• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

"but it's not a group home" says the owner.

ICE said:
My experience with the issue of overcrowding has shown that it is seldom a problem outside of upscale neighborhoods. Well I shouldn't say that it's not a problem, it's just not something that people complain about in low income areas. And if there is a complaint it usually has nothing to do with overcrowding.

Southern California has a diversity of ethnic groups that tend to congregate. The people that came here from a third world country will endure living conditions that are less than ideal. A dozen people living in a two bedroom house might be a huge step up for them. A Whittier back yard with a hundred chickens is....well they know where to get fresh chicken. Running afoul of an ordinance that limits the number of people that can live in a house is the least of their concerns....not getting shot on the way to school is a top priority.

The State has enacted liberal laws allowing additional dwelling units to be constructed as a way of maximizing the potential for housing an ever expanding population. The future will have the dozen in the two bedroom main house and a dozen more in a 1200 square foot ADU.
Click to expand...
Just as an anecdote to Ice's post, a non-licensed friend of mine is doing a project for an absentee owner of a single family home here in Cali: they are constructing (2) ADU units (allowed) behind a single-family residential house, which will be demolished when the ADU's are constructed and a NEW 2-story 2-family residence will be built in it's place ... and it's ALL legal. The lot that is in an older ( 1950's/1960's) single-family home neighborhood will now (legally) have FOUR rentable units. AND .. no onsite parking is required, either!
 
MtnArch said:
Just as an anecdote to Ice's post, a non-licensed friend of mine is doing a project for an absentee owner of a single family home here in Cali: they are constructing (2) ADU units (allowed) behind a single-family residential house, which will be demolished when the ADU's are constructed and a NEW 2-story 2-family residence will be built in it's place ... and it's ALL legal. The lot that is in an older ( 1950's/1960's) single-family home neighborhood will now (legally) have FOUR rentable units. AND .. no onsite parking is required, either
Click to expand...
Is the owner required to live on the property? The no on site parking is a sea change. The rule was covered parking forever and it killed many projects before they got started.
 
Last edited:
ICE said:
Is the owner required to live on the property? The no on site parking is a sea change. The rule was covered parking forever and it killed many projects before they get started.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is a requirement for owner to live onsite. I was shocked to find out that no parking onsite was required - covered OR uncovered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top