pages: PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-12-08 | 7 | setback) present obstacles. A second unit would need to be constructed behind the principal residence requiring a driveway be built to access parking where not enough room exists to create a driveway. Vice President Ezzy Ashcrafts asked if there is a requirement that the second unit be detached or could it be an addition to the principal residence. She referred to California government statute code number 65852.150 which states in part: 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 others at below market prices within existing neighborhoods. Homeowners who create second units benefit from added income and an increased sense of security. She interprets this to mean there is some financial gain to homeowners who create second units. In the Los Angeles area the units are used primarily for extended families. She supports the owner occupied requirement and leans towards using the City of Berkeley's guidelines. Staff responded there is no requirement that the second unit be detached. The Assistant City Attorney stated there is statutory law that allows the stipulation that a unit be owner occupied. There is case law to support both sides. Monitoring and enforcement are concerns of staff. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft suggests deed restriction be added to account for monitoring and enforcement of regulation. This ordinance allows homeowners to create second units which they would otherwise be unable to do. This ordinance is an advantage to those homeowners and it does not seem unreasonable to require owner occupancy of one of the units. The Assistant City Attorney clarified that State law does allow the creation of second units. President Kohlstrand asked for Board input on the owner occupancy requirement. Board member McNamara is comfortable incorporating the City of Berkeley's approach into the ordinance which provides the owner and the City some flexibility to account for unexpected situations. The assumption is that if the owner occupies a unit on the property it will be well maintained which is not necessarily the case. She supports owner occupancy of one of the units. Board member Autorino favors Berkeley's ordinance but is concerned that it allows the owner to be gone for up to three years at a time. There is no restriction on how many times the owner can be away from the property and there is no mention of what happens to the property when the owner is away. The assumption is both units can be rented during this time. A Board discussion ensued on allowing the owner to be away from the property for a specified period of time. Page 7 of 17 | PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf |