v . 0 0 5 P a g e | 1
September 17, 2024
ITEM TITLE
Proposed Code Amendment to Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations – Report of Planning Commission’s Recommendation from their August 14, 2024 Meeting
Report Number: 24-0229
Location: No specific geographic location.
Departments: Development Services and Housing and Homeless Services G.C. § 84308: No
Environmental Notice: The proposed legislative action qualifies for the “common sense” exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) , a Categorical Exemption under Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and the Categorical Exemption under Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects).
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the proposed amendment to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.58.022(C)(2)(c) and make a referral to staff to put together a public outreach strategy and conduct research into the potential impacts of increasing the allowable number of detached accessory dwelling units from one to two for parcels containing single-family dwellings citywide.
SUMMARY
This item consists of a proposed amendment to the Chula Vista Municipal Code (“CVMC”) pertaining to the number of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) allowed for parcels containing single-family dwellings, specifically CVMC Section 19.58.022(C)(2)(c). This a mendment was discussed at the June 11, 2024, City Council meeting, associated with Item 8.1 – Comprehensive Code Update. On June 25, 2024 , at the second reading of the item, the City Council directed staff to take this proposed Municipal Code amendment to the Planning Commission and return within 90 days. Consistent with Government Code Section 65857 , t he P a g e | 2
Planning Commission considered this amendment at their regularly scheduled meeting on August 14, 2024, and the item is now back before the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed legislative action for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and determined that the action qualifies for the “common sense” exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), a Categorical Exemption under Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures); and the Categorical Exemption under Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects).
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On August 14, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to C VMC Section
19.58.022(C)(2)(c) and voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 2024-11 (Attachment 1), recommending the City Council deny the amendment to increase the allowable number of detached ADUs for parcels with existing single-family dwellings from one to two. Further details from the Planning Commission meeting are provided later in this report.
DISCUSSION
Background
On June 11, 2024, the City Council consid ered Item 8.1, a comprehensive code update package containing several updates to the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Among the recommended changes were amendments to CVMC Section 19.58.022 (Accessory Dwelling Units) . The recommended action sought to clarify th e maximum size allowed for attached ADUs. During Council’s deliberations, Deputy Mayor Alonso Gonzalez made a motion to further modify CVMC 19.58.022(C)(2)(c) to increase the allowable number of detached ADUs for single-family dwellings in the City from one to two. That motion was approved by a vote of 4-1.
The comprehensive code update package presented to both the Planning Commission and City Council did not include the change proposed by Deputy Mayor Gonzalez in CVMC Section 19.58.022(C)(2)(c).
Government Code Section 65857 requires that such a modification by the legislative body be considered first by the Planning Commission before City Council takes a final action on the item. Government Code Section 65857 states:
The legislative body may approve, modify or disapprove the recommendation of the planning commission; provided that any modification of the proposed ordinance or amendment by the legislative body not previously considered by the planning commission during its hearing, shall first be referr ed to the planning commission for report and recommendation, but the planning commission shall not be required to hold a public hearing thereon. Failure of the planning commission to report within forty (40) days after the reference, or such longer period as may be designated by the legislative body, shall be deemed to be approval of the proposed modification.
At the second reading of the ordinance on June 25, 2024, staff discussed Government Section 65857’s requirements with the City Council. The City Council approved the comprehensive code package without the proposed changes to CVMC Section 19.58.022(C)(2)(c). The City Council took a separate vote, approved by a vote of 4-1, to send the suggested amendment to CVMC Section 19.58.022(C)(2)(c) back to the Pl anning P a g e | 3
Commission for consideration and recommendation. The City Council approved staff’s recommendation to come back to Council within 90 days with the results of the Planning Commission’s review.
Analysis
No housing units are proposed as part of this ac tion. However, the proposed amendment could result in a future increase in the supply of housing citywide.
In April of 2022, the City Council passed an ordinance codifying Senate Bill 9 (“SB9”) in the City of Chula Vista.
SB9 allows for a property owner in the single-family zones of R-1 and R-E to develop two primary dwelling units on the property. It also allows a property owner to split their lot into two separate parcels if they wish.
Concern was raised by the City Council regarding the impacts this state-mandated law would have in Chula Vista neighborhoods. A parcel developed under the provisions of SB9 can include up to four housing units.
In March of 2024, upon recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council resolved not to opt into Senate Bill 10 (“SB10”). SB10 would have allowed up to ten units of residential density to be developed on any parcel located in a transit rich area and/or urban infill site. Citing the potential unintended impacts of adding so much density to areas throughout the city, the City Council decided not to opt into the law’s provisions.
Under California Government Code Section 66323, each single-family zoned property is permitted to create both an ADU and a junior accessory dwelling unit (“JADU”) within the existing space of a single -family dwelling or accessory structure. Recently, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) has opined that property owners with existing or proposed single-family dwellings in single-family zones are allowed to develop one JADU, one ADU within the space of an existing or proposed single-family dwelling or access ory structure, and one detached new construction ADU in addition to the primary dwelling unit, for a combined total of four base units.
California Government Code Section 65915 sets the minimum threshold for allowing density bonus dwelling units to be added to a property when the number of the base dwelling units reaches five units. The proposed amendment to the City’s current ADU ordinance would allow for a second detached ADU to be added , increasing the base dwelling unit number to five, which would then qualify the property for density bonus.
State density bonus law would then allow an additional deed restricted unit to be developed, for a resulting total of six units on a parcel with an existing single-family dwelling and single-family zoning.
The impacts of these additional residential units to public infrastructure could be wide-ranging, significant, and unmitigated. For example, p roperties with single-family dwellings and single-family zoning taking full advantage of the proposed ADU ordinance amendment would not be required to provide additional parking for the attached ADU or JADU, the detached ADUs (if they are located within one-half mile of walking distance to public transit), or the additional unit created through density bonus if they ch oose to waive the parking requirement. In addition, pursuant to state law, ADUs and JADUs of 749 square feet or less are exempt from paying development impact fees, which means that they do not contribute to the construction of fire stations, libraries, recreation centers, parks, etc. in our community.
When used in conjunction with one or more housing laws and considering HCD’s recent interpretation of ADU law, it is clear that expanding the local ADU ordinance could have wide-ranging unintended impacts on properties, neighborhoods, and infrastructure. Staff recommend s engaging in a more in -depth research P a g e | 4
effort and returning to City Council at a future date with a set of ADU recommendations that incorporate the above-referenced laws and their interaction with one another.
Planning Commission
On August 14, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to C VMC Section
19.58.022(C)(2)(c) and voted 5 -0, recommending the City Council deny the amendment to increase the allowable number of detached ADUs for parcels with existing single-family dwellings from one to two.
During the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners raised concerns pertaining to impacts related to density, intensification of neighborhoods, parking and traffic. Other comments included concern over staff’s inability to analyze the impacts of the amendment fully and properly in the timeframe required for the Commission’s decision to be rendered. The Commission wanted more information related to the number of parcels within the city that could take full advantage of building five or six total units under the proposed amendment and other state laws. Lacking the data needed to make a fully informed decision, some Commissioners felt it would be a dereliction of their duty if they approved the amendment without the supporting data.
The Planning Commission therefore recommended denial of the amendment , by a vote of 5 -0, and recommended the City Council consider making a referral to staff to put together a public outreach strategy and conduct research into the potential impacts of increasing the allowable number of detached accessory dwelling units for parcels with single-family dwellings from one to two, the code amendment’s interrelation with other state housing and land use laws (e.g. Density Bonus, Senate Bill 9, etc.), and CEQA.
Council Consideration
The City Council is now being asked, after gaining the Planning Commission’s input and recommendation, to consider whether to adopt or reject Deputy Mayor Gonzalez’s amendment to CVMC Section
19.58.022(C)(2)(c) allowing up to two detached ADUs for parcels containing single-family dwellings where only one detached ADU is currently allowed.
Attachment 2 identifies all parcels with existing multi-family dwellings within the city. The current language of the ADU ordinance allows these properties to have up to two detached ADUs developed on them.
Attachment 3 identifies all parcels with existing single -family dwellings. The current language of the ADU ordinance sets a limit of one detached ADU on these parcels.
With the proposed amendment, almost all of the properties in Attachment 3 would potentially be impacted by allowing the development of an additional detached ADU and they would become eligible for an additional deed-restricted unit pursuant to state density bonus law. Attachment 4 identifies all parcels with existing single-family and multi-family dwellings Citywide that would be eligible for two detached ADUs.
Development Oversight Committee
Given the limited timeframe in which the item must return to City Council, staff convened an ad-hoc meeting of the Development Oversight Committee and included members from the Building Industry Association.
During the July 17, 2024, joint meeting, c oncerns were raised pertaining to parking, affordability, and the P a g e | 5
disproportionate impact to single-family residential lots west of the 805 freeway. The Committee did not take a formal action on the item.
Housing and Homeless Advisory Commission
Due to required timing to bring this item forward, Staff has not presented the proposal to the Housing and Homeless Advisory Commission (“HHAC”). However, at the October 25, 2023, meeting of the HHAC, concerns were raised about polic ies that both increase density in existing neighborhoods and negatively impact neighborhood character, with a specific concern related to parking.
CONCLUSION
The City Council can choose one of the following actions:
1. Adopt the code amendment to the CVMC Section 19.58.022(C)(2)(c), allowing two detached ADUs on single-family zoned parcels citywide.
2. Reject the code amendment, pursuant to the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
If the City Council believes further options should be explored for ADU production that exceed the existing allowable units of four, staff recommends the City Council deny the code amendment as provided and make a referral to staff to develop a public outreach strategy and thoroughly research potential impacts to parking, infrastructure, processing of applications, and other compounding state laws that impact ADU production.
The public outreach strategy would include meetings with the Housing and Homeless Advisory Commission, Development Oversight Committee and the Building Industry Association.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site-specific and consequently, the 500-foot rule found in California Code of Regulations Title 2, section 18702.2(a)(11), is not applicable to this decision for purposes of determining a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 87100, et seq.).
Staff is not independently aware and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
There is no current fiscal year to the General Fund or Development Services Fund as a result of the adoption and implementation of this action.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
There is no ongoing fiscal impact to the General Fund or Development Services Fund as a result of the adoption and implementation of this action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2024-11
2. Existing Multi-Family Dwellings Map
P a g e | 6
3. Existing Single-Family Dwellings Map
4. Impacted Parcels Citywide Under Proposed Amendment Map
Staff Contact: Chris Mallec, AICP, Senior Planner, Development Services Chris Stanley, Senior Planner, Housing and Homeless Services Department Laura C. Black, AICP, Director of Development Services
Stacey Kurz, Director of Housing and Homeless Services Department