CC 2017-10-24_09f Supplemental No. 1MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
AGENDA ITEM 9.f. -OCTOBER 24, 2017 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE-DEVELOPMENT
CODE AMENDMENT 17-002 -AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 OF THE
ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW; AMENDMENT
RELATED TO ROOFTOP DECKS AND THE UNDERGROUNDING OF
UTILITIES; LOCATION CITYWIDE; APPLICANT -CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE
DATE: OCTOBER 24,2017
Attached is correspondence received today relating to the above-referenced agenda
item.
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Public Review Binder
From: Kevin McCarthy [mailto:intaicrowmac@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 10:45 AM
To: Jim Bergman; Jim Hill; Tim Brown; Barbara Harmon
Subject: Discussion of ADUs
Dear Mr. Bergman:
I only became aware of this issue last night when my wife shared a Facebook "conversation" between
Michael Byrd and Shirley Gibson concerning the ADU issue before the city council. I am against the proposal
as it stands now before the council.
I personally feel that this issue should be thoroughly discussed before the public before any action is taken
by the council. The increase in vehicles and people, in what have been to date, single family neighborhoods, is
not something I will welcome. Additionally, I do not feel that this will make housing more affordable. I
believe that the market will demand rents that will drive up property values and rental property prices (income
properties for non-owner-occupied housing.) In fact, I understand that investors have been known to buy up
masses of houses and properties for this specific purpose for their benefit as absentee landlords. This, even if in
limited degree, would ruin the nature and quality of our community. I am not against ADUs, but I am against
adequate noticing of neighbors, non-owner-occupied residences/ADDs, and the argument that this will bring
"affordable housing."
I understand completely that there is a lack of affordable housing--not just here in Arroyo Grande, but across
the entire state. The approach as I grasp it and that currently lies before the Arroyo Grande City Council is not,
in my opinion, a good way to approach this. This needs to be better thought out and discussed before being
passed.
As some of the council members that I am including in this e-mail may not receive it before tonight's
meeting, would you kindly bring a copy of it to the meeting for their reading. Unfortunately, I am unable to
make the scheduled meeting this evening. Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Kevin J. McCarthy
Arroyo Grande
-----Original Message-----
From: SHIRLEY GIBSON
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 3:18PM
To: Jim Hill; Kristen Barneich; Barbara Harmon; Caren Ray; Tim Brown; jbergman@arroyogtande.org; Teresa McClish
Subject: ADU's
Hello Mayor Hill and Council-Members,
Sent from my iPhone
I missed the last meeting where this subject was discussed. I have watched parts ofthe meeting online and read the
minutes.
I think this is one of those under the radar issues that is complicated because of the state mandated parts mixed with
parts that are not mandated. I noticed that most of the people that spoke to the issues were lenders and realtors, and
theyof course, supported passage.
I'm not sure the general public is aware of the proposed changes. Shame on us.
My preference would be for the City to revisit the ADU state mandated requirements as one point of discussion and
vote.
Next point of discussion and vote would be the ADU changes that are NOT state mandated.
Next point of discussion and vote would be changes to rooftop decks. Etc.
I think people living in single family zoning may have concerns with non owner-occupied neighbors. An original home
with an ADU, with neither tenant an owner, essentially becomes two rentals. In my mind that makes zoning issues fuzzy.
Owner occupied homes add stability to a neighborhood. I think the average property owner deserves the chance to
contemplate how the proposed changes may affect their neighborhood.
I think revisiting the issues would allow time for more people to participate. It would simplify the process of adopting
these changes.
Respectfully, Shirley Gibson
Sent from my iPhone
1