The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11. Hearing to consider appeals by the following appellants of staff decisions that capacity fees are owed for proposed Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)Page 1 of 6 Item 11. ' CENTRAL SAN BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2017 SUBJECT: CONDUCTA HEARING TO CONSIDERAPPEALS BYTHE FOLLOWING APPELLANTS OF STAFF DECISIONS THAT CAPACITY FEES ARE OWED FOR PROPOSED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU)AS FOLLOWS: • MR. MARK LARKI N - 961 1 RVI N COURT, PLEASANT HI LL • MR. DON SHAW - 1465 CORTEZ COURT, WALNUT CREEK SUBMITTED BY: THOMAS BRIGHTBILL, SENIOR ENGINEER INITIATING DEPARTMENT: ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES - PDS -RATES AND FEES REVIEWED BY: DANEA GEMMELL, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER JEAN -MARC PETIT, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES Roger S. Bailey General Manager ISSUE Mr. Mark Larkin submitted plans for the construction of an ADU on his parcel at 961 Irvin Court, Pleasant Hill. Mr. Don Shaw submitted plans for the construction of an AD on his parcel at 1465 Cortez Court, Walnut Creek. Staff determined that under current District Code, both projects meet the criteria forADUs and that Capacity Fees are owed for both projects. District Code section 1.16.010 allows that any person may appeal a final staff decision to the Board of Directors. BACKGROUND Larkin Appeal November 16, 2017 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 73 of 115 Page 2 of 6 Mr. Mark Larkin contacted Central San by e-mail on September 12, 2017 to inquire about capacity fees for an ADU project. At that point, staff had been working with another property owner, Mr. Wayne Pope, who was filing a formal appeal to the Board of Directors regarding capacity fees for his ADU project. Staff informed Mr. Larkin of the appeal and included an e-mail from Mr. Larkin addressed to the Board of Directors in Mr. Pope's appeal package. Staff believed that the Pope appeal would provide guidance on ADU capacity fee issues and conveyed those thoughts to Mr. Larkin. Staff informed Mr. Larkin of the outcome of Mr. Pope's October 16, 2017 appeal hearing. On October 23, 2017, Mr. Larkin submitted plans for his ADU project. He paid a Central San sewer permit application fee. Mr. Larkin also submitted several e-mail requests appealing staff's final decision that a capacity fee was owed for his project, including the September 19, 2017 message attached to this position paper. Mr. Larkin's proposed project involves the construction of a new structure and therefore would be subject to the "proportionate" capacity fee requirements of SB 229 after January 1, 2018. Shaw Appeal Mr. Don Shaw contacted Central San by telephone on October 5, 2017 to inquire about capacity fees for an ADU project. Staff informed Mr. Shaw of Mr. Pope's pending appeal. Following the October 16, 2017 hearing, staff informed Mr. Shaw of the outcome of the appeal. On October 31, 2017, Mr. Shaw submitted plans for his AD U project and paid a Central San sewer permit application fee. Mr. Shaw submitted a written request that same day appealing staff's final decision that a capacity fee was owed for his project. Mr. Shaw's proposed project involves the conversion of existing space and therefore, under SB 229, the capacity fee would be waived after January 1, 2018. District Code Several sections of District Code appear to be relevant to the appeals. These include: • Section 1.15.010 - allows any person aggrieved by a final staff decision to appeal to the Board of Directors • Section 1.24.010 - allows the Board of Directors to modify or suspend an ordinance "if it finds that the ordinance or regulation is unjust or inequitable because of special circumstances." • Section 1.24.020 - allows the Board of Directors to "fix a fair and equitable charge" under special circumstances Sections 1.24.010 and 1.24.020 are attached to this position paper. ALTERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS 1. Deny one or both of the appeals; or 2. Grant one or both of the appeals, and provide direction to staff regarding capacity fees for ADU applications submitted after October 8, 2017 and before January 1, 2018; or 3. Provide some other direction to staff. FINANCIAL IMPACTS November 16, 2017 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 74 of 115 Page 3 of 6 If Mr. Larkin's appeal is granted by the Board of Directors, a portion of the $5,337 capacity fee would not be collected from Mr. Larkin. The final amount will depend upon the specific proportionality approved by the Board of Directors during the District Code change public hearing, which is also scheduled for this meeting. If staff's recommendation for proportionality is approved by the Board of Directors, Mr. Larkin's capacity fee would be reduced to $1,286. If Mr. Shaw's appeal is granted by the Board of Directors, $5,337 in capacity fees would not be collected from Mr. Shaw. On the other hand, if the appeals are denied, one or both applicants could choose to wait until after January 1, 2018 at which time either no capacity fee would be owed or a significantly reduced capacity fee would be owed. Such a scenario could be viewed as having little or no financial impact to Central Safi COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION This matter was not reviewed by a Board committee. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION Conduct the hearings and grant, deny, or provide some other direction to staff with regard to the following appellants: • Mr. Mark Larkin • Mr. Don Shaw ATTACHMENTS: 1. District Code sections 1.24.010 and 1.24.020 2. Mr. Mark Larkin September 19, 2017 e-mail request 3. Mr. Don Shaw October 31, 2017 e-mail request November 16, 2017 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 75 of 115 Page 4 of 6 Chapter 1.24 - SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND AGREEMENTS Sections: 1.24.010 - Relief from ordinances or regulations because of special circumstances. The Board may, upon its own motion or upon written application, modify or suspend or relieve the application of an ordinance or regulation if it finds that the ordinance or regulation is unjust or inequitable because of special circumstances, to the extent that such modification, suspension or relief is allowed under state and federal law. (Ord. 253 § 1(Exh. A(part)), 2008: Ord. 198 § 1(Exh. A(part)), 1996: prior code § 1-115) 1.24.020 - Relief from charges because of special circumstances. If the Board finds that a charge or application of an ordinance or regulation is unjust or inequitable because of special circumstances, it may upon its own motion or upon written application of an owner or occupant of premises or a contractor, fix a fair and equitable charge or offer some other form of relief as it deems appropriate, to the extent that such relief is allowed under state and federal law. (Ord. 253 § 1(Exh. A(part)), 2008: Ord. 198 § 1(Exh. A(part)), 1996: prior code § 1-116) Page 1 November 16, 2017 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 76 of 115 Page 5 of 6 Thomas Brightbill From: Mark Larkin <mlarkin@wisdirect.com> Sent: September 19, 2017 04:45 PM To: Thomas Brightbill Cc: Elaine Boehme Subject: RE: Sewer connection cost to ADU or SHOP Central Contra Costa Sanitary District c/o Elaine Boehme, Secretary of the District, and Board members It is my understanding that the Board will hear (on Thursday the 21ST) an appeal from one Mr. Pop asking for a waver of "hook-up" / usage fees for his forthcoming ADU. I also hereby request your consideration concerning my own ADU. As Thomas Brightbill has stated to me he anticipates the state Governor will sign the clean-up bill 229 and after the 1ST of the year I would be saved est. $5,000 in costs. I would happily pay the cost if the Governor does not sign SB 229 into law; however in the meanwhile we in the district are all confronted with a very tight labor force, we are also coming up against the rainy season. In the interest of the economy as a whole and for the sake of progress I ask the board to grant a waiver to my ADU project: Larkin ADU: 961 Irvin Ct., Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 I have spoken with the City of Pleasant Hill Planning and they have agreed that I could as a second step permit a "Shop" with a bathroom which would not be imposed with the sewer hook-up costs, and then after the 1ST of the year before the project is complete convert my permit to an ADU, only when I spoke to your permits office I was told that I would not be allowed to plum which is problematic given I plan a slab on grade under grade plumbing. Please allow me to forgo the wait, save the expense and begin my project without the hook-up usage expense which is the spirit of the SB 1069 and SB 229. Thank you, Mark Larkin 961 Irvin Ct. Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 From: Thomas Brightbill [mailto:tbrightbill@centralsan.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 1:50 PM To: Mark Larkin <mlarkin@wisdirect.com> Subject: RE: Sewer connection cost to ADU or SHOP Good afternoon Mark, November 16, 2017 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 77 of 115 Page 6 of 6 Thomas Brightbill From: Donald Shaw <don@shawweb.net> Sent: October 31, 2017 02:03 PM To: Thomas Brightbill Subject: Appeal $5337 Capacity Fee for 1465 Cortez Ct, Walnut Creek, Application 17-3580 Residential Wastewater Utility Service Dear Mr. Brightbill, I am appealing the $5337 Capacity Fee relating to this application. My project is ready to start and will be adversely impacted by having to wait for a change in the fee schedule until January 1, 2018. Please advise if there is anything further CCCSD requires to perfect the appeal for hearing at the next meeting of the Board on November 16, 2017. I appreciate your continued attention to this matter, which is of considerable consequence to me as an individual homeowner seeking to improve my property. Thank you again. Don Shaw Sent from my iPhone November 16, 2017 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 78 of 115