This coming
Tuesday evening will offer two opportunities for involvement in the Petaluma
community. Those willing to commit an
extended chunk of time can be informed, and perhaps also entertained, from 5:30
until 9:30
Petaluma Urban Chat: The monthly
meeting of Petaluma Urban Chat will fall on the Tuesday the 14th this month. As always, the meeting will convene at 5:30pm
at the Aqus Café at 2nd and H Streets in Petaluma.
This month’s
meeting will feature a discussion of Measure Q on the Petaluma ballot, the
proposed one percent sales tax bump, the revenues from which the current City
Council anticipates directing toward deferred infrastructure repairs, the needs
of the emergency services departments, and the Rainier Connector.
City Council
candidate Dave King has accepted an invitation to join Urban Chat to discuss his
views on the measure.
To set the stage
for the Tuesday discussion, it’s interesting, and also confounding, to look at
the positions that have been taken on Measure Q versus positions on the Rainier
Connector.
All of the
City Council candidates, including the mayoral candidates, express support for the
Rainier Connector. Some also support
Measure Q because of the funding that it would provide for the Connector. But others oppose Measure Q because the
funding commitment isn’t sufficiently committed to the Rainier Connector. If elected, they promise to put forth another,
stronger ballot measure at a future date.
On the other
hand, all the self-identified urbanists with whom I’ve spoken oppose the
Rainier Connector. Many, including me,
acknowledge that it would make Petaluma a better place, but balk at the price
tag, arguing that there are better uses for the money. As a result, many urbanists oppose Measure Q
because of the funding that it provides toward the Connector. But others, again including me, support
Measure Q because the other municipal needs are sufficiently dire that it would
be wrong to subject the City to further financial distress.
About the
only apparent conclusion that can be drawn from that intertwined spaghetti of opinions
is that none of the City Council candidates are urbanists. And I don’t believe that even that conclusion
is valid.
I can’t
promise that a frank discussion, even with the thoughts of Dave King, will
bring clarity to the issue, but perhaps it can cut a bit of the fog.
Regular
attendees know that the 5:30 start time tends to be bit soft, with some
attendees still in line to secure beverages when the minute hand points
straight down. But for this month, we
will start promptly at the designated time.
King has another obligation to which he must depart at 6:15, so those
who don’t have a beverage in front of them at 5:30 will be asked to wait until
King departs.
As always,
everyone is welcome. New attendees are particularly
encouraged to join us.
Planning Commission: Immediately after
the Urban Chat meeting, the Petaluma Planning Commission will convene at City
Hall. The agenda item likely to attract the
greatest controversy is the proposed modifications to the Zoning Code and SMART
Code to permit and to regulate rentals of private homes within mixed-use and residential
neighborhoods, the types of rentals generally described as “AirBnB”.
(Disclaimer:
I’ve never stayed in an AirBnB rental, but once spent several nights in a VRBO
rental home. I secured the home for an
extended family getaway, but most of the participants came down ill in the days
before we gathered, so there were only two of us rattling around in a big house
overlooking the North California surf.
To the best of my recollection, we didn’t make enough noise to disturb
the neighbors. Also, I had earlier found
rental flats in both London and Venice through Craigslist.)
The whole
AirBnB controversy irritates me. If we
hadn’t collectively and wrongly turned our backs on urbanism, I don’t believe
there would even be an AirBnB controversy.
Instead, there would be clusters of mixed-use multi-family dwellings
near walkable cores. Individual owners
within those buildings might still wish to rent their homes on a daily or
weekly basis, but that would be an issue for the homeowners association to
address, not the entire city. Besides,
adding another further people to busy urban sidewalks would be barely
noticeable.
And if
enough rental rooms were available near the walkable core, I doubt there would
be a market for rentals in the more distant residential-only neighborhoods,
except for properties with special settings or views.
But we did
turn away from urbanism, those buildings that should logically contain the
AirBnB units of today don’t exist, and now we must decide what to do about
AirBnB.
So, urbanism
has little to offer us on the AirBnB subject except a severe tsk-tsk-tsk. Instead, we’re left on our own to sort out
the balance of private property rights versus the rights of neighbors to the
peaceful enjoyment of their own homes.
With that
grumpy preamble, I find the City staff to have done a credible job in balancing
the multiple objectives.
Homeowners
who wish to rent out all or part of their homes would pay an initial fee,
annual renewal fee, and transient occupancy taxes to the city.
Neighbors would
be notified of intended rental operations.
Although they wouldn’t be able to oppose the permits, their complaints
about operations would be grounds for revocation or non-renewal of permits.
Even though
the City doubts their ability to enforce them on a regular basis, maximum
occupancy standards would be set so that non-compliance can be considered in
actions against property owners.
Minimum
parking standards would be imposed on the rental operations, although limited
use of street parking would be allowed.
Any excess need for street parking would be subject to a land-use action
which the neighbors could oppose.
The entire
City staff report can be found here. I
find it well-written and reasonable. Although
I certainly understand the concerns of the neighbors, many of which can found here and here.
But my final
test is the hypothetical question of how I would feel if the proposed regulations
were to affect my neighborhood.
I don’t know
of any AirBnB rentals that have been proposed near my house, but I don’t think
I’d mind a few AirBnB renters sharing my sidewalks. (Indeed, there are a couple of neighbors whom
I’d happily trade for overnight renters.)
It’s a fun little neighborhood.
If I was visiting Petaluma, it’s the kind of neighborhood in which I’d
enjoy resting my head, second only to staying closer to downtown.
Regarding my
Tuesday evening, I’ll definitely attend the Urban Chat meeting. I’ll try to also attend the Planning
Commission meeting, although other obligations may interfere.
In my next
post, I’ll return to the topic of urbanism and seniors, tackling the question
of walkability and other non-motorized options for seniors.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment