HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01182005 - SD4 ..........
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICPCosta
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR . ..... County
ou
DATE: JANUARY18, 2005 C
SUBJECT: HEARING ON A COUNTY INITIATED PROPOSAL TO REZONE THE KENSINGTON AREA
IN ORDER TO COMBINE THE NEWLY ADOPTED KENSINGTON COMBINING DISTRICT
WITH THE VARIOUS EXISTING UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICTS; AND THE
RESCISSION OF THE KENSINGTON URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE (ORD. NO. 2005-
04) COUNTY FILE#RZ043149. (DISTRICT 1)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
1. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. OPEN the hearing; accept testimony related to the proposed rezoning and rescission
of the interim ordinance.
B. FIND that on the basis of the whole record, including the Initial Study and the
comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects the
County's independent judgment and analysis. The documents or other material that
constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Board of Supervisors decision is
based may be found at the Community Development Department.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:. X YES SIGNATURE CZt4
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE,
—APPROVE -OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON 'gce;� APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED
V V E OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT4eg2L*--0 CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Ryan Hernandez(925)335-1206 ATTESTED
JOHN SW CLERK OF_ BOARD OF�-
Orig: Community Development Department SUPER AND COUN ADMINISTRATOR
cc: County Counsel
County Administrator's Office
e
Clerk of the Board BY10 7 DEPU`TY
ti
January 18, 2005 County File#RZ043149
Board of Supervisors
Page 2
C. FIND that the proposed rezoning to combine the existing zoning with the (/K) district
is consistent with the General Plan.
D. INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 2005-05 giving effect to aforesaid rezoning, waive
reading, and adopt the ordinance.
E. ADOPT the findings and recommendations of the County Planning Commission as
contained in Resolution No. 32-2004.
F. FIND that the rescission of the Kensington Urgency Interim Ordinance is exempt
from CEQA, Section 15061(b)3, based on the general rule that CEQA only applies to
projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
G. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2005-04 that rescinds the Kensington Urgency Interim
Ordinance in its entirety.
H. DIRECT staff to post the Notice of Determination and the Notice of Exemption with
the County Clerk.
Il. FISCAL IMPACT
The Kensington Property Owners Association, the Kensington Improvement Club and other
private fundraising contributed $15,000 to the effort. An additional $15,000 was provided
from the Dougherty Valley County Regional Enhancement Contribution Fund. Staff costs
for the Kensington Combining District marginally exceeded the funds available. The staff
costs for the Interim Urgency Ordinance will be included in the Department's unfunded
mandate reimbursement request which was reduced for this fiscal year. Proposed revisions
to the County's Fee Resolution which will address application costs for residential projects in
Kensington is before the Board this date.
III. BACKGOUND/REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On December 14, 2004, the Board adopted the General Plan amendment and the
Kensington Combining District. The General Plan amendment added specific text polices for
Kensington that are the foundation for the now effective Kensington Combining District,
Chapter 84-74. The rezoning of the Kensington area, which unites the Kensington
Combining District with the underlying zoning districts and the rescission of the Interim
Urgency Ordinance are the final steps in this process.
Kensington Combining District Ordinance:
The Kensington Combining District extends a design review process, similar to the "small lot
review", to all proposed residential development in the community. The ordinance
establishes a floor area threshold, above which a public hearing is automatically required for
the expansion of a building envelope. For those projects which fall below the applicable
standard (which varies dependent upon the lot size), a public hearing is only required if
requested following a public notice. The public notification period provides for a 34-day
notice rather than the 10 days utilized for the "small lot review" process.
i
January 18, 2005 County File#RZ043149
Board of Supervisors
Page 3
Approximately 54% of the 2309 parcels in Kensington are subject to the small lot review
process based on parcel size alone. The Kensington Combining District, by contrast, applies
to all residential development.
When a project requires a public hearing, the Combining District expands both the elements
of the project to be reviewed, as well as sets the criteria to be considered. Whereas the
existing "small lot review" process specifies that impacts to the neighborhood are to be
considered, the Combining District specifies that these neighborhood impacts are to be
evaluated based on criteria including view protection, privacy in living areas, light and solar
access, and maintaining residential noise levels. In reaching a decision on the project, the
proposed ordinance requires the Zoning Administrator to balance the following factors;
• recognizing the rights of property owners to improve the value and enjoyment of their
property;
• recognizing the rights of property owners of vacant lots to establish a residence that is
compatible with the neighborhood in terms of bulk, scale and design;
• minimizing impacts upon surrounding neighbors;
• protecting the value and enjoyment of the neighbors' property;
• maintaining the community's property values;
• maximizing the use of existing interior space, and
promoting the general welfare, public health, and safety.
A letter from Mr. Brian Stone dated January 10, 2005 (refer to attached), is very similar to his
testimony before the County Planning Commission. Mr. Stone is primarily concerned about
the affect of requiring a review on lots that previously were not subject to the small lot review
process. This topic, as well as others raised in the letter, were addressed in the materials
which were part of the Board's packet for the December 14, 2004 hearing.
Rescission of the Interim Ordinance:
On June 29, 2004, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Urgency Interim Ordinance that
prohibited new residential additions on lots located in Kensington which conform to the
residential zoning district standards. The Interim Ordinance placed a restriction on
residential development, specifically on vacant parcels and on parcels that conform to the
applicable zoning district standards and that otherwise could obtain building permits without
design review. On August 10, 2004, the Board of Supervisors extended and modified the
Interim Ordinance. Now that the rezoning, which would apply the Kensington Combining
District to the community, is before the Board, it is appropriate to concurrently rescind the
urgency ordinance. Both actions would become effective on February 17, 2005.
EXHIBIT
County Planning Commission
Resolution No. 32-2004
RESOLUTION NO. 32-2004
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF CONTRA
COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDATION ON THE GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE COUNTY CODE
CHAPTER 84-74 RELATING TO THE CREATION OF THE KENSINGTON
COMBINING DISTRICT, AND THE REZONING THAT APPLIES THE KENSINGTON
COMBINING DISTRICT TO SPECIFIC ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE KENSINGTON
AREA (County Files #GP040003,#ZT040002 and #RZ043149)
WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa determined that within the Kensington area a
unique set of circumstances exist that include entirely built out neighborhoods, striking views,
narrow winding roads, hillsides, and varied architectural styles; and
WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the
County Planning Commission on Tuesday, November 30, 2004, whereat all persons interested
might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, November 30, 2004, the County Planning Commission having
fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this
matter; and
WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission received reports from staff and conducted
a public hearing on Tuesday, November 30, 2004, on three separate but related actions
addressing a community initiated zoning district addition (Kensington Combining District) that
provides new review procedures for improvements; and
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2004 the County Planning Commission recommended
approval of the Board initiated general plan amendment for the Kensington area that provides
specific policies to the Land Use Element of the General Plan which allows for protection of
views, neighborhood compatibility, adequate parking, access to sunlight and a homeowners right
to improve their property, and
WHEREAS, the second related action was the proposed text amendment, better known as
the Kensington Combining District, which is designed to regulate improvements that expand the
building envelope; and determine whether the improvement requires a noticed public hearing or
a standard thirty-four day notice; and
WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and State and County CEQA guidelines, that on the basis of the whole record,
including the Initial Study and the comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that
the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration
reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that County Planning Commission
recommends for adoption by the Board of Supervisors the General Plan Amendment and text
amendment as described in the November 30, 2004 staff report, which will include the creation
of specific policies within the Land Use Element of the General Plan and include County Code
Chapter 84-74 relating to the creation of the Kensington Combining District.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission finds that the
proposed General Plan Amendment and text amendment to create County Code Chapter 84-74
relating to the Kensington Combining District, as recommended in the November 30, 2004 staff
report, is substantially consistent with the General Plan of Contra Costa County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that County Planning Commission finds that the proposal
to rezone the Kensington area so that the Kensington Combining District is combined with the
applicable underlying zoning districts, as recommended in the November 30, 2004 staff report, is
substantially consistent with the General Plan of Contra Costa County, and recommends that the
Board adopt the rezoning.
The instruction of the County Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given
on Tuesday, November 30, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Battaglia, Clark, Gaddis, Mehlman, Snyder, Wong,
and Terrell
NOES: Commissioners - None
ABSENT: Commissioners - None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None
Marvin Terrell,
Chair of the County Planning Commission,
County of Contra Costa, State of California
I, Dennis M. Barry, Secretary of the County Planning Commission hereby certify that the
foregoing was duly called and approved on November 30, 2004.
ATTEST:
Dennis M. Barry, Secretary
County Planning Commission
County of Contra Costa
State of California
EXHIBIT 11
Kensington Combining District
(Ordinance No. 2004-46)
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-46
KENSINGTON COMBINING DISTRICT
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting;the parenthetical
footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance
Code):
SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance amends the County Ordinance Code to add the
Kensington Combining District, which adds land use regulations within any area added to the
District. (Ord. 2004-46 .§ l.)
SECTION II. Chapter 84-74 is added to the County Ordinance Code to read:
Chapter 84-74
KENSINGTON COMBINING DISTRICT
Article 84-74.2
General
84-74.202 Kensington (-K) combining district. All land within a land use district combined
with the Kensington combining (-K) district shall be subject to the following additional
regulations set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 2004-46, § 2.)
84-74.204 Purpose and intent.
(a) The purpose of this chapter is to provide specific regulation to fairly and efficiently
implement the Contra Costa County General Plan Policies for the Kensington Area so
that future development recognizes the rights of property owners to improve the value
and enjoyment of their property while minimizing impacts upon surrounding neighbors
and not substantially impairing the value and enjoyment of their neighbors' property;
maintains the community's property values; and promotes the general welfare, public
health and safety.
(b) It is a further purpose of this chapter to promote the community's values of preservation
of views, light and solar access,privacy, parking, residential noise levels, and
compatibility with the neighborhood with regard to bulk and scale.
(c) Features of a development that could influence these values include but are not limited to
siting, size, bulk, building envelope, height, setbacks, relative scale, off-street parking
spaces, window placement, artificial lighting, and location of mechanical devices such as
motors, fans and vents. (Ord. 2004-46, § 2.)
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-46
1
decks, and patios.
(i) "Interior courtyard"means an unroofed area contained within a building that is bounded
on at least three sides by roofed interior space,provided the two opposing walls are each
at least 10 feet in depth.
"Light"means a living area's access to open sky unobstructed by buildings or structures.
(k) "Living areas"mean rooms in the residential buildings on a parcel that have at least one
exterior window or door. Living areas do not include attics, crawl spaces, basements,
accessory buildings, garages, and carports.
(1) "Neighborhood" and "neighboring"mean real properties within 300 feet of the subject
property. "Surrounding neighbors" and"neighbors"mean owners of real properties
within 300 feet of the subject property.
(m) "Obstruction"means any substantial blockage or diminution by the proposed
development on surrounding neighbors' light, solar access, view, or pre-existing solar
energy systems. An obstruction may be caused by a building, a structure, or by attached
appendages, such as fire escapes, open stairways, chimneys, sills, belt-courses, cornices,
eaves, trellises, or other nonvegetative ornamental features.
(n) "Parcel area"means the total horizontal area included within the property lines of a
parcel.
(o) "Scale"means the relative size of a building as compared to other buildings in the
neighborhood.
(p) "Siting"means the location of the envelope of a building or structure on a parcel.
(q) "Solar access"means a living area's direct sunlight unobstructed by buildings or
structures.
(r) "View"means a scene from a window in habitable space of a neighboring residence. The
term "view"includes both up-slope and down-slope scenes, but is distant or panoramic
range in nature, as opposed to short range. Views include but are not limited to scenes of
skylines, bridges, distant cities, distinctive geologic features, hillside terrain, wooded
canyons, ridges, and bodies of water. (Ord. 2004-46, § 2.)
Article 84-74.6
Exemptions
84-74.602 General. All land within a land use district combined with the K District is exempt
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-46
3
(2) For parcels with an area of 5,000 square feet or more but fewer than 7,000 square
feet,X is calculated by subtracting the product of 0.00005 and PA from 0.750
[X=0.750 - 0.00005(PA)].
(3) For parcels with an area of 7,000 square feet or more but fewer than 10,000
square feet, X is calculated by subtracting the product of 0.00002 and PA from
0.540 [X=0.540 - .00002(PA)].
(4) For parcels with an area of 10,000 square feet or more but fewer than 20,000
square feet, X is calculated by subtracting the product of 0.000013 and PA from
0.470 [X=0.470 - 0.000013(PA)].
(5) For parcels with an area of 20,000 square feet or more, X equals 0.220. (Ord.
2004-469 § 2.)
Article 84-74.10
Review Procedure
84-74.1002 Administrative decision or bearing. Any application for a permit submitted to the
community development department for a building permit for development or expansion of the
envelope of a building or structure on a parcel within the—K District that is not exempt under
article 84-74.6 is subject to the review procedure under this article. This article does not exempt
an application from any applicable variance requirements of article 26-2.20. (Ord. 2004-46, §
2.)
84-74.1004 Notice. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 26-2.2104, before the zoning
administrator decides any application pursuant to this article, the community development
department shall mail or deliver notice of intent to decide the application, pursuant to
Government Code Section 65091 .and the notice provisions of section 26-2.2004 of the code. The
notice shall state the last day to request a public hearing on the application (which shall be no
fewer than 34 days after date of mailing), the general nature of the application (including any
subdivision exception requested), the review process, and the street address, if any, of the
property involved or its legal or boundary description if it has no street address. (Ord. 2004-46, �
2.)
84-74.1006 Determination of whether bearing is required.
(a) A public hearing on an application is not required unless:
(1) The threshold standards in section 84-74.802 are exceeded; or
(2) A written request for public hearing is filed with the community development
department within 34 calendar days after the notice is mailed.
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-46
5
84-74.1208 Approval. If the zoning administrator finds that the criteria stated in section 84-
74.1206 and other applicable requirements are satisfied, the zoning strator may approve
the development plan. (Ord. 2004-46, § 2.)
84-74.1210 Appeal. Any interested party may appeal a decision made by the zoning
administrator under this chapter in accordance with the provisions of article 26-2.24. (Ord.
2004-46, § 2_-)
SECTION III. Section 82-4.290 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read:
82-4.290 Basement. "Basement"means any area in a building or structure where the finished
floor directly above the area is less than six feet above preconstruction grade or finished grade,
whichever is lower. (Ord. 2004-46, § 3.)
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 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 Contra Costa Times, a newspaper published in this County.
PASSED ON by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: John Sweeten,
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair
and County Administrator
By [SEAL]
Deputy
TLG:
H:\2004\Community Development\Kensington\Kensington overlay-final.wpd
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-46
7
EXHIBIT 111
Rescission of the Kensington Urgency
Interim Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 2005-04)
Kensington Rezoning
(Ordinance No. 2005-05)
ORDINANCE NO. 2005-05
(Re-Zoning Land in the
Komington Area)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows:
M-6,M7
SECTION I: Pages N-69 N7 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map(Ord.No.78-93)is amended by re-zoning
the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s)attached hereto and incorporated herein
(see also Community Development Department File No. RZO43149 .)
FROM: Land Use District N-B -TOV (Neighborhood Business -Tree Obstruction of Views
Combining District)
R-6 -TOV (Single Family Residence -Tree Obstruction of Views
Combining District)
R-B -TOV (Retail Business -Tree Obstruction of Views Combining District)
O-1 -TOV (Limited Offices -Tree Obstruction of Views Combining District)
P-1 -TOV (Planned Unit -Tree Obstruction of Views Combining District)
TO: Land Use District N-B -TOV -K (Neighborhood Business -Tree Obstruction of Views
Combining District -Kensington Combining District)
R-6 -TOV -K (Single Family Residence -Tree Obstruction of Views
Combining District -Kensington Combining District)
R-B -TOV -K (Retail Business -Tree Obstruction of Views Combining District
-Kensington Combining District)
0-1 -TOV -K (Limited Offices -Tree Obstruction of Views Combining District
-Kensington Combining District)
P-1 -TOV -K (Planned Unit -Tree Obstruction of Views Combining District
-Kensington Combining District)
and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly,
pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.003.
SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within
15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in
the , a newspaper published in this County.
PASSED on by the following vote:
Supervisor Aye No Absent Abstain
1. J. Gioia ( ) ( ) ( )
2. G.B.Uilkema ( ) ( } ( )
3. M.N.Piepho
4. M.DeSaulnier } ( ) ( ) ( )
5. F.D. Glover 00 ( ) ( ) ( )
ATTEST: John Sweeten,County Administrator
and Clerk o the Board of Supervisors
6hairman of th oard
B ym ep. (SEAL)
rl ORDINANCE NO.2005-05
RZ04 49-Kensington Combining District Page 1 of 6
--W
/��► � ♦ �.►
� � � �1► ,.rte
1 0 JFP_-
AMORMI
WO
ROOM I
O-P
40 VA IV
!44
PIN
L
L L
%pli W-1 1 1
01
4 KOj
AM�
all 4*A
now, OE
NMI -t
low - vp
SIM
VIP
llll�
PMOR
Pl.
OP 1�OPP
L�%A
0'
'A
F4
.q/
vm W,-
vp:
P,
z2o/ru
VIM In
rm ME
law
IMF
XF IP
Owl L
OR
r- , *W-OPP low
WEf�,�,► W as
#W, sp- ► yk, IPA
�VM
VIM
WS,
vm lip"
w♦ ,,�►r ,,�► --���"` x _:; -A 0
'` , ,:* i
W-P Oe WE
It
was was
Woo
*� i',%► ; *%�'i► '�'`*' l� .. ''f �'� ,�, go MM so
Im,02
PEP
pp_- mmlW loss 4-4
lop �-Jmvj"vww
WM go-
so= ways
1p-P,Opp go- salm
OP-P.-do P--
WEPM
FW-OPP
OP OR
6-S0- lroov IP_P-
�p
4M
qd&L
`q4O }
0♦ L tt%
- 1
� r
o
y
�r M
Dov � Q43149
s.
p o
Sig
Of
e 14
pag
0;
•
I
* A
o 3149
�. 013
� v iti
S
• g map .
S191 e �' ° .
o e Com �ag
of�
Page
0,043149
• JJ
t
FoR
t ♦ �f + `
Page M-7d of the County's 1978 Zoning Map RZ043149
,L BAATD o
EL i i vt
i PLAZA •
STATION SCHOOL
•
e
• 1
v'
�D►Z ALBANY �+
UNIFIED
SCHOOL i i •
GE i
t� t
T f +
Page N-6b of the County's 1978 Zoning Map RZ043149
RZO43149 Page 4 of 6
/ly 7 t�
=6 .
TOV
Mfr ,y. •
� r ,
• SpA
BERA
Page N-7a of the County's 1978 Zoning Map RZ043149
LEGEND
` R-6-TOV A P-1 -TOV A R-B-TOV A 0-1 -TOV A N-B-TOV A
RZ043149 Page 5 of 6'
t -.
R
Q
V
4
I&A
CG.
tp
`d
r
pf
. ale6
• t�1C
on
ova
o�
1
fl
�3
EXHIBIT IV
Comment Letter
Brian B. Stone, Successor Trustee
Stone Living Trust dated December 16, 1991
s
554 Cooper Drive
Benicia, CA 94510
Phone: 707 748-5660 e-mail: besstone@aol.com
Date: January 10, 2005
Attention: Ryan Hernandez
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
Current Planning Division
651 Pine Street North Wing 2'Floor
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Re: Remaining tasks relating to Ordinance No. 2004-46 Kensington Combining District - Pees, Funding
and One Report to Planning Commission
My Standing:
Assessor's Parcel No. 570-251-014-9, Lots 71 81 9, and 10, Block"N",
Berkeley Woods Addition, (Across from 272 Los Altos Drive, Kensington, CA)
Ryan:
Consider the following comments/suggestions regarding fees and who pays these fees relating to Ordinance
No. 2004-46 Kensington Combining District as well as other items relating to the implementation of this
ordinance.
This ordinance will place additional requirements on parcel owners (the proponent)whom wish to make
improvements on existing structures or make new improvements on vacant lots. These requirements are new
to those owners of lots generally larger than 6000 ft2. Who will be paying and how much for these additional
requirements should be decided along the lines of whom is the beneficiary. Assigning an initial filing fee and
some of the initial processing costs by the County may be reasonable because neither the proponent of an
improvement nor Contra Costa County would be the clear beneficiaries of any outcome from this ordinance at
that point. However, the new beneficiaries of this ordinance will be those neighbors who will request a
hearing and have a zoning administrator make decisions directly affecting the proponent. Additional costs
will be bourne by the proponent such as having an architect (required by County) state the gross floor ratio in
accordance with definitions unique to the ordinance. The proponent (and his architect) will have to be
prepared to participate at a possible hearing that could be requested by a neighbor or other interested person.
The proponent will pay an architect for any agreed changes in the plans whom will assist the proponent in
dealing with the zoning administrator, a possible appeal (with assistance of a lawyer) to the Planning
Commission and possibly to the Board of Supervisors and beyond.
Clearly a neighbor(s) whom requests a public hearing, whom previously had no rights regarding a proposed
improvement on a 6000+ ft' lot, should be expected to pay the additional portion of public's cost the this new
process which would be considerably less than the proponent's related costs to this new process. A
proponent of an improvement receives no offsetting benefit from this ordnance. In short, it would be the fair
thing to do to have the beneficiary pay, and the proponent of an improvement is clearly not the beneficiary of
this ordinance.
The report to the Planning Commission stated that there would be a report by the Community Development
Department to the Commission in one year regarding issues arising from this ordinance. This ordinance
provides new rights to neighbors and other interested persons to request public hearings when improvements
exceed certain parameters contained in the ordinance. As you know I have concern this ordinance may have a
chilling effect on improvements caused by a tyranny by neighbors potentially leading to abuse of the process
implemented by the ordinance. Development and the value of my property could be directly impacted. If I
have concerns, I will communicate them to the Department and Commission and expect them to be considered
in their one year report. So, I want notification of any hearings or opportunities to request hearings arising
from this ordinance. (Please consider this my written request for such notification.)
In my November 30'presentation to the Planning Commission I correctly speculated that the Community
Development Department's expenditures for this ordinance exceeded the $30,0000 which facilitated by
Supervisor Goia's office. I was not surprised that the Department will be seeking a fee resolution for more
money. A newspaper article suggested that the external (not tax dollars) contributions allowed this ordinance
to go forward without a public vote. To better understand this, I would like to be provided an accounting of
the funds that were provided to the Community Planning Department including the source/origin of these
funds, and the expenditures (staff costs) including any requests made to the Board of Supervisors for
additional funding that exceed the initial deposit ($30,000).
The building permit moratorium continues. Ordinance 2004-33 imposed a ten month moratorium on issuing
building permits for undeveloped lots citing a"threat to public health, safety, and welfare". The moratorium
on building permits for undeveloped lots has stripped these parcels of their development rights and need to be
reassessed based on this loss, since this moratorium continues to be in effect through January 1St. Tax
valuation is based on assessment as January 13 2005, and does not provide for any proration. It would be
helpful and the right thing to do, for the Community Development Department and Board of Supervisors to
advise the County Assessor that all value had been stripped from undeveloped parcels, however temporary,
through January 1St of this year. Property taxes for vacanl lots should be waived for 2005, since the liabilities
and expenses clearly exceed the any value of the undeveloped parcels had on that one day that determines the
assessed value. Hopefully the moratorium will be lifted.
- Summary
This proposed ordinance clearly takes away the rights enjoyed by owners of parcels that exceed 6000 fI2 and
adds additional requirements and allows individuals to appeal decisions that were previously unappealable.
Beneficiaries of this ordinance should pay any attributable fees.
Additional Discussion
... additional fees -who pays and how much?
In the Staff Report and Recommendation to the County Planning Commission dated November 30, 2004, the
County Planning Department suggested "a $750 application cost, with an additional $1000 deposit if a public
hearing is requested"(page 5-11) as"some higher fees". While the County neglected to state the following,
this $1000 deposit apparently is not a cap but open-ended. This deposit would cover time and materials of
County Staff involved with the application and public hearings. This could run to tens of thousands of dollars
if the dispute is carried up through the various levels of appeal.
Other more subtle costs to the proponent include the County's requirement for an architect to verify gross
floor area in accordance with the specific definitions contained in the ordinance if the proposal is to bulge the
-2-
slightest from the existing envelop (page S-8 of Staff Report to Planning Commission). The County's
Dismissal of this additional cost as "speculative" (page 5-11) is disingenuous.
In the Staff Report, the Community Development Department argues that cost recovery fees imposed on
those requesting a public hearing would have a direct effect of substantially reducing public involvement
participation, the burden should be bourne by those who benefit from this new ordinance and not by the
initiating parcel owner (page S-13). The fee"sword" should be two sided if it involves a dispute between
private citizens. Remember, that in the case of improvements on 6000ff2+ lots, the appellants did not have
any "sword" prior to this ordinance. Supposition about how the Board of Supervisors might rule regarding
such a fees is presumptuous. I do not believe that the Supervisors would impose unfair fees that penalize
proponents without a thought as to whom the beneficiaries might be. Knowing that $1000 deposit described
above is open-ended, this ordinance will have a chilling effect on improvements that exceed a lowest common
denominator of the neighbors' opinion.
Gross Floor area ratio triggers for design reviews subject to appeal in the ordinance is arbitrary and
capricious and unfairly penalizes larger lot owners with an expensive and time consuming review process.
Where and what is rationale for these formula and the apparent penalty? Tables provided to applicants may by
help explain the formulas, but I have yet to see any basis for this trigger. It would seem more logical that a
house on a small lot with a proportionately bigger foot print be more subject to a public hearing than less.
- One Year Report on Issues arising though implementation of ordinance
In the Staff Report and Recommendation to the County Planning Commission dated November 30, 2004,
there is a recommendation that the Staff will return to the Commission".. one year following implementation
to report on any issues that have arisen through the implementation of the proposed Kensington Combining
District, and whether any modification should be made..." As a parcel owner of lots that previously were not
subject to this level of community review, I now have an interest in any public hearings arising from this
ordinance including those relating any improvements proposed by parcel owners of Kensington.
... once again, why not a vote on the ordinance by all of the affected parcel owners?
Staff Response to the Planning Commission dated November 30, 2004, is that"there was significant
involvement by members of the Kensington community, as well as opportunities for public input. This is
beyond that which is normally provided in the land use review process."
A recent article in the Sunday Contra Costa Times by Peter Felsenfeld dated January 1, 2005, suggested that
the payment of the $30,000 to cover the County's cost of the Negative Declaration and related expenses
eliminated the need to go to the voters.
"Kensington's ordinance never went to the voters, in part because proponents didn't have to ask
property owners to pay for a required study. The $30,000 outlay came from private donations,
community groups and a mitigation fund set buy builders for the Dougherty Valley development, Goia
said."
Debate seems currently limited to a few interested people as indicated by the limited response to the surveys in
September 2003 (275 out of 2,249 with approximately 220 for and 50 opposed to a different version of the
ordinance). I was told there was no stratification by vacant/developed lot or standard/substandard lots.
Minutes of meetings and lists of attendees at which this proposed ordinance was discussed and evolved,
apparently are not available to the public. From Supervisor Goia's office I requested copies of other meeting
minutes and identities of attendees, but I was told there were not any other minutes and that identities of
participants were considered a privacy issue and were not available to me. Who was on this task force
referred to in Peter Felsenfeld's January 1st article? While many of the meetings were apparently open to
the public, this ordinance seems to be driven by a select group. Imposing significant and costly review
requirements on 6000 f 4 lots seems to be matter for the voters and is beyond a"land use review process".
This ordinance will clearly add to the burden of the larger lot owners (46% of the Kensington parcels), but I
am sad to say they are probably largely ignorant of the impact of this ordinance on future improvements that
they may want to undertake. And, it adds injury to insult to expect parcel owners to pay for new rights
people will have against them.
... Moratorium continues - Property Tax Relief is due.
Ordinance 2004-33 imposed a ten month moratorium on issuing building permits for undeveloped lots citing a
"threat to public health, safety, and welfare". The moratorium on building permits for undeveloped lots has
stripped these parcels of their development rights and need to be reassessed based on this loss, since this
moratorium continues to be in effect through January 1',. Tax valuation is based on assessment as January 1,
20051 and does not provide for any proration. Since there never was a"threat to public health, safety, and
welfare" the moratorium should be lifted, immediately.
Please let me know the dates and location of public meetings (Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors on
January 18?, etc.) relating to this ordinance, related fees, funding for the County's costs and reimbursement.
If you have any questions, please call me at the above number.
Sincerely, ,-
r
/s/Brian E. Stone
Brian E. Stone
Successor Trustee
Stone Living Trust dated December 16, 1991
Enclosure (Sunday Contra Cost Times, January 1, 2005, Peter Felsenfeld, "Kensington Ponders Monster Free
Zone"')
cc: e-mailed to without enclosure to Ryan Hernandez (rahern@cd.cccounty.us) without enclosure
Dave Stone, Trust Beneficiary
Victoria Curtis (without enclosure)
-4-
REQUEST To SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
I
I
Name: � t' �� �.
Phone.
QHSAmHeRsr Address. Ave..V ., Iity : Q (42 ra �
I 0000'
am speaking for myself or organization:
CHECK ONE:
XI wish to speak on A � 5
p Benda Item # pate,
i
E
My-comments will be: ❑ Genera! For El Against
wish to speak on the subject of:
� Ido not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
. r
Dame. Phone.
. � �, 07 f�
� �.,, �
Address: �' City: tt4-,�t C_Ck -, C, &1 0
Please mote that if you choose to vide your address and phone number, this information will become a public record of
the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting.
I am speaking for myself or organization:
wI
LOA
CHECK ONE: t4v
Ivwish to on speak Agenda Item # Gate. 191&1A0
P g
!lily comments will be: ❑ Genera! For 'Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments f '
p t or the Board to consider.
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: 1fX1dX1-,J 960 Phone: 510
Address: 72es C0Ve?J-/WY geole City: fL i caoJ
If
am speaking for myself � or organization:
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date:
My comments will be: ❑ General 2eoFoe
or El9Aainst
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ Ido not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE 3 MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: �01�t-�S S r6 1 t.,3 Phone: 51 C-)
Address: �J Z ���(�{�t►`� city.
am speaking for myself.�_ or organization:
CHECK ONE:
wish to speak on Agenda Item # � � Date:
My comments will be: ElGeneralFor ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
D Ido not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: Phone: C04A
Address: x iA ji,i i-a-rrt,-t, A city: Kpn�.;4,I'arin
J
I am speaking for myself Vl' or organization:
CHECK ONE:
I wish to s eak on Agenda Item # L12 Date:
My comments will be: 0 General � For 0 Against
❑ 1 wish to speak on the subject of:
I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: Phone:
1011�
ci :
�-
Address: ty
1 am speaking for myself or organization:
CHECK ONE:
M I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date:
Mycomments will be: E3 General For El Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
F1 I do not-wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information