HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/3/2020 Item 09, Correia
Tonikian, Victoria
From:cristina correia <tinapires@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, February
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:ADU ordinance
Hi. I would like to meet with each of you regarding the verbiage for MFR detached ADU's. The attached vs detached ADU's on MFR
are treated very differently per state law. Each version has its own specific ways that the ADU can be created with limiting language
in the attached version and completely unlimited creation with detached units.
The word "new" in Section 3, 4, a, ii is misleading and needs to be removed or clarified. In this version of ADU creation, you can
create the ADU by converting existing square footage of a separate main residence, covert a non-habitable space into ADU, build a
completely new construction ADU, ect). The word "new" is misleading in that it can be interpenetrated to mean new
construction. There is no limiting language allowed under this scenario.
There is also a size limit to attached and no size limit to detached allowed. The verbiage in Section 3, 4, c "Limitation on number" is
also misleading because it confuses the attached MFR limitations with the detached (no size limit allowed) verbiage from the state.
Section 3, 4, d. "Lots with both a Multifamily Structure and Single-Family Structure or Duplex" is also misleading. While it is true
that Provisions for accessory dwelling units on lots with multifamily structures cannot be combined with provisions for lots with
single-family structures or duplexes, or vice versa, it is also true that in that scenario, the SFR can be converted to an ADU and
another ADU can be added to that lot in order to achieve the detached MFR scenario. Or the SFR (if there is additional density left on
that lot) can also become a MFR in order to achieve that same detached ADU scenario.
Because the city's ordinance is so muddy in these areas and staff intends to use this confusion to limit development in the way the state
is requiring, we have a situation. The best case scenario is that the state sees through the city's intentions to limit growth and kicks it
back to staff to correct. The worst case scenario is that the verbiage is so muddy that the state misses the intention and approves it,
staff implements it to restrict detached MFR growth, and the city is open to litigation. A state approval of muddy language does NOT
make the intended implementation legal. In addition to this language not being compliant with ADU law, it is also not compliant with
the Housing Accountability Act as that says that no housing project should be denied on any grounds but health and safety. The way
that this ADU ordinance is written is putting our city at risk. Not to mention that preventing growth in a city that so badly needs it is
morally wrong.
Please add these notes to the city council meeting and call me to set up a meeting.
Cristina Pires
805-710-9111
1