COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Planning and Building Department

DATE:

October 18, 2010

BOARD MEETING DATE:

November 2, 2010

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

10-Day Notice

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Jim Eggemeyer, Community Development Director

SUBJECT:

Public Hearing to consider a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 7010 of the San Mateo County Subdivision Regulations and State Subdivision Map Act, to subdivide a legal 12,504 sq. ft. parcel into two parcels and the granting of an exception to the County Subdivision Regulations to allow a flag lot access width of less than 20 feet, pursuant to Sections 7020(2)(k) and 7096 of the San Mateo County Subdivision Regulations and certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. (Appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission to deny this project.)

County File Number: PLN 2008-00066 (Shahidi)

RECOMMENDATION:

Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Minor Subdivision, County File Number PLN 2008-00066, by adopting the findings of denial at the end of this report.

BACKGROUND:

Proposal: Minor Subdivision

Planning Commission Action: Denial

Report Prepared By: Melissa Ross, Project Planner, Telephone 650/599-1559

Appellant/Applicant/Owner: Ramin Shahidi

Location: 21 Bishop Lane, Menlo Park

APN: 074-303-190

Size: 0.287 acres

Existing Zoning: R-1/S-7 (Single-Family Residential/Minimum 5,000 sq. ft. parcel)

General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (6.1 – 8.7 density units per acre)

Sphere-of-Influence: City of Menlo Park

Existing Land Use: Two existing legal residences

Water Supply: Existing service to both residences provided by California Water Service Company

Sewage Disposal: Existing service to both residences provided by West Bay Sanitary District

Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Zone C (Area of Minimal Flooding); Panel No.: 060311 0265B, Effective Date July 5, 1984.

Environmental Evaluation: Mitigated Negative Declaration issued; public review period from December 16, 2008 to January 5, 2009.

Setting: The subject property is located approximately 0.9 mile east of Alpine Road and 0.62 mile north of Interstate 280. The parcel has an average slope of approximately 12 percent with natural vegetation and two existing legal single-family residences. The rear property line is the approximate centerline of San Francisquito Creek.

Chronology:

Date

Action

February 27, 2008

Application for Minor Subdivision received.

December 4, 2008

Application deemed complete.

December 16, 2008

Mitigated Negative Declaration posted.

February 5, 2009

Target date set for Zoning Hearing Officer hearing; date subsequently delayed at owner’s request.

August 6, 2009

Project denied by the Zoning Hearing Officer.

August 20, 2010

Appeal, by owner, to Planning Commission received.

January 13, 2010

Project continued by Planning Commission for owner to revise project.

August 11, 2010

Both original and revised proposals denied by Planning Commission.

August 20, 2010

Appeal, by owner, to Board of Supervisors received.

DISCUSSION:

ZONING HEARING OFFICER AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS

The initial Minor Subdivision proposal was for a two-lot subdivision and a subdivision exception request for a 12-foot wide flag pole access width instead of the 20-foot required access width. In addition, an 8-foot wide emergency vehicle parking easement was proposed adjacent to the 12-foot wide flag pole access to serve as a fire truck turnaround along Bishop Lane. At the Zoning Hearing Officer (ZHO) meeting held on August 6, 2009, numerous members of the community expressed opposition to the proposal, due to concerns regarding traffic safety, encroachment of the existing single-family residence extending over the top-of-bank of San Francisquito Creek, potential impacts to sensitive habitats, erosion and sediment control and stability of the soils and the existing retaining walls. The ZHO, after consideration of the project and public testimony, denied the application on the basis that the first of three required findings for the subdivision exception could not be made, as follows:

That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, or the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the owner/subdivider.

The applicant revised the proposal to increase the access width from 12 feet to 15 feet and reduced the adjacent emergency vehicle parking easement from 8 feet to 5 feet. The revised plans were submitted to the Planning Department along with the applicant’s appeal. On January 13, 2010, the Planning Commission heard the appeal and continued the item in order for the applicant to explore further modifications to the project addressing the following concerns: (1) minimizing impervious surfaces of future development, (2) protection of an oak tree, (3) shifting the rear residence away from the top-of-bank of San Francisquito Creek, including requesting a variance, and (4) exploring the potential removal of the existing retaining wall and possible stabilization of the creek bank in a more natural manner.

The applicant addressed the Commission’s concerns by reducing the building envelope sizes, stepping in the building envelope to accommodate the oak tree, proposing a 15-foot setback from the top-of-bank and submitting a variance request for a reduced front yard setback on Parcel B, and providing an additional soils report and liquefaction study that recommended against removal of the existing retaining wall and concluded that liquefaction was highly unlikely to occur on-site. Staff provided an alternative option to the applicant’s setback proposal that would create a no-development area beginning at the rear property line of Parcel B extending 15 feet past the top-of-bank of San Francisquito Creek.

On August 11, 2010, the Commission considered both proposals and the public testimony and determined that the subdivision exception finding noted above still could not be made, and therefore, denying the minor subdivision application.

ALTERNATIVES

Listed below are alternative project options should the Board grant the appeal. Findings and Conditions of Approval can be prepared by staff and presented to the Board at the next hearing.

Alternative A

Grant the appeal and approve the project as originally submitted to the ZHO on August 6, 2009. [12-foot wide flag pole/8-foot wide emergency parking easement]

Alternative B

Grant the appeal and approve the project as submitted to the Planning Commission on January 13, 2010. [15-foot wide flag pole/5-foot wide emergency parking easement]

Alternative C

Grant the appeal and approve the project as submitted to the Planning Commission on August 11, 2010. [15-foot wide flag pole/5-foot wide emergency parking easement; 15-foot top-of-bank setback]

Alternative D

Grant the appeal and approve the project as presented by staff to the Planning Commission on August 11, 2010. [15-foot wide flag pole/5-foot wide emergency parking easement; no-development area]

APPLICANT’S APPEAL

The applicant’s basis for appeal is presented below followed by staff’s response. Refer to the end of the report for full text.

That the required finding relating to special circumstances or conditions can be made because the nature and character of the existing neighborhood roadway and driveway systems is a special circumstance or condition affecting the property.

The appellant has stated that the following constitutes a special circumstance or condition affecting the property: (1) Bishop Lane is a private road 13 feet wide at its entrance, (2) the majority of existing private driveways range in size from 10-12 feet in width, (3) the adopted 1988 Board Resolution (No. 50893) directed the Public Works Director to allow Bishop Lane to remain in its current condition in response to Bishop Lane residents, and (4) that a 20-foot wide flag pole would exceed the width of Bishop Lane, existing driveways, and would be

contrary to the desires of the residents and the intentions of the 1988 Board Resolution.

The Planning Commission, however, found that neither the existing roadway nor the nature and character of the existing neighborhood present a special circumstance or condition affecting this property thus denying the subdivision.

That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the owner/subdivider because the property is not built to the capacity allowed by the Medium Density Residential land use designation and that the property owner would not be granted any special privileges because similar exceptions have been recently granted.

The proposed subdivision of this property would be in compliance with the General Plan’s Medium Density Residential land use designation. However, subdivision is not possible without granting an exception to the subdivision design guidelines contained in the Subdivision Regulations (i.e., with respect to minimum frontage). The granting of a subdivision exception for a reduced flag pole access width would allow the proposed parcels to meet all other subdivision design and improvement standards.

As noted by the Planning Commission at the January 13, 2010 hearing, the following development options are available to the property owner without a subdivision:

Demolition of both residences and construction of one approximately 18,000 sq. ft., 3-story, single-family residence as allowed by Zoning Regulations and the S-7 Combining District.

Demolition of one residence and construction of one new residence provided the remaining residence complies with the County’s second dwelling unit ordinance.

An addition/remodel of one residence provided the remaining residence complies with the County’s second dwelling unit ordinance.

No work proposed (both residences remain in their current state).

It is possible for the above options to be constructed without a discretionary permit and that, without a creek setback established for this parcel and/or a no build area through a discretionary permit, or by means of other adopted County regulations, location of future development cannot be regulated by the Current Planning Section beyond what is stipulated in the S-7 Combining District.

Regarding previous exceptions to the County’s Subdivision Regulations, exceptions have been granted, however, subdivisions and subdivision exceptions are discretionary permits and are not guaranteed approval based on previous actions for similar projects. In the past two to three years, the County has not approved subdivision exception requests. The two previously approved subdivisions were granted subdivision exceptions for minimum lot depths of 100 feet because the resulting parcels were in compliance with their respective development standards and were compatible with the neighborhood land use patterns.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

County Counsel has determined that the mitigated negative declaration, posted December 16, 2008, is adequate for the proposed subdivision and inclusive of the proposed variance. Recirculation of the mitigated negative declaration is not required because no new avoidable significant effects are identified and no new mitigation measures or revisions are required (CEQA Sections 15073.5(b)(1) and (2)) and the variance is a measure or condition of the project added after circulation of the mitigated negative declaration which is not required by CEQA (CEQA Section 15073.5(c)(3)) and that the variance, on its own, can qualify for a CEQA Exemption (Section 15305, Class 5; Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations).

REVIEWING AGENCIES

County Counsel

Building Inspection Section

Department of Public Works

Department of Public Works Utilities – Flood Control – Watershed Protection Section

Department of Fish and Game

Geotechnical Department

Cal-Fire

Regional Water Quality Control Board

San Francisquito Creek JPA

California Water Service Company

West Bay Sanitary

City of Menlo Park

County Counsel has reviewed and approved the proposed materials as to form and content.

The denial of the Minor Subdivision contributes to the 2025 Shared Vision outcome of a Livable Community by preserving the public health, safety, and general welfare and facilitating orderly growth and development.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No net County cost.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF DENIAL

Permit File Number: PLN 2008-00066

Board Meeting Date: November 2, 2010

Prepared By: Melissa Ross, Project Planner

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:

For the Minor Subdivision, Find:

That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plans.

That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.

That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

That the design of the subdivision or type of improvement is likely to cause serious public health problems.

That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by a State Regional Water Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the State Water Code.

For the Exception to the Subdivision Regulations, Find:

That there are no special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, or the exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the owner/subdivider.

That the exception is not appropriate for the property design and/or function of the subdivision.

10.

That the granting of the exception will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property or uses in the area in which the property is situated.