HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report Agenda Item #5.A 02/23/2015 (3)MICHAEL J. BADDELEY
ROBER'P P. OLIKER
DUANE P. S.ARTORI
Document Recd. After Agenda Distribution - Item 5.A
BADDELEY, OLIKER & SARTORI
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THE GRACE BUILDING
17 KELLER STREET
PETALUM.A, CALIFORNIA 9,1952
FAX (707) 778-1086
(707) 778-6313
February 11, 2015
Mayor David Glass
The Honorable Members of the Petaluma City Council
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 91952
Re: Short -Term Vacation Rentals in Petaluma
February 23, 2015 Public Hearing
Dear Mayor Glass and Honorable Members of the Petaluma City Council,
Of Counsel=
FREDERIC L. HIRSCHFIELD
FEB 17 2015
I am writing to you concerning the new proposed ordinance to deal with short-term
vacation rentals in the City of Petaluma. First, let me categorically state that I am fully and
completely in support of an ordinance regulating such short-term rentals and I believe that City
staff has done an excellent job in securing neighborhood input and fashioning a statute which
attempts to meet the needs of the neighborhoods involved. This will also serve as a huge benefit
to the City because now there will be a mechanism to collect the transit occupancy tax which for
the most part has been going uncollected. That is a win-Nvin for everyone involved. My only
concern with the new ordinance has to do with the parking requirements which I think reflect a
solution in search of a problem.
I have been involved in this process of the evolving ordinance to deal with short -tern
rentals since early 2012 and have had numerous meetings with City staff since that time. While
numerous issues have been discussed at every level of City involvement, problems of insufficient
parking have always been discussed in the abstract and I aro not aware of a single instance
where there was actually a shortage of parking as a result of a short-term vacation rental. Keep in
mind that the majority of short -tern rental hosts who appeared at planning conunission hearings,
were older residents whose children have moved out and they were using empty rooms within,
their homes to generate some additional income. I believe without exception, these are homes
which are currently under parked as they represent family homes where children have left.
Whereas a typical family home with teenagers might have four or five cars, plus all of their
friend's cars, empty -nesters rarely have more than two cars.
The short-term vacation rental ordinance as currently written would essentially require all
homes to have a minimum of one covered and two uncovered off-street parking spaces.
However, the majority of short -terns vacation rentals in the city of Petaluma are located in the
historic districts which are typically nonconforming with regard to off-site parking. We know
that the historic districts are the most likely areas for short-term rentals because currently over
Re: Short -Tenn Vacation Rentals in Petaluma
February 11, 3015
Page 2
55% of those homes listed on vacation rental websites are located in historic districts. While the
ordinance proposes that there could be parking exceptions for such nonconforming homes, it
would force those property owners who are most likely to host short-term vacation renters to
incur the significant cost, expense, and time of securing a conditional use permit. For many of
those property owners, either retired or near retirement, who are looking to secure some
additional income to stay in their homes, the cost of a conditional use permit is not an
insignificant expense, averaging somewhere in the range of $2000. Since the permit fee which
had been discussed at the various plarming hearings for a short-term vacation permit was in the
range of $300, this unnecessary parking requirement would potentially make it six times more
expensive for residents in the historic districts to host short-term vacation guests. Since this truly
appears to be a solution in search of a problem, we think that expense will be an absolute barrier
to a significant number of retired residents who might otherwise participate in short -tern
vacation rentals.
The statute as written is a yearly permit subject to revocation to the extent there are
verified neighborhood complaints. The whole purpose of making this a yearly permit was to
make sure that neighbors could be heard if there were problems. If it turns out that empty -nesters
in the historic districts who are hosting out-of-town visitors are creating a parking shortage in
their neighborhoods, then those neighbors can file complaints with the City and those permits
will either be revoked or will not be renewed. That seems to be more than ample safeguard for a
perceived parking problem that in reality does not exist.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
i rely
ROBERT P. OLIKER
RPO/cas
cc: Heather Hines, Project Planner
hhines(@,ci.Detaluma.ca.us