My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2021.04.12 Joint SA PFA - Complete Agenda Packet
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2021
>
AgdaPkt 2021.04.12 Joint SA PFA - Complete Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/22/2021 4:49:08 PM
Creation date
4/22/2021 4:37:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
4/12/2021
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
516
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
From: - <br />To: GRP -City Council <br />Subject: Comment on April 12 Council meeting item 7.A., Zoning Ordinance amendments related to Accessory Dwelling <br />Units (ADU) <br />Date: Friday, April 9, 2021 1:34:38 PM <br />CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or <br />clicking links, especially from unknown senders. <br />Honorable Councilmembers, <br />I am writing to urge adoption of "ATTACHMENT C — DRAFT ADU ORDINANCE <br />(REMOVES MASSING AND PRIVACY STANDARDS)" rather than attachments A or B. <br />Most important to me, and to people needing a place to live on the <br />Peninsula, is that a 576 sq.ft. limitation *not* be imposed upon <br />second -story detached ADUs. You might argue that a bigger ADU could be <br />built on the ground floor, but on some lots, the only space available <br />for further development is above the garage. My property is not large, <br />and the only place we are willing to build an ADU is above our detached <br />garage. <br />Now although it is possible for one or a few people to live in a 576 <br />sq ft apartment, I would prefer to have more space, particularly if we <br />still had children at home. Why impose this limit on second -story <br />ADUs? Our City should prioritize livability for the many over the <br />preferences of the few. Thus I urge Council to reject Staff s <br />"ATTACHMENT B." <br />Why do I urge adoption of "ATTACHMENT C" over "ATTACHMENT A"? Let me <br />ask rather why windows facing immediately adjacent neighbors should be <br />opaque or clerestory for a detached ADU? The proposed "ATTACHMENT A" <br />ordinance doesn't even say "second story windows"; it just says <br />"Windows." Why should this requirement apply to detached ADUs, when <br />they don't apply to second story windows on the main building, or to <br />attached ADUs? <br />Why should balconies and second -story decks be prohibited on detached <br />ADUs? They aren't prohibited on attached ADUs or on the main dwelling, <br />are they? <br />I hate to sound shrill, but is the concem that black or brown people <br />might live in these detached ADUs, and adjacent white neighbors do not <br />want to see black or brown people, or to be seen by them? What is the <br />motivation for this kind of differential prohibition ---balconies, decks, <br />and transparent non -clerestory windows are OK for the upper story of the <br />main house (which due to the severe and chronic housing shortage on the <br />Peninsula are largely unaffordable, particularly to black and brown <br />people), but prohibited for detached ADUs (where black and brown people <br />are more likely find affordable rents)? <br />Earnestly, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.