1 Vernice Hankins
From: Mario Fonda-Bonardi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 1:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 4A SB9 Study session
EXTERNAL
Hi Council members
The discussion on S9 revolves around how much over densification should the City allow before the character of the R1 is completely lost and it becomes effectively an R2 or R3 district? One of the hinge points is should each lot split by SB9 also be allowed to have an ADU (a single R1 lot could become 4 units: 2 single family homes plus 2 ADUs). SB9 does not REQUIRE a City to allow ADU’s in each of the split lots so it becomes an opportunity for the CIty to exercise some discretion in protecting the character of our R‐1 neighborhoods ADUs by themselves are over‐all beneficial, but when crammed into tiny lots already split from the normal R1‐ lot size, they can become a plague. By state laws ADUs can already be just 4’ from side and rear setback lines and up to 24’ high, so they can present quite an invasion of privacy for all the backyards they look into, not to mention shading and parking overload.
Therefore I would ask that you not allow ADUs in lots already split using SB9.
However if you are forced to compromise I would argue for 3 criteria before an ADU can be allowed in a lot split by SB9.
1. The remaining lot should be at least 5000 square feet
2. It should have at least two parking spaces (not tandem)
3. No tree with a diameter greater than 3” should be removed in building the ADU Such conditions would substantially but not perfectly protect the character of the R‐1 neighborhood.
Needless to say there is a high probability that the State will next year try to water down the few protections (such as this not mandating ADUs in lots split by SB9) against overdensification that SB9 provides. There is no reason to do this damage to ourselves now.
Your favorable consideration of this request is greatly appreciated.
Mario Fonda‐Bonardi AIA
[email protected]
310‐699‐0374
Item 4.A
03/15/2021
1 of 1 Item 4.A
03/15/2021