Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-96 ZONING 2 OF 3Scnatc Bill filo. 1534 CHAPTER 14911 An act to amend Section 65852.1 of, and to add :ewticsn 65852,2 to, the Government Code, and f,i amend Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code, relating to housing [Approved byCovehlor Sepplambor 0, 1981.). filed with Secretary of State &eptomber 27, 1982.1 x LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIG ' SB 1534, Mello. Housing; single-fattni1y'lots, second -family units. Under existing low; a city or county may, by ordinance, designate various zones within the city_ or county and specify the uses which may be permitted on the land within those zones. Within such zones the city or county may condition certain use: or require special use. permits or zoning variances for certain uses. This bill would authorize any city, including 'a chartered city, county; or city and county to provide, by ordinance, for the creation - of second units, as defined, In ingle-family_ and multifamily residential zones. In the event- that tiny of those entities do not adopt l an ordinance: governing second units, the bill would, 1 notwithstanding specified provisions of cAsting law, require each city, including, 4 charter city, county, find city and county to grant n special use or a conditional use permit for the creation of a second . attached residential unit, which is onlv intended for rental purposes, oil a lot which is zoned for single-I'amll; or nlult!Nniily use and which contains an existing single-family 'detached unit, if the second unit complies with specified provisions. `T'he bill would prol-Abit any city, j including a chartered city, cotmty,'or city and county from adopil 9 an ordinance which totally preolude second unitswithin single-family and multifamily zoned nrcas unless the ordincilce contains prescribs.d findings. This bill would exempt the creation of a second residential "unit from the Califorraa Environmental Quality Act, This bill would requite jurisdictions i q kions adopting ordinances for the cteati;on of the second units to submit a copy of it to the Department of Housing and Cornmunity Development for submission to the 4 Legislature, This bill would make other changes necessary for the implen►entation of this bill, Article XIII B of the California Constitution and Sections 2 31 and Revenue Taxation Code xequire the state to reimburseh local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Other provMons "require the Departtnetit of I• finance to review statutes disclaiming these costs and provide, in certain cases, for meidng claims to the State Board of Control for reimburseinctxt+ i Ch, 1440 .-„2 ...�. However this bill would provide that no appropriation i's moue and no rclmbursement is required by this act fora specified reason. The people of the State of,California do enact o follows., SECTION 1, (a) The Legislature finds and declares that there is an tremendous unmet need for new housing to shelter California's population, The unmet housing needs will be further aggravated by the severe cutbacks In federal housing programs. , (b) The Legislature finds and declares that Californias ex!.4i, housing resources are vastly underutilized due in large par): to the changes in social patterns. The improved utilization of thhl state's existing housing resources offers an inntitative and cost-effective solution to California's housing _crisis. (c) The Legisla'cure finds and declares that the state has a role in increasing the utilization of Calforiii�`s housing resources and in reducing the barriers to the provision of affordable housing. (d) Che 'Legislature finds and declares that there are ma»y benefits assaclated with the creation of secoud•family residential units on existing sfngle•fttmi�y lots, which include: (1) 1'rovtdtisg a Cast•effective means of serving development through the use of existing ir►Erastruetures, as contrasted to requiring the construction of new costly infecAtructures to serve development in undeveloped areas, (2) Providing relatively affordable housing for low• and moderate -Income households without public subsidy, (3) Providing a means for purchasers of new or existing homes, or both, to meet payments on high interest loans. (,i) Providing security for homeowners who fear both 'criminal intrusion and personal accidents while alone. SEC, I Scetion 65852;1 of the Government Code is amended to read. 65852.1, Notwithstanding Section 65906, any city,,including a charter city, county, or city and county may issue a zoning variasice special use permit, or conditional use permit fora dwellingunit to be constructed, or attached to, a- rimary residence on a parcel, zoned for a single-family residence, if the dwelling unit Is intended tot the sole occupancy of one adult or two adult persons who are Sit years of ge,or over, and the area of floor space of the dwelling unit does not exceed 640 square feet, This section shall not be construed to limit the requirements or Section 65852.2, c' the pciwer of local governments to permit second units, SEC, 2, 'Section 65852:9 is added to the Governihent Code, to read; 65852.2, (a) Any city, including a chartered city; county, or city acid county, may by orduiance provide for the creation of second units In alhglcyfaihily and Ulultifarnily residential zones consistent ." 3 ", Ch, 1440 with the follow,°:ng provisions; (1) Areas may be designated in the jurisdiction where second units are permitted, (2) The designation of areas may be based on criteria, which may include, but are not limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of second tincts on traffic flow; (3) Standards may be imposed on second units which include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, and maximum size of the unit. (4) A city including it chartered cilli, county or city and copanty may, in its discretion, find that second units ~ovided for do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon Which it is located, and find that second units are a residential use which is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot. (5) -The second units created shall not be considered i&r the application of any local ordinances, polity, or program to limit residential growth, (6) A city, including a chartered city, county, or city and. county may establish it process for tile Issuance of a conditional use permit for second units; (b) When a city, including a chartered city, county, or city and county, which has not adopted nth ordinance governing second units In, accordance with subdivision (a)or ,(c), receives its first application on or after :7uly 1, 1983, for a conditional use permit pursuant to this subdivision, the jurisdiction shall accept the application and approve or disapprove it pursuant to this subdivision unless it adopts an ordinance in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c) within 120 days after receiving the aprlic:.tion. Nohvithstanding tile provisions of Section 65901, each city, including a chartercity, county, or city and county shall grant a special use or a conditional U" e permit for the creation of a second residential unit if it complies with the following; (1) The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented, (2) The lot is zoned for single family or multifamily use, (3) The lot contains fin existing single-family detached unit. (4) The second unit is attached to the 6AMIng residence held is located within the living area of the existing dwelling, (5) Whenever an increase in (floor area is involved, it shall not exceed 10 percent of "tile existing living area, (6) Any constrict±tion shah conform to height; setback, lot coverage, architectuiral rev1 t site plan review, fees, charges, and other zotying requirements .generally applicable to residettitial construction in the zone in which the property is located. (1) Local build(kig Goode requirements Which apply to additions to ekistirig single family dwellings, as appropriate, (8) Approval Eby the local Health officer where a privates scwtige disposal system is borng uswd, it required, As cised' in this subdivisicti, "living iieca" indal►s the interlor Ch, 1440 — 4 hilabitable area of a dwelling unit Including basements and attics and shall not include a garlige or any accessory 'structure. No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the bwes for ilio denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision. This subdivision estnblishes the maximum standards that cities, 4 Including charter cities, counties, and cities end counties shrill use to evaluate propnsed second residential units oo lots zoned for residential use whicb. contain an existing single-fanilly detach%?i unit. Vo additional standards, other than those provided in this section, shall be utiliaed or imposed, unless there is 'a requirement that an applicant for a permit issued pursuant to this ubdivision shall be an owner -occupant, „ This section shall not be construed to Limit the authority of cities, counties, and cities and counties which adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of second residential units No changes in zoning ordinances or other ordinances or any changes in the general pian. shall be required to implement (lie provisions of this subdivision. Any city, county, or city anti county may amend its zoning ordinance or general `plan to `Incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of second residentJal units if these provisions are consistent with the litnitntions of this subdivision. A second residential unit which conforms to the requirements of this subdivision shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential usewhich is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. The second units shall not be considered in the application of tiny local ordinance, policy, Or program to limit residential growth (e) No city, including a charter city, county, or city rind couniy shall rdop(an ordinance which totally precludes second units With In single-family and multifamily zoned areas unless the ordinance cor,tnias findings acknotvledging that such action may limit housing opportunities of the region and further contains findings that speciRc advcrso impacts on the ;public health, safety, and Welfare that would result from allowing second units O thin single-family and multifamlly zoned, areas Justify adopting stitch an ordinance. (d) As used in the section, a "second unit'' Is either a detached or attached dwelling unit which provides Complete, independent living facilities for one or more 'persons. 1t 'shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking) and sanitation on the same per, el or parcels ns the primary unit is situated. „ (e) This section shitil become operative on July] 1, 1981 (f) Jurisdictions which adopt ordinances pursuant to subdivision la) or (c) shall submit atopy of such, ordinances to the Deprrt►nent ` rjr Housing and Co�mmunity Development within 60 days, The dtl,,a4t<tlt�alt shall sublu t a report to ilio Ugislaiure, Which sliail it"A Ilia !report to the appropriate committees of the )legislature it UM t It D.A��A�' X45 � Ch, 1�1?t0 by January 1, 19811, The report shall evalaaie the Implementation of this sectionby local_ governments and suggest airy nppropr:ntc legislative changes, SCC. 4. Section 210130 of the Public Resources Code is amended to rend: + 21080. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this divislon, this. o division shall apply to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public ogencles, including, but not If -►ited to, the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances, the issuance of conditional uscj�permits, and the approval of tentative subdivision rnaps (except whore the project is exempt from the propnration of An environmental impact report pursuant to Section 21166). (b) This division shall not apply to the following: (1) Ministerial projects proposed to be carried out Or approved by public agencies. (2) Emergency repairs to public service facilities necessnry to maintain service, (9) :Projects undrsrtaken, carried out, or' approved by- a public ngency;to maintain, repair, resiore, demolish, or replace property or facilities damaged or destroyed as a result of n disaster in n disaster-strlcken area in which a state of, emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8560) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code. (4) Specific ,nctions necessary to provGat or mitigate an emergency, (5) Projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves, (6) Actions undertaken by a public agency relating to any thermal powerplant slid or facili(y, including the expenditure, obligntion, 'or i encumbrance of funds by a public agency for planning, engineering, or design porposes, or for the conditional sale or purchase of eciuiprneht, fuel, water (except groundwater), steam, or power for ellity will. a theririal pvwdrpinnt, tf the powegpinnt site and related fa be the subject of ata envtrortmcntal impact report et negative declaration ar other docume�ll, or docs yme►ts, prepared pursuant to u re ulatory prograir certified pursuant to Section 21080,5, "which' Conservation 'and v�'ill a re aced by tha Stale Cner Resources l7evelopment Commission, by the 1'ul3Lie'titilities Go►nmission, or by the clty or county In which the powerplant and related facility would be located; provided that the environmental impact report, negative declaration or other document, or documents, shall Include the environmental impact, it onys of the halon described in this paragraph, (7) .Activikles or approvals neco§sary to tho ridding For, hosting or stags►rg oF, anti funding or carrying out of, nn Olympic games under the authority of the,,; International Olympic Committer, except for the construction of facilities necessnry Cor the Olymple games: (8) The estabtsh icnt, tnodindailon, "structuring, restructuring, or Ch, 1440 --- 6 approval of rates, tolls, fares or other charges by public agencies Which the public ;agency finds rite for,?the purpose of (1) meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rnttw°s earl fringe bencRts, (2) purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment or materials, (3) mooting financial reserve needs and requirements, (4) obtaining funds for capital' projects, necessary to maintain service within existing service areas, or (5) obtaining funds necessary to maintain those intracity transfers as are authorized by city charter. The public Agency shall incorporate written findings in the record of any proceeding in which an exemption under this paragraph is claimed setting forth with specificity the basis for the claim of exemption, (9) Actions taken prior. to January 1, 1987, by n public agency (1) to implement the trh,tiltion from the propert t taxation system in effect prior to Jmpia 1, 108, to the system provided for by Article X111 A of the California Constitution or (2) to respond to a reduction. in federal funds. Thoae actions shall be limited to projects defined m subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 21065 which inztiake or increase fees, rates, or charges charged R'jr any existing public service, prograin, or activity; reduce or eliniinaW the availability of an existing public service, program, or ac,t.lvity,; close publicly owned or oporated facilitiuw, or reduce or, eliminate the availability of an existing publicly owned transit service, program, or activity. (10) All classes of projeos designo,ted pursuant to Section :!1084, `ease of passenger or ( , use, including the 11) A. project for the, i1i,statutir�ri or mer commuter service on rail llja.s already an modernization of existing stations and parking facilities. (12) A project for the institution or ,increase of passenger or comnouter service on high-occupancy�vehicle lanes already in use, Including the modernization of existing stations and parking i'acilitles, (13) Facility extensions not to exceed four miles in length Which are required for transfer of passengers frons or to exclusive public mass transit guideway or buswAy public transit services, (14) A. project for the development of a regional transportation Improvement program ov the state transportation improvemeaxt, program. (15) Any projector portion thereof located in another state Which will be subject, to environmental impact review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or similar state laws of that state. Any emisAwit or discharges thin would have a significant effect on the environment in the State of California are subject to thi3 division, (16) Projects undertaken by a local agency to implement a rule or regulation imposed by n state agency, board, or commission under a certified regulatory 'program pursuent to section 21030,5: Any site-specific effect of the project Which was not analyzed m a significant effect in theplan or other writf ".i docuanenitntion recjtiir d by Section 21980,5 is subject to this di. Alton, Ch. 1440 (17) The creation of a second residential unit pursuant to Section 65852.2 of the Government Code. (c) if a lents agency determines that a proposed projoct, not otherwise exempt from the provisions of this division, does not have: asignificant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall adopt a negative declaration to that effect, SEC. 5. No appropriation is made and no reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section '6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution or Section 2231 or ?234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code because the local agency or school district has the authority to levy service L-purges, Cees, or Assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act; 0 SCATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN 1R., Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SB 1534 FACT SHEET (MELLO; CHAPTER 1440 of-1982)z� Q. How will second units make, -housing more -affordable? A. Second units', can be created, financed and marketed at a price far less than the development of a new unit on unimproved land. There wil°l be no land cost and the infrastructure Will already be available. The savings attributable to land and infrastructure is 25%-40% of the cost of new construction. Additionally-, various other costs, like landscaping, will already have been covered. Furthermore, for some units, ;both the financing and construction can be done by the ownerp further reducing costs. According to Patrick Hare, leading national expert on second in � g an accessory apartment Units, instal y which is attached to a home) costs•. about $10,000:` This compares most favorably with the cost of a new rental unit On vacant property. Q. Who Will benefit from second units? A. A broadrou s s ectrum of will be p groups refit from allowing second units: s Homeowners faced with declining income, such as seniors, will be We to remain .in their home because of additional income and security provided. e Other homeowners with declining incomes, such as Parents Who fiend themselves suddenly single through death or &ivorce, can rent out part of their home as a way of continuing to raise their children in neighborhoods they might other- wise be forced to leave, • Homeowners faced with high interest rates and adjustable rate mortgages will be able to better afford the high monthly payments, Potential rental income will Allow s ame prospective homeowners to qualify for the mortgage, • Renters will be provided with additional housing opportunities, 6 Real estate agents can be provided another way to help homeowners purchase! housing since the potential of rental income will allow additional homeov�hers to qualify for a mortgage. This should help stimulate sales activity. • Savings and Loan, Associations; now seeing an increase "gin defaults and subsequent repossessions, may not be forced to foreclose "- homeowners may have sufficient renter income to weiither lean financial periods and remain in their homes. Q: How will : l,u;�d units help a community meet its housing and zoning requirements under Stat -1 iawl A In order,to comply with State housing element law Government Code Section 65580 et i a*)economicS send counties trust make adequate provision for the housing needs gments of the community, Exercising their local public powers, Jurisdictions must adopt ! program to assist the needs of lower income households; the elderly; and other special grcups, A local ordinance providinYj for second units, particularly if the units will be affordable to lower income households, r r. r -L- is an appropriate prog,Iram fora jurisdiction to include in its Will also assist a jUYiisdiction in meeting affirmative zon housing element, It residential land with appropriate standards to meet housing needs (Government Code Section 65913.1), ng requirements to zone I. Q What have other local governments in the State done to ermi single family neighborhoods? P t second units in A. In April, 1982, the Depe•rtment of Housing and, Community survey of local governments' practices with regard to opsent conducted a single family areas. Nearly 70% of alrl local allowing second Units in :survey. The survey will be published by the nepartment in the po jurisdictions_responded to the l of 1982. Approximately 6% of the communities resri�ndin it family neighborhoods. Twenty-five percent oftheUnits in single sidering adopting an ordinance, tions Were con" The survey Will be forwarded to all local governments this'. or individuals wishing to order the survey entitled "A Survey fall. Other persons Ordinances in Californ'ia'' may do so free of char e b Of Housing and Community DeVelopment, Publication Office, 92y of Second Unit 0 Y writing to; Department Room 102, Sacramento, California 95814. 1 Tenth Street, Q. Can local governments preserve the character of the single, where second units are allowed? ngle family neighborhood orhood A. Yes: Localgovernments' 9 mar -apply t architectural donin standards which regulate height, setback, esign and the like so that the second Unit will be indistin u� bl in the neighborhood. In many cases a second Unit can be cre't crease or a minimal increase in floor area. - e ino ih- a ecl with either no i h- advantage of this law; the units will be scattered,n°t every homeowner will take R- Can second units be allowed while still protecting the quality hood? Q lity of life in a neighbor- hoA. od? Local overnments may designate such criteria as the adequacy ofgWa;;teraandssewero appropriate � Units on traffic flow Furthermore.., stand pP P for seconr.,�tnits based on bi1ity of second units with neighborhood ch �y Y i`he impact tai second r services and para ter and to �s°sure the compatr= impacts,- may be required by local character and avoia or mitigate adverse So"stock and infrastructure was designedeoremuch more intense use b P mt'Ll.,» df our housing .. . ` s- larger house- currehtly Underutilized, mates that about 875,OQ 4OUses in Ca holds The De artlt,ent esti This housing will be bat'Lar utilized Underrthisia alaw. in addition, many additional lots can easily accot)'modate a second Unit: Can local go vernmeats prohibit second units alt-.gether 40 t A. Yes heir jurisdiction? A local government may tonally proh;i'�i t second units i t i t which contains specific findings as presctbed b adopts an ordinance y the statute.. Y -3- Q, Is this bill only for persons over 60? A. No. The bill contains no age restriction, i1. If a local government implements an ordinance which meet;;. the (Mello, Chapter 887 of 1981), will this meet the requirements of of SB 1160 ` f SB 153Y-1 A. Yes. SB 1534 Provides local governments with broad discr and standards for second units. If a local government develops s With SB 1160 with regard to age and square veiop to designate areas intent of SB 1534. p standards consistent d e footage requirements this Will meet the However, SB 1160 does not in anyway limit what can be under taken with this bill. Furthermore, compliance with SB il6p through allowing Of Sgn1534,or a segcond unit, absent an ordinance, does not meet t a (A legal interpretation of SB 1160 is available froihh�epuirements Of Housing and Community Development.) Department Q• Are second units, as defined by SB 1534, exempt from growth Control7 p policy? A. Yes. SB 1534 specifically states that second units shall not be considered ' the tpplication y r d in of an local ordinance, policy or program to limit residential grovf'.n• A local jurisdiction may not. count second units, as defined residential thin In a growth control ordinance. bill, Qa 00 wecond units have to be consistent with the locally ado ted. finning ordinance?' p . general plan and Government Code Se adopts Its own ordinance, Section pursuant to Subdivision A. if a local oVernment ad tion 65852.2, it may, in its discretion, istos (a) of provided do not exceed the allowabie"density for the lot find second units and find that second units :are a residential use tuhich is consistent Upon Which it is located) existing general plan and zoning designation. for the lot. If a local government the } thimplements Subdivision(b) of Government Code Section 65852 .2, government e second unit not be conandeshal10 exceed the allowable � it must find that owable density for the lot C6 nsistent with the existing b deemed to bes residential use which is g general lan and zoningdesignations for the lot. Q. Will property Values be affected by the creation of second units? A. This is not completely understood in today's economy, the mar companion Unit -Will be more than masked by other influences on home prices, such as interest rates; Home Values may increase since if a market effects of a bringing in rental income, it is Worth more: house h�,s a potential of Q: Won't the creation of second units lead to housing speculat' ioh? A. No. A local government implehenting SubdiVisioh (b) may rewire owner - as a condition of applying for a second unit which will discoura e s occupancy g pecu at7oti, c -4- Q. If second units are intended to provide affordable housing, shouldn't there be a. requirement that the rents be controlled?' !A. This is a matter properly addressed by local government:This s bill leaves the decision with,,local governments. Q- Does this bill require that local governments allow detached second units? A. No. There is no requirement in the bill that focal governments permit detached units. This is a matter of local discretion. Q. What is the effective date of this law? 1Ai July 1 , 1983. J Are -second units created under SB 1534 specifically exempt from tCaliforniaAre p m he Californi Envi`ronmenta;l Quality Act (CEQA)'? A. Second units are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sctions 15100(e) and 15103(a) of the CEQA guidelines. Q. What is the responsibility of the Department of' Housing and community Development to implement this bill? A. Ja isdictions which adopt ordinances must submit within 60 days of adoption, a copy of their ordinance to the Department. The Department must then submit a report to the Legislature by January '1, 1984; What is the definition of a second unit? X. A second unit is a residential unit which ''provides complete} independent Living facilities for one or more persons: it includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking,. and sanitation on the same parcel or parcels that the primary unit is situated. It can be either attached or detached to the eXisting residential unit on the parcel or parcels. for further information please contact Ms. Muth schwartz, California Department of Housing and Community Development, 921 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95$].4, or call (916) 4.5-4728. SR„ 1534 (MELLO) Purs wngthe Pot'entoai Accessory, Apartments Broader sanctions of accessory apartments could reSUlt in a * much-needed boost to the } homebuying market. • . Patrick H. Han Ellsea .t. RozOV Washfnpton, D. Frcm Marin County on the West discouraging developers from ° even at yesterday's, a dropping coast to Long island on the East building homes intended for housing market will have to drop a conversion, long way before many potential Coast, the accessory apartment is' buyers consider home own' gaining popularity as a produdde worth the cost. Use of extra space In American zoning laws have been amended In homes. Also known as single-family this restrictive fashion to permit conversions, accessory apart• creation of accessory apartments appleuch elect, Theifiin nciald because of a concern tot the ripe sa dr ° meets --•often created In violation of of rrian --� part nrha+" long-standing community building character of a residential Y P Y codes --are separate, complete iiv neighborhood. 'Such changes in homeowners- -would be she ya; zoning regulations for single-family they would see the value , Ing units established within another,neighborhoods appear threatening homes, their largest asset; living unit such as a.house Or apart- Further, the would no lbngrl i, t i Mont building. In splte of the illegal to the homeowner, who tears a loss Y statUs of accessory apartments, in both properly value and quality of a ready way to dispose of r rough figures suggest there are as lifestyle. Yet this well-placed -cau vestors In single•fa;nily hc.,,ds many as 2,S million nationwide, With tion should hot allowed to under- would be similarly affected. the potential tot many more. acne the orae noartm presented by this potential collapse of con, - accessory apartments; oppor- P Traditionally, the Illegal conversions tUrilties that are not limited to older fitlence cane avoided by finding a • eo le and older homes, way for more people to buy at to - people preceded changes in the p P day's prices and interest rates, The zoning law. Babylon, Long island, promise of additional income to be for example, amended its zoning Properly overseen, accessory generated by accessory apart• law only after it found itself wlth apartments can partially solve rnany .:i meets can give interested more than 4,000 illegal conversions, problems facing those In the real hornebuyers the 'encouragement Also tradltlonaliy; however, the zon• estate business. With the low Ing amendments have restricted the number of new homes being built, they Head to assume mortgage payments on houses tieuQht at to - creation of accessory apartments and the low number of homes being days prices. Although the by requiring that either the sold; the housing markst Is stalled, homeowners will have to bear the ' homeowner or tenant be elderly. In The reduced number of property expense of modifying their homes to " addition, toning amendments often transfers can be linked to a reduces create accessory apartments, In specify a number of years the tion In sale prices. As continual in most cases this can be done homeowner must have lived In the creases In house prices are a relatively inexpensively, home. Some municipallties permit touchstone of home ownership, If conversions only In homes built the Increases disappear, to will Likewise, more liberal zoning p p much of the eagerness to own, amendments; which would not ex - causing to a certain Year In the hope of causing the market to deteriorate crude accessory apartments from y further: At toddy's interest rates; or how homes; would help make now Y. 4S Ad , These groups, organized as a coall- tion, may wield sufficient power In many communities to lobby for z'on• Ing amendments that encompass, more than the elderly and existing homes, Farsighted zoning officials will avoid C-ucir restrictions, and by doing so will ptoh'rt ;tic value of their residdnts` horse: and the + stren"gtir of the local busih asses th-at ,make tap the Musing Industry, In ad• ditlon to providing more affordable housing within the community, ❑ Mr, Nsre fs presldentof Patrick H. Plale, Plannlrig and design, and Ms. Roxov is an associate In the company, Which recently prepared for the American Planning Assoclatlon a manual on toning amendments io permit aCcassory` apartments. real estate today* r ' by the pecent zoning amendments have in The controversy surrounding accessory apartments and amend- homes affordable providing homes opportunity rental income. The enabled the elderly to remain ingleifamily homes as tenants or merits to outdated zoning regula• can be extinguished by the approved creation of such apart- merits in new homes would skirt the as horne;owners supplementing a fixed ince►,. a. ,Although the elderly tions united support of a cr)alltlon of groups that stand to current political debate about the backs in zoning as a group tiave benefited from the their special-interest benefit. To builders, accessory necessity for roll standards, Affordable housing need favorable zoning changes, creation of accessory apartments a artmen- represent a means to new homes withc+ut substandard if ac* n.t be smaller or subs ' apartments are allowed. has done little for the housing, build affordable negotiating for a rollback of zoning , sales* _cessory • from market as a whole. standards. To real estate such amendments provide It he can Lely on rental income an accessory apartment, the first• However; some observers say the modincatlon of extra people another way to help homebuyers stili Is time buyer may be motivated to buy. may need successful rooms to accessory apartments for see that home own@rshiP feasible, Young householders can But a homeowner, too, additional Income if he is to plan on and by the elderly is the first step toward broader zoning l.hanges that rent out rooms as apartni ants, to buy homes now staying In his home. Recent reports Indicate that the housing markC would benefit the entire housing The chief elected official of enabling them ` and expand Into them as' "heir In' ` has been suffering ftom -the marke. Weston, Connecticut, has com comes and families grow. increased number of home- ad.mented mortgage defaults. By providing , that "Age restrictions area wayto get a toot in the door: Even- School districts should sea in ae• apartments. a way to keep t; ory ditional monthly income, accessary homeowners meet tually the restrictions will be removed the cessory their schools open by providing apartments help their mortgage payments andhelpwhen the sear is bone. when ,' neighborhoods haven't fallen down; young families With available, Inex• , yensive housing."Too, parents who savings and loans avoid the trouble and the quality of life is intact." find themselves suddenly single of repossessing. „ through death or divorce can rent out their rooms as a way of keeping their children In neighbottioods they might otherwise be forced to leave. And; of course, older homeowners -,� , t •-r Se can turn their empty rooms into a �. , n . • ^� b ,source of income --or pos.^ i fy ex� • •:;,r" } `' Lt.ange the rent for services they .� F"µY' ca't rib Ionger Provide for �; rr3. '%"'-..._. Y_~�z ^+ •;� themselves. Ad , These groups, organized as a coall- tion, may wield sufficient power In many communities to lobby for z'on• Ing amendments that encompass, more than the elderly and existing homes, Farsighted zoning officials will avoid C-ucir restrictions, and by doing so will ptoh'rt ;tic value of their residdnts` horse: and the + stren"gtir of the local busih asses th-at ,make tap the Musing Industry, In ad• ditlon to providing more affordable housing within the community, ❑ Mr, Nsre fs presldentof Patrick H. Plale, Plannlrig and design, and Ms. Roxov is an associate In the company, Which recently prepared for the American Planning Assoclatlon a manual on toning amendments io permit aCcassory` apartments. real estate today* Y tw S Yl F �� Y tw S Yl F :' 1.1 STATE I* CA(IFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMU��IITY `DEVELOPMENT r�n �r BROWN JR, c�„��� Office of the Director 921 Tenth Street Sacramento CA 98814-2774, 16) 445-4775 Dear Reader; I am Pleased i fornesent you with the results, of our survey on naowes in California a Urisdictinn,,, �" s second unit ordi- kna►vn as a "companion unit o rhe addstion of a " �� many opportunities for providing acgldatnoha1amuc second unit {also oh a single-family lot offers effective manner, h needed housi;hg in a Very cost, state policy encourages the devQ lopment of additichal units on residential lots d l�ithin y enc n homes, n g Second Units can Often be created marketed at prices well be1rn� Since there is no land cos the development of new units on'unimprovedfinanced aland. in the range of 25% to COstbelaw the infrastructure n rastructur is Of already in place, savings The Department of Housing and Community Developmentn construction are often possible. homes in California are underutilized i, estimates that some 875,000 date larger families than,no�,� res7`de in them)Were desigmanynadditional accommodate a separate unit, while still ineetny exist` immo- land caverag`� and and q and liots,uld Y requirements,, n9 xaninq regulations and t�petor Nehry `Mello (D-WatsonVille) has carried two Oil of deveidpment -- S8 1160, Chapter 887 of 1981, and SB ��' 1-982.. SR 1554 requires that lova is that encourage: this. develop standards where second units will be 1534, Chapter 1440 governments either designate areas :and unit" within the existing home N�ith a small amount o Permitted, or allow a "companion It is our intention that this survey of local new cahstructiOn. Jurisdictions in the development of second'unit o d. practices will assist gov�rihahcesraci ti to contact Pis. Ruth Schwartz a� q legislation in .this area, YOU have any questions oh the survey o► on recent (l6) 445-4X8* please feel free T r TABLE OF 'CONTENTS �i PAGE_ I. INTRODUCTION ':....«....".,....,......:......,., IZ. PR NCIP'AL FF;NDINGS ...`«.... «...�,'...;....:.•..«•,... ILL. ADOPTED SECOND UNIT OR,z,INANCES.•..,;•a,,a.•••see— •..b:,o,::►. 9 IV. L IMITEO SECOND UNIT ORD.INANCES•»..........«••••••••••••+•«•• 1`�;: V. JURISDICTION'S CONSIDERING SECOND UNIT ORDINANCES....p.:..... VI. JURISDICTIONS NOT CONSIDERING SECOND UNIT ORDINANCES:......,... 37 VII. JURISDICTIONS REJECTING THE SEWN0 UNIT CONCEPT•: ......••..«• 41 APPENpIX.•.„►:,...... ..........:............:. 47 RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION: BYPOPULATION ..............,..« . ......... ..... .... .. 45 BYAREA..'* .... .:. N . :........ .:... C. a 0 0 .is f . • . «,'.. f , 1 i tl . a 49 LIST' OF JURISDICTIO�!.fi RESPOND, NG.:......a• :.••.,..a•• •• 51 SAMPLE 0UE9TIONNA'4l-* ... .......... a...«:....«.... .. 55 SB 1160 (CHAPTER 0,87,of 1961).5. ..•......... .....'........ 59 LEGAL OPINION of SB 1160:. 0..•x• 0...., ... 4, 4 •••.. .... e.,o. 61 SB 1534 (CHAPTER ;1440 of 53 s BIBLIOGRAPHY.,......► ....« ... ....,, ..,....•«..:..« .. 67 t i� I. INTRODUCTION There is unquestionably a tremendous need for new residential units to shelter California's growing population. The rental vacancy rate statewide is well below the 5% rate corjsidered "ii:ealthy," and appears to be below 1% in many urban centers. The rental pi;ture is, of course, becoming steadily, t^ bleaker with private rental development nearly ata standstill, and subsidized rental de,,Yelopment to follow suit as the federal budget cuts are felt. Meanwhile, Californias popu ation.cootinues to grow and households d6oi�due to grow even more rapidly because of changing social patterns, l�ccording to the most recent assessment of statewide needs, an average of"310,000 housing units should be built annually through 1986,- Not once in the past 20 years has this volume of construction occurred. In fact, in 1981 building permits plummeted to a low of 1171,000. Even if ll these units .Were built, they would barely meet dne-third of 'the need,. In 1982 only 91,000 uoi`ts are, projected to be constructed.,, One proposed solution to ease the housing crisis is, to encourage the creation of second, dwelling units in single family zones. These. dwellings have been variously referred to as, "se'ond units", "nranhy units", "in-law units", "accessory apartments" and '`companion units"'. They provide independent living quartersi including kitchens and bathrooms on the same lot, or, parcel as the primarysingle family home. - The creation of second units will expand the affordable housing -tock, often without requiring substantial new. construction, and will capitalize on the use of the existing, in plane, infrastructure. In some cases a second unit can be created in an existing underutilized single family home thi-iough some simple modifications, as portrayed in Figure 1, According to the most recent available figures, approximately 875,00n housing units statewide are underutilized,2 Two bills were enacted during the 1981-1982 legislative session which provide local governments, with new incentives for considering second units in their communities. Senate Bill 1160 (Mello, Chaoter 887 of the Statutes of 1981), amender) the State Planning and Zoning Law to permit a locality to issue a zoning variance, a special use permit, ora conditional use permit The a dwellintl to be constructed, be attached, to a primary residence on a Parcel zoned for a single family residence, The dwelling unit inust be 1, 'The best data available .statewide regarding hdW,constructioll comes from the number oif locally issued buildi:ng permits. However,,not 611 such permits result, in a new Vnitz' 2, hone;threeeoccupying ued mansoho. eir� two ,people occupying a three or more bedroom a four or mote bedroom hone; or four people occupying a fivo or more bedroom home,, -1� <:f; ,5' r g intended for the sole occupancy of one or two. adult persons who are 60 years , ij5. of age or:,.older; and the area of floor space in the°dwelling unit must not exceed 640 square feet.' There is a; 1'egall, interpretati'on' of the law' in, the i Appendix. I ' Senate 13i1l 11$34 (Mello, ;Chapter i 16, of�.tStatutes.he of 1982), ,encourages family homes�intorderatobettenusenthe existngahousinn't5" in single local 9 u p g stock. The bi 1 l provides, local, governments with very broad discretion to designate'zones which are appropriate for second units, and to develop st:ondards considered suitable to local conditions. These i'ncl'ude standards to regulate traffic and parking. If zones are, not designated, a local government is rdgui red, under specific criteria, to grant a conditional use permit for construction of a companion unit contained within the'exist;ing home. �.o'c'al governments can apply the local zoning requirements which regulate the design of residential units in the, zone. Under the provisions of the bili, local .governments may' preclude second units a ltogether if the ordinance contains findings acknowledgingthat such action may limit housing; opportunities of the region and further contains, findings that specific adverse impacts on the public health, 'safety, ' a'hd hwould result oisd units wthin single-fanily and�multfamily zoned ` such an ordinance. Some of the major, benefits of Second units are; The second unit can be created, financed, and marketed at a price far below that of a new unit on unimproved land'. There gill be no land cost and the infrastructure wi1l already be available. The savings attributable to band and infrastructure is 95% - 40% of the +,:ost_-of new construction., Additionally, various other costs, like landscaping, will already have been covered, The c�lhihomemeowners with declining Income to retain and maintainteir Homeowners faced with high interest rates and adjustable rate mortgages will ,be able to better afford the high Monthly payments,., Potential rental income Will enable some prospective homeowners to qualify for the mortgageo for low atluunit Will moderate produci'ncomeehouseholds withoutaany public relative'affordble rental housing x i he sedon' tic p subsidy Energy,rep .. I maintenance, and re airs Will be shared by two households ; ; Instead of a single one. Where, comman wale1s are usedsavings on insulation costs can be realized. ,. The constructive use; of existing in-placd, 10 Structure 'is a r7ore, environmentally sensitive,and cost-effOttxvv approach than ` cti on of expens7 ve".' pfpas tructute to se "-d new un eVelogedhareas, other resources'wourd also bo lased more p effectively (1 and, building material s, energy; etc,, )• The presence of a second household cu �prb�vi"de security f`, homeowners, pardcul'arly tilde"r peapl ��tho iear'criminal, ' i ithusiori and personal atti'dents while living`axtine, Companionship and intergenerational supl4?ort and contact, will rosult. Incidental personal services f_"r older homeowners could be provI . ed, i;nexpens Vely by tenants i n re't`urn for a reduction i r rent. Second'6hits could allow persons needing non-speci4liked ass'i'stance N to remain iri their homes rather than''enter 1on9­term care' facilities, sometimes grocery shopp n assistance is the difference between in`stitution611zaton a`nd non - i nst;ituti:onal i zati'on: In an effort to determine how extensively this "second unit" solution to the housing shortage is being adopted locally in Palifornia, the Department of liousing and Community Devela'pient,,' .'n cooperatio'i1 with the League 'of California Cities, conucted'a survey i'n` Aprils 1g82. A'11 the jurisdijct'ions'' in Ca.lrfornia were mailed a,questsonnaire to determine if they allow for the creation of secbnd;'residentiat units in single.family Zones." Of the 486 jurisdictions cohtacted, 851 tes`ponded} or 68%. The survey focused single family residential exclusively ori. second uricts in zones. Second units were strictly defined as dwellings which have separate eating-, sleeping, and sanitation facilities and are either attached or detachedi from a single family dwelling onthe`same lot or parcel. A guest mouse whic'K does.* not include, a separate'kitthen was therefore not considered a second unit Jurisdictions which replied to the survey stating that they had adopted'a second unit ordinance were requested to submit copies of their ordinances. Based on the information submitted, the Department compiled information on the provisions ihcluded in each of the respective ordinances. The report is organized into five main chapters which are preceded by Section qne, the Introduction: and Section Two, a summary of the principal findings. Section Throe focuses on coimmunities that; have adopted ordinances allowing second units in single family residential zones. Section'i=our analyzes local ordinances that allow second units only under special d reumstances. These include requiring exceptionally large lots and strict location requirements (e,g., corner lots). The fifth rection discusses communities consideiring measures to allow second units in si hgle family w zones. Section Six is a summary .of the responses Of communities that are not considering a second unit ordinance. The seventh section presents information on communities that have refected the second unit concept. The appendix consists of a copy of the questionnaire; response rate data; a listing of all commdnities responds rig to the questionnaire and the status of their provisions for a,1"1oWing second un`trs; a copy of SB 1.160 (Mello, (Mello, chapter D of 1982�9aand ansel o''f the law; a copy of 56 1,534 Chapterp` ' , p ` l ected bi bl i byraphy. TI. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Jurisdictions were very cooperative in responding to the second unit surveys' Over two --thirds of the communities .comPloted the questionnaire. Interest sin, second units' 1n; havela'f amily zones was high though 'reYat�vely' few j r7, n p y second unit' ordinance. Counties aro more amenable to establishing or considering ,second units, countios"t'r'aditionally have fewer land use'regu.ations. Tab1e:I summarises the results of the survey. There 11 were two major, reasons cited for adopting a secondunit'brdinaiice' The responding jurisdictions demonstrated their concern kith meting the requirements of their° ;sousing ,element or ,of implem hung the terms of SR 11.60 (IMel l o, Chapter 887° of TABLE I: SURVEY R8;S0LTS ALL CITIES COU11TnS, jURIS ICTTONS Number ercent Num er Perceilt Timber ercent Allow Second Units 12 4% 8 21% 2 Allow Second Units_ No R1 'Zones 1% - 2 1 Allow Second Unit's 3Z; 11% 9 24% 41 1 123, Under Special' Circumstances Only Are Considering 12 25% 12 32% 84 25% Second Units Have Not Considered 126 4U 6 16% 132 40 Second Units Reject The Second 49 T 3.' 8% 52 16% Unit Concept _.: TOTAL 293 1Otl "38 100% 331SiX 100 w itseinent single20 of familylretidentialions zoneseonothe same lot asto the rthe st second Units `' g first unit. .Four ;percent (1.2) of ±he cities responding allow "second 'units in single family zones, The majority of these cities are urban, metropolitan communities with a population of MOW or more. Twenty-one, percent counties allowsecondunits inishngleffamily residential zonesto the surve ;y �5` TWO conimunities, Maywood arld IE" Vi' low second units but we have Cher anal sis due�ti'o�their unique situation:. Neth(:r Y Y excluded thein from fur l,ocalit has ,separate zoning for single family residences. The majority of fl; jurisdictions with` ordinances' which allow for the creation of second ts �insine famil 9 s Y zones use conditional'",�use permits to a`,utllor7xe: the new uni�.p ClarerhOnt"aand San Francisco are the", my crrrrnnunities which have a s ecia, zom'n district fbr second ;units and in y bl}th. ceses the ordi nancias are ver" 1 im it i n a p'pl i cat'1oh,, Four I. jurisdictions authorise second Units by zoning �Triance: The number of applications to build second units is ene On the g rally smal 1. average, cities with ordinances have each approved dn6 'appl i catJ,'6r, a year for second Wits.' CountIes. have' received more bapplic-ations°�under�, thei=r second unit ordynonce`than have cities. 0n the average, counties with second unit ordinances approvra approximately seven applications a year,, An additional ,tweILve percent (ji)'of all jurisdiction,.* responding allow second units i n single family zones under st'ri ct' i -J limited circumstances'. These limited ordinances impose more rigorous.pequirements before authorizing a second unit .in' a single famil d.��strict. Many of these requirements probably have the effect of restricting rather than encouraging second units. Most of these ordinances require Substantially larger lots than the minimum required' for the zone, others specify . p Y particular placement on the lot for second units(e,9•,corner lot), and others restrict second units to tem orar4' or emergency uses These ordinances ,are referred to .as "limited ordinances" in too s report. Eleven percent (32) of the cities responding allow second units under special ciPevaist, 0ces only. . 7went -four � � ' y percent (g)';,f the counties responding allow second units under special circumstance, only, Twenty-five percent (84) of all jurisdictions responding are considering procedures to allow second units i►i single f"AMPly zones. Twent -five e, ci nt ' 72 of the Y P '• '( ) cities resoonding are considering procedure's to allow second units. Thirty-two percent (12) of the cduht%'s 'responding are considering procedures to allow second units. Forty percent (132) of all jurisdictions responding have hot ,consi - allowing second units in sin g le TamilY dered . zones. • Forty three percent (126) of "the cities responding answered that they have riot considered'allowing sbcbnd units in zones for single family dwellings: *Sixteen p O e counties respohding answered that they � have hot considered allowing second units in single family, zones. � LII. COMMUNITIES JITH ADOPTED SECOND, COND UNIT ORQIN1fINCrS Ordinances allowing second unit.�,in single family_ zones as adopted by 20 jur sdictionD in California ware analyzed, 12 cities and eight counties. Those co rriinunities with adopted sel,bnd unit ordinances appear in Roster. I. The provisions of each ordinatrce"'varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The variousprovisions contained ordinances were identilfled and u n these Gompi legis in Matrix 1. Most of the provisions the jurisdictions included its their second unit ordinance fell into two categories. The provisions in categar',y one regulate the status of the unit itself and tend to discourage spedulation, Those in the second category are concerned with minimizing traffic impacts and/w, "r;aintaining the character Of. the neighborhood. Nearly half'uf the Jurisdictions with a second unit ordinan,%, (eight) have some,prbvision to discourage housing speculation., These ordinances requi"re either owner' occupancy of one of the dwellings, a familial relationship controls on the second unit. strict rent between the occupants of the two dwellings, or establish Five of the provisions Were concerned with the neighborhood impacts. These regulations covered parking requirements, the design and size of the unit, the lot size, building, fire, setback, and public service requirements. All but three Jurisdictions had some or all of these provision$ in their ordinance:, - The provisions in -the matrix cover only the regulations explicitly mentioned f in theordinances governing second units. A juri`sdiction'sland use x regulatory system may in fact contain ;peovisiottis which are not noted in the matrices. For instance, the building code provisions may not be mentioned in afi ordinance governing second units,, but ;may be an integral part of a community's building code. , A more dot,t,ed description of the provisions included in the ordinances is given below: - 1. ACE LIMITATIONS 88 1160 (Mello, Chapter 887 of 1981) encouraged local gove.vrrm-nts to allow second units for persons aged 60 years old or. oldor. :►sfle many jurisdictions noted the passage of SB 1160 as the reason for implementing `a second unit ordinance, relatively few included An age z p i y es limited w, limitation r�ovision in'their ordinahce. Only four communities the occupancy of second units to eetons 60 ears of age or,olderi Z: RENT CONTROL, AND RENTAL ONLY rormal controls on rents which would ensure that the second units serve the housinq needs of lower income house'nold5 were infrrquent among the jurisdictions surveyed, Only two jurisdictions co'ntro'l the rental rates o; of second units or stioUl'Ae that such units be 'reserved for lower income households. Threi;'Jurisdictions, Corte Madera, San Anselmo, and Monterey.County., l�iMit: too second unit to rental' only, 3.,' FAMILY MEMBERS ONLY t� Onlyit four of the �uri3dlGtions responding, the cii,icis of hloraga, Lafayette and Oakland and the County of Madera, haue adopxed ordinances which ;stipulate gnat the units be occupied ,by memhQrs of, the famil sotre of these or that they also allowed occupa, :Y by domestic `�� In employees and caretakers,. • 4. PARKING REQU.IREMI,NTS t% . Eight ordinanres includtm,prnvisions which subject the secondunIt'to the same requirements for providin one jurisdictioh waived parking requiremen•tsefor secondas other U01 , Noir explicitly modified the requirements by allowing 'tandem parking or other alternatives, Some Jurisdictions even had specific regulations pertaining to driveways end 'access, 5. SETBACK AND UTILITY SERVICE'REQUIREMENTS Nine ordinances stipulate that the second unit meet the setback, building code, anal utility service requirements None of the ordinances reviewed waived the setback ,requirements. Many of the ordinances required proof that the Water and sewer capacity would not be Overloaded by the addition of a-second unit, S, MINIMUM LOT 'SIZE Eight of theordinances include provisions which state the minimum lot size required for the •addition of,a second unit. The size is generally consisi:ent With the minimum sire required for the•zooe� Many also 'include the proportion of the lot which can be covered by additions to the structure, 7, SIZE OF NEW UNITS' Seven ordinances limit the size of the new unit, Typically, a maximum square footage for the second unit is stated; the responses ranged' from about 640 to X350 square feet, a, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Four ordinances require that the second unit conform to tte design of the existing homes in the neighborhood; Many of these ordinahces require a design reVieW for the second unit. 9i OWNEk OCCUPANCY "lively few of the. ordinances (four) require oW►r.`r occupancy of the unit. 10, ' MOBILEHOMES TWO ordinances specifically allow mobilehomes as second units to be placed on lots in.si'ngle family zones. None explicitly excluded - mobi'lehomes. See Matrix 1 for further detail on specific provisions by jurisdictions, The counties of Colusa and Mariposa also allow second units but the s�secfic provisions are unknown. As mentioned before, the cities of Maywood and Emeryville have no exclusive single family zones and thus allow second units by ;right and do not require any more than a building permit, Y. Roster 1 is a listing of jurisdictions which have adopted a second onit ordinance: In Matrix 1 the jurisdictions with 'second unit ordinances are resented at the. top of the matrix runninanhordinancel fa�e rom left tedo right. Therprovisions thai, could be includd werticaTly on the left side. An 11P in the boat indicates that the �arisdiction -incl odes this specific provision in its ordinance allowing ` second units in single family zones. ::11 �A .,� ,MA.T.RIX 1 PROVISIONS OF SECOND ';UNIT ORDINANCES BY CITY As of Apri 1., 1982 >� E ro (U m e`en W ro c ¢ m v 1' R MpUiGei�wner occupancy of X X X• 2. Limi t to speci fi;c geographic ureas. 3. Limit to rerftalonly: , X X 4. Control rental rates. xX 5. Limit to specific age group renters. XX X y 6. Require familial, relationship. X p, ' 7. Rest ict ktunal alteratipi�s to t e struc urea � 8. Design continuity with eXisting homes. ' X X; X X t . 9. tIeets_density standards of zone. Y ' 10. Writte consent from adjoining ro er owners. x + 11. Subject to growth control. 12. Limit number i n a gi ven arca. X 13. Waive parking requirements. 14. Sub ect.to arkino/driveway requi ement . X X X' X X X 15: Aust inee� building, fire se - ack, an service re X X uirken s. X X L X 16. Require second entrance. X 17. Require separate entrance. 184 S eoial ppro edures for legal n�n-confbrm�ng w-,Its� y. p4; cbt r,ii`� �o, is b It ti���r1e af�er� a's 2.0 iogMiq secuni?hd unit be attached _ �egulre,second unit be detached .� r in main. unit. x 22: Limit size of new unit. X X X X X 23. Minimum lot size/coverage: X X x, x w 24► Exclusive to Cotner lot. 25, ExLli.citly allow mobi l ehomes. ` 26. EX 1ictl p. y preclude mobilehomes. � Ti Prohibit{ division' of roerty. — -i- i IV. COMMUNITIES WITH LIMITED SECOND UNIT ORDINANCES: SPECIPL FINDINGS REQUIRED Twelve percent "(41) 'of,, the j'u'risdict`ion's responding to the survey have adopted limited second unit ordinances.Thirty-'two cities and hlhe oounties in California have adopted ordinances which permit the creation of second units in single family districts under strictly, limited' circumstances',(see Roster`,2). The. special findings required under` these ordinances pertain to lot size, unit placement, lot characteristics, 'or' special uses The special y requiremernts of these ordinances distinguish them from the much less: restrictive ordinances in 'Section Three. The limited second uni't''fordinances> carefully control the creation of second units and may serve, in effect, to restrict them in single family zones. Generally the limi'tpd second unit ord;inatice contained more provisions than g f the limited ordinancp: p 6 . the general ordina►'ce �n order to'include the s ec al charac er s ics Seven of the provisions included in the limited ordinances dealt with the physical h sicalt!JfuireMents f te second unit site, (area in the zone, location/` Size of`lot or of the second unit itself (the size, placement, mobility, and design. The major concern Was With lot size. Twenty-nine ,jurisdictions required a double lot, nearly three quarters of the localities with limited ordinances. Five provisions dealt with neighborhood issues ("parking, building) fire, public service and setback requirements, density, number per area, and growth limitations) but the major concerns of the jurisdictions were with parking availability and building, fire, and service requirements, The major provisions in the limited ordinances are discussed mo'`e thoroughly below. The provisions by jurisdiction are displayed vilMatrix 2. 1. FAMILIAL_ RELATIONSHIP Four communities with limited second unit ordinances, the cities of Oroville and Porto`la Valley and Glenn and San Luis Obispo counties, required the occupant of the second unit to be.a member of the owner's family. 2. PARKING AND DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS Eleven Sueisdic,tions with limited second unit ordinances require specific parking and driveway requirements to be met before a second unit is allowed to be added in a single family zone. 3. BUILDING, FIRE, SETBACK, AND SERVICE REQUIREMENTS The requirement for building setbacks andpublic services was a very common provision in limited second unit' ordinahces. Eighteen communities stipulated that requirements for services and building standards must be met -to create a second unit in a single femily district. -17- i 'MATRI'X 1 (coht' d ) 'PROVISIONS 0r ADOPTO SECOND, UNIT ORDINANULIS BY CCUNTY3 As of :April, 1982 d ro _ cu s C. •r 4J L a+ +4 -3 to '- 1;.. Reui re'. wner! occupancy of ma9n uni., 2. Limit t;o sped.i fi c geographic.X �f areas... F 3 ,..: Limit _rer�ial only. X 4: Controli rental rates. 5. Lf" it tai specific age group X ren ers, ... _..:. ,.... _ ._ . . 5. Re-ui re familial, relationship. 76 es ict ext rnal alterations oe : true ure• . ��._ „ •With existing omu n ,continuit _ 9. _ Meets density standards of zone. X 10. Wiri tteconsent from adjoining proper; -y owners. 11. Subject,,to growth Control.' 12, Limits.number. in a..gi.ven area. W. Waive parking 4•equirem�nts 14. Sub act to arking/driv eway X X regM rement „ lb4 ff ari ts�er'viceUr quyrg6meuEs� setback, X x X 15. Leequi re, second entrahce. X _ 17. Require separate entrance. 16. S ecial ri3odure for legal rming.uni�ts. X nen-coni 19: q l lc 'b1 e only to uu is b i it Defter a spelp y,c tla el.___. 20: Requa�n se nd unit be attached I, Re8uird:,se OOt unit be detached n u i t;r m mal n 22 Limit ".ize of. new unit. X x z3. Mini MU011-1 o i xe/'coverage° X X 24. EXclusliye. to darner.100 25, Expl i,c' I,tly, al 1 oW ,mobi.l ehomesw 26: Lxpliciit`'y preclude mobilehomes„ _ T. Prohi.b'It d Visioli of. propePty. �. 3, PrOOS ons Of Colusa and Mariposa ordinances are unknown: 4. Butte'Coun'ty also has in "punt Minnie! ordinance in zones permitting mobi1ehomes for elderly or sick relatives without a square footage , limitation ■ - rr i 4. SIZE OF NEW 'UNIT Eight juri"sdi cti onss , iini ted the size of the new second unit. Typically �LePare, footage for the new second ;unit. was --specified, the f, the maximum sg. - responses ranged f,r about 640 tc� 8.50 .square feet. 5. MINIMUM LOT $IZE, fictions specified a minimum lot size 'in order to add a SiXteen jurisd , Some communities additionally, stipulated a maxi „um second Unit. 9 cond unit•: Percentage of 'lot coverage allowed When, a se 6'. PROHIBIT " qI VT SION OP PROPERTY . Nihe jurisdictions responding to the survey prohibited the di i,s�on of the property for purposes of separate ownership._ 7. TEMPORARY USE. ONLY Two jurisdictions with limited second yip�tinremergencdinao,esy conditionshand' second units .can b� used only temporar 1y _P ed for permanent habitation. are' , eci i i �. al 1, nUt to be us - 8, N10dILEhf�`MES Two communities with limited second. unit , ordinances specifically allowed moailehomes to he used as the second dwelling unit. g. REAR OR cORNER LOT Eiyi�t ordinances reguire that the dwelling econdlunitedand threon the eear of the lot to qualify for the addition of a s + to be eligible to ordinances require the dwelling to be on a corner lot add a second unit These are considered limited ordinances because they do not allow for the creation of second units in single family zones except under these very special cirGumstanr. es 10: LARGE LOT Twenty-nine of 'the 41 limitedordinances (71%) ee-addquire a larger �ie second an is stdndard in the single•f'amily tone for the Thes.e ordinances are all sreofIerd l almalmost twor otsnfor theaadditarge lot od1nacos becuse iion of essent1a11y require the landae a second unit. ` r ROSTER Zr JUR'ISDICTIONS WITH LIMITED SECOND UNIT DRDINAPICES ,As of April 19132 CITIES t!,THERTON KING CIT Y , PORTOLA VALLEY ELL 6 FLO WER LA VERNE RIVERBANK, CHOLA VISTA LOMITA , RIVERSIDE CONCORD' LOS ALTOS HILLS ROSEMEAD EL MONTE MODESTO SAN FRANCISCO EL SEGUNDO NAPA SAN LEANDRO FONTAN9 NORWALK SAN LUIS ODISRO FORT JONES OROVILLE 5TOCKfiON GR,EE,NFIELD PETALUMA WINTERS HAW7HORNE PILO RIVERA WOODLANDHAYwaRD. POMONA 000NTSCS DEL NORTE KERN ,GLENN SAN LUIS OBI'SPO PLUMAS- SANTA` CRUZ IMPERIAL SACRAMENTO TULARE MATRIX LIMITED SECOND UNIT ORDINANCES BY CITY As'' of Ap'ril, 1982 s4JCu O O ino 'v 4J id O 4 rn o O a°i ro `� o tz a s� td r tm 5 !r- �, 1• +a cU d m wner oCCU a ncy of �. t� .. O tzrtw z ��egUire .•6.JE n u .,j 4 L rn to secif h_ pis eo ra ae 9 _g pic .r X 3. Limit to rental only, 44'� Control rental rates. S. Limt to sp.'ecific, age group renters. f: 6. Require farni1�ial0ela:'ion5hip. �-- �. aes is{; ext:r+sail alterations to le Struxc i LK 33. esi �qn conti nufty with exi sting orne i I , 9. . Meets density standards of zone' X t 10. Writteconsent from adjoining propervy owners. �• il. Subject to'growth control. 12. Limit number in a given area. 13. Waive parking requirements. 14. Subject toarlr ng/dri vetvay regtl � .:. 15. remend . t t AIM building fire seti. serve ce, Pequ oa sets, k ok ,an X X X X X X l6. itec ui re second _entraneE r. Rec ui re separate entrance. S ecial ro educes for legal nBn.-conf riAng -- _ units. 1` . �ppl i cable only to U i is built /after a sp'eci i s date. X X X 20. req se. nd un,it be attached n Iii un. 21.i i$iseco'unit be detached rgc�ln un. X 22. Limi t si ze_;uf new' unit. _ 3. Minimum lot size/coverage. n.. 24. Exclusive to corlter lot. X X 5 Ex 1'i _ p tly allow mobilehomes =�= 25. Explicitly preclude M6bilehome,`, Prohibit di Vision of property. 23. Large lot only. X• X k X X X X X ito ui re rearI 1 of/deep' lot. X 3t1. . Ternp�tr�ary use only. - ... - X X _ w21 s MATRIX 2(Cont)d) LIMITED SECOND U,NI ORDINANCES BX'CITY As of April, 1,982 NO cU tII j . � � tll N •u% Q SSb.... C IX w sem. (a 'a s. o +a O<•�� b c0 O' S- E ems. > � (n -O r-= b O �., d., �. G.... Cti". GL N rn R! .fin: MATRIX 2.. (cont`d) LIMITED SECOND UNIT ORDINANCES BY CITY As of 'Ap r; l ; 1982 to U � Ti or- O G O 1. �euire wner occupancy of. 1. unit. Z: al n Limit to specific geographic w areas. 3. LiMit to rental only. 4. Cont`: 4)l rental .rates. " 5. Limit to specific age group renters. - - 6. _Requi re familial relationship._ _ 7. test ict external -alterations strut ure. w :; ,o tie 8�esi2n continuity with existing ome " 9. `Meets density standards of zone. 10, iWrittep consent from adjoining 41 proper owners. 11. Subject to growth control., 12. Limit number in a given area. 13. Waive parking requirements: 14. �ub�ect tP. arking/driveway ireme �tg. X° eq 15. Mut meet build ip� fife, setback, amen X X ah servrce re ui s. 16. Require second entrance,. - 17 Require se arate entrance. 16. n9nc-cQnf0rm1ng unitsor legal 9" �� o e�Meornayspecy icsda e�t_ 20. �equice sec2nd unit be attached ung o main . unit bedetached man unit. F.Suirgisecood size of new unit• mum lot size Covera e X X 24 Exclusive to corher�lot• 25,j._ allow mob;lehwes.. 2,6. Explicitly preclude mobilehomes. J-1 27. Prohibit division of prodpertyi_ X M Large lot only. X X X 29. Ro uire rear lot/dee lot. _ X X 30. Temporary use only. t�1AT4tIX 2 LIMIM SECOsOo NA (tont'd) 5 Y COUNTY A p iRgI 952 o . CD x _ fl.tasp ro i,eqire. wner occupancy of main,uu,ni. X to spoi f' c eogra hi c X 3� Limit, torent'..1. only;', _. 4. Control rental. hates.'' _ Lim1t to ;specific age group X` ren ers: - _.e... _ b. Require farmlial re1_ati onshi p. . 7, es' ict ext real alterations ure. ole, struo s, wiVin, continuity with existing ome Meets density standards of zone. X X c s from adjoining i0. pF p[ey �nFts. 11. Subject to growth control. X 12 Limit number in a given area. 13 Waive parking requirements. _ 1 14. SuWct to arking/driveway rement k _.. X req�ii 15. Mint meet building fi,e, setback, an service re ul emesis. x X 15a Rewire second entrance. 17«: Require se arate ent.ranc.e.. _. 18. S�ecial ro4edures for legal n n -confirming units. -- 19' u i c)ble only to i is bU I t ore a ter a spec is da e... 204 Require sec nd unit be attached um, to Ill 21. Mui unit be detached r� m main uni . _ _. X ,, -. ... 22 Limit size of new. unit.,_ X' X X X. X 4 23 Minimum lot.size/coverage. 24., Exclusive to corner lots. X 25.. Explicitly allow mobileh000.,. 25. Explicitly preclude,mobilehomes._._... , X X 27 prbhi bit di vi si on of DrO02L6Y. X_ . X X_ X X ot on1y�.. X .. 29. Reguere28 l of/dee .rear. 3t1. Tempora,ry use only. X -24- V 'JURISDICTIONS4QNSxDFRING SECOND UNIT ORDINANCES I ' Eighty four communities, a, quarter of all, j,urisdi.ctions• responding to the survey, are considering procedures to aT�lorr second 'units in single fami l'y zones (see Roster 3). Proportionately more counties than cities are considering ,;a second unit ordinance -(32% vs., 25) Over three-quarters of the counties: responding to the survey either 'have ;some., form of "a second, unit ordinance or are considering :one: forty, per1cent of the cities have ,an ordinance allowing'secon'd units or are consider ing'devel.rping,one, Most of the Ju r.i sd cti ons considering an ordinance; to al l ow second uni is in R-1 zones noted the need for elderly housing opportunities or specifically cited Senate Bill 1.160 (Mello, Chapter 887 of 1981) as the primary reason for considering a second unit ordinance. Many jurisdictions a1s.,,'cited "citizen demand" for second units as another major reason for considering a second unit ordinance. The citizen demand for second units 'i p ' percent of very great in some cities. The City of Monterey, for example, cited survey results that show "over seventy single family homeowners favor second units." Jurisdictions also mentioned housing element law and the need to expand the affordable housing stock; as reasons for considering a second unit ordinance. An analysis of the provisions being considered for inclusion in a:sec:ond unit ordinance yielded a list of the most common provisions under consideration by local jurisdictions in California (see Matrix 3). Of all the possible provisions, the 'following five were most often noted by the communities consideringa second unit ordinance: RANKING OF PROVISIONS BEING;CONSIDERED FOR SECONU.UNIT ORDINANCES 1. Limit size of new unit 2. Require owner occupancy of main unit 3, Limit to a specific age group of renters 4 Limit to rental only 5. Waive parking requirements Many jurisdictions are ccosidering drafting an ordinance in direct response to SB 1150. This is reflected by the kinds of provisions these jurisdictions are considering including in their second unit ordinance. The most common provision mentioned by both cities and counties considering a second unit ordinance was a limit on the size of the new unit. Many jurisdictions noted the 640 Square foot size limitation contained in 59 1150, Other common provisions being considered by both cities and counties are owner occupancy of the main unit, and limiting the new units to rental only by aspecific group of .renters, usual':y the elderly, as specified in SO 11Q, Approxima''eIhalf of the jurisdictions considering a second unit ot`dinance are considering provisions which would discourage speculasciorn. The most popular mechanisms for discouraging speculation among these jurisdictions -25 I ROSTER 3: _ L'I ST OF�JIICT I ONS CON SIDERINC'-SEC ND UNITS s of A ri 1 1982 CIS, HUNTINGTON BEACH RIO DELL ADELANTO ROCKLIN - ALBANY INDIO SAN DIEGO LAKEWOOD , ANAHEIM SAN FERNANDO A LA MESA SANGER ATASCADERO LARKSPUR SAN JOSS LIVERMORE BARSTOW LONG BEACH - SAN RAFAEL BURBANK LOS ANGELES SANTA CRUZ CARMEL SANTA MARIA LOS GATOS CHICO LYNWOOD SEASIDE CHOWCHILLA MILL VALLEY SEBASTOPOL CLAYTON MONTEREY SONOMA CUPERTINO MONTE SERENO , SONORA DAVIS MORGAN HILL ST, HELENA ESCALON THOUSAND OAKS FAIRFAX _ _ _ MORRO BAY _ TIBURON FORT BRAGG NORCO TRACY - FORTUNA NOVATO TURL G1C OAKDALE FRESNO VACAV,LLE GARDENA ONTARIO V15AL`IA GARDEN GROVE ORANGE' WALNUT CREEK PAf.iFICA GILROY WATSONVILLE GRAND TERRACE PASADENA WESTMINSTER HALF MOON BAY PIEDMONT WHIG{TYFR W PLACERVILLE HUGHSON w COUNT- SAN BERNARDINO MONO AL'AMEDA SAN DIEGO FRESNO NAPA VENTURA HUMBOLDT NEVADA . k YUBA LOS ANGELES ORANGE -27- • n PI _ ; 'MATRIX 3 CITIES CONSIDERINGSECOND`UNIT ORDINANCES: , POTENTIAL PROVISIONS As 'of April, 1982, 1 o 4j E rt o Cu v sd rn r c ' r c C tU C Cl 'a to u O C yw. 4J M ill 0 O u O •N � O 5.. c� U' L) V• O W 1.Re ui e; �tner' occupancy of MD?,. din. X X. X X X X X X 2. Limit to specific geographic areas. 3.1 Llm•t to specific age group renters.. IX X X X X X " X 4. Limit to rental only. X I X X X' 5'. Control rental rates. ?X 7 6. Limit Size of OeW unit. X x X x X X x X X 7• es ict ext r al alterations to tfil X X X X X strut u. e. 8. Require separate metering. X X_ '9. New 1' , r" c du f r exit�rtg i_ cc Ba?ed URAou bene a permit. ? X 10: Re uire familial relatiorishi'p. X X X 11. Subjecii_to growth control. 12. Limit .,number -i n a ;given. area. X 10. Waive parking requirements. X X X X X 14.Aplit b onlyWto.0 'ts b ilt ore a er a spoecMc dale. 15. Time limits on applicability, X X 16. d unit be attached �e u,d iremain rom unisecon ti X X X 17: �e uireseco�i unit be detached rim main un 18. Other. X X X 194 Unknown at this time. X X X A VOTE: A question mark indicates that the jurisdiction is prdsently undecided about including this provision Y MATRIX 3• ,(cont'd) CITIES; CONSIOERiNG SECOND .UNIT ORDINANCES: POTENTIAL PROVISIONS As of Aprj 1982 u _ > m Ri VrW C c ti9 0 3 C) S- +a N C '� aj 'fS. rte-` -ij � t (A ch � A .r N 'C7 , � n lL. LL. IL 1.L. C� CD C.a tJ x 1. Wi RRe�uie. er otcupanty' of X X n n�$.. X' X 2,'. tea Limit to speci 1 i;c geographic X X X X X ., areas, Lim t to speciti.c age group X X '' ... X X 4. ren ei,s. X Limit to rental only. X 5 Control rental rates. " X X X X X X X X 5. Li�ni.t size of net unit X 7.: tips int extgknal alterations k X ie struc u e. 86, ., Require separate metering X X X v MATRIX 3 :(cont,'d) CITIES CONSIDERING SECOND,UNIT ORDINANCES: POTENTIAL PROVISIONS' As pf April:, 1982 N in o i o m rn CL CO e 4-? ra v ro a o to m as q 05 Cn s. > c w CD (n p W a r-. 4-1 QJ 4--1Cn c ro s. O s. O 4J ro S. > as -J- a o p o 0 o ro 1. Re uire wrier occupancy of Rma en unit. , X X X X X'X X X :;. 2. LiMit; to specific geographic areas, k X X X X , ,i 3. 'Li mit to specific age group renters. �^ ? X X X 4. 'Limit, to rental .'only. _ , 5. Control rental rates: X X X X X 6, : Limit, sire, of new unit X ? X 7.est ct e� tornal alterati ons to .��ie structure* X 8. Require separate metering X X g' Heii ea�eceidy�M. ou2rbenel iti l f a perms, X X ., X X 1.0: Require familial relationship,. X X 31. Subject to growth control. ,12. Limit number in a given area.. X X X X 13. Waive parking requirements. X X X ? X X 14i lie b only to a t5 b ilt �eore�a da X er a specie e. , 15. Time limits on applicability„ X X 6. �e" ui rerecon unit be atts� cMd r�m main uni X 17.reu a irecon ni.� be detached aches± rc m+_main_un�u _. _. X 18. Other: X �; X rt 9. Unknown at this time. NOM E i A qu•.ft tion Ma rk indicates that the juts l sdi cti on is presehtly'undecided about including this provision. MATRIX, 3 (con,VA) 'CITIES CONSIDERING SECOND 'UNM ORDINANCES: POTENTIAL PROVISIONS As of April, 1982 a� r •? a �'-N a p i» n t V srd'Y •r N 4-- 'v G 0 E r— C W 5.: C!1 •H- of-41 W r C� is LT 4) tn 4- d t0 � OG V rd ru C b it (d ` U to 'aU a) -V (O. O U a CTs 1= S- td 10 10 rd' 4,1 r- (0 d Q.. 0- Cl, Gt- tY ,_ tl) 'l/) . N to t/T N 1. Re ui re wn r oceupany of X X j r X man uni�. Z. Limit 'to specific geographic ; areas. - Ix - . X 3. Limj'to specific age group t ren ers. X X X X. ? X 4. Limit to rental onl X X X S. 'Control rental rates: .�.. 6. ,Limit size of new unit. X X X Ix X X I X `( X 7. 'Restrict ekterhal alterations to the structure. X I f X 8. Requi re se `arater meteri ng ; } g. u�i1 s c �a epddwi bene i ngf sou. a perms . X X 10. 'Requi're familial rel ati onshi p. _ X X 11. Subject to growth control. X X -: 12. Limit number in a given area. X 13. Waive.,parking requirements. x 14. tic y to wits britt daVe. I.x ore�aker a speci�ic 15. Time Iimits'Oh appli'cabili'ty. X X 16, uire,secong unit be attached MX m mat n uni 17. a ui^e seco r' unit be detached X_ rc m main nunit 18 _ Other: X X Y; 19. Unknown at this time X X X NU f E: A question mark indicates that the ju ri sdi tti on is presootly uhdeeided about including this provisioo .3 MOW3 i (cont d) CITIES CONSIDERI'M SECOND UNIT ORDINANCES! FOTENTI'AL pRgVIS'ION - As Of April, 1982 o c o CU a� N W t+9 rti C? O O .L7 ro L U th r irk e°i to V) ( 1. Regui re owner occupancy of , X X X X' X X main unit. 2.Limjt*ta specific geographic are X X s.. .,.- 3.' renierto specific r)ge group X X X X X 4. Limit to rental orliy, X X X X 5.: Control rental rates.. 6. Limit size of n;aw.dnit. X X X X." X X 7. Rte%tct extprrial alterations o e structmle. X 8. Require separate metering.. X X 9' Special procedures for existing units cteatea without benefit of X X a permi 10. Require familial relationship. 7 X X X 11. Subject to growth control. X ~ 12. Limit.numheh ih a given area. X 13. Waive. parking requireiients. X 7 X X 14. Ap l is ble only to units built be.ore/after a specific date. 15. ` Time limits' on applicability. 16. Rie secor, unit be attached N X X. _ mire . main ung . 17. Require,second unit be detached X X from ma7n unit. 00 18 Other. 19. Unknown at this time:. X X X X X NU`CE: A gslahncindicates dJ dp ri s this ls plesentyudeidabout ihOuin poViah , , `33 X34 } MATRIX (cont'd) COUNTIES CONSIDERINGUNIT ORD "IAND POTENAs SNANCES of April, 1982 0 tJl N � td b O f b M c Co„ an as p V ttl w t11 mi(0 tu G to 1. Re ui re . wrier occupancy of unit. X X X X X 2 main Limit to specific geographic X 3. areas. Limt to specific age group X X X X X X 'X renters. X X X 4. Limit to rental only_. X 5. Control rental 'rates. X X X X X X X X 6. Limit size of new unit. -- 70 estrict external alterations X X o the.structure. 8. Require separate metering. 9. ugeeac eaeed wieiouerbene i�t,gf X a HMCM' X X 10 relationship. X 11 Subject to growth control,. _ X X X 12. Limit number in agiven area. X 13. Waive Parking requirements,. 14 A,' 1. b}' on l'y too its b i ii: b� ore a er a specMitc dViel .� Tse 1:.A4+e nn Ann1itabilitV. X ^_' VI. JURISDICTINS NOT CONSIDERING SECOND UNIT ORDINANCES Forty percent of the jurisdictions responding to the survey are not considering procedures to allow second units in single, family zones. Tile "not considering" category Is the largest response Category an the questionnaire; however, these r I egponses were made prior to the passage of SB 1534. Jurisdictions which have rejected the second unit concept combined with those that are not considering An ordinance, comprise over half (56%) of the jurisdictions in the survey. Local governmentsare required to implement SB 1534 by July 1, 1983. This bill provides local governments very 'Droad discretion todesignate zones which are approp'riat',b for second units; and to develop standards considered suitable for local ,conditions. If zones are not designated, a local government would be required, Under specific criteria, to grant a conditional use permit for creating a companion unit contained Wthiii the existing home, which may involve a small amount of now construction. Under the provisloos of the bill, local governme,hts may preclude second units altogether when they find the need to protect greater than the need for this form of housing. Proportionately more of the cities than the counties are not considering or are rejecting a second unit ordinance, 60% of the cities Versus 24% of the counties. Resistance to adopting an ordinance allowing second units in single family zones has several components. Community concenns such as parking, traffic, density, and the additional burden on infrattruttuPe ate issues repeatedly mentioned by the local jurisdictions not considering second Unit ordin6hce4 Zoning issues. also surfaced in comments from local planhersi, Many jurisdictions stressed the importance of maintaining the integrity of the single family zone and others claimed it would be administratively more cost efficient and practical to simply rezone to R-2 to allow second units. The issue of the enforceability of second Unit 'ordinances was a Common theme Among responses from jurisdictions not considering ordinances, as well at from jurisdictions which have refected the concepll�' outright. According to Patrick Hateo a leading national researcher on second Units, in many Cases localities and homeowners resist second units because any change in zoning provokes fears Of lots in both quality of life And finances. According to Have, "reasons will be found to oppose Change thatdoeg not: come with almost absolute assurance that Change is for the better." Rostoe 4 is 0 liqti'ng of jurisdictions that are not currently considering a second unit ordinance but have not fo-MallY rejected the second unit concept. 6. Patrick H. Hate,,AccessorApartmgnts., Famil,v Houses American PlanMng ASSOC Keport #Jbb k eCeMDe pi MI), page 2* -37" _sing Surol:us i o'� n PTa-6ning I LtST.` .ROSTER'..4,: " OI�SI CT ION S NOT �t'ONSIDERING AL'LOWING`SECJND.UNLTS` AS, of=Agri 1.:].982 CIT'.IES ALAMEDA ANGELS CAMP HEALDSBURG HURON REDWOOD CITY AUBURNREEDLEY IONE `. AVENAL JI�CKSON RIALTO AZUSA KERMAN RICHMOND BELL • y BELMONT LAGUNA BEACH ROHNERT PARK ROSEVILLE BERKELEY LAKEPORT LA MIRADA SACRAMENTO BEVERLY HILLS LANCASTER R SALINAS BRENTWOOD LA CASTE E BRUNO SAN CERNARDINO BURLINGAME LAWNDENB BAN CAMARILLO CAPITOLA LEMON GROVE SAN CARLOS SAN'CLEMENTE CARL58AD LEMON LIVINGSTON SAND CITY CARSON CHINO LOS ALAMII'OS SAN JACINTO SAN JUAN BAUTISTA CLEARLAKE LOS BANOS MADERA SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO CLOVERDALE CLOVIS MANHATTAN BEACH SAN MARINO SAN PABLU CORCORAN MANTECA MANTEC SANTA ANA CORNING MAR IN SANTA FE SPRINGS CORONA MERCETAS SANTA ROSA CRESCENT CITY MILPITAS SELMA DALY CITY MONTCLAIRO SIERRA MADRE DELANO DEL MAR _ MONTEREY PARK, SIGNAL HILL SIMI'VALLEY DEL REY OAKS MOUNT SHASTA NATIONAL CITY° SOUTH GATE DINUBA NEWARK SOUTH LAKE TAHOE DORRIS- NEWARK SOUTH PASADENA DUBLIN' EL CAJON - NEWPORT BEACH STANTON TAFT EL CENTRO ORANGE COVE OXNARD TEHAMA ESCONDIDO FAIRFIELD PALMDALE TORRANCE UNION CITY FOSTER CITY PERRIS PINOLE VALLEJO FOUNTAIN VALLEY FOWLER PLEASANTON VENTURA VILLA PARK FUERTON POINT ARENA PORT 14UENEME WEST 'COVINA LT GLENDALE RANCHO CUCAMONGA WESTMORLANDLLAGE y GRASS �VA'VALLEYRED BLUFFREDOIG NG WHEATLAND `WILLIAMS GUSTINE REDDIN WILLITS VIyI. JORISDICTIONS WHICH HAVE REJECTED SECOND UNITS t, had rejectedsecond unafts'in single ctions responding to the survey replied that they SiXteen percent or S2 of the jur7sdi family zones. Proportionately more of the cities than the counties rejected the second unit concept. 'Seventeen percent, 49 of'the responding cities, as compared to eight percent, three of the responding counties have refected second -units. Cities in urban, metropolitan .areas of the State were more likely to reject' the second unit concept than cities in r'ural,'n'on-metropolitan areas. Seventeenpercent of the metropolitan jurisdictions rejected the concept compared to seven percent of the non -metropolitan jurisdictions. Eighteen percent of the urban cities rejected the concept of'second units whereas only- eight'rlercent of the rural citiesrejected the concept, of second units. Roster'5 lists the jurisdictions which have rejected' allowing second units in single family zones. Of those cities rejecting the second Uhit concept, 93% were In metropolitan areas and 81% were urban. , This represents a disproportionate ercentge of metropolitan, urban jurisdictions rejecting the second unit concept. The comments of the'plahners in jurisdictions rejecting second units generally implied recognition of the value of second units to satisfy specific housing needs, such as those of elderly or °low income households:, by the objections posed to the concept. They demonstrated their concern With protecting the quality and integrity of the single family zone by the types of constraints they identified and evaluated. 8ARRI'ERS TO SECOND UNIT ORDINANCES Seven major reasons Were cited for rejecting second units in single-family zones. In order of frequency._ they are: enforcemchanging' problems natureofsingle family neighborhoods traffic problems infrastructure constraints density increases general plan restrictions public opinion 1 ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS The most commoo reason cited for rejecting a second unit ordinance was the problem of enforcement. Local governments generally wished to restrict occupancy of the second unit, requiring monitoring. Therefore the comments.from local jurisdictions focused on code enforcement or 7. "Urban" includes places of 20,000 or more inhabitants; ""metropolitan"" 'includes jurisdictions within, Standard Metropolitan Statistical areas. -41- administrative costs and difficrllties in implementing 'ordinances. The ,stipulation i:n Senator Mello's bill, S .1160 (Chapter 887 of 1,' 98119 restricting second um s t o seniors, only; was the most common subject y comments. The sdbect of limiting' second units . r:ai sed, in enf°rceab711O8 or i n Santa 1 i ty ' s Y popat7on 1 rceabiClara City of Sunnyvale, or exam le, the. C y under' attack for en a �o rental t� relatlVes only also. came County, commented on the enforceability problem, "'The City,can easily control the structural components of adding a second unit. But it is next toimpossible to actually enforce the social orle,nted ideaq ``Far creating a second unite 'For example, it,'s been suggested that tnetunibe etoeget irtoonly positiorinlor where citizens,...I would not like'City elrOn who lives in a it has to ask the age of every person or any p :second unit; . "n theory, the socially oriented reasons for establishing a second unit (i.e., providing affordable housing far' the, elderly) sound great. However, in the real world it is totally unenforceable. No one JS going to throw out a .single 55 year old Woman from her home for the sole reason that she i,s'not technically a senior citizen." Ann Draper Planning Officer City of Sunnyvale Some jurisdictions believed that :S3 1160 (Ci apter 887 of 1981) restricts ,, iter' this as a barrier. SB 1160 does second units to seniors only, and t` (Refer not restrict local government. s alflity to allow second un, is. to Appendix) As a point. of information, very ft?wdc1�risdictionsliniwhich have ado tedncy of a second Unit ordinance, have include p , the unit to %5oniors only, nor does State law limit occupancy in this regard. 2. CHANGING THE NATURE OF SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS The second moss com�tanly cited barrier to the second unit concept was a •. second units would negatively impact concent with preserving the character of the single family zone Tract ;jurisdictions feared that allowing y the character of siriglp family' neighbnrhood5. Gafrcnangeois any change Often in zoning regulations provokes fear and any type viewed negatively. As a point of information, these fears appear to be unwarranted, basQd on the results of this survey, For example, the low, level of ""mplementation (averaging one app lit ati% per year per locality) combil with other requirements typicall li�e requv�ementskef aboutng requirements, owner-Occupancy) and`usua inn- 700 square feet, appears to suggest that ivhere`seco6d unit ordinances are. app lied, the actual number Of units resulting will be low. Further, -42- because of the typical size requirements, the units will be predominately occupied by single elderly,, and or two person lioUsellolds. Therefore any` significant cohcentrat�ons or increases in neighborhood de►'iritie"s` are unlikely to occur `in��mrst jurisdictions in the forsdeable futtre 3. PARKING AND TRAFFIC PROBLEMS , Many jurisdictions i►ienttio0ed parking and 'traffic as major barriers to the second unit ticr,�apt. T116 concern with parklhg is also reflected in adopted second unit ordinances Which require additional parking. ,Not a single jurisdiction with a second unit ordinance has waived the nd' parking re' uirements� for second``units` Almost half of the proposed secbnd''itnit qq p oval ortlinances st`i'pulate that the' arking requirement's for the aditi unit may be Wai��ed for second 'uiiii;5. iev Jerse and Connecticut), a study arming In a recent survey conducted 'by the Tri-State Regional Play was made ori` Commission (New Yore„ f y When asked hpW they lacatei` the objections to second unit conversions. + ation of houses that had been convertcars conversions, only 'rine out of 186 respondents replied that increased and traffic in�'T:ca�,e�i he lbs com taint reported against r.onv rsions. Yet, g ersions was the second most Frequent p that they irtcreased traffic. This apparent discrepancy indicates that homeowners thhb are an,�tous about accessory apartments Will sometimes find reasons to oppose them even if they are not borne out by the facts 4. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS The ;nadequacy of the existing infrasttucture to accommodate additional units in single famil zones was the fourth most common barriermentioned by local jurisdictions. The infrastructure issue is tied to density issues as well as general plan restrictions mentioned by many jurisdictiotis. existing second unit ordinances rz ulre that second units A majority of deet setback, building code., and service requirements. Many jurisdictions eglicitly state in their ordinance that the second unit iiiust not strain e?isting water and sewer facilities, however, much of the Housing stock and hence infrastructure, was deigned for murk more intense use by large 'households. National figures show that the size of the average U.S. household decreased during the jg70s from 2,6 to 2.3 persons, but the size of the average homy and apartment increased; 5: GENERAL PLAN RESTRICTIONS W Some jurisdictions listed restrictions in the General Plan as major barriers to second units in single family zones. Overall, these are r0lated to density and public opinion objections. Six barriers � , existing ordinances which allow second units in single family zones stipulate that the addition of such units must meta the density standards of the zone. -43- ROSTER 5t JURISDICTIONS WHICH—NAiIE-EJECTED SECOND UK TS IN. SINGLE FAMILYZONES As�of �Apr,'i 1, 19ti2 CITIES ALHAMBRA HUNTINGTON PARK SANTA BARBARA BALDWIN 'PARK INDIAN WELLS SANTA 'CLARA BUENA, PARK. INDUSTRY SANTA MONICA ` . CAMPBELL INGLEWOOD SANTA PAULA CERES, IRVINE SARATOGA CER.RITOS LA PALMA SAU5ALITO COALINGA LINDSAY SCOTTS VALLEY' CUR,ONADO LOMPOC SEAL BEACH COSTA MESA MOUNTAIN VIEM S. SAN FRANCISCO COVINA OJAI SUNNYVALE<' CUL VER CITY PALM SPRINGS TEMPLE CITY DIXON PLACENTIA UKIAH EL CERRITO POWAY' VICTORVILLE _EUREKA RANCHO MIRAGE _ VISTA P'REMONT REDONOO BEACIH WASCC GL,ENDORA SAN DIMAS GROVER CITY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTIES AMADOR MERGED SISKIYOU -45- U-deilu,:U00 1%600 — 24,599 x,,000 499999. 513"c a 99,999 '- 249,999 �Q1t�CI + TOTAL Total- Conatcted Response- 63) 30 of Population Limp Res onng Total Con�tcted Res 'ion (r (2,) 5 ,aup Regoondin i69 >>39 52 (5) 9 40 1.149 j �� (63) 22 67 (13) . 23 (81 .1 62 t32) ;192; (63) 22 77 ; 11 19 (7 18 64-, 5 Central Coast 18 91 12� 21 (9) 24 75 (19 y4 (19 ) 6 iUO (10) .18 (6) 1;6 60 (7,, 2 ( 2 1GO (6 to 6 16 10U (429) l ,100 (293) 100 68 (57) 100 (38) 160 67 PERCENTAGE RESPONSE BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREA* Area Jurisdictions # Responding 'Response I. North Coast 24 13 75 2. Far North & Mountain 77 37 48 3 North Central 22 15 68 4 gay Area 80 62 18 5 Central Coast 45 35 78 6. Central 66 39 59 7, Los Ingeles 110 80 72 3. San biego 17 13 76 9. South 45 30 67 68 Refer to following page for area description GEOGRAPHICAL AREA AREA ' COUNTIES INCLUDED I. North Coast Del Norte Humboldt Mendocino Sonoma Far North and Mountain Arpin Amaddr' Butte Calaveras. Col usa E1 Dorado Glenn Inyo Lake Lasson Madera Mariposa Modoc Mona', Nevada Places Pl umas Shasta Sierra Siskiyou Sutter Tehama Trinity 'Tuolumne Yuba *3. North Central Napa Sacramento Sol acro Yola 4 Bay Area Alameda Contra Costa Marin San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara 5. Central Coast _ Monterey Sari Benito San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Santa Cruz 'Ventura 6. Central Fresno Kern Kings Me'rt6d Sart joaqu n Stanislaus Tulare 1i Los Angeles and Orange Los Angeles Orange B. San 01 ,04(1 San Diego 9.. South Imperial Riverside San Bernardino . ***� allow second unit by ordinance ** _ special, liniite', ordinances only ** .w cons7deriAg an r►rdinance reject Sedond ullit5 not coosiderinl) . resents local govern 1� Re p menu that t-espohded by dune, I"RC2. 2, Emeryville and Maywood do not have a �ingle family district. CiTLtS RESPONDING TO'QUESTIONNAIREI ADELANTO*, CLOVERDALE FREMONT k FRESNO** ALAMEDA CL4VI5 COALINGA* FULLERTON i, ALBANY** ALHAMBRA* CONCORD * GALT GARDENA** ANAHEIM** CORCORAN CORNING GARDEN GROVE** ANGELS CAMP CORONA t GILROY** ARCADIA** CORTE GLENDALF ARCATA**** ATA..`CA,DERO** CORTE MADERA **** GLENDORA* GRAND TERRACE** ATNEk JN'*** G05fA *ESA* COVINA GRASS VALLEY A�1.E,NAL CRESCENT GI*Y GREENFIELD*** GROVER CITY* AZUSA CUL'VER CITY CUpERTINp** GUSTIN1r r **** BAKERSFIELD DALY CITY F ALF MOON BAY** BALDWIN PARK* DAVIS HAWTHORNE*** BARS�'Otl** DELA'' HAYWARD*** " BELL .. BELLFLOWER*** DEL MAR DEL P,EY OAKS , HEALDSBURG HEMET**** BELMONT BERKELEY - DINUBA HUGH5ON** ©EACH** 'HILL'S DHUNTINGTON IXUN* DIXON*BEVERLEY HUNTINGTON PARK* BRENTWOOD] BUENA PARK* ` BCAJON HURON IMPERIAL**** BURBANK. ELEL CENTRO INDIAN WELLS* BURLINGAME CAMARILLO EL CERRITO* INDIO** INDUSTRY* CAMPBELL* , ** EL EI. SEGl1ND0*** INGLEWOOD* CAPII`OLA EMEkYVILLE****2 IONS •* CARLSBAD CARMEL**' ESCALON** IRVINE **** CARI'IN7`ER1A - ESCOND too EUREKA* EUREFAIRKAX** KERMANN CARSON CERES* KING CITY*** LAFAYE'TTE**** CERRITOS* FAIRFIELD FONTANA*** LAGUNA BEACH CHiCO** CHINO* FORT BRAGG** * LAKEPORT LAKEWOOD** ' CHOyJCHILLA,** FORT NA** FORTUNA** l�A MESA** CHULA VISTA*** FOSTER CITY LA MIRADA CLAREMONT**** FOUNTAIN VALLEY LANCASTER CLAYTON** FOWLER LA PALMA* CLEARLAKE ***� allow second unit by ordinance ** _ special, liniite', ordinances only ** .w cons7deriAg an r►rdinance reject Sedond ullit5 not coosiderinl) . resents local govern 1� Re p menu that t-espohded by dune, I"RC2. 2, Emeryville and Maywood do not have a �ingle family district. LAKWUK"" LA VERNE*** NORCO** NORWALK*qt* RO**RIC ROSEMEEMEAO LAWNOALE LEMON GROVE NOVATO** * OAKDALE* ROSEV ILLE SACRAMENTO LEMOORE LINDSAY* OAKLAND**** OJAI* SALINAS SAN ANSELMO**** LIVERMORE'** ONT.ARIO** SAN BERNARDINO. LIVINGSTON LOMITA*** " ORh��GE*` ORANGE COVE SAN BRUNO SAN Gp,RL05 LOMPOC LONG BEACH"* i'RQVILLE*** C�KNARD SAN CLEMENTE LOS ALAMITOS * ,LOS. ALTOS HILLS PA:;IFICA** PALMDALE SAND CITY SAN DIEGO ** 6IMAS* LOS ANGELES" A PALM SPRINGS* SAN SAN FERNANDO** LOS BANOS GATQS** PASADENA** ' SAN FRANCISCO*** , LOS LYNWOOD** PEZRIS PETALUMA*** SANGER**, SAN JOAQUIN* MADERA MANHATTAN BEACH FICO RIVERA***' PIEDMONT** SAN JACIN?O, SAN JOSE** MANTECA 1, PINOLE 5AN JUAN [AUTIF;fA „ MARINA **** MARTINEZ PLACENTIA* I�LI,aCERVILL E** CAPISTRANO SAN JUAN 4** LCANDRi►� MAYWOOD ****2 PLCASANTON SAN SAN LUIS OBISPO*** MERCED MILL VALLEY** POINT ARENA POMONA*** SAN MAP.s'WO SA N PABLO MODE T O MOOESTO** PORT HUENEME P09TOLA VALLEY, *** SAN �RAFAEL** SAMA ANA MONTCLAI MONTEBELLO POWAY* RANCHO CUCAMONGA ` SANTA BARBARA* SANTA CRUZ** MONTEREY** MONTEREY PARR RANCHO MIRAGE* _ RED BLUFF _ SANTA CRUZ** SANTA FE SPRINGS MONTE.5ERENO** _ MORAGA **•x* REDD'INu REDLANDS * SANTA MARIA** SANTA MONICA* MORGAN HILL** MORftO BAY** REDONDO BEACH REDWOOD CITY SANTA PAULA SANTA ROSA MOUNTAIN VIEW* MOUNT A REEOLEY SARATOGA* NAPA**** RIALTO RICHMOND SAUSALITO* SCOTTS VALLEY* NATIONAL CITY Rio UCLL** ` NEWARK: *** - allow second unit by nidinance ** specials limited ordinances Only .. ** Considering an ordinance reject second units - not Cohsidering CITIES RESAOi`i TING TO (QUESTIONNAIRE (cunt'') SEAL BEACH* SUNNYVALE* VISALIA** SEASIDE** TAFT VISTA* SEBASTO''OG** TEHAMA WALNUT CREEK** SELMA TEMPLE CITY* WASCO* SIERRA.MADRE THOUSAND OAKS** WATSONVILL8t* :SIGNAL HILL TIBURON** WEST CQVINA ?, SIMI VALLEY TORRANCE WESTLAKE VIUAGE SONOMA** TRACY** WESTMINSTER" SONORA** TURLOCK** WESTMORLAND ;SOUTH GATE' UKAAHI; WHEATLANI'i SUUTH LAKE TAHOE UNION CITY WHITTIER** SOUTH PASADENA VACAVILLE** WILLIAMS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO* VALLEJO WILLITS ST. HELENA** VENTURA WINTERS'*** STANTON VICTORVI'LLE* WOODLAND*** STOCKTON*** VILLA PARK- COUNTIES RESPO`.10'ING TO OUESTIONNAIRE ALAMEDA** MARINA*** SAN DIEGO** AMAOOR* MARIPOSA**** SAN LUIS OBISPO*** BUTTE**** MERCED* SANTA BARBARA COLUSA**** MONO** SANTA CRUZ*** CEL NORTE*** MONTEREY**** SHASTA**** FRESNO"' NAPA** SISKIYOU* GLENN*** NEVADA** SOLANO HUMBOLDT** _ _ _ ORANGE** TULARE*** IMPERIAL*** PLACER TUOLUMNE**** INYO PLUMAS*** VENTURA** KERN'** RIVERSIDE YOLO LOS ,ANGELES** SACRAMENTO" YUBA** MADERA***# SAN BERNARDINO** SECOND UNIT. SURVEY Name of local jurisdiction; Name of person filling out this survey: Title: Phone: Address: - ~" PART I: ALL CI°TIES AND COUNTIES 1„ ' I n your jurisdiction, <ire there second units in single faimi ly residential zones? Yes. If yes, appr6ximately how many? (estimate.) No. 2. Approximately how many of these second units were created without authorization by your city or county? 3. goes your jurisdiction allow for the creation of second units in a ,single fami,l'y residential zone? Yes. -- You have completed this page of the questionnaire Please also answer the questions on the BLUE.PAGE. No, but we are considering developing procedures to allow for second units in single family zones. -- You have completed this page of the questionnaire: Please also answer the questions on the YELLOW.PAGE. No, we have not considered allowing second units in single family zones. �No, we have rejected the second unit concept. -- What do think the major barriers were to the second unit concept? r *Note; Por the purposes of this questionnaire a second unit is defined as a dwelling which has separate cooping, eating, sleeping; and sanitation facilities which iS either attached or detached from a single family dwelling on the same lot or parcel. -55-• PART II: ALL CITIES AND COUNTIES ,WHICH ALLOW FOR THE CREATION OF r; SECOND UNITS What procedures are used i applications for the ,creation of 1. p n reviewing second units in single. family zones? Check all that apply: Separate Zoning District By Right Overlay zone ..._ Spec'ial Use Permit Conditional Us6,Permit_ Zoning Variance J Other (please - describe) . Your jurisdiction adopt an ordinance or procedures for 2-. What y ear.did allowing second units? p is their r � "` have been applied i ed -for to date, and 'what <<t* rl4.,,' �.rz:l'i'ca�:�c�ns status? Number of Applications - ._.- Number of Approved Number, Denied -»--- Number Pending Please send a copy of any ordinances You have completed this ques'tionOaire. much for your or other mat eria'Is you have developed. TbOK you Very cooperation. - our survey? t4ould you be interested in a copy of the, findings fro m Yes. �'� No ALL CITIESAND COUNTIES DEVELOPINGPROCEDURES PART SII. TO ALLOW FOR SECOND UNITS , second units in response to any of the You considering allowing i� fol Y ernme following? Check All That App y `i Section 65852.1 of the Gov nt Code) Sg 1160 ((Mello) Lwi(Secion 65580 of thee Government Code) Housing Clemen lease cribe) Other community concerns (p ^� the creation of second you GonSiderin9 ,for allowing What 1 egal .tools f are zones? units it sing conditional Use Permit Separate Zoning District ��E Unknow At This • Variance Zone 'Other p T�nr, —"r 8y Right � lease describer) , Overla Use Permit -�--- Specj a �.._.- rovi5it;n°, ar. jeing considered fosr a .s, .' he following kp , d units? Please comment inC'7115itill rerr,'JIaY` 67ts�r .iA G,fn relaQes f'inecessary where possible, attach additional pages CONi�IEF�'i"�`• Check All That Apply Require owner occupancy of primary un►'t -----' Limit to specific geographic areas.,_---------- Limit to sp vicific age group renters _. Limit to rental only Control size of new unit ------ Limit size of new unit , Restrict external alte'r•at� ons to the structure arate me Require septering, units -� special procedures for,exlstingermit �.._----�- S eci a created without benefit of ,a p ��_ uire familial relationship :�.---1Sub o groWth oontrol Suba' ect t i Ven area------r"" Li mit numbs r i n a -_�-- Waive parking requirements licableonly to units built before/ ---- Applicable fi c dal e (pLease specify) imed mspecific, s Tiion app l . c;ab i 1 ty (please ___------» spet°r fy) Uthor----= Unknown at this time You have completed this quiasti c►nnai rea developed, Thank you very much Please send copy of any materials you have for your cuoperati011i nterested i i` a copy i of the. findings from rl4r surve;t? Would y hP ere No 1 . -57y.