HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/4/2020 Item 8, Ridley
Wilbanks, Megan
From:bryan ridley <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:February 4, 2020 | Item 8
Honorable Mayor and City Council members,
There is no need for an emergency ordinance, it is far more important to get it right. Emergency
ordinances should be reserved for real public safety emergencies, while the normal process of readings,
public comment, and council deliberation should be maintained for everything else. The argument for the
emergency ordinance is that the State ADU law “could result in projects receiving approval that are
inconsistent with the City’s regulatory scheme, which is established to protect public peace, health,
safety, or welfare.” This speculative argument is undone in the staff report as it states that ADU
construction annually is likely to total 30-50 units and that fiscal impacts would be insignificant because of
the “relatively small number of additional units anticipated to be spread out across the City.” Which one is
it? An emergency? Or an insignificant impact City-wide? I believe that very few people would recognize
this as an emergency.
Within the ordinance the 16’ height limit is an onerous one, forcing any multi-story ADU or an ADU above
a garage to be processed through the Director’s Action process. City staff presents this as a minor step
but it is a substantial one for property owners when compared to the ministerial process intended by the
State’s laws. A Director’s Action:
Adds permitting fees of $891 vs $0.
Adds ambiguity regarding what will compel the Director to approve a structure taller than 16’.
Adds lengthy review delays of at least 8 weeks and a week of appeal opportunity, more than doubling the
60 day ministerial permit timeline.
Opens the proposed ADU to public notice and appeal and extensive delays.
The reason for the height limit is presented in the staff report as derived from concerns for solar access
and privacy. This differs from what I was told in conversations with planning staff- it was cited as a means
to regulate setbacks with the suggestion that an ADU that met the development standards of the
underlying zone would be a strong candidate for Director’s Action approval. The State’s Department of
Housing and Community Development has made it clear that setbacks cannot be regulated beyond the 4’
minimum identified by statute and this appears to be an attempt at a workaround. The concerns about
height and setbacks relative to solar access and privacy are unsupported in the staff report by any kind of
data and are therefore simply based in an anecdotal fear of the worst. That’s not how to write good
legislation and we need to approach our housing shortage not with worries but with bold leadership.
ADUs are an essential and sustainable tool for adding density to existing neighborhoods where
infrastructure is already in place and services are near. Simply put, ADUs support housing and climate
action goals.
The proposed 16’ height maximum will discourage people from pursuing multi-story ADUs and ADUs over
garages, both good methods for adding density while preserving valuable private outdoor spaces. The
height limit represents a major restriction over the previous ADU ordinance. In that ordinance ADUs
located over garages were allowed a 5’ setback up to the height limit of the underlying zone. Compared to
the new 4’ setback that the State law would allow without the proposed height limit the difference in
1
setback is only 1’, from 5’ to 4’. That is certainly not an emergency and there is no need to regulate it via
discretionary review.
Regarding Item #8 (ADU Ordinance) I strongly urge the council to proceed with Alternative 3 to continue
the permanent amendments to a future date and decline to adopt the emergency ordinance.
I will also be present at the hearing Tuesday night to share some additional thoughts, thank you.
bryan ridley ARCHITECT
2