pages: CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf, 17
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2022-01-04 | 17 | Councilmember Daysog requested clarification about how seven units could be achieved. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated State Law allows the City to stop an applicant at four units; a property could build two units without requesting a lot split; a property with two units is considered multi-family under the City's ADU ordinance and State law; multi- family properties are allowed two second units in the backyard and a junior unit is allowed within each of the two units for up to five units total; the City does not have the ability to limit ADUs since there is no lot split; if someone requests a lot split after placing five units on one side of the property, two additional units would be allowed for a total of seven units; the City can limit applicants to four units if the lot split is done first. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether five units are eligible for a density bonus. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded second units are not eligible; stated the second unit ordinance does not trigger density bonus; if the Council wishes to limit SB 9 to the minimum amount allowable, Council may direct staff to redraft the ordinance to have a maximum of four units; even with the direction to limit SB 9 to the minimum allowable units there is a loophole due to the way the law is written; an applicant can sequence the build to get to seven units total. Councilmember Daysog stated Council can conceivably work on a parallel track where the maximum of four units at 800 square feet; the City should have the discretion and can designate all SB units must be affordable; he does not know whether or not the affordable clause would stop people from taking the loophole. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the ordinance could indicate an applicant can maximize the number of units under SB 9 and the ADU ordinance, but a lot split after the fact on the same property will only yield two, deed restricted units. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like further clarification of the scenario; inquired whether it is legally possible for Council to deed restrict the additional units. The City Attorney questioned whether another scenario is the City could modify the ADU ordinance to require dispersion; stated once the five units are built, it would not be practically possible to create a split lot. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the approach is creative and doable; stated the objective development standards could be set up to have the units spread out; if an applicant returns for a lot split under SB 9, the existing, previous units cannot be torn down; the lot can be severed and two of the units can be sold. The City Attorney stated the approach is an easier legal path to defend than to impose a deed restriction; outlined the State Law provision; stated local agencies can do three things under SB 9: 1) impose objective zoning standards, 2) objective subdivision standards and 3) objective design review standards; staff would have to argue that deed restrictions on income limitations fits within one of the three provisions; staff could possibly argue income limitations are zoning standards; however, it would be an uphill the argument; the dispersion approach is likely an easier legal direction; dispersion is a clear provision under State Law. In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding a first reading returning to Council, the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 4, 2022 17 | CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf |