Limits on home sizes eyed after restrictions on granny flats

Proposed measure would limit the size of single-family houses

After limiting the size and height of granny flats, Redwood City Council is setting its sights on its next project: the size of single-family homes.

On Aug. 26, the city council will discuss limiting the size of single-family home projects to 40% of the lot area or to a maximum house size of 2,500 square feet — whichever is greater.

Redwood City recently hired a consultant to conduct a yearslong study and help the city gather community feedback to update its residential redesign guidelines for second-story additions and new two-story single-family homes.

The proposed measure is intended to serve as a short-term solution that would be repealed within two years or in conjunction with the adoption of the city’s new residential design guidelines.

It marks the second step of the city’s short-term plan to modify its zoning ordinances and residential design guidelines to preserve architectural standards and address recent concerns about the effects of increased development in their neighborhoods.

The first step came earlier this week when the city council voted 6-1 to limit the size and height of second-story granny flats — also known as accessory dwelling units — while providing incentives for construction of single-story units. Vice Mayor Diane How

ard dissented. The new ordinance is expected to go into effect at the end of September.

Before Monday night’s decision, Redwood City had one of the least restrictive ADU ordinances on the Peninsula — allowing units to reach 28 feet above the ground and 700 square feet of space above a garage.

The ordinance was loosened in 2015 and 2017 to entice residents to build more granny units to boost the housing stock. And since the last update, more than 120 ADUs have been built, including about 20 above garages.

The boom, however, triggered some objections by residents in older neighborhoods with singlestory homes who were concerned that second-story units built above garages impeded their privacy and downgraded their neighborhood character.

So the council adopted measures that reduce the height of units atop garages to 20 feet above the ground, with exceptions for a slightly taller structure if necessary for the roofline to match that of the main house. The measures also bar second-story decks and roof decks and require opaque windows that look out onto neighbors.

Although the maximum size of an ADU in a detached garage will remain

at 700 square feet, the measures restrict the portion of the unit above the garage to 576 square feet. The remaining square footage would have to be built on the ground floor, creating a split-level ADU.

To encourage property owners and developers to build single-story ADUs, the council adopted measures that aim to make it easier to produce them, including allowing a unit to be built closer to property lines, cover more than half of a rear lot and replace a detached garage.

The council’s decision Monday night marked a middle ground between the city’s current ordinance and more restrictive policies proposed by city staffers and the city’s Planning Commission, which would have restricted the size atop garages to merely 280 square feet.

Before making its decision, the council listened to dozens of residents who came out to voice their support or opposition to the restrictions proposed by staff and the commission.

Ellen Wilkinson urged the council to support the smaller size limit for units atop garages.

Wilkinson, who lives next to a recently constructed, 14,000-squarefoot, two-story ADU, said the new structure was depriving her and her family of airflow, light and privacy in their own backyard.

“I don’t see how a 280-square-foot second story — while it’s an efficiency unit size — is any more limiting than having a full one-story, 700-square-foot unit if it’s split between them,” she said at the meeting. “It’s still the same amount of size. It doesn’t limit housing availability in any other way.”

But Wilkinson and other residents who supported more restrictive measures were outnumbered by those who saw the measures as a detriment to the region’s housing needs.

Matt Larson, a Redwood City resident and political director for Peninsula Young Democrats, said at the meeting that restricting ADUs was actually restricting affordable housing — calling it a “step backward rather than forward.”

“I’ve heard homeowners talk about community character and view-blocking and historic preservation, and I can empathize that those, indeed, are issues that bother people,” he said. “But they are objectively less important than the issues of housing insecurity and displacement.”

State lawmakers are considering multiple measures related to ADUs including one that would ban California’s 50,000 homeowner associations from restricting new inlaw units and another that would speed up local approval processes. Depending on the outcome of those statewide bills, Redwood City likely may be required to update its ADU ordinance again soon.