I BID YOU ADU
One Pack Fire victim’s most recent move toward recovery? Building an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) before building their primary structure. The application came before the Mono County Board of Supervisors Tuesday, and passed 4-1.
ADUs, also known as granny-flats, in-law units, or backyard cottages, convert areas that are already developed but underutilized, such as existing garages, basements, attics, or pool houses, into housing. California first passed legislation legalizing ADUs in 2016, with the goal of creating additional housing. ADUs are often used as rental units, providing an economic benefit to the owner. They can range in size from 150 square feet to 1,200 feet.
Mono County has a number of ADU design plans on its website, one of which the applicant intended to use.
According to the Mono County General Plan, the primary residence must be permitted and built before the ADU is constructed. Usually, due to California State Laws, ADU applications are streamlined, such as on 164 Mono Street in the town of Mammoth Lakes (see Dec. 13 issue).
But in this case, the applicant, who was displaced by the Pack Fire, requested a suspension of current General Plan regulations. The applicant argued building the ADU first is necessary as the construction of the accessory unit will be cheaper and faster than that of the primary unit.
“The Community Development Department is completely supportive of helping and encouraging rebuilding after the fire and rehousing people,” said Wendy Sugimura, the Mono County Community Development Director, who presented the application. “It just didn’t seem like a policy decision or an interpretation that could be made at our department.”
Hence the application was discussed at the Board of Supervisors. Currently, the repercussions for an individual who chooses to build an ADU but not complete the primary residence are limited: either relocate the ADU or tear it down. Neither option is particularly reasonable or desirable.
In this case, Sugimura suggested other avenues to ensure the primary residence would also be built, such as requiring the main unit to be built within a certain number of years. Enforcement strategies, she explained, would include implementing citations and fines, or allowing the structure to remain in violation of County standards and CalFire state law.
“These are all not great options,” Sugimura said. “The reason this is being elevated to the board as a policy decision is on the off-chance things don’t work out the way we hope they will.”
Meaning the applicant builds the ADU, then promptly builds their primary residence.
“Behind every policy request or change, there is a community impetus and person,” said Supervisor Paul McFarland. “This isn’t a general exemption. This is a one time request as a part of fire recovery.”
Sugimura affirmed that yes, McFarland was correct, this resolution applied to any Pack Fire survivor who wanted to rebuild their home. It was also restricted to just Pack Fire rebuilds.
“I want to remind everyone that when we consider these kinds of development projects, it’s always irrespective of who the applicant is,” Sugimura continued.
In other words, there was no mention of who the applicant was anywhere during the presentation.
But during public comment, a voice who introduced herself as Shelia Brode, the applicant.
“This was my home that I owned for 20 years,” Brode said. “We are planning on incorporating our ADU into the primary residence, for the aesthetics of the community.”
Some supervisors still felt uneasy.
“I have heartburn about not having the primary residence permitted at the same time,” said newly minted Board Chair Jennifer Kreitz. “I feel like we set ourselves up for some real litigation and challenges.”
“I do not want to put down any legislation that slows down the recovery of this community,” countered Supervisor Rhonda Duggan. “I don’t know if this is a particularly unique circumstance. My only goal is that we are not adding to bureaucracy that doesn’t allow these people to rebuild in a timely manner.”
Despite this statement, Duggan was the only supervisor to vote no.
