City Council Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

th Testimony for Measure 49 Claim Regarding 1777 E. 30 Ave. January 10, 2017 Mayor, City Council and City Manager: th The following testimony is presented as proof that the Measure 49 Claim for 1777 E. 30 Ave is without merit because it fails to demonstrate any restriction whatsoever in the use of the property and is based on unsound and unprofessional appraisals as well and that the claim also singles out the area specific code standards of E.C. 9.2751(17)(c)9 as limiting the value and use of the property in question though all evidence shows to this to be false and thereby misleading. A) . Prior to 2014 R1 code amendments, the property in question could only correctly have been appraised as a large lot (27,878 sq') with a very small (864 sq' according to both the permit applications submitted by the claimant to the City and as described in the hypothetical appraisals) primary residential unit (over an accessary garage/shop). That's all. While the property was large enough to have also had a secondary dwelling unit (SDU) it did not have one. Since the existing structure was the only structure on the property it could not, by definition, have been an SDU (nor did it even meet the 800 sq' limitation spelled out in the City prior code to 2014). In determining the value of the property in 2013 an appropriate appraisal should have compared this property to similarly large lots with very small homes. After adoption of the 2014 R1 code amendments the potential use of the property was unchanged. It could have included both a primary house and an SDU. The preexisting structure could have been enlarged or remodeled to become a very different looking primary residence and another structure, 800sq' or less, could have been built. The other option would as is common practice city-wide have been the construction of a new primary residence and, , modifiedcurrent the original preexisting structure could have been to meet SDU standards. This of course remains the current situation. use To summarize, the adoption of R1 code amendments in 2014 had no effect on the of this property. Before, and after, this date the property could accommodate a primary residential unit and an SDU. This was confirmed by Anne Davies, Assistant City Attorney in a memo from a primary residential April 20, 2016 when she wrote that “Under Staff's review, it appears that use and a secondary dwelling were allowed under the previous regulation, and that the same uses are allowed under Ordinance N. 20526 ,” the 2014 R1 code amendments. For the reasons spelled out above, the existing building was never an SDU, never met the standards for an SDU and would not meet the standards today. The option to modify it to bring it into SDU compliance and build a new house was there before the 2014 code amendments and is still there. Therefore, the Measure's claim that "... under the new regulation, the existing dwelling would have to be decommissioned as a secondary dwelling. . . impacts the market value, as reflected in the appraisals." is clearly intended to mislead the reader as there would be no decommissioning involved in any legal scenario as there was/is no secondary dwelling.