Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2.B 02/12/2017 (3)Comments of Gerry La Londe -Berg, a Petaluma resident Paae 5 - " Operator compliance" with TOT - The City's short -term vacation rental program requires operators to obtain permits and pay transient occupancy tax. Operator compliance with those requirements has been limited. The City has contracted to identify, notify, and require those operating without permits to come into compliance. Approximately 80 non - permitted rentals were identified, around 20 have obtained permits. It is recommended the Council does not establish a moratorium on vacation rentals, but rather allows this process to continue until the City has registered and received permit fees, and transient occupancy taxes from all known operators. So for 2 years the taxes haven't been enforced. Recommend enforcement and consideration of a moratorium policy that forces operators to comply with the existing tax to overcome a moratorium. Page 6 - Accessory dwellina units 13 ADU' s were permitted last year and 3 are currently in process. It is not clear that additional relaxation of requirements is necessary to, or would encourage, an increase in the numbers of ADU' s being built. Council could go farther, and waive impact fees on ADUs. This is not recommended, as the City' s fee program does not provide for waivers, and fees would need to be paid from the General Fund, or Housing funds. The Council could also widen the area in which parking is not required, by increasing the number of transit locations from which distances are measured, or simply eliminate parking requirements for all ADU' s. Yes to widen the area in which parking is not required to adjacency to bus routes and /or to non compacted neighborhoods. Eliminating all parking requirements requires further consideration. From my blog http: / /whocaresandsowhat. info /accessory- dwelling- units -a- partial- solution/ • As a Social worker since 1983 1 have tried to help people; so as the "housing crisis" evolved I turned my attention there. Housing Workshop 180212 Gerry La Londe -Berg • I am most interested in developing individual units controlled by homeowners because they give everyone the most flexibility to be part of a larger solution. • Both homeowners and commercial home builders could also incorporate the units (and added value) accessory dwelling units generate. • One of the solutions to our housing crisis is accessory dwelling units because they would maximize efficiency of the land space controlled by each individual homeowner. Each owner can create housing for their family members, or their friends, or other people who need housing. • We need a bank or financial institution which will promote accessory dwelling unit loans in the range of $150,000 to $300,000. In this manner we could rebuild on our pieces of property and create good housing with an affordable value. • The $150,000 per room rate of accessory dwelling units is significantly less than the $400,000 per unit it costs when affordable housing developers build apartment complexes. This is not a criticism of affordable housing developers; it is just a statement of fact. They operate in a financing structure that causes their units to cost as much as they do. But, others of us operate in a different financial structure and we should be able to take advantage of being able to create lower -cost housing. Support SHARE Sonoma County Petaluma resident Amy Appleton created SHARE Sonoma County. She has placed many residents, including fire victims. Her primary service group is elders and people at risk of homelessness. SHARE is able to work with people who build ADUs to find and screen tenants. The City of Petaluma should help members of our community learn about and adopt shared housing because there are thousands of available bedrooms in Petaluma. And there is a service via SHARE Sonoma County to bring people together. hftp : / /sharesonomacounty.orgg/ Pane 7 - In lieu fees The Council appeared open to increasing the housing in -lieu fee from the average of $9,022 for a 2000 square foot home to $ 15,180, and to adjust the commercial linkage fee to an amount similar to that charged by Sonoma County. The Council indicated a strong interest in requiring inclusionary housing wherever permitted by law, and increasing the percentage from 15 to 20 if the inclusionary housing is provided off -site. Housing Workshop 180212 Gerry La Londe -Berg I strongly advocate for actual inclusionary housing being built. I was thinking about this all through the housing meeting last week. The North River apartments, 184 units, were recently discussed in the paper. With In lieu fees at $9022 the 184 units should generate $1,660,048. Yet the paper quoted the fee as $650,000, or an estimated 0.88 percent (0.88%) of the project. Hence: 184 Units $400,000 Per unitl ©- y� $73,600,000 7 in V 5 �0 C $650,000 leui ,�� fee 0.88 $400,000 is the going rate for low income developments. A private developer probably spends less. Supervisor Rabbitt usual makes the point that the rest of a development has to pay the added costs of low income housing. That is not entirely true on two levels. Low income housing pays for some of it's own costs in the form of rent, just not all of it. A development expert should be able to figure out the actual cost differences. Second, the lesser income from affordable housing units reduces the profits made. We have to consider what a reasonable profit is before we make a decisions if the "public good" justifies the developer having less profit. The developer of any project is gaining a "good" (profit) by building a property they own. Nevertheless, they are also benefiting tremendously from the public infrastructure which supports them making such profits. The proper balance of this seems to be what the discussions such as this entails. This awareness is at the core of development, and, it is at the core of justification for creating the public good of housing for middle class and lower income folks. The other thing that should be factored into the developer's equation is the increasing value of developed property given the housing shortage. Eventually they will sell and reap a harvest of $$ based on increased value over time in addition to monthly income v expense. The City could develop entitlement protocols (like Healdsburg did) to preserve lower cost housing. Page 7 As well, fee waivers and subsidies will subject developers to prevailing wage standards, which can significantly increase the cost of construction, diminishing or negating the positive effect of a waiver or subsidy. Paying prevailing wages is what helps workers stay in Sonoma County. Housing Workshop 180212 Gerry La Londe -Berg Page 9 The report shows diligent efforts on the part of the City staff and the Council to address the issues. And An opportunity identified in the Housing Element is 'Residential redevelopment in other [ zoning] districts ". Discussed in that section is the ability, with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), to construct housing above ground level in certain commercial districts. There is space on the upper floors in some of our older business parks that may lend itself to housing. Both of these seem to be lower cost opportunities which should be in the mix. Renter Protections I hope the City does not conflate Just Cause Eviction standards with rent control. Rent Control is not being proposed. • There are reasonable and unreasonable causes for an eviction. • People have to make a lot of efforts to move. • People have a reasonable expectation that if they move in they can stay if they follow the rules. • Just cause eviction ordinances assure justice and give all parties clear expectations. Page 19 Of the total units in the planning and construction phases, just 75 out of 2,161 are inclusionary units; just 3.5 %. A key talking point I am making any chance I get is - "the 20W. By that I think we need to keep saying that 95,000+ people in Sonoma County rely on Social Security, SSDI, and SSI for their only income ($890 -$2000 per month). We have to house them and we have to do this intelligently without blaming. They are not going away. So, where can they go to have a decent lifestyle; not extravagant, decent? As a City I hope Petaluma can keep doing its part. Housing Workshop 180212 Gerry La Londe -Berg