Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
SR-081396-9A
.~ ~• i P&Z:DKW:AS:f:\plan\share\council\strpt\secucc '~'"G i,3 ~~~ City Council Mtg August 13, 199& Santa Monica, Cali ornia TO. Mayor and City Co~.:ncil FROM• City Staff SUBJECT: Recommer_dation to Prepare a Local Ordinance Relating to Second Dwelling Units in the R1 Single Family District INTRODUCTION Santa Monica's Zoning Ordnance currently prohipits second units (com~nanly known as "gra:lny units" ; in the R~. si ~~gle family zoning district. Nevertheless, the State of California mandates that cities take specific action related to second dwell~rg units in single family zones once a cond.tional use per~rit application has been filed for such a unit. Such an application has been filed This staff report outlines the options available to the Council a:~d recommends that the Council direct staff to prepare a local ordinance regulating second units BACKGROUND On June 18, 1996 the City Plannirg Division received a Conditional Use Permit application (see Exhibit 1j far a second unit an a property at 1518 Hill Street This application was filed pursuant to the provisions of State law. In consultation with the City Attorney's office, staff determined teat the Czty was obligated to accept and process t~is appl~caLior_ This is the first such application which has been grade in the City of Santa Monica. State 9A QUG ~ 3 1996 law provides a city with the optzon of either prohibiting second units entirely based upon written findings regarding specific adverse public health, safety and welfare a.mpacts, or allowing for such units subject to locally developed standards including the issuance of a conditional use permit. As more fully discussed below, although the issue was debated in the context of adoption of the 1988 Zoning Ordinance prohibit~.ng second units in the R1 District, the City Council did not adopt the State required specified findings. If a city does not either adopt appropriate findings or provide for such units in the R1, State law provides that when a city receives its first application far a conditional use permit for a second unit, the city must accept the application and Make one of she `ollowing actions within 120 days of receipt of the application: 1 Approve or disapprove the application according to standards set forth in the State law; 2. Adopt an ord~.nance providing for such units according cc locally developed standards; or 3. Adopt an ordinance precludir_g such units containing findings regarding specific adverse impacts. The June 18, 1996 application is the first received by the City pursuant to this statute. The following describes the three options available tc the Council in more detail. If as recorlmended, the Council elects to adopt a local ordinance, one 2 must be adopted by October 16, 1996. State Requlat~.ons If the City chooses not to enact local regulations and does riot adopt specific findings to prohibit second unit applications, such applications would be processed under the State criteria which are as follows• The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented. The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use. The lot contains a single-family dwelling. The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the exist~rg dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling. The increased floor area of an attached second unit shall not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area. The total flcor area for a detached second unit shall not exceed 1,204 square feet. Compliance with requirements relating to he-ght, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, s?te plan review, =ees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable in the zone in w'rsich the property ~s located. Local building code and health code requirements are observed. Parking requirements cannot exceed at least one parking space per bedroom for the second unit A Conditional Use Per~rit application whit-~ met Lhese standards would comply with State law and approval would be -nandated. In the case of the pending CUP applicatior_, the City has 120 days from the 3 date the application was filed ;June 18, 1995) to either act on the application accordingly or adopt a local ordinance regulating second units. Thus, the City must act on th_s matter by Octcber 16, 1995. Local Regulations State law allows local jurisdictions to estab'_ish specific development standards and review procedures for the approval of second units. The standards could correspond to the State standards with the following additions• Designating areas where second units -nay be permitted. The grounds for prohibiting such units in certain areas would have to be related to specific criteria such as adequacy of water and sewage service. Imposing parking requirements (but not more than one space per bedroom which may be provided in a tandem format). Imposing specific height, setback, 'ot coverage, architecture review, and maximum size l-rnitatians less than those in State law for the proposed units. Establishing a discretionary process such as a Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit to allow such units, and associated permit fees. Findings for Prohibition of Second Units Under State law no local agency shall adopt an ordinance which totally precludes second units within single-family or multifamily zoned areas unless the ordinance contains findings acknowledging that the ordinance may limit housing opportunities of the region and 4 further contains fir_d~ngs that specific adverse impacts on the oublic health, safety, and welfare that would result from allowing second units within single-family and multifamily zoned areas justify adopting the ordinance. It would be difficult to develop findings about the traffic, noise infrastruct~are, or public safety and welfare impacts of second units. Santa Monica's infrastructure is generally adequate tc support development of additional units, particularly ,n the sing-e family areas. n addition, the single family areas cf the City generally have the lowest traffic volumes of any area ire the City, and the additional impacts that a modest rate of second snit development would create could be absorbed without significant effects. Staff does not believe specific findings contemplated by State law can be made related tc the impacts from second units. Ana1_ys~s The prohibition of second units was established in 1988 when the Council approved a new Zoning Ordinance. This provision stemmed from strong concerns about potential impacts of second units expressed to both the Plar_n~ng Commission and the City Council by single family neighborhood residents. However, the Zoning Ordinance prohibiticr_ of Rl second units does not meet tie requirements of State law Therefore, it is appropriate to affirmatively set policy in this area by taking one of the following steps o Allew second units to be processed under the provisions of 5 State Iaw. Tn~s approach would forego the opportunity of creating standards and procedures which might beater address local conditions and policies. o Direct staff to develop an ordinance creating local standards allowir_g second units in the R? zone. Standards could be developed which mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible within the context of State law, potential impacts of these units an the Rl neighborhoods. In addition, such units could be treated as an allowed use, or considered through a Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit process. If this option were selected by the Council, staff would develop appropriate standards and return to the Council for adcptior_ of an urgency ordinance in order to comply with the t~Tp requirements under State law. o Direct staff to prepare an ordinance making findings consistent with State law prohibiting second units in the R1 zone. Council should ider_tify the specific adverse impacts which would occur if second unit development was allowed so that they may be evaluated and incorpcrated in the required findings if appropriate. Process In considering this issue, there should be full opportunity fcr publ,c comment. Following Council direction, staff will prepare the appropriate material as directed by Council, and schedule Plannzng Commission review in early September and return to Council 5 on September 24, 1996 for final act-on. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMFACT The recommendation of this report would have no budget/financial impact. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council direct staff to prepare a local ordinance consistent with State law creating local standards regulating second units and return to Council with an urgency ordinance on September 24, 1995. Prepared by. Suzanne Frick, Planning & Community Development Director D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager Exhibits 1. Conditroral Use Permit Application 95-015 2. State Second Unit Law 3. State Housing and Community Development Department Second Unit Publication v7 7 EXHIBIT 1 Grp- of Santa ~Vlonica ~a^~' t,s~ arc'rarsx•Lrcr <titanaaeMe~' DeGZrn^ _n. P4annrng aad Zoncrig U{v+s~an ;:iy=45E rs3~' DEVELOPMEhiT REVIEW; COi~DiTIONAL tlSE PERM{T APf~LlCA~lQN fPlease TyAe o• pnntak I"•torr~at'~r~ ~G%U~G f~ F4'$C ` f r L' I ~f G" ', 33r/ ~b ree Rece~ot L~ ~~ ~~~ 5v PFtOJEGT ADDRESS 1 51 ° z=311 st. to^d Use E;emer;la~s;r+ct sir_crle t=us~,~ly Zorunp Dss:nc; ?zt ~2Ca"~e5crlnt~CnfLO: H'OCf( Tracti Lc~t '~?~ tract 9833r an t3oo:c 133 nn. °~-°E 1 APPLICANT pavYC and Susanna Rosy„ar Pnone 45G-°79z Address 1 51 R ~iit 1 st. S M BuSrness L~ce'~Se r"h I CONTACT PfRS4N David RGSmar Pnone t 31 O1 556-791 n Adcrsss ~ ~nr, a~F. of stars . ~ 7t5 F1 _ Lhs3 5 M Business License r'r Spiess DESIGNERJARCHlTECT Grec Phone _ Aaa•es _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ S A,1 Brsssness L,ceslsas F•c4essrara~ Lrcense Ivumoe~ ATTORNEY Carl Ldr,'o~rt Prone f 31 C j "~53-6030 Atidre5s 2001 :•:zlshiret Ste. 5('SS 5.'., 90403 PROPERTYI?WNI:~i I}a~ics and 5usanra Rosmar Ac~re55 t ~1 8 will st. Pnone same r ^;,errTy tna~ •nrs aooi+catron rs bung mace wit"aiy consent PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE -"~- C~~'~'-~- ~ ~ ~ I~ C.-- -v ~.~ Cavity `__. Rosman CHECK TYPE OF PERMIT REQfJESTED ;vord,tronal Ilse Permrt -. Deverc~ert Revrew v Other {Soec~ryi NEIGHBORHOOD NOTII=ICATION The Crry of Sama Morrca encourages appi~cants to contact developmert>Jro!.ect nerghanrs and relevant c~mmurn:y groups early rn the pevelopment process To the maxrmr:m exte,n, poss~ore. apQ+:cants snould ascerrarn cemmurnty cancerns anc aadress Enem rn ees:gnrrtg proposed protects Apoircants snouiG contact proiec, neighbors ar~a commu~~ty groups welt before subnsirirng a deveroAmer~ cerm~~ apnlrca'ron in mrs sectton, please describe your cor•act vr~;n the immediate ne+ghbors of me r}ralect s'~e and appi,caore nerghoornood gror;r,5 and organ~zatrons ~eaardi^g ine proposed prorect Flease incwde speci'rc names aria dates A list of nergnbomood greups and •e;,~eser-aUves is avadab;e frorl t;~e Pla^ning and Zanrng taunter SQe attar ~Fc DESCRIBE IN DETAIL r7e ~~ of use and rrroro+reme^ts aroocsed (use addrtronal sneers as needed} Sew 2itt~^4'2C7 3 ~~ o a R1~ bulit wath permits; 2 story main c3wellir_g; s`ory accessory bcil~=°•~, 3 car subterranean garage, ~ car pone cochet=e Ex1STING ON•SrTt USE{S} Ne~croonrg Uses ~,~ SFIt t~lw•'C~ 5` East S;,L:.. sit; Wes- - FF'fi FLOOR AREA -Provide .'ioo~ area carculatians for rndrvtdual uses as weri a< -otal area Res•oertial i Aetad'pffice I F~hed.cai i Otre• ~ T:; ? I r.x•st~ng Sq~a'e Feet tt F ~a; r house: 7 2, 80C~ l ~ ~ ' j 3 2~`? I accessory: ' 430 4 , ~ ~ IA~ea tc ae r~p^~evec • .~ r, y 4 i j INew Sg~are Footage ! taH t ~ j °ro0o5e:: 4 i ~ ~ r Srte Drsnensrars rront iitinea! feet; 5C Le'' Sae ~r;tea ~ee`~ 7 5e fear ;rmeal feet) ~o Fi~,g^t S+ae ;area°~ tget: t ;G Srte Area Square Feet ~ ~ 5 ='~ Restdenttal Ex~strng Lot Coverage 2 , n n e Sgua~e ~ee• z6.6~ ~~~ PrJAOSed Lot Coverage nn sa,:are fee• o~ Non-Res,denttal Exrsting Floar Area Rana `` ~' ;o Proposed Floar Area Kano BUILDING tiE1G~iT Exrsma Proposed Average Na*.urai Grade ~'= nx -ee- aoove ex~snng g~aae t ~ ~`~' 5`o•~es aaove oraae one r°F !avers t3e,ow y{aoe or_e NA PARKING Ex~strrc 5 Compac• Ta~raem P~ooosed n~ Compact Ta^aeT Required 4 RENT CONTROL STATUS• ind;cate Rent Ca^troi s~tus of the parcel Piannmg and Zoning wd' not process aap~;cabons for wnich requrred Re^t Contras Permits and Rent Contrai S~tus Fora ,:ave no: beer oh•arnec ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Setbacrts F•on+ ~r- Reat ~ Srges Percentage of Lardscad+ng r~e5,4er;~a• - IVUn•+Der Of Exrsting ~fnlis one plus accessory Number of Units to ~ Removed tiH _ Number of Units to oe Added r:„ Net Numoe~ of fJnits Proposed Ni, I C1=RTIFY that the ,nformatron conta,ned m this anprcatron ~s correCi to the hest of my knowledge and that th,s apoLcatran rs made with the k wiedge and co/nsrent o/f~tfte property owner Aobi~cant'sSrgnature ~/ ~ v~-~-~-~--~_ Date ~/~fi~9~ Unve~'s s,cense number ~ a t 7 ~ X31 5 _ ~ State ` ~' ~ Exw,r^ar, date 7 / 5 / 9 ~ F~1A STAFF USE ONLY Sutrnary of Pia^nrrg Corrmrssrbn.`Crry Cauncn Acrons DATE ACTION 4 ,~ ~ a g Attachment to Conditional Use Permit Application 1518 Hill Street NEI^HBCRHCOD NOTIFICATION All of our immediate neighbors are aware or this application, and by the time cf the hearing we will have discussed it with all cf them. We have also discussed this with members of the greups rrie:.ds of Sunset Park and Citizens for a Safe Santa Monica. TAPES OF USE AND IMPROVEMENTS Convert existing, permitted, accessory building frog home afficeJxecreational rooms use to second, rentaiale dwelling unit, as permitted by California Government Code § 65852.2, and consistent wits all requirements of S M Zoning Code § 9.04 12.08C iexcepi subsections (b), {i; and (j,;. arer~nts\~~~-1 ~ ~+ O 1 D Attachment to CUP -- Statement of Findings 1518 N~.11 Street 1. The proposed use is completely consistent with, and permitted by, California Government Code § 85852.2 and S RT Zoning Code § 9.~~.12.080 texcept only as to subsectior_-s (bi, ii) and ~]j1 See MemoranduM Opinion Number 88-2 dated March 8, 1988, from Robert M. Myers, City Attorney, and Laurie Lieberman, Deputy City Attorney, to the Mayor and City Council, a copy of which is attached hereto (hereinafter the "City Attorney's Opinion"!_ 2. See G.C. ~ 65851.2 and City Attorney's Op~.nion. G C. 85852.2 was first adapted by the California Legislature and approved by the Governor ir_?98~. In 1994, a different Legislature and different Governor enacted and approved the following ''findings, declarations, and intent" (G.C. § 65852.15Q~, to resolve ary doubt that ~.t is the public policy of this State to increase affordable ho3asing ire California by encouraging second units in single-family residential areas "The Legislature finds and declares that second units are a valuable form of housing in California. Second units provide housing for family members, students, the elderly, in-home health care providers, the disabled and otters, at below-market prices within existing neighborhoods. ~cr~eowners who create second units benefit from added income, and an increased sense of security ~!~1 It is the intent of the Legislature that any second-unit ordinances adopted by local agencies have the affect of previdinq for the creation of second ur_-~s and that provisions in these ordinances relating to matters including unit size, parking, fees and other requirements, are not so arbitrary, excessive, or burdensome so as to unreasonably restrict the agility of homeowners to create second units in zones .n which they are authorized by local ordinance." 3. The subject parcel is especially, and uncommonly, suitable for this type of use, because of the slope of the property from the street down to the al ley. First, the slope made it possib~:.e to have a two-level accessary building, with only one level above ANG. Without enough slope to permit this, such a use would require a one-level building next to a garage That would urdesirably consume more yard area tAlthough this kind of project could be done with a one-level main dwelling building, and a two- level accessory building/second unit, it is unlikely that many property owners would want to so severely restrict the size of the rain building, given the City's prohibition of two, two-story buildings on an R1 lot.) Second, on a lot with a slope from the alley down to the street, a two-level accessory building, like the one which is the subject of this C~7P, would not be permitted, because both levels would be above ANG (unless the main building was o ly one-story? . Third, it would be prohibitively expensive to build the garage below ANG on a property with a slope any steeper than that of the subject property. Fourth, this kind of project would be impractical or undes~.rable for properties without an alley. ~ ~ D 1 ~. 4 The accessary building was designed by the same architect who designed the main house, and the appearance of the two buildings are entirely consistent and compatible. Because it is built an top pf the garage, the second unit does not increase the coverage of the property with buildings any more than the garage alon°. 5 See G C §§ 65852.15C and 65852.2, and the City Attorney's Opinion. See G C ~§ 55852.150 and 55852.2, and the City Attorney`s Opinion. The total living area cf both the main ar_d accessory buildings is only 3,280 square feet, with a total of only 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms. Thus, the entire property does not encourage ar~y higher density of occupation than would a single house of 3,280 square feet. Further, other uses permitted by the CYty Code ir. R1, such as senior and disabled group hous~.ng and child care centers, can be more intensive. 8. See G.C. §§ 65852.15Q and 65852.2, and the City Attorney's Opinion. This second dwelling unit above a garage is no less compatible with, and does not relate any less harmoniously wit?:, the surrounding neighborhood, than a home office/recreational room above a garage by an alley. 9. See G.C. §§ 65852.150 and E5852.2, and the C1ty Attorney's Opinion. Permi4ting prefects such as this will help to satisfy the City's responsibility to contribute to housing in the region and to comply with the state housing element. There is no reasor_ tc permit senior and disabled group tomes in single-family residential neighborhoods, and orohibit this kind of use The City's enlightened attitude to housing is exemplified by its response to the recent earthquake by the relaxing of the permit process for rebuilding of housing 10 See G C §§ 65$52.15G and 65852.2, and the City Attcr~±ey's Opinion, and see the other findings in this Statement. The primary reasor the owners are making this application is to help them to care iar their mentally handicapped daughter. Rabin will be 10 years old on July 4, 1996. She is retarded and autistic. Private therapy is expensive, and there are additional medical expenses. Income from renting the dwel.lina unit will help to meet those expenses. Robin's mother has not been able to go back to work, because she needs to spend so much tame caring for Robin. Someone living in the dwelling unit would also provide another poor of hands to help. When Robin i5 an adult, the dwelling unit might present a good opportunity for her to live semi-independently. All of these considerations are expressly included in the California Legislature's "findings, declarations, and intent," as stated in G.C § 65852.250. 12. See G.C. ~§ 65852.150 and 65852.2, and the City Attorney`s Opinion, and see the other findings in this Statement. If "too many" of such second units is perceived as a problem, the ~~ ~~2 City Attorney's suggestion of issuing a limited number of permits per year would greatly mitigate any such perceived problem. The City Code already permits adding rooms to a house cn a single- family property for relatives or for rental to boarders. It zs unlikely that there would be much greater interest among homeowners tc add second units in separate accessory buildings, than any interest which already exists to add extra rooms to the main buila~ng aQ~erzts!,cup-2 ~~ X13 HI-'F:-15-'y6 iUE 1b ~4 :L' SURE tibiGl TEL NU 31~ ~i7ti-39b8 ~1-"' P[~1 a MEMDRAND~7l~t OPIHId2t l~tJD~BER 88-~ DATE: March 8, 1988 Tor Hayor and City Council FRDKr Robert M. ~Cyers, City Attorney Laurie Lieberman, Deputy City Attorney SUBJ$cT: 8eaand Units fa the R-1 District Th• prrohibition or allowanas of saavnd ttwaliing units (also known as "granny units"} in the A-1 Di~ctxict has been n hotly contested issue in tha City for a mym~er of years. In 1481, the Citisens~ ,Advisory Committee !or the Housing Slemant o! the General plan proposed a draft program that would h~-vr allowed seaand units in the R-1 District. In response to numerous protests by homeowners, the City Council teak an action stating that it would not adopt such d policy. Thus, the palicsy wars deleted from the Housing Element that was propo~-ed by the Citizsnsr Advisory Committee and ultimately adopted by the Council in January 1963. Government Coda SaCtion 5~85~.2, disoueead in detail below, beadms operativr in July 1, 1983. it rrquirrs that second dwelling units be allowed in the R-1 District or tht~t cities adopt certain specified findings precluding than. In aomplianoa with state laver the January 1986 Draft Zoning code contained a grovisian allowing aevond dwelling units i~- the R-1 District pur8uaat to a conditional use permit. Following a public hearing before the Planning commission at which a number of single-family rasidsrrta vigorously apposed this provision, the plarsning commission adopted a Resolution containing lindingn to support tha prohibition of second units i.n the R-1 District. (Sae AttaChtz~ent.) The council,, however, has not adopted such findings. The currant version o! the Zoning 8rdinance prohib~.ts sevond units in the R-1 District. It is our corrclusivn, howaverr that thQ findings on which this prohibition is based are legally indatanaibla. Therefore, pursuant to current state lair the prahibitior~ of second units with~.n single-family residential zoned arras is un].awlul. state Requiremsnta Government Code 8ectian 8S8s~.~ •stabllshes a statewide apprQaah to ba lollawsd in aonnectien with second unity, ao~orlly rsferrvd to as "granny units", Essentially, a city may yrovide, - 1 - ~s f1~4 rir-r:-lo- Jp i Ut lb ~~ : U SEJ i I t {Sbi-~ I tl_ f'~l 31~] 4 Tl~i-.i`~bti til ; r' F'~7c by crdinanaa, for the creation of second units in single-family and multi-family raaidantial somas aanaiatant with the rollawinq provisivns~ {1) Araaa may ba designated within the ~urisdiativa of the local aganoy where saaond units may b• permitted. (2) Tha designation of areas may br baud on criteria, which may include, but era not limited to, the adaquaoy at grater arld sawar aarvicas and the imgaat at second units on tra!!io flow. j3) Standards may be imposed ort saoond units which includes, but era not limited tc, parking, height, aetbaak, lot caveraga, architectural review, and maximuat ais• o~ a unit. (4) A local agency may tlnd tKat second units do riot rxcrrd the alloxable density for the lot upon which the aaoond unit is loaatad, and that rrcond units are a raaidantial uss that ie aansistent with the existing gametal plan and Boning dssic~natiort tar the lot. (5) The second units oraatrd shall not be considarr8 in the application of any local ordirsanoa, polivy, yr Grogram to limit residential growth. (6) A local aganay may astabl3sh a proaasa for the ieeuanae of a aonditianal ua• permit !or asaond units. Gc-varnmant Coda 8eatian GS~3~.Z{a). since the City has not provided for saoand units by ardinanae, one of two other provisions is applicable. One alternative involves a$option at an ordinance prohibiting second ussits. Hawwvwr, Gavarnmant Coda Section 6S8SZ.2(C) praviQeas No local aganay shall adopt an ordinance Which tatall =scludea s~oand unite -rSthin single- am y an mu i-family zoned aromas unless the ordinance contains fin~din~s acknowledging t.tsat the ordinance mad limit rurrnar aonta~ins r~na~nggs that sgea~r~a e~dvQrs'o~~im aatg on the ublia health sestet en we are a wcu resu rcm a vw n sewn un s w n s n~J e-- am axe multi-tamilY Lamed drena juatitY~~ndopt ng the ordinance. (Emghaeis added.) ~ .. ~~ C~15 HrK-_o- '~7 ~ la: :O ~o ~ lU 7~J. I t ;}r,~_~i ~ tL NU .~i~} 4 ~~YJ~bS p: r ~J3 In order to prohibit seoond units in alI cssas* certain very spooitia findingo must b• made. It is di!l~,ault to imagias that adverse impacts on the public+ health, salaty, and welfare would occur in all or avers in mast cases where second unite ware propasad. ~tst adoption o! die required rindings would produce the result that a aeaond unit could not be constructed in any single-family area. F'urthermcre, any euoh rindings must be specific in nature. General statements about adverse impacts on neighborhoods will not comply with Qovernment Code section 5~8~2.2(c). Zf a city neither adopts the findings required to preclude second units nor adopts an ardine~nca governing saaond units. state law provides a sat of standards to govern apglica-tions for saaond unite. GovernaEant Goda section 6:~8SZ.a(b) states: (b) 4Phan a local aganay which has not adopted an ordinance governing saaond units in aaaordssnce with subdivision (a) or (off raoaivas its liret nppliaation on or after duly 1, 1983, for a Gonditiona7. us+~ permit pursuant to this subdivision, the Aooal agency shall aaaept the dppliaation and approve or dieappravB the applioatian pursuant to this subdivision unless it adopts an ordinance in aacordanca with subdivision (a) ar (c) ~-ithin I~0 days attar receiving th• applicat~en. Notwithstanding eivtivn 66901, avory local agsrioy shall grant a spacial use or a aaaditianal use permit tar the creation o2 a second unit if the saaond unit eo~plies with atl o! the lollvxiags (1) The unit ie eat intended for sale and may bs ranted. (9) The lot is gonad to single-family or multi-family use. (~) The lot contains an existing eingl.e~family dvrelling. (a) The saaond un~.t is either attaohpd to the existing dw+sllinq and located within the living area o! the existing dwelling ar dataahed Trom the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling. (d) Any iraraass in the floor area of nn attaohad saaond unit shat]. not exaaed 15 percent of the existing livirtq area. 3 ~~ 0~~ r~r:-10- 70 i ud i0 ~+ _... JU. -C X10+"~ C~ ~ IU J.. CI 4 i C.I-.)~d0 Ni ' ~ r/J4 (6) Thr epees for a detached •xaasd a40 squaw feet. total area of floor sraond unit shall net ~7) Any construction shall conform to height, eatbaok, tat coveragr, arohitactural rrvi~ew~ sits plan review, fees, ahargea, and ether aoninq requirements generally app lioabla to residential construction in the eons in r-hioh the property ie loaatrd. (8) Local building oada rerYuiraments which apply to drtachad dwellings, sa appropriate. igf APProval by the local hralth officer whsxs a privets sswagw disposal syst~t is being used, if rrquire4, . , Inadequacy of Planning Commission Findint~o In order to totally praalude second units throughout the City, the California Legislature has required that s~ny ordinanee prohibiting second units contain findings setting forth "apiaitic advrzse impacts on the public hoalth, safety, and wsZtara that would result from nlloarinq aeaond unitrc ." The Pie~ru-ing Commission"adopted findings attempting to justify the prohibition of seaand units, however, as discussed below, these iiadin t err not supported by relrvant facts ar are internally inaans~rtant ~rfth ether land use decisions df the City, Ths findings adopted by the Planning Commission, and our analysis o! thaw, follows Fiadinq 1: Altnouga tn• adoption of an ordinaaa• rbiob prsciudrs •raobd dxsl2inq pursuant to sratioa esiaz.s o! the calilornia ooverameat Cods map li~tit housing opportunities is for region, tb• adverse i~apacta on the pubiio hraith, safety, Ned welfare that would rrault from a17.oxiaq sassed units xithia the R-1 goer District ari an overriding aonsidrration anal ~ttstify adoption of an ozGinanar Maiab prohibits srooaA dwelliags. 7'tie first finding of "overriding consideration" depends for its validity upon the subsequent findings. Since those findings do not estab].ieh such as overriding aoneideration, Ns disouss~ed below, this finding cannot be made. Finding sAs Tbs City of Banta Monica is oaf o! tb• moat daasalp popuiatsd oitiss in the ~L'ounty o! Loa Aagslss, h+~vinq a density in axosss o! 10,000 residents per =q~tar• sails, sad permitting srcon6 dwllings rouid incrrasr for cvrrail density o! the City. ~ ~ M ~~ dl~ ~+rK-ib- =ro iU~ .b ~: :L 5i.li it Fiol~. ItL NU .SI~7 411-Jybb Al~'r' rb5 Tha population density of the City is approximately 10,000 residents per squares mile, r*tlaating th• tact that Banta Mvnicais population is slightly over 90,000 and the city is a proximately nine square m 1as in area. in the context o! a d~saussion about a hcusinQ policy aztacting the density o! the R-1 district, however, this statement is mislanding rind distortive. This statement obscures the reality that asrtain residential areas era densely populated while ethers, most notably in tho R-1 District, are not densely gopufated at all. Evan i! every singqle family home faceted in the R-1 District added a sacand dvrallinq unit, which is extremely unlikely, th• R-1 District would not be very dense wham compared atith other parts of the City= , For exempla, aocordinq tv ].980 census data, in the tracts between Banta Monica Boulevard and Montana Avenue, the average density par eons is mare than 24 parsons, and in one tract the density is over 40 parsons per acre. The density levels in tracts which are primarily R-i, however, range from ~ law density of 9.1 patrons par avre to a high of 14. l~uah o! Sunset park, one of the mare dense R-~. areas e~pprvximatas to persons par acre whilo Gcaan Park rag density levels ranging from 23 to Z8 parsonr peer acre. Despite the already wide gap between residential songs, numerous aingla family homes, duplexes, and triplaxos loaatad in multi-family rasidantial districts continue to be demolished so that developers can build more dsnea housing p=ajeats. The prohibition of second unite can hardly be justified for density concerns when residential dansitie$ era being inaraasad elsewhere. Additionally, to focus on saavnd dwelling units in the R-l was increaainq the density belied the teat that allowing largo hcueas with many badroome hats the idantioal afloat on dan$ity. Yet there is no attempt to oontro~. density by limiting the n++~~ar of bedrobme a property owner in the R-]. can build. The R-1 buildirtq envelope itself raprasants an affective and abjsative limit on density and it does net e-llcrr !or diserimi.natian based upon whether a unit is attaohsd ar dataahad, inaarpvrated as a bedroom within the main house ar sQparate. Whilo permitting ,second dwaizing units mould, in taut, inarsasa the overall density o! the City, this statement is masningiess sinve allowing any further growth inoraasas the overall density of the City. Unless the City intend~a to halt all residential growth under the rubric of growth ovntrol, juatify~nq the adoptiazt of lindinge Which diraatiy cont~ravano the exprarrs intent of the State Legirlnturs with regard to second units in the R-1 Distriot is legally insupportable. 1n fact, tho Lagielature hoe spscif ieal3.y stated that '~ [ t; ha second unit~t created shall not ba considered in the application Dr any 1oaa1 nrdinanca, poiioy, or program to limit ra~+idantiai growth." Government Code Saation 63852(x)(5). r p!~ ~~$ ' aIHD=aa 2Ht Tha already dsnae population plaas^ burdaas oa thw abilitg o! the City to provide assaatial services, suvh as polir~s and firs protaotion and suffioient opea space, to its residanta, and this aoa4ltioa xoald ba axacsrbataQ. On the one hand, any further development in the Gity please burdens on the ability of the police and tix~ departments to provide essential services. Thus, again, an argument against all development has been made, but surely not art argument that relates to soaond dwelling units in the R-1 District, In fact, adding a second unit to an existing single family home would ^sem to errata lass o! s burden on police and fire than would nn entirely new oommercial yr residential davdlopmant. pith r4gard to the provision of open spaoa, eroond units do not havr ~-ny impact on publicly usable ape~n space. The construatian of single family hvme^ haves already elim#.nated greviausiy exirting open space. Seaand dwelling unite could merely constitute single fam~,iy ho~aaownore' choices to imp~-at nn their own open spaoo. ~ioraovar, this private span spaoa is protrctsd by lot aovaYaga and setback requireaaents applicable to tho Al District. Rather, new com~aercial, and new residential davalopmenta to a lesser axtantF Nava n much greater impact on publicly urabla ogen apace. !'or example, the davalopmrnt v! the Airport residual lands cute into existing opportunities for open spaces whereas the non-prohibition vt second units in the R-1 District would represent only thr loss of privately owrsad and rnjoyrd open space by choice o! the owners of such specs. second units do riot raduew open space any Moro than many remodels occurring in the R~. District. Agein, remodels (and second units) err sub~rat to property development standards which lis~it opets spaoa incursions. Fiadinq Zet Tha ourrrnt traffic oongestioa could br inaraaaed bg tba pe~ittinq of aecox~d anallinq~s, resulting in increaead air pollution cad traffic ^afaty basarda xZtiah •aaangrr chilarra, padrstriana, aaa vehicles in R-1 nsighbvrhoada. Residential developpment accounts for a vary ^mell amount of the traPPie congestion ia~ the City. The vast m~t~ority of traffic congestion radulta from commercial development. Whil• traffl.c congestion and resultant hazards aauld increase in the R-1 it all. singqle family homeowtiars built second units, thas• •esnarios are un~.ikrly. Sesidrs, traffic congestion currently exist^ not in the R-l, but rather in multi-~fa~sily zone districts and in areas ad~avent to commrrcial davrlopmrnt, This point is supported by data caritained in th• Fine-1 Environmental I3apnct Report on the Land Vs• end Circulation Eloments. Table 39 sets faith pra~ecstiong o! vahial• trip ggnnration by functional area from iss2 to 2QO0. it projaata reduotions in vehicle trips in residential areas while projecting increases in aammarciai area~e. For examgle, the area north of Montana is expected to exparianae a 13~ decline in trip generation whiia the industries! corridor shows a 333 incroass in ~~ ~~9 -s- trip goasration. (Final Environmental Impact Report on LUCE, at F. ?~.) It traffic cangsntion is a valifl considrration, halting bigger davalop+msnt pro~eate would s®e~a to address the situation far more erteatively than prohibiting all second units in the R-], nistrict. Perhapps this t'3nding makes tho caaQ for down-~onirtq multi.-samily rasidarstiai ana various commercial districts, but it sure3y dons not support a prohibition of eeaand units in the R-1 District, multi-ramily rss~dsntial and various commercial didtriatr, but it surelyy dove not r~upport a prah~.bitian of saaand units in the R-1 District. PinQinq 2d: Ths alra~dp small amount of lanQ dsvotrd to •ingla-familp rrsia•atiai districts ~rould b• rrduasd rva most', rrsultin4 3.a was lrxer hotxssbolds having t3~e opportuai.ty to •ajoy protsatioa =rom deleterious snvircamsntal •t'trots o! more dans•ly populated arras. It is a truism that land devoted to singly-lamiiy residential districts woulfl be reduoad it rseond units Wars allowed. That is hardly an absarvx~tion which warrants a finding o! "overriding vonsidsrativn," mines undoubtedly the Lrgisl,uture rnaogniaed thin when it adopted Government Cod• Bsction 65$S~.Z. The R-]. comprises approximately forty-flight percent (48ty of the rasidantial>:y gonad land ire the City which io not a "small amountn when aompa~red to thr remaining firty-two prraant (s2#) which it occupied by multi-family housing, Morrovrr, allowing second units in the R-l Diotriat doM• not altar the essential oharaats~r o! the land, The quality of the single-family residantini district is maintained through design and other development standards. ~'hr tact that thr City allawr servants' quartrrs in soma areas of thr R-T Diotriat lands lu~thrr crrdanoa to this proposition. Fiadixtq 2ss Yt is tbo cityFs intent to rstablisb aoatto7. over the growth of th• Citg~s residential distrietri includiaq the R-1 district, fa order to preserve thr aharaot•r o! th• aommuAitp, proCsat the adrquacy a! efty taailitiss and general, ssrviaas, insure that tre-ttia aaQ parking Qsmanda do sot axarsd strsrt aapaaiti•s, sad iasur• a hal:ana• of housing tppas in thr City. Thfe~ daotior- merely states an intention to oontrol growth in the residential districts citywide, implying that this constitutes justification for not allaarinq second dwelling ttrtita in the R-1 District. Tha desire to cantral growth in residential districts may constitute a just~.iication !or changing thr required minimum lot else, maximum lot coverage, or th• rt~~+~ar of allowable dwelling units p+~r sque-rs foot. However, i.t is not suitiaient justification for prohibiting aaaand unite in the R-~ ~istriot. For thr rsamana dasaribofl above, i.t is our opinion that City Council. adoption of the Planning Comneisaion~s findings would he th• sub~act at a successful legal chaliQngo. ~~ ~~~ - T - APP.-16-° % TUE l6 3a :D SUITE #61a ~0. NO.310 a70-3%B #:~'7 Pei MoreovQr, vines 3uly 1, 1983, when GoPvornment Cods Sactian 65B32.a became efleativa, property owrlsrs have had the tight to file apgiicaticna to aanatruat a~eaond dwe1,1i11q units in the A-1 District. The planning Department has not received n single application. This would tend to demanatrate that the oridespreud tsar regardir~q aseond units which led to the Pianriissq commission's adoption of n resolution is without fQUndation. The last that findings aat~not be made to totally prohibit seoond units dose not mean that the City cour~ail must permit the possibility -~ no matter how unlikely -- of every single family hrnae adding a seaor~d unit. In order to alleviate say conaeras about an i~amediate proliferation of ^aaond units, the City Counoil could establish a yearly limit on the number o! permits which could iwaue alia~,ring second units in the R1 niRtrict. Thin mould enable the city to study and aontraz the real impacts of its policy an second units. Ths policy could than ba monitored and adjusted on the basis of real numbers rather than tear. CQncslusion It is vur aonaiuaion that findings vonsistent with state law aannat bs made in ire order to pxsckuds second units throughout the city~s residential Ganes. Therefore, unless the City wishes to be Qvvarnad by Government Cods Section 658'32. ~ (b) , it should direct the City 1lttorney to draft an ordinance in aoaord with Government Code section 6585~.2(a). specific concerns about second units can ba addressed through parfarmano* etandardee, including a readanable limitation vn the total number o! second amts approved in any year. 11~74/hpv -a- ~~ 021 FOP.-16-'96 UE 16.32 D ~U;TE iS64 TEL N0.310 47©-3968 FSi7$ PD1 ATTACt3MENT ~~ ~L~ ~~ A ~ut la ~~ ID SUITE x614 TEL hJQ'3~0 47F9-3~8 ri i ^S PD2 ATTACFIM£NT B RE5OL•STIDN of THE PLA.~N23yG CdMMI55ION A RE54LUTIGN QF THE PLANNYNG COMMYSSION OF TH£ CITY OF SANTA MONICA MAKING FINDxNGS RECARDfNG SECOND DWELLING5 IN THE R3 ZQNE DIS?RIOT ~~r.I~:.AS, Section 65862.2 (c} of the Gcvernment Codes State of C~3i=0=:tsa, provides the option for a local jurisdiction to adopt a:: o_d_:~anae which precludes second dwellings in single-family resi3Q::tia1 tones if certain findings can ba made; ar~d :~r:ER.AS, the Adopted Housing Element makes provision the ::Duel. y needs in the City, and t,-£:ct',~s, 9eatien 1. lo. b of the C~.ty's adantsd Land Use ~' e:-e;.:, provides that the city should "restrict the use of second ~::=ts .a single-family residential naighbarhoads; and ~~r'.~: EAS, Sectfon 9010.1 of the Zoning Coda states that 41Tha E_ c_strlct is intarsded to provide a single-fa~ily residential sea '::~ahiCh people will be afforded protection from deletaraoua e:~v.ronmental etfecta which era often felt in mare densely Fap~.~lared areas," rind =•-EREAS, the size of R1 parcels and the amount of land devate3 to airigle-family residential districts era small in 4a:~parison to moat other cemmunities in the regio;~, making Santa ;;o:lica a less suitable 3.acatian gor second dwellings; and Sti~c=REAS, tlse planning coMmission conducted a public hearing c:t the matt$r of germitting second dwellings ire the RZ Znna Distr~ctr and t~:EREAB, the record incJ.udes r~urnerous members of the public in o;,yasition to adaptian of an ordinance which permits second d;,-elI'_rgs in the R1 zone Ais trict; and ~+'H£R£AS, thn record else specifies the reaeOns why ate ordinance permitting second dwellings in the R1 Zone fligtrict would have advaxga impacts an the public health, safety, and ~relfare; #~, ., ~~ 0 2 3 I+'I;'-tb- ~ 7b ~ L~ lb ,.5,.5 .:1 53J 1 1 t ;#bi4 i ~L NU .]ld 4 r1~-.SJbtl ul r~ r~.~ -- ti0~~ THEREFORE HE IT RESOLVED t::ett the Plannirq Commission of s4 City cf Santa Manisa makes the following findings: 1. ~ilthvugh the adoption of an ordinance which precludes seCn7d dwelling pursue:nt to Section. 65852.3 a: the California OavernWent Cade may limit housing opportunities in the region, the adverse impacts on th$ pub2io health, safety, and welfare that would result from allowing second units within the R1 Zane District are an overriding considerazina and justify adaptive of an ordinance ~rhich prohibits second dwellings: 2. The adoption of an ardinanca which permits second dwellings will have specific adverse impacts on thQ public health, safety, and welfare beea~uas: a. The City of Santa Monica is one of t`a most densely populated cities in the County of Las Angeles, raving a density i:~ excaas of la,000 rasidanta pex square mils, and pertaitting second dwellings csauld increase the overall dansi~f of the City; b, The already dense population places burden$ on the ability of the City to provide essential aerva.ces, such ns police and `=re protection and sufficient open space, to ita residents, a,d tr'_a condition would be exacerbated; c. The currant traffic congestion would be increased by the ;e~::izz_ng of second dwellings, resulting in increased air poll::t_o:~ and traffic safety hazzards which endanger children, padeg:.-~ans, and vahialas in R1 neighborhoods; d. The atlraaAy small a:aaunt of land devoted to single-family resifle:~tial districts would be reduced even ao:e, resulting in soon :ewer hattsehalds having the opportunity to enjoy protection fro:,: deleterious environrn8nte~1 effects of more densely populated arena: e. Tt is the City~6 intent to establish control over the g:awth of the city~s residential districts, inc~.udir,g the R1 district, in order to preserve the character ai the community, protect the adequacy of City facilities and general rsetvicss, insure that traffic and parking demands to not exceed street capaci~ias, and insure a balance of housing types in the City. - ~c{_ {l~~ EXHIBIT 2 § 65$5 GOVERNMENT CODE § 65851. Division of city or county into zones Notes of Decisions 27. Conclusiveness of decision of legislative ham, ~udieial reoie~v People v Norton ($uper. 2930) Imam valwne) 108 Cal App.Supp 767, 288 P 33 § 65852. Unifotznity of zoning regulations Law Review Commentaries Legislature prole'bits exchisian of mobde homes on sm- gle-family lots (19$2) 26 U C D I.arov lter• 167 § 65852.1. Single-family residence zone, permit for dwelling unit for sensor citizen occupancy; application of section Notwithstanding Section 659()6, any cup, including a charter city, county, or city and county may issue a zoning variance, special use permit, or conditional use permit for a dwelling amt to be constructed, or which is attached to or detached from. a primary residence an a parcel zoned for a single-family residence, if the dwelling amt is intended for the sole occupancy of one adult or two adult persona who are 62 years of age or over, and the area of floor space of the attached dwelling unit does not exceed * "30 percent of the exiatui~ h~7iig area Or the area of the floor apace of the detached dwelling unit does not exceed 1,2(10 square feet This section shall not be construed to limit the regtttrements of Section 65852 2, or the power of local governments to permit second sitiits {Amended by Stats 199(1, c 1150 (AB.3529}, § 1) Notes of Decisions Sewer connectoon permits 1 far sewer connections so as to exclude hookups for senior atizen housng iiriita, even though $ 658521 and county orduiance encouraged creation of such wets Getz v 3 hewer rnnnectiaii permits Pebble Beach Community Services Inst. {App fi Dist Community services district authorized to collect, treat 1990) 266 Cal $ptr 76, 219 CalApp 3d 229 and dispose of sewage had the povGer to allocate permits $ 65852.150. Findings, deckarations, and intent; second unit8 The Legtslatiire finds and declares that second units are a valuabke form of housing in California Second amts prorzde housing for family members, students, the elderly*, in-home health care providers, the disabled, and others, at below market prises within existing neighborhoods Homeowners who create second units benefit from added income, and an increased sense of security It is the intent of the Legislature that any second-unit ordinances adopted by local agencies have the effect of pro«ding for the erection of second amts xnd that pro{,ions m these ordinances relating to matters including unit size, parking, fees and other requirements, are not. so arbitrary, excessive, ar burdensome so as to unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to create second units m zones m which they are suthanzed by local ordinance {Added by Stats 1994, c 580 {A.B 3198}, § 1 } § 65852.2, Second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones; creation by ordinance; conditional use or special use permits; ordinance to limit housing opportuneties (a} Any local agency may, by ordinance, pro«de for the creation of second uiuts msingle-family and multifamily residential zones * * *. The ordinance (1) * * * Mac' designate areas k~ithin the Jurisdiction of the Iacal agency where second amts may be permitted 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 amts on traffic flow * * * * * *(2) llday impose standards on second units which include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback,~lot coverage, architectural re~~ieu, and maximum size of a unit Additions or changes indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks 8 ~ Ft C,pyER,NMENT CODE § fi5852.2 * *(3) i12ay provide that second amts do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon wfiich the second unit is located, and that second units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation far the lat. * • * # * '~(~} May establish a process for the issuance of a conditional use permit for second unite. (a) Shall not be considered iri the application of any local ordulaiice, policy, or program to limit residential growth ~b){1] When a local agency which has not adopted an orduiance governing second amts in accordance ~~~th subdivision (a) or {c) receives its first appheatron on or after July 1, 1983, for a conditional use permit pursuant to this subdir°ision, the local agency shall accept the appheatron and approve or disapprove the application pursuant to this subdivision unless it adopts an ordinance in accordance with subdivision {a) or (c) w7thui 220 days after reeenzng the application. hTotwitlistanding Section G5J41, every local agency shall grant a special use or a conditional use permit for the creatron of a second unit if the second amt complies with all of the foAowing: (A) The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented (B) The lot is zoned for single-family or muitifan~iily use. (C) The lot contauns an existing single-family dwelltrig. {D) The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing divellu-g * * *(E) The increased floor area of an attached second amt shall not exceed 30 percent of the existing ]n°ing area. (F) The total area of floor space for a detached second amt shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. * *(G} Requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to residential construction m the zone m which the property is located {H) Local building code requirements which apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate. (l) Approval by the local health officer where a pnvate sewage disposal system is being used, >f required. (2} loo other local ordinance, policy, or regulatron shall be the basis for the denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision. (3) 'This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shaIl use to evaluate proposed second units on lots zoned for residential use which contain an existing single-family dwelling :~To additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision or subdivision {a), shall be uttgized or unposed, except that a local agency may require an applicant for a permit issued pursuant to this subdnasion to be an awner~ccupant. *.* 14) No changes in zomng ordinances ar other ordinances or any changes m the general glen shall be required to unplement this subdirzsion Any local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creatron of second amts if these provisions are cons>stent with the limitations of this subdivision ~~i A second unit which conforms to the requirements of this subdir•ision shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed t0 be a residential use which is consistent with the e.~nsting general plan and zoning designations for the lotr The second unity shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth (c? ~ o local agency shall adopt an ordinance which totaU.y precludes second units within single-family or multifamily zoned areas unless the ordinance contains findings acknowledging that the ordinance may lunit housing opportunities of the region and further contains findings that specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare that would result from allowing second amts w•it.}iiii single-family and multifamily zoned areas justify adopting the ordnance. td) :~ local agency may establish minimum and maxunum unit size requn~ements for both attached and detached second units ~To minunum or maxnrium size for a second amt, or size based upon a percentage of the existing dwelling; shall be established by ordinance for either attached or detached dwellings which does :lot peirrtt at least an efficiency unit to be constructed in compliance with local deg°elopment standards Additions or Chang®s Indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks ; 9 ~~ ~~~ § fi5852.2 c~vl~xlvlnil!.lvit Luuiv (e} Parking requurements for second um#a shall not exceed one parking space per uiut or per bedroom. Additional parlaiig may be required provided that s finding is made that the additronal parlang requirements are du'ectly related to the use of the second umt and are consistent anth existing neighborhood standards applicable to exaatirig dwellings Off-street parkm~{ shall be pexmitted in setback areas m locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking m setback areas or tandem parlgng m not feasible based upon apeliSc site or regional topographical or fire and hfe safety conditions, or that it is not permitted anywhere else m the aiirlsdictaon. (f) Fees charged for the construction of second units Rhall be determined in atxordance with Chapter a (commencing with $ectaon 6G000) {g) Phis section does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restnctrve requirements for the creation of second units (h) Local agenaes shall submit a copy of the ordinances adopted ptiisuant to subdivision (a} or (c) to the Department of Housing and Coinmumty Development within 60 days after adoption. (t} As used m this section, the following terms mean (I) "Living area," means the intenor habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and at#acs but does oat include a garage or any accessory structure (2) "Local agency" means a city, county, or city and county, whether general Law or chartered (3} For purposes of this section, "neighborhood" has the same meaning as set forth m Section 6.~i5139.5 {4) "Second umt'' means an attached or a detached residential dwelling urnt which provides complete independent ln'ing facdities for one or more persons It shall uielude permanent lirovisiens far living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sarntatian on the same parcel as the single-family dwelling >s situated. A second unit also meludes the following. (A) An efficiency unit, as defined m Section 17958.1 of Health i and Safety Code (B} A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code (Amended by Stats 1986, c la(i, ~ 1, operative April 2, 1987; Stats 199Q, c 1150 (A.B 3x23), § 2, Stats.1994, c 580 (A.$ 319$), § 2 } iSo m chaptered copy Aistvrical and Statutory Notes 1988 l.~islatioo Sec4on 2 of Stag 198fi, c 156, provides "Section 1 of this set shall become operative April 1, 198'r" 1994 Ixgtslation The 1994 amendment reorganized subd (a). without substantive change, m subd (b), deleted the thuvi para- graph from the end, uuaerted a new subd (d), relating to size requirements, added subd. (e), pro~ldmg for parlniig requirements, added subd (fl, regarding fee deteimina- tions, added the deleted Language from aubd. (b) as suixl (g), relating to local agencies' authority to adopt less restrictive requirements, Inserted subd. (Ix3), defineng neighborhood, added subda (ix4)(A) and {i)(4)(B), begin- ning with "A second unit also meludes the followmg•", and made nonaubatantne changes throughout the section Cross Re#ereitces Second unit flnanctng. California Housing and Infra- structure Finance Agency, see Health and Safetz~ Code § x1260 et seq Notes of Decisions In general 1 Msaimum standards 2 1 In general Evidence supported city council's denial of conditional use permit for two story accessor~~ apartment proposed to be bunt m low density residential neighborhood, there was ample evidence of eonimumtr concern with impact of t+eaidential second rental unit on general aesthetic charac- ter of neighborhood, as well as on protection of property values and pnvatR~ concerns Harris v City of Costa Mesa (App 4 Dist 1994) 31 CaLRptr2d 1, 2a CaLApp 4th 963 Substantial e~~dence supported findings that develop- ment of residentuil second unit would be unsuitable to character of surrounding ne>€rhborhood, which thus sup- ported denui) of land use permit for second unit, neigh- bors testified tJiat additional lmiiig unit would result ui excessive neighborhood noise, safety, traffic and garl4iig problems, and that it v~ould ne~vely effect neighbor- hood's aesthetic character Desmond v County of Contra Costa (App 1 Dist 19931 25 Ca3ltpti•2d 842, 21 Cal App 4th 330 Addition>$ or changes Indicated by underline, deletloris toy asterisks 10 ~M 027 1 GOVERN!1'IEh~ CODE City was requu^ed to adopt orclmanre in response t0 apphcation for eonditianal use permit to build second reaidenttal unit within 120 days from receipt of application regardless of whether application was complete when sty received it Sounhem v City of San Dunas (App 2 Drat 1992) 14 Cal.Rptr 2d GSfi, 11 Ca1.App 4th 1255 City Ras estopped from cLumuig that county ordinance xhich established criteria far allowvig second units >n 3ingie-fam~v and multifamily zones was m ex~stenoe be- fore area of county was annexed to lily and that "granny pat" statute did not apply to annexed portion where record showed that aty~ never seriously thought old eoun- ty~ ordinance governed annexed portion of sty Wilson v City of Laguna Beach (?ipp 4 Dist. ]992) 7 CalRptr2d 848, 6 CalApp 4th 543, rehearing dent$d and modified review denied Owners of second amts in su-gle-fam~v and multifamily zones were entitled to writ of mandamus ordering city to review their applications far conditaonal use permits under criteria prescribed by '.granny flat" statute rather than new ordinance, sty's past conduct in discouraging and misleading applicants eatopped city from rely-uig on new ordinance and re~efituig applicattons Wilson v City of Laguna Beach (App 4 Inst. 1992) 7 Cal Rptr2d 846, 6 § 65852.25 Ca1.App 4th 543, rehearing denied and madded, review denied. °Ganny flat" statute whifih encouraged local goverA- ments to enact their own arduiances allowuig and regiileit- ing °second amts" in single-family and multtfamily Zones where they otherwise Would be pmhibited and providuig that if local governments did not enact such an or+i~+~nce, then they had to grant a conditional use permit for any second amts which met reginrementa enumerated ui statr ate did nat permit pry to require applicants for second amt permits to give assurances of adequate parlnng. Wilson v City of Laguna Beach (App 4 Dist 1992} 7 Cal Rptr2d 848, 6 CalApp 4th 543, rehearing denied and modified, review denied 2. 1~lainmam standards Plain language of statute broadly authorized county to adopt ordinance governing creation of residentuil second amts and suggested standards that county could unpose on applications m count}~a discretion, but statutory hnuta on maximum standards under separate subdivision of statute only applied in event that local government had not adopted appropriate ordinance governing second amts Desmond v County of Contra Costa (App 1 Dist 1993) 25 Cal.Rptr 2d 842, 21 CaLApp 4th 330 $ fiS85225. .l'Iultifamily dwellingre damaged or destroyed by fire, catastrophic events, or public enemies; reco~istruction, restarationor rebuilding (a) No local agency shall enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or resolution that urould prohibit the reconstruction, restoration, or rebuilding of a multifamily dwelling that is urvoluntarily dA*naged or destroyed by fire, other catastrophic event, or the public enemy (b) Notwithstanding subdrnaion (a), a local agency may prohibit the reconstruction, restoration, or rebuilding of a multifamily dwelluig that is involuntarily damaged or destroyed by fire, other catastrophic event, or the public enemy, if the local agency determines that. (1) The reconstruction, restoration, or rebuilding will be detrimental or 1~lurious to tfie health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or warlnrig in the neighborhood, or will be detrimental or u>Junoue to property and unprovements in the neighborhood. (2) The e.Yisting nonconforming use of the building or structure would be more appropriately moved to a zone in which the use is permitted, or that there no longer e:usts a zone in which the ealatuig nonconforming use is permitted (c} The dwelling may be reconstructed, restored, or rebuilt up to its predamaged size and number of dtirelhng units, and its nonconforming use, if any, may be resumed. (d) Any recanstriiction, restoration, or rebuilding undertaken pursuant to this section shall conform to all of the followuig• fl) The California Building Standards Code as that code was m effect at the time of reconstruction, restoration, or rebuilding. i2} Any more restrictive local building standards authorized pursuant to Sections 13869 Z, 179fi8.'T, and 185415 of the Health and Safety Code, as those standards were in effect at the tune of reconstruction, restoration, or rebuildutg (3) The State Historical Building Code (Park 2 7 (commencing with Section 18950) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code) far work on qualified historical buildings or structures (4) Local zoning ordinances, so long as the predamage size and number of dwelling units are maintained rg} Architectural regulations and standards, so long as the predaniage size and number of dwelluig unit:, are maintained i6} A building permit which shall be obtained within two years after the date of the damage or destruction (e) A heal agency- may enact or enforce an ordinance, regulation, or resolution that grants greater or more permissire rights to restore. reconstruct. or rebuild a multifamily dwellu-g Additions or changes indicated by tenderline; deletions by asterisks * * ~.1 ~~ ~2~ EXHIBIT 3 George Deukmejian, Governor ,`SENT QF y0 John Geoghegan, Secretary of QQ` •f;;aE~;••• G Business, Transportation and Housing 4~ ~~4~ • ~~ _ ~ • State Department of Hausin¢ and ~ ~ Community Development ~ ~~ - - ~ ,~ mac? Division of Housing C'~ OQ Policy Development ~~jUN1 N ~~y~\• P. O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 (915) 323-3180 December 1990 SECOND UNITS Second a~nits, also referred to as "in-law apar~~,ents," "granny flats," or "accessary apartments," may offer an additional source of affordable housingY to homeowners and the community. By promoting the development of second units, a community may ease a rental housing deficit, enable homeowners with declsning incomes to supplement their incomes~,"and make more economical use of land and existing infrastru~urc. Government Code Sections 55$52.1 and 65852.2 encourage local g~rnernments to allow second units and contain provisions for the development of such units. A second unit is an attached or detached residential umt on the same lot as the primary unit. It provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent facilities for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. Second units can be created by partitioning floor space within an existing structure, by adding an accessory structure (either attached or detached), or by a combination of the two techniques. Second units can provide additional income to homeowners; allow persons who require companionship or pan-specialized assistance to continue living independently in their homes; facilitate family ties between generations; reduce construction costs by utilizing existing infrastructure; make more efficient use of residentially zoned land; and provide Iow-cost rental housing. ~~ a29 oTl~x RFSOU>zc~s: Accessorv An_ artments in Sin_ale-Fa~j)v Housing, Martin Gellen, Center for Urban Policy Research, 1985. Allowing Accessorv Apartments. Kev Issues for Local Officials, United States Depact~YYent of Housing and Urban Development, October 1983. Creating an Accessorv Apartment, Patrick H. Hare and Jolene N Ostler, McGraw Hill Book Company, 1987 ... '.' . ... April 1984, Department of. Housing and Community Developtent, (916) 445- 4728. Small Solutions Second Ur~~ts as Affordable Houstn~, an evaluation of the Double Unit Opportunity Program of the San Francisco Development Fund, 1988 {415) 863-7800. There is a $5 00 charge for this publication. COI~'TACTS: Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing Policy Development Division, {915) 323-3180. Kathy Kenny, Double Unit Opportunity Program, San Francisco Development Fund, {415) 863-7800 -' ~ C3~ SECG)vi7 u.~`I"t'S {Government Code Sections 65852.1-55852.2, as amended by AB 3529, Chapter 1150, Statutes of 1990} Legislation was enacted in 19$1 to encourage local governments to allow second units on lots developed with single-family homes in single- and multi-family zones. Government Cade Section 05852.1 as amended by AS 3529, Chapter 1 i50, Statutes of 1990, empowers a local government to issue a zoning variance {notwithstanding Government Code Section 65906, regarding requirements for findings for a variance), special use permit, or conditional use permit for the creation of attached or detached second units if they are intended for the occupancy of one or two persons 62 or more years of age and the floor area of an attached unit does not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area or the area of the floor space of the detached dwelling unit does not exceed 1,200 square feet. Government Code Section 65852.2 allows local governments to adopt an ordinance stating the conditions under which second unit development will be permitted. State law prohibits local governments from totally precluding second units unless an adopted ordinance acknowledges that such action "may limit housing opportunities of the region" and contains findings specifying the adverse impacts that second units would have on the public health, safety, and welfare In the absence of a local ordinance, the law establishes State criteria (Section 05852.2(b}} which, >_f met by a second unit applicant, require the Iocality to grant a special or conditional use permit The following State criteria would regulate such a unit. ^ A detached unit may have a floor area of up to 1,200 square feet ^ The floor area of an attached unit may not exceed 30 percent of the living area of the primary unit ^ The second unit is not intended for sale but may be rented ^ The lot is in a single-family or multi-family residential zone and contains an existing single-family dwelling s~ ~~1 ^ The second unit must comply with local budding codes and development standards applicable to detached dwellings and local health codes related to units an pnvate sewage systems. Following is a list of commonly asked questions, with answers, related to second umt Iaw. Also included zs a cagy of the law and a ltst of ~unsdictions with second untt ordinances. °~ X32 QUESTIONS AND AhTSWERS - GOVERI~TNIENT CODE SECTION 55852 1 - 65852.2 1 Does this law mandate that a local government allow second units on land zoned for restdenttal use ~ Yes In the absence of a local second unit ordinance, an application meeting the State second unit criteria must be approved. However, a locality may adopt a local ordinance specifying local criteria for approval (Section 65852.2(a)(1-6)). A locality may prohibit second unit development only if the prohibiting ordinance acknowledges that such action may limit housing opportunities in the region and specifies the adverse impact second units would have upon public health, safety, and welfare (Section 65852.2{c}) 2. Could a local government perrntt the development of second units on Land zoned single faintly restdenttal prior to the passage of the State law' Yes, a local government could permit the development of second units by right, conditional use permit, or special use permit Section 658521 allows localities to also issue a zoning variance far second unit development if the unit is intended far the sole occupancy of one or two persons who are 62 years of age or more, and the floor area of an attached unit does not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area or the floor area of a detached dwelling unit does not exceed 1,200 square feet 3. Can a local government allow a second unit on residentially zoned land if the unit will not meet resident age limitations and square footage requirements contained in Stare law? Yes. Second units not meeting the criteria in State law can, by the inherent powers of local government, be allowed by right, conditional use permit, or special use permit. State law specifies a resident age requirernent only if a zoning variance is issued for second units in the absence of a local ordinance regulating second units (Section 65852.1). 4. Maya 1QCality deny a second unit application because the proposed unit is detached? Not unless a local adopted ordinance provides for such distinction (Section 65852.2(b}) ~ Can a manufactured home {mobilehome) be a second unit? Yes. Nothing in the State second unit law prohibits approval of manufactured homes as second units. In the absence of a local ordinance, n33 a second unit application cannot be dented simply because the second unit is a manufactured home. There are other State standards (Health and Safety Code Section 18551 and Government Code Section 65852.3) regulating the use of manufactured homes on permanent foundations State law (Health and Safety Code Section 18300 and pursuant regulations} also regulates the Installation of manufactured homes which are not on permanent foundations. 6. If a local government approves by variance a second unit on a property owned by a person 6Z years of age or older, can the owner move into the second unit and rent the existing house to another household' Yes. The statute (Section 65$52.1} is silent on the subject of owner- occupancy in issuing variances for second unit development. The law does not mandate that an owner reside in either unit sa long as at least one of the units is Intended for occupancy by a resident, or residents, 52 years of age or older. 7. Where a Locality has granted a variance for a second unit intended for a sensor citizen, how may a local government enforce the age requtrernenrs of Government Code Section 65852 1 ? A local government may enforce the age requirement by evaluating compliance when a complaint is registered, or by requiring periodic certification of occupancy. 8. Can second units provide affordable housing? Yes. In enacting the second unit Law, the Legislature declared that, by avoiding additional land and infrastructure costs, second units constitute cost-effective residential development. The Legislature further stated that second units provide "relatively affordable housing for law- and moderate-income households without public subsidy." Second units financed with second mortgages or refinanced first mortgages avoid more costly construction loans 9 Can a second unit program help a local government meet State law housing and zoning requirements? Yes To comply with State housing element law (Government Code Section 65580, et sea.), cities and counties must adopt programs which address the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. Local governments are required to identify adequate sites to meet projected new construction needs and to assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households (Section 65503(c)(1)). 2 n3~ An ordinance providing for second units may enable a local government to meet its construction need and assist in providing low- and maderate- income housing, and is an appropriate program fora local government to include in its housing element. A second unit program will also assist a jurisdiction in meeting the State law requirement to zone residential land with appropriate standards in order to meet housing needs (Government Code Section 55913.1). Second unit programs may also assist localities in relocating displaced households and in meeting a need for replacement housing units. 10. How may a Iota! government encourage the development o}' second tinits~ Local governments can encourage second unit development through advertising ar producing information packets on second unit construction; establishing flexible zoning standards (e g., waiving or reducing parking requirements, allowing tandem parking, eliminating use permit requirements); waiving or reducing permit fees, and by reviewing the second unit ordinance periodically to evaluate and improve its usefulness in facilitating affordable housing development. 11. May a local government require the primary or secondary unit to be owner-occupied Yes. 12. May a loco! ordinance require that the second un~r occupancy be limited ro persons related to the owner of the primary unit? Such a requirement as a condition of permitting rental of the second unit is susceptible to legal challenge. In a 1984 decision, the Superior Court (Hubbart vs County of Fresno. Superior Ct. No. 309140-2, 1013/84}, voided a Fresno County zoning ordinance which required that occupancy of a second unit be limited to persons related to the main unit's owner. The Court stated that the ordinance violated the plaintiffs right to privacy guaranteed by Article I, Section I of the California Constitution. 13. Can a local government preserve the character of a single family neighborhood where second units are allowed? Yes. A local government may apply zoning standards, such as height, setback, and architectural design requirements so that the second unit will be compatible with other structures in the neighborhood. In many cases a second unit can be created with no increase, or a minitnal increase, in floor area. 3 L35 14 Can the quality of life to a neighborhood be protected where second units are allowed ? Yes. A local government may, by ordinance, designate areas appropnate far second units based on such criteria as the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of second units on traffic flow Furthermore, standards to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts may be imposed by a local government. The San Francisco Development Fund, in operating its Double Unit Opportunity Program in the Bay Area to encourage and facilitate second unit development, found that neighborhood resistance to second units was generally unfounded Few homeowners in any given area needed second units or wanted to build them. The second units that were built increased the property tax base, paid more than their share for local infrastructure, and created a modest addition to the affordable housing stock Increased noise, traffic, or other feared impacts did not materialize. 15 Can a local government prahtbtx second units in its ~urtsdtction? Not unless an ordinance is adopted may limit housing opportunities of specific adverse impacts on public result from permitting second units. which acknowledges that the action the region, and makes findings that health, safety, and welfare would 1 b. If a local government adapts an ordinance which meets the standards of Government Code Section 6S8S2.I, will this ordinance meet the requirements of Government Code Section G58S2.2? Yes. Government Code Section 65852.2 allows local governments to designate areas and standards for second units. If a local ordinance contains criteria consistent with Section 65852.1 with regard to age and square footage requirements, it will meet the requirements of Section 65852.2. 17. May a local government permit only second units meeting the requirements of Government Code Section 65852.I without adopting an ordinance? No If no ordinance has been adopted, a local government must grant special or conditional use permits for second units which meet the requirements of Section b5852.2(b}, and may grant vanances for units which meet the requirements of Section 65852.1. 18. Are second units exempt from growth control policy 4 ~~ 036 Yes. Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(5) states that second units shall nat be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. 19. 20 21. 22. Do second units have to be consistent with the locally adopted general plan and zoning ordinance ~ In the absence of a local ordinance, a second unit conforming to the State criteria (Section 65852.2), shall be deemed to be a residential use consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. Such an additional unit shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located. A locality may adopt an ordinance finding that second units meeting the criteria listed in statute do not exceed the allowable density and are a residential use consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the Iot (Section 65852.2(a}). However, failure to address the density issue in the adopted ordinance does not justify denial of a second unit application an the basis of allowable densities in the affected zone. Does this leg:slatlon require that a local government allow detached second units ~ Localities without a second unit ordinance must allow both detached and attached second units which meet the State cntena. However, a Iocality may adopt an ordinance authorizing only detached units, only attached units, or both. Are second unus exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act fcE~l)' Second unus are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301(a) and 15303(a} of the CEQA guidelines. What type of ,financial assistance is available to a homeowner Interested In constructing a second unit? Local government rehabilitation Iaan programs may have funds available for low interest loans to homeowners wishing to rehabilitate a single- family home and create a second unit within it for the benefit of a low- or moderate-income household Local redevelopment agencies 'may use their tax increments tv finance second units. Nonprofit organizations may offer techn;cal and financial assistance tv homeowners The San Francisco Opportunity Program Development Fund administered the Double Unit (DUO} to provide financial counseling, architectural S n3? design, and application assistance servcces for homeowners wtshcng to construct second units cn four Bay Area counties over a three-year period. The DUO experience was evaluated and a report issued in 1988 which cs available to interested persons (See Cover Page under "Other Resources"). 23. Is the creation of a second unit eligible for funds under the CDBG program as a rehabilitation acrrvrty? Yes, but under very limited ccrcumstances It must qualify as a rehabilitation, rather than a new construction, project and must benefit low- or moderate-income persons 24. Can a local government, by ordcnance, restrrct second units to only multr- famrly zones? Such an ordcnance would not be consistent with the intent of State law related to second units. However, if the ordcnance makes the necessary findings to justcfy precluding second units from single-family zones, and there are single-famcly homes located in multc-family zones which could qualify for second unit approval under the ordinance, such a restriction would not violate State statutes. in other words, local ordinances should permit second units cn both single-family and multc-family zones unless findcngs are adopted related to the prohibitcon of second units cn one or bath of those zones. 25 Must a local government provide a varrance or a specral or conditional use permit for a second rcnu which exrsted prior to the date of application for approval, if the untt meets criteria rn Health and Safety Code Section 65552.2{b} ~ Yes. The language of the statute tndccates that cts application is not lcmcted to new constructcon. 6 ~f 0~g From tie California Planner's 1488 Book of Lists, Dffice of Planning and Researci~ Jurisdictions with Second Dwelling Unit Ordinances Gove~t~~~nt Code Section 65852.2 pravxdes that local governments may adopt an ordinance regulating the installation of second dwelling units in single-family and multi-family residential zones. In the absence of such an ordinance, second dwelling requests :rust be evaluated in accordance with the state requirements discussed in Section 65852.2(b?. Second unit is defined to mean a residential unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or mare persons on the saane parcel that asingle-family dwelling is situated. The following ~urisdict~ons have second unit ordinances: AL~LANTO CHINO FAIRFIELD KINGSBURG AOOURA HILLS CHULA VISTA FARi+IERStiTIr.T F LA CANALI~, FLINTRIDGE ALAMEDA CLAREMONT r•r:xNDALE LA HABRA HEIGHTS ALAMEDA COUNTY CLAYTON F IREBAUGf~ LA pSE.SA Ar.RZ~y Cr.F.~~rA~rF FONTANA LA MIRAAA, ANAHEINf CIAVERI]ALE FORT BRAGG LA PUENTE ANDERSON CIDVIS F06TER CITY IA VERNE ANTIOCH CDACHELLA FOWLER LAFAY~1'F't; ARCATA C~ALINGA FREMONT LAKE COUNTY ARROYO GRANDE COLFAX FRESNO COUNTY LAKE ELSINORE ARIESIA COLTDN FUr.r.FRTON LAKEPORT ATHERZC~N COLUSA COUNTY GARDENA LARKSPUR ATWATER COMMERCE GILROY LASSEN COUNTY AUBURN CONCDRD GL,ENDORA LEMODRE AVALON CCNTRA C06TA COUNTY GLENN COUNTY LIVERMORE BALDWIN PARK CORCORAN GRAND '1~:ttRACE LIVINGSTON aARS'IrJW CORONADD GRASS VAr,T.~'y IADI BE.AUMONT CORTE MADERA GREENFIELD LOMITA BELL C06TA MESA GRIDLEY 1.DMPOC BFr.r.F~ COTATI GUSTINE LONG BEACH BELVEDERE CUPERTINO HALF MOON BAY LDOMIS BENICIA L1a,LY Cr'TY HARTFORD I,OS ALTOS BERKELEY DANVILLE HAYWARD IDS ALTOS HILT BRAD3URY QAVIS HEALDSBURG IIJS ANGELES BRAWLEY DEL NORTE COUNTY HEMET LDS ANGELES COUNTY 9REA DELANO HOLLIS'Fr;Fc LDS GATOS BREA7i5~00D DESERT FiQT SPRIl3GS [iOL'I'Vlr.i.R Mp,DERA COUNTY BRISBANE DINUHA HUGHSON MANTECA BUENA PARK DIXON HUMBOL~DT CWN'I'Y MARIN BURBANK DOWNEY HUI~TI'ING'I~ON BEACH MARTINEZ BLrilt. COUNTY DUARTE HUNTINGTON P_~SRK MARySVIiT,F. CALAVERAS COUNTY DUBLIN HURON ir1AYWC)OD CALIFORNIA CITY EL CAJON IMPERIAL MENDOCINO CALIPATRIA EL CERRITO IMPERIAL COUNTY MENDOTA CAMARILLO EL DORADO COU[dTY INC,r.~OrJD MENLO PARK CAMpBF_.i.r. ENCIlVITAS INYO COUYTY MERGED CARLSBAD ESCALI}N ZONE MERGED COUNTY CARPINTERIA ESCONDIDO IRVINE MILL VAr.rFy ~qON EXt:ff;x JACKSON MILLBRAE CE~I'pS FAIRFAX KERMAN MILPITAS 85 ~3~ r riODESTO PI5M0 BEACH SAN LUIS OBISR~ SUl'1:k:R COUIv*I'Y MONO COUNTY PLACENTIA COUNTY SUr1~~R CREEK MONROVIA PLACER COUNTY SAN MARC06 TAFT MONTCL~IR PLACERVILLE SAN MATEO TEHACHAPI MONTE SERENO PLEAS_A_AtT HILL SAN MATEO COUPPTY TEH~ MONTEBELUJ PLUNiAS COUNTY S_AN PABIA TEHAMA CO[JN2'Y MONTEREY PLYMOUTH SAN RAFAEL TEMPLE CITY MONTEREY PARK PORTERVILLE SAN RATION THOUSAND QAKS MORAGA PORTOLA SANTA ANA TIBURON MORENO VAr.r.Fy PDR'IC3IA Var.r.Fy SANTA BARBARA COUNTY TORRANCE MDUYT SHASTA P04~,Y SANTA CL?~iRA TRINITY COUiVTY MOUNTAIN VIEW RANCHO CUCAMONGA SANTA CLARA COUNTY TITLARE COUNTY NAPA RANCHO MIRAGE SANTA CRUZ TUOLUMNE COUI~'TY NAPA COUNTY RED BLUFF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY TCTRLOCK NATIONAL CITY BEDDING SANTA FE SPRINGS TUSTIN NEVAAn, CITY R,EDLANDS SANTA MARIA UKIAH NEVADA COUNTY REDWOOD CITY SANI<A RCSA UNION CITY NEWARK REEDLEY SANTEE UPLAND NEWNLAN RICHMOND SARATCX~A VACAVIT,T,R NORCO RID DELL SAUSALTTO VAi.i~'.JO NORT++IAI,FC RIO VISTA SCOTTS VAr•r•~'Y VEEVTURA NOV~1T0 RIPON SEAL BEACH VENTURA COUNTY O.AK~,LE RIVERBANK SEASIDE VISALIA OAKLAND RIVERSIDE COUNTY SEBASTOPOL VISTA OJAi RIVERSIDE SELMA I~INUT CREEK Oh~AR.Ia ROCitLIN SHASTA COUNTY WATERFORD ORA:~IGE ROLLING HIr.r s SIERRA COUNTX WEST COVINA ORANGE CDT_TNTY ESTATES SIMI VAr-r-~'Y WEST HOLLYWOOD ORANGE COVE SACRAMENTO SOLANO COUNTY WEST SACRAMENPO OXNARD SACRAMENTO COUNTY SOLEQAD W"r~STLAKE VILLAGE PACIFIC GROVE SAN ANSELMO SOLVANG WFS'IMINSTER PACIFICA SAN BENITD COUNTY SONOMA WHTTTIER PAL'S SPRIlVGS S.Ai~I BERNARDIND SONOMA COUNTY WILLIA~IS P_AIML1a,LE COUNTY SDNORA WILLITS PAID ALTO SAN BRUNO SOUTH EL MONT£ WINTERS pA~ ~~,5 SAN CARIAS SOUTH LAKE ~AHOE WOODLAKE ESTATES SAN CLEMENTE SOUTH PASADENA WOODLAND PARAMOUNT SAN DIEGp SOUTH SAN FRANCI5C0 LVI70D6IDE P.~.I2LIER SA~'~ DIEGO COUNTY ST. Ii£LENA YOLD COUNTY PASO DE ROBLES SAN FRANCISCO STANISLA~?S COUNTY YOUDTTVIr.r~ FERRIS SAN JACIN'TO STANibN YUBA CITY PE'TALLThLA Sn,.N JOAQCTIN COUNTY SUISUN CITY YUBA COUNTY PICO RTVERA SAN JOSE SUNNYVALE PIEDMONT SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO SAN LE.~INDRO a~ Q40 Assembly BiI1 No. 3529 CHAP'T'ER 1150 _ An act to aYnend Sections 65852.1 and 6.5852.2 of the Government Code, relating to housing. [Approved by Governor September 20, 1990. Filed with Secretary of State September 21, 1990.1 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGE5T AB 3529, Chacon. Housing: second units. Under existing law, any city, including a charter city, county, or city and county may issue a zoning variance, special use permit, or conditional use permit for a dwelling unit to be constructed, or attached to, a primary residence on a parcel zoned for asingle-family residence, if the dwelling unit is intended for the sale occupancy of one adult or 2 adult persons who are fi0 years of age or over and the area of floor space of the dwelling unit does not exceed 640 square feet. This bill would, instead, permit any city, including a charter city, county, or city and county to issue a zoning variance, special use permit, or conditional use permit for a dwelling unit to be constructed, or which is attached to or detached from, a primary residence on a parcel zoned for asingle-family residence, if the dwelling unit is intended for the sole occupancy of one adult or 2 adult persons who are 62 years of age or over, and the area of floor space of the attached dwelling unit doss not exceed 30% of the existing living area or the area of the floor space of the detached dwelling unit does not exceed 1,200 square feet. Under existing law, if a local agency has not adopted an ordnance governing 2nd units in accordance with specified law, it is required to grant a special use or a conditional use permit far the creation of a 2nd unit if the 2nd unit complies with certain conditions, inclu~»g the condition that any increase in the floor area of an attached 2nd unit not exceed 15°lQ of the existing living area and the condhtion that the takal area of floor space far a detached 2nd unit not exceed 64{} squa~ a feet. This bill would instead require that if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance governing 2nd units in accordance with specified law, it is required to grant a special use or a conditional use permit for the creation of a 2nd u~ut if the 2nd unit complies with those certain conditions, including the condition that any increase in the floor area of an attached 2nd unit not exceed 30% of the existing living area and the condition that the total area of floor space for a detached 2nd unit not exceed 1,200 square feet. The people of the State of ~a1f{,ornia do enact as followx: nq~ OS RL! Ch. 115U - 2 ~-- SECTIOI\ 1. Section 65852.1 of the Government Code is amended to read: 6852.1 Notwithstanding Section 65906, any city, including a charter city, county, or city and county may issue a zoning variance, special use permit, or conditional use permit for a dweili~g unit to be constructed, or which is attached to or detached from, a primary residence on a parcel zoned for asingle-family residence, if the dwelling unit is intended for the sole occupancy of one adult or two adult persons who are 62 years of age or over, and the area of floor space of the attached dwelling unit does not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area or the area of the floor space of the detached dwelling unit does not exceed 1,20(} square feet. This section shall not be construed to limit the requirements of Section 65&52.2, or the power of local governments to permit second units. SEC. 2. Section fi,5852.2 of the Government Code is amended to read. 65852 2. (a) Any local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones consistent with all of the following provisions: (1) Areas may be designated within the Jurisdiction of the local agency where second units may be permitted. (2} The designation of areas may be basAd on cntena, which may include, but are not liixuted to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of second units on traffic flow. (3) Standards maybe imposed on second units which include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, arctutectural review, and maximum size of a unit (4) A local agency may find that second units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the second unit is located, and that second units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot (5} The second units created shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. (6) A local agency may establish a process for the iss»ance of a conditional use permit for second units. (b) When a local agency which has not adopted an ordinance governing second units in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c} receives its first application on or after July 1, 1983, for a conditional use permit pursuant to this subdivision, the local agency shall accept the application and approve or disapprove the applicatron pursuant to this subdivision unless it adopts an ordinance in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c} within 120 days after receiving the application. Notwithstanri~ng Section fi59Qi, every local agency shall grant a special use or a conditional rise pe,~ quit for the creatron of a second unit if the second unit complies with all of the following: (I} The unit is not intended for sale and maybe rented 95 90 X42 - 3 - Ch. J.Y5Q (2} The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use. {3) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling. (4) The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing - dwelliixg. (5) Any increase in the floor area of an attached second unit shall not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area. (6) The total area of floor space for a detached second ~ynit shall not exceed 1,2QD sq~~Are feet. (7) Any construction shall conform to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to residential construction in the zone in which the property is located. ($} Local building code requirements which apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate. {9) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required. Nv other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis far the denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision. This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate proposed second units on lots zoned for residential use which contain ari existing single-family dwellung. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision or subdivision {a), shall be utilized or imposed, except that a local agency may require an applicant for a permit issued pursuant to this subdivision to be an owner-occupant. This section does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of second units. No changes in zoning ordinances or other ordinances or any changes >n the general plan shall be required to implement this subdivision. Any local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incoxparate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of second units if these provisions are consistent with the limitations of this subdivision. A second 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 use which is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. The second knits sk~~ll not be considered in the application of any' local ordinance, policy, or program to hmit residential growth. (c} No local agency shall adept an ordinance which totally precludes second nnTts within single-family and multifamily zoned areas unless the ordinance contains findings aclrnowledging that the ordinance may limit housing opportunities of the region and further contains findings that specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare that would result from allowing second units r ~ ~ 3 n. .nn Ch. 1150 -- 4 -~ within single-family and multifamily zoned areas justify adopting the ordinance. {d) Local agencies shall submit a copy of the ordinances adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) or (c) to the Depa.tl~~~ent of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption. {e) As used in this section, the following terms mean: (Y) "Living area," means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage ar any accessory structure. (2} "Local agency" means a city, county, or city and county, whether general Iaw ar chartered. (3) "Second unit" means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides comglete independent livuxg facilities far one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisiaz~.s for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the snnne parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated. O ~~~ Santa Monica Mayor & Santa Monica City Council City Hall 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, Calif. 90401 & Kenyon Webster, City Planning Staff City Planning Division Room 212 • August `~, ,~JR ~~ k ~'yc~~~ ,, N`~ L~ 1 LETTER OF OPPOSITION TO ANY AMENDMENTS TO CITY R-1 DISTRICT POLICY THAT WOULD ALLOW SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Council Meeting scheduled for Aug. 13, 1996 Item 9-A My opposition includes but is NOT LIMITED to the following: (1) Over crowding of residential areas. (2) Increased traffic and congestion in residential areas. (3) Increased parking in residential areas. (4) Loss of quiet enjoyment of residential area. (5) Loss of safety and security. (6) Toss of property value. (7) Increased of home ownership by non live in speculators. (8) Increased demand an city services at non participating taxpayers expense. (9) Objection to City support of rent control sympathizers. (l0) Objection to City acting to increase City revenues by collection of variance fees. (11) Objection to City acting out of mere jealousy towards homeowners. (12) Objection to City acting out of mere spite towards homeowners. {13) Loss of quality of life an residential areas. (14) Loss of physical, mental and emotional health. (15) Additional damages to be specified. Respectfully submitted, Leagh & Irene Hovey 1616 Sunse Av. Santa Monic Calif. 90405 Ti~Ie~ISmith ~ 31 0 450 0095 ~f 917196 "' 1 ~ 4& AM "!2 ~;-r=~ T ~ ~o~ ~a . .~ "~, ~~i i ~~.~ w ~ ~~ - -: tLC= = v-- u ~ - - V~~.7~ Mayor and City Council City Council Office, Santa Monica City Hall s 635 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 904Q1 RE: Land Use Ordinance Regarding Second Dwelling Uni#s (Agenda item for 8!13/96 City Council meeting) Mayor and City Council The City of Santa Mon~ca's housing pol!cy and ordinances have unfairly burdened all corn- mercial and ~esidentia! zones, but the R1, with increased density ailouvances and by-right development standards in the name of facilitating housing production, particularly affordable housing production This Council and past Councils, via enacted ordinances, have favored and protected the Ri zone contrary to publically stated and written housing policy, publ!ca!iy stated and written housing goals and full understanding of California State law regarding sec- ond uni#s in residential districts The ~;ouncil should rescind ail restrictions to second units in l~1 zones and allow for imple- mentation of State law Pursuant to California Government Code Section 650{}9(b) the following issues are to be con- sEdered raised should this matter be challenged in Court 1 The City of Santa Monica is fully aware of it's non-compliance with State law regarding second units ~n residential zones 1 The G!ty ofi Santa Monica's neglect of implementat!on of State law regarding second units 2 The City of Santa Monica's willful evasion of implementation of State law regarding second units 3 The City of Santa Monica has had ample opportunity to comply with State law At various times the City has initiated, adopted and revised major City elements, codes, ordinances. documents, policies, and forums at which the specific issue of second units and State law was raised 4 Fu!! analysis and comparison to the City of Santa Monica's Land Use Element for T~g~er Smith Q3t045000~5~i$17f9o ~]1 49A-UI ~2f2 allowance of second dweliing units in the a. zone ~ Full analysis and comparison to the c!ty of Santa ~lonica's Housing Element for allowance of sec- ond dwelling units in the n~ zone 6 Full analysis and oomparison to the C!ty of Santa Monica's assessment of Imped!rrients to Fa~C f ~ousisag Choice for allo~1ance of second dwelling i.~nits !n the ~~ zone 7 Full analysis and comparison io the City of Santa Monica's ?oning Code far allowance of second dwelling units it1 the R1 zone 8 Full analysis and comparison to the c,ty of Santa P,>7onica`s housing goals, written or stated, for allowance of second dti~elling units ~n the R1 zone ~ Statements made by members of the public and palicy statements made by City Officials and Staff at all meetings of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Housing Commission 1~ Full analysis and comparison to the State of California's hous!ng goals and documentation i hank you,