Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08111987 - T.6 T. 6 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on August 11 , 1987 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson and McPeak NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance governing residential second units. This is the time set to hold a public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance governing residential second units. Celeste Wixom of the Community Development Department, J reviewed the proposed second unit ordinance and the actions and revisions recommended by the Community Development Department as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. Supervisor Schroder commented that he had concerns with respect to possible violation of zoning and density laws by considering the proposed granny ordinance, as well as parking and traffic impacts. Harvey Bragdon reviewed the State law which provides for y said units. / The Chair declared the hearing open and the following \ appeared and gave testimony with respect to the proposed ordinance governing residential second units and the proposed ordinance establishing administrative processing fees for residential second units: Wanda Longnecker, 28 Darlene Court, Alamo, representing County Service Area R7A, urged imposing park dedication fees on second units. Ralph Copperman, 3 Penrith Walk, Pleasant Hill, representing the Area Agency on Aging Housing Committee and the Gray Panthers, spoke in favor of second units for affordable housing. Kathy Kenny, 1107 Oak Street, San Francisco, Assistant Director of the San Francisco Development Fund, spoke of their demonstration projects for the area of affordable housing and community development and Contra Costa County' s participation therein and endorsed the proposed ordinance. Michael Gibson, P. O. Box 271, Alamo, appeared on behalf of the Alamo Improvement Association, discussed the various aspects of the ordinance and proposed revisions thereto. Eugene Naccarini, 259 Willamette Avenue, Kensington, discussed limited parking in Kensington and his fear that second units would add more congestion for parking. Jaima Roberts, 233 Cambridge Avenue, Kensington, discussed affordable housing and possible need for rent control for second units, and the limited parking in Kensington. Marianne Loring, Kensington Improvement Club, expressed concerns about number of off-street parking places that would be required. Robert Hanson, 24 Kerr Avenue, Kensington, representing the Kensington Improvement Club, expressed concerns about provisions for parking and the implementation of the provision for variances. Connie Stoddard, Vice President of Community Affairs for the Contra Costa Board of Realtors for Contra Costa County, advised that her organization is supportive of the second unit concept with appropriate restrictions relative to health and safety, and expressed concerns with the cost of monitoring, and the proposal with respect to deed restriction. Perfecto Villarreal, P. O. Box 2759, Martinez, Executive Director of the County Housing Authority, spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance, with the suggested staff revisions. Lesley Watson, 1107 Oak Street, San Francisco, staff from the San Francisco Development Fund/Duo, favored the proposed ordinance . with the current revisions recommended by staff and County Counsel. Natalie Salsig, 8 Anson Way, Kensington, Vice President of the Kensington Improvement Club, advised that the Club is not categorically opposed to the second unit ordinance, but that it wants to see an ordinance that would protect the community of Kensington from the things they feel would be a deterrent to Kensington. There being no one else desiring to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing and requested the Director of Community Development to review the questions that have been asked and to comment on the testimony. As requested by Mr. Bragdon, Celeste Wixom responded to the question raised during the preceding testimony. Mr. Bragdon commented further on the various concerns raised during testimony. Supervisor Powers recommended amending the ordinance with the following modifications: to include provision for no tandem parking and to eliminate the proposed deed restriction requirement. Supervisor Torlakson requested that with respect to deed restriction, staff find another way to disclose what the LUP entails. Supervisor Powers moved the above recommendation to include Supervisor Torlakson' s request for disclosure on the LUP. Chair McPeak advised that she would take the vote on the tandem parking amendment separately. The motion to eliminate tandem parking passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder and Torlakson NOES: Suprvisor Fanden and McPeak Chair McPeak advised that the vote on the amendment to eliminate the deed restriction provision [with the understanding that staff will find another way to disclose] will be included in the motion to approve the staff recommendations placed before the Board this day. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations of staff as set forth on page 5 of its July 28 , 1987 report, and the amendment to eliminate the deed restriction provision [with the understanding that staff will find another way to disclose] are APPROVED. I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of SuperWaore an the dam elrorm ATTESTED cc: Community Development PHIL BATCH ,Clerk of#0 Board County Counsel ofSupWows CounVAdministrator By .Deputy . i TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon Contra Director of Community Development C=a DATE: July 28, 1987 Coiry SUBJECT: Residential Second Units Ordinance and Related Processing Fees Ordinance SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION ` DESCRIPTION This is a public hearing to consider a recommendation by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission to adopt an Ordinance regulating the development of residential second units on individual parcels in conjunction with existing residential structures. The proposed ordinance allows the creation of secondary or accessory living units by formulating new or modifying existing criteria governing second residential development. It permits second unit construc- tion complying with required ordinance standards through the issuance of an administrative permit or land use permit subject to specific review, processing and permit issuance procedures. Also included for public hearing and the Board' s action is an ordinance setting fees to reimburse the County for costs incurred by the Community Development Department in processing residential second unit applications. The proposed fees are applicable to projects processed under the Administrative Permit and Land Use Permit provisions of the proposed Residential Second Unit Ordinance. Both of these ordinances affect al.l County unincorporated areas located within the following zoning districts established by the Contra Costa County Code, Title 8: R-6, R-71 R-10, R-12, R-15 , R-201 R-40, R-65, R-1001 P-1 , D-11 M-6, M-9, M-12, M-17, and M-29. BACKGROUND A proposed residential second unit ordinance was first presented to the County Planning Commission at their April 28, 1987 meeting. Following citizen input, the Commission deferred action on the matter leaving the public hearing portion open through May 26, 1987 . In the interim, staff conducted a public workshop soliciting further citizen participation from all interested partie d CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNA _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATIOR O BO COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A _ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: Community Development ATTESTED PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY CW/mb cw/duobos.fee X10 y Q Residential Second U,.-ts Ordinance and Related Processing Fees Ordinance Page 2 property/homeowner ' s associations. Additional information was also prepared regarding other jurisdiction' s ordinances, unit size, structural lot coverage, occupancy standards, and CEQA require- ments. Final consideration of the Ordinance occurred via a closed public hearing during the June 9, 1987 meeting resulting in a recommendation for approval. On July 14, 1987, the Commission passed a resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed ordinance and related processing fees, as well as amend appropriate existing County Ordinance Code sections. FINANCIAL IMPACT An ordinance revising and/or establishing fees to cover administra- tive costs associated with the proposed ordinance has been included for Board action. Costs of preparing the Annual Monitoring Report (i.e. assessing second unit development impacts) are not directly covered by the individual processing fees, but could be indirectly apportioned or absorbed through these fees. If necessary, any County subsidy of costs relating to second unit application pro- cessing appears consistent with the Board' s policy encouraging affordable housing. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Second unit development on an individual basis is considered a Categorically Exempt project according to the California Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15301 (a) and 15303 (a) . However, allowing second unit development in various residential zoning districts of the County' s unincorporated areas may generate cumula- tive environmental impacts (Exhibit A) . Most requests for second unit development will not result in further environmental review or the preparation of an environmental impact report. CEQA provisions do exist to require more extensive environmental analysis if conditions so warrant. In addition, this ordinance includes both project specific mitigation measures (Exhibit B) and preparation of an annual report for monitoring second unit development activity on a cumulative impact basis. Thus, because mechanisms either exist or are proposed to mitigate the potentially significant environmental impacts associated with this project, a Conditional Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been issued. PLANNING COMMISSION' S ORDINANCE A summary and copy of the proposed Ordinance Regulating the Devel- opment of Residential Second Units (see exhibits C & D) contain provisions relating to: allowable zoning districts, types of permitted second units, permit processing, development and parking standards, unit occupancy limitations, permit recordation, and deed restriction/notification requirements. Most notably, the Ordinance also includes an Administrative Permit process which is identical to the Land Use Permit process but with several primary differ- ences. Units approved under the Administrative Permit standards are restricted to one bedroom with a 640 square foot or 40% lot coverage maximum ( i.e. the lesser of the two) , and a 6,000 square foot lot size requirement or applicable zone district lot size minimum ( i.e. the greater of the two) . In contrast, units approved via a traditional Land Use permit may have two bedrooms with a 1, 000 square foot or 40% lot coverage maximum (i.e. the lesser of the two) , and a 6, 000 square foot lot size minimum requirement. All other development standards are virtually the same for the two processes and require that three findings be made as a condition of permit approval. These findings address potential environmental impacts which may result from the proposed second unit' s develop- ment and involve noise, traffic, parking, public service, utility and facility, as well as public health, safety and welfare consid- erations. Residential Second U,..ts Ordinance and Related Processing Fees Ordinance Page 3 COUNTY COUNSEL' S ANALYSIS After analyzing the Planning Commissions ' recommended Ordinance, County Counsel has expressed concern regarding the legality of the following provisions: Applicable Districts California Government Code Section 65852. 2(c) restricts counties from adopting an ordinance which precludes second units within single family and/or multiple family zoning districts, unless the ordinance contains findings specifying reasons for deleting either or both such zoned areas. Since the ordinance neither contains negative findings nor expressly prohibits the establishment of second units within multiple family zones, it could be argued very persuasively pursuant to Section 65852 . 2(a) that they constitute a permitted use in these districts. Administrative Permit Processing Applicable State and County statutes would not accommodate the processing of second unit applications under the County Ordinance Code' s administrative permit section provisions. Section 26-2 . 1204 allows the Zoning Administrator to approve zoning variances but does not authorize the establishment of uses without requiring a public hearing on the involved request. The ordinance also appears to violate applicable zoning variance provisions of California Government Code Section 65906 because the zone districts allowing second units would not otherwise expressly authorize such a use by their regulations. Variances Prohibiting the granting of variances to parking requirements would be a unique County Ordinance Code provision as no other known uses or zoning districts presently contain this stan- dard. This section seems to deal with second unit uses differently from the establishment of other uses in the County, thus raising questions about the potential for dis- criminatory treatment between similarly situated property owners. A general variance section, either including or exclusive of the parking standards section, must be developed so the County Planning Agency has the authority required to allow deviations from proposed ordinance provisions, in accordance with the procedures described in Chapters 26-2 and 82-6. Owner Occupancy Imposing restrictions and requiring evidence that an owner occupies the property as a prerequisite to granting a second unit permit is arguably invalid. It not only constitutes a prior restraint on the alienation of affected properties, but imposes a very substantial restriction on an owner' s ability to establish a second unit. In keeping with the Board policy expressed in the Housing Element for adopting an ordinance which provides expanded second unit development opportunities and ensures a legally defensible ordinance, County Counsel suggests the following alternative language: "no more than one dwelling unit on the parcel shall be rented or leased" . Although this type of restriction does not require actual occupancy on the property by the owner, it would prevent the two units from becoming rentals thus effecting an indirect but similar result. t , Residential Second Un__s Ordinance and Related Processing Fees Ordinance Page 4 Building Permit/Deed Restriction Notification and Recordations Land use permit, building permit, and deed restriction recordations would not, for legal purposes, constitute notice to any subsequent buyer of a property. To give County staff the necessary discretion .for formulating a restriction on the property which would be recorded and provide subsequent purchasers with the notice, the following alternative language is suggested: "A deed restriction, in a form approved by County Counsel, shall be recorded identifying the tenancy restrictions (i.e. , limitations on number of rented or leased units per parcel) described in Section of this Ordinance. " SUGGESTED ORDINANCE REVISIONS Staff suggests revisions to the proposed ordinance: 1. Pursuant to the Planning Commission' s final recommendation, development criteria for both the Administrative and Land Use Permit processes are basically similar. The primary differences are lot and unit size standards. Since the criteria are duplicative, and given community concern over the introduction of subjective review standards into the Administrative Permit process, staff recommends eliminating the Administrative processing provisions. 2. As a substitute for deletion of the Administrative Permit process, it is suggested that second unit applications be subject to a single $150. 00 application fee and given processing priority subject to an expedited review schedule. 3 . Both the duplex, D-1, and multiple family zoning districts, M-61 M-9, M-121 M-17, and M-29, must be specifically cited under the Applicable Districts section of the ordinance as areas allowing second unit construction. In anticipation, amended publication notices and CEQA documents have been prepared to reflect the inclusion of these additional districts in the final ordinance revisions. 4. To clarify the status of legal non-conforming :.second. units, language authorizing or extending ordinance provisions which allow legalization via applicable land use permit processes could be included. 5. Modifying parking standards to three on-site spaces, for both the primary and second unit, with configuration subject to zoning administrator review and approval; 6. Deleting the restriction prohibiting variances to ordinance parking requirements; 7. Including a section providing for variances to other or- dinance standards (i.e. lot width, depth, structure height, and yard setbacks) as presently applicable to both single family and multiple family zoning districts; 8. Reducing or prorating (based upon actual impact) improvement fees applicable to second unit construction (i.e. park dedication fees, drainage fees, school fees, etc. ) ; 9. Substituting County Counsel' s recommended language relating to unit tenancy in lieu of the currently proposed owner occupancy restrictions; 10. Expanding the unit occupancy description to include rental/ leasing of second units by unrelated persons or persons living together as a single household unit; Residential Second Un.,.s Ordinance and Related Processing Fees Ordinance Page 5 11 . Limiting maximum building lot coverage in multiple family residential districts at 25% (M-61 M-91 M-12 & M-17) and 35% (M-29) respectively, to maintain consistency with existing County Ordinance provisions; and 12. Substituting County Counsel ' s recommended language relating to building permit/deed restrictions notification and recordation. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS A. Hold a public hearing on the Planning Commission' s recommended ordinance and desired staff revisions; B. Adopt the Amended Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance; C. Direct preparation of a Final Second Unit Ordinance combining desired staff, Commission and any Supervisor ' s suggested revisions; D. Refer modifications not previously part of the ordinance back to Planning Commission for additional review prior to final Board action; E. Direct the amendment of existing County Ordinance sections pertaining to permitted district uses and uses requiring land use permit issuance; F. Adopt the Ordinance establishing fees for processing second unit applications; G. Amend Ordinances 86-94 and 86-95 to reflect the collection of Community Development Department processing fees for second units applications. Attachments: Exhibit A: Amended Initial Study Exhibit B: Amended Negative Declaration Exhibit C: Planning Commission Recommended 2nd Unit Ordinance Summary Exhibit D: Residential Second Units Ordinance Exhibit E: Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Second Unit Ordinance Adoption Exhibit F: Residential Second Units Processing Fees Ordinance t EXHIBIT A Contra Community Development Department Costa Administration Building,North Wing,Pine& Escobar Streets,Martinez,California 94553-0095 County AMENDED Initial Study OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE File-#_ Concurrent Application Second Unit Ordinance Prepared By Celeste Wixom, Planner II Date 7/17/87 Reviewed By Date RECOMMENDATIONS: ( ) Categorical Exemption (Class ) ( ) Negative Declaration ( ) Environmental Impact Report Required (X) Amended Conditional Negative Declaration (Owner/Applicant must agree to mitigation in writing). The project will not have a significant effect on the environment because mitigation measures , included in the project either reduce or eliminate the significant environmental impacts potentially associated with it. The recommendation is based on the following (List all items identified as significant): Although CEQA exempts individual second units from the environmental review process, the following long term adverse cumulative impacts may result: - Additional need for law enforcement and fire protection; expanded water, waste water treatment and solid waste disposal facilities; - Increased traffic flows and demands on neighborhood parking facilities; - Exacerbated noise levels; and - Modifications to existing neighborhood patterns and/or character. What changes to the project would mitigate the identified impacts? (List mitigation measures for any significant impacts and Amended Conditional Negative Declaration) Specific permit criteria have either been included in respective ordinance provisions or will be imposed at the project approval stage to mitigate the identified impacts. In order to reduce the potential for long term adverse cumulative impacts, the Community Development Department shall annually monitor the number of second unit applications and prepare a summary report for the Planning Commission together with supplemental recommendations, as appropriate to modify or consider limiting second unit development, if necessary. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 1. General Plan considerations (A) Land use designation, (B) Area plan name, (C) Date, (D) Specify any conflicts with proposal : Ordinance neither alters, requires changes to nor conflicts with land use designations of Contra Costa County General Plan dated 1963. 2. Zoning district (A) Specify current zoning, (8) Proposed zoning, (C) Specify any con- flicts, (D) Variances requested: Applicable zoning districts include Single Family residential R-6 through R-100, Planned Development P-1, Duplex D-1 and Multi-family Residential M-6 through M-29. Ordinance neither alters nor requires changes to zoning districts governing affected properties. Any potential conflicts or required variances to be monitored through appropriate permit review and/or approval processes. 3. Nature of request or proposed land use: An ordinance permitting development of residen- tial second units on individual parcels in conjunction with existing single family residential structures. 4. Site description and existing and neighboring land use: All Single Family residential , Planned Unit, Duplex and Multiple Family Residential zoning districts combined with surrounding environs located in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, 5. Note any previous applications of the site (if EIRs recommended, listing EIRs prepared for nearby projects): N/A 6, Does it appear that any feature of the project will generate significant public concern? (Nature of concern): ( ) Yes ( ) No (X) Maybe Possible impacts on noise levels, traffic flows, parking availability, public utility systems/services adequacy and existing neighborhood patterns/character. 7. Will the project require approval or permits by other than a County agency? (X) Yes ( ) No Agency name(s): Dependant upon property location, may necessitate approval or , authorization from special districts or private entities responsible for services or facilities provision. 8. Is the project within the Sphere of Influence or any city? (Name): Yes - All cities adjacent boundaries of Contra Costa County where spheres overlap into unincorporated_ lands/areas. ENVDRONjVEiITAL IMPACTS ANALx iS: S=Significant N=Negligible C=Cumulative No=None U=Unknown 1. Water. Will the project result in: a) Is any portion of the project within a Flood Hazard Area? ® YES ❑ NO S N N j� b) Reduction of surface or ground water quality or quantity? ❑ ❑ 0 U c) Increased runoff or alters:tion to drainage patterns and streams? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Erosion of or sedimentation in a body of water? ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 2. Earth. (Consider the rieismic Safety Element) Will the proposal result in or be subject to: a) Is any portion of the project within an Alquist-Priolo Act Special Studies Zone? (if yes, date County Geologist notified ®YES ❑NO b) Potentially ,.azardous geologic or soils conditions on or S N C NO U immedV.cely adjoinir-g the site? (slides, springs, erosions, liqui- faction, earthquake faults; consider prime soils, slope, septic tank limitations). Cite any geologic or engineering reports. (County Geologist consulted?) ❑ ] ❑ (] ❑ c) Grading (consider height amount, steepness and visibility of ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ proposed slopes; consider effect of grading on trees, creek channels and ridge tops)(Are there any grading plans?) OYES ❑ NO 3. Plant/Animal Life. S N C NO U a) Will there be a reduction or disturbance to any habitat for plants and animals? (includ:iig removal or disturbance of trees) ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Will the Project affect the habitat of any rare, endangered or unique species located rn or near the site? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c) What vegetation (habitat) tv')es exist on the site (give relative % or proportions if significant)? List habitat types. _ Varied types dependant upon individual properties involved. 4. Air. Will the Project result in deterioration of existing air quality, S N C NO U including creation of objectionable. odors, or will future project residents be subjc^ted to significant pollution levels? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Noise. Will the protect result in: a) Is any portions of the project within the 1990, 60 dBA Noise ®YES ❑ NO Contour? (check Noise Element at 1000 scale maps) b) Increases from existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 6. Ener /Natural Resources/Hazards (Consider General Plan, Safety and Seismic Safety Elements). Will the projects result in: a) Any.additioaal consumption of energy? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Affect the potential use, extraction, conservation or depletion of a natural resource? ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Increase risk of explosion, release of hazardous substances or other dangers to public health and safety? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ 7. Utilities pad Public Service. Will the project: a) Require alteration or addition to or the need for new utility systems (including sphere of influence or district boundary change; water, sewer, solid waste)? ®YES 0 NO EXHIBIT B California Environmental Quality Act NOTICE OF Completion of Environmental Impact Report Amended Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 PINE STREET P.O. BOX 951 MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-0095 Telephone: (415) 372- 2035 Contact Person Celeste Wixom Project Description and Location: SECOND UNIT ORDINANCE Contra Costa County is considering adoption of an ordinance designed to authorize second living units on individual parcels in single family residential and multiple family residential zoning districts. The ordinance would allow the development of secondary or accessory living units subject to specific administrative criteria or land use permit criteria along with applicable review, processing and permit issuance procedures. This ordinance will affect all unincorporated areas of the County included or located within the following particular zoning districts: R-6, R-7, R-10, R-12, R-15, R-20, R-40, R-65, R-100, P-19 D-19 M-69 M-92 M-12, M-17 and M-29. Significant environmental impacts potentially posed by the implementation of this ordinance have been identified, along with applicable mitigation measures as indicated in the "Attachment" and in the attached amended Initial Study of Environmental Significance. This project will not have a significant effect on the environment because mitigation measures included in the project either reduce or eliminate the significant environmental impacts potentially associated with it. Amended Justification for Negative Declaration is attached. The Environmental Impact Report is available for review at the address below: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 4th Floor, North Wing, Administration Building Pine & Escobar Streets Martinez, California Review Period for Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration: July 24, 1987 ru August 11, 1987 By AP 9 R 6/85 Community Developm t Department Representative s� CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR SECOND UNIT ORDINANCE "ATTACHMENT° IMPACTS MITIGATIONS Noise, Traffic, Parking, Services, According to Land Use Permit Utilities/Facilities Criteria: - Units may not result in the creation of excessive noise, traffic, or parking. - Findings may be made to deny an application where an additional unit unacceptably overburdens public services,.utilities, facilities or presents a threat to public health, safety or welfare. Neighborhood Patterns or Character Second Units are subject to architectural review for ensuring their compatability with design of the primary residence and overall neighborhood character. Cumulative Effects An annual report to the Planning Commission will be prepared by the Community Development Department which monitors second unit development activity levels and recommends, if necessary, modifications to or limitations on second unit development. CW/mb CW/attacha.txt EXHIBIT C SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED 2ND UNIT ORDINANCE Applicable Zoning Districts: All Single Family R-6 thru R-100, P-1 and D-1 . Types of Permitted Second Units: o Attached or Detached o Conversions of and additions to existing primary residences o Legal Non-conforming. Administrative Permit Processing: o Utilizes Administrative Variance Procedure, Zoning Ordinance Article 26-2.21. Administrative Permit Standards: o Rental (non related persons) or family member occupancy. 0 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size requirement or minimum lot size requirement established by zone district - whichever larger. o No more than one primary residence allowed on lot with 2nd unit. o No more than one bedroom. 0 640 sq. ft. floor area maximum or 40% lot coverage maximum whichever less. o Conformance to all zone district standards including appli- cable fees and charges. o Architectural compatibility between primary residence, 2nd unit and neighborhood. o Evidence of building permit for existing 2nd units required prior to zoning permit issuance. o Health Officer approval of private sewage and water disposal systems o Three Findings: 1. No excess noise, traffic or parking problems. 2. No overburden on public services, utilities or facilities. 3. No threat to public health, safety or welfare. o Separate entrance for second unit. Land Use Permit Processing: 0 Utilizes Conditional Use Permit Procedure, Zoning Ordinance Chapter 26-2, except Article 26-2. 21 . Land Use Permit Standards: Same as for Administrative Permit Standards except as noted below: 0 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. o (by implication) more than one primary ' residence allowed on lot with 2nd unit. 0 No more than two bedrooms. } i EXHIBIT D ORDINANCE NO. 87— AN ORDINANCE GOVERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL SECOND UNITS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SECTION I Findings. The Board recognizes there is a shortage of housing at rent levels affordable for low and moderate income citizens including, among others, young single people, single parents, the elderly and handicapped. Additionally, as the local economy and population expand, more diverse housing opportunities must be provided for accommodating those residents desiring to obtain rental housing. In response to the needs of these specific population segments and to achieve a community with housing available for all income level households, a residential Second Unit Ordinance has been prepared. Therefore, the Board declares it necessary, for the health, safety and welfare of its residents, to permit Residential Second Units in Single-Family Residential , Planned Unit District in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. The Board further finds and declares that there are many benefits associated with the establishment of Residential Second Units on existing single-family lots which include: 1. Increasing the supply of affordable rental housing for low and moder- ate income and senior citizens; 2. Improving security for homeowners who fear both criminal intrusion and personal accidents while living alone; 3. Encouraging infill housing construction that can efficiently utilize existing infrastructure and services; 4. Reducing the need for major improvements, expansion or expensive new infrastructure systems such as roadways, drainage and utilities to service undeveloped areas. The Board further finds that a second unit established under this ordinance does not exceed allowable density for the lot upon which it is located. Finally, the Board finds that second units are a residential use that is consistent with the County General Plan and the zoning classifications for the applicable zoning districts. E ' Page 2 SECTION II: Chapter 82-24 is added to the County Ordinance to read: CHAPTER 82-24 RESIDENTIAL SECOND UNITS Article 82-24.2 Ordinance Section 82-24.202 Purpose Ordinance Section 82-24.204 Applicable Districts Ordinance Section 82-24.4 Definitions Ordinance Section 82-24.410 Types of Second Units Ordinance Section 82.24.6 Applications Ordinance Section 82-24.802 Administrative Permit Processing Ordinance Section 82-24.804 Administrative Permit Standards Ordinance Section 82-24.806 Non-Conforming Units Ordinance Section 82-24.808 Parking Ordinance Section 82-24.810 Variances--Parking Ordinance Section 82-24.812 Owner Occupancy Ordinance Section 82-24.1002 Land Use Permit Processing Ordinance Section 82-24.1004 Land Use Permit Standards Ordinance Section 82-24.1202 Building Permits Ordinance Section 82-24.1204 Monitoring of Permit Activity Ordinance Section 82-24.1206 Recordation of Permits Ordinance Section 84-24.1208 Recordation of Deed Restrictions and Notification Ordinance Section Section III Repeal of Existing Ordinance Provisions Ordinance Section Section IV Ordinance Effective Date General 82-24.202 Purpose. This Chapter authorizes Second Units and establishes a procedure for reviewing and authorizing their development in order to ensure and maintain healthy and safe residential living environments. 82-24.204 Applicable Districts. The provisions of this Chapter are applicable to the Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts, R-6, R-7, R-10, R-12, R-15, R-20, R-40, R-65, and R-100, Planned Unit District, P-1. t Page 3 82-24.206 Two-Family Residential District A second unit may be permitted pursuant to this Chapter in a Two-Family Residential District (D-1) only if the property is occupied by one existing detached single family unit. Article 82-24.4 82-24.4 Definitions. When used in the context of this chapter, the following words have specific de- finitions relating to the implementation of this Ordinance: 82-24.402 Attached Second Unit. A dwelling unit which is attached to the primary dwelling unit by any means including a common wall , roof or floor. 82-24.404 Detached Second Unit. A dwelling unit which isnot attached to the primary residence by any means including a common wall , roof or floor. 82-24.406 Legal Non-Conforming Second Unit. A second unit which presently constitutes a non-conforming second unit but which, at the time of its construc- tion, did comply with the applicable zoning district regulations affecting that property. 82-24.408 Second Unit A Second Unit means one new additional dwelling unit, attached or detached as an accessory building, located on any one lot or parcel , which satisfies all of the following conditions: 1) It provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons residing together as a household unit. 2) It consists of permanent provisions for living, sleeping, water and sanitation facilities, eating and separate food preparation facilities in- cluding, but not limited to, a stove or hot plate, oven, refrigerator and sink. 82-24.410 Types of Second Units. 1. Conversion of an attic, basement, garage, or other portion of the existing primary residence; 2. Addition of a separate unit to the existing primary residence; 3. Creation of a detached structure on the lot or parcel in addition to the existing primary residence. Page 4 Article 82-24.6 Applications. 82-24.602 Applications. A second unit proposed for development shall require submission of an official application to the Community Development Department. 82-24.604 Application Contents. An application for a permit approving a second unit must be made in writing and contain the following information: 1) Name(s) of applicant(s) , property owner(s) and names and addresses of all adjoining property owners; 2) Address and Assessor's Parcel number for the property; 3) Size indicating dimensions and square footage of the primary residence and proposed second unit; 4) A legible scale drawing showing: a) A north arrow to indicate parcel orientation. b) Lot dimensions and labels for all property lines. C) Siting of the primary residence and proposed second unit. d) Floor plan configuration of the primary residence and proposed second unit. e) All other existing improvements including driveways and parking areas. f) Exterior design including architectural features of the pri- mary residence and proposed second unit. 5) Location and distances to existing improvements on adjacent parcels; 6) Location and description of water and sanitary services for both the primary residence and second unit; 7) Property owner's consent allowing for physical inspection of the premises. 8) A written legal description of the property proposed for second unit development. 9) Evidence that the property proposed for Second Unit development is the primary residence of the owner. Such evidence may in- clude, but is not limited to, proof of homeowner' s exemption on the property tax roll . Article 82-24.8 Administrative Permits 82-24.802 Administrative Permit Processing. An application for a second unit which complies with the following conditions shall be processed in accordance with Article 26-2.21 (Administrative Deci- sions), as if it were a variance permit. Page 5 82-24.804 Administrative Permit Standards An administrative permit under this Article may be issued only if the second unit complies with the following conditions: 1) The second unit is intended for a rental or occupancy by a family member and not to be sold separately; 2) The lot meets minimum building site area standards of the appli- cable zone district wherein it is located or 6,000 square feet whichever is greater; 3) The lot contains no more than one existing single family detached unit; 4) The second unit will consist of no more then one bedroom in addition to a kitchen, living room/dining room and bathroom, regard- less of the unit's floor area or ultimate size; 5) The total floor area of the second unit may not exceed 640 square feet or cause the maximum lot coverage to exceed 40%, whichever is less; 6) The second unit conforms to height, setback, lot size, lot width, fees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to residential construction in the applicable zone district; 7) The second unit is architecturally compatible with overall neigh- borhood character and the primary residence in terms of scale, colors, materials and design for trim, windows, roof, roof pitch and other exterior physical features; 8) For existing second units, a building permit shall be required prior to issuance of an administrative permit. 9) If a private sewage disposal system, water system or both is used, the second unit must have prior approval by the health officer. 10) The second unit does not result in excessive neighborhood noise, traffic, or parking problems; 11) The second unit does not overburden public services, utilities or facilities; 12) Development of the second unit does not present a threat to public health, safety or welfare. 13) The property is owner occupied. 14) The second unit shall have a separate entrance. 82-24.806 Non-conforming units. If the existing primary residence is a legal non-conforming unit, a second unit may be constructed provided the non-conformity is not expanded and the second unit complies with current applicable zone district standards. Page 6 82-24.808 Parking. The lot or parcel on which a second unit is to be situated must accommodate a minimum of two off-street parking spaces for use in connection with the second unit. Off street parking shall be allowed in a driveway, but not any of the required front, side or rear yard setback areas. Parking spaces may not be in tandem configuration. 82-24.810 Variances--Parking. No variances from the Parking Requirements shall be granted. 82-24.812 Owner Occupancy. The property owner shall occupy either the primary or second residential unit. The owner shall record a deed restriction setting forth this occupancy require- ment and provide proof, on an annual basis, that the property constitutes their primary residence. If neither unit is owner occupied, the permit shall be re- voked and use of the property revert to single family occupancy. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit one or both of the units remaining vacant. Article 82-24.10 Land Use Permits 82-24.1002 Land Use Permit Processing. An application for a second unit which does not comply with the administrative permit standards of this Ordinance shall be processed in accordance with the Chapter 26-2 provisions, except for Article 26-2.21. 82-24.1004 Land Use Permit Standards. The division of the planning agency hearing the matter, either initially or on appeal , shall make the findings established in Article 26-2.20, and also find the following, before granting a land use permit for a second unit; 1) The second unit is intended for a rental or occupancy by a family member and not to be sold separately; 2) The lot meets a minimum 6,000 square foot building site area. 3) In no case shall the second unit have more than two bedrooms in addition to a kitchen, living room/dining room, and bathroom, regardless of the unit's floor area or ultimate size; 4) The total floor area of the second unit may not exeed 1,000 square feet or cause the maximum lot coverage to exceed 40%, whichever is less. 5) The second unit complies with all building code requirements governing additions to an existing single family dwelling, as deemed appropriate; Page 7 6) If a private sewage disposal system, water system or both is used, the second unit must have prior approval by the health officer. 7) The second unit conforms to height, setback, lot size, lot width fees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to residential construction in the applicable zone district. 8) The second unit is architecturally compatible with overall neigh- borhood character and the primary residence in terms of scale, colors, materials and design for trim, windows, roof, roof pitch and other exterior physical features; 9) For existing second units, a building permit shall be required prior to issuance of a conditional land use permit. 10) The second unit does not result in excessive neighborhood noise, traffic, or parking problems; 11) The second unit does not overburden public services, utilties or facilities; 12) Development of the second unit does not present 'a threat to public health, safety or welfare. Article 82-12 82-24.12 Other Requirements 82-24.1202 Building Permits. A second unit for which a permit has been issued under this Chapter is subject to the requirements of Title 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit evidence of recordation of the permit, deed restrictions and deed notification shall be presented. 82-24.1204 Monitoring of Permit Activity. An annual report to the Planning Commission shall be prepared by the Community Development Department which monitors second unit development activity levels and recommends, if necessary, modifications to or limitations on second unit de- velopment. The report shall include an assessment of the impacts on such items as traffic, parking, public services, density, etc. 82-24.1206 Recordation of Permits. Any second unit permit issued under this Chapter shall be filed by the permittee with the County Recorder's Office as an information document and include a legal description of the property. 5 Page 8 82-24.1208 Recordation of Deed Restrictions and Notification. The permittee shall record a deed restriction setting forth the requirements of the permit including the requirement of owner occupancy. In addition, the permittee shall insure that a deed notification be recorded as follows: "You are purchasing a property with a permit for a second residential unit. This permit carries with it certain conditions that must be met by the owner of the property including a requirement that the property be owner occupied." SECTION III: Repeal of Existing Ordinance Provisions. Subdivision (10) of Section 84-4.404 of the County Ordinance Code is repealed. SECTION IV: Ordinance Effective Date. This Ordinance becomes effective 60 days after passage and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against it in the a newspaper published in this County. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, in Contra Costa County, California, at a regular meeting held on via the following called vote: AYES: Supervisors: NOES: Supervisors: ATTEST: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Deputy CW/mb c:2unitord.rpt cc: Perfecto Villareal, County Housing Authority Leslie Watson, DUO Program John Trauth, DUO Program Supervisor Robert Schroeder - c/o Virginia Romelli Supervisor Tom Powers i EXHIBIT E RESOLUTION NO. 29-1987 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL SECOND UNITS FOR INCORPORATION INTO TITLE 8, ZONING, OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CODE WHEREAS, staff prepared a comprehensive draft ordinance which was modified : during the public hearing process at the direction of the County Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, a conditional Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was posted from April 14 through April 28, 1987; and WHEREAS, following appropriate legal notice, a public hearing was held by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on April 28 and May 26, 1987, and all interested persons appeared and were heard; and WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Planning Commission fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all testimony and evidence submitted in this matter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa. County, State of California, adopting the proposed ordinance as set forth in the attached Exhibit A and related ordinance text amendments as identified below; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors take the following related actions: 1. Add Sections to the existing County Ordinance referencing the permitting of Second Units as defined under the Second Unit Ordinance subject to administrative permit processing in all affected Single Family, Duplex and Planned Unit Development Zoning Districts. 2. Amend Section 84-4.404 of the County Ordinance pertaining to uses requiring the issuance of a land use permit for Second Units as defined under the Second Unit Ordinance in all affected Single Family and Duplex Zoning Districts. 3. Amend Section 84-66.402(2) of the County Ordinance identifying uses allowed in the Planned Unit Development Zoning District to include Second Units as defined under the Second Unit Ordinance. 4. Adopt the proposed filing fee schedule contained in Exhibit B. 5. Amend Ordinance 86-94 and 86-95 regulating fees for Second Residences to include Second Units and add a new fee for the administrative processing of Second Unit applications. -1- RESOLUTION NO. 29-1987 The instructions by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by Commission motion on Tuesday, June 9, 1987, at their regularly scheduled meeting by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Davis, Accornero, Nimr, Whitney, Aiello, Feliz, Best NOES: Commissioners - NONE. ABSENT: Commissioners - NONE. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - NONE. I , Linda P. Best, Chair of the Planning Commission of Contra Costa County, State of California, certify that the foregoing vote was called and held in accordance with the law on Tuesday, July 14, 1987 and this resolution was regularly passed and adopted by the following Commissioner votes: AYES: Commissioners - Davis, Aiello, Feliz, Accornero, Nimr, Whitney, Best. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. Chair of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California ATTEST r tary o t e ontra Costa County Planning Co mmi on, State of California cw/mb cw/duo.rsn _ -2- EXHIBIT F ORDINANCE NO. 87- (Adding Fee for Residential Second Units) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I : Authority. This ordinance is enacted, in part, in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 54985 et seq. , 54990 et seq. , 65909.5, 65941.5, 65962, 66451.2, and Public Resources Code Section 21089. SECTION II. Purpose. By Ordinance No. 87- the Board of Supervisors has established a procedure for the development of residential second units. The purpose of this ordinance is to set a fee to reimburse the County for the cost incurred by the Community Development Department in processing applications for such units. SECTION III : Fees. The fees for land use permits, other entitlements, appeals, or other services furnished by the Community Development Department are listed in Exhibit A, attached to this ordinance and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION IV. Severability. If any fee or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining fees or provisions, and the Board of Supervisors declares that it would have adopted each part of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other part. SECTION V: EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 60 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against it in the a newspaper published in this County. PASSED ON by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: .ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Chair, Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By {SEAL} Deputy CW/mb cw/2ndunit.fee PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE FOR SECOND UNIT ORDINANCE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Staff Review Procedures Filing Fee Administrative Permit $125.00 Land Use Permit $220.00 CW/mb cw/exhibitb.txt CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE. EFFECTIVE 1/5/15-( Action.Proposed Filing Additional Fees AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE 1. Rezoning $ 500 2. Cancellation Petition 860 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 110 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMIT (Includes Variances) 1. Multiple Family Residential 1,330 + ;20/unit 2. Commercial, Office, Industrial 1,330 + $0.05/ft2 to 100,000 ft2, + $0.03/ft2, 100,001/sf2 and over of floor area 3. No new buildings, No exterior change 300 4. No new buildings, exterior change 880 S. Others 1,300 6. Extension of Time 75 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Authorized Amendment Review 850 + =50/acre plus any portion LAND USE PERMIT (Includes Variances) - 1. Quarries, Sanitary Landfills 2,100 +.$20/acre plus any portion (includes Reclamation Plan) (Quarry Reclamation Plan only) 600 Same as Land Use Permit above (1) 2. Caretaker Mobile Home 130 3. Family Member Mobile Home 130 4. Residential Care Facilty (7 or more persons) 130 S. Nome Occupation 130 6. Second Residence 220 7. LUP/Development Plan Combination 580 + Development Plan S. Others 1,150 9. Extention of Time 60 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 110 SUBDIVISION 1. Fee 980 + 590/lot or unit through 50 lots (units) S60/lot or unit, 51 through 250 lots (units) S30/lot or unit, 251 lots Plus 2. Condo Conversion 1,800 3. Section 94-2.202 Lot Split 300 4. Extension of Time 75 PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT 1. Rezoning a. 1,700 Same as Subdivision addition fees (1) Commercial, Office, Industrial b. 2,580 + $150/acre or portion 2. Final Development Plan 1,030 3. Tentative Subdivision Map 750 REZONING 1. To Commercial, Office, Industrial, 2,050 Multiple Family, Mobile Home Park 2. Others 1.170 SIGN REVIEW (separate from project review) 75 VARIANCE PERMIT: Single Family 110 1. Other 320 2. Extension of Time 60 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS Per Staff estimate of cost, Co.Ord.0 (S) 26-2.2804 REQUESTED SPECIAL SERVICES 550/hr(E.g.review of reports under Pub. Res. C. (S) 26500 et.sea., research compilation of data etc.) APPEALS I. To Planning Commission/Board of Appeals 100 2. To Board of Supervisors 100 RECONSIDERATION 75 Source: County Ordinance 83 —Cf+ 96--9S RdV:gms 10/8/86 . asl:Fee$ched.frm