COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Health Department

DATE:

July 5, 2007

BOARD MEETING DATE:

July 24, 2007

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Four-fifths

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Charlene A. Silva, Director, Health Department

Brian J. Zamora, Director, Public Health & Environmental Protection Division

SUBJECT:

Appeal of the Environmental Health Division Denial of a Permit to Install a New Septic System at 26 Big Tree Road, Woodside (APN 075-181-130)

RECOMMENDATION:

Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Division of Environmental Health to not issue a septic system permit under the Individual Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Ordinance, Division VII, Chapter 4, Sections 9300 et seq (“Septic Ordinance”) to property owner, Dr. Gerald Cohen (owner).

NARRATIVE:

Assessor records indicate that 26 Big Tree Road (APN 075-181-130) consists of a single parcel approximately 14,700 square feet in area and a single family home. Those same records indicate that the structure of record is a 2-bedroom, 1½-bath 1040 square foot home built in 1963. These records indicate that owner purchased the property in 2004.

Building and Planning Division records indicate that on October 4, 2006, owner submitted plans to County Building and Planning (BLD2006-01170) for a proposed remodel of the existing home. A copy of the relevant portions of that submission is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Environmental Health Staff was informed by The Building and Planning Department that the proposed remodel “exceed[s] 50% of the value of an existing building or structure” as provided by Section 9022(2)(3) of Division VII, Chapter 2 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code (Building Regulations). Pursuant to that Section, the owner was then required to apply for a permit and “meet the specifications and requirements set forth in the Individual Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Ordinance contained in Division VII, Chapter 4, Sections 9300 et seq.” Subsequently, staff reviewed the plans and discussed with the owner and his contractors that due to setback requirements in the Septic Ordinance it was his opinion that it was unlikely that a septic permit could be granted on the property, but that a site examination would be necessary to make a formal determination. Accordingly, on March 6, 2007, the owner submitted an application for a site examination to Environmental Health to initiate the process to obtain permit approval of a new septic system on the subject property. A copy of that application is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Staff scheduled and conducted a site visit on March 13, 2007. Summary of site inspection and a description of the parcel are included in the Environmental Health Case Notes, attached hereto as Exhibit C. As part of the inspection, staff also evaluated a topographic plot plan supplied by the owner and his contractors. A copy of the topographic plot plan is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

Based upon the site inspection, staff determined that it would not be possible to position a septic system anywhere on the property that would meet the setback requirements of Section 9321 of Chapter 4 of Division VII of the Ordinance Code, specifically the requirements that a drainfield or leaching system be located no closer than “Fifty (50) feet of any property line for parcels without an available public water supply, Ten (10) feet of any property line for parcels with approved public water supply” and “Fifty (50) feet of a ditch, cut bank or slope 50% or greater.”

On March 14, 2007 the Environmental Health Director, County Counsel, Building Inspector Manager, and Environmental Health staff met with the owner, his attorney and his contractors to discuss the findings from the site inspection. Although he did not dispute the findings, the owner stated that he believed that a safe septic system could be installed on the property and argued that the current ordinance is outdated. The owner also indicated that he had taken out a large construction loan on the property and that if he was not allowed to renovate consistent with his plans, he would be in danger of becoming bankrupt. The owner stated that the County’s position was unreasonable because it results in his property being unbuildable.

County Counsel explained to the owner that the Environmental Health Division was bound by Section 9300 et seq. of the Ordinance Code and lacks discretion to waive the setback requirements. Staff explained that the setback requirements are based on public health concerns. Staff also informed the owner that there may be options for building on his property. Staff explained that the owner could possibly cure deficiencies in his current septic system if he built in a manner that did not trigger the 50% rule in the Building and Planning Ordinance. Staff also explained that, while the Division could not opine on the feasibility, the owner could consider grading his property in a manner that would allow for compliance with setback requirements or seek an easement from neighboring owners that would allow placement of the septic system adjacent to the property.

On April 2, 2007, staff wrote to the owner memorializing the Division’s findings and providing the owner with an official notice of denial of his permit application. A copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit E. Pursuant to Section 9312 of Chapter 4 of Division VII, the owner is provided an appeal to the Board of Supervisors. His attorney requested an appeal on April 11, 2007. Environmental Health staff involved in this application and decision will be available at the Board Meeting to answer any questions.