Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sunset City Council repeals internal ADU rule, adopts new accessory-dwelling ordinance
Summary
At its Nov. 18 meeting, the Sunset City Council voted to repeal rules allowing internal accessory dwelling units and approved a new Chapter 12 to regulate accessory dwelling units in the zoning code after a planning commission recommendation; the council approved the adoption with one dissenting vote on the adopting ordinance.
The Sunset City Council voted Nov. 18 to remove language permitting internal accessory dwelling units from the municipal code and to adopt a new Chapter 12 establishing rules for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in Sunset’s zoning regulations.
During a public hearing, a planning commission representative, Ricky, told the council the commission had "a lot of discussion about that" and recommended adding Chapter 12 while saying the internal ADUs were "just not right for our city." No members of the public spoke during the hearing. Council Member Bartling moved to approve Ordinance 2025-4, repealing the internal-ADU provision; the motion passed on a roll-call vote with all recorded members voting yes.
Council then considered Ordinance 2025-5, which adopts Chapter 12 (Accessory Dwelling Units) into Title 10. Council Member Rigley moved to approve; Council Member Carlson seconded. The ordinance passed with one recorded No vote from Council Member Thompson and Yes votes from the other members.
The council’s action follows planning commission work to revise how ADUs are regulated; the planning commission presented its recommendation to the council during the public hearing. The council took no public testimony opposing or supporting the ordinances during the hearing and proceeded directly to motions and roll-call votes.
What the council adopted clarifies that existing internal-ADU language will be removed and replaced by the newly adopted Chapter 12 zoning provisions. The council record did not include an effective date for either ordinance in the discussion; any effective date or administrative implementation steps were not specified during the Nov. 18 meeting.
