03-09-26-WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RC, This report draws on insight from ADU experts, prior work done by ECONorthwest, and new research to review policies and practices in the cities and states that have produced the most ADUs in recent years. These jurisdictions —concentrated in West Coast states and Vancouver, B.C.—offer lessons on regulatory changes, planning tools, and actions that can support the accessibility and feasibility of ADU construction to homeowners and developers. Reducing regulatory barriers is the first and most important factor for achieving higher levels of ADU adoption and production. In a survey of ADU owners in three Pacific Northwest metro areas, the largest proportion of respondents (35 percent) said zoning changes were the determining factor for their decision to build an ADU.4 Although removing regulatory barriers does not guarantee that ADUs will be built, evidence from cities like Los Angeles shows that code and process changes alone can substantially increase ADU production.' The successful adoption of ADUs in many jurisdictions along the West Coast indicates that removing code and permitting barriers is a prerequisite to fostering ADUs. REGULATORY SHIFTS TO SUPPORT ADU PRODUCTION Clear and objective standards should apply to ADUs so they can be approved directly by municipal planning staff. When ADUs are allowed "by right," applications are reviewed for compliance with the zoning, planning, and building code. Permitting ADUs through conditional or discretionary review requires a more extensive and costly permitting process involving a planning commission, uncertainty for the applicant, and potential for time-consuming appeals. Generally, conditional approvals should be targeted only for uses that have special impact or uniqueness such that their effect on the surrounding community cannot be determined in advance of the use being proposed for a particular property. ADUs are house -scale buildings that are fully compatible with detached homes and should not require special conditional use review. Similarly, design standards for areas outside historic preservation sites should be as clear and objective as possible to allow straightforward approvals for projects that are consistent with current zoning and building code requirements. .............................................................................................................. - ADOPTED: SEATTLE, VANCOUVER (B.C.), CALIFORNIA, OREGON, NEW HAMPSHIRE, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, UTAH, WASHINGTON, D.C. Among cities that have passed ADU ordinances, some include requirements for property owners to live on -site, whether in the primary home or the ADU. This requirement is usually enforced with a covenant or deed restriction. Owner occupancy requirements limit the potential for ADU development in a few ways. In the near -term, they limit the pool of possible owners who can develop an ADU, both because they must live on the property, and because mortgage lenders may avoid lending on them. Lenders see these requirements as risky: If they need to foreclose, the bank would immediately be out of compliance as a non- occupant owner. In the long term, such requirements restrict the flexibility that makes ADUs so attractive, as owners may have different needs and uses for their property over time. So far, concerns about an increase in corporate investor - owned properties with ADUs are not reflected in the data. In California, only eight percent of ADUs are on properties owned by companies, compared to 17 percent of the state's housing stock.' .............................................................................................................. _ ADOPTED: SEATTLE, VANCOUVER (B.C.), CALIFORNIA, OREGON