Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02091999 - SD12 QCou Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa DENNIS M. BARKY, AICPFROM: nt'f COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE. February 9, 1999 SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO MODIFY THE ORDINANCE CODE TO MEASURE STRUCTURE SETBACKS FROM THE EASEMENT LINES ON PRIVATE ROADS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND ANIS JUSTIFICATION RECOMIIIIENDATIQNS 1. APPROVE Option B below: Option A: County Planning Commission Recommendation: Adopt a combining district ordinance to measure primary and secondary structure setbacks from the easement lines of private roads to be applied only in the community of Diablo by rezoning Diablo into the combining district. Option B: Staff Recommendation: Modify Ordinance Code Section 82-4.244(c) to measure primary and secondary setbacks from the easement lines of private roads for lots less than 40,000 square feet in size, to be applied countywide. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _x YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD 33MIVI TTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON February 9 , 19 9 9 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED 2UOTHER_ SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE XX UNANIMOUS (ABSENT #s ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT-ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Mitch Avalon 313-2203 ATTESTED_ cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works Director THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CAO Public Works (ES) � MA/df Building Inspection Director BY DEPUTY boa:setback.bo 2 2. DIRECT the Community Development Director to prepare the ordinance in accordance with the Board approved recommendation above and return to the Board for introduction and subsequent adoption. E16-CAL IMPACT The staff costs to date total $7000. The estimated cost to prepare the ordinance code for Board approval is $2,000 if the code modification is applied countywide and $10,000 if a combining district is required. CKMQUND/REASONS FOR R,ECQM HIEN ATIQNS 1. Issue Definition: In calculating the net lot area, structure setbacks, and lot dimensions for the development of property, the County does not include areas within public road rights of way but does include areas within private road rights of way. The reason for the difference is that the ordinance code'excludes the area within public road rights of way, but does not exclude the areas from private easements when making the above calculations. Lot area, structure setback, and lot dimensions are measured or calculated from the property boundary. On private roads, the parcel boundaries extend to the center of the road. The private road is defined as an easement over a portion of the parcel. Can public roads, the property line is at the edge of the right of way and not the center of the road. As a result, the area within the road easement on private roads is included in the calculations for net lot area, whereas on a public road, the area within the road is not included. The same holds true for calculating lot dimensions and structure setbacks, where on a private road they are measured from the center of the road but on a public road they are measured from the property line at the edge of the right of way. 2. Historical Interpretation and Legal Definition: Section 82-4.244(c) - dight-of-Way Excluded, states the following: "No part, nor all, of a lot within a public road, street, highway, right of way, or easement, for vehicles or pedestrians, existing or proposed, shall be used to satisfy minimum area, yard, dimensional or coverage requirements." Historically, staff did not differentiate between public roads and private roads in calculating lot area, setbacks, or lot dimensions. This historical interpretation suggests that the original intent of the code was to treat public roads and private roads the same. In the late 1980s, our interpretation of the code requirements on a private road was challenged and the issue was referred to County Counsel's office. County Counsel determined that, as written, the code section for excluding right way pertains only to public roads and not to private roads. As a result, the code does not allow us to exclude that portion of a road from a private road easement. Thereafter, staff has applied the code as advised by County Counsel and differentiated between public roads and private roads for calculating lot area, structure setbacks, and lot dimensions. . Purpose of Lot Area, Lot Dimensions, and Structure Setbacks: The General Plan determines the locations for various types of neighborhoods in the County. For example, certain areas are set aside for dense multiple family type neighborhoods and other areas are set aside for low density rural type neighborhoods, with a range of neighborhoods in between. The design of the neighborhoods is determined by the zoning requirements for lot areas, lot dimensions, and structure setbacks. These design elements determine the scale of each neighborhood. 3 When setbacks are measured from the center of the road rather than from the edge of the right of way or easement, the size of the front yard is reduced. Children playing in the front yard are much closer to the street on a private road than on a public road where the setback is measured from the edge of the right of way. This can create a safety concern for the children playing in the front yard. In addition, when setbacks are measured from the center of the road, the homes are much closer to the edge of pavement resulting in a different scale and a sense of crowding in the neighborhood. The result is, in effect, creating a denser neighborhood and one that is different from that type of neighborhood contemplated in the General Plan. 4. Practice of Surrounding Jurisdictions. Staff has polled all of the cities within the County and a couple of surrounding counties and found that 15 of the 18 cities, plus Alameda County, treat public roads and private roads the same in determining lot area, lot setbacks, or lot dimensions. The three cities that calculate lot area, lot setbacks, and lot dimensions differently on private roads do so only on minor subdivisions. Attached is a letter from Walnut Creek dated December 17, 1998 which describes their practices on private roads in more detail and expressing their support for modifying the ordinance code to treat private roads the same as public roads. S. Compatibility Issues: When property is developed in the County with private roads and is later annexed into a city, the lots are "substandard" (i.e., smaller) compared to lots approved in a similar zoning district within the city. This can create compatibility issues for the city when adjoining neighborhoods are designed differently. Another compatibility issue is for older communities in the County which were developed when the County interpreted the code required lot area, lot dimensions and structure setbacks the same on private roads and public roads. As neighborhoods in these older communities "redevelop," the setback requirements for new construction on a private road will be different from the neighboring homes. This may create a compatibility problem within the neighborhood. 8. Process: On March 10, 1998, the Board directed the Community Development Department to begin the process to review modifications to the ordinance code for measuring setbacks, lot dimensions and lot area for private roads. On March 31, 1998, a letter was sent to the Development Liaison Committee informing them of the Board's anion and requesting comments and input from this representative group of the engineering, development and building community on changing the measurement of setbacks and lot dimensions and calculations of lot area on private roads. This issue was discussed at the Developer Liaison meeting on December 10, 1997 and March 12, 1998, at which time several issues and concerns from the development community were expressed. These issues are described in Section 7 below. On March 17, 1998, a letter was sent to all the Municipal Advisory Councils (MAC) informing them of the Board action and requesting comments and input on the proposed ordinance code modification so their policy issues could be included in the staff report. On June 9, 1998, a letter was sent to all the municipal advisory councils, county and regional planning commissioners and developers and engineers (approximately 140), with a copy of the staff report dated June 9, 1998, informing them of three public meetings where the proposed ordinance code modifications would be discussed. Public meetings were held at the East County Regional Planning Commission on July 6, 1998, and September 14, 1998. A public meeting was also held on July 15, 1998, at the San Ramon Valley regional Planning Commission. Finally a public hearing was conducted at the County Planning Commission on August 11, 1998 and October 13, 1998 and a 4 recommendation by majority vote of the commission was made on November 10, 1998. Notification was provided in accordance with the State law for the public hearing, and though not required, the same notification was provided for the two public meetings. 7. Comments/Concems with Code Modification: The following are the comments and concerns received on the proposed modification of the ordinance code to calculate zoning setback, lot dimension and lot area on private roads the same as public roads and to revert to our past practices prior to 1989. When this process began, staff recommendation was to modify the code for all three components for lot design; zoning setbacks, lot dimensions and lot areas. Both the Planning Commission and staff now recommend only modifying the code for zoning setbacks and not modifying the code requirements for lot dimension and lot area. Eliminating a code modification for lot dimension and lot area reduces or eliminates many of the concerns that were raised. A. Small Lot Review When the proposed modification included changing lot dimensions and lot areas, many existing lots would have been substandard and would have been subject to a small lot review when they developed. With the recommendation now for only modifying the code for lot setbacks, there is no impact on small lot review so this is no longer an issue. B. Planned Unit Developments This was never an issue, because planned unit developments have their own zoning requirements, and any code modification would not change that. C. Topographically Constrained Projects A concern was raised that projects in topographically constrained areas, such as hillside settings or properties in a relatively steep draw, would require increased grading if the homes were set further back from the private road. This is still an issue if the code is modified, and additional grading may be required or a variance could be necessary. D. Small Infill Development The example cited by developers for a typical small infill project is constructing a private road between a property line and an existing house to access some new lots behind the house. If the code modification was changed, then the house may be at variance to the setback requirements from the road. This would still remain an issue and a variance may be necessary for this type of infill project. E. Existing Tentative Maps The concern from the development community would be retroactively applying the ordinance code changes to tentative maps that have been submitted for approval. Staff recommends that the few remaining tentative maps that have already been submitted for approval would be exempt. Vesting tentative reaps would be exempt in any event. P. "Downzoning" There is a concern that modifying the ordinance code could in effect be a type of "downzoning" of property if the modification resulted in a possible reduction in the number of lots the property would yield when subdivided. 5 Staff initially recommended including lot area in the code modification, which would have resulted in a possible yield of fewer lots when property on private roads subdivided. With the recommendation now for modifying the code only for lot setbacks, there will be no reduction in the lot yield. C. Private Roads Traversing Parcels A concern was raised for those parcels where private roads traverse the middle of them to provide access to other properties. Modification of the ordinance code would render more of those parcels unusable for the construction of structures. Many of the parcels that are traversed by private reads are larger parcels in the more rural areas of the County. Limiting applicability of the code modification to lots of less than 40,000 square feet would resolve this concern for most lots. 8. County Planning Commission Recommendation; After much deliberation and consideration, the Commission recommends to the Board to modify the ordinance code for only measurement of primary and secondary setbacks from the easement line of private roads and to adopt a combining district and rezone the community of Diablo to the combining district. The combining district would encompass the area of the Diablo Municipal Advisory Council except for that portion zoned P-1 (Black Oak Estates). In making this recommendation to the Board, the Commission raised the following points in support of their position. A. Modification for Diablo Only The Commission felt that the community of Diablo was unique in that it is the only community with all private roads and therefore, every lot in the community is impacted by the County's policy on how it treats private roads for development of parcels. The commission believes that there is a genuine need to modify the ordinance code for the community of Diablo but did not believe the code was "broken" in the rest of the County. B. Notification The commission was concerned about the extent of notification to the residents of the County for modifying the ordinance code.The notification for the ordinance code modification was conducted in conformance with State law. However, the Commission noted that those residents who would be impacted had not been individually notified. C. Other MAC's Interested in Modification The commission felt that the ordinance code modification should apply only in Diablo, since Diablo was the only municipal advisory council to testify throughout the hearing process. Although the Kensington Municipal Advisory Council and the Alamo Improvement Association sent letters supporting the ordinance code modifications, neither group testified before the commission. The commission did not find that there was sufficient evidence before them to make a recommendation in other communities. The Diablo MAC testified before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission and the County Planning Commission. It should be noted that a letter was sent to all Municipal Advisory Councils on December 30, 1998 with a draft copy of this staff report. Staff has received one letter from the Alamo Improvement Association dated January 17, 1999 in response. The Association prefers the staff recommendation without the exemption for lots over 43,000 square feet. Their letter is attached for reference. 6 The following are the advantages and disadvantages of the County Planning Commission recommendations: Advantages ♦ Issue is addressed where it is known to be a concern b No reduction of subdivision potential for lots on private roads 1► No increase in small lot review Disadvantages More expensive to implement than a countywide modification ® May encourage proliferation of requests for adoption and application of combining districts by other unincorporated communities, which are currently not budgeted. ♦ There may be a reduction in area available for construction 9. Staff Recommendation: Staffs recommendation is to modify Section 82-4.244(c) the code to measure primary and secondary setbacks from the easement line of private roads but for only those lots that are less than 40,000 square feet in area. There would be no change to the calculation of lot area, or measurement of lot depth, or lot width on private roads. Staff believes the issue of community design and neighborhood compatibility are issues and concerns for every community in the County, not just the community of Diablo. tats over 40,000 square feet are not included: because the larger a parcel becomes, the less likely the structure is to crowd the private road and push its building envelope toward the road. This also eliminates the application of urban community design issues in the rural parts of the County. The following are the advantages and disadvantages of staffs recommendation: Advantages The most cost effective code modification No reduction of subdivision potential for lots on private reads ♦ No increase in small lot review Disadvantages ♦ Cade modifications may be implemented in communities that do not want the cede modified 0 There may be a reduction in area available for construction 10. Prior staff reports: The staff reports for the November 10, 1998, September 22, 1998 and October 13, 1998, County Planning Commission meetings contain detailed information on the issues and options for modifying Ordinance Code 82-4.244(c) on the measurement of setback and lot dimensions and calculations of lot area on private roads. 11. Attachments: The following materials are attached: A. November 10, 1998 County Planning Commission staff report 7 S. October 13, 1998 County Planning Commission staff report C. September 22, 1998 County Planning Commission staff report D. CMAC letter of July 8, 1998 E. KMAC letter of August 11 & 18, 1998 F. AIA letter of October 20, 1998 O. Letter to MAC'S, Planning Commissioners and interested parties dated June 9, 1998 H. Letter from Walnut Creek dated December 17, 1998 I. Letter to MAC'S dated December 30, 1998 J. Letter from AIA dated January 17, 1999. Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION November 10, 1998 -- 7.00 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORDINANCE CODE SECTION 82-4.244 (c) ON THE MEASUREMENT OF SETBACK AND LOT DIMENSIONS AND CALCULATION OF LOT AREA ON PRIVATE ROADS. Can October 13, 1998, the County Planning Commission considered this item. After some discussion, the Commission declared their desire to modify the ordinance code only In the community of Diablo and not anywhere else in the County. The Commission requested staff to investigate and report back on the mechanisms for modifying the code only in the community of Diablo. This report is a supplement to the original staff report of September 22, 1998. It should be noted that this proposal was originally brought forward by staff to codify what had been our historic practice. That historic practice was to measure setbacks and lot dimensions and to calculate lot area the same on private roads as on public roads. II. PLANNING MECHANISMS AVAILABLE TO MODIFY THE ORDI IAN E CODE IN ONE COMMUNITY ONLY There are two methods of modifying the ordinance code and restricting the modification to limited areas of the County. When an ordinance code is adopted or modified, its applicability is Countywide. If an ordinance is to be applied to only one part of the County, a combining district or a P-1 rezoning are two methods that can be used. Both a combining district and a P-1 require a rezoning which includes specific findings and a map showing where the combining district or P-1 requirements are applied in the County.. 1. Combining District A combining district Is a set of design requirements that overlay the existing zoning district and combine its special requirements with the existing zoning requirements. Prior to its incorporation, for example, the community of Orinda had a Slope Density Combining District. The combining district dealt specifically with the development of property in the hilly areas of Orinda and Included specific design or development guidelines for those properties. 1 In the case of private roads, we could have a Private Road Combining District over the zoning district in the community of Diablo, which is R-20, R-40 and P-1 (Black teak Estates). The combining district would not apply in the P-1 area of Diablo, as the P-1 has its own zoning requirements. If the Planning Commission decided to recommend this method of modifying the code in the community of Diablo, they should also specify what the design parameters would be in the combining district. For example, would it include one, all, or a combination of the following? ->The measurement of setbacks ->The measurement of lot dimensions The calculation of lot area -DoAppl`€€cable to certain sized lots To justify a Private Road Combining District in the community of Diablo only, the County must have a reasonable rationale for providing this combining district. There must be general plan policies currently, in the general plan to support such a combining district, or a general plan amendment would have to be adopted to incorporate supporting policies into the general plan. The general plan polices for Diablo are found in the section titled "Policies for the Alamo-Diablo-Blackhawk Area" in the Land Use Element, policies 3-135 to 3-148. This section is found on page 3-61 in the general plan. The following two policies would support a Private Road Combining District in Diablo: 3-135: Promote the individuality and unique character of each community based on existing community images 3-144 Developments shall be reviewed to ensure the continued rural character of the area In addition to the general plan policies, the community of Diablo is the only community in the County consisting wholly of private roads. This distinguishes it from Alamo, which has many public roads, and from Blackhawk, which is already in a P-1 zoning district, and has its own set of design guidelines. 2. Community P-1 Zoning District A second method for providing development guidelines on private roads in the community of Diablo only Is to rezone the community to P-1. This has been done in the community of North Richmond and is currently being done in the community of Oakley. A P-1 rezoning would serve the same purpose as a combining district, but would take much more work to 2 complete. The cost to complete a P-1 rezoning would be three to four times as much as a combining district. For this reason, staff would not recommend a P-1 rezoning for the community of Diablo to accomplish what the Commission has discussed at their meeting on October 13, 1998. III. COMMUNITIES REQUESTING CODE MODIFICATION There have been three communities that have expressed an interest in, or support for modifying the ordinance code. Those communities are, Diablo, as stated in their letter of July 8, 1998, Kensington, as stated in their letters of August 11 and 18, 1998, and Alamo, as stated In their letter of October 20, 1998. A copy of these letters Is attached for reference. Diablo, of course, initiated the request for modifying the ordinance code and the modifications fit Diablo perfectly. Diablo is a community exclusively of private roads, so the impact of design guidelines for private roads affects every lot in their community. Kensington also expressed support for modifying the code. Kensington, however, is almost exclusively public roads and has very few private roads. Any modifications to the ordinance in Kensington would have a much more reduced impact in the community than in Diablo. Therefore, it would be more difficult to justify a combining district for Kensington. Alamo is somewhere in between, having many public and private roads. In summary, a combining district could be done for Diablo based on the policies in the general plan. Kensington has very few private roads and a general plan amendment would be needed to add supporting policies. There are currently no policies in the general plan specific to Kensington. Staff would question the benefit of the cost of a general plan amendment for so few private roads. Alamo is somewhere in between, most of the private roads in Alamo that a combining district would apply to are in the Jennifer Lane area. Many of the newly created private roads are part of a P-1 development and a Private Road Combining District would not apply. These include Stonegate, Stonebridge, Stone Valley Oaks, Alamo Springs, Alamo Summit, and Alamo Highlands. Attached are maps of the three communities showing which roads are public and which are private. If the Planning Commission recommends modifying the ordinance code in one community only, that action could be justified for Diablo as it is unique with all of its roads being private. If the Planning Commission wanted to include Alamo and Kensington, that would point to a countywide modification of the code. Kensington and Alamo are representative of many communities in the County on the issue of private roads, and it would be difficult to justify applying an ordinance code modification in only those communities. 3 IV. ALTERNATIVE MODIFICATION OF THE ORDINANCE CODE During the regional and planning commission meetings, several issues were identified with modifying the ordinance code and applying it countywide. Almost all of the issues that were identified would be addressed with an alternative modification of the ordinance code. That modification would be for front yard setback requirements only. The ordinance code would be modified to require only front yard setbacks to be measured from the private road easement line and not lot dimensions or lot area. This would resolve the small lot Issues and yet create neighborhoods with the same scale and compatibility since the homes will all be setback the same distance from the street. The backyards may have less depth since the lot dimensions would be measured from the centerline of the road and the lot area may be less because it would include the portion of the lot encumbered by the road easement. From the street, however, the homes would appear the same as the others in the neighborhood and would satisfy the concern' of neighborhood compatibility. This alternate code modification, together with exempting larger lots from these modifications, would resolve all of the problems identified with trying to provide neighborhood compatibility by treating public and private roads the same. V. SUMMARY OF OPTIONS There are five options for the Planning Commission to consider in making a recommendation to the Board. The first option, of course, is to not modify the code. The second option would be to modify the code countywide as originally recommended by staff. The third option would be to modify the code countywide for front yard setbacks only. The fourth option would be to modify the code to apply only in a specific area of the County using a combining district. The fifth option would be to modify the code to apply only In a specific area of the County using a P-1 rezoning. The five options are listed below with the advantages and disadvantages for each one. 1. Do Not Modify the Ordinance Code Adv27nt3ges *Easy to implement as there are no administrative changes *There will be no unintended consequences as a result, as there is no change C.lrsad?ntages •The issue of neighborhood compatibility would not be addressed 4 2. Modify the Ordinance Code Countywide (lot dimension, lot area, front yard setback) Advantages •The most cost effective method of code modification (same as 3 below) Dlmo'V3171ages *Code modifications may be implemented in communities that do not want the code modified •There may be a reduction in area available for construction •Possible reduction in subdivision potential *Increase In small lot review 3. Modify the Ordinance Code Countywide (front yard setback only) Advant8ges •The most cost effective method of code modification (same as 2 above) •No reduction of subdivision potential for lots on private roads •No increase in small lot review Dlsadvantages *Code modifications may be implemented in communities that do not want the code modified =There may be a reduction in area available for construction 4. Adopt a Combining District and Apply it Only in Diablo Advantages •Issue is addressed where it is known to be a concern Disadvantages •More expensive to implement than a countywide modification •May encourage community by community request for specific changes, which is currently unfunded S. Adopt a P-1 Rezoning to be Applied in Diablo Only Advantage. •Development and design guidelines can be more detailed Disadvantages •Very high costs compared to other methods VI, POSSIBLE ORDINANCE_CODE CHANGES 1. Original Modification 5 �c The following is the original proposed modification for treating both public roads and private roads the same. This includes lot dimensions, lot area and front yard setback. 82-4.244(c) Right-of-Way Excluded. No part, nor all, of a lot within a public flfiW road, street, highway, right-of-way, or easement, for vehicles or pedestrians, existing or proposed, shall'be used to satisfy minimum area, yard, dimensional or coverage requirements. 2. Alternative Modification The following is a code modification for treating the front yard setback requirements the same on public roads, and private roads but DQt treating the calculation of lot area or the measurement of lot dimensions the same. Only the measurement of front yard setbacks would be modified. 82-4.244 (c) Right-of-Way Excluded. No part, nor all, of a lot within a public road, street, highway, right-of-way, or easement, for vehicles or pedestrians, existing or proposed, shall be used to sat! minimum area and dimensional or covers a re ulrements, o Ellr .. ly. VII. PRIOR STAFF REPORTS The staff reports for the September 22, 1998 and October 13, 1998 County Planning Commission meetings, contained detailed information on the issues and options for modifying ordinance code Section 82-4.244 (c) on the measurement of setback and lot dimensions and calculations of lot area on private roads. VIII. ATTACHMENTS The following materials are attached a. DMAC letter of July 8, 1998 b. KMAC letter of August 11 & 18, 1998 c. AIA letter of October 20, 1998 d. Public vs. private road maps e. October 13, 1998 County Planning Commission staff report f. September 22, 1998 County Planning Commission staff report RMA:d g:adm1n\m1tch\pinacdm 6 "1 r` "'' �i �tl✓�y t� tit«+ •+�'3,��+� t,�y�y -'�t�'� .�� ' �, � ���� .r fr.�, yam'' .�,►,� `«�sv ,�1,�^+4�yX��`� �(i',.. C��O�,�< �� ,j ��., ,� "+J!✓ !y✓ FBF ""✓�""R1l tti .�«„«+"``� ^A'�iia .i3, �;"�'�'�. 4�. � ?� i� .�`��,� � *! `"ice ���`'p ������Sw,��a� �f �^�,� ��`,►t ae'� .3 A i �?'► 'A �1G"� °1W..AF �, �v lc��e'�ta��}�'1wti'LSt'�'��i� �► ,,"°1�"J�,�'. � yry+�tcr4 •,t..i�?� et`��'► aX�� u�3 f't 7� a �MZ�eR q*t1� 4"�Q �s e�'t Vii`/?w�.," ,y►a'"' ,4t t'�r.,'. +4 �, ct ^�'�°i�+'t'�' 1�1 i �,mss- f�""R.rS '�,�'�...., � s�♦♦.� �� i. ,moi,,.+ 'w„�, �'f•yz� 'S�t�t9�1�, �'�„�,r�,t+t^ ,.,,, r�,,, st �. � P� Ess;.ti�cn,�•,�xc,�t��;,y+�`��,, �ti4+ws D� � �,". �� � f p ' iovv f �g a v. `'�"�� '',�� `�"a`''pt.a',�, ! .�i'"�Z4�iap+�X1i►'Q'n 1'��}o¢� f#,1�lk1 �+ f/f 'se�1Q* go 9�M�� R1I ��4�' y� '"!r'"� ``'':^V`'a�''*">�.,' '��4'Q . .Q mm P C *ask �(�yya ?Ai._ �+ � �ts�tf►*t 4Etr'�f +yQQS «' Ash ` d iz �+�7dt Q R➢ . � ow �'�'S�i�',�s'�f� '�s�^'�" r spy 7.�'}t«4;����������°i'�'�w•�4a'r i'C 1 � �,,y4r�. �•z��y"att�l� \sus 1't,�t ;}�qi1'" 4,fr,`�".w<w*y�a'�'�,w r*�' �Z` {��``�,��� as .����3�������.-�,��,��.����'���,,•��#*°{� �'���r`"� q 7i' AFF iY*t �� .tR- + tttt,ucw � ��ct- .*�+►" '�'�n®",�1 .�wG r► r, i., � ygt.'1! `$pa4taia�%`'�` 4,a tf �� bias:" �♦�r •,� �$# ,.4x'��x:sy.��' E"',��#t M til �Mr4' 3wis' y¢try .x r�..�i xa.,f r�Yirrerrl�,. pr � h`nfjSA�' p, b uaa@sxrl.�xw VFNpt ': � �► � ! � �;��*:�, "sem°�+.� lR" �pjr,w�1k+ �� � ��� k ley? �� � +�� � •� grrw�o» .n�"s axe H a �#,xlay. �0°a���o h . � R► � ��``ir'r R �,�� x�A,u��,q��s,�`�"".�S"�`n �ti+'>a Odpa,� K'"�►n+�,�R; _� 71Mr"�"` ��'' - �.. ,rr+•. .iii�tA`�R�#'a" ,.,' '- 7fiw-,�, pa. A +FSR"Xus '� �r��►`�4��►a��"�i*`+;�'�' �xlfG'#�#t,�� ,�� �� � �' �� 'q� �`a�A �. ..W ��«,�,�q�+� '°'��1�.kL+•.✓„+�',,p�, ,rte"^ � ,p'�„�� r .M�'^ ,... ',� � �,+�`e iia ,�, .� �-?�•�t 1j0.`,+„ �;�,w,r �q �a \ +�►. �*'��n4A�'�t��.�4"�'�e Ad WA 74 4 ;PN'Yy ivtCfFCGca9.n� �► 1�to+xga� ��k'"bP/��`"�r� "+c'bA"`'�p#�'d� .tMOVE. e _ lam"}� „20 ►�, ^ ►, +.�yVeo�,op».E.,t,; IMP! ow- V►- t ►,* �, �►,� ,fie '��,ktlitalam�rr •."¢+,r`��� Senw+,t�. �''p�� '��, '` '� �. *g�,� rY � A4�t � �•' kY a e d' 7 s} i'f" �xst� �oarnt •.cN�` A7R :r � *� �w`��F`�•pu�p� r+A �. +q;. *d�" �R'.,4°�I►� v � -—�"" 'WA +t w�+ t�h w., �#'�►,e^ �'�� j gra :. .. e Mi� r+-�►"'+'' ♦ '"►xM`ad�QAq slrt ��" `w`�1� "" ws1�' *w t a m } 1 �w • � y yam„ f • IAWW �' Mu avlxnM 6 sna l LFS-%� � L i � ♦„+ � 4 aa1` i t d� jig 1511 o i ilia' y i y , ® PX �� w4 ,{ � e� ,�..+�' a `•is,ttst)ry s'sr".4 �:t�¢rs j " �� � LjJ y .. d '� iL.�,�• ' r 3 I'if W c 01 70 9 3:: Yi �`7.; ! ��� �5 : ��..5� # r� �+•�` �''��.'J � :/�.�jly 1' ,K 3 `'A +��:,y'�; M4( Jit d fli dL� f }Y L x��•s rt +...�. �b � r}l�.a.._.l!V � ,.� «-.�'v..V,_1.-Y ISi,}3tJ�Y....,y. i.:,�'i ...,�,,.�.,.�:. ��4 �� } ���F.s` < '. ttx �'.. ...,,� .'t"�'�' :,`;L"�YY,�p}vG �,....'...,..., etrypsYxt�'. �tcceo• }' � r '�q,r;�iYt aft y,i�:y art�'�1ft..y�, d - .•i �a �y..rt�k r$ _,�. s , � � 'may �, � , •� - - � - };i 3 Willi At AII err, ry .•�"rY i� yi a �.Yy 5�'�'� L! 1F�M1��I.I -��tei fix, x .,• � "�y � ��%S� � ��r� �� '�}{ � _ y : ac � �shy: •.�.. u,�� . � �_ � 14 Up P w a A � j .�.� ✓�� w may,,,..=M�'p F,i�� �' f ...*a k ': •... yr,gww, is> • t r N �.-tYi� fi } ,B• .aa• rt.t�'N'Y''.F`T'.� '�A� 3 x'� F.. { ' .. x Boo- ir lt`6 Ole CO 104 40 14 10 pa A 4� Community Development Contra Costa Countyc , CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1998 — 7:(} P.M. I. INTRODUCTION PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORDINANCE CODE SECTION 8-4.2440 ON THE MEASUREMENT OF SETBACK AND LOT DIMENSIONS AND CALCULATION OF LOT AREA ON PRIVATE ROADS: On September 22, 1998, the County Planning Commission continued this item until October 13, 1998. The staff report for this item is contained in the September 22, 1998 commission packet. II. EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION On September 14, 1998, the East County Regional Planning Commission considered the proposed modifications of the Ordinance Code. Ager discussion, the Commission voted to support the proposed Ordinance Code modifications with the changes to the language of the five-lot exemption, which they stated at their July 6, 1998 meeting, and is included in the staff report III. SUMMARY OF OPTIONS The proposed modification of the Ordinance Code has been discussed by the two Regional Planning Commissions and several other interested parties, such as Municipal Advisory Councils and Developer Committees. Through all this discussion there have been several options that have emerged, from the full modification of the code as originally proposed to several hybrid modifications. Those options are summarized below. 1) Full modification of the Ordinance Code. 2) Full modification of the Ordinance Code with an exemption for lots recorded after 1989. ) Full modification of the Ordinance Code with an exemption for up to five lots on a cul-de-sac. 4) Modification of the Ordinance Code to measure set backs, lot dimensions, and lot area from the edge of pavement instead of the easement line. 5) Modification of the Ordinance Code for set backs only. E) Modification of the Ordinance Code for smaller size lots only (e.g. R-20). 6 Another policy issue that was discussed in the staff report was to exempt those tentative maps that are currently in the process from any modification to the Ordinance Code. RMA:iv g.1v\F1n-Com 10-I3.doc r Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION I SDA SEPTEMBER.22, 1298 -7.00 P I. INTRODUCTION R P D MI I N IN JON Zg�4. 44 c QN THE ME E IAND CALCULATION : On March 10, 1998 the Board directed the Community Development Department to begin the process to modify the ordinance code to require lot area, yard setbacks, and lot dimensional requirements for the development of property on private roads to be the same as development on public roads. These zoning requirements are currently measured differently on public and private roads. The issues associated with the proposed ordinance cede modification, and the staff recommendation, are described in detail in the attached memorandum to the Planning Commission dated June 9, 1998. There have been several opportunities for input from interested parties throughout the process for modifying the code. We have sent out letters to all of the Municipal Advisory Councils for their comment and review, particularly as it relates to their community and the design of their community. We also sent a letter to several developers and engineers to seek their comments. The primary forum for seeking input from interested parties is the public meeting at the Regional Planning Commissions and the hearing before the County Planning Commission. Public meetings were held on July 6, 1998, July 15, 1998 and August 3, 1998 at the Regional Planning Commissions. The public meetings at the Regional Planning Commissions were noticed the same as public hearings. The County Planning Commission will make their recommendation to the Board of Supervisors,where there will be the final hearing and decision by the Board. II. 1lUNI IPAL ADVISQRYO T ILS We have received two written comments from the Municipal Advisory Councils. One from the Diablo Municipal.Advisory Council and one from.the Kensington Municipal Advisory Council. Both Councils support staff's proposal to modify the ordinance code to measure setbacks, lot area and lot dimension the same on private roads as on public roads. Beath also do not want to grant any exceptions from the small lot occupancy requirements and they both believe the variance process should not be modified. Attached are the letters from the two Municipal Advisory Councils. S-2 III, AN RAML I NAL PLAMMiGMMMISSION On July 1 S, 1998 the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission held a public meeting to consider the proposed changes to the ordinance code. Several issues were raised by the Commissioners.. One of the Commissioners was concerned that there would be a rush by developers to submit projects for private roads before the ordinance code is changed, similar to that which occurred when Measure F was proposed in 1990. There was also discussion about additions to homes after the ordinance code was changed. Given the situation where an existing house was constructed under the current ordinance code, most Commissioners supported the concept that any additions to the existing structure would have to comply with the new ordinance code. This may result in the addition being further back from the front of the house. If the front of the house no longer met the setback under the new ordinance code, for example, a variance would be required for an addition to be at the same setback as the front of the house or the addition would have to be setback further from the front of the house. After much discussion by the Commissioners and testimony by the Diablo Municipal Advisory Council on the proposed changes and the exception provisions, the Commission voted to provide the following comments on the proposed ordinance .change: A. The Commission support=s the ordinance code change. B. The Commission supports the exception for small lot review for those lets recorded after 1989. C. The Commission does not support an exception for five lots on a private road. D. The Commission does not want to make any changes to variance procedures, IV. EASI COUNTY REGIONAL PLAN—NMG-CQMMIS.SION On July 5, 1998 the East County Regional Planning Commission held a public meeting to consider the proposed changes to the Ordinance Code. After some discussion,the Commissioners requested clarification of the wording on the exception for roads serving 5 lots. The clarification is shown below as underlined text for the modifications to Section 82-4.244(c). The Com=mission then continued the item to August 3, 1998 for further consideration. There was nobody from the public that spore on the item. The August 3, 1998 East County Regional Planning Commission was canceled due to lack of a quorum. -3 82-4.244 c bight-of-Way Excluded. No part, nor all, of a lot within a public street, highway, right-of-way, or easement, for vehicles or pedestrians, existing or proposed, shall be used to satisfy rn nimuin area,yard, dimensional or Covera a re uirements . C LTy7 Y PLA= Ih t COMMISSION On August 11, 1998 the County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed code modification. The Commission had several I concerns about the proposed modification to the ordinance code. The following are the issues raised with discussion after each one: A. "Down Zoning": The issue was:raised that modifying the ordinance cede could in effect be a type of"down zoning" of property. This concern sterns from the possible reduction in the number of lots a parcel would yield when subdivided, if setbacks measured from private roads and the same as public roads. 1,'sc ussion; in the past the County has had no formal policy on whether private roads would be allowed, encouraged, discouraged, or disallowed on development projects. It has been the County's practice, however, to allow private roads when requested, and they have been proposed and approved in a variety of development settings. The County could develop a policy on the allowance or.disallowance of private roads. The County is not bound to allow private roads simply because it has no policy. The County could, for example, adopt a policy that would not allow any private roads on any development in the County. This is what some of the surrounding cities have done. Under that scenario,the modifications to the proposed ordinance code would be rendered moot, as all setbacks, lot dimensions, and lot areas would be measured from the public road right of way. B. ra in : The Commission had concerns about the potential for increased grading, especially for topographically constrained parcels, if the ordinance code were changed. Disussi-on: For topographically constrained parcels there may indeed be more grading as homes are pushed further back from the road to meet increased setbacks. ,Alternatively, variances could be considered to allow the homes S-4 closer to the road to reduce grading or in some cases consideration for reducing the number of lets to reduce grading. , Many projects that are typographically constrained are small projects that are five or fewer lets. If the exception provision for five or fewer lots on a cul-de-sac is approved it would resolve many of the topographically constrained projects and the resulting grading issue for those projects. C. Inc to Nci abon`ng r „ernes: The Commission was concerned about the impacts to a neighbor of a development that constructs a private road along their common property line. If the neighbor's home met the sideyard setback before the road was installed, would it meet the setback after the road was constructed because it would of an increased setback requirement. Would the neighbor's parcel be at variance or create a substandard lot situation? Discussion: For the purposes of this discussion,we will assume there are two parcels, side by side, that front on a public road. Currently, if a private road is placed on one parcel along and adjacent to the neighbor's side property line, then the neighbors sideyard becomes a secondary frontage. Setbacks for the neighbors parcel along the private road would be measured from the property line. In this case the property line is not the center of the private road, but the edge of the private road easement or the same common property line that divided the two parcels originally. If the ordinance code is changed to measure the setback from the easement lime of a private road, then the setback calculation would be the same since the edge of the easement line and the property line are one and the same. D. private Roads_l~raversinz Parcels: There are many instances where private roads traverse through the middle of a parcel to provide access to another parcel. Modification of the ordinance code would render more of the parcel unusable for the construction of structures in accordance with the code requirements. Discussion; Attached is an Assessor's Parcel Map showing several lots in the Alhambra Valley area that have private roads that traverse parcels to access other parcels. if the ordinance code is modified, then the potential building area for structures on those lots that are traversed by the private road would be substantially reduced. Under the current code structures could theoretically abut the easement line providing they meet the setback from the property line. With the code modification,however, a setback would be established from the easement line,which would create a new setback through the property on each side of the private road. S-5 E. tic ns: There were a couple of alternative options that came up at the Commission meeting. 1. Modify setbacks only. With this option the ordinance cede would be modified to require only setbacks to be measured from the private road easement and not lot dimensions or lot area. This would resolve the small lot issue and also create neighborhoods with the same scale since the homes will all be setback the same distance from the street. The backyards may have less depth as lot dimensions would be measured from the centerline of the road. From the street, however, the homes would appear the same as the others in the neighborhood. 2. Code modification for only smaller lots. Most of the interest in modifying the code for community design issues centered around smaller lots in the more urbanized areas of the County. Some of the associated issues with the code modification would be reduced or eliminated if the code modifications applied only to smaller sized lots and not the larger sized lots. If R-20 was chosen as the dividing line, for example, the lots on Alhambra Valley Road would not be subject to increased setbacks from the private road traversing the properties. The primary driving force for changing the ordinance code is neighborhood compatibility and having a consistent setback from the road for homes throughout the neighborhood. Small lot sizes have small building envelopes and homes tend to push right up against the setbacks. As lot sizes become larger,however,building envelopes also become larger and it is less likely that homes will be built:right at the road set back.line. F. Case Studies: Attached are three case studies of recent projects on private roads. Each case study has a map and data sheet. 1. MS 93-023. This is a small development on a steep lot. Although its not readily apparent, this project could result in homes being pushed mer up the hill with a resultant increase in grading. Since the road easement on Parcel A is further from the property line than the setback, the house could theoretically be placed at the easement line under our current code. Changing the code would therefore result in a house 20 feet farther up the hill. S-f 2. MS 95-009. This minor sub is constrained by Tire Valley Road on one side and Tice Creek on the other. If Parcel A was reconfigured to not include the area of the private read,it would be 267 feet long,or 67 feet longer than submitted. This would render Parcel $ unbuildable as the lot line would be very close to the creek structure setback line. 3. Sub 8100. Alderwood Road is an existing private road. This project proposes a private cul-de-sac off`the private road. The front four lots currently meet zoning requirements for area, width, and depth. If the area of the two private roads are taken out of the measurements, then the four lots add up to 50,5103 square feet or enough for only three lots. VI. ATTACHMMS The following exhibits are attached to this staff report: A. June 911998 memorandum to the Planning Commissioners. B. setter from Diablo Municipal Advisory Council. C. setters from.Kensington Municipal Advisory Council dated August 11, 1998 and August 18, 1998. D. Maps of properties in Alhambra Valley. E. "Private Roads and Net Area Calculation" submitted at the August 11, 1998 County Planning Commission hearing. P. Case study maps and data sheets. ArMAJaa:ly g:adlmu\98-91Code.doc 7/24/98 7!23/98 BW98 !4/26/98 9/10/98 CC1NTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP"TMENT '. X51 Pine Street, N. n 4th Floor " Martinez. CA 9455S Telephone. 535.1210 Fax: 335 TO: The Pipming Commissioners FROM- Mitch Avalon Chief of Current Planning DATE: June 91, 1998 SUBJECT: PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORDINANCE CODE SECTION 82-4.244(c) ON THE MEASUREMENT OF SETBACKS AND LCAT DIMENSIONS AND CALCULATION OF LOT AREA ON PRIVATE ROADS. 1. INTRODUCTION On March 10,- 1998 the Board directed the Community Development Department to begin the process to modify the ordinance code to require lot area., yard setbacks, and lot dimensional requirements for the development of property on private roads to be the same as development on public roads. These zoning requirements are currently measured differently on public and private roads. The process to modify the ordinance code goes through three steps. The first step is Board authorization, which was done on March 10, 1998. With Board authorization, the second step is to hold a hearing before the County Planning Commission. During this time input will be received from any interested parties, which will be accomplished in several different � � 2 ways. We have sent out letters to all of the Municipal Advisory Councils for their comment and review, particularly as it relates to their community and the design of their community. We also sent a letter to several developers and engineers to seek their comments. A copy of both letters, one dated March 17, 1998 and the other dated March 31,- 1998 is attached as Exhibits A and B. The primary forum for seeking input from interested parties will be the public meetings at the Regional Planning Commissions and the public hearing before the County Planning Commission. Public meetings will be held first at the Regional Planning Commissions and then before the County Planning Commission. Any comments from the Regional Planning Commission will be presented to the County Planning Commission. The County Planning Commission will make their recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, where the last step in the process will be the final hearing and decision by the Board. This memorandum outlines the issue and the comments and concerns identified to date. As we work through the process to modify the ordinance these issues will be better defined and new ones will undoubtedly come up, H. BACKGROUND 1. Issue Definition: In calculating the net lot area, structure setbacks, and lot dimensions for the development of property, the County does not include areas within public road rights of way but does include areas within private road rights of way. The reason for the difference is that the Ordinance Code excludes the area within public road rights of way but does not exclude the areas from private easements when making the above calculations. Generally, lot area, structure setback, and lot dimensions are measured or calculated from the property boundary. On private roads, the property boundaries for parcels that:front on the private road extend to the center of the read. A private road is generally defined as the easement over the front portion of the parcel that abuts the private road. Can public roads, the property line is at the edge of the right of way and not the center of the read. As a result, the area within the road easement can private roads is included in the calculations for net lot area, whereas on a public road the area within the road is not included. The same holds true for calculating lot dimensions and structure 3 setbacks, where on a private road they are measured from the property line: at the center of the road but on a public road they are measured from the property line at the edge of the right of way. An example for calculating;lot area and measuring setbacks and lot dimensions for two parcels of the same size, one on a private road and the other on a public road,is shown on the attached illustrative drawing labeled Exhibit O. Both lots are assumed to be 100 feet square, for a total of 10,000 square feet, with one single family house located on it. A. Lot Area.: To calculate the lot area for a 10,000 square foot parcel, the 100 foot wide by 100 foot deep lot would have to be located outside of the road right-of-way. All. 10,000 square feet of the lot would be outside of the right-of-way. On the private road, the 100 foot depth of the lot would be measured from the property line, which on most private roads is the center of the street. If the private road was contained within a 30 foot easement, then 15 feet of the lot would be encumbered by the half of the road easement along the front of the lot. The portion of the lot that would be unencumbered by the road easement would be 1.00 feet wide by 85 feet deep for a total of 8,500 square feet. The remaining 1,500 square feet would be encumbered by the road easement. B. Setbacks: When measuring the setback for the house; the setbacks are measured from the property line. In this example the front yard setback for the house is 25 feet. For the house on the public road the 25 feet is measured from the property line, which is the right-of-way line for the road. On the private road, the setback is measured from the property line, which on most private roads is at the center of the street. For a 30 foot road easement, the house would be setback 15 feet from the edge of the road or 10 feet from the edge of the road easement. The places the house closer to the road pavement than the house on the public road. C. Lot Dimension: On the public road, the 100 foot depth of the lot is measured from the right-of-way line. On the private road the 100 foot depth is measured from the property line, which for most private roads is at the center of the street. In our example 15 feet of the lot depth would be encumbered by half of the road easement. The depth of the lot 4 unencumbered by the road easement would be 85 feet. The useable - depth of the lot, therefore, is less for the lot on the private road. 2. Historical bterpretatir n and 1 � emotion: Sec on 2-4.244 c) - '"Right-cif* Way Excluded", states the following: "No part, nor all, of a lot within a public road, street, highway, right of way, or easement, for vehicles or pedestrians, existing or proposed, shall be used to satisfy minimum area, yard, dimensional or coverage requirements." Historically, staff'did not differentiate between public roads and private roads in calculating lot area., setbacks, or lot dimensions. This historical interpretation suggests that the original intent of the code was to treat public roads and private roads the same. In the late 1980's our interpretation of the cede requirements on a private road was challenged and the issue was referred to County Counsel's Office. County Counsel determined that, as written, the code section for excluding right of way pertains only to public roads and not to private roads. As a result, the code does not allow us to exclude that portion of a road from a private road easement. Thereafter staff has applied the code as advised by County Counsel and differentiated between public roads and private roads for calculating lot area, structure setbacks, and lot dimensions. Attached as Exhibit D is a memo from County Counsel dated July 12, 1989 describing their interpretation of Ordinance Code Section 82-4.244(c) in more detail. 3. 1'u ose of Lot Area Lot Dimensions and Structure Setbacks: The General Plan determines the locations of various types of neighborhoods in the County. For example, certain areas are set aside for dense multiple family type neighborhoods and other areas are set aside for low density rural type neighborhoods, with a range of neighborhoods in between. The design of the neighborhoods is determined by the zoning requirements for lot areas, lot dimensions,and structure setbacks. These design elements determine the scale of each neighborhood. When setbacks are measured from the center of the read rather than from the edge of the right of way-or easement, then the size of the front yard is reduced. Children playing in the front yard are much closer to the street on a private 5 6 strut than on a public road, where the setback is measured from the edge of the right of way. This can create a safety concern for children playing in the front yard. In addition,when setbacks are measured from the center of the read the homes are much closer to the edge of the road pavement resulting in a different scale and a sense of crowding in the neighborhood. The result is, in effect, creating a denser neighborhood and one that is different from that type of neighborhood contemplated in the General Plan. 4. Practice of Surrounding Jurisdictions: Staff has polled all of the cities within the County, and a couple of surrounding counties, and found that 15 of the 18 cities plus Alameda County treat public roads and private roads the same in determining lot area., lot setbacks, or lot dimensions. The three cities that calculate lot area, lot setbacks, and lot dimensions differently on private roads do so only on minor subdivisions. A table showing the results of our poll is attached as Exhibit E. 5. Compatibility Issues When property developed in the County with private roads is located next to a city, the lots are "substandard" (i.e., smaller usable area) compared to lots approved in a similar zoning district within the city. This can create compatibility issues for the city and the County when adjoining neighborhoods are designed differently. This can create problems for the City if the neighborhood is later annexed into the city. Another compatibility issue is for older communities in the County which were developed when the County interpreted the code required lot area, lot dimensions and structure setbacks the sane on private roads and public roads. As parcels in these older neighborhoods and communities "redevelop", the setback requirements for new construction on a private road will be different than the neighboring homes. This will create a compatibility problem within the neighborhood from house to house. III. CONQv ENTS/ CONCERNS "KITH MODIFICATIONS The following are the comments and concerns received on the proposed modification of the ordinance code to calculate zoning setbacks, lot dimension and lot area on 6 private roads the same as public roads and to revert to our past practices prior to 1989. There will probably be additional issues and concerns that ate brought up at the hearings before the Planning Commissions. 1. Small Lot Review: Comment: Will there be a requirement for small lot review for parcels that were created over the last nine years on private roads if we now change to calculating lot setbacks, lot dimensions and lot area on private roads the same as on public roads? Response: A small lot review would be required for those lots created on private roads since 1989 because their lot dimensions would be measured from the edge of the easement rattier than from the property line located at the center of the easement. In our previous example, the lot with a 100 .foot depth measured from the center of the road would only have an 85 foot depth if the code was modified, which would put that lot into a small lot review. It is unknown how many lots on private roads have been recorded or built on since 1989. Small lot review would be required on construction of a new house or modification of an existing house. Possible Resolution: Exempt lots on private roads approved after 1989 from the small lot review requirement if they met all of the zoning requirements at the time they were approved. 2. Planned Unit Developments:, Comment: Would the modified requirements apply also to planned unit development projects with private roads? Response: Yard setbacks, lot dimensions and lot area in a planned unit development are determined and governed by the final development plan approved for the project. A planned unit development is zoned P-1 with its own zoning requirements.for setbacks, lot dimension and lot area., which again, are delineated in the final development plan. As long as the development 7 within the P-1 zoning is consistent with the design requirements in the _. approved final development plan, there would be no changes or impact with the modification of the ordinance code, Possible Resolution: The proposed code modifications have no impact. Topographically Constrained Projects: Comment- There are many areas in the County where topographical problems create a need for homes or garages to be close to a read. Often times roads in topographically constrained areas are private because they cannot meet the road width requirements of a public road. Modifying the ordinance code would create a burden for projects in these areas. Response: It is true that modifying the code will snake it more difficult to develop in hillside areas. In these cases, additional grading may be required to move houses further back from the road or a variance needed to build the house closer to the road. One solution to this issue is to exclude private roads that serve 5 or fewer lots from the code modifications. This would allow private roads with up to 5 lots-to develop in Billy or constrained areas with setbacks, lot area and lot dimensions to be measured as we currently do. Minor developments such as these are typically on a small cul de sac and are their own neighborhood which shouldn't disrupt the compatibility of the surrounding larger neighborhood. This is also consistent with some of the surrounding cities in the County such as Orinda and Pleasant Hill. Possible Resolution: Exclude private roads with 5 or fewer lots from the proposed code modifications. Variances may be required for ether projects in constrained areas. 4. Small Infill Development: Comment: A typical situation for a small infill project is constructing a private road between the property line and an existing house to access one or more lots to the rear of the house. If the house is close to the private road then a variance would be needed if the ordinance cede was changed. Needing a variance represents an impediment to approval of an infill project. 8 .Response: For some infill projects additional variances may be needed to accommodate the development of property. While some developers may disagree in terms of neighborhood design, reviewing a project for a variance and considering the variance findings may result in a project design that is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Possible Resolution: No changes to the proposed code modifications recommended. 5. Existing Tentative Maps: Comment: Tentative Maps that have been submitted for approval should be exempt from any proposed changes to the ordinance code. Response: Most of the tentative maps submitted to the County over the last several years have been vesting tentative maps. Once a vesting tentative map application is deemed complete, then the map is vested as to the ordinances and policies in effect at that time. A vesting tentative map is deemed complete when the subdivider has submitted all of the information and documentation required. If the ordinance is modified, then any vested tentative maps not deemed complete by that date would have to be in compliance with the modified ordinance provisions. Vesting tentative maps deemed complete prior to the code modification would have a vested right to develop their project with private roads and with lot area and lot dimensions as we currently calculate them. If building permits are issued within two years of the recording of the final map, then the lot setback might have to be measured as we currently do since the project might still have vested rights. If, however, building permits are requested after two years from the recording date of the final neap, then the vested rights of the project expire and the house would have to be setback pursuant to the code requirements in effect at that time, or a variance to the setback approved. Those few tentative maps that we are still working on should be exempt from the modifications since a lot of time and expense has been put into the projects by the applicants under the current ordinance. Existing tentative maps that have been approved have the right to file their 9 parcel or final maps if they are in substantial compliance with the approved -- tentative map, regardless of whether the ordinance code is changed or not. The only issue would be whether a small lot .review would be necessary when they subsequently apply for building permits. Possible Resolution: Tentative maps that are currently being processed should be exempt from the proposed code modifications. 6. Simplified "Variance Procedure: Comment: If the ordinance code is changed then there will be a need for additional variances for developing properties in constrained areas. Two examples previously discussed are properties in hillside areas and small infill properties. There should be a simplified variance process available for obtaining variances in these situations. Response: z The real heart of the variance requirements are the three findings which must be made. This commnent points to a request for loosening up the variance findings or perhaps adding an exception to the variance findings for private roads. This comes down to a question of community design and neighborhood compatibility. staff"believes the findings for variances should ' remain unchanged. Recommendation: No change to the proposed code modifications. 9. Alternative Modification: Comment: Private roads are usually proposed because there is a design constraint of some bind requiring a narrow road and narrow right-of-way. Instead of modifying the code to measure setbacks, lot dimensions and lot areas from private roads the same as public roads, the code should be modified to reflect what the actual design needs are. For example, the code could. be modified to measure setbacks and lot dimensions from the edge of the road instead of the easement line and require setbacks to provide for a parkable space in front of the house. Response: As a compromise modification, there may be some merit in to measuring setbacks from the edge of private roads rather than from the easement line. This would be an improvement in terms of compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods over what the current practice is,however, it would not be the same as public roads. Another option would be to modify the code as proposed but allow a setback to be measured from the edge of the road in only those situations where, in fact, the property is constrained due to topography or other issues. IV. SUMMARY The following is a summary of the key issues: A. small Lot Review. Modifying the code would require a small lot review for some parcels on private roads. Should they be exempt? If they are exempt how do you determine which are exempt and which are not exempt (application date, approval date, recordation date)? B. Constrained Sites. Should minor subdivisions that create cul-de-sacs that serve no more than 5 lots be exempt? C. Modified Proposal: Should lot dimension, lot area and setbacks be measured from the edge of the pavement instead of the easement line? If so, under what circumstance would this apply? V. RECOMNyJiNDATIONS Staff recommends that the ordinance be modified to calculate lot area, lot dimension and setbacks the same on private roads as for public roads. Staff'believes the change will promote neighborhood compatibility and provide better community design for the reasons described in Section 2 of this memorandum. Staff recommends that the Ordinance Code be modified to include "or private" to the list of"easement types that are excluded in Section 82-4.244(c). Thte following is the staff recommended modifications and some changes that would provide for some of the possible resolutions outlined above. ll w 82-4.244(c) Right-of-Way Excluded. No part, nor all, of a lot within a public : road, street, highway, right-of-way, or easement, for vehicles or pedestrians, existing or proposed,. shall be used to satisfy_ minimum area, yard, dimensional or M-0 frycoverage re ue irenls�'4' d4sY a�:,C}+ +, �;{,,�,}:�.�'} 'eh. °•.o. �•,.,• f�:s,..•.,.{4 ,f4`•.w �`.ar..a: ,s,+ -x..�},<F..{s. .,6:u�k f . 82s10.002(c) Small Lot Occupancy. Any lot of less area or width than required by Division 82 and 84 may be occupied by a single-family dwelling and its accessory buildings if. (1)the yard and setback requirements of Divisions 82 and 84 are met, or a variance has been granted for yard and setback requirements, and (2) the lot is delineated on a recorded subdivision snap, or at the time of the creation of the lot (as evidence by recording date) or at any time since, the lot was consistent in width and area with the applicable zoning district or the lot was created prior to the application of zoning in its location. If a small lot qualifies for occupancy by a single-family dwelling then a building permit can issue unless the zoning administrator detennines that the proposed dwelling appears not to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. If the zoning administrator makes that determination, the zoning administrator may, but is not required to, schedule a public hearing to review the proposed dwelling's compatibility with and impact on the surrounding neighborhood, in terms of its location, size, height and design. If a public hearing is scheduled, the notice provisions of Section 26-2.2004 shall apply. After such detennination, at the conclusion of the hearing, or if no bearing is held, the zoning administrator may deny, approve, or conditionally approve the proposed dwelling in order to provide neighborhood compatibility. (Orris. 95-51, § 2:, 92-44 § 2, 79-69 § 2: prior code § 8108: Ords. 1371, 1206, 933 § 1, § 9 [2]: see § 82-4.244). J.y:{r :{++fn; ,ry.}x vv:f i{t,'t +4�•4:C•YR: }:t{j ::.•}:J.v.�::;+r.,....4'i x{v:.�.......::.:v.., ...'4x.??:.{,}:•.�.•,0'.e..n... ...., :..:}'.:X?.......;;.. v.;.. .. •e:{L•x^.:..}....:%i'':..✓: ..}...:. t::.•}1:::•:,::::::,}...,.•v,•?n^:::,}:••:'•.:.J...,J.y:::•:s:.}i..:N ..n.,.y A:....rvv..r., ::?v:•:.•.' '{5. .x,✓,• .. .. ... ....... ... ....4.....•...,.:.,,..::}:v:).::C .. .:'Sbn•kv:ry}.,�..:-::?:...:.v........:.vv:• .....:....,vvi......}..:}?:•}v'°:k..vv }•}J 'rfi+.,. :,}\J ,. .. ..:v�;.�v•.,..�•ry•:m:':qi:.'�:.v.�?.}J?:n:J.•.r,f...J. V.;.•..::...:.v....;.....:.... .:....:..... .. +• :i{:i:; .•..:................. ..r ....v.....:....:.:....-... .:..•..+,{••v•:i^:{ avv.�.v::v,ti•k::.•..,:{'-•k:^}.......:::... •....•: ...§;.}..v:�}. v•.. ...: ".Y`J: .w. .... .. ...,.•.v... ...v........w.......•k.,::•;}'•:v:'"•. v,Y..:.:C•...... .. v... .n•.�::•:nf•v,..:..:J... .4..=:4C+?J.... ..X•. .S. $v.•.•...•:+•.. ♦l•. -:v:. ::{:. :{}}}; ..:.:✓?:v,?.4.'v}:{,:,•::_.: :,fY},r¢. ..y-..v;.fr:•...,.....::.:. ...a.,;v,::.•.av :.:.v. •..y�.....,;r..:..:..........'v.?. ..:.;:}C.}, ..}#•.•,v n.:?}..v�v .]},'.(.+�+.:�:#>'"::: :f.•l -•.}•••. .��t }j,�Y{j+p��y vq,`?: fi.v.d{ t�[i.'aay..}{ +��},r1� .:v4i: W ? b�.�v. •dei � r "da+}�,_,•(��f9ib'c 4} �y�nyiy\w'.�. , '. "+.h:1. Y.� 4 u��:v'.����'�Pr�{:j* vtiviVli+•,.�. :4'1ti� �-ti ::::nv..Yit {�4:.•s�•:,.•. uva• �:.v�.+'v +k ev:tvvfr: +vim::. ..s.; {:::::e�•.:.},:::as:::.:,: a.,'- }? ;;,k::,r ....�.r.. -�' ?c•'f$.';;•",.•��;:<�,:t,`a:.Y`3'ff..,...r -,�.�-}:��E o,.4.•; vry,�}�•,.Xy'u`'';`•�#•>r I:,,�v,:,�.5 '�f f {���} Pf {�''�Ct�3 {`s { t ac.•�{ � 4 �{ �i dJ+'' rz� •� ti < > b' x a..J... > `2a.4c .•.•: t• •C a �r asy,'d ,w:ry i`s s r�.;rr.;,-.W : :,ak.{i•..:-s. a<t.,..j.{..;.`fxr.,•x;{tl,nc r;, :q• ..} .J.,a`+`:i.+...... .,.:.';.s?:..S;.:d.YJf':+'`.} , S...s:.r.?;t'v,i:STa :'•`•:jc;:":a .J ��::.'�•';•>k:a•;,>'r•,'::;ax+s..::::..,,{.Y.S:�.}:,::.}>:R:}.:5::,. r4.•::::;,.:•.-S:'.:,{.J;Priv'�p?,��a...t.. .:...k::<..,:.>:�f+::..;.k..._.,.... r... ..,,.;..;fr^,ry`.x•,�F:•fi:•. m trot e ung,b d l g z` p tlr y. R1 s.}.:r-' ::{.:. 'r:;}•:'}'f� x R.A? ,.„.,. rA Sr NI ` :?'z''j{.•'.?fi:l` 'r.3'},:•:.,:}xs,.��..s"'.:3,f.+,.;,.}�#.;i:/ ;.-.�d•,-•-s'''^, rJs�.,..:.,".; :•s: - :�•�•'�'.�:::-,• •.4s:.- .v..r.., ix. :'�t�t<9•.v.vt•:f}°;?""a.• }4 Y• ;Yf4}+-,rfiM}.:.'rYv.:SSsi;}as} ..ti :,<{«•-x:::}.::::s».Y.• :.":,.k...z'«s•4Y#`:, ::E> i4+ vw .aJ• .>2:>:'� ,.:: ,{{f••}:{... c+.y✓•::.•.{3,{ -5.: f..t'n.:Y�x. .�2%f:�S� ...::}. 2s.. ::SCS:}`s.;..{•�'�e'}:<�`a:4 .o:.” �: +v. .•,•3}�, ••.kk+�5+'i'��:i=?t � �fix";; ,.: .S :•fi �,�:: #CP# •• ::�.., •.:✓ •}, .'s. Sof, •' :3•, :s4i, :f ;•}` t� +�•x v lwa� ���^v':' {n�a*v+�8 .4N•a��'C�#+Rt4�v� / .wa>SR.S:• �t � .+`r.+'�v.'r.�,4 � �§$?ry{^s°x,}P""�u, i.�:�s��k��� {'�N'P�'�}�`{�t�'�'•�°�`�,t . .,� } '. t 4:. "•,ws♦ �y.�, caS'ti;�R}'a}`} :S n r•'t2¢�t ,��,t+u d Ya .'3%'��"}ick `fit•^ ''�' .f!}..aa•�`" � �� Rte.< "4,;i'u;�i; y�. �L' •Y�,t �, k�,� { .iyt k 1•s� x� s ���� TFkr � xy'����v�,if, '•G21 :V �x+.. u#�i}v�iO� id^� .%e4 � :•»•4xui44 4.x n�vo:�;vJ.s• w'�v-vw�� 4 :,,V0.P� 12 V. ATTAC1RvfENTS The following exhibits are attached to this report: A. Letter to the Municipal Advisory Councils dated March 17, 1998 B. Letter to Development Liaison Committee dated March 31, 1998 C. Illustrative drawing D. Meme from.County Counsel dated July 12, 1989 describing their interpretation of Ordinance Code Section 82-4.244(c). B. Survey results of other cities and counties policy on private roads. RMA/df 1*,, 2:privroad.rpt 5-12-98 5-22-98 ' 5-28-98 6-8-98.aa -9-98 Cetus M.Daffy,A1013 Community Contra cornmimty Development Director Development Costa Department Count. . CountyAdministration Building `'J X51 gine Street 4th Floor, North 1t;e`ing Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: 335.1210 March 17, 1998 Mr. Aaron Meadows Chair, Oakley Municipal Advisory Council P. 0.Box.212 Oakley, CA 94561 Deaf`Mr.Meadows: Upuntilnine years ago, the County made no distinctions between calculating zoning requirements for property on public roads or on private reads. Development on public roads and private roads were treated the same. In 1989, however,our interpretation ofthe office codewwas challenged on a project with A private read. County Counsel determined that we could not calculate the zoning requirements the same on private reads as public marls: Since then we have calculated the lot area, structure setbacks, and tot dimensions for the development of property on private reads dierently than on public roads. Vire currently calculate tot area,and measure lot dimension and setbacks from the right of way line on public roads,but from the property line ori private roads,which is usually at the center of the private road.. This has created some neighborhood compatibility problems between older neighborhoods and new infill'projects with private roads, as the lot areas and setbacks look.different. On March 10, 1998, the Board of Supervisors directed the Community -Development Department to begin the process to review modifications to the ordinance cede for-measuring setbacks, lot dztnensions, and lot area for private roads. We will be preparing a detailed staffreport of all the issues associated with our past practice and the proposed changes. When the staffreport is completed„we will send you a copy along with a schedule for the hearings on this item. If this proposed code modification creates any policy issues for you in relation to how you believe your community should be developed.,please let me know so that T can include these policy issues in the staff report. You can contact me at 335-1221. Attached is a copy of the Board Order for March 10, 1998 describing the proposed modification in more detail. Please share this with the members of your Council. Very Truly Yours, '� B..Mitch Avalon enclosurm Chief of Current Planning CC: Members,Board of Supervisors Val Alexe eff Dennis M.Barry,AICD Current Planning staff Maurice Shiu RMA/df Carlos Baltodano C:macpriv.ltr Office Hours Monday-Friday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st,3rd&51h Fridays of each month Dennis M.earM ACCP Community Contra Community Development Director Development Cost. DepartmentMitch Avalon Cil., my Community Development County Administration Building 651 Pine Street Department 4th Floor, North Wng ` Martinez, California 94553-0095 - Phone: 335-1210 March 31, 1998 Members, Development Liaison Committee Up until nine years ago, the County made no distinctions between calculating zoning requirements for property on public roads or on private roads..Development on public roads and private reads were treated the same. In 1989, however, our interpretation cif the ordinance code was challenged on a project with a private road. County Counsel determined that we could not calculate the zoning requirements the same on private roads as public roads. Since then we have calculated the lot area, structure setbacks, and lot dimensions for the development of property on private roads differently than on public roads. We currently calculate lot area,and measure lot dimension and setbacks from the right of'way line on public roads,but from the property he on private roads,which is usually at the center of the private road. This has created some neighborhood compatibility problems between older neighborhoods and new infill projects with private roads, as the lot areas and setbacks look different. On March 10, 1998, the Board of Supervisors directed the Community Development Department to begin the process to review modifications to the ordinance code for measuring setbacks, lot dimensions, and lot:area for private reads. We will be-,prep' rir g a,d tsilt st .repoctpfali the issues also iitted with otir.p s# ractice and the.pr6posed changes. When the staff report.is.completed,.we will send you a copy along with-a schedule:for-the heiiririgs on this itefn. If this proposed+�c�e incidification creates any design issues for.you:iii relation-to ho*you believe your projects should be developed, please let me know so that I can include those-design issues in the.staff report. You can contact me at 335-1221. Attached is a copy of the Board Order for March 10, 1998 describing the proposed modification in more detail. Very Wily Yours, R. Mitch Avalon enclosures Chief of Current Planning CG: Members,Board of Supervisors Val.Alexeeff Dennis ML Barry,AICD Maurice Shiu RMA/df Carlos Baltodano a:devpriv.ltr y Office Hours Monday-Friday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Office is closed the I st,3rd&5th Fridays of each month y t . ,- .. .. OA rz, it-14mf WAY raw 1�t, b t ♦ spa F � �{ie�yj t>'^'ti• � �I c r5 s �'�`, , •i ''''ter;•' � . 7.1 > ;S a �� 6 g COUNTY COUNSEL!$ OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA i Date- July 1.2, 1989 To: Community Development Attne Ron devincenzi, Administrative Services Officer From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel Bye Diana j. Silver, Deputy County Re: Unaccepted dedications and setback' requirements You have asked whether an unaccepted offer of dedication to the County and/or public of a roadway creates a public or private easement for purposes of County Ordinance Cade section 82- 4 .244(c) o SUMMARY: County Ordinance Code sectio: 82--4.244(c) excludes proposed or existing public easements, roads, streets, etc. for purposes of calculating setback requirements. Where an area has been dedicated by map or ,separate instrument to the County and/or public for vehicle or pedestrian use (but not ybt a.ccepted) , it would be "proposed" for the purposes of section 82--4.244(c) . If a particular area has not been formally dedicated (and -herefore can't be formally accepted) , it -is a question of fact in that situation whether it has been accepted by public use. DISCUSSION County Ordinance Code section 82-4..244'(c) provides that no part of a lot within a public road, street, highway, right-of- way, or easement for vehicles or pedestrians, existing or proposed, can be used to -satisfy minimum area, yard,- dimensional or coverage requirements. The ordinance does not include private easements, roads, etc. among the exclusions. This is understandable because section 82-4 .244(c) was adopted principally to protect road rights-of-way in which the County now has an .interest or may in the future. You state in your memo that there are a number of areas which have been offered for dedication to the County and/or public over which the public has access but which have not yet been accepted by the County. These areas are proposed public roads or easements for purposes of section 82-4 . 244 (c) and s a. 4 Ron deVincenzi -2-- July 12, 1389 ' would be excludable for setback and other dimensional lot size requirements in the same way that existing public roads easements are excluded from the setback requirement calculations. Por purposes of' the administration of zoning regulations (setbacks' , lot size, etc. ) it does not matter whether the County has fully accepted the dedicated roadways or easements as public roads under section 82-4.244(4) include proposed as well as existing easements, roads, etc. If there has not been a formal offer of dedication of a road, easement or right-of-way, by subdivision map or other document, a question of fact arises as to whether there has been an offer and whether the offer of dedication has been -accepted through public use. in this situation, such easements may be considered private or public depending on the lia7rticula.r facts and circumstances of each case. As you are aware, section 82- 4 . 244 (c) does not exclude private easements from setback and Cather dimensional calculations. CONCLUSION: . County Ordinance Code section 82-4.244(c) provides for the exclusion of all areas within public roads, streets; and easements, whether existing or proposed, from setback requirement calculations. It does not matter for purposes of zoning regulation administration whether the County has fully accepted such roads .or easements. As long as there has been a :f-ormal offer of dedication by subdivision map or other documents, such areas are considexecr proposed public -roads and easements for purposes of section 82-4.244(c) . I am enclosing for your information a copy of a proposed ordinance amendment to section 82-4 . 244 to add a subsection (d) which excludes dedicated drainage or flood control easements' frozr. calculations of ,dimensional requirements for setbacks, etc. Please contact Jim Cutler of *your department for further information. DJS1jh SURVEY February,, 1998 How do the 18 cities and two counties deal with setbacks on private roads. Measure from edge of easement or curb Measure from center of private road or (different from current County as stated below (similar to current practices) County practices) City of Antioch Ron--779-7035 City of El Cerrito - Betsy--,215-4330 City of Brentwood -Jeff-- 634-6905 If there is a curb, they measure City of Clayton- ?? -- 672-6690 from curb. If no curb, then they City of Concord - Chuck -- 671-3355 measure from center of private Town of Danville - Fred -- 820.1080 road. (Four parcels or less) { City of Hercules - Tagashira-- 7989-1976 City of Lafayette - Betsy -- 284-1.976 '• City of Martinez- Barbara--372-3515 Countyy-of Solana - Matt-- 421-6765 Town of Moraga- Rich- 376-5200 Measures 30 feet from property City of Pinole- leave-- 724-901.4 line or 50 feet from middle of road City of Pittsburg - Chris --439-492.0 which ever is greater. (four g City-of Richmond -Joseph--62.0-6706 parcels or less) � City of San Pablo - Ava -- 215-3040 City of Walnut Creek- Kevin-- 256-3535 County of Alameda- Mary 670-5400 City of Orinda - Corey or Brenda -- 253- 4210 Measure from center or roadway. (Four parcels or less) City of Pleasant Hill - ?? -- 671-5209 Measure fi-om center of roadway. (Four parcels or less) w64,d,C iJ +SKF int tor. •.1 alb t`Claj+se fr. ttoov vwwru.+v s ae wr..r {_ s d DIABLO MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL P.O. BOX 35 BIABLO} CA 94528 July 8, 1998 Mitch Avalon, Chief of Current Planning Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,Martinez,CA 94553-4095 Dear Mr. Avalon: At our recent DMAC meeting we discussed your letter and packet of June 0 regarding the county's proposal to calculate lot area,dimensions,and setbacks from the edge of privatereads rather than from the middle as had been the county practice since 1989. The DMAC is on record of strongly supporting measurements and lot calculations from the edge of private roads.. This is consistent with that of public roads. Enclosed is a copy of our July 25, 1997 letter to Supervisor Donna Gerber,which details our position. We very much appreciate and commend what you and your department are doing to correct this zoning policy inequality. Sincerely, Arlene heed DMAC Member otua �a acs uca: ��c K�Itjnra ('3+ �ts`cu P. 1 7-26-1997 10:5AAM FFdW 510 743 0952 DIABLC) MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL -- P.O. Box 35 Diable, CA 94528 Donna Gerber District III.Supervisor 3139 Diablo Road- Danville,CA 94526 25 July 1997 Dear Donna, At the Diablo Municipal Advisory Council(DMAC)meeting on July 2nd 1997,members voted unanimously to write to you regarding a number of related items where action,or failure to act by the Community Development Department(CDD)is negatively impacting the community of Diablo.This letter addresses the problem of"Setback'measurement We shall be writing to You Ru Cher on other issues where perforzaanee improvement is required.on the part of CDD. CDD is determining setbacks in a manner that damages the Diablo community CDD is taking the position that frontyard setbacks for buildings in Diablo should be measured from the center of the roadway instead of from the edge of the right-of-way,as is the practice elsewhere in Contra Costa County.CDD claims that since Diablo property boundaries are drawn to the center of the unadopted,private streets,ft.defines the measuring point for the required building setback.The effect of CDD's fallacious reasoning is that houses can be set bank a mere,five feet from the edge of the forty feet right-of-way of Alameda,-Diablo and other Diablo streets. i3ixtrsri�ci�erspeetve . A defining characteristic of Diablo is that,with the exception of some recently constructed residences,houses arc genemly well set back from the front property line,creating a spacious ambiance that is rarely found in newer developments. On September 28, 1995,at a Town Hall meeting,Dennis l3arry,Deputy Director,stated that CDD W the jurisdiction to determine front yard setbaeks for Alameda-Diablo to be measured from the edge of the street. .ttta :,� yrs aso> ��ts rcatpn rs. r.crru a��toara r.i�� p-6 7-j26-1997 10 a 55AM FPCM 510 7A3 0952 P.2 ,Donna Gerber-Building Setbacks (from DMA C) Page 2 of .4 On October 2, 1995,Arlene Reed,then Director for County Liaison for Diablo Property Owners Association,wrote to W.Barry requesting that CDD act to ensure that setbacks from the edge of the street were adhered to.There does not appear to have been any response to this letter. In view of the continuing concern of residents that there should be adequate setbacks to preserve Diablo's rural chum,DMAC researched the question of Property setbacks here lot lines are drawn to the otter of an adsting roadway.The California Supreme Court decided in 1 v, uto=r 191 Cal.59, 183 P.438(1919),that evert if lot lines are draw to the oenter of the street,the lot effectively starts at the edge ofright-of-way.'mus measurements for setbacks would stars at the edge of the roadway. Accordingly,DMAC in an April 4, 1997 letter to Dennis Barry",Deputy Director,drew CDD's attention to this ruling and Contra Costa County Code§ 92-4.244,which essentially codifies the Supreme Court's decision. On May+30, 1997,Dennis Barry responded to DMAC's letter stating that CDD considered the Diablo roads private for the purpose of interpreting setbacks and that measurements wrould be-taken from the middle of the roadway.The one of akcr v,, i, , 190 Cal.App.3d 1123,235 Cal.Rptr. $57(1997)was cited in support of D's position. The case cited by CDD is Irrelevant Baker v MI is a complex case involving a dispute between neighbors on property lines where a public road had been abandoned and then a right-of--way conveyed to a railroad and subsequently repurchased The court noted that when the public road was abandoned in 1913, it reverted to the property owner,but then went on to rule that When the conveyance was made to the railroad in 1914,the owner didn't intend to convey the old public road.l be port at issue is what happens when a right of way is abandoned? Abartdotunent of roadways in Diablo is not the issue. Mr. Barry, apparently with advice farm County Counsel, has chosen to introduce this cvniwingly irrelevant case Into this matter of concern to Diablo residents. For setback purposm all utighboring cities and counties treat public and private wards equally. The original 1916 subdivision map for Diablo refers to the roads.as"private, its the sense that they are not owned by the County or other government entity. Maintenance of these roads is by Diablo Community Service District(DCSD)who can legally require residents to remove any obstruction,such as foliage from the right-of-way. maw" 7-26-1997 10--55AM FROM X10 743 0992 P_3 Donna Gerber-Building Setbacks(from DMAC) Page 3 of 4 We checked with.the planning departments of a dozen Contra Costa Cities-.Antioch, Brentwood,Clayton,Concord,Danville,Martinet,Moraga,Orinda,Pittsburg,Richmond, San Ramon and walnut Creep. to overy cast these cities treat a private road in the same way as a public road when establishing setbacks.As in ex mplt See-10-2.3.lo&Exclusion Orfthts of-wily. . In computing lot area,front yards,side yards,lot ooverage,iot width and lot frontage as required by this chaster,any public or private right-of-way or easement for road or access purposes shall be excluded and a portion of a lot connecting the building site to a public or-private street shall also be exclude& (Walnut Creek Municipal Code) We checked with planning departments in of four neighboring counties-Alameda, Marina,San Joaquin and Solana.All these counties treat a private read in the same way as a public road when establishing setba . As an ex•aampl>,Marin County Code Sections,22.02.200,22.64.010,22.64.020, 22.22,050 establish a minimwn of 25 feet frontyard for One-Family Residence Districts, moast:red from the edge of the street. Why has CDD deviated from accepted practke in the this area? CIM is presenting developers with a way to disregard normal setback requirements. Our speculation is that CDD hs adopted their position as an accommodation to developers. A developer can subdivide a large parcel and put in private roads,allowing houses to be guilt with considerably reduced setbacks.This permits more lots,to be squeezed into the project by giving the illusion of more buildable space. Whitt needs to be done There is little doubt that both 82-4.244(Lot Definition)and § 84-14.1004(R-20 Yard Setbacks)art intttaded to provide reasonable guidelines so that houses are net built excessively close to roadways in residential ams.Notwithstanding this common sense approach that the majority of residents in Diablo,or any other residential area,would endorse,CDD appears be adopted an residents legal interpretation thus frustrating the rhes of the community. The simplest solution would be for CM to review their policy and bung m into line with other California jurisdictions. 7-2G--1997 10:S6AM 1=RoM 510 7413 0%2 .A Donna Gerber-Building Setbacks (from DMAC) Page 4 of 4 Alternatively,if CDD is unwilling to rectify this situation,then the opinion of the State Atto mey General could be sought regarding the applicability of Earl w,I2utour to Diablo's situation_ Of Course,the issue should be presented impartially slid not in a manner designed to buttress CDD's position. We very much regret that CDD is aoting against the wishes of the residents of our community and request your assistance in correcting this matter. Sincerely, DIABLO MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL James S. Adams Chair,DIMAC, a {'ik.34'E"d d`d�e�O .w"t•d d Lddf'i 3 4�n Vbi..l C f"3 4iJ3✓ ... .... _H#V wJdd i£wL,6 ; ... .td nd+ La Xmington Municipal Advisory Council K,ensingion Community Ceaw 59 Arlington Avenue,Y-cusington August 11, 1998 R.Mitch Avalon Chief of Cunt Pla mi zg Comrm=ty Development Department County of Contra Costa 651 Pint 4`t vet,North) ing,4th'floor Martinez,CA 94553-0095 R13. Proposed Modifications to Ordinance Code Section$2.4.244(c) oft.the Measiiren=t of Setbacks and Lot Dimensions and Calculation of Lot Area on Private Road Dear Mr.,Avalon: This Ict represents Yr„nsington Municipal Advisory Council's comnlasts on tha proposed ordinancc changes fcr private roads. 1n don past,we have a pedeneed exactly the problems and issues you have described for measuring setbacks,and we fully support the Courty's efforts to carefully correct,the process. 11%e follov.*are our comments: 1. We agree that the ging point for setbacks and lot arca should be the cwterlint of the private road.. l jowever,the maa dime asion of the road easement heeds to be defined. Generally,in Kensington,a 30-foot easoment would probably be adequaw given flit topography and relatively lore volume of tmffic on our private roads. Front yard setbaxim would thea be 35 fee from tha owumline of the road(property line). Edge of pavenw=should not be used as a measuring point for any,setback or area dimension. 2. We believe that the variance process is an appropriate process for dcalirag with specialissues such as topography or small infill development. We completely support the sta position that the variance;promss should mitt unchanged. 3. We do not believe there should he any cxceptions from the Small Last Occupancy requirements. Srnall lot review is a very important elemmt in the process of evaluating construction proposals in Kensington due to our history of small tot development,topography,ietc. MXis rowwiew should apply to small lots even where private roads servo fivo or fewer lots. Thank you for your efforts in correcting ibis ordinance,and for your attention to our coon ts. We will continue to follow the process with interest, Sincerelyt,- , Facsath,AIA a I w+dcipal Advisory Council ca. ) IafAC Members TOTAL P.@1 RLNSINGTON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Reply to: 118 Windsor Ave. Kensington,CA"94708-1043 18 August 1998 Mr. Mitch Avalon,Deputy Director Public'works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Avalon: In response to your request yesterday, I am pleased to clarify KMAC's recommendation on the Proposed Modification for the Measurement of Setbacks and Lot Dimensions and Calculation of Lot Area on Private Roads as contained in Point No. I of our letter to you dated August 11, 1998. We agree that the measuring point for setbacks, for lot dimensions, and for lot area should be the easement line. The point we were making in No. I is that use have found in this community that this easement line has not always been clearly defined. The definition of the easement line should be from the centerline of the road, not from the edge of the pavement. Por.example, if the County desires a 30 ft. road easement, the lot dimension would be measured starting 15 ft. from the road centerline and, with a 20 ft. setback, the structure would be set back 35 ft. from the centerline of the road. I want to emphasize that use are not changing our position from that provided by Mr. Farneth in his letter of August 11. This letter is intended, per your request, only to clarify our recommendation on this point. Sorry for the confusion. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, J es M. Carman Chairman cc: KMAC Members 0 f � R B. �`. 365 1 -, ; �" � •a '''rt r.+� t,°„�� " ''�: --'' ' vZ.47 Ar- / h m Gd. 1 r Ii74e• D3 3 ,;1r1` t:s v erd7r ra.as v , t'A► Ji r f� rr rr 'a "Arr � -a ar 5 i.l6 AC. O PCL 'rror .s. '61, PCLr!! (G�..i`i-� rrYi' id ' N.B, rVC. +�✓i'�► Js N•ld. PC" .37 /.79r4c.. � t Zf 71W ft fr a. N.D. �E Hat9•✓� �q;w Private Roads and Net Area Calculation A recent newspaper article on this issue quoted someone who suggested that, ''Well,you don't include public streets in the net area calculation. Why should you treat private roads any differently?' There are very good reasons why it should be treated differently. The table below itemizes the differences Private Road Public Road 7ays e property YES NOes YES,by property owner NOintenance YES,by property owner NO .Assumes liability YES,by property owner NO Included inlet A,r YES NO If property owners lose the right to include private roads across their property in calculations of Net Area,their property values will decrease. They lose not only the last significant benefit from owning the land,they lose the value of the land since there are no rights to transfer,only liabilities. It is the taking of private property without compensation. That is unconstitutional. If the County wants that much control over the land,then it roust buy it, not restrict it so much that the land lases its value to a private owner. r,-r MS 93-02 Zoning = R-6 Minimum Area = 6000 SF Minimum Width = 60' Minimum Depth = 90' Front Yard Setback = 20' Side Yard Setback = 5' minimum, 15' Total Rear Yard Setback = 15' Area Parcel A = 6500 SF Area Parcel B = 16,617 SF Area Private Read Easement in Parcel A = 470 SF Area Private Road Easement in Parcel B = 3970 SF ATT-A m c, A/ l RMA.Iv g:lvaaescrfp,doc [09!983 MS 95-009 Zoning = R-20 Minimum Area = 20,000 SF Minimum Width = 120' Minimum Depth = 120' Front Yard (Principal) = 25' Front Yard (Secondary) = 20' Side Yard = 15' Minimum, 35' Total Area of Parcel A = 20,691 SF Area of Parcel B = 29,591 SF Area of Private Road Easement on A = 6,850 SF Length of Parcel A needed to exclude Private Road = 267` RMA:Iv g.Iv\da;p.dac [09/98] SUB 8100 Zoning = R-15 Minimum Area 151'000 SF Minimum Width = 100' Minimum Depth = 100' Front Yard (Principal) = 20' Front Yard (Secondary) = 15' Side Ward = 10' Minimum, 25' Total Area of Lots 1+2+5+6 = 55,510 SF Area of Private Read Easement = 9000 SF Area of Alderwood Road = 5000 SF Area of Lots 1, 21 51 5 without private roads = 50,510 SF f RMA:Iv g:Iv\dep.doc [09/38] DIABLO MUNICEPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL P.O. BOX 35 DIA►BLO, CA 94528 July 8, 1998 h itch Avalon, Chief of Current Planning Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Avalon: At our runt DMAC meeting we discussed your letter and packet of June 0 regarding the county's proposal to calculate lot area,dimensions,and setbacks from the edge of private roads rather than from the middle as had been the county practice since 1989. The DMAC is on record of strongly supporting measurements and lot calculations from the edge of private roads. This is consistent with that ofpublic roads. Enclosed is a copy of our July 25, 1997 letter to Supervisor Donna Gerber,which details our position. We very much appreciate and commend what you and your department are doing to correct this zoning policy inequality. Sincerely, Arlene Reed DMAC Member KiCCi.l v`Vvvv r cevyr r: u K$3 1 F Pl f`i• P. t 1-26-1997 10:54AY, FROM '510 7A3 095 DIABLO MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL P.C . Box 35 Diablo, CA 94528 Donna Gerber District III Supervisor 309 Diablo Road Danville,CA 94526 25 July 1997 Dear Ronna, At the Diablo Municipal Advisory Council(DMA.C)meeting on July 2nd 1997,members 'voted unanimously to write to you regarding a number of related items where action,or failure to act by the Commenity Development Department(CVD)is negatively impacting the oprnmunity of Diablo. This letter addresses the problem of"Setback"measurement.We shall be writing to you further on other issues v&erc performance improvement is required on the part of CDD. CDD is determining setbacks in a manner that damages the Diablo community CDD is taking the position that frontyard setbacks for buildings in Diablo should be treasured from the center of the roadway Mead of from the edge of theright-of-way,as is the practice elsewhere in Contra Costa County,CDD claims that since Diablo property boundaries are drawn to the center of the unadopted private streets,this.defines the measuring point.for the required building setback..The,effect of CND's fallacious reasoning is that houses can be set back a mere five,feet from the edge of the forty feet right-of-way of Alameda-Diablo and other Diablo streets. Historical)'erspeetive A defining characteristic of Diablo is that,with the exception of some recently constructed residences,houses are generally well set back from the front property line,creating a spaciousambiance that is rarely found in newer developments. On September 28, 1995,at a Town Hall greeting,Dennis Barry,Deputy,Director,stated that=CDD had the jurisdiction to determine front yard setbacks for Alameda-Diablo to be measured from,the edge of the street. :eaata S as va: �aa K81ptz s�. s+ cuaaaaa.+.av -• , t-26-1997 t 0:55AM FRW 5 t O 743 0952 P. 2 Donne Gerber-Building Setbacks (from L7JirMAC) age 2 of 4 On October 2, 1995,Arlene Reed,then Director for County Liaison for Diable Property Owners Association,wrote to Mr.Barry requesting that CDD act to ensure that setbacks from the edge of the street were adhered to.There does not appear to have been any response to this letter. In view of the continuing iconcem of residents that there should be adequate setbacks to preserve Diablo's mral chat:,DMAC researched the question of property setbacks where lot Dies are drawn to the otter of an existing roadway.The California Supreme Court decided in l v.tutour. 181 Cal. 58, 183 P.438(1919),that even if lot lines are drawn to the center of the street,the lot effectively starts at the edge of right-of-way.Thus measurements for setbacks would start at the edge of the roadway. Accordingly,DMAC in an April 4, 1997 letter to Dennis Barry,Deputy Director,drew CDD's attention to this ruling and Contra Costa County Code§ 82-4.244,which essentially codifies the Supreme Court's decision. Can May 30, 1997, Dennis Barry responded to DMAC's letter stetting that CDD considered the Diablo roads private for the purpose of interpreting setbacks and that measurements we uld betaken from the middle of the roadway.The case of 13:n1cer v.R sir iz, 190 Cal.App. 3d 1123,235 Cal.l2ptr. 857(1987)was cited in support of CDD's position. The case cited by CDD is irrelevant r v. is a corrnplex case involving a dispute between;neighbors on property lines where a public road had been abatndoaed and then a right-of-way conveyed to a railroad and subsequently repurchased.The court noted that when the public road was abandoned in 1913, it reverted to the property owner,but d=went on to rule that when the conveyance was made to the railroad in 1914,the owner didn't intend to convey the old public road.The point at issue is what happens where a right of way is abandoned?Abandonment of roadways in Diable is not the issue. Nor. Barry, apparently with advice front County Counsel, has chosen to intraduct this confiaingly irrelevant case Into this matter of concern to Diablo residents. For setback purposes,alt ntig"hboring cities and counties treat public and private roads equally. The original 1915 subdivision map for Diablo rofe rs to the row as"private, in the sense that they are not owned by the County or other government entity.Maintenance of these roads is by Diablo Community Service District(DCSD)who can legally require residents to remove any obstruction,such as foliage irom the right-of-way. aoUd 8e'7 00 U0aUUa K���[i i'1. atC�!1 wY faWv,�a.sawsVv ryry_ T 7' 26-1997 10:55AM F 510 743 095 Donna Gerber- Building Setbacks (from DMA C) Page 3 of 4 We checked with the planning departments of a dozen Contra Costa.Cities-Antioch, Brentwood,Clayton,Concord,Danville,Martinez,Moraga,Orinda,Pittsburg,Richmond,Saxe Ramon and Walnut Creek. In every cast these cities treat a private road in the same way as a public road when establishing setbacks.As an example Sec 10-2-3.106.Exclusion ofAights-cf way. . In computing lot arca,front yards,side ysrds,lot coverage,lot width and lot frontage as required by d%is chapter,any public or private right ot--way or casement for road or access purposes shall be excluded and a portion of a lot connecting the building site to a public or-private greet shall also be excluded. (Walnut Creek Municipal Code) We cocked with planning departments in of four neighboring counties-Alameda, Marin, Sara Joaquin and Solana.All these counties treat a private road in tlae same way as a public read when establishing setbacks. As an cximplt,Marin County Code Sections,22.02.200,22.64.010,22.�4,020, 22.22.050 establish a raWmu m of 25 feet frontyard for One-Family Residence Districts, measured from the edge of the street_ Why;=CDD deviated from accepred practice in the this area? CDD is presenting developers with a way to disregard normal setback requirements. Cour speculation is that CDD has adopted their position as an accommodation to developers. A developer can subdivide a large parcel and put in private roads,allowing houses to be built with considerably reduced setbacks.This permits more lots to be squeezed into the projc�t by giving the illusion of more buildable space. What needs to be done "here is little doubt that both 82-4.244(Lot Dofmition)and §84-14.1004(R-20 Yard Setbacks)are intended to provide reasonable guidelines so that houses are not built excessively close to roadways is residential areas.Notwithstanding this common sense approach that the majority of residents in Diablo,or any other residential Utz,would endorse, CDD appears, be adopted an erroneous legal interpretation thus f wtmting the wishes of the community. The simplest solution would be for CDD to review their policy and Wag an tato line with. other California jurisdictions. 7-26--19.37 10=SEAM FROM 510 7d:3 0%2 A Donna Gerber-Building Setbacks (from DMA C) Page 4 of 4 Alternatively,if CDD is unwilling to rectify this situation, then the opinion of the State Attorney General could be sought regarding the applicability of W,v. D + cs x!to Diablo's situation. Of course,the issue should be presented impartially and not in a.manner designed to buttress CDD's position. We very much regret that CDD is acting against the wishes of the residents of our community and request your assistance in correcting this matter. Sincerely, DIABLO IMUNICIPAL.ADVISORY COUNCIL, ,J � . James S. Adams Chair,DIMAC ya _a'1.+r"Ci ,l`•tr• .F.+d. trtJ:i f(\t'} '.+Vd i f'k --- .. ..... ....... n i L XMsington Municipal Advisory Council Kensington Community CeatCr 59 Arlingm Avenue,Krns4ton August 11, 1998 K Mitch Avalon Chief of Cwt Planning Cotnxtz mity Develoserant tepartment County of Contra Costa 651 Pixie Std North Virwg,4th floor Martinez,CA. 945SM095 'Ftp: Proposed Modifications to Ordinance Code Section 82.4.244(c) =the Measurement of Setbacks and Lot Dimensions and Calculafm of Lot Area on Private Roads Bear Ms.Avalon: 'pliis leaes.rcpr*seats Y'=ington Municipal AdV'sory CoUneal's comments oa the ptropoted ordinance changes for private roads. In the past,we have experienced exactly the problerns and issue you have described fbr measuring setbacks,and we fully support the County's efforts to cardulty correct the process_ The following are our comments: I< We agree that the measuring point for setbacks and lot arca should be the c terline of the private gid„ Howuver,the exact dimension of the road easernent rtcecls to be defused. G=erally,in Kensington,a 30-46sat casommtt would probably be adaquate given the topography and rotatively loess velums of traffic on.our private roads. Front yard set'bacla would then be 35 frit from the ctoterline of the road(property line). Edgc of pave should not be used as a measuring point for any setback or arca dimension. 2. We behave that the variance process is an appropriate process for dcaliag with special issues such as topography or small infill development. We completely support the staff position that the variance process should=%aia unclwged. 3§ We do not believe tWo should be any c=ptions£tarn the Small Lot Occupancy requirements. SnuU lot review is a very important element in the process of evaluating construction proposals in Kmsiugton dut to our history of small lot dcvclopment,topography,etc. This review should apply to small lots even where private roads scree fivo or fewer lots. Thank you for your efforts in correeting this ordimnce,and fbr your amention to our cortmunts. We will continue to follow the process with interest. Sincerely, 1. Farnoth,AIA mgton Municipal Advisory Council cc: KMAC Members r ol KENSINGTON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL. Reply to: 118 Windsor Ave. Kensington,CA 94708-1043 18 August 1998 Mr. Mitch Avalon,Deputy Director Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martine, CA 94553 Bear Mr. Avalon: In response to your request yesterday, I am pleased to clarify KMAC's recommendation on the Proposed Modification for the Measurement of Setbacks and Lot Dimensions and Calculation of Lot Area on Private Roads as contained in Point No. 1 of our letter to you dated August 11, 1998. We agree that the measuring point for setbacks, for lot dimensions, and for lot area should be the easement line. The point we were making in No. 1 is that we have found in this community that this easement line has not always been clearly defined. The definition of the easement line should be from the centerline of the road, not from the edge of the pavement. For example, if the County desires a 30 ft. road easement,the lot dimension would be measured starting 15 ft. from the road centerline and,with a 20 ft. setback, the structure would be set back 35 ft. from the centerline of the road. I want to emphasize that we are not changing our position from that provided by Mr. Fameth.in his letter of August 11. This letter is intended, per your request, only to clarify our recommendation on this point. Sorry for the confusion. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, es M. Carman Chairman cc: KMAC Members 11 C NMOCIAUC forte cowly P.€J.15OX 271 9 ALAM0,CA1H0rXA 94507 * (510)866-%06 October 20, 1998 Mr. R. Mitch Avalon Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Comments on proposed modifications to County Ordinance Code concerning measurement of lot dimensions and setbacks, and calculation of lot areas. Dear Mr. Avalon: This is a belated written response to your June 9, 1998 letter and staff report on the above subject. It supplements my oral message teff on your voice mail in late June that AIA enthusiastically supports these proposed modifications. In our Planning Meetings,there have been many times that controversies have arisen over measurement of lot dimensions and setbacks, and net versus gross lot areas. The proposed ordinance revision would achieve an identical method of calculating these areas and dimensions for lots on both public and private roads,which would be most beneficial to all of us involved in Planning. Sincerely, 4 . . Henderson Planning Chair cc: AIA.Secretary M. Gibson. Community #�{rr� Dennis M.Barry,AlCP V oI Contra a Cornrnam,ty Development Director Development ent C0 a Department 'i (s ��-�fi� �n i- County Administration Building County �j d A t'-to rI f 851 Fine Street / r �rr...+K t�St 4th Floor, North Wing 13-e,s„a �� 7 Martinez,California 94553-0095 .- 'hone: 335-1221 June 9, 1998 INTERESTED PARTIES CALCULATING LOT AREA AND MEASURING LOT DRAENSIONS ANIS LOT SETBACKS ON PRIVATE ROADS The Board of Supervisors has directed the Community Development Department to initiate a public hearing process to modify the County's Ordinance Code to measure lot dimensions and lot setbacks and calculate lot areas the same on private roads as is currently done on public roads. In calculating the net lot area, structure setbacks, and lot dimensions for the development of property, the County does not include areas within public road rights of way but does include areas within private road rights of way. The reason for the difference is that the Ordinance Code excludes the area within public road rights of way but does not exclude the areas from private easements when making the above calculations. Generally, lot area, structure setback, and lot dimensions are measured or calculated from the property boundary. On private roads, the property boundaries for parcels that front on the private road extend to the center of the road. A private road is generally defined as the easement over the front portion of the parcel that abuts the private road. On public roads, the property line is at the edge of the right of way and not the center of the road. As a result, the area within the road easement on private reads is included in the calculations for net lot area, whereas on a public road the area within the road is not included. The same holds true for calculating lot dimensions and structure setbacks, where on a private road they are measured from the property line at the center.of the road but on a public road they are measured from the property line at the edge of the right of way. Historically, staff` did not differentiate between public roads and private roads in calculating lot area, setbacks, or lot dimensions. This historical interpretation suggests that the original intent of the code was to treat public roads and private roads the same. Office Hours Monday-Friday:8:00 a.m.-5:oo p.m. Office is closed the °I st, 3rd&5th Fridays of each month 2 In the late 1980`s our interpretation of the code requirements on a private road was challenged and the issue was referred to County Counsel's Office. County Counsel determined that, as written, the code section for excluding right of way pertains only to public roads and not to private roads. As a result, the code does not allow us to exclude that portion of a road from a private road easement. Thereafter staff has applied the code as advised by County Counsel and differentiated between public roads and private roads for calculating lot area, structure setbacks, and lot dimensions. Staff' has polled all of the cities within the County, and a couple of surrounding counties, and found that 15 of the 18 cities plus Alameda County treat public roads and private roads the same in determining lot area, lot setbacks, or lot dimensions. The three cities that calculate lot area, lot setbacks, and lot dimensions differently on private roads do so only on minor subdivisions. This proposed modification of the Ordinance Code will be discussed at a public meeting at the two Regional Planning Commissions and at a public hearing before the County Planning Commission for input and comment from the public and any interested pasties. Community Development Department staff will be available at the public meetings and at the public hearing to explain the proposed Ordinance Code modification and the issues involved. The comments received from the Regional Planning Commission meetings and from the County Planning Commission, will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors at a public hearing for final consideration and decision. If you would like to provide input or comments on the proposed modification, you may write to me at the above address or attend on of the public meetings or public hearing listed below: 1. East County Regional Planning Commission meeting on Monday, July 6, 1998 at 7:00 p.m., Antioch City Council Chambers, 3rd and H Streets, Antioch, California; or r : i ' t 3 2. San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, July 15, 1998 at 7:30 p. ., San Ramon School District Board Room, 699 Old Orchard Drive, Danville, California; or 3. County Planning Commission public hearing on Tuesday, August 11, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 1.07, McBrien Administration Building, 651. Pine Street, Martinez, California. If you have any questions,you may contact me at 335-1221.. I will be on vacation the last part. of June, but will return July 6, 1998. If you would like a copy of the staff report, please call Debi Foley at{925}335-1215. 510-256=-35eO CITY OF WPLNUT CREEK 705 P02 'T RN 04 '54 In C 01*ityOT December 17, 1998 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 555 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 SnJECT: Proposed Modification to the County Ordinance Section. 82-4.244(c) RegardiSetbacks, Lot Dimensions, Calculation of Lot Area.on Private Roads Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors: We are writing in support of modifying Ordinance Code. Section 82-4.244(c) on the measurement of setbacks, lot dimensions,and calculation of lot area on private reads. We believe that whether the roadways ,are public or private, that setbacks, lot dimensions and lot area should be calculated from the edge of right-of-way, exclusive of any portion of roadway. These changes would malce development in the unincorporated areas consistent with development that is occurring in the nearby cities (since 15 of the l8 cities in the County use these same development standards) and consistent with County development practices prior to 1989. Specifically, we support the following amendment to the County Code. New language is underlined. "Sec, 82-4<244(c) Right-of-Way Excluded. No part, nor all, of lot within a public or private road, street, highway, right-of--way,or easement, for vehicles or pedestrians, existing or proposed, shall be used to satisfy minimum area,yard, dimensional or coverage requirements." The legal interpretation that has been practiced over the past ten years encourages private roadways because the density of the development can be increased. Naturally, there will be resistance from the development community to change this practice. Calculating gross lots rather than net lots (exolusive of roadway casements) creates new development projects in the unincorporated areas that are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. We believe that, with the exception of density, most of the issues raised throughout the public hearing process could be addressed on a case-by-case basis either through the Planned Development rezoning process or with the issuance of a variance. We acknowledge that some communities may need special consideration, such as Diablo with its private roads. But, for the P 0. Box 8039 ♦ 1666 North Main Street * Walnut Creek, California 94596-8039 i (925) 943-5800 510-256-3500 CITY OF WALNUT CREEK 705 P03 JAN 04 194 15:40 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 2 Setbacks, Lot Dimensions, Calculation of Lot Area on Private Roads most pat-t, it is likely that the practice could be extended countywide without major consequences. In addition, we would like to encourage the construction of public rather than private roads. Although we allow exceptions for private roads, most of the new streets in Walnut Creek are constructed to public roadway standards. if they are private, the developer is required to build the roads to public roadway standards and to ensure that a viable funding and maintenance agreement is in place for future property owners. If the County chooses not to change its policy requiring public roadways, then we strongly recommend that when new development is proposed within a city's sphere of influence, that the roadways be constructed to city standards. This will ensure that County projects would then be consistent with surrounding standards of development and would comply with a city's policies on private and public roadways. The City of Walnut Creek urges the Board of Supervisors to amend the Ordinance Code and to return to its historical practice of not differentiating between public roads and private roads when, calculating lot area, lot setbacks, and lot dimensions. Also, when private roads are approved, maintenance and funding mechanism should be required. Sincerely, OLDEN R-.GALIA Mayor cc: City Council City Manager Executive Teams AIMO IMPQ0 � . CIMON For ffie(31PAq 1j" P.O.BOX 271 a ALAMO,CALIT©DMA 945077 s (510)866-36076 January 17, 1999 Mr: R. Mitch Avalon Public Warks:Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Continents on proposed modifications to County Ordinance Section 82- 4,244 concerning measurement of lot dimensions and setbacks, and calculation of lot areas. Dear Mitch: Thank you for your letter of December 34, and its invitation to comment on the various plans for measuring lot areas and setbacks where located on a private road. As stated in my October 20, 1998 letter to you,there have been many times that controversies have arisen over measurement of lot dimensions and setbacks, and net versus gross lot areas. The proposed mid-1998 ordinance revision would achieve an identical method of calculating these areas and dimensions for lots on both public and private reads,which would be most beneficial to all of us involved in Planning. AIA enthusiastically supports this principle. Of the alternatives presented in your 12/30 letter and attachment, AIA prefers the Planning Staff recommendation, except we consider that all lot sizes should be measured in the same way, not just those under 40,000 sq. ft. in area. There are only a few areas in Alamo that are zoned (or likely to be zoned)R-40 or larger, so we are not very much affected if R-40 lots are measured differently, but measuring those lots also from the road easement line would directionally reduce density, which is an important AIA.aim, and would also reduce confusion. We agree with the stated advantages of this alternative and do not consider the stated disadvantages to be significant. Sincerely, enderson Planning Chair cc: AIA Secretary Donna Gerber Walfo Contra Public Works Dep►arfinent P.Public Works �'ublic Works I7ire+vtar Costa 255 Glacier Drive R.Mitch Avalon County Martinez,CA 94553-4897 Deputy-Engineering Telephone: (925)313-2000 S.Clifford Hansen FAN: (923)333-2333 :%eput„_Acimut;<t- ti_ December 31, 1996 i'atricfa T2.M(-Namee Maurice M.Shu <<Name>> Depaty-Transportation «Tide» «Street» «CityStateZip» Dear <<Salutation»: As you are aware, the County has been considering modifications to the ordinance code that would treat the measurement of structure setbacks and lot dimensions, and the calculation of lot area on private roads the same as on public roads. Currently, on private roads the area within the private road easement is not included in the calculation of lot area or the measurement of structure setbacks and lot dimensions for the development of property. On March 10, 1995, the Board of Supervisors directed the Community Development Department to begin the process to review modifications to the ordinance code. On November 10, 1998, the County Planning Commission, after several meetings of discussion and consideration, recommended the Board modify the ordinance code. The Commission recommended modifying the code to require the measurement of primary and secondary setbacks from the easement line of private roads and establishing a combining district for application only in the community of Diabo. The Planning Commission's recommendation would not modify the ordinance code for any community in the County other than Diablo. Staff also recommends modifying the code for setbacks only, but the staff recommendation includes applying the modification countywide and exempting lots over 40,000 square feet. Attached is a draft staff report for the Board meeting to decide on the Planning Commission's and staff recommendation. If this issue is important to your community, you may want to attend the Board hearing or this item. The Board hearing is scheduled for February 9, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. at the Board Chambers, in Roam 106, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. If you have any questions, please call me at 313-2203. Very truly yours, R. Mitch Avalon Deputy Public Warks Director RMA.cl G;`admin\mitch\maclet.doc Enclosure c: Members— Beard of Supervisors J. M. Walford, Public Works Director D. Barry, Director, Community Development r� �q rD La - 3 ccy ami or cru 0) tw tu CU IW 0 W p m _ o M wo C7 re ? Up tA :r M 2. ' cis .c cz a_ n; . i CD 9. �` a 7E CL a cm 6) 6 = n j � E Z3, W Z3 T7£ N W L7 O tG ►-� ?7 �} C!1 QE �• W O b o d IW b bs t�C � rte-'.• Ln X I X XiV .a X X X X X N t-+ t N N A { % tai Qn co N Cr +7 C:. [ tTi Cel Ln civ 3 CD U) C to L Z WLn j t F7 2. u Or Wi I ,rt CD �• !D tit a-r ' 3s 3s +" Ln LncY� Ul to $ ,A N Ul c cosp W A W00 A W LJ1 ` It, t+ co V co AIMO-22Q.0..V==E=MZNT A(M0CIAU0N—..'.--.-.' Far rWcCUtqIM% P.Q BOX 271 • ALAMO,CALIFOM to 44507 * (510)866-%06 October 20, 1998 Mr. R. Mitch Avalon Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Comments on proposed modifications to County Ordinance Code concerning measurement of tot dimensions and setbacks, and calculation of lot areas. Dear Mr. Avalon: This is a belated written response to your June 9, 1998 letter and staff report on the above subject. It supplements my oral message left on your voice mail in late June that AIA enthusiastically supports these proposed modifications. In our Planning Meetings,there have been many times that controversies have arisen over measurement of lot dimensions and setbacks, and net versus gross lot areas. The proposed ordinance revision would achieve an identical method of calculating these areas and dimensions for lots on both public and private roads, which would be most beneficial to all of us involved in Planning. Sincerely, *, 'Henderson Planning Chair cc: AIA Secretary M. Gibson ADDENDUM TO ITEM SD.12 Agenda February 9, 1999 This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for the hearing on the proposal to modify the Ordinance Code to measure structure setbacks from the easement lines on private roads. Mitch Avalon, Deputy Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He noted there were two proposed recommendations, Option A and B (see the attached Board Order). The public hearing was opened and the following people commented on the matter: Charlie Abrams, City of Walnut Creek; Michael Gibson, 70 Sara Zane, Alamo; James Adams, Diablo Municipal Advisory Council, P.O. Box 5, Diablo; Don Hoffman, Diablo Municipal Advisory Council, P.O. Box 745, Diablo; Those desiring to speak having been heard, the public hearing was closed. Following further Board discussion, Supervisor Gioia moved staff's recommendation Option B, and Supervisor t lilkema seconded the motion. The Board then took the following action: IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Option B is APPROVED. PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C,C.P.) ! 'p7CE OF PUBLIC MAWN i BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUPERVISORS ON A PLANNING MATTER County of Contra Costa COUNTY WIDE AREA 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the NOTICE Is hereby given that on I a .Fabruary 9. County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, 1999 at 9;OU a.m.in Room 107 of the county and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled Administration 8ulkting,corner of Pine and Escobar matter. Streets,Martinez Gal omla,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Centra Costa Times, consider the following planning matter; a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published Recommendation of the contra Costa County at 2640 Shadalands Drive in the City of Walnut Creek, Planning Commission on a proposal to modify the County of Contra Costa, 94598. Ordinance Code to require lot area,yard setbacks, and lot dimensional requirements for the development And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of of property on private roads to be the same as general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of development on Wbilc roads.The effect of the Contra Costa, State of California, under the date of modification would be to require homes to be set back October 22, 1934. Case Dumber 19764. from the easement line of a private road rather than the property line,which Is typically at the center line of The notice, of which the annexed is a Hinted copy neat€n the private road.In addition,the area of the parcel p' within the private road easement would not be used to type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in calculate lot dimensions or lot areas. each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to-wit: ; The location of the subject land Is within the I unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa, January 27 : Slate of California,generally identified as above(a more precise description may be examined in the all In the year of 1999 OffiCountyAdminof the niirector of ist Administration u€lding,2Martiinnez,IC California. 1 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be _ foregoing is true and correct, ti'mited to ralsing only those issues you or someone also raised at the public hearing described In this Executed at Walnut Creek, California. notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the On this 27 day of January , 1999 County at,or prior to,the public hearing. h v"� Hate:January 13,1999 Signature v 4.✓ Contra Costa Times PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board�of Supervisors P O Box 4147 and CountyAdm€rAtrator Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (510) 935-2525 By Ann'Cervelii,Deputy Clerk Proof of Publication of Legal CCT 4924 Publish January 27,1999 (attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that published) PROOF OF PUBLICATION N45fflee CW A PUBUC (2015.5 C,C,P,) a mmHg00 AGOUNW WAIRD bP�U� p5lti3tCR8 STATE OF CAL#FORMA ON A PIAN UIPI fa1PltT"R County of Contra Costa COUNW VWDE AREA N01riCE Is hereby given that # am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the 'On TUESDAYaaRuAaY a County aforesaid, i am over the age of eighteen years, j;age AT 11111 A.M.IN RCUf and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled 07'Of the County Adminle- matter. tmtlon Building oomer of ti Pine and gacobar Stras* Martinez,Cai?tomia,the Con- i am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa 'Gimes, tra Supervisors raiBoard d public a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published hearing to consider the fa-1 at 2640 Shadelands Drive in the City of Walnut Creek, lotting planning mait.r. 1 County of Contra Costa, 94598. Recommendation of etre i Contra Costa County Pharr,j And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of nine Commission on a general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of nPOSW toCode Modtufythisrequire�ot! Contra Costa, State of California, under the date of area,yard setbacks,and lot E scraptlon may be examined in October 22, 1934. Case Number 19764. dimensional requirements for the Cillo.01 h° Director of the development of property Community Development, The notice,of whish the annexed is a printed copy teat in oma° development° the Countcvy Administration Sold- t published patent on {ng Mar inez,La f trrr as type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in pubtcroads-he affect of the , nwdt�oataon would be to re each regular and enure issue of said newspaper and not qulr^e homes to be oat book ��'charaerrfle this mattarin# in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to-wit: you may be limited to from the.easement Onix of a ralairg cnty 9-466 aasuse Private road rather titan the or someone ohm rwsad ai January taary 2G ray line winch Is typical_ the�ttbilc hearing described ty at to c°niar line of tf a pri- 3n this notice. or in carit&yr. vats road.in addftias iha ar- oo°haspondence detivered to all in the year of 1999 as of the �a eI wit. . the m®County at,or prior o,the private mad easement would public hearing. not be used tb calculate lot j I certify for declare', under penalty of penury that the date:Jacor 13 yeas foregoing is true and correct. dam.nacna or to areas, lark sA' e Boar g g LaeHt of the Board .Ta location of the subject of Supervisors and Executed at Walnut Creek, California. land Is within the unincorpa Coupty Adminaatrator Cn this 2J da of anus .. + tarritory of the Loon BY* CinI Carvelo, J 1999 otContra Lost.,stat.of ty Qpu LLTeek Y ifosrla, .na, identatt.d as above ra moat recite da- Pu itch January 20,t M .......... ........ p Signature Contra Costa Times PD Box 4147 Wainut Creek, CA 94596 (5101 935-252.5 Proof of Publication of: (attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that published)