Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports /2007/03/14 AGENDA MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 6:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 14, 2007 Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL I MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Planning Commission: Felber Tripp_ Vinson Moctezuma Bensoussan Clayton _ Spethman_ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 14, 2007 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commissions' jurisdiction, but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 06-02; Proposed amendments to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.58.022 regulating Accessory Second Dwelling Units. (Legislative) Project Manager: John Schmitz, Principal Planner DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSION COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: To a Special Planning Commission meeting on March 21,2007. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 6:00 p.m. February 14, 2007 Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA CALL TO ORDER: 6:08:31 PM ROLL CALL I MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Members Present: Felber, Vinson, Moctezuma, Bensoussan, Tripp, Clayton, Speth man Staff Members Present: Jim Hare, Assistant Planning Director Luis Hernandez, Development Planning Mgr. Danielle Putnam, RBF Mandy Mills, Housing Manager Elisa Cusato, Deputy City Attorney III APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 24,2007 MSC (Vinson/Bensoussan) (6-0-0-1) that the Planning Commission adopt the minutes of January 24, 2007 as submitted. Motion carried with Cmr. Moctezuma abstaining. ORAL COMMUNICATION: No public input. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 05-06; Consideration of a proposal to convert an existing 124-unit apartment complex located at 307 Orange Avenue to 124 condominium units for individual ownership. Applicant: Premier Coastal Development. Background: Danielle Putnam gave an overview of the project as described in the staff report, indicating that on August 12, 2004, Weston Management filed an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map to convert a 124-unit apartment complex to condominiums for private ownership. In December 2004 the current applicant (Premier Coastal Development) took over processing of the project and began a series of meetings with City staff to address issues and deficiencies, project improvements and revisions. To qualify for incentives under density bonus law, the applicant proposed the project Include 41 housing units affordable to moderate- income persons and families; therefore, an affordable housing agreement between the City and the applicant was prepared. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - February 14, 2007 Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Tentative Map in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Commission Comments: 637:44 PM Cmr. Vinson inquired who qualifies and monitors the household incomes to ensure there is compliance with affordable housing requirements. Mandy Mills, Housing Manager, responded that she monitors and verifies all of the applicant's income documentation. Additionally, a Silent Second trust deed is recorded. Cmr. Benoussan offered the following comments: . It makes more sense to give a $5,000 credit instead of discounting the unit price by $5,000. . Noted that the solar panels will not be replaced with new ones and stated that perhaps some type of incentive could be offered by the City to encourage the applicant to install green technology. . Recommends that no mature vegetation i.e. the eucalyptus trees be removed Ms. Mills responded that the discount helps with the property taxes because they're calculated based on the property value. Cmr. Spethman stated that this project will attract first-time homebuyers; young couples with children, and noted that the project proposes a tot-lot for 3 to 5 year olds, and inquired if there Is any open-space or other recreation space proposed for older kids. Chris Duggins, applicant, responded that the project was designed to provide as much open space as possible. Additionally, the pool and recreation center has a game room that offers older children additional recreation. Cmr. Felber asked how much time does the applicant have before a Final Map is approved. Ms. Putnam responded they have two years before Final Map approval. Cmr. Felber asked if the applicant would be willing to move up to 10 days (instead of 5) the $500 relocation assistance to those tenants who choose not to purchase their units. Chris Duggins responded that they would be willing to move it up to ten days. Cmr. Bensoussan inquired if the tenants who wish to purchase their unit would have any type of relocation assistance while they are waiting for the upgrades to be done on their unit. Mr. Duggins stated that they would be willing to add $500 to the discount credit of $5,000. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - February 14, 2007 Cmr. Spethman asked if it was within the purview of the Planning Commission to request of a developer or an applicant certain standards for financial incentives on a project. Mr. Hare responded that to the extent that an applicant is agreeable to them, they can be memorialized as Conditions of Approval, however, if the applicant is not willing to make those concessions, the Commission would have a limited capability to require them. In this particular application, the Commission is charged with making the necessary findings to recommend approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map for a proposed condominium conversion project. Public Hearing Opened. Chris Duggins, applicant, stated that there is a significant difference of opinion between the City and the applicant with Condition of Approval #32. under Section IX, relating to Sewer. The City is requesting that the developer install a sewer manhole at the point of connection to the City sewer main and that the sewer laterals be privately maintained from each condominium building to the City-maintained public sewer main on Orange Avenue. Historically, the clogged sewer lateral problems were caused by improper sewage disposal (paper towels and grease) going down the property's sewer system; requiring the City to come out and clean them. For this reason, the City Engineer placed the condition that the developer should install a manhole at the point of connection to the City sewer main to enable easier access to clean out. The applicant is proposing that the Homeowners Association have regularly scheduled maintenance and clean-out of the sewer laterals, and that the HOA provide on-going education and awareness to the homeowners relating to proper sewage disposal. Sylvester Evetovich, Principal Civil Engineer affirmed that they've had discussions with the applicant regarding the removal of this condition. Upon conferring with the Public Works Department, they are in agreement with what the applicant is proposing and agree that the manhole is not necessary so long as the laterals are maintained and clean-out periodically. They are still crafting appropriate language that needs to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorneys Office and the Planning Department. Cmr. Tripp stated that having served on the GMOC, one of the ongoing discussions is the need for infrastructure improvements in Western Chula Vista, therefore, he is a bit perplexed at the position the City is taking In recommending that the HOAlresidents install a manhole and maintain their own sewer system. Cmr. Vinson concurred with Cmr. Tripp's concerns and stated that sewer problems is a public health issue and is not something that should be relegated to be resolved by private citizens or HOA's. Mr. Evetovich stated that the sewage system for this complex has and will continue to be privately maintained. The problem is that whenever there have been sewer problems, the City crews has to go on site to access the clean-outs within the Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 14, 2007 buildings where the clog exists. The manhole would allow the City to clean the sewer system from the street instead of coming onto the complex. Mr. Duggins further clarified that part of the problem has been that there has been no scheduled maintenance for clean-out of the laterals that hook-up to the City sewer system. What is being proposed is that the HOA be required to contract for scheduled maintenance of these laterals in order to avoid future problems. Cmr. Spethman echoed the concerns raised by the Commissioners and maintains that the upkeep of a problem-free sewer system cannot be passed on to private citizens. Cmr. Clayton stated that, in her opinion, nothing is free and someone always must pay the piper. The incentives and credits that the applicant has graciously agreed to, as well as the cost for installing the manhole will have a direct impacts on the housing cost and unfortunately the consumer will end up paying for it. Cmr. Clayton asked if the applicant had an idea of how much it would cost to install the manhole. Mr. Duggins stated that they've gotten numbers ranging from $25,000 to $95,000 dollars. Cmr. Felber stated that, In his opinion, any responsible homeowner seeing that part of his HOA dues is going toward paying for sewer lateral maintenance, that should be motivation to ensure that they do their part in not taxing the sewer system with improper sewage disposal. Public Hearing Closed. MSC (TrippNinson) (6-1) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCS 05-06 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Tentative Map in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein: . Upholding Condition IX. 32., which states, "The applicant shall provide a sewer manhole at the point of connection to the City sewer main...". . Adding a new condition that reads, "The applicant will provide the refund of each tenant's security deposit not less than 30 days prior to their relocation and shall provide relocation assistance of $500 paid to tenants not less than ten days in advance of their relocation. Motion carried with Cmr. Spethman voting against the motion. Director's Report. Assistant Planning Director Hare discussed the upcoming Planning Commission calendar schedule and indicated that March 21't is tentatively slated for a Special Meeting and February 24th is the DRC tour. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - February 14, 2007 Commission Comments: Cmr. Clayton stated she finds it very helpful when Mr. Hare explains what is the Commission's scope of responsibility in rendering a decision or recommendation on a project, however, she would recommend that his comments be made sooner, than later, once the Commission is embroiled in a discussion that perhaps is a moot point. Cmr. Bensoussan reported that she attended and was impressed by how informative the GMOC tour was. Additionally, it has come to her knowledge that the Del Webb Luxury Senior Living complex, for which the General Plan designation was amended to accommodate this project, is not going to be built after all. Cmr. Bensoussan expressed grave concern in allowing General Plan amendments to be project-driven, such as it was in this case, to later have the project evaporate. Meeting adjourned to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 28, 2007. Diana Vargas, Secretary to the Planning Commission CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: .1- Meeting Date: 3/14/07 ITEM TITLE: PCA-06-02, Proposed amendments to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.58.022 regulating Accessory Second Dwelling Units John Schmitz, Principal Planner Jim Hare, Assistant Director of Planning SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND The City of Chula Vista adopted the first local regulations for accessory second dwelling units in 2003. Since then, over 100 property owners have applied for building permits, and over 60 units have been constructed. 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 detennine 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. This hearing is for the Planning Commission to consider whether the draft language for amendments to CVMC Section 19.58.022 adequately reflect the results of the workshop sessions and can therefore be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. 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 Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of the attached draft ordinance amending Section 19.58.022, with any additional amendments deemed appropriate. PCA-06-02 Page No.2 DISCUSSION Government Code Section 65852.150 states that second units are intended to be the 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 umeasonably 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 I). Iflocal 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 objective 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 ofthe 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. Attached to this report is a summary of the issues, analysis and staff recommendations made at the time of the workshops. This study included open public workshops by the Planning Commission with ample opportunities for both supporters and opponents of this type of housing to provide input. PUBLIC OUTREACH For a variety of reasons, there was a delay in getting this draft ordinance ready for public hearings for adoption. 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 II 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. Those lead to further review of the draft ordinance. A summary of the comments from the January II meeting and staff's responses is included as Attachment 3 to this report. As a result of the newspaper article relating to the January II workshop, staffreceived a letter from a property owner concerned about the lot size criteria proposed for allowing a unit to be detached (see Attachment 4). Staff was asked by over 50 people to notify them when the hearings on this subject were scheduled. In addition to the hearing notice published in the paper, a letter was sent to those people, many of whom asked for copies of the ordinance. Extra copies or this report have been printed and some were e-mail to those who requested it. As a result of the Planning Commission workshops and public input, the attached draft ordinance has been prepared for consideration. For review purposes in this report the proposed changes to the ordinance have been grouped and will be reviewed in the following three categories: PCA-06-02 Page No.3 . 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? In finalizing the draft ordinance and preparing this report, staff noted a few issues that may not have been discussed at the Planning Commission's previous workshops. Those issues will be highlighted 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, R1 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 units constructed in the future. One of the most important is the introduction of the "Buildable Pad Area" (BP A) concept that would dictate unit size based upon the flat useable areas of a lot. Areas with slopes greater than 50% (2 horizontal to 1 vertical) would not be included in the Buildable Pad Area. After the BP A has been established, a sliding scale for unit size would be applied that would prohibit accessory second dwelling units on lots with less than 5,000 sq. ft. of BP A. Allowed unit sizes would begin with 450 square feet on lots of 5,000 and 7,000 square feet, and incrementally increase 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 second units to 50% ofthe 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 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 flat area should be used to calculate the maximum unit size, or would the original area apply. Staff believes that a standard could be set for allowing but limiting the percentage ofBP A that could be created in this manner. A limit of20% of additional area created by walls or fill could increase an original 5,000 sq. ft. BPA to no more than 6,000 sq. ft. This would provide more area on a lot to meet all of the new design criteria proposed as part of this ordinance amendment, but it would not automatically provide enough area to reach the next break point (7,000 sq. ft.) to qualify for a larger unit. Possible Added BPA New retaining wall <: ) I Ori!Iinal BPA I 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. This issue is reviewed more thoroughly in the attached issues evaluation, particularly in the Building Height and Building Setback sections. To address those concerns the following changes are proposed: PCA-06-02 Page No.4 . Attached or detached - Whether a proposed unit can be detached would be related to the use of the new Building Pad Area criterion discussed above. For those lots with a BP A less than 10,000 sq. ft., the proposed rules would require a new unit to be attached to the existing primary residence. Only on larger lots would the unit be allowed to be detached. . Pad Location - Related to whether a second unit can be detached is a new requirement that such units be on the same pad level as the primary residence. . Height - The proposed regulations would limit detached units to single story and 15 feet of 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 criteria. . Setbacks - One of the significant changes to the current regulations is the proposed requirement that side and rear yard setbacks 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 second 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 question is whether there can be an alternative rear yard setback for these lots. Staff would recommend that a reduced rear yard setback be allowed for units on lots that abut an alley, so long as all other requirements of the code are met. 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. 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 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 II, staff received comments from people who felt that spaces between walls should be wider than 10 feet to accommodate larger vehicles. Staff has considered that issue but is still recommending the 10-foot width. 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 I). . 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. Concerns have been raised that new landscaping can be ineffective, and established landscaping could be neglected or removed easily. To address this concern the new regulations would require that the parking spaces be screened with decorative walls, fences or gates. This may prevent second units on some sites that may not have sufficient room in a front or PCA-06-02 Page No.5 side yard to park a vehicle AND provide the screening. . New Issue: Another issue not previously discussed by the Planning Commission during their workshops is 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 IS foot wide road or easement width for serving one lot. In some instances the house on the front lot may be at, or very close to, the access drive. Staff believes that such a narrow passageway does not work well when adding another unit and, therefore, is recommending that only lots with a minimum 20 feet of access should be allowed a second unit. Design Standards . Architectural match - The existing ordinance requires a unit to be "consistent" with the architectural style of the existing primary residence. The new regulations 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 attached second unit 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 duplex. Detached unit entrances must be located so as to not be visible ITom the public ROW. . Open space - The new regulations will ensure that both the existing primary residence and the new second unit each have private useable open space accessible ITom a common area of the unit being served. The current regulations make it possible for the addition of a second unit to isolate the primary residence ITom such an area except for the ITont yard. . Pedestrian access - The new regulations specify that a clear, direct and logical pedestrian path be provided that would not impact the primary unit. The Commission will note that the pedestrian path can be part of a parking area but only if the total paving is a minimum 12 feet so someone can easily walk by a parked vehicle. . New Issue - Trash Containers - At the January II 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 to require that trash and recycling containers be screened ITom 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 set out substantial new requirements for second units 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 The new regulations specify 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 PCA-06-02 Page No.6 the regulations of this section. Owner Occupancv One of the more contentious issues with the new regulations is a proposed requirement that the owner of the property live in one of the units. This has been added with the intention of minimizing neighborhood impacts by providing better owner supervision of any tenants that might occupy the other unit. Staff is still recommending the inclusion of this provision, but the Commission will likely hear from opponents who will raise two arguments against this requirement: . In the case of Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica, the California Court of Appeal 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 unrelated groups of more than five persons from occupying a home in a single-family zone violated the CaJifornia 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 has included the "owner-occupant" requirement understanding that this provision could be challenged in court. . 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. Staff is unaware of any provision that might be added to address this situation that wouldn't be considered preferential treatment for certain owners. Land Use Agreement Given the extensive list of new requirements for second units 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 fonnat 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 had recommended that there be an annual report prepared for their consideration at the beginning of each calendar year. The Commission could then have constant monitoring system that would allow them to make additional recommendations to the City Council for amendments as new issues arise that may demonstrate unanticipated ways that neighborhoods are adversely affected by this type of housing. PCA-06-02 Page No.7 DECISION-MAKER CONFLICTS: 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 18704.2(a)(I) is not applicable to this decision. FISCAL IMPACT 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 fees collected. This would not impact the general fund as City staff would be directed toward other fee generating permits or activities. ATTACHMENTS 1 Government Code Sections Relating to Second Units 2 2005/06 Staffs Issues Analysis for PC Workshops 3 Issues/Questions from 1/11/07 Community Meeting 4 Letter of concern dated 3-1-07 5 Draft Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval 6 Draft Ordinance J:\PlanninglJohnS\ZO Update\lnterim-Maint Issues\2nd Unit Ord\StaffReports\PC Agenda Statemenl.doc PCA 06-02 Staff Report ATTACHMENT 1 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 to, 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 I, 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. 1 (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 the 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. (1) 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 permit 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 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 including basements and attics but does not include a garage structure. (2) "Local agencyrr means a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered. (3) For purposes of this section, set forth in Section 65589.5. (4) rrSecond 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. (B) 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) I except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for second units. dwelling unit or any accessory rrneighborhoodl1 has the same meaning as 3 PCA 06-02 Staff Report ATTACHMENT 2 2005/06 Accessory Second Dwelling Unit Issues Evaluation 1. ASDU Size Issue: The current ordinance pennits ASDUs of up to 850 sq. ft., as long as the primary residence is at least 850 sq. ft. (100%). The major concern about the current ordinance is that in some instances the ASDU is or appears to be larger than the primary residence. Some area residents believe that ASDU's should stay subordinate in size to the primary residence, maintaining a ratio of 50 - 60% of the size of the primary residence, or 650 sq. ft., whichever is less. Analysis: Based on our initial research it was detennined that most of the ASDU pennitted and under construction are detached and include a two-car garage to bring the primary residence into compliance with the two car garage requirement of the CYMC. This added feature makes the structure substantially larger and more massive than anticipated in the previous ordinance. We also noted that on smaller lots (5,000 to 7,000 sq. ft.), the size of the detached ASDU often takes the entire width of the lot. The paved vehicular access and maneuvering area takes a large portion of the lot, depleting the primary residence's open space/private yard and quality of single-family residential lot (see Exhibit C-I and C-2). The most successful ASDU additions are most often those that are attached to the existing primary residence. These units appear proportionate in size and well integrated to the building design. The Open space is substantially better preserved under this scenario (see Exhibit D-I and D-2). Recommendations: To address this issue, staff developed a buildable pad arealASDU size sliding scale system to improve the ASDU building massing relationship with the existing primary residence and the buildable pad area. The sliding scale system is shown below, and detennines the maximum allowable ASDU size pennitted based upon the buildable pad area. For example, using the sliding scale below, if the lot area is 10,000 sq. ft., but the building pad is 7,000 sq. ft. the property qualifies for a 650 sq. ft ASDU instead of750 sq. ft. The ASDU size is also limited to 50% of the primary residence, excluding garage and all other accessory structures, such as patio covers, balconies, etc., or the following maximum unit size, listed below, whichever is less. 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 Unit Size Not pennitted 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 . Buildable Pad Area is defined as the [eve/finish grade of the lot not including slopes greater than 5% grade. 2. ASDU Location Issue: Detached accessory second dwelling units on smaller lots tend to overpower the existing primary residence, changing the single family detached residential character and look (see Exhibit E-1 and E-2). Conversely, attached accessory second dwelling units tend to look just like 1 an addition to the existing primary residence. In addition, there are concerns about the placement of ASDU units on manufactured building pads when an up or down slope exists within the site (see Exhibit F-I and F-2). Analysis: Using the unit size research above, staff found that the ASDU location in relationship to the unit size and buildable pad area is extremely important to achieve a well-integrated ASDU project. Staff analyzed several scenarios involving different size lots and found that on larger lots (15,000 sq. ft. or more) a detached accessory dwelling unit could be accommodated without disrupting the open space and outdoor features typically associate with single-family residences. On smaller lots however (5,000 to 9,000 sq. ft.), the introduction of a similar size second dwelling unit infringed on the size and quality of the primary residence outdoor space. We also found that when the parcel features an up or down slope, and the slope is modified to accommodate the ASDU at a different pad elevation, the ASDU structure becomes extremely predominant and not well integrated to the site plan functions and amenities. In order to avoid this undesirable scenario, the ASDU should only be pennitted on the same building pad elevation as the primary residence (see Exhibit G). Recommendations: To address this issue, staff also developed a sliding scale system to detennine the allowable location of the second unit in relationship with the existing primary residence and the buildable pad area. 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 pennitted Attached, above, or basement Attached, above, or basement Attached, detached, above or basement Attached, detached, above or basement 3. Building Height: Issue: Residents of areas where accessory second dwelling units have been built or are under construction have expressed concern about loss of privacy as a result of two-story, detached ASDU built in close proximity to the property lines. There is a perception that the building placement and window orientation (windows looking down onto rear yards and bedroom windows) encroach into the privacy of surrounding neighbors. Analysis: Although two story structures are pennitted for the primary residence, accessory structures, other than ASDUs, are limited to one story or fifteen ft. whichever is less. The recent introduction of two story ASDUs has created a perceived concern that there are more eyes encroaching into the privacy of surrounding neighbors. As indicated above detached accessory second units are perhaps the ones that are more difficult to adapt to existing single-family detached lots, particularly on lots 5,000 to 9,000 sq. ft. The size and location of the unit, as well as the required parking for both the primary residence and the ASDU often result in not very cohesive building arrangements, where the accessory second dwelling unit is the most predominant structure. 2 To mitigate this privacy encroachment perception and promote a much friendlier scenario for surrounding neighbors, staff is suggesting that detached ASDU be limited to the same height as all other pennitted accessory structures, which is single story or 15 ft., whichever is less. In addition, as indicated above, detached ASDU should only be allowed on lots having a total buildable area of 15,000 sq. ft. or more. Two story ASDUs may be pennitted when attached to the primary residence to convey a room addition look instead of a second unit. Additional requirement that protect the privacy of the surrounding residence is also provided in item 4, Building Setbacks and 7, Design Guidelines. Recommendation: Based on the analysis of the issue, staff recommends the following changes to the adopted accessory second dwelling unit ordinance. . Detached ASDU should be limited to single story or fifteen (15) ft*, whichever is less, and may not be located on top of a detached garage, or other detached structure. When attached, above, or in a basement of the primary residence, an ASDU shall observe the same maximum height restrictions as the primary residence. ASDUs should be located on the same building pad elevation as the primary residence or on the same building pad elevation where the parking serving the second unit is located. . . . Height of an accessory second dwelling unit is measured from the highest point of the roojline to the average contact on the finish grade. 4. Building Setbacks: Issue: Under the current ordinance, an ASDU may be located within 5 ft. ofthe rear and interior side property lines, and a minimum of 10 ft. from adjacent neighbor's primary residence and other ASDU. The concern with the current regulations is the proximity of ASDU to property lines. Concerned citizens suggested that the ASDU be required to meet the same building setbacks as the primary residence for attached, detached, above or basement structures. Also, a concern is ASDU built at the top of slopes overlooking surrounding neighbor's yards and bedroom windows. This issue is discussed in item 3 above. Analysis: Taking into consideration the issues and concerns above, the previously adopted ordinance and previously approved ASDUs, staff concluded that by definition ADUs are added living space to the lot and therefore concurs that ASDUs should be subject to the same building setbacks as the primary residence. However, The Planning Commission recommended a 10-foot side yard setback on both sides (typically is 10 and 3 ft.) to provide additional separation and prevent privacy issues. Staffs only concern is that the 10-foot side yard setback on both sides could potentially constrain the location of an ADU in relationship with the primary residence. For this reason it is suggested that the following exceptions from the required building setbacks be incorporated in the ASDU development regulations: I) Interior side yard should be 5 ft. minimum, instead of 3 ft.; and 2) attached second story side yard setback should be 10ft. minimum. This is in addition to complying with the setbacks prescribed in the zoning ordinance for the primary residence Another issue staff identified is the current ordinance 6- foot separation requirement from the primary residence. In some instances this 6-foot separation becomes the primary residence open spacelback yard. This narrow space is a poor quality open space, untypical for single-family 3 residential development. To address this issue, staffrecommends that the building separation be a minimum of 12 ft., and that this separation be used as the private yard for the primary residence. Two of the previously approved ASDUs are located in close proximity to top of slopes, which make the structure significantly more predominant (see Exhibit F-I, F-2 and H). The combination of greater building setbacks, design standards requiring the orientation of windows and doors away from adjacent homes and yards, and limiting these structures to single story when they are not attached to the existing house, should provide a sufficient safeguard to resolve the privacy issue. Recommendations: Accessory second dwelling units shall observe the same building setback requirements as the primary residence with the following exceptions: a. Attached ASDU - second story b. Detached ASDU - separation from primary res. c. Down or up slopes - rear and side yards setbacks d. Rear yard exceptions 10 ft. side yard 12 ft. Measured from top/toe of slope. No exceptions 5. Lot Coverage/Floor Area Ratio: Issue: To preserve the single family residential quality of neighborhoods, the lot coverage/floor area ratio (FAR) should be the same as the for the primary residence. Analysis: Currently, the adopted ordinance allows the lot coveragelfloor area ratio (FAR) to exceed 5% above RI 45% lot coveragelFAR. The buildable area and permitted living space square footage for single family lots is substantial and proportionate to the lot size. For example: a 7,000 sq. ft. lot could house a 3,150 sq. ft. building or buildings, in addition to 300 sq. ft open accessory structures such as patio covers, porches, etc. The additional 5% lot coverage/FAR adds about 350 sq. ft. on a 7,000 sq. ft lot. Staff suggests that the lot coverage/FAR requirement be the same as that required for the primary residence. However, with the added development parameters and design guidelines, the additional 5% FAR could be incorporated in a much more cohesive manner, ifit is desired. Recommendations: Accessory second dwelling units should be limited to the maximum lot coveragelF AR allowed in the corresponding zone district for the primary residence. 6. Parking Requirements: Issue: Residents of neighborhoods where ASDU are being built and other concerned citizens are concern about the impact the additional vehicles will have on already congested residential streets. Analysis: The last two years of ASDU the Building Division issued a total of 76 permits. Of this total, 44 units were one bedroom and 32 units were two bedroom units. Building permits for three bedroom ASDUs have not been issued. Under the current ASDU ordinance, these one and two bedrooms ASDUs require only one off-street parking space, which is easy to accommodate on the lOft side yard setback. Three bedrooms require an additional off street space for a total of 4 two spaces. Perhaps the reason why we have not approved three bedroom ASDUs is because accommodating two parking spaces behind the front setback is difficult, particularly when the current ASDU ordinance does not allow tandem parking. Further analysis of this issue, revealed that to encourage the use of off-street parking and avoid tenants parking on the street, the off-street parking space dedicated to the ASDU should be easily accessible without complicated vehicle maneuvers, conveniently located and well connected to the main entrance of the second unit. The pedestrian connection should be level without drastic changes in elevation or long climbs on exterior stairs. The parking space is required to be screened from public view to avoid potential visual impacts and avoid the multifamily residential appearance. If the parking screening is achieved by providing a gate, the gate should have an automatic gate opener for added convenience and encourage the use of designated off-street parking space. Recommendations: That parking facilities observe the following development standards: a. Vehicular access to designated parking space serving the ASDU shall be from a dedicated street, alley and dedicated private-street or drives serving the primary residence. Access from a separate utility easement or similar condition shall not be permitted. b. ASDU parking space or garage shall be for parking purpose only, and shall be enforced by the property owner. c. Parking screening consisting of a decorative wall or fence, or other similar solution, satisfactory to the Director of Planning and Building, shall be provided to screen the vehicle from public view. If a gate is used to screen the vehicle(s) from public view, an automatic gate/door opener shall be provided and maintained for the duration of the use. d. Parking shall not be allowed where an RV parking permit has been issued for the storage of a recreational vehicle. e. In the event that the primary residence does not include a two-car garage, approval of an accessory second dwelling unit shall include the construction of a two-car garage for the primary residence, per Section 19.62 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The garage shall be conveniently located to serve the primary residence, and not the second unit. f. Parking for an ASDU shall be conveniently located to serve the ASDU and located on the same building pad elevation as the ASDU g. Access to an on-site parking space shall require a new curb cut or widening of the existing curb cut. However, the existing driveway and curb cut may be utilized if the primary residence access driveway is 50 ft. feet deep, or deeper and vehicular ingress and egress does not interfere with the normal use of the primary residence's access driveway. 7. Design Standards: Issue: The current ASDU ordinance contains provisions requiring ASDU design to be consistent in architectural style with the primary residence and compatible with the surrounding residential properties. During the Planning Commission workshops and in written correspondence concerned citizens have stated that the current ordinance does not provide appropriate design standards to promote the construction of cohesive building design and well adapted to the primary residence architecture. To make sure the design standards are observed, concerned citizens suggest the use of the Design Review process to approve ASDUs. 5 Analysis: To be more effective, design standards should clarify the design compatibility in more detail and provides additional site design development parameters. For example, one of the possible design standards is a more detailed parameters to locate the required off-street parking space and pedestrian linkage to the accessory second dwelling unit entrance. Staff also suggests that unit entrance and orientation, open space, pedestrian connection to ASDU entrance and other site design features be outlined more clearly in the ordinance. Our recommendation below includes such design standards. With regard to using the DRC process for approval of ASDUs, the state statue is very clear about the process to approve ASDU. Design review is an administrative process involving a public hearing and therefore cannot be used to approve accessory second dwelling units. However, more detailed design guidelines/standards can be utilized during the building permit process to achieve a higher quality residential product. If the guidelines/standards are not met, the building permit should not be issued. Recommendations: The following design guidelines/standards shall be met pnor to the approval ofthe building permit: a. Matching Architectural Design - The lot shall retain a single-family appearance by incorporating matching architectural design, building materials, color and, if provided, covered/enclosed parking, shall match those of the primary dwelling. However, the primary residence may be modified to match the new accessory second dwelling unit. Matching architectural design components between the primary residence and the accessory second dwelling unit shall include, but not limited to: I) 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. Color photographs of the four sides of the primary residence shall be submitted as part of the accessory second dwelling unit Building Permit application. b. Unit Entrance - Attached accessory second dwelling unit main entrance shall not be located on the same side of the building where the primary residence's main entrance is located. For detached accessory second dwelling units, the entrance shall be located away from public right-of-way view. c. Open Space - Usable rear yard open space to serve the primary residence shall be an area equal to 50% of the required rear building setback area. Access to the open space shall be contiguous, direct and without obstruction or narrow connections. A 60 sq. ft. contiguous patio area, balcony, or deck shall be provided for attached and detached accessory second dwelling units. d. Pedestrian Connection - A three (3) foot wide pedestrian walk shall be provided to connect the accessory second dwelling unit with the designated parking space and public sidewalk. The pedestrian walk shall be strategically located to provide the shortest walking distance. e. Privacy - Second story windows shall be staggered and wherever possible oriented away from the closest adjacent residence. The location and orientation of balconies or deck shall also be oriented away from adjacent neighbor backyard and living space windows. f Special Parking Width - When abutting a fence or wall, parking stall width shall be a minimum of 10ft. wide. 6 g. Parking Restriction/Front Yard Landscaping - Pursuant to Section] 9.62.] 50 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the total combination of driveway and adjacent parking areas shall not occupy more than 50% ofthe front or exterior side yard. 8. Occupancy Requirement: Issue: Residents are concerned that if both homes (primary residence and ASDU) become rentals, the maintenance of the property and the behavior of the tenants may be detrimental to the neighborhood. If the property owner is required to live in one of the units these problems may not occur. Analysis: The Court of Appeals struck down a Santa Monica statute requiring the occupant of the ASDU to be a dependent of the owner. The decision is based upon the theory that government cannot regulate the identity of the occupant on privacy grounds. However, there is a ] 996 decision involving San Dimas, which upheld a local government's condition requiring the applicant of the ASDU to be the owner and occupant of the main structure. The court noted that condition ran with the land. The San Dimas decision did not address privacy related issues, only whether the Government Code extended the local government authority to impose such a condition. Several cities in the region have regulations requiring the owner to live in one of the units. In staffs opinion, the property owner living on-site could provide maintenance oversight and protect the residential neighborhood quality and character. Recommendations: The property owner shall reside on the parcel on which the accessory second dwelling unit is located or constructed. The owner can occupy either the main structure or accessory second dwelling unit. The accessory second dwelling unit shall not be sold as a separate ownership, only in conjunction with the sale of the primary residence. This requirement shall be set forth in a Land Use Agreement (see Section 9) in a fonn acceptable to the City Attorney. 9. Land Use Agreement: Issue: Residents are concerned about the accessory second dwelling units may impact the quality of single family residential neighborhoods and are suggesting the use of a land use development agreement as a legal mechanism to reduce the potential impacts on existing single family residential neighborhoods. Analysis: Chapter ]8.31, Second Unit Requirements, of the City of Vista Municipal Code (see Exhibit I) requires applicants to enter into a regulatory agreement with the City as a pre-requisite to obtain a building pennit for an accessory second dwelling unit. The land use agreement could be an instrument to memorialize the development, maintenance and land use parameters, including architectural compatibility with surrounding neighborhood that the accessory second dwelling unit must comply and remain in compliance with. The agreement could also be used if the unit is "affordable." The land Use Agreement is a boilerplate agreement, in a fonn acceptable to the City Attorney that could be prepared by city staff for each individual case and delivered to the applicant for recordation. The deed restriction should be properly recorded in the County of San Diego Recorder's office prior to issuance of a building permit for a second dwelling unit. This deed 7 restriction shall run with the land; insure to the benefit of the City of Chula Vista as well as to the benefit of other residential property owners within the subdivision; and cotenninous in tenure with the life of the accessory second dwelling unit. Recommendations: A Land Use Agreement or covenant must be recorded with the San Diego County Recorder's office prior to issuance of a building pennit for the construction and habitation of an accessory second dwelling unit. 10. Notification Issue: A desire to notify residents prior to the construction of an accessory second dwelling unit has been expressed by the Planning Commission, City Council and concerned citizens of Chula Vista. The notification would allow neighbors to speak with each other and resolve the differences, if necessary, before a building pennit application for an accessory second dwelling unit is submitted to the City. Notification to residents within 100 ft. has been suggested Analysis: The City Attorney has advise that the government statues do not allow us to conduct a public hearing as a prerequisite to approve these type of dwelling units. The State mandates that these units be processed ministerially subject to established local development regulations. One possible alternative is to require that the applicant be responsible for such notification. In turn, the applicant has the opportunity to accept or decline input from those notified. Under this scenario, the property owner notifies the three immediately adjacent property owners (sides abutting the property, and rear) as well as a minimum of three continuous properties directly across the street about hislher intent to build an ASDU. The notification could be in the fonn provided by the City. Since the State mandates that these units be processed ministerially, the property owner does not have to obtain the consent or approval from the neighbors, only provide them with a courtesy notice of their intent. It is up to the owner if he/she wishes to change the plans to accommodate the neighbor's requests. Recommendations: Notify the three immediately adjacent property owners (sides abutting the property, and rear) as well as a minimum of three continuous properties directly across the street about hislher intent to build an ASDU. Based on neighbor's input modify the project as deemed before applying for a building pennit. 11. Exceptions and Modifications: Issue: The current Zoning Ordinance contains provisions granting the Director of Planning and Building the authority to waive compliance with Section 19.58.022 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, which requires the primary residence to comply with the two-car garage requirement when applying for an accessory second dwelling unit. The concern is allowing a deviation from the strict interpretation of the CVMC without public participation and due process. Analysis: Although the intent of the ordinance is to expedite and simplify the process, Staff understands the need for public input and endorsement. Thus. requests to deviate from the strict interpretation of the CVMC should be as prescribed in Section 19.14 of the Zoning Ordinance, which involves in most cases a public hearing variance 8 Recommendations: requests to deviate form the CVMC should be processed as prescribed in Section 19.14 of the Zoning Ordinance, and not granted by the Director of Planning and Bui1ding. 12. Approval/Inspection Processes: Issue: Concerned residents have complained about completed project not meeting the intent or regulations of the ASDU ordinance. During the planning commission workshops and in written correspondence, it was suggested to include four inspections during the permitting and construction process: I) prior to accepting the building permit application; 2) prior to building permit approval; 3) prior to final inspection; and 4) an annual site inspection. Analysis: Currently, staff conducts two out the four suggested site inspections. One inspection prior to approval of building permits approval and a second prior to final inspection. The first and fourth suggested inspection above could involve substantial staff time and cost for the department. The annual inspection could also be time consuming and may require additional resources. Our current system, which is based on complaints, added to the suggested land use agreement should give Code Enforcement Officer good basis to enforce any problem or deviation from the original approval parameters. However, if no complaints are made, no further inspections are conducted. Recommendations: The building permit process should include staff visit to the project site to verify that the drawings submitted for an accessory second dweJling unit are accurate with regard to grading, on-site building location, primary residence design color and materials composition, and location of adjacent structures. Any discrepancies must be corrected to verify that the proposal complies with this and other related sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code before the building permit is approved. Also, prior to final inspection, Planning staff shall conduct an inspection to verify that that the project was constructed and completed per approved plans, and that the required covenant outlining the accessory second dwelling unit requirements has been filed and recorded and complied with prior to occupancy. 13. Affordable Housing Issues: Since the purpose of the State Statue is to provide affordable housing, introduce an affordable housing restriction, requiring a low-income household, or a qualified caregiver occupies the ASDU. A low-income household is a household, which has a gross income of less than 80% of the San Diego County median, adjusted for househ01d size. Analysis: City staff is of the opinion that this option is feasible in terms of requiring the applicant to enter into an affordable housing agreement. However, it is also staffs opinion that just providing the second dwelling unit alone is a significant contribution to the city's affordable housing stock. One of the concerns with the affordable housing requirement is enforcing and monitoring the affordable housing agreements. This program could be substantially involved and may require additional resources not previously anticipated. 9 Recommendation: Staff will continue working on this possible alternative, but recommends that the affordable housing requirement not be included in the possible ASDU ordinance amendment. 14. One Property, One Address Issues: Concerned residents have complained about allowing separate street address for the primary residence and the ASDU. Analysis: Per the Engineering Department and the Chula Vista Post Office regulations, a separate address must be provided for the ASDU, since it is a separate living unit from the primary residence. Therefore, a two mailbox must be provided on the site that is visible to the postmaster from the street. Recommendation: Continue to require separate street address for the primary residence and ASDU. 10 PCA 06-02 Staff Report ATTACHMENT 3 Accessory Second Dwelling Unit Workshop Chula Vista High School January 11, 2007 Issues List I. 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 BPA through this method. 3. Include provisions that will allow the Planning Commission to approve a maximum 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 of850 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 of 9' 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. 7. An attached ASDU eliminates the rear yard, so should be prohibited. RESPONSE: New regulations requiring access from primary residence to rear yard wil1 insure that an attached ASDU is appropriate. 8. Why are ASDU's excluded from upper pads m up-slope situations m 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)(l)(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 peffilitted. 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 accommodate parking. RESPONSE: Language wil1 be proposed that specifies that parking and access areas shall be kept free of utility structures. 12. How should al1ey 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 peffilitted if they meet State or federal standards for residential construction and are placed on a peffilanent foundation, and they 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. PCA 06-02 Staff Report ATTACHMENT 4 March 1, 2007 4f4R /, .?OO? From: Tim Siewert 642 Robert Avenue Chu]a Vista, CA. 91910 Attn: John Schmitz Rc: Thc City's plan to update the rules for second dwelling units. To Whom It May Concern, I have some concerns with the article that 1 read in the Star-News about changing the requirements for second dwelling units in the City ofChula Vista. I realize that some havc taken advantage of the 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.Jl. minimum. I lee] 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 cxisting coverage of 1800 sq.ft. including my existing house and detached garage, which is 19% of my lot. A property of ] 0,000 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 bc a detcrming factor for requirements. Lot coverage would be a more fair way to determine req uirements. 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, 1 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 thc books, such as coverage, floor area ratios, and setbacks. Thank you for \,ourlonsideration, .,~C~ Tim Siewert (619) 426-5902 PCA 06-02 Staff Report ATTACHMENT 5 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 of the 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 II 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 15061(b)(3)(General Rule) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and, 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 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 PCA 06-02 Staff Report ATTACHMENT 6 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 t 9.58.022 increasing the maximum allowable floor area for an accessory second dwelling unit trom 650 to 850 square-feet; increasing the number of parking spaces required for 3-bedroom units trom 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 penmit 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 detenmine 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 detenmined 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 and after hearing staffs presentation and public testimony, voted _to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed amendments, in accordance with the draft City Council Ordinance; 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, 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 I-That Section 19.58.022 of the Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 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. B. 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 ofCVMC Section 19.58.022.C. "Attached" means that 50% ofthe accessory second dwelling unit's wall. floor or ceiling will be shared with the primary residence on the property (Exhibit B.1). "Basement" shall mean the same as defined in CVMC 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 trom the tront plane of the primary residence at least 50 % the distance between the tront and back planes of the pnmary residence (Exhibit B.2). Accessory 2nd Dwelling Primary Residence 50% of wall, floor or ceiling Exhibit B. 1 - "Attached" 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 8.3). "Detached" means an accessory Rear PIJ second unit separated rrom the primary residence as specified in CYMC 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 I ~rtY.Li",:",,-, --t I I Primary ,-- - Besw""c<> 1-- I STREET Exhibit B. 3 - "Buildable Pad Area" C. Accessory second dwelling units shall be subject to the following requirements and development standards: F;:O;;\P1;;eu U U 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 CYMC Section 19.58.022, and all other applicable CYMC 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 rrom 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 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 (Detached not permitted) Attached, above, or basement (Detached not permitted) 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 subject 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 often-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 oftweJve 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 driveway is no longer necessary for the access to the converted garage or other required 4 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 trom a public street, alley or a recorded access easement. Access trom a designated utility easement or similar condition shall not be pennitted. 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 trom the public right-of-way to on-site parking spaces shall be acceptable to the City Engineer. An encroachment pennit trom 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 trom the back of the public sidewalk to the tront of the primary structure, and vehicular ingress and e6'Tess does not interfere with the nonnal use of the driveway for access to the primary residence's required parking. g. Required parking spaces or required maneuvering area shall be tree 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 otherrequirements of this section. \. Parking screening consisting of a decorative wall, fence, or other technique satisfactory to the Zoning Administrator, shall be provided to screen the required parking spaces trom public view. If a gate is used to screen the required parking space(s) trom 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 RY parking pennit 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 trom 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 Nonconfonning Situations - For the purpose of evaluating existing non- confonning 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 nonconfonning 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 pennits 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 trom the City or its solid waste and recycling contractor for both the primary residence and the accessory second dwelling unit. 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 fTom public view and will not compromise any required open space areas. t3. 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. 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 penmit, the Planning Division staff shall conduct a field inspection to verify the drawings submitted for the penmit 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 CVMe. b. Prior to. or concurrent with the final inspection of the new accessory second dwelling unit and the issuance of an occupancy penmit 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. IS. Occupancy Requirement - The owner of the property shall reside on the lot on which the accessory second dwelling unit is located or constructed. The accessory second dwelling unit shall not be sold separately, only in conjunction with the sale of the primary residence. 16. Land Use Agreement - Concurrent with the issuance of building penmits 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 occupancy and 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 ofthe annual report. 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 James Sandoval Director of Planning and Building Ann Moore City Attorney J:\PlanningVohnS\ZO Updatc\Interim-Maint Issues\2nd Unit Ord\Ord Drafts\ASDU Draft Ordinance - Staff report attachmcnt.doc 8