5c) Discussion and Possible Action Including Approval of Direction to Staff to 1) Determine Public Interest in Increased Housing, 2) Determine Where They Want It, 3) Determine Whether They Will Accept High-Density Multi-family Structures, and 4) Propose General Plan Updates Necessary to Realize Private Industry Development
(Sponsor: Supervisor Williams)
Dear Board of Supervisors,
My name is Collin Thoma and I am the System Change Advocate with Disability Services and Legal Center (DSLC) based in Santa Rosa. We do serve people in Mendocino County. I am glad to see the county taking action to discus how and where to build new homes. I am here today to share the housing needs for people with Disabilities. There needs to be as much affordable housing as possible many of our consumers and people with Disabilities are lower income as many rely on Social Security or other public benefits, This mean that they will need housing that is designated to very to extremely low income due to the fact of the low dollar amount of Social Security and other benefits. Another huge area of need is to have housing that is acesaaible to people who have mobility and or physical (sight/hearing included) an easy way to do this will be to use the Visitability Method which, requires a minimum of a 32 inch width pathway inside and outside of the home. A zero step entrance ideally at the front door, or access though the garage or side door if the front door isn't possible. A minimum of a 32 inch width doorway, with at least a half bath big enough to allow for wheelchair access with walls strong enough to support grab bars. It also requires light switches and climate controls to be at a reachable height by someone in a wheelchair. This will also allow resident disabled or not to age in their own home and the home is ready if they become disabled. Finally new housing developments/neighborhoods should be close to shops, restaurants, community service such as mental health. They should also be close to reliable public transportation, some people with Disabilities may rely on it to get around if they don't/cant drive, and neighborhoods should have sidewalks and highly visible crosswalks to create a safe and acesaaible walking environment.
Thank You,
Collin Thoma
Systems Change Advocate
Disability Services & Legal Center (DSLC)
521 Mendocino Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707)636-3076
My name is Johanna Jensen, I live in Fort Bragg and am a member of the North Coast’s Housing Action Team
I’m happy to see an item about housing on the agenda, unfortunately the one before you isn’t need and I hope you’ll vote against it. Here’s my reasoning…
First, we don’t need a survey to see if the public is interested in more housing. It’s obvious we do, and it’s even been documented in surveys conducted by the City of Ukiah, HAT, SEIU, and Supervisor Williams. I think we can agree we need more housing and move on.
Then agenda item also wants the survey to determine where the public wants housing’ and whether we’ll accept high-density multi-family structures. Unfortunately, neither question is useful.
It doesn’t matter where, as the only place higher-density housing can be built is where there are public water and sewer systems.
And whether or not we’ll accept it has been answered. California’s HOME law SB 9 allows homeowners in areas like Fort Bragg and Ukiah to divide their property into two lots and build two homes on each. This effectively legalizes building fourplexes in areas that previously only allowed one home. Realistically, in Mendocino County these are the sort of high-density, multi-family homes we’re most likely to see so there’s no need to ask if we’ll accept it or not.
An item I would like to see on your agenda is adopting a Short-Term rental ordinance, like the ones in neighboring counties. This kind of action can offer immediate relief by stopping people and companies from out of the area from converting our houses into tourist-rental businesses.
Please, the time for research is over, we know what we need to do. The public wants you to stop considering and start doing.
This survey seems completely superfluous to the housing crisis the county is facing right now. I hope that the county will continue to work toward having a Housing Director to focus on the county’s housing needs and solutions. Perhaps a survey would be be developed at that time would be useful.
The survey that would yield results that could be used as a basis for actual action that could affect housing almost immediately would be a survey about how people feel about short term vacation rentals. There are almost 600 with business licenses for a short terms rental on the coast, and most likely another 20-40% (120 plus that do not even have a business license. The growth of corporate owned short term rentals nationally is 24% annually - meaning roughly another 100 vacations rentals could be active soon.
The need to find the balance between visitor income and housing for our workforce is urgent. Developing an ordinance and enforcement for short term rentals would stop the deluge of corporate owned vacation rentals and even to reclaim some housing for residents. The county is way behind with this issue! Most all the counties in California understood need and began regulation by 2017, when Dan Gjerde first tried to get county planning to work on a plan/ordinance.
The survey we could use right now is to find out how many short term vacation rentals we actually have, who owns them, and what if any restrictions the residents would like to see. Perhaps this housing survey could include various possible solutions including the HAT proposal we discussed with you a couple on months ago.
Submitted on behalf of the Mendocino County Farm Bureau
February 28, 2022
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
501 Low Gap Road, Room 1010
Ukiah, CA 95482
RE: Agenda Item 5C) Discussion and Possible Action Including Approval of Direction to Staff to 1) Determine Public Interest in Increased Housing, 2) Determine Where They Want It, 3) Determine Whether They Will Accept High-Density Multi-family Structures, and 4) Propose General Plan Updates Necessary to Realize Private Industry Development
Dear Chair Williams and Board Members,
The Mendocino County Farm Bureau (MCFB) is a non-governmental, non-profit, voluntary membership, advocacy group whose purpose is to protect and promote agricultural interests throughout the county and to find solutions to the problems facing agricultural businesses and the rural community. MCFB would like to submit comments on agenda item 5C.
MCFB is not against looking at ways for Mendocino County to improve upon housing stock availability for various housing tiers. Agriculture has also been affected from lack of housing for employees The concern that surfaces in the overall discussion related to new housing development is how existing agricultural operations could be impacted by future housing proposals. Past experiences with housing development have shown that projects have been checkerboarded within, or on the outskirts of, existing farm and ranch land. Considerations for right to farm, property setbacks, Williamson Act compliance, etc. are often overlooked which leads to conflicts between residential and agricultural uses on adjoining properties.
In addition, there has been a perceived lack of communication between the county and other municipalities when it comes to long term planning for housing in areas with shared boundaries and potential shared resources such as water and sewer. The “competition” for housing stock numbers and locations within jurisdictional boundaries does not always lead to development that is best for housing or for agriculture.
It is appreciated that the Board is looking at ways of improving the lack of housing stock while considering limitations such as water supply. MCFB requests that the conversation for agenda item 5C, and with future housing amendments to the county general plan, include considerations for minimizing impacts to farms and ranches.
MCFB appreciates the opportunity to submit comment for this item and we will plan to engage as this topic evolves. If there are any questions on the comments above, please feel free to contact the MCFB office.
Dear Board of Supervisors,
My name is Collin Thoma and I am the System Change Advocate with Disability Services and Legal Center (DSLC) based in Santa Rosa. We do serve people in Mendocino County. I am glad to see the county taking action to discus how and where to build new homes. I am here today to share the housing needs for people with Disabilities. There needs to be as much affordable housing as possible many of our consumers and people with Disabilities are lower income as many rely on Social Security or other public benefits, This mean that they will need housing that is designated to very to extremely low income due to the fact of the low dollar amount of Social Security and other benefits. Another huge area of need is to have housing that is acesaaible to people who have mobility and or physical (sight/hearing included) an easy way to do this will be to use the Visitability Method which, requires a minimum of a 32 inch width pathway inside and outside of the home. A zero step entrance ideally at the front door, or access though the garage or side door if the front door isn't possible. A minimum of a 32 inch width doorway, with at least a half bath big enough to allow for wheelchair access with walls strong enough to support grab bars. It also requires light switches and climate controls to be at a reachable height by someone in a wheelchair. This will also allow resident disabled or not to age in their own home and the home is ready if they become disabled. Finally new housing developments/neighborhoods should be close to shops, restaurants, community service such as mental health. They should also be close to reliable public transportation, some people with Disabilities may rely on it to get around if they don't/cant drive, and neighborhoods should have sidewalks and highly visible crosswalks to create a safe and acesaaible walking environment.
Thank You,
Collin Thoma
Systems Change Advocate
Disability Services & Legal Center (DSLC)
521 Mendocino Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707)636-3076
My name is Johanna Jensen, I live in Fort Bragg and am a member of the North Coast’s Housing Action Team
I’m happy to see an item about housing on the agenda, unfortunately the one before you isn’t need and I hope you’ll vote against it. Here’s my reasoning…
First, we don’t need a survey to see if the public is interested in more housing. It’s obvious we do, and it’s even been documented in surveys conducted by the City of Ukiah, HAT, SEIU, and Supervisor Williams. I think we can agree we need more housing and move on.
Then agenda item also wants the survey to determine where the public wants housing’ and whether we’ll accept high-density multi-family structures. Unfortunately, neither question is useful.
It doesn’t matter where, as the only place higher-density housing can be built is where there are public water and sewer systems.
And whether or not we’ll accept it has been answered. California’s HOME law SB 9 allows homeowners in areas like Fort Bragg and Ukiah to divide their property into two lots and build two homes on each. This effectively legalizes building fourplexes in areas that previously only allowed one home. Realistically, in Mendocino County these are the sort of high-density, multi-family homes we’re most likely to see so there’s no need to ask if we’ll accept it or not.
An item I would like to see on your agenda is adopting a Short-Term rental ordinance, like the ones in neighboring counties. This kind of action can offer immediate relief by stopping people and companies from out of the area from converting our houses into tourist-rental businesses.
Please, the time for research is over, we know what we need to do. The public wants you to stop considering and start doing.
This survey seems completely superfluous to the housing crisis the county is facing right now. I hope that the county will continue to work toward having a Housing Director to focus on the county’s housing needs and solutions. Perhaps a survey would be be developed at that time would be useful.
The survey that would yield results that could be used as a basis for actual action that could affect housing almost immediately would be a survey about how people feel about short term vacation rentals. There are almost 600 with business licenses for a short terms rental on the coast, and most likely another 20-40% (120 plus that do not even have a business license. The growth of corporate owned short term rentals nationally is 24% annually - meaning roughly another 100 vacations rentals could be active soon.
The need to find the balance between visitor income and housing for our workforce is urgent. Developing an ordinance and enforcement for short term rentals would stop the deluge of corporate owned vacation rentals and even to reclaim some housing for residents. The county is way behind with this issue! Most all the counties in California understood need and began regulation by 2017, when Dan Gjerde first tried to get county planning to work on a plan/ordinance.
The survey we could use right now is to find out how many short term vacation rentals we actually have, who owns them, and what if any restrictions the residents would like to see. Perhaps this housing survey could include various possible solutions including the HAT proposal we discussed with you a couple on months ago.
Submitted on behalf of the Mendocino County Farm Bureau
February 28, 2022
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
501 Low Gap Road, Room 1010
Ukiah, CA 95482
RE: Agenda Item 5C) Discussion and Possible Action Including Approval of Direction to Staff to 1) Determine Public Interest in Increased Housing, 2) Determine Where They Want It, 3) Determine Whether They Will Accept High-Density Multi-family Structures, and 4) Propose General Plan Updates Necessary to Realize Private Industry Development
Dear Chair Williams and Board Members,
The Mendocino County Farm Bureau (MCFB) is a non-governmental, non-profit, voluntary membership, advocacy group whose purpose is to protect and promote agricultural interests throughout the county and to find solutions to the problems facing agricultural businesses and the rural community. MCFB would like to submit comments on agenda item 5C.
MCFB is not against looking at ways for Mendocino County to improve upon housing stock availability for various housing tiers. Agriculture has also been affected from lack of housing for employees The concern that surfaces in the overall discussion related to new housing development is how existing agricultural operations could be impacted by future housing proposals. Past experiences with housing development have shown that projects have been checkerboarded within, or on the outskirts of, existing farm and ranch land. Considerations for right to farm, property setbacks, Williamson Act compliance, etc. are often overlooked which leads to conflicts between residential and agricultural uses on adjoining properties.
In addition, there has been a perceived lack of communication between the county and other municipalities when it comes to long term planning for housing in areas with shared boundaries and potential shared resources such as water and sewer. The “competition” for housing stock numbers and locations within jurisdictional boundaries does not always lead to development that is best for housing or for agriculture.
It is appreciated that the Board is looking at ways of improving the lack of housing stock while considering limitations such as water supply. MCFB requests that the conversation for agenda item 5C, and with future housing amendments to the county general plan, include considerations for minimizing impacts to farms and ranches.
MCFB appreciates the opportunity to submit comment for this item and we will plan to engage as this topic evolves. If there are any questions on the comments above, please feel free to contact the MCFB office.
Sincerely,
George Hollister
President