COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

DATE:

January 9, 2006

BOARD MEETING DATE:

January 31, 2006

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

300 ft. radius

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

SUBJECT:

Consideration of a request to revise condition of approval number 20 from case SMN 96-0009 (Minor Subdivision) to allow an existing house to be demolished. Condition number 20 had required the existing home to remain until ten years from the date of recordation of the parcel map for the subdivision (until October 6, 2007). The applicant wishes to revise this condition to allow demolition of the existing home before this date because the house is dilapidated and in poor repair.

RECOMMENDATION

Revise condition of approval number 20 associated with Planning File Number SMN 96-0009. All other conditions of approval would remain as originally approved.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: The proposed project keeps the commitment of “Offer a full range of housing choices.”

Goal: Number 9, which states: “Housing exists for people of all income levels and for all generations of families.”

Allowing demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new home would provide a safe housing unit that is compatible with the existing neighborhood.

BACKGROUND

Previous Actions

In February of 1997, the Board of Supervisors approved the three-lot subdivision at 999 Menlo Oaks Drive in unincorporated Menlo Oaks by denying an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval. The Planning Commission had taken the case on appeal from the Zoning Hearing Officer and had added condition of approval number 20 in order to preserve the existing home for a minimum of ten (10) years. Both appeals were filed by nearby residents who preferred a two-lot subdivision to a three-lot subdivision.

Condition number 20 reads: “The existing home on this property shall not be removed or demolished prior to ten years from date of recordation of the parcel map for this project. Any accessory structures or additions to the existing home shall be designed to conform to the design of the existing building, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director (see Attachment A).” The parcel map was recorded on October 6, 1997, meaning that the existing home is required to remain until October 6, 2007.

History and Proposal

On July 18, 2000, the applicant submitted a written request to revise condition of approval number 20 due to the deteriorated condition of the house. Only the Board of Supervisors can revise a condition it has approved. In response to public notification, staff received 10 letters and a petition with 42 signatures asking that the Board uphold the condition of approval.

Staff requested that the applicant provide evidence that the foundation of the home was damaged or un-repairable. On October 20, 2000, James Stroupe, Architect, furnished a letter providing a structural examination of the home (Attachment B). Staff responded that the letter was insufficient for staff to evaluate the request and asked for “a report from a qualified/certified structural/geotechnical engineer that documents extent of damage (to the foundation), cause of damage, reasons why damage cannot be repaired without replacing the house and a cost estimate of the repair of the damage.” The matter was set aside, as this additional information was not provided at the time.

In June of this year the applicant contacted Planning staff and asked that this case be reopened and that his request to delete the condition be brought back to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. On November 16, 2005, staff received a copy of the requested engineer’s report, written by Alan Huntzinger (Attachment C). The report states that the house “is badly deteriorated,” and will not meet current building codes. The report also states that the house needs a new foundation and that the site should be regraded to alleviate drainage problems that channel water toward the house. The report concludes by recommending the home be replaced. The property owner, Mark Migdal writes that some of these problems were exacerbated by the construction of the adjacent two homes and strong rains during the winter of 1997/1998 (Attachment D).

DISCUSSION

Staff recommends that the Board revise condition of approval number 20 as requested by the applicant for the following reasons:

1.

The engineer’s letter documents significant structural problems with the home and recommends its replacement. Building Inspection staff conducted a site visit and concurred with the conclusions of the engineer’s letter. The inspector concluded that the dwelling is in very poor condition and is uninhabitable, and that substantial work would be required to bring the dwelling up to minimum building code standards. The inspector reported that although the engineer’s estimate of $800,000 worth of repairs could not be verified, the costs of repairs would clearly be in the six figures.

2.

In response to a pre-public hearing notification, staff received only two letters of opposition, as compared to the ten letters received in 2000. The recently received letters are included as Attachments F and G.

3.

The original condition allows demolition of the home in less than two years from today’s date.

ALTERNATIVE

The following alternative could also be considered by the Board:

Do not revise the original condition of approval to allow the existing home to be demolished before October 6, 2007. All other conditions of approval would remain as originally approved.

Arguments in favor of this alternative are as follows:

1.

The Planning Commission and Board originally added the condition in order to preserve the home for a period of at least ten years, and that term has not yet expired.

2.

When this request was considered before, in 2000, there was strong opposition from nearby residents to allowing demolition of the home before October 2007.

FISCAL IMPACT

Allowing the home to be demolished now might result in a small negative fiscal impact with the County Assessor’s office in the short term due to lower assessed value. However, assuming a new home is built, the long-term fiscal impact would be slightly positive due to higher potential assessed value.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Board of Supervisors Findings and Revised Conditions of Approval

B.

Letter from James Stroupe dated October 20, 2000

C.

Report by Alan Huntzinger dated June 22, 2004

D.

Letter from Migdal family to Supervisor Gordon dated February 21, 2005

E.

Letter from Mark Migdal to Lisa Grote dated November 16, 2005

F.

Letter from Nathaniel and Monica Bowditch received December 2, 2005

G.

Letter from Mark Linton and Susan Ellis dated December 6, 2005

Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit File Number: SMN 96-0009

Board Meeting Date: January 31, 2006

Prepared By: Matt Seubert

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

1.

That in accordance with Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, this map, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the San Mateo County General Plan.

2.

That the site is physically suitable for the type of development and for the proposed density of development.

3.

That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

4.

That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

5.

That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities.

6.

That the discharge waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by State Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) of the State Water Code.

7.

That the benefits of additional housing are greater than any negative effects the subdivision would have on fiscal and environmental resources.

REVISED RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Public Works Department

1.

When applicable and prior to the issuance of a 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 #3277.

2.

Should either access or existing or proposed utilities go through the proposed new parcels, the applicant shall provide documentation that “ingress/egress” easements or utility easements exist providing for this use.

3.

The applicant shall submit a driveway “Plan and Profile,” to the Public Works Department, showing the driveway access to each of the proposed parcels (garage slab) complying with County standards for driveway slopes (not to exceed 20%) and to County standards for the driveways (at the property line) being the same elevation as the center of the access roadway. The driveway plan shall also include and show specific provisions and details for handling both the existing and the proposed drainage.

4.

The applicant shall have prepared, by a registered civil engineer, a drainage analysis of the proposed subdivision and submit it to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The drainage analysis shall consist of a written narrative and a plan. The flow of the stormwater onto, over, and off the property being subdivided shall be detailed on the plan and shall include adjacent lands as appropriate to clearly depict the pattern of flow. The analysis shall detail the measures necessary to certify adequate drainage. Recommended measures shall be designed and included on the improvement plans and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval.

5.

The applicant shall record documents which address future maintenance responsibilities of any private drainage and/or roadway facilities which may be constructed. Prior to recording these documents, they shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review.

6.

The applicant shall prepare a plan indicating the proposed method of sewering these properties. This plan should be included on the improvement plans and submitted to the Public Works Department for review. Upon completion of this review, the applicant or his engineer shall have these plans approved and signed by the appropriate Sewer District.

7.

The property owner shall dedicate Sanitary Sewer Easements for any portion of the sewer main which lies outside of existing public sanitary sewer easements, if applicable.

8.

The applicant shall submit, to both the Public Works Department and the Planning Division, written certification from the appropriate Water District stating that their requirements to provide water service connections to the proposed parcels of this subdivision have been met.

9.

Any potable water system work required by the appropriate district within the County right of way shall not be commenced until County requirements for the issuance of an encroachment permit have been met. Plans for such work shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the permit.

10.

The applicant shall submit written certification from the appropriate energy and communication utilities to the Public Works Department and the Planning Division stating that they will provide energy and communication services to the proposed parcels of this subdivision.

11.

“As Built” plans of all construction required by these conditions shall be prepared and signed by the subdivider’s engineer upon completion of all work. The “As Built” plans shall be accompanied by a written certification from the engineer that all private facilities have been completed in conformance with the approved plans.

12.

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

13.

The applicant shall submit a Parcel Map to the Department of Public Works for review and recording.

Planning Division

14.

The applicant shall be required to obtain approval of a Tree Removal Permit for proposed removal of any tree with a diameter greater than 38 inches in circumference as measured 4.5 feet above the ground.

15.

This conditional approval of the tentative map shall expire in two (2) years on February 11, 1998. An extension of time may be applied for and payment of applicable extension fees paid, pursuant to Section 7013.5.c of the County Subdivision Regulations.

16.

Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant or owner shall pay the in-lieu park fee of $17,611.00 to the Planning and Building Division in accordance with Section 7055 of the County Subdivision Regulations.

17.

Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant or owner shall be issued a demolition permit from the Building Department, for the removal of the shed from Parcel 1 and the detached garage from Parcel 2. Or shall post a bond to the Planning Division of the value of the demolition as estimated by the Building Division.

18.

Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant or owner shall apply for and be issued a building permit for the replacement two car parking structure on Parcel 2.

19.

Any homes or additions the existing home shall be of a traditional design which is reviewed and approved by the Planning Director, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

20.

The existing home on this property shall not be removed or demolished prior to ten years from date of recordation of the parcel map for this project. Any accessory structures or additions to the existing home shall be designed to conform to the design of the existing building, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.