HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS6 - Short Term Lodging Permits - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed
September 13, 2016
Item No. SS6
From: Brandt, Kim
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 8:57 PM
To: Brown, Leilani; Mulvey, Jennifer
Cc: Cosylion, Matt
Subject: FW: STL restrictions
Leilani-
Here is a correspondence for the 9/13 study session.
Thanks!
IGLM
From: Ace Clark [ma iIto: ace.genecC-Ogmail.coml
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:46 PM
To: Brandt, Kim
Subject: STL restrictions
I have listened to the recommendations from the last study session and will try to make the next meeting to talk,
but wanted to provide this input:
I have airbnb for rear unit so that i can have family come to CDM periodically throughout the year. I use STL
so that i can affored to hold the house for that purpose. We love it.
During the summer i generally only rent to weekly folks. However in the Winter i need to be able to rent for the
weekend. If i cannot, it is a huge financial impact.
So if we need to restrict for turnover, i can only support a 2 day min.
As an alternative, but may be too complicated, i would be fine with a 3 day restrictuion during the summer,
when there is the potential for high turnover. But during the winter, there is very few people who only want to
rent during the week. I must be able to rent for the weekend!
thanks,
ace clark
714 Jasmine Ave
Received After Agenda Printed
September 13, 2016
Item No. SS6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 1:31 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Comments on Proposed Changes to the Short Term Lodging Ordinance - Barry Pine
(Owner NB Oceanfront Investment Property)
Attachments: Barry Pine - Comments on Proposed Changes to Short Term Lodging Ordinance.pdf
Importance: High
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 1:30:29 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Comments on Proposed Changes to the Short Term Lodging Ordinance - Barry Pine (Owner NB Oceanfront
Investment Property)
For the record.
From: Barry Pine [mailto:bar[y_pine@jpctax.com]
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 1:05 PM
To: Dixon, Diane; Tony.PetrosCa�lsa-assoc.com; Curry, Keith; Peotter, Scott; Selich, Edward; Duffield, Duffy;
kevinmmuldoon@yahoo.com
Cc: 'Beth Hammons'; Wisneski, Brenda; Kiff, Dave; Harp, Aaron; Brandt, Kim; Cosylion, Matt
Subject: Comments on Proposed Changes to the Short Term Lodging Ordinance - Barry Pine (Owner NB Oceanfront
Investment Property)
Importance: High
To the City Council Members:
I respectfully request that you take my comments (on the attached letter) into consideration when deciding on any
proposed changes to the existing Short Term Lodging Ordinance.
Sincerely.
Barry Pine
Barry Pine
Attorney At Law
President
Jacobs Pine Consulting, Inc.
2627 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Suite #212
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Email - "barry.pine@ipctax.com"
Ph# (310) 727-9911 Ext #304
Fax # (310) 727-9912
September 9, 2016
JACOBS PINE CONSULTING, INC.
TAX INCENTIVE SPECIALISTS
2627 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Suite 212 Phone (310) 727-9911 Fax (310) 727-9912
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
City Council
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: Proposed Changes to the Short Term Lodging Ordinance
To the City Council Members:
My name is Barry Pine and I own an Oceanfront Investment Property on the boardwalk in Newport Beach.
When I purchased the property back in September of 2010, as part of my overall retirement strategy, one of
the most important factors in my decision was the ability to rent the property for short -teen lodging. In fact,
before closing on the property, I requested rental statements from the prior owner's management company
so I can verify the rental income to see if the revenue stream will meet my retirement requirements. I also
looked at properties in the neighboring Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach areas. I ended up choosing
Newport Beach relying on the prior rental income history and the high demand for short term lodging on the
oceanfront.
I'm afraid that the proposed changes to the short term lodging ordinances (specifically the 4 -day minimum
requirement) will gravely impact my rental revenue, and thus, put in jeopardy my current retirement plans.
Since I fust took ownership of the property, I hired a full-time local management company (who are aware
and compliant with the current short term lodging ordinances) to look after the condition of the property,
take bookings and make sure that my investment property is rented to reputable guests in order to ensure and
preserve the condition of my property. (Many of the same concerns that the proposed changes are trying to
address.) In fact, I even went Ru-ther, and told my management company that I don't want my house rented
out for Bachelor Parties and I want a 3 -day minimum booking requirement. I also contacted my neighbors
and gave them my cell phone number to call if there are ever any problems with current guests. I felt that
these additional measures would help secure the integrity and condition of my investment property. After
having 6 -years of short term lodging experience now under my belt and no neighbor complaints that I'm
aware of, I feel that I made the right decision having a full-time local management company, who is fully
aware of the city codes and regulations, in charge of my investment property. Based on my short term
lodging experience in Newport Beach without incident, I now must question why the City Council is
insistent on changing the short terra lodging city code and regulations that have worked so smoothly for me
for so many years.
I believe that requiring a 4 -night minimum stay would negatively impact my oceanfront investment property
income by dissuading potential guests with limited time and/or limited resources from renting my property.
However, if the City Council is insistent that changes be made, I also believe that requiring a 3 -night
minimum would accomplish most if not all of the City Council's objective of eliminating the "party groups"
Additionally, if the City Council is insistent that changes me made to the existing short term lodging code
and regulations, I support the position that ALL short term lodging permitted property owners be subject to a
common "Terms of Use" agreement so that we are ALL playing on a level playing field.
Received After Agenda Printed
September 13, 2016
Item No. SS6
From: Brandt, Kim
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 8:24 AM
To: Brown, Leilani; Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Comments on Proposed Operational Conditions for short term lodging
For tomorrow's study session.
From: Jane Davis[ma ilto:janedavis110(T-broad run ner.com]
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 7:40 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Brandt, Kim
Subject: Comments on Proposed Operational Conditions for short term lodging
Dear City Council Members, and others
First I apologize for the lateness of my comments on this subject. I seem to be late in receiving information on the staff
proposals since I have been out of town all summer.
My family owns, and lives in during the school year, a SFR on Balboa Island. We rent this home out for 7 weeks in the
summer to provide the income necessary to support and own this house (which we inherited from our mother). We use
VRBO to advertise the rental and we self -manage the vacation rental taking care of all contracts, rent payments,
assisting renters, managing cleaners, etc. We have used a management company in the past, but were not happy with
the service we were getting for a large commission. Our neighbors know how to reach us at all times as do our renters.
Comments:
Interior notification — "name of contact person must be located within 10 miles of the unit". I do not understand the
reasoning behind this requirement. We are personally available to our renters 24/7, but we are not within 10 miles of
the unit. In order to provide responses to our renters it does not matter where we are physically located as long as they
can reach us and we can then arrange the kind of service they need (plumber, electrician, handyman, locksmith, etc.)
within a reasonable time. I recommend this requirement be omitted as it is unnecessary and would place an
unnecessary burden on the operation of our vacation rental business.
Exterior notification — "Local contact person and phone number who is available on a 24-hour basis and resides within
10 miles of the property". Again, I do not understand the reasoning behind this requirement. The contact person would
be me and the number would be my personal cellphone (or I guess I could get a second phone number at an additional
expense). Placing my phone number on a sign would result in calls inquiring about renting the property — I don't want
those calls; all my renting is done on VRBO. I assume the purpose is to provide neighbors a means to contact an owner
about a problem. As I stated above, our neighbors know how to reach us at all times as do our renters. The 10 mile
requirement is unnecessary and would place an unnecessary burden on the operation of our vacation rental business.
Local Contact Person Information - "name of contact person must be located within 10 miles of property". "must
provide new local contact person and his or her phone number within 5 business days of a change in the local contact
person" Again, I do not understand the reasoning behind this requirement. The contact person would be me and the
number would be my personal cellphone; however, I would not be located within 10 miles of the rental property during
the time it was rented. But when I am contacted I have someone to call to provide the necessary services dependent on
the call. If there was a need for someone to go to the property, I have several different people who are available, but
not necessary the same person for the entire period. Also my son is available to provide assistance but he lives in Orange
more than 10 miles from the rental. I have no problem responding to the City in a reasonable time period and would be
able to do so no matter where I was physically located at the time. These requirements would place an unnecessary
burden on the operation of our vacation rental business.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. In general, I feel the 10 mile requirement discriminates
against owners who effectively self -manage their short term rental, instead of using an expensive property management
company.
Jane Davis
110 Garnet
Balboa Island
Received After Agenda Printed
September 13, 2016
Item No. SS6
From: Brandt, Kim
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 5:13 PM
To: Brown, Leilani; Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: NB City Council Study Session -II, STL, Tue, Sep 13, 2016
Attachments: NB City Council Study Session STL-II 091316.pdf
For tomorrow.
KU na
From: r h [mailto:rhy909@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 4:54 PM
To: Dixon, Diane; Peotter, Scott; Duffield, Duffy; Brandt, Kim; Wisneski, Brenda; Cosylion, Matt
Subject: NB City Council Study Session -II, STL, Tue, Sep 13, 2016
To email addresses,
I am unable to attend the City Council Study Session -II regarding Short -Term Lodging, and attach my
comments, as a homeowner and vacation home renter in Newport Beach.
If you are not involved in this Study Session, please excuse my mistake in trying to reach those who are.
If you are involved in this Study Session, please take a moment to read comments that I was hoping to make at
the meeting.
Thank you,
Rolando Hidalgo
September 12, 2016
Re: Newport Breach Study Session - II; Short Term Lodging Recommendations & Modifications
To All It May Concern,
I am a homeowner who rents my home for short and long-term periods, and I attended the first
Study Session Short Term Lodging Recommendations & Modifications on August 9, 2016
Following are my comments
A. LONG HISTORY OF VACATION RENTALS
Newport Beach has had a long history of long and short-term vacation rentals, the very impetus for
my purchase of a home 15 years ago, and the impetus for the high and low -season visitors to Newport
Beach who fill the Peninsula restaurants, shops, services, and who create a beach -side "community" that is
largely dormant otherwise.
B. REGULATION - Achieved by Re -Instituting Permits
For years, I purchased a "permit" to rent my home, for which I understood the City could create and
control whatever regulations it desired on my rental activities.
This included the posting, visible from sidewalk, of a notice of short-term rental of home, and
statement of contact name and 24/7 phone number for the public to call in the event of disruptive activities
from the home. A copy of the Notice was to be delivered to neighbors within a stated diameter from the
home. This posting remains at my home visible from sidewalk.
It is perplexing that any Airbnb or other rental difficulties cannot be resolved without disrupting
decades of successful regulation of short-term rentals.
C. "FILLING GAPS" IN R-1 - Contrived
Raised at the August 91h meeting was an issue about "filling gap's" in R-1 areas. How is an "increase"
in R-1 home inclusion for vacation rentals contrived, in conflict with the contrary effort to possibly abate R-1
altogether?
I approached one of the agency liaisons at the meeting to ask what complaints the City has received
for R-1 homeowners seeking to use home as a vacation rental, and was told of only one instance of this;
namely, an effort to get around the prohibition against leasing home to drug/alcohol rehabilitation agencies.
D. STATUS QUO - R-1 Rentals Will Continue to Dwindle
Listening to the presentation and comments made at the August 9th meeting, my personal experience
living on the Peninsula was confirmed: active vacation rentals in R-1 areas are experiencing self -attrition on
their own; the sale of homes at today's prices does not make financial sense to rent them. The rentals of
homes in the R-1 areas left alone have dwindled, and will continue to do so on their own. From what I have
gathered from 2 prior meetings re: short-term rentals, complaints ("DACS") from R-1 short-term rentals are
extremely rare. Of what purpose is there to disrupt the status quo?
CONCLUSION
Apparently Airbnb abuses have created concerns that have blossomed beyond the Airbnb problem.
Please do not take any actions that jeopardizes the ability of homeowners to rent their properties short-
term.
R-1 rental properties left alone will continue to dwindle
Rolando Hidalgo
Received After Agenda Printed
September 13, 2016
Item No. SS6
From: Brandt, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 8:10 AM
To: 'Adam Mikkelsen'; Dixon, Diane; Kiff, Dave
Cc: Brown, Leilani; Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: RE: Short Term Lodging Permits
Mr. Mikkelsen,
Thank you for your email; it will be distributed to the City Council.
fdvv.
From: Adam Mikkelsen [mailto:Adam.Mikkelsen(abcooperandcompany.orgl]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 5:10 AM
To: Dixon, Diane; Kiff, Dave; Brandt, Kim
Cc: Helen Mikkelsen; Dept - City Council
Subject: Short Term Lodging Permits
Dear Mayor Dixon, Members of the Council, Ms Brandt and Mr Kiff
We're unable to attend the study session today, but wanted to share our comments on short term lodging regulations.
We've lived on the Peninsula for 15 years at 307 Medina Way, in the neighborhood between the Balboa Library and Bay
Island. In 2015, we purchased our directly neighboring property at 310 Montero St, and are using it as a combination of
playhouse for our kids, a guest cottage for visiting friends and family, and (self -managed) Airbnb rental.
We support all of the recommendations in the staff report with the exception of a four night minimum stay. We consider
a two night minimum would be acceptable, and that the concerns outlined in the report can be met by more stringent
requirements for obtaining a permit, aggressive enforcement of the regulations, and revocation of permits where
necessary.
Our rental experience with AirBnB has been very positive. With nightly rates for the property of approx. $350, it
tends to attract older guests who are very respectful of the property and neighborhood. We can (and do) reject
enquiries from those people who might be just looking to 'party'. This is our community and the last thing we want
is to have people here who don't respect it, and annoy our long term neighbors.
- The arrangements made by professional STL management companies including 4 night minimums is not one that
fits the demand we've seen through AirBnB.
For instance, we've had a lot of enquiries from people who live in Southern California and want to visit the
Peninsula for a weekend or long weekend as a getaway. They might also want to be closer to a wedding or function
being held in Newport. Or live in LA (or in the Southwest) and are visiting friends and family who live in Newport.
They love the character of the Peninsula, but are not looking to go on vacation and wouldn't contact professional
STL management companies. They also want to feel like locals with their families, and not stay in a hotel.
Without exception, our experience has been people who are mature, well off, and very respectful of the character
of the neighborhood. We have had zero issue with trash or noise. These are people we'd be very happy to have as
our neighbors. (The parties in our neighborhood invariably come from long term renters or the children and
grandchildren of owners)
We see this shorter term type demand (from respectful people) as positive for the City and the community. While
in Newport these visitors eat out at local restaurants, buy from local shops and contribute to the City's tax base.
A four night minimum would kill this type of demand. And from the City's perspective, we don't believe it would be
substituted with hotel stays.
We believe that online services like AirBnB enable a different and more flexible type of demand to emerge, which
probably doesn't fit the historical 'fixed' vacation rental models of STL management companies. They are catering
to people on vacation and probably don't see the demand profile we do. A four night minimum suits their model, by
increasing their fees and lowering their costs. It caters to people on vacation. But it doesn't fit the type of flexible,
shorter term demand which we've experienced.
We suggest a two night minimum so that this type of demand can be met. We see it as positive for the City and the
community.
We support strong enforcement of code provisions. We are very vested in this community and don't want bad
operators here either. The idea of linking police reports to STL permits and property owners is a good one. If any
issues arise with STL at particular properties, their permits can and should be revoked. Also perhaps the 'bar' for
permit issuance should be raised, by posting a bond with the City, submitting plans for noise and trash mitigation,
or requiring that any advertisements for the property include reference to the noise and trash provisions of the
code.
Thanks for your consideration — Adam & Helen Mikkelsen
307 Medina Way
(949) 322-5508
Received After Agenda Printed
September 13, 2016
Item No. SS6
From: Brandt, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 8:06 AM
To: Brown, Leilani; Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: Additional correspondence for Short term lodging permits
Leilani and Jennifer,
Here is another letter for this afternoon.
761,
-----Original Message -----
From: Dan Murphy[mailto:murphy.daniel.d@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 9:30 PM
To: Cosylion, Matt; Brandt, Kim
Subject: Short term lodging permits
Our experience with vacation rentals in Newport Beach goes back almost thirty years. We stayed in short term rentals
for fifteen years of summer vacations. This led directly to us moving here full time over ten years ago. In addition, for the
last four plus years we have been hosts for vacation rental units that we own, and continue to stay in short term rentals
whenever we travel.
Having lived in several homes on the peninsula, we have experienced first hand living by a mixture of owners, long term
renters and vacation tenants. This familiarity with vacation rentals as both hosts, guests and neighbors leads us to
several observations on the Newport Beach proposals being discussed:
- In our experience the main problems on the peninsula with noise, partying, etc. are not associated with short term
rentals, but rather with long term rentals- especially the nine month rentals which tend to be leased to university
students. Newport Beach already has rules in place to deal with these issues. These existing laws can and should be
vigorously enforced whenever there is a problem whether it is an owner, long term tenant or vacation renter. Why are
more regulations needed that specifically target short term rentals?
- The lack of parking in the peninsula is a huge problem that Newport Beach needs to start addressing. But blaming short
term rentals is not the answer. We have observed that in long term rental situations there is usually a car for every
tenant over the age of sixteen, while in a vacation rentail situation there is usually only one car for every family. In
addition, short term renters seem to bike and walk more once they are here- something Newport Beach promotes.
- The minimum stay of four nights does not seem fair or reasonable. What about the family that can only afford the time
and money for a weekend stay? Does Newport Beach not want them to visit? Plus, it has been our experience that the
shorter the stay, the smaller the number of guests. How about a two night minimum?
- The maximum of two adults over eighteen per bedroom regulation seems like it would open the proverbial can of
worms. Does this mean there could be an unlimited number of children under eighteen? And what about the family
vacationing with their adult children and spouses? This is a scenario that happens regularly in our vacation rental
property. Wouldn't enforcing this run into privacy issues? And if this is a good idea for short term rentals, why is it not
enforced for long term, or nine month rentals? We know about this first hand since Newport Beach has said "there is
nothing we can do" when questioned about a home with four bedrooms and over ten college students living there.
- Lastly, it makes great sense to require the posting of permit numbers for Newport Beach properties listed on any of the
line vacation rental websites. This would not only level the playing field in regard to paying the ten percent tax, but it
should also have the affect of owners vetting their guests better before their arrival.
Thank you for your consideration,
Dan and Kathy Murphy
Received After Agenda Printed
September 13, 2016
Item No. SS6
From: Brandt, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 8:03 AM
To: Brown, Leilani; Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: Study Session correspondence
For this afternoon.
V -I M
From: joe reiss [mailto:jreiss0@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 8:31 PM
To: Brandt, Kim
Cc: Kiff, Dave
Subject: Fwd: STL's
Dear Ms Brandt, I am not going to be able to make the meeting tomorrow, so I am hoping you could provide
my email to city council members. As you can see, I emailed it last month; however, I did not see it in the
other letters you included n the package for this topic. Thank you for your help. Joe
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: joe reiss <jreiss0kgmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Subject: STL's
To: "Brandt, Kim" <kbrandtknewportbeachca.gov>, "Kiff, Dave" <dkiff(a newportbeachca.gov>,
"CityCouncilpnewportbeachea.gov" <CityCouncilknewportbeachca.gov>
Good Evening, I attended the Study Session this afternoon hoping to
speak on the Short -Term Lodgings (STL) issue and I was very
disappointed that I was not able to speak. Especially, after taking
time off work to attend the session. I hope to be able to attend the
next Study Session on September 9, 2016; however, I am not certain I
will be able to make the meeting. Therefore, I am sending this email
to voice my thoughts and concerns about the Community Development
Staff report.
First, I would like to say I am thankful the City is taking this issue
serious and trying to come up with a solution that serves the
community in a fair and equitable way. There are four areas in the
staff report I would like to address.
The first is the number of individuals allowed to be in the STLs. The
staff report indicates the STLs are only permitted to have two adults,
over 18 years old, per bedroom in an STL. My question is what if two
adults rent the STL and allow 20 high school kids to use the STL as a
high school graduation gift? Or, what if three families (6 adults
with four kids each) rent a three bedroom STL, they could have 18
people staying in the three bedroom STL. Should we put a cap on the
maximum occupancy per STL?
Second, I would like to know what we are doing to ensure the STL's
have the proper insurance coverage for their commercial businesses. I
would say the majority of the STL's do not have the proper insurance
coverage and the City is now issued a permit saying they have the
City's approval to operate as an STL. Does the City assume any
liability for not checking to see if they have the proper insurance
coverage for their commerical business? It seems they should be
required to show proof they have the proper insurance coverage to get
a permit from the City.
Third, the HOA/CR&R requirement is extremely important in the staff
report. Over the last 15 years, the City has experienced a large turn
over of duplex's being converted to condominiums especially on the
peninsula. Almost every one of these condominiums have HOA/CC&Rs that
do not permit weekly rentals. Owners of these condominiums, who are
doing STLs, are ignoring this requirement and doing weekly rentals.
This is causing a major conflict with the other condominium owners
occuping the adjoining property. It is also causing conflict with the
neighbors who were of the belief that condominiums would not be able
to do weekly rentals in their neighborhood. My recommendation is that
condominiums be treated as single family homes and not be able to
obtain a STL from the City.
Finally, STLs are going down the same road as sober living homes did
ten years ago in that they are becoming the identity of our City. I
purchased my home 10 years ago in the 200 Block of 30th Street and
there were no STL's on my street at that time. Now there are five and
three of them came into existence in the last year or two. More
neighbors are looking at the cash opportunities of opening STLs and I
am concerned it will take over our entire street. When you look at
the peninsula, I would say every street has experienced the same
growth of STLs that I have seen on my street. These commercial
businesses are taking over our residential neighborhoods. When is
enough, enough.
It is the responsibility of the City to control the number of
commercial businesses that are allowed in one particular area. If the
City continues to issue business permits for commercial businesses in
residential neighborhoods, I foresee class action lawsuits being
brought against the City for reducing residents quality of life,
negatively impacting property values and changing the land use of a
residential community to a business community without taking it to a
vote in the community.
Although, City staff talked about a moratorium for issuing new permits
for STLs in the Fall of 2018, this will only invite the number of STLs
to go up in the community by 100 percent overnight. A large number of
residents will obtain an STL permit before the moratorium is put into
place. The moratorium needs to start now! No more STL permits showed
2
be issued until an existing STL gives up their permit. This is a fair
and equitable way to do this since you will not be taking permits away
from anyone.
Thank you taking the time to read my concerns and I am counting on you
to do what is fair and equitable for the entire community.
Joe Reiss
Newport Beach Resident
Received After Agenda Printed
September 13, 2016
Item No. SS6
From: Brandt, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 8:59 AM
To: Brown, Leilani; Mulvey, Jennifer
Cc: Cosylion, Matt; Wisneski, Brenda
Subject: FW: Short Term Rental and Balboa Island
Another correspondence for this afternoon.
From: Lee Pearl [mailto:smartpearll@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 8:47 AM
To: Dixon, Diane; Selich, Edward; Curry, Keith; Muldoon, Kevin; Peotter, Scott; Duffield, Duffy; Petros, Tony
Cc: Brandt, Kim; Kiff, Dave; Jeff Herdman; lee@lowreyfornewport.com; mg@devion.com; Lee Pearl; suesibley55;
kenyounkers; viviroro; edsiebel; jccallahan; terryj; ktaft1018; ryan; marypatearl; thill; trpopple; kristincurrey2;
joshyocam; thouston; Jeff Bacon
Subject: Short Term Rental and Balboa Island
Mayor and City Council: Thanks for taking on the issue of short term rentals. As you have discovered, all of
Balboa Island is eligible to be rented short term. This is creating conflicts as the island gets more long term
residents.
On my street (300 block of Onyx Ave) we have five permitted short term rentals. Since none of you live next
to this type of use here is an example of one on my block. https://www.vrbo.com/3904848ha This is a large
home that sleeps ten and is rented at least weekly all summer and many of the holidays. The home is next to
a disabled resident (Ralph Rodheim) their renter Alise in the back that works full time and a disabled elderly
couple on the other side. All other homes with the exception of the one across the street from my house are
occupied full time mostly by residents over 60. With the exception of a couple, all of the back unit renters
work regular jobs. Sleeps ten means they bring multiple families and are on vacation. Kids, scooters, beer,
wine, invite friends for parties, and many extra cars occupying the limited parking on the street. Summertime,
Alise tries to sleep and work and the vacationers try to have fun. You cannot possible understand the impact
of this type of use unless you live next to one. We also have a seven bedroom five bath duplex on the corner
with multiple families all summer. You can probably guess how many people can fit into a seven bedroom
short term rental.
Onyx Ave -Cape Cod -Style Upscale 3BR
Beach... - VRBO
www.vrbo.com
Onyx Ave -Cape Cod -style Upscale 3BR Beach House -Short
Walk to Beach The manager has been emailed. To book this
property, you need to complete your booking through ...
I plan to attend the study session this afternoon to ask the Council to approve the recommended staff action
with one change. I would recommend that the Council revisit Balboa Island short term rentals in one year
instead of two. This important item needs more discussion by the island residents and landlords. Also, the
new City Councilmembers should have an opportunity to gain input from residents and develop an
expanded strategy for the island to allow a balance of quality of life with reasonable ability to get income from
investment property. R1 vs R1 1/2 should also be discussed. Lido has many back unit rentals similar to Balboa
Island but does not allow short term rentals resulting in a better quality of life for residents
. Finally, I understand you are leaning toward three day rental minimum. A minimum of four days would be
difficult to enforce but would limit most rentals to one week potentially a better option for the residents near
these properties. I have no recommendation on the number of days.
I look forward to seeing you this afternoon.
Lee Pearl 316 Onyx Avenue
6
Received After Agenda Printed
September 13, 2016
Item No. SS6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 2:24 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: this afternoon -Short Term Lodging info and recommendations
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 2:24:26 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: this afternoon -Short Term Lodging info and recommendations
For the record.
From: Pam Murray [mailto:pam@casadebalboa.coml
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 2:24 PM
To: Dixon, Diane; Selich, Edward; Muldoon, Kevin; Peotter, Scott; Kiff, Dave; Petros, Tony; Duffield, Duffy; Curry, Keith
Subject: this afternoon -Short Term Lodging info and recommendations
Councilmen and Councilwoman,
Sorry for this last minute email regarding your meeting this afternoon on short term lodging but I just received
the letter a few days ago from the city. I can see the city has to tighten this up but please let me make some
suggestions. I have been doing this for 14 years or more and believe that I know what is necessary for the city
to coexist and thrive with the STL's.
When I started it was mainly a few management companies and myself ...managing my own properties. The
summer was done strictly weekly Saturday to Saturday (some Friday to Friday) and that would be my
recommendation now. If everyone were restricted to 7 night rentals from the first Saturday in June until the
very earliest mid September Saturday (I used to rent weekly all through September) the summers would run
much much smoother. It is the weekenders during the summer with over occupying properties that are creating
such an issue. They mow and blow so to speak..in and out and do not care. The other issue is that in lieu of
hefty security deposits there is a damage waiver plan sold through CSA (I have this myself) that is sold cheaply
and does not detract the guests that will violate rules. If they have a huge financial stake they may be more apt
to comply with regulations. I realize that most of the issues come from the west side..let's face it..perhaps these
property owners may have an additional requirement by the city.
I send every guest a "Good Neighbor Policy" that spells out the noise and other restrictions in the city (with the
fines) asking each guest to comply and give out phone numbers of the adjacent units in the event of an issue. I
send a "trash pick up letter" to each guest spelling out the days, the holidays, and extra pick ups. I send
information regarding the drought and ask that guests reuse their towels, don't run water, be green, etc.
Off season, I would stick with a 3 night minimum. The 4 night minimum, in my opinion, may be too
much..although there should be an exception for boat parade nights. There should never be a 1 night rental
(except boat parade nights which need to be restricted on number of guests attending). Sometimes I offer 2
nights between booked rental dates off season but am willing to forgo this (except boat parade nights). First of
all it's not good for the owner, or the city, but especially the guest because they have to pay the full cleaning fee
regardless of a week stay or 1 night and if someone is willing to do that a party is brewing for sure. If someone
is calling me about 1 night it has always been a birthday or other celebration. I let my guests know this is a
family area and the number of guests they can entertain comfortably. During the holidays there should be a 5
night minimum for Thanksgiving and 7 night for Christmas and New Year's week.
As for maximum number of guests, for 3 bedrooms I would indicate 8 which they pay extra $75/wk per
additional guest. Most guests are families and have small children. we have port -a -cribs for instance. Many of
these families can not afford the extra cost of a 4 bedroom vs a 3 bedroom and are comfortable. For 2
bedrooms the maximum should be 5 for the same reason it's more affordable and 5th guest is $75/wk. Children
3 and under there is no additional charge.
Finally, I see that there are 1200 roughly permitted properties but I see over 2000 listed on VRBO
and I am sure there are 1000 more. I also see tenants renting out a room in their rental which I am sure they are
not allowed to do to offset their rent.
I know all the ins and outs and can probably identify more issues and violators quicker than anyone. If
interested in this please contact me.
I will try to make the meeting.
Kind regards,
Pam Murray
Casa de Balboa
949-500-3183 cell
m
--ViAt.6fDA 61 -VD -W
Pc
R-2
007A N FR ON TAI I EY
Cy
, - -R-2
OCEAN FRONT W
ou
--ViAt.6fDA 61 -VD -W
Pc
R-2
007A N FR ON TAI I EY
Cy
, - -R-2
OCEAN FRONT W