• 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.

Internal Connection Required for Single Family

iOne

iOne

REGISTERED
Joined
Sep 7, 2022
Messages
50
Location
Berkeley, CA
I'm dealing with a case of a 30 year old paperwork issue on a 130 year old house.
In doing so the zoning department is complaining that the home has no internal connection between levels.
And it does not. There's a front stairway, a rear stairway, the the main living is upstairs. Same as several neighbor homes.
But the laundry and some finished office space requires going outside and down.
...
Thoughts?
 
The 1979 permit was discretionary.
While it did not address any internal connection issue, I had go through a process to reactivate that old 1979 permit.
 
What 1979 permit? Zoning permit? Building permit? _____ permit?

The question remains the same: zoning addresses the types of uses and sizes of structures on land. The internal (or external) arrangement of a single family home on a parcel that allows a single family home should not be under the purview of the zoning department.

Please provide a better/more complete explanation of what's going on.
 
The building was constructed in 1896 as a single family home, with no internal connection.

In the 1950's it was cut up into five individual units with external doors and individual bathrooms, kitchen sinks and ranges.
In 1979 a zoning and building permit was issued to convert it back to a single-family home. However, the building permit was not exercised. Thus, the zoning permit expired.

In 2024 the Zoning department agreed to reactivate the 1979 zoning permit.
However, now they are objecting that the 1979 floor plan would be in effect function a triplex, due to three separate use areas with external entrances. They are using a "totality" test, to determine that the presence of external entrances and bathrooms constitutes an impermissible extra unit. They want an internal stairway to connect the disparate areas, to "prove" that it's a single unit, not three units.

Current State law would NOT allow this conversion today: removing units is no longer lawful. Only the 1979 zoning decision allows this project.
 
The only thing we have that is close is this, and I don't know if it fits here, I don't think so:

R311.4​

Egress from habitable levels including habitable attics and basements that are not provided with an egress door in accordance with Section R311.2 shall be by a ramp in accordance with Section R311.8 or a stairway in accordance with Section R311.7.
 
I don't see how the number of bathrooms is an issue. Many houses have as many bathrooms as there are bedrooms, often plus a few half or three-quarter bathrooms. The kitchens is a valid point. If you are converting it back to a single-family home, why aren't you removing the extra kitchens?

I am confused about how many dwelling units. You have mentioned single-family, five dwelling units, and triplex (three dwelling units). What is it NOW, and what do you want to make it?
 
What you are dealing with is a zoning code issue, not a building code issue. The building code does not require any internal connection between rooms in a house. Every room could open directly to the outdoors and it would still be building code compliant.
The CBC 202 definition of a dwelling unit requires it to have facilities for cooking (kitchen), sanitation(bathroom) and sleeping. It does not limit the maximum number of kitchens or bathrooms in a single dwelling unit.

In communities with areas zoned only for single family residences, especially in upscale / desirable neighborhoods, the planners have struggled with homeowners trying to "bootleg" multiple units onto a property that is only zoned for one dwelling unit. I saw this a lot in So Cal beach communities. Planners were told to be on the lookout for people attempting to legally build something that could easily be turned into a 2nd dwelling. They would take an accessory building like a garage or poolhouse and create rooms labeled "laundry", "darkroom", or anything to justify plumbing that could later be made into a kitchen. Planners got cynical, and said "if it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck, it is a duck".

The odd thing in your case is that you are apparently doing the opposite. If I understand correctly, you have a building that was constructed as an SFR, then either legally permitted or grandfathered at a 5 unit apartment complex, and for some reason you are taking it back to an SFR but they think it is at least a triplex.

I still don't understand why you want to make it into an SFR, but I'll take that as given.
You will need to make your case based on their zoning code. Go to that city's municipal code, look up the their definition of words such as dwelling unit, single family residence, etc. Then see if there's anything in those definitions that prohibits the current building configuration from qualifying as a single family residence (even though it may also qualify under the definition of apartments).

One more question: under the existing configuration are their multiple utility connections, such as multiple electric services, at the single building? Sometimes the electric or gas utility companies are prohibited from installing more than one service to a single dwelling.
 
Gov. Code
66300.6. (a) Notwithstanding any other law and notwithstanding local density requirements, an affected city or an affected county shall not approve a housing development project that will require the demolition of one or more residential dwelling units unless the project will create at least as many residential dwelling units as will be demolished.
(b) Notwithstanding any other law and notwithstanding local density requirements, an affected city or an affected county shall not approve a development project that will require the demolition of occupied or vacant protected units, or that is located on a site where protected units were demolished in the previous five years, unless all of the following requirements are satisfied:
(1) (A) The project will replace all existing protected units and protected units demolished on or after January 1, 2020.

(B) Any protected units replaced pursuant to this paragraph shall be considered in determining whether the housing development project satisfies the requirements of Section 65915 or a locally adopted requirement that requires, as a condition of the development of residential rental units, that the project provide a certain percentage of residential rental units affordable to, and occupied by, households with incomes that do not exceed the limits for moderate-income, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income households, as specified in Sections 50079.5, 50093, 50105, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code.

(C) This paragraph shall not apply to a project that meets all of the following conditions:

(i) The project is an industrial use.

(ii) The project site is entirely within a zone that does not allow residential uses.

(iii) The zoning applicable to the project site that does not allow residential uses was adopted prior to January 1, 2022.

(iv) The protected units that are or were on the project site are or were nonconforming uses.

(2) (A) If the project is a housing development project, it will include at least as many residential dwelling units as the greatest number of residential dwelling units that existed on the project site within the last five years.

(B) If the project is not a housing development project, the proponent will ensure that any required replacement housing is developed prior to or concurrently with the development project. The required replacement housing may be located on a site other than the project site but shall be located within the same jurisdiction. The project proponent may contract with another entity to develop the required replacement housing.

(3) (A) Any existing occupants will be allowed to occupy their units until six months before the start of construction activities. The project proponent shall provide existing occupants with written notice of the planned demolition, the date they must vacate, and their rights under this section. Notice shall be provided at least six months in advance of the date that existing occupants must vacate.

(B) Any existing occupants that are required to leave their units shall be allowed to return at their prior rental rate if the demolition does not proceed and the property is returned to the rental market.

(4) The developer agrees to provide both of the following to the existing occupants of any protected units that are lower income households:

(A) Relocation benefits that are equivalent to the relocation benefits required to be paid by public entities pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 7260) of Division 7 of Title 1 and any implementing regulations.

(B) A right of first refusal for a comparable unit available in the new housing development, or in any required replacement units associated with a new development that is not a housing development, affordable to the household at an affordable rent or an affordable housing cost. This subparagraph shall not apply to any of the following:

(i) A development project that consists of a single residential unit located on a site where a single protected unit is being demolished.

(ii) (I) Units in a housing development in which 100 percent of the units, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, are reserved for lower income households.

(II) Notwithstanding subclause (I), this subparagraph shall apply to protected units occupied by an occupant who qualifies for residence in the new development and for whom providing a comparable unit would not be precluded due to unit size limitations or other requirements of one or more funding source of the housing development.

(iii) A project that meets the requirements of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1).

(C) (i) For purposes of complying with subparagraph (B), if one or more single-family homes that qualify as protected units are being replaced in a development project that consists of two or more units, “comparable unit” means either of the following, as applicable:

(I) A unit containing the same number of bedrooms if the single-family home contains three or fewer bedrooms.

(II) A unit containing three bedrooms if the single-family home contains four or more bedrooms.

(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, a comparable unit is not required to have the same or similar square footage or the same number of total rooms.

(D) This subparagraph does not apply to an occupant of a short-term rental that is rented for a period of fewer than 30 days.

(5) This subdivision does not confer additional legal protections upon an unlawful occupant of a protected unit.

(c) This section shall not supersede any objective provision of a locally adopted ordinance that places restrictions on the demolition of residential dwelling units or the subdivision of residential rental units that are more protective of lower income households, requires the provision of a greater number of units affordable to lower income households, or that requires greater relocation assistance to displaced households.
(d) This section shall not apply to a housing development project for which an application was submitted after January 1, 2019, but prior to January 1, 2020, in a jurisdiction with a population of under 31,000 as of the 2020 United States Census that has a rent or price control ordinance.
(Added by Stats. 2023, Ch. 754, Sec. 6. (AB 1218) Effective January 1, 2024. Repealed as of January 1, 2034, pursuant to Section 66301.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top