Journal – Affiliate Marketing Programs

For many years, a debate over illegal second units filled municipal agendas.

Supporters of the units argued they were an answer to Marin’s lack of affordable housing. Critics contended that they violated single-family zoning, causing overcrowding and neighborhood parking problems.

At one time, the county Board of Supervisors struck a compromise, allowing second units in three of the five supervisorial districts.

Sacramento and its regional housing quotas shifted that debate.

Today, many Marin cities are banking heavily on the creation of second units – now referred to as accessory dwelling units, or ADUs – to satisfy the state-mandated number needed by 2031.

The state requirement for Marin is 14,405 new units.

For some of these cities, available land for building housing is in short supply. In addition, ADUs are seen as an alternative to approving larger-scale housing complexes.

Given that strategy, the 2022-23 Marin County Civil Grand Jury has held up a mirror to that goal and in its recent report details financial and procedural hurdles facing that objective.

Its report hails the creation of ADUs as an answer to Marin’s shortage of affordable housing. They can be affordable for the property owner to build, generate needed income for the landlord and provide affordable housing for family members or the local workers, older relatives and caregivers.

“Because of their small footprint, ADUs are significantly less expensive to build than new detached single-family homes. They also offer benefits that address common development barriers, such as land use and environmental sustainability,” the grand jury states.

But the grand jury’s look into the specifics of getting them built pinpointed some local hurdles.

One of the biggest are the fees that the local government levies on new housing units.

Voter approval of the 1978 Proposition 13 property tax cut put local government on a path of creating new local fees in order to generate new revenue. Over the years, those fees have been increased.

The grand jury suggests that those varied fees now create a financial hurdle that could thwart homeowners’ interest in building ADUs.

In fact, the grand jury points to Salem, Oregon as an example, where the city waives any increase in property tax so long as the property owners keep rents affordable.

The county has taken steps to encourage the building of ADUs, providing free technical assistance and waiving portions of the county’s development fees for units that are built as affordable housing.

Other agencies could do their share, as well, the report contends.

One example it cites is the North Marin Water District’s requirement that detached ADUs pay a $8,675 hookup fee. Add to that, the city and school district charges and the upfront cost hits more than $18,000 for units 700 square feet or smaller and an estimated $34,307 for building an 800-square-foot unit.

In Belvedere, city fees for an attached ADU are $19,530, according to the grand jury’s report.

Those are charges before the property owner can pour the foundation or hammer a nail for a new ADU.

The grand jury is urging local governmental agencies to take a harder look at their construction fees through the lens of encouraging the construction of affordable ADUs.

“Marin’s mandated housing goals can be met when every public agency in the county aligns its policies toward these objectives. Cooperation should be the mantra. It benefits everyone,” the report states.

Those layers of fees build to the point where it is financially discouraging for landlords considering building ADUs.

The grand jury also recommends that the county and cities do more to make it easier – including dispelling planning regulations – for property owners.

If ADUs are going to be advanced as an effective strategy in meeting the state’s mandated regional housing quotas, governmental agencies need to break out of their bureaucratic silos and work together to remove or reduce obstacles that are now on the books.