HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1986/04/22 Item 10 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Dated-8€€
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Consideration of amendments to the Guest
House provisions of the Municipal Code
Ordinance ��� Amending the Guest House provisions of
the Municipal Code and repealing Emergency Ordinance No. 2124.
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning 1 ' (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
REVIEWED BY: City Manage
On July 23, 1985, the City Council adopted Emergency Ordinance No. 2124 to
prohibit the construction of Guest Houses until such time the Planning
Department was able to conduct a study and report back. The Council was
presented the report on the City' s Guest House regulations on January 21 ,
1986, and referred the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration of
several amendments to the zoning ordinance.
The proposed amendments would prohibit the construction of Guest Houses in the
R-1 (Single Family Residence) zone and the R-2 (One and Two Family Residence)
zone. The amendments also propose that there be established a specific
limitation on the occupancy of Guest Houses for any one guest to no more than
60 days per year.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed
amendments are exempt from environmental review as a Class 3 (e) Exemption.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council adopt an ordinance repealing Emergency Ordinance No. 2124 and
amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code in accordance with Exhibit A attached
hereto.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
On March 12, 1986, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3-3 with one absent,
failed to adopt a recommendation on the proposed amendments.
DISCUSSION:
The Municipal Code defines a Guest House as 'detached living quarters of a
permanent type of construction, without kitchen or cooking facilities, clearly
subordinate and incidental to the main building on the same lot, and intended
for use by occasional guests of the occupants of the main building. A guest
house shall not be separately rented, let or leased whether compensation is
direct or indirect." The code further specifies that a guest house shall not
be located closer than 10 feet to the nearest point of the main dwelling.
Page 2, Item
Meeting Dated L/ L 2 S6
Guest houses are currently allowed by right as an accessory building in the A
(Agricultural) , R-E (Residential Estate) , and R-1 (Single Family Residence)
zones. They are also permitted on R-2 (One- and Two-family Residence) zoned
properties which contain only one dwelling.
ANALYSIS:
The problem that guest houses present is that they are detached living
quarters with sleeping and often bath facilities and, as such, can easily be
used as a separate dwelling unit, either with or without the addition of
"boot-legged" cooking facilities. Also, in view of the definition of extended
family and basic rights of privacy, it is extremely difficult to enforce
occupancy restrictions for guest houses in the absence of a voluntary
admission on the part of the occupants.
One solution to the problem is to eliminate entirely the opportunity to
establish detached living quarters, at least on the generally smaller lots
encountered in the R-1 and R-2 zones. Guest quarters could still be
constructed, but would have to be attached to the main dwelling and without a
separate entrance. As a result, there would no longer be a question of
occasional use--the quarters would be a part of the main dwelling and could be
used by guests or the occupants alike without restriction.
W Attached quarters--even if the attachment is by breezeway, as is allowed by
Code--are also a more logical and appropriate form of development on the 5,000
sq. ft. to 7,000 sq. ft. lots generally found in the R-1 and R-2 zones. Such
lots are usually not large enough to accommodate a main dwelling and detached
guest quarters while at the same time maintaining a usable rear yard, and/or
not impinging upon the light, air or privacy of adjacent residents. The
larger lots encountered in the A and R-E zones, on the other hand, can usually
accommodate a detached guest house structure without these same drawbacks.
The suggestion has been made that guest houses in the R-E zone should perhaps
require the approval of a conditional use permit. While this could be added,
the 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size of the R-E zone is believed to be adequate
to ensure minimal impact on adjacent properties. Also, the amount of RE
zoning in the City is quite limited in terms of area and location and not
viewed as a significant impact issue for guest houses.
In addition, the Code presently limits the occupancy of guest houses to
"occasional use" by guests of the main dwelling. The City Attorney has
recommended that a precise time limit per guest would substantially improve
the enforceability of the ordinance. Although any figure is perhaps
arbitrary, it does not seem unreasonable to restrict occupancy to no more than
60 days for any one guest over a one year period.
As noted above, enforceability would still be difficult. But a specified time
limit would at least provide a standard against which to base a complaint of
full-time use and thus trigger an official inquiry and an attempt at voluntary
compliance--neighbor complaints being the only feasible manner of enforcement.
Page 3, Item /D
Meeting Date" L 2
The City Attorney has also stated that the guest house definition language
"clearly subordinate and incidental to the main building on the same lot"
serves no substantive purpose and complicates enforcement. Consequently, the
proposed amendments reflect the deletion of this language from the definition.
In summary, then, the recommendation is that the opportunity to construct a
guest house be deleted from the R-1 and R-2 zones and be retained in the A and
R-E zones. The occupancy restriction would be strengthened from the present
"occasional use" limit to one that would restrict occupancy for any one guest
to no more than 60 days per year, and superfluous language would be deleted
from the definition of a guest house.
A survey of the guest house regulations of several other jurisdictions within
the region found that most (including the City and County of San Diego) are
similar to Chula Vista's current provisions in that they allow guest houses
and utilize an "occasional use" or "temporary use" occupancy limit. The
exceptions were Poway, which allows guest houses but has no occupancy
restrictions, and El Cajon, which prohibits guest houses altogether.
Most jurisdictions also reported a general absence of complaints regarding the
misuse of guest houses. The exception again being El Cajon--which prompted
them to prohibit such living quarters. Chula Vista has had two complaints in
the last two years that we are aware of. The apparent concern on the part of
- the Planning Commissioners who opposed the amendments was that the current
provisions have not presented a problem.
by Vle .f
Chula Vista, C._s i_nlla
Dated — ° 4 ' i Pk
by the City Council of
Chula Vista, California
Dated - 2,Z--S
WPC 2649P