HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04231996 - D6 s.. .. �� b
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON � t.
Costa
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
County
DATE: April 15, 1996
' OSTq COUK�
SUBJECT: Appeal From Denial of Land Use Permit Application#LP952023:
Homer and Lynn Bryant,Walnut Creek Area
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Take public testimony, continue or close the public hearing, and consider declaring the
Board's intended decision, to either deny or grant the applicants' appeal.
2. If the Board declares its intention, direct staff to prepare appropriate findings to support the
Board's intended decision to be considered by the Board at the next hearing.
3. If the Board grants the applicants' appeal and approves the residential second unit, direct
staff to file a Notice of Exemption for purposes of compliance with th California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
,II. FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Ill. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On March 26, 1996, the Board of Supervisors took public testimony from the applicants and
concerned neighbors. The Board then continued the public hearing and requested staff to
prepare preliminary findings to affirm the decision of the County Planning Commission to
deny the request for a land use permit for a residential second unit (C.C.C. Ord. Code §82-
24.1002, incorporating §26-2.2008 (required land use permit findings)). As indicated below,
there was evidence presented to support a denial of the residential second unit. As the
Board may hear additional testimony and take further documentation in
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:
X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON :A1_ 2 3 , 19 9 6 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X
See the attached Addendum for Board action .
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) I hereby certify that this is a
AYES: NOES: true and correct copy of an action
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: taken and en'tdred on the minutes of
the Board .of•'Supervisors on the
date shown.
Contact: Rose Marie Pietras 335-1216
oriq: Community Development Department Attested
cc: Homer & Lynn Bryant Phi Batchelor, Clerk of
County Counsel the Boar of Supervisors
and Coun y dministrator
by
is h 11
M382 putt'
' 2
favor and against the proposed second unit, staff has set forth below the issues to be
considered by the Board and has indicated some of the evidence that has been presented
which would support a denial of the applicants' request for a residential second as requested
by the Board.
Issues to be considered:
For Land Use Permit Findings:
1. Whether the proposed land use will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of
the County (C.C.C. Ordinance Code §26-2.2008(1)).
Evidence:
Correspondence and public testimony given by the neighbors at the public hearings
before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors stated the proposed
second unit would create traffic, noise, parking, and nuisance problems. In their opinion,
a fourth house on Montecillo Court, which has serviced the three neighbors, Nelson,
Fitzgeralds and Mrs. Davis as a private driveway for the past 40 years, would create a
safety hazard for their young children who play on this private court. Another impact to
safety and general welfare, according to the neighbors, would be potential parking along
Montecillo Court by the tenants of the Bryants proposed second unit. If vehicles are
parked along Montecillo Court, which is a narrow access, emergency vehicles would
have a difficult time getting to the homes located at the end of the court.
2. Whether it will adversely affect the orderly development of property within the County
(C.C.C. Ordinance Code §26-2.2008(2)).
Evidence:
The Planning Commission denied the project based upon the condition of disrepair and
neglect the property was found in during a site visit by some of the commissioners.
3. Whether it will adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of
the tax base within the County (C.C.C. Ord. Code §26-2.2008(3)).
Evidence:
The County Planning Commission indicated that the condition of the property at the time
of their site visit would not enhance the neighborhood and would lower property values.
As shown in the photographs submitted by one of the Planning Commissioners as
evidence for the record, the project site was not well maintained. There were boards
with nails facing upward on the ground. The hot tub was empty and not secured by a
cover to avoid potential accidents. The site was not fenced to prevent young children
from wandering on the site. There also was cluttered garbage all over the property.
Planning Commissioner Clark submitted photographs in support of the County Planning
Commission's position on this issue.
4. Whether it will adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the General Plan (C.C.C.
Ord. Code §26-2.2008(4).
5. Whether it will create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood
or community (C.C.C. Ord.0 Code §26-2.2008(5)).
Evidence:
The County Planning Commission indicated that the property in its present state is an
attractive nuisance.
The neighbors expressed concern with the applicants' failure to produce sufficient
evidence of compatibility with the neighborhood, thus creating a nuisance for the
neighborhood.
3
6. Whether it could encourage marginal development within the neighborhood(C.C.C. Ord.
Code §26-2.2008(6).
The County Planning Commission indicated that approval of this request for a second unit
would lead to marginal development and would not enhance the neighborhood.
7. Whether special conditions.or unique characteristics of the subject property and its
location or surroundings are'established. (Failure to so will result in a denial of the permit:
(C.C.C. Ord.Code §26-2.2008(7)).
For Residential Second Unit Findings:
1. Whether the second unit is intended for rent or lease or occupancy by one or more
persons (C.C.C. Ord. Code §82-24.1002(1)).
2. Whether the lot contains a net building site area of at least six thousand square feet
(C.C.C. Ord. Code §82-24.1002(2)).
3. Whether the second unit includes one kitchen, living room, and dining room, and no more
than two bathrooms and two bedrooms (C.C.C. Ord. Code §82-24.1002(3)).
4. Whether in this single-family residential district, (R-20), the total floor area of the second
unit does not exceed one thousand square feet or cause the maximum structural lot
coverage to exceed forty percent, whichever is less (C.C.C. Ord. Code §82-24.1002(4)).
5. Whether a private sewage disposal system, water system or both are proposed to be
used, and if so, it must be approved by the health officer and meet all applicable county
regulations before a second unit may be established(C.C.C. Ord. Code §82-24.1002(7)).
6. Whether the proposed second unit satisfies height, setback, lot size, lot width, lot depth
and other zoning requirements generally applicable to residential construction in the
pertinent zoning district, and all applicable fees and charges will be paid(C.C.C. Ord.
Code §82-24.1002(8)).
7. Whether the proposed second unit is architecturally compatible with overall neighborhood
character and the primary residence in terms of scale, colors, materials, and design for
trim, windows, roof, roof pitch and other exterior physical features (C.C.C. Ord. Code §82-
24-1002(9)).
Evidence:
At the December 5, 1995 County Planning Commission hearing, the neighbors delivered
letters addressing their concerns in addition to giving public testimony. They reiterated a
major reason for the Zoning Administrator's initial denial of the the proposed second unit,
which was because the attached second unit did not conform with the character of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Fitzgerald at 389 Montecillo Court, stated in his letter dated December 5, 1995 that the
second unit cannot be modified in any way in conjunction with the primary residence to be
in conformance with the character of the neighborhood. The overall character of the
neighborhood is semi-rural and low-density. The neighbors testified that there are no
second units in the neighborhood, that granting approval of this second unit would set a
precedent.
8. Whether the second unit will have a separate entrance located on either building side or
rear and not visible from the street front area (C.C.C. Ord. Code §82-24.1002(10)).
9. Whether the second unit will not result in excessive neighborhood noise, traffic, or parking
problems (C.C.C. Ord. Code §82-24-1002(11)).
Evidence:
See#1 (Land Use Permit Findings) above.
10. Whether the second unit will not overburden public services, utilities or facilities (C.C.C.
Ord. Code §82-24.1002(12)).
11. Whether development of the second unit will not present a threat to public health, safety or
� cp
4
welfare (C.C.C. Ord. Code§82-24.1002(13)).
Evidence:
See#1 (Land Use Permit Findings) above.
RMP/a
BDI/Bryant.RMP
A:\BRYANT.RMP
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.6
• April 23, 1996 Agenda
On March 26, 1996, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date the
hearing on the appeal by Homer and Lynn Bryant (appellants) from the decision
of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission acting as the Board of
.Appeals on the request by Homer and Lynn Bryant (applicants and owners) to
establish a residential detached second living unit (County File #LP 95-2023).
The property is located at the southeast corner of Montecillo Drive and
Montecillo Court (addressed as 381 Montecillo), Walnut Creek area.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff
report on the matter.
The public hearing was opened and the following people presented
testimony:
Lynn Bryant, 381 Montecillo Drive, Walnut Creek;
James Fitzgerald, 389 Montecillo Court, Walnut Creek;
Homer Bryant, 381 Montecillo Drive, Walnut Creek;
Shelly Nelson, 385 Montecillo Court, Walnut Creek;
Clyde Rich, 4 Deerfield Lane, Walnut Creek:
All those desiring to speak having been heard, the public hearing was
closed, and the Board discussed the issues.
Supervisor Bishop commented that the Bryants had expended a substantial
amount of effort on this project, and it appeared that a large percentage of their
land is covered by their house. She noted that the size of the project is
incompatible with the area's character and expressed her concern about parking
availability.
The Board further discussed the matter.
Supervisor Bishop moved to close the public hearing, and suggested that
the Board declare their intent to deny the appeal and uphold,the Planning
Commission's decision on the request for a residential detached second unit, and
that the Community Development Department staff prepare appropriate findings
to bring back to the Board in two weeks.
Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion.
Supervisor Torlakson advised that there were possible second unit code
violations in the same residential area, and those concerns should be addressed.
1
A
Supervisor Torlakson requested clarification whether the motion included the
pursuit of those possible violations. Supervisor Bishop advised that it did, and
Supervisor DeSaulnier affirmed that his second included those concerns.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the public hearing is CLOSED;
the Board declared its intent to DENY the Appeal of Homer and Lynn Bryant,
(appellants), from the decision of the Planning Commission acting as the Board
of Appeals on the request by Homer and Lynn Bryant (applicants and owners),
to establish a detached second residential unit in the Walnut Creek area
(#LP 95-2023); Community Development staff is DIRECTED to prepare
appropriate findings for the Board's consideration on May 7, 1996; and the
Building Inspection Department is REQUESTED to review alleged code
violations regarding existing second units in the area.
2
04/22/1996 21:08 5109379637
PAGE 01
wit/-
646-1059 CONTRA COSTA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ROSAMOND M. DAVIS
393 MONTICELLO COURT
WALNUT CREEK., CA 94595
23 APRIL 1996
BOARD Of SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
651 PINE STREET, ROOM 106
MARTINEZ, CA 94553
RE, Appeal LP# 95-2023
Hearing: 2.00p.m., April 23,1996
ONLY THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CAN
RESTORE THE INTEGRITY OF THIS PRIVATE WALNUT CREEK MONTECILLO
COURT TO THE WAY IT WAS.
THE ORIGINAL OWNERS AND DEVELOPERS OF#381 HAD A DOUBLE
DRIVEWAY OFF MONTECILLO COUNTY DRIVE WITH A DOUBLE PEBBLE ROCK
-PARKING AREA IMUVIEDIATELY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THAT DOUBLE CONCRETE
DRIVEWAY. SOME 13 MONTHS AGO BRYAN HOMER COVERED THE DOUBLE
CONCRETE DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREA WITH LOADS OF DIRT.NOT USING
THE ROADWAY INTO THE DOUBLE GARAGE, OR THE PARKING AREA, THE
ORIGINAL OWNERS STATED THEY WANTED NO PART OF, OR RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THE PRIVATE COURT STREET,THAT THEY NEVER USED IT, AND NEVER
WOULD.
THERE WAS NO DRIVEWAY OFF MONTECILLO PRIVATE COURT STREET
INTO#381. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERVISORS TOLD MEIN APRIL OF 1986
LOT NUMBERS 3g5 AND 389 HAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SHARED MONTECILLO
PRIVATE COURT STREET WITH 393. THIS WAS UNDERSTOOD AND ACCEPTED
BY ALL PARTIES. SINCE THAT DATE ALL THREE FAMILIES IN NUMBERS 381, 385,
AND 389 MOVED, PRESENT FAMILIES CAME rN.17-TE'COURT REMAINED PRIVATE,
NOT COUNTY MAINTAINED.
THIS PRIVATE COURT STREET IS NOT AS WIDE AS CITY OR COUNTY
ROADS, NOR IS IT AS STRONG. THERE IS NOT ROOM FOR PARKING ON BOTH
SIDES OF THE COURT STREET AND MAINTAIN OPEN OR THROUGH TRAVEL,.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SEEMS TO HAVE TAKEN THIS COURT AS THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE AND CONTROL
FOR TEN YEARS COUNTY DEPARTMENTS CONSISTENTLY AND
CONTINUOUSLY HAVE SAID "THERE IS NOTHING CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CAN
DO FOR OR ON THIS COURT BECAUSE MONTECILLO IS A PRIVATE ROAD."
CHANGES ARE IMPOSED TOO MANY AND TOO FAST.
IS MONTECILLO COURT A PRIVATE COURT?
Shelley C. Nelson RECEIVE®
385 Montecillo Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94595 APR 17 1996
April 17, 1996 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
Clerk
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Appeal LP # 95-2023
Hearing: April 23, 1996
Dear Clerk:
Enclosed please find five copies of my letter to the Board of
Supervisors dated April 17, 1996, concerning LP # 95-2023 .
Please give my letter to the Board members as soon as possible so
that they will have time to review it prior to the hearing on
April 23 , 1996. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Shelley Nelson
I
RECEIVE®
Shelley C. Nelson APR 17 ACO.
385 Montecillo Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94595 CLERK BOARD OF
CONTRA CO
April 17, 1996 HAND DELIVERED ON APRIL 17, 1996
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553
Jeff Smith, Chair
Jim Rogers
Gayle Bishop
Mark Desaulnier
Tom Torlakson
Re: Appeal LP# 95-2023
Hearing: 2 : 00 P.M. , April 23 , 1996
Dear Supervisors:
On March 26, 1996, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing
on the Bryants' application for a Conditional Use Permit to build
a detached second residential unit at 381 Montecillo Drive, LP# 95-
2023 . After listening to the testimony of the applicants and many
neighbors who oppose the application, the Board continued the
public hearing to 2: 00 P.M. on April 23, 1996; and directed staff
to draft findings affirming the Planning Commission's denial of the
Bryants' application.
At the Board hearing on March 26, 1996, the Bryants accused the
neighbors of racism. Retired Senator Nejedly, who is a neighbor at
400 Montecillo Drive, eloquently rebutted this charge. Senator
Nejedly explained that we have a racially integrated and socially
diverse neighborhood. He pointed out that another African-American
family on Montecillo Drive recently remodeled their home and they
were supported by the neighbors. He also stressed the fact that in
February 1996, a Caucasian neighbor' s application to build a
detached second residential unit on Deerfield Lane (a cul-de-sac
off Montecillo Drive near the Bryants ' property) was opposed by
neighbors and was unanimously denied by the Planning Commission.
Senator Nejedly urged the Board to focus on the applicable
standards that need to be satisfied by the applicants.
1
I. The Bryants have the burden of proving compliance with all of
the applicable standards.
There is no balancing test. The Bryants have the burden of proving
that all of the applicable standards have been satisfied. Article
26-2 .2202 provides: "The applicant shall have the burden of
producing evidence to convince the agency hearing the matter that
all standards are met and the intent and purpose of the applicable
regulations and goals and objectives of the general plan will be
satisfied. Failure to satisfy this burden shall result in a
denial. "
The Bryants do not have an automatic right to build a second house
on their lot. The Bryants' application for a conditional use
permit "is an application to establish a conditional land use
within a land use district which does not allow establishment by
right. . . " Article 26-2.2008.
II. There are 23 applicable standards.
There are seven Conditional Use Permit standards in Article 26-
2 .2008 and 13 standards in the Residential Second Unit Article 82-
24 . 1002 . See Exhibit A. A second unit must also comply with the
three definition standards for a second unit in Article 82-24 .410.
The Bryants have the burden of proving compliance with all 23
standards.
The Bryants' application for a detached second unit must be denied
if any one of the above standards are not satisfied. "Failure to
make any one of these findings must result in denial of the
application for a land use permit. (CCC. Ord. Code Sections 26-
2 . 2008, 82-24.1002) ". Desmond v. County of Contra Costa (1993) 21
Cal.App.4th 330, 336, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 842 . A copy of Desmond was
attached to my previous letter to the Board dated March 18, 1996,
as Exhibit E.
III. The Bryants failed to satisfy their burden of proving
compliance with all of the standards.
There is substantial evidence in light of the entire administrative
record to support the following findings:
2
Finding #1. The proposed second residential unit is out of
character with the surrounding neighborhood.
Several provisions) in the County Ordinance Code "give the County
and its planning agencies the authority to consider the effect of
proposed projects on the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
It is well established that the concept of public welfare
encompasses a broad range of factors, including aesthetic values as
well as monetary and physical ones, and that a concern for
aesthetics and "character" is a legitimate governmental objective. "
Desmond v. County of Contra Costa, 21 Cal.App.4th at 337-338 .
There is sufficient evidence that the proposed second unit would be
out of character with the surrounding, neighborhood. "The kinds of
houses in this neighborhood, the street configurations (mostly cul-
de-sacs) , the traffic patterns, and the lot sizes, are all
significant factors to be considered in making this determination. "
Id. at 338.
A. Rinds of houses - It is undisputed that the Bryants'
proposed detached second unit, like the Desmonds proposed second
unit, would be the first such unit in our neighborhood.
In Desmond, the trial court found: "There is substantial
evidence in the record that the second residential unit would be
out of character because the surrounding streets at the moment
contain only single-family dwellings. " Id. at 334 .
Similarly, the Bryants' proposed second unit would be out
of character because the surrounding streets contain only single-
family dwellings.
B. Lot sizes - It is undisputed that the applicants '
property and the surrounding neighborhood is zoned R-20, single
Provisions in the County ordinances relevant to this
finding include that the second unit be "architecturally
compatible with overall neighborhood character" (C.C.C. Ord.
Code, Section 82-24. 1002 , subd. (9) ) ; that it not "adversely
affect the preservation of property values" (C.C.C. Ord. Code,
Section 26-2 .2008, subd. (3) ) ; that it not create "a nuisance
and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community"
(C.C.C. Ord. Code Section 26-2.2008, subd. (5) ) ; that it not
"encourage marginal development within the neighborhood" (C.C.C.
Ord. Code Section 26-2 .2008, subd. (6) ) ; and, generally, that it
not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare
(C.C.C. Ord. Code, Sections 26-2 .2008, subd. (1) ; 82-24 . 1002,
subd. (13) ) . Desmond v. County of Contra Costa, _21 Cal.App. 4th
at 337 .
3
W1 D•
family residential, low density. The character of our neighborhood
is single-family homes on large lots (one-half acre minimum) .
Twenty-six neighbors wrote over 30 letters to the County and over
seven neighbors repeatedly testified at public hearings urging the
County to preserve the rural, low-density character of our
neighborhood. The applicants' neighbors have been persistent and
unanimous in their opposition to the Bryants' proposed second unit.
The neighbors also strongly opposed the second unit proposed for
Deerfield Lane because it would have violated the character of our
neighborhood.
C. Street configurations - It is undisputed that the street
configurations in our neighborhood consist entirely of cul-de-sacs.
Montecillo Drive is a cul-de-sac and Montecillo Court is a very
small cul-de-sac with only three houses on it. The BryantsI
proposal to build a 956 square foot rental house on Montecillo
Court is out of character with the neighborhood.
There is ample evidence of community concern with the impact of the
proposed residential second unit on the general character of the
neighborhood. "This finding of unsuitabililty to the character of
the surrounding neighborhood is sufficient by itself to support the
denial of the appellants' application for a land use permit. " Id.
at 338.
When Zoning Administrator Harvey Bragdon denied the Bryants '
application on July 17, 1995, he stated that the Bryants' proposal
to build a second house on their lot would be "out of character
with the community. " See Exhibit B.
Finding #2. The proposed second unit would result in excessive
neighborhood noise, traffic, or parking problems.
County Ordinance Code provision 82-24 . 1002 is relevant to this
finding. Before granting a land use permit for a second unit, the
planning agency must find: "The second unit does not result in
excessive neighborhood noise, traffic, or parking problems. " 82-
24. 1002 (11) .
The Bryants' neighbors, like the Desmonds' neighbors, "gave ample
testimony that because of the nature of the cul-de-sacs on which
the primary residence is located, an additional living unit on the
street would create traffic, parking, safety, noise and nuisance
problems. " Id. at 337.
All of the Montecillo Court property owners testified that a second
house on the Bryants' lot would create a safety hazard on
Montecillo Court. The Bryants are not allowed to have a driveway
nor a garage visible from the street under the Second Residential
Ordinance, so their tenants would park on Montecillo Court.
4
01 D.U
For 40 years Montecillo Court has been used as a private driveway
for the three homes on Montecillo Court that are now owned by the
Nelsons, the Fitzgeralds and Mrs. Davis. It is a narrow, private
court. If the Bryants or their tenants park vehicles on Montecillo
Court it will create a safety hazard or our young children who play
on this private court. It will also make it difficult for
emergency vehicles to get to my home at the end of Montecillo
Court.
"It is appropriate and even necessary for the County to consider
the interests of neighboring property owners in reaching a decision
whether to grant or deny a land use entitlement, and the opinions
of neighbors may constitute substantial evidence on this issue. "
Id. at 337.
Neighbors also testified that due to the geography of Montecillo
Court and Montecillo Drive, the Bryants' proposed second house
would significantly increase noise in our neighborhood.
Finding #3. The proposed second unit is architecturally
incompatible with the overall neighborhood in terms of scale.
County Ordinance Code section 82-24 . 1002 (9) requires a second unit
to be "architecturally compatible with the overall neighborhood
character and the primary residence in terms of scale. . . "
In February 1995, the Bryants purchased 381 Montecillo Drive which
consisted of a 1,750 square foot single-family residence. They are
currently in the process of doubling the size of the primary
dwelling to 3,500 square feet. The Bryants remodeled primary
dwelling is already the largest house in the neighborhood. The
Bryants' proposal to build a 956 square foot rental house is out of
scale with the neighborhood. My home, which would be next door to
this rental house, is only 1,400 square feet.
Furthermore, it would be architecturally incompatible with our
neighborhood to have two houses on one lot.
Finding #4 - The proposed second unit is not clearly
subordinate in size, appearance and location to the existing
principal residence.
County Ordinance Code provision 82-24.410 (3) mandates that the
second unit be "clearly subordinate in size, appearance and
location to the existing principal residence. "
The Bryants' proposed second house is not subordinate in location
to the existing principal residence. The proposed house would be
35 feet from main house, on the back portion of the Bryants lot.
5
V41 tx
Finding #5 - The primary unit already contains an attached
second unit.
"Second unit" means no more than one new additional dwelling unit,
attached or detached as an accessory building, located on any one
lot or parcel. . . " 82-24.410.
The Bryants floor plans reveal that the Bryants appear to have an
attached second unit. The attached second unit (where the Bryants
appear to be living as they remodel the primary dwelling) has two
bedrooms, two bathrooms, a living room, a kitchen, a single-car
garage and a separate entrance. It is unusual to place a two-car
garage at one end of the house and a one-car garage at the other
end of the house with separate entrances, unless you intend to have
two separate dwelling units. Indeed, no other house in our
neighborhood has garages split on two sides of the house. From the
street, the Bryants primary dwelling looks like a duplex. Planning
Commission Chairman Terrell referred to the Bryants primary
dwelling as "two homes in one. "
Since the Bryants already have an attached second unit, they cannot
build a detached second unit. The Second Unit Ordinance only
permits one additional second unit. The Bryants are actually
seeking a permit to build a third unit on their lot.
Finding #6 - The proposed second unit would adversely affect
the preservation of property values.
County Ordinance Code provision 26-2 .2008 (3) requires a
consideration of the effect of a proposed use on neighboring
property values. "The fact that a second unit would be the first
such development in a given neighborhood may well be relevant to a
determination of the effect of the unit on local .property values. "
Id. at 338.
Doubling the density on the Bryants lot would be the first such
development in our neighborhood and would adversely affect
neighboring property values.
Furthermore, cutting into and building on the toe of the hill below
our pool and home could damage our pool and foundation. The staff
report regarding the Bryants' application was prepared without
reviewing and without requiring any report by a soil engineer. My
property has a steep slope. The eastern edge of my property
adjoins the Bryants' western property line. Our pool is
approximately 40 feet from my eastern property line. The elevation
increases about 20 feet in that 40 foot distance from the eastern
property line to our pool. Our pool is only eight (8) feet from
our home. There is a steep hill on the west side of my home.
6
W1 b. to
Finding #7 - The proposed second unit would create a nuisance
or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community.
Article 26-2.2008 (5) mandates that the second unit. "shall not
create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the
neighborhood or community. " The enforcement problems concern
parking, easement access, maintenance of Montecillo Court, and the
proposal to "cap" the plumbing as explained in my letter dated
November 17, 1995.
Finding #8 - The applicants failed to establish special
conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and
its location or surroundings.
Article 26-2 .2008 (7) mandates that before a planning agency can
grant a permit for a second unit, it shall find: "That special
conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and
its location or surroundings are established. Failure to so find
shall result in a denial. "
The Bryants failed to establish any special or unique
characteristics of their property.
V. Conclusion
The administrative record contains substantial evidence to support
each of the above findings. Any one of the above findings is
sufficient to deny the Bryants' application for a second unit.
1 respectfully request that you deny the Bryants' appeal and deny
their application for a detached second residential unit.
Sincerely,
IJK�
Shelley Nelson
7
wl ° "
exHee's 3-
26-2-2004-26-2.2010 . ADMINISTRATION
26-2.2004 Variance, conditional use and (2) That because of special circumstances
special permits — Notice requirements. (a) Mail applicable to the subject property because of its
— Addresses. Except as provided by Article size, shape, t o p ography, location or
26-2.21, the planning department shall schedule surroundings, the strict application of the
a hearing before the appropriate division, and respective zoning regulations is found to deprive
mail notice thereof pursuant to Government the subject property of rights enjoyed by other
Code Section 65905. The mail notice shall be properties in the vicinity and within the
given, by postage prepaid first-class United identical land use district;
States mail, to all owners of real property within (3) That any variance authorized shall
three hundred feet of the subject land, using substantially meet the intent and purpose of the
addresses rom le as equa ize assessment respective land use district in which the subject
roll, or from such other records(as the assessor's property is located. Failure to so find shall result
or tax collector's) as contain more recent ad- in a denial. (Ord. 1975: prior code § 2204.30:
dresses in the opinion of the planning director. Ord. 917).
(b) Contents. The notices shall state the time,
date and place of the hearing, the general nature 26-2.2008 Variance, conditional use and
of the application, and the street address,if any, specia its — Conditional use permit
of the property involved or its legal or boundary standards. An application for a con i lona use
description if it has no street address. Permit is an application . to establish a
Substantial compliance with these provisions for conditional land use within a land use district
notice is sufficient, and a technical failure to which does not allow establishment by fight,but
comply shall not affect the validity of any does allow the granting o a land use permit
action taken pursuant to the procedures set after a public hearing. The division of the
forth in this article. planning agency hearing the matter either
(c) Revocations. Notice of hearings on initially or on appeal, shall find the following
revocations shall be given in the same manner as before granting the permit
on applications. (Ords. 80-87 § 1, 78-54 § 2, (1) That the proposed conditional land use
1975: prior code § 2203.15: Ords. 917 § 5.1, shall not be detrimental to the health,safety and
856 § 1,382 § 7: see Gov. C. § 65901). general welfare of the county;
(2) That it shall not adversely affect the
26-2.2006 Variance, conditional use and ord�develovment of property within the
special permits — Variance permit standards.An cow;
application . for a variance permit is an (3) That it shall not adversely affect the
application to modify zoning regulations as they preservation of property values and the
pertain to lot area,lot building coverage,average protection of the tax base within the county;
lot width, lot depth, side yard, rear yard, (4) That it shall not adversely affect the
setback, auto parking space, building or policy and oals as set by the general plan;
structure height, or any other regulation . 5) That it shall not create a nuisance and/or
pertaining to the size, dimension, shape or enforcement problem witTan tffe—neighborhood
design of a lot, parcel, building or structure, or oc community;
the placement of a building or structure on a lot (6) That it shall not encourage marginal
or parcel. The division of the planning agency development within the neighborhood;
hearing.the matter either initially or on appeal (7), That special conditions or unique
shall find the following conditions that must characteristics of the Siihiect nrooerty and its
exist prior to approval of an application: Iocation or surroundings are established. Failure
(1) That any variance authorized shall not to to (Ord. 1975:
constitute a grant of special privilege prior code § 2204.40: Ord. 917).
inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties in the vicinity and the respective land 26-2.2010 Variance, conditional use and
use district in which the subject property is special permits — Special permit standards. An
located; application for a special permit shall be
primarily governed by the code provision
(Contra costa county 6-86) 28
- t
RESIDENTIAL SECOND UNITS 82-24.202-82-24.410
Chapter 82-24 uses, and the multiple-family residential districts.
(M-6, M-9, M-12, M-17, and M-29). (Ord. 87-67
RESIDENTIAL SECOND UNITS § 3).
Article 82-24.2 General Article 82-24.4
Sections: Definitions
82-24.202 Purpose.
82-24.204 Applicable districts. 82-24.402 Generally. Unless otherwise
Article 82-24.4 Definitions specifically provided, or required by the con-
Sections: text, the following terms have the following
82-24.402 Generally. indicated meanings in this chapter- (Ord. 87-67
82-24.404 Attached second unit. §3).
82-24.406 Detached second unit.
82-24.408 Legal nonconforming second 82-24.404 Attached second unit. "Attached
unit. second unit" means a dwelling unit which is
82-24.410 Second unit. attached to the primary residence by any means,
Article 82-24.6 Applications including a common wall, roof or floor. (Ord.
Sections: 87-67 § 3).
82-24.602 Applications—Required.
82-24.604 Applications—Contents. 82-24.406 Detached second unit. "De-
82-24.606 Applications—Types of second tached second unit" means a dwelling unit
unit. which is not attached to the primary residence
82-24.608 Applications—Processing. by-any means,.including a common wall, roof or
Article 82-24.10 Land Use Permits floor.(Ord. 87-67 § 3).
Sections:
C 82-24.1002 Land use permits—Standards. 82-24.408 Legal nonconforming second
82-24.1004 Unit tenancy. unit. "Legal nonconforming second unit" means
82-24.1006 Parking. a second unit which presently constitutes a non-
82-24.1008 Nonconforming units. conforming second unit, but which, at the time
82-24.1010 Variances. of its construction, didcomply with the appli-
Article 82-24.12 Other Requirements cable zoning district regulations affecting that
Sections: property. (Ord. 87-67 § 3).
82-24.1202 Building permits.
82-24.1204 Disclosure of deed restrictions. 82-24.410 Second unit. "Second unit"
82-24.1206 Monitoring of permit activity. means no more than one new additional
.dwelling unit, attached or detached as an acces-
Article 82-24.2 sory building, located on any one lot or parcel.
General which satisfies alrof the following conditions:
(1) It provides complete, independent living
82-24.202 Purpose. The purpose of this facilities for one or more persons residing
chapter is to authorize second units and to together as a single household unit:
establish a procedure for reviewing and approv- f2) It consists of permanent provisions for
ing their development in order to ensure and living. sleeping• water and sanitation facilities.
maintain healthy and safe residential living eating. and separate food preparation facilities,
environments. (Ord. 87-67 § 3)- including but not limited to a stove or hot
plate.oven. refriserator and sink.
82-24.204 Applicable districts. The provi- (3) It remains clearly subordinate in size.
Bions of this chapter are applicable to the single- appearance and location to the existing principal
family residential districts (R-6, R-7, R-10, residence. (Ord. 87-67 3 3).
R-12, R-15, R-20, R-40. R-65, and R-100),
duplex (D-1), planned unit (P-1) for residential
310a is—,,,, coca county 7-38)
82-24-602-8224.1002 ZONING
Article .82-24.6 (2) Addition of a separate unit to the exist-
Applications ing primary residence;
(3) Creation of a detached structure on the
82-24.602 Applications—Required. A sec- lot or parcel in addition to the existing primary
and unit proposed for approval shall require residence. (Ord. 87-67 § 3).
submission of an application to the community
development department. (Ord. 87-67 § 3). 82-24.608 Applications—Processing. All ap-
plications for second units shall be processed
82-24.604 Applications—Contents. An ap- in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
plication for a permit approving a second unit 26-2, except for Article 26-2.21. All such
must be made in writing and contain the follow- applications shall be expeditiously reviewed
ing information: and shall receive priority permit processing
(1) Name(s) and address(es) of applicant(s), relative to other. community development de-
property owner(s), and all adjoining property partment permit processing activities. (Ord.
owners; 87-67 § 3).
(2) Address and assessor's parcel number
for the property; Article 82-24.10
(3) Size, indicating dimensions and square Land Use Permits
footage of the primary residence and the
proposed second unit; 1002 Land use permits—Standards.
(4) A legible scale drawing, showing: The2-24.p agency division hearing the matter,
(A) A north arrow to.indicate parcel orienta- either initially or on appeal, shall make the
tion, findings established in Article 26-2.20, along
(B) Lot dimensions and labels for all with the following, before granting a land use
property lines, permit for a second unit:
(C) Siting of the primary residence and the (1) The second unit is intended for rent or
proposed second unit, lease or occupancy by one or more persons.
(D) Floor plan configuration of the primary (2) The lot contains a net building site area
residence and the proposed second unit, of at least six thousand square feet.
(E) All other existing improvements, includ- (3) The second unit may include one kitchen,
ing driveways and parking areas, living room,and dining room,and no more than
(F) Exterior design, including architectural two bathrooms and two bedrooms.
features of the primary residence and the (4) In single-family residential districts, the
proposed second unit; total floor area of the second unit may not
(5) Location of and distances to existing -exceed one thousaltd square feet or cause the
improvements on adjacent parcels; maximum structural lot coverage to exceed
(6) Location and description of water and forty p ercent,whichever is less.
sanitary services for both the primary residence (5) In multiple-family residential districts,
and the proposed second unit; the-total floor area of the second unit may not
(7) Property owner's consent to physical exceed one thousand square feet or cause the
inspection of the premises; maximum structural lot coverage to exceed
(8) A written legal description of the twenty-five percent in the M-6 through Iv1-17
property. (Ord. 87-67 § 3)_ districts, or thirty-five percent in the 'M-29
district, whichever is less-
82-24.606 Applications—Types of second (6) In planned unit (P-1) districts, where
unit. The application shall set forth the manner no fixed standards are specified. the zoning
in which the second unit will be established, as administrator shall have the authority to estab-
follows: lish reasonable standards for floor area, yards,
(1) Conversion of an attic, basement, garage building height, distance between buildings, and
or other portion of the existing primary resi- lot coverage.
deuce; (7) If a private sewage disposal system,
water system or both are proposed to be used, it
21 fl,
D.to
RESIDENTIAL SECOND ,ITS 82-24.1004-82-24.1206
C must be approved by the health officer and meet all nonconforming unit,a second unit may be construct-
applicable county regulations before a second unit ed only if the nonconformity is not expanded and
mbe established. the second unit meets all current applicable zoning
The second unit satisfies heieht, setback, lot district standards. (Ord. 87-67 § 3).
size. Iot width, lot depth and other zoning requrr're-
men[s ene licable to residential construction 82-24.1010 Variances. Variance permits to
m e pertinent zoning district, and app Tie modify:
fees and charges shall be paid. (1) Pertinent applicable zoning district provisions
�(9�The second unit is architecturally compatible may be granted as allowed by and in acconiance
wi overall neighborhood character and the primary with the involved district's regulations.
residence in terms of scale, colors, materials and (2) Parking requirements may be granted in
design for trim, windows, roof, roof pitch and other accordance with Chapter 26-2.(Orals.91-46 § 2,87-
extejor physical features. 67 § 3).
10 The second unit shall have a separate en-
trance located on either building side or rear and not Article 82-24.12
visi m the street front area. Other Requirements
11) a second unit does not result in excessive
ner rtr Horse, c, or n ro ems. 82-24.1202 Building permits.A second unit for
(12) a second unit does not overburden public which a permit has been issued under this chapter
services,. utilities or facilities. is subject to the requirements of Title 7.(Ord. 87-67
0 Development of the second unit does not § 3).
present a threat to public health, safety or welfare.
(Ord. 87-67 § 3). 82.24.1204 Disclosure of deed restrictions.
Each permittee shall prepare a disclosure statement
82-24.1004 Unit tenancy. No more than one which shall be included in any future offer or sale
dwelling unit on a parcel of property occupied by documents,which indicates the requirements associ-
C a second unit shall be rented or leased to or occu- ated with a second unit permit. Such disclosure
pied by person(s) other than the property owner. statement shall read as follows:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit "You are purchasing a property with a permit for
one or both of the units remaining vacant. (Ord. 87- a residential second unit.This permit carries with it
67 § 3). certain conditions that must be met by the owner of
the property. The permit is available from the cur-
82-24.1006 Parking.The lot or parcel on which rent owner or from the Contra Costa County Com-
a second unit is to be situated must accommodate munity Development Department."(Ord.87-67§3).
a minimum of three off-street parking spaces for use . ,
in connection with both the primary residence and 82-24.1206. Monitoring of permit activity. In
the second unit. Off-street parking shall be allowed July of each ye;r the community development de-
in a driveway, consistent with the required finding paruuent shall ,submit to the planning commission
set out in subsection(2)of this section.Parking may an annual report of second unit development activity
be permitted in a tandem configuration only when and recommending;if necessary.modifications to or
the zoning administrator finds all of the following: limitations on second unit development. The report
(1) No other physically viable parking options shall include an assessment of the impacts of second
exist on the subject property: unit development on traffic,parking,public services,
(2) Parking will not intrude into any of the re- density and other related matters considered appro-
quired front or side yard setback areas: and priate for consideration by the department or the
(3) No more than two vehicles may be parked in planning commission. (Ord. 87-67 § 3).
tandem. (Ord. 87-67 § 3).
82-24.1008 Nonconforming units. Notwith-
standing the provisions of Section 82-8.006, where
the existing primary residence constitutes a legal
310c (Contra Cwt,County 4-92)
26-2.2106-26-2-2208 ADMINISTRATION
(which shall be no less than ten days after date 26-2.2206 Hearing - Approval conditions.
of mailing or'delivery), the general nature of the In approving a subdivision, parcel map,
application (including any subdivision exception conditional use, special or variance permit the
requested), and the street address, if any,of the division of the planning agency deciding the
property involved or its legal or boundary de- matter, initially or on appeal, may limit or
scription if it has no street address. (Ord. 80-87 condition the approval so as to assure the intent
§ 2: see Gov. C. § 65901). and purpose of applicable standards and
regulations will be met and the goals and
26-2.2106 Hearing required. If, within ten objectives of the general and specific plans will
calendar days after mailing or delivery of the be achieved. Such approval may be made
notice of intent, a written request for public subject, but is not limited to, conditions
hearing is filed with the. planning department, imposing dedication,improvements, dimensional
it shall schedule a publichearing on the appli- restrictions, site plan approval, architectural
cation in accordance with applicable provisions standards, access controls, time limit,
of- this chapter and mail notice thereof to the supplemental review, phasing of improvements,
applicant, the owner and any other persons planting or screening. (Ord. 1975: prior code §
requesting a hearing. (Ord. 80-87 § 2: See Gov. 2204.70: Ord. 917).
C. § 65901).
26-2-2208 Hearing - Decisions generally.
Article 26-2.22 All decisions shall be made in writing and filed
Hearings with the planning department. A decision of any
division of the planning agency, except a general
26-2.2202 Rules and burden of or specific plan matter or a matter requiring
_proof- Hearings shall be conducted in adoption of an ordinance, shall be final when
accordance with rules that may be adopted by filed with the planning department, unless an
the respective divisions of the planning agency, appeal is filed within the time allowed.
within the intent expressed in Government Code Acceptance of the decision shall constitute an
Sections 65800, 65801 6502, and 66411, The agreement on behalf of the applicant and owner,
a Micant shall have the burden of producing
evidence to convince the TageE`cye&-nin-g-- e
matter that s an ar S are met!'-an the intent
and the purpose of the applicable rem 1ions
and goals.and objectives of the general Wan will
'Fe satisfied. Failure to satisfy this burden shall
result in a denial. (Ords. 77-33 § 11, 1-0-75.-prior
C0Te-T7MTf U'-Ord. 917).
26-2.2204 Hearing -Initial. Assignment for
initial hearing shalt be as follows:
Su bi ect Division of Agency
General plan Planning commission
Specific Plans and regulations Planning commission
Subdivisions and related Planning commission
variances
Zoning and rezoning Planning commission
Minor subdivisions and Zoning administrator
. related variances
Conditional use permits Zoning administrator
Special permits Zoning administrator
Variance permits Zoning administrator
(Ords. 77-33 § 12, 1975: prior code § 2204.60:
Ord. 917).
(Contra Costa county 10.85) 28-2
EXHIBIT.
zoning Administrator Meeting,
17 July 1995 - Monday 1: 30 P.M.
LAND USE PERMIT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
HOMER & LYNN BRYANT (Applicant/owner) , File LP 02023-95
The applicants request approval to establish a residential
detached second unit. The subject property fronts 144-ft. , on
the west side of Montecillo Drive at the southwest corner of
Montecillo Drive and Montecillo Court: Walnut Creek area. (R-
20) (Parcel 0188-011-033) '
MR. BRAGDON: This project is closed for decision. I have
cards for two people here. I don't have one---is the applicant
present? (voices from audience) ---Okay, I don't have cards
from you; but, it is closed.
I have reviewed the file. This was first heard by Bob -rake,
Senior Planner on the Staff; and I've reviewed the files and all
the material and it is my conclusion that the given size of the
family home as proposed, that I feel that the second---it appears.
like part of that larger home could be made into a second
independent unit and given the neighborhood, the character of the
neighborhood, I am going to deny Agenda Item #2 for a land use
permit for a second home. You can appeal this decision to the
Planning Commission.
(Question from applicant in audience section---not hearable on
tape) .
MR. BRAGDON: Yes, I feel that given the character of the area
that having this second unit as proposed would -be' out of
character with the community and, secondly,' in examining the
plans o e main home, it appears that there could be a second
unit separate and independent and as a consequence, I feel that
to remove any question, I am denying the request.
The public hearing is closed and if I accept any testimony---no,
no, no. The public hearing was closed on June 12th and if I open
it up, I have to readvertise it; so, based on the record, that is
my conclusion. This can be appealed to the Planning Commission
within ten days. Is this County or regional, or do you know off
hand?
MRS. KUTSURIS: This is the County Planning Commission,, in
Martinez.
MR. BRAGDON: Pardon? (Question from someone in audience) . Yes,
yes, the public hearing was held and I went through all of the
evidence, the files, and that is my conclusion and this can be
appealed to the County Planning Commission within 10 days and you
can file your letter on the second floor of the north wing.
• so, agenda Item #2 is Denied. Will you call agenda item #4,
please.
M
K