AgdaPkt 2019-03-11 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

interesting and desirable examples of good residential architecture. The goal would be to allow for rear and second story additions that preserve the street -facing portions of an architecturally -significant home and preserve the features and architectural styles of the original home in the design and construction of the additions. Good examples abound. 7. Promote the Historic Preservation and Designation of Landmark -Eligible Properties Many jurisdictions more actively promote the preservation of landmark -eligible properties. A survey would be valuable, as would the creation of a non-profit that promotes this goal and provides an organizational basis for related efforts. The Mills Act is one part of the equation, but the city should promote best practices utilized elsewhere to achieve a greater degree of success and interest in its residential landmarks. 8. Eliminate Second Story ADUs over Garages Recent and ongoing changes in state law to promote accessory (or secondary dwellings as they were once called) have included many new mandates that override local jurisdiction's authority. An example is the requirement that garages and other rear yard accessory buildings be permitted to be converted to ADUs without having to comply with the typical setbacks applicable to primary dwellings. Another is to expressly prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing discretionary review procedures. Current law has been misinterpreted and misapplied by Redwood City to allow for two-story ADU structures up to 28 feet in height in close proximity to side and rear property lines. For comparison, most rear yard utility poles are about 30-32 feet in height. State law does not mandate this allowance. It only refers to ADUs over garages in one clause of the entire statute, that where such ADUs are so constructed (or allowed), they can only be subject to a 5 -foot setback. That provision is by no means worded to convey that two story height limits are mandated by state law. Cities and counties retain the ability to impose appropriate development standards as long as they do not serve to unduly prevent ADUs. The prospect of 28 -foot high buildings surrounding one's rear yard is a poorly conceived and detrimental way of providing for ADUs. The better alternative to such a divisive regulation is to incentivize ground level rear yard ADUs at or below 16-18 feet in total height, by modifying or exempting them from other regulations that would currently conflict with this more benign type of building, such as lot coverage, or in the future, FARs. Conclusion Planning Commission and public input may well provide insight into other types of programmatic reforms, but the foregoing program needs to be considered the minimum set of recommendations going forward and is achievable within 1-2 years time frame. The city should not be shy about the possibility of utilizing area or neighborhood specific