Laserfiche WebLink
From: Jim Gernand <br />To: GRP -City Council <br />Subject: Item 9.A. Zoning Ordinance amendments related to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) <br />Date: Sunday, March 7, 20215:37:23 PM <br />CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when <br />opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. <br />Dear Honorable Council members, <br />I am in support of the 16 ft. height limit for Additional Dwelling Units. Given that this <br />ordinance allows the ADU to be constructed as close as four feet from neighboring <br />property lines, I have concerns about allowing a height taller than sixteen feet for <br />ADUs as I believe the bulk and mass of two-story structures creates an unreasonable <br />impact on the adjoining rear yards. I have already seen examples of ADUs four feet <br />from the property line that are taller than 16 ft. and they absolutely loom over the <br />neighbor's yards. I understand from the Staff report that a 16 ft. height would still <br />allow for the construction of ADUs on virtually all single-family residential lots. If <br />virtually all lots can build an ADU under the 16 ft limit, then I do not see a compelling <br />reason to allow taller than 16 feet, as it seems the stated goal of creating additional <br />affordable housing can be met with a sixteen -foot limit. Or in other words - how many <br />more units would be created if the limit was 20 feet instead? It sounds like it would be <br />a minimal increase. <br />Therefore I urge you to adopt the draft ADU ordinance "as -is" with the 16 -foot height <br />limit as presented in the Staff report on this subject. <br />Related to this issue, I suggest that if the council's consensus is for a higher limit, <br />then I suggest you adopt the 16 -foot limit under the as -of -right portion of the <br />ordinance and require any application for taller than 16 -feet be subject to planning <br />review and stipulate the higher limit will only be granted for projects that establish the <br />taller height is necessary for practical and beneficial purposes (for instance going <br />taller rather than wider to save a heritage tree) and also demonstrate that the four - <br />foot setback will not adversely impact the ability of adjacent properties to enjoy their <br />use of adjacent yards, maintaining reasonable access to sunlight and privacy (for <br />example I could envision a circumstance where a corner or oddly shaped lot could <br />accommodate the bulk of 2 -stories without impacting neighbors), but these instances <br />should be rare and subject to planning review, open to public comment, and require <br />special approval, taller than 16' four feet from property line should not be an as -of - <br />right situation. <br />I understand the goal of these changes is to encourage the creation of affordable <br />dwelling units. Yet comments made by residents during past hearings have reported <br />many of the new ADUs already constructed are only serving as additional living space <br />for the occupants of the primary dwelling. To enable intelligent management of our <br />ADU housing stock, I would like to see Redwood City create an ADU registry that <br />tracks how these new ADUs are actually being used, specifically identifying the <br />