Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/05/01 Item 16 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~~ CIlYOf n :f~ CHUlA VISTA May 1, 2007 Item~ SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: PCA-06-02, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TOCHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.58.022 REGULATING ACCESSORY SECOND DWELLING UNITS ~. DIRECTOR OF PL~ING & BUlLDINGT CITY MANAGER if I ITEM TITLE: 4/5THS VOTE: YES NO X BACKGROUND The City of Chula Vista adopted the first local regulations for accessory second dwelling units in 2003. Since then, 150 property owners have applied for building permits, and 77 units have been constructed and cleared for occupancy. A few units have generated complaints from residents concerned about issues of parking, loss of privacy, and the incompatibility of the new units with the surrounding neighborhood. The City Council directed staff to re-examine the current regulations to determine whether changes were necessary. Staff conducted a series of workshop sessions with the Planning Commission at the end of 2005 and early 2006, which identified a number of ways that accessory second dwelling units could be made more compatible with single family neighborhoods. Staff subsequently prepared a draft ordinance for Planning Commission consideration at a public hearing in March of this year. This hearing is for City Council consideration of the Planning Commission recommended amendments to CVMC Section 19.58.022 intended to make future accessory second dwelling units more compatible within their single family neighborhoods. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a statutory exemption pursuant to Section 21080.17 of CEQA. Thus no further environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopts the proposed amendments to CVMC Section 19.58.022 with those changes recommended by the Planning Commission. 16-1 5/1/07, Item~ Page 2 of8 BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDA nON On March 14, 2007 the Planning Commission considered a draft ordinance with significant changes to the existing provisions of CVMC Section 19.58.022. After considerable public testimony (see Attachment 4, PC meeting minutes) the Planning Commission voted 5-1-1 to forward the draft ordinance to Council with a recommendation of approval with three amendments: . Allow detached accessory second dwelling units no matter what size the lot. . Allow landscaping as an appropriate screening method for the parking space( s) required for an accessory second dwelling unit. . Do not require the owner of the property to live in one of the units on the lot. DISCUSSION Government Code Section 65852.150 states that second units are intended to be a source of special needs housing "at below market prices within existing neighborhoods," and that fees and requirements "are not so arbitrary, excessive or burdensome so as to unreasonably restrict the ability of the homeowner to create second units." Government Code Section 65852.2 goes on to establish certain maximum standards that local jurisdictions must abide by to allow second units in neighborhoods zoned for single- family use (see Attachment 1). If local agencies do not adopt their own ordinance with regulations for such units, criteria within the Government Code will prevail. The City Chula Vista's General Plan Housing Element for the period of 2000-2005 included an obj ective for the City to adopt a local second dwelling unit ordinance, which the City did in 2003 after criteria was developed by the Planning Commission through a series of workshops the prior year. The current Housing Element includes Program 6.2.1 that says the City will continue to allow accessory second dwelling units "in areas where the units do not compromise the neighborhood character." As noted in the Background section above, some units constructed under the existing ordinance regulations demonstrate that the current rules may not provide the level of protection desired for the City's neighborhoods. At the direction of City Council in 2005, planning staff and the Planning Commission conducted an extensive study of the existing ordinance and identified a number of new or modified regulations that could be added to the code to insure better compatibility of new units with their surrounding neighborhoods. PUBLIC OUTREACH The Planning Commission's study of the accessory second dwelling unit issues included open public workshops with ample opportunities for both supporters and opponents of this type of housing to provide input. For a variety of reasons, there was a delay in getting a draft ordinance ready for public hearings after the Planning Commission workshops. Because of that delay, staff felt it was appropriate to conduct one or more public meetings to advise interested parties of the status of the proposed changes. Staff was invited to a Northwest Civic Association meeting on November 13, 2006 to do just that. Approximately 30 people attended that meeting. On January 11 of this year the Planning Division sponsored a second general public meeting at Chula Vista High School to review this topic. Approximately 40 people attended that meeting raising several similar comments or questions as the people at the Northwest Civic Association meeting. 16-2 5/1/07, Item H., Page 3 0[8 Those lead to further review of the draft ordinance. The Planning Commission was provided with a summary of the comments from the January 11 meeting, and staffs responses (see Attachment 2), along with a letter from a property owner concerned about the lot size criteria proposed for allowing a unit to be detached (see Attachment 3). In anticipation of the public hearings on this ordinance amendment, over 50 people asked staff to notify them when the hearings were scheduled. In addition to the hearing notice published in the paper, letters were sent to those people prior to both the Planning Commission hearing and this Council hearing. ORDINANCE CHANGES For discussion purposes in this report, the proposed changes to the ordinance have been grouped and will be reviewed in the following three categories: . Where can accessory second dwelling units go in the City and how big can they be? . Where can they go on a lot? . What other requirements would apply? At the March 14th Planning Commission hearing on the draft ordinance, staff noted several new issues for consideration that had not been discussed at the earlier workshops. Those items are identified in this report with a lead in of "New Issue." WHERE IN THE CITY CAN THEY GO AND HOW BIG? No changes are proposed in the zones where accessory second dwelling units are allowed. The A, RE, Rl and low-density residential areas within the PC zone may have units if they can meet all other regulations. There are several recommendations proposed that will affect the size of accessory second dwelling units (ASDU) constructed in the future. One of the most important is the introduction of the "Buildable Pad Area" (BPA) concept that would dictate ASDU size based upon the flat useable areas of a lot. Areas with slopes greater than 50% (2 horizontal to I vertical) would not be included in the Buildable Pad Area. After the BP A has been established, a sliding scale for ASDU size would be applied that would prohibit ASDUs on lots with less than 5,000 sq. ft. ofBPA. Allowed unit sizes would begin with 450 square feet on lots from 5,000 to 7,000 square feet, and incrementally increases to the current 850 square foot size limit on lots with 15,000 square feet or more ofBPA. A second criterion used in conjunction with the BP A unit size standard would be to limit ASDUs to 50% of the square footage of the primary residence, whichever is less. New Issue: How should the ordinance treat the addition ofBPA created through re-grading or the use of new retaining walls? The accompanying illustration shows how an upslope on a lot could be cut into and retained. Conversely, a down sloping lot could add a wall to hold fill and also expand the BP A. This raises the question of whether the newly created Possible Added BPA New retaining wall ( :::> I Orig:inal BPA I 16-3 5/1/07, Item~ Page 4 of8 flat area should be used to calculate the maximum unit size, or would the original area apply. Staff recommended that a limit of 20% of additional BP A created by walls or fill be allowed. The Planning Commission accepted that recommendation, which is included in Section C.2 of the draft ordinance. WHERE ON THE LOT CAN A UNIT GO? During the Planning Commission workshops, there was much public concern with the perceived loss of privacy from certain types of accessory second dwelling units. To address those concerns the following changes are proposed: . Attached or detached - The draft ordinance presented to the Planning Commission proposed that units on lots with Building Pad Areas ofless than 10,000 sq. ft. would be required to be attached to the existing primary residence. Only on larger lots would the ASDU be allowed to be detached. The Planning Commission reconsidered that requirement and is no longer recommending that smaller lots only be allowed to have attached ASDUs. This change is shown in the table in ordinance Section 19.58.022.C.3. . Pad Location - The Planning Commission is also recommending in 19.58.022.C.3 that detached second units be on the same pad level as the primary residence. . Height - Section 19.58.022.C.4 of the proposed regulations would limit ASDUs detached from the primary unit to single story no more than 15 feet in height. Other types of detached accessory structures in Chula Vista have long been limited to this height restriction; therefore this rule will maintain consistency in this criterion. . Setbacks - One of the significant changes to the current regulations is the proposed requirement that side and rear yard setbacks for ASDUs be measured from the top or toe of slopes for those lots with up or down slopes. This added separation between units on adjacent lots will make sure that detached units will be less of an imposition on neighboring properties. New Issue - Alley Setbacks - The rear yard setbacks proposed in this amendment are intended to provide adequate privacy for abutting residential lots. However, there are some neighborhoods in western Chula Vista in which the backs of the lots abut alleys. The Planning Commission staffreport raised the question as to whether there can be an alternative rear yard setback for these lots. Staff recommended that a reduced rear yard setback be allowed for units on lots that abut an alley, however, no language was included in the draft ordinance to reflect that issue, and it was not one that was discussed at the hearing. Should the Council wish to add a standard it would need to be done by specific action at their hearing. As an alternative, if the Council decides to refer the ordinance back the Planning Commission for reconsideration of other proposed standards; they can direct the Commission to consider this language as well. WHAT OTHER REQUIREMENTS WOULD APPLY? Several other issues have been addressed with the proposed ordinance changes, some relating to concerns expressed by the public and others proposed based upon staffs experiences processing the applications to date. 16-4 5/1/07, Item I (p Page 5 of8 Access and Parking . General Rules - The current requirements for parking are very brief and left much to staffs interpretation when processing an application. There are now 10 proposed regulations in Section 19.58.022.C.7 to better describe what parking is required, where it can be located, and how big the space for the new unit must be. The existing ordinance does not include size standards for a single parking space, but the proposed ordinance specifies that a space between walls should be at least 10 feet in width to minimize damage that can occur from swinging doors. New Issue: At the public meeting held on January 11, staff recei ved comments from people who felt that spaces between walls should be wider than 10 feet to accommodate larger vehicles. Staff considered that issue but still recommended the 10-foot width to the Planning Commission. This is because the City's standard parking table does not require any space wider than 10 feet. Setting too high a standard when associated with this type of unit can bolster arguments by housing advocates who periodically lobby for additional State restrictions on local authority (Note Section 65852.150 in Attachment 1). The Planning Commission did not alter staffs recommendation on this matter shown in section C.7.j. . Parking screening - The current regulations specify that the required parking space for the second unit to be "screened from view from the public street." No further details are provided therefore some existing sites have used landscaping as screening. Public concerns were raised that new landscaping can be ineffective, and established landscaping could be neglected or removed easily. To address this concern, the regulations considered by the Planning Commission included language that the parking spaces be screened with decorative walls, fences or gates. The Planning Commission was not as concerned with this issue and felt that structures such as walls or fences could be less appropriate aesthetically than landscaping and deleted the prohibition of that technique. That change is shown in Section 19.58.022.C.7.i. . New Issue: Another issue not previously discussed by the Planning Commission during their workshops was the required access to panhandle or easement lots wishing to add a second unit. The City's current zoning requirements for these type lots only requires a 15 foot wide road or easement width to serve one lot. In some instances the house on the front lot may be at, or very close to, the access drive. Staff recommended, and the Planning Commission concurred, that only lots with a minimum 20 feet of access should be allowed a second unit. This is included in Section 19.58.022.C.7.d. Desi go Standards . Architectural match - The existing ordinance requires a unit to be "consistent" with the architectural style of the existing primary residence. The new regulations in Section 19.58.022.C.ll would require the style and materials of the new unit to "match" the existing unit to further integrate it and make it appear as an extension of the primary residence. . Unit entrance - The proposed regulations would require that the entrance to an ASDU not be located on the same side of the building as the entrance to the primary residence. This will minimize the appearance of the structure as a 16-5 5/1/07, Item~ Page 60f8 duplex. Detached unit entrances must be located so as to not be visible from the public ROW. . Open space - Section 19.58.022.C.11.c of the new regulations requires that the existing primary residence have a private useable open space or yard directly accessible from a common area (living room, dining room etc.) of the unit being served. The current regulations make it possible for the addition of an ASDU to isolate the primary residence from such a yard area. · Pedestrian access - The new regulations specify that a clear, direct and logical pedestrian path be provided for the ASDU that would not impact the primary unit. Council will note that in Section 19.58.022.C.7.j the pedestrian path can be part of a parking area, but only if the total paving is a minimum 12 feet in width. This will allow someone to easily walk by a parked vehicle. . New Issue - Trash Containers - At the January 11 community meeting it was brought up that the addition of another unit on a property could result in additional trash containers that could become unsightly if not properly stored. The proposed ordinance requires that the property only have one waste and recycling account but initially had no standards as to location and screening of the containers. New language has been added to the Design Standards (section C.11.g) to require that trash and recycling containers be screened from public view and not interfere with required open space. Historic Preservation To reflect the City of Chula Vista's renewed interest in preserving historic homes and sites, the new regulations in section C.13 set out substantial new requirements for ASDUs on recognized historic sites. These are to ensure that the new unit blends as seamlessly as possible with the historic character of the property and its surroundings. Inspections Section C.14 provides new regulations specifying a pre-approval site inspection by staff to insure the accuracy of the construction drawings submitted, thus addressing any potential problems at the earliest possible stage. Although final building inspections are standard in the City of Chula Vista, the regulations also specify an inspection by Planning Division staff to verify compliance with all the regulations of this section. Owner Occupancv One of the more contentious issues with the new regulations was a proposed requirement that the owner of the property live in one of the units. This was included in the draft ordinance presented to the Planning Commission with the intention of minimizing neighborhood impacts by providing better owner supervision of any tenants that might occupy the other unit. The Commission heard testimony from opponents to the owner occupancy requirement who made two basic arguments against it: 16-6 5/1/07, Item I LP Page 7 of8 1. There is a California Court of Appeal legal decision in the case of Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica, that struck down a provision in Santa Monica's ordinance that required that the occupant of the second unit be the property owner or his or her dependent, or a caregiver for the property owner or a dependent. That Court relied on City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, in which the California Supreme Court held that an ordinance preventing umelated groups of more than five persons from occupying a home in a single-family zone violated the California constitutional right to privacy. Staff is aware of another case (Sounhein v. City of San Dimas) where the Court of Appeal upheld an ordinance that included a provision that the owner of the property be the occupant of the primary residence or the second unit. Staff included the "owner-occupant" requirement in the original draft with the understanding that this provision could be challenged in court. 2. Owner occupancy would be a hardship to owners whose employers may transfer them out of the area, or who have personal reasons for being out of the area for an extended period of time but intend on returning. The occupancy requirement could force them to sell in a depressed real estate market as we have now. After taking public testimony and considering the alternatives, the Planning Commission voted to remove this requirement from the proposed ordinance. Land Use Agreement Given the extensive list of new requirements for ASDUs, the proposed regulations include a requirement that the property owner enter into an agreement with the City acknowledging awareness of all those requirements. This agreement would be in a format acceptable to the County Recorder so it can be recorded on title to the property and run with the land as long as the second unit exists. Annual Report The Planning Commission recommendation includes Section 19.58.022.0 requiring an annual report by staff on the amount of ASDU activity within the City of Chula Vista for the Planning Commission's consideration at the beginning of each calendar year. This will give the Commission a constant monitoring system that will allow them to make recommendations to the City Council for additional amendments should new issues arise. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations Section I 8704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision. 16-7 5/1/07, Item 1";; Page 8 0[8 FISCAL IMPACT The addition of a site inspection requirement prior to the issuance of a building permit will add approximately I hour of staff time to the average processing time for the building permit application. The recently adopted fee schedule did not include that in the estimated cost for processing that particular application. The fee study used $189/hour for any staff time devoted to processing a building permit, which means that the site inspection will cost the City's general fund that amount for each application. The City has been averaging 35 permit applications per year meaning this requirement could impact the General Fund by approximately $6,600 per year. Conversely, the adoption of this ordinance amendment may reduce the number of building permit applications received by the City of Chula Vista thus resulting in a slight reduction in the amount of overall fees collected, and the additional staff time required. The actual impact on the general fund is therefore difficult to estimate at this time. ATTACHMENTS 1- Government Code Sections Relating to Second Units 2- Issues/Questions from 1/11/07 Community Meeting 3- Letter of concern dated 3-1-07 4- Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of 3-14-07 5- Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval 6- Draft Ordinance Prepared by: John Schmitz, Principal Planner 16-8 PCA 06-02 Staff Report ATTACHMENT 1 16-9 Government Code - Second Units 65852.150. The Legislature finds and declares that 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. It is the intent of the Legislature that any second-unit ordinances adopted by local agencies have the effect of providing for the creation of second units and that provisions in these ordinances relating to matters including unit size, parking, fees and other requirements, are not so arbitrarY, excessive, or burdensome so as to unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to create second units in zones in which they are authorized by local ordinance. 65852.2. (a) (1) Any local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones. The ordinance may do any of the following: (A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where second units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on criteria, that may include, but are not limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of second units on traffic flow. (B) Impose standards on second units that include, but are not limited ta, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Places. (C) Provide that second units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the second unit is located, and that second units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot. (2) The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. (3) When a local agency receives its first application on or after July 1, 2003, for a permit pursuant to this subdivision, the application shall be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits. Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to require a local government to adopt or amend an ordinance for the creation of second units. A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs that it incurs as a result of amendments to this paragraph enacted during the 2001-02 Regular Session of the Legislature, including the costs of adopting or amending any ordinance that provides for the creation of second units. (b) (1) When a local agency which has not adopted an ordinance governing second units in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c) receives its first application on or after July 1, 1983, for a permit pursuant to this subdivision, the local agency shall accept the application and approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review pursuant to this subdivision unless it adopts an ordinance in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c) within 120 days after receiving the application. Notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906, every local agency shall grant a variance or special use permit for the creation of a second unit if the second unit complies with all of the following: (A) The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented. (B) The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use. 16-10 (C) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling. (D) The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as ~he existing dwelling. (E) The increased floor area of an attached second unit shall not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area. (F) The total area of floorspace for a detached second unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. (G) Requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to residential construction in the zone in which the property is located. (H) Local building code requirements which apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate. (I) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required. (2) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision. (3) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate proposed second units on lots zoned for residential use which contain an existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision or subdivision (a), shall be utilized or imposed, except that a local agency may require an applicant for a pe~it issued pursuant to this subdivision to be an owner-occupant. (4) No changes in zoning ordinances or other ordinances or any changes in the general plan shall be required to implement this subdivision. Any local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of second units if these provisions are consistent with the limitations of this subdivision. (5) A second unit which conforms to the requirements of this subdivision shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. The second units shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. (c) No local agency shall adopt an ordinance which totally precludes second units within single-family or multifamily zoned areas unless the ordinance contains findings acknowledging that the ordinance may limit housing opportunities of the region and further contains findings that specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare that would result from allowing second units within single-family and multifamily zoned areas justify adopting the ordinance. (d) A local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements for both attached and detached second units. No minimum or maximum size for a second unit, or size based upon a percentage of the existing dwelling, shall be established by ordinance for either attached or detached dwellings which does not permit at least an efficiency unit to be constructed in compliance with local development standards. (e) Parking requirements for second units shall not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom. Additional parking may be required provided that a finding is made that the additional parking requirements are directly related to the use of the second unit and are consistent with existing neighborhood standards applicable to existing dwellings. Off-street parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon 2 16-11 specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions, or that it is not permitted anywhere else in the jurisdiction. (f) Fees charged for the construction of second units shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000) . (g) This section does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of second units. (h) Local agencies shall submit a copy of the ordinances adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) or (c) to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption. (i) As used in this section, the following terms mean: (1) !'Living area, II means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. (2) IlLocal agency" means a city, county, or city and county, wheth~r general law or chartered. (3) For purposes of this section, "neighborhood!' has the same meaning as set forth in Section 65589.5. (4) "Second unit" means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated. A second unit also includes the following: (A) An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of Health and Safety Code. (El A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. (j) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for second units. 3 16-12 PCA 06-02 Staff Report ATTACHMENT 2 16-13 Accessory Second Dwelling Unit Workshop Chula Vista High School January 11, 2007 Issues List 1. Do CC&R's in Otay Ranch preclude ASDU's? If so, does state law and 19.58 trump the CC&R's? RESPONSE: Staff has reviewed this issue and determined that enforcement of CC&Rs will be a civil matter to which the City of Chula Vista would not be a party. It is noted that some neighborhoods in Otay Ranch have been designated for ASDUs and some have been included with the initial development. 2. In an up-slope condition, can a retaining wall be built to enlarge the size of the buildable pad? RESPONSE: New language is proposed to allow only a percentage increase in BP A through this method. 3. Include provisions that will allow the Planning Commission to approve a mIDumum 1,200 square foot ASDU under the right conditions. RESPONSE: If so directed by the Planning Commission or the City Council, such criteria can be developed. The proposed provisions will be brought forward with a maximum size of 850 square feet. 4. Include provisions for trash enclosures. RESPONSE: Single-family homes typically are not required to have enclosures. However, staff can propose language that would specify that trash and recycle containers be screened and located so as not to be visible from the public ROW or take up required open space. 5. The 10' width of a parking stall is too narrow. Should be bigger. RESPONSE: The standard width for a parking space is 9'. Standard garage width is 20'. Normally, a 9' space with no obstacles is appropriate, but if abutting a structure (house, fence, etc.) the proposed width is 10', and there is a proposed provision for a 3' walkway from the parking space to the ASDU. There is a history of9' or 10' wide spaces being adequate parking space. 6. Santa Monica City lost on their owner-occupancy requirement case in court. Doesn't that make the proposed requirement unconstitutional? RESPONSE: Staff has reviewed and believes that the ordinance as drafted is consistent with State Law and is acceptable. 16-14 7. An attached ASDU eliminates the rear yard, so should be prohibited. RESPONSE: New regulations requiring access from primary residence to rear yard will insure that an attached ASDU is appropriate. 8. Why are ASDU's excluded from upper pads In up-slope situations In the new regulations? , RESPONSE: New rules for ASDUs are intended to minimize visual impacts, protect privacy and preserve single-family neighborhood characteristics. 9. Can the number of ASDU's be limited through infrastructure capacity? RESPONSE: Yes, the number of ASDU's can be limited in number based on infrastructure capacity. Section 65852.2(a)(I)(A), California Government Code, states: "Any local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of second units in single- family and multifamily residential zones. The ordinance may... designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where second units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on criteria, that may include, but are not limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer service and the impact of second units on traffic flow." To date, the number and locations of new units does not trigger the need to restrict due to infrastructure capacity, but the annual report requirement on ASDU activity will allow more constant monitoring of the situation. 10. Can the number of ASDU's be limited through GMOC? RESPONSE: No, ASDU's cannot be limited in number through the GMOC process. Section 65852.2(a)(2), California Government Code, states: "The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth." II. Relocate utility fixtures if necessary to accornmodate parking. RESPONSE: Language will be proposed that specifies that parking and access areas shall be kept free of utility structures. 12. How should alley access situations be handled? What is the criterion? RESPONSE: Criteria is included in Section 19.58.022.C.7. 13. Will RV's or manufactured homes be permitted as ASDU's? RESPONSE: Manufactured homes would be permitted if they meet State or federal standards for residential construction and are placed on a permanent foundation, and they 16-15 meet all the design and development requirements for an ASDU including unit size based upon the BP A. RV's do not fall into this category and so would not be permitted as ASDU's. 14. Screening for parking - What form should it take? RESPONSE: Proposed regulations include a requirement for a gated parking space if the space is visible from the street. The gate would be self-opening via a garage door opener type device. If the space is not visible from the street, the intent is met and no gate or other form of screening is required. 16-16 PCA 06-02 Staff Report ATTACHMENT 3 16-17 March 1, 2007 At4;r J, 200; From: Tim Siewert 642 Robert Avenue Chula Vista, CA. 91910 '. I , i Attn: John Schmitz Re: The City's plan to update the rules for second dwelling units. To Whom It May Concern, I have some concerns with the article that I read in the Star-News about changing the requirements for second dwelling units in the City of Chula Vista. I realize that some have taken advantage ofthe present rules and built projects that didn't please the community. Please remember that this was a minority of the projects submitted and should not require a major reevaluation of the existing requirements. My biggest concern is the requirement of setting arbitrary lot sizes as the factor that decides whether the unit can be attached or detached. I noted that a detached unit must have a lot size of 10,000 sq.ft. minimum. I feel that this is unfair in that it does not take into account the existing coverage on the lot. My lot is 9700 sq.ft., which according to the article would not allow me to have a detached second dwelling unit. I have an approximate existing coverage of 1800 sq.ft. including my existing house and detached garage, which is 19% of my lot. A property of 10,000 sq.ft. with 3200 sq.ft. of existing coverage, which is 32% of the lot, will be allowed to have a detached unit. As you can see lot size should not be a determing factor for requirements. Lot coverage would be a more fair way to determine requirements. I know that another concern is neighborhood privacy. Even though we are living in a city and should expect less privacy than a rural setting, I have no problem with the city not allowing housing on hillsides, and I also think a detached second dwelling should be restricted to one- story. Other than that, I think that these units can be restricted by requirements that are already on the books, such as coverage, floor area ratios, and setbacks. Thank you for ,O.UT UTi cOIonsideration, --e.~ Tim Siewert (619) 426-5902 16-18 PCA 06-02 Staff Report ATTACHMENT 4 16-19 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 6:00 p.m. March 14, 2007 Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL I MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Members Present: Felber, Vinson, Moctezuma, Bensoussan, Tripp, Clayton, Speth man Staff Members Present: Jim Hare, Assistant Planning Director John Schmitz, Principal Planner Elisa Cusato, Deputy City Attorney III APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 14, 2007 MSC (Vinson/Bensoussan) (7-0) that the Planning Commission adopt the minutes of February 14, 2007 as submitted. Motion carried. ORAL COMMUNICATION: No public input. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 06-02; Proposed amendments to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.58.022 regulating Accessory Second Dwelling Units. Background: John Schmitz, Principal Planner gave an overview of the proposed amendments to the Accessory Second Dwelling Unit ordinance as presented in the staff report. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of the draft ordinance amending Section 19.58.22, with any additional amendments deemed appropriate. Commission Comments: 5:44:48 PM Cmr. Moctezuma stated that the two conflicting issues are whether ADU's are "granny flats" intended for use by a family member, or are they counted as part of the affordable housing stock. In her opinion, the owner-occupancy requirement goes hand-in- hand with the "granny flat" concept. 16-20 Minutes of the Planning Commission - 2 - March 14, 2007 5:54:31 PM Cmr. Clayton stated she fails to see the rationale for requIring that parking screening be provided exclusively with walls, fences or gates, to the exclusion of landscaping. She indicated that the lack of space to construct a wall or fence could exclude a number of properties that would otherwise meet all other requirements, while landscaping could accomplish the same goal. John Schmitz pointed out that the draft ordinance is merely, a compilation of ideas and recommendations from staff and the community in an effort to minimize to the lowest extent the impact of ADU's on the residential zone. He further stated that the Commission has the prerogative to recommend adding, clarifying or deleting any number of the proposed requirements. 6:04:29 PM Cmr. Tripp cautioned against setting up conditions, i.e. encroaching into the setbacks in order to meet parking screening requirements, that would trigger applying for a variance where hardship and reasonable use findings could not be made. 6:10:15 PM Cmr. Spethman stated that the Land Use Agreement, that is suppose ensure that all of the requirements under the new ordinance are met, in his opinion, is onerous to the property owner and should be part of the City's responsibility through the planning and building process. Mr. Schmitz responded that the intent behind this agreement is to memorialize all of the requirements in the ordinance to the present and any subsequent owners of that property because the agreement would be recorded on the title of the property. 6:14:31 PM Cmr. Felber asked for clarification on a number of issues, i.e.: . Number of waste and recycling account . The two-car garage requirement in the event that the primary residence does not already have one . Do CC&R's in Otay Ranch preclude ASDU's? . Tandem parking 6:26:35 PM Public Hearing Opened. 6:27:34 PM Patricia Aguilar, stated that Crossroad II became involved in this effort at the request of Council member McCann. Fred Cowles of Crossroads II took on this challenge and volunteered to form a Task Force to look into this matter. The group met regularly with City staff and held workshops to solicit input from the community. Ms. Aguilar commended staff, specifically John Schmitz and Luis Hernandez, for their hard work and exemplary community outreach. 6:30:58 PM Fred Cowles stated that the State of California's decision relegated the R-1 zone to an R-2 zone. The Ordinance Amendments that staff is proposing are an excellent attempt to mitigate the ADU impacts and maintaining the integrity and character of the R-1 zone. Mr. Cowles further stated that they support the owner-occupancy requirement because it adds stability and maintains the pride of ownership on the property. 6:35:26 PM Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, gave a historical perspective as a resident of the N. Second Ave. neighborhood since the early 1960's. He stated that since then, the residents organized and opposed any attempt by developers to build multi-family units. The fear was that 1 6-21 Minutes of the Planning Commission - 3 - March 14, 2007 their neighborhood would be transformed into what North Park now is; a neighborhood with an over-saturation of apartment buildings. Mr. Watry stated that he supports staff's recommendations, specifically the owner-occupancy requirement, and urged the Commission and City Council to uphold its long history of a commitment to maintain the integrity of the single-family residential zone. 6:43:48 PM Margaret Tuite stated she supports the draft ordinance, especially the owner- occupancy requirement. Ms. Tuite indicated that her experience has been that the un-kept properties in her neighborhood have been those that are rentals. She urged the Commission to protect the character of the single-family neighborhood. 6:44:58 PM Kevin O'Neill, 621 Del Mar Avenue, gave a brief background of his involvement in precipitating the implementation of an ADU Ordinance. The impetus to this endeavor was the State of California's decision on the Santa Monica case, which, among other things, allows ADU's by right. He cautioned that, based on the research he has done, the owner-occupancy requirement would be indefensible in court. The important elements of the ordinance need to address setbacks, design compatibility with primary residence and parking. 6:55:04 PM Philip Lopez, 20 Second Avenue, stated that the proposed ADU amendment provides a reasonable compromise between the State mandates and the City's need to protect the R-1 zone. He further indicated he would like to see a 2 bedroom ADU be required to provide 2 parking spaces, as well as a limitation between the size of the lot and the size of the ADU. He commended staff for their effort in making this a participative process involving the community. 6:57:28 PM Frank Lazarro, 95 D Street, stated that an ADU was constructed next to his property and he was one who complained about the negative impact on his privacy and quality of life. For the most part he supports the draft ordinance amendments, however, he would like to see tighter language address sloping conditions going both ways. In his case, his property sits on higher ground and overlooks the roof top of the ADU, which involves a privacy issue. Another issue not mentioned in the draft ordinance is smoke-related impacts, i.e. when there is a fireplace and the ADU sits on lower terrain. 7:02: 1 0 PM Mrs. Lazarro stated she supports the draft ordinance, however, wished to point out that the State's contention that ADU's help provide affordable housing, is not exactly accurate. The unit that was built next to their home is renting for $1,200 p/mo. Mrs. Lazarro stated that according to her research other jurisdictions have more stringent regulations that address blockage of light, views and chimneys. 7:04:51 PM Raul Tellez, 601 Palomar St. stated that just because there are a handful of poorly designed ADU's should not create a hardship on those that are yet to be built; those who find themselves in a true necessity to build an ADU for a family member who is disabled or an aging parent. The draft ordinance needs refinement and believes that the smaller size makes it too hard to provide adequate space for the disabled who have need of specialized equipment. Additionally, the owner-occupancy requirement needs to be reconsidered. 7:12:55 PM Darren Dalton, 325 Spruce St. stated he has an ADU, which is one that caused controversy because the unit sits on higher ground in a lot that has a steep slope. Mr. Dalton expressed his disagreement with the owner-occupancy requirement. As a career military person, he may receive orders for relocation in short notice. This requirement would force him to sell his property in a nearly impossible timeframe. This requirement creates an unreasonable 16-22 Minutes of the Planning Commission - 4 - March 14, 2007 hardship and undoubtedly would be challenged in court. Mr. Dalton is also concerned with the setback requirement, and with the 20% reclaimed unusable land. 7:18:38 PM Jose Alberti, 1133 Quinto Creek Place, Chair of the DRC offered the following comments: o that the key issue is design; the new structure needs to be compatible in design, color and materials with the existing residence. o supports the smaller unit size of 650 sf, which is adequate for a one bedroom granny flat. o opposes the owner-occupancy requirement. o Concurs with the State that ADU's are a means by which to create affordable housing. 7:20:16 PM Russ Hall, 59 Sierra Way, stated that whatever is adopted in the ordinance, must be enforceable and City staff needs to be able and willing to regulate it. Mr. Hall inquired how would the ordinance address and enforce the affordability of the units. Mr. Schmitz responded that nothing in the State law requires that that be a factor. Staff has never considered putting a rent control on these units. The issue of making these units compatible with neighborhoods was dealt with strictly from a land use and design standpoint. 7:30:54 PM Jerry Scott, stated he supports the draft ordinance amendment and indicated that his property has a 650 sf ADU, which is where his elderly parents-in-law lived and the size was more than adequate. 7:34:06 PM Public Hearing Closed. 7:34:20 PM Cmr. Bensoussan offered the following comments: o The visual impacts need to be considered not just from the public right-of-way, but the view from the surrounding neighbors as well. o higher density is more compatible the closer you move to the heart of downtown Third Avenue, in the heart of the urban core, in order to support the revitalization of downtown. o a good ordinance can make up for the fact that the State will not allow us to notify the surrounding neighborhood through the noticing process. o Would like to see tighter language stating that the use of landscaping is a means by which to address privacy issues when there is a reverse slope and you're looking down into your neighbor's backyard. 7:45:35 PM Cmr. Vinson stated he fails to see why there seems to be a pervasive thought in western Chula Vista that renters or rental property is seen as something negative and threatens the stability of R-1 zone, when in eastern Chula Vista, the developers are required to designate a percentage of their development to be high density rental property. 7:47:03 PM Cmr. Moctezuma stated that the issue on enforceability is a valid one and questions who would do the enforcing, particularly in the owner-occupancy requirement; she would be in favor of making special allowances to the owner-occupancy requirement for special circumstances, i.e. those in the military. 7:51 :09 PM Cmr. Clayton stated she is reluctant to set up regulations that encourage people to circumvent or outsmart the system, in order to fulfill to the owner-occupancy requirement. As an example, she said that someone could place the tenant's name on the title and the original owner could move out. 16-23 Minutes of the Planning Commission - 5 - March 14, 2007 7:55:29 PM Cmr. Spethman stated that the spirit of the ordinance is one of compatibility and blending in the R-1 zone with one of the biggest issues being design and parking. Mr. Spethman restated the language in the State's regulations, which states that, "...fees and requirements will not be arbitrary, excessive or burdensome so as to restrict the construction of a second unit." Cmr. Spethman offered the following comments: . does not share the opinion that rental property degrades the neighborhood . does not support the owner-occupancy requirement because its not enforceable and is an erroneous belief that it will ensure that pride of ownership will exist and the property will be kept up . opposes the requirement to have the accessory unit attached to the primary residence for the following reasons: o as long as you meet the setback and size, a pre-manufactured unit may conceivably be installed; how would you attach that structure to the existing one? o if you have a beautiful patio with outdoor kitchen and/or spa; how could you require that it be demolished in order to attach the unit? o there are communities being built in east Chula Vista that have detached ADU's called "casitas"; are we going to require the developers amend their development plans requiring the casitas to be attached? . 850 sf, is an adequate size for a young couple with a child, or an elderly couple or person that requires a wheelchair or motorized chair to get around. 8:08:25 PM Cmr. Tripp stated that there ought not to be any distinctions made in the R-1 zone whether or not it is close to the urban core. The State has determined that ADU's are allowed by right and we need to put together a reasonable ordinance that is not unduly burdensome and does not micro-manage the construction of these units. 8: 16:41 PM Cmr. Clayton offered the following comments: . restated her concern with the enforceability issues over the owner occupancy-requirement; . a small size unit does not equal an affordable unit when there are 750 sf 2 bedroom apartments renting in eastern Chula Vista for $1 ,300; . all homeowners property rights needs to be considered and would like the regulation to better reflect the different scenarios regarding owner occupancy i.e., is a derelict property the responsibility of an owner or is it a code enforcement issue; additionally, where are the private property rights when an owner may be forced into a distress sale to accommodate a familial emergency such as a military reassignment, death or illness. . Concern with requirement for wall or fence screening of parking. 8:19:12 PM Cmr. Felber; offered the following comments: . opposes the garage requirement where there isn't one on the primary home because it increases the density of the lot and reduces the overall open space feeling of the neighborhood; . concurs that the owner-occupancy requirement may cause an undo distress sale and, in his opinion, be construed as discriminatory because single residence owners are able to move out and rent their residence, but if there is an ADU's, this would not be allowed. 8:35:32 PM Cmr. Moctezuma offered the following comments: . it's very disturbing to her that the State has determined that the R-1 zone can be changed into R2 by allowing these units by right, 16-24 Minutes of the Planning Commission - 6 - March 14, 2007 . The distinction between a single residence property owner who decides to move out and rent his home is not the same as a property owner with an ADU renting both the primary home and the secondary home. With the former scenario, the R-1 zone is in no way being compromised, therefore, she supports the owner-occupancy requirement. 8:41 :50 PM Cmr. Bensoussan made the following comments: . the owner-occupancy requirement does not preclude the owner from renting out his house, it merely means that he has to live in one unit or the other. · supports the owner-occupancy requirement because, in her opinion, it is a disincentive to building these units for profit gain. . staff has gone through great lengths in considering all of the input from the community with respect to height, size, whether its attached or detached, garage requirements, etc.; its has all been considered taking into account what is in the best interest of preserving and minimizing to its fullest extend the impacts to the R-1 zone. 8:52:06 PM MSC (Vinson/Clayton) that the Planning Commission recommends adoption of the draft ordinance amending Section 19.58.022 with the following changes: . grandfather in the existing CUP's unless they apply for a new permit . remove the owner-occupancy requirement . remove the parking screening as it is previously regulated with landscape requirements only . allow the expansion of the BPA through regarding, but with a limit of 20% of the original buildable area; . remove the criteria that requires units on smaller lots to be attached. Cmr. Bensoussan offered an amendment to the parking screening requirement that it include the option to either fulfill this requirement through the use of landscaping or the construction of a wall. The maker and second of the motion accepted the amendment. Jim Hare asked for clarification on the motion concerning non-conforming situations. He indicated that existing regulations already covered that. Cmr. Vinson amended his motion to deleting bullet pOint #1 from his original motion. Call For The Question by Cmr. Tripp. Vote on Call For The Question (4-3) with Commissioners Moctezuma, Bensoussan and Felber voting against it. Amended motion: MSC (Vinson/Clayton) (5-1-0-1) that the Planning Commission recommends adoption of the draft ordinance amending Section 19.58.022 with the following changes: . remove the owner-occupancy requirement . that parking screening may be provided through the use of landscaping or the construction of walls, fences, or gates; 16-25 Minutes of the Planning Commission - 7 - March 14, 2007 . allow the expansion of the BPA through regrading, but with a limit of 20% of the original buildable area; . remove the criteria that requires units on smaller lots to be attached. Motion carried with Cmr. Felber voting against the motion and Cmr. Bensoussan abstaining. Meeting adjourned at 10:05 to a regular Planning Commission meeting on March 28, 2007. Diana Vargas Secretary to the Planning Commission 16-26 PCA 06-02 Staff Report ATTACHMENT 5 16-27 RESOLUTION NO. PCA-06-02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 19.58.022 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPROVE REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA. WHEREAS, on January 28, 2003, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopted a local ordinance adding Section 19.58.022 to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to regulate accessory second dwelling units pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.2; and, WHEREAS, on January 27, 2004, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista amended Section 19.58.022 to increase the maximum allowable floor area for an accessory second dwelling unit from 650 to 850 square-feet, and modify other property development standards; and, WHEREAS, since the adoption and amendment of the local ordinance, the City has received over 108 building permit applications for accessory second dwelling units, which the construction of some has caused great concerns among neighbors; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing these concerns in 2005, the City Council ofthe City of Chula Vista directed a review of Section 19.58.022 to determine whether additional property development standards for accessory second dwelling units were necessary; and, WHEREAS, Planning Division staff studied the units built in compliance with the existing City regulations, compared those regulations to other jurisdiction requirements, and conducted two Planning Commission workshop sessions that included public testimony on the adequacy of the adopted development standards for accessory second dwelling units; and, WHEREAS, as a result of this work the Planning Commission concluded that additions or modifications were appropriate and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance amending Section 19.58.022 to address building setbacks, building heights, maximum dwelling unit floor area, unit location, parking, design standards, and occupancy requirements; and, WHEREAS, due to delays in preparing the draft ordinance Planning Division staff participated in two additional public meetings on November 13 2006, and January 11 2007, and received additional public comments about the content of the proposed ordinance, some of which lead to additional proposed changes to Section 19.58.022; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed ordinance amendment is exempt pursuant to Section l506l(b)(3)(General Rule) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and, 16-28 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City as least ten days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely March 14,2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Resolution and its attachment shall be transmitted to the City Council with the following modifications: 1. Section C.3 - Where permitted, both attached and detached accessory second dwelling units shall be allowed on any size lot. 2. Section C.7.i - Shall allow landscaping as an appropriate screening technique for the required parking for an accessory second dwelling unit. 3. Section 15 - Deleted so that owner occupancy of either unit on a property shall not be required. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 14 day of March, 2007, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Bryan Felber, Chair Diana Vargas Secretary to Planning Commission 16-29 ORDINANCE NO._ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION 19.58.022 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE, ADDING AND MODIFYING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY SECOND DWELLING UNITS WHEREAS, on January 28, 2003, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopted a local ordinance adding Section 19.58.022 to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to regulate accessory second dwelling units pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.2; and, WHEREAS, on January 27, 2004, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista amended Section 19.58.022 increasing the maximum allowable floor area for an accessory second dwelling unit from 650 to 850 square-feet; increasing the number of parking spaces required for 3-bedroom units from one space to 2 spaces; and modifying other property development standards; and, WHEREAS, since the adoption and amendment of the local ordinance, the City has received over 108 building permit applications for accessory second dwelling units, some of which caused great concerns among neighbors; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing these concerns, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista directed a review of Section 19.58.022 to determine whether additional property development standards for the construction of accessory second dwelling units were necessary; and, WHEREAS, staff studied the units built in compliance with the existing City regulations, compared those regulations to other jurisdiction requirements, and conducted two Planning Commission workshop sessions that included public testimony on the adequacy of the adopted development standards for accessory second dwelling units; and, WHEREAS, as a result of this work the Planning Commission concluded that additions and modifications were appropriate to Section 19.58.022 and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance amendment addressing building setbacks, building heights, maximum dwelling unit floor area, unit location, parking, design standards, and occupancy requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed ordinance amendment is exempt pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Code Amendment on March 14,2007 and after hearing staff's presentation and public testimony, voted 5- 1-I to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed amendments, in accordance with the draft City Council Ordinance as amended; and, WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on , on the ordinance amendment to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony; and, WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on the ordinance amendment and notice of the hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, 16-30 1 WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. , in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and the hearing was thereafter closed; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that well regulated accessory second dwelling units Can assist the City of Chula Vista in achieving housing goals of the General Plan Housing Element and be of economic and social benefit to the community; and, WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that additional regulations are necessary to protect existing single-family neighborhoods and provide clarity to property owners wishing to . add accessory second dwelling units to their property. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City ofChula Vista ordains: Section 1 - That Section 19.58.022 of the Municipal Code is amended to read asfollows: Section 19.58.022 - Accessory second dwelling units A. The purpose of this Section is to provide regulations for the establishment of accessory second dwelling units in compliance with California Government Code Section 65852.2. Said units may be located in residential zone districts where adequate public facilities and services are available, and impacts upon the residential neighborhood directly affected would be minimized. Accessory second dwelling units are a potential source of affordable housing and shall not be considered in any calculation of allowable density of the lot upon which they are located, and shall also be deemed consistent with the General Plan and zoning designation of the lot as provided. Accessory second dwelling units shall not be considered a separate dwelling unit for the purpose of subdividing the property into individual condominium or lot ownership. R For the purposes of this Section, the following words are defined: "Above" as used in this section means an accessory second dwelling unit that is attached and built over a primary residence including an attached garage. "Accessory second dwelling units" are independent living facilities of limited size that provide permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as a single-family dwelling according to the provisions ofCYMC Section 19.58.022.C. "Attached" means that 50% of the accessory second dwelling unit's wall, floor or ceiling will be shared with the primary residence on the property (Exhibit RI). "Basement" shall mean the same as defined in CYMC Section 19.04.026. "Behind" shall mean an accessory second dwelling unit constructed either entirely between the rear of the primary dwelling and the rear property line, or to the side of the primary residence but set back from the front plane of the primary residence at least 50 % the distance between the front and back planes of the primary residence (Exhibit R2). Accessory 2nd Dwelling Primary Residence 50% of wall, floor or ceiling Exhibit B. 1 - "Attached" 16-31 2 "Buildable pad area" as used in this section means the level finish grade of the lot not including slopes greater than 50% grade. (Exhibit B.3). "Detached" means an accessory Rear PIJ second unit separated from the primary residence as specified in CVMC Section 19.58.022.C.5.d. "Gross floor area" as used in this section means those enclosed portions of the primary residence not including the garage or other attached Exhibit B. 2 - "Behind" accessory structures, such as covered but unenclosed patios, balconies, etc. "Primary Residence" means the single-family dwelling constructed on a lot as the main permitted use by the zone on said parcel. ---:1 50% Bac ~rty_LI~..-t I I Primary ,-- - BesiDence 1-- --- .... I S>"REE>" Exhibit B. 3 - "Buildable Pad Area" C. Accessory second dwelling units shall be subject to the following requirements and development standards: Frontp1ne- -- - -- STREET I. Zones - Accessory second dwelling units must accompany an existing primary residence on an A, R-E, R-I, or PC zoned lot. However, construction of the primary residence can be in conjunction with the construction of an accessory second dwelling unit. Where a guesthouse, or other similar accessory living space exists, accessory second dwelling units are not permitted. The conversion of a guest house or other similar living areas into an accessory second dwelling unit is permitted provided they meet the intent and property development standards of CVMC Section 19.58.022, and all other applicable CVMC requirements. Accessory second dwelling units shall not be permitted on lots within a Planned Unit Development (PUD), unless an amendment to the PUD is approved and specific property development standards are adopted for the construction of accessory second dwelling units on lots within the PUD. Accessory second dwelling units are precluded from R-2 and R-3 zoned lots. 2. Unit Size - The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit on a given lot shall be determined by either the buildable pad area of the lot, or the size of the primary residence according to the following table, so long as the combined living spaces do not exceed the floor area ratio of the underlying zone. The original buildable pad area of a lot may not be increased by more than 20% through re-grading and/or the use of retaining walls or structures. Buildable Pad Area Less than 5,000 sq. ft. 5,000 - 6,999 sq. ft. 7,000 - 9,999 sq. ft. 10,000 - 14,999 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. or greater Maximum Gross Floor Area for ASDUs Not permitted 450 sq. ft. or 50% of primary residence, whichever is less 650 sq. ft. or 50% of primary residence, whichever is less 750 sq. ft. or 50% of primary residence, whichever is less 850 sq. ft. or 50% of primary residence, whichever is less 16-32 3 3. Structure Relationships - The relationship of an accessory second dwelling unit to the primary residence shall be determined by the size of the buildable pad area as follows: Buildable Pad Area Less than 5,000 sq. ft. 5,000 - 6,999 sq. ft. 7,000 - 9,999 sq. ft. 10,000 - 14,999 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. or greater Location of Unit Not permitted Attached, above, or basement; or (Detaehed flet lleFffiitted) Detached. behind and on the same buildable pad Attached, above, or basement (Detaefted flot 118Fffiitted) Detached. behind and on the same buildable pad Attached, above or basement; or Detached, behind and on the same buildable pad. Attached, above or basement; or Detached, behind and on the same buildable pad. 4. Structure Height - When attached, above, or in a basement of the primary residence, an accessory second dwelling unit is subj ect to the same height limitation as the primary residence. When detached from the primary residence, an accessory second dwelling unit is limited to a single story or 15ft., whichever is less. Height of an accessory second dwelling unit is measured according to the underlying zone. 5. Development Standard Exceptions - The accessory second dwelling units shall conform to the underlying zoning and land use development standard requirements in regards to the main or primary residence setbacks with the following exceptions: a. All second floor units shall be located a minimum of ten-feet from any interior side or rear lot lines. b. For lots with up slopes between the side or rear of the house and the interior side or rear property line, required yard setbacks are measured from the toe of slope. c. For lots with down-slopes between the side or rear of the house and the interior side or rear property line, required yard setbacks shall be measured from the top of slope. d. A detached accessory second dwelling unit shall be located a minimum of twelve feet from a primary residence. 6. Lot Coverage - Accessory second dwelling units and all other structures on the lot are limited to the maximum lot coverage permitted according to the underlying zone. A detached accessory second dwelling unit and all other detached accessory structures shall not occupy more than thirty percent of the required rear yard. 7. Access and Parking - Accessory second dwelling units and the primary residence shall adhere to the following access and parking regulations: a. Accessory second dwelling units shall be provided with one standard sized parking space for studio, one-bedroom, or two-bedroom units; or two standard sized parking spaces for units with three or more bedrooms. b. The required parking space(s) shall be on the same lot as the accessory second dwelling unit. This parking is in addition to the parking requirements for the primary residence as specified in Section 19.62.170. c. If the addition of an accessory second dwelling unit involves the conversion of an existing garage used by the primary residence, a replacement two-car garage, per CVMC Section 19.62.190, shall be provided prior to or concurrently with the conversion of the garage into the accessory second dwelling unit. If the existing 16-33 4 driveway is no longer necessary for the access to the converted garage or other required parking, the paving for the driveway shall be removed and appropriate landscaping shall be installed in its place. d. The access to all required parking shall be from a public street, alley or a recorded access easement. Access from a designated utility easement or similar condition shall not be permitted. For any lot proposing an accessory second dwelling unit and served by a panhandle or easement access, the access must be a minimum 20 feet in width. e. Curb cuts providing access from the public right-of-way to on-site parking spaces shall be acceptable to the City Engineer. An encroachment permit from the City Engineer shall be obtained for any new or widened curb cuts. f. The Zoning Administrator may approve the use of an existing driveway and curb cut if. the primary residence driveway is 50 ft. feet deep or deeper as measured from the back of the public sidewalk to the front of the primary structure, and vehicular ingress and egress does not interfere with the normal use of the driveway for access to the primary residence's required parking. g. Required parking spaces or required maneuvering area shall be free of any utility poles, support wires, guard rails, stand pipes or meters, and be in compliance with CYMC Section 19.62.150. h. Tandem parking may be allowed to satisfy required parking for an accessory second dwelling unit if it is consistent with all other requirements of this section. 1. Parking screening consisting of a decorative wall, fence, landscaoing or other technique satisfactory to the Zoning Administrator, shall be provided to screen the required parking spaces from public view. If a gate is used to screen the required parking space(s) from public view, an automatic gate/door opener shall be provided and maintained for the duration of the use. Parking shall not be allowed in a location where an R Y parking permit has been issued for the storage of a recreational vehicle. J. When a required parking space abuts a fence or wall on either side, the space shall be a minimum of lOft. wide. If this area also serves as the pedestrian access from an accessory second dwelling unit to the street, the paving shall be a minimum 12 feet wide. k. A required parking space or garage shall be kept clear for parking purpose only. This requirement shall be included in the land use agreement for the proposed accessory second dwelling unit. 8. Existing Nonconforming Situations - For the purpose of evaluating eXlstmg non- conforming structures or uses for compliance with CYMC Chapter 19.64, the addition of an accessory second dwelling unit shall be considered an addition to the primary residence. Required corrections of any nonconforming situations shall occur prior to or concurrent with the addition of the accessory second dwelling unit. In the event that the primary residence does not include a two-car garage, plans and permits for an accessory second dwelling unit shall include the construction of a two-car garage for the primary residence, per CYMC Section 19.62.170. The garage shall be conveniently located to serve the primary residence. 9. Utilities - The accessory second dwelling unit shall be served by the same water and sewer lateral connections that serve the primary residence. A separate electric meter and address may be provided for the accessory second dwelling unit. 10. Waste and Recycling - In accordance with CYMC Chapters 8.24 and 8.25, the property owner shall establish and maintain a single refuse and recycling collection service account from the City or its solid waste and recycling contractor for both the primary residence and the accessory second dwelling unit. 16-34 5 11. Design Standards - The lot shall retain a single-family appearance by incorporating matching architectural design, building materials and colors of the primary dwelling with the proposed accessory second dwelling unit, and any other accessory structure built concurrently with the accessory second dwelling unit. However, the primary residence may be modified to match the new accessory second dwelling unit. Color photographs of the four sides of the primary residence shall be submitted as part of the accessory second dwelling unit building permit application. The accessory second dwelling unit shall be subject to the following development design standards: a. Matching architectural design components shall be provided between the primary . residence, accessory second dwelling unit, and any other accessory structures. These shall include, but are not limited to: 1) window and door type, style, design and treatment; 2) roof style, pitch, color, material and texture; 3) roof overhang and fascia size and width; 4) attic vents color and style; 5) exterior finish colors, texture and materials. b. The main entrance to an attached accessory second dwelling unit and, if applicable, a stairway leading to the unit, shall not be located on the same side of the building as the primary residence's main entrance. For detached accessory second dwelling units, the entrance to the unit shall be strategically located to preserve the lots single-family character, and shall not be clearly visible from the street serving as the main entrance to the primary residence. c. A usable rear yard open space of a size at least equal to 50% of the required rear yard area of the underlying zone shall be provided contiguous to the primary residence. Access to this open space shall be directly from a common floor space area of the primary residence such as living or dining rooms, kitchens or hallways, and without obstruction or narrow walkways. d. A useable open space that has a minimum dimension of six (6) feet, and an area not less than 60 square feet in area shall be provided contiguous to an accessory second dwelling unit. A balcony or deck may satisfy this requirement for second story units. e. A minimum three (3) foot wide pedestrian walk that connects the accessory second dwelling unit with its required parking space and the public sidewalk shall be provided. The pedestrian walk shall be strategically located to provide the shortest walking distance to parking or the street. f. Windows on second story accessory second dwelling units shall be staggered and oriented away from adjacent residences closer than ten feet. The location and orientation of balconies or decks shall also be oriented away from adjacent neighbors backyard and living space windows. g. Trash and recycling containers must be stored between pick-up dates in an on-site location that is screened from public view and will not compromise any required open space areas. 13. Designated Historical Sites - An accessory second dwelling unit may be allowed on designated or historical sites provided the location and design of the accessory second dwelling unit meets corresponding historical preservation requirements in place at the time the accessory second dwelling unit is built, and complies with the requirements of this Section including the following: a. Regardless of the lot size that qualifies the property for an accessory second dwelling unit, the accessory second dwelling unit shall be detached and located behind the primary residence or historic structure. 16-35 6 b. The construction of the accessory second dwelling unit shall not result in the removal of any other historically significant accessory structure, such as garages, outbuildings, stables or other similar structures. c. The accessory second dwelling unit shall be designed in substantially the same architectural style and finished materials composition as the primary residence or historic structure. d. Construction of an accessory second dwelling unit shall not result in demolition, alteration or movement of the primary residencelhistoric house and any other on site features that convey the historic significance of the house and site. e. If the historic house/site is under a Mills Act Contract with the City, the Contract shall be amended to authorize the introduction of the accessory second dwelling unit. on the site. 14. Inspections - The addition of an accessory second dwelling unit to a property shall include two site inspections at the following times: a. Prior to the approval of the building permit, the Planning Division staff shall conduct a field inspection to verify the drawings submitted for the permit are accurate with regard to grading, on-site building location, primary residence design color and materials composition, location of adjacent structures, etc. Any discrepancies on the drawings must be corrected so that the subject property and resulting structures are in compliance with this section and other related sections of the CYMC. b. Prior to, or concurrent with the final inspection of the new accessory second dwelling unit and the issuance of an occupancy permit by the Building Official, Planning Division staff shall conduct an inspection of the lot to verify that that the accessory second swelling unit has been constructed and the lot has been improved per the approved plans, and that the required land use agreement outlining the accessory second dwelling unit requirements has been filed and recorded and that all applicable provisions of that land use agreement have been satisfied prior to occupancy. 15. Occllflaflcy ReqHirement The eWBer efthe preIlerty shall reside eB the let eB ,....!Iich the accesoery seceBd dwelling _it is lecated er ceBslmcted. The accessery seceHd d-welliHg _it shall Bet se seld seflamtely, eBly iB eeBjUHctieB with the sale eftae primary resideBce. .t4.,li Land Use Agreement - Concurrent with the issuance of building permits for the construction of an accessory second dwelling unit, the property owner shall sign a Land Use Agreement prepared by the City which sets forth the eecllflaHcy afIa use limitations prescribed in this ordinance. This agreement will be recorded by the City Clerk with the County of San Diego Recorder on title to the subject property. This agreement shall run with the land, and inure to the benefit of the City ofChula Vista. D. Annual Report - An annual report outlining the number of accessory second dwelling units, their size, number of bedrooms and number of parking spaces provided shall be prepared by the Zoning Administrator and presented to the Planning Commission in January of every year for the purpose of monitoring the construction of accessory second dwelling units. The Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council changes to this section based on their evaluation of the annual report. 16-36 7 SECTION II This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Submitted by Approved as to form by '-~/.f~a. J d /"-L~- Ann Moore City Attorney James Sandoval Director of Planning and Building J:\Planning\JohnS\ZO Update\Interim-Maint Issues\2nd Unit Ord\Qrd Drafts\ASDU Draft Ordinance. Staff report attachment.doc 16-37 8 Print ~T~~ - I \, j ~, f.' - / / , \.; Page 1 of2 From: Mitch Thompson To: John Schmitz Date: Monday, March 12,20074:01 :39 AM Subject: Re: Second Unit Ordinance John, Thank you for the proposed second unit ordinance materials. Below are my written public comments. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting. Subsection C(2), Unit Size - I would suggest that the maximum unit size be increased to at least 500 square feet or 550 square feet for lots with buildable pads between 5,000 and 6,999 feet. A 450 square foot unit makes it very difficult to build a decent one-bedroom unit. We want units to be livable in the City of Chula Vista. 450 feet is unreasonably small. Subsection C(15), Occupancy Requirement - Firstly, this provision should be split into two sections. One section should be entitled Occupancy Requirement and the other entitled Legal Tenure. The Legai Tenure Section should say that the parcel may not be legally subdivided I have a question as to whether or not this would prevent two unrelated people from purchasing the property as tenants in common. For instance, if the accessory unit were 30% of the total square footage and the main house constituted 70% of the total square footage, would it be allowable for John Doe and Jane Jones to purchase the house as tenants in common with the express intent of each owning their allocated share of the property? Perhaps this could be clarified in the staff report and ordinance. Occupancy Requirement- The ordinance should be somewhat more lenient by requiring that, at the time of application (and maybe for a year before the application) and through to some period beyond certificate of occupancy of the accessory ordinance that the owner be the occupant and that the use Agreement include a section that states his/her intent to occupy the unit at all times. It also should clarify that at least one person who is on title be the occupant. Similar to some mobilehome communitites, the City should allow non-occupancy for periods of up to one year for cases of medical emergency or because of temporary employment needs. Also, occupancy on an ongoing basis should be allowed by an immediate family member (there are good definitions of this that can be found). Mrs Jones has lived in the unit for 20 years and raised a child there. She is forced into a retirement home or long-term care due to health. Her son, who grew up in the house, is living on the property. Technically, they would be violating the ordinance and would be forced to sell or would have to remove the accessory unit. If it is a bit more lenient, this section of the ordinance may better stand legal challenges. Another way to deal with this whole section might be to require that the accessory unit remain vacant whenever the owner does not occupy the unit and, if the accessory unit is occupied during that time, that the owner be fined in an amount that equals the last known rental income amount (or a fixed amoutn tied to the estimated market value of such units) for as long as it was occupied without owner occupancy. Such an alternative provision would also ensure we do not end up with the undesired outcome of turning single-family properties into multi-family units, and would do so without requiring occupancy, thus avoiding the whole occupancy legal challenge. Subsection 7, Access and Parking 7a, Two additional parking spaces rather than one space should be required for a two bedroom unit. 7c and 7i, Conversion of a two car garage and screening. If a garage is converted and the applicant can provide screening of all parking pursuant to sebsection 7i, then the ordinance should not require a new garage to be built. The rationale is that there is no negative visual impact to surrounding neighbors as a result of the conversion. The other related requirement that might be advisabie is that, if the screening is proposed to be accomplished accomplished by a gate, that it be a gate that can be opened and closed by remote control and that it be at all times be operable. This would increase the liklihood that cars are placed behind the screening rather than on the street side of the proposed screening. Mitch Thompson Mitch Thompson 323-924-5932/619-781-1306 Phone 619-726-6405 Cell 323-431-0061 (Please note, new fax number) http://us.f356.mail.yahoo.comldc/launch?action=welcome& YY =50457 4 3 73&.rand=7mi8dd". 5/1/2007 b. The construction of the accessory second dwelling unit shall not result in the removal of any other historically significant accessory structure, such as garages, outbuildings, stables or other similar structures. c. The accessory second dwelling unit shall be designed in substantially the same architectural style and tinished materials composition as the primary residence or historic structure. d. Construction of an accessory second dwelling unit shall not result in demolition, alteration or movement of the primary residence/historic house and any other on site features that convey the historic significance of the house and site. e. If the historic house/site is under a Mills Act Contract with the City, the Contract shall be amended to authorize the introduction of the accessory second dwelling unit on the site. 14. Inspections - The addition of an accessory second dwelling unit to a property shan include two site inspections at the following times: a. Prior to the approval of the building permit, the Planning Division staff shall conduct a field inspection to verify the drawings submitted for the permit are accurate with regard to grading, on-site building location, primary residence design color and materials composition, location of adjacent structures, etc. Any discrepancies on the drawings must be corrected so that the subject property and resulting structures are in compliance with this section and other related sections of the CYMe. b. Prior to, or concurrent with the final inspection of the new accessory second dwelling unit and the issuance of an occupancy permit by the Building Official, Planning Division staff shall conduct an inspection of the lot to verify that that the accessory second swelJing unit has been constructed and the lot has been improved per the approved plans, and that the required land use agreement outlining the accessory second dwelling unit requirements has been tiled and recorded and that all applicable provisions of that land use agreement have been satistied prior to occupancy. 15. Occupancy Requirement - At the time a building permit is issued and continuouslv thereafter, the owner of the property shall reside on the lot on which the accessory second dwelling unit is located or constructed. Tile acoesssr)' seoend ffiveJling Hnit shall Bet se sold separatel)', only in eDnjunctisn witH tile sale sf tile primary residence. The Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to suspend this occupancY requirement for a period not to exceed 5 years when evidence has been submitted that one of the following situations exists: a. The property owner's health requires them to tempOrarily Jive in an assisted livinlLQ! nursing facilitv. b. The property owner is required to live outside the San Diego region as a condition of employment. c. The property owner is requircd to live elscwhere to care for an immediate family member. d. The cun-ent property owner has received the property as the result of the settlement of an estate. 16. Land Use Agreement - Concurrent with the issuance of building Dennits I()r In. "onstruction of an accessorv second dwelling Unit, the property owner shall sign a Land L"t .c'reement prepared by the City which sets forth the occupancy and use limitations Proposals: I. A notice of application shall be sent to the immediately adjoining neighbors. 2. The site plan shall provide adequate open space and landscaping that is useful for both the accessory dwelling unit and the primary residence. Open space and landscaping will provide for privacy and screening of adjacent properties. 3. Windows, which face an adjoining residential property, shall be designed to protect the privacy of neighbors; alternatively, fencing or landscaping shall be required to provide screening. 4. Two parking spaces will be provided for two bedroom dwellings. 5. The property owner must occupy either the primary or accessory unit. (These proposals are presently in the ADD Ordinance of Santa Cruz, California.) Contact: Mr. Norm Daley, Housing Program Coordinator, City of Santa Cruz, California. (831) 420-5109 . ATTACHMENT 1 Government Code Section 65852.2 State Second Unit Law 5ta'" HCD - <DivIs",n o/Housing Poficy i])eve[opment __ 'h_ __._:_~.::-:.~~~_:... _ _ _...:...-.::::_ .~__~__.__~_.-::.~_=:..._._~__.___...;,. t ,- (~ ." I Jury 2003 ~ In a 2001 decision (Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica), a second-unit ordinance preventing non-dependent adult children or relatives, as well as unrelated persons while permitting dependents and caregivers, was declared unconstitutional under the right to privacy and equal protection clause of the California Constitution. A local ordinance could include income restrictions on the occupancy of a second-unit to ensure the creation of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households. A local ordinance could also re uire one of the dweIIin s on the roperty to be owner-occupied. However, an ordinance with these restrictions and requirements s au e eve ope in a manner that encourages the creation of second-units as opposed to restricting the development of second-units. Does Second-Unit Law Apply to Charter Cities and Counties? Yes. Charter cities and counties must particularly give way to State general laws such as second- unit law when there are matters of Statewide concern (Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica (2001) 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 802), as stated by the Legislature in Government Code Sections 65580, 65852.150 and 65852.2(i)(2). Further, second-unit law explicitly applies to "local agencies" which are defined as general law or charter (Government Code Section 65852.2(i)(2)). Does Second-Unit Law Apply to Localities in the Coastal Zone? Yes. The California Coastal Act was enacted to preserve our natural coastal resources for existing and future Californians. While second-units utilize existing built areas and usually have minimal environmental impact, the need for second-units should be balanced against the need to preserve our unique coastal resources. For these reasons, second-unit law shall not supersede, alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act (Division 20 of the Public Resources Code), except that local governments shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit (COP) applications for second-units (Government Code 65852.20)). As stated in correspondence, dated January 13,2003 uom the California Coastal Commission to all coastal communities, local governments in the coastal zone should amend their Local Coastal Program (LCP) to not require a public hearing in the consideration of second-unit applications. Further, local appeals should be handled in an administrative manner. .,. Should a Locality Submit Their Second-Unit Ordinances to HCD? Yes. Government Code Section 65852.2(h) requires submittal of an ordinance adopted pursuant to subsection (a) and (c) to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) within 60 days of adoption. The Department will establish a clearinghouse of local ordinances to assist local governments in developing effective and meaningful ordinances. The Department is also available to provide technical assistance in the preparation of second-unit ordinances. Local governments are encouraged to send electronic copies of their ordinance to the Department at pmcdouga@hcd.ca.gov. 5tate XCD - 'Division of '.Housing Poficy IDevewpment 8 Jury 2003 Page 1 of 1 Georgene Pharis Liem /~ From: pbuchan~ Sent: Tuesday, May 01,20072:47 PM To: Georgene Pharis Subject: May 1, 2007 Agenda item #16 Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance public hearing I have attached a two-page letter that I would like submitted to the Mayor and Council for the public hearing this evening regarding the proposed amendment of the Accessory Dwellling Unit ordinance (CVMC section 1958022). Thank you. Pamela Buchan 05/01/2007 April 26, 2007 Honorable Mayor and Council 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista CA 91910 Subject: May 1,2007 Agenda Item regarding Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance In the spring of2005, a number ofresidents became concerned about the way ADD's were being built in their neighborhoods and brought several issues to the attention of the City Council. After a public forum sponsored by Councilmember McCann and much public discussion at several CounciJ meetings, the ADD ordinance was referred to staff in September 2005. It has taken 18 months for the ADD ordinance amendment to be returned to the City CounciJ for consideration. During that time, the planning staff compiled a number of recommendations based on testimony from several public workshops, the November 2005 Planning Commission comments, and the original 2005 Council comments. Staffs March 14,2007 recommendations to the Planning Commission included the introduction of a "Building Pad Area" concept that addresses useable area for construction; building height, setbacks, and locations; access and parking (including screening for new parking spaces); design standards; inspections, and owner occupancy/land use agreement. The Planning Commission recommended that at least two of staffs recommendations be removed: J) the owner occupancy/land use agreement and 2) the structural screening of parking spaces. Apparently the Commission was concerned that the City would be more open to lawsuit if they applied an owner occupancy requirement to the ADD ordinance. (The legal cases relating to owner occupancy cited in the background information restricted both units to owner occupancy. The provision proposed by staff was that onlv one of the units be owner occupied and a land use agreement be implemented to address affordability and other issues.) The owner occupancy provision as recommended by staffhas been applied in other cities and is addressed in the State's implementation discussion for AB 1866. The provision in conjunction with the land use agreement also will assist the City in providing development of affordabJe housing opportunities again, addressed in the State's implementation discussion for AB 1866. An additional aspect of the Commission's concern with the owner occupancy/land use agreement seems to be that an owner may need to move from their residence due to job transfer or relocation. A provision can be made to accommodate that situation, particularly in the case of military homeowners. The Planning Commission recommended that the solid screening of new, on-site parking be omitted and allow landscaping for screening. This issue was discussed in 2005 during the re- evaluation process of the ordinance. If screening is left to landscaping alone it is likely to become an enforcement issue. It is not realistic to expect Zoning Enforcement Officers to regularly monitor landscaping of one or two parking spaces per site when there are over 100 ADDs already constructed. The abundance of unabated front-yard parking currently occurring in single-family neighborhoods attests to that issue. I urge the City Council to consider adopting the proposed amended ADD ordinance with the owner occupancy and land use agreement and structural parking space screening as recommended to the Planning Commission by Planning Department staff on March 14, 2007. This seems to be an opportunity to accommodate both affordable housing development and preserve the integrity of the community's single-family neighborhoods. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Pamela R. Buchan