Laserfiche WebLink
<br />32 <br /> <br />Attachment 5: Bibliography <br />Reports <br />ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS: CASE STUDY (26 pp.) <br />By United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. <br />(2008) <br />Introduction: Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) — also referred to as accessory apartments, ADUs, or granny flats <br />— are additional living quarters on single-family lots that are independent of the primary dwelling unit. The <br />separate living spaces are equipped with kitchen and bathroom facilities, and can be either attached or detached <br />from the main residence. This case study explores how the adoption of ordinances, with reduced regulatory <br />restrictions to encourage ADUs, can be advantageous for communities. Following an explanation of the va rious <br />types of ADUs and their benefits, this case study provides examples of municipalities with successful ADU <br />legislation and programs. Section titles include: History of ADUs; Types of Accessory Dwelling Units; Benefits of <br />Accessory Dwelling Units; and Examples of ADU Ordinances and Programs. <br />THE MACRO VIEW ON MICRO UNITS (46 pp.) <br />By Bill Whitlow, et al. – Urban Land Institute (2014) <br />Library Call #: H43 4.21 M33 2014 <br />The Urban Land Institute Multifamily Housing Councils were awarded a U LI Foundation research grant in fall 2013 <br />to evaluate from multiple perspectives the market performance and market acceptance of micro and small units. <br />RESPONDING TO CHANGING HOUSEHOLDS: Regulatory Challenges for Micro-units and Accessory <br />Dwelling Units (76 pp.) <br />By Vicki Been, Benjamin Gross, and John Infranca (2014) <br />New York University: Furman Center for Real Estate & Urban Policy <br />Library Call # D55 3 I47 2014 <br />This White Paper fills two gaps in the discussion regarding compact units. First, we provide a detailed analysis of <br />the regulatory and other challenges to developing both ADUs and micro -units, focusing on five cities: New York; <br />Washington, DC; Austin; Denver; and Seattle. That analysis will be helpful not only to the specific jurisdictions we <br />study, but also can serve as a model for those who what to catalogue regulations that might get in the way of the <br />development of compact units in their own jurisdictions. Second, as more local governments permit or encourage <br />compact units, researchers will need to evaluate how well the units built serve the goals proponents claim they will. <br />SCALING UP SECONDARY UNIT PRODUCTION IN THE EAST BAY: Impacts and Policy Implications <br />(25 pp.) <br />By Jake Webmann, Alison Nemirow, and Karen Chapple (2012) <br />UC Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development (IURD) <br />Library Call # H44 1.1 S33 2012 <br />This paper begins by analyzing how many secondary units of one particular type, detached back yard cottages, <br />might be built in the East Bay, focusing on the Flatlands portions of Berkeley, El Cerrito, and Oakland. We then <br />investigate the potential impacts of scaling up the strategy with regard to housing affordability, smart growth, <br />alternative transportation, the economy, and city budgets. A final section details policy recommendations, focusing <br />on regulatory reforms and other actions cities can take to encourage secondary unit construction, such as <br />promoting carsharing programs, educating residents, and providing access to finance. <br />8.B. - Page 82