Agenda packet — Pleasant Hill City Council, October 3, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

2 By signed execution of this letter, the Seller and Purchaser agree to further extend the following deadlines in the Schedule of Performance:
 Project Entitlements: September 27, 2023
 Other Funding Commitments: December 31, 2023
 Escrow Closing Date: January 31, 2024
The City Council approved these extensions at a regular meeting on October 3, 2022 by adoption of Resolution No. ___.

Please return a signed copy acknowledge receipt of this letter to Troy Fujimoto, City Planner, at [email protected] by _______, 2022.

Executed By:
_______________________________

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
June Catalano, City Manager
Date: _______________________________
_______________________________

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY EAST BAY/SILICON VALLEY
Janice Jensen, President & CEO
Date: _______________________________

8.6.c
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Letter to Habitat for Humanity on Extension (Habitat for Humanity - Agreement Amendment - 85 Woodsworth)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: October 03, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.___-22 AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER AND BUDGET OF MEASURE K FUNDS FOR THE 2022 STREET
RESURFACING PROJECT NO. PSC-01-22

SYNOPSIS
On September 12, 2022, at its regularly scheduled meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 81-22, (attached) awarding a construction contract for the 2022 Street Resurfacing Project No. PSC-01-22 and authorizing the City Manager to award a construction contract with MCK Services, Inc. Additional available Measure K funds were approved for needed pedestrian and bicycle facility upgrades that were originally allocated to the NPDES/Stormwater Fund. This requires the City Council to approve the budget transfer from the NPDES/Stormwater Fund to the Gas Tax Fund where the City tracks Street Resurfacing Projects. Staff has updated the findings in the proposed resolution to reflect the necessary authorization for a budget transfer of the available Measure K funds into the Street Resurfacing Program budget.

DISCUSSION
Background
Measure K, a half-cent transactions and use tax (or sales tax), was approved by Pleasant Hill voters on November 8, 2016 to be used (in part) to fund Capital Improvement Projects, including street resurfacing, storm drain, and pedestrian and bicycle projects. The tax took effect April 1, 2017 for a 20-year period. In FY 22/23, Measure K is estimated to generate $5.4 million in revenues and provide $1.4 million in the approved FY2022/27 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for use on these projects.

The 2022 Street Resurfacing Project No. PSC-01-22 consists of preparing the project streets, ADA curb ramp installation, monument preservation, utility adjustments and limited concrete curb and gutter repair. Once the street preparation is complete, all project streets will receive a final pavement resurface treatment and thermoplastic re-striping.

In an effort to obtain a quality contractor, economy-of-scale bid pricing, and to maximize City resources, needed pedestrian and bicycle facility upgrades on the project streets, per the City’s draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, were included in the Street Resurfacing Project’s scope of

8.7 Packet Pg. 185
work, and staff recommended utilizing available Measure K funds from the NPDES/Stormwater Fund to fund this additional work.

Analysis
On June 27, 2022, the City Council approved the City’s Biennial Budget for FY 22/23 – FY 23/24 which authorized an allocation of $450,000 to be transferred from Measure K Fund to the NPDES/Stormwater Fund. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) then allocated funds to the Storm Drain Program on July 11, 2022. An Engineering review of this fiscal year’s project funding revealed that $205,000 of the NPDES/Stormwater Funds are available to be utilized for the desired pedestrian and bicycle upgrades identified in the Street Resurfacing Project.

On September 12, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 81-22, awarding a construction contract for the 2022 Street Resurfacing Project No. PSC-01-22 to MCK Services, Inc. Also, included in the contract was $205,000 of additional pedestrian and bicycle facility upgrades using available Measure K Funds from the NPDES/Stormwater Fund. These upgrades require a transfer from the NPDES/Storm Drain Fund to the Gas Tax Fund where the project will be accounted for.

FISCAL IMPACT
Authorize an appropriation to transfer $205,000 of Measure K Funds from the NPDES/Storm Drain Fund to the Gas Tax Fund and increase the 2022 Street Resurfacing Project budget for the upgraded pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the proposed resolution

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
None Recommended.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Proposed Resolution
Resolution No. 81-22
Prepared by: Ann James, Maintenance Superintendent
Reviewed by: Erick Cheung, Finance Manager

8.7 Packet Pg. 186
Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

8.7 Packet Pg. 187
RESOLUTION NO. ___-22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER AND BUDGET OF MEASURE K FUNDS FOR THE 2022 STREET RESURFACING PROJECT NO. PSC 01-22
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Biennial Budget for FY 22/23 – FY 23/24 on June 27, 2022, and
WHEREAS, The Biennial Budget for FY 22/23 – FY 23/24 authorized Measure K Funds to the NPDES/Stormwater Fund for $450,000 in FY 22/23, and WHEREAS, the City has adopted the FY 2022 – 2027 Capital Improvement Plan which includes the Street Resurfacing Program as a funded project; and WHEREAS, the 2022 Street Resurfacing Project No. PSC-01-22 provides for the repair of asphalt failure, crack sealing, ADA curb ramp installation, limited curb, gutter and valley gutter replacement, Full Depth Reclamation, asphalt concrete overlay, monument preservation and final striping including pedestrian and bicycle facility upgrades, in two residential neighborhoods and two arterial/collector streets within the City of Pleasant Hill; and WHEREAS, on September 12, 2022, the City Council authorized a contract with MCK Services, Inc. to perform the 2022 Street Resurfacing Project No. PSC-01-22, and authorized the use of available Measure K Funds for the needed pedestrian and bicycle upgrades on the project streets.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill, appropriate and transfer Measure K funds from the NPDES/Stormwater Fund to the Gas Tax Fund and increase the 2022 Street Resurfacing Project No. PSC-01-22 budget in the amount of $205,000 towards pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 3rd day of October, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

8.7.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Transfer of Measure K Funds)

8.7.b
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Resolution 81-22 (Transfer of Measure K Funds)

8.7.b
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Resolution 81-22 (Transfer of Measure K Funds)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: October 03, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ___- 22 AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO REQUEST THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR AN ALLOCATION OF 2022

RECONNECTING COMMUNITIES PILOT DISCRETIONARY

PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO

PARTNER WITH CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ON A JOINT-AGENCY

GRANT PROPOSAL

SYNOPSIS
The purpose of this item is to consider adopting a resolution to authorize the City Engineer to request the allocation of Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) Discretionary Grant Program funds from the U.S Department of Transportation, and to authorize the City to partner with Contra Costa County on a joint-agency grant proposal. The City is submitting a planning grant proposal to prepare a feasibility study for multi-modal transportation safety improvements on Coggins Drive. Coggins Drive is located partly in the City and partly in the County unincorporated area. The total grant amount is $300,000, and requires a 20% local match.

DISCUSSION
Background
The Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) Discretionary Grant is a U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) federal-aid program. The purpose of RCP is to reconnect communities by removing and retrofitting transportation facilities to enhance mobility, access, and economic development. The City is eligible to request an allocation of RCP planning grant funds to prepare a planning study of Coggins Drive. Currently, Coggins Drive is identified as an unfunded project in the FY 2022-2027 Capital Improvement Program Budget.

Analysis
The Coggins Drive corridor is a 0.5-mile long collector street located partly in the City and partly in County within an unincorporated area near the Pleasant Hill BART Station. The Coggins Drive project limits are Buskirk Avenue (in the City of Pleasant Hill) and Las Juntas Way (in the unincorporated County). Coggins Drive has two travel lanes each way in the City. In

8.8 Packet Pg. 191
the County, Coggins Drive transitions to one travel lane each way. In order to evaluate improvement options holistically for the entire Coggins Drive corridor, staff recommends that the Coggins Drive feasibility study include both the city and county portions of the roadway. The Coggins Road study will address feasibility, safety, connectivity, improvement options, and public engagement.

The City of Pleasant Hill is the sponsoring and lead agency. Contra Costa County has agreed to partner with the City on a joint-agency planning grant proposal. Cost sharing is determined based on the length of the roadway. Coggins Drive is 2,500 feet long with approximately half of its length in the City and the remaining portion in the County.

The City of Pleasant Hill will request an allocation of RCP grant funds for both the City and its partnering agency, Contra Costa County. The total RCP planning grant budget is $300,000, which includes costs of $156,000 and $144,000 for the City and County, respectively. The required local match is 20% or $60,000, including a contribution of $31,200 from the City and $28,800 from the County, respectively.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City of Pleasant Hill’s portion of the RCP planning grant allocation request is $156,000, 20 percent of which ($31,200) is the City’s required local match. There are adequate funds in the Traffic Mitigation Fund (Fund 06) to cover this cost.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends adopting the proposed resolution to authorize staff to pursue grant funding to prepare a planning study of Coggins Drive.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
If the City Council chooses not to adopt the proposed resolution, the City will miss a grant opportunity to pay for a planning study. The absence of the study will diminish the City’s competitive edge when pursuing future grant opportunities to fund construction.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Proposed Resolution
Prepared by: Philip Ho, Senior Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Ananthan Kanagasundaram, City Engineer
Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

8.8 Packet Pg. 192
RESOLUTION NO. -22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO REQUEST ALLOCATION OF
2022 RECONNECTING COMMUNITIES PILOT DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND AUTHORIZING

THE CITY TO PARTNER WITH CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ON A JOINT-AGENCY

GRANT PROPOSAL
WHEREAS, the Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) Discretionary Grant Program is a U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) federal-aid program created by Section 24112 of the H.R. 3684 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law; and
WHEREAS, the USDOT is the agency designated to evaluate, program, and administer RCP funds; and
WHEREAS, USDOT announced a call-for-project to local agencies, including the City of Pleasant Hill, inviting them to submit grant proposals for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023; and WHEREAS, the City staff is submitting an RCP planning grant proposal on Coggins Drive from Buskirk Avenue to Las Juntas Way; City staff has determined that the Coggins Drive corridor needs to be studied holistically for safety improvements to include both the City and County portions of the roadway; and Contra Costa County has agreed to partner with the City on a jointagency grant proposal; and WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill is eligible to request RCP funds, and as the sponsoring agency and lead agency of a joint-agency grant proposal, the City is eligible to request RCP funds on behalf of its partner agency, Contra Costa County, to prepare a feasibility study; and
WHEREAS, the total Coggins Drive project cost is $300,000, including $156,000 and $144,000 for the City and County portions, respectively; and the required local match is 20% or $60,000, including $31,200 and $28,800 for the City and County amounts, respectively.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill that the City of Pleasant Hill declares it is eligible to request an allocation of RCP grant funds for the City and for Contra Costa County pursuant to Section 24112 of the H.R. 3684 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act; and furthermore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City Engineer is authorized to request RCP grant funds from the USDOT on behalf of the City and Contra Costa County; and furthermore, be it RESOLVED, that the City is authorized to partner with Contra Costa County on the jointagency grant proposal on Coggins Drive Project; be it

8.8.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (2022 RCP Partner with CCC) RESOLVED, that the City’s portion of required local match of $31,200 is available in the Traffic Mitigation Fund (Fund 06); and furthermore, be it RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any accompanying supporting materials shall be forwarded to the congestion management agency, countywide transportation planning agency, county association of governments, as the case may be, of Contra Costa County for submission to USDOT.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting held on the 3
rd of October 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:

DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

8.8.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (2022 RCP Partner with CCC)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: October 03, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO ___-22 TO APPROVE AND RECORD

PARCEL MAP AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

A SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WITH CHARLES

GONSALVES, CRAIG GONSALVES, KIMBERLY GONSALVES, DAVID

GONSALVES AND CHARLENE GONSALVES, FOR MINOR
SUBDIVISION MS 22-227 (2161 PLEASANT HILL ROAD)

SYNOPSIS
Charles Gonsalves, Craig Gonsalves, Kimberly Gonsalves, David Gonsalves and Charlene Gonsalves, have satisfied the tentative map conditions of approval for Minor Subdivision MS 22- 227 and are requesting approval of the Parcel Map. The Parcel Map proposes to subdivide the property and allow for the development of three new single family homes. A Subdivision Agreement is required from the property owner to construct private and public site improvements deemed necessary for the subdivision. Staff recommends the City Council approve the Parcel Map, authorize the City Manager to execute a Subdivision Agreement and authorize the City Engineer to record the Parcel Map for Minor Subdivision MS 22-227.

DISCUSSION
Background
On September 14, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17-21, approving a Tentative Parcel Map (Minor Subdivision), PLN 21-0150, for the Gonsalves Minor Subdivision at 2161 Pleasant Hill Rd. The Minor Subdivision created three new residential parcels measuring 13,396 square feet, 12,415 square feet, and 10,251 square feet, respectively, within the 0.90-acre project site.

Analysis
Pleasant Hill Municipal Code Section 17.30.070 and Government Code Section 66442 of the Subdivision Map Act authorize the City Engineer to make the determination that the Parcel Map is in conformance with the approved Tentative Map and recommend approval to the City Council.

The code sections require that a Parcel Map be approved if all development conditions of the approved Tentative Map are satisfied.

8.9 Packet Pg. 195
The developer has substantially complied with all necessary conditions of approval of the Tentative Map and mitigation measures required by the Planning Commission (Resolution No. 17- 21), and the project conforms to applicable Community Development Department standards. All Engineering Division conditions, except for construction of the necessary site improvements, have been met. Under the Subdivision Map Act, execution of a Subdivision Improvement Agreement (including improvement bonds) allows approval of the Parcel Map prior to construction of site improvements. Construction of the site improvements is not initiated until after the Parcel Map is approved by City Council.

The Subdivision Improvement Agreement outlines specific requirements and timelines to construct the on-site and off-site improvements necessary to support the development project. For this project, site improvements required include: site grading, drainage improvements, private roadway improvements, on- and off-site utilities, stormwater treatment facilities, and landscaping. The Agreement also guarantees the following:
 Installation and completion of the work and improvements deemed necessary by the City Engineer, as shown on the Grading and Improvement Plans of the Subdivision.
 Compliance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-21 and Planning Commission Conditions of Approval.
 Submittal of bonds as security that improvements necessary to serve the development will be built in accordance with the approved plans.

The City Surveyor has reviewed the Parcel Map and determined that it is technically correct. The City Engineer has reviewed the Parcel Map and found it in substantial conformance with the Tentative Map and has further determined that all development conditions have been met.

Accordingly, the City Engineer recommends approval of the Parcel Map for Minor Subdivision MS 22-227 (2161 Pleasant Hill Road). Once the Subdivision Improvement Agreement is executed, the Parcel Map for the Subdivision can be recorded at the County Recorder.

FISCAL IMPACT
The requested action has no direct impacts to the City’s General Fund. Approving the Parcel Map will allow the City to collect revenue in the form of developer and cost recovery fees (i.e. Traffic Mitigation, Stormwater, permits, etc.). There will be an increase in property tax revenue because of the higher value of the development, as compared to the previous land use conditions. The constructed private improvements (street and sidewalks) will be maintained in the future by the abutting property owners or homeowners association.

8.9 Packet Pg. 196

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Approving the Parcel Map for Minor Subdivision MS 22-227

2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with Charles Gonsalves, Craig Gonsalves, Kimberly Gonsalves, David Gonsalves and Charlene Gonsalves

3. Authorizing approval of the Parcel Map for Minor Subdivision MS 22-227

4. Authorizing the City Engineer to record the Parcel Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Minor Subdivision MS 22-227.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
None recommended. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, the City is required to approve the Parcel Map once the applicant complies with the terms of the tentative map conditions of approval.

Execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and submittal of bonds ensure that the improvements necessary to serve the development will be built in accordance with the approved plans.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Proposed Resolution
Subdivision Improvement Agreement
Tentative Map
Parcel Map
Prepared by: Mary Coulson, Consulting Senior Civil Engineer Reviewed by: Ananthan Kanagasundaram, City Engineer
Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

8.9 Packet Pg. 197
RESOLUTION NO. -22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

TO APPROVE AND RECORD PARCEL MAP AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER

TO EXECUTE A SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WITH CHARLES

GONSALVES, CRAIG GONSALVES, KIMBERLY GONSALVES, DAVID GONSALVES AND CHARLENE GONSALVES FOR SUBDIVISION MS 22-227 (2161 PLEASANT HILL ROAD)
WHEREAS, Charles Gonsalves, Craig Gonsalves, Kimberly Gonsalves, David Gonsalves and Charlene Gonsalves, propose to subdivide an existing 0.90-acre site to create a minor Subdivision MS 22-227 with 3 new residential parcels for the development of new single-family homes; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2021, by Resolution No. 17-21, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map (Minor Subdivision), PLN 21-0150, for the Gonsalves Minor Subdivision at 2161 Pleasant Hill Road; and
WHEREAS, Charles Gonsalves, Craig Gonsalves, Kimberly Gonsalves, David Gonsalves and Charlene Gonsalves, have fulfilled the requirements of the Tentative Map including preparation of Improvement Plans, as required prior to recordation of the Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 22-227; and
WHEREAS, Charles Gonsalves, Craig Gonsalves, Kimberly Gonsalves, David Gonsalves and Charlene Gonsalves, are required to enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City of Pleasant Hill and provide improvement bonds to guarantee construction of site improvements related to Subdivision MS 22-227, as approved by the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill:

1. Finds that approval of the parcel map is a ministerial action and is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15268(b)(3).

2. Approves the Subdivision Agreement between Charles Gonsalves, Craig Gonsalves, Kimberly Gonsalves, David Gonsalves, Charlene Gonsalves, and the City of Pleasant Hill for Subdivision MS 22-227, and authorizes the City Manager to sign on the City’s behalf.

3. Finds that Charles Gonsalves, Craig Gonsalves, Kimberly Gonsalves, David Gonsalves and Charlene Gonsalves, have substantially complied with all necessary mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Map, as required prior to recordation of the Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 22-227, and therefore approves the Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 22-227.

4. Authorizes the City Engineer to record the Parcel Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Subdivision MS 22-227.

8.9.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227) ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting of the Council held on the 3
rd day of October 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:

DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

8.9.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227) 1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO:

City of Pleasant Hill
Attn: City Engineer
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
(Space above this line for Recorder's Use Only)

SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
FOR PARCEL MAP SUBDIVISION MS 22-227
(Government Code §66462 and PHMC §17.35.060.)
This Agreement is entered into on _______________, 2022 between the City of Pleasant Hill ("City") and Charles Gonsalves, a single man, as to an undivided 1/3 interest; Craig Gonsalves and Kimberly Gonsalves, husband and wife as community property with right of survivorship, as to an undivided 1/3 interest; and David Gonsalves and Charlene Gonsalves, Trustees of Gonsalves Family Trust Dated 11/8/2005, as to an undivided 1/3 interest ("Developer").

Recitals
A. Developer is the subdivider of real property located at 2161 Pleasant Hill Road, on one parcel totaling 0.90 acres, in Pleasant Hill. The Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) is as follows: 166-090-007-5 and described in Exhibit A, attached.

B. Developer has presented a final subdivision map for the Property, Parcel Map Subdivision MS 22-227, ("Parcel Map") and has requested that City approve the Parcel Map so that it may be filed and recorded as required by law.

C. As a condition precedent to the acceptance and approval of the Parcel Map, the City requires the construction of certain public improvements, as shown on the Parcel Map.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1. Required Improvements.

8.9.b
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227) 2 a. Developer shall, at its sole cost and expense, install and complete the work and improvements required in the approved improvement plans for Parcel Map Subdivision MS 22-227 ("Improvements"), a copy of which is on file in the Public Works Department and incorporated herein by reference. All Improvements shall be done in a professional and worker-like manner in accordance with the latest City of Pleasant Hill Public Works Standards, the Standard Specifications of Contra Costa County for Public Works Construction and the latest Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation. If there is any conflict between the specifications, the most stringent requirement shall prevail. b. Developer warrants that the Improvement plans identified in subparagraph a. above are accurate and complete. If at any time before expiration of the one year repair and maintenance period described in paragraph 4, the Improvement plans prove to be inadequate in any material respect, Developer shall make whatever changes are necessary to insure the plans are accurate and complete. Moreover, in the event that work on the Improvements has been performed pursuant to inaccurate or incomplete improvement plans, Developer shall correct such work as well at its own expense.

2. Time for Completion.
a. All Improvements shall be installed and completed within two years from the date of this Agreement. (PHMC §17.35.090.)
b. Developer guarantees completion of all underground utilities and off-site improvements prior to grant of Certificate of First Occupancy or as approved by the City Engineer.

3. Costs of Inspection. The City, or its contractor, shall inspect the Improvements and Developer shall pay the cost of any required inspection of the Improvements.

4. One Year Repair and Maintenance Period. For a period of one year from the date the City adopts a resolution formally accepting the Improvements, Developer agrees to maintain the Improvements and repair any defects in the Improvements. The City shall provide written notice of any repair or correction work which, in the opinion of the City Engineer, must be completed. If within the one year period Developer fails, refuses or neglects to complete any repairs or corrections within 30 days of mailing of written notice from the City, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expense of doing so from Developer, including proceeding against the security posted by Developer as required in paragraph 6. (PHMC §17.35.070.)

5. Security.
a. Amount of Security. Upon execution of this Agreement, Developer shall file the following bonds with the City:

8.9.b
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227) 3 (1) Faithful Performance Bond. Developer shall submit a corporate surety bond in the amount of $172,700.00 for improvements, which is 100% of the total estimated cost of construction of the Improvements, guaranteeing the faithful performance of this Agreement. The bond shall be executed as surety by a corporation authorized to issue surety bonds in the State of California and shall be in a form and with a surety approved by the City Attorney. (Gov't.

Code §66499.1 and PHMC §17.35.070 8.1.a.)
(2) Labor and Materials Bond. Developer shall submit a corporate surety bond in the amount of $172,700.00 for improvements, which is 100% of the total estimated cost of construction of the Improvements, guaranteeing the payment of all persons for labor or materials furnished in the construction of the Improvements. The bond shall be executed as surety by a corporation authorized to issue surety bonds in the State of California and shall be in a form and with a surety approved by the City Attorney. (Gov't. Code §66499.1 and PHMC §17.35.070 B.1.b.)
(3) Maintenance. Before the City's acceptance of the Improvements, Developer shall deposit with the City either cash or an acceptable corporate surety bond in the amount of 15% of the estimated cost of construction of the Improvements as security for maintenance of the Improvements and to guarantee the Improvements against any defective work or labor done, or defective materials used in the work. (PHMC §17.35.070 8.1.c.) b. Estimate of Improvement Costs. As a part of the obligation guaranteed by the security, and in addition to the full amount of the security, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including attorneys' fees, incurred by the City in enforcing the obligations secured. (Govt. Code §§ 66499.3, 66499.4 and PHMC §17.35.070.)
The estimate of improvement costs shall be as approved by the city engineer and shall provide for:
(1) Total construction costs, including implementing the pollution prevention plan (based on projected city costs under the State Public Contract Code); (2) Ten percent of the total construction cost for contingencies; (3) Increase for projected inflation computed to the estimated end of construction;
(4) All utility installation costs or a certification acceptable to the city engineer from the utility company that adequate security has been deposited to ensure installation; and

8.9.b
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227) 4 (5) Enforcement costs calculated as 5% of the estimated construction cost.

These enforcement costs are not added if the bond language includes enforcement costs in addition to the face amount of the bond. c. Release of Security. Release of security shall be in accordance with PHMC §17.35.070D.

6. No Waiver by City. City inspection, approval or acceptance of the Improvements shall not relieve Developer of its obligations to fulfill this Agreement as prescribed, nor shall the City be estopped from bringing any action for damages arising from Developer's failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

7. Indemnity. Developer agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages, injuries, and liability, direct or indirect (including any and all costs and expenses in connection therewith), arising out of the performance of this Agreement, except for any claim arising solely out of the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers.

8. Insurance. Developer, at Developer's own cost and expense, shall procure and maintain, for the duration of the contract, the following insurance policies with insurers possessing a Best's rating of no less than A:Vll:
a. Workers' Compensation Coverage. Developer shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance for his/her employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In addition, Developer shall require each subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California for all of the subcontractor's employees. Any notice of cancellation or non-renewal of all Workers' Compensation policies must be received by the City at least 30 days before the change.
b. General Liability Coverage. Developer shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If a commercial general liability insurance form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit.

8.9.b
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227) 5 c. Automobile Liability Coverage. Developer shall maintain automobile liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Developer arising out of or in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for owned, hired and non-owned vehicles, in an amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each occurrence.
d. Course of Construction Insurance. Developer shall maintain course of construction insurance covering for all risks of loss in an amount equal to the value of the project. The policy shall name the City as a loss payee and shall be endorsed with a provision indicating the insurer shall waive all rights of subrogation against the City.
e. Policy Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall be with insurers possessing a Best's rating of no less than A:VII and shall be endorsed with the following specific language:
(1) The City of Pleasant Hill, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf of the Developer, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations.
(2) This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects the City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance maintained by the City, including any self-insured retention the City may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not contribute with it.
(3) This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each, except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company.
(4) The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against the City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees or agents.
(5) Any explosion, collapse, and underground property damage exclusion must be deleted.

8.9.b
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227) 6 (6) Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not effect coverage provided to the City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.
(7) The insurance provided by this policy shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits except after 30 days written notice has been received by the City.
f. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the City's option, Developer shall demonstrate financial capability for payment of such deductibles or self-insured retentions.
g. Certificates of Insurance and Endorsements. Developer shall provide certificates of insurance with original endorsements to City as evidence of the required insurance coverage. Certificates of such insurance shall be filed with the City on or before of the Owner begins performance of this Agreement. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with the City at all times during the term of this Agreement.

9. Map Recordation. City agrees to allow Developer to record the Parcel Map.

10. Notices. Any notice or other communication required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing, addressed as set forth below and either served personally or sent prepaid, first class mail:

If to City: City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-3323
If to Developer: Charles Gonsalves, Craig Gonsalves, Kimberly Gonsalves, David Gonsalves and Charlene Gonsalves
P.O. Box 1097
Lafayette, CA 94549
Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address. Notice shall be deemed communicated within 48 hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this section.

8.9.b
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227) 7 11. Heirs, Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be recorded with· the County Recorder's Office and the provisions of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties.

12. Amendments. This Agreement and the approved improvement plans referred to in this Agreement contain the entire agreement between Developer and the City with respect to the Improvements. No modification to this Agreement shall be effective unless it is in writing, signed by the Developer and the City and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

13. Litigation Expenses and Attorneys' Fees. If either party to this Agreement commences any legal action against the other party arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable litigation expenses, including court costs, expert witness fees, discovery expenses, and attorneys' fees.

8.9.b
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227) 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first written above.

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL: DEVELOPER:

Charles Gonsalves, a single man, as to an
undivided 1/3 interest
June W. Catalano By: Charles Gonsalves
City Manager Owner
Craig Gonsalves and Kimberly Gonsalves,
husband and wife as community property with
right of survivorship, as to an undivided 1/3
interest
By: Craig Gonsalves
Owner
By: Kimberly Gonsalves
Owner
David Gonsalves and Charlene Gonsalves,
Trustees of Gonsalves Family Trust Dated
11/8/2005, as to an undivided 1/3 interest
By: David Gonsalves
Owner
By: Charlene Gonsalves
Owner
Business License No.

8.9.b
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227) 9 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

Janet E. Coleson
City Attorney
Danielle K. Habr
City Clerk

8.9.b
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227) 1 0
Exhibit A
Property Description
All that certain real property situated in the City of Pleasant Hill, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows:

Portion of Rancho Las Juntas described as follows:

Beginning on the center line of the County Road from Martinez to Walnut Creek, distant thereon North 2° 21'30" West 277.94 feet from the Northeasterly corner of the parcel of land described in the Deed from William H. Dukes and Lucy S. Dukes, his wife, to Charles L. Hall and May J. Hall, his wife, recorded April 24, 1907 in Volume 125 of Deeds at Page 266; thence from said point of beginning North 2° 21' 30" West along said center line 100 feet to the South line of the parcel of land described in the Deed from C.W. Conklin and Virginia D. Conklin, his wife, to W.S. Green and Mildred J. Green, his wife, dated August 13, 1941 and recorded August 14, 1941 in Volume 594, at Page 118, Instrument No. 18761, of Official Records; thence North 89° 59' 50" West along said line, 392.46 feet to the east line of the parcel of land described in the Deed from Alice Rodgers to Sadie Duane, recorded October 15, 1907 in Volume 129 of Deeds, at Page 274; thence South 1°14’ East along said line 98.96 feet; thence South 89°51’20” East 394.44 feet to the point of beginning.

8.9.b
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227)

8.9.b
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227)

8.9.c
Packet Pg. 211
Attachment: Tentative Map (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227)

8.9.c
Packet Pg. 212
Attachment: Tentative Map (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227)

8.9.c
Packet Pg. 213
Attachment: Tentative Map (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227)

8.9.c
Packet Pg. 214
Attachment: Tentative Map (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227)

8.9.d
Packet Pg. 215
Attachment: Parcel Map (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227)

8.9.d
Packet Pg. 216
Attachment: Parcel Map (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227)

8.9.d
Packet Pg. 217
Attachment: Parcel Map (Approval of Parcel Map - Gonsalves MS 22-227)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: October 03, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ___-22 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO FUND 30% OF THE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

TECHNICIAN POSITION FROM MEASURE K TO SUPPORT THE NEW

LIBRARY

SYNOPSIS
Maintenance and support is required to maintain the environmental control, access control, phone, and various other systems and applications that enables the continual operation of the Pleasant Hill Library. Staff requests that the City Council authorize the City Manager to fund 30% of the Information Systems Technician position from Measure K funds in order for the City’s Information Technology Division to provide such support to the new library.

DISCUSSION
Background
Measure K, a half-cent transactions and use tax (or sales tax), was approved by Pleasant Hill voters on November 8, 2016. The tax took effect April 1, 2017 for a 20-year period. The measure generated $4.9 million in revenues in FY 2021, and is estimated to generate $5.41 million in revenues in FY 2022 and $5.56 million in FY 2023.

The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) adopted by the City Council at its meeting of July 11, 2022, included a two-year budget for Measure K funds, as follows:

FY 22-23 FY 23-24
Revenues - $5.41M Revenues - $5.56M
Expenditures* - $2.62M Expenditures - $2.94M
Debt Service - $2.50M Debt Service - $2.50M
Remaining Balance - $290K Remaining Balance - $122K
*Not including library capital costs since that is funded by the bond proceeds.

The approved Measure K expenditures include funding for ongoing maintenance of the building and the surrounding landscaping (CIP sheet MK-5 attached). This annual funding provides for necessary operational and maintenance costs including landscape maintenance, trash and graffiti

9.1 Packet Pg. 218
removal, janitorial services, building support, utilities, and deferred maintenance. The budget for this ongoing maintenance as approved by City Council totals $1.65M for the next five years.

At the time of the CIP approval, the level of support required by the City’s Information Technology (IT) Division to maintain library operations had not yet been determined.

The new library was designed and constructed as a highly energy-efficient and technologically advanced facility. Several complex systems enable these energy efficiencies and technologies.

These systems are the responsibility of the City and they will require routine maintenance and support. The City’s IT Division is experiencing an increased workload in providing direct support to the library, including coordination with third-party vendors in order to fulfill the library’s support needs.

Some of these systems include, but are not limited to:
1) Phone system and phone lines for fire, POS, fax, etc. 2) Video Surveillance System
3) Access Control and Security System including badging for library staff 4) Paging system
5) Audio/Video System for the Story Lab
6) Lighting Controls
7) Power Monitoring
8) Windows and Shade Controls
9) General network infrastructure and connectivity
10) Electric charging stations
Analysis
The Pleasant Hill Library’s operating hours do not match those of the City. Thus, there is the potential for staff to respond during off-hours and/or weekends, as some of these systems may require immediate attention and remediation. This may result in overtime rates for hours worked.

Taking into account possible overtime rates and the estimated workload, Staff is recommending that 30% of the Information Systems Technician position be funded from Measure K in order for the City to adequately support the new library.

As the library is a new facility, this is an initial best estimate of the support funding needed. The 30% calculation equates to an approximate average of 12 hours per week. The hours needed on

9.1 Packet Pg. 219
some weeks may be lower, and higher at other times. Staff will document the hours worked during this first year of the library’s operation and will seek to adjust the 30% funding up or down to more accurately reflect the actual cost to the City.

The salary range for the position is $82,908 to $107,916; thus, 30% of that range equates to an approximate cost of $26,972 to $32,375 annually to Measure K funds.

At its July 27, 2022 meeting, the Budget Committee reviewed Staff’s proposal and recommended that the Council approve funding the position as requested.

FISCAL IMPACT
The salary range for the Information Systems Technician position is $82,908 to $107,916; thus, 30% of that range equates to an approximate cost of $26,972 to $32,375 annually from Measure K funds and the balance of the salary from the General Fund.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to appropriate and fund 30% of the Information Systems Technician position from Measure K in order to provide necessary technological support the new library.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City Council may choose to reject the proposed action and provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Proposed Resolution
MK-5
Prepared by: Ling King, Chief Technology Officer
Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

9.1 Packet Pg. 220
RESOLUTION NO. - 22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO FUND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

SERVICES FOR THE NEW LIBRARY
WHEREAS, the City’s new library has many systems and applications that require routine maintenance and support; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to have the Information Systems Technician provide the needed maintenance and support; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2022, the Budget Committee reviewed the request and recommended that the City Council approve the request to fund 30% of the Information Systems Technician salary from Measure K; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill that the City Manager is authorized to appropriate and fund 30% of the Information Systems Technician salary from Measure K for an amount not to exceed $32,375 annually and the balance from the General Fund.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting of the Council held on the 3rd day of October, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Information Systems Technician from Measure K)

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: MK-5 (Information Systems Technician from Measure K)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: October 03, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ___-22 TO DENY

AN APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING

COMMISSION TO DENY A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
REQUEST (PLN 21-0497) FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHIN

SETBACK AREA AND A FENCE/GATE EXCEEDING ALLOWABLE
HEIGHTS AT 406 KAHRS AVENUE

SYNOPSIS
This is a public hearing to consider an appeal, submitted by Mariam Azamey, of the Planning Commission’s (PC) decision to deny a Reasonable Accommodation request for an existing, nonpermitted and nonconforming accessory structure (carport and attached physical therapy room) built within the required front and side yard setback and a proposed fence/motorized gate that exceeds the allowable height limit within a front yard setback. The appellant is requesting the City Council grant the appeal, overturn the decision of the Planning Commission, and approve the Reasonable Accommodation request to allow the existing accessory structure to remain, subject to the issuance of a building permit, and the proposed fence/motorized gate to be constructed.

DISCUSSION
Project Description
The applicant submitted a Reasonable Accommodation (PLN 21-0497) application to allow an existing, unpermitted, nonconforming accessory structure (carport and attached physical therapy room) to remain and construct a proposed fence/gate to be utilized by a resident with a disability.

The request includes the following:
 A reduction in front and side yard setbacks. The existing structure is located two feet from the front property line where a minimum of 20 feet is required, and three feet from the side property line where a minimum of five feet is required.
 A six-foot fence/gate in the required front yard across the vehicular access to the property, where a maximum height of three feet is allowed.

9.2 Packet Pg. 223
Background
In March 2021, the City received complaints regarding a structure (batting cage) under construction at the site. A Code Enforcement (“CE”) investigation found that a building permit had not been issued for the batting cage (follow-up continues by the City; the batting cage issue is not part of this appeal). Subsequently, in September 2021, CE was notified of another structure under construction at the site that included electrical work and had nonconforming setbacks (front and side). Dialogue between the City and the applicant has been ongoing regarding these complaints.

On October 21, 2021, the appellant submitted a Reasonable Accommodation application to legalize and allow the non-permitted and nonconforming accessory structure to remain in its current location. The Planning Commission reviewed the request at its March 8, 2022 meeting and denied the request. The applicant filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission decision. The item was originally scheduled to be heard at the June 6, 2022 City Council meeting, but was continued to the August 1, 2022 meeting without any discussion and then subsequently at the request of the applicant/appellant, continued to the September 12, 2022 and October 3, 2022 meetings without any discussion.

Analysis
A. General Information

1. Project Location
The project site is located on the west side of Kahrs Avenue and behind the single-family residential lots at 400 and 410 Kahrs Avenue; a private easement provides access to the subject property.

2. General Plan and Zoning Designation
The General Plan designates the site as Single Family Medium Density and the zoning designation is R10 Single Family Residential.

3. Site Description and Existing Land Use
The 16,552-square-foot project site consists of one legal parcel with two assessor parcel numbers assigned for tax purposes (8,276 square feet each). The site is currently developed with a 1,553-square-foot home, a 390-square-foot garage, and an approximate 300-square- foot batting cage structure (built without permits and subject to code enforcement action). The existing 99-square-foot physical therapy room is attached to an existing 289-square-foot carport; with both built without permits.

Access to the site is available from Kahrs Avenue via a private easement (slightly sloping up to the property) between 400 and 410 Kahrs Avenue. The Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are 149-032-037-9 and 149-032-038-7.

B. Discussion

1. Purpose
In accordance with PHMC Section 18.112.010 of the Zoning Ordinance, the City provides individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation in the application of development regulations and procedures to ensure equal access to housing, and to facilitate the development of housing. Section 18.11.010 provides a procedure under which a disabled

9.2 Packet Pg. 224
person(s) may request a reasonable accommodation in the application of zoning requirements.

Chapter 18.112 of the Zoning Ordinance is based on requirements of the Federal and State fair housing laws, and further implements the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan.

It is distinct from the requirements for: (1) a variance set forth in Government Code Section 65906 and PHMC Chapter 18.110, Variances or, (2) a minor exception cited in PHMC Chapter 18.111, Minor Exceptions.

2. Reasonable Accommodation Guidelines
When reviewing any Reasonable Accommodation request, the reviewing body is required to ensure that the project also addresses the Reasonable Accommodation Implementation Guidelines. The guidelines and a staff summary of each is provided in Attachment F.

3. Reasonable Accommodation Findings
In order to approve a Zoning Permit for a Reasonable Accommodation request, findings have to be made for the project. A summary, and discussion of the required findings can be found later in the staff report.

C. Other Requirements
PHMC Section 18.112.060 of the Zoning Ordinance contains other requirements applicable to the proposal if approval is granted for the reasonable accommodation request. The reviewing authority may condition its approval, as set forth in PHMC Section 18.112.060.B.3 of the Zoning Ordinance on any or all of the following:
a. Inspection of the property periodically, as specified, to verify compliance with this section and any conditions of approval.
b. Removal of the improvements, where removal would not constitute an unreasonable financial burden, when the need for which the accommodation was granted no longer exists. c. Time limits and/or expiration of the approval if the need for which the accommodation was granted no longer exists;
d. Recordation of a deed restriction requiring removal of the accommodating feature once the need for it no longer exists;
e. Measures to reduce the impact on surrounding uses;
f. Measures in consideration of the physical attributes of the property and structures; g. Other reasonable accommodations that may provide an equivalent level of benefit and/or that will not result in an encroachment into required setbacks, exceedance of maximum height, lot coverage or floor area ratio requirements specified for the zone districts; and h. Other conditions necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

D. Compatibility
The existing, nonconforming carport and therapy room are located within two and three feet, respectively, of adjacent shared rear property lines at 410, 416, and 418 Kahrs Avenue.

Though the existing, unpermitted, nonconforming carport and therapy room have similar architecture to the existing structures on the same property, they are highly visible to the

9.2 Packet Pg. 225
adjacent neighbors and could have a detrimental impact to surrounding property owners because of their proximity to property lines and the higher elevation (approximately two feet) of the subject parcel in relation to surrounding properties.

The proposed motorized fence/gate would be located on the front property of the project site, crossing the vehicular access to the site. Historically, the City does not support either gated entries or gated entries that are over three feet tall. Thus, generally allowing a six-foot-tall, motorized fence/ motorized gate would not be consistent with other single-family properties or past practice.

E. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance
As proposed, the existing, unpermitted, nonconforming carport and physical therapy room, and six-foot fence/gate, do not comply with the Zoning Ordinance. See the table below:

Development
Regulations: R-10
Ordinance
Standard
406 Kahrs Ave Complies?
Min. Site Area per Dwelling
Unit
10,000sf 16,552sf (both parcels
(8,276sf each)
yes
Minimum Lot Area 10,000sf 16,552sf yes
Minimum Lot Width 80’ 170’ yes
Minimum Lot Depth 90’ 98.5’ yes
Minimum Yards
Front 20’ 16’ garage
30’ house
no
Rear 15’ 33’ yes
Side 5’ 3’ no
Aggregate Side 15’ 15’ yes
Maximum Building Height 35’ 16’ yes
Maximum Number of Stories 2.5 1 yes
Maximum Lot coverage 30% 15% yes
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.40 0.09 yes
Garage Dimensions (interior) 20’ wide x 22’ deep 18’ wide x 21 deep (approx.)
Existing
nonconforming
Garage Setback 20’ 16’ Existing
nonconforming
Accessory Structure(s)*
Total Floor Area per
Structure
500sf 99sf physical therapy room
(inside 289sf carport)
yes
Cumulative Floor Area** 600sf 289sf yes
Height 14’ (peak) 12’ yes
Rear Setback 3-5’ range - dependent
on height of structure

N/A N/A
Side Setback *** 3-5’ range - dependent
on height of structure
3’ no
* Accessory structures are not permitted in the front yard setback. ** Does not include non-permitted batting cage
*** See explanation below

9.2 Packet Pg. 226
PHMC Section 18.20.050.A.3 provides standards for accessory structure setbacks within the R10 zoning district. As it pertains to the requested Reasonable Accommodation, the required rear and side yard setbacks are both five feet; the proposed side yard setback is three feet.

Additionally, pursuant to PHMC Section 18.20.040.I, the maximum height of any fence or wall is three feet within the required front yard.

F. Findings Analysis
Pursuant to Section 18.112.060, the City must make each of the following findings to approve the Reasonable Accommodation request. Each finding is listed below followed by analysis:
a. The housing will be used by a disabled person;
Analysis: A disabled person resides at the property.
b. The requested accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to a disabled person;
Accessory Structure: The request for the reasonable accommodation includes allowing a non-permitted, nonconforming structure (physical therapy room attached to a carport) to remain as is, with a front yard setback of two feet (minimum of 20 feet is required) and a side yard setback of three feet (minimum of five is required). The applicant states that the current location of the physical therapy room is more feasible than converting the existing 390- square-foot car garage, as it houses the appellant’s accessible van and is not insulated (see Applicant’s Analysis, Attachment D). The applicant notes that to construct the physical therapy room at any other location of the site would pose a hardship and be cost prohibitive.

The disabled person will use the unpermitted, existing physical therapy room for therapy.

The unpermitted accessory structure is necessary and related to the disability; however, Planning Commission and staff believes that there are other locations on the site where the structure/use could have been built to better accommodate the proposed use, comply with zoning regulation, and minimize detrimental impacts to adjacent properties, particularly if the smaller physical therapy room was built without the attached carport. These locations include: (1) within the existing house; (2) as an addition to the rear of the home (west); (3) to the south of the home where the required setbacks could be met, as the parcel is approximately 16,552 square feet (see Attachment F for additional discussion).

In conclusion, the Planning Commission observes that, had the applicant approached the City to discuss location prior to building the structure without permits, the accessory structure could have been sited both in compliance with zoning regulations and to the satisfaction of the applicant’s needs.

Fence: The project also includes a request to allow construction of a six-foot-tall fence/motorized gate on the front property line of the parcel at the easement. PHMC Section

18.20.040 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that fences in the required front yard shall not be taller than three feet. The applicant’s basis for the request for a taller fence is for safety of the person with the disability.

In conclusion, the Planning Commission does not believe that granting this fence height request is necessary to make the housing available to a disabled person, as it does not appear that a six-foot tall fence is related to the disability. Further, a three-foot-tall fence, which is allowed per Code, would also provide safety and security for the appellant. In addition, the

9.2 Packet Pg. 227
site is significantly recessed from the public street and accessed through an easement. Thus, these factors afford the subject site greater security than other properties in the vicinity that front upon the public street.
c. The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City.

Analysis: There would not be an undue financial or administrative burden imposed on the City as a result of approving the proposed reasonable accommodation. Inspections for the existing carport and attached physical therapy room, and the proposed fence would occur as part of the routine building and zoning permit processes. d. The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including land use and zoning.

Accessory Structure: The unpermitted, existing physical therapy room and attached carport would result in a fundamental alteration to land use and zoning, as the structure would encroach upon the required front yard setback by 18 feet and the required side yard setback by two feet.

The resident at the property does have a disability (as determined by a medical professional), and the reasonable accommodation request is sought to allow, retroactively, an otherwise non-permitted structure built without prior City consultation or approval.

Had the request come before the City in advance of construction of the non-permitted accessory structure, staff is confident other locations on the property could have been identified that satisfy both zoning regulations and the appellant’s needs.

Fence: The project also includes a request to allow construction of a six-foot-tall fence/ motorized gate on the front property line of the parcel at the easement. PHMC Section

18.20.040 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that fences in the required front yard shall not be taller than three feet
The Planning Commission believes that granting this fence request is not necessary to make the housing available to a disabled person, as it does not appear that a six-foot-tall fence is related to the disability. Further, a three-foot tall fence, which is allowed per Code, would also provide safety and security of the site. In addition, the site is significantly recessed from the public street and accessed through an easement; thus, these factors afford the subject site greater security than other properties in the vicinity that front upon the public street.

G. Applicant/Appellant Appeal
The applicant filed a timely appeal after the decision by the Planning Commission. No additional information was provided by the appellant/applicant.

H. CEQA

9.2 Packet Pg. 228
Pursuant to Sections 15303, and 15305, of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, if the reasonable accommodation is approved, the proposed project is determined to be categorically exempt (Classes 3 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, 5 – Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). If the project is not approved, no CEQA determination is necessary.

I. Conclusion
The existing, unpermitted, nonconforming accessory structure (carport and attached physical therapy room) associated with the Reasonable Accommodation request are located in the front yard setback, with an approximate distance of two feet from the front property of the site (which is the rear property line of 410 Kahrs Avenue). The existing, unpermitted, nonconforming accessory structure is approximately three feet from the shared property line with 416 Kahrs Avenue. In addition, the proposed fence/gate (six feet tall), is not allowed on the front yard property line; a three-foot tall fence/gate is permissible.

The Planning Commission does not support the request because there are other viable, alternative locations to accommodate the accessory structure that satisfy zoning regulations and the applicant’s needs, including separating the smaller physical therapy room from the attached larger carport which will create additional location opportunities due to its smaller footprint. Further, it is not clear how the resident’s disability relates to the request for an increase in fence height to six feet within the front yard. The Planning Commission and Staff note that a three-foot-tall fence would both provide the same safety barrier and comply with zoning ordinance provisions.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. A ten day public notice was also mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site.

The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the Resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision, without prejudice.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
 Continue the item to a later date with direction provided to Staff.  Approve the appeal, overturn the decision of the Planning Commission approving the Reasonable Accommodation request, and direct staff to bring a Resolution consistent with this direction at the subsequent City Council meeting date.

9.2 Packet Pg. 229
ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment A Proposed Resolution
Attachment B Planning Commission Resolution No. 7-22
Attachment C Applicant Appeal
Attachment D Proposed Project Plans
Attachment E Applicant’s Reasonable Accommodation Analysis Attachment F Reasonable Accommodation Zoning Administrator Guidelines with Staff Analysis
Attachment G PHMC Section 18.112 Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance Attachment H Site Photos
Attachment I Setback Aerial Map
Attachment J Assessor’s Parcel Map
Attachment K Public Hearing Notice
Attachment L Location Map
Attachment M Public Comments
Prepared by: Troy Fujimoto, City Planner
Reviewed by: Ethan Bindernagel, Public Works and Community Development Director/ Assistant City Manager
Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

9.2 Packet Pg. 230
RESOLUTION NO. _ - 22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF TWO FEET WHERE 20 FEET IS

REQUIRED AND A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF THREE FEET WHERE FIVE FEET IS REQUIRED. ADDITIONALLY, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE A SIX-FOOT-TALL

FENCE/GATE IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD ACROSS THE VEHICULAR ACCESS

WHERE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THREE FEET IS ALLOWED AS ASSOCIATED WITH REASONABLE ACCOMMOCATION PLN 21-0497 AT 406 KAHRS AVENUE.

WHEREAS, the applicant, Mariam Azamey, submitted PLN 21-0497 on December 7, 2021, for a Reasonable Accommodation to accommodate (an existing accessory structure (physical therapy room with an attached carport) with a front yard setback of two feet where a minimum of 20 feet is required; a side yard setback of three feet where a minimum of five is required; and installation of a six-foot-tall fence in the required front yard across the vehicular access, where the maximum allowed height is three feet; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with PHMC Section 18.112.050.A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance the Zoning Administrator referred the Reasonable Accommodation request to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 8, 2022, regarding the proposed Reasonable Accommodation, at which time all interested parties were invited to provide comments on the proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission evaluated the proposed Reasonable Accommodation request for compliance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and Planning and Land Use Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the at the March 8, 2022 hearing, the Planning Commission concluded that it could not make the necessary findings to approve the Reasonable Accommodation and denied the request without prejudice; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2022, the applicant/appellant, Mariam Azamey filed a timely appeal; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing was continued at the June 6, 2022 City Council and continued, without discussion, to the August 1, 2022 meeting date and subsequently continued without discussion to the September 12, 2022 and the October 3, 2022 meeting date, regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission’s

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: A - Proposed Resolution (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision) Azamey Reasonable Accommodation PLN 21-0497
Findings for Denial
October 3, 2022

Page 2 ends

decision regarding the proposed Reasonable Accommodation, at which time all interested parties were invited to provide comments on the proposal; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 15270 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill, in accordance with Chapter 18.112 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code, hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the request (Reasonable Accommodation PLN 21-0497) without prejudice, based upon the following findings:

Reasonable Accommodation DENIAL Findings

1. The housing will be used by a disabled person
A disabled person does reside on the property.

2. The requested accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to a disable person
Accessory Structure: The request for the reasonable accommodation includes allowing a non-permitted, nonconforming structure (physical therapy room attached to a carport) to remain as is, with a front yard setback of two feet (minimum of 20 feet is required) and a side yard setback of three feet (minimum of five is required). The applicant states that the current location of the physical therapy room is more feasible than converting the existing 390-square-foot car garage, as it houses the appellant’s accessible van and is not insulated (see Applicant’s Analysis, Attachment D). The applicant notes that to construct the physical therapy room at any other location of the site would pose a hardship and be cost prohibitive.

The disabled person will use the unpermitted, existing physical therapy room for therapy.

These locations include: (1) within the existing house; (2) as an addition to the rear of the home (west); (3) to the south of the home where the required setbacks could be met, as the parcel is approximately 16,552 square feet (see Attachment E for additional discussion).

In conclusion, the Planning Commission and Staff observe that, had the applicant approached the City to discuss location prior to building the structure without permits, the accessory structure could have been sited both in compliance with zoning regulations and to the satisfaction of the applicant’s needs.

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: A - Proposed Resolution (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision) Azamey Reasonable Accommodation PLN 21-0497
Findings for Denial
October 3, 2022

Page 3 ends

Fence: The project also includes a request to allow construction of a six-foot-tall fence/motorized gate on the front property line of the parcel at the easement. PHMC Section 18.20.040 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that fences in the required front yard shall not be taller than three feet. The applicant’s basis for the request for a taller fence is for safety of the person with the disability.

In conclusion, the Planning Commission and Staff do not believe that granting this fence height request is necessary to make the housing available to a disabled person, as it does not appear that a six-foot tall fence is related to the disability. Further, a three-foot-tall fence, which is allowed per Code, would also provide safety and security for the appellant.

In addition, the site is significantly recessed from the public street and accessed through an easement. Thus, these factors afford the subject site greater security than other properties in the vicinity that front upon the public street.

3. The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city.

There would not be an undue financial or administrative burden imposed on the City as a result of approving the proposed reasonable accommodation. Inspections for the existing carport and attached physical therapy room, and the proposed fence would occur as part of the routine building and zoning permit processes.

4. The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including land use and zoning.

While a reasonable accommodation does allow flexibility and the waiving of certain development standards and requirements, the extent of the appellant’s request equates to a fundamental alteration of zoning provisions that does not appear justified when several reasonable alternative solutions are available to the appellant. In addition, the physical therapy room is significantly smaller than the attached carport, thus, siting the smaller physical therapy room by itself would provide additional options due to its smaller footprint. Had the request come before the City in advance of construction of the nonpermitted accessory structure, staff is confident other locations on the property could have been identified that satisfy both zoning regulations and the appellant’s needs.

Fence: The project also includes a request to allow construction of a six-foot-tall fence/ motorized gate on the front property line of the parcel at the easement. PHMC Section

18.20.040 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that fences in the required front yard shall not be taller than three feet

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: A - Proposed Resolution (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision) Azamey Reasonable Accommodation PLN 21-0497
Findings for Denial
October 3, 2022

Page 4 ends

The Planning Commission and Staff believe that granting this fence request is not necessary to make the housing available to a disabled person, as it does not appear that a six-foot-tall fence is related to the disability. Further, a three-foot tall fence, which is allowed per Code, would also provide safety and security of the site. In addition, the site is significantly recessed from the public street and accessed through an easement; thus, these factors afford the subject site greater security than other properties in the vicinity that front upon the public street.

ADOPTED by the City Council, City of Pleasant Hill, on the 3 rd day of October, 2022, by
the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

___________________________________
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:

DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: A - Proposed Resolution (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.b
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 7-22 (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.b
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 7-22 (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.b
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 7-22 (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.b
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 7-22 (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.c
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: C - Applicant Appeal (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.d
Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: D - Proposed Plans (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.d
Packet Pg. 241
Attachment: D - Proposed Plans (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.d
Packet Pg. 242
Attachment: D - Proposed Plans (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.e
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: E - Reasonable Accommodation Analysis (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.e
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: E - Reasonable Accommodation Analysis (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.e
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: E - Reasonable Accommodation Analysis (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision) Reasonable Accommodation Zoning Administrator Guidelines The following guidelines are for consideration by the Zoning Administrator when reviewing reasonable accommodation requests. When a request for reasonable accommodation is considered that would result in an encroachment into setbacks (mainly front and side yard), exceedance of allowed building heights, or exceedance of allowed lot coverage or floor area ratio, the following factors should be considered:

1. Consider the feasibility of conversions of garages and/or basements to accommodate the need for additional floor space rather than expansion of the building footprint or building height.

Staff Analysis: The applicant has noted that the existing garage cannot be converted into a physical therapy room as it houses the accessible van. Staff believes that the garage could be converted into a physical therapy room, though it would require that the van be parked elsewhere. By converting the existing garage, no expansion of the existing building footprint would be required, thus eliminating the impact on the adjacent properties. This does not apply to the proposed fence/gate.

2. Consider the feasibility of reconfiguration of the existing floor plan to accommodate specific needs.

Staff Analysis: A floor plan of the existing home was not submitted, thus staff is not able to analyze the feasibility of a reconfiguration of the existing home. This does not apply to the proposed fence/gate.

3. Consider the feasibility of an addition that would result in a lot coverage exceedance before considering an addition that would increase building height or result in a building height exceedance.

Staff Analysis: The existing/proposed approximate 100 square foot physical therapy room could be constructed at other areas of the site and not resulting in non-compliant development standards such as an addition to the rear of the home (west). This does not apply to the proposed fence/gate.

4. Consider alternative designs and methods of accommodation to minimize the potential effects on privacy and solar access for surrounding properties if a building height or setback exceedance is proposed.

Staff Analysis: The existing/proposed accessory structures (physical therapy room and carport) are located approximately two to three from the shared property lines (where five and 20 foot setbacks are required). If the structure complied with the setbacks, there would be reduced effects on privacy and solar access due to its proximity to surrounding properties.

9.2.f
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: F - Reasonable Accommodation Guidelines with Staff Analysis (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision) Plans submitted indicate that the existing/proposed carport cover is approximately 12 feet tall (at the peak) and is in compliance with the height standard for accessory structures.

This does not apply to the proposed fence/gate.

5. Consider the feasibility of locating an accommodation involving a side yard setback encroachment on the side of the property that has the larger setback or where the adjacent property structure is setback furthest from the subject structure.

Staff Analysis: The project site consists of approximately 16,552 square feet which could accommodate the existing/proposed structures at various locations. The structure was built without City review and permitting, thus, no opportunity to review other locations were considered, despite less impactful locations. This does not apply to the proposed fence/gate.

6. Consider the feasibility of allowing an accommodation to encroach into a rear yard setback, before considering a side or front yard setback encroachment.

Staff Analysis: The existing/proposed structures encroach into the front and side yard setbacks. The structure was built without City review and permitting, thus, no opportunity to review other locations were considered, despite less impactful locations. The proposed six-foot tall fence/gate would be constructed on the front property line with no setbacks.

Based on the applicant request there is no alternative to the front yard as the fences main purpose is to enclose the front yard, however, the fence could be reduced in height to three feet and still address the concerns of the applicant. In addition, the site has substantial spaces in the rear and side yard areas that could accommodate the needs noted by the applicant.

7. Review proposed additions/expansions/structures to ensure that they have adequate exterior articulation and architectural interest and are in substantial conformance with the City's Design Guidelines.

Staff Analysis: Though the existing carport and therapy room have similar architecture to the existing structures and address various Design Guidelines regarding architecture. The proposed fence/gate would not be in substantial conformance with the Design Guideline as vehicular gates are discouraged.

8. Review expansions to ensure that privacy of adjacent properties is protected where feasible (such as window types, locations, placement of exterior elements, location of walkways, etc.).

Staff Analysis: The proposed project is not a building addition/expansion. The proposed fence/gate would not impact the privacy of adjacent properties.

Other general guidelines

9.2.f
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: F - Reasonable Accommodation Guidelines with Staff Analysis (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

1. Consider decorative pavement or, decomposed granite, rather than standard paving materials for necessary walkways.

Staff Analysis: N/A

2. Consider using decorative building materials and high quality design for any reasonable accommodation that results in structure modifications.

Staff Analysis: N/A

3. Consider neighborhood impacts if the request involves a parking accommodation (consider on-street parking impacts).

Staff Analysis: N/A

4. Minimize impacts to the neighborhood to the greatest extent possible, while considering the individual needs of the accommodation request.

Staff Analysis: As proposed, impacts to the neighborhood are not minimized; the therapy room could be located in other locations that are away from surrounding properties while still provided similar access. The proposed six-foot tall fence/gate would not impact the neighborhood

5. Determine if the proposed accommodation can feasibly be removed when the occupant requesting the accommodation no longer resides on the property. If removal is feasible, the reasonable accommodation may be conditioned to be removed in the future and an appropriate method of ensuring the property owner's responsibility for removal can be included in conditions of approval and/or a deed restriction.

Staff Analysis: The Chief Building Official has noted that the structure and the fence/gate can feasibly be removed.

9.2.f
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: F - Reasonable Accommodation Guidelines with Staff Analysis (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.g
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: G - PHMC 18.112 Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.g
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: G - PHMC 18.112 Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.g
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: G - PHMC 18.112 Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.g
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: G - PHMC 18.112 Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.h
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: H - Photos (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.h
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: H - Photos (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.h
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: H - Photos (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.h
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: H - Photos (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.h
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: H - Photos (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.h
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: H - Photos (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.h
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: H - Photos (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.i
Packet Pg. 260
Attachment: I - Setback Aerial Map (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.j
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: J - Assessor Parcel Map (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

NOTICE OF

PUBLIC HEARING

CITY COUNCIL
AZAMEY REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION (PLN 21-0497)

APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
406 KAHRS AVENUE
(Continued from June 6, 2022 Meeting Date)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, by the City of Pleasant Hill, that the City Council will hold a public hearing to consider an appeal, by the applicant, of the Planning Commission decision to deny a zoning permit (PLN 21-0497) for a Reasonable Accommodation to allow an existing structure, with non-conforming setbacks, to remain related to a disability, and for a fence with a height above three feet, in the front yard, to be permitted. This item was originally scheduled for the June 6, 2022 City Council hearing date, but was continued without any discussion to August 1, 2022. The subject site is approximately 0.37 acres, zoned R10 – Single Family Residential, at 406 Kahrs Avenue. Assessor Parcel Numbers: 149-032-038-7 and 149-032-037-9.

Pursuant to Sections 15301, 15304, and 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, this project is determined to be, Categorically Exempt (Classes 1, 4, and 5) – Existing Facilities, Minor Alterations to Land, and Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations, since the project scope would not have a significant effect on the environment.

THE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the City Council starting at 7:00 P.M. on Monday, August 1, 2022. Please check the City’s website or posted agenda for information regarding whether the hearing will be held virtually and/or at City Hall at 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA. More information on how to participate, including providing live comments during the meeting, will be provided on the posted City Council meeting agenda.

NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(b) that, if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court by you or others, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else has raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Pleasant Hill at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.

For information on this matter, call or e-mail Troy Fujimoto at 925-671-5224 [email protected].

Troy Fujimoto
Zoning Administrator

9.2.k
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: K - Pubic Hearing Notice (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.l
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: L - Location Map (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.m
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: M - Public Comments (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

9.2.m
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: M - Public Comments (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision) 1 Danielle Habr
From: Michael Durkee <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2022 2:07 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Danielle Habr; Janet Coleson; Troy Fujimoto; [email protected]; Mariam Azamey; Katherine Porter; Michael Durkee
Subject: Request For Short Continuance - 406 Kahrs - Appeal - Ms. Azamey/Mr. Unger Attachments: Mariam Azamey - Request for Continuance (9.29.22).docx Dear Honorable Mayor Harris and City Councilmembers,
Attached please find a letter submitted on behalf of my clients seeking City Council approval of a short continuance from the Council's meeting of October 3, 2022 to the Council's meeting of November 7, 2022.

Dear City Clerk/ADA Coordinator Habr, please ensure that the attached letter is delivered to the City Council for their October 3, 2022 meeting and is made a part of the administrative record for this matter.

Thank you all very much.

Respectfully submitted,
Michael Patrick Durkee, Esq.

Michael Patrick Durkee
Attorney at Law
(510) 918-5873
[email protected]
www.michaelpatrickdurkee.com
www.landusenavigators.com

9.2.m
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: M - Public Comments (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision) September 29, 2022
1 Law Offices of
Michael Patrick Durkee
1250- I Newell Avenue, #156
Walnut Creek CA 94596
(510) 918-5873
[email protected]
Via Email
Honorable Mayor Michael G. Harris
and City Council
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Re: Request for Short Continuance
Dear Honorable Mayor Harris and Councilmembers:

We have been retained by Ms. Mariam Azamey and Mr. James Unger to assist them with various issues related to their properties at 406 Kahrs Avenue, including the construction of a small room accessible to Ms. Azamey where she performs physical therapy related to her debilitating and degenerative medical condition in privacy.

A Council hearing regarding the allowance and accommodation of this physical therapy room is set for City Council consideration at the Council’s October 3, 2022, meeting.

Unfortunately, as Ms. Azamey shared with City Staff, Ms. Azamey’s current health will not allow her to appear before the Council on that date. We are therefore respectfully requesting a short continuance to the City Council’s November 7, 2022, meeting.

We are aware that Ms. Azamey’s neighbors do not believe Ms. Azamey suffers from this debilitating and degenerative neurological disorder, that they have been posting those beliefs on social media, and that they have been pressuring City Staff to act with regards to Ms. Azamey’s physical therapy room regardless of her current health. Please remember, however, that this situation involves a person with an acute and medically substantiated disability. With respect, we submit that the City’s main concern should be about Ms. Azamey’s needs and appropriate accommodations, not the neighbors’ campaign of pressure and misrepresentations. In any event, we will commit to November 7, 2022, and agree that no additional continuances will be sought.

Granting this short continuance request will also benefit the City, its Staff, and the City Council in its consideration of this matter. We will be submitting materials shortly that will provide an analysis of the facts, the law, and the physical constraints on the property that will provide information beneficial to City Staff’s recommendation and the City Council’s ultimate action. Additionally, we intend to use this short time to have discussions with City staff that may

9.2.m
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: M - Public Comments (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision) September 29, 2022
2 produce solutions that ultimately obviate the need for a hearing altogether. If that proves successful, we will be dismissing this appeal.

In short, we understand and respect that the City wishes to resolve this issue in a timely, equitable, and legally sufficient manner. In that spirit, we respectfully submit that a short continuance will better provide the information and fair hearing (that Ms. Azamey can attend and testify at) necessary to accomplish that goal. It is our respectful request, therefore, that the City Council grant a short continuance of this appeal to its meeting of November 7, 2022. Again, we commit to not asking for any additional continuance.

Respectfully submitted,
Michael Patrick Durkee, Esq.

Cc: City Clerk
City Attorney
City Manager
City Planning Staff
Ms. Mariam Azamey and Mr. James Unger
Katherine Porter, Esq.

9.2.m
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: M - Public Comments (Azamey Reasonable Accommodation - Appeal of PC Decision)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: October 03, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. ___

AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS FOR URBAN LOT
SPLITS (SECTION 18.20.097) AND TWO-UNIT PROJECTS (SECTION

18.20.105) RELATED TO SENATE BILL 9 (SB 9) AND DETERMINING

THE ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA

SYNOPSIS
Introduce an ordinance amending the City of Pleasant Hill’s zoning regulations for urban lot splits and two-unit projects on single-family residential lots in response to Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”). The proposed amendments would replace the City’s current urgency ordinance adopted by City Council in December 2021. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment and recommended approval to the City Council. Subsequently, the City Council held a public hearing on the item on September 12, 2022, and provided direction to staff on modifications to the ordinance and continued the item to the October 3, 2022 meeting date.

DISCUSSION
Background
On September 12, 2022, the City Council reviewed the draft ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and expressed general support for the amendments. The Council provided comments to staff on specific sections of the draft ordinance and continued the item to the October 3, 2022 hearing date. The September 12, 2022 staff report can be viewed in Attachment D.

Analysis
The City Council provided specific comments to staff, including the requirement for site access for urban lot split lots, clarity that the required enclosed parking area is not included in the floor area calculations for the primary dwelling units, and concerns regarding the height of units that may need to encroach into the required setbacks. Staff has made modifications in response to each comment. The revised draft ordinance has been included as Attachment A (strikeout version) and Attachment B (clean version). For reference, a copy of the previously proposed draft ordinance, as presented at the September 12, 2022 hearing, has been included as Attachment C (strikeout version).

9.3 Packet Pg. 269
Unit Size Allowance and Enclosed Parking Requirements: The previously proposed ordinance references the underlying development regulations of the corresponding zone (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) to determine the maximum size of the dwelling units with certain clarifications.

In response to comments raised by the City Council, Staff has added an additional point of clarification as follows:
 Any required enclosed parking space is not calculated as part of the dwelling unit size.

Staff also added clarifying language to the parking section confirming that “If the construction of both a primary dwelling unit measuring 800 square feet or less in floor area and the required enclosed parking space would cause development on the lot to exceed the objective lot coverage requirement of the underlying zone, then the unit’s off-street parking space must be unenclosed.” This would only apply when the primary dwelling unit is 800 square feet or less since the City cannot require a smaller unit in these cases to accommodate additional floor area for the enclosed parking stall.

Urban Lot Splits without Street Frontage: The provisions of SB 9 require that a lot must have access, or be adjacent to the public right-of-way in order to be subdivided as an urban lot split.

At the previous Council hearing, a concern was raised about requiring every urban lot split to provide access to the right-of-way. As originally written, the draft ordinance required that a newly created lot either directly adjoin the public right-of-way, or provide access to it through an access easement. In response to City Council’s comments, staff has inserted language to clarify that all new lots must satisfy the objective standards of the Subdivision Map Act and the County fire and emergency access requirements.

Building Height Limits: The previously proposed draft ordinance relies on the maximum height requirements of the single-family zone (35 feet), but with a two-story maximum. The City Council expressed concerns that the original ordinance language would allow reduced building setbacks for two-story primary dwelling units. City Council asked staff to include language that prohibited primary dwelling units from exceeding 16 feet or one story in height when located within reduced setbacks. In response, Staff added the following language:
c. Height restrictions.
i. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c)(ii) below, no primary dwelling unit that is developed on a resulting lot may exceed one story or 16 feet in height.
ii. If a primary dwelling unit on the lot complies with the setback standards set forth in Section 18.20.030, then the height of a primary dwelling unit may exceed 16 feet, up to the objective height limit that is imposed through the underlying zone (Schedule 18.20.030; Maximum Building Height (feet)).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, no primary dwelling unit may exceed two stories.

This new language clarifies that primary dwelling units are limited to 16 feet in height or one story unless they satisfy the setback standards of the underlying or resulting zone. If they do,

9.3 Packet Pg. 270
then the height of a primary dwelling may exceed 16 feet, up to the objective height limit that is imposed through the underlying or resulting zone.1
Public Comments
All public comment received to date has been included as Attachment G.

CEQA
The City, as the lead agency, has determined that the proposed activity is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the 2022 Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. The City has determined with certainty that the proposed activity will not have a significant effect on the environment as the proposed design and development standards, when applied to relevant projects, will undergo separate CEQA review.

Additionally, under California Government Code sections 65852.21, subdivision (j), and 66411.7, subdivision (n), the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county implementing the provisions of Government Code sections 66411.7 and 65852.21 regulating urban lot splits and two-unit projects is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the CEQA. Therefore, the proposed ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA in that the proposed ordinance implements these new laws enacted by SB 9.

FISCAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates minimal fiscal impact because applicants remain responsible for the cost of processing the applicable ministerial permits required to create an urban lot split or construct two units on a single-family-zoned property, as well as any impact fees. The City will continue to receive development permit fees, building permit fees, and development impact fees such as park land dedication and traffic mitigation fees for these projects.

Notice of the meeting was also provided in the East Bay Times Newspaper published on August 12, 2022 and September 1, 2022, displayed on an A-Frame at the Police Station, displayed on the City Hall Changeable Message Board Sign, and on the City’s web page. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Introduce the ordinance.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Introduce the ordinance with modifications;

2. Continue the item to a future date with direction to staff; or

1 Consistent with state law, the City’s objective development standards (including height and setbacks) must yield to the extent that they physically preclude the construction of up to two 800 square units on the lot, except that in no event may any structure be less than four feet from a side or rear property line (Gov. Code, §§ 66411.7(c)(1)-(2), 65852.21(b)(1)-(2)).

9.3 Packet Pg. 271

3. Do not introduce the ordinance.

ATTACHMENTS
A Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance (strikeout version)
B Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance (clean version)
C Previously Proposed Draft Ordinance from September 12, 2022 Hearing (strikeout version) D September 12, 2022 City Council Staff Report (Attachments can be viewed at the Planning Division)
E Public Comments
Prepared by: Haley Croffoot, AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Ethan Bindernagel, Community Development Director Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

9.3 Packet Pg. 272
ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE PLEASANT HILL MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING SECTIONS 18.20.097 (URBAN LOT SPLITS) & 18.20.105 (TWO-UNIT PROJECTS) RELATED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SENATE BILL 9 (SB 9)
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill, California (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, amendments to Title 18 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code are proposed to provisions related to Urban Lot Splits and Two-Unit Projects; and WHEREAS, in 2021, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”), which took effect January 1, 2022, and, among other provisions, added Government Code section 65852.21 and 66411.7 to impose new limits on local authority to regulate urban lot splits and two-unit projects; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 951 approving an urgency ordinance adding Municipal Code Sections 18.20.097 (Urban Lot Splits) and 18.20.105 (Two-Unit Projects); and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to amend the urgency ordinance and Municipal Code Sections

18.20.097 (Urban Lot Splits) and 18.20.105 (Two-Unit Projects) to establish permanent regulations related to urban lot splits and two-unit projects; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a study session on May 24, 2022, to discuss several topics to assist Staff in drafting the permanent ordinance components; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing was noticed and held by the Planning Commission on June 28, 2022, and continued to the July 12, 2022 meeting date regarding the proposed ordinance amendment at which time all interested parties were invited to provide comments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 12, 2022, and adopted Resolution No. 14-22 recommending the City Council adopt amendments to Municipal Code Sections 18.20.097 (Urban Lot Splits) and 18.20.105 (Two-Unit Projects); and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing on the proposed ordinance was noticed and held by the City Council on September 12, 2022, and continued to the October 3, 2022 meeting date at which time all interested persons were invited to provide comments; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill does ordain as follows:

Section 1. The City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this ordinance may have a significant effect on the

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 2 environment, as the proposed activity (ordinance amendment) is exempt because it will not have a significant effect on the environment and does not directly approve any physical development.

The adoption of this ordinance is therefore exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

In addition, under California Government Code sections 65852.21, subdivision (j), and 66411.7, subdivision (n), the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county implementing the provisions of Government Code sections 66411.7 and 65852.21 regulating urban lot splits and two-unit projects is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Therefore, the proposed ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA in that the proposed ordinance implements these new laws enacted by SB 9.

Section 2. The City Council adopts amendments to the City’s Municipal Code, by amending Section 18.20.097, with the following language to read in full as follows:

18.20.097 Urban lot splits.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to allow and appropriately regulate urban lot splits in accordance with Government Code section 66411.7.

B. Definition. An “urban lot split” means the subdivision of an existing, legally subdivided lot into two lots in accordance with the requirements of this section.

C. Application.

1. Only individual property owners may apply for an urban lot split. “Individual property owner” means a natural person holding fee title individually or jointly in the person’s own name or a beneficiary of a trust that holds fee title. “Individual property owner” does not include any corporation or corporate person of any kind (partnership, LP, LLC, C corp, S corp, etc.) except for a community land trust (as defined by Rev. and Tax Code § 402.1(a)(11)(C)(ii)) or a qualified nonprofit corporation (as defined by Rev. and Tax Code § 214.15).

2. An application for an urban lot split must be submitted on the city’s approved form. Only a complete application will be considered. The city will inform the applicant in writing of any incompleteness within 30 days after the application is submitted.

3. The city may establish a fee to recover its costs for adopting, implementing, and enforcing this section of the code, in accordance with applicable law. The city council may establish and change the fee by resolution. The fee must be paid with the application.

D. Approval.

1. An application for a parcel map for an urban lot split is approved or denied ministerially, by the building official, without discretionary review.

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 3 demonstrates that the required documents have been recorded, such as the deed restriction and easements. The tentative parcel map expires six months after approval.

3. The approval must require the owner and applicant to hold the city harmless from all claims and damages related to the approval and its subject matter.

4. The approval must require the owner and applicant to reimburse the city for all costs of enforcement, including attorneys’ fees and costs associated with enforcing the requirements of this code.

E. Requirements. An urban lot split must satisfy each of the following requirements:

1. Map Act Compliance.
a. The urban lot split must conform to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Gov’t. Code § 66410 et seq., “SMA”), including implementing requirements in this code, except as otherwise expressly provided in this section.
b. If an urban lot split violates any part of the SMA, the city’s subdivision regulations, including this section, or any other legal requirement:
i. The buyer or grantee of a lot that is created by the urban lot split has all the remedies available under the SMA, including but not limited to an action for damages or to void the deed, sale, or contract. ii. The city has all the remedies available to it under the SMA, including but not limited to the following:
(A) An action to enjoin any attempt to sell, lease, or finance the property.
(B) An action for other legal, equitable, or summary
remedy, such as declaratory and injunctive relief.
(C) Criminal prosecution, punishable by imprisonment in county jail or state prison for up to one year, by a fine of up to $10,000, or both; or a misdemeanor.
(D) Record a notice of violation.
(E) Withhold any or all future permits and approvals.
c. Notwithstanding Government Code section 66411.1 (SMA), no dedication of rights-of-way or construction of off-site improvements is required for an urban lot split.

2. Compliance with the City’s Subdivision Regulations. The urban lot split must conform to all applicable objective requirements of the City’s Subdivision regulations (Title 17, Subdivisions) except that no dedication of rights-of-way or construction of off-site improvements are required for an urban lot split.

3. Zone. The lot to be split is designated as a standard single-family residential zone. For purposes of this section, a single-family residential zone is a zone where the only residential use that is allowed as a primary use is a single residential dwelling on a lot (R-20, R-15, R-10, R-10A, R7, R-6, and appropriate PUDs).

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 4 4. Lot location.
a. The lot to be split is not located on a site that is any of the following:
i. Prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or land that is zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by the voters.
ii. A wetland.
iii. Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, unless the site complies with all fire-hazard mitigation measures required by existing fire and building standards.
iv. A hazardous waste site that has not been cleared for residential use.
v. Within a delineated earthquake fault zone, unless all development on the site complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards.
vi. Within a 100-year flood hazard area, unless the site has either:
(A) Been subject to a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to
the local jurisdiction; or
(B) Meets Federal Emergency Management Agency
requirements necessary to meet minimum floodplain
management criteria of the National Flood Insurance
Program.
vii. Within a regulatory floodway, unless all development on the site has received a no-rise certification.
viii. Land identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan, habitat conservation plan, or other adopted natural resource protection plan. ix. Habitat for protected species.
x. Land under conservation easement.
b. The purpose of subsection E.4.a of this section is merely to summarize the requirements of Government Code sections 65913.4(a)(6)(B) through (K). (See Gov’t. Code § 66411.7(a)(3)(C).)

5. Not historic. The lot to be split must not be a historic property or within a historic district that is included on the State Historic Resources Inventory.

Nor may the lot be or be within a site that is designated by ordinance as a city or county landmark or as a historic property or district.

6. No prior urban lot split.
a. The lot to be split was not established through a prior urban lot split.
b. The lot to be split is not adjacent to any lot that was established through a prior urban lot split by the owner of the lot to be split or by any person acting in concert with the owner. Any person acting “in concert” with the owner here includes any third party that

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 5 coordinates or assists the owners of two adjacent lots with their respective urban lot splits.

7. No impact on protected housing. The urban lot split must not require or include the demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
a. Housing that is income-restricted for households of moderate, low, or very low income.
b. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its policy power.
c. Housing, or a lot that used to have housing, that has been withdrawn from rental or lease under the Ellis Act (Gov’t. Code §§ 7060 through 7060.7) at any time in the 15 years prior to submission of the urban lot split application.
d. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.

The applicant and the owner of a property for which an urban lot split is sought must provide a sworn statement as to this fact with the application for the parcel map. The city may conduct its own inquiries and investigation to ascertain the veracity of the sworn statement including, but not limited to, surveying owners of nearby properties; and the city may require additional evidence of the applicant and owner as necessary to determine compliance with this requirement.

8. Lot size.
a. The lot to be split must be at least 2,400 square feet. b. The resulting lots must each be at least 1,200 square feet. c. Each of the resulting lots must be between 60 percent and 40 percent of the original lot area.

9. Easements.
a. The owner, if required, must enter into an easement agreement with each public-service provider to establish easements that are sufficient for the provision of public services and facilities to each of the resulting lots.
b. Each easement must be shown on the tentative parcel map. c. Copies of the unrecorded easement agreements must be submitted with the application. The easement agreements must be recorded against the property before the final map may be approved, in accordance with subsection D.2 of this section.
d. If an easement is recorded and the project is not completed, making the easement moot, the property owner may request, and the city will provide, a notice of termination of the easement, which the owner may record.

10. Lot access.

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 6 a. Each resulting lot must have access, to, or adjoinor be adjacent to, the public right-of-way, that satisfies the objective provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and emergency access provisions of the Contra Costa County Fire Department Standards.

11. Dwelling unit standards.
a. Quantity. No more than two dwelling units of any kind may be built on a lot that results from an urban lot split. For purposes of this subsection, “dwelling unit” means any dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, a primary dwelling unit, a dwelling unit created under PHMC § 18.20.105, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), or a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU). See below:
b. Dwelling unit size.
i. The dwelling units developed on a lot resulting from an urban lot split must conform to the objective development standards that are imposed through the corresponding zone based on the resulting gross lot area (Schedule 18.20.030; Minimum Lot Area) and as outlined in subsections c.-f. of this section.
ii. If a resulting urban lot split size is in between the minimum lot size of two corresponding zones, the default zoning will be the smaller of the two single-family residential zoning districts.
iii. Any lot resulting from an urban lot split with a resulting site area less than 6,000 square feet shall be subject to the standards of the R-6 zoning district.
iv. The minimum size of each primary dwelling unit is 500 square feet and the objective development standards may only be enforced to the extent that they do not prevent two 800-square-foot primary dwelling units on a lot.
iv.v. Any required enclosed parking space is not calculated as part of the dwelling unit size.
“units” on each new

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 7 c. Height restrictions. The height of each primary dwelling unit that is developed on a resulting lot must conform to the objective height requirement that is imposed through the underlying zone (Schedule 18.20.030; Maximum Building Height (feet)). The height and story standards are only enforced to the extent that they do not prevent two 800-square-foot primary dwelling units on the lot. Additionally:
i. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c)(ii) below, no primary dwelling unit that is developed on a resulting lot may exceed one story or 16 feet in height.
ii. If a primary dwelling unit on the lot complies with the setback standards set forth in Section 18.20.030, then the height of a primary dwelling unit may exceed 16 feet, up to the objective height limit that is imposed through the
underlying zone (Schedule 18.20.030; Maximum Building
Height (feet)). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no primary dwelling unit may exceed two stories.
ii.iii. Maximum height shall be measured from existing or finished grade, whichever is lower, to the peak of the
structure., and not exceed two stories..
iii.iv. Any portion of a new primary dwelling unit that exceeds one story under (c)(ii) above must be stepped back by an additional five feet from the ground floor.
iv.v. No balcony, deck, or other portion of the second story may project into the stepped back portion of the primary
dwelling unit.
v.vi. No rooftop deck is permitted on any new or remodeled dwelling unit or structure on a lot resulting from an urban lot split.
d. Lot coverage. Lot coverage must conform to the objective lot coverage requirements that are imposed through the corresponding zone (Schedule 18.20.030; Maximum Lot Coverage). This lot coverage standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot measuring 800 square feet each.
e. Floor area ratio. Floor area ratio (FAR) must conform to the objective FAR requirements that are imposed through the corresponding zone. This FAR standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot measuring 800 square feet each.
f. Setbacks.
i. Generally. All setbacks must conform to those objective setbacks that are imposed through the corresponding zone (Schedule 18.20.030; Minimum Yards).
ii. Exceptions. Notwithstanding subsection E.11.f of this section:

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 8 (A) Existing structures. No setback is required for an existing legally established structure or for a new structure that is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legally established structure. (B) Eight hundred square feet; four-foot side and rear. The setbacks imposed by the underlying zone must yield to the degree necessary to avoid physically precluding the
construction of up to two units on the lot or either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area; but in no event may any structure be less than four feet from a side or rear property line.
g. Parking. Each new primary dwelling unit that is built on a lot after an urban lot split must have at least one off-street, covered and enclosed parking space per primary dwelling unit unless one of the following applies:
i. The lot is located within one-half mile walking distance of either:
(A) A corridor with fixed route bus service with
service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours; or
(B) A site that contains:
(1) An existing rail or bus rapid transit
station,
(2) A ferry terminal served by either a bus or
rail transit service, or
(3) The intersection of two or more major
bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15
minutes or less during the morning and afternoon
peak commute periods.
ii. The site is located within one block of a car-share vehicle location.
ii.iii. If the construction of both a primary dwelling unit measuring 800 square feet or less in floor area and the required enclosed parking space would causes a
development on the lot to exceed the objective lot coverage requirement of the underlying zone, then the unit’s offstreet parking space must be unenclosed. h. Design standards. All new primary dwelling units that are developed on a lot resulting from an urban lot split must conform to the objective design standards outlined in the City of Pleasant Hill’s “City Wide Design Guidelines and Objective Design Standards” (18.20.040.K). The objective design standards are only enforced to the extent that they do not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot measuring 800 square feet each.

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 9 i. Nonconforming conditions. An urban lot split may be approved without requiring a legal nonconforming zoning condition to be corrected.
j. Utilities.
i. Each primary dwelling unit on the resulting lots must have its own direct utility connection to the utility service provider.
ii. Each primary dwelling unit on the resulting lots that is or that is proposed to be connected to a non-site wastewater treatment system must first have a percolation test
completed within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years.
k. Building and safety. All structures built on the lot must comply with all current local building standards. An urban lot split is a change of use.
l. Fire safety. All structures built on the lot must comply with all current fire safety measures required by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.

12. Separate conveyance.
a. Within a resulting lot.
i. Primary dwelling units on a lot that is created by an urban lot split may not be owned or conveyed separately from
each other.
ii. Condominium airspace divisions and common interest
developments are not permitted on a lot that is created by an urban lot split.
iii. All fee interest in a lot and all dwellings on the lot must be held equally and undivided by all individual property
owners.
b. Between resulting lots. Separate conveyance of the resulting lots is permitted. If dwellings or other structures (such as garages) on different lots are adjacent or attached to each other, the urban lot split boundary may separate them for conveyance purposes if the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. If any attached structures span or will span the new lot line, the owner must record appropriate CC&Rs, easements, or other documentation that is necessary to allocate rights and responsibility between the owners of the two lots.

13. Stormwater and stormwater runoff. The development must comply with the following standards:
a. Compliance with California’s Stormwater C.3 requirements b. The development shall not contribute any net addition to stormwater runoff. A Stormwater Plan is required to demonstrate compliance and shall include the following:

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 10 i. Stormwater calculations

1. Establish the Total Disturbed Area (TDA): TDA =
New Impervious area [sf] + Replaced Impervious
area [sf]

2. Calculate Storage Requirement: Storage
Requirement = 0.28 [gal/sf] * TDA
ii. Identify means of storage from the following (a
combination of different types is acceptable). Storage
retention devices must meet total increased storage
requirement:

1. Rain barrels

2. Detention ditches

3. Underground storage tanks

14. Regulation of uses.
a. Residential only. No nonresidential use is permitted on any lot created by urban lot split.
b. No Short Term Rentals (STRs). No dwelling unit on a lot that is created by an urban lot split may be rented for a period of less than 30 days.
c. Owner occupancy. The applicant for an urban lot split must sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the dwelling units on one of the resulting lots as the applicant’s principal residence for a minimum of three years after the urban lot split is approved.

15. Deed restriction. The owner must record a deed restriction, on each lot that results from the urban lot split, on a form approved by the city, that does each of the following:
a. Expressly prohibits any rental of any dwelling on the property for a period of less than 30 days.
b. Expressly prohibits any nonresidential use of the lots created by the urban lot split.
c. Expressly prohibits any separate conveyance of a primary dwelling on the property, any separate fee interest, and any common interest development within the lot.
d. Limits development of the lot to residential standards that comply with the requirements of this section, except as required by state law.

F. Specific adverse impacts.

1. Notwithstanding anything else in this section, the city may deny an application for an urban lot split if the building official makes a written finding, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a “specific adverse impact” on either public health and safety or on the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact.

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 11 2. “Specific adverse impact” has the same meaning as in Gov’t. Code § 65589.5(d)(2): “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete” and does not include (a) inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation or (b) the eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under Revenue and Taxation Code section 214(g).

3. The building official may consult with and be assisted by planning staff and others as necessary in making a finding of specific adverse impact. (Ord. 951 § 2, 2021) Section 3. The City Council adopts amendments to the City’s Municipal Code, by amending Section 18.20.105, with the following language to read in full as follows:
“Section 18.20.105 Two-unit Projects
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to allow and appropriately regulate two-unit projects in accordance with Government Code section 65852.21.

B. Definition. A “two-unit project” means the development of two primary dwelling units or, if there is already a primary dwelling unit on the lot, the development of a second primary dwelling unit on a legally subdivided lot in accordance with the requirements of this section.

C. Application.

1. Only individual property owners may apply for a two-unit project. “Individual property owner” means a natural person holding fee title individually or jointly in the person’s own name or a beneficiary of a trust that holds fee title. “Individual property owner” does not include any corporation or corporate person of any kind (partnership, LP, LLC, C corp, S corp, etc.) except for a community land trust (as defined by Rev. and Tax Code § 402.1(a)(11)(C)(ii)) or a qualified nonprofit corporation (as defined by Rev. and Tax Code § 214.15).

2. An application for a two-unit project must be submitted on the city’s approved form.

3. The applicant must obtain a certificate of compliance with the Subdivision Map Act for the lot and provide the certificate with the application.

4. Only a complete application will be considered. The city will inform the applicant in writing of any incompleteness within 30 days after the application is submitted.

5. The city may establish a fee to recover its costs for adopting, implementing, and enforcing this section of the code, in accordance with applicable law. The city council may establish and change the fee by resolution. The fee must be paid with the application.

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 12 D. Approval.

1. An application for a two-unit project is approved or denied ministerially, by the building official, without discretionary review.

2. The ministerial approval of a two-unit project does not take effect until the city has confirmed that the required documents have been recorded, such as the deed restriction and easements.

3. The approval must require the owner and applicant to hold the city harmless from all claims and damages related to the approval and its subject matter.

4. The approval must require the owner and applicant to reimburse the city for all costs of enforcement, including attorneys’ fees and costs associated with enforcing the requirements of this code.

E. Requirements. A two-unit project must satisfy each of the following requirements:

1. Map Act compliance. The lot must have been legally subdivided.

2. Zone. The lot is in a single-family residential zone. For purposes of this section, a single-family residential zone is a zone where the only residential use that is allowed as a primary use is a single residential dwelling on a lot (R-20, R-15, R-10, R-10A, R7, R-6, and appropriate PUDs).

3. Lot location.
a.The lot is not located on a site that is any of the following:
i. Prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or land that is zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by the voters.
ii. A wetland.
iii. Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, unless the site complies with all fire-hazard mitigation measures required by existing building standards.
iv. A hazardous waste site that has not been cleared for residential use. v. Within a delineated earthquake fault zone, unless all development on the site complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards.

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 13 vi. Within a 100-year flood hazard area, unless the site has either:
(A) Been subject to a letter of map revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to the local jurisdiction; or
(B) Meets Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements necessary to meet minimum floodplain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program.
vii. Within a regulatory floodway, unless all development on the site has received a no-rise certification.
viii. Land identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan, habitat conservation plan, or other adopted natural resource protection plan.
ix. Habitat for protected species.
x. Land under conservation easement.
b.The purpose of subsection E.3.a of this section is merely to summarize the requirements of Government Code sections 65913.4(a)(6)(B) through (K). (See Gov’t. Code § 66411.7(a)(3)(C).)

4. Not historic. The lot must not be a historic property or within a historic district that is included on the State Historic Resources Inventory. Nor may the lot be or be within a site that is designated by ordinance as a city or county landmark or as a historic property or district.

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 14 must provide a sworn statement as to this fact with the application for the parcel map. The city may conduct its own inquiries and investigation to ascertain the veracity of the sworn statement including, but not limited to, surveying owners of nearby properties; and the city may require additional evidence of the applicant and owner as necessary to determine compliance with this requirement.

6. Dwelling unit Standards.
a. Quantity.
i. No more than two dwelling units of any kind may be built on a lot that results from an urban lot split. For purposes of this subsection, “dwelling unit” means any dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, a primary dwelling unit, a unit created under this section of this code, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), or a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU).
ii. A lot that is not created by an urban lot split may have a two-unit project under this section, plus any ADU or JADU that must be allowed under state law and the city’s ADU ordinance.

See examples below:
dwellings detached
ADU associated w/

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 15 b. Dwelling unit size.
i. The dwelling units must conform to the objective development standards that are imposed through the existing zone and as outlined in subsections c-g of this section.
ii. Any lot with a gross floor area less than 6,000 square feet shall be subject to the standards of the R-6 zoning district.
iii. The minimum size of each primary dwelling unit is 500 square feet. The objective development standards may only be enforced to the extent that they do not prevent two 800-square-foot primary dwelling units on a lot.
iii.iv. Any required enclosed parking space is not calculated as part of the dwelling unit size
c. Height restrictions. The height of each primary dwelling unit that is developed on a lot must conform to the objective height requirement that is imposed through the corresponding zone (Schedule 18.20.030; Maximum Building Height (feet)). The height and story standards are only enforced to the extent that they do not prevent two 800-square-foot primary dwelling units on the lot. Additionally:
i. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c)(ii) below, no primary dwelling unit that is developed on the lot may exceed one story or 16 feet in height.
ii. If a primary dwelling unit on the lot complies with the setback standards set forth in Section 18.20.030, then the height of a converted ADU; and

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 16 primary dwelling may exceed 16 feet, up to the objective height limit that is imposed through the corresponding zone (Schedule

18.20.030; Maximum Building Height (feet)). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no primary dwelling unit may exceed two stories. i.iii. Maximum height shall be measured from existing or finished grade, whichever is lower, to the peak of the structure. , and not exceed two stories.
ii.iv. Any portion of a new primary dwelling unit that exceeds one story under subsection (c)(ii) above must be stepped back by an additional five feet from the ground floor.
iii.v. No balcony, deck, or other portion of the second story may project into the stepped back area of the dwelling.
vi. No rooftop deck is permitted on any new or remodeled dwelling unit or structure for a two-unit project.
d. Demolition cap. The two-unit project may not involve the demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior walls of an existing dwelling unless the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. e. Lot coverage. Lot coverage must conform to the objective lot coverage requirements that are imposed through the underlying zone (Schedule

18.20.030; Maximum Lot Coverage). This lot coverage standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot measuring 800 square feet each.
f. Floor area ratio. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) must conform to the objective FAR requirements that are imposed through the underlying zone (Schedule 18.20.030; Maximum Floor Area Ratio). This floor area ratio standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot measuring 800 square feet each. g. Setbacks.
i. Generally. All setbacks must conform to those objective setbacks that are imposed through the underlying zone (Schedule 18.20.030; Minimum Yards).
ii. Exceptions. Notwithstanding subsection E.6.g of this section:
(A) Existing structures. No setback is required for an existing legally established structure or for a new structure that is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legally established structure.

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 17 (B) Eight hundred square feet; four-foot side and rear. The setbacks imposed by the underlying zone must yield to the degree necessary to avoid physically precluding the construction of up to two units on the lot or either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area; but in no event may any structure be less than four feet from a side or rear property line.
h. Parking. Each new primary dwelling unit must have at least one off-street, covered and enclosed parking space parking space per primary dwelling unit unless one of the following applies:
i. The lot is located within one-half mile walking distance of either (A) a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours or
(B) a site that contains
(1) an existing rail or bus rapid transit station,
(2) a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or
(3) the intersection of two or more major bus routes
with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes
or less during the morning and afternoon peak
commute periods.
ii. The site is located within one block of a car-share vehicle location. ii.iii. If construction of both a primary dwelling unit measuring 800 square feet or less in floor area and the required enclosed parking space would cause development on the lot to exceed the objective lot coverage requirement of the underlying zone, then the unit’s off-street parking space must be unenclosed.
i. Design standards for two-unit projects, attached or detached dwelling units. Each new primary dwelling unit that is developed on a lot must conform to the objective design standards outlined in the City of Pleasant Hill’s “City Wide Design Guidelines and Objective Design Standards” (18.20.040.K). The objective design standards are only enforced to the extent they do not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot measuring 800 square feet each.
j. Nonconforming conditions. A two-unit project may only be approved if all nonconforming zoning conditions are corrected.

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 18 k. Utilities.
i. Each primary dwelling unit on the lot must have its own direct utility connection to the utility service provider.
ii. Each primary dwelling unit on the lot that is or that is proposed to be connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system must first have a percolation test completed within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years. l. Building and safety. All structures built on the lot must comply with all current local building standards. A project under this section is a change of use and subjects the whole of the lot, and all structures, to the city’s current code.
m. Fire safety. All structures built on the lot must comply with all current fire safety measured required by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.

7. Separate conveyance.
a. Primary dwelling units on the lot may not be owned or conveyed separately from each other.
b. Condominium airspace divisions and common interest developments are not permitted within the lot.
c. All fee interest in the lot and all the dwellings must be held equally and undivided by all individual property owners.

8. Stormwater and stormwater runoff. The development must comply with the following standards:
a.Compliance with California’s Stormwater C.3 requirements b.The development shall not contribute any net addition to stormwater runoff.

A Stormwater Plan is required to demonstrate compliance and shall include the following:
i. Stormwater calculations

1. Establish the Total Disturbed Area (TDA): TDA = New
Impervious area [sf] + Replaced Impervious area [sf]

2. Calculate Storage Requirement: Storage Requirement = 0.28 [gal/sf] * TDA
ii. Select means of storage from the following (a combination of different types is acceptable). Storage retention devices must meet total increased storage requirement:

1. Rain barrels

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 19 2. Detention ditches

3. Underground storage tanks

9. Regulation of uses.
a. Residential only. No non-residential use is permitted on the lot. b. No short term rentals (STRs). No dwelling unit on the lot may be rented for a period of less than 30 days.
c. Owner Occupancy. Unless the lot was formed by an urban lot split, the individual property owners of a lot with a two-unit project must occupy one of the dwellings on the lot as the owners’ principal residence and legal domicile.

10. Deed restriction. The owner must record a deed restriction for a two-unit project on a form approved by the city, that does each of the following:
a. Expressly prohibits any rental of any dwelling unit on the property for a period of less than 30 days.
b. Expressly prohibits any non-residential use of the lot. c. Expressly prohibits any separate conveyance of a primary dwelling on the property, any separate fee interest, and any common interest development within the lot.
d. If the lot is not created by an urban lot split: Expressly requires the individual property owners to live in one of the dwelling units on the lot as the owners’ primary residence and legal domicile.
e. States that:
i. The site is a two-unit project and is therefore subject to the city’s two-unit regulations, including all applicable limits on dwelling size and development.
ii. Development on the lot is limited to development of residential units under this section of this code, except as required by state law.

F. Specific adverse impacts.

1. Notwithstanding anything else in this section, the city may deny an application for a two-unit project if the building official makes a written finding, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a “specific, adverse impact” on either public health and safety or on the physical environment and for

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 20 which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact.

2. “Specific adverse impact” has the same meaning as in Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2): “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete” and does not include (1) inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation or (2) the eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under Revenue and Taxation Code section 214(g).

3. The building official may consult with and be assisted by planning staff and others as necessary in making a finding of specific, adverse impact.

G. Remedies. If a two-unit project violates any part of this code or any other legal requirement:

1. The buyer, grantee, or lessee of any part of the property has an action for damages or to void the deed, sale, or contract.

2. The city may:
a. Bring an action to enjoin any attempt to sell, lease, or finance the property. b. Bring an action for other legal, equitable, or summary remedy, such as declaratory and injunctive relief.
c. Pursue criminal prosecution, punishable by imprisonment in county jail or state prison for up to one year, by a fine of up to $10,000, or both; or a misdemeanor.
d. Record a notice of violation.
e. Withhold any or all future permits and approvals.
f. Pursue all other administrative, legal, or equitable remedies that are allowed by law or the city’s code.

Section 4. This ordinance is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:

1. Community Development Goal 1 – Preserve and enhance residential neighborhoods.

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 21 ensure that new development will be compatible with, and enhance, the City’s residential neighborhoods while providing an opportunity for more housing.

2. Housing Element Goal 2 – Encourage a variety of housing.

The proposed amendments will allow for urban lot splits and two-unit developments on a single parcel within single-family residential zoning districts, which varies from the traditional single-family residential development pattern, as required by SB 9.

3. Housing Element Goal 5- Increase opportunities to develop safe, sanitary and decent housing.

The proposed amendments will allow increased opportunities for safe, sanitary and decent housing on existing lots in single-family residential zones by allowing for urban lot splits and two-unit developments, that would otherwise not result in increased housing under current single-family residential provisions.

Section 5. If any section, subsection, phrase, or clause of this article is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council would have passed this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.”
Section 6. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its adoption.

Section 7. Within fifteen days after the passage of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause it to be posted in the four places designated by resolution of the City Council.

The foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill held on the 3rd day of October, 2022. [Signatures on Following Page]

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 22 ADOPTED and ordered posted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill, held on the __ day of __, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment A_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) ORDINANCE NO. ___

Section 1. The City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this ordinance may have a significant effect on the

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 2 environment, as the proposed activity (ordinance amendment) is exempt because it will not have a significant effect on the environment and does not directly approve any physical development.

Section 2. The City Council adopts amendments to the City’s Municipal Code, by amending Section 18.20.097, with the following language to read in full as follows:

18.20.097 Urban lot splits.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to allow and appropriately regulate urban lot splits in accordance with Government Code section 66411.7.

B. Definition. An “urban lot split” means the subdivision of an existing, legally subdivided lot into two lots in accordance with the requirements of this section.

C. Application.

D. Approval.

1. An application for a parcel map for an urban lot split is approved or denied ministerially, by the building official, without discretionary review.

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 3 demonstrates that the required documents have been recorded, such as the deed restriction and easements. The tentative parcel map expires six months after approval.

3. The approval must require the owner and applicant to hold the city harmless from all claims and damages related to the approval and its subject matter.

4. The approval must require the owner and applicant to reimburse the city for all costs of enforcement, including attorneys’ fees and costs associated with enforcing the requirements of this code.

E. Requirements. An urban lot split must satisfy each of the following requirements:

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 4 4. Lot location.
a. The lot to be split is not located on a site that is any of the following:
i. Prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or land that is zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by the voters.
ii. A wetland.
iii. Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, unless the site complies with all fire-hazard mitigation measures required by existing fire and building standards.
iv. A hazardous waste site that has not been cleared for residential use.
v. Within a delineated earthquake fault zone, unless all development on the site complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards.
vi. Within a 100-year flood hazard area, unless the site has either:
(A) Been subject to a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to
the local jurisdiction; or
(B) Meets Federal Emergency Management Agency
requirements necessary to meet minimum floodplain
management criteria of the National Flood Insurance
Program.
vii. Within a regulatory floodway, unless all development on the site has received a no-rise certification.
viii. Land identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan, habitat conservation plan, or other adopted natural resource protection plan. ix. Habitat for protected species.
x. Land under conservation easement.
b. The purpose of subsection E.4.a of this section is merely to summarize the requirements of Government Code sections 65913.4(a)(6)(B) through (K). (See Gov’t. Code § 66411.7(a)(3)(C).)

5. Not historic. The lot to be split must not be a historic property or within a historic district that is included on the State Historic Resources Inventory.

Nor may the lot be or be within a site that is designated by ordinance as a city or county landmark or as a historic property or district.

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 5 coordinates or assists the owners of two adjacent lots with their respective urban lot splits.

10. Lot access.

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 6 a. Each resulting lot must have access, or be adjacent to the public right-of-way, that satisfies the objective provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and emergency access provisions of the Contra Costa County Fire Department Standards.

11. Dwelling unit standards.
a. Quantity. No more than two dwelling units of any kind may be built on a lot that results from an urban lot split. For purposes of this subsection, “dwelling unit” means any dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, a primary dwelling unit, a dwelling unit created under PHMC § 18.20.105, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), or a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU). See below:
b. Dwelling unit size.
i. The dwelling units developed on a lot resulting from an urban lot split must conform to the objective development standards that are imposed through the corresponding zone based on the resulting gross lot area (Schedule 18.20.030; Minimum Lot Area) and as outlined in subsections c.-f. of this section.
ii. If a resulting urban lot split size is in between the minimum lot size of two corresponding zones, the default zoning will be the smaller of the two single-family residential zoning districts.
iii. Any lot resulting from an urban lot split with a resulting site area less than 6,000 square feet shall be subject to the standards of the R-6 zoning district.
iv. The minimum size of each primary dwelling unit is 500 square feet and the objective development standards may only be enforced to the extent that they do not prevent two 800-square-foot primary dwelling units on a lot.
v. Any required enclosed parking space is not calculated as part of the dwelling unit size.
“units” on each new

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 7 c. Height restrictions.
i. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c)(ii) below, no primary dwelling unit that is developed on a resulting lot may exceed one story or 16 feet in height.
ii. If a primary dwelling unit on the lot complies with the setback standards set forth in Section 18.20.030, then the height of a primary dwelling unit may exceed 16 feet, up to the objective height limit that is imposed through the
underlying zone (Schedule 18.20.030; Maximum Building
Height (feet)). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no primary dwelling unit may exceed two stories.
iii. Maximum height shall be measured from existing or
finished grade, whichever is lower, to the peak of the
structure.
iv. Any portion of a new primary dwelling unit that exceeds one story under (c)(ii) above must be stepped back by an additional five feet from the ground floor.
v. No balcony, deck, or other portion of the second story may project into the stepped back portion of the primary
dwelling unit.
vi. No rooftop deck is permitted on any new or remodeled dwelling unit or structure on a lot resulting from an urban lot split.
d. Lot coverage. Lot coverage must conform to the objective lot coverage requirements that are imposed through the corresponding zone (Schedule 18.20.030; Maximum Lot Coverage). This lot coverage standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot measuring 800 square feet each.
e. Floor area ratio. Floor area ratio (FAR) must conform to the objective FAR requirements that are imposed through the corresponding zone. This FAR standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot measuring 800 square feet each.
f. Setbacks.
i. Generally. All setbacks must conform to those objective setbacks that are imposed through the corresponding zone (Schedule 18.20.030; Minimum Yards).
ii. Exceptions. Notwithstanding subsection E.11.f of this section:
(A) Existing structures. No setback is required for an
existing legally established structure or for a new structure that is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legally established structure.

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 8 (B) Eight hundred square feet; four-foot side and rear. The setbacks imposed by the underlying zone must yield to the degree necessary to avoid physically precluding the
construction of up to two units on the lot or either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area; but in no event may any structure be less than four feet from a side or rear property line.
g. Parking. Each new primary dwelling unit that is built on a lot after an urban lot split must have at least one off-street, covered and enclosed parking space per primary dwelling unit unless one of the following applies:
i. The lot is located within one-half mile walking distance of either:
(A) A corridor with fixed route bus service with
service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours; or
(B) A site that contains:
(1) An existing rail or bus rapid transit
station,
(2) A ferry terminal served by either a bus or
rail transit service, or
(3) The intersection of two or more major
bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15
minutes or less during the morning and afternoon
peak commute periods.
ii. The site is located within one block of a car-share vehicle location.
iii. If the construction of both a primary dwelling unit measuring 800 square feet or less in floor area and the required enclosed parking space would cause development on the lot to exceed the objective lot coverage requirement of the underlying zone, then the unit’s off-street parking space must be unenclosed.
h. Design standards. All new primary dwelling units that are developed on a lot resulting from an urban lot split must conform to the objective design standards outlined in the City of Pleasant Hill’s “City Wide Design Guidelines and Objective Design Standards” (18.20.040.K). The objective design standards are only enforced to the extent that they do not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot measuring 800 square feet each. i. Nonconforming conditions. An urban lot split may be approved without requiring a legal nonconforming zoning condition to be corrected.
j. Utilities.

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 9 i. Each primary dwelling unit on the resulting lots must have its own direct utility connection to the utility service provider.
ii. Each primary dwelling unit on the resulting lots that is or that is proposed to be connected to a non-site wastewater treatment system must first have a percolation test
completed within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years.
k. Building and safety. All structures built on the lot must comply with all current local building standards. An urban lot split is a change of use.
l. Fire safety. All structures built on the lot must comply with all current fire safety measures required by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.

1. Establish the Total Disturbed Area (TDA): TDA =
New Impervious area [sf] + Replaced Impervious
area [sf]

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 10 2. Calculate Storage Requirement: Storage
Requirement = 0.28 [gal/sf] * TDA
ii. Identify means of storage from the following (a
combination of different types is acceptable). Storage
retention devices must meet total increased storage
requirement:

1. Rain barrels

2. Detention ditches

3. Underground storage tanks

F. Specific adverse impacts.

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 11 inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation or (b) the eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under Revenue and Taxation Code section 214(g).

C. Application.

2. An application for a two-unit project must be submitted on the city’s approved form.

3. The applicant must obtain a certificate of compliance with the Subdivision Map Act for the lot and provide the certificate with the application.

4. Only a complete application will be considered. The city will inform the applicant in writing of any incompleteness within 30 days after the application is submitted.

D. Approval.

1. An application for a two-unit project is approved or denied ministerially, by the building official, without discretionary review.

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 12 2. The ministerial approval of a two-unit project does not take effect until the city has confirmed that the required documents have been recorded, such as the deed restriction and easements.

3. The approval must require the owner and applicant to hold the city harmless from all claims and damages related to the approval and its subject matter.

4. The approval must require the owner and applicant to reimburse the city for all costs of enforcement, including attorneys’ fees and costs associated with enforcing the requirements of this code.

E. Requirements. A two-unit project must satisfy each of the following requirements:

1. Map Act compliance. The lot must have been legally subdivided.

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 13 (B) Meets Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements necessary to meet minimum floodplain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program.
vii. Within a regulatory floodway, unless all development on the site has received a no-rise certification.
viii. Land identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan, habitat conservation plan, or other adopted natural resource protection plan.
ix. Habitat for protected species.
x. Land under conservation easement.
b.The purpose of subsection E.3.a of this section is merely to summarize the requirements of Government Code sections 65913.4(a)(6)(B) through (K). (See Gov’t. Code § 66411.7(a)(3)(C).)

5. No impact on protected housing. The two-unit project must not require or include the demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
a.Housing that is income-restricted for households of moderate, low, or very low income.
b.Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
c.Housing, or a lot that used to have housing, that has been withdrawn from rental or lease under the Ellis Act (Gov’t. Code §§ 7060 through 7060.7) at any time in the 15 years prior to submission of the urban lot split application. d.Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. The applicant and the owner of a property for which a two-unit project is sought must provide a sworn statement as to this fact with the application for the parcel map. The city may conduct its own inquiries and investigation to ascertain the veracity of the sworn statement including, but not limited to, surveying owners of nearby properties; and the city may require additional evidence of the applicant and owner as necessary to determine compliance with this requirement.

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 14 6. Dwelling unit Standards.
a. Quantity.
i. No more than two dwelling units of any kind may be built on a lot that results from an urban lot split. For purposes of this subsection, “dwelling unit” means any dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, a primary dwelling unit, a unit created under this section of this code, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), or a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU).
ii. A lot that is not created by an urban lot split may have a two-unit project under this section, plus any ADU or JADU that must be allowed under state law and the city’s ADU ordinance.

See examples below:
dwellings detached
ADU associated w/

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 15 b. Dwelling unit size.
i. The dwelling units must conform to the objective development standards that are imposed through the existing zone and as outlined in subsections c-g of this section.
ii. Any lot with a gross floor area less than 6,000 square feet shall be subject to the standards of the R-6 zoning district.
iii. The minimum size of each primary dwelling unit is 500 square feet. The objective development standards may only be enforced to the extent that they do not prevent two 800-square-foot primary dwelling units on a lot.
iv. Any required enclosed parking space is not calculated as part of the dwelling unit size
c. Height restrictions.
i. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c)(ii) below, no primary dwelling unit that is developed on the lot may exceed one story or 16 feet in height.
ii. If a primary dwelling unit on the lot complies with the setback standards set forth in Section 18.20.030, then the height of a primary dwelling may exceed 16 feet, up to the objective height limit that is imposed through the corresponding zone (Schedule

18.20.030; Maximum Building Height (feet)). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no primary dwelling unit may exceed two stories. converted ADU; and

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 16 iii. Maximum height shall be measured from existing or finished grade, whichever is lower, to the peak of the structure. iv. Any portion of a new primary dwelling unit that exceeds one story under subsection (c)(ii) above must be stepped back by an additional five feet from the ground floor.
v. No balcony, deck, or other portion of the second story may project into the stepped back area of the dwelling.
vi. No rooftop deck is permitted on any new or remodeled dwelling unit or structure for a two-unit project.
d. Demolition cap. The two-unit project may not involve the demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior walls of an existing dwelling unless the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. e. Lot coverage. Lot coverage must conform to the objective lot coverage requirements that are imposed through the underlying zone (Schedule

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 17 h. Parking. Each new primary dwelling unit must have at least one off-street, covered and enclosed parking space parking space per primary dwelling unit unless one of the following applies:
i. The lot is located within one-half mile walking distance of either (A) a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours or
(B) a site that contains
(1) an existing rail or bus rapid transit station,
(2) a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or
(3) the intersection of two or more major bus routes
with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes
or less during the morning and afternoon peak
commute periods.
ii. The site is located within one block of a car-share vehicle location. iii. If construction of both a primary dwelling unit measuring 800 square feet or less in floor area and the required enclosed parking space would cause development on the lot to exceed the objective lot coverage requirement of the underlying zone, then the unit’s off-street parking space must be unenclosed.
i. Design standards for two-unit projects, attached or detached dwelling units. Each new primary dwelling unit that is developed on a lot must conform to the objective design standards outlined in the City of Pleasant Hill’s “City Wide Design Guidelines and Objective Design Standards” (18.20.040.K). The objective design standards are only enforced to the extent they do not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot measuring 800 square feet each.
j. Nonconforming conditions. A two-unit project may only be approved if all nonconforming zoning conditions are corrected.
k. Utilities.
i. Each primary dwelling unit on the lot must have its own direct utility connection to the utility service provider.
ii. Each primary dwelling unit on the lot that is or that is proposed to be connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system must first

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 18 have a percolation test completed within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years. l. Building and safety. All structures built on the lot must comply with all current local building standards. A project under this section is a change of use and subjects the whole of the lot, and all structures, to the city’s current code.
m. Fire safety. All structures built on the lot must comply with all current fire safety measured required by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.

A Stormwater Plan is required to demonstrate compliance and shall include the following:
i. Stormwater calculations

1. Establish the Total Disturbed Area (TDA): TDA = New
Impervious area [sf] + Replaced Impervious area [sf]

1. Rain barrels

2. Detention ditches

3. Underground storage tanks

9. Regulation of uses.
a. Residential only. No non-residential use is permitted on the lot.

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 19 b. No short term rentals (STRs). No dwelling unit on the lot may be rented for a period of less than 30 days.
c. Owner Occupancy. Unless the lot was formed by an urban lot split, the individual property owners of a lot with a two-unit project must occupy one of the dwellings on the lot as the owners’ principal residence and legal domicile.

F. Specific adverse impacts.

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 20 use designation or (2) the eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under Revenue and Taxation Code section 214(g).

3. The building official may consult with and be assisted by planning staff and others as necessary in making a finding of specific, adverse impact.

G. Remedies. If a two-unit project violates any part of this code or any other legal requirement:

1. The buyer, grantee, or lessee of any part of the property has an action for damages or to void the deed, sale, or contract.

Section 4. This ordinance is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:

1. Community Development Goal 1 – Preserve and enhance residential neighborhoods.

The proposed amendments will establish objective development standards applicable to all urban lot split and two-unit projects in all single-family residential districts, pursuant to state law. These developments will be subject to a ministerial review and thus, the establishment of objective standards will ensure that new development will be compatible with, and enhance, the City’s residential neighborhoods while providing an opportunity for more housing.

2. Housing Element Goal 2 – Encourage a variety of housing.

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 21 3. Housing Element Goal 5- Increase opportunities to develop safe, sanitary and decent housing.

Section 7. Within fifteen days after the passage of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause it to be posted in the four places designated by resolution of the City Council.

The foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill held on the 3rd day of October, 2022. [Signatures on Following Page]

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 22 ADOPTED and ordered posted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill, held on the __ day of __, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

9.3.b
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment B_Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - clean (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) ORDINANCE NO. ___

18.20.097 (Urban Lot Splits) and 18.20.105 (Two-Unit Projects) to establish permanent regulations related to urban lot splits and two-unit projects; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a study session on May 24, 2022, to discuss several topics to assist Staff in drafting the permanent ordinance components; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing was noticed and held by the Planning Commission on June 28, 2022, and continued to the July 12, 2022 meeting date regarding the proposed ordinance amendment at which time all interested parties were invited to provide comments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 12, 2022, and adopted Resolution No. 14-22 recommending the City Council adopt amendments to Municipal Code Sections 18.20.097 (Urban Lot Splits) and 18.20.105 (Two-Unit Projects); and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing on the proposed ordinance was noticed and held by the City Council on September 12, 2022, where all interested persons might appear and be heard.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill does ordain as follows:

Section 1. The City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment, as the proposed activity (ordinance amendment) is exempt because it will not have

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 2 a significant effect on the environment and does not directly approve any physical development.

Section 2. The City Council adopts amendments to the City’s Municipal Code, by amending Section 18.20.097, with the following language to read in full as follows:

18.20.097 Urban lot splits.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to allow and appropriately regulate urban lot splits in accordance with Government Code section 66411.7.

B. Definition. An “urban lot split” means the subdivision of an existing, legally subdivided lot into two lots in accordance with the requirements of this section.

C. Application.

D. Approval.

1. An application for a parcel map for an urban lot split is approved or denied ministerially, by the building official, without discretionary review.

2. A tentative parcel map for an urban lot split is approved ministerially if it complies with all the requirements of this section. The tentative parcel map may not be recorded. A final parcel map is approved ministerially as well, but not until the owner demonstrates that the required documents have been recorded, such as the deed restriction and easements. The tentative parcel map expires six months after approval.

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 3 3. The approval must require the owner and applicant to hold the city harmless from all claims and damages related to the approval and its subject matter.

4. The approval must require the owner and applicant to reimburse the city for all costs of enforcement, including attorneys’ fees and costs associated with enforcing the requirements of this code.

E. Requirements. An urban lot split must satisfy each of the following requirements:

2.3.Zone. The lot to be split is designated as a standard single-family residential zone. For purposes of this section, a single-family residential zone is a zone where the only residential use that is allowed as a primary use is a single residential dwelling on a lot (R-20, R-15, R-10, R-10A, R7, R-6, and appropriate PUDs).

3.4.Lot location.
a. The lot to be split is not located on a site that is any of the following:

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 4 i. Prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or land that is zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by the voters.
ii. A wetland.
iii. Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, unless the site complies with all fire-hazard mitigation measures required by existing fire and building standards.
iv. A hazardous waste site that has not been cleared for residential use.
v. Within a delineated earthquake fault zone, unless all development on the site complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards.
vi. Within a 100-year flood hazard area, unless the site has either:
(A) Been subject to a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to
the local jurisdiction; or
(B) Meets Federal Emergency Management Agency
requirements necessary to meet minimum floodplain
management criteria of the National Flood Insurance
Program.
vii. Within a regulatory floodway, unless all development on the site has received a no-rise certification.
viii. Land identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan, habitat conservation plan, or other adopted natural resource protection plan. ix. Habitat for protected species.
x. Land under conservation easement.
b. The purpose of subsection E.34.a of this section is merely to summarize the requirements of Government Code sections 65913.4(a)(6)(B) through (K). (See Gov’t. Code § 66411.7(a)(3)(C).)

4.5.Not historic. The lot to be split must not be a historic property or within a historic district that is included on the State Historic Resources Inventory.

Nor may the lot be or be within a site that is designated by ordinance as a city or county landmark or as a historic property or district.

5.6.No prior urban lot split.
a. The lot to be split was not established through a prior urban lot split.
b. The lot to be split is not adjacent to any lot that was established through a prior urban lot split by the owner of the lot to be split or by any person acting in concert with the owner. Any person acting “in concert” with the owner here includes any third party that coordinates or assists the owners of two adjacent lots with their respective urban lot splits.

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 5 6.7.No impact on protected housing. The urban lot split must not require or include the demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
a. Housing that is income-restricted for households of moderate, low, or very low income.
b. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its policy power.
c. Housing, or a lot that used to have housing, that has been withdrawn from rental or lease under the Ellis Act (Gov’t. Code §§ 7060 through 7060.7) at any time in the 15 years prior to submission of the urban lot split application.
d. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.

7.8.Lot size.
a. The lot to be split must be at least 2,400 square feet. b. The resulting lots must each be at least 1,200 square feet. c. Each of the resulting lots must be between 60 percent and 40 percent of the original lot area.

8.9.Easements.
a. The owner, if required, must enter into an easement agreement with each public-service provider to establish easements that are sufficient for the provision of public services and facilities to each of the resulting lots.
b. Each easement must be shown on the tentative parcel map. c. Copies of the unrecorded easement agreements must be submitted with the application. The easement agreements must be recorded against the property before the final map may be approved, in accordance with subsection D.2 of this section.
d. If an easement is recorded and the project is not completed, making the easement moot, the property owner may request, and the city will provide, a notice of termination of the easement, which the owner may record.

9.10. Lot access.
a. Each resulting lot must have access to, or adjoin the public rightof-way.

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 6 b. Each resulting lot must have frontage on the public right-of-way of at least 20 feet.

10.11. Dwelling uUnit standards.
a. Quantity. No more than two dwelling units of any kind may be built on a lot that results from an urban lot split. For purposes of this subsection, “dwelling unit” means any dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, a primary dwelling unit, a unit dwelling unit created under PHMC § 18.20.105, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), or a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU).

See below:
b. Dwelling uUnit size.
i. The dwelling units developed on a lot resulting from an urban lot split must conform to the objective development standards that are imposed through the corresponding zone based on the resulting gross lot area (Schedule 18.20.030; Minimum Lot Area) and as outlined in subsections c.-f. of this section.
ii. If a resulting urban lot split size is in between the minimum lot size of two corresponding zones, the default zoning will be the smaller of the two single-family residential zoning districts.
iii. Any lot resulting from an urban lot split with a resulting site area less than 6,000 square feet shall be subject to the standards of the R-6 zoning district.
i.iv. The minimum size of each primary dwelling unit is 500 square feet and the objective development standards may only be enforced to the extent that they do not prevent two, 800 -square -foot primary dwelling units on a lot.
ii. The total floor area of each primary dwelling that is developed on a resulting lot must be:
“units” on each new

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 7 (A) Less than or equal to 800 square feet; and
(B) More than 500 square feet.
iii. A primary dwelling that was legally established prior to the urban lot split and that is larger than 800 square feet is limited to the lawful floor area at the time of the urban lot split. It may not be expanded.
iv. iii. A primary dwelling that was legally established prior to the urban lot split and that is smaller than 800 square feet may be expanded to 800 square feet after the urban lot split. c. Height restrictions. The height of each primary dwelling unit that is developed on a resulting lot must conform to the objective height requirement that is imposed through the underlying zone (Schedule 18.20.030; Maximum Building Height (feet)). The height and story standards are only enforced to the extent that they do not prevent two, 800 -square- foot primary dwelling units on the lot. Additionally:
i. Maximum height shall be measured from existing or
finished grade, whichever is lower, to the peak of the
structure, and not exceed two stories.
ii. Any portion of a new primary dwelling unit that exceeds one story must be stepped back by an additional five feet from the ground floor.
iii. No balcony, deck, or other portion of the second story may project into the stepped back portion of the primary
dwelling unit.
v.iv. No rooftop deck is permitted on any new or remodeled dwelling unit or structure on a lot resulting from an urban lot split.
vi. On a resulting lot that is larger than 2,000 square feet, no new primary dwelling unit may exceed a single story or 16 feet in height, measured from existing or finished grade, whichever is lower, to peak of the structure.
vii. On a resulting lot that is smaller than 2,000 square feet, no new primary dwelling unit may exceed two stories or 22
feet in height, measured from existing or finished grade, whichever is lower, to peak of the structure. Any portion of a new primary dwelling that exceeds one story must be
stepped back by an additional five feet from the ground floor; no balcony deck or other portion of the second story may project into the stepback.
viii. iii. No rooftop deck is permitted on any new or remodeled dwelling or structure on a lot resulting from an urban lot split.
b.d.Lot coverage. Lot coverage must conform to the objective lot coverage requirements that are imposed through the underlying corresponding zone (Schedule 18.20.030; Maximum Lot

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 8 Coverage). This lot coverage standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot at measuring 800 square feet each.
c.e.Floor area ratio. Floor area ratio (FAR) must conform to the objective FAR requirements that are imposed through the underlying corresponding zone. This floor area ratioFAR standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot at measuring 800 square feet each. d.f. Setbacks.
i. Generally. All setbacks must conform to those objective setbacks that are imposed through the underlying
corresponding zone (Schedule 18.20.030; Minimum
Yards).
ii. Exceptions. Notwithstanding subsection E.1011.e f of this section:
(A) Existing structures. No setback is required for an
existing legally established structure or for a new structure that is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legally established structure. (B) Eight hundred square feet; four-foot side and rear. The setbacks imposed by the underlying zone must yield to the degree necessary to avoid physically precluding the
construction of up to two units on the lot or either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area; but in no event may any structure be less than four feet from a side or rear property line.
e.g.Parking. Each new primary dwelling unit that is built on a lot after an urban lot split must have at least one off-street, covered and enclosed parking space per primary dwelling unit unless one of the following applies:
i. The lot is located within one-half mile walking distance of either:
(A) A corridor with fixed route bus service with
service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours; or
(B) A site that contains:
(1) An existing rail or bus rapid transit
station,
(2) A ferry terminal served by either a bus or
rail transit service, or
(3) The intersection of two or more major
bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15
minutes or less during the morning and afternoon
peak commute periods.

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 9 ii. The site is located within one block of a car-share vehicle location.
f.h. Design standards. All new primary dwelling units that are developed on a lot resulting from an urban lot split must conform to the objective design standards outlined in the City of Pleasant Hill’s “City Wide Design Guidelines and Objective Design Standards” (18.20.040.K). The following objective design standards are only enforced to the extent that they do not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot measuring 800 square feet each.:
i. Site planning.
(A) Site placement.
(1) Projects with two or more structures
shall be staggered with a minimum two-foot
variation measured from the front setback with the
intent of providing a varied street elevation, such
that front setbacks of adjacent homes and garages
differ by a minimum of two feet and a maximum of
six feet.
(2) Front-loaded garages shall be recessed a
minimum of four feet from the front wall plane of
the residence’s habitable space.
(B) Site development.
(1) Residences shall have a front entry sited
from parallel to within 45 degrees of parallel, to the
street.
(2) Front entries shall include a covered
projection (porch) with a minimum area of 20
square feet and a maximum of 100 square feet, as
measured from the supporting elements. Porches
may be a combination of projection and recess but
shall not be completely recessed within the building
footprint. At minimum, the entry doorway shall be
covered within one foot of either side of the door
and three feet of the face. A porch may encroach a
maximum of 20 percent into the front setback.
(3) Vehicle charging facilities shall be
housed within a garage, or not visible from view
from any adjacent property or public right-of-way
or easement, by a fence or landscaping.
(C) Utility and service areas.
(1) Above-ground utilities, transformers, and
other mechanical equipment placed between the
front or street side of a residence and a public street

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 10 or vehicular or pedestrian accessway shall not be
visible from view from any adjacent property or
public right-of-way or easement through the use of
a fence, wall, or landscaping.
(2) Excluding solar panels, roof-mounted
equipment shall be hidden from view from the
public street behind roof peaks or parapets.
(3) Utility and mechanical equipment shall
not obstruct pedestrian pathways.
ii. Scale and mass. Structures shall be vertically (height) and horizontally (depth) articulated along the front elevations.

Vertical articulations shall include a change in total height of a minimum of two feet, or a change in roof pitch or
form, or the inclusion of a gable or dormer, and such
articulation shall occur at intervals of a maximum of 15 feet. Horizontal articulations shall include a change of wall plane by a minimum depth of two feet at intervals of a
maximum of 20 feet.
iii. Building architecture and appearance.
(A) Architectural appearance.
(1) Second floor balconies shall not be
positioned along any side elevation within 20 feet of
the adjacent property line.
(2) All facades of the structure shall include
at least two of the following architectural details:
(a) Porches, decks, and/or balconies
with railings.
(b) Building materials such as
masonry, tile, shingle, or other materials
other than stucco that add decorative or
textural qualities to the building.
(c) Accessories that may include, but
not be limited to:
(i) Pot shelfs;
(ii) Landscape trellises;
(iii) Decorative accent tiles;
(iv) Wood grain texture finish false
shutter;
(v) Gable end vents and corbels; or
(vi) Window awnings.
(3) Variation in wall planes by incorporating
a projected feature such as a bay window or other
projected feature with a minimum depth of four
inches.
(4) Decorative trim that projects a minimum
of three-quarters of an inch from the wall plane.

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 11 (5) If used, shutters shall be sized to cover
100 to 105 percent of the window and match the
exact window shape.
(B) Materials.
(1) Accessory structures shall be constructed
of the same materials, colors, and roof type as the
primary structure.
(2) Windows shall be recessed by a
minimum of two inches from the wall plane or shall
include wood, metal, or engineered wood trim with
a minimum width of three inches and minimum
depth of three-quarters of an inch.
(3) Single-family subdivisions with two or
three units shall provide a minimum of two color
schemes. Single-family subdivisions with more than
three residential structures shall provide a minimum
of three color schemes and shall not use a single
color scheme on more than 40 percent of the
residential structures. Structures shall incorporate a
color scheme that contains a maximum of four
distinct colors per building. A color scheme is
defined as body one and/or body two, trim, and a
contrasting accent color. Adjacent structures shall
not use the same color scheme.
iv. Landscaping.
(A) New development shall plant a minimum of one
drought tolerant tree along the street frontage. Trees shall be a minimum box size of 24 inches at the time of planting. (B) The front yard shall not exceed a maximum of
50 percent of pavement or hardscape.
(C) A minimum of 50 percent of the front yard area
shall be landscaped with live plantings consistent with zoning ordinance provisions (PHMC § 18.20.040.H).
(D) Runoff shall be detained on site prior to
discharging to any creek or storm drain facility. Outfalls shall be used to discharge water to creeks.
(E) All areas not occupied by structures or
pavement shall be landscaped. Landscaped areas shall
consist of plantings, lawn/turf, mulch, or bark. Artificial turf may be used if it and its substrate is permeable and has a minimum pile height of one and one-quarter inches.
v. Fences and walls.
(A) Walls and fences shall not be placed in the
street frontage(s) in hillside areas (with a project site greater than an average of 15 percent slope) and along
scenic corridors.

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 12 (B) Front yard fence pickets shall be separated by a minimum width equivalent to 50 percent of the width of the picket.
(C) Chain-link fences are prohibited.
vi. Lighting. All entryways, porch areas, pedestrian pathways, and gates shall include lighting for safety and security.

Lighting shall be fully shielded, directed downward (not above the horizontal plane), and shall not spill onto
adjacent properties. Light fixtures shall be a maximum of eight feet from the ground plane. Lighting shall use light emitting diodes (LEDs) with a maximum temperature of
3,000 kelvins. Second floor accent lighting is prohibited. A photometric plan shall be provided to show compliance.
g.i. Nonconforming conditions. An urban lot split may be approved without requiring a legal nonconforming zoning condition to be corrected.
h.j. Utilities.
i. Each primary dwelling unit on the resulting lots must have its own direct utility connection to the utility service provider.
ii. Each primary dwelling unit on the resulting lots that is or that is proposed to be connected to a non-site wastewater treatment system must first have a percolation test
completed within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years.
i.k. Building and safety. All structures built on the lot must comply with all current local building standards. An urban lot split is a change of use.
j.l. Fire safety. All structures built on the lot must comply with all current fire safety measures required by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.

11.12. Separate conveyance.
a. Within a resulting lot.
i. Primary dwelling units on a lot that is created by an urban lot split may not be owned or conveyed separately from
each other.
ii. Condominium airspace divisions and common interest
developments are not permitted on a lot that is created by an urban lot split.
iii. All fee interest in a lot and all dwellings on the lot must be held equally and undivided by all individual property
owners.
b. Between resulting lots. Separate conveyance of the resulting lots is permitted. If dwellings or other structures (such as garages) on different lots are adjacent or attached to each other, the urban lot

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 13 split boundary may separate them for conveyance purposes if the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. If any attached structures span or will span the new lot line, the owner must record appropriate CC&Rs, easements, or other documentation that is necessary to allocate rights and responsibility between the owners of the two lots.

1. Establish the Total Disturbed Area (TDA): TDA =
New Impervious area [sf] + Replaced Impervious
area [sf]

1. Rain barrels

2. Detention ditches

3. Underground storage tanks

12.14. Regulation of uses.
a. Residential only. No nonresidential use is permitted on any lot created by urban lot split.
b. No Short Term Rentals (STRs). No dwelling unit on a lot that is created by an urban lot split may be rented for a period of less than 30 days.
c. Owner occupancy. The applicant for an urban lot split must sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the dwelling units on one of the resulting lots as the applicant’s principal residence for a minimum of three years after the urban lot split is approved.

13.15. Deed restriction. The owner must record a deed restriction, on each lot that results from the urban lot split, on a form approved by the city, that does each of the following:
a. Expressly prohibits any rental of any dwelling on the property for a period of less than 30 days.
b. Expressly prohibits any nonresidential use of the lots created by the urban lot split.

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 14 c. Expressly prohibits any separate conveyance of a primary dwelling on the property, any separate fee interest, and any common interest development within the lot.
d. Limits development of the lot to residential standards that comply with the requirements of this section, except as required by state law.

F. Specific adverse impacts.

2. “Specific adverse impact” has the same meaning as in Gov’t. Code § 65589.5(d)(2): “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete” and does not include (a) inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation or (b) the eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under Revenue and Taxation Code section 214(g).

C. Application.

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 15 2. An application for a two-unit project must be submitted on the city’s approved form.

3. The applicant must obtain a certificate of compliance with the Subdivision Map Act for the lot and provide the certificate with the application.

4. Only a complete application will be considered. The city will inform the applicant in writing of any incompleteness within 30 days after the application is submitted.

D. Approval.

1. An application for a two-unit project is approved or denied ministerially, by the building official, without discretionary review.

2. The ministerial approval of a two-unit project does not take effect until the city has confirmed that the required documents have been recorded, such as the deed restriction and easements.

3. The approval must require the owner and applicant to hold the city harmless from all claims and damages related to the approval and its subject matter.

4. The approval must require the owner and applicant to reimburse the city for all costs of enforcement, including attorneys’ fees and costs associated with enforcing the requirements of this code.

E. Requirements. A two-unit project must satisfy each of the following requirements:

1. Map Act compliance. The lot must have been legally subdivided.

3. Lot location.
a.The lot is not located on a site that is any of the following:

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 16 i. Prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or land that is zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by the voters.
ii. A wetland.
iii. Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, unless the site complies with all fire-hazard mitigation measures required by existing building standards.
iv. A hazardous waste site that has not been cleared for residential use. v. Within a delineated earthquake fault zone, unless all development on the site complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards.
vi. Within a 100-year flood hazard area, unless the site has either:
(A) Been subject to a letter of map revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to the local jurisdiction; or
(B) Meets Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements necessary to meet minimum floodplain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program.
vii. Within a regulatory floodway, unless all development on the site has received a no-rise certification.
viii. Land identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan, habitat conservation plan, or other adopted natural resource protection plan.
ix. Habitat for protected species.
x. Land under conservation easement.
b.The purpose of subsection E.3.a of this section is merely to summarize the requirements of Government Code sections 65913.4(a)(6)(B) through (K). (See Gov’t. Code § 66411.7(a)(3)(C).)

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 17 5. No impact on protected housing. The two-unit project must not require or include the demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
a.Housing that is income-restricted for households of moderate, low, or very low income.
b.Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
c.Housing, or a lot that used to have housing, that has been withdrawn from rental or lease under the Ellis Act (Gov’t. Code §§ 7060 through 7060.7) at any time in the 15 years prior to submission of the urban lot split application. d.Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. The applicant and the owner of a property for which a two-unit project is sought must provide a sworn statement as to this fact with the application for the parcel map. The city may conduct its own inquiries and investigation to ascertain the veracity of the sworn statement including, but not limited to, surveying owners of nearby properties; and the city may require additional evidence of the applicant and owner as necessary to determine compliance with this requirement.

6. Dwelling uUnit Standards.
a. Quantity.
i. No more than two dwelling units of any kind may be built on a lot that results from an urban lot split. For purposes of this subsection, “dwelling unit” means any dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, a primary dwelling unit, a unit created under this section of this code, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), or a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU).
ii. A lot that is not created by an urban lot split may have a two-unit project under this section, plus any ADU or JADU that must be allowed under state law and the city’s ADU ordinance.

See examples below:

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 18 b. Dwelling uUnit size.
i. The dwelling units must conform to the objective development standards that are imposed through the existing zone and as outlined in subsections c-g of this section.
ii. Any lot with a gross floor area less than 6,000 square feet shall be subject to the standards of the R-6 zoning district.
i.iii. The minimum size of each primary dwelling unit is 500 square feet. The objective development standards may only be enforced to the extent that they do not prevent two, 800 -square -foot primary dwelling units on a lot.
dwellings detached
ADU associated w/
converted ADU; and

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 19 i. The total floor area of each primary dwelling built that is developed under this section must be:
(A) Less than or equal to 800 square feet; and
(B) More than 500 square feet.
ii. A primary dwelling that was legally established on the lot prior to the two-unit project and that is larger than 800 square feet is limited to the lawful floor area at the time of the two-unit project.

The unit may not be expanded.
iii. A primary dwelling that was legally established prior to the twounit project and that is smaller than 800 square feet may be expanded to 800 square feet after or as part of the two-unit project. c. Height restrictions. The height of each primary dwelling unit that is developed on a lot must conform to the objective height requirement that is imposed through the corresponding zone (Schedule 18.20.030; Maximum Building Height (feet)). The height and story standards are only enforced to the extent that they do not prevent two, 800- square -foot primary dwelling units on the lot. Additionally:
i. Maximum height shall be measured from existing or finished grade, whichever is lower, to the peak of the structure, and not exceed two stories.
ii. Any portion of a new primary dwelling unit that exceeds one story must be stepped back by an additional five feet from the ground floor.
iii. No balcony, deck, or other portion of the second story may project into the stepped back area of the dwelling.
ii. No rooftop deck is permitted on any new or remodeled dwelling unit or structure for a two-unit project.
iii. On a lot that is larger than 2,000 square feet, no new primary dwelling unit may exceed a single story or 16 feet in height, measured from existing for finished grade, whichever is lower, to peak of the structure.
iv. On a lot that is smaller than 2,000 square feet, no new primary dwelling unit may exceed two stories or 22 feet in height, measured from existing for finished grade, whichever is lower, to peak of the structure. Any portion of a new primary dwelling that exceeds one story must be stepped back by an additional five feet

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 20 from the ground floor; no balcony deck or other portion of the second story may project into the stepback.
v.iv. No rooftop deck is permitted on any new or remodeled dwelling or structure on a lot with a two-unit project.
c.d. Demolition cap. The two-unit project may not involve the demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior walls of an existing dwelling unless the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. d.e. Lot coverage. Lot coverage must conform to the objective lot coverage requirements that are imposed through the underlying zone (Schedule

18.20.030; Maximum Lot Coverage). This lot coverage standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot at measuring 800 square feet each.
e.f. Floor area ratio. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) must conform to the objective FAR requirements that are imposed through the underlying zone (Schedule 18.20.030; Maximum Floor Area Ratio). This floor area ratio standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot at measuring 800 square feet each. f.g. Setbacks.
i. Generally. All setbacks must conform to those objective setbacks that are imposed through the underlying zone (Schedule 18.20.030; Minimum Yards).
ii. Exceptions. Notwithstanding subsection E.6.f g of this section:
(A) Existing structures. No setback is required for an existing legally established structure or for a new structure that is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legally established structure.
(B) Eight hundred square feet; four-foot side and rear. The setbacks imposed by the underlying zone must yield to the degree necessary to avoid physically precluding the construction of up to two units on the lot or either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area; but in no event may any structure be less than four feet from a side or rear property line.
g.h. Parking. Each new primary dwelling unit must have at least one off-street, covered and enclosed parking space parking space per unit unless one of the following applies:
i. The lot is located within one-half mile walking distance of either

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 21 (A) a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours or
(B) a site that contains
(1) an existing rail or bus rapid transit station,
(2) a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or
(3) the intersection of two or more major bus routes
with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes
or less during the morning and afternoon peak
commute periods.
ii. The site is located within one block of a car-share vehicle location. h.i. Design standards for two-unit projects, attached or detached dwelling units. Each new primary dwelling unit that is developed on a lot must conform to the objective design standards outlined in the City of Pleasant Hill’s “City Wide Design Guidelines and Objective Design Standards” (18.20.040.K). The following objective design standards are only enforced to the extent they do not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot at measuring 800 square feet each.
i. Site Planning
(A) Site Placement.
(1) Projects with two or more structures shall be
staggered with a minimum two-foot variation
measured from the front setback with the intent of
providing a varied street elevation so that front
setbacks of adjacent homes and garages differ by a
minimum of two feet and a maximum of six feet.
(2) Front-loaded garages shall be recessed a minimum
of four feet from the front wall plane of the
residence habitable space.
(B) Site Development.
(1) Residences shall have a front entry sited from
parallel to within 45 degrees of parallel, to the
street.

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 22 (2) Front entries shall include a covered projection (porch) with a minimum area of 20 square feet and
a maximum of 100 square feet, as measured from
the supporting elements. Porches may be a
combination of projection and recess but shall not
be completely recessed within the building
footprint. At minimum, the entry doorway shall be
covered within one foot of either side of the door
and three feet of the face. A porch may encroach a
maximum of 20 percent into the front setback.
(3) Vehicle charging facilities shall be housed within a garage, or not visible from view from any adjacent
property or public right-of-way or easement,
screened from view from the street by a fence or
landscaping.
(C) Utility and Service Areas.
(1) Above-ground utilities, transformers, and other
mechanical equipment placed between the front or
street side of a residence and a public street or
vehicular or pedestrian accessway, shall not be
visible from view from any adjacent property or
public right-of-way or easement through the use of
fence, wall, or landscaping.
(2) Excluding solar panels, roof-mounted equipment
shall be hidden from view from the public street
behind roof peaks or parapets.
(3) Utility and mechanical equipment shall not obstruct pedestrian pathways.
ii. Scale and Mass
(A) Structures shall be vertically (height) and horizontally (depth) articulated along the front elevations. Vertical articulations shall include a change in total height of a minimum of two feet, or a change in roof pitch or form, or the inclusion of a gable or dormer, and such articulation shall occur at intervals of a maximum of 15 feet. Horizontal articulations shall include a change of wall plane by a minimum depth of two feet at intervals of a maximum of
20 feet.
iii. Building Architecture and Appearance

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 23 (A) Architectural Appearance.
(1) Second floor balconies shall not be positioned along any side elevation within 20 feet of the adjacent
property line.
(2) All facades of the structure shall include at least two of the following architectural details:
(a) Porches, decks, and/or balconies with
railings.
(b) Building materials such as masonry, tile,
shingle, or other materials other than stucco
that add decorative or textural qualities to the
building.
(c) Accessories that may include, but not be
limited to:
(i) Pot shelfs;
(ii) Landscape trellises;
(iii)Decorative accent tiles;
(iv)Wood grain texture finish false
shutter;
(v) Gable end vents and corbels; or
(vi)Window Awnings.
(3) Variation in wall plains by incorporating a projected feature such as a bay window or other projected
feature with a minimum depth of four inches.
(4) Decorative trim that projects a minimum of threequarters of an inch from the wall plane. (5) If used, shutters shall be sized to cover 100 to 105 percent of the window and match the exact window
shape.
(B) Materials.
(1) Accessory structures shall be constructed of the
same materials, colors, roof type as the primary
structure.

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 24 (2) Windows shall be recessed by a minimum of two
inches from the wall plane or shall include wood,
metal, or engineered wood trim with a minimum
width of three inches and minimum depth of threequarters of an inch. (3) Single family subdivisions with two or three units
shall provide a minimum of two-color schemes.

Single family subdivisions with more than three
residential structures shall provide a minimum of
three-color schemes and shall not use a single-color
scheme on more than 40 percent of the residential
structures. Structures shall incorporate a color
scheme that contains a maximum of four distinct
colors per building. A color scheme is defined as
(body one and/or body two, trim, and a contrasting
accent color). Adjacent structures shall not use the
same color scheme.
iv. Landscaping
(A) New development shall plant a minimum of one drought tolerant tree along the street frontage. Trees shall be a minimum box size of 24 inches at the time of planting.
(B) The front yard shall not exceed a maximum of 50 percent of pavement or hardscape.
(C) A minimum of 50 percent of the front yard area shall be landscaped with live plantings consistent with Zoning
Ordinance provisions (PHMC Section 18.20.040.H).
(D) Runoff shall be detained on-site prior to discharging to any creek or storm drain facility. Outfalls shall be used to discharge water to creeks.
(E) All areas not occupied by structures or pavement shall be landscaped. Landscaped areas shall consist of plantings, lawn/turf, mulch, or bark. Artificial turf may be used if it and its substrate is permeable and has a minimum pile
height of 1.25 inches.
v. Fences and Walls
(A) Walls and fences shall not be placed in the street
frontage(s) in hillside areas (with a project site greater than an average of 15 percent slope) and along scenic corridors.

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 25 (B) Front yard fence pickets shall be separated by a minimum width equivalent to 50 percent of the width of the picket. (C) Chain-link fences are prohibited.
vi. Lighting. All entryways, porch areas, pedestrian pathways, and gates shall include lighting for safety and security. Lighting shall be fully shielded, directed downward (not above the horizontal plane), and shall not spill onto adjacent properties. Light fixtures shall be a maximum of eight feet from the ground plane. Lighting shall use light emitting diodes (LEDs) with a maximum
temperature of 3000 kelvins. Second floor accent lighting is prohibited. A photometric plan shall be provided to show compliance.
j. Design standards for attached units. The following standards is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot at 800 square feet each
i. Site Planning
(A) Site Placement.
(1) Structures shall be sited from parallel to within 45 degrees of parallel, to the street.
(2) Corner structures that face two public streets shall include entries that are sited from parallel within 45
degrees of parallel, to each street.
(3) All entries facing a public street shall have a
pedestrian pathway that connects to the public
sidewalk or a public street.
(4) All public property that fronts a project shall be
improved to current Public Works standards and
specifications. Projects shall install and dedicate
street improvements including, but not limited to:
curb and gutter, sidewalk, driveway aprons, street
paving, storm drainage facilities, sewer and water,
fire protection, undergrounding of utilities and
street lighting.
k. Scale and Mass
i. Structures shall be vertically and horizontally articulated along all facades that face or will be visible from a public street. Horizontal articulations, including change in total height of a minimum of two

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 26 feet, change in roof pitch or form, or inclusion of a gable or dormer, shall occur at intervals of a maximum of 20 feet. ii. Second floor balconies shall not be positioned along any side elevation within 10 feet of an adjacent multifamily property line or within 20 feet of an adjacent single-family property line. iii. Vertical articulations shall include a change in wall plane by a minimum depth of two feet at a maximum interval of 30 feet, incorporating a projection or recess with a minimum width of two feet and a minimum height of eight feet and a minimum depth of two feet, or stepping back the floors above the ground floor by a minimum of two feet.
l. Architecture & Appearance
i. Windows located on upper floors within 15 feet of an adjacent structure shall utilize one or more of the following techniques to minimize privacy impacts on adjacent properties and/or structures:
(A) Use clerestory windows located at a minimum height of 5 feet measured from the finished floor;
(B) Use of non-transparent or frosted glazing;
(C) Installation of permanent architectural screens or louvers in front of windows; and/or
(D) Position the window so that it is not in line or directly face a window on an adjacent structure.
ii. For structures of four or more stories, upper and lower stories shall be distinguished by incorporating one or more of the following features
(A) Incorporate a change in wall material in addition to a change in wall plane of at least one inch in depth at the transition between the two materials.
(B) Treat the ground floor with materials such as stone, concrete, or other similar masonry or cementitious
materials that are distinct from the remainder of the
structure.
(C) Set back the top floor(s) of the structure a minimum of 5 feet from the remainder of the building façade.

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 27 (D) Incorporate a horizontal feature such as a bellyband or belt course.
iii. Trim surrounds with a minimum depth of three-quarters of an inch shall be provided on all exterior window and door openings. In lieu of window trim, windows shall be recessed from the wall plane by a minimum of two inches.
m. Landscaping
i. Pedestrian pathways, hardscapes, front setbacks, and parking areas shall be shaded with minimum 24-inch box drought-tolerant shade trees at intervals of a maximum of 30 feet. A minimum of 50 percent of the trees selected shall be of deciduous variety. ii. All areas not occupied by structures or pavement shall be landscaped. Landscaped areas shall consist of plantings, lawn/turf, mulch, or bark. Artificial turf may be used if it and its substrate is permeable and has a minimum pile height of 1.25 inches. iii. Trees shall be planted along the street frontage at intervals of a maximum of 30 feet and a minimum of 50 percent shall be of deciduous variety. A deciduous tree shall be provided in the rear yard or along a side yard to the west of the primary structure. Trees shall be a minimum box size of 24 inches at the time of planting. iv. A maximum of 25 percent of the front yard area shall be paved or hardscaped.
v. Landscaping shall be protected from vehicular and pedestrian encroachment through the use of curbs and raised planting surfaces with a minimum height of six inches.
vi. Runoff shall be detained on-site prior to discharging to any creek or storm drain facility. Outfalls shall be used to discharge water to creeks.
vii. Development adjacent to creeks shall position structures along setbacks opposite the creek setback, so that open yard areas, rather than structures, are positioned along creek setbacks.
viii. Creek stabilization shall incorporate soil bio-engineering and plant-based methods.
n. Fences and Walls
i. Front yard fence pickets shall be separated by a minimum width equivalent to 50 percent of the width of the picket.

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 28 ii. Fences and walls visible from the public street shall incorporate vertical elements with a minimum width of four inches at intervals of no more than six feet.
iii. Walls and fences shall not be placed in the street frontage in hillside areas (with a project site greater than an average of 15 percent slope) and along scenic corridors.
iv. Chain-link fences are prohibited.
o. Lighting
i. All entryways, porch areas, pedestrian pathways, parking areas, and gates shall include lighting for safety and security. Lighting shall be fully shielded, directed downward (not above the horizontal plane), and shall not spill onto adjacent properties.

Lighting shall use light emitting diodes (LEDs) with a maximum temperature of 3000 kelvins and shall be consistent with the maximum allowed foot-candle levels cited in Subsection

18.55.140(b) of the Zoning Ordinance. A photometric plan shall be provided to show compliance.
ii. Light fixtures shall be a maximum of eight feet from the ground plane in pedestrian areas and 12 feet in parking areas. Upper floor accent lighting is prohibited.
p. Service Facilities and Utilities
i. Front yard fence pickets shall be separated by a minimum width equivalent to 50 percent of the width of the picket. Trash, recycling, and organic waste bins and dumpsters (trash containers) shall be housed within covered refuse enclosures with a metal gate or door(s) that latch shut. Wooden refuse enclosures that house trash containers are prohibited. Refuse enclosures shall be painted the same colors as a residential structure within the development.

Refuse enclosures shall screen trash containers on all four sides to the full height of the container, consistent with PHMC Section

18.50.070 and shall occupy an area that is a minimum of 150 percent of the sum of the waste bins.
ii. Refuse enclosures are prohibited in the required front setbacks and shall be screened from view from any adjacent property or public right-of-way or easement through the use of a fence or landscaping with a minimum height of six feet.
iii. Above-ground utilities, transformers, and other mechanical equipment placed between the front or street side of a structure and a public street or vehicular or pedestrian accessway, shall be

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 29 screened from view from any adjacent property or public right-ofway or easement by a fence, wall, or landscaping. iv. Excluding solar panels, roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden from view from the public street behind roof peaks or parapets. v. Utility and mechanical equipment shall not obstruct pedestrian pathways.
q.j. Nonconforming conditions. A two-unit project may only be approved if all nonconforming zoning conditions are corrected.
r.k. Utilities.
i. Each primary dwelling unit on the lot must have its own direct utility connection to the utility service provider.
ii. Each primary dwelling unit on the lot that is or that is proposed to be connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system must first have a percolation test completed within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years. s.l. Building and safety. All structures built on the lot must comply with all current local building standards. A project under this section is a change of use and subjects the whole of the lot, and all structures, to the city’s current code.
t.m. Fire safety. All structures built on the lot must comply with all current fire safety measured required by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.

8. Stormwater and stormwater runoff. The development must comply with the following standards:
a.Compliance with California’s Stormwater C.3 requirements

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 30 b.The development shall not contribute any net addition to stormwater runoff.

A Stormwater Plan is required to demonstrate compliance and shall include the following:
i. Stormwater calculations

1. Establish the Total Disturbed Area (TDA): TDA = New
Impervious area [sf] + Replaced Impervious area [sf]

1. Rain barrels

2. Detention ditches

3. Underground storage tanks

8.9.Regulation of uses.
a. Residential only. No non-residential use is permitted on the lot. b. No short term rentals (STRs). No dwelling unit on the lot may be rented for a period of less than 30 days.
c. Owner Occupancy. Unless the lot was formed by an urban lot split, the individual property owners of a lot with a two-unit project must occupy one of the dwellings on the lot as the owners’ principal residence and legal domicile.

9.10. Deed restriction. The owner must record a deed restriction for a two-unit project, on each lot that results from the urban lot split, on a form approved by the city, that does each of the following:
a. Expressly prohibits any rental of any dwelling unit on the property for a period of less than 30 days.
b. Expressly prohibits any non-residential use of the lot. c. Expressly prohibits any separate conveyance of a primary dwelling on the property, any separate fee interest, and any common interest development within the lot.
d. If the lot is not created by an urban lot split: Expressly requires the individual property owners to live in one of the dwelling units on the lot as the owners’ primary residence and legal domicile.
e. States that:

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 31 i. The site is a two-unit project lot is formed by an urban lot split and is therefore subject to the city’s two-unit urban lot split regulations, including all applicable limits on dwelling size and development. ii. Development on the lot is limited to development of residential units under this section of this code, except as required by state law.

F. Specific adverse impacts.

3. The building official may consult with and be assisted by planning staff and others as necessary in making a finding of specific, adverse impact.

G. Remedies. If a two-unit project violates any part of this code or any other legal requirement:

1. The buyer, grantee, or lessee of any part of the property has an action for damages or to void the deed, sale, or contract.

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 32 f. Pursue all other administrative, legal, or equitable remedies that are allowed by law or the city’s code.

Section 4. This ordinance is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:

1. Community Development Goal 1 – Preserve and enhance residential neighborhoods.

The proposed amendments will establish objective development standards applicable to all urban lot split and two-unit projects in all single- family residential districts, pursuant to state law. These developments will be subject to a ministerial review and thus, the establishment of objective standards will ensure that new development will be compatible with, and enhance, the City’s residential neighborhoods while providing an opportunity for more housing.

2. Housing Element Goal 2 – Encourage a variety of housing.

The proposed amendments will allow for urban lot splits and two-unit developments on a single parcel within single-family residential zoning districts, which varies from the traditional single- family residential development pattern, as required by SB 9.

3. Housing Element Goal 5- Increase opportunities to develop safe, sanitary and decent housing.

Section 7. Within fifteen days after the passage of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause it to be posted in the four places designated by resolution of the City Council.

The foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill held on the 12th day of September, 2022. [Signatures on Following Page]

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 33 ADOPTED and ordered posted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill, held on the __ day of __, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

9.3.c
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Attachment C_Previous Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance - strikeout (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 12, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. ___

AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS FOR URBAN LOT
SPLITS (SECTION 18.20.097) AND TWO-UNIT PROJECTS (SECTION

18.20.105) RELATED TO SENATE BILL 9 (SB 9) AND DETERMINING

THE ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA

DISCUSSION
Background
In 2021, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, several housing bills, including SB 9, the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (“HOME”) Act. SB 9 requires that the City both: (1) allow a property owner to split roughly in half any qualifying lot in a single-family residential zone, so long as resulting lots are at least 1,200 sf in area, and (2) allow a property owner to develop up to two dwelling units on any lot in a single-family residential zone. Though the HOME Act imposes only a handful of restrictions and allows local governments to impose a few more, it requires cities to approve these SB 9-qualifying projects ministerially without any discretionary review.

Property owners can utilize both of the law’s provisions, meaning that an urban lot split may be followed with a two-unit project on each of the two newly subdivided lots, which could result in four total dwellings on what was formerly one single-family residential lot — all with only ministerial approval.

The City adopted an urgency ordinance in December 2021 in response to SB 9 that implements the ministerial approval process for urban lot splits and two-unit projects with objective development standards for each (Attachment D). At the time of adoption, City staff noted that additional refinements would likely be necessary and that a permanent ordinance would be required, at which point additional modifications and refinements could be considered. These

9.3.d
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Attachment D_September 12 2022 City Council Staff Report (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) proposed modifications have been included in the Draft Ordinance as Attachment A (strikeout version) and Attachment B (clean version).

To date, the City has not yet processed any applications applicable to SB 9; however, the City has received numerous inquiries on the provisions and process.

On May 24, 2022, the Planning Commission held a Study Session and provided input to Staff on several discussion topics to assist in drafting the permanent ordinance. Those topics included: unit size; urban lot splits without street frontage; building height limits; objective design standards; and allowing repeated lot splits. The Planning Commission expressed a general desire for more flexibility in the proposed regulations, while still ensuring that impacts to utilities and stormwater were addressed.

Subsequently on July 12, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed a draft ordinance incorporating their recommendations and expressed support, and ultimately adopted Resolution No. 14-22 recommending that City Council adopt the amendments as proposed (Attachment C).

Analysis
While SB 9 sets specific limitations on the City’s ability to deny urban lot splits and two-unit developments, it does allow the City to impose certain objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards (collectively “objective development standards”) on SB 9-qualifying projects. An objective standard is a regulation that does not involve personal or subjective judgment and that is verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion (e.g., a height limit).

The analysis below is organized by specific topics, which originated from a combination of items raised by the City Council when the urgency ordinance was initially adopted, discussions with potential applicants and comments received by the Planning Commission. A copy of the proposed draft ordinance is included as Attachment A (strikeout version) and Attachment B (clean version). For clarity, Staff has also highlighted any section of the draft ordinance (Attachment A) that goes beyond the minimum requirements of SB 9.

Quantity of Units: The following requirements related to the number of units are contained in the draft ordinance and comply with SB 9 provisions.

Urban Lot Split: A lot that is created from an urban lot split may contain no more than two dwelling units of any kind, including, but not limited to, a primary dwelling unit, an ADU, or a JADU.

Two-Unit Developments: A lot that is not created by an urban lot split may contain two primary dwelling units, plus any ADU or JADU that must be allowed pursuant to state law and the City’s ADU ordinance. This results in a maximum total of four units when the primary dwelling units are detached, and a maximum total of five units when the primary dwelling units are attached.

9.3.d
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Attachment D_September 12 2022 City Council Staff Report (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) Unit Size Allowance: The current urgency ordinance establishes a maximum size of 800 square feet per dwelling unit for both urban lot split and two-unit projects – state law requires cities to approve units measuring at least 800 square feet. This would apply regardless of the size of the existing or newly created lots. The Planning Commission, having noted a desire to provide more flexibility in unit size, recommends the amended ordinance reference the underlying development regulations of the corresponding zone (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) to determine the maximum size of the dwelling units with the following clarifications:
 If an urban lot split creates a lot(s) whose size falls between the minimum lot size standards of two corresponding single-family residential zones, the default zoning applicable will be that of the conforming zoning designation (i.e., the smaller of the two zones; for example, an 8,000-foot lot conforms to the minimum lot size of the R-7 zone, but would be considered nonconforming in the R-10 zone)  Any lot resulting from an urban lot split with a resulting site area less than 6,000 square feet will be subject to the development standards of the R-6 zoning district as it is the City’s smallest single-family residential zone.
 In all circumstances, the minimum primary dwelling unit size is 800 square feet and the underlying development standards cannot physically preclude the construction of two units of at least 800 square feet in floor area.

The following examples illustrate three potential scenarios:

Scenario 1: If a lot located in the R-7 Single Family zone (7,000 square-foot lots) is subdivided into two 3,500 square-foot lots, each lot would be subject to the development standards of the R6 Zone. The R-6 Zone allows a maximum FAR of 0.40 and a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent. Under the existing zoning, the maximum permitted gross floor area on each site would be 1,400 square feet with a resulting lot coverage of 1,225 square feet. In this same example, if a two-unit project were then pursued on each newly subdivided lot, then SB 9 would require the City to allow two 800-square-foot dwelling units, for a total of 1,600 square feet of gross floor area, on each new lot. See image below:

Scenario 2: If a lot located in the R-7 Single Family zone did not undertake an urban lot split, a maximum of two primary dwelling units, plus an ADU and/or JADU could be constructed. The development would be subject to the R-7 development standards, which allow a maximum 35% lot coverage (or 2,450 square feet) and 0.40 FAR (or 2,800 gross square feet). In this scenario, the property owner may choose to construct two dwelling units larger than 800 square feet. Staff notes that, in total, the City would be required pursuant to state law to allow up to two 800-

9.3.d
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Attachment D_September 12 2022 City Council Staff Report (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) square-foot dwelling units, plus one 800- square-foot ADU, and one 500-square-foot JADU, for a total of 2,900 square feet of gross floor area. See image below:

Scenario 3: Using the same existing conditions on Scenario 2, a property owner could also choose to construct two attached primary dwelling units larger than 800 square feet each (duplex). This would change the classification of the development to multifamily, which would then require the City to allow up to two 800-square-foot-minimum primary dwelling units, plus two 800-square-foot ADUs, and at least one ADU converted from existing interior non-livable space, for a total 2,900-plus square feet of gross floor area. See image below:

Additionally, Staff advises that many lots could have a large, existing primary residence, which, per state law, may remain. In this case, the City would still be required to allow a second, 800- square-foot primary dwelling unit on the same lot as an existing single-family home.

Setback Requirements: The current urgency ordinance requires that new primary dwelling units comply with the setback standards outlined in the underlying or corresponding zone (based on the newly created lot sizes for urban lot split projects). However, the setback requirements must be reduced if they otherwise would preclude the development of up to two 800-square-foot units with a minimum of a four-foot side and rear setback. Additionally, no setback is required for an existing legally established structure or for a new structure that is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legally established structure. The proposed draft ordinance maintains the same setback requirements.

Urban Lot Splits without Street Frontage: The provisions of SB 9 require that a lot must have access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way in order to be subdivided as an urban lot split. The City’s current urgency ordinance prohibits the subdivision of lots that do not directly adjoin the public right-of-way, and requires that a lot created through an urban lot split have a minimum

9.3.d
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Attachment D_September 12 2022 City Council Staff Report (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) 20-foot-wide frontage on the public right-of-way. This provision therefore precludes lot splits on most properties without, or with minimal street frontages (e.g., double deep lots, flag lots, etc.).

The Planning Commission is recommending the draft ordinance allow more flexibility with this provision and proposes to eliminate the requirement that a lot must directly adjoin the public right-of-way and result in a 20-foot-wide frontage on that public right-of way once subdivided.

Instead, the Commission that the proposed language mirror the provisions of SB 9 and require that a lot have access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way. Additionally, access to all new lots and dwelling units must satisfy County fire and emergency access requirements.

Building Height Limits: The current urgency ordinance limits SB 9 units to a height of 16 feet, which largely results in single-story dwellings. This deviates from the City’s zoning ordinance, which limits the maximum height in all single-family residential districts to 35 feet and 2.5 stories. Allowing two stories on smaller lots results in more flexibility, and may encourage increased setbacks and open space, whereas a single-story structure will encounter coverage limitations. Staff has drafted the ordinance, and the Planning Commission recommends eliminating the height limitation of 16 feet and allowing all SB 9-qualified units to comply with the maximum height requirements of the zone (35 feet), but with a two-story maximum.

Objective Design Standards: Since the adoption of the existing Urgency Ordinance, the City adopted Objective Design Standards applicable to both single-family and multifamily developments (Attachment E). Staff recommends that the proposed ordinance reference the adopted Objective Design Standards, to the extent applicable. Any units developed under the provisions of this ordinance would be subject to the following previously adopted code sections, as referenced in Attachments A and B:
o Section 18.20.040.K – Citywide Objective Design Standards: All single-family residential and multifamily residential development shall comply with Objective Design Standards, as adopted by City Council Resolution.

1. Streamlined Residential Projects. If a proposed residential development project qualifies for streamlined permit review, as determined by State law, the zoning administrator shall review the proposed project to verify compliance with the Objective Design Standards applicable to such projects.

Proposed residential development projects that comply with all Objective Design Standards shall be processed ministerially. Qualifying projects that do not comply with the Objective Design Standards shall be subject to the Architectural Review Permit process, as specified in Chapter 18.115 of this Title.”
Compliance with the objective design standards could not preclude the construction of up to two 800-square-foot-minimum dwelling units on a single lot.

Allowing Repeated Lot Splits: The current SB 9 provisions and the City’s urgency ordinance do not allow subsequent subdivision of lots originally created under SB 9. The intent is to limit the number of times a lot split could occur, particularly as the lot sizes become smaller, which may ultimately lead to a change in the look and feel of a neighborhood. The Planning Commission

9.3.d
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Attachment D_September 12 2022 City Council Staff Report (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) recommends that the permanent ordinance maintain this requirement to prohibit repeated lot splits.

Urban Lot Split Compliance with Stormwater and Utility Standards: At the Study Session meeting, the Planning Commission voiced concerns with the City’s ability to regulate stormwater runoff and other utility requirements for SB 9-related developments. Staff notes that SB 9 restricts the City’s ability to require the construction of offsite improvements in connection with an urban lot split project. The City can require, however, that projects comply with any onsite improvements related to storm drainage and utilities. The City’s Subdivision regulations outline these requirements (Section 17.35.020 Improvements required). For example, the City’s subdivision regulations require that stormwater runoff from a subdivision be collected and conveyed by an approved storm drain system to protect neighboring properties. The City also has a “no-net runoff” policy that would apply to these projects and could require developments capture and convey all surface water on their own property. Staff has included, and the Planning Commission supports, language in the draft ordinance that references this code section and is proposing that all units be subject to the required on-site improvements, regardless of size.

Public Comments
All public comment received to date has been included as Attachment G.

NECESSARY FINDINGS
To amend zoning ordinance sections 18.20.097 (Urban Lot Splits) and 18.20.105 (Two Unit Projects), pursuant to PHMC Section 18.125.050, the City Council is required to make findings as follows:

1. The code amendments shall be consistent with the policies of the General Plan;

2. The code amendments shall be consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, which is to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare and implement the policies of the General Plan, more specifically:
a. Provide a precise guide for the physical development of the City to preserve the character and quality of the residential neighborhoods, foster convenient, harmonious and workable relationships among land uses and achieve the arrangement of land uses described in the General Plan. b. Promote the economic stability of existing land uses. c. Prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of land and buildings. d. Ensure the provision of adequate open space for light, air and fire safety. e. Ensure that service demands of new development will not exceed the capacities of existing streets, utilities or public services.

The proposed ordinance would be consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies (see Attachments A and B):
a. Community Development Goal 1: Preserve and enhance residential neighborhoods. b. Housing Element Goal 2: Encourage a variety of housing.

9.3.d
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Attachment D_September 12 2022 City Council Staff Report (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) c. Housing Element Goal 5: Increase opportunities to develop safe, sanitary and decent housing.

FISCAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates minimal fiscal impact because applicants remain responsible for the cost of processing the applicable ministerial permits required to create an urban lot split or construct two units on a single-family zoned property, as well as any impact fees. The City will continue to receive development permit fees, building permit fees, and development impact fees such as park land dedication and traffic mitigation fees for these projects.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Introduce the ordinance.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Introduce the ordinance with modifications;

2. Continue the item to a future date with direction to staff; or

3. Do not introduce the ordinance.

ATTACHMENTS
A Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance (strikeout version)
B Proposed Updated Draft Ordinance (clean version)

9.3.d
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Attachment D_September 12 2022 City Council Staff Report (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) C Planning Commission Resolution 14-22
D Existing Urban Lot Split and Two Unit Project Ordinance (Sections 18.20.097 and

18.20.105)
E City Wide Residential Objective Design Standards
F Public Hearing Notice
G Public Comments
Prepared by: Haley Croffoot, AICP, Senior Planner
Approved by: Ethan Bindernagel, Acting City Manager

9.3.d
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Attachment D_September 12 2022 City Council Staff Report (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: SB9 Update Request
Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 1:14:53 PM
From: Ivan Hendren <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 9:29:53 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: SB9 Update Request
Hello Troy,
You had mentioned that the SB9 ordinance would be updated sometime this summer.

I wanted to make sure you got you my public comment for the SB9 Ordinances (Urban Lot Split and 2-Unit Projects).
see below:

Height Requirement - For both Urban Lot Splits and 2-unit projects, if underlying zoning permits 2 story structures, please include provision for 2nd story living area to be allowed above a garage for both primary and ADU units. This will encourage less onstreet parking and less blight in neighborhoods, which has been the major SB9 concern for residents in single-family neighborhoods. There are other City precedents in California that allow for 2 story structures (even without a garage).

Let me know when the ordinance is scheduled to be updated and if there is time, I may have a couple more comments.

Thanks,
Ivan Hendren
Pleasant Hill Resident
Ivan Hendren, MRED
[email protected]
949.903.8492
242 Elaine Drive
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523

9.3.e
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Comments (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) June 28, 2022
Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
Re: SB 9 Ordinance - Setback Requirements
Dear Pleasant Hill Planning Commission,
The California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CaRLA) submits this letter to inform the Tustin Planning Commission that they have an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when amending the Pleasant Hill zoning pertaining to regulations for the subdivision and development of qualified Senate Bill 9 properties. The California HOME Act (SB 9) mandates that local jurisdictions must ministerially approve two residential units within a single-family residential zone and the subdivision of one lot into two in any single-unit dwelling zone that satisfies the applicability requirements outlined in the statute (Gov. Code § 65852.21(a)(1)-(6), 66411.7(a)(1)-(3)). The ordinance proposed here mostly complies with the requirements of state law, with one exception.

The ordinance proposes setback requirements that clearly violate state law. For both development on Urban Lot Splits and for Two-Unit Projects, the ordinance would impose setback requirements from the underlying zoning district applicable to the project. While the ordinance would offer an exception if such setbacks would preclude two 800 square foot apartments, this exception falls short of state law requirements.

For both lots created through an Urban Lot Split, and for Two-Unit Projects, SB 9 allows cities to impose maximum setbacks of four feet from the side and rear lot lines, and prohibits setback requirements for conversions of existing buildings. (Gov. Code § 65852.21(b)(2)(B)(ii), § 66411.7(c)(3)(B)). The planning commission should amend the ordinance to reflect this requirement.

Aside from the setback requirements, the proposed ordinance would impose numerous design standards that could make processing SB 9 applications difficult and costly. Particularly, the imposition of the city’s objective design standards would be complex and would drive up the cost of developing new homes under SB 9. The ordinance proposes to offer exceptions to these standards in the likely scenario that combined they would prohibit development under SB 9. These exceptions would lead to difficult decisions by city staff and permit applicants about which standards can be

9.3.e
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Comments (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments) enforced and which others should be waived. These decisions would make it difficult to process applications ministerially, as is required by state law. In the future, the city should consider developing simplified standards for SB 9 lot splits and developments based on lot area to ensure that sufficient developable space is available in all circumstances.

As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage, and new housing is a public benefit. By abiding by SB 9, Tustin will bring increased tax revenue, new customers to local businesses, decarbonization in the face of the climate crisis, but most importantly, it will reduce the displacement of existing residents into homelessness or carbon-heavy car commutes. Imposing an affordability requirement on SB 9 units will inhibit Tustin’s opportunity to construct badly needed housing. We ask that the Commission amend the ordinance to bring the proposal into compliance with state law, as outlined in this letter.

CaRLA is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CaRLA at www.carlaef.org.

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
Executive Director
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund - [email protected] 360 Grand Ave, #323, Oakland, California 94612

9.3.e
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Comments (Sb 9 Ordinance Amendments)

Pleasant Hill City CouncilOctober 3, 2022

Pleasant Hill City Council
October 3, 2022