HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07231985 - T.3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Contra
FROM:
40 Costa
DATE: July 18 , 1985 County
Adoption of County Fire District Budgets , Receipt of Report
SUBJECT: Regarding the Special District Augmentation Fund for 1985-1986
and Allocation of Special District Augmentation Funds
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I . RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached recommended final budgets for County Fire Protec-
tion Districts for 1985-1986; acknowledge receipt of report from
Auditor-Controller regarding the Special District Augmentation Fund for
1985-1986 ; and authorize allocations from the Special District Augmentation
Fund in support of County Fire Protection District budgets .
II . REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
July 23 , 1985 at 10: 30 a.m. was set as the time for hearing on adop-
tion of the final budgets for County Fire Protection Districts and alloca-
tions from the Special District Augmentation Fund.
On May 14, 1985 your Board adopted preliminary budgets for County Fire
Protection Districts as the proposed budgets for fiscal year 1985-1986 .
Attached are schedules prepared by the County Auditor-Controller which
include recommended changes to the proposed budgets adopted in May.
Recommended changes to the proposed budgets include increases for certain
districts based on special needs and provision for salary and benefit
increases approved for 1985-1986 . The recommended budgets do not provide
for increased overtime costs that will result from the application of the
Fair Labor Standards Act to public entities. This additional operating
expense is currently being calculated and may require a supplemental
allocation from the Special District Augmentation Fund. It is recommended
that the budgets submitted in the July 22 , 1985 report from the
Auditor-Controller be approved as the final budgets for County Fire Protec-
tion Districts for fiscal year 1985-1986.
Attached is a report from the Auditor-Controller regarding the Special
District Augmentation Fund which indicates that the total amount in the
Special District Augmentation Fund is estimated to be $23 , 188, 063 which
consists of $22 ,171,680 allocated for 1985-1986 and a carryover balance
from 1984-1985 in the amount of $1, 016,383 . The carryover balance and the
estimated deposit to the fund for 1985-1986 are subject to allocation in
accordance with the formula outlined in the settlement agreement between
the Board of Supervisors and the United Professional Firefighters of
Contra Costa County which requires that 80 percent of the fund must be
dedicated to fire districts. The agreement further requires that 87 . 5
percent of that amount is restricted for operational uses only with the
remaining 12 . 5 percent available for either capital or operations. Appli-
cation of the formula results in the following breakdown of . the total
amount available in the fund:
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION WBOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) t/�/yr-Z,
ACTION OF BOARD ON jUL 2 2 198S APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT .1I�- ) 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
_ OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC:
All Fire Protection Di stri cts _ JUL 2 31985
in Contra Costa County ATTESTED
County Auditor-Controller ^Phil Batchelor,perk of the Board of ;
County Administrator + Supervisors and County Administrator
M8e2i7-83 — - - -�— BY DEPUTY
FIRE DISTRICTS
Other
Operations Capital (Non-fire) Total
Beginning balance $ 628 ,883 $ 100 ,00 $ 287 , 500 $ 1 , 016 , 383
1985-1986 Allocation 15 , 520 , 176 2, 217 , 168 4, 434 , 336 22 , 171, 680
Total $ 16 , 149, 059 $ 2, 317 , 168 $ 4,721 ,836 $ 23 , 188, 063
The recommended final budgets for County Fire Protection Districts
require an allocation from the Special District Augmentation Fund in the
amount of $14 , 344, 288. This figure does not include allocations to the
three independent fire districts. Special District Augmentation Fund
allocations to independent districts are to be considered in conjunction
with the adoption of the final budgets for County Special Districts (other
than Fire Protection Districts) and Service Areas on August 13 , 1985 . The
amount required to fund Independent Special Districts from the Fund is
estimated to be approximately $ 1, 679,018 which, when added to the recom-
mended amount required for County Fire Protection Districts , will leave a
balance in the fire districts ' share of the Augmentation Fund of $125 ,753
for operations and $2, 317,168 for capital or other uses.
The recommended County Fire Protection District final budgets provide
only for operating requirements (salaries, wage benefits, services and
supplies) and does not include any provision for fixed assets or reserves.
Requests for financing of these items will be subsequently considered
following review and evaluation of requests.
In order to implement the recommendations of this report, it is
suggested that your Board:
1. Acknowledge receipt of this report and attachments and solicit
comments at this public hearing with respect to the recommended County Fire
Protection District budgets and allocation from the Special District
Augmentation Fund.
2. Close the public hearing on July 23 , 1985 or continue the hearing
until July 30 , 1985, if necessary, and adopt operating budgets and approve
allocations from the Special District Augmentation Fund.
3 . Declare the Board' s intent to consider supplemental allocations
for fixed assets to Special Districts and Service Areas at a later date.
Auditor-Controller Office , Divisions
Divisions
Accounting 372-2181
rinance Building Budgets
Martinez, California 94553 Costa Charles D.Thompson 372-2018
(415)372-2181 County Cost Accounting
James A. Horst 372-2895
Donald L. Bouchet Data Processing
Auditor-Controller .��, ^�_\� Marinelle G.Thompson 372-2377
Internal Audit
Jattnes F. Weber `,.' John A.Aylard 372-2161
Accounting Services Officer "' '�- Purchasing
a > Cliff Baumer 372-2174
\' Special Districts/Taxes
.rT�,`r_.,ys,� Sam Kimoto 372-2236
July 22, 1985
Supervisor Tom Powers, District I
Supervisor Nancy C. Fanden, District II
Supervisor Robert I. Schroder, District III
Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak, District IV
Supervisor Tom Torlakson, District V
Recommended Fire Protection Districts
Final Budget for 1985-86
Attached are schedules covering the recommended changes for the
adoption of the final budget for the County Fire Protection Districts
for the year 1985-86. The proposed budget was adopted for the fire
protection districts on May 14, 1985.
Please note that the means of financing these budgets, such as
opening fund balances, property taxes, . and other revenues, are estimates
only. The estimated Special District Augmentation allocation is a
balancing figure to equal the total budget requests.
The estimated property tax is the total of secured taxes, unsecured
taxes, homeowner's exemption reimbursements and supplemental roll
allocations.
Donald L. Bouchet
Auditor-Controller
DLB:elp
Attachments
II
N fJ
u u
al E O 10 J
CIO G
E O
N 1 O O
P u 00 X
N N
LQ F
C _
O 1` W J N ✓1 J r\ O N 00 N Oil '
U +1 D, t/l Lr) N D� t/1 N V1 IO N 00 J
H V L J n W J N N 00 11 D,
N •r
M w u it O IcN O n W Cl W M
O M N W
d) U1 N N J •--� 0+0 C M p M
a-H E
O
d
v
N O O O O O O
O O O O
N Ul G ✓�
v N O O
E � .
•.I u > J J O O
u 0 a1 CO M .p
u) x N M
W
N _ n
'O 7 Vl M ✓1 N N D) 4D ID 00 N O M
N T G J O, IO J O M M vl IO 00 O+
u u tV 00 M O J n J J �O J J N 1� N
N w > J
E NG O N i0 c9 c,
D\
•.+ 0.x O O OID M Lf) c9 c,rn n
• y O ... N .-. n ... 0\ t` M
N w X
w a m � •-�
F
u N J O a, W 'D
CL G J ill ID O\ N M J M N
G N O J n N Ib � J a0
H •u E _
tb U N M 00 J 40 M N 00 i� N M
G w O J M m I� � J rn
O [y •r1 M H Q� --� N J ^� acr
•--� N J Vl
F G 7
G N N
(k
F b
7 v
x W W
H w f!1
[n u v G
H u p
C o0 G
cl w
'O H F
Z7
O W
H b
M J f\ O M N W'O D\ O, M D, D, N �O
U cy U o0 a, >b J N N DO M D\N W O IDJ J o0 O N M n
W G 19 b G I ^ N N M J M �D J W n N r, J O
On N N O O h J J O O�
xo I N N N
N DO
W n J n
.DmI M "'� N - N
c0 W
W I
x on
H c0 u
�*• � G N J J N
•--� N V1 M J of O ID •oN M O O J lO �o D1 U1
>' �-1 E �O J N M IT Ln 00 co lo M �p .-+Co D, J o0 Vl M
F tl v _
Z u w O N IO QO M J O -� O o0� m N N O+ N
D O •H � O O N M 00 O N V)CO t\ t` J M 1� V1 n
O F 7 M lD CI4 O •"� N �D 00
U
Q
x + H N
.-1 N
ro >
w w oo ao
� c
G a1 ^
N N N N
U x
C
U1 O
w N J J N D n N D DO •4 O J O D J Ic"
J D, O \D .-r N M O
u N �D J N M D\ V1 a0 a0 f� J a0 v�
M M
.a H0 I� N .O 00 M -+ J O ^•� O 00�D L/1 N .O N _rn G o000 My0 N N •--� .--� M N ^-� ON X ul .--I N V1wIli
F
x
W
a
o n
x v v v v u
w N H w •.-1
_ d al N N N �+
In U) N W u
N N (1) N N N
z y x N x x W .1
0V� E o A
W .-I 7 .-1 Gl w
O" u u u u •4
u G 7 N w 7 7 7 .>-1 W
F w .--1 Io O In U O O O t. u .•r
z w + o ro V u C ro m co cn v w oo� u
u A -4 3 +u-1 O aui 1, Itl •Li >.• M M u rli > " U F
U F 61 u O. G w �L N 00 6 Ol M. 'O m.0 .•a w m
•.1 U Gj t c Ib O u u u NN .-i N G W O O N N �+
w w M L y V w G O W w U .!L U +I U A G > t4 m
u H rl N w >> O w C0 o N w +I r1 F w
Ul O I+. W W M U V w r O O P. P:
H a
G> P.
N
a + -•SON N C14 -T ON ON
tz I- 00 O U1 O M M O '7 u1 Q\
m �p uC13 Nr, M u1 V) OI �T N N N ON N M
a 00 -, a
I c ^ O O 10
crl G Tl t� O 00 �-+ O� O N N �7 m M .
D\ P4 Pa
a
clr i r-
a
U
Q)
Q
U) V1 cr)
co N N O�
G
H
P�
W rnr-+ 00N N 7 Lr) u1 000000
�l b 0000 O cMM M M ON trin
41 � M Lr) v1a, d std NO N -T
O 00 m a
0. 1 O oc O 10 ^ N N r M
H m cr) P b 1.0 O r, D\ O N N 00 N
z a 00 O O N N
O U to M >4 PO
U •r1 'b .--� Or
P., 41 Pm
O m
H -H D
H Q a
Q
d O a
.H F= a
"
H U O
F aU
1J ai U)
O O P
O a oo' Cd
?4 1 r I H H H
u 44 CN C ani v O N
w 44I aa) v H aGi
+)
a
ca
U a
U
G
c0
H
co
a �
U)
co b b
a G G
F+ G G
U W W
m G m m
41
•ri -H H •rl H
W T W m ..D W .0
G cS1 G H H G H
H a U r1 a rl
Pq co Pa G cd PO cC
U) m m a m P m
a m +J a m +.J U4-1 ca a m +-J ca
a s G w a a G G G a s G
o-1 rz w o� 5 4J r � O� E 4-1
O
H a a H a. a G a a a
,J a s �4 u a a w O >4 41 a s w 41
u fr :J m •r•1 a •r•1 U -H a 1~ m •r•I a
.H w cn a G o0 w cn G a ao w cn a G w
w b 00 Q" •rJ v �A v 10 a0 V a
G yrs Its w a � its La a O a � 0 x w a �
rl -1-1 m m a a m m PG W cY a m m 4 P" n
Q m a a U H a a -1 b a +) a a U r-i u
H •r1 U co m O •r•1 U M O > M m - •H U cd m
W >4 •r4 >4 4J :j O >4 •,1 ,.J O >4 u G w •11 f 4 4.J
o H co a 0 n 3 m > 0 3 a 0 n m ? a 0 n
a H >+ a H 'O +.J -4 $+ H 4j m H b G r-i >4 a E-
co
co a 4-+ co G cC a G a ca O M a 41 m
tJ cn cn O a cn U) a P4 >4 cn Enco O
z PQ 0 PO PO 0
CA 0
N O N N (T r ,O
OL Cj CO
2' cli
� O 00 Q1 cq 00 rn � 0 r- 0 00 rn 00 0C
H �O �D
a oo a
I ro all �V) 00 00 M oo ri ri o' 0 0
�
Ck4 CN
C vLe) N00 Lr) Lr) q
C
CC •� N .--t M .•+ .~-1 O C1'• N� 00 00
a
W
ro
a
u
a
C]
a O O o 0 f O -^ v1
00 r, rn
ro u1 u'1 000 mM n t` to en --
w c'^ N N
U Cl) M C, a.•
C m CT
H
n M M M
'J n Cl) aD a0 O N O N O rn rn N ^
.0 a �7 O 00 M cn v1 M M M t` O M M b O O
cc cn a
10 a 1 �;Ll r tnM O 00 0000
(c"1 ,Ny if1 u'1 to IO 000 .M-� D, M n rl
00 p O
a
>
a -
N
a
1-4ro
b � � co
O) G G a) G o
C9 C7 C7 U co
•,a
a
ro
U
m m rn
a a a
y U) to rn
ca ro ro o
U U u 4.4
rn G cn G w C cn
4-1 •ri 4-1 •rl 41 •rl i-1 a
44 4-4 - >, 4a
v
c m G ro G r v ro
a H a H a G ri r-1
W ro ro ro ro C N
cn U] (n N to to M a N >
a fA 11 a (n u a N u a (n L CO 41 ro
a s C w a s G w a a C w
>,'14 a O >,'4 a O >, •r( a O >,•H a) � a O
O H E 4a N O —4 E w o H E w O H E u E u
H 'a a a .-4 a a •4 a. a H Ci. a C a
+-+ a s w 41 G a a w u a a w a.
E 7 (n •�+ a E (n .a a E C a a w o w u
u
eo o o aO w to to rn : U �
Y_
w to a :Dw w
>+ 00 v ^v v tc tr v v o v w v v
4-2 co a w a w La z ►. a
(n 4-1 ro u: n ro co 04 a x w a on
•ri M to to U to to .c to u1 U) y
Ca o a a u 1 a a U H uH u 4 a H 1-1
U •.4 u ro rn - u •H u (zro m • n a a •• 4 u
w w -Hw u O " w ++ w u O C w •r. u 7 w •4 L%1 N 411 10 7
O (a ro > d O n a til > a O n w c0 > O n c3 M > O ro a O n
w ,—+ w -a H v x .--q w = Ey •o- a I w F v cO ri w E+ o to H 07
a 4-1 ro a 41 (o u ro a +-1 ca 4..1 CO a ro ro ro a ro a ro
E GG cn cn o o (n to o (n to M w to cn w x
z U H V H w H H
v 00 0 00 ra c o o rn rn O V1 0., 0 0
OD rn �7 M 0 0 0 0 0 \.O N 00 %D ^�
Cn - CD O0
pa 00 r-i v ,".
I cd NOO -4O O u1 N W U1 N n N N
LPA (�' 'U �7 N r- n n O � -T Mm n n
Cn W Pel
v
m n �
ca oO
v � �
u
QI
v 000
m 00O
co N CO O
W
U
H
00 O 00 00 00 O O O t O u'1 C:,
Cn O
00 000 �t�7 11ON 00 �p
u ^ uM N O -+
110 a) 1 N ^� OO OO C1
n -a 1
00 m v
1 O N 00 ^� N N Cn C7\ 00 �O \O Ln N ^ N N
V1 Q.b �7 N ^ ^ ^ Lr) Cl) CT M M 1, n
00 O r4 -4 00 •-+ •-•+
M �4 Fn
Q) v
v a)
m m
v v
v
Cd cd rl
r-I r-i .--I r-i - > r•i
co 4J co JJ S I cd
bI S4 O L+ a N
t1 4-J v
•rl •rl A
a a
co
U U
U)
b ca
a v
w u
m m c
iJ v +1 1
•r1 r-I H
w m w >, m
G H 0 co
W Cd on m q
U) (a) m > m m v m m m
v m +J 0D +J cd a) m +J w +J +J m }J
v v 0 a c (1) (3) c w C 0 q (3) c
>,•rl vri a) O >,•r+ a) O r1 (1) (3) -H v
ri a4 v c v r� 0. v 0 (1) (1) a) a a)
rJ 0. CL w O $4 JJ P. Ls �4 +J O �4 > �4 0. �4
U r .: •rl U •H (3) E 4-1 a) U •H m W •rl O •rl
ri W v) c c ao W cn c w c v v o cn c
s4 v' >4 v v a• b �4o 0o m e V,
14 x v O v o 0- 4 v' c- O v �4 v v z
m wn wcdzx
•ri m m m m m
A v v a) ) � - - rxv
-
(1) -i
•r+ u co > ca m •ri u cti m > co u ca co u m
W 14 •r1 iJ N 4J �$ f4 •ri 1J w " •rI W $4 " •ri lJ
o >, m > O >> a) O n ni cd > O n cd v O cd > v v O a) > 0
vr-I PH v mH b b —+ wH v n m b �4 c 0E-+ r1 pH
v r1 Co a) -4 v cit p co v co G a) C a) 4J a) O (U
14rn M Xcn
04 O � U) o O H 04 •Hcn0u C
z o o H 0 H o 0 a.+
r, rte. Lr)
I:L4 CO r- 4t 1 N 000 O N tin
I ON ccOIN N Ln tiO *-� 00 N CV
L, C LI .7 - vt N
• r� O
00 •rl O M 00 N cn M +,0
011 W G4
N
ro
a)
U
^)
Ci
a) •-+ •7 trn Ov C:, cT O •�?
t!) O N 00 .-+
ro ON .7 -T 0 00 000 r-
1
�+ Cn 00 - M w
C.1 f� .,7 .-y r, r1-4 h r,
C N cn
H
00 U) 47 U-) 00 0 �
1 O .� C to oq
00 O O 0 00 -4 0) � CY) Ln •It 0 �
LT �4 Eq N M u 1
ro ro ro
Q) a, cu
w v
�zs
v � v
co m
ro
U U
U
� C to co
4-1 •rl 1J 4.J
•r•1 •ri
r{
4-4 >1 44 ✓'+ 4-I
G r C M G c
ts� ro U co ro
N U) 11
a1 N C w O N a) C 1- y N C >4
o w Q. 0r-q w 0 r-q 121w
-W 0. a � 4-1 10 a a +..r o. a � u
u 8 O N •H a) U) to •r, a)
rl W (11 4) C OO a) W v) v C GO W to � OD
-Ni y cn
co 10 p ro t0 y ca A 41 U1 cn 0
r..r ro 4) a) 6 11 r( (L) a) r-1 d.!
a) •ra u ro w +J w •rl u ro (a C •H u 0
4� •r-I F.+ 'H W .0 =$, a) ro $a •ra W .0 :3 0 W •r1 4J
O 9 0c > (3) O •n a) •n ro 9 a) O n U ro > O n
14 r-i w .0 H b W ro r-I N C"E 4 ro .-I $4 E-+ b
a) a) CO a) 4,J ro .0 m ro a) 1J ro sJ ro a) ro
DCnr!1O wv) CnO toMM
z �'+ H H H O
3 H
Q)
S a) r- 00 C 0 0 0
cu "o .,4 t4 aN 0 LI) 0 0 C) 0
00 4.1 -T Ul) r� 00 o o L'i 04 CI-4 00
L4 PCI Ul) IT C) �c Lf) Lr) cn N C r. 00 th
00 1-4 1-4 h �c r- Ln 0 C-)
CYN (1) r-4 (N -T or, 0
a)
>
0)
rl CY)
C14 rn
00 Q0
I
Ln
00
(1) 0 C14 00
U) 00a,
co M,
O a) I M aC
4-i �4 Ln CN C14
U Cl) ID r-
z
'0 a 4-1
F 1a c4 OL cu be f-, C) Lr) -:r N 0 0 0 C 00 00 --T 0
0 E "0 -4O r) r- OO 0 C) C N m cn C-1
(3)
�4 00 4-1 r, Lr) -�T C) 0 0 C14 00 00 C
P.
Ili I U) -T M —4 r- Ln tn M
C: tJ co
Lf) 1-4 Lr) U') 1-4O Ul) Ul)
ol.
U 43) 00 00 00 ol
E 00
—4
0 0 3t G
�4 U
(1) >
0 Q)
L) p 'D co
-H 00
Lr)
00 W
(3)
U a CdCd co cc m cu co co
41 2iI . W p �4 �4
;:L.
V a)
44
0
CD
(3)
4-1
ct
C:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vl 4J 4..) 41 27 4-1 41 4J 4.) 4-1
cc M m cz cu ca ca m co
4-1 41 4-1 4-1 4J li 4-) 4.j
C: r. r- rl C: c C: r_
Q) (L) a ci co a) Q
Ei
E W E E
CEO u to 00 tEo 11
W 0) 4J 4.J 41 4.j 41
N u u u C) u a cn a u u u u u
pW fX4 W C: W H (3) -H
> 4-1
4. -H o O :3 -41 AJ 4.J J-j 4.j
0) "a M t :) -H c: v W to w M (n
G H CO 114 C) 0' 4J 0) $.4 -H 0) -H 4.4 4-4 .1-1
CO 0 4-1 C%. m Im - Ca - w ca > 0 rz p 9:) 0) M 0
1-4 0
co0 cc -�4 co u < o a CLQ ::L�
0 44 �u -�4 .14 —4
Q 3 u u •m u '0 a) u u cu
rr w Q) Q) L (D a Q) w 0 0 -4 44 w a w to W 0) ri -0 W
41 C6 0) m 0 04 &j 12. 0 tv 0u U"" Aj CL 1-4 0.
w Q) U) $4 rn r- to :Bc w U 0 0 In W. -14 En to
0 0 0 to $4
pq 00
f
4J
M 4J
to rz a 0 N O 00 N O
co 110 •rl CIC -1 O N 00 O
to W at oa 01% O
co 00 r� 00 •.T —+ M
M O
G G M —
a •H
? R+
a
a O
co 0
N O
a
N N
a
A
N �O
a .t H r.
cnN to rr O
G
H
N
a 11 -
4J Q)
�
H.� �O C14N O 00 O
u't W a O 000 000 1-4 u1 O
00 a i 0 M
cT a U)
G
a o
P �+
a a,
P4
c� co ro
b �4 �4
r.
PLO aGi aGi aGi ai
0 00 0
-H4.1 -r-q rq
u 4-J .0 iJ
�n rom ro
4 41
G G G G
a a a a
to bo to
.Lj G
0 u u U v
G rl ri 4.J •rl •rI 4J
aa' � , (D
aA wA +-J u
to co .0 czf
u (11 0 � cc co 0 m <
V •r4 rt •ri cd •rt 0 •ri
•r1 a U > U b •n U C.1 U b
u 1-4 0) �+ aa ma Q) (1)
4-1 o a. a a, a w a u M a
to Gm > to3 cnW 0c63
Q cw H
1
Office of
COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER
Contra Costa County
Martinez, California
July 9, 1985
TO: Philip J. Batchelor, County Administrator en Sta
ECEIVEpourt,,
FROM:. Donald L. Bouchet, Auditor-Controller " 9 t985
By: Sam Kimoto, Deputy County Aud'
C Office of
SUBJECT: Amount deposited to Special Distri t Augmentation Fund Unr�, Administrator
for Fiscal Year 1985-86
Section 98.6 of the Revenue and Taxation Code provides for the Board
of Supervisors to allocate funds from the Special District Augmentation Fund
to Contra Costa special districts (inlcudes county special districts and local
special districts; excludes city subsidiary districts and multi-county districts) .
The total amount in the Special District Augmentation Fund is estimated to be
$23,188,063. This is the total amount of $22,171,680 allocated for '►1985-86 and
the approximate 1984-85 carryover amount of $1,016,383.
The total amount of $23,188,063 includes the estimated allocation
from the supplementary roll which we have considered to be the same amount
as :1984-85.
,;;� • The Board of Supervisors must hold a public hearing within 15 days of
receipt of the notice of the amount allocated to the Special District Augmentation
Fund. It is necessary that independent districts be notified and a notice be
published of the amount of funds available to Special Districts and the time
and place of the public hearing.
SK:elp
cc: Public Works
Sheriff
Contra Costa County Special District Estimated
1985-86 Property Tax Revenues and Allocations
to Special District Augmentation Fund
1 2 3 4 5
Gross Net Property
84-85 Distribution Property Allocation to Tax
from Sp. Dist. Tax Alloc Special Dist. 85-86
District Augmentation 85-86 Augmentation (Col 3-Col 4)
County General 43,375 84,971,012 -0- 84,971,012
Library 1,232 ,367 4,292,466 -0- 4,292,466
Bethel Island Fire 214,880 j 152,888 79,043 73,845
Brentwood Fire 231,637 189,571 112,178 77,393
Byron Fire 82,068 215,401 81,336 134,065
Moraga Fire 826, 137 '� 1,632,805 926,346 706,459
West Co. Fire 807,114 1,257,072 857,792 399,280
Eastern Fire 531,863 250,320 147,885 102,435
Oakley Fire 85,667 256,599 146,971 109,628
Orinda Fire 837,701 2,265, 126 1,302,345 962,781
Pinole Fire 68,318 164,630 92, 169 72,461
Riverview Fire 3,195, 725 4,468,394 2,713, 136 1,755,258
Tassajara Fire 87,298 77,890 48, 128 29,762
Contra Costa Fire 7, 190,773 16,892,590 9,605, 148 7,287,442
Crockett-Carquinez Fire 68,310 121,978 71,276 50,702
Co. Serv. Area L-42 132,803 42,460 90,343
Co. Serv. Area L-43 94,641 40, 164 54,477
Co. Serv. Area L-46 205,484 100,203 105,281
Co. Serv. Area L-32 39,725 22,578 17, 147
Co. Serv. Area M-1 15,358 15,358
Co. Serv. Area M-3 10,396 4,094 6,302
Co. Serv. Area M-7 7,516 7,516
Co. Serv. Area M-8 83,323 83,323
-2-
Contra Costa County Special District Estimated
1985-86 Property Tax Revenues and Allocations
to Special District Augmentation Fund
1 2 3 4 5
Gross Net Property
84-85 Distribution Property Allocation to Tax
from Sp. Dist. Tax Alloc Special Dist. 85-86
District Augmentation 85-86 Augmentation (Col 3-Col.4)
Co. Serv. Area M-9 6,625 4,812 1,813
Co. Serv. Area M-11 40,129 40,129
�Co. Serv. Area M-13 1,241 584 } 657
Co. Serv. Area M-14 10,917 6,043 4,874
Co. Serv. Area M-16 3,350 513 2,837
Co. Serv. Area M-17 53,880 79,907 36,883 x+3,024
Co. Serv. Area M-19 15,339 15,339
Co. Serv. Area M-20 10,899 10,899
Co. Serv. Area M-21 1,070 1,070
Co. Serv. Area RD-4 3,221 3,221
Co. Serv. Area M-22 2,554 2,554
Co. Serv. Area M-23 370,379 3,70,379
Contra Costa Flood Control 377,300 664,065 78,984 585,081
Flood Control Z-3B 1, 149,387 1, 149,387
Flood Control Z-1 85,348 85,348
Flood Control Z-7 32,891 32,891
Flood Control Z-8 8,345 8,345
Flood Control Z-8A 9,549 9,549
Flood Control Z-9 -0- -0-
Flood Control D-290 1,039 1,039
Flood Control D-300 165 165
Flood Control D-13 45,680 45,680
-3-
Contra
3-Contra Costa, County Special District Estimated
1985-86 Property Tax Revenues and Allocations
to Special District Augmentation Fund
1 2 3 4 5
Gross Net Property
84-85 Distribution Property Allocation to Tax
from Sp. Dist. Tax Alloc Special Dist. 85-86
District Augmentation 85-86 Augmentation (Col 3-Col 4)
Flood Control D-10 76,063 76,063
Storm Drain Mtce 4 6,503 6,503
Storm Drain Zone 16 16,382 16,382
Co. Serv. Area P-1 4,609 26,178 15,186 10,992
Co. Serv. Area P-2 15,719 97,211 53,882 43,329
Co. Serv. Area P-4 50,979 '► 152,971 85,304 67,667
Co. Serv. Area P-5 19,455 96,212 53,429 42,783
Co. Serv. Area P-6 1,210,783 -0- -0-
Co. Serv. Area LIB 2 28,2_03 28,203
Co. Serv. Area LIB 10 90,762 75 75
Co. Serv. Area LIB 12 1,217 1,217
Co. Serv. Area LIB 13 67,836 164,051 130,980 33,071
Co. Serv. Area R-4 3,520 3,520
Co. Serv. Area R-6 111,559 111,559
Co. Serv. Area R-7 Zone A 157,629 20, 195 137,434
Co. Serv. Area R-7 Zone B 117;988 15,208 102,780
Co. Serv. Area R-8 122,697 122,697
Co. Water Agy. 122,888 122,888
Danville Parking 3,610 3,610
San Ramon Valley Fire 4,256,275 7,132,799 2,898,677 4,234,122
Kensington Fire 528,620 675,760 354,389 321,371
Rodeo Fire 571,985 822,923 382,657 440,266
-4-
Contra Costa County Special District Estimated
1984-85 Property Tax Revenues and Allocations
to Special District Augmentation Fund
1 2 3 4 5
Gross Net Property
84-85 Distribution Property Allocation to Tax
from Sp. Dist. Tax Alloc Special Dist. 85-86
District Augmentation 85-86 Augmentation (Col 3-Col 4)
San Ramon Fire Z-1 272,442 100,890 171,552
C. C. Res. Conserv. 4,197 43,956 43,956
Kensington Comm. Serv.
Police/Recreation 278,255 391,515 182,633 268,882
Diablo Comm. Serv. Police 58,654 20,272 38,382
Mosquito Abatement 1 786,670 262,674 523,996
Diablo Valley Mosquito 292,558 138,819 153,739
Central Sanitary 4,271,795 4,271,795
Mt. View Sanitary 120,039 120,039
Oakley Sanitary 73,812 73,812
Rodeo Sanitary 141,963 141,963
West C. C. Sanitary 423,942 423,942
Stege Sanitary 134,424 134,424
Byron Sanitary 6,774 6,774
Crockett-Valona Sanitary 79,104 79 , 104
Sanitation 7A Z-1 212,330 212,330
Sanitation 7A Z-2 172,517 172,517
Sanitation 7A Z-3 290,243 290,243
Los Medanos Hospital 375,303 375,303
Mt. Diablo Hospital 67,453 67,453
West C. C. Hospital 1,028,463 1,028,463
Alamo-Lafayette Cemetery 73,306 25,698 47,608
-5-
Contra Costa County Special District Estimated
1985-86 Property Tax Revenues and Allocations I
to Special District Augmentation Fund
1 2 3 4 5
Gross Net Property
84-85 Distribution Property Allocation Tax
from Sp. Dist. Tax Alloc Special Dist. 85-86
District Augmentation 85-86 Augmentation (Col 3-Col 4)
BBK Union Cemetery 3,000 55,342 10,082 45,260
Ambrose Recr. & Park 167,333 228,843 80,455 148,388
Brentwood Recr. & Park 89,465 44,566 44,899
Crockett Recr. & Park (P-1) 8,600 -0-
Green Valley Recr. & Park 11,272 3,091 8,181
P1. Hill Recr. & Park 385,636 1, 117,845 396,405 721,440
i
Rollingwood Recr. & Park 10,751 3,697 7,054
Bethel Island Mun. Impr. 131,553 131,553
Contra Costa Water 967,212. 967,212
Castle Rock Water 3,448 3,448
Recl. 800 Exp. 151,179 151,179
Disc. Bay Recl. 13,530 13,530
East C. C. Irrig. 189,224) 189,224
Supplemental Roll 371,420 371,420
TOTAL 20,598,457 • 142,934,874 22, 171,680 120,763,194
_r.
1 . budgets 1985/86 co fire dists adopted
f
12 . fire dist budgets adopted for 1985/86
j 3 . special dist augmentation funds
report rcvd v-, '
i
�. 4 . same as 1,--above
TO- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Planning, Housing, and Development Committee Contra
CWLQ
DATE: July 18, 1985 n,�, '
rly
SUBJECT: Second Unit Financing Program WU
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize implementation of the Double Unit Opportunity (DUO) Program, a joint effort of
the County, the Housing Authority, and the San Francisco Development Fund.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
All costs incurred by the County Housing Authority pursuant to implementation of the DUO
Program will be paid from Community Development Block Grant Funds previously
appropriated to the Authority, and by a grant of funds from the San Francisco Foundation.
BACKGROUND
On May 21, 1985 the Board of Supervisors approved the participation in a pilot program
designed to facilitate the creation of second units, aka, "Granny Flats", in communities of
the unincorporated County. Implementation procedures were referred to the Planning,
Housing, and Development Committee for discussion. At our June 10 meeting general
policies and procedures were discussed, and a schedule for implementation developed. At
this time the DUO Program is ready for implementation, i.e., funds are in-place,
administrative procedures and policies are in place, marketing materials are ready, and staff
is prepared for receipt of applications.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON July 23, 19 8 5 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
Don L. Ralya, San Francisco Development Fund, 1107 Oak St. , San Francisco,
commented on the report.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT III AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES. AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: County Administrator ATTESTED _ �BACHELOR,
S
'
Director of Community Development �v
Housing Authority P
--
CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
San Francisco Development Fund SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382/7-83 1f B�'� �a � ,DEPUTY
THE SAN FRANCISCO DEVELOPMENT FUND
A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION
July 15, 1985
Supervisor Tom Powers
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
c/o City of Richmond
100 - 37th. St. , Room 270
Richmond, CA 94805
Dear Supervisor Powers:
Re: The Double Unit Opportunity (DUO) Program
A Joint Venture of the San Francisco Development Fund,
the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County, and
the Contra Costa County Department of Community Development
The San Francisco Development Fund is pleased to participate in
the Double Unit Opportunity (DUO) Program in Contra Costa County.
This program, which we are now ready to implement, is designed to
encourage the creation of second unit apartments as a source of afford-
able rental housing by providing free technical assistance to home-
owners in planning, finance, design, and construction of the unit,
as well as help in selecting suitable tenants. Below-market rate
loans will be available to homeowners who qualify. DUO will benefit
county homeowners by providing them with additional income from their
property and added security. It does this while using the existing
stock of single family homes and infrastructure, and without changing
the essential character of , residential neighborhoods.
In response to the June 10th directive of the Planning,.; Housing
and Transportation Committee, to which you are the Chair, we are . .A
prepared to make a presentation on the DUO program at the July 23rd
meeting of the County Board of Supervisors. This will form a part
of your Committee' s report to the Board.
To provide you with background information on the Development
Fund and the DUO program, I have enclosed a copy of our Memorandum
of Understanding with the County and other materials. I trust these
will answer any questions you may have. Please feel free to call
me if you would like further clarification.
Supervisor Tom Powers !�
.Page Two
- We look forward to meeting you on July 23, when we will appear
with representatives from the Housing Authority and the Community :
Development Department to announce this . innovative joint venture.
Sincerely,
Don L. Ralya
Administrator
DLR:hn
Enclosures : Memorandum of Understanding
SFDF Origin and Programs
SFDF Board of Directors
2nd. Unit Poll
2nd. Unit Technical Report 2-E
Excerpt from Bay Area Housing Briefs
DUO Processing Chart
;:..
1 RESO RELEASE
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
P.O. BOX 2396
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553
July 23, 1985 Contact: Bob McEwan
Housing Authority
(415) 372-7391
COUNTY LAUNCHES SECOND UNIT PROGRAM
A new program to create "second unit" apartments was launched
today by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. Aimed at
single family homeowners in County unincorporated areas, the
program features low interest loans, free preliminary architec-
tural services, and assistance with permits, construction and
tenant selection.
The program which has been named DUO (for "Double Unit
Opportunity") , is jointly sponsored by the County, the Housing
Authority, and the non-profit San Francisco Development Fund.
According to County Director of Community Development Anthony A.
Dehaesus, "DUO is designed to create needed new housing units
which will benefit the community, owners and renters."
By participating in DUO, homeowners can take advantage of the
below-market-rate financing and free services while creating a unit
which provides additional income, possible tax advantages and in-
creased security for their property.
Those interested in the DUO Program are encouraged to contact
the County Housing Authority at (415) 372-7391 or the San Francisco
Development Fund at (415) 863-7800 for further information.
Excerpted from: Bay Area Housing Briefs, June 1985, Vol. 4. No. 5
A publication of the Bay Area Council, Inc.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
San Francisco Development Fund Initiates
Demonstration Second Unit Program and
Invites Participation by Local Jurisdictions
by John Trauth
The San Francisco Development Fund is beginning a two-year second unit
demonstration program and is looking for a few Bay Area cities to partici-
pate in the program to assist in the creation of second units in their
jurisdictions.
The San Francisco Development Fund is a non-profit organization which
conducts short-term housing demonstration programs designed to identify
innovative ways to provide affordable housing. For the last four years, the
Development Fund has been operating the Reverse Annuity Mortgage Program
(RAM) which enables senior homeowners to utilize a portion of their home
equity to augment their income. The Development Fund has successfully
trained other organizations to carry on the RAM program.
The Development Fund's new program will provide staff assistance to
cities and counties to assist local homeowners in creating second units.
Negotiations are already underway with Contra Costa, Alameda, Marin and San
Mateo counties. A few cities in each of these counties are now being sought
to participate in the program.
There has been much favorable publicity recently with regard to second
units. In brief, second units represent a cost-effective method of provi-
ding additional units of affordable housing by making better use of the
existing housing stock. Second units use existing infrastructure, maximize
infill opportunities, and provide support for local commercial establish-
ments and transportation systems. For the homeowner, the creation of a
second unit can provide additional income and increased security, particu-
larly attractive advantages for elderly people on fixed incomes.
Due to the advantages of second units, many cities and counties 'in
California have passed ordinances to permit and control the creation of
second units in existing neighborhoods. However, in spite of these ordinan-
ces, very few second units have been constructed. This .situation is consis-.
tent with the experience of East Coast cities in which the promotion of
second units has been a priority for some time, yet very few units have been
built and then only when local incentives have been provided.
The San Francisco Development Fund has concluded that in order to
create second units, it is necessary to establish a program including three
primary components:
-- local support and approval of second units through ordinances or
local planning and zoning practices which encourage the creation
of second units without undue restrictions or complications;
-- financial incentives which would provide funds to subsidize loans
for the creation of second units; and
Second Unit Program
Page two
-- operational assistance which would provide guidance and technical
advice to homeowners to help them through the process of creating
and marketing the unit.
The San Francisco Development Fund will provide this operational
assistance through staff support and homeowner counseling. _Actual construc-
tion supervision would be provided by the locality through its rehab pro-
gram. The Development Fund is seeking local governments willing to work
with them to: (1) develop the program locally; (2) support the program
through flexible ordinances and other .internal incentives; (3) help publi-,
cize the program; and (4) provide local funds to cover administrative costs
and subsidize the interest rate on"second unit rehab loans in order to make
financing attractive and early positive cash flow possible for the homeowner,
Once a locality agrees to participate in the program and signs a
participatory agreement with the Development Fund, all support provided by
the Development Fund to the homeowner will be free with the exception of the
detailed architectural drawings submitted for local plans review. Upon
approval of the unit, the architectural fees will be reimbursed to the
Development Fund from the first draw on the rehab loan.
Given local circumstances and the restrictions placed on available
funds, the Development Fund is prepared to help design and implement
programs which give priority to low and moderate income, physically handi-
capped, or elderly homeowners or tenants. In cases where unrestrictive
funds are available (such as General Revenue funds) the Development Fund is
prepared to implement a *market rate" program without these restrictions.
The Development Fund hopes to create a number of second units in each
participating locality. The city or county should be prepared to provide
funds to cover the Development Fund's on-site staff costs and also subsidize
the interest rate on the homeowner's rehab loan to at least 3 to 5 percent-
age points below market for the term of the loan through an interest rate y
subsidy (or buydown) arrangement. The Development Fund will help to nego-
tiate this arrangement with a local lender, if necessary. It is the Develop-
ment Fund's opinion that such a subsidy is necessary in order to induce
homeowners to undertake the project.
Should the city or county wish to continue the program after the end of
the demonstration period, continuation would be the responsibility'of local
staff. _All procedures manuals and other training materials developed by the
Development Fund would be provided to the local jurisdiction at the conclu-
sion of the Development Fund's participation. The Development Fund will
also prepare a final report on the second unit demonsration program which
should provide insights to other localities interested in promoting second
units in the future.
Cities interested in participating in the demonsration should contact
the San Francisco Development Fund at 415/863-7800.
A ro,5 Cc:&
m 40
to -S —,C
rc Ln w
? C?-4
C, U3 0, n =r
:9- C, m
gC)
n a 0 m Co
M M n -a c1%0 co LA m wa (b n
—40 0 CD 1.
0.t••a " =
art � n 0 a- to M
-n �MM C)IM
a to ao w z —c
M M w -S 0 -% w 00
-00
.% � Cq C, 0
CO� lw
10 0, M to M '1 0 z C2 V!,C =r :5 IM 7D 1 ea C6
0 n 40 � W� m :� =
V Q. 0.et, m M 'D =r -0 M f%'c
C,
IM 0 1
C, a, w co =r 0 V, 0,0 :3
5 -S — M
to w (D CD -5 C:l M -S to CL
-4 3E sw =r c
w M C) —a-0, n
n "0 -0 C.'r >cr -S a :3 0
IA 1 't1 2 0 M Q. n 0.
r" 0 t,# :3 0.0•
w ID = "M
N 0 =01 no (A clua - SE 'I
I =r on CL
0* 0•M Cr -'" ;;�=M fo M 0 0
C c c rw = M :r 3E 0 0 iz ID
me M = cr-c 0 Om -%n =m r.m Saw a, M
a, M C., -M .1 =r a
-5 =r
P, m cr a, m :3 n =lw -S !t 0
ev 0 :% —00 06 =r Cb IE to " + a M
-1 Q. -C m IncJ— c %C a 2M
5- CD CL-0- =S .1
0 -1 0 M
"W+M IW Q.M =1 m 0 -S M CD m 40
-4 =-O 0 m -, CL M -%M tA. 0 c:
40 = a
Z
to 0 0 c M 06
• 0 3E Q. c4 c
IM cr
m W C 1+�10 -0 CLn -5 0 0 m 0 -1 CL
CL (b 0.
0. cr c m m -5 Q IE -%4Q, M M
M o n M to C>
�c 10 M 0 !!M a
-so to =r m -1 10 0 3E
wo 10 -01
rt
M + =r m -0 11 "1 CL
A 0 M
_A
I "S =ro a 40 M CL.C t+ c 0 0 Inn 01
. x
0 0 2 ICL
M CL m K =rrt
n �i C,
C,-5 m 0 n = ;� 11 0
4010%0 0 M 0"A m r cm M
0
;0 n "1 -0bloom0 Z rL
C. C. to 0 0 Ix r,,, 0 CO.- -0n M M =r I Mol
m
0. to 01 ID
0 0 0•Mr. n = 1 ?
M M N Nw1 w M am
M 0 w 0' 00 c CL 0—V, q=m
a e+ 10 -S CIO SM = - -5'to ;:�V+=,t M 20= 0
0 0 � = =rL =,= 0 m -S—c c+0
dD = -4"C -C. lu Q. z -5. 0 :3
cl� w==40 CL =w (D 0 vo =06 -M
M C.5 to CL -1 a 3E C7 a MMW
9 M =l< :3= = =
fL th 5c CL
-50 -V
menta o;z
ju 4w
M :r
a 3c 0 rD W (D
to N N a 7 a N a
10
0 a)
ow to 0.
co M n ra M 0,
=r
co 1+ =r
CA m
0 10
nn
4b
C)
0
m
xM
ro
rl
�maai
�O
.0
M
-z N O c 7O =r w N SM CLIO -0
r,11 1+to 6='O C,=Moo,
-1 M -S 0 = �0 CL-f
M" (D 0."0 = 0 v cr m 10 c �0 M 0 m 0 M-10 -1 Cc, M w M 0 0 (D
IM M V • .0 (b 0 rz M �01 - w-0 Knn -, M a Q. 0,
.0 . .0 M ID
12.0 !i t t 2= 0,S, W.
C. -%= C,
CA cr m c
+ oil,,
0 OU2 to w rt, =
O
ft n ,+ a', CL
sw 3t sw .4 -1 ��i 2;:r
--s O1+0 c -n w
M o 3M
M
73 oo e 0 otn
-=M=
.1 0 = O O=-S MNZ '+ 0 06 CL m m 0 coo M" 01
r +("I"� :3 N—-1 PC io. (D M 132 0 .
lb 0 .3 AE
=C - a' ;�X V o M :+S = 0 %. CL
n— a,*, 06 w Is =" 1+mo
m 1+ 14 M
n 0 1• c e-"=ro. O% NCL
0 1 N ron -hO V;a til t7®2T tn0 7734 3A
Tb r) N n n n
0 m 0 CD 10
r+ < m 0,W,% m W 1 06 n M 0
40 M M CL CL o� -S -h M
0 n 0, W M= - .
ft—Ic
r, e- -n 6,
m0
C-0
�O`c 1110 4; a
n w :, a 0 06 M 0 W
A o 0 0
• Gl Q.
z
-5 CL
aNb4T
%0 U2 10
1z 1 n 0
0z co
cm Mo =m
co0.
I cr
co crwtc C --I
O
O A
-------------
3 A 3 I••' b m - - V. F.
r O
d o33
m O 333Y
7 O
.. N VC R T �_ �� R? INC N•�•• G •1
mmm O m - •'
0.
. - p CD T N � -
• 0 OID1y C+66n EV OD OQ� '1 C.Jb DnO c
"•1< ID 1 Cm +M0 Z E N Em mNO C C Zm OG O y
RS T �vm M = . _•4O RO � N 7RO aN3 +R+< vRNac
p m O v O v N p�>m N S O•m + m E< C r m 6 7;:
q� RSO m
R 1 C d Rm +n R r� N 1 m + m N O 4O m O m
pO W R Z 1 n R 1 DID R m 6 N R I
O O yI b m O G N C C 3 L d 7 m ••►C/ 7 �• v - 0 r•*r (N
O 3 11 N 00
IC
C 3060 N0•�O RS• RZ 6v + 6n Zm<<
JD. N I<ON O'
+1+O 70 l + • • N• ±� 7 T
J N 0 3 • �_m O % v O O t
= R N d v 40 1 0 r AEN(D Sv Im R.m It
R N 7 ID •++v l c+m N N 0+7O J n
<<±m et O�7 SJ< R S
m R IGY m 0 CD �Em
CD 1N • �C -
R 6 1 so d 0
O
0 et 0— =
0 O
Dv 7 NTA o 1 y T'-I>CD 7oN D d '1 "0 D3n 2
•. I N 1 m N 0 -1 P m m N -w m 0 -S-0 1 v Os O O
. fN 0 10 O < O N N O R -on N 0 m W N 0 m wv �c7 R
( OIo �. r3 y m R-+ m m �v
1 1 O yI O r 1 +N 1 D+ m -+•N O R-w D
N 6 E @ < R L v 7 1 O et N n N • < +1•.0 C
�3 4m r 1 �0 �m6R3 '00c 1
N m p N 0 [R C O n N 1 N N n N S
N W IO T 1010 m N W T m O m 0 n a n o R T O
nT n 0Oa. O m1 • O 0 �>E 0. ONON p
•'. O Om J N 3 M N T 9 1 R T ?
IC vN O 0 N R �1
0 T m �t< 0 L• m J d R+R O <
m a e+OD D l< 1 O N
E 0�Os n 0 OR pv9m CmC7R
NN 'OEd NJ OO'vv n nNp
m + 1.. M w an O O +R + K
T
6p O 010 7C< < 00 O
G � • 6 b . 0 d(D d 0 0
40 m m
s, p N 0 E ROI O
ID R R - <3
4A CLm 3
G3 Cs N 0 2
O 2
co
\ 0 T <s, tn 6 • Q.
CD
_ m-0C2 C29Dp o = a
1 ID N �•0 y06
CD
o O 0 S
� ((pp
p N M 3 N •1
zee A 11Di2m V z 0 W NJ R
ID
wC, o !R n o 1
-m 0
I� .. D NT O m 00 dOf0 0
'V 0 D/ 61 o+
m em1
_ p 2 O 6 N n 10 10 O
>�. Ne •m 0 9.O 6N
m
—fl 0
O 1
Irl I'•N
'•.J - RQO m 6
mm—9. (D13
p 0 d S
1 •> m
• NO 1 L
m ISN i
1 O d R 1
1 1 E 1 W
N+0
E O RN
CD O 1+
I! O77 V
m R N 6
p J
01 Is O 1
r N 1 1 m
N
' rba=1-1 1
7
0 0 m
0—6.0 I N
1
� Sm
N O R+0
J L m v R
Or +1+N
rI0_ 2 R
6+R
ooJ
1 R n 3 d
Ob J C N R
\ C m mn J
m r 6 0 0 m
co lb +on
0 1
-.w....v..-.»_�..... ��•••�.�>s+una� .... .....ate... .. .. ..
ORIGIN ARID PROGRAMS OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO DEVELOPMENT FUND
A California non-profit corporation created in 1963 to conduct short-
term demonstration programs in the fields of housing and community development.
1966 - 1969: Experimental pilot program for low-income home-
. .. ownership. Funded by the U.S_ Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) .
1971 .- 1974: Buyers Agent Program-- screening and counseling
for 500 low and moderate income families who purchased homes under
HUD Section 235 Program. Successfully reduced defaults and fore
closures. Funded by the Ford Foundation and the Roscoe and
Margaret Oakes Foundation.
1974 - 1975: A California Housing Program -- report on non-partisan
housing policies and programs prepared for the governor. Recommended
creation of a state housing finance agency; enabling legislation en- .
acted in 1975. Funded by the W.R. Hewlett Foundation.
1975 - 1980: Housing Conservation Institute -- voluntary homeowner
rehabilitiation and commercial revitalization programs in the Ingleside
District of San Francisco. ' Since inception, the program was broadened
to a comprehensive neighborhood preservation effort with support from
the private sector, local government and community. Funded by 12
sources including 7, private foundations, three banks, and two public
sources: Community Development Block Grant Funds through the City of
San Francisco, and the Urban Reinvestment Task Force. Administrative
funding from 1975 through 1979 totaled over $525,000. Now a separate
ongoing community-based non-profit corporation.
1982: Storm Damage Assistance Program -- .to provide $1 million in
rehabilitation loans and grants to Marin County victims of the
January, 1,982 storm. Funded by the San Francisco Foundation.
1980 - Present: Reverse Annuity Mortgage Program -- .to design, test
and evaluate a variety of alternative mortgage instruments which will
enable senior citizens to derive supplemental income from the equities
in their homes. Funded by the San Francisco Foundation, Ford Foundation,
Federal Home Loan Bank Board, James Irvine Foundation, Walter and Elise
Haas Fund, Piton Foundation, and Fireman's Fund. Insurance Company
Foundation.
501.8h
1/94
SAN FRANCISCO DEVELOPMENT FUND
= Board of Directors .`
Mortimer Fleishhacker, III , Businessman, President
John H. Jacobs, Executive Director, San Francisco
Chamber of Commerce, Secretary-Treasurer
Judith Brown, President, Research & Decisions Corp. , Market Research
Arthur T. Cooke, Jr. , Senior Vice President,
Bank of America
Raymond H. Lapin, President, R.H. Lapin & Company
John R. May, Retired Foundation Executive Director
Fielding McDearmon, Retired Senior Vice President,
Wells Fargo Bank
Alan E. Rothenberg, President, The London and San Francisco
Company, Ltd.
Angelo J. Siracusa, President, Bay Area Council, Inc.
501. 81
2/84
as
or73 D oo o I i :o Kvo
H H N N o b N N o I i ft
b � 0 K E r 0 K W I o 1 � � � of CD K
I ov CD o3a
0
b � o '� - �' I � I H onw
En I I o rt
it
a I I e z b i o
0 1 I I Dow o ' jD
a f+ 'pd O co ko 1D O W 1-' N I W I R 0 O O ��✓i
CL do dp dp i dP dP dP i N i W N En m :3 m .�
0 b n ►5--
0 1 I m t a.oo
n i I n S O m 70
p M rt a
rrr dp dp dp dp do dP dP PI) I oA+ I fD ►7 x m m O
a i I IA o a< R
I zE c "m
• I 1 �' � � a rr
, W 1-1 I cog H o m
dP rP &Vro dp v
,r
I m Cow
i m I- p 10
rt
I--
N p O
v W w I O I H O D ft '
dp p � e dP � Ln I Q. z
p w
H z ril n n it
� rt �
Al I O I W 5 h7 K rr :
dP ro ♦ rP dP co dP I N I rt rr a h] WPF
K � 0 "".A
x � a K 1esz9
O H
N m �D
�I W A 1 1 r I N W p
do Ln 0% OLO Ln 0I d♦ dp dP dO rP I t- I '*J N rt m R , -
rt so :31
z En 1 A ri
I I g �••� � o ;
3 ?D C*f m K w
divNJ dp do
(IN I a I m � o ci
op op O m R b
H
i H ►< n0ti
i I Hx ? rr
ISN K0 a m
W In N A v J O A H R
dP • d. • d� dP I l a a En cn R :rm
H a, m
i I 0 ° ; ° n
O
o
J w ss I r � cDO KO O x r.K
i r C) 0 i r w I � I b " C. < w :
Second Units:
An Emerging Housing Resource
Technical Report Z-E
. . . SUMMARY -. . . .
JULY 1983
The conversion of existing single-family
dwellings to add secondary units is a
potentially effective, environmentally
sensitive, and economically feasible
response to the Bay Area's serious housing
problem. However, because of resident con
ce -
regarding the impacts of such units
rns 9 9 P
on existing neighborhoods, second units are t
either illegal, or severely restricted in r I I
most communities. This summary presents the
key findings of a report prepared by People
for Open Space (POS) examining the benefits
and impacts of second units. The report was f
prepared as part of the POS Housing/Greenbelt
Program. This program results from our ..�.
belief that conservation and development
goals must be integrally linked. Policies
which encourage compact, city-centered devel-
opment are, in our view, the best way to
maintain a sustainable, humane metropolis.
Second unit development is one of many devel-
opment strategies that can help meet housing
needs while allowing for the preservation
of open space in the Bay Area:-
A GROWING INTEREST IN SECOND UNITS
Second units are smaller,'"subordinate housing units situated on the same
parcel of land as a larger "primary unit". They are variously known as in—law
apartments, accessory apartments, and in Australia, "granny flats". They can
be created by converting basements or garages; by adding space on top of or
next to the house; by carving out space from an existing house; or by adding a
separate small cottage in the backyard. In the past, these units generally
have been illegal in most single family neighborhoods, although many have been
built despite this illegality. But in the last few years, as a result of the
convergence of a number of different factors, second units are being looked to
as one important response to the Bay Area's housing needs. The factors that
have contributed to this new interest are economic, demographic, and social.
Each is discussed below:
__-- ----- P � '
for Open-Space 512 Second St. San"Francisco;-CA 94107 •" 415) 543=4291
Second Units: One Response to High Housing Costs
Over the past few years, rents have lagged far behind the skyrocketing
costs of home ownership. This differential has had two affects: on the one
hand, high prices- for puchase-housing have kept many would-be homebuyers out
of the home-buying market and in the rental market; at the same time, rents
have remained below the level needed to encourage new rental development. .
High demand and little production have placed a severe squeeze on the
available rental housing stock, and led to historically low vacancy rates in "
much of the Bay Area. The pressure on the market is pushing up rents, but f
rents will generally have to rise much further before new rental housing will
again be an economically feasible and competitive investment.
Second units can be produced at a fraction of the cost of conventional
housing development. Because they usually use structural components that are
in place, such as existing water, sewer and power systems, and because they
often share walls, construction costs are generally low. There is also no
additional cost for land. Thus, while conventional rental development is
likely to be sluggish at best for the forseeable future, second units%provide
a relatively easy and quick way to increase the rental housing stock. Such
units, because they tend to be smaller and may lack some amenities of larger
developments, also tend to be considerably more affordable. At a time of
shrinking public resources to help low and moderate income households, second
units are one possible key to producing affordable housing without public
subsidy.
Second Units Can Help Meet the Needs of Today's Smaller Households
Fundamental changes are occurring in the social structure of American
society. A symptom of that change has been the rapidly declining size of the
average household. Average household size in the Bay Area has dropped 15%
from 3.1 in 1960 to 2.67 in 1980. It is expected to continue to decline
through at least the next two decades. Smaller households have resulted from
a number of factors, including:
L The children of the _baby-boom are entering prime household forming ages;
2. Family sizes are .smaller; -
3. Divorce rates are high;
4. There is a continuing growth in the number of the elderly;
5. The number of people living in non-traditional arrangements is -;
growing; and
b; The number of single-person households is increasing.
The changing nature of households has two significant implications for
second units. The continuing growth in the number of smaller households (and
especially single-person and single-parent households) implies a strong demand
for small rental housing units. At the same time, it is clear that there is a
substantial amount of what might be called "underutilized" housing: large
housing units occupied by small households. Many elderly people whose
children have left home (sometimes called "empty nest" households), often have
excess housing space that they do not need or want, but for various reasons do
not wish to to leave. In addition to the elderly, there is a general mis-fit
between the many large, expensive units on the market, and the small first-
time households seeking homes to buy who often can't afford, and don't want or
need the larger units.
2
One solution to this growing mis-fit between the market and the housing
stock is to allow the stock to be modified to better meet the needs of today's
households. Secand units-carved out of over-large houses can make those
houses more affordable to small families and at the same time help meet the
need for rental housing for the growing number of smaller households. For the
elderly, second unit tenants can not only help supplement income with the rent
they pay, but also help with small chores around the house (such as grocery
shopping and yard maintenance) and provide the added security of a nearby
adult. A second unit can help elderly people remain in their neighborhood.
The Social and Environmenal Benefits of Second Units
Second units also provide a number of other benefits, including:
1. Security: The presence of a second unit means someone will be on
the property more of the time. This can not only aid the elderly,
but also single parents, people who travel, and others.
2. Family assistance: For households forced to live in extended family
situations (i.e., various generations in one house), second units can
allow for private and independent arrangements.
3. Increased tax revenues: Second units can increase the tax base of
The community (see later discussion of fiscal impacts).
4. Support for transit and local businesses: By increasing the number
of people in a neighborhood, secondary units provide additional
support for public transit and for local businesses.
5. Land and resource conservation: Second units can help meet housing
needs without requiring the development of open land. The need for
other resources such as building materials is also reduced. Second
units are also generally more energy efficient (due to shared walls)
than other kinds of housing. .Second units in existing neighborhoods
means housing closer to existing services and jobs and thus less auto
use.
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF: SECOND UNIT CONVERSION
i.
Whatever the social benefits of second units, whether second units can be
built rests largely on their economic feasibility for the homeowner. Are
second units a good investment? Of course, economic feasibility is often not
the primary consideration of a person considering a second unit conversion.
But financial considerations are one key to the decision making process. -
Whether conversion is economically feasible depends -on a number of variable
factors including: type and size of unit to be created; site-specific -
topographic, structural, or access constraints; degree of owner participation;
quality of materials used; extent 'to which the existing structure is
incorporated; rates of return available from alternative investments; and the
method of financing (and interest rates) available.
Our evaluation of feasiblity assumed no serious topographic, structural
or access constraints. We then estimated the costs of development for
different types of conversions, as shown in the following table.
3
COSTS OF CONVERSION
(Standard Quality)
Owner as General
No Owner Owner as Contractor and
Znvolvement General Contractor Remodeler
Secondary Unit Type
Detached cottage $52/sq.ft. $42/sq.ft. $32/sq.ft.
Major Addition $52 $42 $32
Internal Conversion
+ Small Addition $40 $32 $24
Basement Conversion $32 •$26 $19
Garage-Conversion $40 $32' $24
New Construction $60-160
A 550 square foot major second unit addition, with the owner acting as
general contractor, could be built for about $23,000, or a 610 foot minor
addition (or garage conversion), with no owner involvement, built for $24,400.
Using the $24,400 amount as a typical situation, and assuming a rent of $300
per month, we compared the after-tax return on investment of such a
conversion, with a money market fund earning 12%. The second unit produced a
better return than the money market--and the return on the second unit will
continue to rise with increasing rents (not considering any appreciation in
the value of the property), while money market fund returns will fluctuate.
The above analysis assumes that a homeowner has the initial funds to invest
in the second unit or will develop the unit over time with out-of-pocket funds
If money must be borrowed, the investment analysis is somewhat different.
Again, the feasibility of borrowing the necessary funds will vary depending on
interest rates, term of the loan, obtainable rents, and the desire or ability
of a household to absorb an initial negative cash-flow' in the first few years
of the investment. Assuming no negative cash flow in the first year, a 14%
interest rate for borrowed funds, and a rent of about $350 for the finished
unit, the limit that can be borrowed is about $20,000. This eliminates many
of the more expensive conversion types, but others are still feasible.
The foregoing analysis indicates the general economic feasibility of
second units. Not only are they feasible, but reasonable rates of return can
be achieved with rents affordable to many low and moderate income households.
A second unit can help a family meet its financial needs as it moves through
its lifecycle--extra income to meet house payments in the early years, space
to use as a family grows larger, and supplemental income during retirement.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: REGULATORY BARRIERS
Despite the many benefits of second units, they remain illegal in most
single-family neighborhoods. Neighborhood groups resist attempts at
legalization, insisting that the single family character of their neighbor-
4
w • �
hoods would be destroyed, property values would be eroded, that traffic and
parking problems would result, and that services would be over-loaded.
Many people have argued that keeping second units illegal provides an
informal way of regulating them. Homeowners are required to maintain a low-
profile for their second unit, lest their neighbor report it. Some
jurisdictions acknowledge that they prefer to keep second units illegal
because self-policing succeeds in maintaining single family neighborhood
character without the bother of having to administer an ordinance created for
the same purpose. However, keeping such units illegal has at least two
serious negative impacts:
1. Health and Safety: without legalizing second units, it is difficult for
jurisdictions to monitor the degree to which such illegal units are up
to health and safety standards.
2. Discouragement of conversion: Homeowners who desire to create second
units are discouraged from doing so because they either do not want to
break the law, or are concerned that if they do, they may lose.their
investment. It is also not possible to obtain bank financing for
development of an illegal second unit.
In order to facilitate second unit development, a recent state law
strongly encourages local governments to adopt standards for their
legalization. This law has. led to consideration of second unit ordinances, and
adoption of many ordinances around the State. Because of concerns regarding
possible impacts, these ordinances have tended to establish many restrictions
regarding the development of second units. These restrictions include: limits
as to who can build or who can occupy second units; specific development
requirements (e.g.,off-street parking); cumbersome approval processes
including formal hearings, design review, or neighbor approval; or some
combination of all of the above. The net effect of the regulations is to
discourage second unit development: the more difficult (and, often, more
expensive) the process, the less likely it is that a homeowner will develop a
unit.
The provisions of second unit ordinances are primarily intended to protect
existing neighborhoods from the possible impacts of conversions. What are
those impacts, and do the regulations provide an appropriate response? :That
was the question we set out to answer through a number of case-study analyses i
presented below.
THE IMPACTS OF SECOND UNITS
Most ordinances regulating second unit development are intended to control
or limit the impacts of second unit development on existing neighborhoods.
However, there has been little evaluation of either the potential impacts of
second units, or the actual impacts in areas where second units have been
legal. To remedy this lack of information, POS undertook several case studies
of typical single family neighborhoods in which we evaluated the likely
impacts of second unit development. We chose five neighborhoods that are
representative of types of single-family neighborhood and/or periods of
construction, as follows:
5
o Pre-war non-tract housing; =
o Early post-war tract housing (i.e., a mature suburb)
o 1960's subdivision;
0 1970's subdivision;
o Hillside custom homes (pre-war and post-war :period)
The first four case-study areas are located in San Jose due to the ease of
data gathering. The hillside custom home area is in -El Cerrito.
We examined seven possible impacts for each case study neighborhood:
1) visual character; 2) socio-economic character; 3) parking; 4) traffic
5) property values; 6) utilities and services; and 7) fiscal .impacts.
- There are relatively few-objective standards for estimating the degree of
impact on such factors as visual and socio-economic character at the neighbor-
hood level. Our analysis is therefore based on the assumption that the nature
and degree of changes, both social and physical, which have already been
assimilated by typical single family neighborhoods, represent an acceptable
level of change to the neighborhood's residents. Our anlaysis therefore began
with the existing neighborhood condition, then examined the changes the
neighborhood had experienced, and, last, evaluated the posssible impacts that
might result from second unit development.
Visual Character
One of the foremost concerns of current residents is that second units
will degrade the current single-family-home visual character of a neighborhood
through the addition of ill-fitting, poor quality second units that give the
impression of cluttered development and higher density to the neighborhood.
Moreover, they are concerned that speculative development of second units may
encourage increased renter occupancy of single family homes resulting in poor
.property maintenance.
To assess actual visual impacts we began by examining the degree of
physical change that neighborhoods had accepted in the past and found that
most neighborhoods, as they age, experience a substantial amount of physical
-change. There are additions to homes, second stories are added, and garages
are converted to living space, to mention just a few of the more obvious
changes. Over 25% of our sample of homes had undergone additions to living _I
space. In one study area, 5% of the homes had additional front doors visible
from the street (although none were for second units). Almost all visible
additions were compatible with the scale and materials of the'original dwellings. '
It seems unlikely that the addition of second units would result in
greater visual impacts than that which have already occurred in many neighbor-
hoods, as long as second unit development is required to conform to existing
building standards, including heights, setbacks and lot coverage standards.
In order to assure protection of the single-family-home character of the
neighborhood, the second unit can be required to be clearly subordinate to the
"primary" unit. A specific definition of subordinate can be difficult because
of the variation in lots and homes. However, some maximum size standard
(e.g., 60% of the size of the primary unit)" allowed "as-of-right", with a
conditional use permit or variance procedure for unusual circumstances can
allow for some flexibility without unduly hindering most conversions.
6
Requiring owner-occupancy is often considered to be one means to help
ensure better maintenance of the property, and discourage speculation by
absentee landlords. It is also thought that such a requirement will encourage
better supervision of .tenants (see socio-economic .impacts, below). While such
_arguments make a great deal of sense--especially from a political
perspective--such requirements can also lead to a number of problems,
including: hardship on owners who need to move and cannot immediately
find a buyer and enforcement efforts which can be difficult and costly. There
is some evidence that such a requirement may make it more difficult to obtain
financing for conversions in that it makes the house more difficult to re-
sell. It is also possible that owner-occupancy may not be constitutional.
Cities will therefore have to balance the problems associated with an owner-
occupancy requirement against the potential benefit in their deliberations on
the adoption of a second unit ordinance.
Socio-Economic Impacts
Some of the resistance to second units rests in the fear that a neighbor-
hood's socio-economic homogeneity will be altered through the introduction of
renters and non-family households. There is also a concern that neighborhood
stability would be eroded through the introduction of a transient element.
Possibly the most surprising finding of our work is the degree to which
the image of single-family neighborhoods as environments for "family living"
_ has diverged from the reality. A great deal of change has already occurred in
the social character of many such neighborhoods. As the following table
indicates, single family neighborhoods are often no longer occupied
predominantly by families in the traditional sense (mother, father, one or
more children).
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CASE STUDY AREAS
Neighborhood Type: Hillside 1950s 1960s 1970s
Custom Pre War Tract Tract Tract
Population 819 558 1,109 8,259 2,484
Households 353 226 367 2307 706
% Married Couples
with children 17.8% 12.6% 37.2% 60.9% 58.2%
Non-family
Households 28.9% 28.4% 20.5% 8.9% 12.4%
Single Person 18.3% 19.5% 10.7% 5.9% 9.1%
In the older neighborhoods, a nuclear family only occupied a small minority
of the homes; even in the newer neighborhoods, only three of five households
are traditional families. And in all case study neighborhoods the proportion
7
G
of non-family households has increased dramatically over the last ten years.
The image of single-fa roily .neighborhoods as being stable environments
occugied by long-term residents is also at odds with our findings. In the
-" case study areas, 29 - 67% of all households had moved in within the past five'.'`;'=:'`:``_
-years, and in four of the five areas, over 25% of the households had moved in
within the last year. In all. the neighborhoods, over 10% of the homes were '
rented (and in the newest neighborhood, 17%). Regionwide, 20% of all single
family homes are rented.
Economically, most household incomes were within $10,000 of the median for
the jurisdiction. However, a wide variety of education levels and occupations
were present in all neighborhoods.
Given these existing conditions, and the changes we have been able to
identify over the last ten years, it is clear that neighborhoods have already
absorbed a substantial amount of change in social character. These neighbor-
hood changes are likely to continue, and possibly even accelerate, as the
continuing growth in non-traditional households continues to force non-fami-
lies to live in the type of housing that is most available--single-family
detached units.
While second units will probably mean some change in the socio-economic
mix of a neighborhood, they may also provide a greater opportunity for
families to move into a neighborhood. Second units can provide additional
income to help families qualify for a loan--especially in many areas in the
region where the existing housing is too big-, and too expensive, for smaller "
families to afford.
Parking
Most opponents to second units view the parking impacts as an equally
important issue to that of neighborhood character. Indeed, in some locations
where parking capacity problems already exist, the increased demand for
parking space through second unit conversions may aggravate an existing bad
situation. In other areas, such as some older hillside neighborhoods, the
creation of off-street parking may be prohibitively expensive, and local
access roads may be too narrow to accommodate additional curbside parking. _
To measure the possible impact in the-case study areas, we evaluated y
the available parking at times when it was thought that local residents would
most likely be home. In all neighborhoods, less than half, and usually
less than one-third, of available curbside capacity was used. There was also
a high incidence of cars parked in driveways.
On the basis of these case studies, we estimated that if, in a typical
neighborhood, three houses in ten were to add second units, and if all second
unit renters had one car which they parked on the street, only about half of
the available parking would be used, leaving a substantial surplus of curbside
parking. However, for many newer neighborhoods, parking on the street will
not be necessary as there is often adequate space in front of the house or
garage for an additional off-street parking space, especially if cars are
parked in tandem (one behind another).
The impacts of second units on parking in most neighborhoods is therefore
likely to be relatively small. Requiring an additional off-street parking
space can help to mitigate possible impacts, but a liberal variance or
conditional use procedure should be available in places where providing that
space may be difficult and there is adequate on-street parking (or nearby
access to transit). Allowing parking in tandem may also reduce conversion
costs while meeting parking needs.
Traffic
Traffic on most single-family neighborhood streets is light. Again
assuming that 30% of existing single family homes were to add second units, we
found that traffic would be increased by about 12%--an increment that would
not raise volumes to a point generally perceptible to residents.
On a broader community-wide or regional scale, second units will very
likely lead to less auto travel and congestion, ' especially when compared to
alternative development types. Units would be located in existing
neighborhoods which are usually closer to jobs and services than development
in outlying locations, and would thus require shorter and fewer trips: Also,
more people in existing neighborhoods means more potential transit riders and
increased transit efficiency.
Property Values
Underlying the concern that second units will cause a decline in physical
and social character of neighborhoods is the belief that such neighborhood
deterioration will, in turn, erode property values. To date, no studies have
been conducted to gauge the specific impact second unit conversions may have
on surrounding property values. Such a survey was not conducted for this
report. Informal surveys, discussions with real estate sales people, and
analogous surveys, have not identified any clear impact.
Utilities and Services
The population of almost all single family neighborhoods has declined
substantially over the last ten years. The average household size in single
family homes has declined by about 12% since 1960. In' our case study neighbor-
hoods, the decline has been between 14 and 24%. If 30% of the homes in a
typical neighborhood were to add second units, the number of people in the
neighborhood would only be returning to past population levels. Second unit '.
development would therefore make more efficient use of existing, but
underutilized, in-place systems.
The impacts on schools, police, fire, and other services is also likely to
be small--especially when compared to other types of development. Again,
second units will make use of existing available services and provide
increased revenue at small cost to the city (see below)
Fiscal Impacts
A second unit is likely to generate increased property and sales taxes
(from more residents shopping in the neighborhood). The increased service
cost of second units is likely to be quite small. While a-detailed
cost/revenue evaluation was not conducted, it is reasonable to conclude that
second unit conversions would result in a n t fiscal gain to the community.
9
1 11
■
ACHIEVING THE POTENTIAL OF SECOND UNITS
Second units have' the potential to meet a substantial portion of the Bay
Area's housing needs. -If-15% of the available stock of housing were to add
a second unit (discounting the potential pool of housing to account for -
various constraints and existing second units), well over 60,000 new housing
units could be produced in the nine-county Bay Area--10% of the projected
demand for housing over the next 20 years. -
But there are a number of barriers that must be overcome in order for
that potential to be achieved. Foremost among those is local development
regulations which establish cumbersome approval processes, and/or difficult-
to-meet requirements.
On the basis of our case study and other analysis, we found that it is
unlikely that second units will have a major impact on existing neighborhoods.
We therefore suggest that second units be allowed "as-of-right"--without a
requirement for public hearings. In terms of development standards, we
suggest the. follo wing:
1. Building, standards: Second units should be subject to the same stand-
ards• of development as any physical addition to a home in a neighborhood.
2. Parking: A requirement for an off-streeet parking space should
respond to concerns regarding parking, but a liberal allowance should
be made for tandem parking or other means for inexpensively meeting
the requirement. Where provision of off-stret parking would be
infeasible, and where curb-side capacity exists, a variance or other
procedure should be available for waiving the off-street requirement.
3. Size: In order to assure maintenance of the single-family physical
character of a neighborhood, second units can be required to be
clearly subordinate to a primary unit (i.e., .limited in size to some
proportion of the train unit).
4. Owner occupancy: Owner occupancy can help deter speculation, and
encourage better maintenance and tenant supervision. On the other
hand, it can cause hardships on those who must move, and expense for
those who must enforce the regulation. Such a requirement may also
limit the availability of financing. The benefit of such a Y
restriction must therefore be weighed against the costs, .and we make
no recommendation.
Once the type of permissive ordinance identified above is in place, there -
is also a need to establish a support network that will help second units get
built. Interested homeowners need technical assistance to help them through
the development process, experienced contractors who can design and build
appropriate units, bankers who will finance development, and realtors who will
tout their benefits to prospective homebuyers. This is the kind of network
that will take time to develop, but is essential if second unit development is
to occur.
Second units can go along way toward meeting the Bay Area's housing
needs, if they are allowed to and encouraged.
10
CrrIZENIS 48,RDCW AWAIR CCHMEM
persons wishing to address the Board or presert testimony must complete this'
fora. Place it in the box near the seaker's rostrum before addressing he,
Board.
DM
POME
AMFMSS
CITY
Z her,
BSPF'SERr-NG: Self .,_ Other specify
C beck and complete the line applicable to Zowc presentation:
�Z wish to speak on Agenda Item #
I wish to speak in favor of Agenda item #
I wish to speak in opposition to Agenda Item #
Z db not wish to speak but leave these oomnents for the Hoard's
consideration
(continue on reverse side)
MAP= SMKM Apr 'iBCITTW S!1 IT TO IM aMM
1. Double Unit Opportunity Program `
{ 2. HA,' CCC, ,, & San Fran. Develop. Fund
auth to 'implement
. C