Extra

As regards the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance coming before Council on 7/13 (item#14) - Amend or postpone:

I fully appreciate the fact that the state is in crisis as regards affordable housing. I also appreciate that, despite this troubling situation, Berkeley’s Planning Dept. has proposed limiting the ‘by right” development of ADUs in Berkeley to 850 sq.ft. for a studio or one bedroom and 1000 sq. ft. for a two bedroom. In addition, though I believe stronger, more specifics protections are in order, I nonetheless appreciate that - out of public safety concern - ADU development in our Fire Zones is proposed to be limited to 800 sq. ft.

That said, I find the “by right” stipulations in the ordinance that are more lenient than the State's regulations to be detrimental to Berkeley’s public safety and its general health. It is very important to note here that the absence of these lenient stipulations in no way forbids such development. The development simply will not be “by right”, a variance can be applied for and an ancillary, discretionary process employed if there are no substantive objections. If there are objections, more often than not some compromise can be reached. Again, this modicum of local control is necessary to insure both public safety and the general health of the Berkeley community. 

 

The lenient “by right” stipulations that need to be removed are the following:

1) The 18 foot height limit for detached new construction to encourage two-story ADUs - out of public safety, privacy and natural light concerns, it should remain at the State's allowed 16 feet and an ancillary, discretionary process required for anything above that height. 

2) Allowing for rooftop decks - the State is silent and these too should require an ancillary, discretionary process out of public safety and privacy concerns. 

3) Allowing “Projections, Architectural Features” to encroach into the required setback - the State is silent and adequate access is of concern throughout Berkeley, particularly in our Fire Zones. An ancillary, discretionary process should be required. 

4) Allowing for a 3ft. separation between a detached ADU and the main building - the State is silent and, for safety’s sake, anything under 4ft. should (at the very least) be subject to review by fire and other public safety officials and an ancillary, discretionary process required. 

In addition to these changes, the fact that ADUs larger than 800 sq. ft. simply will not be allowed in our fire zones should be clearly stated in the ordinance. (The supporting State Code can be mentioned afterwards.) 

NOTE: None of the changes suggested here are set in stone. If at some future date the municipality wishes to reduce or simply eliminate these strictures throughout Berkeley or in certain areas, it is clearly within the power of Council to make these refinements to the ordinance. 

 

Amend or postpone:

Mr. Mayor and Council, a few months back you promised not to rush important changes to our ordinances through Council before the the community was able to reflect on these and make comment. The proposed ADU ordinance was only made public by Planning on Wednesday, 6/30, and this left less than two weeks before it was scheduled to be brought before Council as an action item. Clearly this is not enough time to allow a large part of our citizenry to become aware that this proposal even exists, much less to consider its ramifications and comment accordingly. 

I strongly believe that in order to fulfill your promise you have two choices: 

1) Accept these amendments (no law requires that Berkeley acts otherwise), urge all Councilmembers to do the same, then bring the item to vote. 

2) Simply postpone the public hearing on the item to a later date. 

Personally, I’d prefer the former - let’s get this done now and move on. The City has many other issues on its plate.