Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 - Amending the NBMC for Short Term Lodging - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed February 11, 2020 Item No. 20 Subject: FW: Short -Term Lodging - Newport Beach City Council Meeting, 2/11/20, Item XVIII. 20 Attachments: Newport Beach STR Proposal EG Letter 02.10.20 FINAL.pdf Importance: High From: Walter Gonzales (ELCA) <wagonzales@expediagroup.com> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 11:46 AM To: Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; Muldoon, Kevin <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; Herdman, Jeff <jherd man@newportbeachca.gov>; Brenner, Joy <JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Brown, Leilani <LBrown@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Short -Term Lodging - Newport Beach City Council Meeting, 2/11/20, Item XVIII. 20 Importance: High Dear Mayor O'Neill and Members of the Newport Beach City Council, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the City of Newport Beach's efforts to regulate short-term rentals (STRs). Expedia Group is a family of brands that includes vacation rental leaders Vrbo and HomeAway. Our experience working with communities in California and around the world gives us a unique understanding of the kinds of regulations that work for municipalities like Newport Beach, and we are grateful for staff's outreach to Expedia Group to date. Newport Beach's proposed language includes new obligations on platforms—specifically, that platforms verify STIR operators' license numbers before allowing any bookings and be responsible for collecting and remitting Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to the City of Newport Beach. License Enforcement Newport Beach's proposed regulations would require platforms to review listings for license numbers and check those numbers against a city -maintained registry before every booking. As this provision moves forward, we encourage Newport Beach to keep two practical considerations in mind. First, developing a seamless registry portal and system available to all STIR platforms can be a complex and time-consuming task. Based on our experiences with similar efforts in other cities, Expedia Group recommends an effective date at least 90 days after final passage of the ordinance. Second, once enabled, the City's license registry must be updated at least once per day, and ideally in real time, as licenses are approved or revoked. This would allow newly licensed operators to list their properties on STIR platforms as soon as they are eligible and helps platforms remove unlicensed properties without delay. TOT Requirements As drafted, Newport Beach's proposed ordinance would require platforms to collect and remit TOT generated by short-term rental activity in the city. This provision requires voter approval consistent with Proposition 218, which prohibits a local government from "impos[ing], extend[ing] or increas[ing] any general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote." The proposed language would newly "impose" tax liabilities and obligations on platforms by subjecting platforms to tax collection, recordkeeping, enforcement and remittance liabilities for tax owed as a result of short-term residential occupancies the platform facilitates. While Newport Beach's TOT is imposed on "transients" for the privilege of occupancy, tax liability is also imposed on an "operator" if tax is not remitted, whether or not it is collected by the operator from the guest. The proposed language would effectively treat platforms like "operators" for purposes of tax collection, recordkeeping and remittance liabilities. For no other purpose would platforms be considered operators—thus, the proposed amendments "impose" tax liabilities and obligations that do not exist under current law. This can only be done if voter approval is first secured. We ask that this provision be removed from the ordinance. Again, we are deeply grateful for the City's efforts to engage with Expedia Group and other stakeholders as part of this process. We look forward to working with you moving forward. Please feel free to contact me at wagonzales@expediagroup.com or 512-505- 1615 with any questions. Sincerely, Walter R. Gonzales Government Affairs Manager, Southwest Region 1 1920 Alterra Parkway Austin, Texas 78758 Direct: 512.505.1615 wagonzales@expediagroup.com February 10, 2020 Newport Beach City Council Will O'Neill, Mayor City Council Chambers 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mayor O'Neill and Members of the Newport Beach City Council, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the City of Newport Beach's efforts to regulate short-term rentals (STRs). Expedia Group is a family of brands that includes vacation rental leaders Vrbo and HomeAway. Our experience working with communities in California and around the world gives us a unique understanding of the kinds of regulations that work for municipalities like Newport Beach, and we are grateful for staff's outreach to Expedia Group to date. Newport Beach's proposed language includes new obligations on platforms—specifically, that platforms verify STR operators' license numbers before allowing any bookings and be responsible for collecting and remitting Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to the City of Newport Beach. License Enforcement Newport Beach's proposed regulations would require platforms to review listings for license numbers and check those numbers against acity-maintained registry before every booking. As this provision moves forward, we encourage Newport Beach to keep two practical considerations in mind. First, developing a seamless registry portal and system available to all STR platforms can be a complex and time-consuming task. Based on our experiences with similar efforts in other cities, Expedia Group recommends an effective date at least 90 days after final passage of the ordinance. Second, once enabled, the City's license registry must be updated at least once per day, and ideally in real time, as licenses are approved or revoked. This would allow newly licensed operators to list their properties on STR platforms as soon as they are eligible and helps platforms remove unlicensed properties without delay. TOT Requirements As drafted, Newport Beach's proposed ordinance would require platforms to collect and remit TOT generated by short-term rental activity in the city. This provision requires voter approval consistent with Proposition 218, which prohibits a local government from "impos[ing], extending] or increasing] any general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote." 333 108th Avenue NE I Bellevue, WA 198004 � USA I T +1 425 679 7200 I F +1 425 679 7240 I expediagroup.com The proposed language would newly "impose" tax liabilities and obligations on platforms by subjecting platforms to tax collection, recordkeeping, enforcement and remittance liabilities for tax owed as a result of short-term residential occupancies the platform facilitates. While Newport Beach's TOT is imposed on "transients" for the privilege of occupancy, tax liability is also imposed on an "operator' if tax is not remitted, whether or not it is collected by the operator from the guest. The proposed language would effectively treat platforms like "operators" for purposes of tax collection, recordkeeping and remittance liabilities. For no other purpose would platforms be considered operators—thus, the proposed amendments "impose" tax liabilities and obligations that do not exist under current law. This can only be done if voter approval is first secured. We ask that this provision be removed from the ordinance. Again, we are deeply grateful for the City's efforts to engage with Expedia Group and other stakeholders as part of this process. We look forward to working with you moving forward. Please feel free to contact me at wagonzales@expediagroup,com or 512-505-1615 with any questions. Sincerely, -��/ ' Walter R. Gonzales Government Relations Manager Expedia Group cc: Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director 333 108th Avenue NE I Bellevue, WA 198004 � USA I T +1 425 679 7200 I F +1 425 679 7240 I expediagroup.com Received After Agenda Printed February 11, 2020 Item No. 20 Subject: FW: STL Revised Ordinance Comments From: Jeff Herdman <jherd man204@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 12:11 PM To: Craig Batley <cbatlev@burrwhite.com> Cc: Jurjis, Seimone <slurlis@newportbeachca.gov>; Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Brenner, Joy <JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Re: STL Revised Ordinance Comments Hi Craig! I can't respond to all of your questions, but I can take a stab at a few of them: 1. If a guest violates their STL agreement I do not believe that they should be given a chance to correct the violation. Are we given chances to correct a motor vehicle violation when we are issued a ticket. A code is a code. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for a violation. And in this particular case, rental agents, rental platforms, individual property owners are charged with the responsibility of completely enlightening tenants on city code before their term of rental begins sot he tenant should be well-informed about what they can and can't do when moving in to the place they have rented. 2. A violation is a violation. One is does not have weight over the other. 3. It would appear that number 3 wold be a possibility, but I would need to get an opinion from our City attorney or Chief of Police. 4. What application is sued is not important to me. That is not the issue here. The issue is a quality of life issue for people who live near or next to an STL. The application used to rent a place is a non -issue. 5. If a violation occurs, it is one strike against the property owner. I am not aware of any time limit that we are proposing where a property owner can correct a violation and not have it count against them. A violation is a violation. 6. The legal definition of an accessory dwelling unit can be found on the city website. 7. I don't understand this question. Do you mean that an owner would affirm a terms off use on the city website to avoid repeated paperwork? You questions says "of' the city website and it doesn't make sense. 8. Staff will have to answer this one. 9. An occupant is an occupant. A six month old baby is an occupant. 10. Code violation notification would be handled by the police department of code enforcement. What it actually looks like I do not know right now. 12. I don't understand this one, Craig. I'd have to have this one explained more to me before I could attempt a response. Hope these responses help! I'm sure that as these new practices/procedures are implemented, it will probably be necessary to revisit this whole topic at a time in the future, and I am certainly open to that. Jeff On Feb 10, 2020, at 11:43 AM, Craig Batley <cbatley(a�burrwhite.com> wrote: Hello City Council: After reading the proposed revision of the Short -Term Lodging city code, I have a few questions. I am also attaching the pertinent code sections that in my opinion need clarification or editing based on years of managing a few hundred permitted short-term vacation rentals the past 20 years. I am asking the council to send this draft back to staff for further clarification and editing making the STL code revision a document that reflects the current STL marketing and management as it operates today. In other words, after some refinement, perhaps the code revision will be ready for approval at the February 25th or March 10tH If I can be of assistance to staff, I am willing to work with staff to assist in crafting a code revision that works for all stakeholders. Questions that need answers, comment or explanation: 1. If a guest violates their STL: vacation contract should the proprietor be given a chance to correct the violation within a reasonable time period maybe 2-12 hour period of code violation without penalty? 2. Are all code violations equal? Garbage citation vs noise violation? 3. Should the city LUGO addendum be incorporated in the STL vacation contract? 4. Why not require STL permit applicants agree to use a city STL contract? 5. How long of a time period is an owner allowed in order to correct a violation before it counts against them? Remembering the goal is to encourage adherence to STL code 6. What is an accessory dwelling unit? 7. Is it possible to have an owner affirm a terms of use acknowledgement of the city website, thereby avoiding unnecessary paperwork to be management by city staff? 8. Do the fines set forth in Section 1.05.020(F) supersede fines in the STL code (chapter 5.95)? 9. Does a 6 -month-old baby (sleeping in a basinet) count as an occupant? 10. Shall the city notify a STL permit holder of code violation via a formal "Desist and Cease" order or a "Notice to Quit" 11. What procedure for notification a violation has occurred and what period of time is allowed to correct said deficiency? 12. If a short-term lodging permit is suspended or revoked should the city punish guests who have made plane reservations and intend to visit Newport Beach by requiring a calcitrant STL permit holder to cancel all future confirmed bookings? Or is it enough to prevent the permit holder to discontinue making any new bookings? 13. Should a proprietor lose his STL permit for cause IF while his property is being managed by a property management company allowing guests to violate noise ordinances OR Should the proprietor be allowed to change management companies? 14. How would a city approved 24 hour answering service distribute messages to STL permit holders? Are owners contacted immediately and directly? Instead, wouldn't it be simpler to require permit holders to provide evidence of employing a commercial 24-hour answering service? 15. Assuming guests sign a vacation rental contract, IF the guest violates its terms shouldn't the guest be subject to an administrative fine, especially if occupancy or noise provisions are violated? <image003 Jpg> <City Council 5.95 Revision.docx> Color code: Delete, edit as specified or recommended, duplicative/needs simplification, Suggestions for the PROPOSED STL code revision: 5.95.005 Purpose and Findings C. Many of the occupants of short term lodging units are permanent residents of areas distant from Newport Beach and the City has no effective way to prevent occupants from continuing to violate provisions of this Code and the Penal Code relating to noise, disturbances and disorderly conduct. The only effective way to minimize the problems associated with occupancy of short-term lodging units is to impose responsibility on the owner of the property, either personally or through an agent, to control the conduct of guests and occupants. D. Numerous incidents involving excessive noise, disorderly conduct, vandalism, overcrowding, traffic congestion, illegal vehicle parking and accumulation of refuse are directly related to short term lodging units which increasingly require response from police, fire, paramedic and other City services. E. The increase in demand for City services resulting from short term lodging units increases during the summer overburdens, and but does not threaten the City's ability to provide necessary services. F. A few many short term lodging units are operated by agents and/or absentee owners who exercise little or no supervision or control of occupants M. The restrictions of this chapter are necessary to preserve the City's housing stock, the quality and character of the City's residential neighborhoods as well as to prevent the continued burden on City services and adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods off the peninsula posed by short term lodgings. 5.95.010 Definitions. A. "Accessory dwelling unit?" (like an efficiency unit? needs clarification why not just define an Wsory dwelling unit? shall have the same definition as set forth in Chapter 20.70 of Title 20 of this Code. 5.95.017 Maximum Number of Permits Exception to the permit eligibility in favor of exceeding the arbitrary 1600 permit limit should be IF a previous STL permit holder for a R-2 property, whose current status is now inactive and subsequently, the owner desires to reinstate such STL permit, then such application should be allowed, subject to the applicant's previous status was in good standing. Otherwise, this previous STL permit holder suffers from unintended consequences and would be forced to be on a waiting list for an indefinite period of time. 5.95.030 Applicant for Permit. D. Should be The number of bedrooms, including lofts or dens in the lodging unit F. A proposed location for the placement of the sign require to be posted on the exterior of the unit sem: A sign shall be posted on the front of the permitted residential property. G. A Owner certification ( form supplied by the City or terms of use agreement of the city website) that the applicant has reviewed the covenants, conditions and restrictions, if any, and a short term use is permitted at the location pursuant to the terms of the covenants, conditions and restrictions, if any. H. Owner Acknowledgement of receipt and inspection of a copy of all regulations pertaining to the operation of a short-term lodging unit. 5.95.045 Conditions. A. All permits issued pursuant to this chapter are subject to the following standard conditions: 1. The owner shall enter into a written agreement with the transient use that requires all persons residing in the short term lodging unit to live as a single housekeeping unit; and that the transient user limit the overnight occupancy of the short term lodging unit two occupants, per bedroom (including lofts and dens) plus two persons per lodging unit. The owner shall use best efforts to ensure that the overnight maximum occupancy is not exceeded. NOTE: If the STL contract limi e guest should be subject to immediate evictio 4. The owner of the short term lodging unit shall use best efforts to ensure compliance with all the provisions of TITLE 6 of this Code 9. The owner shall utilize the City's answering service OR provide evidence of employing a commercial 24-hour answering service and otherwise shall provide the City with the name and twenty-four (24) hour phone number of a local contact person(s) (who reside within twenty-five (25) miles (10 miles) of the property) who shall ensure compliance with this chapter in a timely manner. 15. The owner shall post on a sign not to exceed two square feet, which shall be approved by the City, the local primary contact name, the phone number for the City's answering service. and maximum overnight unit occupancy. The sign shall be posted at a location on the exterior of the unit readily visible from public right of way, subject to the approval by the City, in lettering of sufficient size to be easily legible. 5.95.050 Agent and Hosting Platform Responsibilities B. Subject to applicable laws, agents and hosting platforms shall disclose to the City on a regular basis each home=sharing and vacation rental listing located in the City, the names of the persons responsible for each such listing, the address of each such listing the length of stay for each such listing and the price paid for each stay. Why 5.95.055 Issuance of Administrative Subpoenas The City Manager shall have the authority to issue and serve administrative subpoenas to the owner, agent or hosting platform, as necessary, for cause, 5.95.060 Violations and Penalties. B. Except as provided in subsection C in the case of any substantial administrative citation issued pursuant to this chapter, administrative fines shall be assessed in the following amounts: 3. A fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) for a third violation, or any subsequent violation, with one year of the date of the prior violation. Thought after 2 violations a STL permit is revoked? 5.95.065 Suspensions and Revocations A. Suspensions/Revocations. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, if any person guest while the lodging unit was occupied on a short term basis, violates a short term lodging permit code provision condition two (2) or more times in any twelve (12) month period or any other provision of this Code, state law or federal law, two (2) or more times in any twelve (12) month period, and the violation relates in any way to the unit that has a short term lodging permit,the STL permit for the unit subject to written notice to permit holder of such violation and providing for a period of correction AND the permit holder fails to correct said deficiency THEN permit holder's STL permit may be suspended for a period of six (6) months in accordance with subsection (B). 2. In the case of a short term lodging permit for a uit that is located in a Safety Enhancement Zone, if there is a violation of any provision of the Code during the period that the Safety Enhancement Zone is in effect, the short term lodging permit for the unit may be suspended for a period of one year or revoked in accordance with subsection (B). NOTE: if any person guest While the lodging unit was occupied on a short term basis, violates a short term lodging permit code provision condition two (2) or more times 3. If a lodging unit that is subject to a short term lodging permit has been the location of TWO or more loud or unruly gatherings, as defined in Chapter 10.66 of this code, this section is Confusing it talks about two or more LUGO's within any 24 month period permit may be suspended, however, there is an exception for a prior to the passage of fourteen calendar days for the mailing of notice..... shall not be included within the calculation of the two or more LUGO's....... 5. If any person violates a short term lodging permit condition or any other provision of this Code, state or federal law with six (6) months of have a previously suspended short term lodging permit reinstated for a unit, and the violation relates in any way to the unit that has the short term lodging permit, the short term lodging permit for the unit may be revoked in accordance with subsection (B). 6 If any person violates a short term lodging permit condition three (3) or more times in any twelve (12) month period or provision of this Code, state or federal law three (3) or more times in any twelve (12) month period and the violation occurs during a short term occupancy, relates in any way to the unit that has a short term lodging permit, the short term lodging permit for the unit may be revoked in accordance with subsection (B). 7. If any person fails to collect and remit transient occupancy tax or the visitor service fee in accordance with the requirements of this chapter, Chapters 3.16 or 3.28 in regards to any unit that has a short term lodging permit, two or more times with any thirty six (36) month period, the short term lodging permit for the unit may be revoked in accordance with subsection (B). 5.95.065 Suspensions and Revocations. Too exceptions C. If a short-term lodging permit is suspended or revoked, it shall be the owner's responsibility to cease making any new bookings going forward vacate any future bookings and remove all advertisements related to the short-term rental of the unit during the term of the suspension. If a short-term lodging permit is revoked, it shall be the owner's responsibility to vacate any future bookings and remove all advertisements related to the short-term rental of the unit. 5.95.080 License and Permit Closure. B. The Finance Director shall close any permit that has no short-term lodging activity for a period of two consecutive years by remitting zero dollars on the required transient occupancy tax and visitor service fee forms and or has failed to return the transient occupancy and visitor service forms. After any permit closure any permit closure pursuant to this subsection, the owner may reapply for reinstatement of the short-term lodging permit which shall be processed in accordance with Section 5.95.030. Section 5.95.017 does not apply if application for reinstatement occurs within 6 months. Received After Agenda Printed February 11, 2020 Item No. 20 Subject: FW: STR Proposal Comments Importance: High From: Scott Carpenter <scott@itrip.net> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 10:22 PM To: Jurjis, Seimone <siuriis@newportbeachca.gov>; Leung, Grace <gleung@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Herdman, Jeff<iherdman@newportbeachca.gov>:O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: STR Proposal Comments Importance: High Seimone, Grace - I've just finished reading through the proposed STR Ordinance changes for the 2/11/20 City Council Meeting. After lots of meetings, input, and comments, I would first like to say a job well-done to everyone for trying to balance a number of competing priorities and concerns. It goes a long way in creating better operating conditions and equals the playing field for those that follow the current regulations in place. Many of the proposed items are already part out iTrip Vacations Newport Beach's practices with our guest such as: detailed posting in multiple forms about parking, trash, street sweeping, and noise; collecting TOTs on every qualifying reservation and making sure our guest clearly see those during the booking process; outlining the city's LUGO ordinance in our rental agreements; occupancy limits that are in line or in some cases more stringent than the proposed requirements. Hence, why I am overall supportive of the proposals. Initially, I was quite concerned about a licensing requirement imposed by the City that would exceed California law. I would like to offer some comments from iTrip Vacations Newport Beach's point of view and urge some additional consideration. • Section 5.95.045 • Section 6d/2 and Section 5.95.065 (Code issues, specifically trash, correction periods): this is a challenging one for me as I've had to call the City and CR&R to complain about neighbors to our STRs about excess trash and code violations. While I would concur a violation is a violation, but often there are circumstances that may involve other neighbors or circumstances beyond control (CR&R failed to pick-up). To be frank, we have issues with year-round tenants near us that create more issues than STRs during the holiday periods. Is there some level of grace period for issues to be remedied in a timely manner? • Regarding 5.95.045 (Suspensions/Revocations): per my comments above, some of these violations are correctable and/or caused by other homes. It would seems like correctable items should be given a chance to be corrected in the case of first or second issues. If it becomes an on-going issues, then it becomes a `'permanent" violation. o Section 8 (Collection of TOTS): for some of the OTA, the billing is passed through to our company and we collect the TOTs. The language indicates that this burden may shift to the OTAs. I want to clarify this because in our opinion the property managers are best able to ensure compliance and reporting. Subsection B seems to indicate that the agent will retain that responsibility. Section 15 (Signage): specifically overnight occupancy maybe confusing. Neighbors may confuse overnight occupancy with number of people at any given time. In our case, we rent primarily to families and young couples (we screen out potential parties and do not allow stays under 2 -nights) and these families may have local visitors and relatives. It would seem burdensome to resources answering calls about people at a home in the middle of day vs overnight. Section 5.95.050 o Section A (Applicable TOTs): this is an on-going issue due to the audits and something that could use some stronger clarification by the city and an updating of Sections 3.16.020 and 3.28.020. ■ The definition of what is taxable is very vague. As the STR industry has evolved, more services and fees have entered into the equation. To the point that City Staff has long indicated and "blessed" the TOTS would only need to be collected on just the rent. This interpretation appears to be changing. It would make sense that the language changes with it. ■ Ironically, the language about what constitutes rent varies from Section 3.16.020 to 3.28.020. ■ To this day multiple tax rates exist among the various property managers, thereby creating un -necessary confusion. The STR industry has evolved greatly over the past five years and I can tell you that the pace of evolution will not be slowing down at all. For example, we are in discussion to introduce noise monitors in our properties, add smart -home technology to our units, and expand offerings that enhance both the guest and owner experience. Some of these items are not addressed in the Amended Ordinance. I can tell you without a doubt these innovations can and will also help us create a better quality of life for our neighbors. Again, congratulations on creating a proposed ordinance that can be effective, but needing some "tweaks/clarification". Thanks in advance for the time. Scott Carpenter Scott Carpenter Owner/General Manager iTrip Newport Beach (949) 929-8640 scott(a.itrip. net www.itrip.net/newportbeach itripvacations Received After Agenda Printed February 11, 2020 Item No. 20 Subject: FW: Public Comments: February 11 City Council Agenda item From: K Keith Sent., Monday, February 10, 2020 10:21:20 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office Subject: Public Comments: February 11 City Council Agenda Item Dear Council members, I have lived next door to a duplex that has rented out both units as an Airbnb for the last 5 years. It has been a nightmare. I have complained numerous times, written to the council, and talked to the police, but nothing has helped. Although the noise and disruption has been awful, the police rarely come in time to witness the offence or simply ask the renters to "keep it down," so there have never been 2 citations issued within 12 months despite repeated offences. Who would want to live next door, literally less than 6 feet away, from a nightly "hotel"? I have slept in my living room more nights than I can remember because of the noise right outside my bedroom wall. Please, please, please protect homeowners and taxpayers like myself from nightly rentals. Follow the example of other cities and do not allow rentals for less than 30 days or do not allow homeowners to rent their condos or houses more than 3 times a year. I have worked hard all my life and have paid dearly to live in the flower streets. Please protect me and my right to the enjoyment of my home. Restrictions on nightly rentals should apply to BOTH sides of PCH, not just the ocean side. We did not chose to live on the peninsula next to summer rentals and should not be subjected to nightly rentals all year long on the flower streets. Thank you. Katharine Keith 621 Iris Ave. Corona del Mar 92625 949-939-3544 Subject: FW: Short Term Lodging proposed ordinance Received After Agenda Printed February 11, 2020 Item No. 20 From: S Trainor <d4md4m@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 5:32 PM To: Jurjis, Seimone <slurlis@newportbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Short Term Lodging proposed ordinance Hello I am a Balboa Island resident. I am interested in ensuring that short-term lodgers are not disruptive to our life on the Island, but am also realistic that many of us starting out renting, often weekly, before we started living here permanently. I do think most of the proposed regulations would be helpful, but I am concerned about the parking restriction and believe that it should not be included in the finalized ordinance. I am very well aware of the parking issues on Balboa Island (and probably more so than any of you other than Jeff Herdman). Living here full time with short- and long-term residents for many years, has allowed me to draw the following conclusions about the causes of our parking problems. These are, in order of most impact to least: • full time residents who do not use their garages or on site parking for vehicles (I personally know a number of properties with 5 or more cars and only one of which or none is parked on site) • day/evening penisula-bound visitors particularly those who park on the island for free parking for one or more days on boat trips away from the bay • weekday services provided by construction workers, cleaning people, home services and care, gardening, etc. • short term lodging visitors • employees of and visitors to commercial/retail properties on the Island, people here to walk (with/without dogs), and visitors to island residents • Junior Guards and BIYC programs From my perspective, regualting the parking for short-term lodging will not result in any noticeable relief. That will only happen if we regulate the number of cars per property for residents. Sincerely Shelly Trainor 202 Pearl Ave Subject: FW: Follow up to comments on short term lodging From: S Trainor <d4md4m@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 7:15 AM To: Jurjis, Seimone <sluriis@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Follow up to comments on short term lodging Hello Please this to my concerns about the parking regulations that are proposed as part of the short term lodging ordinance. Do not overlook the real possibility of unintended consequences. If properties lose or are denied short term lodging permits due to the lack of on-site parking, those properties will be occupied by longer term residents (not left vacant). So instead of vacationers with 1 or more cars for a short period of time, these properties without on site parking will have full time residents typically with at least one car per resident. All these vehicles will be parked on our streets year-round regularly. Seems to me the net result would be more cars parked on the streets. Shellv Trainor Received After Agenda Printed February 11, 2020 Item No. 20 Subject: FW: A Few Questions From: Pat Chamberlain <pat@villarentalsinc.com> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 5:41 PM To: Navarrete, Monique <MNava rrete@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: RE: A Few Questions Also, is there a map defining the Coastal Zone? Patrick Chamberlain 427 311t Street Newport Beach CA 92663 949-675-4912 Office 949-795-4038 Cell Villarentalsinc.com From: Pat Chamberlain Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 5:36 PM To: Navarrete, Monique <MNava rrete9newportbeachca.gov> Subject: A Few Questions I read the Agenda for tomorrow. I know we have discussed this a few times but there has not been a clear explanation of other fees that the city is expecting to collect above and beyond the 10% tax. I copied a section over: a. Ensure that all transient occupancy taxes and visitor service fees are collected and remitted to the City and otherwise comply with all transient occupancy tax and visitor service fee requirements, as set forth in Chapters 3.16 and 3.28. Can you provide me the verbiage pertaining to the visitor service fee requirements? I have several future contracts already in place with a 10% tax collected only and I never heard back from our audit last year on anything otherwise from what we collected and paid during the audited period. Is the visitor service fee requirement something that the council is to still approve above and beyond the city tax? Also, when the council finally approves the final verbiage... will you guys be sending out some sort of outline for required verbiage to be in both contracts and posted in the units? My on call person can change from weekend to weekend so can the contact be a general phone number to our office that then rings the person on call within the 25 mile radius to respond? The verbiage referred to a single person and contact which is why I'm asking. Talk to you soon! Patrick Chamberlain 427 3151 Street Newport Beach CA 92663 949-675-4912 Office 949-795-4038 Cell Villarentalsinc.com Received After Agenda Printed February 11, 2020 Item No. 20 February 11, 2020, Council Item 20 Comments The following comments on an item on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(a)-yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 20. Ordinance No. 2020-8: Amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code for Short Term Lodging Page 20-6: The statement in the staff report that "Staff believes the proposed changes do not violate the Coastal Act and will not require a Coastal Development Permit," seems, at best, incomplete. Changes to short-term lodging provisions are very common item on Coastal Commission agendas. A letter to community development directors from the Coastal Commission Chair date December 6, 2016, states "First, please note that vacation rental regulation in the coastal zone must occur within the context of your local coastal program (LCP) and/or be authorized pursuant to a coastal development permit (CDP). The regulation of short- term/vacation rentals represents a change in the intensity of use and of access to the shoreline, and thus constitutes development to which the Coastal Act and LCPs must apply. We do not believe that regulation outside of that LCP/CDP context (e.g., outright vacation rental bans through other local processes) is legally enforceable in the coastal zone, and we strongly encourage your community to pursue vacation rental regulation through your LCP." In view of this, it seems likely a ruling would be required on whether the proposed cap of 1,600 permits (page 20-16) is consistent with our Coastal Land Use Plan's Policy "2.7-3. Continue to authorize short-term rental of dwelling units pursuant to permits and standard conditions that ensure the rentals will not interfere with public access and enjoyment of coastal resources." It should also be noted our LCP Implementation Plan (NBMC Title 21) contains a number of provisions related to short-term lodging, including allowed zoning districts (largely mirroring the Zoning Code, Title 20), but also specific "operational standards" in Section 21.48.115. Again, consistency of the new regulations with these may need to be certified. The LCP appears to be silent on home - sharing, and the significance of that omission is not immediately obvious. Page 20-10: Section 1, paragraph F: Ordinance No. 2020-8 proposes to modify language that was added by Ordinance No. 2012-13. The references in that earlier ordinance to NBMC Title 9 and the California Fire Code sections the City adopted or modified are now long out-of-date (new, and often newly numbered, Fire Codes being adopted on a 3 -year cycle). Further detective work would be needed to determine what the content of California Fire Code sections 107.5 and 107.5.1 were at the time of enactment. It is not obvious from the 2012 staff report. Although it is not the subject of Ordinance No. 2020-8, it would seem that if this paragraph is amendment, the obsolete references should be corrected. Page 20-12: "5.95.030 Applican Application for Permit." [?, see page 20-17] Page 20-14: The definition of "Booking transaction" sounds like it is defining a booking service (that is, a provider), rather than a transaction. The body of the ordinance also refers to "listings" without defining what is regarded as a listing. February 11, 2020, City Council Item 20 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 Page 20-15: "Short term" seems to provide a definition of a "Short term lodging unit" rather than the meaning of "short term" (= less than 30 days). Page 20-17: "5.95.030 A an Application for Permit." [This section appears to describe the application, not the applicant.] Page 20-22: Subsection 5.95.050.B: Is this really asking for disclosure of all "listings," or was it intended to mean completed bookings? Also, it presumably requires disclosure only of that entity's listings (or bookings), not all those in the City (as it seems to say). Page 20-23: Subsection 5.95.060.C: Was this intended to apply only to standard conditions (as it says) or to all conditions? Page 20-24: In A.1, the use of "a short term lodging permit condition" in this and similar passages makes it appear the same condition has to be violated multiple times. Is that the intent? If not, it might be better to say something like: "Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, if any person violates a short term lodging permit cnenditien conditions,*"' more time in any twelve (12) month .,er Gd or any other provisionprovisions of this Code, state law or federal law, two (2) or more times in any twelve (12) month period, and the Welation "elates violations relate in any way to the a unit that has a short term lodging permit, Page 20-24: The last sentence of A.3 is very difficult to understand. If that is what is intended, it might be better to say: "A loud or unruly gathering that occurred prior to thepassage o more than fourteen (14) calendar days 4Gm before the mailing of notice to the owner in compliance with Section 10. 66.030(0) shall not be included within the calculation of the two or more loud or unruly gatherings required to revoke a short term lodging permit." [That is, I believe it is trying to say a LUGO won't be counted if the City fails to mail notice to the owner within 14 days. But as written, it seems exclude all LUGO's that occurred before the mailing + 14 days, which would be all of them.] Received After Agenda Printed February 11, 2020 Item No. 20 Lj,,... -20 FEB 1 ►'GCCt u;e -nY m 7-0 7- R/� ,� � loo Czh c O /7j&�z 'eivC4 fz III t:i'i'ilii'�l��ll, ill r''1jlliilIill dil'i:il marlmekk O•• DESIGN: 'HUHULV By AINO-MAIJA METSOLA, 2012. jiillili'11lllll", W W W.marimekko.com Copyright O 2014 by Marlmekko. From "Merlmekko: 100 Postcards' published by Chronicle Books LLC.