HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 4.CLate1 07/29/2010~ 4" ~ '.
7/30/10
TO; Honorable Pamela Torliatt, Mayor
Members of the City Council
City' of Petaluma
1 1 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Re: Agenda Item 4:C
Dedr Madame Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing in'regards to the proposed Resolution that proposes 'reducing' Impact Fees for Accessory
Dwelling Units.
I won't waste much time arguing howthese.infill units are beneficial in terms of how they offer affordable
housing, make use of existing; infrastructure, take pressure off the UG'B's', reduce carbon footprints by
allowing family members to stay close to each other as well as wiahin walking distance to City services
and. commerce. etc. I assume' you all ..recognize this as 'Smart growth', the kind The General Plan
promotes.
The idea that the current $61,K in impact Fees (as for Single Family) should have ever been applied to an
Accessory Dwelling uhit is crazy considering a 2nd unit could be constructed for that amount. $61 K makes
the prdbability of ANY new 2~d units being' built exactly zero. Perfect for those who think `No growth' is
good growth.
Staff's recommendation of lowering these fees to approximately $':16K is NOT a reduction. In fact, this is
the amount the fees totaled just 2 years ago, when the Gity'had averaged only S units a year. It was a
huge disincentive to homeowners then as it will. continue. to be oday if adopted by Council. It will NOT
'spur an incre'ase' in 2~d unit construction as Staff contends.
As the General Plan Update suggested, the real question before you is what, if any, Impact Fees should
be levied that would encourage the construction of;,and/' or conversion to these units. As per the
Councils Priorities„ fhe idea of a 2 tiered assessment seems tome the best way to achieve this goal.
To arrive at this, one needs to look alittle- deeper into the Staffs discussion.
Staff states fhat 2~d.units will. generate an average of one (1) additional resident to the City as opposed to
2.9 for Single Family Residences. Per Staff's calculation, this tenant is assumed to be a 'new' resident of
Petaluma, fhereby putting new;.additional pressure on existing facilities, services andinfrastructure. I
think this assumption is incorrecf. I think'these new tenants are NOT necessarily new to the City, but are
merely shifting within town.
We need to remember Ghat per the IZO these are 'Accessory'- dwelling units. By definition they=are
subordinate.to fhe main residence on the property. The Zoning intention is for the;unit fo serve extended
family members - ergo `Granny' unit:. The fact that these units; are limited to such a small size (640 sf)., also
reinforces this.
As such, a large demographic using these units'will be In-laws, grandparents, grown children, kids
returning from college, etc. In other words, former residents of the maih house of the property. NOT new
residents of the town. They allow family°mernbers the ability to have .access to affordable housing while
staying close to each other and thereby support each other.
I have clients, a couple, who are separafing amicably, but cannot afford to sell the house. They would
like to,build an Accessory Dwelling on the property so they can have separate accommodations. It
would allow them to both be with their son without having. to shuttle him from house to house, or worse,
city to city. The Impact Fees are currently making the building of this unit infeasible. Again, these
demographics do NOT add impacts to infrastructure.
I recognize some 2~d units are built primarily as `income' properfy - to generate monies for the Property
owner. They conceivably could attract some 'new' residents. Problem. iS with a 640 sf unit limitation they
will not garner much in the way of renf. They are not big money making ventures that should be taxed.
Actually, they should be encouraged.
I tfink'fhe City in the future should revise the Zoning ordinance to allow larger sized 2nd units than the
current 640 sf. If allowed, some sort of tiered Fees could be devised based on unit size. That is for a future
discussion.
In the near term, If Council cdnnot agree ~fo waive the Impact Fees entirely; they should consider a factor
of .25 (new residents per unit). One could argue that that is the amount of NEW residents actually
generated by Accessory Dwelling units based on the supporting discussion above.
A factor%of .25 would create approximately $4000 in Impact Fees per new unit. An amount much more
fair and a threshold which would. truly `spur an increase'' in 2~d unit construction. Because of that, I would.
also: wager that the net total of Impact Fees generated will be'greater at this lower `price point' of $4K
than the Staff proposed $1 bK.
I would hope Council will considerthis. If you have any questions in,this regard, please feel free to give
me a call @ 707 481-7410
Respectfully,
Chris Lynch
MAD architecture
145 Keller Street