HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Agenda Report (1983-09-06) - Consideration of Second Unit Ordinances that would affect residences and neighborhoods city-widelfll~\\1 cn:y or san LJ1s 0B1spo
·••nil COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ME ET ING DATE: Sept. 6, 1983
ITEM NUMBER :
FROM: Toby Ross, Community Development Direct~Prepared by: John Hofschroer
SUBJECT: Consideration of "Second Unit Ordinances" that would affect residences and
nei ghborhoods ,:ci ty-wide.
CAO RE!;OMMENDATION :
Approve a negative declaration and pass an ordinance to prini that
will regulate second units in the city.
BACKGROUND:
Situation
Many of our Plann-i-ng and Environmental regulations originate from state law. SB
1160 and 1534 are examples of new law that affect the city. These bills were
drafted by Senator Mello and were meant to help relieve an acute housing shortage
in the state. They were adopted by the state legislature and are now part of the
state government code.
Portions of the new law are mandatory and are effective after July l, 1983. Other
areas of the law are. permissive.. Adoption of a city ordinance is the first step
to responding to the law.
The l egi sl ature made findings that there. are many benefits associated with the •
creation of second-family residential units on existing single family lots. They
also found that this could be a cost effective means of providing affordable
housing for low and moderate income households. The authors of the legislation
felt that many dwelling units in the state were "underutilized.11 That is, that
there were more bedrooms than occupants in the dwelling. These units have been
refered to as "granny flats," "second units," and "companion units."
Significant Aspects of the New Law
The new law now allows local governments to issue variances or special use permits
for an additional dwelling unit on land zoned for a single family residence.
Portions of the same law mandate .that the city approve second units after July l,
1983, if the request meets certai,n conditions. The city cannot use normal density
requirements in denying a request, and cannot consider an existing "second unit"
in any density calculation for a given property. It is very difficult legally to
limit occupancy to one particular group, such as the elderly. The law also
declares that second units are to be categorically exempt from provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
The new law gives the city several alternatives in its implementation:
l. The city can, by ordinance~ prohibit second units altogether, if it can make
the required findings (see att ached draft ordinance recommended by the
Planning Commission).
2. The city may remain silent in the matter, in which case, state law will
mandate how second units are established.
·f::!1 ,ijJ,~\11 CJty O~ san lUJS OBISPO
Ra 118 COUNCIL AGENCA REl=JORT
3. The city may exercise a broad range of discreti~n in adoptin~ its own
ordinance (see attached draft ordinance regulating second units).
Jurisdictions which adopt ordinances pursuant to the law shall submit a copy of
such ordinances to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60
days of adoption by the City Council.
EVALUATION:
I
I
A. The possibility of the city of adopting an ordinance which totally precludes
second units depends upon the city making findings acknowledging that:
"Such action (prohibiting second units) may limit housing opportunities of the
region," and further that, "specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety,
and welfare would result from allowing second units withi_n single-family and
multi-family zoned areas" (paraphrased, Section 65852.2(C.) government code).
Staff has attached a draft ordinance which would prohibit second units in the
city. This alternative was su1:1ported by ,the P·lanning "Commiss 'ion
_at their meeting of July '2:7, 1983. The ordinance demonstrates that the
"underutilization" concept cited by the state is not a significant problem in the
city based upon local census data. Only 20% (about 3,000 of our 14,000 dwelling
units) have more bedrooms than occupants. Similarly, the laws that conditionally
permit second units in the city today, do not expressly include provisions
allowing the city to deny a second unit request where a resource deficiency exists
in the city's ability to provide basic services (fire, sewer, water, etc.) to
a given neighborhood. In staff's view, this situation has specific adverse
impacts upon the health, safety, and welfare of residents of the city.
Staff feels that the prohibition alternative is defensible and appropriate given
the un_ique cha_rac_teristics of the city and the existing city's regulations. The
Planning Commission recommends this alternative.
18. The possibility of the city remaining "silent" in the matter by allowing the
state provisions to prevail is not desirable in staff's view. After July 1,
1983, the city must process requests for second units, and second units must
be permitted under certain conditions. The merits of these state provisions
should be compared to a poss1ble ordinance the city could adopt. These provisions
and requirements are summarized as follows:
-After July 1, 1983, the city shall accept the application and approve or
disapprove it pursuant to state law.
-The city has 120 days to process the application.
It is "categorically exempt" from environmental impact review.
-After 120 days the city shall grant a special use permit or conditional
use permit if it complies with the following requirements
(1) The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented.
(2).The lot is zoned for single family or multifamily use.
(3) The lot contains an existing single-family detached unit.
,..
~!;~~;(•' ill~l~I C1ty or san LUIS OBISPO
8iat'1.8 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
( 4)
( 5)
(6)
The second unit is attached to the existing residence and is locatea
within the living area of the existing dwelling.
Whenever an increase in floor area is involved, it shall not exceed
10 percent of·the existing living area.
Any consturction 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.
I (n
Local building code requirements which apply to additions to existing
single-family dwellings, as appropriate.
1-
The city cannot use density requirements for purposes of denying a request,
and no other ordinance may be used to deny the request.
-No state enabling legislation exists for enforcement.
-No state funding for costs incurred by the city in providing for the
state law.
Since the city has no specific ordinance adopted, the Community Development
/
Department has established an interim policy for the processing of such
requests. To date, no applications have been applied for or accepted however,
jand only a few inquiries have been reported.
i
The third alternative, the ·city adopting its own "second unit ordinance," is
the staff ~etommended ,alternative. The advantac:1e·"over :the · prohibition :>;,.
alternativ~s is that it is more legally defensiole, and gives the city a broad
range of discreti on in evaluating second units. Staff sees this action as
desirable because it gives the city the opportunity to implement some of its
own housing goals, by permitting second units in only the most appropriate
situations.
Staff's goal in drafting the proposed ordinance include:
restating only the minimum provisions of state law now in effect (units
I . must be rented, only allowed on detached single family dwellings, second
unit must be attached to primary unit, l iniited •1to 10 % fl oar .area -expansion). Only
regulatory provisions have been expanded upon.
. I
I
I
adding restrictions for owner occupancy, architectural review, protection
in cases where resource deficiencies are identified, and design standards .
-utilize-minor review procedures already existing in the zoning and
architectural review ordinances.
-utilize design standards and building codes already in existence to protect
health, safety, and welfare of residents in affected neighborhoods.
-protecting second units from speculation by restricting occupancy to
owner occupant. (This would help to avoid the "dupl ex rental" situation in an
R-1 zone. J
-establishing firm enforcement methods by contracts between the applicant
and the city, and notification of f uture owners.
Ii . \
•1?;:~11 r~ll~WWII\\ City O~ san ,_(.us OBISPO
mme~1I COUNCIL AGENCA flEPORT
he following are major areas of an ordinance that offer alternatives for the
council to consider. In writing the draft ordinance, staff has already selected
a prefered alternative:
A. Where second units are allowed -the city may limit them to various zones or
geographic areas. In protecting the health, safety and welfare, they can be
prohibited where resource deficiencies exist. Ownerhip conflicts can be avoided
by prohibiting them from common-ownership projects such as condominiums. Exclusion
from R-1 zones can be considered.
B. Occupancy -both the primary and the smaller second unit must be considered.
C.
Owner occupancy can be required and may help to avoid the "duplex rental"
situation. Immediate family relationships may also be required to encourage
family support but are more difficult to regulate, and may not be legally
defensible.
Type of unit allowed -both the size of the unit and whether it is attached or
detached 1s optional. The structural type also can be regulated (mobile home,
modular, conventional). The Australian concept of "granny flat" avoids some
enforcement problems because it is mobile, and must be removed when the elderly
occupants no longer live there.
I D. What regulations anc;f performance standards are desir~ble? -s.econd u·nits may
I
I
I
I l E.
F.
G.
not be appropriate where the size or d1mens1ons of lots are substandard. Adding
second units to lots where uses ar.e nonconforming may al so be an issue. The
state law allows all zoning regulations (height, yards, parking, etc.) to apply.
Certain standards could be relaxed to encourage second units also. Architectural
Review is optional, but a use permit or variance appears to be mandatory.
Procedure -staff feels that any ordinance should c)early establish an appropriate
procedure for review, including application requirements. Regulations and
requirements should be clear to potential applicants.
Enforcement -state law gives no specific advice on how to enforce such an
ordinance. The goal here is to prevent land use conflicts. Normal use permit
enforcement is adequate in staff's view. The commission may consider special
contracts between the city and owners of property with second units. Restrictive
covenants and fines sufficient to deter would-be violators could also be
consi~ered. How to regulate a second unit under changing ownership conditions
may also be an issue.
Periodic review of the ordinance if assed -i.t may be appropriate to bring the
or 1nance ac tote comm1ss1on and council, along with a status report of
activity, one year after passage of the ordinance. If a prohibition ordinance is
adopted,· the city can at any time repeal it to allow second units after the law
has been 11 tested 11 state-wide.
•
• CJty O~ san LUIS OBISPO
IJt.:i:1~.e COUN C I L AGEN DA REPORT
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The council can adopt the attached ordinance regulating second units in the
city.and direct staff to .bring the ordinance back for review and status report
after one year.
2. The council can adopt the attached ordinance that pr0hibits second units in
the city. (Planning Commission recommendation.)
3. The council can take no action. State law would mandate .how second units are
allowed in the city.
4. The council can mak~,modifications in either of the above draft ordinances.
Regulatory ordinance could be amended to exclude R~l zones, allowing only in
R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones.
5. The councir•·can continue with direction to staff.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION:
On July 27, 1983 the Planning Commission conside.red the above alternatives and on
a 3:2 vote, recommended to the council that the prohibition ordinance be
adopted. Only two people testified, both in favor of second units being allowed
in the city.
CONCURRENCES:
City legal counsel has indicated that the alternative of a regulatory ordinance
is more legally defensible than a prohi.t:iitidn ,i ordriltiance~
FISCAL IMPACT: •
No fiscal impact associated with the prohibition alternative. Minor costs are
expected with regulatory ordinance to enforce use permit conditions of approval.
Such a residence with a 11 second unit" could rent for more, some effect on property
values is expected. How much of an effect is not known at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the council concur with the negative declaration call and
pass-to-print the attached draft ordinance which regulates second units wtt~tfi~the
city. And direct staff to return the ordinance to the Planning Commission and
City Council after one year with a status report of activity.
Attachments: Negative Declaration
SB 1160
SB 1534
Minutes of Planning Commission meetings of 6/22/83 and 7/27/83
Prohibition ordinance
Regulatory ordinance
Sample "second unit" floor pl an diagram
·1· '~
'i\:
"-
SUH!'v\RY OF INITIAL S'IU!)Y FINDING.5 I
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETIING
r-_1. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW FQSSIBLE I ADVERSE EFITCTS
A. COMMlMI'IY PLANS AND GOALS IAJC/t£
B. POPUlATION DISTRIIUITON AND GROWIH I A l/'O\ ,,e
I I I
C. LAND USE
j). TBANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
... ?UBLIC SERVICES '
.. lJfILITIES
G. NOISE LEVELS
H. GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HA1ARDS AND
TOPOGRAPHIC M8DIFICATIONS
I. AIR QUALI'IY AND WIND CONDITIONS IAJ&vE
J. SURF ACE WATER FUJ.·l AND QUALI'IY \/4WE
K. PLANT LIFE
~
\AIME \ I L. ANIJ-IAL l.JFE
M. AKHAELOGICAf../HISTORICAL
I If Ir JII IlfJII""'"""".
N. A£SIBETIC ~ I o. ENERGY/RESOURCE USE
I I
III. sTAIT REcol'ffi:Nl}\noN »E6A pve • OECL.A;ltA71 CN
"·Includes suggested mitigation rreasures.
t,
on -o Vl > ..... 0 ;;.J -I "'O ::oz m > -0
rr, 3: "'O ,, ,-
nc > ,, --i:Z :0 ()
o--m :0 ,..
::0 -I 0 m z
--< 8 ~ V'I . a>
:J>~ t-< :f n< m
-H"n z ...... , 0
00 > :z: ""O -I ., 3: -
'rr, 0 :z: z ·
-I
0 0 > > -I -I m ,,,
I
L.t
~ ......
...0
ex,
~
I
"'O
:0 0
'-m n
-I
;:::, m
VI
()
::.0 --0
-I -0 z
>
"tl ·o ,--()
>
-i
0 z
z
? tit
~i ~
~ ~ ~
-I s > m ~ r
8 ~ ~g
~ ~ 50 --< .,,
0 O
1: ~ ;~
~~ ~~ ~ zo ~ C\~G:l z-~ -I Vl
"-'-> v " r 0
-3:
"tl > ()
-I
I. Descript ion of Pr oject and Environmental Setting
This environmental review assesses the possible impacts that may result
from several actions the City of San Luis Obispo may take in the implementa-
tion of recent state law that allows second residential units under certain
circumstances in the city. Portions of the law which allow the city to adopt
an ordinance regulating or prohibiting second units came into effect on
a statewide basis in September 1982. The law was enacted under State
Senate Bill 1160 and 1534 and added Government Code 65852.2 and amended
Section 65852.1. Another section of the government code which mandates
that the city approve second units, if certain conditions are met, become
effective July 1, 1983.
The specific project involves the action of the city to either:
A. Prohibit second units
B. Allow and regulate second units
C. Prohibit second units from specific areas of the city.
The new law affects an undetermined number of the approximately 14~000
households throughout the city. These households are composed of a
variety of unit types, sizes and occupancy types and numbers. The law
specifically allows more infilling to occur in residential neighborhoods
in the city than now is allowed. Under the mandatory provisions of the state
law, a unit could typically be added in a neighborhood if the following
is met:
1. The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented.
2. T.he lot is zoned for single family or multi-family use.
3. The lot contains an existing single-family detached unit.
4. The second unit is attached to the existing residence and is located
within the living area of the existing dwelling.
5. Whenever an increase in floor area is involved, it shall not exceed
10 percent of the existing living area.
6. 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.·
7. Local building code requirements which apply to additions to existing
single-family dwellings, as appropriate.
The major characteristic of the existing environment (situation) is that these
units were not previously allowed within the city. It is specifically the
action of state law that acted to change the existing environmental
situation. No "second units" as described above have been applied for or
exist within the city.
II. Potential Impact Review of Alternative Actions
1. Prohibition of Second Units. No second units as described above have
been applied for or exist pursuant to r.ecent state law. Therefore,
no specific environmental consequences (negative or positive impacts)
could result. This represents a "no change" alternative.
2. Regulation of Second Units. Some of the 14,000 households within the
city may qualify for second unit status. Some individuals may find the
provision desirable and may apply to the city for a permit. The
proposed action (the regulation ordinance)• specifically prohibits
3.
second units in any non-conforming situation, where a resource
deficiency (essential services) exists, or where owner occupancy cannot
be achieved. The ordinance specifically includes its own mitigation
measures to insure 'neighborhood compatibility and protect the
health, safety and welfare of residents of the city.
An incx:,ease may occur in the number of households within existing
residential neighborhoods, but the increase should be considered
negligible.
Prohibition of Second Units from Certain Areas of the City. This ·
represents the alternative of prohibiting second units from certain
areas of the city altogether, while regulating second units in
other ~resumably more suitable) areas.
A small increase in household numbers may occur in residential neighborhoods
with this alternative, but the increase is less than with alternative
2, and is not considered significant.
III. Staff Recommendation
No significant impacts are anticipated with either of the three alternative
actions. Staff recommends that a negative declaration be granted.
! ..
. •
.. ::.. '.
~."' . ....
"'"'.:'
( -(
Senate Dill No. 1160
CHAPTER 887
An act to add Section 658.52.l to t}:ie Government Code, relating to
land use regulation.
.. [Approved by Covemor September TT, 196:. Filed nith
:• . .. Secre~:iry of Stiate September 2.3, 1981.J
~.,.-. . . :~. L.EC~TIVE COUNSEL0S DIGEST
.. .:.:_·~:.:_ --•. -~·:·.:== SD 1160. Mello. City and county zoning: single-family residence:
:...;r;: · • • dults .-• • • •
:-i,}t.\.. • • •• .-: :1_ Unde~ ~~~~~iaw ;·city o~ c~-~ty may~ by o~dinaoce. designate
:~,t6:·~ .. J ·._;·various zones wit~ the city or county and specify the uses which
;.. Ji;:.:.;,=:. •• ·: ; may be permitted on the land within those zones. Within such :;::ones
""' '.!''§:t~~·.:):,~_:i,the city or county inay condition certain uses or require special use
-~?:~Jf ~-: ... :.,.::~permits or zoning .variances for certain uses. • ~ ~~¥:> _:~ ~ :~ .:.~-..;: This bill \vould permit a city, including a charter city, a coc.nty, or
• 7«, r'.~J:~.{. \'city and county to issue a zoning variance, special use permit, or
1::; ~~:t ;1. . • conditional use permit for a dweUing unit to be constructed, or
. ?-~. i:;.:f;§' :-,:., ~attached to, a primary residence on land zoned for a single-family
~ ·-..,~;• • ·:··~·:'~~.'{ residenc~ if the dwelling is intended for the sole occupancy of an ~ :t ~-: ~;\71-adult or adults who have reached age 60 and the area of floor space
~ :-.-• --··:;.:--of the dwelling does not exceed ~O square feet. ~-.. :· ... • . . ..
•. :· The people of the State of CaliFornla do enoct as follows:
' ·:
......
.. . . ..
'
... ,.-:
~ _,: . .. -~~:
~~! :,;, ... ::, : ~-•.!.'.:. ~ii: ~~ Z·
,
~¾!:
~· .,~-:: ... ' ,.. 1 .....
•'(_h~. ~~ • .. • ~,._"'.r~A. .
...... ~~'
'
..
~~ .... ::t~
i
{
t·
• i
~
-
i
I'
I
t
l
~ .
i r
I
' i
-~
I
I
I I
l
~ i
w
;
I ..
\
~
..
Senate Bill No. 1534
CHAPTER 1440
An act to amend Sectio11 65852.1 of, and to a.dd Section 65852.2 to,
the Government Code, and to o.mend Section 21080 of the Public
Resources Code, relating to housin·g.
[Approved by Covernor September 27, 1982.1-"ilcd with
Secreto.ry of State September ~.1982.)
. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DICEST
SB 1534, Mello. Housing: single-family lots: second-family units.
Under existing law, a city or county may, by ordinance, designate
various zones within the city or county and specify the uses which
may be permitted on the land within those zones. Within such zones
the city or county may condition certain uses or require special use
ptm~its or zoning variances for certain uses.
This bill would authorize any city. including a chartered city,
county, or city and county to provide, by ordinance, for the creation
of second units, as defined, ln single-family and multifamily
residential zones. In the event that any of those entities do not adopt
nn ordinance governing second units, the bill would,
notwithstanding specified provisions of e>..isting law, require each
city, including a charter ciQ', county, und city and county to grant a
special use or a conditional use permit for the creation of a second
attached residential unit, which is only intended for rental purposes,
on a lot which is zon.ed for single•farnily or multifamily use and which
contains an existing single-family det:iched unit, if the second unit
complies with specified provisions. The bill ,vould prohibit any city,
including a chartered city, county, or city and county from adopting
an ordinance which totnlly preclude second units within
single-family nnd multifamily zoned. areas unless the ordinance
contains prescribed findings. This bill would ex~mpt the creation of
a second residential unit from the California Environmental Quality (
Act, • •
This bill would require jurisdictions adopting ordinances for the
creation of the second units to submit a copy of it to the Department
of Housing and Community Development for submission to the
• Legislature. This bill would make .other changes ne;<:essary for the
implementation of this bill. .
Article XIII B of the California Constitution and Sections 2.231 and
2234 ·of the Revenue and Taxation Code require the state to
reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs
mandated by the state·. Other provisions require the Department of
Finance to review statutes disclaiming these costs and provide, in
cert!lin cases, for making claims to the State Board of Control for
reimbursement.
02 ,t(\
:.
l. 1440 -2-
However, this bill would provide that no appropriation ·is rnnclc
:d no reimbursement is required by this net for n specified reu.son.
1e people of'the State of Cnl11ornla do enact as follows:
SECTION l. (a) The Legislature finds an<l'declares that there is · •
i tremendous unmet need for new housing to shelter California's •.
>pulation. The unmet housing needs will be f~rther aggravated by
:e severe cutbacks in federal housing programs.
(b) The Legislature finds and declares that California's existing
)using resources are vastly underutilized due in large part to the
1anges in social patterns. The improved utilization of this state•s
<is~ housing resources offers ~n innovative and cost•eff ective
,l~ to California's housing crisis.
(c) The Legislature fmds and declares that the state hns a role in
1creasing the utilization of California•s housing resources and in
!ducing the barriers to the provision of .affordable housing.
(d) The Legislature finds and declares that there are many
enefits associated with the creation of second-family residential ·
nits on existing single-family lots, which_ include:
(1) Providing a cost-effective means of serving development
nough the ·use of existing infrastructures, as contrasted to requiring
.1e construction of new costly infrastructures to serve development
1 undeveloped areas. .
(2) Providing relatively affordable housing for low• and
1oderate-income households without publlc subsidy. .
{3) Providing a means for purchasers of new or existing homes,·or
,oth, to meet payments on high interest loans. . •
(4) Providing security for homeowners who fear both criminal
ntrusion and personal accidents while alone. . sa 2. Section 6.5852.1 of the Government Code is amended to .
·e~•.
65852.1. Notwithstanding Section 65906, any city, including a
:harter city, county, or city and county may issue a zoning variance,.
pecial use permit, or conditional use p_ermit for a dwelling unit to .
>e constructed, or attached to, a primary residence on a parcel zoned
·or a single-family residence, if the dwelling unit is intended for the
.ole occupancy of one adult or two adult persons who are 60 years
)f age· or over, and the area of floor space of the dwelling unit does
1ot exceed 640 square feet. .
This section shall not be cop.strued to limit the requirements of
iection 65852:2, or the power of local governments to permit second
~~ • •
SEC. 2. Section 65852.2 is added to .the Government Code, to
~ead:
65852.2. (a) Any city, includi11g a chartered city, county, or city.
ind county, may by ordinance provide for the creation of second
>:mits in single-family nnd ~ultifamily residential zones consistent
-3-Ch. 1440·
with the fallowing provisions: .
(1) Areas may be designated in the Jurisdiction where second
units are permitted. . .
·(2) The designation of areas may be based on criteria, which may
include, but are not limited to, the adequ.i.cy of water and sewer
services and the impact 6£ second units on traffic flow.
{3) Standards may be imposed on second units which include, but
are not limited . to, parking, height, setback, lot cover.age,
nrchitectural review, and maximum size of the unit. : •
• (4}" A city including a chartered city, county or city and county
may, in its d~cretion; find tha·t second units provided for do not
exceed the allowable density for the lot up.on which it is located, ancl
find ~at second units are a residential use which is consistent witt
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 city, including a chartered city, county, or city and c~unty
may establish a process for the issuance of a conditional use pe'rinit
for second units. •
(b} When a city, including a chartered city, county, or city_,and
county, which bas 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 ~se permit
pursuant to this subdivision, the jurisdiction shall accept 'the
npplication and approve or disapprove it pursuant to this s~bdivisipn
unless it adopts an ordinance.in a.cco.rdanc~.with subdivision (a}. or
.· {c) within 120 days after receiving the application. Notwithstanding
the provisions of Section· 65901,,ench city, incluging n charter city,
county, or city and county shall grant a special use or a conqition' •
use permit for the creation of a second residential unit if it c:om:plt:, ..
with the following: ,,.
(1) The unit is not intended .for sale and may be rented.
(2) The lot is zoned for single f~ily or multifamily use.
{3) .The lot contains an existing ~gle-family detached unit.
(4) The second unit is attached to the existing residence~ an.~ is
located within the living area of the ~xi~~g dwelling. ~ •• • •
(5) Whenever an increa.s.e IA. floor area is involved, it shall Jlot
exceed 10. percent of the existing living area.
(6) Any constructiol\ shall conform to height, setback, lot
.,. coverage, architectural review, site plan review. fe'es, charges, and
other zoning requirements generally applicable to residential
construction in the zone in which the property is located.
(7) Local building code requirements which apply to ndditions to
existing single-family dwellings, as appropriate.
(8) Approval by the local health officer where a private SC'Wage
disposal system is being used, i( required.
As used in this subdivision, "living area" me.ms th(' intcr~or
Ch. 1440 -4.-
inhabitable area of a dwelling unit including _ basements _and attics
and shall not include a garage or nny acce~sory structure.
No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for
the denio.l of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision.
This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that cities.
including charter cities, counties, and cities and counties shall use to
evaluate proposed seconq. residential units on lots zoned for
residential use which contain an existing single-family detached unit.
No additional standards, other than those provided in this section,
shall be utilized or imposed, unless there is a requirement that :m
applicant for a permit issued pursuant to this subdivision shall be o.n
owner-occupant.
This section shall not be construed to limit the authority of cities,
lllWlties, and cities and counties which adopt less restrictive
9-lirements for the creation of second residential units .
No changes in zoning ordinances or other ordinances or nny
changes in the general plan shall be required to implement the
provisions of this subdivision. Any city, county, or city and co_unfy
m::i.y amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the
policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of
second residential units if these provisions a.re consistent with the
limitations of this subdivision.
A second residential unit which conforms to the requirement.s of
this subdivision shall not be considered to exceed the allowable
density f9r the lot upon which it is located, nnd shall be deemed to
be a residential use which is consistent with the existing general plan
and zoning designations for the lot. The second units shall not be
considered in the application ·of any local ordinance, policy, or
program to limit residential growth. .
(c) No city, including a char~er city, C0UX].ty, or c.ity and county
shall adopt an ordinance which totally precludes second units within
•
le-family and multifamily zoned areas unless the ordinance
tains findings acknowledging that such action 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 within single-family and
multifamily zoned'~reas justify adopting such an ordinance.
(d) As used in the·-section, a "second unit" is either a detached or
attached dwelling unit which provides complete, ind,ependent living
facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent
provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the
same parcel or parcels as th~ primary unit ~s situated.
(c) This .section shall become opero.tivo on July 1, 1983,
(f) Jurisdictions which adopt ordinances pursuant to subdivision
(a) or (c) shall submit a copy of such Qrdinances to the Department
. of Housing and Community Development within 60 days. The
department sh~\ll submit a report to the Legislature. which sho.ll
, transmit the report to the approprfo.te.committees of the Legislature
)
r.
-5-Ch. 1440
by J nnuary 1, 1984. The report sho.11 evaluate the implementation of
this section by local governments o.nd suggest any appropriate
legislative changes.
SEC. 4. Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code is amended
to read:
'21030. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this division, this
division shall apply to discretiono.ry projects proposed to be carried
out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to, the
enactment and amendment 0£ zoning ordinances, the issuance .of
zoning variances. the issuance 0£ conditional use permits, and 'the
approval of tentative.subdivision maps (except where the project is
exempt from the preparation of an environmental impact report
pursuant to Section 21166).
(b) This division shall not apply to the following: "
. (1) Ministe.rial projects proposed to be carried out or approved¥
public agencies. • . \·.-
(2) Emergency repairs to public service facilities necessary to
maintain service. .
(3) Projects undertaken. carried out, or approved by a public
agency to maintain, repair, restore, demolish, or replace pr9perty-or
facilities damaged or destroyed· as a result of 11 disaster in . a
disaster-stricken area in which a state of emergency has been
proclaimed by the Governor pursuant to Chapter 7 ( comm·encing
with Section 8550) of Division l of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(4) Specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an
emergency. . .
-(5) Projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
( 6) Actions undertaken by a public agency relating to any thermal
powerplant site or facility, including the expenditure, obligation, or
encumbrance off unds by a pub}.ic agency for planning, engineerf:ng,
or design purposes, or for the conditional snle or purchase r,r
.equipment, fuel, water {except groundwater}, steam, or power i.
a thermal powerplant, if the powerplant site ~d related facility ~::
be the subject of an environmental impact report or negati•v~
declaration or other document, or documents, prepared pursuant to
a regulatory program certified pursuant to Section 21080;5, which
will be prepared by the State Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission, qy the· P~b.Uc Utilities Commissio·n, or by
the city or county in which the pow~rplant and.related faclliO' w.ould
be locate\i; provided that the..~nviroµmental µnpact report, negative
declaration or other document,· or· documents. shall include the
environmental impact, i£ any, of the action described in · this
parngraph, . ,
~7) Activities or approvals necess11ry to the bidding for, hosting-or
staging of, nnd funding or carrying out of, :m Olympic "g~e$ under
the authority of the International Oly;np;c Committe~, except for
the construction of facilities necessary for the Olympic games. •
(8) The establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or
~
Ch. 1440 __:,5_
approval of rates, tolls, fares or other charges by public agencies
which the public agency finds nre .for the purpose of (1) meeting
operating expenses, including e~ploy~e wage rates and fringe
benefits, (2) purchasing or leasirg supplies, equipment or materials,
(3) meeting fimmcio.l reserve needs and r_equirements, (4)_. obtaining
funds for capital projects, necessary to • maintnin service within
existing service areas, or (5) obtaining funds necessary to ma.into.in
those intracity transfers as nre authorized by city charter. The public
ngency sh:ill incorporate written findings in the record of nny
proceeding in which an exemption ,-inder this paragraph is clo.imed
setting forth with specificity the basis" £or the claim of exemption.
(9) Actions taken· prior to January 1, 1987, by a public agency {l)
afo implement the trnnsition from ·the property trucntion system in
WMfect prior to June 1, 1978, to the system provided for by Article
XIII A of the California Constitution or (2) to respond ton reduction
in federal funds. Those nctions shall be limited to projects defined in
subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 21065 which initiate or incrense fees,
rates, or charges charged for any existing public service, program, or
activity; reduce or eliminate the availability of an existing public
service, program, or activity; dose publicly owned or operated·
facilities; or reduce or eliminate the availability of an existing
publicly owned transit service, program, or activity.
(10) All classes of projects designated pursuant to Section 21084.
(ll) A project for the institution or increase of passenger or
commuter service on rail lines nlready in use, including the
modernization of existing stations and parking facilities.
(12) A project for the institution or increase of passenger or
commuter service on high-occupancy vehicle lanes already in use,
including the modernization of existing stations and parking
facilities. . . .
A (13) Facility extensions not to exceed £our miles in length which
• are required for ttansfer of p~sengers from or to exclusive public
mass transit guideway or busway public transit services.
(14) A project for the developmen~ of a r~gionnl transportation
improvement program or the state transportation improvement ·, program. ._
( 15) Any proje.ct or portion thereof.located in another state which
will be subject to · environmental ~pact re~ew pursuant to the
National Environmental Polfoy Act ~f -1969 or similar state laws of
that state .. Any emissions or discharges that would have a si~ficant
effect on the environment in the State of California are subject to this
division. · •· •
(16} Projects undertaken by a local agency to implement a rule or
regulation imposed by a state agency, board, or commission under a
certified • regulatory program pursuant to Section 21080.5. Any
site-specific eff cct of the project which was not analyzed as a
significant effect in the plan or other written documentation
required by Section 21080.5 is subject to this division,
-7-Ch. 1440
(17) The creation of a second residential unit pursuant to Se,ction
65852.2 of the Government Code, ·
(c) If a lead agency determines that a proposed project, not
otherwise exempt from the provisions of this division, doelnot have
a significant effect on. the · environment, the load agency shall adopt
a negative declaration to that effect. ·
SEC. 5, No appropriation is mnde and no reimbursement is.
required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XllI .B of the
Cnlifornia Constitution or Section 2231 or 2234 of the Revenue and
Taxation Co,de because. the local ng~ncy or school dis~ict has the
authority to 'levy service charge·s, fees, or assessments sufficient to
pay for the program or leyel of service ~andated by this :ict.
0
. :,:
{.,
1--:
r: .
r~: .. :.
.,
"
,'
(
t"1...A 1
' .,\N(b C.0MMi-S<5<D~ MEET' _ .. } SJO'v'e~~.~71 /'1B'"4.
_,;. .,. P ge 6 '°' · · ~~;Jj Jt:: 0
, ;
cost over the whole city and
want to live in a particular
just on the few p~opie \·.;Ktjr ·,: ,•
oj-ect.
Commissron consensus was
procedures and standards
changes on #4, 5, 6, and
current ranking:
with the propos~d :
~ • ·:--·~--;• :-:.:· -~ .
The commission took a
Bailey arrived at 9:00
Item 5. Senate Bills 1534 and 1160 (Granny Flats).
and discussion of implementation of these new state
regulations.
-..
...
; /•.;;;:
Review
Ken Bruce presented the staff report. He said the new bill,
S81534, makes it mandatory to allow second dwelling units,
subject to certain criteria, with no age limit. He asked
the commission for some direction so that staff could come
back at a later date. Toby Ross commented that staff was
bringing this to the commission at this time for
informational purposes and they do not expect to come bac:_k ·'
with a draft ordinance until' February or March. By that . •
time, other jurisdictions will have developed their
ordinances and staff will bring that back to the commiii{ori~
On a question regarding no age restriction by Cmmr. Rei·ss·~
Mr. Bruce agreed that a second unit could become student-·
housing.
Toby Ross answered questions by the commissioners as
fol lows: 1) The unit must be attached; 2) Nei-"the,-,...,,oi,11
takes precedence over the other; 3) There is not a relat~ve
restriction; 4) Nobody will be enforcing this, therefore,:h~
hoped that a realistic ordinance would be set up. •
Steve Henderson, HRC Program Coordinator, stated the -HRC
will be going over ·both Senate bills. He felt the bills
dealt with improving the qual·ity of life for an older ·.
person. He testified in March 1982 to the Senate • ,:?.t:·'
Subcommittee on Aging . regarding these bills~ He indica~~9;0/::'
that the intent of Sl:31160,, which was the first law sig_ne_d :-,b :Y.,
the Governor, was to provide housing for people 60 years:::9 .f!~ • •
age and older and it was a serious attempt to prevent . ·::,;{~·,. •
premature institutiona~ization or entry into a convalesce~~--
center. He noted there w~r~ a variety of reasons, maihl~~~-
political~ for SB1534 also being signed by the Governor.
Mr. Henderson indicated his approach was strictly
humanistic; he felt the intent of the bills was to pro~ide
housing for seniors and improving the quality of li,.f ··e for
that population. He said he hoped to share the HRC
recommendation with the Planning Commission in the future.
Cmmr. Reiss agreed with providing housing for senior
citizens but was concerned that it could be used by
f
I
..
: ... : .:,., ..
a~~;;
students-. •
Cmmr. Rappa felt that SB1534 did not deal with the same
issue as SB1160. She referred to the S81534 fact sheet
which lists who ~ould benefit from this and seniors are not
included. She questioned why this bill was being tied to
granny flats ..
Cmmr. Bailey felt the whole topic was ill-conceived and did
not support it. He felt standards would ultimately need to
be set and was concerned about disrupting R-1 neighborhqods.
Commr. Drucker w.~nted a list of every possible restri:ctton that mtght be
imposed on· this-type of development because hous~rig·•for • the elderly was
not being addressed in th:i:s· regulation.
Cmmr. Reiss thought the original idea of being able to have
these units throughout a community was good; however, SB1534
was pathetic and would not help older people. He said only
students and .those able to pay the high tab would benefit
and they would be infiltrating family neighborhoods. Hg
said, unless there was a way to make sure the elderly live
in these units, to forget it.
Cmmr. Drucker concurred wit~ Cmmr. Reiss.
Cmmr. Rappa felt if the ordi·nance was too restrictive,.
everyone loses.
Cmmr. Gerety did not think this was a viable means to
provide housing for the elderly.
Cmmr. Reiss suggested getting together with other cities to
find out how to get around this or how to make it work the
way it was originally intended.
Item 6. Oral Communications
There will be an all-day workshop given by Cmmr. William
Howard on. January 15, 1982 at the San Luis Bay Inn.
The>Planning Commission me~tiir:,g of December 22,. 1982 -was ·.
cancelled by joint unanimous .decision.· •
The Planriing Commission adjourned at 10:45 p~m~ to the nex~
regul~r meeting .sc~eduled for December a, 198~; at 7:00 p.m.
in the .. Council· Chambers, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Trude Lisagor
Recording Secretary ,'
-.
(
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
OTHERS
PRESENT:
MINUTES:
D R A F T
MINUTES -CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
Regular Meeting, July 27, 1983, 7:00 p.m.
Commrs. Sylvia Drucker, William Howard, Penny Rappa, Jerry Reiss, and
Chairperson Randal Bullock
Commrs. Mark Bailey and Patrick Gerety
John Hofschroer, Associate Planner; Toby Ross, Community Development
Director; Terry Sanville, Principal Planner; George Terpelli, Fire
Marshall; Joan Ganous, Recording Secretary
The minutes of the special meeting of May 31, 1983 were approved as submitted.
The minutes of the special meeting of June 29, 1983 were approved as corrected.
Item l. Public Hearing: Senate Bills 1534 and 1160 (Granny Flats). Considera-
tion of draft ordinance which would prohibit second residential units in
residential zones.
John Hofschroer presented the staff report, noting staff's new understanding of
the legislation which property designates the subject housing as "second units"
which would not be specifically geared toward the elderly. Staff recommendation
is to adopt an ordinance regulating second units in the city. Mr. Hofschroer
said this action would be the most defendable from a legal standpoint.
Chairperson Bullock declared the public hearing open.
Mrs. Kay Wright, Foothill Boulevard, supported second units as housing for the
elderly and felt the actual number of applications for such units would be so
few that little impact would be felt in single-family neighborhoods. She also
felt the city needed more control over rental units.
Mr. Kimo Pankey was in favor of second units only if they could be restricted to
elderly tenants; however, he felt enforcement of this restriction would be difficult.
Commr. Bullock declared the public hearing closed.
Commr. Reiss said he could only support the second unit concept if occupancy was
restricted to the elderly. Since it was apparent staff could not enforce such a
restriction, he would not support what would probably turn out to be high-priced
student housing which would spoil single family neighborhoods.
Commr. Howard favored a regulating ordinance on the basis of its legal defendability;
however, he also questioned staff's resources to enforce such an ordinance.
P.C. Minutes
July 27, 1983
Page 2
D R A F T
Commr. Drucker felt the city should prohibit second units altogether, since staff
could not enforce the ordinance, and since it would probably not create much
additional housing for the elderly. She suggested a better approach might be to
reevaluate the density limits in R-2, 3 and 4 zones to see whether more housing
could be provided in these neighborhoods.
Commr. Rappa supported the ordinance to regulate second units, and felt the
neighborhoods could be protected by good regulations.
Commr. Bullock did not feel enforcement capabilities alone should be the basis
for prohibiting second units, and was not opposed to a regulated ordinance. He
noted such an ordinance would not be "cast in concrete" and could be amended
if necessary.
Commr. Drucker moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council adopt an ordinance prohibiting second units in the city of San Luis
Obispo. She further moved that the commission concur with the Director's
negative declaration on environmental impact.
Commr. Reiss seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES:
NOES:
Commrs. Drucker, Reiss, Howard
Commrs. Rappa, Bullock
ABSENT: Commrs. Bailey, Gerety
I tern 2.
Terry Sanville presented the staf
declaration and adoption of the S
complete the city's General Plan.
report recommending approval of the negative
nic Highway Element which is required to
Commr. Drucker suggested that the hree dates provided yearly to amend the element
be included in the document, and a o suggested the term "vista" be included in
the definitions. Referencing the r cently installed mast arm signal at Madonna
Road and Calle Joaquin, she asked w t process would be used to avoid similar
inappropriate installations in the f ure. Mr. Sanville said staff and the Public
Works Department would have to work t ether to assure that the intent of the
element was met.
Commr. Howard was concerned about the d
staff to select and rank scenic locatio
element was modest and that the designa
by the City Council, might result in si
in his opinion, prohibit development of
Commr. Bullock declared the public hear ·
f endability of the methodology used by
Mr. Sanville felt the scope of the
ions, which would ultimately be ranked
planning ramifications but would not,
roperty ,
ORDINANCE NO. (1983 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADDING SECTION 9900 TO CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE IX OF /THE MUNCIPAL
CODE, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION OF SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 9900 is hereby added to Artrcle IX, Chapter 2, of the San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code, to read as follows:
"PROHIBITION OF SECOND UNITS"
SECTIONS:
9900. Need for Prohibition of Second Units Established
9910. Definitions
9920. Purpose
9930. Findings
994·0. Prohibit ion of Second Units Within the City of San Luis Obispo
SECTION 9900. Need for Prohibition of Second Units Established. The city
finds that the mandatory requirements of the state law that permits second units
does not p~otect the health, safety or welfare of residents of the city, and does
not provide meaningful housing opportunities given the city's unique population
characteristics. This is based upon the following facts and findings that
individually and collectively provide the basis for the city adopting an ordinance
which totally precludes second units from being constructed:
SECTION 9910. Definitions. For the purpose of this Chapter, the following
words and phrases have the meanings given them below:
(a) Second Units: Are as defined by Section 65852.2 (d) of the Califor~ia
State Government Code. A "Second Unit" is either a detached or attached dwelling
unit which provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons
and includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and
sanitation on the same parcel or parcels as the primary unit is situated.
(
ORDINANCE NO. (1983 SERIES)
Page 2
(b) State Law in Effect: As used in this section, it is as defined by
Section 65852.2 (b) of the California State Government Code. The law states under
what circumstances the city shall grant a use permit for the creation of a second
residential unit.
SECTION 9920. Purpose.
(a) This chapter is intended to ensure that the city is not subjected to the
negative impacts from the construction of "Second Units" within the city.
(b) The city intends to avoid the financial and planning problems when state
law allows "Second Units" in resident;ial neighborhoods without respect to the
ability of the city to provide necessary services, or to plan for their orderly
development.
(c) This chapter is not intended to prohibit or discourage the continued
orderly development of diverse housing types allowed by Zoning Regulations and
encouraged by the city's Housing Element.
SECTION 9930: Findings
(a) The city recognizes that an ordinance that totally precludes second units
as defined by recent state laws may limit one type of housing opportunity in the
region. But that this opportunity must be balanced against the negative effects
likely to result, and it must be balanced with the many opportunities that the city
continues to support which include, but are not limited to:
(1) The city's Housing Element has set goals and policies which encourage
housing for a diverse and unique population in a variety of housing types, inc•luding
provisions for low and moderate-income families.
(2) The city's Zoning Regulations provide density bonuses for projects
presenting unique characteristics or that are intended for low to moderate-income
residents.
/0
(
ORDINANCE NO. (1983 SERIES)
Page 3
(3) Recent city rezoning actions have specifically · raised allowable
densities with the intent to accommodate a greater number of housing units within
the city.
(4) State law allowing second units was based on figures that the average
household size decreased from 2.6 in 1970, to 2.3 persons recently, based upon
national averages. This led to the conclusion that a vast number of units were
"underutilized."
Census data for the city indicate that only 20 percent of the housing
stock is underutilized in the city. The unique statistics for the city are not
reflected in the national average: The city-wide average household size for
single-family residents is 2.82 and does not reflect an "underutilization" of the
housing stock.
(b) The provisions for second units under existing state law will liave
specific adverse impacts and does not protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
residents of the city because:
(1) The law allows second units to be created in neighborhoods without
concern for the city's ability to provide basic resources and services such as
water, sewer and fire protection. The law only mentions that general zoning
requirements such as setbacks, lot coverage, etc., apply. Increased density in
areas with resource deficiencies posses a potential signficant adverse impact on the
city.
(2) The negative effects of the second units could be cumulatively•
signficant because it affects approximately 7680 existing single-family units and an
undetermined number of the 6000 existing multi-family units in the city.
(3) The city has not planned for such a drastic infill to occur in
residential neighborhoods in satisfying future housing demands. Many neighborhoods
do not have sufficient utility infrastructure to accommodate such a demand.
{
ORDINANCE NO. (1983 SERIES)
Page 4
(4) Second units will introduce new head-of-household and will generate
greater parking and traffic demands, and may further impact problems of traffic
congestion in the city.
(5) Assumptions in state law that housing stock in the city is
underutilized do not consider the unique population ch~racteristics of the city:
(a) Recent census data and projections indicate that approximately
3000 of the 14,000 existing households (20 percent) in the city could be considered
underutilized from the standpoint that there is a single (extra) bedroom in a house
that does not have an occupant.
(b) Census data also indicates that 30 percent of the city's
population are adult students who provide a major impact on housing supply,
particularly near California Polytechnic State University where traffic congestion
continues to be a signficant problem for residents.
SE~TION 9940: Prohibition of Second Units Within the City of San Luis
Obispo. No application shall be accepted by the city and no construction shall be
commenced for any "Second Units" as defined by this ordinance.
SECTION 2. A summary of this Ordinance, approved by the City Attorney,
together with the ayes and noes, shall be published at least three (3) days prior to
its final passage in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in
said city, and the same shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days
after its final passage. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file
in the office of the City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and
passage to print and shall be available to any interested member of the public.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
at a meeting held on the day of , 1983, on motion of ------------
, seconded by ------------, and on the following -----------
roll call vote:
,.,,.--..,
ORDINANCE NO. (1983 SERIES)
Page 5
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Administrative Officer
City Attorney
Community Development Director
Mayor
..
(
ORDINANCE NO. (1983 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADDING SECTION 9900 TO CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE IX OF THE MUNCIPAL
CODE, RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 9900 is hereby added to Article IX, Chapter 2, of the San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code, to read as follows:
"SECOND UNIT ORDINANCE"
SECTIONS:
9900. Purpose
9910. Definitions
9920. General Requirements
9930. Performance Standards
9940. Procedures
9950. Enforcement
SECTION 9900. Pu r pose.
(a) This chapter is intended to implement state law enacted under Senate
Bills 1160 and 1534 and Government Code 65852(.1)(.2), which allows the city to
conditionally permit second dwelling units in residential zones.
(b) The city intends to regulate second units as permitted by Section
65852.2(a) of the State Government Code, and other applicable sections.
(c) The city recognizes opportunities to implement certain policies and
programs of the City Housing Element of the General Plan by enactment of a local
ordinance providing for and regulating second units.
(d) Implementation of this ordinance is meant to expand housing opportunities
for low and moderate-income households by increasing the number of rental units
available within existing neighborhoods. Second units are intended to provide
ORDINANCE NO.
Page 2
{
(1983 SERIES)
liveable housing at less cost while providing greater security, companionship and
family support for the occupants.
SECTION 9910. Definitions. For the purpose of this Chapter, the following
words and phrases have the meanings given them below:
(a) Administrative Use Permit -as defined by Section 9204.2 of the City
Zoning Ordinance.
(b) Second Unit -means an attached dwelling unit which provides complete
independent living facilities for one or more persons and complies with all
provisions of this section. It shall include permanent provisons for living,
sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel or parcels as the
primary unit is situated.
(c) Director -means the Director of the Community Development Department or
his designate.
(d) Non-Conforming Lot -as defined by Section 9202.3 of the City Zoning
Regulations.
(e) Non-Conforming Use -as defined by Section 9202.2 of the City Zoning
Regulations.
(f) Primary Unit -means an existing detached residential structure, that
conforms with all zoning regulations in effect including this section.
SECTION 9920. General Requirements
(a) Purpose: These requirements supersede requirements 1n City Zoning
Regulations. Where this ordinance does not contain a particular type of standard or
procedure, conventional zoning standards and procedures shall apply.
(b) Areas Where Second Units are Allowed: Upon approval of an administrative
use permit and upon meeting other requirements of this section, second units may be
established in the following zones: R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4.
ORDINANCE NO.
Page 3
(1983 SERIES)
(
(c) Areas Prohibited: Second units shall not be established in any
condominium or planned development project, or any mobile home subdivision, or
trailer park, and under no circumstances shall an second unit be allowed, where 1n
the opinion of the Director, a resource deficiency exists as defined by Section 2900
of the City Municipal Code.
(d) Owner Occupancy: Either the primary unit or second unit must be owner
occupied.
(e) No Subdivision of Property: No subdivision of property shall be allowed
where an second unit has been established unless the subdivision meets all
requirements of zoning and subdivision regulations. Nothing in this section shall
prohibit joint ownership of the property where a second unit has been established.
(f) Sale of Property: This section shall also apply to new owners of
property where an second unit has been established if the property is sold. All
conditions of the use permit, restrictive covenants and other contractual agreements
with the city, shall apply to the property and new owners.
(g) Unit Type Allowed: A second unit shall be attached to the primary unit
on the lot and shall be located within the living area of the primary unit.
whenever an increase in floor area is involved, it shall not exceed 10 percent of
the existing living area.
SECTION 9930. Performance Standards
(a) Parcel Requirements: No second unit shall be established on a parcel or
parcels determined by the Director to be non-conforming as defined by zoning and
subdivision regulations.
(b) Use Requirements: No second unit shall be established where the Director
has determined that the primary unit or any other structure or use on the property
1s non-conforming as defined by zoning regulations.
ORDINANCE NO.
Page 4
(1983 SERIES)
C
(c) Design Standards: Second units shall conform to all applicable zoning
regulations such as height, yards, parking, building coverage, etc., except for
density requirements as defined by zoning regulations.
(1) Second units shall conform to all applicable building and
construction codes.
(2) Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting
exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of zoning regulations to the
extent allowed by said regulations for any other use.
(3) Second units shall be designed so as to provide separate living
conditions and provide a safe and convenient environment for the occupants.
(4) Second units shall also be architecturally and funtionally compatible
with the primary unit.
SECTION 9940: Procedure. Prior to filing building plans with the City
Building Department, the following shall be met:
(a) Permit Requirement: The applicant shall apply for and obtain an
Administrative Use Permit as defined by zoning regulations.
(b) Architectural Review Required: All requests shall receive architectural
review in ac~ordance with the adopted Architectural Review Commission Ordinance and
Guidelines. The Director shall determine, upon receiving complete application,
whether the project is declared minor and incidental, or shall be forwarded to the
Architectural Review Commission for review.
(c) Application Contents: All proposed second unit requests shall be by
formal application for administrative use permit and architectural review.
(d) Additional Requirements
(1) Owners Agreement with the City: The owner shall enter into a
contract with the city, on a form approved by the Director, agreeing that the
ORDINANCE NO.
Page 5
('\
(1983 SERIES)
property will be owner occupied. If owner occupancy is not possible, then the use
will terminate, and the structure will be returned to its original condition to the
satisfaction of the Director.
(2) Recorded Agreement Affecting Use of Property: The applicant shall
submit an agreement that will provide constructive notice to all future owners of
the property, the use and owner occupancy restrictions .affecting the property. Upon
approval of the administrative use permit and architectural review, the applicant
shall prepare the final copy of the agreement for the Director's review in a form
suitable for recording in the Office of the County Recorder.
(e) Appeal: Appeal procedures for this section shall be the same as set
forth Administ"rative Use Permits as defined in the city zoning regulations.
SECTION 9950. Enforcement
(a) Periodic Review: Use permits shall be subjett to review after the first
year and each three years thereafter. It shall be the responsibility of the
property owner to initiate the review and pay applicable fees.
(b) Reimbursement to the City of Reasonable Fees: Property owners receiving
approvals for second units and establishing the use pursuant to this section, agree
to reimburse the city for costs of all necessary enforcement actions.
(c) Violations: Violation of any of the provisions shall be basis for
revocation of the use permit in accordance with Section 9204.6 of the city zoning
regulations.
SECTION 2. A summary of this Ordinance, approved by the City Attorney,
together with the ayes and noes, shall be published at least three (3) days prior to
its final passage in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in
said city, and the same shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days
after its final passage. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file
ORDINANCE NO.
Page 6
(1983 SERIES)
in the office of the City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and
passage to print and shall be available to any interested member of the public.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
at a meeting held on the day of , 1983, on motion of --------------
, seconded by , and on the following ----------------------
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Administrative Officer
City Attorney ~-~ -Development Director
Mayor
I
t
l
I
i
!
l
I
l
\
! • l
l
I
i
I ,d
l', --c.,
l g
l
{
l
J
~ts. I.~;j4 lMt.LWJ ..
ORIGINAL FLOOR PLAN
-.--b'·-·J IE'7!
~( [j
=~I bdrm. 11 -=---=-.~--=
.. , ! , ... 1
l
di li bat .
m ~ ~ @ living -,.S
-~~
,--••·7 ~· -~· -... i ! / • -r i.:·=.,::::a._
Ol..
I
~, Ir,= . • T: t·•; !
_., •-y-: I
-bdrm. t; rn bdrm .• ~ll ·~
-·=-.:.::: garage
floor pla~
---·······-·-----~--
,.-~ I
rr~~:~__,;_~~--
~ •. ·-· • ~>:t.-:t::".,.r;;:.;:=t;;'
f rant elevation
' ;-;_.m n. ·/· . ·~:~· .,
,{~
-~
~.., IJ'Ytml -✓ / ,:
second unit
conversion
I~"-'~•_,·,,..,., .. .,,,,~·-~·~ .!1111,, ••• ,. Yjf;,, -·-·-...
1 bath_~-=.::::i
[I] ~·
!rl /ffi) living , , 1',:3,l
·J1rr-.. , 0
E:7'-· I-~·-.
I L _ -bar ..
!:::;"v4
lb· ~·-~
' • kit, !f:il
I•~-~ J4.."-•
I
LI.:.~·
[lJ ·11~~~
bdrm. flrn bdr garage
floor plan
Floor plan on the left is a 1650 square foot, 4-bedroom, •
2-bathroom ·house.
\~ith minor modifications and the attached addition of 160
square fe~t a second unit is created.
• The main unit is a 1200 square foot 1 2-b 'edroom,
1-bathroom house.
,
• The second unit is a 610 square foot, 1-bedroo~,
1-bathroo~ house.