Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-12-2013 ss1 vacation rentals
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Prepared By: Doug Davidson, Deputy Community Development Director SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW EXISTING REGULATIONS PROHIBITING VACATION RENTALS IN THE CITY RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive a presentation and overview about vacation/homestay rentals: existing regulations, the pros/cons, and the impacts on staff workload/priorities if any proposed Ordinance amendments should be initiated to allow vacation rentals in the City. 2. If Council desires to amend existing regulations, review and provide direction to initiate Ordinance amendments and general parameters within which to allow vacation/homestay rentals according to the Council Direction “Yes/No” chart on pages 13-14 of the agenda report and the priority of such an endeavor if desired by Council. Additionally, staff requests clarity on the following : a. Whether to require SLO Hosts to submit an application to cover the costs to prepare Ordinance text amendments to Title 17: Zoning, and b. Whether to direct staff to enforce only complaint-based reports with actual addresses in the interim until Council adopts Ordinance amendments, and c. Whether to re-organize existing workload to accommodate this project or supplement staff. If Council desires to amend existing regulations, staff would return as early as possible with a Resolution of Intent and any necessary budget adjustments necessary to implement Council direction. REPORT-IN-BRIEF A vacation rental is defined “as a dwelling or part thereof where lodging is furnished for compensation for fewer than thirty consecutive days. This does not include fraternities, sororities, convents, monasteries, hostels, bed and breakfast inns, hotels, motels, or boarding/rooming houses, which are separately defined 1.” In 2006, the City Council amended the Zoning Regulations to include an express prohibition on vacation rentals in all zones in the City 2. The prohibition was enacted until such time as an ordinance could be adopted specifically addressing the potential impacts that vacation rentals could 1 Municipal Code Section 17.100 2 Municipal Code Section 17.22.010G Meeting Date Item Number November 12, 2013 SS1 - 1 have on adjacent residential uses 3(Attachment 1). No subsequent Council action has been taken to repeal or modify the prohibition. Prior to 2006, the Municipal Code was “silent” on vacation rentals, in effect, precluding this use. A land use not listed in Land Use Table 9 of the Zoning Regulations is not allowed, unless Ordinance amendments are adopted to explicitly permit such a use 4. City staff received complaints from neighbors and other interested parties regarding vacation rentals and began pro-active enforcement efforts in March 2013. Pro-active enforcement is consistent with the Neighborhood Wellness Major City Goal adopted by the City Council. Three Administrative Citations and 11 Notices to Correct were issued to operators of vacation rentals. Staff and the Council received letters and testimony from many supporters and operators of vacation rentals encouraging amendments to Municipal Code 17.22.010G to allow such uses. On September 3, 2013, after receiving public comments, the Council directed staff to agendize the topic of vacation rentals at a future meeting as a study session. This format provides the Council with the ability to receive information on the issue and consider the pros and cons of any Municipal Code changes and an opportunity for the Council to provide direction to staff for any code amendments, enforcement changes, and to evaluate the public process to seek input on any Municipal Code changes desired by a majority of the Council. Planning Commission Appeal The property owner of 1265 Mill Street received a Notice to Correct on May 15, 2013 and a timely appeal was filed on May 29, 2013. The appeal was denied by the Community Development Director on July 24, 2013. A timely appeal of this action was received on August 1, 2013. On October 9, 2013 the Planning Commission denied the appeal based on findings that the business operation at 1265 Mill Street was a vacation rental, which is not allowed under the adopted Zoning Regulations. The Planning Commission’s decision was not appealed. Vacation Rentals, Homestays, and Other Similar Land Use Terms In addition to vacation rentals, the terms “short-term rentals”, “transient rentals”, and “resort dwelling units” are used to describe this type of land use. All of these terms describe a dwelling unit (or part of) that is rented for a period of less than 30 consecutive days. A distinguishing feature of these types of vacation rentals is that the property owner/operator may or may not reside on the site or occupy a portion of the residential unit concurrently with guests. The term “homestay” is also becoming a commonly used term for vacation rentals. In a homestay dwelling, the owner permanently resides in the residence and rents out portions of the dwelling, either at the same time as the owner occupies the unit or during time periods when the owner may be vacationing or occupying another property. Bed and breakfast inn (B&B) means a building or group of buildings providing fifteen or fewer bedrooms or suites that are rented for overnight lodging, with a common eating area for guests. The definition does not include room rental, which is separately defined (see “boarding/rooming 3 Excerpt from City Council staff report dated December 5, 2006 adopting the 2007 Zoning Regulations Amendments 4 Municipal Code Section 17.22.010B SS1 - 2 house”). Chapter 17.19 (Attachment 2) of the City’s Municipal Code contains the standards for Bed and Breakfast establishments. “Boarding” or “Rooming Houses” differ from vacation rentals by having multiple rooms for rent and a common shared dining facility. Also, rooming or boarding houses typically have longer stays than vacation rentals and are not defined by the 30-day time threshold. Lastly, “hotels” and “motels” are distinguished from vacation rentals by being a stand-alone commercial use with separate room entrances and an on-site manager. General Plan Policies The General Plan does not currently contain policies that directly address vacation rentals. However, there are Land Use Element policies that address Tourist Commercial uses (Policy 3.5.2) says: “Visitor-serving uses should be integrated with other types of uses, including overnight accommodations downtown, near the airport and near the train station; small-scale facilities (such as hostels or bed-and-breakfast places) may be located in Medium-High Density Residential and High-Density Residential Districts, where compatible. Visitor-serving uses are especially appropriate where such uses have already concentrated: along upper Monterey Street; at the Madonna Road area; at certain freeway interchanges; and in the downtown.” Land Use Policy 3.5.4 states that: “Site planning, building design, and types of activities for new tourist-commercial development adjacent to residential areas should be carefully reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, the Planning Commission, or both, to assure compatibility.” These two above policies recognize that visitor-serving uses are an important component of the city’s economic profile, but also reflect that the community has identified places where these uses are typically located: in commercial areas and in higher density residential areas if provided at a smaller scale. These policies do not address the appropriateness of vacation/homestay rentals in lower density residential areas. The Land Use Element also contains policies intended to provide neighborhood protection and enhancement. Specifically, Policy 2.2.13 says: “Residential areas may accommodate limited non-residential activities which generally have been compatible, such as child day care, elementary schools, churches, and home businesses meeting established criteria.” Policy 2.1.3 indicates that neighborhoods should be protected from intrusive traffic. Finally, Housing Element Goal 7, Neighborhood Quality, says: “Maintain, preserve and enhance the quality of neighborhoods, encourage neighborhood stability and owner occupancy, and improve neighborhood appearance, function, and sense of community.” SS1 - 3 Some testimony provided over the last few months to Council indicates that owners who rent out rooms or houses do so to support their financial ability to retain ownership of their houses which might otherwise become student rentals. Since neighborhood wellness was identified as a Major City Goal, the Community Development Department has focused on enforcing standards in neighborhoods to preserve safety, neighborhood character and attractiveness. Allowing vacation/homestay rentals in neighborhoods would require that the City evaluate and determine whether the nature of these uses impact neighborhoods and if so, what those impacts are and what mitigations would be required to address such issues as noise, parking, and traffic. The Council will need to balance the notion of introducing visitor serving uses in residential areas with policies that address neighborhood protection. The Council may also wish to consider whether any measures are necessary or desirable to ensure housing and building code compliance and safety for transient occupancy tenants of residential structures held out for such uses. Enforcement Efforts At the beginning of 2013, the City started receiving complaints regarding vacation rentals operating in residential areas. Complaints received have been both general and specific in nature. Complaints of a general nature have been received from three individuals. These complaints did not identify any specific address, but rather objected that there were many illegal vacation rentals advertised on various websites. One complaint was received from an operator of a local Bed and Breakfast and complained of unfair competition. The two other general complaints were concerned with the potential negative impacts on residential neighborhoods, the lack of enforcement by the City, and the lack of compliance with Business Tax and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) requirements. Complaints of a specific nature have been filed by neighbors in the vicinity of some vacation rentals and the concerns expressed have included excessive noise, parking and increased traffic at the site. Five such complaints were received regarding specific addresses. The issues raised at these addresses included parking, noise, strangers, parties, and RV use for accommodations parked on a public street. As a result of these complaints active enforcement of vacation rentals began in March 2013. Given other code enforcement priorities and limited resources, the Community Development Department allotted four hours per week to devote to enforcement efforts related to vacation rentals. By some accounts, the City’s enforcement efforts have not been adequate as the number of vacation rental listings has actually increased since enforcement efforts started. While some have ceased operations, other vacation rentals have been identified. A more effective effort to enforce the prohibition would likely require devoting additional resources in Community Development, City Attorney’s Office, and the Finance Department. To date 13 properties have received Notices to Correct for operating illegal vacation rentals and three properties also were issued administrative citations. Twelve properties have complied and removed or modified their listings on the various websites to be in compliance with the ordinance (i.e. renting for periods of 30 days or more). One property has a business license specifying the property as a vacation rental. As such the business has been classified as an existing nonconforming use. The business license was issued in 2006; however the business has not paid TOT. SS1 - 4 As of mid-October, there are currently 40 other listings that appear to be within the City, but further investigation is required to positively identify the addresses of the properties. Some of the listings give a general area with exterior photos, while others only have interior photos. Staff has noted that since enforcement efforts began, many listings have removed the owner’s names, addresses and exterior photos of the residences in an attempt to evade enforcement. This makes identification of the property using the listing information difficult and time consuming. Additional enforcement techniques could be pursued, but would require additional resources. Research on Other Cities and County A number of comparable cities were surveyed to evaluate the range of approaches and policies related to vacation rentals and enforcement activity was found to vary significantly. The demand for vacation rentals seems to determine what level and type of enforcement, if any, is utilized. For example, the City of Monterey, where demand is high, prohibits vacation rentals and code enforcement is utilized to enforce regulations. The city utilizes misdemeanor criminal citations to obtain compliance. In contrast, there is very little demand for vacation rentals in the City of Santa Maria so enforcement is not an issue. The City of Davis does not have the demand for vacation rentals and has taken no steps to regulate them. The City of Santa Barbara does not allow vacation rentals by ordinance, but collects the TOT. They utilize an outside consultant to monitor the various rental websites to ensure payment of the TOT. The cities of Paso Robles, Arroyo Grande, and Grover Beach all collect TOT and require business licenses, but do not otherwise regulate vacation rentals. The City of Santa Cruz collects TOT, but does not require a business license if the rental is fewer than three units. The City of Morro Bay allows vacation rentals, collects TOT and requires vacation rental permits to operate. Enforcement action is complaint based. The County of San Luis Obispo allows vacation rentals in Cambria and Cayucos and must comply with certain standards, such as linear distance separation requirements, maximum occupancy allowed, and time limits. Moreover, owners are required to provide notice of contact information to surrounding residents within 200 feet. Zoning clearance and business license are required and TOT is collected. Code enforcement responds to complaints and works in conjunction with the Sheriff’s Department on enforcement cases. The City of Pismo Beach allows vacation rentals in the downtown area by right and prohibits them in residential zones. TOT is collected and enforcement actions are taken when complaints are received. The City of Napa requires a vacation rental permit, business license and collects TOT. Similar to the County of San Luis Obispo, there are a number of requirements, ranging from maximum number of occupants to annual inspections by the Fire Department. Enforcement is based on complaints. Pros and Cons of Vacation Rentals The Council has received correspondence and testimony from the community citing the benefits of vacation rentals, as well as concerns of neighborhood compatibility. Providing an alternative visitor SS1 - 5 experience and adding City tax revenues are potential benefits associated with vacation rentals. Protection of neighborhood character is the most cited concern about vacation rentals. Land use and housing supply issues are also noted as concerns. The pros and cons listed below are not comprehensive. The list developed by staff is a partial list and both advocates and opponents of any ordinance changes may have additional issues. The side- by-side tables below compare the pros and cons of homestays (owner-occupancy required) and vacation rentals (owner-occupancy not required). Homestays have potentially less impacts on a neighborhood since the property owner is typically living in and caring for their home when hosting visitors. Vacation rentals have potential for greater impacts to the surrounding properties because the owner is not living on the premises to manage the property. SLO Hosts has prepared a recommended ordinance for Council consideration (Attachment 3). Although, this is not a complete ordinance it provides some perspective from the operators. Attachment 4 is issue paper prepared by SLO Hosts which contains a pros/cons discussion. Some of the pros and cons of allowing vacation rentals and homestays include: Vacation Rentals Homestays Pros Cons Pros Cons Visitors from other areas can experience SLO neighborhoods Potential noise, parties, trespassing, traffic and other nonresidential activities Visitors from other areas can experience living in SLO neighborhoods Potential noise, parties, trespassing, traffic and increased transient/non- resident presence in residential neighborhoods They provide alternative visitor accommodations Deterioration of neighborhood cohesiveness in terms of keeping housing filled with occupants that have more permanent ties to the community They provide alternative visitor accommodations Unfair competition with traditional transient occupancy uses such as hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast establishments (how is it unfair if they have to get permits, pay taxes , comply with codes, and participate in the TBID in the same manner as hotels?) Rental income helps buoy real estate market and keep owners in their homes Unfair competition with traditional transient occupancy uses such as hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast establishments Rental income helps buoy real estate market and keep owners in their homes Increases commercial uses in residential areas Revenue to the City in the form of Transient Occupancy Tax and Business Licenses Limits ability to maintaining commercial uses in commercial areas Revenue to the City in the form of Transient Occupancy Tax and Business Licenses Renter safety and owner liability issues Some vacation rentals are not owner-occupied and therefore are less likely to be cared for to the same degree as permanent residences The home is a primary residence and the owner will be available to manage the property and address any neighborhood conflicts Impacts to rental housing and impacts to real estate market. Renter safety and owner liability issues Establishing and monitoring primary residence requirements to ensure SS1 - 6 neighborhood compatibility is difficult to monitor and enforce. If vacation rentals proliferate there will be fewer families and owner occupied dwellings in the City. Currently about 62% of all housing units in the City are rentals Impacts to rental housing and impacts to real estate market. Staff will evaluate these pros and cons, as well as other possible benefits and concerns of vacation rentals identified through the public process, if Council directs Ordinance amendments. Staff will recommend incorporation of regulations to mitigate against potential adverse impacts. Examples of Vacation Rental Regulations As stated above, protection of the neighborhood character and segregating this commercial activity into commercial zones is the fundamental basis of vacation rentals regulations. A related concern is the protection and maintenance of physical property as property owners are perceived to be more diligent than short-term renters in property upkeep 5. Many communities authorize the collection of TOT and licensing fees for vacation rentals. Some of the other possible regulations are included in the table below; they could potentially apply to either vacation or homestay rentals: Possible Regulations Examples 1 Geographically based restrictions Allowed in certain zones only 2 Quantitative and operational restrictions Linear separation requirements and numerical caps 3 Max Occupancy Limits Based on number of bedrooms and/or available parking 4 Rental Time Periods Maximum times per year 5 Parking Requirements Require additional off-street parking 6 Postings Require property posting of operational restrictions and owner information 7 Mandatory Designated Representatives Provide 24-hour contact info 8 Trash and Recycling City Ordinance or specific standards (only if identified impacts are different) 9 Property Maintenance Standards City Ordinance or specific standards (only if identified impacts are different) 5 Data collected and reported to the City Council in May 2013 appears to show a greater correlation of property maintenance violations to rental properties. SS1 - 7 Possible Regulations Examples 10 Licensing/Approval Process Business License, Use Permits 11 Inspections Annual or some other time period 12 Tax Revenue Transient Occupancy Tax, Business License Fees, Inspection Permit Fees Should Council initiate zoning amendments, staff would research these and other standards and incorporate, as appropriate, into an ordinance for review. The Council should provide direction on any other regulations than those listed in the table above that it would like to have considered or any identified approaches that should not be included in an ordinance. Some cities require a use permit for vacation rentals, either at the Planning Commission level or at a lower administrative level. Others issue vacation rental permits through the business license process. The adopted City Business license and Business Tax would apply to either vacation or homestay rentals. However, the business license process in the City is revenue focused and does not have a regulatory component directed at addressing operational impacts of businesses. A question has been raised as to whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is applicable to single-family dwellings used as vacation rentals. The ADA regulates places of public accommodation and provides that: A place of public accommodation means a facility operated by a private entity whose operations affect commerce and fall within at least one of the following categories: (1) Place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a facility that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that actually is occupied by the proprietor of the establishment as the residence of the proprietor. For purposes of this part, a facility is a "place of lodging" if it is – (i) An inn, hotel, or motel; or (ii) A facility that – (A) Provides guest rooms for sleeping for stays that primarily are short-term in nature (generally 30 days or less) where the occupant does not have the right to return to a specific room or unit after the conclusion of his or her stay; and (B) Provides guest rooms under conditions and with amenities similar to a hotel, motel, or inn, including the following; (1) On- or off-site management and reservations service; (2) Rooms available on a walk-up or call-in basis; (3) Availability of housekeeping or linen service; and (4) Acceptance of reservations for a guest room type without guaranteeing a particular unit or room until check in, and without a prior lease or security deposit. Based on this definition an owner-occupied homestay would clearly not be considered a place of public accommodation as noted in the definition above and would not be regulated by ADA unless there were more than five rooms for rent. In the case of a non-owner occupied vacation rental, ADA requirements would only be applicable if the residence was operated with all the amenities typical of a hotel and that are identified in section (1)(ii)B above. Most vacation rentals do not SS1 - 8 provide all of these listed amenities typical of a hotel or motel, and thus would not be classified as places of public accommodation and are not subject to the provisions of ADA. Ordinances from Other Jurisdictions - Best Practices Many communities throughout the country have (or are) addressed the issues involved in regulating vacation rentals. There are many good sources and best practice ordinances for staff to use as a starting point in preparing vacation/homestay rental regulations. One informational source is a White Paper, by Robinson & Cole, LLP, published for the National Association of Realtors in 2011 (White Paper, Attachment 5)6. While obviously prepared from the vacation rental landlords perspective, this White Paper presents comprehensive information and was referenced in preparing this study session. It has many examples of Best Practice communities for staff to explore if Council deems such a study a high priority. Staff also contacted numerous jurisdictions as shown in the table below. The table below shows how San Luis Obispo’s comparable cities and other cities in the County address vacation rentals: Vacation Rental Ordinances Comparable Cities Cities Vacation Rental Ordinance Regulations Yes No Davis X No Ordinance, hasn’t become a local issue Monterey X No Ordinance, hasn’t become a local issue Napa X Permit, Annual Fire inspection, House Rules Max occupancy, on-site parking required Paso Robles X No separate ordinance, allowed along with other visitor- serving uses, collects TOT Santa Barbara X No Ordinance, but collects TOT Santa Cruz X No Ordinance, but collects TOT Santa Maria X No Ordinance, hasn’t become a local issue Arroyo Grande X No Ordinance, hasn’t become a local issue Grover Beach X No Ordinance, but collects TOT on 2 existing rentals Pismo Beach X Allowed in visitor serving areas downtown Prohibited in Residential districts On-site parking required, Inspection prior to certificate Morro Bay X Annual permit/license, max occupancy, operational standards SLO County X Zoning Clearance/Minor Use Permit Specific criteria for Cambria and Cayucos, including a 200’ separation from another visitor serving use Max occupancy, no signs, on-site parking required 6 “Short-Term Rental Housing Restrictions” by Robinson & Cole, LLP, ©National Association of Realtors, 2011 SS1 - 9 All of the comparable cities with Ordinances (and two without) collect TOT on vacation rentals. The City’s TOT ordinance would apply to either vacation rentals or homestays as they meet the applicable definitions 7. While not permitted, unpermitted vacation rentals and homestays that have operated in the City are subject to the City’s TOT ordinance. Violations for failing to collect and remit TOT to the City are subject to penalties as specified in Section 3.04.140 8. An amnesty program for overdue and unpaid TOT, business license and taxes from unpermitted vacation rentals and homestays has been used in other jurisdictions as a tool to encourage unpermitted operators to obtain the necessary permits and prospectively pay TOT and any other license and taxes fees. Should Council initiate any amendments, staff will seek direction as whether an amnesty provision should be incorporated into any ordinance and whether any efforts should be directed toward collecting past TOT. Many cities operate in a gray area. Some cities like Davis and Santa Maria are completely silent and don’t address whether vacation/homestay rentals are allowed or not allowed. Others without an ordinance, such as Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara, recognize that such uses are technically not allowed, but have been directed by their Councils to collect TOT. As Santa Barbara City 7 3.04.020 Definitions. Except where the context otherwise requires, the definitions given in this section govern the construction of this chapter: A. “Hotel” means any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, lodginghouse, roominghouse, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, or other similar structure or portion thereof. 3.04.030 Imposed. For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient is subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount of ten percent of the rent charged by the operator. The tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the city which is extinguished only by payment to the operator or to the city. The transient shall pay the tax to the operator of the hotel at the time the rent is paid. If the rent is paid in installments a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment. The unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient’s ceasing to occupy space in the hotel. If for any reason the tax due is not paid to the operator of the hotel, the tax administrator may require that such tax shall be paid directly to the tax administrator. (Ord. 1232 § 1, 1993: Ord. 1184 § 1, 1991: prior code § 2552) 8 3.04.140 Violation—Penalty. A. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punishable therefor by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the city or county jail for a period of not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. B. Any operator or other person who fails or refuses to register as required in this chapter, or to furnish any return required to be made, or fails or refuses to furnish a supplemental return or other data required by the tax administrator, or who renders a false or fraudulent return or claim, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and is punishable as set forth in subsection A of this section. Any person required to make, render, sign or verify any report or claim who makes any false or fraudulent report or claim with intent to defeat or evade the determination of any amount due required by this chapter to be made, is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable as aforesaid. (Prior code § 2563) SS1 - 10 Administrator Jim Armstrong said in a recent news article, “we realize we’re kind of talking out of both sides of our mouth, but at least we’re getting people to pay their share of TOT.”9 None of the cities surveyed that allow vacation rentals by ordinance draw a distinction with homestays. Owner-occupancy of the home being rented was not a requirement in any of the comparable cities. All required a contact person be readily available and either live in the community or within a certain distance (e.g. 25 miles) from the vacation/homestay rentals. Other Best Practice communities include the cities of Encinitas, CA, Palm Desert, CA, Palm Springs, CA, Cannon Beach, OR, and Mendocino County. Further research with these and other jurisdictions would be conducted as part of preparing a vacation/homestay rental ordinance. Enforcement/Administration Costs v. Tax Revenue Based on the recent experience, it is estimated that up to. 25 FTE would be necessary to adequately enforce any changes to allow vacation/homestay rentals. The cost of a .25 FTE Code Enforcement Officer 1 position is approximately $25,000 per year. The City has estimated that the annual tax revenues associated with vacation rentals is $45,000, not including business license fees.10 TOT estimates vary with different factors for the number, occupancy, and rates for vacation rentals. Should Council initiate any code amendments, staff’s recommendation would be to adjust enforcement so that it is complaint based and only for specific locations identified by the reporting party until such time as an ordinance is developed. Legal Issues Regulating vacation rentals falls under the police powers of the City to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The White Paper cites case law upholding zoning regulations for short-term rentals, as well as restrictions and/or prohibitions in single-family neighborhoods. The White Paper also discusses “takings”, “due process”, and “equal protection” challenges to laws relating to vacation rentals. Proponents of modifying the ban on rentals have also provided one case to Council, which they believe raises legal barriers to the current ban related to illegal intrusion upon protected privacy rights (see Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica). Staff has considered that case and has provided the Council with another case, which directly addressed some of the concerns raised and concluded that short term rental prohibitions are valid against challenge based on concerns, including but not limited to privacy, raised in the Santa Monica case (see Ewing v. Carmel). The primary distinction between the cases is that the regulatory approach in Santa Monica sought to regulate based on relationship status of residential residents, which has long been held impermissible. The Carmel case involved regulations, like those currently in place in San Luis Obispo, that are directed at land uses and impacts on residential neighborhoods. If any amendments are directed, Community Development staff will work closely with the City Attorney’s to ensure that any recommended regulations align with legal requirements. 9 Pacific Coast Business Times September 20-26, 2013 10 Number of rentals 75 – Average nights per year (occupancy) 50 – Average daily rate $100 = Total Revenue $375,000 x .10 = $37,500 (TOT) + $37,500 (TBID Assessment) = $45,000 SS1 - 11 Connectivity to Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update The current Land Use and Circulation Elements place a strong focus on neighborhood protection and enhancement. The LUCE update is a focused and intended to address changes in community needs, changes in legislation, Strategic Growth Council grant objectives, and Council-directed efforts. Vacation/homestay rentals was not identified by the community during the “Issues and Opportunities” phase of the work effort and is outside the current scope of the consultant contract and would need to be augmented to address this issue should Council want to integrate the work into the update. Staff does have some concerns that there may not be adequate time to integrate a well-considered proposal into LUCE update within the grant deadline and other complex issues being addressed in that update. If Council is inclined to incorporate this work into the LUCE update, staff will work with the Task Force and Planning Commission to provide input on policy direction for vacation rentals, the contract scope for the consultant would need to be modified and additional resources would need to be allocated to cover this effort. Staff estimates that adding this effort would require the allocation of an additional $25,000. Time Frame and Impacts to Workload The research and public outreach involved to prepare Ordinance amendments allowing vacation/homestay rentals would be a significant undertaking and demand substantial staff time and resources. Staff’s direct experience is that developing policy in this area generates a high degree of charged opinions on both sides of the issue. Given staff’s experience, it is estimated that approximately 1000 hours of staff time would need to be allocated to the effort. This estimate is based on the time to follow the typical policy development process that the City has used for years. This process would include outreach to residents, business groups, TBID, and other community organizations. Additionally, it would include the time to craft an ordinance and prepare the necessary environmental review for any ordinance revisions. Staff’s recent experience in preparing other Ordinance amendments, such as the Mobile Vendor Ordinance were substantial as they involved the intersection of public policy, case law and the input from the public and interest groups. Adopting vacation/homestay rental policies and standards could be more time consuming than this effort and would likely take approximately one year to develop. The Council may recall that the Community Development Department delivered a General Plan Annual Report to the City Council in March 2013. Appendix A of this report indicated that the current planning projects and long range policy initiatives left no available resources to tackle any new policy initiatives. While additional resources were provided to the City Departments in September to address workload related to current permit applications, these resources are not available to tackle new policy initiatives such as vacation rentals, medical marijuana, Cal Poly Master Planning, or revising the Municipal Code to change the City’s street naming process. These four efforts would require a minimum of a 1.0 Planner to adequately address all of these discrete policy issues. Absent new resources, if the Council directs amendments to address vacation/homestay rentals, it would significantly delay existing projects, including the continued update of the Zoning SS1 - 12 Regulations (bedrooms/guesthouses), as well as updates of the Subdivision Regulations and Sign Regulations. Moreover, preparing a vacation/homestay rental ordinance could affect implementation of the Community Development Department’s Organizational Assessment and the Economic Development Strategic Plan. These two projects are components of Major City Goals. Alternatively, if Council is inclined to initiate zone changes and desires that any amendments be processed within a shorter time frame, direction could be provided to develop such amendments and route any amendments straight through the Planning Commission and then straight to the City Council. This process could be completed in six months, but would require an additional 520 staff hours. Again, additional temporary staff resources would need to be allocated or existing work program efforts would be stalled until such time that any ordinance is adopted and implemented. Whether or not Council directs any amendments, direction to increase enforcement of the existing prohibitions will also require the re-direction of resources from current programs and priorities for code enforcement staff, finance staff (if TOT collection is desired) and city attorney staff. This would result in diminished resources directed at other neighborhood wellness and code enforcement efforts or delays to study or implementation of current priorities and identified major City goal work programs, such as residential rental inspection administrative appeal process development (which the City Attorney’s office strongly recommends is a necessary priority action to support increased City wide administrative code enforcement consistent with Council direction). City application fees Per the City’s adopted fee schedule, the application fees for a Zone Text Change and the mandatory environmental review are $11,795 ($9,239 Zoning + $2,556 Environmental). Consistent with Council policy on collection of fees, staff recommends that should the Council initiate amendments that SLO Hosts be the applicant and pay the fees to process any amendments. This recommendation is consistent with Budget and Fiscal Policies adopted with the FY 2013-15 Financial Plan. Specifically the section on User Fee Cost Recovery Goals discusses that fee recovery levels are set based on several factors but the two that apply in this case are as follows: 1. Community-Wide Versus Special Benefit. “…The use of general-purpose revenues is appropriate for community-wide services, while user fees are appropriate for service that are special benefit to easily identified individuals or groups.” 2. Service Recipient Versus Service Drivers. After considering community-wide versus special benefit of the service, the concept of service recipient versus service driver should be considered. For example, it could be argued that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the city’s development review efforts: the community is the primary beneficiary. However the applicant is the driver of the development review costs, and as such, cost recovery from the applicant is appropriate. Because there is a special benefit to be accrued to those who will be allowed to use their residential properties as vacation rentals/homestays there is a special benefit associated with this potential change in the zoning code. Moreover these property owners while not developers in the traditional sense are driving the need to incur this cost. As a result, staff is recommending that the costs of services necessary to prepare and adopt a vacation/homestay rental ordinance be borne by SLO Hosts. Although, SLO Hosts is an informal association of interested parties, requiring them to pay the fee is the only way to equitably apply the Council’s fee policy. Alternatively, if the Council SS1 - 13 determines that the community is the primary beneficiary of this program it would not be appropriate to charge SLO Hosts. Focus Questions for Council Direction In conclusion, staff has provided the following table with focused questions to facilitate Council direction: Questions for Council Direction Yes No Vacation Rentals (Owner occupancy not required) Homestays (Owner occupancy required) Geographically based restrictions (certain zones only) Quantitative and operational restrictions (linear distance separation, numerical cap) Max Occupancy Limits (number of bedrooms or available parking) Rental Time Periods (max times per year or within a certain time frame) Off-Street Parking Requirements Property Postings Mandatory Designated Representatives Trash and Recycling (City Ordinance or specific) Property Maintenance Standards (City Ordinance or specific) Use Permit – Planning Commission or Administrative Annual or Periodic Inspections Collect TOT 11 Amnesty on Unpaid TOT Applicant (SLO Hosts) Pay Application Fees Adjust Enforcement Truncated Process (without public outreach) The staff presentation on November 12, 2013, will include a similar decision matrix to help focus Council direction. FISCAL IMPACT It is estimated that the work to prepare Ordinance amendments using the traditional outreach and public engagement approach would be approximately 1,000 hours or $50,000 in staff costs ($42,000 for staffing + $8,000 in public outreach costs). ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the study session if more information is necessary in order to provide direction to staff on preparing a vacation/homestay rentals ordinance. 11 Exempting vacation rentals or homestays would require an amendment to the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance and is not recommended. SS1 - 14 2. Bring an ordinance back to the Council with a Planning Commission recommendation as soon as possible and limit public outreach efforts. This is not recommended because the City’s public outreach efforts have brought valuable input into the Ordinance preparation process and have become an integral and expected component of any such effort. 3. Direct that the City initiate the Ordinance amendment application and absorb the costs associated with such an effort. This is not recommended because SLO Hosts is the initiator and proponent of the process and should bear the costs of preparing the Amendments. ATTACHMENTS 1. Attachment 1 – Excerpt from City Council Report December 5, 2006 2. Attachment 2 – Chapter 17.91 Bed and Breakfasts 3. Attachment 3 – SLO Hosts Recommended Ordinance 4. Attachment 4 – SLO Hosts Issue Paper 5. Attachment 5 – White Paper “Short-Term Rental Housing Restrictions” \\chstore4\Team\Council Agenda Reports\2013\2013-11-12\VacationRentalStudySession(Johnson-Davidson)\E-CAR-Study Session_VacationRental.docx SS1 - 15 Attachment 1 SS1 - 16 Chapter 17.19 BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS Sections: 17.19.010 Purpose. 17.19.020 Definitions. 17.19.030 Applications and approvals required. 17.19.040 General standards. 17.19.050 Site development and performance standards in the R-3 and R-4 zones. 17.19.060 Site development and performance standards in the agriculture zone. 17.19.070 Findings required. 17.19.080 Revocation of a permit. 17.19.010 Purpose. To establish standards for the development of bed and breakfast establishments within the residential and agriculture zones of the city upon conforming to set criteria and conditions. The intent of these standards is to ensure that the location, concentration, and design of bed and breakfast establishments is consistent with or does not negatively affect the character or function of the neighborhood and surroundings. (Ord. 1429 § 3 (part), 2003) 17.19.020 Definitions. “Bed and breakfast inn” means a building or group of buildings providing up to fifteen rooms or suites for the accommodation of travelers, with a common eating area for guests. (Ord. 1429 § 3 (part), 2003) 17.19.030 Applications and approvals required. A bed and breakfast inn is allowed as specified in Chapter 17.22 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. In addition to the applicable use permit requirement, review by the cultural heritage committee and architectural review commission may be required depending upon the type of changes proposed to any structure intended for use as a bed and breakfast inn. (Ord. 1429 § 3 (part), 2003) 17.19.040 General standards. These standards apply to all bed and breakfast homes or inns in the R-3, R-4, and AG zone districts: A. The use permit is subject to review at any time and may be revoked after a hearing by the planning commission and a finding by the planning commission that the use has become detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood; B. A bed and breakfast inn must comply with all other provisions of the zone in which it is located and must comply with all other ordinances of the city; C. A city business license is required and remittance of transient occupancy tax is required; D. Any other conditions deemed essential and desirable by the planning commission may be imposed on such a use; E. The home shall not be used by the public or paying guests for the hosting of receptions, private parties or the like; F. Meals, if provided, shall be served only to residents and overnight guests of the bed and breakfast home; G. There shall be no separate or additional kitchen facility for the guests; H. No alteration shall be allowed to the exterior of the dwelling or yard that alters the residential characteristics of the premises or jeopardizes/eliminates features of historical or architectural significance. Chapter 17.19 BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/SanLuisObispo/SanLuisObispo17/Sa... 1 of 3 10/21/2013 7:38 PM Attachment 2 SS1 - 17 Changes to any historical building shall be consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards and shall be subject to cultural heritage committee and architectural review commission approval; I. No historical structure shall be removed in order to allow for a bed and breakfast home or inn nor shall such a structure be removed in order to provide parking for such a use; J. One non-internally illuminated sign may be erected on the property not to exceed ten square feet in size per street frontage. Lighting level shall comply with city sign regulations for the zone district. The sign shall complement the nature of the use; i.e., historic structures should have an historic style sign. The sign shall contain no information other than identification of the premises as the named bed-and-breakfast home. (Ord. 1429 § 3 (part), 2003) 17.19.050 Site development and performance standards in the R-3 and R-4 zones. These additional standards apply to bed and breakfast inns in the R-3 and R-4 zones: A. The main building of the bed and breakfast establishment must be the “primary residence” of the “owner” or “manager” of the bed and breakfast use; B. Accessory buildings and structures may also be used for bed and breakfast guest rooms; C. Generally, the minimum parking setback for guest/employee spaces shall be fifteen feet from a “street yard” and five feet from an “other yard” (yards as defined in Section 17.16.020). The parking area shall be screened from direct view of the public right-of-way by a completely planted visual barrier; D. All parking spaces and driveways shall be paved to city standards with decorative materials or, if a historic property, materials which maintain the historical character of the neighborhood and premises; E. In general, the number of guest rooms permitted should be based on the city’s density unit calculation with a rental room counting as a studio, and shall in no case exceed fifteen. The manager’s quarters shall be valued based on number of bedrooms but in no case shall be less than 1.0 density unit. The maximum density unit value, less the value of the manager’s quarters shall generally determine the maximum number of guest rooms. Other factors used in determining the appropriate number of guest rooms that may be permitted in any location shall include the relationship of the site to parking, access, character, size and scale of surrounding uses; F. Sites with historic structures shall balance outdoor space for guest use with space required for off-street parking needs. (Ord. 1429 § 3 (part), 2003) 17.19.060 Site development and performance standards in the agriculture zone. These additional standards apply to bed and breakfast homes or inns in the agriculture (AG) zone: A. The main building of the bed and breakfast establishment must be the “primary residence” of the owner or manager of the bed and breakfast use; B. Accessory buildings and structures may also be used for bed and breakfast guest rooms; C. The establishment of a bed and breakfast use shall not result in the conversion of land in agricultural production; D. Factors used in determining the appropriate number of guest rooms that may be permitted in any location shall include the relationship of the site to parking, access, character, size and scale of surrounding uses, and in no case shall the number of guest rooms permitted exceed fifteen. (Ord. 1429 § 3 (part), 2003) 17.19.070 Findings required. In approving a use permit for a bed and breakfast inn, the planning commission must make the following findings: Chapter 17.19 BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/SanLuisObispo/SanLuisObispo17/Sa... 2 of 3 10/21/2013 7:38 PM Attachment 2 SS1 - 18 A. The establishment of the bed and breakfast inn is consistent with the general plan; B. The establishment of the bed and breakfast inn will not be detrimental to a building, structure or feature of significant aesthetic, cultural, or historical interest or value; C. The establishment of the bed and breakfast inn does not constitute undue concentration of such establishments that would negatively affect the appearance and/or function of the surrounding neighborhood; and D. The establishment of the bed and breakfast inn is compatible with and will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood and surrounding land uses. These findings shall be in addition to those required for the approval of use permits contained in Section 17.58.040. (Ord. 1429 § 3 (part), 2003) 17.19.080 Revocation of a permit. The owner and/or manager of a bed and breakfast establishment shall fully comply with all conditions related to any permit or approval granted under this section. Failure to comply with any condition shall constitute grounds for revocation. If a condition is not remedied within a reasonable period, the community development director may schedule a public hearing before the planning commission to consider revocation of the permit. (Ord. 1429 § 3 (part), 2003) The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1593, passed September 17, 2013. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: http://www.slocity.org/ (http://www.slocity.org/) City Telephone: (805) 781-7103 Code Publishing Company (http://www.codepublishing.com/) eLibrary (http://www.codepublishing.com /elibrary.html) Chapter 17.19 BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/SanLuisObispo/SanLuisObispo17/Sa... 3 of 3 10/21/2013 7:38 PM Attachment 2 SS1 - 19 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO An Ordinance Amending City Code Chapters ____ To Add A “Residence Stay” Definition As An Allowed Use Within The Lodging Zoning Regulation BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: PART 1: Subsection xxx of the City Code Section xxx (residential Uses Described) is amended to add new definitions to read as follows and to renumber the remaining classifications accordingly: PRIMARY RESIDENCE is the property that the taxpayer uses a majority of the time during the year ordinarily will be considered the taxpayer’s primary residence. In addition to the taxpayer’s use of the property, relevant factors in determining a taxpayer’s primary residence may include, but are not limited to: 1. The taxpayer’s Secured Tax Bill indicating a Homeowner’s Property Tax Exemption 2. The address listed on the taxpayer’s federal and state tax returns; driver’s license, automobile registration, and voter registration card; 3. The taxpayers mailing address for bills and correspondences RESIDENCE STAY is the rental by the owner of a Primary Residence dwelling for less than 30 consecutive days. PART 2: City Code Section xxx (Table 9 – Uses Allowed By Zone) is amended to add a new use, Residence Stays, and Table 9 is amended as follows: R2, R3, R4 PART 3: City Code Chapters xxx (residential Uses) is amended to add a new Subpart C to read as follows: Subpart C. Requirements for Residence Stay Rental Uses. xxx-xxx RESIDENCE STAY RENTAL REGULATIONS. (A) This section applies to short-term Residence Stay use that: 1. Is rented for periods of less that 30 consecutive days; 2. Is not part of a multifamily use; and 3. Is an owner of a Primary Residence in the City of San Luis Obispo (B) A short-term Residence Stay use under this section may not: SS1 - 20 operate without a business license as required by Section xxx-xxx (License Requirements) xxx-xxx LICENSE REQUIREMENTS. (A) This section applies to a license required under Section xx-x-xxx (Residence Stay Rental Regulations) (B) To obtain a license, the owner of a primary residence rental use must submit an application on a form provided for that purpose by the director. The application must include the following: 1. A fee established by separate ordinance; 2. The name, street address, mailing address, telephone number, and email of the owner of the property; 3. Proof of a current Secured Tax Bill from the San Luis Obispo County Tax Assessor indicating a current Homeowners Exemption; 4. Proof of property insurance; 5. Proof of registration for payment of Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT); 6. A signed Residence Stay rental affidavit. (C) The director shall issue a license under this section if: 1. The application includes all information required under Subsection (B) of the section; 2. The proposed Residence Stay rental use complies with the normal requirements of residential use. 3. The structure has: a. A valid certificate of occupancy or compliance, as required by Chapter xx-x (Certificates of Compliance and Occupancy); or b. Been determined by the building official not to pose a hazard to life, health, or public safety, based on a minimum life-safety inspection checklist as follows. i. Address posted ii. Operable smoke alarms iii. Exit blocked or locked or multiple locks on exit. iv. Faulty finishes v. Combustible material storage, Explosive or highly flammable materials present. vi. Steps and/or ramps apparent. vii. Exposed wiring viii. Storage within 30” of Electrical panel ix. Heater improperly used or inadequate clearance to combustibles. (D) A license issued under this section: 1. Is valid until revoked; SS1 - 21 2. May not be transferred by the property owner listed on the application and does not convey with a sale or transfer of the property: and 3. Satisfies the requirement for a change of use permit from residential to residence stay use. (E) A license may be renewed annually if the owner of the primary residence; 1. Provides documentation that Transit Occupancy Taxes (TOT) have been paid for the property as required by Section xx-x-x (Quarterly Reports; Payments) for the previous year; and 2. Provides updates of any changes to the information required under Subsection (B) of this section. (F) Unmitigated Residence Stay rental violations may be grounds for revocation of a license. xxx-xxx NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. (A) The director shall provide a packet of information with each license summarizing the restrictions applicable to Residence Stay rental use, including: 1. The name and contact information of the owner of the primary residence; 2. Occupancy limits applicable under Section xx-x-xx (Dwelling Unit Occupancy Limit); 3. Restrictions on noise applicable under Chapter xx-x (Noise and Amplified sound), including limitations on the use of amplified sound; 4. Other guidelines and requirements applicable to Residence Stay rental uses. (B) The owner of the primary residence rental use must provide renters a copy of the information packet under Subsection (A) of this section PART 4 LICENSE SUSPENSION Whenever the code official finds on inspection of the physical premises or review of applicable records of the Residence Stay rental that the conditions or practices exist that violate any provision of the City Code, or any rule or regulation adopted under this code, the code official shall give written notice to the owner of the primary residence that unless the violations are corrected by an identified deadline, the license shall be suspended. At the end of the time provided for correction of the violation(s), the code official shall re-inspect the location or records of the Residence Stay rental establishment and, if the conditions or practices have not been corrected, shall suspend the license and give written notice to the licensee that the license ha been suspended. SS1 - 22 On receipt of the notice of suspension, the licensee shall immediately stop operation of the Residence Stay rental establishment. PART 5. The Council waives the requirement for a technical board review under City Code section xx-x-xxx (Amendment; Review) PART 6. This ordinance takes effect on December 1, 2013. PASSED AND APPROVED ________________________, 2013 _____________________________ Date Jan Marx Mayor Approved:_________________ ATTEST: ______________________ SS1 - 23 City of San Luis Obispo Short-Term Rental Issues Background In 1988, the City of San Luis Obispo passed an ordinance banning all short-term rentals within the city limits. At the time, only a handful of short-term rentals existed in the city, and as such, the need for enforcement of the ban was nearly non-existent. With the advent of vacation rental sites such as Airbnb, VRBO, and HomeAway, more short- term rentals became available in the city. Despite an increase in the number of short-term rentals, for the past 30 years, homeowners in the City of San Luis Obispo conducted short-term rentals with very few complaints or problems. According to the San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, there have been just five documented vacation rental complaints in the last 30 years, one of which was regarding a primary residence. Most of these homeowners never knew about the short-term rental ban because it was not actively enforced. In fact, the ordinance was so obscure, that some homeowners were actually issued business licenses, to conduct short-term rentals, by city employees who were ignorant of the law. These business licenses were later rescinded when the city began enforcing the law in May of 2013. The reason the city began enforcing the law was not due to any significant number of noise or public safety complaints. Enforcement began because one or two individuals, who were aware of the law, challenged the city simply for not enforcing it. They saw short-term rentals being advertised on Airbnb and VRBO and felt compelled to challenge the city for not imposing the ban. After persistent, continued pressure and threats of legal action, the city was forced to comply with the enforcement demand. In May of 2013 homeowners began receiving cease and desist notices from the city. Soon thereafter, a group of approximately 25 local homeowners formed SLO Hosts, an advocacy group devoted to decriminalizing the practice of short-term rentals by owners of primary residences in the City of San Luis Obispo. SLO Host members live onsite at the properties they rent and are asking for the city to approve a new lodging use description called “residence stays”, which would allow owners of primary residences to rent out rooms for less than 30 days. In October of 2013, the city council voted 4:1, with mayor Jan Marx opposing, to study the topic of vacation rentals within the city limits. The study session, which is open to the public, takes place at 6pm on November 12, 2013 at the regularly scheduled city council meeting. Following is a list of issues that have commonly been advanced by those supporting and opposing short-term rentals and residence stays: Homeowner’s Right to Privacy and Equal Protection Case for Residence Stays SLO Host advocates believe that homeowners have a right to be left alone in the privacy of their own homes. Part of that protection includes having the right to choose with whom to live, regardless of how long a guest stays. Additionally, homeowners renting to short-term guests have equal protection under the law to be treated the same as homeowners who rent their properties long term. Case Against Residence Stays SS1 - 24 Opponents of residence stays believe that homeowners who rent their property to short-term guests do not have the same rights as homeowners who rent long term, and therefore, are subject to special rental conditions that are not required of long-term rentals. Likely Outcome Court decisions in the State of California such as the City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson and the Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. the City of Santa Monica support the SLO Host position case based on right to privacy and equal protection laws. Case law in these communities set a precedent that may prevent the City of San Luis Obispo from discriminating against a homeowner’s right to privacy and equal protection. Other case law examples in California could challenge right to privacy protection, making the likely outcome of a legal case against the city unknown. Home Ownership Affordability for Local Workforce Case for Residence Stays Due to the high cost of housing in the City of San Luis Obispo, the percentage of owner-occupied residences in the city is approximately 35%. The rate of home ownership by our local workforce continues to decline as investors increasingly purchase available properties due to a lucrative rental market, which now stands at 65% non-owner occupied. Short-term rentals provide owners of primary residences additional income that can be used to offset the high cost of a mortgage, thus making home ownership for our local workforce more attainable within the city. Further, because owners of primary residences rent rooms at the property where they live, availability of housing for other citizens is generally not impacted. Case Against Residence Stays Opponents believe that allowing residence stays will actually drive up the price of owner-occupied housing within the city, thus making home ownership even less affordable. Likely Outcome Because the number of short-term rental units are a relatively small percentage of the overall housing market in the City of San Luis Obispo (less than ½ of 1 percent), permitting short-term rentals for owners of primary residences would likely have little impact on the availability of affordable housing or general real estate prices. A limited number of homeowners could be forced to sell their homes without the extra income afforded by short-term rentals, which could create an even greater number of non-owner occupied residences, but again, not in large numbers. Effect on Neighborhoods Case for Residence Stays Because owners of primary residences live on-site at the properties they rent, they are more inclined to have relationships with neighbors and be protective of the homes in which they live. As such, owners of primary residences who rent to short-term guests are generally more selective about the people to whom they rent. Further, owners of primary residences are readily available to address issues, should they arise, and take immediate action. The fact that there has only been one documented complaint against a vacation rental by the owner of a primary residence in the past 30 years is proof that any negative effect on neighbors is negligible. Neighbors generally prefer occasional short-term renters to a home of full-time students, which is a likely outcome for secondary income property. Further, because occupancy rates for short-term rentals are normally less than 50%, there is less impact on the neighborhood than in a long-term rental situation. Issues such as parking, noise, and general congestion are actually reduced by short-term rentals. SS1 - 25 Nearly half of the income derived from short-term rentals is spent on home improvements to make the home more beautiful, thereby enhancing value of the neighborhood. Case Against Residence Stays Neighbors often want to know who is living next to them and are sometimes suspicious of people in the neighborhood who they don’t know. There is a fear that the owner of the primary residence will not be present when guests are in the home. Opponents of short-term rentals believe that short-term renters are more likely to commit crimes in the neighborhood than someone who is a long-term renter. Additionally, concerns regarding proliferation of short-term rental housing, on-street parking availability and noise are primary issues for opponents of short-term rentals. Likely Outcome For the past 30 years, owners of primary residences in the City of San Luis Obispo have conducted short- term rentals with very few complaints or problems – just one complaint. Until recently, most of these homeowners never knew about the short-term rental ban because the City of SLO never enforced it. As mentioned in the background section of this document, the law was so obscure, that some homeowners were actually issued business licenses to conduct short-term rentals by city employees who were ignorant of the law. It’s hard to imagine that the future would be much different than the past if the ordinance changed because few homeowners knew of the law in the first place. So if complaints for actual rental proliferation, noise, parking, or crime violations were going to be a real issue in the future, they would have certainty showed up in the past in greater numbers than they have. Looking at the factual evidence, there is no data to suggest that short-term renters pose any greater safety or noise impact than long-term renters or residents. Likely, student populations pose the greater risk of noise and safety issues within neighborhoods. There is factual evidence to suggest that owners of primary residences, who derive income from short- term renters, do make substantial investments to beautify their homes. Guests often rate the quality of their stays on vacation rental sites, which encourages homeowners to enhance their property. Protection of Affordable Rental Housing Case for Residence Stays Proponents of residence stays propound that short-term rentals by owners of primary residences do not significantly decrease the availability of affordable rental housing for young professional couples or students. The reasoning for this is that homeowners are not generally inclined to have a student living in one of their spare bedrooms while they are also occupying the same home. Owners of primary residences generally will not rent a spare room out full time, as they want the extra room to be available for family and friends on an occasional basis. Further, young professionals are typically not inclined to live in an owner-occupied house. In the case of a detached 1-bedroom “granny unit”, the economics of renting out short term are generally not compelling enough for most property owners. After taking into account advertising, cleaning, coordination, utilities, and occupancy rates, renting short term is typically not financially beneficial compared to long-term rentals of separate 1-bedroom units. Case Against Residence Stays SS1 - 26 Opponents believe that allowing residence stays will reduce the availability of affordable long-term rental housing. Because the nightly rate for vacation rentals seems so lucrative, opponents feel that property owners will be compelled financially to rent short term, reducing the availability of affordable long-term rentals. This is especially the case in 1-bedroom second units on the property. Likely Outcome Because the number of short-term rental units are a relatively small percentage of the overall housing market in the City of San Luis Obispo, permitting short-term rentals for owners of primary residences would have little impact on either the availability of affordable rental housing. Only a small fraction of the 35% of owner-occupied primary residences in the city have elected to rent rooms out on a short-term basis (less than 1/2 of 1%). There is no reason to believe that the number would increase substantially in the future given there was no effective ban in the past. The same fears existed when the city first considered allowing bed & breakfasts. The fear was that, due to lucrative rental rates, B&B’s would proliferate. But that did not happen because there are only so many people who are willing to do the work that it takes to successfully rent rooms to tourists short-term. The evidence of that is clear as only a small number of B&B’s exist in the city today and that number is dropping rather than expanding. The same issue that limits the number of B&B’s will limit the number of residence stays, namely, it’s hard work and many homeowners are not prepared to host travelers at their personal residence. The economics of renting a 1-bedroom secondary unit short term does not appear to be compelling in comparison to long-term rentals. Following is a financial example: Long-Term Detached 1-Bedroom Rental: Average Monthly Rent: $1,100 Utilities: Paid by renter Short-Term 1-Bedroom Rental: Average Monthly Rent: $1,800 (assumes 50% occupancy, $120/night) Utilities: ($200 monthly) paid by owner Advertising: ($50 monthly) Cleaning: ($300 monthly) assuming $75 fee x 4 rentals per month Furnishings: ($50 monthly) amortized Internet / Cable: ($100 monthly) Coordination: ($200 monthly) assumes 10 hours monthly x $20/hour Net Monthly Income: $900 Competition with Local Hotels Case for Residence Stays Travelers who stay at owner-occupied properties seek a unique lodging experience that cannot be offered by hotels or bed and breakfasts. While proponents of residence stays believe that competition is healthy for the tourism industry, short-term rentals generally do not compete with local hotels because the clientele preferences are very different. Additionally, residence stays provide an overflow option for tourists who find it difficult to find traditional lodging options during certain events when hotels have no vacancies, particularly during the summer. Residence stay proponents believe that short-term rentals should be subject to the Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) to create taxation parity and even competition with hotels. Case Against Residence Stays SS1 - 27 Opponents believe that short-term rentals may negatively impact the local hotel trade and create unfair competition. Likely Outcome As evidenced at the most recent TBID (Tourism Business Improvement District) meeting in October of 2013, the majority of hotel owners and managers do not see residence stays as a threat to their business. They simply want the playing field to be fair by ensuring that all short-term rentals include the TOT. The likely outcome of permitting residence stays is an increase of approximately $150,000 in yearly TOT income to the city. Increasing Local Tourism Case for Residence Stays Proponents of residence stays state that offering short-term rental options increases tourism by promoting additional choices for travelers. Evidence in the form of letters from past tourists indicate that if short-term rental options are not available, travelers will choose other communities for their vacations. The average length of stay by a short-term rental guest is over double that of a typical tourist, (4 days vs. 1.7 days) which increases tourism revenue. Due to high guest satisfaction ratings, proponents suggest that residence stay tourists are far more loyal, visit more frequently, stay longer, spend more, and recommend the City of SLO more often to friends, neighbors, and business associates. Money generated from short-term rentals remains in the local community and increases local revenue because rent is paid to primary residents that then spend locally. Further, tourists who are considering moving to San Luis Obispo want to experience the feel of living short term in an actual neighborhood prior to purchasing a home. Case Against Residence Stays There is currently no opposition to residence stays on the basis of promoting increased tourism. Likely Outcome Based upon the 55 short-term rentals that were operating at the time that the vacation rental ordinance was enforced, projections of yearly direct economic benefit to the city is estimated at approximately $7.6 million. There is little doubt that residence stays positively affect tourism and benefit the local economy. Following is a summary of how the $7.6 million is economic benefit estimate is derived: Number of short-term rentals prior to ban enforcement: ± 55 Average length of stay: 3.5 days Average occupancy: 3.2 Average daily rental rate: $150 per property Average Occupancy Rate: 50% Expected TOT at 10%: $148,500 ($150 x 180 days x 55 rentals) Average spent in community per day: $240 Total direct economic impact: $7.6 million ($240 x 180 days x 55 rentals x 3.2 occupants) Regulation and Enforcement Case for Residence Stays SLO Hosts are in favor of creating a new zoning use description classification to allow short-term rentals for owners of primary residences in the City of SLO. They are not asking for the current vacation rental SS1 - 28 ban to be overturned. The reason for this is that owners of primary residences are generally available to oversee guest behaviors, which is different than the typical vacation rental scenario. As a result, complaints by neighbors are relatively rare and can be handled directly by the property owner. In the event that a particular homeowner received multiple valid complaints, they could lose their right to conduct residence stays. SLO Hosts believe that the regulations and enforcement procedures for short-term rentals should be the same as those that are already in place for long-term rentals. Attached is a sample “residence stay ordinance” created by SLO Hosts, which explains how residence stays could be regulated. If accepted, the SLO Hosts ordinance proposal would be among the most restrictive short-term stay regulations in the country. Case Against Residence Stays Opponents of residence stays believe that regulations and enforcement for short-term rentals should be much more restrictive than those of long-term rentals. In particular, opponents believe that enforcement will be difficult and that substantial time will need to be spent to handle violations and complaints. Likely Outcome For the past 30 years, homeowners in the City of San Luis Obispo have conducted short-term rentals with very few complaints or problems. Until recently, there was little enforcement of the ordinance because legitimate complaints were extremely isolated. The one documented complaint against a primary resident was handled through existing city ordinances. It’s hard to imagine that the future would be much different than the past because few homeowners knew of the vacation rental ban in the first place. So if complaints for actual noise, parking, or crime violations were going to be a real issue in the future, they would have certainty shown up in the past in greater numbers than they have. Looking at the factual evidence, there is no data to suggest that short- term renters pose any greater safety or noise impact than long-term renters or residents. Because occupancy rates are less than 50%, actual impact on neighborhoods, and therefore the need for enforcement, would likely be exponentially reduced. The likely outcome is that residence stays will require little additional enforcement time than what is currently being expended for enforcing the current vacation rental ban. In fact, cities that distinguish between primary residences and non-primary residences in their ordinances have far fewer regulations, if any, for primary residences. The distinction is made in communities such as Austin, Texas and Ashland, Oregon because primary residence short-term rentals have been shown to cause very few complaints. SS1 - 29 SHORT-TERM RENTAL HOUSING RESTRICTIONS White Paper PREPARED BY ©Copyright 2011, National Association of Realtors® All rights reserved This document has been prepared by Robinson & Cole LLP in its capacity as consultant to NAR, for informational purposes only. The information contained in this document is not intended nor should it be construed as a legal opinion as to federal or state law with respect to any issue addressed. If NAR or its members require legal advice on any issue addressed in this paper, they should consult local counsel. SS1 - 30 SHORT-TERM RENTAL HOUSING RESTRICTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 11088817-v10 PREFACE ............................................................................................................................... iv SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Paper ................................................................................... 1 SECTION 2: OVERVIEW OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL RESTRICTIONS............................ 1 2.1 Purpose – The Municipal Perspective.................................................................... 1 2.1.1 Protection of Neighborhood Environment ................................................. 2 2.1.2 Protection of Physical Characteristics ....................................................... 2 2.1.3 Revenue...................................................................................................... 2 2.1.4 Fairer Competition with Licensed Lodging ............................................... 3 2.1.5 Protection of Renter Safety ........................................................................ 3 2.2 Types of Short-Term Rental Restrictions .............................................................. 3 2.2.1 Prohibition.................................................................................................. 3 2.2.2 Geographically-Based Restrictions ............................................................ 3 2.2.3 Quantitative and Operational Restrictions ................................................. 4 2.2.4 Registration/Licensing Requirements ........................................................ 6 2.3 Enforcement ........................................................................................................... 6 SECTION 3: IMPACTS OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL RESTRICTIONS................................ 7 3.1 Impacts on Rental Property Owners ...................................................................... 7 3.1.1 Rental Income ............................................................................................ 7 3.1.2 Property Values .......................................................................................... 8 3.1.2.1 Existing Short-Term Rental Properties .......................................... 8 3.1.2.2 Properties Not Previously Used as Short-Term Rental Properties ....................................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Operational Costs ....................................................................................... 9 3.1.4 Nonconforming Use Status ........................................................................ 9 3.2 Community Impacts ............................................................................................... 9 3.2.1 Local Real Estate Market ........................................................................... 9 3.2.2 Tourism ...................................................................................................... 9 SS1 - 31 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page -ii- 3.2.3 Local Economy ........................................................................................ 11 3.2.4 Tax Revenue ............................................................................................ 11 3.2.5 Affordable Housing ................................................................................. 11 3.2.6 Governmental Administrative Costs ........................................................ 12 3.3 Impacts on Renters ............................................................................................... 12 3.3.1 Rental Fees ............................................................................................... 12 3.3.2 Inventory of Short-Term Rental Units ..................................................... 12 3.4 Unintended Consequences of Short-Term Rental Restrictions ........................... 13 3.4.1 ―Underground Market‖ for Short-Term Rental Units .............................. 13 3.4.2 Uncertainty in the Short-Term Housing Market ...................................... 13 SECTION 4: LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY SHORT-TERM RENTAL RESTRICTIONS ................................................................................................. 13 4.1 Authority to Regulate ........................................................................................... 13 4.2 Takings ................................................................................................................. 14 4.3 Due Process .......................................................................................................... 15 4.4 Equal Protection ................................................................................................... 16 SECTION 5: WAYS TO ADDRESS PROPOSALS TO ESTABLISH SHORT-TERM RENTAL RESTRICTIONS................................................................................. 18 5.1 Question the Need for Short-Term Rental Restrictions ....................................... 18 5.1.1 Empirical Analysis ................................................................................... 18 5.1.2 Stakeholder Input ..................................................................................... 19 5.1.3 Public Process .......................................................................................... 19 5.2 Suggest Alternatives to Short-Term Rental Restrictions ..................................... 19 5.2.1 Enforcement of Existing Ordinances ....................................................... 19 5.2.1.1 Noise Limits ................................................................................. 19 5.2.1.2 Public Nuisance ........................................................................... 20 5.2.1.3 Property Maintenance Standards ................................................. 21 5.2.1.4 Unruly Public Gathering Ordinance ............................................ 21 5.2.1.5 Nighttime Curfew ........................................................................ 21 5.2.1.6 Parking Restrictions ..................................................................... 22 SS1 - 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page -iii- 5.2.2 Adoption of Ordinances that Target Community-Wide Issues ................ 22 5.3 Short-Term Rental Housing Regulation Best Practices ....................................... 22 5.3.1 Narrowly-Tailored Regulations ............................................................... 22 5.3.2 ―Grandfathering‖ Provisions .................................................................... 23 5.3.3 Quantitative and Operational Restrictions ............................................... 24 5.3.4 Licensing/Registration Requirements ...................................................... 25 5.3.5 Inspection Requirements .......................................................................... 26 5.3.6 Enforcement Provisions ........................................................................... 27 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................................ 30 SS1 - 33 11088817-v10 PREFACE This white paper on Short-Term Rental Housing Restrictions has been prepared by Robinson & Cole LLP in its capacity as national consultant to NAR. The paper is one in a series of white papers that NAR requests be prepared from time to time in order to focus on a particular smart growth-related issue that has arisen with sufficient frequency in communities around the country to merit a more in-depth analysis. The analysis of short-term rental housing restrictions in this paper is provided by NAR under its Smart Growth program to help REALTORS® at the state and local level better understand the issues involved in these types of restrictions, and to tailor strategies, as appropriate, to address short-term rental housing regulatory initiatives in their communities. Brian W. Blaesser Robinson & Cole LLP September 2011 SS1 - 34 1 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF PAPER This paper was prepared at the request of the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR). The purpose of this paper is to (1) explain the problem of short-term rental housing restrictions; (2) categorize and describe the different approaches taken by local governments to regulate short- term rental housing in their communities; (3) analyze the issues raised by these different regulatory approaches; (4) provide Realtors® with ways to address these issues; and (5) outline ―best practices‖ approaches to short-term rental housing that Realtors® can use in discussing the issue with local government officials. 1.2 KEY TERMS The term ―short-term rental housing‖ typically means a dwelling unit that is rented for a period of less than thirty consecutive days. In general, short term rental housing differs from bed & breakfasts, hotels, motels, and other ―lodging‖ uses by providing complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. Although bed & breakfasts often are similar in appearance and location to many short-term rentals, they are distinguishable by the presence of the owner/operator on- site.1 Boarding houses differ from short-term rentals by having multiple rooms or units for rent and common kitchen and dining facilities that are shared by the occupants.2 Boarding houses also tend to be less transient than short-term rentals.3 Similarly, hotels and motels are distinguishable from short-term rentals by having separate entrances and an on-site management office.4 In some communities, short-term rental housing may be referred to as vacation rentals, transient rentals, or resort dwelling units. Terms that appear in bold typeface are defined in the Glossary found at the end of this paper. SECTION 2: OVERVIEW OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL RESTRICTIONS 2.1 PURPOSE – THE MUNICIPAL PERSPECTIVE Many communities around the country, both vacation destination communities and non-vacation communities, have implemented some form of short-term rental housing regulation. Below is an overview of the most common reasons cited by communities for regulating short-term rental housing. 1 See Nate Hutcheson, ―Short-Term Vacation Rentals: Residential or Commercial Use?,‖ Zoning News (March 2002, American Planning Association) (hereinafter ―APA Report‖). 2 See APA Report at 5. 3 See APA Report at 5. 4 See APA Report at 5. SS1 - 35 2 2.1.1 Protection of Neighborhood Environment The most commonly cited municipal purpose for regulating short-term rental housing is to protect the character of existing residential neighborhoods. Often these communities are responding to complaints from permanent residents about the disturbances that may be caused by short-term tenants, including excessive noise, late night parties, trespassing, increased traffic, and other disruptive activities. Generally speaking, the rationale is that vacationers and guests who do not have ties to the local community are more concerned with maximizing their fun than they are with being a good neighbor. This rationale is evident in the ―resort dwellings‖ ordinance adopted by the City of Venice, Florida, which states: [The] City council finds that resort dwelling rental activities in single-family neighborhoods affects the character and stability of a residential neighborhood. The home and its intrinsic influences are the foundation of good citizenship. The intent of these regulations is to prevent the use of single-family residences for transient purposes in order to preserve the residential character of single-family neighborhoods.5 2.1.2 Protection of Physical Characteristics Some communities also cite the need to protect the physical characteristics of their residential neighborhoods. The underlying rationale is that short-term rental properties generally are not owner-occupied and therefore are less likely to be cared for to the same degree as permanent residences. At least, in theory, absentee property owners are presumed to be less diligent about the types of regular and routine maintenance tasks typically associated with home ownership, such as lawn maintenance, tree and shrub pruning, and exterior painting. 2.1.3 Revenue For many communities, particularly those with a robust tourist industry, short-term rentals represent a potentially significant source of tax revenue. In Texas, for example, the Hotel Occupancy Tax statute broadly defines the term ―hotel‖ to include any building that offers sleeping accommodations for consideration, including a ―tourist home‖ or ―tourist house,‖ and imposes a six percent tax on the price paid for such accommodations.6 Moreover, the Municipal Hotel Occupancy Tax statute authorizes Texas cities, towns and villages to impose and collect an additional nine percent tax on hotels, including short-term rental properties.7 The potential revenue available to municipalities with authority to tax short-term rentals is exemplified by a 2011 study prepared by the city auditor for Austin, Texas, which estimated that the city could gain $100,000 to $300,000 annually by collecting taxes on short-term rental properties.8 Communities that desire to collect such taxes may impose registration or licensing requirements as a means of identifying properties that are being used for short-term rentals and are therefore subject to taxation. 5 Venice, FL Land Development Code § 86-151. 6 See Texas Code §§ 156.001, 156.052. Accommodations of ―at least 30 consecutive days, so long as there is no interruption of payment for the period,‖ are exempt from the tax. Id. § 156.101. 7 See Texas Code § 351.003. 8 See ―City of Austin begins work on short-term rental regulations; Planning Commission to address safety, tax revenue concerns,‖ (Source: impactnews.com: Central Austin, April 22, 2011). SS1 - 36 3 2.1.4 Fairer Competition with Licensed Lodging Short-term rental restrictions may also be viewed as a means of leveling the playing field between the short-term rental industry and competing overnight lodging uses that may be specifically regulated under state or local law, such as hotels and bed and breakfasts. In some cases, the hotel industry has lobbied for the adoption of such regulations on the grounds that short-term rentals are functionally the same as hotel units and therefore should either be taxed and regulated like hotels, or prohibited. At a June 2011 meeting of the Planning Board of Buncombe County, North Carolina, for example, several hoteliers cited unfair competition in arguing against the potential repeal of a ban on vacation rentals in the county‘s more restrictive residential zoning districts. One industry representative testified that hotels ―spend many, many hours and many, many dollars abiding by all the regulations that [hotels] are require to abide by and that many do not apply to short-term rentals.‖9 2.1.5 Protection of Renter Safety A less commonly cited reason for the adoption of short-term rental regulations is the protection of renter safety. The rationale is that operational restrictions (e.g., occupancy limits based on septic system capacity) and inspection requirements are necessary to ensure the safety of occupants of short-term rental units. The City of Big Bear Lake, California, for example, has a ―transient private home rentals‖ ordinance that is intended, in part, ―to ensure . . . that minimum health and safety standards are maintained in such units to protect the visitor from unsafe or unsanitary conditions.‖10 2.2 TYPES OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL RESTRICTIONS 2.2.1 Prohibition From the perspective of a short-term rental property owner, the most severe form of restriction is an outright ban on short-term rentals. A short-term rental prohibition may be limited to specific neighborhoods or zoning districts, or may be community-wide. 2.2.2 Geographically-Based Restrictions Communities that choose to allow short-term rentals often use their zoning authority to regulate the use on a geographic basis. For example, Venice, Florida regulates short-term rental properties (referred to locally as ―resort dwellings‖) only in the city‘s Residential Estate (RE) and Residential Single Family (RSF) zoning districts.11 Similarly, Maui County, Hawaii permits transient vacation rentals only within certain business zoning districts and certain designated 9 ―Buncombe planners wade into Asheville-area vacation rental issue again; County debates relaxing the rules,‖ The Asheville Citizen-Times, June 6, 2011. 10 City of Bear Lake, CA Municipal Code § 17.03.310(A). 11 See generally Venice, FL Land Development Code § 86-151. SS1 - 37 4 ―destination resort areas,‖ including the Wailea, Makena, Kaanapali, and Kapalua Resort Areas.12 2.2.3 Quantitative and Operational Restrictions Other communities that allow short-term rentals may choose to implement a cap on the number of short-term rental permits that may be issued. Such an approach constitutes a compromise between short-term rental owners who argue that they have the right to rent their properties on a short-term basis, and opponents who argue that short-term rentals should be prohibited as an unlawful commercial use in a residential neighborhood. Quantitative restrictions may take the form of a fixed limit on the total number of short-term rental permits that may be issued at any given time. The City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, for example, authorizes the Land Use Director to issue ―up to 350 short term rental permits‖ for residential properties that do not otherwise qualify for permits as an accessory dwelling unit, owner-occupied unit, or unit located within a ―development containing resort facilities.‖13 Similarly, the City of Cannon Beach, Oregon maintains a 92 permit cap on the number of transient rental permits that will be issued by the city.14 Alternatively, a community may implement a proximity restriction that prohibits a short- term rental property from being located within a certain distance of another short-term rental property. The ―Residential Vacation Rentals‖ ordinance of San Luis Obispo County, California, for example, provides: [N]o residential vacation rental shall be located within 200 linear feet of a parcel on the same block on which is located any residential vacation rental or other type of visitor- servicing accommodation that is outside of the Commercial land use category.15 Another type of quantitative restriction is that in the Mendocino County, California zoning ordinance, which requires the county to maintain a ratio of ―thirteen (13) long term residential dwelling units to one (1) single unit rental or vacation home rental.‖16 Many short-term rental regulations incorporate performance-type standards for the operation of short-term rental properties. Below are examples of these types of standards that are frequently incorporated into short-term rental regulations: ▪ Maximum Occupancy Limits: This standard limits the maximum overnight occupancy of short-term rental properties based on the number of bedrooms in the home (for example, the Isle of Palms, South Carolina limits overnight occupancy to two persons per bedroom plus an additional two persons17) and/or on the septic capacity of the property. In Sonoma County, California, for example, the maximum overnight occupancy of a vacation rental property on a conditional septic system is ―equal to the design load of the septic system.‖18 12 See Maui County, HA County Code § 19.38.030(B). 13 See Santa Fe, NM City Code § 14-6.2(A)(6)(a)(i). 14 See City of Cannon Beach, OR Zoning Code § 17.77.020(F). 15 San Luis Obispo County, CA Code § 23.08.165(c). 16 Mendocino County, CA Code § 20.748.020(A). 17 See Isle of Palms, SC City Code § 5-4-202(1). 18 See Sonoma County, CA Code of Ordinances § 26-88-120(f)(2). SS1 - 38 5 ▪ Rental Period Restrictions: This restriction places a limit on the number of times a property may be rented for short-term occupancy. The City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, for example, limits short-term rental units to a maximum of 17 rental periods per calendar year and permits no more than one rental within a seven consecutive day period.19 ▪ Parking Requirements: This standard may require that the short-term rented property provide more off-street parking than comparable properties that are occupied by owners or long-term tenants. Santa Fe also specifically prohibits short-term rental occupants from parking recreational vehicles on site or on the street.20 ▪ Noise Level Limits: This standard applies specific noise level limitations to activities associated with short-term rental properties. Sonoma County‘s vacation rental ordinance, for example, includes an ―Hourly Noise Metric‖ table that imposes specific quantitative noise level limits on vacation rentals during ―activity hours‖ (9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.) and ―quiet hours‖ (10:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m.).21 ▪ Required Postings: This standard requires owners to prominently display a copy of the operational restrictions and contact information for the owner, manager, or other representative of the rental property.22 Owners may also be required to incorporate the operational restrictions in all rental agreements. ▪ Emergency Access Requirements: If located behind a locked gate or within a gated community, short-term rental units may be required to provide a gate code or lockbox with keys to local police, fire, or emergency services departments.23 ▪ Mandatory Designated Representatives: This standard requires that the short-term renter provide a current 24-hour working phone number of the property owner, manager, or other designated representative to local officials and to property owners within a certain distance of the rental unit. Some communities also require that the designated representative be available during all rental periods within a certain distance (e.g., a one- hour drive) of the rental property.24 ▪ Trash and Recycling Facility Storage: This standard requires that trash and recycling bins be stored in a location that is not visible from public rights-of-way. Section 5.25.070 of the City of Palm Springs, California vacation rental ordinance, for example, states: ―Trash and refuse shall not be left stored within public view, except in proper containers for the purpose of collection by the collectors and between the hours of five a.m. and eight p.m. on scheduled trash collection days.‖25 19 See Santa Fe, NM City Code § 14-6.2(A)(6)(a)(ii). 20 See Santa Fe, NM City Code § 14-6.2(A)(6)(a)(ii). 21 See Sonoma County, CA Code of Ordinances § 26-88-120(f)(6). 22 See, e.g., Venice, FL Land Development Code § 86-151(2)(b)(1). 23 See, e.g., Sonoma County, CA Code of Ordinances § 26-88-120(f)(14). 24 See, e.g., Sonoma County, CA Code of Ordinances § 26-88-120(f)(13). 25 Palm Springs, CA Municipal Code § 5.25.070(g). SS1 - 39 6 2.2.4 Registration/Licensing Requirements Owners who intend to offer their property for use as a short-term rental unit may be required to register their property with the local government. Garrett County, Maryland, for example, requires owners to register their property with the Office of Licensing and Enforcement Management and to pay a one-time fee as condition precedent to receiving a ―transient vacation rental unit license‖ from the County.26 Short-term rental licenses often are valid only for a one- or two-year period, requiring property owners to renew the licenses―and to pay associated fees―on a regular basis. Many communities require short-term rental properties to pass certain inspections prior to the issuance of a permit, license, or renewal. Tillamook County, Oregon, for example, as a condition to the issuance of a short-term rental permit, requires property owners to obtain a certification from a certified building inspector evidencing compliance with all applicable operational standards, including minimum fire extinguisher and smoke detector requirements, emergency escape and rescue standards, and structural requirements.27 2.3 ENFORCEMENT Communities typically enforce their short-term rental regulations (a) in accordance with a generally applicable enforcement provision contained in the code of ordinances or zoning ordinance, or (b) through a specific enforcement provision incorporated into the short-term rental regulations. Article 9 of the Isle of Palms, South Carolina Code of Ordinances is one example of a short-term rental ordinance that contains no specific enforcement provision, but is enforced under a generally applicable penalty provision.28 Under the Isle of Palms Code of Ordinances, violation of the short-term rental ordinance is subject to the same penalties and procedures as a violation of any other provision the zoning code. Potential penalties for a violation are established under Section 5-4-7 of the Code of Ordinances, which states: In case a structure or land is or is proposed to be used in violation of this chapter, the Zoning Administrator may, in addition to other remedies, issue and serve upon a person pursuing such activity or activities a stop order requiring that such person immediately cease all activities in violation of this chapter. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall for each violation, upon conviction thereof, be punished as provided in section 1-3-66. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense.29 26 See Garrett County, MD Code of Ordinances § 160.03(A). 27 See Tillamook County (OR) Short Term Rental Ordinances, Sections 6 (Standards) and 9.A.b (Short Term Rental Permit Application Requirements). 28 See generally Isle of Palms, SC City Code §§ 5-4-201 to -206 (Short-Term Rentals) and § 5-4-7 (Violations and Penalties). 29 Isle of Palms, SC City Code § 5-4-7 (Emphasis added). SS1 - 40 7 By contrast, the short-term rental ordinances of Sonoma County, California and Santa Fe, New Mexico contain specifically applicable enforcement provisions. Under Section 26-88-120(g) of the Sonoma County vacation rental ordinance, individuals who register an initial complaint about a vacation rental property are directed to the contact person identified in the zoning permit or use permit issued for the property. Subsequent complaints are addressed to code enforcement officials who are responsible for conducting an investigation to determine whether there was a violation of a zoning or use permit condition. Code enforcement may accept neighbor documentation consisting of photos, sound recordings and video as proof of an alleged violation. If code enforcement verifies that a violation has occurred, then a notice of violation is issued and a penalty may be imposed in accordance with Chapter 1 of the Sonoma County Code. In addition, under Section 26-88-120(g)(1), code enforcement officers are also given the discretion to schedule a revocation hearing with the board of zoning adjustment. If a vacation rental permit is revoked, then a new zoning or use permit for a vacation rental may not be reapplied for or issued for a period of at least one year.30 Santa Fe‘s short term rental unit ordinance includes a specific provision that authorizes the city to revoke a short term rental permit upon conviction for a third violation of the ordinance.31 SECTION 3: IMPACTS OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL RESTRICTIONS 3.1 IMPACTS ON RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS 3.1.1 Rental Income For some rental property owners, the adoption of short-term rental restrictions may result in the loss of rental income altogether. The most obvious example is an owner of property located in a zoning district where short-term rentals are no longer allowed under a local ordinance. In areas where short-term rentals are allowed, other property owners might face the loss of rental income due to their inability, for financial or other reasons, to satisfy the requirements for obtaining a permit, such as minimum off-street parking or structural requirements. As discussed in Section 5.3.6 below, some short-term rental regulations might also cause an owner to lose rental income because of suspension or revocation of a rental permit, even if the reason for suspension or revocation is beyond the owner‘s control (e.g., tenant behavior). There are several ways in which a short-term rental restriction might also result in a decrease in rental income. An ordinance that restricts the number of times a property may be rented per year could have a significant impact on the property‘s income potential. Santa Fe, New Mexico, for example, limits short-term rentals to 17 rental periods per year.32 A maximum overnight occupancy provision could also negatively affect the income potential of a rental property by reducing the number of guests to whom a home may be rented. Rental restrictions can also cause a reduction in rental income where they have the effect of narrowing the field of potential tenants or discouraging vacationers from renting a home. For example, an ordinance that prohibits 30 See generally Sonoma County, CA Code of Ordinances § 26-88-120(g). 31 See Santa Fe, NM City Code § 14-6.2(A)(6)(a)(iv). 32 See Santa Fe, NM City Code § 14-6.2(A)(6)(a)(ii)(B). SS1 - 41 8 short-term occupants from parking a recreational vehicle on site or on the street might deter families who travel by RV from renting a home in Santa Fe.33 3.1.2 Property Values Short-term rental restrictions can affect property values in different ways. Generally speaking, all else being equal, if identified negative impacts of short-term rentals in a district or neighborhood are reduced or eliminated by short-term rental housing restrictions, property values may increase. On the other hand, the added limitations on the use of properties that short-term rental housing restrictions impose may cause property values in the district or neighborhood to decrease. The precise impact that short-term rental restrictions have on property values will depend on various factors, including the general character of the community (e.g., vacation destination versus non- destination community), the precise terms of the ordinance, local and national economic conditions, and local real estate market conditions. 3.1.2.1 Existing Short-Term Rental Properties In general, the value of a home that was used as a short-term rental prior to the adoption of restrictions, but is either prohibited or restricted from future use as a short-term rental, can be expected to decrease. That is particularly true in vacation destination communities, where homeowners often purchase second homes as investment properties.34 These potential buyers often plan to use the second home as a short-term rental property until they retire or otherwise become able to maintain the property as their full-time residence.35 Such buyers would tend to be less interested in purchasing in an area where the short-term rental market is highly uncertain or is constrained by burdensome regulations. In some circumstances, it is conceivable that a short-term rental ordinance could increase the value of those homes that were used as short-term rentals prior to the adoption of the restrictions and become lawfully licensed for use under the new regulations. Under the general economic principle of supply and demand, if an ordinance has the effect of reducing the supply of short- term rental properties and the demand for short-term rental properties rises or remains constant, then the value of individual properties licensed as short-term rental properties after the adoption of regulations, can be expected to rise. 3.1.2.2 Properties Not Previously Used as Short-Term Rental Properties The impact of short-term rental restrictions on the value of properties that were not used as short- term rentals prior to adoption of the restrictions will also vary. The value of a property that becomes licensed as a short-term rental for the first time under a new ordinance conceivably could increase if the quantity of short-term rental properties on the market falls as a result of the 33 Section 14-6.2(A)(6)(a)(ii)(E) of the Santa Fe Short Term Rental Ordinance states: ―Occupants shall not park recreational vehicles on site or on the street.‖ 34 See National Association of Realtors®, Nearly One in Seven Homebuyers Owned or Bought A Second Home During First Quarter, July 13, 2003 (accessed at http://www.realtor.org/publicaffairsweb.nsf/Pages/ SecondHomeReport?OpenDocument). 35 See id. SS1 - 42 9 ordinance. In residential neighborhoods where the existence of short-term rentals is considered a negative, an ordinance that prohibits future short-term rental activity in those neighborhoods could positively affect the value of homes in these locations. 3.1.3 Operational Costs Short-term rental regulations tend to increase the cost of owning and operating a rental property in a number of ways. The regulations typically require owners to pay an up-front registration or permit fee and may also require payment of additional licensing fees on an annual or other recurring basis. Inspection requirements also add to the cost of operating a short-term rental since, in most cases, the inspections are performed at the owner‘s expense. Performance standards may also require an owner to undertake costly improvements in order to obtain a short- term rental permit. An owner may be required to expand an existing driveway in order to satisfy a minimum parking requirement or to upgrade electrical or sewer systems in order to qualify for a permit. In addition, a rental property owner who resides out of state may have to hire a property manager in order to satisfy a requirement that a designated representative be available at all times and within a certain proximity of the unit during any rental period. 3.1.4 Nonconforming Use Status A property that was used as a short-term rental prior to the adoption of an ordinance that no longer allows short-term rentals may become a nonconforming use under state and local zoning laws. Although state and local laws zoning laws typically allow nonconforming uses to continue, the right to alter or expand a nonconforming use is usually limited and often requires the issuance of a special permit, or an equivalent form of zoning relief, from the local planning commission or board of appeals. In addition, a nonconforming use that is discontinued for a specific period of time (typically one or two years) may be deemed abandoned, and thereafter prohibited from resuming at a future date. 3.2 COMMUNITY IMPACTS 3.2.1 Local Real Estate Market In vacation destination communities, many property owners depend on the income gained from short-term rentals to pay their mortgages, real estate taxes, association dues, and other expenses. If that income is taken away or severely reduced by short-term rental restrictions, the only alternative for those homeowners might be to sell their homes immediately in order to avoid foreclosure or a distressed sale. A widespread ban on short-term rentals that results in a substantial number of homes being sold or foreclosed upon may flood the market, causing property values to fall and remain depressed for a period of time. 3.2.2 Tourism Short-term rental restrictions may negatively impact local tourism in at least two ways. First, they may affect the occupancy rates of vacation rentals by increasing the per-person cost of short-term rentals because they limit the maximum occupancy of a short-term rental unit. Short- SS1 - 43 10 term rental restrictions may also cause rental property owners to increase their rental rates and minimum security deposits in order to cover the increased cost of operating a short-term rental and the risk of incurring a fine or having their rental licenses revoked or suspended. All else being equal, the higher rental rates paid by smaller groups of tenants, increase the per-person cost of short-term rentals in communities with short-term rental ordinances. Second, tourists who become aware of the new restrictions may perceive them as being motivated by, and evidence of, an ―anti-tourist‖ sentiment among full time residents of the community. Regulations that single out short-term rentals for different treatment may implicitly brand short-term renters as being potentially disruptive even though an individual tenant may have done nothing wrong. Provisions that allow random inspections of short-term rentals without imposing reasonable restrictions on the time or manner of those inspections may be perceived as an invasion of privacy and an unreasonable disruption of a family vacation. A perceived anti-tourist sentiment may ultimately discourage tourists from vacationing in that community. A January 2010 report prepared by the Napa Valley Vacation Rental Alliance, argued that the availability of short-term rental properties could determine where a family or groups of friends vacationing together chooses to stay. The report states: Throughout the world, some travelers prefer private dwellings to hotels. For instance, those traveling as a family or group of friends often want spacious accommodations and kitchens. This market segment will not substitute conventional lodging if vacation rentals are not provided, they will simply go elsewhere. Thus, by eliminating vacation rentals, Napa County would deter a substantial number of visitors who currently spend on restaurants, wine, attractions and services and who would instead spend for leisure outside our County.36 The 2008 study ―Economic Impact of Transient Vacation Rentals (TVRs) on Maui County‖37 commissioned by the Realtors® Association of Maui (the ―Maui TVR Study‖) reached a similar conclusion. Acknowledging that ―the TVR industry is concerned about . . . the potential enactment of legislation meant to marginalize [the TVR] industry, and the potential economic consequences of such policies,‖ the Maui TVR Study concluded: The extent of the loss of the TVR industry due to government regulations depends to what extent TVR visitors substitute an alternative Maui County accommodation type to TVRs if they are unavailable or not sufficiently available to meet the current and expected future demand level for their accommodation type. In a global market place with alternatives to Maui destinations offering a literal potpourri of accommodation experiences, the modern, well-informed and sophisticated visitor can find the accommodations experience that best fits their tastes and preferences. 36 Napa Valley Vacation Rental Alliance (NVVRA): A Coalition of Napa County Stakeholders (prepared for Napa County by Napa Valley Vacation Rental Alliance (NVVRA), Jan. 2010) (available on-line at http://wwwhite.com/nvvra/media/WHY%20CODIFYING%20VACATION%20RENTALS%20NOW%20IS%20G OOD%20PUBLIC%20POLICY.pdf). 37 ―Economic Impact of Transient Vacation Rentals (TVRs) on Maui County,‖ prepared by Dr. Thomas Loudat & Dr. Prahlad Kasturi for the Realtors® Association of Maui (Jan. 8, 2008) (hereinafter the ―Maui TVR Study‖). SS1 - 44 11 Based on the increasing market share of TVRs on Maui from 2000 to 2006 relative to other accommodation types one can reasonably surmise that the modern visitor increasingly prefers a TVR or its equivalent experience. Thus, even though elimination of Maui TVRs may not result in the loss of all TVR visitors who may substitute an alternative Maui County accommodation type yet available, we would still expect a significantly negative economic impact in Maui County if TVRs are eliminated or significantly reduced.38 3.2.3 Local Economy Local economies that lean heavily on the tourist economy are more susceptible to the potential impacts of short-term rental restrictions. Even a slight impact on tourism in these communities can have a significant negative effect on the viability and success of restaurants, retail establishments, and other local businesses that provide services to tourists. The potential dollar impacts of a reduction in visitor numbers due to a short-term rental restriction is illustrated by the daily spending calculations of the Maui TVR Study, which calculated that transient vacation rental visitors spent an average of $159.16 per day in Maui County.39 Based on 2006 transient vacation rental visitor data (105,967) and a 6.85 day average length of stay, the study concluded that transient vacation rentals produced more than $115 million in total revenue from lodging, food and beverage, entertainment, shopping, and other county businesses and services.40 3.2.4 Tax Revenue Short-term rental restrictions can have a positive effect on tax revenue if communities are authorized by state law to impose and collect a tax on short-term rentals. Cities, towns and villages in Texas, for example, are authorized by the Municipal Hotel Occupancy Tax statute to impose and collect a nine percent tax on the price paid for short-term rentals.41 In 2011, the City of Austin estimated that it could gain an additional $100,000 to $300,000 in tax revenue by taxing short-term rental properties.42 At the same time, however, short-term rental restrictions that negatively affect local tourism could cause sales tax revenue to decrease if restaurant and retail sales are down due to diminished tourism. 3.2.5 Affordable Housing Short-term rentals can affect housing costs in a community. When property owners elect to rent their homes on a short-term basis rather than renting on a longer-term basis (e.g., by the season or by the year), ―they essentially squeeze the supply of housing, pushing up the demand, and subsequently, the cost‖ of housing in the community.43 In some cases, allowing short-term rentals may fuel speculation in rising housing markets by allowing investors to cover the 38 Maui TVR Study at 1-2. 39 See Maui TVR Study at 16. 40 See Maui TVR Study at 16-17 41 See Texas Code § 351.003. 42 See ―City of Austin begins work on short -term rental regulations; Planning Commission to address safety, tax revenue concerns,‖ (Source: impactnews.com: Central Austin, April 22, 2011). SS1 - 45 12 carrying costs of a house for a period of time while the property appreciates in value and then sell it for a profit.44 Tourist communities, in particular, may be affected if the workers in low- paying service and tourism related jobs can no longer afford to live in the community or within a reasonable commuting distance.45 3.2.6 Governmental Administrative Costs Short-term rental restrictions create additional administrative burdens on local government, including the processing of permit, licensing and registration applications. Local building officials are likely to be faced with an increased volume of required inspections. Code enforcement personnel and the police officers may be required to assume additional enforcement duties under a short-term rental ordinance. The financial burden of administering a short-term rental ordinance may weigh heavily on vacation-destination communities, where the a high volume of short-term rental properties may require local government to hire additional staff or pay increased overtime costs to current staff in order to implement the short-term rental program. 3.3 IMPACTS ON RENTERS 3.3.1 Rental Fees As discussed above, the adoption of short-term rental restrictions may cause rental property owners to increase rental rates as a means of recovering licensing and permit fees, inspection and other related costs. If regulations expose a property owner to the risk of incurring a fine or having the owner‘s rental license suspended or revoked, the owner may also increase the minimum security deposit as a means of deterring tenants from engaging in behavior that might violate the short-term rental regulations. 3.3.2 Inventory of Short-Term Rental Units Short-term rental restrictions can also reduce the inventory of short-term rental units in a community in various ways. For example, zoning regulations may prohibit short-term rentals in single-family residential zoning districts or within certain areas or neighborhoods. An owner who successfully operated a short-term rental property without complaint prior to the adoption of licensing requirements may be barred from continuing the use if the property does not conform to the new licensing criteria. More generally, owners may simply decide they do not want to assume the increased cost and risk of continuing to use their property as a short-term rental, and withdraw their properties from the inventory of short-term rental in the community. 43 APA Report at 2. 44 See id. 45 See id. SS1 - 46 13 3.4 UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL RESTRICTIONS 3.4.1 “Underground Market” for Short-Term Rental Units Short-term rental restrictions that impose high permit and licensing fees, onerous inspection requirements, and performance standards that are difficult or costly for owners to satisfy might have the unintended effect of creating an underground market for short-term rentals, in which owners continue to rent their properties without obtaining the required permits. Owners who depend on rental income to pay their mortgages to pay the maintenance costs of a second home may be willing to risk incurring fines and other penalties if an ordinance creates obstacles that cannot be overcome or that may make it economicall y infeasible to obtain a rental permit.46 3.4.2 Uncertainty in the Short-Term Housing Market A short-term rental regulation that authorizes the suspension or revocation of a short-term rental permit can also introduce a degree of uncertainty in the short-term rental housing market. Vacation travelers often reserve short-term housing accommodations several months in advance of a planned vacation, particularly when the stay is planned during a destination‘s peak visitation period. Under those circumstances, for example, it is conceivable that a family may make a reservation and pay a deposit several months in advance of a holiday ski vacation only to discover later that the home they had reserved is no longer available because its short-term rental permit was suspended or revoked. In some cases, by the time a vacation home renter makes that discovery, it may be too late to find suitable alternative short-term housing, leaving the vacationer with a negative impression of the local community―an impression that the vacationer is likely to share with others. SECTION 4: LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY SHORT-TERM RENTAL RESTRICTIONS 4.1 AUTHORITY TO REGULATE In general, short-term rental restrictions are typically adopted under the specific authority of a state zoning enabling statute or the general police power delegated to local governments by the state constitution, or by statute. Zoning regulations that restrict short-term rentals in residential areas have been upheld where the restrictions are found to be substantially related to land use impacts in the area.47 Prohibiting short-term occupancy in single-family areas has been held to be within the lawful scope of the zoning power.48 However, in 2011 the Florida State Legislature enacted legislation that specifically limits the authority of local governments to regulate or prohibit short-term rentals. Enacted as Chapter No. 46 See ―More destinations shut the door on vacation rentals, USA Today, August 6, 2010 (commenting that the ban on short-term rentals in New York City apartments, most of which are already prohibited under many condominium and co-op bylaws, ―will simply go further underground‖). 47 5 RATHKOPF‘S THE LAW OF ZONING AND PLANNING § 81:11 (4th Ed 2011) (hereinafter ―RATHKOPF‖) (citing to Brown v. Sandy Bd. of Adjustment, 957 P.2d 207 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (finding that city has authority to prohibit short-term rentals in single-family neighborhood)). 48 RATHKOPF § 81:11 (citing Cope v. City of Cannon Beach, 855 P.2d 1083, 317 Or. 339 (1993) and Ewing v. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1579, 286 Cal. Rptr. 382 (6th Dist. 1991)). SS1 - 47 14 2011-119 on June 2, 2011, the Florida law (entitled ―An act relating to public lodging establishments and public food service establishments‖) states: A local law, ordinance, or regulation may not restrict the use of vacation rentals, prohibit vacation rentals, or regulate vacation rentals based solely on their classification, use, or occupancy. This paragraph does not apply to any local law, ordinance, or regulation adopted on or before June 1, 2011.49 As of the date of this paper, Florida appears to be the only state to have enacted legislation limiting the authority of local governments to regulate or prohibit short-term rentals. It is conceivable, however, that the Florida law may become a model for other states. This would appear to be the most likely in those states where short-term rentals comprise a meaningful segment of the tourist lodging industry. 4.2 TAKINGS It is well established that a land use regulation that is excessively restrictive may constitute a ―taking‖ of property for which compensation must be paid under the state constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.50 The prevailing test for determining whether a regulatory taking has occurred was established in the landmark case of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York,51 decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1978. The Penn Central test requires a balancing of the public and private interests involved in each case, weighing the following three factors: (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the property owner; (2) the extent to which the regulation interferes with the property owner‘s ―distinct investment-backed expectations;‖ and (3) the character of the governmental action (i.e., physical invasion v. economic interference).52 The application of the Penn Central ―balancing test‖ is illustrated in an Oregon case that concerned a takings challenge to a short-term rental ordinance. In that case53 rental property owners challenged a City of Cannon Beach, Oregon ordinance that prohibited the creation of new transient occupancy uses and required existing transient occupancy uses to end by 1997. The petitioners claimed that Ordinance 92-1 constituted a taking of property without just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.54 The Supreme Court of Oregon, however, upheld Ordinance 92-1, focusing ultimately on the economic impact of the restrictions: We next consider whether Ordinance 92-1, by prohibiting transient occupancy, denies property owners economically viable use of their properties. We conclude that it does not. On its face, Ordinance 92-1 permits rentals of dwellings for periods of 14 days or more. The ordinance also permits the owners themselves to reside in the dwellings. 49 The enrolled version of House Bill No. 883 is available on the Florida State Legislature‘s website at: http://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0883er.docx&DocumentType=Bill&Bill Number=0883&Session=2011. 50 PATRICIA E. SALKIN, 2 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING § 16:1 (5th ed. 2008) (hereinafter ―SALKIN‖). 51 Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S. Ct. 2646 (1978). 52 SALKIN § 16:9 (citing Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 124). 53 Cope v. City of Cannon Beach, 855 P.2d 1083 (Or. 1993). 54 See id. at 1084. SS1 - 48 15 Although those uses may not be as profitable as are shorter-term rentals of the properties, they are economically viable uses.55 As the court‘s analysis indicates, plaintiffs who challenge a short-term rental restriction as a taking of property face an uphill battle. As a practical matter, it is difficult to argue that a short- term rental prohibition denies the owner of all economically viable use of his land, particularly where longer-term rentals are still allowed. 4.3 DUE PROCESS The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits any governmental action that deprives ―any person of . . .liberty or property, without due process of law.‖ This clause imposes both substantive and procedural requirements. The substantive component of the due process clause, known as ―substantive due process,‖ tests the governmental purposes implemented by land use regulations. To satisfy substantive due process, a regulation must advance a legitimate governmental purpose.56 In general, a local land use ordinance will survive a substantive due process challenge if there exists a rational relationship between the terms of the ordinance and a legitimate governmental interest.57 A local ordinance may be challenged on due process grounds either on its face, or as applied to a particular case. When a landowner makes a facial challenge to a zoning ordinance, ―he or she argues that any application of the ordinance is unconstitutional.‖58 On the other hand, when a landowner makes an as applied challenge, he or she attacks ―only the specific decision that applied the ordinance to his or her property, not the ordinance in general.‖59 In a California case,60 the plaintiffs challenged the city of Carmel‘s transient rental ordinance on substantive due process grounds, arguing that the prohibition was ―not rationally related to the goals sought to be achieved.‖61 The California court of appeals rejected the substantive due process claim, finding that the ordinance was rationally related to the goals and policies set forth in the city‘s general plan, as well as the stated purpose of the R-1 district.62 In support of its conclusion, the court explained that short-term rentals were inconsistent with the residential character of the community: It stands to reason that the ―residential character‖ of a neighborhood is threatened when a significant number of homes—at least 12 percent in this case, according to the record—are occupied not by permanent residents but by a stream of tenants staying a week-end, a week, or even 29 days. Whether or not transient rentals have the other ―unmitigatable, adverse impacts‖ cited by the council, such rentals undoubtedly affect the essential character of a neighborhood and the stability of a community. Short-term tenants have little interest in public agencies or in the welfare of the citizenry. They do not participate in local government, coach little league, or join the hospital guild. They 55 Id. at 1086-87 (internal citations omitted). 56 See SALKIN § 15:2. 57 See id. 58 WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Gasconade County, 105 F.3d 1195, 1198-99 n.1 (8th Cir. 1997) (emphasis added). 59 See SALKIN § 15:2. 60 Ewing v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1579 (6th Dist. Cal. 1991). 61 Id. at 1596. 62 See id. at 1589. SS1 - 49 16 do not lead a scout troop, volunteer at the library, or keep an eye on an elderly neighbor. Literally, they are here today and gone tomorrow—without engaging in the sort of activities that weld and strengthen a community.63 Referring back to its discussion of Carmel‘s stated goals, the court summarily concluded: We have already determined that the ordinance is rationally related to the stated goal. Carmel wishes to enhance and maintain the residential character of the R-1 District. Limiting transient commercial use of residential property for remuneration in the R-1 District addresses that goal.64 The California state court decision illustrates the difficulty of challenging a short-term rental restriction on substantive due process grounds. In general, a short-term rental restriction seems likely to survive substantive due process scrutiny if the local jurisdiction articulates a legitimate governmental interest (e.g., the protection of residential character in predominantly single-family neighborhoods), and can produce some findings connecting short-term rental activity to the types of neighborhood and community impacts described in Carmel‘s transient rental ordinance. 4.4 EQUAL PROTECTION The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall ―deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,‖ which states the basic principle that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.65 The general rule is that a state or local law is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.66 If a local or state law does not involve a suspect classification (e.g., one that treats persons differently on the basis of race, alienage, or national origin) or a fundamental right (e.g., the right to vote, the right to interstate travel), then an equal protection challenge is analyzed under the rational basis test. The rational basis test is a very deferential test, under which an ordinance generally will be upheld if there is any ―reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.‖67 Moreover, the rational basis test does not require a legislative body to articulate its reasons for enacting an ordinance, because ―[i]t is entirely irrelevant for constitutional purposes whether the conceived reason for the challenged distinction actually motivated the legislature.‖68 This means that a court may find a rational basis for a law, even if it is one that was not articulated by the legislative body. A short-term rental ordinance may be vulnerable to an equal protection challenge on the ground that it treats similar properties differently based on whether a property is occupied by short-term tenants or longer term tenants. For example, take an ordinance that generally does not impose a 63 Id. at 1591. 64 Id. at 1596. 65 See generally Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982). 66 See generally Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 230 (1981); United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174-175 (1980); Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 (1979); New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1976). 67 United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 101 S. Ct. 453, (1980). 68 FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 113 S. Ct. 2096 (1993). SS1 - 50 17 maximum occupancy limit on single family homes in a city‘s residential zoning districts, but does impose such a limit on homes that are used for short-term rentals. On its face, this ordinance treats similar properties (i.e., single family homes in the same zoning district) differently, based on whether they are used as a short-term rental. Because no suspect classification or a fundamental right is implicated, an equal protection claim against the ordinance would be reviewed under the deferential rational basis test. For the same rational basis reasons discussed above in connection with a substantive due process challenge, the short-term rental ordinance is likely to survive judicial scrutiny. Since 2000, as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Village of Willowbrook v. Olech,69 ―selective enforcement‖ claims in land use cases may also be brought under the Equal Protection clause. Selective enforcement claims generally assert that a municipality arbitrarily applied its land use ordinance to a conditional use permit or other land use approval, or that enforcement of the ordinance was arbitrarily selective.70 In Olech, the village refused to supply water to the plaintiffs unless they granted the village an easement that it had not required of other property owners. It was alleged that the village did so to retaliate for the plaintiffs having brought an earlier, unrelated suit against the village. The question before the Supreme Court was whether an individual who does not have a suspect classification or fundamental interest claim can nevertheless establish a ―class of one‖ equal protection violation when vindictiveness motivated the disparate treatment. The Court held: Our cases have recognized successful equal protection claims brought by a ―class of one,‖ where the plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. In so doing, we have explained that ―‗the purpose of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is to secure every person within the State ‘s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents.‘‖71 From a plaintiff‘s perspective, the difficult part of the Olech decision is its requirement that selective enforcement claims involve intentional treatment. Moreover, it is unclear whether the intentional treatment rule requires merely an intent to do an act or, more specifically, the intent to harm or punish an individual for the exercise of lawful rights.72 Since Olech, most cases involving ―class of one‖ equal protection claims that assert selective enforcement have not been successful.73 69 Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 120 S. Ct. 1073 (2000). 70 BRIAN W. BLAESSER & ALAN C. WEINSTEIN, FEDERAL LAND USE LAW & LITIGATION § 1:20 (Thomson- Reuters/West: 2011) (hereinafter ―BLAESSER & WEINSTEIN‖). 71 Olech, 528 U.S. at 564 (citations omitted). 72 See BLAESSER & WEINSTEIN § 1:20. 73 See generally BLAESSER & WEINSTEIN § 1:20, fn. 7. SS1 - 51 18 SECTION 5: WAYS TO ADDRESS PROPOSALS TO ESTABLISH SHORT-TERM RENTAL RESTRICTIONS 5.1 QUESTION THE NEED FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL RESTRICTIONS One of the first questions that should be asked when a city or town proposes to adopt a short- term rental ordinance is whether there truly exists a need for the restrictions. In some cases, the perceived need for a short-term rental ordinance may be based solely on anecdotal evidence about the alleged problems caused by short-term rental tenants rather than on documented evidence that short-term rental tenants are causing problems. If nothing more than anecdotal evidence is provided in support of a proposed ordinance, it may allow opponents to later argue that it was adopted arbitrarily without any rational basis. 5.1.1 Empirical Analysis Where proposed short-term rental restrictions appear to be supported solely by anecdotal evidence, Realtors® should question whether empirical studies using data from police call logs, code enforcement activity, and prosecutorial records have actually established the alleged adverse impacts to the community, and the degree to which those impacts are attributable to short-term rental properties. Below are some examples of the types of inquiries Realtors® can make of local government officials: ▪ What number of complaints logged by the local code enforcement and police departments were generated by short-term rentals? Does the data evidence an increase in the number of complaints attributable to short-term rentals over the last five years? ▪ How do the complaints concerning short-term rentals relate to the number of individuals occupying the short-term rental that is the subject of the complaint? Does the city or town have factual support to justify a proposed occupancy limit for short-term rental housing and to what extent does this limitation exceed the occupancy limits applicable to other types of housing? ▪ Does a specific type of complaint (e.g., noise disturbance, litter or trash, parking violations, or late night parties) constitute a large percentage of the total number of complaints recorded in the last five years? If so, does a provision of the local zoning or general ordinance already regulate the offending behavior? If it is possible to address the majority of the problems by enforcing existing nuisance regulations, rather than by imposing new maximum occupancy limits on short-term rentals, it may call into question the need for the proposed ordinance. ▪ Does a disproportionate number of complaints arise from a small number of rental properties? If yes, then a more appropriate response might be to adopt narrowly tailored regulations. An SS1 - 52 19 example of this approach would be a regulation that would apply only after one or more violations are found on a property, rather than imposing the cost and disruption of new regulations on all owners of short-term rental property. 5.1.2 Stakeholder Input Realtors® should also urge that local government officials seek and consider input from individuals and organizations with a stake in the short-term rental industry as early in the process as possible. Stakeholder groups should include representatives of local homeowner associations, rental property management associations, the local Realtor® associations, the chamber of commerce, local tourism bureau, and other organizations involved in the short-term rental industry. 5.1.3 Public Process Realtors® should actively monitor and participate in the public hearing process. Early on, Realtors® should request an invitation to participate in any stakeholder groups formed by the local government prior to the public hearing process. Local governments often allow interested parties to discuss their concerns with local officials responsible for drafting and advising the local legislative body on a proposed ordinance at the beginning of the process. To the extent possible, Realtors® should take advantage of this opportunity to meet with the local planner or other staff members who may be drafting a proposed short-term rental ordinance. State and local open public meetings laws generally require local legislative bodies to publish notice of scheduled public hearings, typically in the local newspaper, by posted notice at city or town hall, and/or on the official website of the city or town. If a draft of the proposed short-term rental ordinance is available prior to the public hearing, Realtors® should request a copy and review it thoroughly in advance of the hearing.74 Realtors® should be prepared to submit written comments and/or to testify at the public hearing about their concerns with the proposal. 5.2 SUGGEST ALTERNATIVES TO SHORT-TERM RENTAL RESTRICTIONS 5.2.1 Enforcement of Existing Ordinances Communities that wish to address the potential negative impacts of short-term rentals on residential neighborhoods likely already have regulations in place that are aimed at curtailing those types of impacts on a community-wide basis. In many cases the existing ordinances already address the types of behaviors and activity that would be the focus of short-term rental performance standards or operational restrictions. Below are some examples. 5.2.1.1 Noise Limits Absent preemption by federal or state law, the control of noise is generally within the police power authority of local government. Communities commonly adopt noise control ordinances 74 The Realtor® association may obtain assistance in this effort through NAR‘s Land Use Initiative program. SS1 - 53 20 for the purpose of controlling unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise within the community. In the City of San Luis Obispo, California, for example, the Noise Control Ordinance Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 9.12 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code) expressly declares any noise in violation of Chapter 9.12 to be a public nuisance, punishable by civil or criminal action. The term ―noise disturbance‖ is defined to mean: any sound which (a) endangers or injures the safety or health of human beings or animals, or (b) annoys or disturbs reasonable persons of normal sensitivities, or (c) endangers or injures personal or real property, or (d) violates the factors set forth in Section 9.12.060 of this chapter. Compliance with the quantitative standards as listed in this chapter shall constitute elimination of a noise disturbance.75 Additionally, specific types of noise violations that commonly arise in residential neighborhoods are regulated under Section 9.12.050, including the following: ▪ Noise disturbances that are ―plainly audible at a distance of fifty feet from the noisemaker, unless the noise does not penetrate beyond the boundaries of the noisemaker‘s own premise.76 ▪ Operating, playing or permitting the operation or playing of any radio, television set, phonograph, drum, musical instrument, or similar device between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM in such a manner as to create a noise disturbance audible across a property line.77 ▪ Operating, playing or permitting the operation or playing of any radio, television set, phonograph, drum, musical instrument, or similar device in a manner that creates a noise disturbance at any time in excess of noise levels defined in Section 9.12.060 (measured by decibel levels and duration of the disturbance).78 5.2.1.2 Public Nuisance In general, cities and counties have the police power to declare and abate nuisances. The Boulder, Colorado nuisance abatement ordinance (Title 10, Chapter 2.5 of the Boulder Revised Code) defines a ―public nuisance‖ to mean: [A]ny condition or use of any parcel on or in which two or more separate violations of the Boulder Municipal Code have occurred within a twelve-month period, or three or more separate violations have occurred within a twenty-four month period, if, during each such violation, the conduct of the person committing the violation was such as to annoy residents in the vicinity of the parcel or passers-by on the public streets, sidewalks, and rights-of-way in the vicinity of the parcel.79 75 City of San Luis, California Municipal Code § 9.12.020(U). 76 See San Luis Municipal Code § 9.12.050(A). 77 See San Luis Municipal Code § 9.12.050(B)(1)(a). 78 See San Luis Municipal Code § 9.12.050(B)(1)(b). 79 ―Nuisance Abatement Information Sheet,‖ City of Boulder, Colorado (available on-line at http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/PDS/Code%20Enforcement/nuisanceabat_info.pdf ). SS1 - 54 21 No violations or actions are designated as ―public nuisance‖ acts. Instead, the determination whether a violation triggers the nuisance abatement process is made by the responding law enforcement agency. For instance, in some cases, a trash violation may trigger the nuisance abatement process, while in others the problem might be best handled with a municipal court summons. Legal remedies to abate public nuisances generally include the filing of a criminal complaint, or a civil action, or an administrative abatement. 5.2.1.3 Property Maintenance Standards A property maintenance ordinance might be adopted for the purpose of maintaining, preserving, or improving a community‘s inventory of residential and non-residential buildings. To accomplish this, property maintenance ordinances typically establish standards for the exterior maintenance of affected structures, including basic structural elements such as foundations and supporting columns, exterior finish surfaces, and doors and windows. Property maintenance standards may also require property owners to maintain existing trees, shrubs and other significant vegetation, and to keep all exterior areas sanitary free of trash and refuse. 5.2.1.4 Unruly Public Gathering Ordinance Some communities, particularly college towns, such as Berkeley, CA and Tucson, AZ, have adopted ―unruly gathering‖ ordinances that create significant sanctions for residents and property owners who host gatherings that create a substantial disturbance, as well as for party attendees who contribute to the problem. A significant advantage that an unruly gathering ordinance would have over a general noise ordinance or short-term rental ordinance is that the individual responsible for the disturbance is also penalized, rather than the tenant and/or property owner alone. Since the penalties for violating a noise ordinance generally apply only to the residents of the property where the violation occurs, a noise ordinance is unlikely to deter party guests from violating its terms. 5.2.1.5 Nighttime Curfew To the extent that under-aged drinking and juvenile crime are a significant contributors to excessive noise and party disturbances in short-term rental properties in residential neighborhoods, a nighttime curfew ordinance that prohibits persons under the age of 18 years from being on or about public streets and public places during specified hours of the day could be an effective deterrent. The effectiveness of nighttime curfews is evidenced by a 2002 survey published by National League of Cities, in which 97% of communities that have nighttime curfew ordnances reported that they help combat juvenile crime. It bears noting, however, that a juvenile curfew ordinance generally would not be applicable to college students and other youthful offenders over the age of eighteen. To the extent that parties hosted and attended by college-aged young people are perceived as causing the disturbances that are of greatest concern, a curfew ordinance would probably have little, if any, effect. SS1 - 55 22 5.2.1.6 Parking Restrictions Communities often address the problem of improperly parked vehicles and excessive numbers of vehicles parked in residential neighborhoods through off-street parking regulations. These regulations may include provisions that prohibit vehicle parking within front yard setback areas in residential zoning districts and that restrict vehicle parking to hard surface driveways or designated parking areas. Regulations may also prohibit parking on grass areas, sidewalks, or within a certain distance of side property lines. 5.2.2 Adoption of Ordinances that Target Community-Wide Issues Communities that have not adopted general community-wide noise regulations or the other regulations aimed at curtailing the types of behaviors and activities that would be regulated under a short-term rental ordinance, should be encouraged to adopt such general regulations rather than to single out short-term rental properties for regulation. 5.3 SHORT-TERM RENTAL HOUSING REGULATION BEST PRACTICES This section presents several types of ―best practice‖ provisions that have been implemented in jurisdictions which have short-term rental restrictions and which Realtors® may find acceptable, depending upon local market conditions. Each section begins with a brief description of the type of best practices. This description is followed by one or more examples of the best practice technique as adopted by local jurisdictions. 5.3.1 Narrowly-Tailored Regulations An effective short-term rental ordinance should be narrowly tailored to address the specific needs of the local community. The potential for over-regulation is a legitimate concern, particularly when a proposed ordinance is driven by the vocal complaints of one or more permanent residents about their negative experiences with nearby short-term renters. Residents often complain that short-term rentals are inherently incompatible with residential neighborhoods and demand an outright prohibition against the use. In those circumstances, the concern is that elected officials, in an effort to please their constituency, may acquiesce to those demands without carefully considering: (a) whether there truly exists a need for short-term rental restrictions; and (b) if a need exists, what regulatory approach is best-suited to addressing the particular needs of the community. Short-term rental restrictions can be tailored to fit the specific needs of the community in several important ways. As a threshold matter, communities should consider the degree to which short- term rentals need to be regulated. If a community‘s overriding concern is that a significant number of residential properties that are being used as short-term rentals are failing to report and pay local and state transient occupancy taxes, then an ordinance requiring short-term rental owners to register their properties with the local government and penalizing noncompliance may be sufficient to address that concern. To the extent that short-term rentals are a problem only in certain residential neighborhoods, a rationally justified ordinance that applies only in those areas SS1 - 56 23 would be a more appropriate response than one that regulates the use more broadly, even in areas where short-term rentals not only are accepted, but also are highly desired. Best Practice Example: Clatsop County, Oregon. In Clatsop County, the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Map divides the county into nearly forty zoning district designations, including more than a dozen residential districts.80 The county‘s short term vacation rental ordinance, however, applies only to properties within the Arch Cape Rural Community residential district.81 5.3.2 “Grandfathering” Provisions Short-term rentals that lawfully existed prior to the enactment of a short-term rental ordinance, but are not allowed under the newly adopted ordinance—either because the use is prohibited outright or because the applicant is unable to satisfy the criteria for obtaining a permit—should be allowed to continue (i.e., ―grandfathered‖) if the property owner is able to demonstrate that the short-term rental use pre-dated the ordinance. Zoning ordinances typically contain a general nonconformity provision that establishes the requirements for a use or structure to secure a legal nonconforming status. However, short-term rental ordinances may also contain specific grandfathering clauses that allow short-term rentals in existence on the effective date of the ordinance to continue even if the property cannot satisfy the applicable requirements. Best Practice Example: Kauai County, Hawaii. Under Section 8-3.3 of the Kauai County Code, transient vacation rentals are generally prohibited in the R-1, R-2, R-4, and R-6 residential zoning districts, except within the designated Visitor Destination Areas established under the Code. However, under Sections 8-17.9 and -17.10, single-family transient vacation rentals in non-Vacation Destination Areas that were in lawful use prior to the effective date of the ordinance are allowed to continue, subject to obtaining a nonconforming use certificate. To obtain a nonconforming use certificate, an owner must provide a sworn affidavit and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that: [the] dwelling unit was being used as a vacation rental on an ongoing basis prior to the effective date of this ordinance and was in compliance with all State and County land use and planning laws . . . up to and including the time of application for a nonconforming use certificate.82 The owner of operator of a transient vacation rental unit bears the burden of proof in establishing that the use is properly nonconforming based on submission of the following documentary evidence: records of occupancy and tax documents, including: State of Hawaii general excise tax and transient accommodations tax filings, federal and/or state income tax returns for the relevant time period, reservation lists, and receipts showing payment of deposits for reservations and fees for occupancy of the subject property by transient guests.83 80 See Clatsop County, OR Land and Water Development and Use Ordinance, Table 3.010. 81 See Clatsop County, OR Ordinance No. 03-13. 82 Kauai County Code § 8-17.10(c). 83 Kauai County Code § 8-17.10(e). SS1 - 57 24 Best Practice Example: Monterey County, California. Monterey County‘s short-term rental ordinance grandfathers short-term rental units that were in operation before the ordinance was adopted. Section 21.64.280 of the Zoning Ordinance provides: Transient use of residential property in existence on the effective date of this Section shall, upon application, be issued an administrative permit provided that any such units devoted to transient use are registered with the Director of Planning and Building Inspection and the administrative permit application is filed within 90 days of the effective date of this Section. . . . The owner/registrant shall have the burden of demonstrating that the transient use was established. Payment of transient occupancy taxes shall be, but is no the exclusive method of demonstrating, evidence of the existence of historic transient use of residential property.84 5.3.3 Quantitative and Operational Restrictions Quantitative Restrictions. The use of quantitative restrictions (i.e., fixed caps, proximity restrictions, and maximum short-term to long-term occupancy ratios) as a means of mitigating the impacts of short-term rentals can be viewed in two ways. On the one hand, such limitations on the number of short-term rentals allowed in a community are preferable to an outright prohibition on the use. On the other hand, for property owners desiring to enter the short-term rental market after the effective date of a short-term rental ordinance, a quantitative restriction may act as a barrier to entry. Quantitative restrictions therefore may constitute a reasonable compromise position in circumstances where community support is divided on a proposed short- term rental ban. Jurisdictions considering a quantitative restriction should carefully consider which technique is best suited to further the needs and goals of the community. For example, if a community finds that the negative impacts of short-term rentals are manifested only when they exist in clusters or in close proximity to one another in a residential neighborhood, then a proximity restriction would be a more effective technique than a fixed cap or ratio. On the other hand for a community seeking to maintain a balance between its long-term housing needs and visitor- oriented accommodations, a maximum ratio of long term residential dwelling units to short-term rental permits would be more effective than a fixed cap or proximity restriction. Best Practice Example: Mendocino County, California. Section 20.748.005 of the Mendocino County Code states that the county‘s ―single unit rentals and vacation rentals‖ ordinance is intended, in part, ―to restore and maintain a balance between the long-term housing needs of the community and visitor oriented uses.‖ To maintain that balance, the ordinance requires the county to ―maintain, at all times, for new vacation home rentals or single unit rentals approved after the effective date of this ordinance, a ratio of thirteen (13) long term residential dwelling units to one (1) single unit rental or vacation home rental.‖85 While the ordinance does not require any reduction in the number of single unit rentals and vacation rentals in existence on the effective date of the ordinance, no new applications may be approved unless and until 84 Monterey County, CA Zoning Ordinance § 21.64.280(d)(1)(b). 85 Mendocino County, CA Code § 20.748.020(A). SS1 - 58 25 thirteen new residential dwelling units have been completed since the single unit rental or vacation home rental permit was approved.86 Best Practice Example: San Luis Obispo County, California. The vacation rental ordinance adopted by San Luis Obispo County was adopted for the general purpose of ensuring that short- term rental uses ―will be compatible with surrounding residential uses and will not act to harm and alter the neighborhoods they are located within.‖87 More specifically, the county found that ―residential vacation rentals have the potential to be incompatible with surrounding residential uses, especially when several are concentrated in the same area, thereby having the potential for a deleterious effect on the adjacent full time residents.‖88 Accordingly, rather than prohibiting vacation rentals in county neighborhoods, San Luis Obispo County adopted the following proximity restriction on the use: [N]o residential vacation rental shall be located within 200 linear feet of a parcel on the same block on which is located any residential vacation rental or other type of visitor- servicing accommodation that is outside of the Commercial land use category.89 Operational Restrictions. Although short-term rental restrictions commonly include some operational restrictions, the restrictions often unnecessarily duplicate generally applicable regulations already adopted by the local jurisdiction. Several of these types of regulations are discussed in Section 5.2 above. In general, the types of negative impacts most commonly cited by communities with short-term rental restrictions—late-night music and partying, garbage left out on the street on non-pickup days, illegal parking, and negligent property maintenance—are community-wide concerns that are best regulated with a generally applicable ordinance rather than one that singles out short-term rentals for disparate treatment. It stands to reason that the impacts that these types of activities have on residential neighborhoods are the same regardless of whether they are produced by long-term residents or short-term renters. Therefore, the best practice technique for addressing those concerns is to adopt a general ordinance that governs the activity or behavior in all areas of the community. 5.3.4 Licensing/Registration Requirements Virtually all short-term rental ordinances require owners who intend to offer their property for use as a short-term rental to obtain a license or permit prior to commencing the use. In general, licensing and registration requirements enable local governments to create and maintain a database of dwelling units being operated as short-term rentals for code enforcement and transient occupancy tax collection in jurisdictions authorized to collect such taxes. The procedures and criteria for obtaining a short-term rental license or permit should be clearly set out in the local ordinance. Short-term rental licensing and registration applications should be processed administratively and without need for a public hearing. Such licensing/registration requirements should not require a conditional use permit or a similar-type zoning permit. 86 See Mendocino County, CA Code § 20.748.020(A)-(B).. 87 San Luis Obispo County, CA Code § 23.08.165(a). 88 Id. 89 San Luis Obispo County, CA Code § 23.08.165(c). SS1 - 59 26 Best Practice Example: City of Palm Springs, California. In the City of Palm Springs, residential property owners are required to register the property as a vacation rental prior to commencing the use. Section 5.25.060 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code requires owners to submit a registration form that is furnished by the city and that requires certain information to be provided, including, for example: (a) the name, address, and telephone number of the owner and his agent, if any; (2) the address of the vacation rental unit; (3) the number of bedrooms in the rental unit; and (4) evidence of a valid business license issued for the business of operating vacation rentals, or submission of a certificate that owner is exempt or otherwise not covered by the city‘s Business Tax Ordinance for such activity. Vacation rental registration also requires the owner to pay a fee in an amount to be established by the city council, subject to the limitation that the registration fee ―shall be no greater than necessary to defer the cost incurred by the city in administering the [vacation rental registration].‖90 Best Practice Example: City of Encinitas, California. In the City of Encinitas, short-term rental permits likewise require submittal of an application form and payment of a fee no greater than necessary to defer the cost incurred by the city in administering the short-term rental permit program. Short-term rental permits will be granted ―unless the applicant does not meet the conditions and requirements of the permit, or fails to demonstrate the ability to comply with the Encinitas Municipal Code or other applicable law.‖91 5.3.5 Inspection Requirements As noted in Section 3.1.3, many communities require short-term rental properties to pass certain inspections prior to the issuance or renewal of a short-term rental permit. However, mandatory inspection requirements arguably do not advance a community‘s interests in protecting and maintaining residential character or preventing the adverse effects of transient occupancy on residential neighborhoods. Therefore, if a short-term rental ordinance is specifically adopted for reasons related to protection of residential character, then a mandatory inspection requirement is unnecessary and should not be imposed upon rental property owners. Best Practice Examples: Douglas County, Nevada; City of Palm Springs, California; and Sonoma County, California. The short-term rental ordinances adopted by these communities were generally adopted for reasons related to the impacts of short-term rental uses on residential neighborhoods. However, none of these ordinances include a mandatory inspection requirement, either at the time of initial permit issuance or thereafter. Mandatory inspection requirements may be justified in cases where a short-term rental ordinance is adopted for the purpose (at least in part) of ensuring the safety of short-term rental tenants. For example, one of the stated purposes of the transient private home rental ordinance adopted by the City of Big Bear Lake, California is ―to ensure . . . that minimum health and safety standards are maintained in such units to protect the visitor from unsafe or unsanitary conditions.‖92 It stands to reason that a provision requiring inspection of transient private rental 90 City of Palm Springs, CA Municipal Code § 5.25.060(b). 91 See City of Encinitas, CA Municipal Code § 9.38.040(A)(3). 92 City of Bear Lake, CA Municipal Code § 17.03.310(A). SS1 - 60 27 homes in Big Bear Lake to determine compliance with such minimum health and safety standards would further that purpose. However, even if a mandatory inspection requirement can be justified, the scope of the inspection program should be limited to the initial permit issuance and thereafter only on a reasonable periodic basis. Provisions requiring short-term rental units to be inspected annually (typically as a condition precedent to the issuance of a permit renewal), such as Section 17.03.310(D)(2) of the Big Bear Lake ordinance, are unnecessarily burdensome on owners and the local government alike. Best Practice Example: City of Cannon Beach, Oregon. The short-term rental ordinance adopted by the City of Cannon Beach provides an example of a more reasonable periodic inspection requirement. Under Section 17.77.040(A)(2) of the Cannon Beach Zoning Code, at the time of application for a new transient rental permit (or new vacation home rental permit) the dwelling is subject to inspection by a local building official to determine conformance with the requirements of the Uniform Housing Code. Thereafter, twenty percent of the dwellings that have a transient rental or vacation home rental permit are inspected each year, so that over a five- year period, all such dwellings have been re-inspected.93 5.3.6 Enforcement Provisions When short-term rental restrictions are adopted pursuant to a local government‘s zoning authority and incorporated into the jurisdiction‘s zoning code, it is reasonable to expect the ordinance to be enforced in accordance with the generally applicable enforcement provisions of the zoning code, if one exists. Similarly, it is reasonable to expect that short-term rental registration and licensing provisions that are incorporated into a community‘s general (non- zoning) code to be enforced pursuant to the generally applicable code enforcement provision. The short term rental regulations adopted in Tillamook County and Clatsop County, Oregon and Monterey County, California, for example, are enforced in accordance with generally applicable enforcement and penalty provisions. It is not uncommon, however, for communities to enact special enforcement and penalty provisions in their short-term rental ordinances. Many short-term rental ordinances contain enforcement and penalty provisions that penalize violations more severely than other types of code violations. In Palm Springs, California, for example, a first violation of the Vacation Rental Ordinance is subject to a $250 fine and subsequent violations are subject to a fine o f $500.94 By contrast, under Section 1.06.030 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, the general penalties for code violations are $100 for the first administrative citation and $250 for the second. The Vacation Rental Ordinance does not explain why violations of that ordinance are penalized more severely than other types of code violations. Enforcement provisions should not penalize short-term rental property owners (or their agents) for violations beyond their control. For example, if a short-term rental tenant violates a noise level restriction, the property owner should not be held responsible for the violation. 93 See City of Cannon Beach, OR Zoning Code § 17.77.040(2)(a). 94 See City of Palm Springs, CA Municipal Code § 5.25.090(a). SS1 - 61 28 Best Practice Example: Douglas County, Nevada. Chapter 5.40 of the Douglas County Code regulates vacation home rentals in the Tahoe Township. Although the vacation home rental ordinance imposes certain operational restrictions on permitted rental units (e.g., parking and occupancy limitations and trash/refuse container rules), Section 5.40.110 states that a permit may be suspended or revoked only for a violation committed by the owner. 5.41.110 Violation and administrative penalties. A. The following conduct is a violation for which the permit [sic] suspended or revoked: 1. The owner has failed to comply with the standard conditions specified in section 5.40.090(A) of this code; or 2. The owner has failed to comply with additional conditions imposed pursuant to the provisions of section 5.40.090(B) and (C) of this code; or 3. The owner has violated the provisions of this chapter; or 4. The owner has failed to collect or remit to the county the transient occupancy and lodging taxes as required by Title 3 of this code. 5. Any false or misleading information supplied in the application process. Prior to the imposition of fines or other penalties, a short-term rental ordinance should conform to the due process requirements established under state law and/or the local jurisdictions charter or code of ordinances. At a minimum, before fines or other penalties are imposed, property owners should be given notice of, and an opportunity to cure, any alleged violation, except where exigent public safety concerns exist. As demonstrated in the best practice examples below, property owners should be given the opportunity to request a public hearing and have the right to appeal a local government‘s decision to suspend or revoke a short-term rental permit. Best Practice Example: City of Encinitas, California. Under Section 9.38.060 of the City of Encinitas short-term rental ordinance, penalties may be imposed and permits may be suspended only in accordance with the following provisions: A. The City Manager shall cause an investigation to be conducted whenever there is reason to believe that a property owner has failed to comply with the provisions of this Chapter. Should the investigation reveal substantial evidence to support a finding that a violation occurred, the investigator shall issue written notice of the violation and intention to impose a penalty, or penalty and suspend the permit. The written notice shall be served on the property owner and operator or agent and shall specify the facts which in the opinion of the investigator, constitute substantial evidence to establish grounds for imposition of the penalties, or penalties and suspension, and specify that the penalties will be imposed and/or that the permit will be suspended and penalties imposed within 15 days from the date the notice is given unless the owner and/or operator files with the city clerk the fine amount and a request for a hearing before the City Manager. B. If the owner requests a hearing within the time specified in subsection (A), the City Clerk shall serve written notice on the owner and operator, by mail, of the date, time and place for the hearing which shall be scheduled not less than 15 days, nor more SS1 - 62 29 than 45 days of receipt of request for a hearing. The City Manager or his or her designee shall preside over the hearing. The City Manager or his or her designee shall impose the penalties, or penalties and suspend the permit only upon a finding that a violation has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the penalty, or penalty and suspension are consistent with this Chapter. The hearing shall be conducted according to the rules normally applicable to administrative hearings. A decision shall be rendered within 30 days of the hearing and the decision shall be appealable to the City Council if filed with the City Clerk no later than 15 days thereafter, pursuant to Chapter 1.12.95 Best Practice Example: City of Cannon Beach, Oregon. Section 17.77.050(B) of the Cannon Beach Zoning Code provides another example of the notice and public hearing process afforded to short-term rental property owners prior to the imposition of fines or the revocation of a permit. 5. The city shall provide the permit holder with a written notice of any violation of subsection (A)(4) of this section that has occurred. If applicable, a copy of the warning notice shall be sent to the local representative. 6. Pursuant to subsections (B)(4)(b) through (d) of this section, the city shall provide the permit holder with a written notice of the permit suspension and the reason for that suspension. The permit holder may appeal the suspension to the city council by filing a letter of appeal with the city manager within twenty days after the date of the mailing of the city manager‘s order to suspend the permit. The city manager‘s suspension shall be stayed until the appeal has been determined by the city council. The city council shall conduct a hearing on the appeal within sixty days of the date of the filing of the letter of appeal. At the appeal, the permit holder may present such evidence as may be relevant. At the conclusion of the hearing, based on the evidence it has received, the council may uphold, modify, or overturn the decision of the city manager to suspend the permit based on the evidence it received. 7. Pursuant to subsection (B)(4)(e) of this section, the city shall provide the permit holder with a written notice that it intends to revoke the permit and the reasons for the revocation. The city council shall hold a hearing on the proposed revocation of the permit. At the hearing, the permit holder may present such evidence as may be relevant. At the conclusion of the hearing, based on the evidence it has received, the council may determine not to revoke the permit, attach conditions to the permit, or revoke the permit. 8. A person who has had a transient rental occupancy permit or a vacation home rental permit revoked shall not be permitted to apply for either type of permit at a later date.96 ______________________________ 95 City of Encinitas, CA Municipal Code § 9.38.060. 96 City of Cannon Beach, OR Zoning Code § 17.77.050(B) SS1 - 63 30 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Common law: Law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislation (statutes) or executive actions. Due Process: The constitutional protections given to persons to ensure that laws are not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. When such laws affect individuals‘ lives, liberty, and property, due process requires that they have sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard in an orderly proceeding suited to the nature of the matter at issue, whether a court of law or a zoning board of appeals. Essentially, due process means fairness. Equal Protection: The right of all persons under like circumstance to enjoy equal protection and security in their life, their liberty, and their property and to bear no greater burdens than are imposed on others under like circumstances. Nonconforming Use: A use that lawfully existed prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance, and that is maintained after the effective date of the ordinance, although it does not comply with the zoning restrictions applicable to the district in which it is situated, is commonly referred to as a ―nonconforming use.‖97 Police Power: The power that resides in each state to establish laws to preserve public order and tranquility and to promote the public health, safety, morals, and other aspects of the general welfare. Preemption: A doctrine based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution that holds that certain matters are of such national, as opposed to local, character that federal laws preempt or take precedence over state laws on such matters. As such, a state may not pass a law inconsistent with the federal law. The doctrine of state law preemption holds that a state law displaces a local law or regulation that is in the same field and is in conflict or inconsistent with the state law.98 Public Nuisance: At common law ―public nuisance‖ generally consists of ―an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public, including activities injurious to the health, safety, morals or comfort of the public.‖99 Zoning Enabling Statute: State legislation ―authorizing local governments to engage in planning and the regulation of activity on private land.‖100 97 PATRICIA E. SALKIN, AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING § 12:1 (5th ed. 2010). 98 Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, commonly referred to as the ―Supremacy Clause,‖ provides that the ―Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land.‖ 99 ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS § 16.02[2]. 100 See ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS, Ch. 1, Introduction and User‘s Guide § 1.02[2] (LexisNexis Matthew Bender) (hereinafter ―ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS‖). SS1 - 64 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Marx, Jan Tuesday, November L2,2013 2:42 PM Goodwin, Heather FW:Airbnb Open R ED NOv 1 2 2013 $t".ü É. -----Original Message----- From : Abe fabe@.kar ezza.mel Sent: Tuesday, November 12,2013 02:37 PM Pacific Standard Time To: Marx, Jan Subject: Airbnb Open Dear Jan, This morning, Airbnb had it's first annual meeting, Airbnb Open 2013. The principals addressed pointed out the many millions of dollars in revenue that Airbnb guests continue to bring to cities where Airbnb is active, This link below is to a video recording of the event. Please review it before tonight's meeting, http://goo.gUBOk3hq Thank you, c.c. Mayor Jan Marx, Vice Mayor Kathy Smith, Council Member Carlyn Christianson, Council Member Dan Carpenter and Council Member John Ashbaugh Goo Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Heather, Agenda correspondence. Smith, Kathy Tuesday, November L2,20L3 7:13 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: homestays AGENDAC ONDENCË Date llem# s S/- thanks - Kathy From: Sandy Ahearn [sdahearn@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November t2, 2Ot3 7:01 AM To:Smith, Kathy Cc: Christianson, Carlyn; Marx, Jan; Carpenter, Dan Subject: homestays Sorry I cannot attend tonights meeting. I feel that the home stay vs vacation rentals must be both addressed . lf one is allowed then the other group will be before you with the same request. As a property owner with rentals, I pay the city for a rental license and pay income taxes on such. Yes, I have a rental right down town that would be a perfect vacation rental and double what I am receiving now. Lucky me, I called the city asking what I needed to do to get a permit. Thanks for all your hard work. Sandy Ahearn NO\/ 12 2013 CLO r FTVED 1 R,ECETVED OcT 2 1 2013 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Lichtig, Katie Monday, October 2L,2013 2:4I PM Davidson, Doug; Dietrick, Christine; Codron, Michael;Johnson, Derek; Mejia, Anthony; Goodwin, Heather FW: Coalition-Advocating-Legal-Housing-Options-v-City-of-Santa-Monica copy.rtf Coal ition-Advocati ng-Lega l-Housi ng-Optio ns-v-City-of-Sa nta-Monica copy, rtf; ATT00002.txt Agenda Correspondence for November 1,2,2013 study session Katie E, Lichtig City Manager City of San Luis Obispo, CA 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 9340L-3249 805-78L-7LL4 www.slocitv.ors -----Original Message----- From: Patty And reen Imailto:a nd reenfa m @va hoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 2t,2Ot312:08 PM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carlyn; Jan Marx; Carpenter, Dan; Smith, Kathy Cc: Lichtig, Katie Subject: Coalition_Advocating_Legal_Housing_Options_v_City_of_Santa_Monica copy.rtf Dear City Council members and Ms. Lichtig, I am attaching an important decision for your consideration that I believe should be given weight by your council in connection with the upcoming study session on alternatives to the City's short term rental bah. Prior to the study session, I hope you will ask your city attorney to address the impact of the attached California decision which recognizes a right of privacy in use of a private residence and legalsecondary units. The privacy rights of the homeowner under the California Constitution may be subject to regulation, but these important constitutional rights may be curtailed only upon a showing of a compelling governmental interest. This is a strict constitutional standard that courts would apply to a homeowner's assertion of the right to use portions of his or her home for short term rentals. The city of Santa Monica had imposed limits on the occupancy of secondary dwellings and the court in the attached decision held that the City could not justify the law at issue there because government purposes of protecting neighborhoods could be met by less restrictive measures limiting noise, requiring adequate parking, limiting number of permits and other appropriate zoning regulations that address the specific impacts of bringing extra people into the neighborhood. ln San Luis Obispo the Slohosts contend that their privacy rights under the state constitution extend to having short term renters stay in their homes and secondary dwellings, As appropriate, the City can effectively address any impacts of the additional traffic, noise etc, by other legitimate means short of a total ban. To totally override this important privacy interest of the homeowner in his or her primary residence would not be consistent with the strict standard set forth in the attached decision. Thank you for considering this opinion prior to the study session and for making it available to Ms. Dietrich for further analysis to assist you in considering reasonable amendments to your present restiictive ordinance. I appreciate all the time that has been devoted to this issue and look forward to a productive study session. Patty Andreen. 1.L6 Chorro St, SLO 1 88 Cal.App.4th 4b1 Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California. COALITION ADVOCATING LEGAL HOUSII\G OPTIONS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, CITY OF SAI\TA MONICA,"n.frnaunt and Respondent. No. Br35 BZg. I March tg, 2oo1. I As Modified on Denial of Rehearing April rr, zoor. I Review Denied July rr, 2oo1.. Housing advocacy organization brought action challenging constitutionality of city zoning ordinance. The Los Angeles County Superior Court, No. BS 053199, Robert H. O'Brien, J., upheld ordinance, and organization appealed. The Court of Appeal, Boland, J., held that: (1) city was required to comply with state statute on second units; (2) occupancy limitation violated right to privacy; (3) occupancy limitation violated equal protection; and (4) severance of occupancy limitation was appropriate remedy. Reversed and remanded. West Headnotes (9) trl Municipal Corporations Local legislation Charter city was required to comply with state statute on second units in single-family housing, as housing was matter of statewide concern. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code S 65852.2. M u nicipal Gorporations Local legislation The "municipal affairs doctrine" provides that a charter city's ordinances relating to purely municipal affairs prevail over state laws on the same subject. 1 Cases that cite this headnote Gonstitutional Law Particular lssues and Applications t2t t3l t4l Zoning and Planning One-family, two-family, or multiple dwellings Zoning ordinance prohibiting second housing units in single-family homes, unless : occupied by dependent or caregiver, violated right to privacy under state constitution, as right to choose with whom to live is fundamental, exclusion of unrelated persons and non-dependent family members from second units, while permitting dependents and caregivers, did not directly advance city's interests in preserving character of single-family neighborhoods and preventing increases in noise, traffic, and crime, and there were alternative means, such as limiting number of permits issued, that would readily accomplish city's objectives with little or no privacy impact. 2 Cases that cite this headnote Constitutional Law Right to Privacy The right to privacy includes the right to be left alone in our homes. 2 Cases that cite this headnote Constitutional Law Zoning and Land Use Zoning and Planning One-family, two-family, or multiple dwellings t6l Zoning ordinance prohibiting second housing units in single-family homes, unless occupied by dependent or caregiver, did not bear rational relationship to legitimate state purpose, and thus violated equal protection clause of state constitution, where city's objective in enacting ordinance was to preserve charactersingle-family residential neighborhoods and avoid increase in noise, crime, and traffic, city's own housing documents showed that neighborhood character had nothing to do with identity of persons using second unit, and if city wished to avoid effects of increase in population it could have done so with ordinance applying evenly to all households. 2 Cases that cite this headnote Zoning and Planning Source and Scope of Power Zoning and Planning Regulations in general A city's zoning powers are broad and courts must defer to legislative judgments where the i validity of a zoning ordinance is ; fairly debatable. Constitutional Law Determination of Facts Courts must give legislative findings great weight and uphold them unless they are arbitrary and unreasonable. m t81 1 Cases that cite this headnote Zoning and Planning Regulations and rezoning Appropriate remedy in constitutional challenge to zoning ordinance prohibiting second housing units in single-family homes, unless occupied by dependent or caregiver, was to eliminate unconstitutional occupancy restrictions, despite city's contention that severance of exemption for dependents and caregivers was appropriate remedy, as housing advocacy organization that challenged ordinance did not seek severance of exemption. 2 Cases that cite this headnote Mu nicipal Corporations Effect of partial invalidity Statutes Effect of Partial lnvalidity; Severability It is proper for a reviewing court to correct a discriminatory classification in a statute or ordinance by invalidating only the invidious exception. Attorneys and Law Firms **803 *453 lsaacs, Clouse & Crose, James B. lsaacs, Jr,, Santa Monica, and John A. Crose, Jr., for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney, Barry A. Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney, and Cara E. Silver, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent. Opinion*454 BOLAND, J.* tel INTRODUCTION This lawsuit, brought by the Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options and Lou Moench, challenges the constitutionality of a Santa Monica zoning ordinance. The ordinance allows the creation of "second units" in single-family residential zones, but only if the person occupying the second unit is the property owner or his/her dependent, or a caregiver for the property owner or dependent. Since the ordinance's distinction among permissible users of second units violates both privacy and equal protection rights under established constitutional principles, the judgment upholding the ordinance must be reversed. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A second unit is an attached or detached unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. The zoning ordinance under review was passed because of a state law encouraging local agencies to permit the creation of second units in single- and multiple-family zones. The statute authorizes such local ordinances, and indeed requires local agencies to permit second units meeting state-set standards unless the locality either (1) passes its own ordinance providing for such units which may have requirements stricter than the state standards, or (2) totally precludes them in single-family or multiple-family zoned areas. (Govt.Code, S 65852.2.) But a locality cannot totally preclude second units unless its ordinance contains findings that the ban is justified by specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety and welfare that would result from allowing second units. (ld. at subd. (c).) The state's statute on second units was originally enacted in 1982, with legislative findings that, inter alia, there was a tremendous unmet need for new housing and many benefits associated with creation of second-family residential units on existing single-family lots. These included providing a cost-effective means of serving development of housing through use of existing infrastructures, providing relatively affordable housing without public subsidy, providing a means for purchasers to meet payments on high interest loans, and providing security for homeowners. (Stats.1982, ch. 1440, S 1.) **804 *455 The statute was amended in 1994. The amendment's legislative history indicates that local governments had responded to the existing law either by embracing second units as a source of affordable housing, or by discouraging their creation through complicated and expensive application procedures or other means. (Assem. Com. on Housing & Community Development, Analysis of A.B. 3198 (1993-1994 Sess.) as amended May 4, 1994, p. 4.) The amendment imposed new requirements on local jurisdictions, including limits on the size and parking requirements that could be imposed for second units. (Govt.Code, S 65852.2, subds. (d) & (e).) lt also specifically declared the Legislature's intent that "any second-unit ordinances adopted by local agencies have the effect of providing for the creation of second units," and that provisions of such ordinances "are not so arbitrary, excessive, or burdensome so as to unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to create second units in zones in which they are authorized by local ordinance." (Govt.Code, S 65852.150.) The City of Santa Monica (the City) received its first application for a second unit in June 1996, 13 years afterthe initial state lawwent into effect. Under state law, the City then had 120 days to pass its own ordinance, either providing for creation of second units or totally precluding them. Alternatively, the City would be required to grant a permit for the second unit if the application complied with state statutory requirements. (Govt.Code, S 65852.2, subd. (bX1)) The staff of the City Council recommended that the Council direct the staff to prepare an ordinance creating local standards regulating second units. The staff's report advised that the City's then-current prohibition on second units in R-1 single family districts "does not meet the requirements of State law."1 The report said that the staff did not believe that specific findings justifying a prohibition could be made.' The staff's report also included a copy of a 1990 publication from the State Department of Housing and Community Development, indicating that a local ordinance limiting occupancy to persons related to the owner would be susceptible to legal challenge. The Council held a public hearing on August 13, 1996, and accepted the staff's recommendation, and directed staff to prepare an ordinance regulating *456 second units. The staff did so, and presented it to the Council at its meeting on September 24, 1996, again stating its view that there was not sufficient evidence to adopt the findings necessary for a ban of second units. The Planning Commission had also voted unanimously to recommend an ordinance legalizing second-unit creation in R-1 zones. Some 24 members of the public spoke at the September hearing, the majority opposing the proposal and supporting a ban on second units. The speakers opined that second units would mean more congestion, air pollution, noise, traffic, and on-street parking; would add to the burden on the water supply, trash disposal, and schools; and would divert police resources from other areas to handle the increased crime in R-1 neighborhoods. After discussion, the Council rejected the staff's recommendation and instructed the staff to prepare new recommendations for adoption of an ordinance that would **805 prohibit rental units in the R-1 area, with the appropriate findings. The staff was also asked to evaluate whether any limited hardship exceptions should be included in such an ordinance. The Council held a hearing on October 8, 1996, on a revised ordinance. The proposed ordinance prohibited second units in R-1 districts, with a limited exception for second units used for the owner's child or parent in cases of substantial hardship. There were 20 speakers, and again most opposed second units. Two speakers asked for a modification to expand the exception to include relatives and household help. After discussion, the Council voted four to three to adopt lnterim Ordinance 1866, allowing second units only for use by dependents/caregivers rather than only parenUchild, with a requirement for a demonstration of substantial hardship and a specific prohibition against renting the unit. The following month the ordinance was extended for 18 months. A similar interim ordinance (Ordinance No.1916) was introduced and passed four to three on June 9, 1998. lt eliminated the hardship requirement, permitting second units intended and used solely for occupancy by dependents or caregivers. The ordinance also contained regulations governing lot size, density, maximum and minimum unit size, parcel coverage, parking requirements, design standards and other requirements for second units. Before the scheduled expiration in June 1999 of lnterim Ordinance No.1916, the Planning Commission recommended that the Council take a different approach to second units by controlling them through either density or concentration regulations. At the Council's meeting on April27, 1999, the staff *457 presented alternative ordinances for the Council's consideration, one to extend the interim ordinance temporarily, and the other to enact the same standards permanently. The staff recommended that the Council extend the interim ordinance to allow the opportunity to explore the alternatives proposed by the Planning Commission. Again, most of the speakers at the Council's meeting opposed second units, and the Council adopted the permanent ordinance (Ordinance No.1942) on May 11,1999, by a five to two vote.3 Meanwhile, in September 1998, shortly after the adoption of lnterim Ordinance No.1916, the Coalition and Moench, a memberof the Coalition and former memberof the Planning Commission, filed a petition for writ of mandate. The petition sought a writ requiring the City Council to cease enforcement of the dependenUcaregiver provision of Ordinance No.1916 or to adopt an ordinance eliminating it, and to process othenryise eligible permit applications without regard to intent or use of the second unit. After the trial court indicated that alternative forms of relief might be more appropriate, the petition was amended to add a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief. The petition was later deemed amended so as to challenge the permanent ordinance (Ordinance No.1942) upon its enactment. The matter was heard on July 9, 1999, after filing of supplemental papers, including lengthy transcripts of the public hearings. After brief oral argument, the court took the matter under submission, and a few days later issued a minute order denying the petition, without analysis. This appeal followed DISCUSSION A. The municipal affairs doctrine does not apply. ttl tzl The City argues as a preliminary matter that, as a charter city, it is not required to comply with the state statute on second units, under the "municipal affairs" **806 doctrine. That doctrine says that a charter city's ordinances relating to purely municipal affairs prevail over state laws on the same subject. The City is incorrect. ln the first place, while the City's response to the petition asserted the municipal affairs doctrine as a defense, the City did not *458 raise the issue in its briefs to the trial court, and it is not appropriate to raise it for the first time on appeal. ln the second place, if a matter is of statewide concern, charter cities must yield to applicable general state laws. (Baggett v. Gates (1982) 32 Cal.3d 128, 136, 185 Cal.Rptr. 232,649 P.2d 874.) The Legislature has expressly declared housing to be a matter of statewide concern (e.9., Govt.Code, S 65580, subd. (a) ["availability of housing is of vital statewide importance"l; see Govt.Gode, $ 65852.150 ["second units are a valuable form of housing in California"l), as have the courts. (Buena Vista Gardens Apartments Assn. v. City of San Diego Planning Dept. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 289, 306-307, 220 Cal.Rptr. 732 (citing cases).) Santa Monica is required to comply with section 65852 .2, as it recognizes in the introductory words to its own ordinance. B. The occupancy limitation in the ordinance violates the right to privacy guaranteed by the Galifornia Gonstitution. t3l The Coalition's first argument is that, by limiting residents of second units based on familial relationships, the user provisions of the City's ordinance violate the right of privacy under the California Constitution, as described in City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123, 164 Cal.Rptr. 539, 610 P.2d 436, We agree, as it is difficult to see any principled distinction between that case and this. In Adamson, the Supreme Court invalidated an ordinance which prevented unrelated groups of more than five persons from occupying a home in a single-family zone. This prevented a group of 12 adults from living in a 24-room, 10-bedroom house owned by one of them. The question posed by the court was whether a law to promote and protect family values "may deny to individuals who are not family members certain benefits that family members enjoy." (City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 128, 164 Cal.Rptr. 539,610 P.2d 436.) The court said that the California constitutional right to privacy required that any incursion into individual privacy, such as Santa Barbara's restriction on communal living, be justified by a compelling public interest. (ld. at p. 131,164 Cal.Rptr.539,610 P.2d 436.) The ordinance's goal of "preservation of a residential environment" was not advanced by the "rule-of-five." The court was "not persuaded" that a residential environment was in fact dependent on a blood, marriage or adoption relationship among the residents of a house. (ld. at p. 132, 164 Cal.Rptr. 539, 61 0 P.2d 436.) The rule-of-five was "not pertinent to noise, traffic or parking congestion, kinds of activity, or other conditions that conceivably might alter the land-use-related 'characteristics' or 'environment' of the districts." (ld. at pp. 132-133, 164 Cal.Rptr. 539, 610 P.2d 436.) The court concluded that the city's stated goals could be enhanced by means less restrict¡ve of freedom than the rule-of-five, such as reference to *459 floor space and facilities and limitations on the number of cars applied evenly to all households, and that "[i ]n general, zoning ordinances are much less suspect when they focus on the use than when they command inquiry into who are the users." (ld. at p. 133, 164 Cal.Rptr, 539, 610 P.2d 436, emphasis in original; see also Park Redlands Covenant Control Committee v. Simon (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 87, 96-97, 226 Cal.Rptr. 199 [invalidating covenant limiting number of occupants of house to three on privacy groundsl.) This case is only a step removed from Adamson: Santa Monica's ordinance does not control who may live in the main residence on a single-family lot, but does control **807 who may live in an independent part of the main residence (if attached) or in close proximity to it (if detached). Unless we are to say that a second unit is not a part of one's home, personal decisions about who may live in the second unit are no less entitled to privacy protection than decisions about who may live together in the main residence. tal ln short, the right to privacy includes the right to be left alone in our homes. (City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, supra,27 Cal.3d at p. 130, 164 Cal.Rptr.539,610 P.2d 436.) lf there is a privacy right to choose with whom to live in the main residence, that same principle must apply to the right to decide who may live in the second unit, because the second unit, while allowing independent living, is still a part of the home. As Adamson warned, a zoning ordinance requiring inquiry into the identity of the user is suspect. (ld. at p. 133, 164 Cal.Rptr. 539, 610 P.2d 436.) Government may legitimately decide whether second units may be constructed in particular zones, but may not determine who may live in them. The City argues that Adamson is no longer good law, because more recent decisions have modified the privacy standard, particularly the requirement for a "compelling interest" justifying an intrusion into privacy. The City cites Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1,26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633 [state constitutional right of privacy applies to private, as well as to state, action; NCAA drug testing program does not violate that rightl. But the Hill standards offer the City no solace either, as decisions following Hill make it clear that the result in Adamson remains unchanged. It is true that Hill concluded that not every assertion of a privacy interest must be overcome by a compelling interest; where the privacy interest is less central or in bona fide dispute, general balancing tests may be employed. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 34, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.) Hill identified three threshold elements for establishing a violation of the right to *460 privacy under the California Constitution-a legally protected privacy interest, a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a serious invasion of privacy-and said that a privacy invasion must be evaluated by the extent to which it furthers legitimate and competing interests. (ld. at pp. 35-38, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.) And, if legitimate objectives can be readily accomplished by alternative means with little or no privacy impact, "the prospect of actionable invasion of privacy is enhanced," (ld. at p. 38,26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.) Applying those standards does not change the result in Adamson, or here, and the City is mistaken when it argues that Adamson is "inapposite." lndeed, in subsequent cases the Supreme Court emphasized that Hill "should not be interpreted as establishing significant new requirements or hurdles that a plaintiff must meet" [emphasis in originall, or as a departure from decisions-specifically including Adamson-that "uniformly hold that when a challenged practice or conduct intrudes upon a constitutionally protected privacy interest, the interests or justifications supporting the challenged practice must be weighed or balanced against the intrusion on privacy imposed by the practice." (Loder v. City of Glendale (1997) 14 Cal. th 846, 891, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 927 P.2d 1200.) In Loder, the court cited Adamson among others, specifically noting its holding that an intrusion on a resident's privacy interest in living with unrelated persons is not justified by governmental interests underlying the local zoning ordinance. Loder went on to say that "[n]othing in Hill suggests that the court intended to reject the constitutional analysis applied in all of these cases." (Loder v. City of Glendale, supra, at p. 892, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 927 P.2d 1200.) The court explained that the three threshold elements identified in Hill merely permit courts "to weed out claims that involve so insignificant or de minimis **808 an intrusion on a constitutionally protected privacy interest as not even to require an explanation or justification by the defendant." (ld. at p. 893, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 927 P.2d 1200.) Loder was clear that Hill did not adopt "a sweeping new rule" under which a challenge to conduct that significantly affects a privacy interest may be rejected without considering "the legitimacy or strength" of the justification for it. (ld. at pp. 893-894, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 927 P.2d 1200.) It is clear from Adamson that the right to choose with whom to live is fundamental-not "so insignificant or de minimis an intrusion" as to require no justification-and nothing in any subsequent case suggests otherwise. The suggestion that this right may be curtailed when the home is *461 constructed with independent living facilities included is unpersuasive.o The Hill threshold requirements are plainly met. The City says ¡t has legitimate countervailing interests to justify the occupancy restriction, such as preservation of the character of single family neighborhoods, reduction of noise, traffic and crime, and ensuring adequate parking. But, as in Adamson, it is difficult to see how excluding unrelated persons and non-dependent family members from second units, while permitting dependents and caregivers, advances the preservation of the character of the neighborhood, or is pertinent to noise, traffic, crime or parking congestion. (City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, supra, 27 Cal.3d at 132-133, 164 Cal.Rptr. 539, 610 P.2d 436.)' Using the Hill analysis, if legitimate objectives can be readily accomplished by alternative means with little or no privacy impact, the likelihood of an actionable invasion of privacy is increased. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 38, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633,) Here, there are alternative means with no privacy impact, as the City Council was repeatedly advised by its own staff and the Planning Commission. Those include limitations on numbers of permits issued as well as size, density, structural, parking and other requirements already in the City's ordinance. ln sum, consideration of either "the legitimacy or strength" of the City's justification for the restriction on occupancy of second units makes the balance clear: the privacy intrusion effected by the ordinance violates the California Constitution. *462 C. The occupancy limitation in the ordinance violates California equal protection principles. t5l The City's ordinance effectively classifying permissible users of second **809 units also violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. tol tzl The City correctly observes that its zoning powers are broad and that courts must defer to legislative judgments where the validity of a zoning ordinance is fairly debatable. Of course that is so; courts must give legislative findings great weight and uphold them unless they are arbitrary and unreasonable. But even if the classification of permissible occupiers of the second unit did not infringe as it does on a fundamental right, ¡t must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. (Elysium lnstitute, lnc. v. County of Los Angeles (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 408, 427428, 432, 283 Cal.Rptr. 688 [distinction between nudist camps and recreational clubs, restricting former to A-2 zone, bears no rational relationship to a conceivable legitimate purposel.) The ordinance fails that test as well.u The City argues that its objective is to preserve the "character and integrity of single family neighborhoods" and avoid an undue concentration of population and traffic. These are certainly legitimate legislative goals, but it is difficult to see how the status of the occupier of a second unit-an unrelated renter versus a dependent or caregiver who is allowed to pay rent-bears any relationship to either one. The City's own housing element shows that neighborhood character has nothing to do with the identity of the person using the second unit.? The housing element specifically undertakes to clarify the terms "neighborhood character" and "neighborhood quality," so that there will be a "common understanding" on which to base the City's neighborhood preservation policy. And it is clear these terms do not refer to the residents of the neighborhood. The "key component" of neighborhood character is "recurring building patterns" within given neighborhoods, and these patterns are defined by such key variables as lot size, lot development patterns and *463 density, open space and lot coverage, building setbacks, height and architecture, and the rate of new development in those neighborhoods. (City of Santa Monica Housing Element, at ll-67 to ll-68.) Notably, the second units allowed by the City must meet specific requirements in virtually all these categories. Nor does the occupancy restriction bear any rational relationship to the legislative goal of preventing undue concentration of population and traffic. The circumstances here are indistinguishable in principle from those in College Area Renters & Landlord Assn. v. City of San Diego (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 677,50 Cal.Rptr.2d 515. There, the court invalidated, on equal protection grounds, an ordinance that distinguished between tenant-occupants and owner-occupants of detached dwellings in single-family residential neighborhoods. The ordinance was designed to address nuisance problems associated with non-owner-occupied rentals, including overcrowding, lack of parking, excessive noise, and inadequate maintenance "which adversely affects the character of one-family residential zones." (ld at p.680,50 Cal.Rptr.2d 515.) lt regulated the number of persons over age 18 who could live in a non-owner-occupied residence based on square footage, number of bathrooms and parking facilities, but no such occupancy restriction applied to owner-residents. **810 (ld. at p. 681, 50 Cal.Rplr.2d 515.) The court could "perceive of no justification for making a distinction between the two types of detached dwelling residents," and said that if the city wanted to address problems associated with overcrowded detached homes, it should do so with a law applying evenlyto all households. (ld. at p.687,50 Cal.Rptr.2d 515,) Here, as to second units in single-family residential neighborhoods, the ordinance similarly distinguishes between tenant-occupants who are not dependents/caregivers and owner-occupants and/or their dependents/caregivers. lt not only regulates but completely prohibits the former while permitting the latter. As in College Area Renters, if the city wants to avoid an "undue concentration of population and traffic" expected to be caused by second units, it should do so with an ordinance applying evenly to all households. The City argues that because it could have banned second units entirely, it therefore may restrict their use. For one thing, it is questionable whether the City's findings, based not on population or traffic or any other kind of studies, but solely on opinions expressed by residents of R-1 districts, could constitute the required statutory findings that a total ban is justified by "specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare that would result from allowing second units within single-family and multifamily*464 zoned areas ...."'(Govt.Code, S 65852.2, subd. (c) [emphasis added].) Assuming the City made or could make appropriate findings to ban second units, it cannot ban them selectively in a manner violating constitutional rights. D. The remedy for the constitutional violations is severance of the occupancy limitation. t8l The City argues that if the Coalition prevails, the appropriate remedy is "severance of the exemption for dependents and caregivers," which it says "would leave in place a prohibition against second units in the R-1 zone." However, the Coalition did not seek that remedy, and it is not appropriate for the court to decide what the Council would have done if it had not passed the ordinance under review. tel The ordinance amends a number of sections of the City's Municipal Code to provide, in considerable detail, for second units, and in a single sentence (Muni.Code, S 9.04.13.040, subd. (a)) restricts their occupancy. The Coalition challenged only that restriction, and section 13 of the ordinance itself specifies that if any "section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase" is held unconstitutional, that decision "shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance." lt is proper for a reviewing court to correct a discriminatory classification by invalidating only the invidious exception (ln re Kapperman (1974) 11 Cal.3d 542, 550, 114 Cal.Rptr. 97, 522 P.2d 657), and that is what we do here. DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed and the case remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a new and different judgment declaring unconstitutional and enjoining enforcement of the occupancy limitations contained in section 9.04.13.040, subd. (a), of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Appellants shall recover their costs on appeal. LlLLlE, P.J., and WOODS, J., concur. Parallel Citations 88 Cal.App.4th 451,01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2930, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3589 Footnotes 2 4 tofJudge Const tut o arefam atCa 4th presence Brown, J., ln 1988, S prohibiting therefore l The staffs particularl¡ and that ar The word' children cc The ordin¿ unit, so th The City z restricted I units unde ordinance this planni existing "b questions, of second of second also a refe thousand I Because v claims thal The recorc of inadverl goals seel discusses is granted. tycThe c peorgna accessory *¡rd ef ùr¡cu {ìl c nt (ù 20'l 3 Thomson Rer"¡tei"s Nlo clainl to origiirai Li S Governrrerìl Work$ RECETVED Ocr 2 I 2013 CITY Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Cc: Lichtig, Katie Monday, October 2I,20L3 2:4I PM Johnson, Derek; Davidson, Doug; Dietrick, Christine; Codron, Michael Mejia, Anthony; Goodwin, Heather FW: Coalition_Advocating-Legal-Housing-Options-v-City-of-Santa-Monica copy.ttfSubject: Agenda correspondence for the November 12,20L3 study session, Katie E. Lichtig City Manager City of San Luis Obispo, CA 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 9340L-3249 805-781-71,1.4 www.slocitv.ore -----Origina I Message----- From : Jeff Eidelman Ima ilto :Jefffe@sbceloba l. net] Sent: Monday, October 2I,201312:51 PM To: Patty Andreen Cc: Ashbaugh, John; Carlyn; Jan Marx; Carpenter, Dan; Smith, Kathy; Lichtig, Katie Subject: Re:Coalition_Advocating_Legal_Housing_Options_v_City_of_Santa-Monica copy.rtf Patty Thank you so much! This a a great letter and fantastíc words of expression, in the most professional sense. I think when the appropriate city fathers and mothers read it, they will really take notice This letter I think is going to be the turning point of our struggle. Thanks again for a great jobl Jeff Sent from my iPad (Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious)! > On Oct 2L,2OI3, at 1.2:08 PM, Patty Andreen <andreenfam@vahoo.com> wrote > Dear City Council members and Ms. Lichtig. I am attaching an important > decision for your consideration that I believe should be given weight > by your council in connection with the upcoming study session on > alternatives to the City's short term rental ban. Prior to the study > session, I hope you will ask your city attorney to address the impact > of the attached California decision which recognizes a right of > privacy in use of a private residence and legal secondary units. The > privacy rights of the homeowner under the California Constitution may > be subject to regulation, but these important constitutional rights > may be curtailed only upon a showing of a compelling governmental > interest. This is a strict constitutionalstandard that courts would > apply to a homeowner's assertion of the right to use portions of his > or her home for short term rentals. The city of Santa Monica had AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE 1 > imposed limits on the occupancy of secondary dwellings and the court > in the attached decision held that the City could not justify the law > at issue there because government purposes of protecting neighborhoods > could be met by less restrictive measures limiting noise, requiring > adequate parking, limiting number of permits and other appropriate > zoning regulations that address the specific impacts of bringing extra > people into the neighborhood, ln San Luis Obispo the Slohosts contend > that their privacy rights under the state constitution extend to > having short term renters stay in their homes and secondary dwellings. > As appropriate, the City can effectively address any impacts of the > additional traffic, noise etc. by other legitimate means short of a > total ban. To totally override this important privacy interest of the > homeowner in his or her primary residence would not be consistent with > the strict standard set forth in the attached decision. Thank you for > considering this opinion prior to the study session and for making it > available to Ms. Dietrich for further analysis to assist you in > considering reasonable amendments to your present restrictive > ordinance. I appreciate all the time that has been devoted to this > issue and look forward to a productive study session. Patty Andreen. > 1.1.6 Chorro St, SLO > <Coa I ition_Advocating_Lega l_Ho usi ng_O ptio ns_v_City_of_Sa nta_Monica > copy.rtf> > Sent from my iPhone. This message is a confidential transmission intended only for the parties. lf you feel you have received it in error, please notify the sender and do not read the contents of the email or its attachments and do not share with anyone other than the sender. Thank you. 2 Heather T(\/Ër\L.1,, STP 2G From: Sent: To: Schroeder, Sheryll Monday, September 23,2013 9:48 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: Short term rentalsSubject: Agenda correspondence for the 11-12-13 Council Meeting Sheryll Schroeder lnterim City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo (80s) 781-7102 -----Origina I Message----- From: Marx, Jan Sent: Monday, September 23,2013 8:54 AM To: Patty Andreen; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn Cc: Schroeder, Sheryll; Johnson, Derek Subject: RE: Short term rentals Thank you, Patty. Since this item will be on our agenda, the Brown Act applies. As you know, this means council cannot engage in exchange of opinions with each other, outside of an open hearing, I am including our city clerk in this response so that your message can be posted as agenda correspondence at the time we consider this item. Allthe best, Jan Jan Howell Marx Mayor of San Luis Obispo (80s) 781-71.20 or (80s) s41-2716 From: Patty Andreen [andreenfam@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, September 2L,20t3 7:32 PM To: Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Marx, Jan Subject: Short term rentals Dear council members: Much has been said about the pros and cons of short term rentals and I understand you will consider this issue in the near future. I have not tried it myself as I was fortunate to find good longer term tenants for my guest house. I am a senior and might face a time when short term rentals are needed to supplement my income. Why not just stick with long term rental you might ask? I have family members who may from time to time need my guest house too, including an aging mother and a student daughter. I wish to maintain the flexibility offered by short time rental. Others have told me they would lose their home if not for short term rentals. My guest house is about twenty five feet from my primary dwelling on Chorro St. lt is a converted garage which was done decades ago. I occupy the front home and would know if a noise or behavior problem developed with my visitors/tenants and would take corrective action so as not to offend my neighbors who live close by. When council considers any proposed amendment to the current ban on short term rentals, I suggest that you adopt a narrow exception to the ban that would allow an owner to rent his/her property on a short term basis if the roomls/property being rented are used as the owner's primary dwelling. Allowing an accessory building like mine to be 1 rented is not likely to be disruptive since lwill be present to take charge of the situation, Fines can be levied on the owners for failing to control renters. This is no worse than student rentals--maybe better. I think the opposition has become a bit hysterical. The tax advantages to the City in allowing this kind of tourism should not be overlooked. One can reasonably expect that the increased sales tax from spending during longer overnight visits (as opposed to just a night or two in a motel) and the TOT collected by the cíty will more than offset any enforcement issues or costs. The economy will benefit from more visitors who settle into a home rather than pass through town between Hearst Castle and LA. I urge you to tweak the rule just enough to legitimize a practice which is becoming increasingly common in desirable locations like SLO and which I believe does much more good than harm. You cannot please everyone but lthink the few staunch opponents will find that their fears of neighborhood disintegration are exaggerated. Thank you for your consideration. Patty Andreen, San Luis Obispo Sent from my iPhone. This message is a confidential transmission intended only for the parties. lf you feel you have received it in error, please notify the sender and do not read the contents of the email or its attachments and do not share with anyone other than the sender. Thank you. 2 NOv I 2 2013 F{ Goodwin Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Heather, Agendo co rres po n dence. thonks - Kothy Smith, Kathy Tuesday, November L2,2013 9:50 AM Goodwin, Heather FW:Well regulated vacation rentals are OK AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE From : Joh n Armstrong fita rmstrong @cha ¡ter, net] Sent: Tuesday, November 12,20L3 7:20 Altl To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Max, Jan; Smith, Kathy Subject: Well regulated vacation rentals are OK The county Ordinance (23.08.165 - Residential Vacation Rentals) seems reasonable & should be used as a model John T Armstrong 1740 Portola St San Luis Obispo, CA 93405-4716 805-541-5702 home 805-704-9666 cell http://www. li nkedin. com/in/jtarmstrong 1 R,ECEÏVED OcT 31 2013 Goodw Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk ()r(,_v (}l s.llr lL¡rs 0¡ir$¡xr qüo Palm Stre et 1l*n I r.¡iç 0bir¡:o, CÀ g34u:r tel I Boi;.78r.7ro: AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE From: Man<, Jan Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:47 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: A Proposed Vacation Rental Ordinance for Downtown SLO -----Ori ginal Message----- From: Roy Bruder [roybruder43@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 28,2013 04:37 PM Pacihc Standard Time To: Johnson, Derek; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; ccchristi@slocity.orq; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John Subject: A Proposed Vacation Rental Ordinance for Downtown SLO Laclies ancl Gentlemen: I represent a group of honreowners wlro oper:ate vacation rentals in downtorvn San l"uis Obis¡lo. Most of us havo been in operation tbr rnany years, unâ\.vare olcourse that any orclinance plohihiting rentals fbr periods of less tharr 30 <tays exisled. We have reseived and complied rvith your cease and desist nolilic¿rtions, much to the cheigrin o['oulr guests. 'When I receive inquilies fiom potential guesls. I am nor,v obligated to infonn them of this restriction. I lcre is a typical response I receivecl back frorn one gnest: Dear Ro.y, I'm s'orry uboul that. Eurlier in lhe clalt I hacl s'tumblecl up(1n cul urticle on f he weh uboul the vctcaÍion rentctl ban and was' s'urpri,sed and outroged myself. I hope youl'e able to ,seltle tltis',føirl¡,. ll/ell .,. lel me lcrunr i/'¡,ott re.\-o|,"'e lhi¡^ tuilh lhe city sooner ruther lhun laÍer. ,4s il ltu'nls out, yte wíll probubly nor .fìntrlize anlt pluns' unlil righl be.fbre Thank,sgit,íng. The idect of stal¡ing in hotel,s .li;r Thunk,sgiving is' very una¡spealing, so vt,e'd ralher jus'Í,stay honte and lake a doy lt'ip to the college s'omelinte lhat \t,eek,'l'he citlt o/' San Luis'Obispo.ju.sÍ lo,sl ottÍ r¡n,six clay',s of'Íourism dollar.s',/iorn my./amil¡t, Shqre thi.ssroryvith rhe city if'¡,ort 1 Mejia, Anthony Wednesday, October 30, 2013 5:24 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: A Proposed Vacation Rental Ordinance for Downtown SLO v,enL Lfc don't'¡uanl to stcrl,out of'tou,n or at the heaclles because we wunt Ío e,v¡terience the qcruul college lotyn almosphere,/br our duuSlhter v'hr¡ is considering ttttencling Cal Poþ, i¡x the,fiúure. Jill l;'aryell Livennore, (,'A The Tourism Market in SLO As in every city. the tourisrn market in SLO is segmented as follows: (l) Those pleferring holel ¿rccommoelalions" T'hese arre typically business travelers or couples traveling 1he coastal route \ /ho only stay one oL trvo nights. (2) 'l'lrose prefbrring a bed and bre¿rkfìrst or a honre stay situation. '['hese are getrerirlly singles or couples who stay lbr 2-4 nights ¿rnd n'ant the option of preparring sorne meals. They are liequently Europeans nho are very farniliar rvitli staying in guest houses. This is the segrnent which was being served by the airbnb.com group, (3) Those prefèning to rent an entire home. These are either 1àmilies or couples who sirnply prel'er the privacy not atTorded in the f,rrst two o¡rtions. 'l'hey want to ptepare meals, entertain. and enjoy the space only a private lrome can provide. '['hey do not want fhe homeclwner sleelring in the next bedroorn. 'l.hese people tend to stay longer---typically 4-7 nights or more. This is the segment which was being served by the VRBO,com groLrp. As I represent only VRBO owllers. I will conline my comrnents 1o that segmeut only Speaking fì'om my personal experience. I have fbund tlie rnajolity of rny guests to be the parents of Cal Poly students coming to SLO to visit their children or attencl special events. T'hey clesire the comfort of a ¡rrivirte home stocked with everything they need. They are quiet and respectful ol my home" I have spoken with ¿ill cll' tlie neighbors on my block as well ¿rs those I shale a backyarld fence with and have hearcl nothing but support. 'l'hc.v would much prefer my guests to a stuclent rental r,r'hich is what my house was before I ptuchased it. 2 Ploposal 1'or a Vacat"ion Rental Orclin¿rnce Ilerving been a long time traveler I havo stayed in literally hundreds of VIìIJO rent¿rls in the US as well as abroad. The regulations vary slightly fì'om one communit,v to arrother burt in general 1àll into a similar parttern We would like to propose that vacation rentals be limited to a clefined geographical area, specifically downtown SLO, where there is already a significani amount of comnrercial activity, high clensity lesidences. and student rentals. 'l'he presence of a limited group clf vacation rentals rvould have no substantial impact on thes<: neighborhoocls. Aller all, it has been going on lbr many yeals now so we have a de,fttcro impact study. This area woulcl be delined b.v" specific streets clr natural bounclaries. but would insure that pure lesidenli¿rl areas on the peripher,v of downtorvn woulcl nol be impactecl. Wc r¡,orilcl also Iike to propose that the City liccnse a limited nunrbcr of vacation rentals to operate in this downtorvn zone. Perhaps 20 -25 r.vcluld be adequate. Any futue adciiticlns to this group w<luld be decided throurgh an evaluation of market needs. Renefìts (l) Preventiou of uncontlolled prolilèration ol vacation rentals within the downto\,vn area. (?) Plevention of vacatiou rentals oper:ating in purc residential aleas, (3) Ability of ths City to monitor the safety and quality of this limited nunrber of rcntals. (4) Adequately serving tlrat seglnent of the tourist markct lvhich demands the use of ¡:rivnte hr:mes (5) Iìevenue to our local business commrnity. (6) 'l'ax clollars to the City tlrrough 'l'r¿ursient Occupancy'l'axes If the City is still unsure of the impaot sucli an ordinance would have. I rnight suggest that instead ol'an expeusive irnpact study we take a tnore efficient approtrch: First, look at the experience of parst yearrs. and second, why not licensc this group of 25 for one yeal'and track any compìaints or problems'? If onc or two rentals seem to lrtrve repeated issues, tlien theil license becclmes ncln*renew¿rble . Thank you l'or your consideralion, If'you have nny c¡uestions you c¿ilr reach me at 459-2844 3 Sincelely, Roy Brurder, Ph.D 4 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Anthony J, Mejia I City Clerk cr[_v û[ s¡t; l¡.t¡s r]r:ir.q[](l ggo Palrn Street $an I uiç ûbis¡:o, CA g3r*or t*l|8og.7tr.7ro: Mejia, Anthony Monday, November 04,20L3 5:26 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: Vacation Rentals RË{'-ETVFTD NOv 0 5 2013 1{t"tt AGENDA CCRRESPONDENCE From: Lichtig, Katie Sent: Monday, November 04,20L3 9:36 AM To: Mejia, Anthony; Goodwin, Heather Cc: Johnson, Derek; Davidson, Doug Subject: FW: Vacation Rentals Please ensure this is in the public record Kotie E. Lichtig City Monoger Ci'fy of Son Luis Obispo, CA 990 Polm Street Son Luis Obispo, CA 934Ot-3249 805-781-7t14 www.slocity.org From: Roy Bruder fmailto:roybruder43@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 14,20L3 5:34 PM To: Max, Jan; Smith, Kathy; ccchristi@slocity.orq; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Lichtig, Katie; Codron, Michael; Johnson, Lee; Cano, Molly Subject: Vacation Rentals Lodiøs ond Gentlernen: f om lhe owner of a vqcqlion rantql qt 885 Buchon Slreet ond wh¡leT om owore of the concerns expressed by o f ew Peo1te regarding The írnpoct of a vocotíon r¿ntol on o neighborhood, I would encourcrge you go dírectly to the source rother thon be swqyed by opínion. ff you were to ask every neighbor on my block ond behínd me if they hove experienced qny problems qs G result of my renlol, T om certoin they would qssure you they have not. fn foct, two of rny neighbors are co-workers of yours: Bob H¡ll qnd Gorrett Olson. Perhops you could qsk them if they object to my home being used f or weekend guests. Let me address some of the specif íc concerns I have heqrd rqised: (1) Parking--my guests pcrk off-streel in r"ny drivewoy. Besides, every porkíng spoce an my block is filled by 9:0Oom wilh people who work in th¿ city qnd don't wont to poy f or porkíng. (2) Strong ers in the neighborhood--one of ¡he more ludicrous objections. No less that 500 to 1000 "strongers" wolk by my house daily. We're not livíng in o gate-guarded community here**This is o cíty. (3) Loss of work f orce housing---this is o vocoTion horn e f or me. f live in this house 5 months eochyear ond use iT qs o vocotion rentol while I om traveling'rhe rest of 'fhe year. 50, it would never be o condidate f or work f orce housing. (a) Noise--there are 3 Student rentols on my block. f have hosted numerous guests in 2013 ond ïhere has not been o síngle noise complqint to my knowledge. The studants mqke alíttle noise from time to time. 2 (5) Increqsed crime qnd lowered properÌy volues---f will agree wilh the critics whenT see the doto. (6) A level ploying field with the hotels--f hove obsolulely no problem collecTing cnd poying toxes. f hope you will eventuolly crof t q reasonqble vocotion røntol plon which will permit c lírnited number of licensed ond guolity controlled rentqls within a defín¿d ge,agrcrphic oreo. Thonk you for your time und considerstion. Sincer ely , Roy Bruder, Ph.D. 3 Goodwi Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: AnthonyJ. Mejia I City Clerk (:r t.\'ßl s.vl lurs ûtì¡"1p0 <-¡go Paln-: -5t.rccl Sarr Luis Ðbispo, CA g34or tel I fìr:5 78r.7ro: Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, November L2, 20L3 7:26 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: Oregon Short Term Rental Ord Summaries OregonSummary,pdf R,ï\/ËD NOv 1 2 2013 5t_CÏTY ç¡-ffF Ðate i/lz I ftern From: Christianson, Carlyn Sent: Sunday, November 10,2013 B:43 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Oregon Short Term Rental Ord Summaries Hi Anthony, In doing some research online, I came across this nice summary of all Oregon towns with vacation rental ordinances, I thought it might be useful to the Council, staff and/or public. Thanks, Carlyn Carlyn Christianson Member, San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street, SLO 93408 cchristi@slocity,org 805-550-9320 cell 805-752-1021 home (for city calls) From: Christianson, Carlyn Sent; Friday, November 08, 2013 12:55 PM To: Christianson, Carlyn Subject: Oregon Short Term Rental Ord Summaries Attached. Carlyn Christianson Member, San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street, SLO 93408 cchristi@slocity,org 805-550-9320 cell 805-752-1021 home (for city calls) 1 lcITY OT Sh o r t - T e r m Va c a t i o n Ho m e Re n t a l s - Su m m a r y of Or e g o n Ci t i e s ASHLAND Other Licenses,Fee & Taxes . Business License . JC Health Dept.. Transient Occupancy Tax . Business License . Transient Occupancy Tax . Local Representative . Business License . Transient Occupancy Tax . Business License . Transient Occupancy Tax Re q u i r e d La n d Us e Ap p r o v a l Pr o c e s s . Co n d i t i o n a l Us e Pe r m i t . Co n d i t i o n a l Us e Pe r m i t . Co n d i t i o n a l Us e in R- 2 / R- 3 . Pe r m i t t e d Us e in RM Sh o r t - T e r m Re n t a l s Al l o w e d in Ot h e r Zo n e s / D i s t r i c t s . Ye s . Al l o w e d in co m m e r c i a l (C - 1) , em p l o y m e n t (E - 1 ) an d ow n e r - o c c u p i e d in mu l t i - fa m i l y zo n e s (R - 2 & R- 3 ) . Ye s . Co n t r o l l e d De v e l o p m e n t Zo n e s (o c e a n fr o n U j e t t y an d bl u f f ar e a s ) ; Ol d To w n Co m m e r c i a l (C - 1 ) an d Li q h t ln d u s t r i a l Z o n e . Ye s . Ow n e r - o c c u p i e d B& B al l o w e d in R- 2 & R- 3 zo n e s . . No ow n e r oc c u p a n c y in Re s i d e n t i a l Mo t e l (R M ) zo n e . Ye s . To u r i s t Ac c o m m o d a t i o n s / Re s o r t s ou t r i g h t pe r m i t t e d US C S . . Ov e r l a y Zo n e (N C A ) SF R ap p e a r a n c e - co m m e r c i a l l y zo n e d Sh o r t - T e r m Re n t a l s Al l o w e d in Si n g l e - F a m i l y Zo n e s .N o . Pr o h i b i t e d in si n g l e - fa m i l y (R - 1 ) , ru r a l (R R ) an d su b u r b a n (R - 1 - 3 . 5 ) re s i d e n t i a l zo n e s . No No .N o . Pr o h i b i t e d vi a a ba l l o t me a s u r e ap p r o x i m a t e l y 15 ye a r s ag o . Ci t y As h l a n d Ba n d o n Ca n n o n Be a c h De p o t Ba y Re v i e w of Ru l e s fo r Va c a t i o n Ho m e s - Au g u s t 6, 2 0 1 2 Co u n c i l St u d y Se s s i o n page 1 . Business License . Transient Occupancy Tax . Local Representative available 24-hrs.. Business License . Transient Occupancy Tax . Local Representative . Annual Renewal . Business License . Transient Occupancy Tax . Local Representative . Annual Renewal (tri-annual inspection) . Co n d i t i o n a l Us e Pe r m i t ) wi t h sp e c i f i c st a n d a r d s (r e q u i r e s pu b l i c he a r i n g ) . Sp e c i a l Us e Pe r m i t (s u P ) . On e pe r pr o p e r t y ow n e r , la n d s c a p i n g & pa r k i n g st a n d a r d s . . Co n d i t i o n a l Us e Pe r m i t in R- 1 , - 2 , - 3 zo n e s ; ma x # of 5 oc c u p a n t s . . Ot h e r zo n e s li m i t e d to Re c r e a t i o n Ov e r l a y (R O ) & pr o x i m i t y to 10 1 . a . Ye s . No t e : Li n c o l n Ci t y is cu r r e n t l y di s c u s s i n g th e po s s i b i l i t y of li m i t i n g sh o r t - te r m re n t a l s to sp e c i f i c di s t r i c t s . . An on - s i t e ow n e r is no t re q u i r e d wi t h i n Re c r e a t i o n Ov e r l a y zo n e s . Ye s (e x i s t i n g st r u c t u r e s ) . Ye s . Ye s - ow n e r oc c u p i e d B& B Go l d Be a c h Li n c o l n Ci t y Ya c h a t s Re v i e w of Ru l e s fo r Va c a t i o n Ho m e s - Au g u s t 6, 2 0 1 2 Co u n c i l St u d y Se s s i o n page 2 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: AnthonyJ. Mejia I CityClerk (ìÌ{,!' öl s¡:t Ìu¡s (}r}¡.qpo e9o Ëalrn Street San I uis übispc, CA 934or Iel | $o5.78r.7rc.a Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, November 12,2013 7:25 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: Vacation Rental Ordinance questions R Hf L/f:ll NO\/ 1 2 2t13 SLC}C !l.t is. I AGENDA TORRESPONDENCE From: Christianson, Carlyn Sent: Sunday, November 10,2013 9:21 AM To: Johnson, Derek; Davidson, Doug; Dietrick, Christine Cc: Mejia, Anthony Subject: Vacation Rental Ordinance questions Hi Doug, Derek andlor Christine, I have a number of questions which I will ask at the meeting on Tuesday evening, but a few might need some research so I thought I'd send them ahead. One is from reading the SLOHost document, Attachment 4 in our Agenda packet. On page SS1-27, the room rental rate is $120 a night; on page SS1-28, the room rental rate is $150 a night. Which is to be used? It's confusing to use one rate while calculating the estimated low return to owners, and then another rate while calculating the estimated high return to the city coffers. The other question has to do with the number of secondary units in the city. I know this figure is hard to get a grasp on since a number of units aren't even built as such (but were "converted" once the inspections take place in order to avoid the city's previously very high fees) but does staff have a realistic ballpark figure? And, related to this, on Attachment 3, the rough sketch of an ordinance amendment provided by SLOHost, page SS1-20 in Part 1, the definition of "Primary Residence"--are secondary units included within this definition? In other words, if a homeowner were to rent the secondary unit on his/her property short-term, would this qualify as allowed under this definition or one similar to it? What about the vice versa, if a homeowner were to rent out the home short-term and live in the secondary unit? Fufther related, if a primary homeowner could rent short-term a secondary unit while living in the primary home under a homestay-type ordinance, do you have a ballpark estimate about what would be the average rental price? I know you will be out of the office on Monday; I'm not expecting an answer before the hearing but I thought I'd give you a little time to do research; I'm sorry not to give you more time. I'm cc'ing Anthony so these questions can go on the public record, Thank you, Carlyn Carlyn Christianson Member, San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street, SLO 93408 cchristi@slocity.org 805-550-9320 cell 805-752-1021 home (for city calls) 2 R,ËCFTVfi OcT 3 I 2013 t-it\CTTY5 Goodwi Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Mejia, Anthony Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:47 PM Goodwin, Heather FW:l support the SLO Host petition Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk ()r1,_v û[ sùil lr¡r$ öli]$i)() 69o Paim Stre*t San I i;ii; O[:r:¡ro, CA q34trr Lrl | 8r:5.7âr.7ro: From: Max, Jan Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:43 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: I suppoft the SLO Host petition -----Original Message----- From: Catherine Clement fcateclement@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29,2073 03:55 PM Pacific Standard Time To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy Subject: I support the SLO Host petition Dear Council member; I support the SLO Host petition to allow limited short-term rentals in the City of San Luis Obispo Sincerely, Catherine Clement I Goodwi Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Mejia, Anthony Wednesday, October 30, 201-3 5:03 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: Limited Short Term Rentals F{ËC OcT 31 2013 CITY AGENDA PONDHNG[: SSI Anthony J, Mejia I City Clerk {'t{._v (}l s.rr) ltils r}ììt$l}rl ggo P*lin StrcÊt $¿n I uil Ol:lirg:<r, {,E q}rìr) r ìrl | 8oq.7Sr.7ro: From: Max, Jan Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:46 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Limited ShortTerm Rentals -----Original Message----- From: cheryl cowan .com Sent: Tuesday, October 29,2013 03:46 PM Pacific Standard Time To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy Subject: Limited Short Term Rentals Dear Esteemed Council, I am from San Jose, but have stayed a couple of different times in the last six months in San Luis Obispo. Part of that is based on possibly making a transfer to Cal Poly (I presently work at San Jose State), and the other reason is strictly for the quiet pleasure of your town. You have some lovely hotels, and I stayed at one of them on my hrst visit this year. However, my second visit I wanted to spend more time exploring the historic downtown district, including attending the Thursday Farmer's market. I wanted the freedom to cook my own meals if I chose. I wanted comfortable furniture, a comfortable bedroom and a good host. I was able to find that in a short term rental. It was a completely different stay from that of a hotel. I wager that I spent as many tourist dollars on eating establishments and purchasing gifts as I would have had I been staying in a hotel. Travelers look for different kinds of experiences at different times. At best, if people are unable to stay in San Luis Obispo short term rentals, they will merely move their stay to the next town or unincorporated area. At worst, you will have law breaking homeowners with neighbors spying on each other. You'll see more aunts, uncles and cousins staying in SLO than ever before. How can you effectively stop a homeowner from encouraging others to stay with him/her? What you can do is regulate idiots. If a homeowner rents to those who destroy other's property, they can and should be held accountable. Punish those who violate the existing town ordinances, rather than create another ordinance ripe for breaking. 1 Thank you for your time, Cheryl Cowan I149 Roy Avenue San Jose, CA95125 reamescowan@sjsu.edu 2 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: AnthonyJ, Mejia I City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel | 805.781.71O2 Mejia, Anthony Monday, November 04,20L3 5:27 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: Santa Barbara short term rentals Þ üri" É:Ï \/[:L) NO\/ 0 5 2013 5::[-{.) r - ï';:\"1i ,i i ¡Ct Fl AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE -----Origina I Message----- From: Johnson, Derek Sent: Monday, November 04,2OI3 9:48 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Santa Barbara short term rentals FYl, for 1,I/72 -----Origina I Message----- From: Catherine Doyle Imailto:cnesslo@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03,201310:02 PM To: Johnson, Derek Subject: Santa Barbara short term rentals Hi Derek With your late night response to my email I can only imagine how overwhelmed you must be with all this information and work regarding the short term rentals in SLO. Being a friend of some city councilmen in Santa Barbara, it was recommended to me to speak with the finance director, Bob Samario, to get a better understanding of how the system works for them. I thought I would pass this information along to you in hopes that it may be helpful in resolving our conundrum. So....Santa Barbara zoning laws are in place to not allow short term rentals in residential areas. But because the city saw the need for such rentals and the revenue they generate, the city chose to overlook the ordinance. They chose instead tohaveeveryonebecompliantwithabusinesslicenseandpaytheTOT'S. ThelawisenforcedONLYifthereisaspecific complaint, The increase in revenue from vacation rentals for the city was substantial.,.,.before compliance $0 and after compliance in 2013, 5711,000. The rules for compliance were posted online allowing a certain time period for everyone to obtain their business license and set up paying the taxes. The taxes must be kept in a separate bank account and self reported monthly. Eventually the audit system used by the city for the hotels will be applied to short term rentals to prevent any dishonesty. The rules for making a specific complaint were also posted online. Any complaint goes directly to the zoning enforcement staff. 1 An amendment to our existing ordinance to include the specificity regulation for a complaint would eliminate the threat to the city of SLO from any citizen who simply has a wide spread general complaint about the law not being enforced. I know this is a concern for you here. I hope this information may help you. Both Grant House, city councilman, and Bob Samario, Finance Directer, in SB are willing to share any information with you regarding their policy. Thanks again for all your diligent work with this project. C. Doyle 2 F{ irjr-i::J"1¡r c-l*/ OcT 31 2013Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Mejia, Anthony Wednesday, October 30, 2013 11:03 PM Goodwin, Heather Fwd: short term rentals in SLO AGENDA CORRESPONDENCË Begin forwarded message: From: "Johnson, Derek" <diohnson@slocity > Date: October 30,2073 at9:39:04 PM PDT To: "'Cnesslo@aol.com"' <Cnesslo@,aol.som> Cc: "Mejia, Anthony" <amejia@slocity.org> Subject: RE: short term rentals in SLO Dear M. Doyle, Thank you for your comments. I have passed them onto the City Clerk so that they are available as part of the record for the City Council meetÌng on November 12,20L3. Thanks Derek From: Cnesslo@aol,com Imailto:Cnesslo@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 9:25 PM To: Johnson, Derek Subject: shoft term rentals in SLO Mr. Johnson I have lived in SLO for 33 years and owned a business in the same location for 26 of those years l, am a user of short term rentals. I have used this type of lodging in lstanbul, Berlin, Victoria and Yosemite. I love this type of stay.... experiencing the culture from a neighborhood point of view often very different than the typical tourist point of view. I love getting insider recommendations. This type of lodging is my first choice when traveling. l, am also a 'host' for short term vacation rentals of my primary residence. And I love doing this. lt gives me the opportunity to meet and host people from all over the world as well as receiving greatly appreciated extra income during my struggle through this economy. I think the time has come to review the outdated law preventing this type of rental. I would like to address some of the points our opponents have mentioned: VRBO or renting out a second home for short term, causes the same problems as primary residence rentals: I am against vacation rentals where the owner does not live on the premises, where 15 people rent an 1 entire home and come with all their trucks, parking on the street and party all weekend long This type of rental is very disruptive to the neighborhood BUT Short term primary residence rentals are NOT thatl We live in our homes, are renting one room and are there the entire time of the rental. We rent to one or two people who are in town usually from other states or countries and want to experience the city from a local point of view. They are not here to party. They are travelers. Again,l live in my home so there would be no opportunity to party. Degradation of the neighborhood: ln my opinion,these travelers do not add impact to the neighborhood. Most hosts I have spoken with are empty nesters. The rooms we rent used to be our children's who were there all the time. With short term rentals, our rooms are rented out about 12 days of the month. So where is the impact. lf anything there is less impact. I heard from one opponent that 30 day renters have more invested and would take better care of the neighborhood and home. That has not been my experience. When I have rented on a monthly basis, primarily to students, I have experienced theft, lack of care for the neighborhood and much more degradation in my home than with any short term guest. Short term rentals cause security risks: ln my research through the police dept., I have not been able to find any instance where short term guests of a PRIMARY RESIDENCE caused an incident. There is a vetting system on some short term rental sites to assist in safe choices of renters Short term rentals eliminate possible rentals for people who would like to live and work in SLO: l, personally, will no longer rent my extra room to someone with whom I have nothing in common, who may create an awkward living arrangement for both parties and who will be under foot for an entire month. Butlwouldliketobeabletorentitaboutl2daysofthemonth. Thiswouldstillaffordmeplenty of privacy and flexibility for relatives or personal out of town guests to visit. Therefore, I am not negatively affecting affordable housing in any way lf the law is changed everyone in the neighborhood will staÉ utilizing short term rentals: Renting out a room in one's home is not for everyone. lt takes a special type of person to allow somewhat of a stranger to share their home. lt is also not easy for the host. lt requires a lot of work, prepping the home, providing supplies, cleaning, socializing with guests. All of my neighbors know I am doing this and none of them have jumped on the band wagon. lt also takes a certain type of traveler who is interested in this type of stay. The majority of travelers would NEVER stay in someone's home fortheir lodging. ln my opinion, short term rentals would have very little impact on the hotel industry. The primary resident host will be making money while the guest uses public parking spaces: This is just absurdl A 30 day renter would use the same parking space to make money for me. Another nearby destination, Santa Barbara, has the same law on the books I spoke with city councilman Grant House and this is what he told me about how they resolved their issues. "We have recognized the social and economic forces at work. We rigorously enforce business licenses and TOT collection from in- home vacation rentals while enforcing zoning violations on a complaint only basis when a serious problem emerges, something he said rarely happens. This did not require a new or amended ordinance. Staff responded to City Council's policy priorities: collect the 12% TOT from allvisitor rentals to fairly apply the tax requirement and maximize funds for general fund while enforcing the zoning code on a complaint basis only. The complaint procedure was clarified and published online to show people with a concern in their neighborhood how to responsibly report it and what they might reasonably expect to 2 happen with their complaint. The system is working and has struck the right balance. lt has also been financially rewarding and very helpfulthrough the economic downturn for both the city and the hosts". Grant House offered to speak with anyone if they would like to do so. ln the 1980's when San Luis'present law was enacted, there was no world wide web. With the onset of the internet, commerce has taken on a whole new face. There is no denying the "sharing economy" is here to stay. Please don't let SLO get left behind by choosing an outdated law over more progressive thinking or be held hostage by one lone citizen who has never had a problem with a primary resident stay but is on a bent to make the city enforce the law. lf SLO chooses to stay with an outdated law it is possible travelers will simply go to places where they do have these choices..., Pismo Beach, Cayucos, Arroyo Grande. No matter what the city does, short term rentals will continue to grow in popularity, just with no meaningful regulation or standards. At the same time, SLO will lose millions of valuable discretionary dollars .....tot, business license, and spendable tourist dollars. This is simply bad economics. Number of short{erm rentals prior to ban enforcement approx. 55 Average length of stay 3.5 days Average occupancy 2 Average daily rental rate $100 Average Occupancy Rate 50% Expected TOT at 10% - $100,375 ($100 x 182.5 days x 55 rentals) Business license $3,900 Average spent in community per day $240 Totaldirect economic impact $2.4 million ($2a0 x 182.5 days x 55 rentals) Thank you for listening and I look fonryard to coming up with a solution that will be pleasing to both the city staff, council and San Luis'citizens. Sincerely, C. Doyle 3 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: AnthonyJ, Mejia I City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel | 805.781..7t02 Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, November L2,20L3 3:28 PM Goodwin, Heather FW:Airbnb Open R NO\/ I 2 2013 5t.Ll !"Ë K AG ENDA CORRES PONDENCE it 7_ -----Original Message----- From: Christianson, Carlyn Sent: Tuesday, November t2,2OI3 3:28 PM To: Kenneth Emmer Cc: Mejia, Anthony Subject: RE: Airbnb Open Thank you for your input, and I've cc'd the City Clerk so that your comment can be part of the public record Thanks again; Carlyn Carlyn Christianson Member, San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street, SLO 93408 cchristi@slocitv.org 805-550-9320 cell 805-752-102L home (for city calls) From: Kenneth Emmer lken@artmusic.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 12,2073 2:41. PM To: Christianson, Carlyn Subject: Airbnb Open 1 Dear Carlyn, This morning, Airbnb had it's first annual meeting, Airbnb Open 2013. The principals pointed out the many millions of dollars in revenue that Airbnb guests continue to bring to cities where Airbnb is active. This link below is to a video recording of the event. Please review it before tonight's meeting. http://eoo.ellBQk3hq Thank you. c.c, Mayor Jan Marx, Vice Mayor Kathy Smith, Council Member Carlyn Christianson, Council Member Dan Carpenter and Council Member John Ashbaugh 2 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subiect: Heather, Agenda correspondence. . . Thanks - Kathy Smith, Kathy Monday, November 11, 20L3 7:54 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: Short term rentals R.CFT\/ED NO\/ 12 2013 SLCì Ri( AGENDA OORRESPONDENCË From: Pete Evans [riki77@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 6:21 PM To: Max, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John Subject: Shoft term rentals Nov 11,2013 Dear Council members, Can we talk? (God, I love Joan Rivers!) If short term rentals do not negatively impact their neighborhoods or the economic viability of the city then no ban should be imposed. Can any of you tell me why this ban was created in the first place? If you cannot answer my question I urge you to overturn the ban. We should have no rules we cannot support wilh rational data. Our city has become overly obsessed with outlawing and regulating way too many arenas of life, and conversely has allowed many activities and development to the detriment of what a charming and inviting city should be. Do you know that city staff made THREE TRIPS to the Laguna Lake areato investigate a bicycle left on a front patio? Do we have a law about where to keep our bikes? Really? Here is the basic info you need to decide this issue . Where are the valid complaints against short term rentals? We know full well there are 'long term rental housing' problems almost daily. . Long term housing creation responsibility is yours, not that of the citizens. . Most (probably all) of the short term guests are mature folks, just like you. In fact some of you have availed yourself of this sort of lodging when out of town-how can you possible support banning it here? . The only difference between short term rentals and legal free stays (including friends, family, strangers we invite into our homes (I used to do this all the time), SERVAS and other cultural exchanges) is the money hosts make to support their property and lives-which mostly gets spent here on other services by other people, thereby supporting them as well. In fact Bob Shanbrom has used this sort of housing as recently as last summer (while he was hounding the city to enforce the ban here)! In fact many of our visitors to SLO would not even come here if not for the friendly feel of home stays, we would therefore lose those tourist dollars if we were to ban this popular housing option. SLO Hosts has launched a quiet and calm campaign based on supportable facts, unlike the opposition that only hurls wild accusations and even now hopes you will quell the voices of reason! Nearly all media supports the SLO Hosts'efforts (Trib, NT, radio (Dave Congalton)), as well as most citizens (see our petition) and businesses. I think the CoC and RE industry do not oppose the SLO Hosts efforts. Who 1 does that leave in opposition? Far as I can tell there are two or three individuals and maybe RQN, all of whom refuse to see the value in short term rentals wherein the guests are just like them! Are you not our representatives? 'Who are you representing? Even the hotel industry is not against short term rentals. And not to denigrate them, but many are national in scope, money spent on them leaves the area. SLO Hosts spend their money here, their guests spend their money here, often on those few local businesses that still exist. There are a host of already in-place regulations and rules about how we conduct our affairs- excessive noise and any other nuisance is easily dealt with through existing mechanisms. The hosted short term rentals obviates any of that, the host can and will'nip in the bud' any issue that needs attention. SLO Hosts are not Airbnb, VRBO or any other corporation. The proponents of the arbitrary ban take delight in denigrating those businesses and others as though that has any bearing on SLO Hosts, not true. If you have a gmail account are you responsible for what Google does? SLO Hosts are your neighbors trying to make it in hard times. And, is making money (a little or a lot) now a bad thing as the naysayers propose? You are plenfy smart enough to see the truth in this situation, you don't need a 30 page dissertation full of biased editorial matter. I read part of that childish'white paper'you have been subjected to by those on the witch hunt against reduced regulation. The rabid comments about the'serial lawbreakers' and'arrogant pirate hotel owners' call into question the sanity of the writers. I am ashamed of their behavior and vicious words. I know of a property owner who lives next door to a VRBO in our city, that person will swear an affidavit of a preference for the VRBO over long term renters! He/she claims the guests have been first rate and hardly noticeable! You are being asked to use your hearts and minds to decide this issue. Do not be swayed by wild, unsupported claims. Even though SLO Hosts are willing to pay TOT; by the good vibes, great people and economic vitality they bring to the city they should be rewarded for their efforts-never penalized. Never judge a program by its few liabilities, rather measure it by its many attributes. best, Pete Evans (Not a short term rental host, but I am a veteran and this is Veteran's Day!) 2 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, November L2,2013 4:50 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: Short term rentals Follow up Flagged R D No\/ 1 2 2013 S¡,"O C R AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk iìrtV clf: s¡rl lt¡¡s t)$r$pt) t¡go Palm SIrce t San Luis Obispo, CA 934o:r t*l i 8r:5.7Sr 7ro: From: Christianson, Carlyn Sent: Tuesday, November 12,2013 L2:26 PM To: Pete Evans Cc: Mejia, Anthony Subjectr RE: Short term rentals Thanks, Pete, I'm cc'ing the city clerk so your comments can be on the public record Thanks again, Carlyn Carlyn Christianson Member, San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street, SLO 93408 cchristi@slocity.orq 805-550-9320 cell 805-752-1021 home (for city calls) From: Pete Evans friki77@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 6:21 PM To: Max, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John Subject: Shoft term rentals Nov 11,2013 Dear Council members, Can we talk? (God, I love Joan Rivers!) If short term rentals do not negatively impact their neighborhoods or the economic viability of the city then no ban should be imposed. Can any of you tell me why this ban was created in the first place? If you cannot answer my question I urge you to oveffurn the ban. We should have no rules we cannot support with rationql data. 1 Our city has become overly obsessed with outlawing and regulating way too many arenas of life, and conversely has allowed many activities and development to the detriment of what a charming and inviting city should be. Do you know that city staff made THREE TRIPS to the Laguna Lake arcato investigate a bicycle left on a front patio? Do we have a law about where to keep our bikes? Really? Here is the basic info need to decide this issue. Where are the valid complaints against short term rentals? We know full well there are'long term rental housing' problems almost daily.. Long term housing creation responsibility is yours, not that of the citizens.. Most (probably all) of the short term guests are mature folks, just like you. In fact some of you have availed yourself of this sort of lodging when out of town-how can you possible support banning it here? . The only difference between short term rentals and legal free stays (including friends, family, strangers we invite into our homes (I used to do this all the time), SERVAS and other cultural exchanges) is the money hosts make to support their property and lives-which mostly gets spent here on other services by other people, thereby supporting them as well. In fact Bob Shanbrom has used this sort of housing as recently as last summer (while he was hounding the city to enforce the ban here)! In fact many of our visitors to SLO would not even come here if not for the friendly feel of home stays, we would therefore lose those tourist dollars if we were to ban this popular housing option. SLO Hosts has launched a quiet and calm campaign based on supportable facts, unlike the opposition that only hurls wild accusations and even now hopes you will quell the voices of reason! Nearly all media supports the SLO Hosts'efforts (Trib, NT, radio (Dave Congalton)), as well as most citizens (see our petition) and businesses. I think the CoC and RE industry do not oppose the SLO Hosts efforts. V/ho does that leave in opposition? Far as I can tell there are two or three individuals and maybe RQN, all of whom refuse to see the value in short term rentals wherein the guests are just like them! Are you not our representatives? Who are you representing? Even the hotel industry is not against short term rentals. And not to denigrate them, but many are national in scope, money spent on them leaves the area. SLO Hosts spend their money here, their guests spend their money here, often on those few local businesses that still exist. There are a host of already in-place regulations and rules about how we conduct our affairs- excessive noise and any other nuisance is easily dealt with through existing mechanisms. The hosted short term rentals obviates any of that, the host can and will'nip in the bud' any issue that needs attention. SLO Hosts are not Airbnb, VRBO or any other corporation. The proponents of the arbitrary ban take delight in denigrating those businesses and others as though that has any bearing on SLO Hosts, not true. If you have a gmail account are you responsible for what Google does? SLO Hosts are your neighbors trying to make it in hard times. And, is making money (a little or a lot) now a bad thing as the naysayers propose? You are plenty smart enough to see the truth in this situation, you don't need a 30 page dissertation full of biased editorial matter. I read part of that childish'white paper'you have been subjected to by those on the witch hunt against reduced regulation. The rabid comments about the'serial lawbreakers' and 'arrogant pirate hotel owners' call into question the sanity of the writers. I am ashamed of their behavior and vicious words. I know of a properfy owner who lives next door to a VRBO in our city, that person will swear an affidavit of a preference for the VRBO over long term renters! He/she claims the guests have been first rate and hardly noticeable! You are being asked to use your hearts and minds to decide this issue. Do not be swayed by wild, unsupported claims, Even though SLO Hosts are willing to pay TOT; by the good vibes, great 2 people and economic vitality they bring to the city they should be rewarded for their efforts-never penalized. Never judge a program by its few liabilities, rather measure it by its many attributes. best, Pete Evans (Not a short term rental host, but I am a veteran and this is Veteran's Day!) 3 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: FFC Ë.]vFiñ fiLtl RK. For the record on Tuesday Serrl- fir¡nr rlv Verìzon Wireless ,l(ì l,'l l1 Snrartphoue AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Original message From: Kurt Friedmann <Kurt@kfmail.com> Date: 1lll0l20l3 3:39 PM (GMT-08:00) To: "Christianson, Carlyn" <cchristi@slocity.ore> Cc: "Davidson, Doug" <ddavidson@slocity.org>,"Johnson, Derek" <djohnson@slocit . ),"Codron, Michael" <mcodron@slocity.ry),"Johnson, Lee" <ljohnson@sloiity.ry> Subject: Re: Vacation rental numbers Hi Carlyn, Thank you for raising the "rental rate" questions to staff. There are a lot of different numbers flying around and perhaps I can clarify some of the figures that are used to calculate TOT, short-term stay rental rates, and occupancy rates so we can all be on the same page: $120 Figure: $120 is used as a rate to calculate "granny unit" average pricing to illustrate the reduction in rental stock issue that was most important to you. This seems like a very fair figure as some l-bedroom rates are $70 while others are $180 depending on quality. When we looked at all units on AirbnbA/RBO at the time of enforcement, the average 1-bedroom rental came in at $120. $150 Figure: This is the average rate of ALL vacation rentals, not just one-bedroom granny units. As you have personally experienced, there are many properties that rent out multiple bedrooms for $300-$500 per night or more. Vy'e went through all of the listings on Airbnb and VRBO and averaged the nightly rates out to come up with $150, which was actually quite conservative. So staffs $100 figure is unrealistically low and significantly underestimates TOT. Staff TOT Figures: To get to an annual TOT figure, staff says the average rate is $100/night for ALL properties. They also claim the the occupancy rate is just l3% (50/365 nights per year) . We know from actual public booking data that the occupancy rate is approximately 50Yo. This is why staffs annual TOT figure is only $40k rather than $250k, where it would likely be for staff s own estimate of 79 properties. By comparison, Santa Barbara's TOT is $71 1k for 1 59 properties. (actual data provided by SB Finance Dept) That's 94,47 | per yeat, per property in TOT. If we take staffs estimate of 79 properties for SLO and multiply that by $4,47l,that would be $353k in annual TOT for SLO!! ! Our $150k figure was purposefully conservative so no one could argue with it. And yet... Johnson, Derek Sunday, November 10, 2013 5:59 PM Goodwin, Heather; Codron, Michael Fwd: Vacation rental numbers NOv 12 Zoi3 1 If staff s estimate of $ 100 per night at a l3Yo occupancy rate were accurate, that would mean that the average VR in SLO generates just $5k PER YEAR in gross income (prior to expenses) and $500 in annual TOT for the city at l0% . $5k per year does not even cover the expenses of running a vacation rental. Honestly, what voter in their right mind would do this and still be pounding at your door for regulation change? It just doesn't make economic sense. Finally, if we believe that vacation rentals only have a l3Yo occupancy rate, what kind of neighborhood impact is that in comparison to a95Yo occupancy rate for long-term rentals? Even at 50o/o,the environmental impacts of short-term rentals arc -at best- half that of long-term rentals. You can't have it both ways... underestimate TOT and you must also underestimate impacts. Please call me at234-0648 if I can provide clarification. I'll support the decision, as long as it's based upon real and reasonable facts. Perhaps an oversight was made in the calculations? It happens. Thanks for including this email in the council record so all council members are comparing apples to apples in order to arrive at a reasonable decision on Tuesday. Best regards, Kurt On Nov 70, 2013 , at I : I 8 PM, Christianson, Carlyn wrote Hi Kurt, It occurred to me that I have asked staff to address the different rental rates used by SLOHost in the Attachment for the staff repoft, and that SLOHost might want a chance to address the same issue, So--why is $120/night used for the estimate on income to the owner, and $150/night used for the estimate on income to the city? I just want to make sure that people are comparing apples to apples, as it were, Thanks you Carlyn Carlyn Christianson Member, San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street, SLO 93408 cchristi@slociW.oro 805-550-9320 cell 805-752-1021 home (for city calls) 2 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: AnthonyJ. Mejia I CityClerk (:ål;\¡ {}l' *.rr: l*ls (lltì¡$p(} gqo Palnr Sl.roqt 5an Luis ilbispo, C'\ g34or Ìei | 845 7ilt.7ro: From: Christianson, Carlyn Sent: Monday, November 04,2013 10:23 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Issues Document Carlyn Christianson Member, San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street, SLO 93408 cchristi@slocÍW,org 805-550-9320 cell 805-752-1021 home (for city calls) Mejia, Anthony Monday, November 04,20L3 L0:38 AM Goodwin, Heather FW:lssues Document Residence Stays pro con.docx Rl::(-..D NO\/ 0 4 2013 $Lt")c!-. AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE From: Kurt Friedmann Ikurt@kfmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 11:34 PM To: Max, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John Subject: Issues Document Dear City Council Members, V/hile the issue of short-term rentals is important to our SLO Host group, we understand that you have many important issues to address each week. Although we want to heard, we are sensitive to the fact that it takes a lot of time to address so many individual concems via email from our group. 'We want to help! Attached is an informative document that includes most, if not all, of the major issues surrounding residence stays in the City of SLO, Having all of the issues in one document, complete with a pro/con analysis for each one, should help you understand the issues from a residence stay perspective. This way we don't have to make all of our points individually, which should save you a lot of headaches, In return, we simply ask that you please read through the document completely. Likewise, we want to be considerate of your time at city council meetings, This Tuesday, we will only have one speaker at the meeting, who will be the voice for the entire SLO Host group, This will save you all a significant amount of time. Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions regarding the content within the attached document, I'll be happy to help. Best regards, Kuft Friedmann (80s) 234-0648 kurt@kfmail.com 2 City of San Luis Obispo Short-Term Rental lssues Residence Stay Perspective Background ln 1988, the City of San Luis Obispo passed an ordinance banning all short-term rentals within the city limits, At the time, only a handful of short-term rentals existed in the city, and as such, the need for enforcement of the ban was nearly non-existent. With the advent of vacation rental sites such as Airbnb, VRBO, and HomeAway, more short- term rentals became available in the city. Despite an increase in the number of short-term rentals, for the past 30 years, homeowners in the City of San Luis Obispo conducted short-term rentals with very few complaints or problems. According to the San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, there have been just five documented vacation rental complaints in the last 30 years, one of which was regarding a primary residence, Most of these homeowners never knew about the short-term rental ban because it was not actively enforced. ln fact, the ordinance was so obscure, that some homeowners were actually issued business licenses to conduct short-term rentals by city employees who were uninformed of the law, These business licenses were later rescinded when the city began enforcing the law in May of 2013. The reason the city began enforcing the law was not due to any significant number of noise or public safety complaints. Enforcement began because one or two individuals, who were aware of the law, challenged the city simply for not enforcing it. They saw short-term rentals being advertised on Airbnb and VRBO and felt compelled to challenge the city for not imposing the ban. After persistent, continued pressure and threats of legal action, the city was forced to comply with the enforcement demand. ln May of 2013 homeowners began receiving cease and desist notices from the city. Soon thereafter, a group of approximately 25 local homeowners formed SLO Hosts, an advocacy group devoted to decriminalizing the practice of short-term rentals by owners of primary residences in the City of San Luis Obispo. SLO Host members live onsite at the properties they rent and are asking for the city to approve a new lodging use description called "residence stays", which would allow owners of primary residences to rent out rooms for less than 30 days, ln October of 2013, the city council voted 4:1, with mayor Jan Marx opposing, to study the topic of vacation rentals within the city limits. The study session, which is open to the public, takes place at 6pm on November 'J,2,2013 al the regularly scheduled city council meeting. Following is a list of issues that have commonly been advanced by those supporting and opposing short-term rentals and residence stays: Home Ownership Affordability for Local Workforce Case for Residence Stays Due to the h¡gh cost of housing in the City of San Luis Obispo, the percentage of owner-occupied residences in the city is approximately 35%. The rate of home ownership by our local workforce continues to decline as investors increasingly purchase available properties due to a lucrative rental market, which now stands al 65% non-owner occupied. Short-term rentals provide owners of primary residences additional income that can be used to offset the high cost of a mortgage, thus making home ownership for our local workforce more attainable within the city, Further, because owners of primary residences rent rooms at the property where they live, availability of housing for other citizens is generally not impacted to the degree that it is for non-owner occupied housing. Case Against Residence Stays Opponents believe that allowing residence stays will actually drive up the price of owner-occupied housing within the city, thus making home ownership even less affordable. Likely Outcome Because the number of short-term rental units are a relatively small percentage of the overall housing market in the City of San Luis Obispo (less than % of t percent), permitting short-term rentals for owners of primary residences would likely have little impact on the availability of affordable housing or general real estate prices. A limited number of homeowners could be forced to sell their homes without the extra income afforded by short-term rentals, which could create an even greater number of non-owner occupied residences, but again, not in large numbers. Effect on Neighborhoods Case for Residence Stays Because owners of primary residences live on-site at the properties they rent, they are more inclined to have relationships with neighbors and be protective of the homes in which they live. As such, owners of primary residences who rent to short-term guests are generally more selective about the people to whom they rent. Further, owners of primary residences are readily available to address issues, should they arise, and take immediate action. The fact that there has only been one documented complaint against a vacation rental by the owner of a primary residence in the past 30 years is proof that any negative effect on neighbors is negligible. Neighbors generally prefer occasional short-term renters to a home of full-time students, which is a likely outcome for secondary income property. Further, because occupancy rates for short-term rentals are normally less than 50%, there is less impact on the neighborhood than in a long-term rental situation. lssues such as parking, noise, and general congestion are actually reduced by short-term rentals, Nearly half of the income derived from short-term rentals is spent on home improvements to make the home more beautiful, thereby enhancing the overall value of the neighborhood. Case Against Residence Stays Neighbors often want to know who is living next to them and are sometimes suspicious of people in the neighborhood who they don't know. There is a fear that the owner of the primary residence will not be present when guests are in the home. Opponents of short-term rentals believe that short-term renters are more likely to commit crimes in the neighborhood than someone who is a long-term renter. Additionally, concerns regarding proliferation of short-term rental housing, on-street parking availability and noise are primary issues for opponents of short-term rentals. Iikely Outcome For the past 30 years, owners of primary residences in the City of San Luis Obispo have conducted short- term rentals with very few complaints or problems - just one complaint. Until recently, most of these homeowners never knew about the short-term rental ban because the City of SLO never enforced it. As mentioned in the background section of this document, the law was so obscure, that some homeowners were actually issued business licenses to conduct short-term rentals by city employees who were ignorant of the law. It's hard to imagine that the future would be much different than the past if the ordinance changed because few homeowners knew of the law in the first place. So if complaints for actual rental proliferation, noise, parking, or crime violations were going to be a real issue in the future, they would have certainty showed up in the past in greater numbers than they have. Looking at the factual evidence, there is no data to suggest that short-term renters pose any greater safety or noise impact than long-term renters or residents. Likely, student populations pose the greater risk of noise and safety issues within neighborhoods. There is factual evidence to suggest that owners of primary residences, who derive income from short- term renters, do make substantial investments to beautify their homes. Guests often rate the quality of their stays on vacation rental sites, which encourages homeowners to enhance their properties, Protection of Affordable Rental Housing Case for Residence Stays Proponents of residence stays propound that short-term rentals by owners of primary residences do not significantly decrease the availability of affordable rental housing for young professional couples or students. The reasoning for this is that homeowners are not generally inclined to have a student living in one of their spare bedrooms while they are also occupying the same home, Owners of primary residences generally will not rent a spare room out full time, as they want the extra room to be available for family and friends on an occasional basis. Further, young professionals are typically not inclined to live in an owner-occupied house. ln the case of a detached l-bedroom "granny unit", the economics of renting out short term are generally not compelling enough for most property owners. After taking into account advertising, cleaning, coordination, utilities, supplies, and occupancy rates, renting short term is typically not financially beneficial compared to long-term rentals of separate 1-bedroom units. Case Against Residence Stays Opponents believe that allowing residence stays will reduce the availability of affordable long-term rental housing. Because the nightly rate for vacation rentals seems so lucrative, opponents feel that property owners will be compelled financially to rent short term, reducing the availability of affordable long-term rentals. This is especially the case in l-bedroom secondary dwelling units on the property, Likely Outcome Because the number of short-term rental units are a relatively small percentage of the overall housing market in the City of San Luis Obispo, permitting short-term rentals for owners of primary residences would likely have little impact on the availability of affordable rentalhousing. Only a smallfraction of the 35% of owner-occupied primary residences in the city have elected to rent rooms out on a short-term basis (less fhan I/2 of !%1. There is no reason to believe that the number would increase substantially in the future given there was no effective ban in the past. The same fears existed when the city first considered allowing bed & breakfasts. The fear was that, due to lucrative rental rates, B&B's would proliferate. But that did not happen because there are only so many people who are willing to do the work that it takes to successfully rent rooms to tourists short-term. The evidence of that is clear as only a small number of B&B's exist in the city today and that number is dropping rather than expanding. The same issue that limits the number of B&B's will limit the number of residence stays, namely, it's hard work and many homeowners are not prepared to host travelers at thelr personal residence. The economics of renting a 1-bedroom secondary dwelling unit short term does not appear to be compelling in comparison to long-term rentals. Following is a financial example: Long-Term Detached 1-Bedroom Rental: Average Monthly Rent: S1,100 Utilities: Paid by renter Short-Term 1-Bedroom Rental: Average Monthly Rent: $1,800 (assumes 50% occupancy, $f ZO/night) Utilities: ($175 monthly) paid by owner Advertising: ($50 monthly) Cleaning: ($:00 monthly) assuming $75 fee x 4 rentals per month Furnishings: (550 monthly) amortized Supplies: ($75 monthly) lnternet / Cable: ($100 monthly) Coordination: (S200 monthly) assumes 10 hours monthly x S20/hour Net Monthly lncome: $850 Competition w¡th Local Hotels Case for Residence Stays Travelers who stay at owner-occupied properties seek a unique lodging experience that cannot be offered by hotels or bed and breakfasts. While proponents of residence stays believe that competition is healthy for the tourism industry, short-term rentals generally do not compete with local hotels because the clientele preferences are very different. Additionally, residence stays provide an overflow option for tourists who find it difficult to find traditional lodging options during certain events when hotels have no vacancies, particularly during the summer. Residence stay proponents believe that short-term rentals should be subject to the Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) to create taxat¡on parity and even competition with hotels. Case Against Residence Stays Opponents believe that short-term rentals may negatively impact the local hotel trade and create unfair competition. L¡kely Outcome As evidenced at the most recent TBID (Tourism Business lmprovement District) meeting in October of 20L3, the majority of hotel owners and managers do not see residence stays as a threat to their business. They simply want the playing field to be fair by ensuring that all short-term rentals include the TOT. The likely outcome of permitting residence stays is an increase of approximately S150,000 in yearly TOT income to the city. For comparison, Santa Barbara, a city that decided not to enforce its current vacation rental ban, has generated 5711,000 in TOTfrom 159 vacation rentals in 2013. By comparison, the estimate for San Luis Obispo is very conservative, lncreasing Local Tourism Case for Residence Stays Proponents of residence stays state that offering short-term rental options increases tourism by promoting additional choices for travelers. Evidence in the form of letters from past tourists indicate that if short-term rental options are not available, travelers will choose other communities for their vacations. The average length ofstay by a short-term rental guest is over double that of a typical tourist, (4 days vs. 1.7 days) which increases tourism revenue. Due to high guest satisfaction ratings, proponents suggest that residence stay tourists are far more loyal, visit more frequently, stay longer, spend more, and recommend the City of SLO more often to friends, neighbors, and business associates. Money generated from short-term rentals remains in the local community and increases local revenue because rent is paid to primary residents that then spend locally. Further, tourists who are considering moving to San Luis Obispo want to experience the feel of living short term in an actual neighborhood prior to purchasing a home. Case Against Residence Stays There is currently no opposition to residence stays on the basis of promoting increased tourism Likely Outcome Based upon the 55 short-term rentals that were operating at the time that the vacation rental ordinance was enforced, projections of yearly direct economic benefit to the city is estimated at approximately S7,6 million. There is l¡ttle doubt that residence stays positively affect tourism and benefit the local economy. Following is a summary of how the 57.6 million is economic benefit estimate is derived: Number of short-term rentals prior to ban enforcement: t 55 Average length of stay: 3,5 days Average occupancy: 3.2 Average daily rental rate: S150 per property Average Occupancy Rate: 50% Expected ToT at 10%: $148,500 (5150 x 180 days x 55 rentals) Average spent in community per day: SZ+O Total direct economic impact: 57.6 million (5240 x 180 days x 55 rentals x 3,2 occupants) Regulation and Enforcement Case for Residence Stays SLO Hosts are in favor of creating a new zoning use description classification to allow short-term rentals for owners of primary residences in the City of SLO, They are not asking for the current vacation rental ban to be overturned. The reason for this is that owners of primary residences are generally available to oversee guest behaviors, which is different than the typical vacation rental scenario. As a result, complaints by neighbors are relatively rare and can be handled directly by the property owner. ln the event that a particular homeowner received multiple valid complaints, they could lose their right to conduct residence stays. SLO Hosts believe that the regulations and enforcement procedures for short-term rentals should be the same as those that are already in place for long-term rentals. Attached is a sample "residence stay ordinance" created by SLO Hosts, which explains how residence stays could be regulated, lfaccepted, the SLO Hosts ordinance proposal would be among the most restrictive short-term stay regulations in the country. Case Against Residence Stays Opponents of residence stays believe that regulations and enforcement for short-term rentals should be much more restrictive than those of long-term rentals. ln particular, opponents believe that enforcement will be difficult and that substantial time will need to be spent to handle violations and complaints. [ikely Outcome For the past 30 years, homeowners in the City of San Luis Obispo have conducted short-term rentals with very few complaints or problems, Until recently, there was little enforcement of the ordinance because legit¡mate complaints were extremely isolated. The one documented complaint against an owner of a primary residence was handled through existing city ordinances. It's hard to imagine that the future would be much different than the past because few homeowners knew of the vacation rental ban in the first place. So if complaints for actual noise, parking, or crime violations were going to be a real issue in the future, they would have certainty shown up in the past in greater numbers than they have. Looking at the factual evidence, there is no data to suggest that short- term renters pose any greater safety or noise impact than long-term renters or residents. Because occupancy rates are less than 50%, actual impact on neighborhoods, and therefore the need for enforcement, would likely be exponentially reduced. The likely outcome is that residence stays w¡ll require little additional enforcement time than what is currently being expended for enforcing the current vacation rental ban. ln fact, cities that distinguish between primary residences and non-primary residences in their ordinances have far fewer regulations, if any, for primary residences. The distinction is made in communities such as Austin, Texas and Ashland, Oregon because primary residence short-term rentals have been shown to cause very few complaints. Homeowner's Right to Privacy and Equal Protection Case for Residence Stays SLO Host advocates believe that homeowners have a right to be left alone in the privacy of their own homes, provided that they do not infringe upon the rights of neighbors. Part of that protection includes having the right to choose with whom to live, regardless of how long a guest stays. Additionally, homeowners renting to short-term guests may have equal protection under the law to be treated the same as homeowners who rent their properties long term, Case Against Residence Stays Opponents of residence stays believe that homeowners who rent their property to short-term guests do not have the same rights as homeowners who rent long term, and therefore, are subject to special rental conditions that are not required of long-term rentals, Likely Outcome Court decisions in the State of California such as the Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. the City of Santa Monica support the SLO Host position case based on right to privacy and equal protection laws. Case law in this community set a precedent that may prevent the City of San Luis Obispo from discriminating against a homeowner's right to privacy and equal protection. Other case law examples in California could challenge right to privacy protect¡on, making the likely outcome of a legal case against the city unknown and unnecessary. Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Heather, Agenda correspondence. Thanks - Kathy Smith, Kathy Monday, November IL,2013 9:04 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: Vacation Rental Agenda topic City Council.doc R NO\/ 1 2 2013 SLO HRI{" From: Gloria Galetka fggaletka@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 10,2013 2:09 PM To: Max, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John Subject: Vacation Rental Agenda topic Deor lodies ond Gentlemen, f opologize f or sending this ottqched letter ot the lqst minute but just reolized you wíll be meetang on lhis topic IL/tz ond wonted to shqre my thoughts os q VRBO owner f or 9 yeors ín this town f love. Please f eel free to contoct me by emoil or phone with ony guest¡ons. f qm ovoiloble to do whotever is needed to help with this siluotion ond contínue my business. Thqnk you for your time ond service. Glorio Goletko Glorio Gsle' ka RN, BSN CA Licensed Fiduciory PF 279 www.vrbo .com/ 24L919 ond www.vrbo .com/ 702912 Phone 805-471-2709 Fox 805-546-8616 1 Gloria Galetka RN, BSN California Licensed Fiduciary #279 843 Upham Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-47 l-2709; FAX 805-546-86 I 6 E-mail: ggaletka@gmail.com tUt0lt3 Ladies and Gentlemen of the SLO City Council, I am writing regarding the newly enforced ban on vacation rentals within the city of SLO. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the City Council meeting next week or be involved in local groups, as I am in San Diego caring for my grandson temporarily. When I heard about the "cease and desist" letters which were being received by others in the community I quickly called the appropriate city official, Cassia in Code Enforcement to inquire about it since I have held a business license type 080, description: Vacation Rental, Certificate number 105170 for 9 years. I was asked to fax the certificate as I was told that 080 was not a "vacation rental" which is written on the certificate. I explained that when I first applied for a license, I was very clear on my pu{pose on the application and was issued the license. I have always followed the "rules" and so was shocked when told this is now "illegal". I faxed the application copy as well as the prior license certificate 6118113. I received my renewed license effective July 18,2013 through June 30, 2014.I have always paid the annual tax and fees requested on the form provided annually. I did specifically inquire about transient bed taxes as I knew they were required in other cities, but was merely given the form which is for all businesses, the same one I get for my Fiduciary Business. I do pay selÊemployment federal business taxes. As one of the oldest VRBO vacation rentals in town since 2005,I can honestly tell you that the types of people renting from me are often Cal Poly parents or prior students visiting for events. Other guests are couples/families visiting the "happiest town in America", maîy bring their bikes and all love the proximify my home lends to walking to town. They all wish to have the convenience of preparing a meal for themselves and their loved ones in town, I always look first for a VRBO rental when travelling, as I love the convenience of feeling at home, even if someone else's home. Travelers treat my home as if it were theirs. I have NEVER had a complaint from a neighbor. I have lived in this location since 1993 (SLO since 1988) across the street from Kappa Chi on the comer of Chorro and Upham. I can assure you that the problem here is over crowded college rentals with no oversight. I have called the police many times on parties for noise and underage drinking. In my opinion, this is the issue the city should use its resources to improve. Living across the street from that fraternity and down the street from the Del Monte café,I couldn't park a second car on my street; still can't on the weekends. I love San Luis Obispo and my home. I would never want to hurt either. I do understand that local beach cities have drawn party types into their rentals on the beach. This is not my experience for all these years in SLO, I have NEVER had to collect I penny for damage to my home or cottage. Guidelines are already in place for tenants/landlords with associated complaint fees. Nothing new needs to be set up. These are just shorter term rentals. As has been suggested from others in the VRBO community, I am in agreement to paying the same taxes/fees that hotel and B&B's are charged. This is fair. Having my business closed due to whatever entity has stined this up is not. If safety inspections are required of vacation rentals, then inspections should also be required of all rentals, of which there are many, whether month-to-month or with annual leases. Safety is safety. This would be a huge undertaking since there are non-licensed rentals and buildings without permits throughout the city. It seems to me that that non-licensed, non-permitted rentals should be a more important job for code enforcement rather than spending time on a few home owners trying to make ends meet. I am willing to assist in any task force which may be set up although I feel monitoring as stated is already in place. Using the same fee structure as is already in place for B&B's should be used for collecting transient tax fees for vacation rentals. As far as numbers; it has been suggested that the numbers be limited. This has been adopted in other communities per square mile or proximity to other rentals. Since there are rentals of every sort throughout our college community, this can really not be done fairly; possibly the same rules that are set for hotels & B&B's if there are any. Again, I am willing to work with the city. I feel strongly that these rentals are well maintained and add to tourism and the warmth of our town. Please feel free to contact me my phone or email listed at the top of my letter. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Gloria Galetka LO CTT'Y CL Hf;I Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: OcT 31 2013 Mejia, Anthony Wednesday, October 30, 2013 5:00 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: shoft term rentals AGENDA RESPONDENCEco tl AnthonyJ. Mejia I CityClerk (;tl._\ C\l S,r:¡ tLt¡* tlt:it$|){} qgc Palrn Street 9an i r"ris Oi:i:¡:o, (A r¡32'ur tel | 8e:5.78r.7ru:- From: Max, Jan Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:44 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: shoft term rentals -----Original Message----- From: Patricia Golden [slogolden@grnail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29,2013 03:50 PM Pacific Standard Time To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy Cc: Patricia Golden Subject: short term rentals Dear SLO City Council Members - Thank you for all your good work on behalf of city residents, such as myself, I'm writing today to express my suppoft as well as to ask for your suppoft of SLO Hosts effofts to obtain city approval for short term rentals. I've been foftunate enough to arrange similar, short term rentals while traveling abroad, through the use of "airbnb" and "vacationsinparis.com." These rentals made our stay more personal, unique and affordable; thus, allowing us to vacation for a longer period and spend our vacation dollars on activities & food. Please do support and encourage shorl term rentals as a unique/boutique addition to SLO's tourism. Thank you, Patricia Golden 869 Alyssum Couft, SLO (27-year resident) 1 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Heather, Agenda correspondence, Thanks - Kathy Smith, Kathy Monday, November lL,2013 9:02 AM Goodwin, Heather FW:Vacation rentals in SLO Use of Residences for Homestays.doc R,ECËTVED NOv 1 2 ?013 St"ü CTTY RK AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE From: John Grady fiohngrady5@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, November 10,2013 B:54 PM To: Max, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Christianson, Carlyn Subject: Vacation rentals in SLO Dear Mayor Max and City Council Members, Attached please find my comments (attached as a Word document) regarding your upcoming discussion of vacation rentals in our city, Regards, John Grady San Luis Obispo November t0,2Ot3 Dear SLO City Council Members, I urge you support the adoption of a resolution that would allow homeowners in our city to rent out a portion of their home as a vacation rental or homestay rentalfor out of town visitors. The benefits to our residents and their guests far outweigh any negative impacts of this practice. These benefits include allowing some homeowners to be able to afford keeping their home by the supplemental income they can generate as well as allowing visitors a more intimate and personal experience during their visit to our town. To deny homeowners the freedom to rent out a room in their own home seems to me a denial of their constitutional right. Some in opposition have expressed concerns that such vacation or homestay rentals will lead to increased traffic and loud parties. How can one more car driving in a neighborhood constitute a traffic problem? lf instead the same house is rented to 6 or 8 students then perhaps we might have added traffic and parking problems, but not by having an out of town guest or guests stay in the same home! Likewise, what is the likelihood of a visiting individualor couple throwing a party in a town they likely know no one, compared with a house full of students throwing a party for their friends and classmates? The arguments against allowing homestays or vacation rentals lack credibility. lf you want to impose some requirements such as collection of a TOT and perhaps requiring the owner to have a business license so be it, but even this in my opinion is not necessary. The hotels and motels will not suffer as most visitors will prefer this type of lodging. For those visitors who prefer a homestay and for the homeowners who want to provide this experience for a myriad of reasons, I believe they should be allowed to enjoy this use of their own private property. Finally, if you amend our city's General Plan to accommodate homestays and vacation rentals, any related costs should be absorbed by the city as a cost of doing business and not passed along to SLO Hosts as staff has proposed. This would be unfair in my opinion. I also believe that staff costs should playnoroleinyourdecisionnorshouldtheybeaugmentedtodraftanewordinance, Stafftimeisa requirement of running government and should not be funded or allotted in a piecemeal manner or on a case by case basis. ln fact, the city wíll realize increased tax revenue as a result of allowing such rentals. Please do the right thing and amend our city's plan to allow this appropriate use of private residences. Thank you. Regards, John Grady 525 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Heather, Agenda correspondence. Thanks - Kathy Smith, Kathy Monday, November Ll,2013 9:07 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: Redacted info/ AiTBNB complaints i I f i i¿ ù(lÈT\r1HD NO\/ I 2 2013 CLËR AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE From: Karen Hale Iubwell53@gmail,com] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 4:26 PM To: mcordon@slocity,org; Max, Jan; Johnson, Derek; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Ashbaugh, John Subject: Redacted info/ AiTBNB complaints I am in receipt of the five AirBnB complaints, one of them involving me. I am very concerned that while people complaining had names redacted, my name and Dale Landis ( not involved in any of this) are named with our address. I am requesting that our names be redacted. The city must be responsible to all citizens. The complaint was files anonymously from the same neighbor who has made ethnic slurs at me and my children. All the information is false with the exception that I did do AirBnB ( this letter was sent to city attorney in April). Publishing our names to the public with the complaints puts the city at supporting slanderous and false statements. I had never seen the complaint before and I am shocked at its content. I am not going to continue to be bullied by this neighbor, and now by the city of SLO, and I am requesting that our names be redacted from the info. The city of SLO has allowed this hateful man to continue making slanderous remarks that you are now making public. The person in question is Richard Orcutt, and there are police files attesting to the continued harassment we are facing. Anonymous complaints should not be weighted against honest people. Driving our street, one would notice our home has the most improvements, has been drought tolerant for 15 years, no noise complaint has ever been filed or any complaint except for this neighbor who lives 2 doors down and started harassing us when my 10 year old son told him in an innocent conversation that we were celebrating Chanukah. This was 16 years ago, and if I could afford to move, I would have. We will be leaving SLO in the near future. I am hopeful that in the future, current city employees and City Council respectfully support a more tolerant view. Again, please redact our names from this public information. We are innocent until proven otherwise? Your did not place names with other addresses in complaints and this is simply outrageous. We have been investigated multiple times due to this man. At some point, it must be obvious this is merely harassment, as the only claim of reality was AirBnB, which at the time, the city business license office said was fine. We have 2 businesses on the street that have never been investigated, One has a home license, but has 2heavy duty trucks, boxed commercial plants, additional towing vehicles around his home, the other is a full time private gym run out of a garage, with 40-50 people per week in addition to Tues and Thurs night boot camp. 1 Please go pick on someone else. Of course, Mr. Orcutt could care less about the degradation of his neighborhood regarding these issues. FYI, my license has never been at question ( altho I am retired), Dale has never worked out of the garage, we have gone away camping and left house sitters for our animals. None of this is illegal in any way. Sincerely, Karen Hale 2 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Heather, Agenda correspondence thanks - Kathy Smith, Kathy Monday, November L'J.,2013 9:06 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: History of Complaints to city on Short Term Rentals E.V D NOv 1 2 2013 SLT CT"¡'Y !Ft-.r_ AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE From : Karen Hale Iubwell53@gmail,com] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 B:14 PM To: Johnson, Derek; Max, Jan; mcordon@slocity.org; Ashbaugh, John; Christianson, Carlyn; Smith, Kathy Subject: Fwd: History of Complaints to city on Shoft Term Rentals Forwarded message From: Karen Hale <ubwell53@gmail.c Date: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 7:56 PM Subject: Re: History of Complaints to city on Short Term Rentals Dear all, I was appalled to find a letter from an anonymous source ( our neighbor, Richard Orcutt) in the complaints without our name redacted. The list of false accusations is absolute defamation of our character and the fact that the city chose to publish with no explanation, is completely unacceptable. Vy'e may, after this next AirBnB situation hire a lawyer and sue the city. The truth is , we use our Rv to travel and have animal sitters at our home. And, prior to June, ( when using an Rv on the street was legal) all our neighbors occasionally "borrowed" the RV when they had excess guests. V/hen our nieces visited in August, the police told us to simply put RV in driveway and we were legal. Dale is both state and city licensed, and does no more work at home than any other retired contractor; virtually none! Dale is not involved in any of this and his reputation should not be tarnished, nor mine. If this is some sick passive aggressive move by the city, it is, well, just that. I have never been anything but in good standing with the State Board of Chiropractors, and have no other CA state licensing. I had the right to let people know (when I was still working) that I had a healing practice. I never stated it was in my house, simply available. In April, when this letter was written, the city was telling me I didn't need a license, as I was a "subcontractor" of AirBnB ( per the 1099 I showed them!) The out of state plates would not be AirBnB, but mostly my fellow ministers and travelers of the International Council Of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers. It is our walking prayer or tolerance and peace that brings people to 1 each other from all over. These are not paying guests. Very few AirBnB peeps we see are driving from out of state. Most have CA rental cars. I am not going to continue to be bullied by my neighbor, and find this gross enor by the city unacceptable There is innocent til proven guilty???? And I do know none of these issues came to be addressed, except AirBnB. I believe I have the same rights to have our names redacted from these now public records. I am sad to say that this has become intolerable, that the hatred of our neighbor has now garnered support from other like minded, and with our name and address given so thoughtlessly by the city, we are moving within the next few weeks. It does seem that property owners, even with complaints registered about them, should have some right as the same rights as the complaintant. I am sickened by this blatant abuse by the city, and will address this Tuesday night, as I feel I have no choice but to defend myself publicly, since they have released this ridiculous , but potent complaint. This is I I take very personally. The city had acted unprofessionally and I am requesting an internal review of this matter immediately. Taxpayers and good citizens do not deserve to be treated so poorly, defamation is a serious crime. The city has supported, by publishing this letter, a hate-monger, racist person. This is what he really meant by " ruining his neighborhood". He spends many a night yelling at the " Mexicans, Jews, and Chinese"... in not as nice words to get out of his neighborhood.... Shame on the SLO City personnel.. Kalcn I T:rle On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 atl2:20 PM, John Semon @ wrote: Thought I would pass this along. I have not read it but it is answers to my questions about the history of complaints on short term rentals. It was given very broad distribution today. Staff is working today. Monday is a Holiday John Semon 245 Bridge Street San Luis Obispo, Ca.93401 johnsemon(@live.com Cell 805-23 5-2725 Home 805-542-9017 2 Blessings, Karen Shifting health challenges to deep healing opportunities Blessings, Karen Shifting health challenges to deep healing opportunities 3 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Heather, Agenda correspondence. Smith, Kathy Monday, November 11, 2013 9:03 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: SLO Rentals with Air BNB lî(.iËÏì/F NO\/ 12 2U13 SLL\cl"l'Y c¡""iìËlr/ AGENDA CORRESPONDEN OE Thanks - Kathy Date tl L From: Amy [acthendricks@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, November 10,2013 5:34 PM To: Max, Jan Cc: Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John Subject: SLO Rentals with Air BNB 197 Mission Road I lackettstown,N.f 07840 Emai I : acthendricks@verizon.net Novembel 10,2013 'l'o: CI'I'Y Ol' SAN LUIS OBISPOSLO CII'Y COUNCIL Mayor Jan Marx jmarx@slocit)r.org Vice Mayor Kathy Smith ksmith@slocity.org Clouncil Members: Carlyn Cl hristianson cchristi@slocity. org Dan Carpenter dcarpent@slocity.org John Ashbaurgh, jashbaug@slocity.org Dear Council Members, My wife and I are beginning the search for a home on the west coast as ollr son moved to Los Angeles following his college gradtration a little over a year ago and rve r.vill be taking early rctirement in the next few .y-ears. As our son is likely to move around on the west coast, we are pretty open to the location where we'll be based. We have past experiences in places which Ièlt cluite appealing to us. such as Santa Barbara, the San Juan Islands of 'Washington, and Bend, Oregon. On a trip to visit our son a fèw weeks ago, we dicl some research and ciecicled to spend a fèw days along the central coasl. We were staying at a hotel along the coast in Pismo Beach and planned shorl visits to Cambria, Paso Robles. SLO and others. Atter an initial positive stop in SLO fbr sorne sightseeing we thought there was a lot of potential, but of coul'se not knowing anyone who lived there. and staying outside town, it was hard to gauge what it was really like fiom an insiders' perspective. The fblks at the hotel, while fliendly, were more well-versed on othel towns, typical tourist attractions, and restaurants along the coast. llaving utilized AirllnB throughout otn travels, and having had nothing but positive experiences getting to know other towns from the inside, we made a quick reservation with a proprietclr who was very willing to accommodate us on short notice. From the proprietor"s position and ours we were able to review tlavelers' and homeowners' reviews of each other so, as always, we felt very comfbrtable with the arrangement, 1 The stay could not have been better,..we walked to places all over town with the proprietor''s recommended routes, were given great recommendations of places to eat (instead o1'going back to the coast), were advised o1' nice places to hike, and ideas of things to do, By staying closer to town we were able to feel comfortable and really get a feel for what it was like. l.t was also nice to come back to a nice home each clay and share stories versus going back to a hotel and not really having personal attention. After a few days we knew we fbund the perl'ect place 1-or our west coast home, and the proprietor aclually took the step to give us the narne o1'a real estate agent who we contacted and are now receiving listings to review, We do understand that in SLO there is some concern over ventures like AirBnB, but we want to assure you that as travelers who stay in everything fiorn villa resorls, to chain hotels, to shorl term room/home rentals, we lind unique value in the short term arangements, And the peacefil, home setting and personal experience brought us one other thing...the decision to make Sl,O our future homc, II'you wourld like to contact us about our experience or lbr a point of view, please do not hesitate to oontact us at the addresses listed above. Sincelely, Arny and Torn Hendricks 2 NO\/ 12 2013 ü CÏTY HRK R councrl memopânòu DATE:November 12,2013 City Council Michael Codron. Assistant City AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE tutunug"r0 TO 1 VIA FROM:Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Community Development Deputy Director SUBJECT: Vacation Rentals Study Session - Council Meeting November 12,2013 (SS-l) The following questions have been raised in advance of tonight's vacation rental study session Does our current general plan - Land Use or Housing Element - contain policies that specifically call for the City to encourage owner-occupied housing? If so, could you provide a reference to those policies? Staff Response The Land Use Element contains the following goals and policies encourage owner occupancy in neighborhoods: Housing Element Goal #7 Neighborhood Qualify Maintain, preserve, and enhance the quality of neighborhoods, encourage stability and owner occupancy, and improve neighborhood appearance, function, and sense of community. Land Use Element Program 2.15 Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans To help residents preserve and enhance their neighborhoods, the City will: A. Identify neighborhoods, and work with residents to prepare neighborhood plans that empower them to shape their neighborhoods; B. Help devise strategies to help stabilize the rental/owner ratio, to maintain neighborhood character, safety, and stability; C. Help identify neighborhood problems, and undertake a wide range of focused development- review, capital-improvement, and code-enforcement efforts; D. Encourage the formation of voluntary neighborhood groups, so residents can become involved early in the development review process; E. Involve residents early in reviewing proposed public and private projects that could have neighborhood impacts, by notifying residents and property owners and holding meetings at convenient times and places within the neighborhoods. F. Provide appropriate staff support, possibly including a single staff person for neighborhood issues, and train all staff to be sensitive to issues of neighborhood protection and enhancement. 2. What effect, if any, do you think that changes to our Zoning ordinance to permit residential homestays would have on our rate of owner-occupancy? J Council Memorandum Vacation Rentals Study Session Page2 Staff Response The City's rate of owner occupancy could be affected if the ordinance is amended to allow vacation rentals. If the Ordinance requires to owner to reside on the premises there may not be a significant impact on the percentage of owner-occupied housing. That would require some more analysis to develop a more comprehensive picture of any shift the owner/rental makeup of the City. The room rental rate is $ 120 a night; on page SS 1-28, the room rental rate is $ 150 a night. Which is to be used? Staff Response Attachment 4 was prepared by the SLO Hosts group. They will be available at the study session to further explain their proposal. Staff took a conservative estimate and average of TOT revenues for vacation rentals. TOT revenues vary with different factors for the number, occupancy, and room rates. Other issues to consider are an offset to the optimal TOT revenues by the number of people who don't pay the tax and/or do not obtain the necessary approvals. 4. How many secondary units are there in the city? Staff Response The City has issued permits for 31 secondary dwelling units (SDUs) And, related to this, on Attachment 3, the rough sketch of an ordinance amendment provided by SLO Hosts, page SSI-20 in Part l, the definition of "Primary Residence"-- are secondary units included within this definition? In other words, if a homeowner were to rent the secondary unit on his/her property short-term, would this qualify as allowed under this dehnition or one similar to it? What about the vice versa, if a homeowner were to rent out the home short-term and live in the secondary unit? Staff Response The draft ordinance and definitions in'Attachment 3 were prepared by SLO Hosts. However, SDUs are not intended for short-term rental purposes. SDUs are pennanent, independent housing intended for low-income, moderaté-income, and elderly household on a long-term basis (Municipal Code 17.21.010). They are intended to provide livable housing at lower cost while providing greater security, companionship, and family support for the occupants. Either the primary dwelling or the SDU must be owner-occupied as the owner's primary residence. The owner could live in the SDU and rent out the primary home on a short-term basis if the Ordinance is changed to allow such. Further related, if a primary homeowner could rent short-term a secondary unit while living in the primary home under a homestay-type ordinance, do you have a ballpark estimate about what would be the average rental price? 5 6. Council Memorandum Vacation Rentals Study Session Page 3 Staff Response The owner could not rent out a secondary dwelling unit for short-term rentals. SDUs are permanent, independent housing intended for low-income, moderate-income, and elderly household on a long-term basis (Municipal Code 17.21.010). Please call Doug Davidson at extension#7177 (781-7177) if you have any questions. II L ! it �'.�.' council mEmonAnbum November 7, 2013 TO: City Council FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager Prepared by: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Vacation Rental Complaints RECEIVED NOV 0 S 2013 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date °' a 3,1jeM# Please see the attached complaints that have been redacted to maintain the reporting party's identity. Lease, Jose eh From: Clark, Claire Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 3:51 PM To: Cc: Cano, Molly, Lease, Joseph Subject: Vacation Rentals We have some good news on vacation rental enforcement. Following a robust discussion at the City, the Building Division did a bit of digging and discovered that they could fairly easily identify vacation rentals (following your lead) and would dedicate time to enforcement and education. The effort has begun and will include outreach so that knowledge of the law is established and subsequent enforcement is understood. If you have further questions or wish to follow up, Joseph Lease, the Chief Building Official is happy to help you with this matter. I have copied Joseph into this email so he is aware of your interest. I hope you are thriving and that we will see you from time to time a Best regards, Claire Claire Clark Economic Development Manager CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO tel 1 805.781.7164 email ! cclark@slocity.orr W` Lease. Joseph From: Johnson, Derek Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:33 PM To: Cocina, Cassia; Ross, Ben Cc: Muracchioli, Juliette; Galvan, Wyndee; Lease, Joseph Subject; FW: Code violations... Can somebody please respond to this message and copy me. - - -- Original Message---- - From: Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 4:30 PM To: Johnson, Derek Subject: Code violations... Derek, Just inquiring on the progress on code violations for vacation rentals on airbnb and vrbo who do not need a business license or have to collect TOT. Thank you, Sent from my Wad Lease, Joseph Subject: FW; illegal vacation rentals in the city and city administration's failure to enforce statute From: shanbrom @aol.com [mallto :shanbromC@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:21 PM To: Lichtig, Katie Cc: Christianson, Carlyn Subject: Re: illegal vacation rentals in the city and city administration's failure to enforce statute Dr. Ms Lichtig, Thank you for taking the time to check up on the efforts of staff to enforce the VR prohibition in the City. I am glad to know that an effort is being made, although I am still dismayed to see such a large number of properties holding themselves out as VRs, So that both you and Councilmember Christianson can be aware of my deeper concern I am including Mr. Johnson's original response to my original complaint to Mayor Marx. To me, it shows poor morale to claim "due to resource limitations," even if true, and to give a fairly long list of reasons, some valid, some not so valid, as to why VRs aren't being enforced. It disturbs me to hear Mr. Johnson bring up the TOT, striking me as though he is of the opinion that VRs are a good thing if we can collect the TOT. Ultimately, it is tax - neediness that drives municipalities to allow VRs, which are, simply put, a rezoning from SFR to Commerical use. I think we might all agree that our society suffers from a dysfunctional attitude toward the value of government. If VRs usually cease upon contact with enforcement then the number could be reasonably expected to go down over this four month period rather than to have doubled, I'm not sure seasonality is at issue as VRs typically book many months in advance. Apartments that become VRs just for the summer would likely advertise by April 8, the date that I noted 8 VRs on VRBO. My original concerns about the level of Mr. Johnson's apparent motivation and will to do this job aside, it does seem that he is now making legitimate efforts, including contacting the websites, I think Mr. Johnson makes a valid point when he says that many VR operators are unaware of the prohibition. Perhaps volunteers could be utilized for an informational campaign, as it likely many property owners and prospective property owners need to be made aware of the prohibition. Perhaps the city should raise the penalty after some informational period in order to help fund VR enforcement. It sounds like some good measures are being pursued by Mr. Johnson. I will contact him as necessary. Thank you for your continued efforts. Bob Shanbrom ----- Original Message--- - From: Johnson, Derek <diohnsonCa.slocity.org> To: Marx, Jan <1marxCa7sloc1ty.org >; shanbrom <shanbrom @aol.com> Cc: Padilla, Wayne <wwgadilla@slocity.org> Sent: Mon, Apr 8, 2013 9:07 am Subject: RE: vacation rentals in the city Dear Mr. Shanbrom, Vacation rentals are not allowed within the City limits. We have taken enforcement action against a few owners when a complaint has surfaced on a particular residence. However, due to resource limitations, we do not monitor sites like Craigslist or VRBO to identify, investigate, and resolve vacation rentals review. There are a few currently listed that we will send letters to once we identify the addresses (neither website identifies the physical address), so identifying and then contacting takes some time. Please let us know if there is a particular address you know of that we should take action immediate action on. My experience working in desirable areas where vacation rentals are a problem are 1). Most owners do not know that vacation rentals are not allowed. 2). Once contacted, the unpermitted use typically ceases 3). Despite not being an allowed use, many do not realize that it is still subject to the city's Transient Occupancy Tax. We often work with Finance once a site is positively identified to let the owners know that the tax is due in arrears, Nonpayment is subject to a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine. Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. Please be in touch with any particular addresses or if you should have any questions. I have forwarded the current inventory of rentals to our staff for review listed in the link below. Best, Derek From: Marx, Jan Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 1:43 PM To: shanbrom@aol.com Cc: Johnson, Derek Subject: RE: vacation rentals in the city Hi Bob, I looked up vacation rentals in our Muni code, and yes, vacation rentals are prohibited in our city. I am including the Community development director in this response, so you and he can further discuss the issue you have raised. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. All the best to you and your family, Jan 17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones. A. Status of Uses. Uses within zones shall be as provided in Table 9, subject to subsections (B) through (1) of this section. In Table 9, symbols have these meanings: A The use is allowed; D If the director approves an administrative use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.070, the use may be established; PC If the planning commission approves a use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.070, the use may be established; A/D The use is allowed above the ground floor. If the director approves an administrative use permit, it may be established on the ground floor. Special notes affecting the status of uses, indicated by number in Table 9, may be found at the end of the table. B. Interpretation of Use Listing. These regulations are intended to permit similar types of uses within each zone. The director, subject to the appeal procedures of Chapter 17.66, shall determine whether uses which are not listed shall be deemed allowed or allowed subject to use permit approval in a certain zone. This interpretation procedure shall not be used as a substitute for the amendment procedure as a means of adding new types of uses to a zone. C. Principal and Accessory Uses. Listed uses are principal uses. Accessory uses are allowed with principal uses. D. Production and Sales. Where manufacturing is allowed, incidental sale of items made on the premises is allowed. When sale of a particular type of item is allowed, craftsman -type productions of such an item for sale on the premises is allowed. E. Public School Uses. See Section 17.36.030 concerning uses which may be established within public schools. F. Prohibitions of Drive- Through Facilities, Drive- through facilities are not allowed in any zone. G. Prohibition of Vacation t?entals. Vacation rentals are not allowed in any zone. Jan Howell Marx Mayor of San Luis Obispo (805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716 From: fianmarxAalumni.stanford.edul on behalf of Jan Marx Hanmarx@stanfordalumni.org] Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 1:39 PM To: Marx, Jan Subject: Fwd: vacation rentals in the city ---- - - - - -- Forwarded message - - - - - -- From: <shanbromCa,aol.com> Date: Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 5:50 AM Subject: vacation rentals in the city To: janmarxgZstanfordalumni.org Hi Jan, If you go to this website, hUgs / /www.vrbo.coml vacation - rentals /usafcalifornia/ central- coastlsan- ILlis- obispo ?from; date =20 13- 06 -07 &to date= 2413- 06- 08 &sorttby= Bedrooms %2fAscending, you will find several homes within the city limits that are holding themselves out as vacation rentals. My understanding is that this is against city ordinance. Could you please let me know if these are permissible? Thank you, Bob Shanbrom - - - -- Original Message---- - From; Lichtig, Katie <kiichtig(Qslocity.org> To: 'shanbrom @aol.com' <shanbrom _aol.com> Cc: Padilla, Wayne <wwpadilla(ZDslocitXorg >; Carpenter, Dan <dcarpent .slocity.org >; Ashbaugh, John <iashbauo(d)slocity.org >; Marx, Jan <imarx _slocity,org >; Smith, Kathy <ksmith _slocity.org >; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org >; Dietrick, Christine <cdietrick ,slocity.orq >; Christianson, Carlyn <cchristi anslocity.org> Sent: Wed, Aug 14, 2013 12:10 pm Subject: RE: illegal vacation rentals in the city and city administration's failure to enforce statute Dear Mr, Shanbrom: Based on your inquiry I checked in with the staff in our Community Development Department responsible for code enforcement, Since and prior to your contact in early April, staff has been actively taking enforcement efforts to obtain compliance related to the City's Vacation Rental Ordinance. We are currently spending approximately four hours per week on a proactive enforcement effort. Two other enforcement actions have been taken since you last made contact that resulted in compliance and 14 active enforcement cases are in process. Staff currently reviews existing vacation rental (VR) advertisements on HomeAway.com, VRBO.com and Vacationrentals.com, In addition to the 14 cases that code enforcement is actively working on, we were able to identify an additional 16 vacation rentals that have recently appeared on these websites. We agree that the number of listings has grown, but while one enforcement effort may lead to compliance, another owner decides to list their home thereby increasing the number of listed vacation rentals, This is certainly vexing to us as well and we plan on doing some direct outreach to the website operators with the hope of discouraging rental listings in the City. Some new listings appear to be seasonal and others appear randomly on vacation rental sites. Please know that these 16 properties will be investigated with enforcement action will be taken and as others arise. It will take some time and effort and others may be listed on websites in the interim that will be enforced as time permits. Vacation rental enforcement is complicated and takes a significant amount of time and while it may not seem at first that progress is being made, over time when faced with increasing fines and other enforcement tools, owners typically comply. The first challenge is related to positively identifying the location of the Vacation rentals. Of the 16 additional vacation rentals that are currently listed and not actively in the enforcement process, staff was able to identify two addresses from the information provided in the website listing after spending a considerable amount of effort reviewing the listing details. About half of the listings did not provide an exterior photo of the premises that can identify the property, only a vicinity map with the general location of the listed rentals. Only five of 16 listings provided telephone numbers and only four of 16 provided the owner's names. So in many of these cases a code enforcement officer typically will need to pose as a potential customer and either call or email the owner to try to get information on the actual location and thus initiate enforcement proceedings. It is also important to note that the City's enforcement efforts have as anticipated created some pushback and the City recently received its first appeal of enforcement action that will be heard by the Planning Commission in the near future. It is clear that this use is not allowed, but that has not dissuaded the owner from appealing their case. We have explored the idea of using volunteers for code enforcement efforts and determined that the best approach is to use our trained and certified code enforcement officers. Code enforcement is a field of enforcement in which best practices require training and an understanding of the rules of arrest and the constitutional aspects of the enforcement of laws and regulations that relate to the use of property. However staff appreciates referrals of potential violations coming from the community. I would encourage you to contact Derek Johnson at djohnsonCa.slocity.org directly should you need any immediate assistance or have any further thoughts on the City's enforcement efforts, He and his team are happy to meet with you directly to discuss any ideas that you may have regarding enforcement. Thank you for being in touch about this important issue, Katie E. Lichtig City Manager City of San Luis Obispo, CA 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249 805 -781 -7114 www.slocity.ora From: shanbrom6Daol.com frnailto:shanbromCcDaol.coml Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 2:01 PM To: Lichtig, Katie Cc: Padilla, Wayne; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; shanbromCa?aol.com; Johnson, Derek; Dietrick, Christine; Christianson, Carlyn Subject: Re: illegal vacation rentals in the city and city administration's failure to enforce statute Dear Ms. Lichtig, It has been four months since I first alerted Mr. Johnson of the fact that approximately 8 residences with city limits were holding themselves out for rent on VRBO, contrary to an ordinance specifically forbidding this use. Since that time I have had numerous exchanges with some or all of the above copied parties concerning this matter, including yourself. Yet as of today, exactly four months since I first contacted Mr. Johnson, on April 9, 2013, there now appear not to be fewer VRBO listings within the city but DOUBLE THE NUMBER AS BEFORE. 4 I would like to know why such a simple enforcement matter seems to be beyond the control of the city government. I would also like to know what additional measures you will be taking to effectuate compliance. It seems to me that it is an exceedingly simple matter to enforce this statute, as I have said before. It would require virtually no special effort on the part of the responsible administrators. Most of the work could be done by the many city volunteers. I have heard a majority of councilmembers comment on the need for workforce housing in the city, Vacation rentals remove residential inventory. Also, hotels lose business to these pirate motels. I have copied the city attorney on this correspondence because it seems that the city is putting itself in harm's way when it does not enforce existing statues. Robert Shanbrom 364 Montrose Drive - - - -- Original Message---- - From: shanbrom <shanbrom@aol.com> To: djohnson <djohnson(dslocitv.ora> Cc: wpadilla <wpadillanslocity.org>; dcarpent <dcarpent2slocity.org>; jashbaug <jashbaug@slocity.org>; imarx <jmarx .slocity.orq >; ksmith <ksmith@slocity.org >; klichtig <klichtiq_aslocitv.ora> Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 8:27 am Subject: Re: vacation rentals in the city Dear Mr. Johnson, Thank you for your May 16 update and thank you for your efforts in enforcing the city's ordinance against vacation rentals. While it seems that there are now slightly fewer SLO VRs being advertised on the various VR websites, a substantial number are still holding themselves out as VRs. It seems to me that identifying these VRs is not a very difficult or laborious undertaking. I believe the city has unpaid community volunteers who would be happy to do the simple telephone work that this would entail. I trust that you will continue, even redouble, your efforts until there is full compliance with the ordinance. Thank you. Bob Shanbrom - -- Original Message---- - From: Johnson, Derek < djohnson _slocity.org> To: shanbrom <shanbromCa?aol.com> Cc: Padilla, Wayne <wpadillaOslocity.org> Sent: Thu, May 16, 2013 1:02 pm Subject: RE: vacation rentals in the city Dear Mr. Shanbrom: Thank you for your follow up correspondence. Since corresponding with us last month, we have initiated code enforcement action on many of the properties that you have identified. As you are aware, in January 2007, Ordinance 1500 amended the City's Zoning Regulations and prohibited vacation rentals in all land use zones. As a result of complaints regarding illegal vacation rentals Community Development staff started a routine enforcement effort. Staff actively monitors internet sites such as VRBO, Homeaway, and Airbnb for illegal vacation rentals within the City limits. Staff attempts to identify the address of advertised rentals from the internet listing. If we contact the owner and there is immediate cooperation and compliance, no further action is taken except that a note is made to the address file of the contact and the representations made by the property owner to correct the violatins. These type of cases are handled as time permits with health and safety cases being a greater priority which are often more complex and require a great deal of staff effort. If we cannot contact the owner or the owner is unwilling to comply, a Notice to Correct letter is sent to the property owner explaining that the City's Zoning Regulations that do not permit vacation rentals and informing them of the potential consequences and fines. The letter also states that the property must be removed as a vacation rental from all websites within 10 days or be subject to code enforcement fees, administrative citations, and the transient occupancy tax. As is the City's practice and a requirement under California Government Code §53069.4 (2)[1] which requires local agencies to provide a reasonable amount of time for a person to correct, or otherwise remedy the violation, prior to the imposition of administrative fines or penalties. In some cases a complaint may be received which includes the property address, but most of the advertised properties do not give the physical address of the vacation rental. When the address cannot be discerned, staff will email the owner directly from the website advising them of the zoning regulations and requesting that they cease advertising and operating a vacation rental. However without a physical address, if they continue to advertise, we will have to identify the property address. This is oftentimes challenging as there are only interior photos or other little information that would lead to knowing the exact location (see httn: / /www.vrbo.com /330271 #reviews) . Staff will use whatever information we have to locate an advertised house by the description in the ad and field survey to match photos to the actual property, which can be very time consuming. However, at the end of the investigation, we need to determine if the preponderance of evidence is adequate to impose civil penalties. Currently there are eight positively identified properties advertising as vacation rentals. Two properties have been issued a Notice to Correct letter. After staff attempts to contact them and if no compliance is reached, the remaining six will be sent Notices to Correct later this week. Nine other properties are currently being evaluated for consistency with the City's prohibition against vacation rentals. Public outreach measures are probably warranted in order to inform property owners of the zoning regulations. It seems likely that many residents may not know of the regulations, Napa County has used flyers and mail Inserts that they used to inform residents of their municipal code requirements. Given, that this enforcement effort is relatively nascent, other enforcement mechanism may be considered in the future. Please be in touch if you have any other comments or questions. Sincerely yours, Derek BCC: Mayor and City Council The administrative procedures set forth by ordinance adopted by the local agency pursuant to paragraph (1) shall provide for a reasonable period of time, as specified in the ordinance, for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or otherwise remedy the violation prior to the imposition of administrative fines or penalties, when the violation pertains to building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural or zoning issues, that do not create an immediate danger to health or safety. From: shanbromaaol.com Imailto:shanbrom@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:26 AM To: Marx, Jan Cc: Padilla, Wayne; Johnson, Derek; Lichtig, Katie; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan Subject: Re: vacation rentals in the city Dear Jan, It has been more than one month since I first brought illegal vacation rentals to your attention and I still count about 8 properties within the city advertising on Vacation Rentals By Owner. This seems such a simple matter to deal with. If the city does not intend to enforce its ordinances then the ordinances should be taken off the books. Random enforcement of the rules has a debilitating impact of society. How well I did see that during my years in Miami. It is highly troubling that Mr, Johnson sees these illegal vacation rentals not so much as a matter requiring enforcement but as a windfall tax source, Very troubling, This is the sort of motivation that might explain why he seems to have the wherewithal to send them tax notices but not send them cease and desist notices, I must admonish the city council to avoid the temptation to destroy our community's civic capital in order to pay our employees. When can we expect the advertisements to cease? If it is not the city's intention to promptly begin to enforce the prohibition against vacation rentals then please let me know that that is the case. Thank you for your prompt attention to this simple matter. I, Bob Shanbrom - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Marx, Jan <1marx0slocity.orp> To: shanbrom <shanbromr_aol.com> Cc: Padilla, Wayne <wl2ad ill a cDslocity.org >; Johnson, Derek <diohnson@slocity.org >; Lichtig, Katie <klichtiga.slocity,org> Sent: Tue, Apr 9, 2013 8:11 am Subject: RE: vacation rentals in the city Thanks for putting this on my radar screen, Bob. Tonight is strategic budget direction, so everyone is thinking "scarce resources." That said, the city is gradually moving to proactive code enforcement and business license monitoring. So, the question is "when" rather than "T' vacation rentals will be placed on the list and how should it best be done. I am including city staff in this response with the request that we both be kept in the loop. All the best, Jan Jan Howell Marx Mayor of San Luis Obispo (805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716 From: shanbromO-aol.com [shanbrom @aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 6:23 AM To: Marx, Jan Cc: Padilla, Wayne Subject: Re: vacation rentals in the city Hi Jan, It is disappointing to find that Mr. Johnson's automatic response to my concern is to cry "limited resources." Is morale in city government is generally this poor? Monitoring VRBO and Craigslist is a very simple proposition. Email addresses are immediately available and cease and desist emails can very easily be sent out to perhaps a dozen or more illegal VRs with about one hour's work. A city worker with no training could do this on a weekly basis. The cost would be very low. If an ordinance is on the books it must either be enforced or repealed. The alternative is a banana republic. Bob - - -- Original Message---- - From: Johnson, Derek <djohnsongslocity,orq> To: Marx, Jan <jmarx _slocity.orq >; shanbrom <shanbromgaol,com> Cc: Padilla, Wayne <wpadilla (LDslocity.org> Sent: Mon, Apr 8, 2013 9:07 am Subject: RE: vacation rentals in the city Dear Mr. Shanbrom, Vacation rentals are not allowed within the City limits. We have taken enforcement action against a few owners when a complaint has surfaced on a particular residence. However, due to resource limitations, we do not monitor sites like Craigslist or VRBO to identify, investigate, and resolve vacation rentals review. There are a few currently listed that we will send letters to once we identify the addresses (neither website identifies the physical address), so identifying and then contacting takes some time. Please let us know if there is a particular address you know of that we should take action immediate action on. My experience working in desirable areas where vacation rentals are a problem are 1), Most owners do not know that vacation rentals are not allowed. 2). Once contacted, the unpermitted use typically ceases 3). Despite not being an allowed use, many do not realize that it is still subject to the city's Transient Occupancy Tax. We often work with Finance once a site is positively identified to let the owners know that the tax is due in arrears. Nonpayment is subject to a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine. Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. Please be in touch with any particular addresses or if you should have any questions. I have forwarded the current inventory of rentals to our staff for review listed in the link below. Best, Derek From: Marx, Jan Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 1:43 PM To: shanbrom(),aol.com Cc: Johnson, Derek Subject: RE: vacation rentals in the city Hi Bob, I looked up vacation rentals in our Muni code, and yes, vacation rentals are prohibited in our city. I am including the Community development director in this response, so you and he can further discuss the issue you have raised. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. All the best to you and your family, Jan 17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones. A. Status of Uses. Uses within zones shall be as provided in Table 9, subject to subsections (B) through (1) of this section. In Table 9, symbols have these meanings: A The use is allowed; D If the director approves an administrative use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.070, the use may be established; PC If the planning commission approves a use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.070, the use may be established; A/D The use is allowed above the ground floor. If the director approves an administrative use permit, it may be established on the ground floor. Special notes affecting the status of uses, indicated by number in Table 9, may be found at the end of the table. B. Interpretation of Use Listing. These regulations are intended to permit similar types of uses within each zone, The director, subject to the appeal procedures of Chapter 17.66, shall determine whether uses which are not listed shall be deemed allowed or allowed subject to use permit approval in a certain zone. This interpretation procedure shall not be used as a substitute for the amendment procedure as a means of adding new types of uses to a zone, C. Principal and Accessory Uses. Listed uses are principal uses. Accessory uses are allowed with principal uses. D. Production and Sales. Where manufacturing is allowed, incidental sale of items made on the premises is allowed. When sale of a particular type of item is allowed, craftsman -type productions of such an item for sale on the premises is allowed. E. Public School Uses. See Section 17.36.030 concerning uses which may be established within public schools. F. Prohibitions of Drive - Through Facilities. Drive - through facilities are not allowed in any zone. G. Prohibition of Vacation Rentals. Vacation rentals are not allowed in any zone. Jan Howell Marx Mayor of San Luis Obispo (805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716 From: janmarx(u)alumni.stanford.edu Banmarx @alumni.stanford.edu] on behalf of Jan Marx Danmarx @stanfordalumni.org] Sent; Saturday, April 06, 2013 1:39 PM To: Marx, Jan Subject: Fwd: vacation rentals in the city ---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - -- From: <shanbrom()-aol.com> Date: Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 5:50 AM Subject: vacation rentals in the city To: janmarx @stanfordalumni.org Hi Jan, If you go to this website, htt : / /www.vrbo.com /vacation- rentals /usa /california /central- coast/san -luis -obis o ?from- date= 2013- 06 -07 &to -date= 2013- 06 -08& sort +hy= Bedreoms %2fAscendinc, you will find several homes within the city limits that are holding themselves out as vacation rentals. My understanding is that this is against city ordinance. Could you please let me know if these are permissible? Thank you. Bob Shanbrom [1] The administrative procedures set forth by ordinance adopted by the local agency pursuant to paragraph (1) shall provide for a reasonable period of time, as specified in the ordinance, for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or otherwise remedy the violation prior to the imposition of administrative fines or penalties, when the violation pertains to building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural or zoning issues, that do not create an immediate danger to health or safety. Cocina, Cassia From: Lease, Joseph Sent: Monday, Au ust 26, 2013 8:09 AM To: Cc: Cocina, Cassia; Johnson, Derek Subject: RE: Short term rentals Hello We are currently monitoring a number of websites for illegal vacation rentals (Airbnb, VRBO, Homeaway, vacationrentals.com, etc.) We will add Craigslist to our list of monitored sites. Thank you for this information. Your support is very much appreciated. Sincerely, Joseph Lease, MO Chief Building Official Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 751 -7159 From: �� - _........�...._. _... Sent: Saturday, August 24, 20 To: Lease, Joseph Subject: Short term rentals It has been brought to my attention that there is a ban on vacation rentals in San Luis Obispo. This is a huge shock to me because on craigslist.org there are a lot of short term rentals being offered in Sari Luis Obispo. I do not support vacation rentals in San Luis Obispo and believe we should protect our community. Please go to craigslist.org and under the category "Housing" you will see a link that says 'sublets /temporary'. Thanks for your hard work! San Luis Obispo This is just one example of what I found: GREAT location! Lawrence Drive, San Luis Obispo. Close to downtown (1.5 miles), beaches (10 miles) many local restaurants, wineries and great shopping close by! Whether this is a Labor Day getaway, family trip, a family reunion, a golf trip or a girl's weekend away - you will be comfortable and happy. The decor is classy and comfortable with many places to sit and relax with a glass of one of the Central Coast's amazing wine selections, following a romantic day of exploring local vineyards. The large flat screen television has many channels to choose from, or you may choose to enjoy a languid night on the large deck. The well decorated and comfortable two bedrooms all have soft quality linens and warm cozy comforters to help you get that wonderful night of sleep that you deserve on your vacation. • Master Suite has Queen -sized bed, private bath and adjacent deck • Second bedroom has double bed Ross, Ben / From: Girvin, Tim Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:43 AM To: Elke, Brigitte; Cruce, Greg Cc: Codron, Michael; Johnson, Derek; Ross, Ben; Ellery, Mark Subject: RE: Vacation Rentals in SLO Brigitte, I will have Code Enforcement staff take a look at these sites and develop a list of suspect properties. Depending of the scale and scope of the problem we may wanttto devise a plan for how to deal with these violations. I will be speaking at an upcoming Multiple Listing Service (MLS) meeting where local real estate agents gather to review properties for sale. will be sure to highlight that vacation rentals are not allowed in SLO. This may serve as a first wave of public outreach to ensure compliance with our regulations. I will keep you posted. Tim Girvin Chief Building Official From: Elke, Brigitte Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:35 AM To: Cruce, Greg; Girvin, Tim Cc: Codron, Michael Subject: Vacation Rentals in SLO Good morning Gentlemen, , 1. I hope this eer�nail finds you well. The two websites mentioned below list vacation rentals in SLO and quite a few of them at that! Could you and your team add this to the list of violations to follow -up on? Please keep me posted on your efforts as the brought this to and is interested in a quick 'solution of this issue. www.airbnb.com www.vrbo.com Thank you very much! Brigitte Brigitte Elke Principal Administrative Analyst City of San Luis Obispo 805 781 -7151 Visit us at www.sanluisobispovacations.com Addressfi57 ERRO ROMAULDO Zoning /Occup R -1 Legal Desc. CY SLO TR 966 LT 1 Case # /Names Complaints All Other Land Use Violations sa _.�L Case Information Owner when ISRAEL THOMAS R & KAYE MG Case was 657 CERRO ROMAULDO initiated SLO, CA 93405 1130 Inspector CCOCINA District 1 Received 5/13/2013 Closed Internal or Other Agency Comments Anonymous complaint - vacation rental advertised on websites I Next Action Information T 1 Established 5/15/2013 Next Action 5/29/2013 Comments Case Activity 5/3112013 CC Closed - violations Corrected 5/23/2013 CC 5/15/2013 CC Open -mail Sent/ Received Open - written Notice Sent 5/15/2013 CC Open -site Visit, Inspection Address 658 MONTEREY Zoning /Occup -"� Legal Desc, CY SLO BL 9 PTN LT 5 Case # /Names 8/13/2013 Complaints All Other Land Use Violations Case Information Owner wh Case was initiated Inspector District Received Comments Complaint - vacation rental Next Action Information Established 8/29/2013 Next Action 9/12/2013 Comments Case Activity 10/3/2013 CC Closed - violations Corrected an SHASHIE PROPERTIES A CA GEN PO BOX 359 SLO, CA 93406 0359 CCOCINA 1 4/4/2013 Closed 8/29/2013 BR: Spk to property owner attorney. Case at stay until violation abatement verified. Open - telephone Message Sent/recvd 8/28/2013 BR: Property Owner Attorney Called and left vm. Open - telephone Message Sent/recvd 8/13/2013 CC Open- citation Issued, 1 st Administrative Citation 7/23/2013 CC Open - director's Appeal Decision Sent 6/5/2013 CC Open - director's Review Of Code Interpretation Rcvd 5/14/2013 CC: extend to 5129/13 Open - telephone Message Sent/recvd 5/9/2013 CC Open- written Notice Sent 4/4/2013 CC Open - referred To Building For Inspection Dear Sirs: at aIV D 3 APR 2 3 2013 S!0 CITY ATTORNEY There's at leas- fo____ u_ r, or five illegal, unpermitted businesses being run out of the home located at 1384 Cavalier Lane in San Luis Obispo. The first one is advertised on the Web site; "AirBnB ", under the heading "Rest and Revitalize at SLO Retreat in San Luis Obispo" findable on the AirBnB website by entering the zip code of: 93405. Karen Hale and Dale Landis offer their home by the night, the week, or the month. The second unpermitted business is the AirBnB rental of the RV parked out front of their house. They also use this RV to sleep in when they have rented out the entire house. The third unpermitted business is the "in house chiropractic appointments" Karen offers the people that rent the rooms. If you read the first few reviews you will see folks referring to the use of said room. The fourth unpermitted business is the Contractor License Dale Landis uses the garage for. He has tools set up in there and creates a noise and dust condition constantly. Lastly, Karen Hale seems to be twice licensed by the state board, one of which is in forfeiture! This has been going on for years, shown by the 70 plus reviews; these two seem to think they're entitled to flaunt the law and ruin the character of the neighborhood for their own enrichmentl Unless I miss my guess, they haven't been paying the Bed Tax owed to the City by hotels, unpermitted or not. Someone needs to enforce the code on these people, there's a constant stream of out of state cars and people wandering the neighborhoodl Thank you for your time in this matter city of san Luis 0131spo �A Request folz flelb investication city of san LUIS oBlspo, code en f oRcement, 919 palm St. san WIS 0131Sp0, Ca 93401 -3218 The City of San Luis Obispo's Community Development Department will investigate violations of Building, Housing and Zoning Regulations. This includes non - permitted construction, substandard housing, use permit and occupancy compliance. If you suspect a violation exists, please fill out this form and return it to the address listed above. Please provide as much of the following information as possible. Should you have questions regarding a potential violation, need clarification of our regulations or if you need assistance filling out this form, please feel free to call Code Enforcement at (805) 781 -7179 or (805) 781 -7588. �.?���;Y1 site oR pap-ceL wheite the potential. violation Exists Propa q Address: 1116 Ella St. San Luis Obispo 93401 Business Name: If Applicable) Date Received: Owner or Property Manager Name and Phone Number: vimavons Describe the alleged violations and provide all information relevant to the complaint. Summarize any hazardous condition or other nuisance created. t'.C�perty [3 nelno Us�q as a � See.... http: / /www.vrbo.com /412104 users of house and not all are respectful of the neighborhood. to the, peRson Requestmc the mvestication Provide your name, address and a daytime phone number so we can contact you if we need more detailed information or to advise you of the results of our investigation. If you do not provide this information we may not be able to respond to your request. The City of San Luis Obispo will keep this information CONFIDENTIAL to the extent permitted by law. Name; Address: - Phone Number: Check this box if you would like to be advised of the results of the investigation Subirit xF L ii s 0.7 _. `E k: .x7�h'ik!_ •0.' +ti (`� Fi A �,{YYr ,' ,i.!�� ?'^Q 'hy71q ,yyt; {ra .Z �?7>•' 3L' ;�,+ti :?Y { aa �:A h— .1!i,''GA .7. r" 4�'!fifliia�S�.f..�'��F _i1�' %*k� Te+) -; y�. °1 Date Received: Time: Received B /11 C!!�� Y, Ross, Ben From: Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 5:45 PM To: Ross, Ben Subject: RE: vacation rental I thought I should also let you know we have had another set of renters starting yesterday 12/28. Four renters since I first notified you. None longer than 3 days. From: To: bross@siocity.ora Subject: RE: vacation rental Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:54:43 -0800 We have had three renters since I notified you. Each for a weekend only. Most recently starting today the 25th. Thank you again for your help with this issue. From: bro5s@slocity.or4 To: Subject: RE: vacation rental Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:46:40 +0000 The case is pending response from the property owner to the last letter that has been mailed. I will update you on our efforts once we reach the next item in the case. If you check out the website you will notice that they have changed the rental to monthly only, Are you still witnessing people coming in and out only during weekends? Does it seem that renters are there for less than a month? Sincerely, Ben Ross Code Enforcement Officer City of San Luis Obispo Phone: (805) 781 -7179 Fax: (805) 781 -7182 bross0slocity.org From: Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 5:16 PM To: Ross, Ben Subject: RE: vacation rental ' Ben, I'm wondering if there has been any determination or progress regarding this issue. We have had a couple vacation renters since I sent the initial referral below. Thank you again for your attention. From, 'bross0Dsloclty.org To. 'Subject: RE: vacation rental Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:41:18 +0000 A code case has been opened. I will keep you up to date with our efforts. Sincerely, Ben Ross Code Enforcement Officer City of San Luis Obispo Phone: (805) 781 -7179 Fax; (805) 781 -7182 Bross @slocity.org From: Sent:. Friday, November 09, 2012 9:23 AM To: Ross, Ben Subject: vacation rental �� 11V Ben, I had spoken with you a couple weeks ago about a property in SLO on Ella Street being used as a vacation rental. I have attaehed the request for field Investigation form to this email. Thank you for your time looking Into this matter. This Is the link to the vacation rental website... httD://www.vrbo.com/412104 ir r Cocina, Cassia From: code, enforcement Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:11 AM To: Cocina, Cassia Subject: Vacation ' enta - a Cassia, Below is a link to the vrbo listing for 1 1 16 Ella. http: / /www.vrbo,com /412104 #rates Sincerely, Ben Ross Code Enforcement Officer City of San Luis Obispo Phone: (805) 781-7179 Fax: (805) 781-7182 bross@slocity.org From: JotForm [mailto:noreplyOa lotform.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 6:00 PM To: code, enforcement Subject: Field Investigatlon Request Online Field Investigation Request uestion Answer Where did it happen? 1116 Ella St. San Luis Obispo 93401 The house on 1116 Ella Street in San Luis Obispo is being used as a vacation rental. I submitted a field investigation What happened? request on 11/9/12. I have followed up at least S times since then to complain about it's weekly by different renters. My last complaint was emailed on 4/18/13 and I did not receive a response. Who was involved? An individual person. What is their name? up What is the name of the business? What is the name and phone number of the >m owner or property manager? Your name: I � Y Street Address:' City: San Luis Obispo Your address: State / Province: CA Postal / Zip Code: 93401 Country: United States Your phone number: (805) Your email address: Would you like to be advised of the results of Yes this investigation? How would you prefer By email. to be contacted? 236462406985583984 - 66,214.65.89 - htt sI /submit.'otform ro.comiserver. h 2 ?action= etSubmissionPDF&isid= 236462406985583984 &formlD: -23 605554283959 ti 2 .t S,o qf Ross, Ben From: code, enforcement Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 2:12 PM To: Cocina, Cassia Subject: FW: Vacation Rental -1116 Ella Cassia: Below can be added to the case notes showing how the vacation rental has been rented. Sincerely, Ben Ross Code Enforcement Officer City of San Luis Obispo Phone: (805) 781 -7179 Fax: (805) 781-7182 bross0slocity.org From: Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11 :21 AM To: code, enforcement Subject: Re: Vacation Rental - 1116 Ella I understand the limitations. If its at all helpful the house was rented for december and january for a month. After that its just been for a weekend at a time. We've probably had 15 -20 or so different weekend renters staying next door since then. Its like living next door to a hotel. Thanks for your help. Sent from my Whone On Jun 11, 2013, at 8:21 AM, "code, enforcement" <code(a,slocity.org> wrote: am We have a letter heading out in the next couple of days to the property owners. Please be aware that there are not too many enforcement options for us when it comes to vacation rentals within City Limits. We are able to mail letters letting them know what the ordinance is and through time if they keep violating the ordinance they will receive escalating fines. Previously Code Enforcement has required them to rent the property at a 30 day minimum as required by the ordinance, now we will be requiring them to remove their advertisement entirely from vrbo and any other vacation rental website. Please contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Ben Ross Code Enforcement Officer City of San Luis Obispo Phone: (805) 781-7179 Fax: (805) 781 -7182 bross(a,slocity,org Ross, Ben From: Sent: To: Subject: For your records. Sincerely, Ben Ross Code Enforcement Officer City of San Luis Obispo Phone: (805) 781-7179 Fax: (805) 781 -7182 bross slocit .or code, enforcement Wednesday, June 26, 2013 10 :53 AM Cocina, Cassia FW: Vacation Rental - 1116 Ella From Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:29 P14 To: code, enforcement Subject: RE: Vacation Rental - 1116 Ella Ben, We have a large group renting the property next door to our home. Also in the last month, there was a large group of young men hosting what was assumed to be a party at this home. There was much use of the outdoor balcony, excessive drinking, etc.- In fact, the noise carried on past midnight on both nights they rented the property and I was forced to contact the police. Whatever consequences the city has utilized to enforce this code violation have been completely ineffective. Furthermore, 1116 Ella is still listed on VRBO and is occupied by different renters most every weekend not the 30 days as you specified below. As a property owner, I am beyond frustrated with this situation and feel I have run out of options. In my opinion, this property being used as an unlicensed vacation rental potentially diminishes the value of my home, compromises my reasonable expectation of privacy, and potentially poses a safety hazard to myself and my family. I have tried to work through the system since November 2012 to address this concern and sincerely hope it can be rectified before it becomes needlessly expensive for all parties including myself. I plan to contact legal counsel to gain better understanding of my rights as a property owner. I would appreciate any feedback you might have to offer. Sincerely, 6cina, Cassia From: code, enforcement Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 7:50 AM To: Cocina, Cassia Subject: FW: Violation FYI —Vacation Rental. RP Contact Info: Sincerely. Ben Ross Code Enforcement Officer City of San Luis Obispo Phone: (805) 781-7179 Fax: (805) 781 -7182 bross 0slocity.orci From: Sent: Fri ay, ug 5:04 PM To: code, enforcement Subject: Re: Vlolation Ben, thank you for such a quick response. That's correct he has updated the web site and it states monthly rental. However if you were to check the reservation calendar that is up now you can see that he is renting for other periods. You can forward my email address to Ms. Cocina. Thanks hope you had a nice weekend. From: code, enforcement Sent: Friday, Auq ust 02, 2013 1:37 PM To: maIilto: code. enforcement Cc: Cocina, Cassia Subject: RE: Violation 'I know that Cassia Cocina, Code Enforcement Officer, has taken over the case. She has sent another Notice of Violation. She is on vacation through next week and I will follow -up with her once she returns to the office. As you know it is difficult for us to regulate behavior, the website has been updated to show that it is only available for 30 days. Please continue to email us when then is heavy turn -over so we can build a proper case. 1 am sorry for the inconvenience this has caused you and really wished we. had the tools to do more. Sincerely, Ben Ross Code Enforcement Officer City of San Luis Obispo r '-�® 'Tl Phone: (805) 781 -7179 "Pax: (805) 781 -7182 bross slocity.org From 1 Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 6:20 AM To: code, enforcement Subject: Re: Violation Ben, It appears that 10continues to rent this 1116 Ella address. Can anything be done, or is it people just do what they want to do? Thanks ism From: code, enforcement Sent: Thursda October It 2012 8:09 AM To: code, enforcement Subject: RE: Violation 1 have not been able to move forward with this case. We are short staffecj.at the moment and my directive has been to follow through with the most egregious offenders, especially those that are associated with fire and life safety. I have the information and f will be moving forward with the ease once we return to norrnal staffing. Please contact me if you have any further questions or comments. Sincerely, Ben Ross Code enforcement Officer City of San Luis Obispo Phone: (805) 781 -7179 Fax: (805) 781 -7182 Duos @sloc.ity.org .... ......_._._.._. _ _._...... — .._.. -. _.__... _ ._.....__..._ , - . _...... From net] Sent: Wcdnes ay, ctober 10, 2 5 :54 PM To: code, enforcement,, '4P Subject: Re: violation ello Ben Say a week and a half ago we spoke about this this enforcement action. (I 116 Ella)You indicated the property owner was contacted and that you were going to attach a 72 hour notice to the property. Did you have any results? EM From: code, enforcement Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 4:59 PM To: xnailto. ; code, enforcement 2 -!�o S- 1 Subject: RE: violation d Thank yaWTolr submitting a request for field in vestigatini� vA code enforcement case has been opened for the aforementioned property, A letter will be mailed to the property owner indicating to cease renting the property and fines will follow if they continue to do so in the future, Please call me if you have any specific questions about our process. Sincerely, Ben Ross Code Enforcement Officer . . . City of San Luis Obispo Phone: (805) 781 -7179 Fax: (805) 781 -7182 b ros s(a..s to c ity. org From: ...�._.._.._..._.w._„ „. ...._,_...__._,_._ _._._ .... _. ,..._�_._._ Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:32 AM To: code, enforcement Subje,et:;violation ATTACHED PLEASE FIND REQUEST FOR FIELD INVESTIGATION. TO ACCESS THIS VRBO LISTING GO TO: http://www.vrbo.com/412104 'vat y 3 i i Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Mejia, Anthony Wednesday, October 30, 2013 5:04 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: Short term rental prohibition Ltr to SLO Mayor and Council.docx RECET\iTÐ OcT 3 1 2013 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk <.".T{.\ r}f. S¿vt lü¡$ (ì1ì,l.9ll('} 99o Palnt Slrecl San Luis ûhispo, CÅ q.14ot tel lSc5 7fl:.7soz From: Max, Jan Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:46 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Short term rental prohibition -----Ori ginal Message----- From: Maureen Juran liuran.maureen@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29,2013 01:57 AM Pacific Standard Time To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John Cc: ro COITì Subject: Short term rental prohibition Dear Mayor Marx and Members of Council, Attached please find a letter from me addressing the proposed amendment to your City Code to repeal the prohibition on short term renters. I thank you for your service and attention. Maureen Juran Wlo¡reRMrcuow&Cox,,, ATf ORNIYS AT LAW Mayor Jan Marx Vice Mayor Kathy Smith Council Member Carlyn Christianson Council Member Dan Carpenter Council Member John Ashbaugh October 29,2013 via e-mail via e-mail via e-mail via e-mail via e-mail imarx@slocitv.orq ksmith@slocitv.orq cchristi@slocitv.orq dcarpent@slocitv.orq iashbauq@slocitv.orq Dear Mayor Marx and Council members, I understand that you are being asked to consider a policy change to allow short term rentals in SLO. I recently stayed with a host in SLO and wanted to write you about my experience and why a policy change would be good for your community. I have a daughter who is a freshman at Cal Poly and we reside out of state. As you can imagine, we look forward to several years of visits to your beautiful part of the country. I also practice law in Colorado exclusively in the area of local government and own a second home in Colorado ski country that we rent to short term renters, so I am familiar with the concerns that you may be hearing. On my recent visit to SLO, which was around Cal Poly's parent's weekend, I was so delighted to come across the Airbnb website. I struggled with whether to make the trip at all as I decided last minute that I could clear my schedule and visit my daughter if I could find reasonable airfare and accommodations. Frankly, the opportunity to rent from that host tipped me over to deciding to come. The hotels were booked and I was looking at needing to stay outside of SLO at more expensive accommodations. ln the end, since I was renting from a SLO host, I spent my money at SLO restaurants and at SLO shops. As with any community, this tax revenue is no doubt critical to your ability to support and improve infrastructure and municipal programs in your City. Rather than prohibit short term rentals, it makes economic sense to permit them, tax the lodging, and address any nuisance concerns by separate legislation that gets at the root of the issue. To outright prohibit short term rentals is too broad a prohibition when the nuisance objections are usually more specific. lf noise is an issue, enforce a noise ordinance. lf parking is a concern, enforce your parking restrictions. lf loud parties are a concern, set up a permit program that limits the number of guests based on available rooms and requires that the property owner or manager be on site or able to be on site within a set timeframe. While this undoubtedly would cost the City some upfront program money, you can ensure that the permitting program and tax revenue generates sufficient revenue to cover such costs. As an example, I am aware that Pacific Grove changed its policy to start allowing short term rentals despite a ban that had been in place since 1993. The leaders of that city recognized that the activity was occurring illegally despite the ban so they amended their municipal code and established a license for transient residential use. Opponents in that city argued the ordinance would attract too many vacationers who might use homes in quiet neighborhoods to throw large parties and cause other disturbances. City leaders wisely recognized that a licensure program with strict guidelines, like requiring a 13133 Eost Aropohoe Rood . Suite 100 . Centenniol, CO B0l l2 Tel 303.754.3399 . Fox 303,754,3395 . www.wmcotiorneys.com Document Name Date Page 2 of 2 property manager who can respond to a vacation rental in the event of an emergency within 30 minutes, can adequately address opponents' issues. At its inception, Pacific Grove leaders were estimating that the fees and tax would generate approximately $200,000 for the city, which, like so many municipalities, was facing a long{erm budget gap. I would also like you to consider that: 1. More available accommodations in SLO means more sales/lodging tax generated in SLO and the business community continues to thrive with increased visitors to restaurants, shops, etc. 2. Chain hotels in town are usually owned by out-of-town interests. Local accommodations benefit your residents who then spend the moneys they receive in your city, This is an advantageous economic cycle that would be shameful to break. 3. There is a growing international trend toward these types of accommodations for travelers rather than conventional lodging as evidenced by the prolific growth of web sites such as Airbnb. You will eventually have to spend money and human resources to address this issue by enforcing against otheruvise prohibited rentals or enforcing the nuisance concerns. lt is always better policy to be proactive and set up a sensible licensing and taxing program to ensure funds are available through the permitting and tax process to control nuisance concerns. 4. This change would allow your city to get more economic benefit out of your existing development while supporting your local tourism economy, 5. The nuisance objections voiced are just as likely, and maybe more likely, to occur with a 31 day renter as with a 3 day renter. ln fact, shorter term renters are less likely to establish the ties within a community that could result in excessive gatherings, parking, noise, etc. 6. The revenue raised by property owners decreases the chances that responsible owners will lose their homes, etc. and increases their revenue which they necessarily will put into property maintenance and upgrades so as to attract renters. This can only maintain or increase property values in your neighborhoods. 7. Secondary economic benefit to your community is also seen in that support services to the rental industry will see increases in revenue. Your local service and goods providers such as housecleaning, dry-cleaning, upholstery, taxi and limo, restaurant, winery, tasting room, retail, grocery, home repair and improvement, nursery and landscaping, household supplies and soft goods will all benefit.L You are surrounded by other communities such as Arroyo Grande and Morro Bay where there is a growing residential short term rental presence. Visitors that prefer the residential lodging experience will go these communities and spend their funds there if the City does not amend its ordinance. lf the City chooses not to repeal its prohibition on short term residential rentals, l, and undoubtedly other, will look for them in nearby communities that do allow it, such as Arroyo Grande. That would be a shameful loss of revenue for your magnet community, I respectfully request that you repeal your existing prohibition. Sincerely, /s/ Maureen Juran 13133 Eosl Aropohoe Rood . Suite 100 . Centenniol, CO B0ll2 Tel 303,254,3399 . Fox 303.254.3395 . www,wmcottorneys,com OcT 2I 2013 REC D Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Mejia, Anthony Monday, October 28,2013 4:46 PM Goodwin, Heather FW:Airbnb Comments Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk {;tt,_V c}Ë s¡n lu¡s ütiitìpo 99o Palm Íitreet San I uis Obìspo, CA 934ur tel [8o5.78r.7ro: From: Johnson, Derek Sent: Monday, October 28,20L3 4:35 PM To: 'Jan Kepler'; Lichtig, Katie Cc: Mejia, Anthony Subject: RE: Airbnb Comments Dear Ms. Kepler, I have forwarded your comments to the City Clerk so that they are made available as part of the record for November !2rh. Thanks Derek From: keplerdesign@gmail.com Imailto:keplerdesign@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jan Kepler Sent: Monday, October 28,20t3 1:34 PM To: Lichtig, Katie; Johnson, Derek Subject: Airbnb Comments To whom it may concern: I think Airbnb is a fabulous service. I have used the service in my travels and found that it enriched my experience and saved money on lodging so that I could spend more money on dining and other local experiences. There are rules for responsible hosting which benefit the host and the visitors. I would much prefer to have an Airbnb home next door to me than a house full of students who party until all hours. I think San Luis Obispo is a perfect city for Airbnb and it would be a shame to prohibit the service. lt brings revenue into the city and makes the travelers feel "at home." I have no vested interest in Airbnb other than some very positive experiences in other cities. Thank you for your consideration. 1 Jan Kepler, AKBD ASID Allied Member KEPLER DESIGN at PACIFIC COAST KITCHEN & BATH 3974 Short Street, Suite 110 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 http ://wlvw.keplerdesi gn.com 80s-459-6041 2 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Marx, Jan Tuesday, November 12,20L3 2:22 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: Homestays RECËIVËD NO\/ 1 2 ?013 l"-r] AGENDA-----o CFrom Sent: ific Standard Time Date To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn Subject: Homestays I do try to stay out of politics, having been embroiled in them in Morro Bay for many years. Now I live in SLO and I love it, and I think all of you do a good job, The issue of visitors staying in residents' houses for short periods of time is profitable for the homeowner and the city coffers. I would much rather have occasional visitors than a bunch of drunken idiot students rampaging through absentee-landlord neighborhoods. I have two friends with lovely homes in South County who advertise on Airbnb and they report splendid profits, wonderful guests and a great exchange of friendship and information. They find it very amusing that only SLO finds this arrangement to be one of absolute horror. I am very tired of my friends laughing at me. I do hope you will consider a new ordinance that makes it profitable for both the homeowners and the city to host short-term guests. Thank you. This is a work night for me, so i will not be at your meeting. Ironically I work at the Mono Bay Power Plant and am no stranger to political nightmare controversy. I wish you well tonight and hope that you seriously consider this important issue - without too much rancor from the public. 1 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Mejia, Anthony Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:46 PM Goodwin, Heather FW:AirBnB Rt<' Subject: AnthonyJ. Mejia I CityClerk c¡{,}' ('rl, s¡Û [ri¡$ ()rir¡-p(] g9o Palm Street S¿n I uìc 0bis¡:o, C g34ur *l i to5.7Sr.7:i"c: From: Max, Jan Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:35 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: AirBnB -----Ori ginal Message----- From : Mary Leizear fmary. leizear@hotmail. com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30,2013 12:54 PM Pacific Standard Time To: Marx, Jan Subject: AirBnB May I stick my oar in the water over this issue about home stays for out-of-town visitors? My friends in South County are laughing at our city all the way to the bank. Not allowing homeowners to make some much-needed cash from happy visitors doesn't make any sense to me. it seems to me that any endeavor that keeps homes in their current owner's hands is preferable to more over-crowded rentals to college students. I know this issue is coming up again, and I hope you will provide a remedy, so I don't have to listen to my friends crow about how happy they are that you are sending customers to them. Thanks for listening! Hope to see you at Sinsheimer pool soon. I love it when your grandchildren beat granddad to the flrnish line. The new pool boilers are working marvelously well, and we are all happy to be back in our aqua aerobics classes. AGENDA D 1 ¡. 1"i.h:,iti ËE Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: ccr 3 1 2013 Ef r-ir ,-..L_Ëi(Mejia, Anthony Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:47 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: Short Term Rental Amendment HF l2 Itern Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk (:1 [T {"11. g¡r'¡ lt¡¡s,i}t:;].{})() ggo Ëalrn StrcÊt S¿rn I uìs übirpei, CÄ q3r.,or Ì*l | ûoi;.70:..7ro: From: Max, Jan Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:43 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Shoft Term Rental Amendment -----Original Message----- From :'Wendy-Marie Martin [wendymariewrites @ gmail. corn] Sent: Tuesday, October 29,2013 04:36 PM Pacihc Standard Time To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy Subject: Short Term Rental Amendment Dear City Council Members: I would like to put in a vote of support for the SLO Hosts proposed amendment to allow for short term rentals in San Luis Obispo. The local citizens promoting our area through Airbnb and other short term vacation rental opportunities are not harming our local economy but helping to increase tourists income in our area. I know a number of people who book through Airbnb because the hotel prices are too outrageous to afford or simply because they are looking for a homey, local experience one has a hard time finding in a large, impersonal hotel atmosphere. These guests come to our area and eat in the local restaurants, visit our shops and wineries and attend theater and musical performances. They become apart of our community and return to the areaagain and again because they have a personal connection to it thanks to the hospitality offered by SLO Hosts and other locals. In addition to boosting the local economy, this rental option allows many local residents to stay in the area, since the extra income is often filling a necessary gap. Personally I can't see how this is in any way harming our local economy. It is a guest-friendly option for tourists from around the world and brings people into our area that otherwise might no come. I urge you to support the proposed amendment to San Luis Obispo's housing code to allow for short term rentals. It's good for our local residents and businesses, as well as potential tourists. 1 Yours, V/endy-Marie Martin 2 Goodwin, Heather Subject:FW: 11-l-2 From: Marx, Jan Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 11:32 AM To: Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Smith, Kathy Cc: Johnson, Derek Subject:11-12 I am so sorry I cannot participate in Tuesday's meeting, but must follow doctor's orders. Given the controversy created by this issue, I believe the vacation rental item needs to be considered by the full council, Also the community needs more time to consider the proposal in depth. So, I request that council take public testimony on Tuesday and then continue the item to a date uncertain so the whole council can hear more testimony ãnd provide direction to staff. Please consíder this email agenda correspondence when the timing would be appropriate under the Brown Act. Thank you Jan Max mayor NO\/ 1 2 2013 Rr( R EC D 1 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Smith, Kathy Monday, November LI,20131:28 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: Vacation Rental Laws No\/ 1 2 2Û13 Heather, Agenda Correspondence AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Thanks - Kathy Lll From: Sara Mcere [saramcereL@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November tt,2Ot31.1:28 AM To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John Subject: Vacation Rental Laws Esteemed City Council, lf we disregard the meaning of neighborhoods, we'll soon be ending up with visitorhoods. lf we decide not to enforce the existing laws prohibiting vacation rentals , what's to stop anyone around the world from getting together with their friends, pooling their money and buying one of our wonderful neighborhood houses, then renting it out on Air BnB week after week after week? lmagine how tempting it will be for anyone with some extra space to make big bucks renting out a spare room when big name entertainers come to play at the soon to be expanded SLO Brew? I strongly urge you to continue to enforce the law as it is written. I also hope that if you choose to disregard the law that you will examine the other issues I have raised here today. Sincerely, Sara McEre SLO Resident \l 1 Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Heather, Agenda correspondence. Smith, Kathy Monday, November IL,2Oí3 9:04 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: [caucus] Fw: Vacation Rentals arrow-10x10.pn9 NO\/ 12 z0l3 SI.O CT"TY CLËR. AGENDA CORRESPONDENCË D thanks - Kathy From: Michael Miller [vmmil@charter.net] Sent: Sunday, November 10,201.3 4:03 PM To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John Subject: Fw: [caucus] Fw: Vacation Rentals To the San Luis Obispo City Council Re: Short Term Vacation Rentals in the city of San Luis Obispo Forwarding my comments to you in advance of Tuesday's meeting. These comments were made on Caucus email list in response to lengthy comments by both Bob Shanbrom and Richard Schmidt. I assume you have already read or heard their statements/opinions. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Miller" <vmmil @charter.net> To: "robert shanbrom" <bxmd1234@vahoo.com>; <caucus@hdlists.net> Sent: Sunday, November I0,2OI3 3:52 PM Subject: Re: lcaucus] Fw: Vacation Rentals I am posting the link below (New Times) to offer another point of view to those offerred by Bob Shanbrom and Richard Schmidt on the caucus website, All the arguments make some very good points and common sense. I remain in favor of the lifting the ban on the short term vacation rentals, I don't live in the city and do not rent any rooms in my house, I believe however, that many homeowners will simply have to turn their extra rooms into student rentals/housing and I fail to see how that protects neighbors from all the potential negative impacts of short term rentals. I also do not buy the argument that workforce housing is reduced by this practice, since some of these homeowner's already work in the city and may be forced to selland move out of town without the additional income, Having said this, yes there must be sufficient regulations and enforcements in place, including occupancy taxes to ensure other residents of the community do not suffer from reduced housing values, blight and/or other unfavorable outcomes. Enforcement is the key and is at least partially reliant on neighbors reporting unacceptable activities to the authorities, just as they already do where student housing/rentals exist. The following statement from the New Times opinion piece sums it up for me. "Provided I ensure that my guests comply with current residential noise and safety ordinances, does it really matter if they are relatives, friends, or simply travelers from another community?" ln addition, I believe we can do a lot to foster goodwill amongst peoples of all cultures by allowing them this opportunity, something sorely needed in the world today. I am not however, in favor of the practice of renters being allowed to sub-let for short term stays. That complicates all the issues involved and increases liability risks to the owners of these properties and should not be allowed. I willforward my comments to the SLO City Council Vita Miller L205 Bay Oaks Dr, Los Osos, CA 93402 805-528-5926 P.S. I'm not a memberof SLO Hosts, but ldid sign the petition. City of SLO says 'NO VACANCY' to visitors Residence stays make sense for our community BY SKY BERGMAN > Currently in the city of San Luis Obispo, it is illegalto host a > traveler in your own home for less than 30 days. This outdated law > needs to be revised to encourage a new class of traveler to vis¡t "The > Friendliest Town ln America." Doing so does not mean that the current > ban on vacation rentals within the city needs to be lifted. The city > of SLO simply needs to add a new "Residence Stay" lodging definition > to the current zoning ordinance, allowing owners of primary residences > to host travelers in their own homes for short-term stays. (See link > to continue). 2 OcT 2I 2013 IVFD RcS Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Agenda Correspondence Mejia, Anthony Monday, October 28,20L3 9:32 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: Short Term Vacation Rentals Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk ctt;_v clf $"\t) [ur$ 0t:i¡.![]ö 99o Palrn Street San I uis ûbir¡:c, CÀ 93r,or tel|8r:9.78r.7ro: From: Christianson, Carlyn Sent: Monday, October 28,2013 9:20 AM To: Doug And Donna Morris Cc: Johnson, Derek; Mejia, Anthony Subject: RE: Short Term Vacation Rentals Dear Mr. Morris, Thanks for taking the time and effort to email me on this topic coming before the City Council soon. I've cc'd staff so that they have the same information and so your comments can be included in the public record, Thanks again, Carlyn Carlyn Christianson Member, San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street, SLO 93408 cchristi@slocity.org 805-550-9320 cell 805-752-1021 home (for city calls) From: Doug And Donna Morris Ipeach387@aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 28,2013 9:03 AM To: Christianson, Carlyn Subject: Shoft Term Vacation Rentals To: Carlyn Christianson, Council Member From: Doug Morris, home owner,789 peach street, SLO, Ca. Cell (80514590749 Email peach387@aol.com 1 RE: Short Term Vacation Rentals. I am an Architect and retired as the Assistant Building Official for the San Luis Obispo County Planning and Building Department. If an ordinance is prepared allowing Short Term Vacation Rentals I would suggest the following requirements to be included within and made part of the ordinance: l. " The building structure that is proposed to be used for the Short Term Vacation Rental as well as the owners home shall have on file an ""approved building permit"" allowing it to be used as ""habitable space""subject to the approval of the City Planning and Building Department". This is to insure that "Approved Fire- Life-Safety and Site Drainage standards" are in place thereby protecting the occupants of the vacation rental as well as the home and neighboring properties. 2. " There is no site distance requirement between neighboring properties for Short Term Vacation Rentals other than standard or permitted property line setbacks ". This is to keep the ordinance fare for all property owners. 3. "Short Term Vacation Rentals shall apply to owner occupied properties only" I am in favor of allowing Short Term Vacation Rentals to -"owner occupied properties only"- Respectfully , Doug Morris, Assistant Building Official, San Luis Obispo County Planning and Building Department (ret) I Ca. Registered Architect. Sent from my iPhone 2 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Codron, Michael Wednesday, November L3,20L3 7:43 AM Goodwin, Heather; Mejia, Anthony; Lease, Joseph Fwd: Vacation rentals RECEÏ ED No\/ I 3 2013 CLHi;'.i Agenda correspondence for the record. Sent.from my Verizon Ilireless 4G LTE DROID AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Original Message Subject: Vacation rentals From: Doug And Donna Morris <peach387@aol.com> To: "Codron, Michael" CC: To: Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager My name is Doug Morris and I applaud the city counsel for their recent actions regard¡ng vacation rentals. I wish to repeat however that the city needs to enforce the following criteria in order to do their "due diligence" as a "public servantrr thereby avoiding "potential liability" against the city as well as the land owner: CRITERION 1. " The building structures that are proposed to be used for Vacation Rentals shall have history of Itrrpermitsrrtt allowing them to be used as tttthabitable spacettttsubject to the approval and verified by the City Planning and Building Department" (as well as all other incidental structures on the properfy) . This is to insure that "Fire- Life-Safety and Site Drainage standards" are in place thereby protecting the occupants of the home as well as neighboring properties. CRITERION 2. I' There shall be no site distance requirement between neighboring properties for Vacation Rentals other than permitted property line setbacks ". This is to keep the ordinance fare for all property owners in accordance with their constitutional rights. Thank you Doug Morris, Architect, Assistant Building Official - San Luis Obispo County ( Ret ) Date ltem#låL_ 1 Sent from my iPhone CFÏ D NOv 14 20t3 LO R ï\'a-t-+o V\/\t^-c-L^ &-* **r1 +o AGENDA CORRESpeiT ÐENCE p"¡r ìllt ¿ll¿,¡*,,r,#ÉI- lW+ L,I/J Cgat*tt'^t-+-- l¡'Y<)-t*tt't-tr tturlp tL'u^ lr@"*'r,' I lurq-' * l^st¿.wv 'Lr-;.'Lt'' lvt-* | (r'r 4rú ) tlosluaJt f,'< f}.,'l*at'o Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Begin forwarded message: Mejia, Anthony Friday, November 01., 2013 1:51 PM Goodwin, Heather Fwd: vacation rentals image003jpg i:iËCEÏVËD NOv 0 I 2013 5i..L1 CTTY CL AGENDA CORRESPONDENCË From: "Christia nson, Ca rlyn" <cchristi@slocitv.org> Date: November L,201.3 at L:21:19 PM PDT To: Matt Quaglino <mq@quaglino,com> Cc: "Mejia, Anthony" <ameiia@slocitv.org> Subject: RE: vacation rentals Hi Matt, Thanks for your input on this issue; I've cc'd staff to make sure it gets into the public record. I agree completely that short-term rentals have wondeful benefits, but I would argue that in the bigger picture, housing stock is our city's "bread and butter" fundamentally, and I want to make sure that we look at this issue from all sides with a view to the future rental and housing markets that are needed by our residents and workers, and for our economy's overall growth and stability. So I'm listening to all sides. Thanks again for taking the time and efÍott to communicate, Carlyn Carlyn Christianson Member, San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street, SLO 93408 cchristi@slocity.org 805-550-9320 cell 805-752-L021 home (for ciÇ calls) From : Matt Quaglino fmq@quaqlino,com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 10:37 AM To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn Subject: vacation rentals My two cents on the vacation rental discussion. First I am I0O%in favor with allowing short term vacation rental in San Luis Obispo, I understand and agree we would need conditions and regulations in place for the management of a program and to safeguard potential conflicts with permanent residences, A vacation rental program would be a very positive and worthwhile program for the city and a big benefit to the tourist that visit our special place. This is not a new concept it is done all over the world and San Luis Obispo should not exclude a similar 1 program. Simply puq we should not be turning away our visiting guests that are looking for an experience that is not available from staying in a motel room. For many years I have taken advantage of short vacation rentals while traveling in Europe. The experience is one that is unmatched while staying two weeks in a hotel and quite frankly I plan my stays around a town that can provide short term vacation rentals. For me ¡t is not about cost, there is so much more you gain in the way of the culture experiences you would not otherwise enjoy while camping out in a motel room. Hotels and motels are great and have their place, however very few visitors are willing to stay for an extended period of time in a 300 square foot motel room, San Luis Obispo is a travel destination, there are travelers that are only interested in staying in a home, and for the same reasons I rent homes while traveling. By not allowing the vacation rentals the city is shutting the door on a slice of visitors that are now forced to visit another town that does. I urge you to consider the positive benefits; this is not a detriment but rather a big plus. Tourism is our bread and butter, it is what we want, short term vacation rentals is what some travelers want, to disallow the vacation rentals is 1980's thinking, some travelers are just happier in a home and will extend their stay, but will not in a motel room, staying longer equals; more dinning out, more shopping, more movies, more tourist dollars, seems to easy. Thank you for your great service to our very special place Matt Matthew Quaglino P: 805.543-056r F: 805.543-0214 www.quaglino.com 2 Goodwi Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk {r¡l;_v öl s¡il Luts (}$¡.$})ö g9o Palm Street 5an I r.¡iE Obispo, C,4 g3r,cr Lel | 8oq.7Sr.7ro: Mejia, Anthony Wednesday, November 06, 2013 7:43 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: short term rentals R,FCEIVED N0\/ 0 6 2013 I.O CTTY CLHRK AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE From: Max, Jan Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 7:24 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: shoft term rentals -----Original Message----- From : Susan Quinones [susanqrn@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05,2013 10:07 AM Pacific Standard Time To: Marx, Jan Subject: short term rentals Dear Mayor Marx, I am writing in support of changing the city rule to allow for people to rent out their home space on a short term basis on places such as Airbnb and VRBO. The arguments that I have heard in opposition just are not valid, These situations are allowed in many cities across California and I have utilized then myself in San Diego, Santa Cruz and San Francisco. It's a wonderful way to share community and a healthy competition to hotels and more traditional options. I hope you and the council will consider removing this language from the city ordinances. Sincerely, Susan Quinones Palm St. SLO "Compassion lies in the willingness to see ourselves in kinship with others" Pema Chodron 1 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Agenda Correspondence : From: Issy Robefts fmailto:issy@slosymphony.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:24 PM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn Cc: Manx, Jan; Smith, Kathy Subject: Something to consider-Short Term Rentals Codron, Michael Tuesday, November 12,2013 9:51 AM Mejia, Anthony; Goodwin, Heather FW: Something to consider-Shoft Term Rentals RFC FTVED NO\/ 12 Zo13 s cïTY CLE AGENDA GORRESPONDENCE Dear Esteemed Council Members, On behalf of the Symphony I would like to express our support of short term rentals For over half a century the SLO Symphony has committed to enriching the cultural vitality of our community with performing arts and education. Every year our small, but mighty non-profit organization attracts world- renowned guest artists to perform with our exceptionally talented orchestra. In order to be a thriving non-proht organization we need to think of creative financial strategies to "stretch the buck" as far as it will go. Therefore, many of our guest artist are hosted in homes of donors with detached studios or bungalows. On a side note, we feel our guest artists make stronger connections with our community if they form a relationship with their host and are more likely to return. Because of the ban on short term rentals, homeowners are forced to fill those rooms with permanent residents (usually students) to bring in extra income. If the ban on short term rentals were to be appealed then homeowners would be able to make enough income on renting to vacationers. They would then be able to donate the room to non-profit organizafions such as SLO Symphony, Festival Mozaic and Opera SLO for premier artists such as violinist Anne Akiko Meyers who on Opening Night at the Christopher Cohan Center played the 1741 Vieuxtemps' made by Guameri Del Gesu violin, said to be the finest sounding violin ever made! I think that is a pretty fascinating afüfact to bring to San Luis Obispo! The more donor support the Symphony is given the more we can contribute to the community. Please reconsider appealing the ban on short term rentals. Best Regards, Issy Roberts /ssy Roberfs Operations Director San Luis Obispo Symphony P.O. Box 658 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 1 Office: (805) 543-3533 Ext. 11 Mobile: (805) 235-3694 Fax: (805) 781-3534 JOIN US ONLINE! Facebook I Twitter I Bloe 2 t?l2Laguna Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (80s)-748-6752 rosey805@gmail.com REC D 0cT 2 I2013 S October 28,20L3 fan Mar4 Mayor San Luis Obispo Ciry Hall 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Marx, As a traveler who has used Airbnb many times in the past four years and good old-fashioned private home bed and breakfasts in the 1980s in New Zealand,Australia, andireland, I have someperspective to share. 1. Such travelers are unlikely to cause much disturbance. After I complete an Airbnb trip, my host is asked to review me. If I had come in singing loudly at 3 AM àt ro-.one's home, a future prospective host would read that and decline to rent to me. Thus, Airbnb,s system helps hosts select considerate guests. As a prospective renter, I read what other visitors say about a host and the housing. Most of the renters tend to be young professionals from around the world. Also, the current issue of AARP Magazine singsìñe praises of Airbnb.2' Long before the advent of upscale B & Bs in old Victorian houses, there were networks ofprivate homeowners who rented out a room or two, fed you breakfast, gave you good advice on tourist attractions and good restaurants, and sent you on your way for the day. these were generally elderly folks trying to make ends meet and remain in their homei. Airbnb is simply the modern equivalent, with better screening options for the homeowner.3' Not all people who want to travel can afford or choose to spend lots of money on housing. They still will explore the area and spend money in other ways locally.4' Part of my pleasure in using Airbnb comes from meeting locals and living in a neighborhood instead of a big, impersonal hotel. Warm memories don't grow from the latter. Please do what is needed to make this workable here. Put in appropriate regulations, taxes, etc.if needed to allow modern B & B networks to function in our city. There seems to be concern about the amount of'traffic caused by renting a room for less than 30 days' If the room is rented for 30 days or more, such as to a permanent tenant, there would be daily traffic from that rental. we already have laws in place for noise issues. We are a well-known town on a national level. I'd hate to see the headlines saying that San Luis Obispo has banned these well-known, popular travel opportunities. So while we -"y U. happy, we're snobs with our noses in the air. Sincerely, AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Carol N. Rowsemitt, PhD, RN, FNP Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Heather, Agenda correspondence thanks - Kathy Smith, Kathy Monday, November LL,201-3 9:05 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: More on Airbnb/Slohosts ti Nov 12 2013 5L Ci"TY CLHLTK, AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE From: rschmidt@rain.org Irschmidt@rain.org] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 L0:26 PM To: Marx, Jan; dcarpen@slocitv.org; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn Subject: More on Airbnb/Slohosts Dear Council Members, I hope you've had a chance to look through the nightly rental material I sent you last Thursday, which was current with the news as of Wednesday (as far as I could ascertain). Nightly rentals in neighborhoods are a hugely divisive issue. We have a fairly stable situation here because of the ban. But if you open a hole in that ban, what will happen? Do you want to have the sort of bullying here that the linked article describes in LA? There's now a competing website that caters to students and university communities, and encourages students to rent more space than they need so they can re-rent it on the web for nightly rentals, A number of universities have joined in with this scheme. Can you imagine the hell that will break loose in SLO neighborhoods if you allow any type of nightly rentals and this student site gets a foothold here? (We already have students renting nightly space on Airbnb, but thus far it appears -- at least what l've seen -- to be summer sublets rather than full-year.) It is important for you to realize that what's happening here is part of an organized worldwide effort by big corporations to break down laws that ¡mpede the billions at stake for those big web corporations, like Airbnb. The arguments are the same allover, the petition stratagem the same, the boorish behavior of the lawbreakers who presume they are above the law because the laws are a nuisance to them the same, the bullying of people who disagree with them the same. To see what's happening in LA, another part of this well-planned battle, take a look at this article I also would like to relay to you that for having the temerity to speak out publicly against nightly rentals, I have over the past several days been subjected to considerable verbal abuse from the SLOHosts group. So has Bob Shanbrom, with whom I appeared on the Congalton show Thursday. We were called, by the SLOHost callers to the show, liars, people who had no facts, people who made up a whole litany of nonsense. We were belittled, put down. Zero respect that we have a legitimate point of view and a right to express it, I have received emails accusing me of just about everything except being an honest resident legitimately expressing his concerns about a public controversy, These people don't 1 care about truth, facts, the law, or anything else decent people respect; they want their way, or, as they say, the highway for anybody who gets in their way. They are bullies. As the adults in the room, you have a responsibility to stand up to bullies. You also have a responsibility to protect SLO's neighborhoods from additional things that drag them down - like the transient occupancy nightly rentals. Thank you Richard Schmidt 2 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Anthony J, Mejia I City Clerk (rt1,)J (]f $ùï) It¡¡$ ütilsï)O 99o Palm Street San i uiç üJ:is¡:o, CÄ g34ur tel I So5.7t:L.7ro:- Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, November L2,201-37:27 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: rentels RFCETVED NO\/ 12 2013 SI."TJ CT'TY CLËRK From: Max, Jan Sent: Sunday, November 10,2013 6:37 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: rentels ImpoÊancer Low -----Original Message----- From: larrysee flarryseed@,charter.net] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 06:27 PM Pacific Standard Time To: Marx, Jan Subject: rentels The city can not control the rentals of cal poly students now. How do you think you can control vacation rentals. I live on a court with limited parking now. We do not need more cars from vacation rentals. We have very nice Motels and Inns in the area for them to stay in. I have live in SLO for 71 years. I hope to live here for a lot longer with out a vacation rental next door. Larry Sederberg 805-471-6200 1 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Heather, Agenda correspondence.\ Smith, Kathy Monday, November 'J.L, 2013 9:02 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: Council Nov. L2th meeting Rfr{:ËTVED NO\/ 12 2013 5L CLË AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Thanks - Kathy From: John Semon [ohnsemon@live.com] Sent: Sunday, November 10,2013 7:38 PM To: Smith, Kathy Cc: Max, Jan Subject: RE: Council Nov. 12th meeting Kathy, Thank you for your response. See you on Tuesday John John Semon 245 Bridge Street San Luis Obispo, Ca.93401 johnsernon@live.com Cell 805-23 5-2725 Home 805-542-9017 r/L I From: ksmith@slocit)'. orq To : i ohnsemon@live.com CC: imarx@slocity.org Subject: RE: Council Nov. 12th meeting Date: Mon, l1 Nov 2013 02:34:03 +0000 John, Thonk you for your concern obout the events of Tuesdoy's City Council meeting. AsVice Moyor, I will be choiring the møeling. Moyor Jon hos o scheduled obsence. Webegin of ó p.m., wílh eorly moments dedicoted to citizens who wont to moke Public Comments obouf issues not on the ogendo. Wønever know - for sure - how mony individuols will be speoking during thot period. f know som¿ orø plonning to ottend ret Proposed Dorms of Col Poly. The first Study Session on the ogendo relotes to: a Reviewing Existing Regulotions Prohíbiting Vocqtion Rentols in the City o Stoff report givenby Derek Johnson, Community Development Director ond Doug Dovidson, Døputy Diractor o Questions to stoff from City Council o 10 Minutes for SLO Hosts . . . thot would be you o Quøstions from Council o Public Commønt - the public hos 3 minutes eoch. We encourogegroups to cover oll vitolpoints, osking oudiønce members to roise their honds in ogreøment . , . os opposød to hoving mony people shors duplicote comments . . . but oll ore welcome. Wø discouroge clopping or jeering. o Bock to Council lor deli5erotions ... directions to stoff The only other item on lhøagenda is o Businøss ftøm reloted to the Citywide Historic Contex'ì Stotement. John, f "ncouroge you to go online to reod the stoff report on Vocotion Rentols. 6o to slocity.com ond occess the Council Agenda. Pleose f eel f ree to be in touch with guøstions . . . Thonks - Kothy From: John Semon ffohnsemon@live,com] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 2:43 PM To: Max, Jan; Smith, Kathy Subject: Council Nov, 12th meeting Jan and Kathy, I am unsure who will be chairing Tuesday's meeting so I address this to both of you. It is my understanding that SLO Hosts can have l0 minutes to make a presentation after the Staff Report on Short Term Rentals. At our SLO Hosts meeting last week I was asked to make that presentation I wish to confirm that we have the opportunity and ask when it will appear on the agenda. V/hat is the chain of events for the topic? Staff report, SLOHOsts, Public comment, Council deliberations and decisions? Thanks, John John Semon 245 Bridge Street San Luis Obispo, Ca.93401 johnsemon@live,com Cell 805-235-2725 Home 805-542-9017 a 2 Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Mejia, Anthony Wednesday, October 30, 2013 1L:17 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: Nov. 12th Meeting Agenda Correspondence Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk (;¡{,\r (ìl- i¡¡tt llils *ì}]ìi}}û g9o Palm 51re*t li¿.ln ì i,ri-.: il1.:i:;¡:o, {-À r¡3r,o.l l *i | 0*u;.;iì r.7rr:;:. From: Marx, Jan Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 9:59 AM To:'John Semon' Cc: Lichtig, Katie; Johnson, Derek; Mejia, Anthony Subject: RE: Nov, 12th Meeting Hi john It is a fact hnding session. If council decides to go forward, we will give instructions to staff. Please consider saving pubic comments on this issue for November 12. Comments last council meeting took up about half an hour and that meeting went to almost one am. Of course everyone has the right to speak on November 5,if they wish. All the Best ja.t -----Ori ginal Message----- From: John Semon ltohnsemon@live. ] Sent: Tuesday, October 29,2013 07:49 AM Pacific Standard Time To: Marx, Jan Subject: Nov. l2th Meeting Jan, Good morning. The November l2th special council meeting is near. I know that the staff report and council agenda will be out by Nov. 5th, but I am unclear as to the format of the Nov. 12 meeting. It is called a study session. I have some questions. Will it have a regular council format and agenda? What form will public comment take? Can SLOHosts have more than three minutes to make a presentation? Can the council take action that night to change the ordinance? Can the council create an emergency ordinance to not enforce the code prohibiting residence stays? 1 Oci s 0 2013 R Ð Or, is it just afact finding session that will make recommendations to staff? Thank you for your service to our community, John John Semon 245 Bridge Street San Luis Obispo, Ca.93401 ohnsemonØlive.com Cell 805-235-2725 Home 805-542-9017 2 CLSRKs Goodwi Heather From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Please post this on the website as agenda correspondence for November t2,2013 Thank you, Jan ,rt;í-HJ,V ED ocï 0 7 2013 Marx, Jan Monday, October 07, 201-3 2:32 PM 'shanbrom@aol.com' Schroeder, Sheryll; Goodwin, Heather RE: illegal vacation rentals in the city and city administration's failure to enforce statute From: shanbrom@aol.com Imailto:shanbrom@aol,com] Sent: Monday, October 07, 20t3 7:L2 AM To: Lichtig, Katie Cc: Padilla, Wayne; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Max, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Johnson, Derek; Dietrick, Christine; Christianson, Carlyn; Johnson, Derek Subject: Re: illegal vacation rentals in the city and ciÇ administration's failure to enforce statute Councilmembers and staff, It is now six months since I first alerted the city to illegal vacation rentals. As of this writing there are 21 residences within the city of SLO still holding themselves out for short-term rental on airbnb.com. Since airbnb provides a map of the listings it is abundantly obvious that these illegal BnBs are within city limits. ls there a moratorium on enforcing the law pending council action on a change in the ordinance? lf not, why are these illegal BnBs still advertising? Those who support a change in the ban claim that the solution is to allow and regulate residential BnBs. lt should be obvious that this "solution" is no solution at all because: 1) the city cannot, after six month's time, enforce the current law, an unambiguous ban, even when blatantly flouted on airbnb, addresses/phones provided 2) many of the people who promote allowance/regulation show no intention of obeying the law. I would ask that the law currently in force be enforced and that council move expeditiously toward a vote to maintain the ban. Thank you. Bob Shanbrom ---Original Message--- From: Lichtig, Katie <klichtio@slocity.orq> To:'shanbrom@aol.com' <shanbrom@aol.com> Cc: Padilla, Wayne <wpadilla@slocity.orq>; Carpenter, Dan <dcarpent@slocity.orq>; Ashbaugh, John <iashbaug@slocitv.orq>; Marx, Jan <imarx@slocit)¡.orq>; Smith, Kathy <ksmith@slocity orq>; Johnson, Derek <diohnson@slocity.orq>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietrick@slocitv.orq>; Christianson, Carlyn <cchristi@slociV.org> Sent: Wed, Aug 14, 201312:10 pm Subject: RE: illegal vacation rentals in the city and city administration's failure to enforce statute Dear Mr. Shanbrom Based on your inquiry I checked in with the staff in our Community Development Department responsible for code enforcement. Since and prior to your contact in early April, staff has been actively taking enforcement efforts to obtain 1 compliance related to the City's Vacation Rental Ordinance. We are currently spending approximately four hours per week on a proactive enforcement effort. Two other enforcement actions have been taken since you last made contact that resulted in compliance and 14 active enforcement cases are in process. Staff currently reviews existing vacation rental (VR) advertisements on HomeAway.com, VRBO.com and Vacationrentals.com. ln addition to the 14 cases that code enforcement is actively working on, we were able to identify an additional 16 vacation rentals that have recently appeared on these websites. We agree that the number of listings has grown, but while one enforcement effort may lead to compliance, another owner decides to list their home thereby increasing the number of listed vacation rentals. This is certainly vexing to us as well and we plan on doing some direct outreach to the website operators with the hope of discouraging rental listings in the City, Some new listings appear to be seasonal and others appear randomly on vacation rental sites. Please know that these 16 properties will be investigated with enforcement action will be taken and as others arise. lt will take some time and effort and others may be listed on websites in the interim that will be enforced as time permits. Vacation rental enforcement is complicated and takes a significant amount of time and while it may not seem at first that progress is being made, over time when faced with increasing fines and other enforcement tools, owners typically comply. The first challenge is related to positively identifying the location of the Vacation rentals. Of the 16 additional vacation rentals that are currently listed and not actively in the enforcement process, staff was able to identify two addresses from the information provided in the website listing after spending a considerable amount of effort reviewing the listing details. About half of the listings did not provide an exterior photo of the premises that can identify the property, only a vicinity map with the general location of the listed rentals. Only five of 16 listings provided telephone numbers and only four of 16 provided the owner's names. So in many of these cases a code enforcement officer typically will need to pose as a potential customer and either call or email the owner to try to get information on the actual location and thus initiate enforcement proceedings. It is also important to note that the City's enforcement efforts have as anticipated created some pushback and the City recently received its first appeal of enforcement action that will be heard by the Planning Commission in the near future. lt is clear that this use is not allowed, but that has not dissuaded the owner from appealing their case. We have explored the idea of using volunteers for code enforcement efforts and determined that the best approach is to use our trained and certified code enforcement officers. Code enforcement is a field of enforcement in which best practices require training and an understanding of the rules of arrest and the constitutional aspects of the enforcement of laws and regulations that relate to the use of property. However staff appreciates referrals of potential violations coming from the community. I would encourage you to contact Derek Johnson at diohnson@slocitv.org directly should you need any immediate assistance or have any further thoughts on the City's enforcement efforts. He and his team are happy to meet with you directly to discuss any ideas that you may have regarding enforcement. Thank you for being in touch about this important issue, Katie E. Lichtig City Manager City of San Luis Obispo, CA 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 805-781-7114 www.sloçitv.org From: shanbrom@aol.com lmailto:shanbrom@aol.coml Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 2:01 PM To: Lichtig, Katie Gc: Padilla, Wayne; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; shanbromlôaol.com; Johnson, Derek; Dietrick, Christine; Christianson, Carlyn Subject: Re: illegal vacation rentals in the city and city administration's failure to enforce statute Dear Ms. Lichtig, It has been four months since I first alerted Mr. Johnson of the fact that approximately 8 residences with city limits were holding themselves out for rent on VRBO, contrary to an ordinance specifically forbidding this use. Since that ttme I have had numerous exchanges with some or all of the above copied parties concerning this matter, including yourself. 2 Yet as of today, exactly four months since I first contacted Mr. Johnson, on April 9, 2013, there now appear not to be fewer VRBO listings within the city but DOUBLE THE NUMBER AS BEFORE. I would like to know why such a simple enforcement matter seems to be beyond the control of the city government. I would also like to know what additional measures you will be taking to effectuate compliance. It seems to me that it is an exceedingly simple matter to enforce this statute, as I have said before. lt would require virtually no special effort on the part of the responsible administrators. Most of the work could be done by the many city volunteers. I have heard a majority of councilmembers comment on the need for workforce housing in the city. Vacation rentals remove residential inventory. Also, hotels lose business to these pirate motels. I have copied the city attorney on this correspondence because it seems that the city is putting itself in harm's way when it does not enforce existing statues. Robert Shanbrom 364 Montrose Drive ---Origina I Message--- From: shanbrom <shanbrom@aol.com> To: djohnson <diohnson@slocity.org> Cc: wpadilla <wpadilla@slocity.orq>; dcarpent <dcarpent@slocity.orq>;jashbaug <iashbauq@slocity.org>; jmarx .j¡ne_rx@slocty.olg>; ksmith <ksmith(ôslocity.org>; klichtig <klichtio@slocitv.org> Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 20138:27 am Subject: Re: vacation rentals in the city Dear Mr. Johnson, Thank you for your May 16 update and thank you for your efforts in enforcing the city's ordinance against vacation rentals. While it seems that there are now slightly fewer SLO VRs being advertised on the various VR websites, a substantial number are still holding themselves out as VRs. lt seems to me that identifying these VRs is not a very difficult or laborious undertaking. I believe the city has unpaid community volunteers who would be happy to do the simple telephone work that this would entail. I trust that you will continue, even redouble, your efforts untilthere is full compliance with the ordinance. Thank you. Bob Shanbrom ----Origina I Message--- From: Johnson, Derek <diohnson@slocitv.orq> To: shanbrom <shanbrom@aol.com> Cc: Padilla, Wayne <wpadilla@slocity.orq> Sent: Thu, May 16, 20131:02 pm Subject: RE: vacation rentals in the city Dear Mr. Shanbrom Thank you for your follow up correspondence. Since corresponding with us last month, we have initiated code enforcement action on many of the properties that you have identified. As you are aware, in January 2007, Ordinance 1500 amended the City's Zoning Regulations and prohibited vacation rentals in all land use zones. As a result of complaints regarding illegal vacation rentals Community Development staff started a routine enforcement effort. Staff actively monitors internet sites such as VRBO, Homeaway, and Airbnb for illegal vacation rentals within the City limits. Staff attempts to identify the address of advertised rentals from the internet listing. lf we contact the owner and there is immediate cooperation and compliance, no further action is taken except that a note is made to the address file of the contact and the representations made by the property owner to correct the violatins. These type of cases are handled as time permits with health and safety cases being a greater priority which are often more complex and require a great deal of staff effort. lf we cannot contact the owner or the owner is unwilling to comply, a Notice to Correct letter is sent to the property owner explaining that the City's Zoning Regulations that do not permit vacation rentals and informing them of the potential consequences and fines. The letter also states that the property must be removed as a vacation rental from all websites within 10 days or be subject to code enforcement fees, administrative citations, and the transient occupancy tax. As is 3 the City's practice and a requirement under California Government Code 553069.4 (2)[1]which requires localagencies to provide a reasonable amount of time for a person to correct, or othenvise remedy the violation, prior to the imposition of administrative fines or penalties. ln some cases a complaint may be received which includes the property address, but most of the advertised properties do not give the physical address of the vacation rental. When the address cannot be discerned, staff will email the owner Oireðtty from the website advising them of the zôning regulations and requesting that they cease advertising and operating a vacation rental. However without a physical address, if they continue to advertise, we will have to identify the property address. This is oftentimes challenging as there are only interior photos or other little information that would lead to knowing the exact location (see http://vwvw.vrbo.com/33027'1#reviews) . Staff will use whatever information we have to locate an advertised house by the description in the ad and field survey to match photos to the actual property, which can be very time consuming. However, at the end of the investigation, we need to determine if the preponderance of evidence is adequate to impose civil penalties. Currently there are eight positively identified properties advertising as vacation rentals. Two properties have been issued a Notice to Correct letter. After staff attempts to contact them and if no compliance is reached, the remaining six will be sent Notices to Correct later this week. Nine other properties are currently being evaluated for consistency with the City's prohibition against vacation rentals. Public outreach measures are probably warranted in order to inform property owners of the zoning regulations. lt seems likely that many residents may not know of the regulations. Napa County has used flyers and mail inserts that they used to inform residents of their municipal code requirements. Given, that this enforcement effort is relatively nascent, other enforcement mechanism may be considered in the future. Please be in touch if you have any other comments or questions. Sincerely yours, Derek BCC: Mayor and City Council The adminisÈrative procedures seÈ forth by ordinance adopted by the focal agency pursuanE to paragraph (1) shall provide for a reasonabl-e period of t,ime, as specified in the ordinance, for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or otherwise remedy the violat.ion prior to the imposition of adminisÈrative fines or penalties, when the violation perLains to building, plumbing, electríca1, or other simil-ar structural- or zoning issues, that do not create an immediate danger to health or safet.y. From: shanbrom@aol.com Imailto:shan brom@aol.comì Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:26 AM To: Marx, Jan Cc: Padilla, Wayne; Johnson, Derek; Lichtig, Katie; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan Subject: Re: vacation rentals in the city Dear Jan, It has been more than one month since I first brought illegal vacation rentals to your attention and I still count about 8 properties within the city advertising on Vacation Rentals By Owner. This seems such a simple matter to deal with. lf the city does not intend to enforce its ordinances then the ordinances should be taken off the books, Random enforcement of the rules has a debilitating impact of society. How well I did see that during my years in Miami. It is highly troubling that Mr. Johnson sees these illegal vacation rentals not so much as a matter requiring enforcement but as a windfall tax source. Very troubling. This is the sort of motivation that might explain why he seems to have the wherewithal to send them tax notices but not send them cease and desist notices. I must admonish the city council to avoid the temptation to destroy our community's civic capital in order to pay our employees. When can we expect the advertisements to cease? lf it is not the city's intention to promptly begin to enforce the prohibition against vacation rentals then please let me know that that is the case. 4 Thank you for your prompt attention to this simple matter Bob Shanbrom ---Original Message--- From : Marx, Jan .ima@Lwjlll-9lgt To: shanbrom <shanbrom@aol.com> Cc: Padilla, Wayne <wpadilla@slocity.orq>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocitv.orq>; Lichtig, Katie <klichtiq@slocitv.orq> Sent: Tue, Apr 9, 2013 8:11 am Subject: RE: vacation rentals in the city Thanks for putting this on my radar screen, Bob. Tonight is strategic budget direction, so everyone is thinking "scarce resources." That said, the city is gradually moving to proactive code enforcement and business license monitoring. So, the question is "when" rather than "if' vacation rentals will be placed on the list and how should it best be done. I am including city staff in this response with the request that we both be kept in the loop. Allthe best, Jan Jan HowellMax Mayor of San Luis Obispo (805) 781-7120 or (805) 541-2716 From: shanbrom@aol.com [shanbrom@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 6:23 AM To: Marx, Jan Cc: Padilla, Wayne Subject: Re: vacation rentals in the city Hi Jan, It is disappointing to find that Mr. Johnson's automatic response to my concern is to cry "limited resources." ls morale in city government is generally this poor? Monitoring VRBO and Craigslist is a very simple proposition. Email addresses are immediately available and cease and desist emails can very easily be sent out to perhaps a dozen or more illegal VRs with about one hour's work. A city worker with no training could do this on a weekly basis. The cost would be very low, lf an ordinance is on the books it must either be enforced or repealed. The alternative is a banana republic. Bob ---Original Message--- From: Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> To: Marx, Jan .j!!elx@Sþci!y.o_lg>; shanbrom <shanbrom@aol.com> Cc: Padilla, Wayne <wpadilla@slocity.orq> Sent: Mon, Apr 8, 2013 9:07 am Subject: RE: vacation rentals in the city Dear Mr. Shanbrom, Vacation rentals are not allowed within the City limits. We have taken enforcement action against a few owners when a complaint has surfaced on a particular residence. However, due to resource limitations, we do not monitor sites like Craigslist or VRBO to identify, investigate, and resolve vacation rentals review. There are a few currently listed that we will send letters to once we identify the addresses (neither website identifies the physical address), so identifying and then contacting takes some time. Please let us know if there is a particular address you know of that we should take action immediate action on. My experience working in desirable areas where vacation rentals are a problem are 1). Most owners do not know that vacation rentals are not allowed. 2). Once contacted, the unpermitted use typically ceases 3). Despite not being an allowed use, many do not realize that it is stillsubject to the city's Transient Occupancy Tax. We often work with Finance once a site is positively identified to let the owners know that the tax is due in arrears. Nonpayment is subject to a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine. 5 Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. Please be in touch with any particular addresses or if you should have any questions. I have foruvarded the current inventory of rentals to our staff for review listed in the link below. Best, Derek From: Marx, Jan Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 1:43 PM To: shanbrom@aol.com Cc: Johnson, Derek Subject: RE: vacation rentals in the city Hi Bob, I looked up vacation rentals in our Muni code, and yes, vacation rentals are prohibited in our city. I am including the Community development director in this response, so you and he can further discuss the issue you have raised. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. All the best to you and your family, Jan 17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones. A. Status of Uses. Uses within zones shall be as provided in Table 9, subject to subsections (B) through (l) of this section ln Table 9, symbols have these meanings: A The use is allowed; D If the director approves an administrative use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.070, the use may be established; PC If the plaruring commission approves a use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.070, the use may be established; A/D The use is allowed above the ground floor. If the director approves an administrative use permit, it may be established on the ground floor. Special notes affecting the status of uses, indicated by number in Table 9, may be found at the end of the table. B. lnterpretation of Use Listing. These regulations are intended to permit similar types of uses within each zone. The director, subject to the appeal procedures of Chapter 17.66, shalldetermine whether uses which are not listed shall be deemed allowed or allowed subject to use permit approval in a certain zone. This interpretation procedure shall not be used as a substitute for the amendment procedure as a means of adding new types of uses to a zone. C. Principal and Accessory Uses. Listed uses are principal uses. Accessory uses are allowed with principal uses. D. Production and Sales. Where manufacturing is allowed, incidental sale of items made on the premises is allowed. When sale of a particular type of item is allowed, craftsman-type productions of such an item for sale on the premises is allowed. E. Public School Uses. See Section 17.36.030 concerning uses which may be established within public schools. F. Prohibitions of Drive-Through Facilities. Drive-through facilities are not allowed in any zone. G. Prohibition of Vacation Rentals. Vacation rentals are not allowed in any zone. 6 Jan HowellMarx Mayor of San Luis Obispo (805) 781-7120 or (805) 541-2716 From: ianmax@alumni.stanford.edu [janmarx@alumni.stanford.edu] on behalf of Jan Marx [ja n ma x@sta nforda I u m n i. org] Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 1:39 PM To: Max, Jan Subject: Fwd: vacation rentals in the city Forwarded message From: <shanþrom@aol.com> Date: Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 5:50 AM Subject: vacation rentals in the city To: ianmarx@stanfordalumni.org Hi Jan, lf you go to this website, , you will find several homes within the city limits that are holding themselves out as vacation rentals. My understanding is that this is against city ordinance, Could you please let me know if these are permissible? Thank you. Bob Shanbrom t1l The administraEive procedures set forth by ordinance adopted by Lhe locaL agency pursuant to paragraph (1) shall provide for a reasonabl-e period of time, as specified in t.he ordinance, for a person responsibl-e for a continuing violat.ion Èo correct or ot,herwíse remedy the violation prior t.o the imposition of administrative fines or penalties, when Èhe violation pertains to building, plumbing, elect,rica1, or other similar structuraf or zoning issues, that do not create an immediate danger to healEh or safety. 7 change.org Recipient Letter: REü FI\/üi.: NO\/ 0 5 2013 \¡ft {:{. i':,'r '/ San Luis Obispo City Council Greetings, Please pass fair and reasonable short-term rental regulationsl I believe there is an existing need for this type of rental to support our local travel economy, benefit our community, and ensure the quality of our neighborhoods. The benefits of short-term rentals by owners of a primary residence include . A unique experience for a variety of travelers who might not otherwise stay in traditional lodging choices . Economic benefit to our local economy through increased tax and tourism revenue (estimated at $7.6 million) . Supplemental income to make home ownership in the city more affordable . Enrichment of the local neighborhood and the community through the exchange of ideas and cultures introduced by worldwide travelers Short-term rentals by the owner(s) of a Primary Residence is of benefit to our community and should be allowed. AGENDA PONDENCE Date tllr5 Comments Nanre Pete Evans Locãtion San Luis Obispo, CA Þate 201$09-10 Dave Morrow David Kooi San Luis Obispo, CA karen hake san luis obispo, CA Elaine Genasci slo, cA Kurt Friedmann San Luis Obispo, GA D. Rosh Wright Madeleine Sinclair PalriciaAndreen Randy Rea Raymond Lee San Luis Obispo, CA San Luis Obispo, CA ' 201+09-10 Th¡s is lhe future of lourism, lel's not get left behind ! Comr¡ent ll is only fai¡ the current code is oul of date and based on a d¡fferenl situat¡on than curenl affa¡rs. This form of short lerm renlal is legal in most counlr¡es in Europe. We do not want lhe world to view us as a narrow mìnded, backward looking community. This allows people lhe freedom of choice if they cannot afford lhe price of a holel or if they would rather stay in a more family oriented atmosphere. Mark Coudray This is a ridiculously outdated ordinance. The economics make sense and the benefils far outweigh lhe cons. San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-09-10 Lel's make SLO a welcoming c¡ly! 2013-09-10 : I am a long lerm res¡dent al one of lhe B&B,s in SLO. lt would be a shame if SLO severed one of the connecl¡ons belween our communily and lhose lraveling by. The short-lerm renlal serv¡ce sorne homes in SLO are providing ' enable an exchange of experience and cullure. I might also add that short-term renlals might also help out individuals who would like to lravel, but do not have lhe lunds lo slay al a hotel/motel every n¡ght. 201$09-10 Please help us regain our rights lo allow folks 1o slay in my home for short and Iong slays. 2013-09-10, Whenltravel, IuseairB&Banditisawonderful opt¡onolherthanhotels. The : people who are renting out their places screen prospect¡ve tenants and only lhe most responsible people gef to rent air B&B places. I highly rec-ommend using air B&8, il leels like home. 2013-09-10 , The "Happiest Town in America" is telling travelers "NO VACANCY." Tourists , desiring a unique home-rental experience will take their vacalion dollars , elsewhere due to our city's outdated and unwelcoming short-lerm rental ban. Shouldn't we supporl the local economy by being a lourism leader ralher lhan a Iaggard? San Luis Obispo, CA 201+09-10 This sorl of accommodalion is becoming popular all overthe US and lhe world for a cerlain segment of lravelers. Usually well heeled and educaled, lhey add an ¡mportant f¡nancial and social element to lhe city's vibrant tour¡st industry. Anoyo Grande, GA 201$09-10 : lwould like my family and friends to be able to slay in something more agreeable than a motel on a freeway. I thínk short lerm renlals bring lravelers , lo lhe area who might pass through if the¡r preferred lodg¡ng oplions are not Presenl. sLo, cA 201 3-09-1 0 , I have nol rented my guest quarters on a short lerm basis, bul want the opt¡on to do so as a senior living on a fixed income. This supplemenlal ¡ncome would , be needed if my husband or I need extended care at a long term facility. : Renlal income would allow us to keep our home rafher than be forced to sell it lo meel the high expense of longterm care. I also have an elderly mother and want lo keep all oprtions open for using my guesl quarters. The reason we purchased lhis parlicular home is for lhis flexibility and assurance for our future. 201$09-10 lt is t¡me to amend our outdated zoning ordinances to reflect the current lrends ¡n lravel. I would prefer these lypes of v¡sitors on an ìrregular basis instead of a house ne¡rrt door filled w¡th studenls (and their friends) all year long.. Marilyn Beardon-Smilh , Grover Beach, CA 201+09-10 Name cv wells LocatiOn arroyo grande, CA San Luis Obispo, CA LosAngeles, CA San Luis Obispo, CA San Francisco, CA 2013-09-10 . San Francisco, CA llate Gomment 2013-09-10 ' Many of our friends have wanled lo slay in SLO but were unable to l¡nd a place : to stay that met their tastes. They stayed in paso or CayucasiMorroBay and , only visited SLO briefly. They spent a lot of money that could have gone to the , SLO economy. We have actually used AirBnB in SLO lo make attending events : more convenient. We could walk instead of drive. We would nol have gone to . lhe evenl olherw¡se. ll's lirne lo revise lhe ordinance to caler lo more : sophislicaled lravelers who crave a more personal cullural experience 2013-09-'10 ' We should distinguish between owner-occupied rentals, wherethe owners , lhoroughly vet prospective v¡s¡tors and make sure that they respect the neighborhood, and short-lerm rentals where absentee owners have no conlrol , over the renters- Mosl A¡r B & B renters choose this oplion mainly because they want lo have personal contact w¡lh people living here. 2013-09-10 : I oflen have lo come to SLO for lrainings, sometimes for a week or more at a lime. Paying for a hotel for that length of lime is incredibly expensive. A short- lerm renlal allows me to save money by cooking for myself, and it also gives me a feel for what ¡t's l¡ke lo live ¡n your beautiful city. I feel safer and more comforlable slaying in a neighborhood, ¡nslead of on some busy industrial slreet. I would be far less likely to continue lrain¡ng in SLO if I couldnt use a shorllerm rental during rny v¡sils. 2O1 3-O9-1O I have used these short-term renlals and have loved them. I think il lils wilh the , neighborly feel that we have in SLO. Virginia Bass Katrina Knudson Jan Kepler Matt Voss Robert Villanueva Bond Walker Duslin Davis Airbnb connecls our communities, provides local income sources so lhe money slays local and doesn't get funneled lo a remote corporale destinalion ¡n anolher parl of lhe country or outside the US, and makes guests want lo explore lhe lown much more so lhan a lypical tourist resort would. Airbnb has been responsible for repeaì visits lo over 30 areas lhat my girtlriend and I travel to. I can't imagine travel w¡thout il - even at the most posh hotels you can'i get even close to the exper¡ence thal airbnb provides. We jusl used it in Russia, Finland, and Sweden. California let's continue lo adopt the ways of the future instead of letl¡ng us fall behind to Washington, Oregon, and other progressive venues ol¡ls¡de lhe US. 2013-09-10 , I believe in AiTBNB and the freedom they provide renters and home owners. I , th¡nk laws banning programs such as this are outdated and no longer apply to Glrrenl day ooncerns regarding rentals less than 30 days. Jill Roland Celia Silacci San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-09-10 I lh¡nk that short term renlals are a vilal source ol lodging for our cily's tour¡sts. Los Angeles, CA 201 3-09-10 I have enjoyed very much "escaping" lhe city to enjoy lhe hiking, food and scenery SLO has to offer. Short term renlals have allowed me to do lh¡s more oflen, and the wonderful homeowners I have met have deeply increased my love of this beautiful central cosl c¡ty. To not allow this lo conlinue would be a major loss to all parties. San Diego, CA 20'13-09-10 There are many limes when loding is difficult to get in SLO. This is a greal ' allernalive and affordable. San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-09-10 . So many homeowners are trying to make ends meet and they should be able , to provide short-term solutions like this. 201 3-09-10 , I believe ¡n supporting non-lradit¡onal afiordable lodg¡ng opt¡ons which allow for a rich cufture and exchange of ideas. Terri Knowlton Paso Robles, CA Name Marti Brand Lynn Walkins Locdion San Luis Obispo, CA ûate 201309-10 201 3-09-11 Shonna Lew¡s San Luis Obispo, CA 201+09-11 Murphys, CA 201&09-'t1 San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-09-11 Comment llhink anytime you over regulale you don't see the ent¡re ¡mpact. We need reasonable regulation and we should co-mingle with all. Studenls, commercial, residential. When I rent on a VRBO or a homeaway, I walk about lhe area, eal at the restaurants, shop at the small businesses. lf not then more student ' housing, and someone will eventually teaf lhose down and "McMasion" several lots and we will lose some of the amazing archileclure. This lodging offers guest lo our cily a closer look at who we are. They are invariably quiet and polite lravelers. They see the neighborly side of San Luis , Obispo. And please remember that we are one of the friendliest towns in ,America. I lhink ít is imporlant lhat home owners have as many rights as possible when it comes lo lheir own personal home. lf a home owner wanls lo rent oul a space in lheir home to anyone for any length of lime ¡t should absolulely be lheir right . 1o do so. My neighbor ofiers a room to short lerm renters. Her guests have been quieler and more polite than some of the sludenls who rent houses in our neighborhood. I arn happy that she br¡ngs lourists ín lo see our lovely area and to bolsler our economy. I hope lo use lhis friendly mode of overnight stays when I lravel. Please remember lhat San Luis is one of the friendliest towns in : America. Because it is RIGHTI Why shouldn't people have a r¡ght lo where they stay? Why should lhe c¡ty demand $$ for someone who whats to give a place io stay lhal ¡s "more friendly and homey". , I have friends who are Air B&B hosts and greatly enjoy having guesls from around lhe world stay in lheir home. I have also used the service as a guest and it is a wonderful way lo see a cily. Lynn Walkins kate wels Michael Souza Anoyo Grande, CA San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-09-'t1 Megan Maslache San Luis Obispo, CA 201 3-09-1 1 San Luis Obispo, CA Big Sur, CA Hemet, CA Henderson, NV : Grover Beach, CA I am a huge fan of vacalion rentals. They are so much more awesome and : affordable than hotels. V\lhen I travel I always check hotels and vacation rentals lo see whal my best opl¡ons are. By nol hav¡ng any vacalion rentals in the cily of SLO we will be losing a lol of potenlial tourists, especially millennials, like , melAnd hello, we have money. So stop being so sluffy and get w¡th lhe times ' slo! 2013-09-11 , AirBnB is a quality organ¡zation which draws a ditferent sort of lraveller than , commercial hotels. ll should be among the opt¡ons available in SLO. 2013-09-11 This is a business lhal has been crealed lo keep residents in lheir homes. lf lhe economy hadn'l of lanked we wouldn't need lhis type of biz lo survive. Would you rather have the neighborhoods empty? 2013-09-11 ì I am retired and would l¡ke the opporlunity to rent short-term. 2013-09-11 : We use Airbnb all lhe líme. We hosl and use ourselves when lraveling 2013-09-11 , llhink ¡t's harmless as long as slrict rules regarding traff¡c, parking, and noise are followed. 201+09-11 [t brings v¡sitors lo our area and bu¡lds a greal reputat¡on as a lriendly city. 20't3-09-11 Air BnB is happening all over the world. lt has all posilives, virtually no , negalives. lt's not only a great way for the m¡ddle class lo make mortgage ' paymenls, but ¡l also encourages people from all over lhe world to know each , olher. Debora Schwartz Linda Parker Susan Bridwell Stacy Ferguson Johanna Rubba Delia Horwitz Tom Neuhaus Adrienne Prince San Luis Obispo, CA San Luis Obispo, CA Camarillo, CA Judy Brown albuquerque, NM 2013-09-11 , I have en¡oyed be¡ng ashort-tenn rental guesl and hosl. Name Karen Cox John Reid Lqcailon Chuluota, FL Dale 2013-09-11 Conmerit , Sþ asked permission lo renl her room, and was lold by lhe cily what lo do. She followed all directions that were given lo her, NOW there is a problem? . Please San Luis Obispo City Council get it together! Atascadero, CA 2013-09-11 , lt ¡s only fa¡r that an outdated law be updated lo accomodate people who rent oul rooms shorl-term using A|TBNB and VHBO. These services are used primarily by professional people vísiling SLO for short-lerm work asignments, people who spend money in ourlown. They are not the cr¡m¡nal element their , detractors are claiming them to be. London, United Kingdom 2013-09-11 I have slayed in a short-let in San Luis Obispo, and made a great friend in the process. Hotels are a soul-destroying place when you're in them for more than a couple of days, so I used a shorljet to slart me off when I moved to San Luis Obispo. ln the end of the day, who is being harmed by letting lhis practice contìnue? lf your answer is'The commercial interesls of the hotel owners lhal have : donated lo us" lhen SHAME ON YOU! Luckily I now live in a civilized counlry that has an enlire ¡ndustry built around lh¡s lype of lhing, called a Bed & Breakfast. One day I hope that SLO catches up. Provides an experience of the communily very similar to Europe. g¡ves people economic opportunily. I undersland density and parking issues which need to be well thought out. San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-09-13 Staying ¡n private homes is one of the most delightful ways lo lravel and really gel a sense of local life. I have slayed in private homes around the world and have lhoroughly enjoyed each one. San Luis Obispo would be smart to enable San Luis Obispo, CA , : this satisfying way for v¡sitors to enjoy our city. , 2013-09-13 I The current code seems overly strict. San Luis Obispo, CA 201$09-13 We donï renl our house but have renled olhers'houses when we lravel. lt's a foveþ way to meel people and expedenoe a new place as lhe locals do. Boulder, CO 2013-09-13 : l'm seeing more & more homes being lurned inlo vacalion rentals. When lhat : happens, ¡t makes less long term rentals ava¡lable lo renlers. W¡lh short term . rentals ava¡lable to lravelers, there is less of an environmenlal & economic ¡mpact. MORRO BAY CA 2013-09-13 , Air BB ¡s a great atfordable way lo lravel and meel inleresling people.l lravel , more often and spend more $ on the local economy . I see Air B&B or short lerm renlals a great benefil to SLO Counly. San Luis Obispo, CA , 2013-09-13 Freedom. Flexibility. Adaplabilily. Community. Diplomacy. World Peace. Atascadero, CA Gregory Cfough Regards. Greg Clough ASTRID GALLAGHEB .Arroyo Grande, CA 2013-09-11 This is a much better use lhan renling 10 sludenls Kather¡ne Kw¡d . San Francisco, CA , 2013-09-12 I have friends and family who could benefil from this. Hal Sweasey San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-09-12 Dana Fiore Sandra Heller Stacy Williams Cyndee Greene CRAIG STONE David Thum Connie Reeser Amelía Regan Costa Mesa, CA 2013-09-13 201+09-14 Because it is fair. I slayed Ín an aibnb house wilh my famíly and we had lhe best vacalion ever. I'd like to come back and recommend il lo olhers. A holel is fine for a weekend bul a home away lrom home makes lor a real vacalion. Beth Newman San Francisco, CA 2013-09-14 Our commun¡ty needs lhis. J¡llian Broeckel tocalion San Luis Obispo, CA Dale 2013-09-14 Çomrnent As a universily sludent, l've lived in a renlaf house where lhe agreemenl was very reasonable and lair. I also have an older friend who rents properties, is , very fair and depends on the renl income for her livelihood. 201 3-09-1 4 Because I am in the busness and anyone living in CA should have the right to allow lravelers on low budgels or otherwise, stay somewhete that doesnt require a2 nighl minimum. My lriends deserve lo have income lo pay lheir mortgage. 201 3-09-14 I feel I should have the right to renl my home on a short term basis if I chose 10. , lown my home but on occasion I lake long trips and to help offset the cost, I : want the opt¡on to renl il to people wanling 1o visil SLO for a monlh. 2013-09-14 : We need diversity and hosl rentals helps bring that in. 201$09-14 ' SLO is a desl¡nal¡on spol and relies on lour¡si dollars. Short-term renlals allow for lhat and bring more of lhose dollars direclly lo SLO residents. 2013-09-14 Please modify ex¡sting ordinance lo allow temporary renlal of primary residance. 201$09-14 SLO is a town lhat supports both student and tourist renlals. We should encourage more tour¡sls lo stay a bil longer in home-slyle renlals. lt's good for lhe economy and good for our repulalion. 201$09-14 , lVe used a¡rbnb when llravel. hb a wonderful way lo connect with the I community. lt also made travel with my family affordable. Please vote to allow , short-term renlals by the owner of a primary res¡dence. Sincerely, Elie Axelrolh 2013-09-.14 I cannot slay in holels or molels due lo chemical sensitivity lo fragrances and peslicides. Staying al a private residence allows me to find a safer space when lraveling. Very importanl. 2013-09-14 Economic benefit for residenls as well as the city 20'13-09-14 Because my cousin would like to be able to rent shortìerm to lravelers visiting sLo 201 3-09-14 Support families who do lhis crealive and car¡ng efforl. SLO behind lhe limes, needs to rethink policy for airb&b. , San luis obispo, CA 2013-09-15 friends of mine need lhe ¡ncome and rent rooms Anníe Salter Lisbon,, NH Sharyl Overholser San Luis Obispo, CA Chris Elliotl Morro bay, CA Barry Johnson Arrroyo Grande, CA Louise Bello Mono Bay, CA donna duerk SLO, CA Elie Axelroth San Luis Obispo, CA Hansville, WAJaber Rob Garcia Alice French , Templeton, CA , LaRue, TX Jeanie Greensfelder San Luis Obispo, CA mary stenger Jeff Hornaday David Mercer Andy Greensfelder San Luis Obispo, CA : grover beach, CA 201 3-09-15 Airbnb creales a w¡nwinw¡n for the residents, lhe tour¡sts, and the c¡ly ¡lself Camp Bay, Soulh Africa 2013-09-15 We are lrequenl lravelers lhroughoul lhe world and have used lhe lype of accommodal¡on in question many t¡mes and prefer il. As a graduale of Cal Poly, knowing lhal SLO is a universlly lown, lhe idea of oullawing such an opl¡on ¡nd¡cates short sighted bureaucracy that should be recons¡dered and changed. 201 3-09-15 , Air B & B is an ¡mportant internat¡onal approach to travel that brings people : logelher. Banning Air B & B would make SLO a back-leaning cily. janice lyrch Cynthia Joy , slo, CA Green valley, AZ 2013-09-15 ' il is a good allernal¡ve for lravel slays 2O13-09-15 , Due to hotel costs on SLO, I can only come to area and stay ovemight when I , use airBnB prices. Only then do I have enough funds lo enjoy the restaurants, , shops and farmer's market, which is the reason I LOVE SLO. 2013-09-15 We often have clienls and guesls in lown and wanl lo ofrer lhem an authenlic hospllality experience. Slaying with real people is an importanl way to connect , lo community, leam aboul lhe place, lasle its foods and undersland whal's , really going on. A hotel/motel can never offer this. On top of lhat it's economical, suslainable and intellectually stimulaling. Ula Birkmayer San Lu¡s Obispo, CA Name Eric Greening Daniel Mestre Debbie Bun¡vell Locat¡on Atascadero, CA tlate çomment 201 3-09-16 ' Ms¡lors w¡ll have a deeper experience if they can learn about the area directly from residents; as long as lhe homeowners are present to host, lhere is no resemblance to the lroublesome "vacalion renlals" with which Air bnb's are being conflaled. 2013-09-16 ' shorl-lerm renlal is a fantaslic way lo meel people in a lriendly environmentFrance Fairfield, CA 2013-09-16 son atlend¡ng CP. I have slayed 4 nighls at a airbnb before because it ¡s more economical than if I slayed al a hotel while lraveling alone. many fellow parents book week stays for graduation so they can have their enlire family enjoy the festiv¡t¡es of gradualion, whereas they couldn't do in a hotel. if this is nol allowed anymore, holels will confinue raising their rates higher and higher during peak weekends such as homecoming, parenls weekend and gradualion because lhey know lhey can. it is ridiculous what lhese hotels do lo lhe parenls of sludenls thal make lhis city lhr¡ve. I am presidenl of Transitional Food and Sheher, lnc., a nonprofit which provides , lemporary shelter to persons who are severely ill or injurerd and need rest to recuperate but cannol work and cannol afford rent. Our program operales countywide. There is a severe shortage of subsidized housing in our counly. Due lo culbacks, we cannot afford lo serve all such persons. Many have income from Social Security Disability/Supplemenlal Securily lncome of only $850/month , which will nol @ver bolh renl and food,l and lehy are ineligible for , Food Stamps. Not only do we need a program of short-term rentals, we also need a program of subsidized short term rentals, where carefully screened persons can pay 30% of their income for rent and the rest can be subs¡d¡zed by some program of the city or county or a grant from a federal program. This would allow cancer palienls totake chemotherapy wilhoul collaps¡ng on the slreels. lf would allow emphysema palienls 10 have resl when needed and be able lo brealhe. ll would alowAl-Risk preganancies lo carry lo term. I could : give many olher exaples. Roslyn Strohl Danielle Castle Louis Lopez , San Luis Obispo, CA San LuisObispo, CA , 2013-09-'l San Luis Obispo, CA Romulus, NY San Luis Obispo, CA Paso Robles, CA 2013-09-16 : Homestays provide an improved,safe accomodat¡on and give lhe flavor of living r in a town Roxanne Gupta It hinders the prosper¡ty that these wonderful guests br¡ng to SLO. Shorl term renlal guesls bring cullural richness and dollars lo our town. The city should nol be able lo lell us how long someone should be able lo renl lhe properly we own. 2013-09-16 I Because lspenl a lol of money purchasing a home in SLO, and it d¡sturbs me . that I have so many impositions by city council which make me feel like l'm . nothing more than a renter myself ! 2013-09-16 I have slayed at Airbnb in San Luis and found ¡t lhe besl way lo visit lhe cily. I like lhe homey almosphere and would not consider staying in a hotel afler lh¡s. I hope the city will consider passing regulations to lac¡lilate these kinds of short term rentals! ll is good for your city. 2013-0fl-16 ì I think thal a¡rbnb is part of a new way of thinking about lravel that ¡s here to ' slay. lt speaks to somelh¡ng basic in human nalure, not unlike ebay or craigslisl. San Luis Obispo should be a part of this worldwide network. Julie Dodds Pearl Munak 2013-09-16 , Brad Hanson Kim Lubich Galt, CA SF, CA 2013-09-16 : More opl¡ons lo stay in SLO when visit¡ng son, especially at Graduat¡on time. .. :) 2013-09-16 I frequenl lhe area oflen, have small children, and need oplions lo holel rooms. 2013-09-16 ¡ supporl friends doing lhis and would like lo consider the same possibility in lhe future. Robert Sachs San Luis Obispo, CA 'Name M¡chael Brewster sharon Shepard Paul Gabriel Taylor Nelson Thomas Nuckols [.ocaî¡on : San Luis Obispo, CA Oate 201309-16 çomrnent I lhink lhal temporary renlal, sim¡lar to staying at a bed and breakfast, should be allowed by San Luis Obispo homeowners. , Saltsburg, PA 2013-09-16 , My nephew is planning to attend school here, I do not like to stay in molels so I would like to have lhe opt¡on of renl¡ng a privale home when lvisit. San Luis Obispo, CA 201$09-16 , lf SLO inlends lo think thal lhey are a progressive city lhen lhis is a no brainer San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-ff)-16 san luis obispo is a beauliful place everyone should be able lo visil lhere and find affordable housing should they wish to slay, lhere ¡s much unused room in : many houses, this is simply inefficient and impractical in the modern age much , as car sharing has become popular one expects house sharing lo become . popular and exped¡ent for everyones wellbeing San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-09-16 ll is only fair. Douglas Pillsbury : San Luis Obispo, CA s g¡bson park city, UT Elise Nordling Oakland, CA Kalhy Bornino Arroyo Grande, CA Madeline Arcellana Las Vegas, NV 201$09-16 This is a reasonable requesl and very manageable. There are economic , benefds for both c¡lies and v¡sitors. Let's do ¡t! 2013-09-16 , Privale Property R¡ghts! Option, 6-12 monlh lease....lenant leaves in a week or , 2 perhaps.... 2013-09-16 ll's so ¡mporlanl to allow shorllerm renlals such as AirBnb. Somelimes all the holels are booked, Somelimes we wanl a d¡fferenl experience - slaying at someone's home and getting their recommendalions on where to go and what , to see æn be so much more rewarding than simply staying in a big, I anonymous hotel. And sometimes it's only affordable to lravel when you have : a choice of a less expensive place to stay such as an AirBnb room. :) 2013-09-16 I believe this kind of informal bed and breaKasl housing should be available and would benefil our commun¡ty by bringing visilors who would nol otherw¡se come here. 201$09-16 I lived in SLO for almost 10 years and love to go back and visit. When I come , vis¡t, I want lo live like a local, not fork out big bucks to slay ¡n a resort like a lour¡sll Please update th¡s regulation! 201 3-09-16 , So many people are living so close lo the bone. Allowing folks lo responsible renl oul a room 10 short slay guests in lheir home should be able lo do so. Just : license and regulale. easy peasy! Liz Ellis San Luis Obispo, CA Catherine Kwasigroch , San Luis Obispo, CA 20'13-09-'16 Because it is their house and not the cit¡es or govemments. Ali Semon San LuisObispo, CA 2013-09-16 Please pass fair and reasonable shon term rental regulat¡ons in a timely manner, Alice McNeely San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-09-16 : I enjoy slaying al Airbnb and would like to allow visilors lo our commun¡ly have lhat opt¡on. kevin p sullivan San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-09-16 , People should have lhe option for plaoes lo slay. M. S. Enkoji Sacramenlo, CA 2013-09-16 I appreciate lhe chance to slay at alternative lodgings rather than large hotels when visiling, particularly to bucolic sellings such as lhe San Luis Obispo area. Please consider pol¡cieslhat will expand the oplions for lodging, which will increase lour¡sm and he¡ghlen lhe lovvn's appeal. Kalhryn Specchierla . San Luis Obispo, CA 20'13-09-17 To show support of Air BnB's in SLO. Ryan Mcleod San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-09-17 lVe had only great experiences around lhe world using Airbnb and I'd love lo one day be able 1o host people from near and far in SLO. Lots of c¡t¡es are revisiling their hotel laws to avo¡d slifling innovalion and we definitely should loo! 2013-09-17 , This type of lhing goes on all over the counlry and I say ¡t's a great way for , people to travel and stay in a home at an affordable price. Plus it's good for the :'provider.' Lin Baggett San Luis Obispo, CA Name Michele Stoutenborough Loèation San Luis Obispo, CA Date Conìment 2O1 3-09-17 I just lh¡nk il should be an oplion, for people who wanl lo visil our fa¡r city, to stay in a local home environmenl, and not have lo get a Holel room - as they all . look alike, don't they? 2013-09-'17 . Because I would like the opportun¡ty as well, if I desíre, to be able 1o rent oul my room as a short-term renlal 2013-09-17 We feel lhis will add lo the downlown business and make SLO more accessible to lravelers. 2013-09-17 , As a home owner, I think I have the right lo lease oul my space, even if for jusl . one day at a lime. 2013-O9-17 Carolyn Elliott Brian O'Kelly San Luis Obispo, CA San Luis Obispo, CA Bory Aronson Dav¡d Hoyt David Gross San Luis Ob¡spo, CA , San Luis Obispo, CA , San Francisco, CA 2013-09-17 City Council doesn't have the right to decide th¡s. Blankel bans like SLO's are the sorl of inlrusive governmenl regulalion lhal slilles innovalion and makes commun¡ties stagnale. 2013-æ-17 , Love 10 visit bul cant afford lo stay a monlh!Toni Rucker Scotlsdale, AZ Douglas Blaalid San Luis Obispo, CA georgia kneeland pasadena, TX Jeremy Wakefield San Luis Obispo, CA Taggart Ashby Philip Tyler Jennifer Biddle connie willard jeffrey loring barbara milchell courtney whiling Anthony Garcia 201 3-09-17 Because Airbnb is a great service and I donl SLO lo m¡ss out on the future of lravel and advenlure- 20't3-09-17 ¡mporlant for people to escape and enjoy the beaulilul scenery and beautiful people ol SLO!lll! 2013-09-17 Because I need to be able to ll-nd a sweet place to stay when lv¡sitl San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-09-17 SLO is a beautiful place that lVe enjoyed for the lasl several years. Much of its @mmerce is driven by tour¡sm. SLO has so many th¡ngs 10 offer and we can'l afford lo be behind lhe l¡mes when il comes 1o bringing people in. San Luis Obispo, CA , 2013-09-17 Airbnb is an amazing serv¡ce lhat will increase lour¡sm revenue in SLO! Berkeley, CA 2013-09-18 lt was exlremely valuable to have a place lo slay during my brother's graduation when all of the hotels were either booked or had doubled or lripled I their prices. San LuisObispo, CA 2013-09-18 Having lhe ability lo offer lodging tor lravelers in privale residences is an excellenl way of showing our communily from our own perspect¡ve lo olhers. san luis obispo, CA 2013-09-18 Ít is a reasonable opportun¡ly to allow responsible residenls lo support des¡red lourism and eam a reasonable income in the process. it has been my experience that such visitors have a positive impact on the community and neighborhoods. paso robles, CA 201 3-09-18 ' I personally have enjoyed lhe accommodal¡ons of AirB&B in olher cities lhal I never would have been able to visil wilhoú this opl¡on. Over the years San Luis Obispo has enjoyed lhe repulal¡on of the ambiance of a small town. , Certainly being able lo slay in a personal home of one of SLO's residents ¡s , compatible w¡th the SLO marketing of our "Happiesl lown". Please do not , acquiesce lo the demands of the hotels in SLO, who are required lo pay a lax determ¡ne this issue. There should be a way 1o work oul a compromise, san luis obispo, CA 2O13-09-20 , I knew people lhat needed to do shorl lerm renlals while lhey found a more permanent place to live. lt was importanl for them to be ¡n town for the owners renting out apartments to meet them in person. lt wouldn't have worked if they couldn't find a temporary solut¡on first. San Luis Obispo, CA , 2O13-O9-2O Because finding housing in slo is very difficult. Somet¡mes you need a place to stay lor a monlh or two while you go through dozens of applicalions lhal end up rejècl¡ng you. 2013-O9-2O : l'm a SLO resident and taxpayer. lf ltn having lrouble finding a place lo live ' when my lease ends I would either need lo be HOMELESS, live in a shitty . hotel, or use a shorl-lerm rental. Doug Wahon San Luis Obispo, CA Narne Lynne O'Connor l-ocãtion san luis obispo, CA San Luis Obispo, CA san luis obispo, CA San Luis Obispo, CA San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-09-21 Davis, CA Da.le 201$09-20 çomment I am a frequenl lraveler, and lhis is lhe way we choose lo stay in various cities and counlries. This keeps tax revenue in our area, and allows homeowners to , afford there homes in lhis high priced yet low paying job area! 2013-09-20 r I personally want to have oplions other than holels/motels when I lravel. As more people use Airbnb lype slles 10 book lravel -- I lhink lourism to SLO will be affecled. Addilionally, during busy Cal Poþ weekends - il can simply be impossible lo find decent lodging in lhis lown (especially close lo downlown). And finally, I do lhink il allows people some help wilh lheir mortgage payments - SLO can be an impossibly expensive place 10 live. Make sure there are : regulations in place and it can be done well. 201&09-20 , I have slayed al AirBnB homes before in olher small communilies, and support lheir use in SLO. 2013-09-20 I believe il is a fair balance belween public housing guidelines and privale housing rights , Catherine Sheel Janrce wang Don Spare Carol Rowsemitt Marna Ghiglieri , I believe that groups like Airbnb ¡ncrease the number of visitors who can afford , lo visit SLO County and would enjoy theirtr¡p here more in many cases than lhe alternal¡ves available. I have used a¡rbnb many times in several differenl cilies. lt is a wonderful way lo slay in a more comforlable, welcoming env¡ronmenl at affordable prices. 20't$09-21 I have a child at Cal Poly and want to v¡sit from time to lime, however I have other children and need a fair amount of space when visiting. I want the option to stay ¡n a home (versus a holel) when visiting SLO. lt will be better for bus¡ness if you keep visilors lodged in SLO (versus being forced lo slay outside lhe region ¡n order to rent a home lor a shorl slay). Don't you wanl me and my lamily lo spend our money al Mcclintocks versus a Beslauranl in Paso Robles? 2013-09-21 Fair and reasonable use of privale property; ability to ma¡ntain and use primary : residence; excellent and meaningful offer of ambassadorship. This is about freedom to do w¡lh your property as you please. lf I had a saw ihat l'd like to renl lhere would be no issue. A home is a possession just like a saw. , Matthew Wh¡ttlesey San Luis Obispo, CA Mark Pietri slo, cA Karen Panasewicz san luis obispo, CA 2013-09-21 2013-09-21 Whenever I travel lfrequently use a¡rbnb and have ALWAYS had wonderful experiences for my son and L What a shame that lh¡s city, my home.. the supposedly "happ¡esl place in America," prevenls this from happening here. What a crying shame! Come on SLO, wake up and become lhe progressive, happy, diverse community you cla¡m lo be! Take your efforls and go afler the homes where lhey have twelve students living in them and raising all kinds of hell in lhe neighborhood instead! The people who rent oul lhe¡r rooms are responsible, kind, generous and thoughtful people who do nolh¡ng more than to open up lheir homes to strangers for a small fee. Do you know how hard it is to feed yourself and your child while traveling if you have food allergies? Do you have ANY idea how expensive ¡l is lo rent a place wilh a kilchen so lhal you can prepare heallhy food lor your family daily while on lhe road? This is only one of the many reasons why you need to change th¡s outdaled ordinancel Let's get this done! I have had occasion to sublel my apartmenl ¡n lhe past and llhink it is a good allernalive for home-owners as well as v¡silors. Ellen Ewert San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-09-22 Name Eric Michielssen ' F. Bennett Nelson Carolj Bennett Leandra Culver Deborah Cleere Alisha Culver Locd¡on Sanla Margarila, CA San Marino, CA Vancouver, WA Date 2013-49-22 Comfa€nt : The cullural, social,personal exchange belween guesl and hosl ¡s : fantastic.Hosling WWOOF'ers on my farm was about meel¡ng people from . many different regions,countries, cuhures who see the commun¡ty from a completely different perspective-living w¡th the people. Yes, collect bed taxes; , be sure facilities are safe and create a reasonable ordinance. Los Angeles, CA San Luis Obispo, CA , 2O1TN-24 Gharge lhem a hotel lax and ¡t will make money for our city Oakland, CA 2013-09-26 2013-09-23 Because il is lhe lair and righl lhing to do! Why deny a homeowner lhe right to ' renl lheir residence lo make ends meet during lough limes, especially lhose with limited resources. Other cities throughout the world allow this practice. How can elected off¡c¡als in good conscience support commercial ¡nlerests at the expense of their conslituent's? Or, do the best interests of lhe electorate lake precedence? 2013-09-23 lf gives rne more oplions for a renlal when visiling SLO. 2O'l&O9-24 : Th¡s brings valued lourism and fulure residenls lo SLO in a safe and welcoming environment. lt can only better the city and ¡ts ¡nhabitants. lfeel it is a pr¡vate ctoice lo for each host to run an air b&b. Others trying lo control that choice is wrong. My parenls live in San Luis Obispo, and il is my home lown. lslrongly believe that in lough ecrnomic tirnes homeowners need to do all lhey can to keep lheir homes and that this measure could provide much needed economic stimulus to the town. 2013-09-27 , ll makes dollars & sense! 2013-09-27 : My home-owner friends need lo know lhat lhe¡r cily is behind lhem and lhe¡r , communily supporls lheir decision should lhey need to ava¡l short-term rentals, Somet¡mes lhal lhey're only means of survival. Please also think of how it will affect the economy of th¡s tourist/college town lhat would miss a huge chunk of benefìt from lourists/college kids needing shorl-term rentals. 2013-09-28 As a host and small business owner, lhis is very imporlanl for local economies ' lo heal as well as give lhe people of a communily empowerment to lhr¡ve, sustain and celebrale pride in lheir lown/city. 2013-æ-28 I have renled from VRBO and Airbnb in other locales and il is a rewarding alternat¡ve lo hotels when gett¡ng to know a new cíly. 2013-09-29 , everyt¡me ¡ travel now i only will travel somewhere where ican slay in a persons home like lhrough airbnb. ienjoy to local touch ¡gel from lhe : exper¡ence which is impossible lor a hotel chain lo provide. i am lhen there to spend money on all sorts of things br¡ng¡ng tour¡sls dollars lo a cily and i know , many many otherfriends who travel the same way i do. 2013-09-29 : I have stayed in aiônb's and equivalenl types of lravel housing across lhe world. This approach fo lravel housing is excellent. Ordinances that forb¡d ¡t for zoning purposes are ouldated. 2013-09-29 My daughler atlends CalPoly and I need a place lo slay lhal is homey, clean, and close to the college. The airbnb wh¡ch Eve Neuhaus offers is perfect for me. lt also creates a c¡ty atmosphere which is friendly and welcoming with diverse options. 201309-29 , Slaying with Eve and Tom gave me the opportunity lo enjoy SLO's shops, , famer's markel, restauranls and cullure. lspenl quile a bil of nnney in your , fair city and I wouldn't have been able 1o do il without slaying in an air b&b. Charlene Premer Liz Prerner Judilh Slokes Brigetta Walsh Pismo Beach, CA Oceano, CA Astoria, OR San Luis Obispo, CA Anlhony Lopez new york city, NY Albany, OH Bomulus, NY Aimee Howley Sue Pelersen Kathleen Becker Northampton, MA Name Vicki McPartland Locdion San Luis Obispo, CA Date 2013-09-29 Gom¡nent Two reasons: We are airbnb lravelers. We have used airbnb overseas and l around the U.S.. lt is our favorile way to travel and hear¡ng our own town does : not allow this is so sad. , We live in a neighborhood that is making most of the few homeowners left wanl I lo move. We have been homeowners for over lh¡rty years and love our home and have always enjoyed most of the college studenls lhat surround us. Somelhing has changed in lhe last four years wilh lhe drinking, parlying and l general disrespecl of so many of lhese sludenls. I ask you; would you rather , ' l¡ve next door to a house occupied by over five loud college students or a house that screens lhere guesls that will stay on occas¡on, enjoy our amazing , town, maybe have one car instead of fìve, and appreciate the neighborhood lhey were so forlunale lo land in during the¡r travels? Thal's a no brainer. 2013-09-29 , ll benefils everyone!!Heidi Woodruff Templelon, CA Brendan Donohoe , Oakland, CA Ernie Roide scott kam Wendy McMcker Ms. Miki Gillman Katherina Koller Vita Miller Los Osos, CA Virginia Mancuso Atascadero, CA r hodin san luis obispo, CA 2013-09-29 AirBnB has changed my parenls lives for lhe better. Regulations klled the B&B ¡nduslry onoe before. ln this sl¡ll-struggling economy, why would you kill : anolher nascent attempt by your cit¡zens to eam a living by providing a great , service for which lhere is clear demand? San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-09-29 ¡1 brings so much richness lo our c¡ty lo have folks from around world vi5t san luis obispo, CA 201 3-09-29 Lived in SLO for over 20 years Athens, OH 20.13-09-29 : I want to visit SLO and slay w¡lh Eve and Tom! I want others lo be able to do : th¡s, loo. San Luis Obispo, CA 20't+09-29 .I lived in SLO for nearly 33 years and saw ¡t change from a lovely, family- friendly, family-cenlered communily lo a place where people ¡n a cerlain age range roarn lhe streels in groups, drinking and urinaling wherever lhey choose , 1o. (ln my yard, even after I asked, in even lone: "Whal are you doing?" He l said, "Oh sorry," as he continued to ur¡nate voluminously on my yard!) Short-tem renlals ¡n homes hosled by home owners lends slabilily & sanity to j th¡s once heavenly place lo live. h would empower family oriented people to conlinue lo live in SLO. Olherw¡se, SLO is doomed lo become another lsla Vísta. : I slill own a house in SLO and may wanl lo l¡ve lhere again al sorne point in the future. I have a vested interest on seeing SLO restored to a lovely family- oriented commun¡ty. San Luis Obispo, CA , 2013-09-29 When we lose the personal kindness, love and intimate shares w¡th one other - I we had losl and unique lhe beauty what life for all to benefil by. is all about, ¡1 is l¡me to re-think what's spec¡al , 201+09-29 I believe they are a benefil lo a commun¡ty, not a delrimenl. lt also adds to the i local economy and rnost of these visitors are ambassadors to br¡ng other I v¡sitors to th¡s area. To deny lhe Air BnBb is snobbish and short-sighted. 2013-09-30 : lt is good lo have options and lhis is somelhing I was considering in my future. I have heard h ís a delightful expenence. 2013-09-30 . arbilrary enforcemenl of obsolele laws crealed by oulmoded lhinking and ' commun¡ty needs hurts our regulatory system & breeds dislrust of elected officials and those they oversee. I have heard enthusiastic reports aboul Airbnb from people in many commun¡l¡es around lhe country and ¡nlernal¡onally. San Luis Obispo should updale ils regulations so lhal a wonderful serv¡ce likeAirbnb can operate here! Esther Gowan San Luis Obispo, CA , 2013-09-30 Nare Jackie Parker Loeal¡on San Luis Obispo, CA Date 201$09-30 Comrnent SLO needs a var¡ely of housing options. There are peak periods when we don'l have sufficient c¡mrnercial lodging available. People then slay outside SLO and we lose business revenue. I think that some communily leaders are fearfirl and figure that banning such rentals is safer than dealing with lhe ¡ssues : thal will have to be addressed. However, consumer expeclat¡ons for vacat¡on renlals íncludes privale home rentals and many res¡dents have been successfully managÍng such uses wilh no complaínts by neighbors or law enforcemenl. I don't wish to see SLO become l¡ke some beach lowns where , every house for blocks on end are signed as vacation rentals, but lhis can be controlled by not allowing such signage and by limiting permits lo a certain . percenlage in neighborhoods. Patricia Bauer-Slale Auslin, TX Nathan Ew¡n Bastiaan Spanjaard Josh Cole Jennifer Baloon Emily Oliver Neal Sistek Garrett Mor¡s David Main michele leavitt Sean Basalyga Susan Proehl Amslerdam, lhe Nelherlands, Netherlands San Francisco, CA los angeles, CA London, United Kingdom 2013-09-30 San Marino, CA San Luis Obispo, CA San LuisObispo, CA 2013-10{1 Atascadero, CA Saunderstown, Rl Pleasanlon, CA Sebaslopol, CA 201$09-30 Oford, United Kingdom , 20.t3-09-30 My v¡sit lo SLO was hugely enhanced by stay¡ng with a host in short{erm , renlal âccomodation I know Eve and Tom and know what wonderful ambassadors lhey are forthe cily. Auslin has an annual fee and a bed tax which allows Airbnb to operale providing much needed rooms in our festival city. 201&09-30 , My wife and I had a wonderful slay at a B&B in SLO, lhrough AirBnB. For us, , lhis pul SLO 'on lhe map' and il's a place we now recommend all our friends lo , visil - thanks lo Eve and Tom and the facl lhey could rent out lheir house ' through AirBnB. 2013-09-30 Add¡t¡onal sources of lravel accommodations ¡s a greal assel lo bringing more people lo more places. 201$09-30 ; Lel people dec¡de what 10 do wilh the¡r homes regarding shorl-lerm rentals. lt's , a win w¡n s¡lual¡on for all. Airbnb is crucial lo lhe lourism industry. I travelled around California using airbnb and would not have had lhe same experience. Hosts give recommendalions on local businesses thal I would never have known about. Jean Neson 2013-09-30 I enjoy visìling lhe SLO area and like a variely of oplions lor renl¡ng a place lo 'stay. 201 3-10-01 Short term renlals offer visitors an alternal¡ve lo mundane motels and hotels and ìnleract¡on wilh local families. My favorite part of traveling is getting a local perspective of lhal place. Airbnb is lhe perfecl way to meet locals and leam what it mean to be a SLO nalive. 201+10-01 Provides high quality residenlial scale accornrìodalions at reasonable cost. Win-win for all concerned. 2013-10{1 , I'd like to travel to San Luis Obispo again and slay in an Airbnb home 2013-10-01 , Temporary housing is very hard to find in slo, especially for sludents, I had to sleep on a couch for three months once! 2O13-1}-O2 , Because we oflen visit SLO and staying wilh SLO Hosls, Tom and Eve ' Neuhaus just make's our slay so much nicer....They certainly represent SLO in : the very best way...shar¡ng restaurants, shows, shops, museums... They are : pos¡tive repres€ntatives for your City. You do your town a great disservice by , nol allow¡ng Airbnb..This ¡s one service thal allows us 10 really gel 10 know the area lhrough conversalion and friendship we meet through Airbnb.....Please pas fair and reasonable shorl-lerm regulalions...,Thanks! Nâme Michael Larcher Susan Breznay Locatþn San Luis Obispo, CA san luis obispo, CA 2011J--1042 Sunnyvale, CA Spain Boulder, CO fÞte Comment 2013-10{,2 , lVe had the opportun¡ty lo travel e)dens¡vely and found lhe best way to see the world is by staying with locals. I love San Luis Obispo and would like lo show , the world how wonderful our home is. Short-term renlals prov¡des the besl : possible way for people to experience the Central Coast. Jun Yang LUIS DIAZ We homeowners in SLO lry to l¡ve in harmony wilh neighboring houses rented lo large numbers of sludenls whose large number of cars overflow our neighborhoods, even during week nÍghls, lo say nolhing of large no¡sy parlies , on week-ends. ln response to our (SLO pr¡mary residence owners) forbearance , of and even welcoming of the studenls, we are nol allowed to renl out for a few , nights, lo income producing v¡sitors, pari of the homes we own, whose laxes we pay the cily and the income from which welcoming rentals can aid residents in many financial ways.????? Short-term renlals by lhe owner(s) of a Primary Residence is of benef¡t lo our commun¡ty in many ways and should be encouraged in this Friendly City. : Otherwise we are Friendly to students and oul of town renter/owners but not to , SLO resident¡al owners themselves. 2013-10-02 , I am avery happyAirbnb user, and I absolutely enjoyed my stay w¡lh Eve and Tom in their lovely house at San Luis Obispo. ll's a real shame lhat lhey were lorced lo close lheir Airbnb operalion which hurl lhem, visilors who are looking : for an alternalive lodging opl¡on olher than boring hotels, and finally the city : itself because they lost great ambassadors like Eve and Tom. 2013-10-02 , lthink it would be a very good economical, cultural enrichmenl for SLO and for people, like me, lhat have short stays there and can enjoy a dírect contact w¡lh local residents. Barbra Weidlein Brad Nelson 2013-10-02 ,My family slayed wilh Eve al her lovely airBNB in SLO in Seplember, 2012. As a result, we supported several local restauranls and olher SLO businesses dur¡ng our slay. We also became familiar w¡th the university. Were it not for Eve's airBNB opt¡on, we would NOT have stayed in SLO and would NOT have had the oppodunity to frequent your local businesses. Eve maintained a lovely, clean, invlling, and nurluring environment for our family. lt would be very sad to see lhis opporlun¡ly disappear. And no, we would nol have stayed in any of lhe SLO hotels, molels, or B & B inns. Sanla Monica, CA 201 3-1042 I enjoy travel¡ng lo SLO and having the option of stay¡ng at B&B over the exist¡ng hotels would be a welcome opportun¡ty for my girlfriend and me. i Slay¡ng al someone's charming home in a neighborhood you may not have olherw¡se known aboul, why wouldn't you be interesled in lhis? 2013-10-02 , Shorl-lerm rentals are a better way 10 see a place and really gel an int¡male view of the locat¡on. Holels and the l¡ke ¡ust donl cut il. These kind of rentals : w¡ll allow v¡silors to see SLO for the beautiful place il is and help build up the , travel economy. 201 3-10-02 These lypes of rental options make travel to SLO more attractivel 2013-10-03 : People should be able to do whal lhey wanl with lheir homes. 2O1 3-10-03 I have been to this wonderful house to visit the wonderful folks who live here. : They enrich the ne¡ghborhood and the world. 2013-10-03: freedom 201&10-03 ¡l ¡s lhe r¡ght lhing lo do 201S10-03 : Because Bed and Breakfasls are a greal vacalion oplion! 2013-10{3 : My brother & sisler-inlaw use the exlra rooms in their house for AirBnB and Peter Brock Nathaniel Keller Ann Arbor, Uniled States Minor Oullying lslands Berkeley, CA Jon Flugstad Berkeley, CA Gwen Rinehart LosAngeles, CA San Luis Obispo, CA Berkeley, CA Dorothy Curhan alex loa Sarah Swigart Berkeley, CA Joanne Cunie Nipomo, CA they have such a wonderful experience with the vis¡tors. Name Edwin Holloway Vicki Hotal¡ng Aaron Thompson Arroyo Grande, CA David Hafemeister David Ziegler Mary Leizear Danica Truchlikova Libby Parker John ln¡rin Calherine Maguire LÌsa Aspínall Amanda Wood Sara Mikkelsen mary kunz Gay Groomes Caitlyr Cowan michael rubottom Date Comrî€rÌt 201 31 0-03 : Normalizes zoning ; accommodales travelers; generales municipal income. 2013-10-04 ' Vvhat awonderful way to welcome someone to our city/county. I lived in SLO : lor 2O years and a residential host can help a visitor know and enjoy our local , bus¡nesses and special spols on lhe cenlral coast. What a better way to visit and increase tourism. I can lhink of no better wayl 201310-04 Please pass fair and resonable short-term rental regulalions. Helps us lake . care of our home when we are not lhere. Also allows us lo make improvements to the property lhat we would normally nol be able to afford. Sincerely, Aaron Thompson San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-10-04 , Airbnb and olhers should be allowed lo be in business, but lel them also pay , lhe lourisl bed lax as does Molel 6 , Oakland, CA 201 3-1 0-04 : I have mel wonderful people because ol renlals I found lhrough sharing : nelworks, and l'm less likely to slay in SLO if I don't have lhose available 1o me. San Luis Obispo, CA 201+10{5 : Ms¡lors are imporlanl & profitable Oakland, CA 2013-10-07 : SLO benefils from business like lhis in many ways. Please revisit lhe zoning ordinances and reconsider ils update. Thank you. san fuis obispo, CA 2013-10{7 For travelers this is often a better opt¡on - kitchen, personal space, somel¡me use of a car or bike, etc. And home-sharing (trading places) is a great way lo see new places. San Luis Obispo, CA W¡cklow lreland 201&10{7 . I believe in owner properly rights and I feel lhe c¡ty is over slepping its righls. 201$10-08 , My husband and ltravel a lol. We rarely stay in holels as a Shorl Term Renlals ' offer a much more ¡nlimale and true experiencæ of a place. We have made friends all around lhe world as a result induding our amazing Airbnb hosts in sLo. Escazu, Cosla Rica 201$10{8 Many people now choose shorl lerm renlals as lheir preferred form of accommodalion when lravelling, and SLO is losing these tourists to , neighboring communilies thal do allow shorl lerm renlals. San Luis obispo, CA Chicago, lL 2013-10{9 , Homeowner rights, tourism, local economy. Enough said! 201+10{9 , I cant see any reason lo deny this pelit¡on thal will bring more money to the , in terms of bed taxes and tourism. Los Osos, CA 201 3-10-10 : lhis ¡s a wonderful way lor people to visil our beaulilul area, and s¡nce the ' home owners are PRESENT when the renters are there, lhere is unlikely lo be any noise or other problems- Anoyo Grande, CA 2013-'10-14 , For all of the reasons in the pelition. The kind of people who use BnBs are : generally respectful, considerale people who want lo gel to know our area. They eat in our reslaurants and shop ¡n our slores, And lhey go home and lell lheir lriends aboul our area. The horneowners who do this pay taxes on lhe¡r homes. They are oflen ret¡red and need lo supplemenl lheir income or lhey are creative people who have a hard time making a living doing their art. We don't , want to lose these people as residents. Please allow short-term renlals. San Jose, CA san miguel, CA 2013-10-16 , Would like to see home ownership more affordable. 2O1*1O-17 lwould like for private houses lo remain pr¡vale. Astr¡d Gallagher Arroyo Grande, CA 2013-10-18 lt brings exlra revenue inlo the local economy and income for lhe homeowner- 'Name juli platzer michelle israel Carolyn Green Robin Chilton kathleen settle , kent woodard , Linda Thomton peter keith Terry Billings Lee Marx Clarissa Schaeffer Linda Chimenli Locdlon san luis obispo, CA Comment As a business owner in a high lourisl area of lown I supporl unique San Luis Obispo travel experiences. The homestay/short term renlal lodging option is , an internal¡onal rnovemenl that will continue to grow because people like it. : San Luis would be w¡se lo embrace this lifestyle and reap the benefits ' financially and culturally. san luis obispo, CA 2013-10-18 There are limes when a comfortable home is just whal a family needs: weddings, Cal Poly Gradualion, SLO Marathon. Folks just want to be together, , make food, sil in a living room and v¡sit. These people spend money in our : oommunity. They go oul lo eat, go shopping, visit wineries. This is what I look , , for when our family of six travels. : Wesl Hills, CA 201+10-19 : because I love SLO and lhe cenlral coast so lh¡s pelilion would help wilh shorl lerm renlals; P¡us as baby-boomers slart to retire, lhey are going to want short term renlals (nol holels) and th¡s regulation would hopefully open lhe market lo more ptoperlies. San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-10-21 : lncreased opportunity for, travelers, home owners, and local business. San Luis Obispo, CA 2013-10-21 , This will bring added income to our c¡ty. lf students are allowed in our : neighborhoods, lhen shorl term, less invasive guest should be allowed as well. I have nol heard a sound argumenl from lhe opposilion that has influenced me lo change my posllion as of th¡s post¡ng!! new york, NY 2013-10-25 : Reasonable short term rentals should be permitted. Date 201$10-18 2013-10-26 We have shoñ term rentals lhroughoul New Zealand. They are great for travelers, tourists and owners. They're a great way lo make good use of real properties. 2013-10-26 : supporls home ownership... and adds incenlive lo maintain inlerior and e)derior , of propertyl 2013-10-27 Fellow B&B Owner 2O13:lO-27 : Because I loveAir B&B! Ramarama, New ZeaJand groverbeach, cA Lewisville, TX San Miguel, CA SLO, CA 201:J--10-28 i do nol have a shorl lerm renlal bul t do have a long lerm rental here in SLO. Wilh the economy failing lo provide for even lhe middle class, I supporl indÍvidual efforts to provide reasonable efforts. I used a system like airbnb to travel in Europe 40 years ago. Paso Bobles, CA 2013-10-31 , Supporting whal lbelieve is right 2013-10-31 , lvisit the area nad lovelo slay in B&Bs 2013.10-31 : lt's a great way for lhe City lo make money and property owners at the same : l¡me. W¡n Win in my mind. 2013-11{3 , My friend, a homeowner, depends on the supplemental income Air B2B : prov¡des. She is a casualty of lhe economic downlurn and ageism. Robert Grede bob rucker Franklin, Wl Calhie Smith San Luis Obispo, CA Siena Madre, CA change.org Hecipient: L.etter: San Luis Obispo City Council Greetings, Please pass fair and reasonable short{erm rental regulations! I believe there is an existing need for this type of rental to support our local travel economy, benefit our community, and ensure the quality of our neighborhoods. The benefits of short-term rentals by owners of a primary residence include: 'A unique experience for a variety of travelers who might not otherwise stay in traditional lodging choices ' Economic benefit to our local economy through increased tax and tourism revenue (estimated at $7.6 million) ' Supplemental income to make home ownership in the city more affordable ' Enrichment of the local neighborhood and the community through the exchange of ideas and cultures introduced by worldwide travelers Short-term rentals by the owner(s) of a Primary Residence is of benefit to our community and should be allowed. SLO Hosts A B c L Name City State 2 Peggy Thayer San Luis Obispo, CA California 3 Pete Evans LO California 4 Mark Coudray Luis Obispo California 5 Dave Morrow Luis Obispo California 6 David Kooi Luis O California 7 Todd Dolezal Pandora Nash-Karner San Luis Obispo Los Osos California California8 9 karen hake san luis obispo California 1_0 Marcy Chapin San Luis Obispo California TL lìsa huck n luis o California L2 Mary lemus San Luis Obispo California T3 Elaine Genasci California L4 Kurt Friedmann San Luis California L5 William Arkfeld Eve Neuhaus Atascadero California 16 t7 marilyn grizzell San Luis Obispo California 18 Roz Phillips San Luis Obispo California L9 D. Rosh Wright Luis California 20 Cricket Handler San Luis Obispo California 2T pamela werth san luis obi California 22 Madeleine Sinclair Arroyo Grande California 23 Anet Carlin Adam Stanford Atascadero San Luis Ob California California24 25 Barbara stoffel atascadero California 26 Patricia Andreen SLO California 27 Stephen Thayer San Luis Obispo California 28 Lacey McNamara San Luis Obispo California 29 tom meinhold San Luis Obispo California 30 Kathryn Keller San Luis Obispo California 3T Robert Armentrout Wendy-Marie Martin San Luis Obispo Arroyo Grande California California32 33 William Ostrander San Luis Obispo California 34 fohn kammer n luis obispo California 35 Randy Rea Luis Obispo California 36 Julia Neyshloss San Luis Obispo California 37 Raymond Lee San Luis Obispo California 38 Lyn Reardon-Smith Grover Beach California 39 cv wells Virginia Bass a California 40 n Luis California 47 Ashala Tylor morro bay California 42 Allen Root San Luis Obispo California 43 Mary Kleeman San Luis Obispo California M tlaloc tokuda Kailua Kona Hawaii SLO Hosts A B c 45 Katrina Knudson Los Angeles California 46 Jan Kepler San Luis Obispo California 47 greg beutler westminster California 48 Matt Voss San Francisco California 49 Sky Bergman San Luis Obispo California 50 Adam Terpening San Luis Obispo California 51_Robert Villanueva Bond Walker San Francisco San Luis Obispo California California52 53 Helen Alonso Jacksonville Florida 54 Adam Yanalunas San Diego California 55 Dustin Davis Los Angeles California 56 Ellary Wray Orlando Florida 57 Jeff Eidelman San Luis Obispo California 58 Jill Roland San Diego California 59 Donna Helete Cheryl Frenck-Mestre San Luis Obispo California 60 61 Judith Cohen Pismo Beach California 62 Donna Baker San Luis Obispo California 63 lani bidwell cambria California 64 KATHLEEN APROBERTS San Luis Obispo California 65 Celia Silacci San Luis Obispo California 66 Renier Dresser San Luis Obispo California 67 Kerry Moore Lori Logan San Luis Obispo San Luís Obispo California California68 69 Shari Bone San Luis Obispo California 70 Derek Caldwell San Luis Obispo California 7L David Helete San Luis Obispo California 72 Terri Knowlton Paso Robles California 73 Bryce Engstrom Arroyo Grande California 74 Marti Brand San Luis Obispo California 75 Jana Hanson Emily Robbins San Luis Obispo San Luis obispo California California76 77 Sandra Lee San Luis Obispo ldaho 78 Ruben Diaz Los Angeles California 79 Christy DeVicente San Luis Obispo California 80 Jessica Depper San Luis Obispo California 8L Alicia Klein San Luis Obispo California 82 Robert Wolf San Luis Obispo California 83 Kay Cementina Anne Cridler San Luis Obispo san luis obispo California California84 85 Wilda Rosene San Luis Obispo California 86 Catherine Trujillo San Luis Obispo California 87 Nancy Shearer Arroyo Grande California 88 Jenna Smith San Luis Obispo California SLO Hosts A B c 89 Christina La Bue Brooklyn New York 90 CHRYS BARNES San Luis Obispo California 91 Shonna Lewis Murphys California 92 Aaron Peck Nipomo California 93 Anne Cruikshanks San Luiis Obispo California 94 Lynn Watkins San Luis Obispo California 95 jim christensen kate wels slo Arroyo Grande California California96 97 kyle griffith san luis obispo California 98 MichaelSouza San Luis Obispo California 99 lrene Roselli San Luis Obispo California 100 Eve Gordon Hollywood Florida 1_01 Debra Muse San Luis Obispo California ro2 Megan Rivoire San Luis Obispo California L03 bob banner Lorien Crawford san luis o Santa Barbara California California1,04 105 Debora Schwartz San Luis Obispo California 1_06 Kristen Barnhart Templeton California TO7 Linda Parker Big Sur California 108 Rosemary Wilvert San Luis Obispo California L09 Lori Buzzetti Atascadero California 110 Desire Gallo Los Osos California LLI Anne Denman sarah kane SLO santa barbara California California1_12 TL3 Shelley Doyle San Luis Obispo California LL4 Christine Quinn Cambria California 1_15 Johanna Martinez Grover Beach California 7L6 Susan Bridwell Hemet California TT7 Corrin LePell San Luis Obispo California 1-18 Kirk Hanson Seattle Washington LL9 Francis Villablanca Holly Hayman San Luis Obispo Grover Beach California Californiar20 L2L Anita Bourbon Los Angeles California L22 Stacy Ferguson Henderson Nevada 123 Kim Barone Huntington Beach California t24 Adriana Ramirez Los Osos California L25 Andee Allen Templeton California L26 Rachel Hough Los Osos California L27 Lisa Winter Karen Strassman San Luis Obispo Los Angeles California California728 L29 Johanna Rubba Grover Beach California 130 Delia Horwitz San Luis Obispo California 1_31_Tom Neuhaus L32 Adrienne Prince Camarillo California SLO Hosts A B c L33 Judy Brown Los Ranchos New Mexico L34 shedy berrios lacksonville North Carolina 135 Alan Pritchard Stockholm 136 Richard Besco Morro Bay California r37 Karen Cox Chuluota Florida 138 John Reid Atascadero California 1-39 Claire Twaddell Claire Hermann San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo California California1_40 74r Charmaine Martinez San Luis Obispo California 1.42 Gregory Clough London, UK t43 donna quon Costa Mesa California r44 Anita Schwaber Cayucos California L45 Larissa Langley Morro Bay California L46 Jeff Stein San Luis Obispo California L47 LeeAnne Fisher ASTRID GALLAGHER Shell Beach Arroyo Grande California California148 t49 David Williams San Luis Obispo California 1.s0 Alexandra Andreen San Luis Obispo California 151 Alexandra Whitcher SLO California L52 Annette Martin San Luis Obispo California 153 Katherine Kwid San Francisco California 754 Matthew Sansone San Luis Obispo California 155 Mike McNamara Patty Stanley San Luis Obispo Truckee California Californía756 r57 David Bowin San Luis Obispo California 1_58 Joan Buckingham San Luis Obispo California L59 Eric Veium San Luis Obispo California 160 Michael McGee San Luis Obispo California 76r Robert Wilkinson San Luis Obispo California 162 Susan OConnor Los Osos California L63 JENNIFER TUTKO Lia Ward SAN LUIS OBISPO San Luis Obispo California CaliforniaL64 165 Glen Starkly San Luis Obispo California 166 HalSweasey San Luis Obispo California L67 Dana Fiore San Luis Obispo California L68 s slaughter SLO California 169 Sandra Heller San Luis Obispo California L70 Roger Phillip San Luis Obispo California L7I Judie Anders Beverly Kirkhart Nathrop San Luis Obispo Colorado California172 t73 CJ Tatum Grover Beach California L74 Stacy Williams San Luis Obispo California L75 Cyndee Greene Guerneville California Lt6 CRAIG STONE MORRO BAY California SLO Hosts A B c L77 David Thum San Luis Obispo California L78 Darcy Cleome Cambria California 179 Chris McBride San Luis Obispo California 180 Connie Reeser Atascadero California 181_Debra Fonseca Beverly Hills California L82 Tavia Brunner Santa Maria California L83 Deanna Soderholm debra windsong Atascadero san luis obispo California California184 185 Mark Skinner Los Osos California 186 JackiWilliams San Luis obispo California r87 catherine doyle san luis obispo California 1_88 Craig Wilson Atascadero California 189 Catherine Darling San Luis Obispo California 190 Amelia Regan Costa Mesa California 191-Josef Kasperovich DarrylWilliams San Luis Obispo Los Angeles California Californiat92 L93 dan salter san diego California L94 Gordon Vosti Arroyo Grande California 195 Dan Willíams San Luis Obispo California 196 janelle thomas Sonora California L97 Jillian Broeckel San Luis Obispo California 198 leff Buckingham San Luis Obispo California L99 Annie Salter Laura Krueger Lisbon San Luis Obispo New Ha mpshire California200 20I SharylOverholser San Luis Obispo California 202 Rory Gallegos San Luis Obispo California 203 Ashala Lawler San Luis Obispo California 204 Andrea Devitt SLO California 205 Chris Elliott Morro bay California 206 Paige Chamberlain Los Osos California 207 Barry Johnson Louise Bello Arrroyo Grande Morro Bay California California208 209 Megan Hall Atascadero California 2LO Kaitlin King San Luis Obispo California 2!L tim sulger santa barbara California 2t2 Donna Duerk San Luis Obispo California 213 Elie Axelroth San Luis Obispo California 2L4 Joy Jaber Hansville Washington 2L5 Rob Garcia James Aproberts Templeton San Luis Obispo California California21,6 217 Wes Burk San Luis Obispo California 2r8 David Pomfret San Luis Obispo California 2I9 Alice French LaRue Texas 220 Jack Harris San Luis Obispo California SLO Hosts A B c 22L Vivian Yeung San Francisco California 222 Leslie Stanley San Luis Obispo California 223 Jeanie Greensfelder San Luis Obispo California 224 Franziska Hornaday Grover Beach California 225 linda Seeley San Luis Obispo California 226 Jennifer Alton San Luis Obispo California 227 Jennifer Stover mitzi Buchanan Oceano San Jose California California228 229 judiyoung san luis obispo California 230 Stephanie La Barbera Atascadero California 23L Brian Metcalf San Luis Obispo California 232 Leslie Menges San Luis Obispo California 233 Rosalind Hansen Stockton California 234 Mary Kay Stenger san luis obispo California 235 missy reitner-ca meron Gregg Menges san luis obispo San Luis Obispo California California236 237 rhonda O'Dell atascadero California 238 robert gottesman San Luis Obispo California 239 Alana Reynolds Atascadero California 240 Catherine Pardeilhan San Luis Obispo California 24r Michelle Torres-Grant Avila Beach California 242 Jeff Hornaday grover beach California 243 Susan Quinones Renée Louise San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo California California244 245 Rebecca Drake San Luis Obispo Californía 246 lana dell Los Osos California 247 John Mentonis Athens 248 David Mercer Cape Town 249 jamitaback Andy Greensfelder santa rosa San Luis Obispo California 250 California 25L janice lynch Warren Lyons slo Hershey California Pennsylvania252 253 Cynthia Joy Green valley Arizona 254 Catherine Clement Kilauea Hawaii 255 helen melmed paradise Valley Arizona 256 Greg Hansen Stockton California 257 Kimberly Timbs Los Osos California 258 Lisa Hansen Stockton California 259 louis simpson Katherine Helete San Diego San Francisco California California260 26r Lawrence Bolef Sann Luis Obispo California 262 Uta Birkmayer San Luis Obispo California 263 Michalyn Simpson Ventura California 264 Eartha Reillv San Luis Obispo California SLO Hosts A B c 265 Denise Grimes Mission Viejo California 266 Bill Letson Atascadero California 267 john menges San Francisco California 268 Barbara Scott San Luis Obispo California 269 Pamels Holmes Eugene Oregon 270 Katherine Simpson San Diego California 27L Terri Main Steve Simpson San Luis Obispo Ventura California California272 273 Eric Greening Atascadero California 274 janelle pietrzak los angeles California 275 Edward Tighe Seattle Washington 276 Robin Dudley San Luis Obispo California 277 Roy Bruder San Luis Obispo 278 Daniel Mestre 279 Aaron Hadley Debbie Burwell Chicago Fairfield lllinois California280 28L Bonnie Shepard Valencia California 282 Roslyn Strohl San Luis Obispo California 283 Danielle Castle San Luis Obispo California 284 Elaine Henfling Avila Beach California 285 Terry Rubin Santa Clarita California 286 Taylor Gilmore San Luis Obispo California 287 Katrina Rogers Christy Anderson San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo California California288 289 lan Ferguson San Luis Obispo California 290 Mary Wood SLO California 29r David Keil San Luis Obispo California 292 Robert Petterson San Luis Obispo California 293 Louis Lopez San Luis Obispo California 294 Kristina Van Wert San Luis Obispo California 295 Roxanne Gupta Mary McCulloch Ovid San Francisco New York California296 297 TerrylWalters Arroyo Grande California 298 Julie Dodds San Luis Obispo California 299 PearlMunak Paso Robles California 300 Melissa Swager San Luis Obispo California 301_Kim Lubich Galt California 302 Brad Hanson SF California 303 Brenda Grijalva Robert Sachs San Luis obispo San Luis Obispo California California304 305 Lindsay McConnell Santa Cruz California 306 Michael Brewster San Luis Obispo California 307 Janet Hillson San Luis Obispo California 308 Robert Yamasaki Santa Clarita lifornia SLO Hosts A B c 309 Charlie Shin Santa Clarita California 310 Annette Moran 3LL Monica Guevara San Luis Obispo California 3T2 sharon Shepard Saltsburg Pennsylvania 313 RussellSwanagon San Luis Obispo California 3L4 Paul Gabriel San Luis Obispo California 31_5 Jeff Bague Tim Griffin San Luis Obispo Avila Beach California California316 317 Lisa Kent San Luis Obispo California 31_8 Taylor Nelson San Luis Obispo California 319 Thomas Nuckols San Luis Obispo Calìfornìa 320 Jesse Gavin Bozeman Montana 327 Douglas Pillsbury San Luis Obispo California 322 Jason Wright Jackson Wyoming 323 Pamela Stein s gibson San Luis Obispo park city California Utah324 325 Herlinda Mahler Rancho Cucamonga California 326 Shea Somma San Luis Obispo California 327 Elise Nordling Oakland California 328 Kathy Bornino Arroyo Grande California 329 Madeline Arcellana Las Vegas Nevada 330 Elizabeth Ellis San Luis Obispo California 33L Thomas Rusch Catherine Kwasigroch PASO ROBLES San Luis Obispo California California332 333 Kevin Bertolero San Luis Obispo California 334 Beryl Reichenberg San Luis Obispo California 335 AliSemon San Luis Obispo California 336 Franklin Crowder San Luis Obispo California 337 Denise Leader Stoeber Atascadero California 338 Bernadette Bernardi San Luis Obispo California 339 Jenna Hartzell Alice McNeely Atascadero San Luis Obispo California California340 34r Diane Moroski San Luis Obispo California 342 kevin p sullivan San Luis Obispo California 343 Margaret Enkoji Sacramento California 344 Lisa Kilburn San Luis Obispo California 345 Scott RADOVICH San Luis Obispo California 346 Kathryn Specchierla San Luis Obispo California 347 Suzanne Alward Ryan McLeod Cambria San Luis Obispo California California348 349 Wen-Yuan Yao San Francisco California 350 Donald Percivalle SAN LUIS OBISPO California 351_Colleen Meagher San Luis Obispo California 352 Lisa O'Neill Newport Beach California SLO Hosts A B c 353 Helen Swanagon San Luis Obispo California 354 Cynthia Green San Luis Obispo California 355 Derek Bradley San Francisco California 356 Lorin Farr San Luis Obispo California 357 Morgan Ruby Providence Rhode lsland 358 lan Molloy San Luis Obispo California 359 Hannah Garrett Kelly Watkins San Luis Obispo san luis obispo California California360 361 Sean Albito San Francisco California 362 Jaime Aranda Los Osos California 363 John Smigelski San Luis Obispo California 364 Lin Baggett San Luis Obispo California 365 Carol Nelson-Selby San Luis Obispo California 366 diana kaiser san luis obispo California 367 Blake Loenard Michele Stoutenborough san luis obispo San Luis Obispo California California368 369 Carolyn Elliott San Luis Obispo California 370 Joel Diringer San Luis Obispo California 37r Brian O'Kelly San Luis Obispo California 372 George Reed San Luis Obispo California 373 Rory Aronson San Luis Obispo California 374 anigarrick San Luis Obispo California 375 Coleman Hindes Sean Reish Los Angeles San Luis Obispo California 376 California 377 David Hoyt San Luis Obispo California 378 David Gross San Francisco California 379 Jessica Hamilton Atascadero California 380 Toni Rucker Scottsdale Arizona 381 Sarah Ritter SLo California 382 Julie Kalenian San Luis Obispo California 383 Tessa Salzman Victoria Nizzoli San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo California California384 385 austyn caisse Santa Cruz California 386 HalliMeth San Luis Obispo California 387 Daniel Pourasghar San Francisco California 388 jamie rossetti los osos California 389 Natalie Darr San Luis Obispo California 390 Lori Lerian San Luis Obispo California 391-Desiree Creel Diana Rheinisch San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo California California392 393 LiliGevorkian Glendale California 394 Susan Stenovec San Luis Obispo California 395 DJ Tarazona San Luis Obispo California 396 Dous Blaalid San Luis obispo California SLO Hosts A B c 397 Chas Smit Morro Bay California 398 John Thomas San Luis Obispo California 399 georgia kneeland pasadena Texas 400 Timothey Adam San Luis Obispo California 40L Jeremy Wakefield Oakland California 402 Deborah Denker San Luis Obispo California 403 Pete Howard Taggart,Ashby San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo California California404 405 Philip Tyler San Luis Obispo California 406 Michele Hall San Luis Obispo California 407 Cristina de Ocampo San Francìsco California 408 Jennifer Biddle Berkeley California 409 connie willard San Luis Obispo California 4LO andrew vilcsak san francisco California 4TT Chloe White Donna Kube San Luis Obispo Morro Bay California California4t2 413 jeffrey loring san luis obispo California 4L4 Marta Peluso San Luis Obispo California 4L5 barbara mitchell paso robles California 416 Cody Howell San Luis Obispo California 417 Deborah Kaminski Shell Beach California 4L8 Susan Walker San Luis Obispo California 4L9 Olivia Radovich Sam Armstrong Santa Cruz San Luis Obispo California California420 42L Hayley Townley San Luis Obispo California 422 Karen Wren Mead SLO California 423 Valerie Fishel San Luis Obispo California 424 Lorraine Lyman Any Where, CA California 425 constance Lequesne 426 Enrique Rodriguez Atascadero California 427 Brenae Noack Anthony Pangilinan San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo California California428 429 courtney whiting san luis obispo California 430 Rebecca Harpain San Luis Obispo California 43t Brittny Peloquin Atascadero California 432 Anthony Garcia San Luis Obispo California 433 Trudy Lindaman San Luis Obispo California 434 Doug Walton San Luis Obispo California 435 Lynne O'Connor Ann Robinson san luis obispo San Luis obispo California California436 437 Ursula Bishop San Luis Obispo California 438 Catherine Sheel San Luis Obispo California 439 janice wang san luis obispo California 440 Paul Ghiglieri Davis California SLO Hosts A B c 44L Ron Tlndall san luis obispo California 442 Kim Spare San Luis Obispo California 443 Don Spare San Luis Obispo California 444 Ryan Harris Santa Barbara California 445 Carol Rowsemitt San Luis Obispo California 446 DANIEL CONROY SAN LUIS OBISPO California 447 Anna Johnson Christine Hance San Luis Obispo San Luis obispo California California448 449 Marna Ghiglieri Davis California 450 Matthew Whittlesey San Luis Obispo California 45L Larry Sheehy Ukiah California 452 Mark Pietri sLo California 453 glenna thompson paso robles California 454 KAREN PANASEWICZ San Lus Obispo California 455 Natalie Fedotov Ellen Ewert Bayonne San Luis Obispo New Jersey California456 457 DEBORAH TEMPEL bakersfield California 458 Lyle Sistek San Luis Obispo California 459 sande rutstein Los Osos California 460 Mary Ellen Gibson San Luis Obispo California 46L Teresa Phillips Arroyo Grande California 462 Eric Michielssenq Santa Margarita California 463 Diane Caldwell Kathí Good SLO San Luis Obispo California California464 465 Linda Crawford San Luis Obispo California 466 Patricia Golden San Luis Obispo California 467 F. Bennett Nelson San Marino California 468 Jennifer Bosserman Arroyo Grande California 469 Carolj Bennett Vancouver Washington 470 Joan Townsend Midway Utah 47L Golnaz Pahlevanlou David Lock Pismo beach San Diego California California472 473 Claire Rumore Oakland California 474 Chris Dennis Los Osos California 475 Lea Culver goleta California 476 Maria De Castro Fallbrook, CA California 477 Ellen Sheffer San Luis Obispo California 478 Steven Tartakovsky Los Angeles California 479 Deborah Cleere Kathleen Clifton San Luis Ob rspo Walnut Creek California California480 48r Robert Lock La Crescenta California 482 Patricia DiLorenzo Hollywood Florida 483 Alisha Culver Oakland California 484 keegan means Santa Margarita California SLO Hosts A B c 485 Holly Garcia San Luis Obispo,California 486 Patricia Harris San Luis Obispo Calìfornia 487 Richard Enfield San Luis Obispo California 488 James Pierce Atascadero California 489 Charlene Premer Oceano California 490 Rev Dr Curt Miner South Charleston Ohio 49r John Phillips Liz Premer San Luis Obispo Oceano California California492 493 Melissa Palmer San Luis Obispo California 494 Bob Peterson San Luis Obispo California 495 kathy murphy mt pleasant South Carolìna 496 NeilTerry Grover Beach California 497 Laura Roetton San Luis Obispo California 498 Christine Hance San Luis Obispo California 499 Renee Douty Deborah Lagomarsino Laguna niguel Paso Robles California California500 501 Tammy O Grand Rapids Michigan 502 Judith Stokes Astoria Oregon 503 Brigetta Walsh San Luis Obispo California 504 Anthony Lopez new york city New York 505 Aimee Howley Albany Ohio 506 Cathy Carey 507 Sue Petersen Kathleen Becker Romulus Northampton New York Massachusetts508 509 Gabriela Arnon s10 Vicki McPartland San Luis Obispo California 51_1-John Gowan San Luis Obispo California 512 Barbara Atkinson San Luis Obispo California 513 lra Landgarten Hoboken New Jersey 5L4 HeidiWoodruff Templeton California 5L5 Luana Gerardis Heather Alexander Paso Robles Houston California Texas5L6 517 Linda Elgart Sacramento California 518 Brendan Donohoe Oakland California 5t9 Ernie Roide San Luis Obispo California 520 Kate Johnston Bellevue Washington s2I scott kam san luis obispo California 522 Kelly McCleary San Luis Obispo California 523 Keith Lowenste¡n Wendy McVicker Portland Athens Oregon Ohio524 525 Ms. MikiGillman Atascadero California 526 Scott Lee Sacramento California 527 nicole naeve brooklyn New York 528 susan howe Oceano California SLO Hosts A B c 529 Ruth Starr San Luis Obispo California 530 Lynne Levine San Luis Obispo California 531 Katherina Koller San Luis Obispo California 532 Laura Gurreau Atascadero California 533 Barbara Philbin San Luis Obispo California 534 Vita Miller Los Osos California 535 Evelyn Martin Marlyn Bumpus San Luis Obispo Arroyo Grande California California536 537 Linda Spangler Christian Eugene Oregon 538 Virginia Mancuso Atascadero California 539 susan pyburn San Luis Obispo Californla 540 RUSSELL HODIN SAN LUIS OBISPO California 54r Esther Gowan San Luis Obispo California 542 hildy gal atascadero California 543 Carolina Van Stone Patricia Bauer-Slate Baywood Park Austin California ïexas544 545 JOHN Ott San Luis Obispo California 546 asli leone brooklyn New York 547 Steven Liang Xiamen 548 Jennifer Ngai Washington District Of Columbia 549 Nathan Ewin Oxford 550 Bertrand Pichon Wunstorf 551 Bastiaan Spanjaard Friede Spanjaard Amsterdam, the Netherlands Amsterdam New Hampshire552 553 Josh Cole San Francisco California 554 Eshan Mathur North Hollywood California 555 Anne-Claire lmperiale Dominic Vezeau Boucherville556 557 Linnea Neuhaus Oakland California 558 bianca LE mouel Los Angeles California 559 Jennifer Batoon Emily Oliver los angeles London California 560 561-Laura Mancini Chicago lllinois 562 eleonora AVENATTI 563 Harriet Eckstein Santa Barbara California 564 Fred Robb s65 Annabelle De schweinitz Mönchengladbach 566 Grace Chai Oakland California 567 Jean Nelson Todd Juneau San Marino San Diego California California568 569 BillOstrander sLo California 570 Seraphina Tisch Espanola New Mexico 57L Simone Steigler Troy New York 572 Michael Wollman San Luis Obispo California SLO Hosts A B c 573 Jenna M San Francisco California 574 NealSistek San Luis Obispo California 575 garrett morris san luis obispo California 576 tim vlahos los angeles California 577 David Main Atascadero California 578 Bettina Fricke 579 michele leavitt Denis Farley Saunderstown Downtheroad Rhode lsland 580 581 Sean Basalyga Pleasanton California 582 kimberly walker san luis obispo California 583 John Semon San Luis Obispo California 584 John Gange Cayucos California 585 Susan Proehl Sebastopol California 586 Judy Barrows San Luis Obispo California 587 Damian Camacho Melinda Jannett San Luis Obispo Mendocino California California588 589 Michael Larcher San Luis Obispo California 590 Susan Breznay san luís obispo California 59L Jun Yang Sunnyvale California 592 LUIS DIAZ 593 PETER SCHWARTZ San Luis Obispo California 594 Pj Novotny San Luis Obispo California 595 Barbra Weidlein Brad Nelson Boulder Santa Monica Colorado California596 597 Peter Brock Berkeley California 598 Nathaniel Keller Berkeley California 599 Jeremy Gerst Berkeley California 600 bri treece Berkeley California 60L Christine Chu San Francisco California 602 Jon Flugstad Berkeley California 603 Gwem Rinehart Dorothy Curhan Los Angeles San Luls Obispo California California604 605 Evy Justesen San Luis Obispo California 606 Ryan Hill Berkeley California 607 Pablo Garay berkeley California 608 Steve Willis Berkeley California 609 Puja Patel Berkeley California 610 alex loa Berkeley California 6tt Sarah Swigart Adam Chopko Berkeley Berkeley California California672 613 Anouk Roos Berkeley California 614 Scott Hogan Berkeley California 6L5 vivek girotra Berkeley California 61_6 Lisa Connely San Luis Obispo California SLO Hosts A B c 6L7 Joanne Currie Nipomo California 618 Stephanie White Berkeley California 6t9 Edwin Holloway Grass Valley California 620 Denise Merkling Seattle Washington 62r Vicki Hotaling Paso Robles California 622 Taylor Stevens San Luis Obispo California 623 Alana Tucker Aaron Thompson Berkeley Arroyo Grande California 624 California 625 Peggy McDaniel Cincinnati Ohio 626 David Hafemeister San Luis Obispo California 627 Ruth Goodnow San Luis Obispo California 628 Melinda Jones San Luis Obispo California 629 Joan Ghilotti Los Osos California 630 Elsa G Hafemeister San Luis Obispo California 63I David Mary Leizear Oakland San Luis Obispo California California632 633 Caryl Koberg San Luis Obispo California 634 Barbara Hernandez San Luis Obispo California 635 Susanne Swaggerty San Luis Obispo California 636 Constance Moxness Arroyo Grande California 637 PaulCrafts Los Osos California 638 Danica Truchlikova Oakland California 639 Barbara Adler Barbara Lees San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo California California640 647 John Aspinall San Luis Obispo 642 Elizabeth Parker San Luis Obispo California 643 John lrwin San Luis Obispo California 644 Darlene Deichler Torrance California 645 Christine Kasper San Luis Obispo California 646 Catherine Maguire Tinahely 647 Lisa Aspinall Nick Beadman Escazu San Luis Obispo California648 649 Amanda Wood San Luis obispo California 650 Justi ne La urent-Allard Montr?al 651 Rene LoJacono Templeton California 652 Francis Lojacono Templeton California 653 Daniel McGee San Luis Obispo California 654 lan Aspinall San Luis Obispo California 655 Susan Lojacono Sara Mikkelsen Templeton San Luis Obispo California California656 657 Judy Firzgerald San Luis Obispo California 658 Jim Culver San Luis Obispo California 659 mary kunz Los Osos California 660 Joio Cacho Grover Beach California SLO Hosts A B c 66L Lou Cappelli Arroyo Grande California 662 Gay Groomes Arroyo Grande California 663 Natalie Foster San Francisco California 664 Jennifer Goodward Berkeley California 665 CherylCowan San Jose California 656 Caitlyn Cowan San Jose California 667 Heidi Harmon Gene Francis San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo California California668 669 michael rubottom san miguel California 670 sadie bruder grover beach California 67L Astrid Gallagher Arroyo Grande California 672 Sean Cheney sLo California 673 lindsey cheney san luis obispo California 674 Lyn Cowgill San Luis Obispo California 675 juli platzer Peter Kwan san luis obispo Los Osos California California676 677 michelle israel san luis obispo California 678 Aline Cullen Newbury New Hampshire 679 Carolyn Green West Hills California 680 Atticus Williams San Luis Obispo California 681-Celine Souza Nipomo California 682 Thomas Loganbill Cambria California 683 Cameron I lls Robin Chilton San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo California California684 685 kathleen settle San Luis Obispo California 686 Riley Kilpatrick San Luis Obispo California 687 Eric Zeeb San Luis Obispo California 688 Sarah Marshall San Luis Obispo California 689 alexandra steinicke San Luis Obispo California 690 Patricia Howard Thousand Oaks Calífornia 69r Kathleen Clark Zachary Hardy Paso Robles Macon California Georgia692 693 Yasiu Kruszynski Chicago lllinois 694 ron silver Atlantic Beach Florida 695 Concerned Citizen New City New York 696 Nancy Sadja Morro Bay California 697 Stphanie Hendry San Luis Obispo California 698 Alicia Batt Minneapolis Minnesota 699 John Richard Young Chantale BenBrahim EAST NORRITON, MONTGOMERY COUNTY Paso Robles Pennsylvania California700 70I kent woodard new york New York 702 Kim Watson Baywood-Los Osos California 703 Adam Weber Hood River Oregon 704 Candy LeBlanc Placerville Calìfornia SLO Hosts A B c 705 sue sch.Florida Florida 706 Annie Cawley Saint Joseph Missouri 707 Chris Drumright Murfreesboro Tennessee 708 Madeline Kelley Cedar Rapids lowa 709 Ethan Classetti Marlton New Jersey 7ro nan stevenson Saint Paul Minnesota 7tl Patrick M. Donovan James Flanagan Brooklyn Bastrop New York Texas712 713 MichaelSteele Morrice Michigan 7L4 Ralph Forte River Edge New Jersey 715 Linda Thornton Ramarama 716 Rachel Hockett Ithaca New York 7L7 peter keith grover beach California 7T8 madeline eisen Los Angeles California 7L9 evelyn spiess Kimberly Luker Laguna Woods Pismo Beach California California720 72L Eduardo de Olazabal Santa Fe (Cap)Arkansas 722 Colleen McGlone New Port Richey Florida 723 Phyllis Huang Lafayette Louisiana 724 Patricia Ranstrom Vashon Washington 725 MichaelCarney Runnemede New Jersey 726 tina collins layton Utah 727 Linda Jones Manmeet Toor Ontario Los Angeles California California728 729 chris beal louth Texas 730 Thomas Eisen Milwaukee Wisconsin 73r Suzanne Dunham Janesville Wisconsin 732 Gus Thomasson San Luis Obispo California 733 Mary Browning Sevierville Tennessee 734 Ann Tedeschi-Davidson North Babylon New York 735 Terry Billings Jennifer Hall Lewisville Greeneville Texas Tennessee736 737 diana kliche Long Beach California 738 Humanitarianism First Ridley Park Pennsylvania 739 M Potter-Smith Cambridge Massachusetts 740 Debbie Williamson Mountain Home Arkansas 74I Rizalino Manas Desert Hot Springs California 742 Laura Saxon morriston Florida 743 Peter Kralovic Teresa Cowley Bratislava Kingsville744 Texas 74s Barry Greenberg Gresham Oregon 746 Teresa Royer Lake Grove New York 747 Morgan Stinson Tukwila Washington 748 Lee Marx San Miguel California SLO Hosts A B c 749 Karla Faulkner Ft Hood Texas 750 Jennifer Rea San Diego California 75L Bryna Pizzo St. Louis Missouri 752 dawn rishel tucson Arizona 753 Gwen Ferrari Delavan Wisconsin 754 Anil Pandya Nashville Tennessee 755 Fiava Tran Bonnie Bray Ontario Portland California Oregon756 757 Margaret Bach West Allis Wisconsin 758 Jason Gonzales Denver Colorado 759 Larry Lapuyade San Anselmo California 760 Andrew Rosenthal Seattle Washington 76L Kat Repose Livermore California 762 nicolette gascon chicago lllinois 763 Niva Lubin-Johnson Pedro Lima Chicago lllinois 764 765 Peter Eckhardt Suffìeld Connecticut 766 Helen C Wooll 767 TRINH QUOC THANH Long Xuyên Virgin lslands 768 Damian Jones St Paul Minnesota 769 sandra earley chicago lllinois 770 Cynthia Trewartha Kent Washington 77r Brett Dennison Keith Berger Garden Grove Boca Raton California Florida772 773 Ana Luna Denver Colorado 774 Bob Kee Tucson Arizona 775 Marianne Taylor Pleasant Valley New York 776 Stella Zahn Seattle Washington 777 Brigett Warner Susannah End Essex Berkeley Vermont California778 779 Emma Medina Joe Brame Santa Ana Saint George California Utah780 78r BillAgans Crown Point lndiana 782 Ruth Hosek Addison lllinois 783 Debra Todd Citrus Heights California 784 Cynthia McGarvie Salinas California 785 paula b lohnstown Pennsylvania 786 Debbie Verdugo San Clemente California 787 Narin Chhem RandellRowe Jacksonville DeLand Florida Florida788 789 C O'Brien St. Louis Missouri 790 Marian Wells Las Vegas Nevada 79L Chaitanya Diwadkar Hayward California 792 KarylAnn Armbruster Los Alamos New Mexico SLO Hosts A B c 793 Danielle Drennan Venice Florida 794 Virginia Alexander Kent Washington 795 kat ridenour sandy Utah 796 Michelle Lum Clarence New York 797 MW Dublin Ohio 798 Pam Boland Grovetown Georgia 799 Michelle Uriarte Ralph Garcia Encinitas Rawlins California Wyoming800 801 Allison Higgins college park Georgia 802 richard galdieri Broomfield Colorado 803 David Sing Franklin Park New Jersey 804 Antresha Wilkerson Kalamazoo Michigan 805 David Margolis Buffalo Grove lllinois 806 H.David Frotscher Temple Terrace Florida 807 Jenna DiOrazio Berkeley denver California Pennsylvania808 809 Jeff McCambridge Murrieta California 81_0 Arlene Baker Berkeley California 81L Horace Heitman Hazle Township Pennsylvania 812 Erica McNealy Jacksonville Florida 813 Yvonne Barker West Allis Wisconsin 8L4 Sara Roderer Richmond Virginia 815 Sithfredo Rivera Tracy Holthaus Chicago kansas city lllinois Missouri8L6 8L7 Chris Worcester Truckee California 818 lvana Grace Bellingham Washington 819 Michael Ricketts San Francisco California 820 William Cross York South Carolina 82t Laurel Eckert North Kansas City Missouri 822 Gayne Williams Winter Haven Florida 823 Denise Esse Edward F Styborski Janesville Palm Springs Wisconsin California824 825 Roberta Borglum Alameda California 826 debbie hayden san francisco California 827 AF Bremerton Washington 828 Wilma powell-orr winchester Virginia 829 Sandra Barbiero crestv¡ew Florida 830 Jane R. Birnbaum Washington District Of Columbia 831 L Parker Anna Lazzarini Everett MillValley Washington California832 833 Patti Ruocco Stevensville Maryland 834 Donna Trueblood Post Falls ldaho 835 Mandy Walker Canberra California 836 Brenda Thacker Florissant Missouri SLO Hosts A B c 837 Matt Richmond Aloha Oregon 838 Sara Pruitt Nokomis Florida 839 CherylWinfield Pembroke Pines Florida 840 Marcia Haines Wintersville Ohio 84I Nicole Enslow Lakewood Washington 842 rita calderon albuquerque New Mexico 843 Kayla Shaggy pam parsons Durango LA MIRADA Colorado California844 845 John Byrd atlantic beach Florida 846 mary moghadam tehran ldaho 847 Jenny Bramlette Wesley Chapel Florida 848 Steve Bondy Manhattan New York 849 Stacey L Warner Reno Nevada 850 Verna Orzechowski Livonia Michigan 85L David Sovey Barbara Mathiews Bellingham Mesquite Washington Texas852 853 Mary Thomas Richmond California 854 Mariann Rannenberg Fairmont West Virginia 855 Duane Likens Denver Colorado 856 deborah galler Tacoma Washington 857 Charles Davids Daytona Beach Florida 858 Jason Welch Meadowlands Pennsylvania 859 Juan Sesma geraldine johnson cancun kerrville Maine Texas860 86L Jamie Zazow Santa Monica California 862 Aaron Alarcon New Orleans Louisiana 863 vijaykumar singh 864 nancy sands brooklyn New York 865 Scott Jerden Amarillo Texas 866 Paul Rathbone Newcastle upon Tyne Nebraska 867 julian elena lamparero Daniela Rossi868 869 Jacob Tucker Lee's Summit Missouri 870 Melody Logsdon Saint Francis Minnesota 87L Luke Pulc Golden Colorado 872 tia pearson wahiawa Hawaii 873 Christine Pauken ïempe Arizona 874 Lyndia Elder Fancy Farm Kentucky 875 teresa rutherford Anne-Marie Larsen n Hesselager, Denmark Tennessee Ohio876 877 SamiSignorino Kokomo lndiana 878 keith uginchus crystal lake lllinois 879 shirley payne warren Michigan 880 curtis richardson blairsville Georgia SLO Hosts A B c 881 HeidiAdelsman Minneapolis Minnesota 882 Jim Roberts Shadyside Ohio 883 Mara Buss 884 Kate S Bear Delaware 885 Sharon Poore Port St. Lucie Florida 886 Katherine Mauldin Breckenridge Texas 887 en e nzalez susan brock las vegas kearny Nevada New Jersey888 889 Aaron Wiebe Granby Connecticut 890 rosa mitrano medford Massachusetts 891_William Davis Collingswood New Jersey 892 Samantha Rietzel Melbourne Florida 893 Fern Woodfork Chicago lllinois 894 eve comlnos walnut creek California 895 Richard Heinlein Kurt DAndrea Trevor Cherry Hill Wisconsin New Jersey896 897 Brandy Ramos San Antonio ïexas 898 Martina Franke 899 Darlene Waldron Dannemora New York 900 BONNIE REDD BOYNE FALLS Michigan 901_amy labonte boca raton Florida 902 Carol Casey Baltimore Maryland 903 Mary Ann Confar David Dufour Bremerton Marblehead Washington Massachusetts904 905 Dan Megara Clementon New Jersey 906 Diva Muni Gandhinagar Guam 907 shaun woodson sterl¡ng Virginia 908 MARY THERESA METTS Ferndale Florida 909 (natura) juan antonio repiso molina Hancock Maryland 91-0 Mike Plunkett Riverton New Jersey 9LI Linda Barnes Marcy Rosch Cambridge Framingham Massachusetts Massachusetts9t2 913 Dardan Beselica Yonkers New York 91,4 Kathryn Morgan Milwaukee Wisconsin 915 Ellen Phillips Martinez California 91_6 john mirbach harrisville West Virginia 917 Jacqui Brown Herndon Virginia 918 Pamela Fulcher Royal Oak Michigan 919 Carlos Nieto Molly Brewer Milwaukee Wisconsin920 92r Julian Peters Washington District Of Columbia 922 louise kraemer san luis obispo California 923 Heather Coffey Chicago lllinois 924 Nefta lí Guardiola Loza no SLO Hosts A B c 925 Linda Higgins Flourtown Pennsylvania 926 Julie Collins Northville Michigan 927 robert copeland jr iacksonville Florida 928 Richard Clifford Milton Massachusetts 929 Nicole Wilson Chestnut ridge Pennsylvania 930 amber wallen gillette Wyoming 931 MIRI.A OSUNA Dave R.'Hightower IAKE WORTH Lincoln Park Florida Michigan932 933 Laêtitia L 934 Bobby Gist kansas city Missouri 935 Nancy Soister Orwigsburg Pennsylvania 936 Melissa Noble Houston Texas 937 Diane Scoma Utica lllinois 938 Scott Pingel Neenah Wisconsin 939 Annette Minier Sheree Cucrera Astoria Winston-Salem New York North Carolina940 94L Ryan Gardner-Cook Brooklyn New York 942 Jeff Keyes Louisville Kentucky 943 Christy Hitchens Houston Texas 944 Jody Norman80246 Denver Colorado 945 Paula Cotterill Milton Massachusetts 946 CherylWoodson Savannah Georgia 947 Vicki Perizzolo Carolyn D. Jackson Riverside Philadelphia California Pennsylvania948 949 Dan Schneider Seattle Washington 950 Rena Towles OLIVE BRANCH Mississippi 951 Dmitry Messen Houston Texas 952 Dorian Sarris Craftsbury Vermont 9s3 Lauri Dean Grizzly Flat California 954 James Vipond Milbank South Dakota 955 Mark Gotvald Ronald & Kathy Russo Pleasant Hill Willoughby California Ohio956 957 Sandra Goodstone Millstone Township New Jersey 958 David Jacob Bloomington lndiana 959 Linda Morris Arab Alabama 960 richard studley blairville Georgia 961_meg madan Alpharetta Georgia 962 Zachary Schaefer Houston Texas 963 MICKEY O'HAHER Sheana Singletary PORT ELIZABETH Sterling lowa Virginia964 965 Dean Pryer Eugene Oregon 966 Dolores Giblin Covington Kentucky 967 anita halpern Great Neck New York 968 Sandra Carey Saugerties New York SLO Hosts A B c 969 Sue Jones Nampa ldaho 970 Carlos Zapata Brownsville Texas 97L Arlyn Potter Maryville Tennessee 972 sheri micheals oviedo Florida 973 Margy schaefer Navarre Florida 974 Mackenzie Slade Knoxville Tennessee 975 Tammy Swoboda Scoot Snapper lndianapolis Lakeport lndiana California976 977 Tasha Arevalo Houston ïexas 978 Manetric Douglas lndianapolis lndiana 979 Emily Fisher Douglas Arizona 980 Janice L Yates White Plains New York 981 Lamont Garrett Chicago lllinois 982 Alesia McCarthy Brooklyn New York 983 Adrian Bell Chris Forbes Wichita lowa City Kansas lowa984 985 SID JENNINGS Ocala Florida 986 Georganna Reis San Francisco California 987 Ben Richman Huntsville Alabama 988 Mark Polsky Hollywood Florida 989 Lizzie Sager Somerville Massachusetts 990 Mohammed Jamal burlington Massachusetts 991 Elizabeth Wasiluk Walker DelAguila Hedgesville Cambridge West Virginia Massachusetts992 993 Cathy Sullins St. Louis Missouri 994 mary bauer chicago lllinois 995 Verena Haberl 996 Kaspar Kasparian Arlington Massachusetts 997 June Holeman Luling Louisiana 998 lnez Aldridge Stockton Califonnia 999 kyle bracken Colonel Meyer Marina Del Rey North Port California Florida1000 1001 ioao gonçalves LOO2 Christopher Sposato FAYETTEVILLE Arkansas 1_003 Eric Mcmanus Charlotte North Carolina 1_004 inger easton portland Oregon L005 kathleen pergentile Union New Jersey 1006 OLA PORTER Miami Florida LOOT Thomas Vandesteeg George Chang Saint Peters Sugarland Florida Texas1008 1009 Wendy Emlinger El Paso Texas 10L0 Janet Santana Anaheim California 1-01_1_Jose Moreno Rosemead California LOI2 Wendell Eatherly Mobile Alabama SLO Hosts A B c L013 Trudy Faber OH Ohio LOT4 Ramona Carela Burlington New Jersey 1_015 yalonda dye flint Michigan 1_016 Lyn Smith Jonesboro Georgia TOIT Linda Dyches Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 101_8 Jerry Voorhees PORTLAND Oregon 1019 Clarissa Schaeffer Rodger Van Buskirk sLo Garden Grove California CaliforniaLO20 LO21,Theodis Ray Florida Florida LO22 Thomas McQuarry Minneapolis Minnesota ro23 Louise Prokop Pittsford New York LO24 Lisa Peters Evanston lllinois ro25 Ali Sarikaya New York Nevada LO26 Scott DeAscentis middletown Rhode lsland LO27 Nicole Maschke HEATHER YOUNG Cleveland STAFFORD Ohio Virginia1028 IO29 Ana Tozzi sumare Florida 1030 Maureen Tracey Cincinnati Ohio 1_031_jason gould lakeland Florida TO32 Cindy Reichelderfer Columbus Ohio 1_033 J. Larry Dyer Kansas City Missouri LO34 Norell Martinez Chula Vista California 103s Ron Buchanan Matt Sullivan Quincy Dorchester Massachusetts Massachusetts1035 ro37 John Wozniak Mendocino California 1_038 Jose Miguel Arévalo Moya 1_039 Alice Collins Basye Virginia LO40 Diana Sanchez Rancho Cordova California LO4L carey mcalpine alachua Florida ro42 MICHAEL DELBENE JOHNSTON Rhode lsland LO43 Cat Wood Melissa Mcgraw Summit Plainfield lllinois lndianaLOA4 L045 nika banzuela laguna hills California LO46 omayra amaya West New York New Jersey 7047 Socio Political Lauderdale Lakes Florida 1-048 Kenneth Bess Walnut Creek California 1049 michael bossons allentown Pennsylvania 1050 Aerie Youn lrvine California 1_051_Magdy Hussein RachelThompson Sunnyvale Mt. holly California New Jersey1.052 L053 John Richkus lersey City New Jersey L054 Lucimar Sanches lundiai Kansas 1U55 karen atchiey sevrer lennessee 1_056 mike smith london Massachusetts SLO Hosts A B c ro57 Elizabeth Stillman Phoenix Arizona L058 Mike Alloway Wapello lowa 1_059 Nancy Morales Mission Texas 1_060 vera schreuders purmerend North Dakota 1061 Anne Fox Broomfield Colorado LO62 craig backman mart¡nez California 1063 Jinny Lee JayWay Melrose portugal Florida AlabamaLO64 1-065 Cindy Sacks St. Louis Missouri 1_066 TAMMY shiprak millersville Maryland IO67 Virginia Mendez North Miami Beach Florida L068 Mary Tagliarino Cleanruater Florida 1069 sandra ortiz Clearwater Florida LO70 Kerri Coyne Easthampton Massachusetts ro71,Manuel Salvador Jardi roth woods ann arbor Michiganto72 1073 VikiWorden Binghamton New York ro74 glenn smith lakeland Florida 1075 Summer Attheshore Walnut Creek California ro76 David Gilley oak Park lllinois ro77 Charles LaFrance New York New York 1_078 Marissa Shelton San Francisco California ro79 fonathan mcknight David Norman union city Rome California GeorgiaL080 1081 Donna Brundage Sandpoint ldaho LO82 Courtney Heller Thonotosassa Florida 1_083 J Capuano Wheaton Maryland 1084 Riccardo Barraco 1_085 Alyssa Danley Vancouver Washington 1-086 Teresa Carstensen Columbus Ohio LO87 Henry Weinberg barbara lochner Santa Barbara asheville California North Carolina1088 1089 LEAH HERZBERG ENCINO California 1090 David Dennis Charlottesville,Virginia tog7 Victoria Urias Seattle Washington LOg2 erenie fahmy Venice California L093 MichaelSodos Frederick Maryland ro94 Jacqueline Bennettt Arcata California L095 Yahaira Lopez Carole XXXXX Miami Farmington Hills Florida Michigantog6 ro97 Brenda Swenson Madison Wisconsin L098 Cindy Blaez mtamt Florida 1.099 Cathy Greer Daytona Beach Florida 1100 Roy Doremush Brooklyn New York SLO Hosts A B c L101 george cornell pleasanton California 1LO2 Brynne Sheriff South Jordan Utah 1_103 Karma Lekshe Tsomo San Diego California 1-104 Sheila Chaffins Burnet ïexas 1_1-05 Karen Good Lafayette California 1106 L. L.Los Angeles California ILOT mary rojeski Veronica Allison santa monica Bend California Oregon1_LO8 1109 Chase Winiecki Bartlett lllinois 1_110 Lydia Phillips West Sacramento California 111,I Daniel Stuart lndio California ttt2 Len Lorette Elk City Oklahoma TTT3 Kayla Seely South Haven Michigan r174 Robert Krikourian El Dorado Hills California LIT'jane larsen Josefina Valenzuela encinitas Tucson California Arizona1116 t7t7 Linda Geeson Lake Elsinore California 1118 Valerie & Eric Johnson Mission Hills California Lttg ANN GAVEY albany California L120 David Breen Crockett California LI2L George Summers Jr Somerville Massachusetts tL22 ahmed mostafa fairfax Virginia tr23 Megan Pratt Bernadette Barberini Moscow Alameda ldaho CaliforniaTL24 LL25 Tanya Rodriguez Miami Florida T126 Mir Faugno Playa DelRey California Il27 lvan Engle Tularosa New Mexico LL28 Jose Rafael Montero Fernandez Reading Pennsylvania LL29 jimmy silva san diego California 1130 daniel aubouard r13t deborah castro Lisa Starr oak hills Weston California Floridatl32 LL33 Michael Franqui new york city New York 7r34 Raymond Keeling Milford Michigan tt35 Amey Pennington East Bernstadt Kentucky 1-136 Howard H. Holmes LOS ANGELES California LL37 Claudia Moore Northville Michigan 11_38 Sondra Huber Hillsboro Oregon 7739 randy celestine Ted Leverenz albuquerque Melrose Park New Mexico lllinoisII4O I74L Christopher Johnson La Mesa California 11,42 Martin Smith Englewood Colorado TL43 Kathy Bergquist Sioux Falls South Dakota TT44 Bob Miller Aliso Vieio California SLO Hosts A B c tL45 Alan Schwartz Lafayette California LL46 tom collins castro valley California 11.47 cindy jaske taft California TI48 John K Erskine Holland Michigan tI49 molly_ Harvey Sutherlin Oregon L150 Linda Johnson Courtland Virginia LLST Natalie Alexander Pearline M. Brown lrvine Needville California TexasLT52 IT53 Karen Multer Lenoir, NC 28645 Nonh Carolina LLs4 Robert Simmons Bakersfield California 1_1_55 Rev Alìson Hyder Wilmington Delaware 1.\56 Charles Clarke Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1157 Salvador Medina Wh¡tt¡er California 1158 Julia Adkins Napa California L159 john f martinez Caroline Luley los angeles Cocoa Beach California Florida1160 LL6L Vionnette Negron Sanford Florida LL62 Damascha Benedick Groningen Alabama LL63 Amir Fogel amherst Massachusetts LT64 Don Wensel Des Moines lowa LI65 David Rosen Brook Park Ohio 7L66 Janet Johnson Kapaa Hawaii tL67 Brenda James Barb DeLeone Vero Beach Tallmadge Florida Ohio7168 LL69 Adam Johnson Madison Wisconsin ITTO penny quetel liveoak Florida ITTT mary persuit sewickley Pennsylvania tL72 Aaron Jones OAKI.AND California TT73 Lisa King Sarasota Florida rt74 ron nrssen santa ana California tL75 rber Thomasin Kellermann Harbor City Bristol California Rhode lslandIL76 rt77 Robert Jackson Ll78 Craig Reilly Philadelphia Pennsylvania LL79 John Cox Houston Texas 11_80 Jerry Peavy Chico California 118L Mike Mountjoy Herndon Virginia tL82 Chris Anderson Lafayette California L183 Pat LeBaron Steve Wilson medford West Richland Oregon Washingtonr784 11_85 Mary Garcia Scotts Mills Oregon 1_186 The Rev. Linda Wilson South Kortright New York LL87 Charita Carthen Boonville Missouri 1_L88 Tabatha Trotter Chula Vista California SLO Hosts A B c rt89 Sharon Mor San Francisco California 11-90 Anita Coolidge Cardiff California ILgL Andrew Morrow North Las Vegas Nevada tIg2 Mary Ann Dailey North St Paul Minnesota tLg3 Ben Buss WORTHINGTON Ohio 7r94 Cecilia Banner Longmont Colorado 1195 Vannessa jackson Vennessa Pustek fairfield Bremerton California Washington7796 7t97 Elizabeth Ramos Belmont California 1198 Ed D. Metal Denver Colorado 1_1_99 Peberlyn Moreta Boston Massachusetts 1200 Darlene Ghents Holtsville New York t20L Donna Huddlestonn Villa Rica Georgia 1202 M Leszczynski Lapeer Michigan 7203 GailYoungblood Patrick Ramos Phila Brooklyn Pennsylvania New York1204 1205 Jenny Horsburgh Newton Massachusetts L206 Dottie Sachs Cherry Hill New Jersey 7207 fsaac Robitaille Dixmont Maine 1208 Alexandra Bevacqui Tinton Falls New Jersey 1_209 Karen Nickels Madison Wisconsin L2tO Beth Napier Oakland California !21.t kathleen vick Anthony Capobianco virginia beach Bethel Park Virginia Pennsylvania1212 T2L3 Antoine Williams Detroit Michigan t2r4 Marcus Murphy Oxford Mississippi T2I5 Loretta doukas Grover Beach California L2L6 Janie Melllinger Arcadia California L2L7 Linea Johnston Nipomo California 721.8 Mike Moralez chino hills California L2t9 Alexander Gutierrez Burton Schwartz San Jose PJS California New Yorkt220 I22L Donna Drake Hendersonville Tennessee L222 Andy Ticco Buffalo New York 7223 Jessica Rea Santa Barbara California L224 Patrick Mclntosh Carlsbad California 1225 Esther Wilson-Arias San Jose California L226 Claudia K Sargent Flushing New York L227 nona watt Richard Stowell fort collins Brooklyn Colorado Wisconsin1228 L229 Kaity Gould Fort Smith Arkansas r230 David Moss Mt Shasta California T23T Richard Jacobel Oakhurst California L232 Brian Uskokovich San Francisco California SLO Hosts A B c L233 john cullen spokane valley Washington r234 Charles Creswell Carmel California r235 Dennis Landi Long Beach California L236 Richard Lake Mt. Prospect lllinois t237 SherylThompson San Diego California r238 Paul Cassidy Xenia Ohio 1239 William Neer Arcelia Torres Austin Pinetta Texas FloridaL240 L24I Francisco Torres Maywood California 7242 Denise Thomas West St Paul Minnesota L243 eugene baron Oak Park Michigan L244 john wade huntsville Alabama 1245 Diana Albanese Richmond Hill New York L246 Linda Chimenti Paso Robles California 1247 Michael Feerer Larry Posner San Luis Obispo phila California PennsylvaniaL248 1.249 pat elton scottsdale Arizona 7250 Ralph Sands Brooklyn New York L25L Ben Holstrom 29 Palms California r252 thomas sullivan san francisco California L253 Dan Nickerson North Hollywood California L254 sherren campbell lake providence Louisiana L255 Joshua Britt Nicholas Mantas Graham Township of Washington North Carolina New JerseyL256 L257 Brian Losee Danbury Connecticut t258 edward medina Hunt¡ngton Beach California 1259 David Brandhorst Las Cruces New Mexico L260 Janet Grenier Leesburg Virginia L26L Julie Sheehy Mentor Ohio 1262 Thomas Jameson Salinas California L263 SamuelJones thomas fay Stone Mountain San Luis Obispo Georgia CaliforniaL264 L265 Maria Burkett New Orleans Louisiana L266 Artielia Robinson San Diego California L267 Gerald Watts Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1268 Robert Grede Franklin Wisconsin L269 Greg Jensen Cloverdale California r270 rex franklyn tiburon California L27L bob rucker Christopher Watanabe San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo California California7272 r273 Terese Stewart Oceanside California r274 Patricia Morgan Novato California I275 ginger schedler fresno California r276 Dolly Arond Northridge California I,, SLO Hosts A B c r277 Nancy Barcellona Los Angeles California t278 Barbara Bennigson Palo Alto California L279 MICHAEL KLINGBEIL Traverse City Michigan 1280 Susan Chunco Santa Rosa California I28T William Hagan Denham Springs Louisiana 1282 lizzie vierra costa mesa California 1283 Gretchen Hunsberger Gloria Towers Newbury San Marcos Massachusetts CaliforniaL284 1285 Dean Monroe No. Hollywood California r286 Rachel Sessoms Salemburg North Carolina L287 Marie Ristuccia Rochester New York 1288 Peggy Salas Stillwater Oklahoma 1289 A.A. Nagy Cotati California L290 ernest boyd sunnyvale California L29t James Perkins Ray Morris Costa Mesa Bakersfield California CaliforniaL292 L293 James Berkheimer Fremont California L294 Linda Robinson Sacramento California L295 Carol McMahon Placerville California r296 Jorge De Cecco Ukiah California L297 anthony milian greenville South Carolina L298 Dennis Landi Long Beach California L299 STEPHEN ANDERSON Bradford Fuller MANCHESTER Brownfield Minnesota Maine7300 1301 kerry gibson jr marrero Louisiana 1302 Bob Leppo santa maria California 1-303 TerriWinter Fairplay Colorado L304 Chickey Ann torrance California 1305 Deborah Johnsonm Moorpark California 1306 Ca ndace Hollis-Fra nklyn Tiburon California L307 Elmer A. Anderson Nkwa Yellow-Duke L.A Somerset California New Jersey1.308 1309 Roberta Limoli-ba rufa ldi Burlington Massachusetts 13L0 Gwyn Walker Santa Rosa California L3TL James Mulcare Clarkston Washington L3L2 Rhonda Wickline Roanoke Virginia 131-3 J. Atwell Burbank California L3t4 roshan hill belmore Alabama L315 Rachel Canon altadena Los Angeles California California1376 T3T7 Stephen Jerrick Deale Maryland 1318 Cathie Smith Sierra Madre California 1-31_9 Linda Fibich Arroyo Grande California L320 Tim Doyle Washington District Of Columbia t SLO Hosts A B c 132r Alfred Canitia Lake Balboa California 1322 L.Parker Jones newburyport Massachusetts 1323 Brian Kerr San Luis Obispo California r324 c.c. mclean san luis obispo California 1325 Nancy Walker Cloverdale California RECEÏVËD NO\/ 12 2013 Cl-ERstCI Goodwi Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Heather, Agenda Correspondece thanks - Kathy Smith, Kathy Monday, November IL,2013 9:07 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: 55L - Vacation Rentals - November 12,2013 Council Meeting AGENDA CIORRESPONDENCË From: Carolyn Ike6hng@att.net] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 B:02 PM To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Christianson, Carlyn Subject: SS1 - Vacation Rentals - November t2, 2013 Council Meeting Dear Mayor Marx and Council Members: Neighborhood Wellness ¡s our #2 Major City Goal for the current budget period. Allowing shoft- term vacation rentals in our neighborhoods, through Airbnb and other such sites, will be contrary to this goal. Many of our neighborhoods are already negatively impacted by a large number of rentals housing a transient student population. Neighborhoods that were once mostly occupied by families, who built long-term relationships with their neighbors, are now occupied by students who change from year to year. For many residents, this has degraded the sense of community, security and safety that came with knowing who lived next door and across the street. If short- term vacation rentals are allowed in these already fragile neighborhoods, it will undoubtedly cause more permanent residents to leave SLO and move to a City that values its neighborhoods. It has been suggested that any short-term rental ordinance require that homeowners be present during the entire rental period in order to minimize the problems short-term renters could create. While I'm certain many of those who are operating a short-term rental, and have written to Council on this issue, feel that they will not create a problem for their neighbors, it does not necessarily guarantee that all homeowners will operate their rental in a responsible manner. It will be extremely difficult to monitor and enforce owner presence and other rules. Our staff (code enforcement and police) is already stretched very thin with the violations that currently occur from our high rental population such as noise, blight, parking, high occupancy violations, illegal conversions, etc. If this ordinance is created but there is insufficient staff to enforce it, residents will be left with no relief--just having to accept the problems. This will only cause more residents to become frustrated and move, It may also be difficult (if not illegal) to restrict the application of an income-producing ordinance only to homeowners in R-1 neighborhoods. Renters may feel they should be afforded the same income opportunity, as long as their landlord allows it-such as our current Home Occupancy Permit ordinance in which both homeowners and renters are allowed to pafticipate. Accordingly, you could have students renting out their rooms for short-term rental income on weekends, during their breaks and in the summer. In fact, this is already being done in some cities with universities: ( students-on- u -s-ca mpuses/. ) Students who are Flat Club hosts claim that they make enough money renting out their rooms on weekends and during their breaks to pay their rent for the rest of the school year. In this 1 type of short-term rental, there would be no homeowner oversight and the potential problems this could create for neighborhoods are limitless. Staff has reported that enforcement of any vacation rental ordinance will be complaint driven only, and that with the current code enforcement staff, enforcement could be limited. Some residents claim that they can't afford to remain in their homes without the oppoftunity to make money from short term renting through Airbnb or the like. There are other legal options available for them to supplement their income from their home. For example, they can rent out a room or two on a long-term basis. One of my neighbors rented out a couple of rooms in her home to supplement her income with renters who stayed for several years. The neighbors got to know her renters and they integrated into the neighborhood very well. Frequent transiency in a residential neighborhood does not foster healthy neighborhoods and without healthy neighborhoods, we will not attract families to live here and will lose even more neighborhood stability. Therefore, I urge you to continue the ban on vacation rentals in our City neighborhoods. Thank you for your attention. Carolyn Smith San Luis Obispo 2 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Mejia, Anthony Wednesday, October 30, 201-3 4:47 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: Slo hosts Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk u{;T Õ1, s¡n ìr¿ls rrìiitif'rr) 9go Palrn Stre*t S.ln I uiç Obìsg:o, CA g3z,ur tet I Br:5.7$Ì:".7:"o: From: Max, Jan Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:42PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Slo hosts -----Ori ginal Message----- From: Ruth Stan [rstarrO 1 45@email.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29,2013 04:42 PM Pacihc Standard Time To: Marx, Jan Subject: Slo hosts Please vote in favor of people renting rooms to visitors. Middle class people are hurt in enough ways, don't add to it. Ruth Stan www. ruthstarrgallery. com I Can Do That Too (my bio), also My Brother Harry, books avail at Amazon.com Put a title in search bar R.ECËTVËD OcT 31 2013 fl.t-È:F"ldS LJ No\/ 12 2013 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk (l¡t,-Y {)Ë s¡r¡ It:¡s q)rlt.$pô ggo Palrn Street San I uìç ObisJ:o, CA 934trr lel | ûr:5.78r.7ro;. Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, November L2, 20L3 7:26 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: Vacation Rental ban - its effect on nonprofit arts organizations, From: Christianson, Carlyn Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 B:29 AM To: Johnson, Derek; Dietrick, Christine Cc: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Vacation Rental ban - its effect on nonprofit arts organizations. I'm forwarding this so it can be included in public comment, and also I ask: is this the kind of thing that is banned under our vacation rental ordinance? I'm not understanding how hosts are "donating" their rooms to visiting artists but still making money. Thanks, Carlyn Carlyn Christianson Member, San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street, SLO 93408 cchristi@slocity.org 805-550-9320 cell 805-752-1021 home (for city calls) From: Bettina L. Swigger Ibettina@festivalmozaic,com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 4:13 PM To: Max, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn Subject: Vacation Rental ban - its effect on nonprofit afts organizations. Dear Mayor Marx, Vice Mayor Smith, Councilmen Ashbaugh and Carpenter, and Councilwoman Christensen, 1 I understand there is a specialstudy session on Tuesday, November 12to address the issue of private residences hosting short-term rentals, I would like to voice my support for short-term rentals. Since 1971., Festival Mozaic has attracted internationally-renowned musicians to perform in venues around the Central Coast. We are able to do this because of the generosity of private citizens who open their homes to our festival artists. While this is a practice that substantially assists with our bottom line (a concern we are always aware of, given our status as a nonprofit organization), this is a civic issue as well. Many of our artists return year after year and have developed significant relationships with their "host" families. We at the Festival are concerned that the ban on short term rentals will force our host families to fill those rooms with permanent residents (usually students) in order to bring in extra income, I encourage you to repeal the ban on short-term rentals, so homeowners can make enough income renting to vacationers so they can continue to donate those room to non-profit organizations such as Festival Mozaic, the SLO Symphony and Opera SLO. lt is of vital importance for us to be able to continue bringing the artists of the caliber the community has come to expect from Festival Mozaic. Thank you very much for your service to this community. Sincerely, n;f iL) T-t\I{i flvc Ccau¡þt ol Msrk o{ì fiç Cêrrçd Ctrr{ www.festiva lmozaic.com Tickets on sale now! WinterMezzo Chamber Music Weekend, Feb. 2B-March 2,20L4. Bettina Swigger Like Festival Mozaic on Facebookl 2 Heather tdfic Ocl 3 1 2Û13 From: Sent: To: Subject: Mejia, Anthony Wednesday, October 30, 20L3 4:46 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: SLO Hosts sN_() AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date lIltz,ltz Ite¡'n Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk r){,\' (lI s.u] [t¡rs $ì}¡.t['rö tgo Ë*lm str€et San I uis Obìs¡:c, CA, q34ur t.el | 8oi,.79r.7ro: From: Max, Jan Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2t42PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: SLO Hosts -----Original Message----- From : Carolina Van Stone [carolina792 @ earthl ink.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 30,2013 08:57 AM Pacific Standard Time To: Marx, Jan Subject: SLO Hosts Please support change talk that promotes local, small scale sustainability. The November 12 City Council study session discussing SLO Hosts will be quite informative, I was one of over 1200 supporters to sign the SLO Host petition to allow limited short-term rentals in the City of San Luis Obispo, I think you can be an advocate, too Many thanks, SLO resident 1974 Cal Poìy Grad 1977 SLO county landowner 1982 1 Carolina Van Stone Goodwi Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Mejia, Anthony Monday, November 04,2013 7:44 AM Goodwin, Heather FW:SLO Hosts NOV 4 Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk (:t{;_l ()¡ s¡¡l turs *i:r¡$ix} g9o Palm 9itroet San I uis Cbis¡:o, C q34ur Iei | 8oq.78r.7ro^:. From: Max, Jan Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 3:03 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: SLO Hosts -----Original Message----- From : Bob Wolf [robertswolf@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03,2013 02:22 PM Pacif,rc Standard Time To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy Subject: SLO Hosts Dear Council member - I want to let you know that I support the position of SLO Hosts, Allowing private residences to rent out rooms would bring interesting guests to the city. You could also put a small tax on such rentals and raise money for the city. Bob Wolf 3057 S. Higuera St. #67 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-541-2325 (home) 805-235-6782 (celt) 1 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, November L2,20L3 LL:L0 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: SSI- Vacation Rentals Study Session LL-L2-201-3.doc RECET\IËD NO\/ I 2 2013 5LÛ Cffi\'CLERII. AGENDA CORRESPONDENCEAnthony J. Mejia I City Clerk ctt;\, ()l s¡r: lu¡s (]lì:.9p(] -99o Palnr Slrnct San Luis 0bispo, CA g34or te I | 8u5.78':..7ror From: Johnson, Derek Sent: Tuesday, November L2,20L3 10:03 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: Fwd: SS1 Vacation Rentals Sent lì'om nlr'Vc'r'zoll Wirclcss 4C L'l l:, Stnartphone Original message From: Sandra Rowley <macsar99@yahoo.com> Date: 1lll2l20l3 6:35 AM (GMT-08:00) To: "Johnson, Derek" <djohnson@slocity.org> Subject: SS1 Vacation Rentals Your copy, second try No\/ I 2 2013 RE CETVE D Residents for êuallty Nelghborüoods P,O. Box 12604 . San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 November 12,20L3 Dear Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, On November 6, 2013, the RQN Board voted unanimously to oppose any alteration or exceptions to the City's prohibition of vacation rentals - and to recommend Council uphold the current ban. Our vote came after discussions with staff, receiving a presentation from SLO Hosts, listening to comments from residents, and doing internet research. Our concerns include: L)the further commercialization of residential neighborhoods, 2)the effects a relaxation of home occupation requirements for this type of home business could have on existing and future home businesses, 3) the question of fairness in allowing the opportunity to pursue this business model to only a select few, and 4)the negative effects a decrease or elimination of uniform active enforcement could have on neighbor-to-neighbor relations and Neighborhood Wellness. The City currently allows certain business uses in residential neighborhoods, and disallows others. ln our opinion, adding in-home, short-term room rentals to the list of allowed uses would alter the balance of businesses that exist in residential neighborhoods and, in time, destroy their residential character. Changing in-home, short-term room rentals to an allowed use opens this business opportunity to residents who otherwise would not pursue it if it were prohibited. We believe adding this use would have an overall negative effect on Neighborhood Wellness. The operation of in-home, short-term room rentals should be viewed as a home occupation, not as residential rental property. They operate like a B&B or small hotel, and the homeowner functions as an innkeeper or hotelier. B&B lnnkeepers perform the following tasks: reservations and guest interaction; guest check-in/out; breakfast set-up, preparation and clean-up; maintenance of guest rooms and common areas: making beds, dusting, vacuuming, cleaning bathrooms, changing linens, laundry; grounds work and property maintenance. Hoteliers perform all of these tasks, except some do not provide breakfast. The primary differences between an in-home, short-term room rental and a B&B or small hotel appear to be the number of rooms available for rent and the location of the business, Also, everyone agrees that the proprietors of in-home, short-term room rentals should pay TOT, a business expense for B&B/hotel operators. Current home occupation permits restrict the number of customer visits (trips) to a home business, prohibit customer visits between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and require that activities be conducted entirely within the dwelling, as well as require parking be provided for the business in addition to that required for the residence. For the in-home, short-term room rentals we are considering tonight, the number of trips to/from the residence cannot be regulated and the hours of operation are necessarily expanded past the allowable time frame. Additionally, it is unclear if all activities are conducted entirely within the dwelling or if they include outside access. Therefore, this business cannot meet the standards that we require of home occupations. L We believe that if this use is allowed, it will undermine the standards currently in effect for home occupations. lfthisbusinesscanoperatewithnorestrictionsonthenumberoftimesacustomer may visit the dwelling and no restrictions on the hours of operation, why should other businesses have to conform to the current rules? We think allowing this business use will certainly weaken, possibly erode, the neighborhood protections provided by the standards that currently define the parameters of allowed commercial uses in neighborhoods. We wonder about the fairness of allowing the opportunity to pursue this business model to only a select few individuals, those who own and reside in a single-family home who, also, commit to remaining in the home throughout their customers' stays. Will others in the community, like owners of houses in medium density areas, long-term renters, local owners of rental properties, etc., view this as a discriminatory practice? Willthey, too, request to be allowed to operate in- home, short-term room rentals? We currently have a ban that is legally enforceable and, in our opinion, imminently reasonable; exceptions to it should not be made, We note with interest how the conversation about allowing nightly rentals in neighborhoods has evolved from being a social good, a way to bring people together to learn about other cultures, to being a way to supplement personal income by using one's residence as a home business. iust as there are legal options available to host people from other countries in the home, there are, also, legal options for renting rooms in one's home for 30 days or longer, for instance: to students, including international students; to single, working men and women; to visiting nurses and professors; to summer visitors from the Central Valley or other hot, summer regions. ln fact, some of our RQN members rent, and have rented rooms to students, including those from other countries, to young and middle-aged professionals, to a visiting nurse, to Cal Poly employees looking for or waiting to move into permanent housing, and for summer-long stays. RQN members definitely recall what complaint-driven enforcement was like with neighbor-to- neighbor conflicts and instances of retaliation, and we worked very hard with City staff to put in place a sufficient number of code enforcement personnel to be able to transition to proactive enforcement. Of course, that was before the proliferation of in-home short-term room rentals. However, we cannot ignore the continued increase in illegal in-home, short-term room rentals that staff has identified. The fact that staff has found that many SLO listings have removed owners' names, addresses and exterior photographs of the residences since enforcement efforts began should tell us that a serious problem affecting our residential neighborhoods is developing. This problem cannot be solved through complaint-driven enforcement. lt is too difficult to prove that someone's houseguest is in reality paying for a room. We need code enforcement personnel acting proactively, ln years past it was thought that problems created by students were insignificant, not worth actively pursuing. Not only did residents begin moving away, potential new residents chose to locate elsewhere and commute - and it was not solely due to the cost of housing. lf 4 hours per week is all that code enforcement personnel can dedicate to this effort and still adequately handle other code violations, then we must supplement their efforts with additional 2 paid personnel, ¡nterns and volunteers. As we have so clearly learned from instances of illegal conversions, etc., it is easier to confront a problem early than to wait and try to solve it later. ln summary, RQN strongly recommends that the current prohibition of vacation rentals be retained without exception and that some relief be provided to the code enforcement staff until a significant dent in the instances of illegal vacation rentals can be made. There are some things we should not compromise, and the health and stability of our neighborhoods both for current and future residents of our city is one of them. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter Sincerely, Sandra Rowley Chairperson 3