HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports /2007/03/14 (2)
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. Speth man 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
HONresidents 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. Speth man 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 21st is tentatively slated for a Special
Meeting and February 24'h is the DRC tour.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 5 -
February 14, 2007
Commission Comments:
Cmf. 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
(HULA VISTA
PLANNING
COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: .1
Meeting Date: 3/14/07
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
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
ITEM TITLE:
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
determine whether changes were necessary. Staff conducted a series of workshop sessions with
the Planning Commission at the end of 2005 and early 2006, which identified a number of ways
that accessory second dwelling units could be made more compatible with single family
neighborhoods. 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 unreasonably restrict the
ability ofthe 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 of the existing ordinance and identified a
number of new or modified regulations that could be added to the code to insure better
compatibility of new units with their surrounding neighborhoods. Attached to this report is a
summary of the issues, analysis and staffrecommendations 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 11 meeting and
staff's responses is included as Attachment 3 to this report. As a result of the newspaper article
relating to the January 11 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 wil1 be reviewed in the fol1owing 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, RI 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" (BPA) concept
that would dictate unit size based upon the flat useable areas of a lot. Areas with slopes greater
than 50% (2 horizontal to I vertical) would not be included in the Buildable Pad Area. After the
BP A has been established, a sliding scale for unit size would be applied that would prohibit
accessory second dwelling units on lots with less than 5,000 sq. ft. ofBPA. Allowed unit sizes
would begin with 450 square feet on lots of5,000 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 of BP A.
A second criterion used in conjunction with the BPA 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 BPA. 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. BP A 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.
( :>
I Orie:inal BPA I
New
retaining
wall
WHERE ON THE LOT CAN A UNIT GO?
During the Planning Commission workshops, there was much public concern with the perceived
loss of privacy fTom 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 BPA
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 staff s 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 11, 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 15
foot wide road or easement width for serving one lot. In some instances the house on the
rront 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 from 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 from 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 rrom such an area except for the front 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 from public view and
not interfere with required open space.
Historic Preservation
To reflect the City of Chula Vista's renewed interest in preserving historic homes and sites, the
new regulations 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 California constitutional right to privacy. Staff is
aware of another case (Sounhein v. City of San Dimas) where the Court of Appeal upheld
an ordinance that included a provision that the owner of the property be the occupant of
the primary residence or the second unit. Staff 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 format acceptable to the
County Recorder so it can be recorded on title to the property and run with the land as long as the
second unit exists.
Annual Report
The Planning Commission 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 detennined that it is not site
specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations Section
I 8704.2(a)(I) is not applicable to this decision.
FISCAL IMPACT
The adoption of this ordinance amendment may reduce the number of building pennit
applications received by the City ofChula 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 pennits or activities.
ATTACHMENTS
I Government Code Sections Relating to Second Units
2 2005106 Staff's Issues Analysis for PC Workshops
3 Issues/Questions from 1111107 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\Staff Reports\PC Agenda Statcment.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) (I) 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.
(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.
(I) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal
system is being used, if required.
(2) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for
the denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision.
(3) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies
shall use to evaluate proposed second units on lots zoned for residential use
which contain an existing single-family dwelling.
No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision or
subdivision (a), shall be utilized or imposed, except that a local agency may
require an applicant for a 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) IILiving area,lI means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit
including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory
structure.
(2) IILocal agency" means a city, county, or city and county, whether
general law or chartered.
(3) For purposes of this section, II ne ighborhood 11 has the same meaning as
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),
except that the local government shall not be required to hold public
hearings for coastal development permit applications for second units.
3
PCA 06-02 Staff Report
A TT ACHMENT 2
2005/06 Accessory Second Dwelling Unit Issues Evaluation
I. 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 CYMe. 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 area/ASDU 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 of 750 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 !evelfinislt 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-I and E-2). Conversely, attached accessory second dwelling units tend to look just like
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 acceS!J'ory second dwelling unit is measured from the highest point of the roofline to the
average contact on the finish grade.
4.
Building Setbacks:
Issue: Under the current ordinance, an ASDU may be located within 5 ft. of the 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 lO-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: 1) 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, staff recommends 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 CoveragelFloor Area Ratio:
Issue: To preserve the single family residential quality of neighborhoods, the lot coverage!f1oor
area ratio (FAR) should be the same as the for the primary residence.
Analysis: Currently, the adopted ordinance allows the lot coverage!f1oor area ratio (FAR) to
exceed 5% above Rl 45% lot coverage/FAR. 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 pennitted.
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 pennit 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 pennit process to
achieve a higher quality residential product. If the guidelines/standards are not met, the building
pennit should not be issued.
Recommendations: The following design guidelines/standards shall be met pnor to the
approval of the building pennit:
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: 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. Color
photographs of the four sides of the primary residence shall be submitted as part of the
accessory second dwelling unit Building Pennit 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
trom 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 lOft. wide.
6
g. Parking Restriction/Front Yard Landscaping - Pursuant to Section 19.62.150 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code, the total combination of driveway and adjacent parking areas shall not
occupy more than 50% of the 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
1996 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 fOnTI 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 18.31, 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 penTIit 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 fOnTI 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 coterminous 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 permit 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 permit application for an accessory second dwelling
unit is submitted to the City. Notification to residents within 100 ft. has been suggested
Ana]ysis: 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 ]ocal 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 his/her intent to build an ASDU. The notification could be in the
form 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 permit.
] ]. 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 ofthe 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 ]9.14 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
Building.
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 dwelling 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% ofthe San Diego County median, adjusted for household 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 staff's 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 BP A
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 of 850 square feet.
4. Include provisions for trash enclosures.
RESPONSE: Single-family homes typically are not required to have enclosures.
However, staff can propose language that would specify that trash and recycle containers
be screened and located so as not to be visible from the public ROW or take up required
open space.
5. The 10' width of a parking stall is too narrow. Should be bigger.
RESPONSE: The standard width for a parking space is 9'. Standard garage width is 20'.
Normally, a 9' space with no obstacles is appropriate, but if abutting a structure (house,
fence, etc.) the proposed width is 10', and there is a proposed provision for a 3' walkway
from the parking space to the ASDU. There is a history 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 will
insure that an attached ASD U is appropriate.
8. Why are ASDU's excluded from upper pads In up-slope situations In the new
regulations?
RESPONSE: New rules for ASDUs are intended to minimize visual impacts, protect
privacy and preserve single-family neighborhood characteristics.
9. Can the number of ASDU's be limited through infrastructure capacity?
RESPONSE: Yes, the number of ASDU's can be limited in number based on
infrastructure capacity. Section 65852.2(a)(I)(A), California Government Code, states:
"Any local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of second units in single-
family and multifamily residential zones. The ordinance may... designate areas within
the jurisdiction of the local agency where second units may be pennitted. 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 nwnber 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."
11. Relocate utility fixtures if necessary to accommodate parking.
RESPONSE: Language will be proposed that specifies that parking and access areas
shall be kept free of utility structures.
12. How should alley access situations be handled? What is the criterion?
RESPONSE: Criteria is included in Section 19.58.022.C.7.
13. Will RV's or manufactured homes be pennitted as ASDU's?
RESPONSE: Manufactured homes would be pennitted if they meet State or federal
standards for residential construction and are placed on a penn anent foundation, and they
meet all the design and development requirements for an ASDU including unit size based
upon the BPA. 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
Af4R
I,
200;
From: Tim Siewert
642 Robert Avenue
Chula Vista, CA. 91910
Attn: John Schmitz
Re: The City's plan to update the rules for second dwelling units.
To Whom It May Concern,
I have some concerns with the article that I read in the Star-News about changing the
requirements for second dwelling units in the City of Chula Vista. I realize that some have taken
advantage of the present rules and built projects that didn't please the community. Please
remember that this was a minority ofthe projects submitted and should not require a major
reevaluation of the existing requirements. My biggest concern is the requirement of setting
arbitrary lot sizes as the factor that decides whether the unit can be attached or detached. I noted
that a detached unit must have a lot size of 10,000 sq.ft. minimum. I feel that this is unfair in that
it does not take into account the existing coverage on the lot. My lot is 9700 sq.ft., which
according to the article would not allow me to have a detached second dwelling unit. I have an
approximate existing coverage of 1800 sq.ft. including my existing house and detached garage,
which is 19% of my lot. A property of 10,000 sq.ft. with 3200 sq.n. of existing coverage, which
is 32% of the lot, will be allowed to have a detached unit. As you can see lot size should not be a
detenning factor for requirements. Lot coverage would be a more fair way to detennine
requirements.
I know that another concern is neighborhood privacy. Even though we are living in a city and
should expect less privacy than a rural setting, I have no problem with the city not allowing
housing on hillsides, and I also think a detached second dwelling should be restricted to one-
story. Other than that, I think that these units can be restricted by requirements that are already
on the books, such as coverage, 1100r area ratios, and setbacks.
Thank you for \,oUflonsideration,
.,CC~
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 I 5061 (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 19.58.022 increasing the maximum allowable floor area for an accessory second dwelling
unit from 650 to 850 square-feet; increasing the number of parking spaces required for 3-bedroom
units from one space to 2 spaces; and modifying other property development standards; and,
WHEREAS, since the adoption and amendment of the local ordinance, the City has
received over 108 building pennit 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 detennine 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 detennined 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
aud 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 1 - 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
pennanent 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% of the accessory second dwelling unit's
wall, floor or ceiling will be shared with Ihe primary residence on
the property (Exhibit B.I).
"Basement" shall mean the same as defined in CYMC Section
19.04.026.
"Behind" shall mean an accessory second dwelling unit
constructed either entirely between the rear of the primary dwelling
and the rear property line, or to the side of the primary residence but
set back from the front plane of the primary residence at least 50 %
the distance between the front and back planes of the pnmary
residence (Exhibit B.2).
Accessory 2nd
Dwelling
Primary
Residence
50%
of wall,
floor or
ceiling
Exhibit 8, 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 B.3).
"Detached" means an accessory Rear PIJ
second unit separated from 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.
~rtY.Li,:--
1"
I
I
r-
,--
I
STREET
Exhibit B. 3 - "Buildable Pad
Area"
C. Accessory second dwelling units shall be subject to the following requirements and
development standards:
.
---1
50% Bac
I
Primary
_ Baswell""
1. 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 from
R-2 and R-3 zoned lots.
F;:O;:;t P1;:;e- -- -- -
...
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 - t4,999 sq. ft.
15,000 sq. ft. or greater
STREET
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 detennined 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 pennitted
Attached, above, or basement (Detached not pennitted)
Attached, above, or basement (Detached not pennitted)
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 trom 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 confonn to
the underlying zoning and land use development standard requirements in regards to the main
or primary residence setbacks with the following exceptions:
a. All second floor units shall be located a minimum of ten- feet trom 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 trom 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 trom the top of slope.
d. A detached accessory second dwelling unit shall be located a minimum of twelve feet
trom a primary residence.
6. Lot Coverage - Accessory second dwelling units and all other structures on the lot are
limited to the maximum lot coverage pennitted 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 from a public street, alley or a recorded
access easement. Access from 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 from the public right-of-way to on-site parking spaces shall
be acceptable to the City Engineer. An encroachment pennit from the City Engineer
shall be obtained for any new or widened curb cuts.
f. The Zoning Administrator may approve the use of an existing driveway and curb cut if
the primary residence driveway is 50 ft. feet deep or deeper as measured from the back
of the public sidewalk to the front of the primary structure, and vehicular ingress and
egress does not interfere with the nonna] use of the driveway for access to the primary
residence's required parking.
g. Required parking spaces or required maneuvering area shall be free of any utility poles,
support wires. guard rails, stand pipes or meters, and be in compliance with CVMC
Section] 9.62.150.
h. Tandem parking may be allowed to satisfy required parking for an accessory second
dwelling unit if it is consistent with all other requirements of this section.
I. Parking screening consisting of a decorative wall, fence, or other technique satisfactory
to the Zoning Administrator, shan be provided to screen the required parking spaces
from public view. ]f a gate is used to screen the required parking space(s) from public
view, an automatic gate/door opener shall be provided and maintained for the duration
of the use. Parking shall not be allowed in a location where an RV 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 to ft. wide. ]f this area also serves as the pedestrian access from an
accessory second dwelling unit to the street, the paving shan be a minimum ]2 feet
wide.
k. A required parking space or garage shall be kept clear for parking purpose only. This
requirement shan 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 CVMC 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. ]n 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 CVMC
Section 19.62.] 70. 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.
]0. Waste and Recycling -]n accordance with CVMC Chapters 8.24 and 8.25, the property
owner shall establish and maintain a single refuse and recycling collection service account
fTOm the City or its solid waste and recycling contractor for both the primary residence and
the accessory second dwelling unit.
5
II. 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: 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.
b. The main entrance to an attached accessory second dwelling unit and, if applicable, a
stailWay 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 ITom 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 ITom 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 ITom adjacent residences closer than ten feet. The location and
orientation of balconies or decks shall also be oriented away tTom adjacent neighbors
backyard and living space windows.
g. Trash and recycling containers must be stored between pick-up dates in an on-site
location that is screened from public view and will not compromise any required
open space areas.
13. Designated Historical Sites - An accessory second dwelling unit may be allowed on
designated or historical sites provided the location and design of the accessory second
dwelling unit meets corresponding historical preservation requirements in place at the time
the accessory second dwelling unit is built, and complies with the requirements of this
Section including the following:
a. Regardless of the lot size that qualifies the property for an accessory second dwelling
unit, the accessory second dwelling unit shall be detached and located behind the
primary residence or historic structure.
6
b. The construction of the accessory second dwelling unit shall not result in the removal
of any other historically significant accessory structure. such as garages, outbuildings,
stables or other similar structures.
c. The accessory second dwelling unit shall be designed in substantially the same
architectural style and finished materials composition as the primary residence or
historic structure.
d. Construction of an accessory second dwelling unit shall not result in demolition,
alteration or movement of the primary residencelhistoric house and any other on site
features that convey the historic significance of the house and site.
e. If the historic house/site is under a Mills Act Contract with the City, the Contract
shall be amended to authorize the introduction of the accessory second dwelling unit
on the site.
14. Inspections - The addition of an accessory second dwelling unit to a property shall
include two site inspections at the following times:
a. Prior to the approval of the building permit, the Planning Division staff shall conduct
a field inspection to verify the drawings submitted for the permit are accurate with
regard to grading, on-site building location, primary residence design color and
materials composition, location of adjacent structures, etc. Any discrepancies on the
drawings must be corrected so that the subject property and resulting structures are in
compliance with this section and other related sections of the CVMe.
b. Prior to, or concurrent with the final inspection of the new accessory second dwelling
unit and the issuance of an occupancy permit by the Building Official, Planning
Division staff shall conduct an inspection of the lot to verify that that the accessory
second swelling unit has been constructed and the lot has been improved per the
approved plans, and that the required land use agreement outlining the accessory
second dwelling unit requirements has been filed and recorded and that all applicable
provisions of that land use agreement have been satisfied prior to occupancy.
15. 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 permits for the
construction of an accessory second dwelling unit, the property owner shall sign a Land Use
Agreement prepared by the City which sets forth the 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
of the 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 Update\lnterim.Maint Issues\2nd Unit Ord\Ord Drafu\ASDU Draft Ordinance - Staff report attachment.doc
8