There is a lot of discussion about how adding accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to single family homes in the wildland-urban interface will affect fire safety in those neighborhoods.

There is growing concern that building ADUs in adjoining backyards in the interface will create a path for fire to move rapidly from one single-family home to another single-family home on an adjoining back lot.

The fire would advance from one main home to the ADU in its backyard and set it ablaze. Then the fire from that ADU would jump the back fence or cross the back alley and set the neighboring backyard ADU on fire. From there, the fire would jump to the second main single-family home, and so on.

I understand why a number of residents in the wildland-urban interface are asking that no ADUs be allowed anywhere in the interface. So far, Colorado Springs officials have not responded to that plea.

The wildland-urban interface is the section of a city where the tree cover and the underbrush are exceptionally thick and constitute an extra fire hazard to the homes in the neighborhood. People who own homes in the interface are encouraged to trim back the trees and the underbrush immediately adjacent to their home so as to reduce the fire danger.

Much of the housing in Colorado Springs west of Interstate 25 has been designated as in the wildland-urban interface and thus is especially in danger from wind-driven urban wildfires.

The fear of wind-driven urban wildfires that jump from one residential building to another and destroy all or much of entire neighborhoods is a real one.

Such fires have just burned large numbers of homes in the Los Angeles area.

Here in Colorado Springs, in 2012, such a fire did extensive damage, jumping from house to house in the Mountain Shadows neighborhood inside city limits.

On March 11, the City Council is scheduled to discuss and possibly adopt ADUs in all single-family zoned neighborhoods in the city. No exception is being made so far for the interface.

Therefore, a number of residents in the interface are asking the council to at least postpone the decision on ADUs until after the April 1 City Council election.

One of the important concepts in fighting wind-driven urban wildfires is “defensible space.” This is the idea that you need open areas free of buildings, trees and underbrush (all of which are flammable) to have a chance of stopping the fire.

The ability to stop wind-driven urban wildfires is greatly reduced if existing defensible space (open backyards) is filled with small houses such as ADUs.

The problem of forcing ADUs into previously single-family-zoned neighborhoods began when the legislature passed a state law mandating ADUs in all single-family zones in selected cities throughout Colorado.

One of the cities included was Colorado Springs. The City Council was tasked, by state mandate, with passing a local law enforcing the state requirements. Details of that new law are currently being written by the city Planning Department.

Pressure is being applied to the city by neighborhood groups such as Historic Neighborhoods Partnership (HNP) to make the ADUs much smaller in size and height than the main single-family house; to require off-street parking for the ADUs; and for an ADU to never be sold separately from the main single-family house.

I am beginning to question whether the city should move forward at all on the subject of ADUs in single-family zones.

One reason is that adding ADUs destroys the concept of single-family zoning. The property has become in reality a two-family zone.

Another reason is that Colorado Springs is a home-rule city. Under the concept of home rule, our city government should be writing our zoning laws and not the state legislature.

But the biggest reason I oppose forcing ADUs into single-family zones is this newly discovered problem of fire danger from putting a flammable second house in the backyard of a single-family home. I think this is a problem in all single-family neighborhoods in Colorado Springs and not just in the wildland-urban interface.

City Council: Please do not adopt the proposed accessory dwelling unit law. Leave the present law the way it is.