale with the neighborhood.”

Staff’s Response: In addition to the appellant’s indication of the Coastside Design Review Standards’ Policy on page 17 Section 6565.20(D)2.a.(1), the policy continues directing “Where no predominant architectural style can be defined, encourage compatibility through the use of similar building shapes, exterior materials or colors or architectural futures such as roofs, windows, doors, etc.” The additions include a 196 sq. ft. main level rear addition not visible from the street, and a 152 sq. ft. loft addition (not including 51 sq. ft. of its staircase). The 2-story house built in 1934 is not an uncommon or a contemporary architectural style. The additions incorporate the existing colors and materials to complement the house’s architectural style, and by placing the loft towards the rear half of the house, a more articulated façade and structure are proposed that improve the existing solid roof design. Also, the loft design creates lesser mass as seen from the street, then if it were placed in front of the existing roofline facing the street.

Both the Committee and the Planning Commission found the proposal to be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood and the decision-makers agreed that the proposed architectural style is not inconsistent, inappropriate, or incompatible with the neighborhood. In addition, the Committee and the Planning Commission agreed that the project is within the building mass, shape and scale of the neighborhood, and is not repeating any inappropriate design standards in the neighborhood. The proposal also complies with all County’s Zoning, General Plan, and Design Review Standards.

B.

CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN

The project, as proposed and conditioned, conforms with General Plan Policies, with applicable policies discussed below:

The project conforms with General Plan Policies pertaining to Visual Quality and Urban Land Use, as detailed in the Montara-Moss Beach-El Granada Community Plan under Policy 8.8 (Designation of Existing Urban Communities). A single-family residence is the principal land use and conforms with the General Plan designation of Medium-Low Density Residential.

Policies 4.14 (Appearance of New Development) and 4.35 (Urban Area Design Concept) 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. The Planning Commission found the small addition to be located appropriately and the project to be similar in character with other homes in the area.

C.

COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING REGULATIONS

The table below shows the project’s compliance with the R-1/S-17 Zoning Regulations.

R-1/S-17 Development Standards

Zoning Requirements

Proposal

Building Site Area

5,000 sq. ft.

6,000 sq. ft. (existing)

Building Site Width

50 ft.

50 ft.

Minimum Setbacks:

Front

20 ft.

19.3 ft.*

Rear

20 ft.

68 ft.

Sides

Combined total of 15 ft. with a minimum of 5 ft. on any side

Existing 7.7 ft. on left, and 3 ft. on right* (11 ft. on left and 12 ft. on right for the addition)

Lot Coverage

2,100 sq. ft. (35%)

1,444 sq. ft. (24.1%)

Building Floor Area

3,180 sq. ft. (53%)

2,364 sq. ft. (39.4%)

Building Height

28 ft.

26.9 ft.

Minimum Parking

2 covered spaces

2 covered spaces

*Indicates existing non-conforming setbacks, which do not change with this project.

D.

PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH COASTSIDE DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS

The project was found to comply with the County’s Coastside Design Review Standards (Section 6565.7), with specific discussion as follow:

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 (see Section D of this report) to provide adequate space for light and air to itself and adjacent properties. In addition, no neighbors within the 300-ft. radius of the site raised any issues regarding adequate space and light at the public hearing.

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 applicant is proposing a 196 sq. ft. first floor and 203 sq. ft. loft addition at the rear of the structure. The addition does not require any additional grading and by conditioning the approval (see Condition of Approval Numbers 4 and 5) does not create problems of drainage or erosion on its site or adjacent property.

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 natural drainage systems at the site.

4.

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

5.

Trees and other vegetation land cover are removed only when necessary for the construction of the structures or paved areas in order to reduce erosion and impacts on natural drainage channels, and maintain surface runoff at acceptable levels. The addition requires no tree or vegetation removal and no paved areas are proposed.

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. The Planning Commission found that the small addition does not require new landscaping.

7.

Views are protected by the height and location of structures and through the selective pruning or removal of tree and vegetative matter at the end of view corridors. The site is located within an urban area in El Granada and could contain some ocean view corridors. The Planning Commission found that the proposal does not interfere with views from neighboring houses.

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 the bluffs and cliffs to protect views from scenic areas below. The site is not located on the edge of a bluff or cliff.

10.

Public views to and along the shoreline from public roads and other public lands are protected. The project site is in an urban area of El Granada, and the small addition is minimal in nature, and would not adversely affect public views to and along the shoreline from public roads and other public lands.

11.

Varying architectural styles are made compatible through the use of similar material and colors which blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed project conforms to design requirements including varying architectural styles. Houses of similar colors and materials appear in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed small addition will utilize the existing colors and materials of the building to blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhood.

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 the adjacent building in the community. The proposed addition is to an existing single-family dwelling, an allowed use in this zoning district. The Planning Commission found that the proposed structure is in harmony with the shape, size and scale of the adjacent buildings, for the reasons previously discussed in this report.

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 (see Condition of Approval Number 6, Attachment A).

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 for 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. There are no proposals to change the existing driveway.

E.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT EXEMPTION

The proposal conforms to Section 6328.5(e) of the County Zoning Regulations, complies with all zoning district regulations, and is located within the area designated as a Categorical Exclusion Area, and thus qualifies for an exemption from the requirement for a Coastal Development Permit. As such, the project is not subject to review against Local Coastal Program policies.

F.

MIDCOAST COMMUNITY COUNCIL REVIEW

A referral of the project was sent to the Midcoast Community Council (MCCC) on November 23, 2004 and they reviewed the project at their meeting on December 15, 2004. The MCCC commented that the addition creates a three-level house, violating the Coastside Design Review Standards, and should be revised to comply with County Zoning Regulations Section 6565.20.D.1.b.2 (Standards for Neighborhood Scale, see Attachment L). The Committee and the Planning Commission subsequently found the proposal to be consistent with Design Review Standards.

G.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1, construction of an addition to an existing structure in an urban area.

H.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

Department of Public Works

Building Inspection Section

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District

Midcoast Community Council

FISCAL IMPACT

None.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

B.

Appeal Letter and List of Co-Appellants

C.

Vicinity Map

D.

Location Map

E.

Site Plan and Loft Floor Plan

F.

Existing Ground Level Floor Plan

G.

Existing Upper Level Floor Plan

H.

Proposed Ground and First Floor Plan

I.

Elevations

J.

Sections

K.

Design Review and Planning Commission Approval Letter

L.

MCCC Letter of Recommendation

M.

Objection Letters

N.

Supporting Letters

O.

Appellant’s Additional Document

Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit File Number: PLN 2004-00578

Board Meeting Date: March 7, 2006

Prepared By: Farhad Mortazavi

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

For the Environmental Review

1.

Find that the project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301, Class 1, relating to addition to an existing structure in an urban area.

For the Coastal Development Exemption

2.

Find that the proposed residence conforms to Section 6328.5(e) of the County Zoning Regulations and is located within the area designated as a Categorical Exclusion Area.

For the Design Review

3.

Find that this project has been reviewed under and found to be in compliance with the Design Review Standards for Coastside Districts, Section 6565.7 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Planning Division

1.

The project shall be constructed in compliance with the plans submitted and approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 7, 2006. Any changes or revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Design Review Officer or, where necessary, the Committee for approval. 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. Any other developments on the property will be subject to a separate permitting process.

2.

This permit shall be valid for one year from the date of approval in which time a building permit shall be issued. Any extension of this permit shall require submittal of an application for permit extension and payment of applicable extension fees sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date.

3.

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 topmost elevation of the roof. The datum point and topmost roof elevation must be shown on the plan, elevations, and cross-section (if one is provided).

c.

Once the building is under construction, the applicant shall provide to the Building Inspection Section a letter from the licensed land surveyor or engineer certifying the topmost elevation of the roof.

d.

If the actual 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.

4.

During project construction, the applicant 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 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.

5.

The applicant shall include an erosion and sediment control plan on the plans submitted for the building permit. This plan shall identify the type and location of erosion control devices to be installed upon the commencement of construction in order to maintain the stability of the site and prevent erosion and sedimentation off-site.

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 Half Moon Bay 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 those trees approved for removal shall be removed.

9.

To reduce the impact of construction activities on neighboring properties, comply with the following:

a.

All debris shall be contained on-site; a dumpster or trash bin shall be provided on-site during construction to prevent debris from blowing onto adjacent properties. The applicant shall monitor the site to ensure that trash is picked up and appropriately disposed of daily.

b.

The applicant shall remove all construction equipment from the site upon completion of the use and/or need of each piece of equipment which shall include but not be limited to tractors, back hoes, cement mixers, etc.

c.

The applicant shall ensure that no construction related vehicles shall impede through traffic along the right-of-way on Ventura Street. All construction vehicles shall be parked on-site outside the public right-of-way or in locations which do not impede safe access on Ventura Street. There shall be no storage of construction vehicles in the public right-of-way.

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 exterior matching colors submitted to the Committee are approved. 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.

Department of Public Works

12.

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 Number 3277.

13.

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.

14.

If the Building Inspection Section considered this addition is over 50% valuation, a driveway plan and profile will be required by the Department of Public Works to see if the existing driveway is up to County standards. If not, then the existing driveway may be required to be brought up to current County standards. The Department of Public Works will address this during the building permit process.