HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 - Updating the NBMC for Short Term Lodging - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed
February 25, 2020
Item No. 4
Subject: FW: Short Term Rental Permits
From: Bob Boyhan <bob.bovhan@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 6:15 PM
To: Harp, Aaron <aharp@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Short Term Rental Permits
Dear Mr. Harp,
I'm concerned about a few provisions of the proposed ordinance to amend the municipal code
relating to short term lodging permits No. 2020-08. I'm writing to you hoping the Council will consider
changing some of the provisions listed below
1. Section 5.9.015- article 3: Revoking the STL permits of those in the non -coastal zone.
The justification for this is very unclear. There are approximately 57-59 permits — less than
4% of all permit holders in the City. This would affect mostly the properties in Corona del
Mar on the inland side of PCH.
It seems as though you are targeting a very small number of short term rental units as a
result of you not having any control over those units in the "Coastal Zone" (an estimated
1496 total short term rental units and your trying to solve a problem by imposing stiff
regulations on and potentially revoking 57-59 permits).
2. Section 5.95.017: The 1600 home cap on short term rentals. Right now, owners of duplex
properties have been hit with the new State Law that requires a duplex to be rebuilt if one is
torn down. Preventing owners of duplexes from operating a short term rental just compounds
the problem and hurts property values. I've also learned that such a cap would probably not
pass muster with the Coastal Commission, which could end up invalidating the whole law.
In addition, since you can't seem to control the "Coastal Zone" what will you do if before April
1, 2030 the" "Coastal Zone" short term rentals exceeds 1542 (start to indiscriminately revoke permits
of those owners on the North side of PCH).
3. Section 5.95.045 article 10: Requirement of a parking space per unit. Unfortunately
many current short term rentals have no parking. Owners of properties like this would suffer
a great hardship if they lost the ability to do a short term rental. I think the Council has a
misunderstanding of parking related to short term lodging. Vacation tenants typically come
with only one car, or none which does not add to congestion. Yearly tenants and
homeowners often have many cars and this is where the problem lies, along with garages
that are filled with junk.
4. Section 5.95.045 article15: Signage. As described, this is overbearing and probably not
workable, as well as an intrusion into privacy.
Requiring external signage highlights the fact that the property is a rental and would therefore
be vacant at times thus increases the potential for break-ins and vandalism. It is my understanding
that as a permit holder I must post my permit in a place where the tenant can readily see it. Having a
document posted next to it with the information you suggested for an exterior sign should be enough.
5. Random Searches for Compliance. This concept is frightening and probably illegal.
One Democratic candidate just took a lot of heat for his stop and frisk policy. Are you trying
the same thing in a different form?
My wife and I rent our property as we travel during certain time of the year and we feel it is safer to
have someone in the house than not. We rent through an agent and to get maximum exposure the
agent lists the property as a short-term rental with mid-term rentals available. As a result, we are for
all intensive purposes considered a short term rental. We have however never rented the house for
less that 30 days and in fact have been able to accommodate several Newport Beach area families
who needed housing while their home was being renovated.
I realize the ad hoc committee and staff worked hard on this, but I believe these provisions should be
addressed before the February 25 meeting.
Thanks for your consideration and I hope to be at the City Council Meeting on February 25th to
personally express my concerns.
Cordially,
Robert J. Boyhan
Subject: FW: Short Term Rental Law
From: Don Abrams <don@abramscoastal.com>
Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 12:06 PM
To: "Herdman, Jeff' <jherd man@newportbeachca.gov>, "Dixon, Diane" <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>,
"Avery, Brad" <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>, "Duffield, Duffy" <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>,
"Muldoon, Kevin" <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>, "O'Neill, William" <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>,
"Brenner, Joy" <JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: "Jurjis, Seimone" <sjuriis@newportbeachca.gov>, "Harp, Aaron" <aharp@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Short Term Rental Law
Dear Members of the Council:
I've spoken to a few of you privately about the short term rental law and would like to address the entire Council at this
time about the proposed new provisions. While I generally support reasonable regulation of housing in the City, I'm
concerned about a few provisions of the new short term rental law, which I'm hoping the Council will consider
changing. As I said at the hearing on Tuesday, February 11th, the law has many worthwhile provisions that I support,
but a few which are onerous, that I don't.
Before beginning, I would note that only 35 Citations were issued in 2019 with regard to short term rental violations,
according to the staff report at the February 11th meeting. This is a tiny number in light of the many thousands of
vacation leases that occurred in the City during that time. Of course, we should assume that there were many, perhaps
hundreds of complaints that weren't citation worthy. How should these have been dealt with? Now that we have a
published list on the City website of the names and phone numbers of every vacation rental owner, it seems that the
complaining party should first ask the offending party to stop, second call the owner of the home, and as a last resort,
call the police. This should handle the vast majority of problems. We can't legislate people into good neighbor conduct.
My specific objections to the proposed provisions are as follows:
1. The 1600 home cap on short term rentals. No one answered when I questioned where this number came from at the
February 11th hearing. Right now, owners of duplex properties have been affected by a new State Law that requires a
duplex to be rebuilt if one is torn down. Preventing owners of duplexes from operating a short term rental just
compounds the problem and ultimately hurts property values. I've also learned that such a cap might not pass muster
with the Coastal Commission, which could end up invalidating the whole law if this cap provision is passed.
On a side, but important note, at least two members of the Council may currently have short term rental permits. For
members with permits to vote on a provision that limits others from getting permits would seem to be a conflict of
interest. I believe all members of the Council should explore whether they may have a conflict regarding this provision,
and if necessary discuss the matter with Counsel Aaron Harp.
The City has said there are 1461 properties with short term licenses. In a City of 85,000 properties, 1461 is not a large
number. Limiting the number of short term permits will just drive potential short term homeowners underground,
which will leave the City unable to regulate them or get the TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax) the City is entitled to. This is
what often happens in other Coastal cities and would be a mistake for Newport Beach.
2. Requirement of a parking space per unit. Unfortunately many current short term rentals have no parking or
inadequate parking. Owners of properties like this, who now have licenses, would suffer a great hardship if they lost
the ability to do a short term rental. I think some members of the Council may have a misunderstanding of parking
related to short term lodging. Vacation tenants typically come with only one car, which does not add to
congestion. Yearly tenants and homeowners often have many cars and this is where the problem lies, along with
garages that are filled with junk, as well as seasonal guests visiting homeowners, yearly, and vacation rentals.
3. Signage. As it's been described, I believe this is overbearing and probably not workable, as well as an intrusion into
privacy. If every Realtor were required to have a sign on each rental property, this alone would be a big improvement.
4. Random Searches for Compliance. Seimone mentioned at the February 11th Hearing that the City might
conduct compliance searches. This concept is frightening and probably illegal.
Members, I know the ad hoc committee and staff worked hard on this, but I believe these provisions should be
addressed at the February 25th meeting. If the City were going to do one thing to improve short term rentals, I would
recommend a minimum stay of 2 or 3 days. This would have more impact and be more reasonable than the changes
discussed above.
I would appreciate having my letter put in the packet for the February 25th hearing.
Thank you for listening.
Don Abrams
714.325.9055
Subject: FW: Please Vote YES on Ordinance 2020-8 RE: Short Term Rentals
From: laciwit@gmail.com <iaciwit@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 3:24 PM
To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Please Vote YES on Ordinance 2020-8 RE: Short Term Rentals
Please Vote YES on Ordinance 2020-8 RE:Short Term
Rentals
Dear Council members,
My name is Jacqueline Wittmeyer. My husband and I have lived in our home for 35 years in Corona Del Mar. I am a
Realtor with Surterre Properties.
I have up to this point been silent and suffering living next door to a short term rental. The tenant in the rear unit next
door is renting one of their bedrooms on Airbnb. Many of their rentals have been one night stays. I own a duplex with
my husband, and we live in the front unit. We rent our back unit to long term tenants. I am hoping to eliminate the short
term rental activity in our neighborhood as it has been so disturbing to what was once a peaceful home and
neighborhood for us and for our tenants.
Let me share some of my thoughts with you, please forgive the random order:
1. No one will be denied their property right to rent with the passing of this ordinance. What I am hoping for is to
gain protection from the hotels being operated in our residential neighborhoods. Income from long term rental
units is available to any owner of a duplex. The argument of denial of income is not accurate.
2. The owners/Landlords of R-2 properties can and do rent their properties for income, they do not need Short
Term Lodging to get an income. I am one of these R-2 duplex owners. It is the large internet companies
operating short term rentals that are benefiting at the expense of our residents.
3. No one is denying property rights because rental income IS allowed in R-2 properties. What this ordinance is
doing is preserving my property rights for income from my long term tenants, including my right and theirs to
peace and tranquility in my home and neighborhood.
4. Sleepless nights- Coming and going throughout the night, suitcases rolling, loud conversations..."where is it?",
visitors arguing at times with f -bombs flying between 2:30 and 3:15am. Perhaps late flights from LAX? I have
found myself sleep deprived after nights in a row of such disturbances.
5. This is affecting my long term tenants and their peace, which is my income. This is decreasing my property value,
and I am concerned.
6. One morning at 7:40am this week one of the visitors was standing in the alley behind our home on a loud and
long speaker phone conversation, f -bomb conversation about a woman, while he was smoking pot. Do I need to
spend the later years of my life calling the police regularly to complain? I don't want to live like that.
7. 10 more years of sleepless nights is frightening. I would like this to be considerably shorter. I know of Corona Del
Mare residents who finally gave up, sold their home and decided to move in order to live in peace.
8. Overnight guests are vacationers, not neighbors. Their mode and agenda is different from a quiet night's sleep.
Allowing Short Term Rentals is allowing a hotel business in a residential neighborhood.
9. With 3 foot side yard setbacks, our properties are less than 6' apart from one another.
10. 1 have not filed a formal complaint with the police because of intimidation and threats from the "manager" of
our next door short term rental, at my front door after dark. I have talked with several police officers who have
encouraged me to file a complaint, but I have explained to them my fear of reporting and therefore hesitation to
do so.
11. Many residents are silently suffering. These vacation rental companies are concerned with making money, but it
is at our expense, we suffer as they profit. How could this be allowed to continue?
12. 1 would like the 10 year time frame reduced, the minimum night stay significantly increased.
13. We are not allowing our garages to be auto repair shops, we don't allow our patios to be restaurants, why would
we allow our bedrooms to become hotels?
Please help us, please vote yes.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline Wittmeyer
Jacqueline Wittmeyer
iaciwit@gmail.com
949.338.9393
DIRE #01124168
From: Sharon Boles <sharonaboles@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 7:21 PM
To: Larry Leifer
Cc: Dept - City Council; Mark & Melissa Markof; Jim Miller; Chris Garber
Subject: Re: Comments Regarding Short Term Rental Properties
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Larry,
I totally agree with your opinion.
It is so well written that it deserves to be published in the media.
You have captured the feelings of those of us who love our neighborhoods and absolutely detest the landlords who do
not care about anything but the money that their "cashcows" are bringing in to their coffers.
The City has even erroneously issued permits for short term and "Airbnb" rentals in our complex even though we are in
an area strictly zoned against same.
You are right to say that our City must rigorously monitor and regulate where and how many permits are issued in any
given area and heavily fine the egregious infractions caused by some of the occupants of these properties.
Sharon
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 5:57 PM Larry Leifer <lawrelei@gmail.com> wrote:
Please see the document attached.
Thank you.
Larry Leifer
To; Newport City Council Members
Comments Regarding Short Term Rentals 2/23/2020
Short Term Rentals are like a virus adversely infecting the lives of our long term residents on Newport
Island. The owners of short term rental properties are absentee landlords whose objective is simply
personal profit, does not benefit their neighbors quality of life, and whose concern for the consequences
of their transient tenants behavior is negligible.
The profusion of these short term rental properties is comparable to permitting unzoned and
unregulated commercial motels to situate among private homes. These STR's are now randomly
located on most streets of this congested Island nesting among long term residences. Even assuming
that all the customers of short term rentals behave properly during their stay, the process and frequency
of vehicles and people coming and going, searching for addresses and parking, then moving in and
moving out has created a feeling of chaos. There is also evidence of overcrowding by transient
occupants as well as by visiting party guests. The current count of approximately 15 to 17 short term
rental properties on the island is tantamount to having created a continuing public nuisance. This is a
very high density of STR's on the Island which is far higher than the average density on the Peninsula.
It is clear that the City of Newport Beach needs to exercise control of STR profusion and especially
establish effective controls in high density residential areas as Newport Island and the Finley Tract in
particular that are tightly bounded with narrow streets and very scarce street parking.. This kind of
concentration makes misbehaving STR tenants all the more aggravating and warrants prompt police
response to resident neighbor complaints. It also requires effective sanctioning of short term resident
property owners and guests who do not comply with city ordinances.
Respectfully,
Lawrence J. Leifer
3706 Channel Place
Newport Island 92663
949-650-7120
From: Meredith May <may_meredith@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 11:20 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Fwd: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED: SHORT TERM RENTALS on NEWPORT ISLAND
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
ATTN: NB City Council
Below is my email I sent to Diane Dixon on 2/15/2020 and received no response. Unfortunately I cannot attend the city
council meeting on Tuesday 2/25. Please use my email to voice my opinion/concerns.
I live next door to a Newport Island short term rental on Marcus Avenue. This property has a huge patio on the water
with a dock and it is a constant party everyday and night. NOT a good environment to raise my 2 young children.
Thank you,
Dr. Meredith May
Begin forwarded message:
From: Meredith May <may_meredith@hotmail.com>
Date: February 15, 2020 at 8:47:28 PM HST
To: "ddixon@newportbeachca.gov" <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED: SHORT TERM RENTALS on NEWPORT ISLAND
Hello Diane,
I attended the NB City Council Meeting on Tuesday 11 February 6:30PM as I was informed by a
neighbor that short term rentals on Newport Island was on the agenda. I brought my 2 young
children with me that night (no babysitter) and could not stay as I learned from the officers at
the door that the regular meeting would not start until 7PM, but that the study session was not
even completed. My husband and I decided that we could not sit through 30 minutes, let alone
2 hours with our 2 young children. I later heard from a neighbor that the issue was not
addressed at the meeting until 9PM, so I am glad I did not stay.
When will the short term rentals on Newport Island be addressed again with the city council? I
want to make sure I attend and would like to know the time I should be there.
Short term rentals on Newport Island is a major issue right now. I have lived here for 10 years
and last summer was one of the worst. I live next door to a short term rental and it is a constant
party everyday and every night! You expect this on the beach side over on Seashore, but not on
Newport Island. That is what made this island so special. When I first moved here, I was told by
my neighbors that everyone on the island either has dogs or kids which was true, but not
anymore. The family quiet residential feel is gone.
It is very unfortunate that we pay high taxes to live in a nice neighborhood that is now going
downhill by all the rowdy teenagers and twenty something year old tenants that arrive weekly
or for just a few nights. It is not normally families renting, it is groups of young adults in their
twenties or an adult renting it out for younger kids who is not on the property.
I do not appreciate the bad language and cigarette/marjuana smoke next door to me and my
small children all hours of the day. I do not have A/C since I live at the beach and now I cannot
leave my windows open as we will be engulfed in 2nd hand smoke. Foul language, hiring DJ's to
play on the patio, partying on huge boats with music blaring when tenants are allowed to also
rent the boat slip from the property owner, loud music/yelling, peeing and smoking in the
street, trash, etc, PARKING is a constant issue since the tenants think it is fine to park on
neighbors property.
I have contacted the owner of the rental property and Burr White rental management company
multiple multiple times last summer with emails, phone calls and texts. It is a complete
inconvenience for me and my family to have to deal with this on a daily basis. I should be able
to come home and be able to park behind my garage to get my kids out of the car safely
without having to ask the renters every day to move their car and every week to move their
trash cans to their property.
This summer, I am going straight to the city with my complaints and pictures.
I hope to hear from you soon as to how this issue is going to be addressed.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Dr. Meredith May
Newport Island Resident
Subject: FW: Regarding tonights meeting
From: Pam Murray <pam@casadebalboa.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 12:49 PM
To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; donabrams@sbcglobal.net; Eric Spitz <ericlgs@yahoo.com>
Subject: Regarding tonights meeting
February 25, 2020
Dear Mayor, City Council, and City Manager,
Regarding Short Term Lodging changes.
On February 11, 2020, city council voted, passing sweeping changes to Short Term Rentals that not only will
affect home owners ability to pay their mortgages, earn a living, but the value of the properties themselves
absent the right to pass on the permit in a sale or to heirs of the property as a "first right of refusal".
This may require a class action suit on behalf of those that "own" their property, have the proper permit, and
have rented in good standing for many decades while the city has filled its coffers..
All permitted owners should have received notice of this meeting and vote well in advance. I only knew of this
meeting by receiving an email from a third party the day before. This violates our rights.
At issue are noise complaints generated involving police for unruly guests most likely in usually large parties.
Per Don Abrams, two years ago there were 50 complaints and last year only 35 citations out of how many
rentals stays?
The peninsula, at the very minimum, has always had a large number of vacation rentals. People that bought
there and on Balboa Island were/are highly aware of vacation rentals.
I agree that the advent of, in particular AIRBNB, which charges no fee to list, unlike VRBO, has changed the
landscape of controlled vacation rentals, but that fault rests on the shoulders of the city.
The city is responsible for a lot of the issues at hand. You have many rentals that are either not permitted or
permitted to a tenant with the owner unaware., or permitted for too many guests. Many rent to a number of
guests that far exceeds what would be considered comfortable. That, alone, is a prescription for loud
parties... regardless of noise restrictions. You not only have an opportunity for abuse but for uncollected taxes
as well.
The city, clearly, was not prepared for this onslaught but instead limiting permits without the proper information
and weeding out bad listings is your answer.
Rules should be implemented and enforced before the number of permits is capped as there will be permits found to be
invalid due to lack of ownership or lack of proper insurance coverage.
Before you determined what changes to make, did the city hire a consultant? If so, where is that report? If not,
why not?
If the city hasn't already, they should consider hiring a compliance company, such as "hostcompliance.com", to
give the city information and weed out bad faith actors.
I have done a quick search on AIRBNB for STAYS in Newport Beach, CA and 9 guests. You can see very
quickly that the first listing is by one person in particular (not sure if the owner) with several properties,
advertising a 5 bedroom for 16 PLUS guests at $202/nt. The unit is in a residential area not in the coastal area
(put your mouse over the rate on map) .They have other listings as well
What the city should require for permits:
1. Require that each vacation rental not only have a business license, a permit, but ALSO permission from
the owner, and proof of vacation rental insurance coverage in order to obtain and maintain the permit.
Many properties are not insured properly even through management companies. Homeowners insurance is not
sufficient for renting short term and may invalidate any claim if companies have not been notified of how the
property is being used as short term rentals. There are companies that deal with vacation rental insurance
specifically such as Proper Insurance and Foremost (make sure Vacation Rental Insurance). The city is likely
liable in instances where they have issued a permit to a non -owner without proper insurance.
2) Require that the permit number be first in all listings and advertising. It's easier to look for.
3) Require proper number of permitted guests be on listings and advertising. Requiring a sign on the property
with the guest limit does nothing. Listings and advertisements of the rentals must limit the number of guests
period. If an advertisement states 16 guests for a 3 bedroom, is rented, and guests show up for check-in and
see a total of 8 guests on a sign ... they are still going to enter and stay. I did a search on AIRBNB and there are
loads of properties offering more guests than entitled which should be 2 more than the number of bedrooms as
the city has suggested.
4) Require that "Terms of Service" on all vacation rental listings and advertising sites (they ALL have them)
include information on "Good Neighbor Policies" regarding noise and the city code. We have an automatic
"Good Neighbors" email there I can see if read so there is no confusion.
5) Require a minimum age (25) to rent. We do. I m not sure if this violates laws for the city though
The above will certainly shake out all bad permits.
Other considerations
Some longstanding properties that do not have a parking space on the property need to be grandfathered in
regarding parking. The city should offer parking permits for these rentals (not the cars).
There has been a long history of vacation rentals that has serve travelers, owners, and the city well for many
decades generating many millions for the city in no only ax revenue on the rental, but dining and purchases as
well. We have filled a need for those that would not be able to visit otherwise. There should be a good deal of
consideration for those of us that have gone before AIRBNB et all.
If the permit limit is put in place, there should be the right to pass on the permit in a sale or to heirs of the
property as a "first right of refusal".
Thank you in advance of tonights meeting which I am, unfortunately, unable to attend.
Kind regards,
Pamela Murray
Casa de Balboa
949-500-3183
Subject: FW: short term lodging
From: Behnaz Mandavi <beamandavi@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 4:12 PM
To: "O'Neill, William" <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: short term lodging
I'm concerned about a few provisions of the proposed ordinance to amend the municipal code
relating to short term lodging permits No. 2020-08. I'm writing to you hoping the Council will consider
changing some of the provisions listed below
1. Section 5.9.015- article 3: Revoking the STL permits of those in the non -coastal zone. The justification for this is
very unclear. There are approximately 57-59 permits — less than 4% of all permit holders in the City. This would
affect mostly the properties in Corona del Mar on the inland side of PCH.
2. Section 5.95.017: The 1600 home cap on short term rentals. Right now, owners of duplex properties have been
hit with the new State Law that requires a duplex to be rebuilt if one is torn down. Preventing owners of
duplexes from operating a short term rental just compounds the problem and hurts property values. I've also
learned that such a cap would probably not pass muster with the Coastal Commission, which could end up
invalidating the whole law.
3. Section 5.95.045 article 10: Requirement of a parking space per unit. Unfortunately many current short term
rentals have no parking. Owners of properties like this would suffer a great hardship if they lost the ability to do
a short term rental. 1 think the Council has a misunderstanding of parking related to short term
lodging. Vacation tenants typically come with only one car, or none at all which does not add to
congestion. Yearly tenants and homeowners often have many cars and this is where the problem lies, along with
garages that are filled with junk.
4. Section 5.95.045 orticle15: Signage. As described, this is overbearing and probably not workable, as well as an
intrusion into privacy.
5. Random Searches for Compliance. This concept is frightening and probably illegal.
I realize the ad hoc committee and staff worked hard on this; but I believe these provisions should be
addressed before the February 25 meeting.
Thanks for your consideration and I hope to be at the City Council Meeting on February 25,11 to
personally express my concerns.
Mandavi. Behnaz
Subject: FW: Short Term Rentals: As a long time resident of Newport Beach/Corona Del Mar we
and my neighbors are adamantly opposed to the assault of short term rentals on our
wonderful, peaceful city. These companies are profiting at our expense. Any Landlord
can
-----Original Message -----
From: outlook_A84F5C01A01243C1@outlook.com <outlook_A84F5C01A01243C1@outlook.com> On Behalf Of
outlook_A84F5C01A01243C1@outlook.com
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 10:02 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Short Term Rentals: As a long time resident of Newport Beach/Corona Del Mar we and my neighbors are
adamantly opposed to the assault of short term rentals on our wonderful, peaceful city. These companies are profiting
at our expense. Any Landlord can g...
As a long time resident of Newport Beach/Corona Del Mar we and my neighbors are adamantly opposed to the assault
of short term rentals on our wonderful, peaceful city. These companies are profiting at our expense. Any Landlord can
get income from renting without short term rentals which equate to living next door to a hotel business. Please vote yes
on this ordinance to protect us next Tuesday. Please help the residents. Thank you.
Gordon J. Wrubel
Subject: FW: Ref: Newport Island STR
From: trvintoomuch@aol.com <trvintoomuch@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 10:08 AM
To: cityCouncil@Newport Beachca.gov
Subject: Fwd: Ref: Newport Island STR
-----Original Message -----
From: Dixon, Diane <ddixon(o)-newportbeachca.gov>
To: trvintoomuch(c).aol.com <trvintoomuch(D-aol.com>
Sent: Sun, Feb 23, 2020 8:53 am
Subject: Re: Ref: Newport Island STR
Thank you for writing. Please write to the entire city Council at
cityCouncil@Newport Beachca.gov
Diane
Diane B Dixon
Council Member
District 1
949.287.9211
On Feb 23, 2020, at 7:31 AM, "trvintoomuch(c�aol.com" <trvintoomuch(o)-aol.com> wrote:
Ms. Dixon.-
As
ixon:
As a home owner and full time resident on Newport Island we want to express our
100% support for the concerns and actions being recommended by our neighbors
regarding the referenced subject matter.
Our travel schedules do not allow us to attend weekday evening council meeting but
anything that keeps our Newport Beach hidden and treasured island safer and
quieter has our full support.
Regards
Larry Stolzenberg
Carol Ghelarducci
405 39th Street
Subject: FW: Vote YES on Ordinance 2020-8 re: Short Term Rentals
From: R A <ryan.archdeacon@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 11:36 AM
To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Vote YES on Ordinance 2020-8 re: Short Term Rentals
Dear Council members,
My name is Ryan Archdeacon. I am a business professional that has lived in Corona del Mar for over 6 years and am
happy to say that I am a new homeowner in Corona del Mar as of 4 months ago. I have experienced first hand the
negative impact that short term rentals have on the quality of life in CDM. Thank you for VOTING YES on Ordinance
2020-8. While Ordinance 2020-8 is a step in the right direction to protect the quality of life that Newport Beach has been
known to offer its residence, we should be considering even stricter rules that require a minimum of 4-7 nights for short
terms rentals.
Best,
Ryan Archdeacon
CDM Homeowner & Resident for 6+ years
Regards,
Ryan Archdeacon
ryan.archdeacon@gmail.com
Subject: FW: Vote YES on Ordinance 2020-8 re: Short Term Rentals
From: Aaron Giroux <aarongiroux@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 11:44 AM
Cc: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Re: Vote YES on Ordinance 2020-8 re: Short Term Rentals
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Aaron Giroux. I am a young professional and home owner that has lived in Corona del Mar for over 8 years.
I have experienced first hand the negative impact that short term rentals have on the quality of life in CDM. Thank you
for VOTING YES on Ordinance 2020-8. While Ordinance 2020-8 is a step in the right direction to protect the quality of
life that Newport Beach has been known to offer its residence, we should be considering even stricter rules that require
a minimum of 4-7 nights for short terms rentals.
Best,
Aaron Giroux
620 1/2 Poinsettia Avenue
Corona del Mar, CA 92626
Subject: FW: Short Term Lodging Permit Ordinance # 2020-8.
From: Colleen Howes <chowes@sabp.com>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 2:38 PM
To: Herdman, Jeff <jherdman@newportbeachca.aov>
Subject: Short Term Lodging Permit Ordinance # 2020-8.
Good afternoon Councilman Herdman,
I have been a resident of Corona del Mar for 40 years and I have a STL permit in the non -coastal zone. I am once again urging you to
vote against Short Term Lodging Permit Ordinance # 2020-8.
1 realize this was voted on February 11, 5-2 in favor of putting it on the consent calendar for the February 25th meeting. However,
Mayor O'Neill told me he is planning to pull the item for discussion so that people will have the chance to voice their concerns at
public comment. I also know that you could make a motion to reconsider this proposition and prevent it from passing tomorrow.
I realize the ad hoc committee and staff worked hard on this ordinance to amend the municipal code relating to short term lodging
permits and while I agree with many of the provisions, I believe there are some serious flaws within this ordinance.
A large group of STL permit holders have organized a united campaign to get the word out about this provision as very few people
knew that council voted to pass this on February 11th. One big concern is the provision revoking the STL permits of those in the non -
coastal zone. There are approximately 57 permits in the non -coastal zone with the majority being in Corona del Mar. That is less
than 4% of all permit holders in the City of Newport Beach
The justification for this is very unclear and from numerous discussions with council members and after meeting with the City
Attorney the main reason I have been able to gather is "because we do not have to get approval from the Coastal Commission". How
can this be a valid justification for revoking our permits?
Also claims that there have been hundreds of noise complaints when in fact, according to the Newport Beach Police Department in
2019 there were only 64 noise violations in the entire city of Newport Beach and only 2 that could possibly be in the non -coastal
zone in CDM. These 2 may or may not be STL rentals as the police report only lists a street name and I have the reports to
substantiate this.
Another erroneous claim is that STL guests impact the parking availability. After speaking with other STL permit holders in Corona
del Mar, nothing could be farther from the truth. Short term renters usually have only 1 car or none at all, while my former long
term renters usually had two cars.
We urge you to consider grandfathering in this group of 57 STL permit holders. In 2004 when the city amended the municipal code
to require STL permit holders to be R-2 properties, the council agreed to grandfather in 120 existing R1 zoned STL permit holders.
Also the outdoor signage requirement as described, is a health and safety issue endangering the safety of the homeowners and
renter alike.
Thank you very much and I urge you to make a motion to reconsider this proposition. We will have a large group of concerned STL
permit holders attending the meeting tomorrow. I will very much look forward to your reply.
With Gratitude,
Colleen Howes
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 10:10 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Short Term Rentals - Problems
From: Sabrina Peden <sabrinapeden@hsfranchise.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:36 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Short Term Rentals - Problems
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
I have been a resident and homeowner in Newport Beach for 2 years.
We love the city and especially our community on Newport Island where we live. However, during the past year the
amount of Short Term Rentals have reached a level that is not acceptable anymore.
Currently there are more than 15 STR on our small island and lots of issues that are a result of that.
I can't even count the times anymore that I have been woken up in the middle of the night by loud visitors. The amount
of garbage these rentals produce is out of control.
Stepping over throw up in the morning when I walk our little dog is not something I want to experience on a weekly
basis.
We paid over $1200/sqft to live in a neighborly community in Newport Beach. But we don't even have many neighbors
anymore as investors just buy up property and rent it out week by week.
Not to mention the amount of taxes we are paying.
The city needs to put a stop to this madness.
Respectfully,
Sabrina Peden
41538 1h St
Newport Beach, CA 92663
615-638-0469
From:
City of NB Questions
Sent:
Tuesday, February 25, 2020 10:28 AM
To:
City Clerk's Office
Cc:
Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject:
FW: Feedback for City of Newport Beach
From: City of Newport Beach <NoReply@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 8:06 AM
To: City of NB Questions <questions@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Feedback for City of Newport Beach
You have received this feedback from Stephen Prough < Steveproughl@me.com > for the following page:
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/city-council/council-ordinances/proposed-ordinances
I support the short term rental ordinance 2020-8. This has been a very serious issue in Desert Communities. It should
read a minimum of 1 week
From: timrhone@cox.net
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 1:54 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Vote Yes on on Ordinance 2020-8 Short Term REntals
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council Member,
Please regulate these short term rentals which are threatening our way of life. We are paying high housing prices and
taxes to live in a residential area NOT in a hotel district.
How do you collect TOT tax? Does the City have code enforcement officers to monitor this accurately?
Tim Rhone
Real Estate Broker
Surterre Properties
(949) 374-2959
timrhone@cox.net
DRE lic. -#00685152
From: PAULA FELL <paulafell@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 1:57 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Vote Yes on Ordinance 2020-8 Short term rentals
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
Vote Yes on Ordinance 2020-8 Short term rentals
If a unit is an Airbnb it is then one less dwelling unit in town, reducing the count of the needed dwelling units mandated
by the state.
Paula Fell
From: Penny Gilbert <peennyg@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 3:34 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Short Term Rentals
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am writing to the Newport Beach City Council because of my concern regarding the proliferation of short
term rentals on Newport Island.
The property at 409 38th St. has been in my family since 1946 and has been home to four generations of
Gilberts. Needless to say we have seen many changes over the years. Whereas it used to be a place where
one could safely raise a family, it is no longer so.
The character of the neighborhood has changed and not for the better.
I am surrounded on both sides by three and possibly four short term rentals (Airbnb). Both buildings are zoned
R2 and each has 2 units. I have found most renters are inconsiderate and have no awareness of the parking
limitations. They, in many instances, are disrespectful and disruptive. They have parked behind my garage
many times and when asked by my daughter-in-law to move their car one yelled at her as if she was in the
wrong bringing several permanent residents to her aid. last night they even left a car parked In the middle of
the alley. Short term renters have also placed trash in my cans when theirs were overflowing resulting in our
having to hide our trash cans behind a fence.
Newport Island used to be a place where you knew your neighbors. Now we are surrounded by transients and
my grandchildren have less freedom of movement and are less safe than my children were at the same ages.
Newport island is uniquely ill suited for the Airbnb industry given how close together the houses are and the
density of the area.
Perhaps Newport Beach should take a lesson from Laguna Beach with regard to banning short term rentals
from residential areas.
Penelope Gilbert
409 38th St.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(760) 861-2499
From: Mark Markos <msm619@ymail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 7:32 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: NEWPORT ISLAND SHORT TERM RENTAL SITUATION
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To all Newport Beach city council members,
My name is Mark Markos, I live with my family at 407 39th Street on Newport Island. I have lived on the island for close to
15 yeas and purchased my home 10 years ago because this island represented the epitome of family neighborhood
beach living. It was a place I knew I could raise my family at the beach without the nonsense and noise of the 100 block
with all the short term rentals. Little did I know that right under my nose the city was allowing our beautiful island to be
transformed into a short term rental nightmare. This all happened without the residents even knowing.
Our quiet, peaceful beautiful island has become a party place for out of town revellers.
We have approx.109 homes on our small quaint island with approx. 55 general parking spaces and I believe we are
going to lose 4 or those with the new construction on Channel Place (old Edwards Family house) leaving the residents
with very limited parking options for their guests. Parking has become almost impossible and it appears to be directly
related to the increase in STR's. Now within the last year or so we have between 15-17 short term rentals on the island
(approx. 14 %) where the rest of Newport Beach (peninsula, CDM and Balboa) has about a 3% STIR density.
I have 2 young daughters 6 and 9 and I am surrounded by several neighborhood kids that play at the park, ride bikes,
skateboards and scooters around the island. It used to be a safe place for our kids, but now all parents are on high alert
for the people speeding, disregarding stop signs and endangering our kids.
I will give you 2 instances that I personally was involved in.
Our neighbor, Roger on Channel PI. had a large group that rented his house and his guests were speeding up and down
the alleys and streets at unsafe speeds to the point that multiple neighbors ran out side to see what all the car noise was
about. I finally caught up with the driver and ask her politely to slow it down as we have kids playing all over the place. Her
and the passenger not so politely told me to F"%#@k off and sped away. The disregard for the safety of our kids as well
as the disrespect to me as well as the others who own and live there was completely unacceptable.
There was another instance where a driver ran the stop sign on Marcus near the park nearly hitting one of our kids. I
followed them to their rental on Marcus and warned them in a not so nice way and what they said to me is they were
upset that they could not find parking anywhere.
I hope for the cities sake that the oversight of allowing our island to become overcrowded with STIR guests for some extra
license fees doesn't prove to become a liability when one of our children gets hit by an unsafe temporary guest of a short
term rental who doesn't know or want to follow the rules of the road on the island.
I am only sharing the unsafe driving situations that I have encountered, but there are many other situations that are
happening due to the increase in STR's (excretion in public, excess late night noise, smoking dope in front and back of
the rentals, the vulgar language and pornographic movies being filmed on docks.
Also, the illegal parking is a constant, I have confronted the guests and they have told me they will just pay the $50.00
ticket so they don't have to move.
My question to the city council is how did you let this happen and how are you going to change it? I don't want our island
to be thrown in with the general STIR proposed changes as our situation is much different and needs to be treated
accordingly. We have small narrow streets, limited parking, children playing throughout the island and a very family
oriented neighborhood setting,
Mark Markos
949 524 6094
Subject: FW: Short Term Lodging Permit
From: Natalie Nevins <nfuJ527@icloud.com>
Date: Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:39 PM
To: "O'Neill, William" <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Short Term Lodging Permit
I'm concerned about a few provisions of the proposed ordinance to amend the municipal code relating to short term
lodging permits No. 2020-08. I'm writing to you hoping the Council will consider changing some of the provisions listed
below
1. Section 5.9.015- article 3: Revoking the STL permits of those in the non -coastal zone. The justification for this is
very unclear. There are approximately 57-59 permits — less than 4% of all permit holders in the City. This would
affect mostly the properties in Corona del Mar on the inland side of PCH.
Section 5.95.017: The 1600 home cap on short term rentals. Right now, owners of duplex properties have been
hit with the new State Law that requires a duplex to be rebuilt if one is torn down. Preventing owners of
duplexes from operating a short term rental just compounds the problem and hurts property values. I've also
learned that such a cap would probably not pass muster with the Coastal Commission, which could end up
invalidating the whole law.
Section 5.95.045 article 10: Requirement of a parking space per unit. Unfortunately many current short term
rentals have no parking. Owners of properties like this would suffer a great hardship if they lost the ability to do
a short term rental. 1 think the Council has a misunderstanding of parking related to short term
lodging. Vacation tenants typically come with only one car, or none at all which does not add to
congestion. Yearly tenants and homeowners often have many cars and this is where the problem lies, along with
garages that are filled with junk.
4. Section 5.95.045 article15: Signage. As described, this is overbearing and probably not workable, as well as an
intrusion into privacy.
5. Random Searches for Compliance. This concept is frightening and probably illegal.
I realize the ad hoc committee and staff worked hard on this, but I believe these provisions should be addressed before
the February 25 meeting.
Thanks for your consideration and I hope to be at the City Council Meeting on February 25" to personally express my
concerns.
Natalie Nevins
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Subject: FW: Proposed ordinance for Short Term Lodging Permits No. 2020-08
From: Lori Hamel <lorihamel@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 10:00 AM
To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Proposed ordinance for Short Term Lodging Permits No. 2020-08
To City Council:
I am a resident and homeowner in the flower streets of Corona del Mar in a duplex zoned R-2. I live in the
front house as a single mom with my ten-year old daughter. I rent the unit over the garage. I am dependent on
this rental income to afford my house. Currently, I have a STL permit.
I'm very upset and concerned about the provision of the proposed ordinance to amend the municipal code
relating to short term lodging permits No. 2020-08 below:
• Section 5.9.015- article 3: Revoking the STL permits of those in the non -coastal zone.
The justification for this specific provision is very unclear, violates my property rights, and is
unconstitutional. When I purchased my house in 2016 both short-term and long-term rentals were allowed.
should be able to continue to earn rental income, short and long-term, as allowed when I purchased the
property. This was a major factor when I purchased a duplex R-2 property and certainly impacted the price I
had to pay for my home four years ago. I also believe this provision will also be a legal issue for the city as in
the recent rulings made against Austin, TX last year.
I understand that as an existing STR permit holder that I will be allowed to renew my STL permit for up to 10
years, but this still is unacceptable as I was not limited to this timeframe when I purchased my home. I have
invested money to renovate and furnish my rental and I believe that limiting my future rental income - just
based on the coastal zone - is not fair to me or all other homeowners especially those with R-2 lots with a
duplex.
If you want to make this part of the ordinance, then it would only be fair to be in effect for home purchases
made after the date of the ordinance, but even then, this would reduce the value of R-2 zoned homes for
resale by reducing the rental income potential.
Further, this provision would only impact less than 4% of all existing permit holders. I am not even sure why
this is a necessary part of the new ordinance since there is a limit to the total number of permits allowed. This
particular provision would unfairly only affect mostly the R-2 properties in Corona del Mar on the inland side of
PCH, including mine.
I also believe that you have failed to give enough public notice about this issue. Most homeowners outside of
the coastal zone in CDM are not aware of this new potential rental limitation. No notice has been sent to
advise us of this proposed change. I only became aware of this as I recently applied for a STL permit.
Thanks for your consideration and I will be at the city council meeting on February 25th to personally express
my concerns.
Lori Hamel
711 Jasmine Ave
Corona del Mar
MELINIDA LUTHIN LAW
VN East Coast Highway suite 201 • Corona del Mar • California 92625 • P949.673.1161 • Melinda LuthinLaw.com
Via Email
The Honorable William O'Neill and
Members of the Newport Beach City
Council
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
February 24, 2020
Hon. Will O'Neill: woneill e,newportbeachca.gov
Hon. Diane Dixon: ddixon@,newportbeachca.gov
Hon. Brad Avery: bavery@newportbeachca.gov
Hon. Duffy Duffield: dduffieldnnewportbeachca.gov
Hon. Kevin Muldoon: kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov
Hon. Jeff Herdman: iherdman@nenortbeachca.gov
Hon. Joy Brenner: joy@newportbeachca.gov
Re: Opposition To Proposed Amendment To The Short Term Rental Permit Ordinance
Dear Mayor O'Neill and Members of the City Council:
I represent a group of homeowners who own properties in the R2 zone of Corona del Mar,
North of Pacific Coast Highway and who hold Short -Term Rental (STR) permits for their
properties. This letter summarizes the problems related to the City Council's consideration of
Proposed Ordinance 2020-8 (PO 2020-8) regarding STRs in Newport Beach.
SUMMARY
PO 2020-8 intends to impose an arbitrary outright ban on an existing permissible use of
some, but not all properties located within a zoning district. PO 2020-8 is a zoning ordinance, it
is subject to the procedural and substantive requirements of the City's charter and Municipal Code
as well as State and federal law.
To say that the City's adoption of PO 2020-8 is ill conceived and poorly executed is an
understatement. The provisions of PO 2020-8 offend and violate State and federal constitutional
protections, and the means by which the City Council intends to adopt Proposed Ordinance 2020-
8 violates local, state and federal procedural and substantive law.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2020-8 IS AN IMPROPER ATTEMPT TO MODIFY A
ZONING ORDINANCE UNDER THE GUISE OF REGULATING BUSINESS PERMITS
PO 2020-8 purports to be a mere modification to Business Permits. This is false. PO 2020-
8 is an arbitrary rezoning of R2 properties North of PCH. Despite the fact that the Zoning Code
permits STRs at all properties in R2 Zones, PO 2020-8 bans STRs for all properties located North
Newport Beach City Council Letter
Re: Proposed Ordinance 2020-8
February 25, 2020
Page 2
of PCH in Corona del Mar, including those properties for which STR permits have been granted.
PO 2020-8 is an unlawful attempt by the City to restrict land use.
PO 2020-8 Is A Zoning Ordinance. According to section 20.18.020 of the Zoning Code,
"Table 2-1 indicates the uses allowed within each residential zoning district and the permit
required to establish the use, if any, in compliance with Part 5 of this title (Planning Permit
Procedures)." (CNB Muni Code, § 20.18.020.) STRs are among the uses permitted in R2 zoning
districts. It is not possible for the City to adopt PO 2020-8, with its ban of STRs, without also
amending Chapter 20.18 and Table 2-1 of the Zoning Code.
PO 2020-8 is a Zoning Code Amendment, like it or not. It is disingenuous for the City to
contend that a complete ban of STRs North of PCH is somehow not a change of land use or
restriction within a district, which, by definition is a zoning ordinance. This is especially true,
where, as here, the Zoning Code itself states that STRs are allowed as of right at all properties
zoned R2. Regardless of where PO 2020-8 will be located in the Municipal Code, because PO
2020-8 obliterates a permitted use of land, it is a zoning ordinance subject to the procedural and
substantive rules of the Government Code. (Gov. Code, §§ 65850, 65853.)
The City May Not Circumvent The Procedural And Substantive Requirements For Zoning
Changes Under The Auspices Of Amending A Business Permit Ordinance. Any change or
restriction of STRs must be made in the same mode as the original enactment of the Zoning Code.
(Johnston v. Claremont (1958) 49 Cal.2d 826, 835.) The Government Code sets limits on the
substance of and procedures for enacting and amending land use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65850,
et seq.) "[C]hanges of uses and restrictions within a district can be accomplished only through an
amendment of the zoning ordinance, and the amendment must be made in the same mode as its
original enactment." (Johnston v. Claremont (1958) 49 Cal.2d 826, 835, fn. 4.)
An "amendment of any section(s) or subsection(s) of an ordinance may be accomplished
by the subsequent adoption of an ordinance which specifically modifies the section(s) or
subsection(s)." (CNB Charter, § 418.) If the City wants to attempt to ban STRs for all R2
properties North of PCH in Corona del Mar, it must do so by adhering to the procedures for
adopting an ordinance amending the Zoning Code. Because PO 2020-8 makes no amendment to
the Zoning Code, it does not comport with the City Charter or with the Government Code.
Newport Beach City Council Letter
Re: Proposed Ordinance 2020-8
February 25, 2020
Page 3
The City may not pretend to amend Table 2-1 of chapter 20.18 of the Zoning Code by
amending chapter 5.95 of the Business Licenses And Regulations Code. The land -use restrictions
of PO 2020-8 should be in Chapter 20.48 (Standards for Specific Uses) of Title 20 (PLANNING
AND ZONING) of the CNB Municipal Code. These restrictions and designations have no place
in Title 5 (BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS).
THE PROCEDURES VIOLATED AND CONTINUE TO VIOLATE LOCAL, STATE
AND FEDERAL LAW
For Myriad Reasons, The City Council May Not Adopt PO 2020-8 At The February 25"'
Council Meeting. Ordinances shall not be passed within five days of their introduction. (Gov.
Code § 36934; Newport Beach City Charter ["CNB Charter"], Art. IV, § 412.) The purpose of the
requirement that ordinances be introduced at least five days before their passage is to give time for
consideration, with a view to prevent hasty and ill-considered legislation. (In re Validation of East
Bay Municipal Utility Dist. Water Bonds of 1925 (1925) 196 Cal. 725.)
PO 2020-8 is a quintessential example of why ordinances must not be adopted on the fly.
At the last City Council meeting, Mayor O'Neill moved to deny adoption of PO 2020-8, which
was seconded by council member Muldoon. Instead of permitting a vote, council member Brenner
interrupted the proceedings and made a "substitute" motion to adopt PO 2020-8. Immediately
thereafter, the City Attorney suggested (improperly) that Ms. Brenner should amend her motion.
However Ms. Brenner was not fully able to process the unprompted hints given to her by the City
attorney so she punted and made a nebulous motion to adopt PO 2020-8 "as amended" without
identifying her purported "amendment." The council meeting video and the proposed minutes
show just how unclear Ms. Brenner was in making her suggested "amended" motion, which, in
effect was an "amended substitute motion."
No Version Of PO 2020-8 Was Introduced At The Last Council Meeting. An ordinance is
introduced at a City Council meeting upon the reading of the ordinance, or upon reading of the
title of the ordinance if all councilmembers waive the reading. (CNB Charter, Art. IV, § 412.) No
version of PO 2020-8 was read in full and the council members did not waive the reading.
Newport Beach City Council Letter
Re: Proposed Ordinance 2020-8
February 25, 2020
Page 4
Ms. Brenner's "Motion" was not announced. "The motion must be stated (or announced)
by the Presiding Officer prior to opening the subject to debate." (Council Policy A-1.) This did
not happen.
Because The Most Recent Version of PO 2020-8 Has Yet To Be Introduced, Council May
Not Adopt It At The February 25`h Council Meeting. Two hearings are required to adopt any
ordinance, including approving a development agreement or a rezoning. (See Gov. Code § 36934.)
In the event that any ordinance is altered after its introduction, the same shall not be finally adopted
except at a meeting held not less than five days after the date upon which such ordinance was so
altered. (CNB Charter, Art. IV, § 412.)
In addition to impermissibly chiming in during Council debate (CNB Policy A-1), after
Ms. Brenner made her motion, Mr. Harp, without being asked, stated that PO 2020-8, as noticed,
did not contain some certain "language" that was apparently known to Ms. Brenner, but unknown
to the public. Mr. Harp suggested that Ms. Brenner amend her motion to include an amendment
to PO 2020-2 that included this secret language. In response to Mr. Harp's unsolicited suggestion,
Ms. Brenner stated that she wished to amend her motion to include the secret language that "Mr.
Harp had circulated." This language was never read or provided to the public. In viewing the
video of the last City Council meeting, it is apparent that the newly amended PO 2020-8 contains
secret language that the City Council secretly reviewed and approved outside of the council
meeting. Aside from the blatant Brown Act violation, where, as here, the language of the proposed
ordinance is not introduced until the council meeting, then the ordinance may not be adopted at
that meeting. (CNB Charter, Art. IV, § 412.) Despite City staff's claims, the February 25th reading
of Proposed Ordinance will not be a "second reading" of anything.
If the council attempts to adopt PO 2020-8 at the February 25th council meeting, it will be
void. (W. Hollywood Concerned Citizens v. City of W. Hollywood (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 486;
County of Los Angeles v. City Council of Lawndale (1962), 202 Cal. App. 2d 20.)
The matter of PO 2020-8 was not properly noticed. Notice of proposed amendments to the
Zoning Code must be properly noticed. (Gov. Code, § 36933; CNB Muni Code, § 20.66.030).
Compliance with the Brown Act notice requirements is not sufficient to provide the required
notice; notice must be "provided in compliance with Chapter 20.62." (Ibid.) "[A]dvance notice
Newport Beach City Council Letter
Re: Proposed Ordinance 2020-8
February 25, 2020
Page 5
of the hearing shall be given and the hearing shall be conducted in compliance with [Chapter 20.62
of the CNB Municipal Code]." (CNB Muni Code, § 20.62.010.) The notice must contain specific
information, it must be mailed or delivered directly to nearby property owners, and it must be
posted. (Gov. Code, § 65091; CNB Muni Code, § 20.62.020.) The "notice must, at a minimum,
be reasonably calculated to afford affected persons the realistic opportunity to protect their
interests." (Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605.) No notice was given that contained
the requisite information, no notice was posted anywhere, and no notice was delivered or mailed
to any nearby property owners. In addition, several property owners requested notice, and none
received any notice as required. (Gov. Code, §§ 65092, 65856; CNB Muni Code, § 20.62.020.)
When zoning is enacted by the city council, land owners by statute are entitled to notice
and hearing. (Gov. Code, § 36933.) Instead of being given notice of the proposed zoning
amendment, many property owners were told by council member Brenner that PO 2020-8 would
not affect them at all. "[L]and use decisions which `substantially affect' the property rights of
owners of adjacent parcels may constitute `deprivations' of property within the context of
procedural due process." (Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605.) Because the
homeowners were not given proper notice, adoption of PO 2020-8 will violate their statutory and
constitutional rights.
Members With A Conflict Of Interest May Not Vote On PO 2020-8 And Must Physically
Remove Themselves From Deliberations. No public official at any level of state or local
government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to
influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial
interest. (Gov. Code, §§ 87100, 87200.) When a member of the City Council, Board, Commission,
or Committee has, or reasonably believes he/she has, a conflict of interest, the official shall abstain
from any participation in the decision. The member shall disclose the reason for the abstaining
prior to the vote on the matter that involves the conflict of interest. (Council Policy A-1, id., Policy
A-3.) "A Council Member who is disqualified by reason of a conflict of interest in any matter
shall not remain in his or her seat during the debate and vote on such matter, but shall request and
be given the permission of the Presiding Officer to step down from the Council table." (Council
Policy A-1.)
Newport Beach City Council Letter
Re: Proposed Ordinance 2020-8
February 25, 2020
Page 6
Even where a council member has a conflict which he or she believes to be immaterial,
council member "shall disclose the interest at the meeting" and "disclosure of the interest or
conflict shall be made a part of the public record." (Council Policy A-1, id., Policy A-3.)
Here, PO 2020-8 includes provisions capping the number of STR permits at 1,600.
According to the Staff Report, currently there are approximately 1,500 STR permits. PO 2020-8
includes a provision restricting the STR permits to geographical areas that include properties
owned by council members and that affect STR businesses owned by at least two council members.
At least two council members hold multiple STR permits. These council members have a financial
interest in PO 2020-8 because the proposed permit cap will affect their STR businesses and will
affect their real property interests. (Gov. Code, § 87103.)
In addition, PO 2020-8 includes a proposed ban on STRs in Corona del Mar North of
Pacific Coast Highway. At least one council member lives in and owns multiple properties in
Corona del Mar North of Pacific Coast Highway. These properties are located directly adjacent
to several STRs which will be subject to the ban proposed in PO 2020-8. This council member
has a conflict in interest due to the member's property interest.
No council member disclosed any conflict of interest, none removed themselves from
deliberation, and none abstained from voting on (the prior version of) PO 2020-8. The above
conflicted council members may not participate in deliberations or vote on PO 2020-8.
PO 2020-8 VIOLATES STATUTORY LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS
Municipal ordinances undertaking to regulate use for business enterprises are subject to
investigation in courts, with view to determining whether they constitute lawful exercise of police
power or whether, under guise of enforcing police regulations, there has been unwarranted and
arbitrary interference with right to carry on lawful business, to make contracts, or to use and enjoy
property. (People v. Hawley (1929), 207 Cal. 395.)
PO 2020-8 Violates The Equal Protection Clauses of the State and Federal Constitution.
The purpose of comprehensive zoning is attainment of unity in construction and development of
city, along lines of reasonable regulations which tend to promote health, safety, morals, and
general welfare of community. (Miller v. Board of Public Works (1925) 195 Cal. 477.) A zoning
Newport Beach City Council Letter
Re: Proposed Ordinance 2020-8
February 25, 2020
Page 7
ordinance must not unfairly discriminate against a particular parcel of land. (Reynolds v. Barrett
(193 8) 12 Cal. 2d 244.)
The power to regulate use of property or conduct of business is not arbitrary. (Ex parte
Hadacheck (1913) 165 Cal. 416.) Regulation of use of property must rest upon reasonable exercise
of police power, and restrictions that are unreasonable and unnecessary upon the use of private
property or the pursuit of useful activities may not be imposed. (Skalko v. Sunnyvale (1939) 14
Cal. 2d 213.) A land use ordinance must not produce arbitrary or capricious results. (Arnel Dev.
Co. v. Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal.3d 511, 520.) Land use changes must reasonably relate to welfare
of affected region. (Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1981) 28 Cal. 3d 511;
Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 582.) An ordinance
excluding any commercial use must be reasonable, and the exclusion must bear some reasonable
relation to the public interest. (Sunny Slope Water Co. v. Pasadena (1934), 1 Cal. 2d 87.)
The City stated two reasons for banning STRs on the North side of PCH in Corona del
Mar. First, council member Brenner stated at the council meeting that "We are getting complaints
galore," yet when I asked to see the complaints, Vicki King, of the City Records Department stated
that she needed an extension of time to "gather" my requested records. To date, I still have not
received any of the alleged "complaints galore" upon which the City purportedly based PO 2020-
8. The fact that the City cannot produce any evidence of even one complaint indicates that the
City did not propose PO 2020-8 for the purpose of addressing any complaints regarding STRs.
Second, the City stated that it chose to ban STRs North of PCH in Corona del Mar, while permitting
STRS at all other locations in Newport Beach because it did not want to subject PO 2020-8 to the
scrutiny it would receive by the Coastal Commission if it attempted to ban STRs in the Coastal
Zone. The City's interest in circumventing the scrutiny of the Coastal Commission is arbitrary
and unrelated to any legitimate rational basis for modifying a land use ordinance.
It is clear that PO 2020-8 unfairly discriminates against R2 properties located North of
PCH in Corona del Mar. Depriving these properties of vested rights without any logical basis,
while permitting other R2 properties in the same town to enjoy the rights deprived, violates federal
and state statutory and constitutional law.
Newport Beach City Council Letter
Re: Proposed Ordinance 2020-8
February 25, 2020
Page 8
PO 2020-8 Violates The Coastal Land Use Plan Policies. CNB's Coastal Land Use Plan
recognizes that "[p]articularly for large families, [STR] dwelling units provide an affordable
alternative to hotels and motels.." Policy 2.7-3 states that the City will "[c]ontinue 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." Policy 2.3.3-6
states that the City will to "Continue to issue short-term lodging permits for the rental of dwelling
units as a means of providing lower-cost overnight visitor accommodations while continuing to
prevent conditions leading to increase demand for City services and adverse impacts in residential
areas and coastal resources." The STR ban contained in PO 2020-8 is contrary to both Policies.
PO 2020-8 Does Not Implement, And Is Not Consistent With The General Plan. Land use
changes must be consistent with the local general plan. (Gov. Code, § 65850; Arnel Development
Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (19 81) 28 Cal. 3d 511; Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of
Livermore (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 582.) To be "consistent" with the General Plan, the land use
restriction or modification must (1) be compatible with the General Plan, (2) not frustrate the
General Plan's goals and policies, and (3) include definite, affirmative commitments to mitigate
adverse effects of the General Plan. (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board
of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 342.) Here, there is nothing in the City's General Plan
indicating any plan to reduce or restrict STRs. PO 2020-8 is not consistent with the General Plan.
The City Failed To Consider The Housing Needs of The Region. The City shall consider
the effect of any proposed land use ordinances on the housing needs of the region in which the
local jurisdiction is situated and balance these needs against the public service needs of its residents
and available fiscal and environmental resources. (Gov. Code, §65863.6.) The City made no such
consideration.
PO 2020-8 Impermissibly Takes A Vested Property Right. Table 2-1 of the Zoning Code
states that Short Term Rentals are "Permitted by Right," in all areas zoned R-2. Despite this, the
City Attorney, and councilmember Brenner repeatedly claim that a property owner's right to rent
their property on a short term basis is not a vested property right. They are wrong. "The rights of
users of property as those rights existed at the time of the adoption of a zoning ordinance are well
recognized and have always been protected." (See, e.g., Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v.
Newport Beach City Council Letter
Re: Proposed Ordinance 2020-8
February 25, 2020
Page 9
Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Ca1.4th 533.) This is especially true where, as here, the current
local law specifically grants the property right that the proposed law seeks to take away.
No matter how many times the City Council and staff proclaim that PO 2020-8 does not
take away a property right; it does. Their unsupported assertion does not become a "fact" simply
by repetition. (Grant -Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1361.)
PO 2020-8 Violates Requirement Of Uniformity Of Regulations. Land use "regulations
shall be uniform for each class or kind of building or use of land throughout each zone." (Gov,
Code, § 65852.) The STR ban for some, but not all of the R2 Zoned properties in Newport Beach
is an arbitrary land -use restriction that violates the law mandating uniformity for R2 properties.
A monopoly must not be granted to business establishments and enterprises already
situated in unrestricted districts under guise of regulating business and segregating it to a particular
district. (Wickham v. Becker (1929) 96 Cal. App. 443.) By prohibiting the existing and new STRs
North of PCH in Corona del Mar, PO 2020-8 will grant a monopoly to property owners in other
parts of Newport Beach. Where plain effect of zoning ordinance is to prevent all business within
city except that of favored places already established, and to grant to such places business
monopoly, it is void. (Wickham v. Becker (1929) 96 Cal. App. 443.) This is the exact effect of
PO 2020-8. PO 2020-8 will prevent all STRs in Newport beach except those places in which
certain council members conduct STR business.
For all of the above reasons, the City Council must not adopt Proposed Ordinance 2020-8.
Yours truly,
Melinda M. Luthin, Esq. of
MELINDA LUTHINILAW
Subject: FW: Airbnb comments re: draft short-term rental ordinance
Attachments: Airbnb redlines - Newport Beach ordinance - 2.21.20 (v2).pdf; 2020-2-21 - newport
beach str letter.pdf
From: kevin.brunke@airbnb.com <kevin.brunke@airbnb.com>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 4:30 PM
To: Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy
<dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; Muldoon, Kevin <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; Herdman, Jeff
<iherdman@newportbeachca.gov>; Brenner, Joy <JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William
<woneill@newportbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Matt Middlebrook <matt.middlebrook@airbnb.com>; Davida Silverman <davida.silverman@airbnb.com>; Benjamin
Lee <ben.clee@airbnb.com>; John Choi <iohn.choi@airbnb.com>; Jurjis, Seimone <siuriis@newportbeachca.gov>;
Tseng, Evelyn <ETseng@newportbeachca.gov>; Leung, Grace <gleung@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Airbnb comments re: draft short-term rental ordinance
Dear Mayor O'Neill and Honorable Councilmembers,
On behalf of Matt Middlebrook, Airbnb's head of Public Policy for California, I'm submitting a letter
responding to Newport Beach's draft short-term rental ordinance that is being considered by council
this Tuesday, February 25. The letter is attached.
We commend the Council and City staff for the thoughtful approach that Newport Beach has taken to regulate short-term
rentals. Airbnb is in complete alignment with the City's goals to ensure that illegal listings do not operate in the City. We
also want to ensure that the City is able to recoup all transient occupancy taxes (TOT). The attached letter sets forth
considerations on the technical aspects of implementation so that we can make sure we are able to do our part to ensure
that guests reserve legal short-term rental units and that tax collection goes smoothly. We understand that these technical
details often require time and attention, and we respectfully request the opportunity to discuss these minor changes
further with your staff as the City moves forward with implementation.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our comments. We look forward to our continued engagement with the
City of Newport Beach.
Sincerely,
Kevin Brunke
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. 2020-8
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
SECTION 1.05.020 SUBSECTION (F), SECTION 3.16.060
AND CHAPTER 5.95 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SHORT TERM
LODGING
WHEREAS, Section 200 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach ("City")
vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules and
regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and
limitations contained in the Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to
exercise, or act pursuant to any and all rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures
granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California;
WHEREAS, the City is a popular beach resort community that serves a large
number of tourists during the summer months;
WHEREAS, this influx of tourists burdens City streets and services with heavy
volume of vehicle traffic and heavy demand on parking, sewage, and refuse facilities,
paramedics and police services;
WHEREAS, the Police and Fire Departments frequently respond to complaints of
noise disturbances, disorderly conduct and other illegal activity at short term lodging
units;
WHEREAS, a large number of short term lodging units are located in residential
areas where dwelling units are occupied by the property owner or long term tenants and
these permanent residents are adversely impacted by the noise, traffic, refuse and
demand for parking resulting from occupancy of short term lodging units;
WHEREAS, the presence of such visitors within the City's residential
neighborhoods can sometimes disrupt the quietude and residential character of the
neighborhoods and adversely affect the community;
WHEREAS, the City has an interest in preserving its housing stock and the
quality and character of its existing single and multi -family residential neighborhoods;
WHEREAS, occupants of short term lodging units are generally not residents of
the City and the City has limited ability to enforce provisions of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code and the Penal Code related to disorderly conduct when violated by
occupants of short term lodging units;
4-3
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 2 of 20
WHEREAS, on May 11, 1992, the City Council adopted Ordinance 92-13,
establishing regulations for the operation of short term lodging units within residential
zones to mitigate the impact of this use on the residents of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered evidence and
documentation attesting to the need to further regulate and control short term lodging
units in residential zones to ensure that: short term lodging units are regulated in a way
to maintain harmony with surrounding uses; and all transient occupancy taxes and
visitor serving fees are properly collected and remitted to the City.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ordains as
follows:
Section 1: Section 1.05.020 Subsection (F) of Chapter 1.05 of Title 1 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
F. In the case of administrative citations issued for violations of Chapter 5.28
[Live Entertainment Establishments]; Chapter 5.32 [Cafe Dances]; Section 10.50.020(H)
[violation of terms or conditions of a use permit issued by the City]; Section 14.36.030
resulting in bay or beach closure [Illicit Connections and Prohibited Discharges];
California Fire Code section 107.5 (as adopted by Code Section 9.04.010); or California
Fire Code section 107.5.1 (as adopted by Code Section 9.04.020), administrative fines
shall be assessed in the following amounts when authorized by the City Manager or his
or her designee:
1. A fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for a first violation;
2. A fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for a second violation
of the same ordinance or permit within one year from the date of the prior violation;
and
3. A fine not exceeding three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) for a third violation,
or any subsequent violation, within one year from the date of the prior violations.
Section 2: Section 3.16.060 of Chapter 3.16 of Title 3 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
4-4
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 3 of 20
3.16.060 Registration of Hotel.
Within thirty (30) days after commencing business each operator of any hotel
renting occupancy to transients shall register the hotel with the Finance Director and
obtain a "transient occupancy registration certificate" to be at all times posted in a
conspicuous place on the premises. The certificate shall, among other things, state the
following:
A. The name of the operator;
8. The address of the hotel;
C. The date upon which the certificate was issued; and
D. The following statement: This transient occupancy registration certificate
signifies that the person named on the certificate has fulfilled the requirements of
the Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance (Chapter 3.16 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code) by registering with the Finance Director for the purpose of
collecting the tax from transients and remitting the tax to the Finance Director. This
certificate does not authorize any person to conduct any unlawful business, to
conduct any lawful business in an unlawful manner or to operate a hotel without
strictly complying with all local laws, including those requiring a permit from any
board, commission, department or office of the City. This certificate does not
constitute a permit.
The requirements of this section shall not apply to the operator of a hotel
required to obtain a short term lodging permit pursuant to Section 5.95.020.
Section 3: Chapter 5.95 of Title 5 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
4-5
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 4 of 20
Chapter 5.95
SHORT TERM LODGING PERMIT
Sections:
5.95.005 Purpose and Findings.
5.95.010 Definitions.
5.95.015 Residential Properties Eligible for Short Term Lodging Permits.
5.95.017 Maximum Number of Permits.
5.95.020 Permit Required.
5.95.025 Agency.
5.95.030 Application for Permit.
5.95.035 Denial of Permit.
5.95.040 Filing Fee.
5.95.045 Conditions.
5.95.047 Violations of Permit Conditions by Transient User, Occupant or Guest.
5.95.050
Agent and Hosting Platform Responsibilities.
5.95.055
Issuance of Administrative Subpoenas.
5.95.060
Violations and Penalties.
5.95.065
Suspensions and Revocations.
5.95.070
Permits and Fees Not Exclusive.
5.95.080
License and Permit Closure.
5.95.005 Purpose and Findings.
The City Council of the City of Newport Beach finds and declares as follows:
A. An ever-increasing number of tourists renting short term lodging units is
increasing the demand for City services and creating adverse impacts in
residential zones.
B. Over a thousand dwelling units within residential zones near the City's beaches and
harbor are rented for less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days with the vast
majority of those rentals occurring during the summer when the demand for parking
and City services is the greatest.
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.
4-6
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 5 of 20
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
overburdens, and threatens the City's ability to provide necessary services.
F. Many short term lodging units are operated by agents and/or absentee owners
who exercise little or no supervision or control of occupants.
G. There has been an increase in the number of lodging units booked on a short
term basis where the owner of the unit does not have a short term lodging permit,
affecting the ability of the City to properly regulate the impacts caused by the
illegal operation.
H. There has been an increase in the number of lodging units booked on a short
term basis where the owner of the property has not taken steps to ensure the
transient occupancy tax and visitor service fee is collected and/or remitted to the
City, resulting in an unfair business advantage to these illegal operations and loss
of revenue necessary to provide City services.
Problems with short term lodgings are particularly acute in residential districts
where the peace, safety and general welfare of the long term residents is
threatened.
J. There has been an increase in the number of short term rentals in areas of the
City outside of the Coastal Zone, which affects neighborhoods that have
traditionally not had short term rentals. It is in the City's interest to stop issuing
new permits in areas outside the Coastal Zone after March 31, 2020 and to stop
renewing permits for short term lodging units outside of the Coastal Zone after
March 31, 2030.
K. To ensure the effective enforcement of this Code, it is necessary to have the
owner include the short term lodging permit number issued by the City on all
advertisements for a short term lodging unit so the transient user knows the owner
is authorized to rent the lodging unit on a short term basis.
L. To make sure the transient user knows the total cost associated with renting the
lodging unit and to prevent fraud, it is necessary for the owner to ensure the
transient user is informed of the amount of the transient occupancy tax and visitor
service fee, prior to completing a booking transaction.
4-7
Ordinance No. 2020-8
M. The restrictions of this chapter are necessary to preserve the CP$4e >t
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 posed by short term lodgings.
4-7
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 6 of 20
5.95.010 Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
A. "Accessory dwelling unit" shall have the same definition as set forth in Chapter
20.70 of Title 20 of this Code.
8. "Agent" shall mean any person who is authorized in writing by the owner to represent
and act for an owner.
C. "Booking transaction" shall mean any reservation or payment service provided by a
person who facilitates a short term lodging rental transaction between a transient user
and owner for the use of a unit for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive
calendar days.
D. "City Manager" shall mean the City Manager of the City or his or her designee.
E. "Finance Director" shall mean the Finance Director of the City or his or her designee.
F. "Gross floor area," shall mean the area of the lodging unit that includes the
surrounding exterior walls and any interior finished portion of a structure that is
accessible and that measures more than six feet from finished floor to ceiling.
Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level shall be excluded from the
calculation of gross floor area.
G. "Home -sharing" shall mean an activity whereby the owner hosts a transient user in
the owner's lodging unit, for compensation, for periods of less than thirty (30)
consecutive calendar days, during which time the owner of the unit lives onsite, in the
unit, throughout the transient user's stay and the owner, the transient user and any
other occupants live together in the same unit as a single housekeeping unit.
H. "Hosting platform" shall mean a person, other than an owner or agent, who
participates in the short term lodging business by celleetIng eF Fece4ving a fee, OFeetly
er iRdiFeGtly thFGLAgh an agent er—iR+Med+ar}, fer c -e o^ facilitating a booking
transaction using any medium of facilitation.
"Lodging unit" or "unit" shall mean a "dwelling unit" as that term is defined in Chapter
20.70, of Title 20 of this Code. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered a
lodging unit or unit for purposes of this chapter.
J. "Owner" shall mean the person(s) that hold(s) legal and/or equitable title to the
lodging unit.
OR
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 7 of 20
K. "Person" shall mean any individual and any form of business entity including, but
not limited to, all domestic and foreign corporations, associations, syndicates, joint
stock corporations, partnerships of every kind, clubs, business or common law
trusts, societies, or limited liability company.
L. "Residential district" shall mean those areas of the City so designated by Title 20
of this Code as well as any other area in the City designated for a residential use
as part of a Planned Community Development Plan, Specific Area Plan or Planned
Residential District.
M. "Short term" shall mean a lodging unit that is rented or leased as a single
housekeeping unit for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days.
This also includes home -sharing.
N. "Short term lodging unit registry" shall mean the published registry maintained by
the City that sets forth a list of all owners and the address of all units that have a
valid short term lodging permit and business license with the City, a copy of which
is available, without charge, to any person who requests a copy and which shall be
accessible on the City's website.
0. "Single housekeeping unit" shall have the same definition as set forth in Chapter
20.70 of Title 20 of this Code.
P. "Transient" or "Transient user" shall mean any person or persons who, for any period
less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days either at his own expense or at the
expense of another, obtains lodging in a lodging unit or the use of any lodging space in
any unit, for which lodging or use of lodging space a charge is made.
5.95.015 Residential Properties Eligible for Short Term Lodging Permits.
Only properties in a residential district that are authorized under Titles 20 and 21 of this
Code and this chapter shall be eligible for a short term lodging permit.
A. Subsequent to June 1, 2004, no permit shall be issued to or renewed for any
dwelling unit on any parcel zoned for "Single-family Residential (R-1)" or that is
designated for a single-family residential use as part of a Planned Community
Development Plan, Specific Area Plan or Planned Residential District, unless a
permit has previously been issued for that lodging unit and the permit was not
subsequently:
1. Closed by the Finance Director because the unit is demolished or rebuilt
on or after July 1, 2020;
4-9
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 8 of 20
2. Closed by the Finance Director because the unit is modified in any way that
increases gross floor area by more than twenty-five percent (25%) on or after July 1,
2020; or
3. Revoked.
B. Prior to April 1, 2030, no permit shall be issued to or renewed for any lodging unit
located outside the Coastal Zone, unless the owner had a permit for the lodging unit
on or before March 31, 2020, and the permit was not subsequently revoked.
C. On or after April 1, 2030, no permit shall be issued to or renewed for any lodging unit
located outside the Coastal Zone.
D. No permit shall be issued to or renewed for any owner that does not have at least one
parking space for each unitin a garage, carport, or driveway at the property.
5.95.017 Maximum Number of Permits.
A. The maximum number of short term lodging permits shall be limited to sixteen
hundred (1,600) at any time.
B. If the City has issued the maximum number of permits available, the City shall
maintain a waiting list. An application for placement on the waiting list shall be
submitted to the Finance Director, on a form approved by the Finance Director, and
shall be accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the City Council. In the
event a short term lodging permit becomes available, the Finance Director shall notify
the person or persons next in order on the waiting list. The notice shall specify that
applications will be accepted for ten (10) calendar days after the date of the notice,
and that failure to apply within the ten (10) calendar day period shall result in removal
of the person or persons receiving notice from the waiting list. Notice shall be deemed
given when deposited in the United States mail, with the first class postage prepaid,
and addressed as specified by the person or persons on the waiting list. The City shall
not be liable for a failure to notify any person or persons on the waiting list since
placement on the list does not create any property right in any person or persons on
the list nor any contractual obligation on the part of the City.
5.95.020 Permit Required.
No owner of a lodging unit shall advertise for rent or rent a lodging unit located within a
residential district for a short term without a valid short term lodging permit for that unit
issued pursuant to this chapter.
4-10
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 9 of 20
5.95.025 Agency.
An owner may retain an agent to comply with the requirements of this chapter,
including, without limitation, the filing of an application for a short term lodging permit,
the management of the short term lodging unit or units, and the compliance with the
conditions to the short term lodging permit. The permit shall be issued only to the owner
of the short term lodging unit or units. The owner of the short term lodging unit or units
is responsible for compliance with the provisions of this chapter and the failure of an
agent to comply with this chapter shall be deemed non-compliance by the owner.
5.95.030 Application for Permit.
An application for a short term lodging pennit shall be filed with the Finance Director
upon forms provided by the City and shall contain the following infonnation:
A. The name, address and telephone number of the owner of the unit for which the
short term lodging permit is to be issued.
8. The name, address and telephone number of the agent, if any, of the owner of the
unit.
C. Evidence of a valid business license issued by the City for the separate business
of operating a short term lodging unit or units.
D. The number of bedrooms in the lodging unit.
E. The number of parking spaces available onsite and a description indicating the
location and size of each parking space.
F. A proposed location for the placement of the sign required to be posted on the
exterior of the unit.
G. A certification 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, ifany.
H. Acknowledgement of receipt and inspection of a copy of all regulations pertaining
to the operation of a short term lodging unit.
Such other information as the Finance Director deems reasonably necessary to
administer this chapter.
4-11
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 10 of 20
5.95.035 Denial of Permit.
If permits are available for issuance, no application filed by an owner for a permit or
renewal of a permit for a unit eligible to be used as a short term lodging unit, as
provided for in Section 5.95.015 and this Code, shall be denied unless the owner does
not have a current valid business license; or the short term lodging permit for the same
unit and issued to the same owner has been revoked.
5.95.040 Filing Fee.
An application or renewal application for a short term lodging permit shall be
accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the City Council, provided, however,
the fee shall be no greater than necessary to defer the cost incurred by the City in
administering the provisions of this chapter and for providing the answering service.
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 user 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 to two occupants per bedroom plus two persons per lodging
unit. The owner shall ensure that the overnight maximum occupancy is not
exceeded.
2. The owner shall use best efforts to ensure that the transient user,
occupants and/or guests of the short term lodging unit do not create unreasonable
noise or disturbances, engage in disorderly conduct, or violate provisions of this
Code or any state or federal law pertaining to noise, disorderly conduct, the
consumption of alcohol, or the use of illegal drugs.
3. The owner shall, upon notification that any transient user, occupant and/or
guest of his or her short term lodging unit has created unreasonable noise or
disturbances, engaged in disorderly conduct or committed violations of this Code
or any state or federal law pertaining to noise, disorderly conduct, the consumption
of alcohol or the use of illegal drugs, promptly use best efforts to prevent a
recurrence of such conduct by any transient user, occupant or guest.
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.
5. The owner of the short term lodging unit shall provide the transient user
4-12
Ordinance No. 2020-8
with a copy of Sections 5.95.047, 10.28.007, 10.28.010, 10.28.020, 1 B.I&-MQf&U
10.66.020 of this Code.
4-12
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 11 of 20
6. The owner of the short term lodging unit shall post a copy of the short term
lodging permit and a copy of the conditions set forth in this subsection in a
conspicuous place within the unit. The notice shall be in substantial compliance with a
template created by the City, which shall be available on the City website, and contain
the following:
a. The name of the local contact person(s) and phone number at which
that person(s) may be reached on a twenty-four (24) hour basis. The local person(s)
must be located within twenty-five (25) miles of the unit and shall respond to any call
related to the unit within thirty (30) minutes.
b. The number and location of onsite parking spaces.
C. The street sweeping schedule for all public right-of-ways within 300
feet of the unit.
d. The trash collection schedule for the unit, and the Code rules and
regulations concerning the timing, storage and placement of trash containers and
recycling requirements.
e. Notification that no amplified sound or reproduced sound is allowed
outside or audible from the property line between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 10:00
a. m.
f. Notification that any transient user, occupant or guest is responsible
for all activities occurring on the property and that any transient user, occupant or guest
may be cited and fined for creating a disturbance or violating any provision of this Code.
7. With respect to any short term lodging unit that is located in any Safety
Enhancement Zone, the owner of the unit and any agent retained by the owner shall
take immediate action during the period that the Safety Enhancement Zone is in effect
to prevent any transient user, occupant or guest from engaging in disorderly conduct
or committing violations of this Code or state or federal law pertaining to noise,
disorderly conduct, the consumption of alcohol or the use of illegal drugs.
8. The owner shall:
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.
4-13
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 12 of 20
b. If the owner uses an agent to collect and remit the transient
occupancy tax and the visitor service fee, the owner shall be responsible for
ensuring that the agent collects and remits the transient occupancy tax and the
visitor service fee to the City pursuant to the requirements set forth in this chapter,
Chapter 3.16 and Chapter 3.28.
C. If the owner uses a hosting platform to collect and remit the
transient occupancy tax and the visitor service fee, the owner shall: (i} be
responsible for ensuring that the hosting platform collects and remits the transient
occupancy tax and the visitor service fee to the City in accordance with this
chapter; and (ii) when filing a return in accordance with Sections 3.16.070 and
3.28.040, the owner shall provide the City with a copy of all receipts showing the
date the short term lodging unit was rented, the amount of transient occupancy tax
and visitor service fee collected by the hosting platform, and proof that the
transient occupancy tax and visitor service fee was remitted to the City.
9. The owner shall utilize the City's answering service and 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 of the property) who shall
ensure compliance with this chapter in a timely manner. The owner or agent must
provide a new local contact person and his or her phone number within five (5)
business days, if there is a change in the local contact person(s).
10. The owner shall ensure that all available parking spaces onsite, which
may include garage, carport, and driveway spaces, as well as tandem parking are
available for the transient user, occupant or guest of the short term lodging unit.
The owner shall disclose the number of parking spaces available onsite and shall
inform the transient user, occupant and/or guest that street parking may not be
available.
11. The owner shall maintain a valid business license and short term lodging
permit when engaging in short term lodging.
12. The owner shall include the City issued short term lodging permit number
on all advertisements for the rental of the short term lodging unit and shall ensure
the transient user is informed of the amount of the transient occupancy tax and
visitor service fee prior to completion of the booking transaction.
13. The owner shall ensure that a permitted short term lodging unit is only
used for residential purposes and not used for non-residential uses, including, but
not limited to, large commercial or non-commercial gatherings, commercial filming
and/or non -owner wedding receptions.
4-14
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 13 of 20
14. The owner shall ensure that no amplified sound, or reproduced sound is
used outside or audible from the property line between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
10:00 a.m. and that the transient user does not violate the requirements set forth in
this chapter, Chapters 10.28, 10.58 and 10.66.
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.
16. The owner shall not rent a short term lodging unit for less than two
consecutive calendar days.
B. The City Manager shall have the authority to impose additional standard
conditions, applicable to all short term lodging units, as necessary to achieve the
objectives of this chapter.
C. The City Manager shall have the authority to impose additional conditions on any
permit in the event of any violation of the conditions to the permit or the provisions
of this chapter subject to compliance with the procedures specified in Section
5.95.065.
5.95.047 Violations of Permit Conditions by Transient User, Occupant or Guest.
In addition to other provisions of this Code, it shall be unlawful for any transient user,
occupant or guest of a short term lodging unit to:
A. Exceed the overnight occupancy limit designated for the short term lodging unit.
B. Use street parking prior to utilizing all available onsite parking space(s) for the
lodging unit.
C. Place trash for collection in violation of this Code's rules and regulations
concerning:
1. The timing, storage or placement of trash containers; or
2. Recycling requirements.
D. Amplify or reproduce sound between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m.:
1. Outside of the lodging unit; or
4-15
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 14 of 20
That is audible from the property line for the lodging unit.
4-15
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 14 of 20
E. Use the short term lodging for any non-residential purpose, including, but not
limited to, large commercial or non-commercial gatherings, commercial filming
and/or non -owner wedding receptions.
5.95.050 Agents and Hosting Platform Responsibilities.
A. Agents or hosting platforms
ledging- Rq shall collect all applicable transient occupancy taxes and visitor
service fees that are imposed on the transient, pursuant to Chapters 3.16 and
3.28, from the transient, or from the person paying for such rental, at the time
payment for such rental is made. The agent and hosting platform shall remit to the
City any transient occupancy taxes or visitor service fees collected by the hosting
platform or agent to the City before the last day of the month following the close of
each calendar quarter or on the day specified by the Finance Director if a different
reporting period has been established. Nothing herein shall be deemed to relieve
an operator, as that term is defined in Sections 3.16.020 and 3.28.020, from
complying with the requirements set forth in Chapters 3.16 and 3.28 of this Code,
or to interfere with the ability of a hosting platform and an owner to enter into an
agreement regarding fulfillment of the requirements of this section.
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.
C. Agents and hosting platforms shall not:
1.
6+f} Hosting platforms shall be required to prompt hosts to include the City -issued
registration number in their listing(s), in a format designated by the City. Upon
notice from the City that a listing is non-compliant, hosting platforms shall cease
any short-term rental booking transactions for said listing(s) within five business
days. A hosting platform shall not complete any booking transaction for any
residential property or unit subject to a City notice, until notified by the City that the
residential property or unit is in compliance with the local registration requirement.
2. Collect or receive a fee, directly or indirectly for facilitating or providing
services ancillary to an unpermitted short term lodging unit including, but not
4-16
Ordinance No. 2020-8
limited to, insurance, concierge services, catering, restaurant bcF*015 We,
guide services, entertainment, cleaning, property management, or maintenance of
the short term lodging unit.
D. A hosting platform operating exclusively on the internet, which operates in
compliance with subsection (A), (B), and (C) above, shall be presumed to be in
compliance with this chapter, except that the hosting platform remains responsible
for compliance with the administrative subpoena provisions of this chapter.
E. The provisions of the section shall be interpreted in accordance with otherwise
applicable state and federal law(s) and will not apply if determined by the City to be
in violation of, or preempted by, such law(s).
4-16
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 15 of 20
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, to obtain specific information
regarding short term rental listings located in the City, including but not limited to, 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, to determine
whether the short term rental listing complies with this chapter. Any subpoena issued
pursuant to this section shall not require the production of information sooner than thirty
(30) calendar days from the date of service. A person that has been served with an
administrative subpoena may seek judicial review during that thirty calendar day (30)
period. Failure to respond to an administrative subpoena in accordance with the terms
set forth therein shall be punishable in accordance with Section 5.95.060 and the City
may file a judicial action to compel compliance with the subpoena.
5.95.060 Violations and Penalties.
A. Any violation of this chapter is punishable as provided in Chapters 1.04 and
Chapter 1.05 of the Code.
8. . Except as provided in subsection (C), in the case of any administrative
citation issued pursuant to this chapter, administrative fines shall be assessed in
the following amounts:
1. A fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) for a first
violation.
2. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) for a second violation,
within one year of the date of the priorviolation.
3. Afine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for a third violation,
or any subsequent violation, within one year of the date of the prior violation.
C. In the case of a short term lodging permit for a dwelling that is located in a Safety
Enhancement Zone, the penalty for the failure to comply with any standard condition
during the period that the Safety Enhancement Zone is in effect shall be a fine of one
thousand dollars ($1,000.00).
4-17
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 16 of 20
5.95.065 Suspensions and Revocations.
In addition to any fine or penalty that may be imposed pursuant to any provision of this Code
including, but not limited to Section 5.95.060, a short term lodging permit for a unit may be
suspended or revoked as provided in this section.
A. Suspensions/Revocations.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, if any person violates a short
term lodging permit 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 short term lodging permit for the unit may be suspended
for a period of six (6) months in accordance with subsection (8).
2. In the case of a short term lodging permit for a unit that is located in a Safety
Enhancement Zone, if there is a violation of any provision of this 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 (1) year or revoked in accordance with
subsection (8).
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, while the lodging unit was occupied on a short term basis, within any twenty-
four
(24) month period, the permit may be suspended for a period of one (1) year or revoked in
accordance with the subsection (8) . A loud or unruly gathering that occurred prior to the
passage of fourteen (14) calendar days from 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.
4. If a person violates Section 5.95.020 in regards to any unit that has had a
short term lodging permit suspended pursuant to subsection (8), the short term
lodging permit for the unit may be revoked in accordance with subsection (8).
5. If any person violates a short term lodging permit condition or any other
provision of this Code, state or federal law within six (6) months of having 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 (8).
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 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 (8).
4-18
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 17 of 20
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 within
any thirty six (36) month period, the short term lodging permit for the unit may be
revoked in accordance with subsection (B).
B. Permits shall be suspended or revoked, only in the manner provided in this
section.
1. The Finance Director shall conduct an investigation whenever he or she
has reason to believe that an owner has committed a violation of a permit
condition, this Code, state or federal law related to a permitted unit. Such
investigation may include, but is not limited to, on-site property inspections. Should
the investigation reveal substantial evidence to support a finding that a violation
occurred that warrants a suspension or revocation of the short term lodging permit,
the Finance Director shall issue written notice of intention to suspend or revoke the
short term lodging permit. The written notice shall be served on the owner in
accordance with Section 1.08.080, and shall specify the facts which, in the opinion
of the Finance Director constitute substantial evidence to establish grounds for
imposition of the suspension and/or revocation, and specify the proposed time the
short term lodging permit shall be suspended and/or that the short term lodging
permit shall be revoked within thirty (30) calendar days from the date the notice is
given, unless the owner files, before the suspension and/or revocation becomes
effective, a request for hearing before a hearing officer, who shall be retained by
the City, and pays the fee for the hearing established by resolution of the City
Council.
2. If the owner requests a hearing and pays the hearing fee, established by
resolution of the City Council, within the time specified in subsection (8)(1), the
Finance Director shall serve written notice on the owner, pursuant to Section
1.08.080, setting forth the date, time and place for the hearing. The hearing shall
be scheduled not less than fifteen (15) calendar days, nor more than sixty {60}
calendar days, from the date on which notice of the hearing is served by the
Finance Director. The hearing shall be conducted according to the rules normally
applicable to administrative hearings. At the hearing, the hearing officer will preside
over the hearing, take evidence and then submit proposed findings and
recommendations to the City Manager. The City Manager shall suspend or revoke
the short term lodging permit only upon a finding that a violation has been proven
by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the suspension or revocation is
consistent with the provisions of this section. The City Manager shall render a
decision within thirty (30) calendar days of the hearing and the decision shall be
4-19
final.
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 17 of 20
4-19
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 18 of 20
C. If a short term lodging permit is suspended, 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 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.
D. After any suspension, the owner may reapply for reinstatement of the short term
lodging permit which shall be processed in accordance with Section
5.95.030, provided the owner has paid the City all amounts owed the City in
accordance with this chapter and Chapters 3.16 and 3.28 of this Code.
5.95.070 Permits and Fees Not Exclusive.
Permits and fees required by this chapter shall be in addition to any license, permit or
fee required under any other chapter of this Code. The issuance of any permit pursuant
to this chapter shall not relieve the owner of the obligation to comply with all other
provisions of this Code including, but not limited to, those provisions pertaining to the
use and occupancy of the lodging unit or the property on which it is located as well as
the collection and remittance of transient occupancy taxes and visitor service fees in
accordance with this chapter and Chapters 3.16 and 3.28.
5.95.080 License and Permit Closure.
A. Any owner that has ceased operating a short term lodging unit shall inform the
Finance Director in writing of the date of the last rental, and having done such, the
short term lodging permit shall be closed. The City will send a final transient
occupancy tax and visitor service fee bill, which will be due and payable thirty (30)
days from the date of the invoice.
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
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.
C. Any dwelling unit on any parcel zoned for "Single-family Residential (R-1)" or is
designated for single-family residential use as part of a Planned Community
Development Plan, Specific Area Plan or Planned Residential District that has a
short term lodging permit issued on or before June 1, 2004, shall have its short
term lodging permit closed by the Finance Director if the unit is demolished or
rebuilt on or after July 1, 2020; or if the unit is modified in any way that increases
4-20
Ordinance No. 2020-8
gross floor area by more than twenty-five percent (25%) on or after . *6,1 0
4-20
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 19 of 20
Section 4: The recitals provided in this ordinance are true and correct and are
incorporated into the substantive portion of this ordinance.
Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the
validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council
hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 6: The City Council finds the introduction and adoption of this ordinance
is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections
15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as
defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to
the environment, directly orindirectly.
Section 7: Except as expressly modified in this ordinance, all other Sections,
Subsections, terms, clauses and phrases set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code
shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect.
Section 8: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be
published pursuant to City Charter Section 414. The Chapter headings for Section
5.95.015, Residential Properties Eligible for Short Term Lodging Permits and Section
5.95.017, Maximum Number of Permits, as set forth in Section 3 of this ordinance, shall
become effective thirty (30) days after adoption of this ordinance. Section 5.95.015,
Residential Properties Eligible for Short Term Lodging Permits, and Section 5.95.017,
Maximum Number of Permits, as set forth in Section 3 of this ordinance, shall become
effective thirty (30) days after the adoption of this ordinance. The remainder of this
ordinance shall become effective July 1, 2020.
4-21
Ordinance No. 2020-8
Page 20 of 20
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach held on the 11th day of February, 2020, and adopted on the 25th day of
February, 2020, by the following vote, to -wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ABSENT:
—
WILL O'NEILL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
LEILANI I. BROWN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
C
AARON C. HARP, CITY ATTORNEY
4-22
airbnb
February 21, 2020
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Newport Beach City Hall
100 Civic Center Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Mayor O'Neill and Honorable Councilmembers,
On behalf of Airbnb, I would like to commend the council and City staff for the thoughtful
approach that Newport Beach has taken to regulate short-term rentals. These conversations
are never easy, create challenging questions and require the city to balance the interests of
residents, small businesses and other stakeholders. Ultimately, we believe the City has settled
on an ordinance that continues the rich tradition of vacation rentals in Newport Beach, while
controlling for concerns about quality of life and neighborhood impacts.
Airbnb is in complete alignment with the City's goals to ensure that illegal listings do not
operate in the City, and we also want to ensure that the City is able to recoup all transient
occupancy taxes (TOT). As the City moves forward with its short-term rental ordinance, we
hope to work in partnership with you to see it implemented in a way that ensures a high rate
of compliance across all hosting platforms so that hosts can continue to choose the hosting
platform that is best for them to advertise their property.
This letter sets forth considerations on the technical aspects of implementation so that we
can make sure we are able to do our part to ensure that guests reserve legal short-term
rental units and that tax collection goes smoothly. From past experience with cities across
the country and within California specifically, we hope our insights will be helpful to staff as
they implement the ordinance. To that end, we are submitting these comments to address
Section 5.95.050(A) and (C) of the proposed ordinance that we believe, with slight revisions,
will improve the City's ability to implement reasonable short-term rental regulations, thereby
allowing us to meet the city's goals while supporting our host community. The letter also
outlines some of our new trust and safety measures Airbnb has taken to ensure the safety of
our guests, hosts, and neighbors.
Section 5.95.050(C) - Advertising Short -Term Rental Units
We understand that the intent of Section 5.95.050(C) is to prevent illegal short-term rental
listings in Newport Beach. We support this important goal. As written, however, hosting
888 Brannan Street
Fourth Floor
San Francisco, California 94103
United States
1 of 5
platforms will need to verify a registration number against a city registry before completing a
booking. As Expedia noted in their comments addressed on February 10, 2020, this would
require the City to maintain a list of permitted units that is updated daily — but ideally in real
time. Importantly, this implementation scheme could be unduly burdensome for City staff
and could result in some hosts being denied the opportunity to list their property for
short-term rental on a hosting platform if the City is unable to maintain a registry in real time.
In our experience, it has been difficult for cities — even large cities with a large tourism base
— to update their registries consistently, creating uncertainty for everyone.
Alternatively, the intent of the ordinance —to prevent illegal listings from operating in
Newport Beach — could also be met by requiring hosting platforms to remove illegal listings
upon notice from the City. This notice and takedown framework is what Airbnb has agreed to
in Santa Monica, San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland — and what is being proposed in
Sacramento and Cupertino. We have found that this compliance framework works and that
it is something all hosting platforms can agree to, creating equal opportunity for hosts to
engage with various hosting platforms.
To make notice and takedown easy for the City to implement, hosting platforms can make
sure that hosts input a permit number with their listings. The City can then check the listings
against their permit records and notify a hosting platform of any violations, which the
hosting platform then removes within a few days. In addition to having a permit number
listed on the website, hosting platforms can also provide the City a list of all short-term rental
advertisements and their corresponding permit numbers. Hosting platforms would not be
able to re -advertise a listing that was previously taken down for short-term rental use until
notified by the City that the listing is compliant.
We propose the alternative framework below adopted by other cities that will allow us to
comply with the spirit of Section 5.9S.050(C) and ensure the city achieves its goal of platform
compliance. Below is suggested language.
5.95.050 (c) (1)
"Hosting platforms shall be required to prompt hosts to include the
City -issued registration number in their listing(s), in a format
designated by the City. Upon notice from the City that a listing is
non-compliant, hosting platforms shall cease any short-term rental
booking transactions for said listing(s) within five business days. A
hosting platform shall not complete any booking transaction for any
residential property or unit subject to a City notice, until notified by the
City that the residential property or unit is in compliance with the local
registration requirement."
Alternatively, the City could issue subregulatory guidance offering this method of
compliance and incorporate a "safe harbor" provision into the ordinance. Below is suggested
language for the safe harbor provision:
888 Brannan Street
Fourth Floor
San Francisco, California 94103
United States
2 of 5
5.95.050 (F)
"A hosting platform shall be presumed to be in compliance with this
Chapter if it does either of the following: (1) Operates in compliance
with subsections (A) - (C) above, or (2) Complies with Administrative
Guidelines promulgated by the City that describes how the hosting
platform must satisfy the hosting platform responsibilities in this
Chapter."
5.95.050 (A) and 5.95.010 - Collection and Remittance of Transient Occupancy Tax
We support the City's efforts to require hosting platforms to collect and remit transient
occupancy taxes and visitor service fees on behalf of short-term rental operators. Airbnb has
established more than 400 such partnerships with cities around the world to collect and
remit taxes, and we would like to work with the City of Newport Beach to do the same. By
creating a streamlined collection process for hosts and local tax authorities, these
agreements have generated over $2 billion in revenue for local governments, helping
enforcement efforts and strengthening services.
As such, we suggest making minor edits to the definition of "Hosting Platform" in Section
5.95.010 and 5.95.050 (A) so that requirement captures a broader segment of hosting
platforms, thereby ensuring greater compliance and greater revenue for the city. As written
now, platforms, including Airbnb, could argue that they do not have to comply with the
provision at all.
Moreover, traditional hospitality operators, like hotels, and professional management
companies that operate short-term rentals often already have systems in place to collect and
remit local taxes. We have found that these professional operators often prefer to remit their
own taxes, and as such, we ask that the language be amended so that they can continue to
operate as they do currently. The language we suggest below ensures that professional hosts
can continue to operate without interruption, and that the City will be able to receive TOT
from non-professional hosts via a hosting platform.
Section 5.95.010(H)
"Hosting Platform" shall mean a person, other than an owner or agent, who participates in
the short-term lodging business by
facilitating a booking transaction using any
medium of facilitation.
Section 5.95.050(A) (as amended)
"Agents or hosting platforms that Feeei,vee payF�qeRt feF the r n+a' e f a sheet +,,Fm - Rtal
}ee}e+t shall collect all applicable transient occupancy taxes and visitor services fees
that are imposed on the transient ...Nothing herein shall be deemed to relieve an operator, as
888 Brannan Street
Fourth Floor
San Francisco, California 94103
United States
3of5
that term is defined in Sections 3.16.020 and 3.28.020, from complying with the requirements
set forth in Chapters 3.16 and 3.280 of this Code, or to interfere with the ability of a Hosting
Platform and an owner to enter into an agreement regarding fulfillment of the requirements
of this section."
Airbnb Neighborhood Tool
We appreciate that the City wants to create short-term rental rules that protect public safety
and neighborhood integrity, and stand ready to support your efforts to enforce regulations
intended to achieve this goal. While the ordinance includes robust protections against
nuisances and establishes a process for permit revocation after two violations within a 12
month period, we believe that being a good partner with cities like Newport Beach may
require us to take more immediate action against activity on our platform that violates our
commitment to working with cities.
To demonstrate this commitment and help your community address problematic short-term
rentals in your community, we want to share our Airbnb Neighbors website. The Airbnb
Neighbors tool - airbnb.com/neighbors -empowers your constituents, regardless of whether
they have an Airbnb account, to report concerns regarding noise, parties and other nuisances
directly to Airbnb, allowing us to take appropriate action to address the issue.
In addition to describing the issue and providing suggestions for remedies, if the concerned
neighbor provides the listing's web address, an Airbnb team member will follow up
personally with the concerned neighbor. Constituents can also make inquiries or provide
feedback anonymously.
We encourage you to share this tool with your constituents, local neighborhood groups,
Homeowners Associations and anyone else who you believe will benefit from the tool's use.
Airbnb Trust and Safety Tools
While the Airbnb Neighborhood Tool helps us respond to activity that may harm
neighborhood integrity, we are actively taking steps to prevent nuisance activity from
occurring on the platform in the first place. Steps that we have taken to strengthen our
commitment to public safety include:
Risk Scoring
Every Airbnb reservation is scored for risk before it's confirmed. We use predictive
analytics and machine learning to instantly evaluate hundreds of signals that help us
flag and investigate suspicious activity before it happens.
888 Brannan Street
Fourth Floor
San Francisco, California 94103
United States
4of5
Watchlist and Background Checks
While no screening system is perfect, globally we run hosts and guests against
regulatory, terrorist, and sanctions watchlists. For hosts and guests in the United
States, we also conduct background checks.
Party House Ban
We have zero tolerance for unauthorized parties that create public safety risks and
disturb neighbors. To that end, we have banned large parties and events in
multi -family residences, such as apartment buildings and condos, and will take
appropriate action against the host or guest when necessary. With Newport Beach
only permitting short-term rentals in multi -family residences, we hope this step will
prevent quality of life impacts.
These are but a few of the steps and tools we are introducing to ensure that the City is not
alone in its enforcement of its short-term rental rules and that we stand ready to assist in any
way we can.
We are honored to have a presence in a city like Newport Beach that has embraced vacation
rentals for decades. And, as online platforms have made it easier for travelers to experience
Newport's charm, we look forward to playing an active role and contributing to this history
moving forward. We understand that these technical details often require time and
attention, and respectfully request the opportunity to discuss these minor changes further
with your staff as the City moves forward with implementation.
Sincerely,
Matt Middlebrook
Head of Policy, California
Cc: Grace Leung, City Manager
Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director
Evelyn Tseng, Revenue Director
888 Brannan Street
Fourth Floor
San Francisco, California 94103
United States
5 of 5
From: Jacqueline Wittmeyer via Change.org <change@e.change.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:18 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: New petition to you: Newport Beach & Corona Del Mar Short Term Rentals (less than 31
days) need city regulation
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
change.org
City Council Newport Beach: you've
been listed as a decision maker
Jacqueline Wittmeyer started a petition on Change.org and listed
you as a decision maker. Learn more about Jacqueline Wittmeyer's
petition and how you can respond:
1
Newport Beach & Corona Del Mar Short Term
Rentals (less than 31 days) need city regulation
As the short term rental business is growing thanks to the
internet, many residents in our community are faced with
sleepless nights and loss of peace and tranquility in our
residential neighborhoods. Currently the minimum stay is 1
night, which...
WHAT YOU CAN DO
1. View the petition: Learn about the petition and its supporters.
You will receive updates as new supporters sign the petition so you
can see who is signing and why.
2. Respond to the petition: Post a response to let the petition
supporters know you're listening, say whether you agree with their
call to action, or ask them for more information.
3. Continue the dialogue: Read the comments posted by petition
supporters and continue the dialogue so that others can see you're
an engaged leader who is willing to participate in open discussion.
CHANGE.ORG FOR DECISION MAKERS
On Change.org, decision makers like you connect directly with
people around the world to resolve issues. Learn more.
This notification was sent to citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov, the
address listed as the decision maker.
Pr.vacv policy
2
Received After Agenda Printed
February 25, 2020
Item No. 4
Subject: FW: STR Proposal Tax Concerns
Attachments: EG Ltr to Newport Beach STR Proposal Tax Concerns 022420 FINAL.docx
From: Kris Murray <kris@madaffer.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 1:46 PM
To: Jurjis, Seimone <siuriis@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: STR Proposal Tax Concerns
Seimone,
Attached is a letter from Walter Gonzalez of Expedia Group in reference to our discussion yesterday. They are
respectfully requesting that the provision to collect and remit the taxes be removed from the ordinance, and in turn will
work with the city on a Voluntary Collection Agreement (VCA). Please review the details included in the letter and let us
know if you have any questions.
Thank you for the time you have provided to Expedia Group and your consideration of their request.
Kindest regards,
Kris
Kris Murray
Cell: 949-981-3743
February 24, 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 continued opportunity to provide input on the City of Newport Beach's efforts
to regulate short-term rentals (STIRS). We are grateful for the on-going dialogue with city staff.
As noted in our letter dated February 10, 2020, 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.
We are grateful to the city for recognizing that a longer lead-time is needed to implement the
registry that the ordinance requires platforms to check listings against. We hope that there can
be flexibility in that date if the city discovers that the registry is taking longer than expected.
In regard to the tax collection requirement, 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.
If the City decides to delete the proposed tax provision from the ordinance, we are willing to
begin discussions on a Voluntary Collection Agreement (VCA) with the City of Newport Beach. A
voluntary collection agreement would streamline collection remittance for the city, relieve the
333 108th Avenue NE I Bellevue, WA 1 98004 1 USA I T +1425 679 7200 1 F +1425 679 7240 1 expediagroup.com
tax collection burden from our partners and would ensure greater compliance of existing
taxation obligations.
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 1 Bellevue, WA 1 98004 1 USA 1 T +1425 679 7200 1 F +1425 679 7240 1 expediagroup.conn