Sebastopol City Council extends 3% rent hike cap

Sebastopol extends rent-hike cap

MARY CALLAHAN
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT | December 7, 2016, 1:09PM

The Sebastopol City Council has extended for six months a temporary 3-percent cap on rent hikes for qualifying dwellings, saying it hopes to prevent rate spikes while considering whether to adopt some kind of longer term tenant protections.

The 4-0 vote came late Tuesday night after a long line of speakers, both for and against the measure, warned of unintended consequences that could further squeeze a market in which many renters, like those elsewhere in the Greater Bay Area, pay more than they can really afford for housing, or have been priced out altogether.
Despite the unknowns, and concerns about the large number of rentals exempt from the rate cap by state law, city leaders said they wanted to protect vulnerable renters from predatory pricing prompted by fears of potential rent control measures in the future.

“We have people in a landlord-tenant relationship, and the people at-risk in that situation are the tenants,” Councilwoman Sarah Glade Gurney said. “They’re the vulnerable people. And in executing my responsibilities of office and also professionally, it is the vulnerable part of our society that I feel compelled to reach out to to help and protect.”

The measure extends a 45-day urgency ordinance adopted Nov. 1 to prevent landlords from raising base rents in anticipation the council may next year adopt rent control measures limiting rate increases long term. The earlier vote followed several days in which property owners, aware rent control was on the council agenda, notified tenants their rents were going up.

But no one is yet sure how many dwelling units will be subject to the so-called moratorium, as state law exempts all housing cleared of occupancy after February 1995, as well as single-family homes and individually owned condominiums, and government subsidized units. The result is that only a small number of Sebastopol rental units are likely to be affected, potentially driving up rates for other units, landlords and their representatives told the council.

One property owner said Tuesday she already had withdrawn her duplex from the rental market and won’t rent it out unless the council eschews rent control. “I’m just not interested in getting into that whole mess,” Alexis Lorenz said.

Continue reading here: https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/6...nt-hike-cap-to

i supported rent control in san francisco for many years, until it got outrageous, & it did.

if you look at rents there, out of sight, you will see that it doesn't work. i was a renter & eventually an owner in the market.

my reasonable landlord, began putting in yearly increases which he hadn't used before.

when i was selling a house i had a tenant, who i had never met, who offered to move out if i paid her $10k.
(a small 2 bedroom home, about 1100 square feet, w. a small studio. simultaneously, the people in the 2 bedroom asked me to raise my rent, & not sell).

rent control doesn't "control" help or support, good people/reasonable landlords, it doesn't fix greed, & it doesn't do the most important thing, increase the number of rental properties.

i believe it does the opposite--rent control decreases the number of rental units available to the general public.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

Sebastopol extends rent-hike cap

The Sebastopol City Council has extended for six months a temporary 3-percent cap on rent hikes for qualifying dwellings, saying it hopes to prevent rate spikes while considering whether to adopt some kind of longer term tenant protections....

---

What I learned from previous posts on this website is that the city hookup fees for a second dwelling are $20,000 even though the city has almost no costs associated with it. How about a moratorium on city fees, which is one of the biggest obstacles to people building a small (800ft or less) second unit on their property and having a low priced rental? Why should the city penalize landlords and not look in the mirror at its own practices?

California recently eased the rules on Accessory Dwelling Unites (see article). It is up to local jurisdictions to adopt it into their zoning/code. I know that County PRMD is in the process of doing this and will make it easier and less costly to develop ADUs. I believe the Sebastopol Planning Department is giving a presentation to the Council on the 20th about housing options to consider and I imagine one of those options will be something related to this and you could also show your support for such an action at that meeting.

I'm not sure I'd favor the rent moratorium under normal circumstances, but rents have increased by an average of 50% in Sonoma County in the last 5 years and Sonoma County has 3 times the national rate of homelessness. It doesn't sound like landlords are the ones struggling. The rent moratorium prioritizes renters and will help protect some renters from more increases in the meantime while other approaches are considered/taken in relation to housing. I am one of those people who is unsure about his future here although I was born here, work full-time, have a Masters degree etc and there are many more in similar or worse situations.

Jacob

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by farmerdan:

What I learned from previous posts on this website is that the city hookup fees for a second dwelling are $20,000 even though the city has almost no costs associated with it. How about a moratorium on city fees, which is one of the biggest obstacles to people building a small (800ft or less) second unit on their property and having a low priced rental? Why should the city penalize landlords and not look in the mirror at its own practices?

---

I highly recommend this Portland, Oregon website for information about "granny units". Lots of interesting articles, pictures, and research data.
https://accessorydwellings.org/

Janet,

An excellent resource! This is what Sebastopol should be doing but the tax issue has to be figured out with the county. At least Portland figured out that they (and the county) were the biggest obstacle to affordable housing, not builders or rental property owners. From what I read on this site, a whole wave of affordable housing can happen in older neighborhoods. These smaller units will rent for less or be used to house a parent or adult child (and their spouse.) Let's see if Sebastopol (and the county) can get it's act together to really support affordable housing or just more of the same.

Here is a link to how Portland became ADU friendly:
https://accessorydwellings.org/2016/...-adu-friendly/

Here is a recent article on Portland extending their support of ADUs through 2018:

Accessory dwelling units, which include basement apartments and backyard tiny houses, have emerged in Portland as a popular way to increase residential housing density without sacrificing the single-family character of a neighborhood. System Development Charges, which pay for parks and other shared city infrastructure, were first waived for ADU development by city council in 2009. The waiver saves builders of ADUs between $12,000 and $20,000, a meaningful incentive to build new infill housing. The new waiver will extend through July 2018, but another major hurdle for aspiring ADU developers lingers: tax uncertainty.

A decision last year by Multnomah County tax assessors triggered an uproar among ADU enthusiasts when the county began reassessing entire properties where ADUs were being developed. The move increased annual tax bills by as much as $6,000 for some unsuspecting homeowners.

Though the tax implications of building an ADU remain a bit unclear, Oregon's Department of Revenue is expected to release rule clarifications sometime this year for counties to follow that should make the process more certain.
In the meantime, the city's ADU fee waiver extension is a tangible move to incentivize much-needed infill development. Despite a recent flurry of apartment development, Portland counts a 4,000-unit shortfall in housing inventory, one factor contributing to record-low vacancy and a sharp rise in rental rates.

If there is one thing I have learned in 30 plus years as a general contractor it is that building departments really want your money. The fees to make simple improvements have become so onerous many folks refuse to obtain necessary permits. If you want to build something new or big it can be a huge expense on top of the cost of the project. Cities and counties should be assisting efforts to improving the housing stock without resorting to de facto extortion. Increasing revenue through reasonable property tax re-assessment should be the policy goals of building departments, not squelching projects with unreasonable fees at the start.

The Sonoma County Planning Commission is considering the attached new second dwelling units policy today at 2 pm in the PRMD conference room.

According to the attachment "In September 2016, the Governor signed two bills that change State housing law regulatingAccessory Dwelling Units. SB 1069 and AB 2299 remove barriers to Accessory Units toencourage creation of more affordable housing statewide. Notably, the new law prevent localagencies from requiring separate water and sewer connections in converted units andintroduce a statutory 120 day review period. The law requires that changes be adopted bylocal agencies by January 1, 2017. "

I believe that is why Sonoma County PRMD is making this policy update.

Jacob

Hi again,

According to the agenda on the City website, on December 20th at their regular meeting, the Sebastopol City Council will discuss actions to promote affordable housing, review long-term recommendations for rent control and tenant protections, and discuss modifying accessory dwelling unit regulations.

Link to agenda.

Cheers, Jacob

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jerichsalud:

The Sonoma County Planning Commission is considering the attached new second dwelling units policy today at 2 pm in the PRMD conference room....

---