Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS3 - Short-Term Lodgings - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed August 9, 2016 Item No. SS3 From: Wisneski, Brenda Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 7:58 AM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: Study Session -Short Term Lodging Recommendations & Modifications Attachments: STL.PPTX; STL Recommendations to CITY.docx For public record. From: Craig Batley [mailto:cbatley@burrwhite.com] Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2016 8:30 PM To: Dixon, Diane; 'Tony Petros' (Tony.Petros@lsa-assoc.com); Curry, Keith; Peotter, Scott; Selich, Edward; Duffield, Duffy; kevinmmuldoon@yahoo.com Cc: Beth Hammons; Brandt, Kim; Wisneski, Brenda Subject: Study Session -Short Term Lodging Recommendations & Modifications Hello All: As most of you know, my company has been in the business of placing well over I0,000's of family vacationers on the beach/ peninsula the past 49 years ( I have been at the company for nearly 20 years). I am also a member of the Vacation Rental Managers Association (VRMA) which helps me stay current with industry trends. The business has markedly changed with the proliferation of internet vacation rental platforms, increasing both inventory and visitations. These changes are here to stay. These proposed changes go a long way to proactively adjust to the market place I shared with Staff our company's best practices combined with years of experience in the industry discussing what changes in the regulations would work and what won't. After reviewing the staff report I am suggesting a few changes to fine tune the Report. I believe more work is required before this matter is placed on a formal council agenda. With your direction and comments at the upcoming study session I believe city staff can fine tune the proposed staff recommendations before this matter is placed on a council agenda for a final vote. Feel free to call me on my cell 949 293 4630with any questions. I plan on attending the study session. CRAIG 13A.I. i iv"Y 111 ,a:f1i1V43751 ,4ci§ a`tilcwp o 31r a Pt rci. itivf,pnr9 RV,Nh, CA "426 6-3 Mayor & City Council: As most of you know, my company has been in the business of placing well over 10,000's of family vacationers on the beach and peninsula the past 49 years ( I have been at the company for nearly 20 years. The business has markedly changed with the advent of the internet rental platforms, increasing both the inventory and visitations. I attended both public discussion meetings on the subject of STL, heard all the comments, met with city staff, made suggestions on how to improve the regulation of STL while preserving vacation rentals as an AFFORDABLE alternative housing (The Coastal Commission views vacation rentals as affordable public access to the beach) for families to visit Newport Beach ON the peninsula. Excluding Balboa Island, 90 percent of all city wide vacation rentals occur on the Peninsula. The Peninsula has been a designation for visitors for 100+ years. I have attached a slide illustrating the non -owner rental mix of housing existing on the Peninsula. All but a few R-1 STL grandfathered permits are located on the Peninsula, due mostly to the checker -board pocket zoning that exists on the Peninsula. I shared our company's best practices with the city staff changes for years in order to have purposeful implementation of STL ordinances. However, there needs to be a balance between the market place, STL permitted properties and neighbors. The overall purpose for these revisions is to improve community relations by providing more specific rules encouraging STL operators to be good neighbors while recognizing existing STL permitted property rights and dynamics of the market place. With that in mind I suggest the following modifications: 1. Terms of Use. All STL permits should be renewable yearly, requiring each applicant to reaffirm agreement to the Terms of Use (check box must be checked prior to issuance of STL permit ONLINE). If permit is issued over the counter, applicant must sign terms of use agreement. Terms of use set forth the conditions under which operators must adhere. Recommendation: Mandatory Terms of Use agreement acknowledged prior to issuance ofpermit 2. Minimum Stay (Proposed Operational Conditions). Staff has arbitrarily recommended 4 -night (or other appropriate number) minimum. The main purpose of imposing minimum night standard is to prevent non-compliant guest behavior. The bulk of "party groups" ask for 1 or 2 night stays. If three night stays are required, a guest must take at least ONE day off work and stay Friday -Sunday OR Saturday -Monday. Whereby a 3 -day minimum accomplishes 95% of what a 4 day stay allegedly accomplishes. The idea is to prevent week -end ONLY vacation visitors. Recommendation: 3 -day minimum is the best compromise, eliminating I or 2 day bookings. 3 -day stays eliminates 95% (1 & 2 day bookings) of weekend only bookings, thus relieving most of the police &code enforcement issues. A 4 -day minimum tivill cost the city S10,000's in lost TOT and overload code enforcement (non-compliant bookings). There is no empirical evidence a 4 -day minimum eliminates code infractions any more than a 3 -day minimum. The market demand for shorter stays is huge, since people cannot take much time off work, therefore the demand for 3, 4, 5 day stays is very common today. In fact, if you take the total STL TOT of approx. $2M, there are more 3-5 day stays (including year around STL properties) than any other length of stay. 3. 212 "Grandfathered" SFR Properties. First of all, the 2004-6 ordinance restricting STL in R- 1 zoning was passed solely as a defensive move to combat Recovery Homes proliferation. It had nothing to do with the merits of STL. Furthermore, STL had been available city-wide for 100 years with no real problems (see attached boardwalk picture). The grandfathered STL R-1 permits have obviously been in place for a minimum of 12+ years, most of them dating back when the city began issuance of STL permits in approximately 1991 (30+years) coinciding with collection of TOT. Analysis of the DAC's issued the past several year's shows only a 2% issuance of total DAC's issued to R -I STL permitted property occupied by a GUEST. Additionally, many of these owners rely on STL income for living expenses and mortgage payments. R-1 owners usually have a relationship with the neighbors since the owners occupy these SFR's when available as second homes. The staff states they want to "maintain the single family character of these neighborhoods". The only "family type neighborhoods in or around the peninsula are Lido (2 R-1 STL permits) Peninsula Point (16 R-1 STL permits) and Newport Shores (7 R-1 STL permits). With few exceptions the overall Peninsula neighborhoods are approximately 77% (92663) rentals or second homes (see attachment). Besides, these grandfathered R-1 rentals will slowly dwindle due to attrition (92 active out of 212). Of the total R-1 STL grandfathered R-1 permits city wide 83% are on the peninsula (not counting above). Recommendation: Whereas, due to the number of years these R-1 permits have been in place and the disruption of retirement income to these homeowners (in some cases $200K+/ yr or $15,000/week); whereas, only 92 of the permits are "actively" paying TOT (some of these are paying very little); whereas, due to the longstanding rental history of these properties causing no measurable disruption to the "neighborhoods" and longstanding status of permitted use; and VERY low DAC issuance (see attached 2% of all DAC's issued), I recommend no action to abate R -I STL permits especially since "the peninsula neighborhood is 77% rentals. The 3 SFR neighborhoods of Lido, Newport Shores & Peninsula Point have very few R -I STL permits), Why abate since the neyv proposed regulations establishes a procedures wherein a R -I STL permit can be revoked. AND if a grandfathered R -I STL permit is revoked it can never be reissued again. There is no need to abate. 4. Proposed Exterior Notification Sign & Notices: The owner of the short term lodging unit shall display a notice on the exterior of the dwelling unit so that it is legible and visible to the general public. The sign shall include: a. Local contact person and phone number who is available on a 24-hour basis and resides within 10 miles of the property. b. Short Term Lodging Permit Number and City website address to access permit information. C. The phone number of the City's Police Department 949-644-3215 and Code Enforcement Recommendation: The Newport Beach sign ordinance allow for 12" X18" signs to be posted on for sale or rental property. These signs are small. To require too much info on a sign is impractical. The only necessary items to be posted are.- a. re:a. Responsible contact person (company) b. 24 hour LIVE person answering service phone number (no static answer machines) C. STL permit # First, all STL permit signs need to he the same size as dictated by city real estate sign ordinance . (12' x 18'). In the code revisions please state all STL signs need to conform to city sign ordnances , specifying (12 X 18) size.. Any other information will crowd the sign. The city should not get into the business of dictating sign design. 5. HOA verification: One of the biggest complaints at the public hearing was the city issuance of STL permits to a R-2 zoned property governed by an HOA. Currently, some applicants are knowingly violating the CC & R's of their Association, prohibiting STL in the dwelling. Recommendation: The applicant must agree, per the Terms of Use, to NOT apply, for a STL permit when the CC&R 's prohibit STL. IF the city mistakenly issues such a permit, then the city will be permitted to immediately revoke said permit due to the fact the applicant wil fitilly violated his CC&R 's. The aggrieved condo owner must provide the evidence to the city that the STL permitted property obtained the permit unlawfully. Such a permit should be subject to revocation. 6. STL guest contracts: It is my opinio, all STL guests be required to sign a contract setting forth the terms for occupancy, spelling out guest obligations to all city code regulations Recommendation: Such items shall address the following, but not be limited to: Occupancy limit, obey all city ordinances, payment of TOT, parking, unreasonable noise, etc 7. LUGO addendum. Recommendation: Must be signed by all guests 8. Excerpt from Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 5.95.050. Proactive Code Enforcement Program, Proposed: Proactive Enforcement 1. Enforce or abate unlicensed STL. STL may be located in the proper zone, but require a license. STL located in areas not allowed shall be abated. 2. Impose Tier 2 fines for STL violations, as necessary. 3. Suspend permit for 60 days if LUGO issued. 4. Suspend permit for 60 days if two DACs are issued in a consecutive twelvemonth period. Recommendation: Change the above to read: 3. Suspend permit for 60 days if LUGO issued to STL guest. 4. Suspend permit for 60 days if ttivo DA Cs are issued to STL guest in a consecutive twelvemonth period. Thank you reviewing the above recommendations which if adopted by staff will significantly improve the proposed regulation modifications and alleviate future burdensome code enforcement issues. Respectfully Submitted, Craig Batley % STLP R-1 8% All Others Received After Agenda Printed August 9, 2016 Item No. SS3 From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:17 AM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW: Comments on STL ahead of Tuesday meeting For the record. From: Chuck Cortright [mailto:chuck@cortright.com] Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2016 8:45 AM To: Dixon, Diane; Petros, Tony; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; Selich, Edward; Peotter, Scott; Curry, Keith Cc: Kiff, Dave; Brandt, Kim; bwisneski@newportva.gov; angelaCabspagregories.com Subject: Comments on STL ahead of Tuesday meeting Dear Honorable Mayor and members of the Newport Beach City Council: As 30 year residents of Corona del Mar, we care deeply about our community. As 20 year business owners in Newport Beach (Spa Gregorie's) we care about our guests and visitors from other cities and around the world. We are writing regarding the current Short Term Rental issues being discussed. WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF STL. About 2 years ago, we became hosts on Airbnb and VRBO for our separate unit behind our home. In that time, we have had nothing but WONDERFUL guests from all over the world. We have enjoyed showing them our unique community and the natural beauty of our beaches, mountains, recreation and entertainment venues. We have strict rules regarding noise, parking, etc. and have had NOT ONE PROBLEM since we began. In short, our STL guests have been more considerate and well-mannered than many other renters and homeowners we have known throughout the years. Plus, they come and support our local businesses and restaurants and go home raving about their positive experience in Newport Beach. We have had several repeat guests and referrals. Many of the guests would not have visited Newport if it were not for STL availability — local hotels are just too costly for them and do not accommodate their needs. We think the recommendations of the Community Development team are excellent with a few exceptions: 4 night minimum — We would propose a 2 night minimum in that many business travelers come for only a night or two. Business travelers are the quietest and most considerate and represent greatest revenue for local restaurants and other businesses. 4 nights might be a little costly for many families. Our average is 2 to 3 nights. Exterior signage — not comfortable with publishing my name and phone number to strangers. Would it be possible to have a sign with police department phone number (or other City Dept. phone#) and our STL business license number? We think that code enforcement will help solve a lot of the concerns that the community has experienced. We would like to commend the City of Newport Staff who have professionally and competently navigated through this community issue. I'm sure that with their efforts and your guidance, we will come to solution that will satisfy all the stakeholders in this issue. Sincerely, Chuck and Angela Cortright Received After Agenda Printed August 9, 2016 Item No. SS3 From: cynthia koller <gracenbl@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 5:26 PM To: Dixon, Diane; Petros, Tony; Selich, Edward; kcurry@newportbeachca.gov; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy; Peotter, Scott; Brown, Leiiani Subject: Fw: SUMMER/WEEKLY RENTALS Attachments: IMG 2926.JPG ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: cynthia koller <gracenb1 @yahoo.com> To: Dave Kiff <dkiff@newportbeachca.gov>; "Ibrown @newportbeach.ca.gov" <Ibrown @newportbeach.ca. gov>; Matt Cosylion <mcosy] ion@newportbeachca.gov>; "citycouncil@newpoortbeachca.gov" <citycouncil@newpoortbeachca.gov>; "rquerry@nbpd.org" <rquerry@nbpd.org> Cc: Lori Morris <lorirmorris@gmail.com>; Sharon Boles <sharonaboles@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 5:22 PM Subject: SUMMER/WEEKLY RENTALS For the Public Record Mayor Dixon, Dave Kiff, Lt. Querry, Council Members and Staff: In response to Lori Morris's email below I called on the same house on the 100 block of 39th Street blowing off giant rounds of fireworks for three nights leading up to the 4th of July. One among to many to count. Some of these bombs were boxes with 30 ROUNDS just feet from our homes with labels stating: { f 443NFEWEI" Many of our homes are wood, it was a huge fire hazard besides sounding like were being bombed for three hours straight. I spoke to LT. Querry after the 4th and we discussed a LUGO for fireworks like our LUGO for party houses which has to be done if we are NOT going to allow fireworks. Either we disallow and ENFORCE or allow and at least give family's the option get out of town. It was awful. So many residents who chose to stay in town over the 4th are talking about leaving again. had single female neighbors in tears, their children in tears, it was by far the worst 4th (after dark) we have EVER had and the residents, PD and our Parks and Rec have worked to hard for this all to be taken away by idiots who care nothing for our neighborhoods or safety. When we first started working with the City and Pd on a plan to take back our streets to make the 4th family friendly and even more importantly safe I have requested for years the City put on a Fireworks show down here on the Peninsula to persuade all to come out and enjoy the show and not create their own. I still think this is what needs to be done with so many visitors. We were not sure our Parade and Festival would be a success but it was worth the try and it has made a profound change on the complete chaos and debauchery we had to live with every year. And yes, saved the city a lot of money. Many of us have been told "you knew what you were getting into when you bought down here". I can assure you NO ONE ever disclosed to me when we bought our home we had 5 rehab homes one block away and crime and negative impacts were rampant. NO ONE ever disclosed the 4th of July was NO PLACE FOR FAMILY OR CHILDREN. NO ONE ever disclosed that we would have throngs of drunk people all night having sex outside our front doors, people vomiting in our plants and on our sidewalks, men and yes women urinating on our houses. Violent fist fights, and many many hit and runs and burglaries. With all the good that has come from residents working hand in hand with the city we still have our challenges. One new one is the explosion of new renters via the internet. We are now in need on the 200 block of the numbered streets for a Saturday trash pick up to deal with what Lori's email has described. Also, I would like to remind everyone who was not on Council when our water issues came to Council a fews years back. I was there and voiced the Peninsula's concern about being able to hose our sidewalks and patio's down with the constant presence of animals and party goers. I was reassured by the City and Council then, the residents of the Peninsula would not be held to the same "rules" as the rest of the City (you can't sweep up fluids). We residents try very hard to follow the rules on water but the renters do need to be informed and held accountable as well. We just want what you all want, to live in a safe place where we can enjoy our homes. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Cindy Koller West Newport Council, Staff and Code Enforcement: To be entered into the Public Record. I was pleased to read City Manager, Dave Kiff's, "Insiders Guide" for this weeks council Study Session, included the Summer/Weekly rental issue. This has been a particularly bad summer regarding the issues surrounding the short term rentals. I will give just two examples in this email but you can extrapolate those examples times ten. First example of what I consider to be a bad operator, would be Villa Rentals and the 4th of July. I phoned the police department several times and then Villa Rentals the next day regarding the tenants they rented to for that weekend, Lt. Querry can expand upon this particular house in his "Round Up" for the the 4th of July as it was an issue for our entire area. I will briefly tell you that after numerous calls to police, two of the tenants were arrested late Monday evening on Felony counts. It is unfortunate that our neighborhoods were in great danger of extreme fire hazards, from Friday July 1st until late on the holiday evening of the 4th. I believe the Bomb Squad had to be called in to haul away what was in that house. The other issue will be more graphic but I think you should all get the complete picture of how disgusting it was and is. Summer weekly renters, for the most part, try to be considerate of the residential neighborhood they payed to vacation in but there are many instances of those that who completely disregard the quiet enjoyment of our residential neighborhoods here on the Peninsula, particularly West Newport. This weekend I again caught "cleaning companies" stuffing my trash cans and those of my neighbors with the over flow of the weekly rentals they are cleaning up after. My alley was dumped with trash bags that were open and oozing foul smelling trash that included torn open dirty diapers ... yes, please take that in and consider what Ijust wrote. The rest of the trash was over flowing and stuffed so high that the local raccoon family feasted all weekend, the flies were so thick that it would make you gag. This morning, after trash pick up, I, not the rental agency that reaps thousands upon thousands of dollars every summer, had to go out and clean up disgusting debris and YES, I did have to use my garden hose, which will take me to the next topic. We as residents are noticed and fined if caught cleaning up our property ... yet the rental companies tenants use water to hose down their cars, kids, towels, patios and everything else they choose without coming under scrutiny ... I always wonder if the rental agencies tell their tenants that California is under water restrictions but I doubt that to be the case, as I doubt they tell them to bag up their extra trash when it no longer fits in the trash cans. So to conclude. I am asking that ALL rental companies be put under the LUGO laws regarding their tenants and FIREWORKS. I was shocked that there were no repercussions for Villa rentals after being repeatedly notified that their tenants were shooting off rockets that would make Disneyland blush. I am also asking that all rental companies add to their agreements that all excess trash not be piled as high as possible and over flowing, but instead be given contractor bags to use and that their cleaning companies NOT stuff the extra trash they drag out of those rentals into any trash can that may be close by (and trust me, I caught them doing that this weekend). I hope to be able to attend this early meeting to read this at public comments but in case I am not able to attend, please enter this into the public record. Thank You, Lori Morris West Newport. Make yourself at home. Sent from my Phone Received After Agenda Printed August 9, 2016 Item No. SS3 From: Brandt, Kim Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 1:50 PM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: Short -Term Rentals/ Comments For tonight's study session. Ktw, From: Wetherholt, Drew [mailto:Drew.Wetherholt@marcusmillichap.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 11:23 AM To: Brandt, Kim; Dept - City Council Cc: Kiff, Dave; Wetherholt, Drew Subject: Short -Term Rentals/ Comments Dear Ms. Brandt & City Council: As I will not be able to attend the meeting of August 9th regarding Short -Term Rentals I would like to add my comments regarding the City Council Staff Report dated August 9th I am pleased that the City is finally starting to address some of the issues regarding STL and I support much of what is stated in the staff report. I own, operate and manage apartments and STL both in Newport and in other cities. Clearly, there needs to be a better balance, stronger enforcement and better regulation of these types of properties. Having STL properties on the Peninsula that are out of control is not acceptable. Property management companies that cram as many people as possible in order to get the highest possible rent is not acceptable. I have personally observed STLs that are poorly managed that have become big problems in the neighborhoods and, on the other hand, very well-managed properties that have no impact or actually add -to or improve the community. I would encourage the City and Council to consider the following: 1. Staff made the comment in the report dated Aug 9th- "Staff has also learned that there are very responsible professional management companies that focus on vacation rentals, which result in minimal, if any, impacts to the neighborhood." Really? I'm rather curious where the staff is getting this information to make this claim (the rental companies themselves???). At least on the Peninsula, I have either been subjected and/or observed far more problems with the weekly rental companies rather than some of the owner/operators. Also take a look on the website VRBO and look at the poor reviews/problems of many of these local weekly rental companies. I have on numerous time seen these local management companies put in excess of 15-20 people into the STLs. It really comes down to good hands-on management and several of these companies DO NOT practice good management from screening the prospective tenants, to limiting the occupancy, enforcing rules, checking on the properties, etc. It's all about the money for them. Staff really needs to make sure that these management companies are not a case of the "fox guarding the hen -house!" Occupancy- Why would the Cityep rmit 12 people in a 3-bdrm? 4 people per bedroom? The city has allowed this on my street and the occupancy often exceeds this. This property has become a big disturbance and it is managed by one of these local STL companies. The staff report does not clearly define the maximum occupancy only stating 2 adults per bedroom. So its okay if I have 2 adults AND 10 children? I would encourage the City limit maximum occupancy to 2 people per bedroom, period. Also the City should limit the day -time occupancy to no more than double the permitted occupancy. (ie- property has 2 bedrooms- max occupancy should be 4 people and the day -time occupancy should be no more than 8 people) 3. Weekly Management Signs- I would encourage the City to have the property management companies remove their big management signs from the properties as these signs look trashy to the neighborhood and should not be permanent fixtures to the property. Isn't posting commercial signs in a residential neighborhood a code violation? Most renters are using VRBO or AirBNB, etc. 4. Commercial Insurance- Most of these STLs DO NOT have the proper insurance in-place. Most owners do not realize the most typical homeowners/fire policies DO NOT insure for weekly rentals. Weekly rental require a commercial insurance policy in order to cover the possible liabilities involved with STLs. The City should require that the owners/management companies provide proof of PROPER insurance before the City issues or renews a STL permit. The policy should clearly state that it is covering STL. 5. Proactive Enforcement- The City, Code Enforcement and the Police Department really need to work together. I cannot tell you how many times PD has been called on various disturbances related to party houses/STLs and nothing is ever done. The community is tired of the "advised/complied" response from the PD. The PD needs to start issuing more citations/DACs so the problem properties may be tracked. ANYTIME the police are called to a STL for a legitimate reason, this call/complaint/disturbance should be automatically forwarded to code enforcement to be tracked. I would encourage the City to increase the penalties against STLs to a minimum of 6 months suspension of the permit should the STL receive 3+ police calls for service, a DAC and/or a LUGO. It would also be appropriate to create/issue some sort of fine policy against the property management company as well. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your consideration! Drew Wetherholt 24 Year Peninsula Resident & Owner 949-466-6088 2 Received After Agenda Printed August 9, 2016 Item No. SS3 From: Wisneski, Brenda Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 1:51 PM To: Brown, Leilani Cc: Brandt, Kim Subject: FW: Short term rentals For study session item and distribution. From: g mail [mailto:buyoldOgmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 12:56 PM To: Wisneski, Brenda Subject: Short term rentals Hello, please consider making the minimum stay two nights. Guests enjoy coming to our city for a few days. These bookings usually fill a few days of a larger block of vacant dates, so the impact to services is not as much as one would think. If not for the full year possibly for the summer. Thank you, Al Salguero - peninsula property owner. Received After Agenda Printed August 9, 2016 Item No. SS3 From: Wisneski, Brenda Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 3:09 PM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: Short Term Rentals For study session and distribution. -----Original Message ----- From: Donabrams [mailto:don@a bra mscoasta Lco Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 3:08 PM To: Wisneski, Brenda Cc: Don Abrams; Brandt, Kim Subject: Re: Short Term Rentals That would be great. Sorry so late. Is the Council going to discuss this subject tonight or just the study session? Don Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 9, 2016, at 2:37 PM, Wisneski, Brenda <BWisneski@newportbeachca.gov> wrote: > Good comments, Don. Would you like these to be distributed to the City Council? > -----Original Message----- * From: Don Abrams [mailto:donabrams@sbcglobal.net] > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 2:33 PM > To: Brandt, Kim; Wisneski, Brenda > Subject: Short Term Rentals > Hi Kim and Brenda: > Reviewing your proposals for tonight's meeting, I had a few comments on your Phase One Recommendations: > Item 1. Attachment A on Operational Standards; 65 and 76. These ask for the name an number of the local contact. This would be VERY intrusive. We have a person on duty who responds to after hours emergencies via calls to our main line and that works well. Posting an individual's name and number would subject that person to harassment etc. > Item 2. Annually Renewable Permits. This seems somewhat burdensome to both the City and homeowners. > Item 3. HOA Verification. This should be limited to CC & R communities. Balboa Island has 2 HOA's but no CC & R's. > Otherwise, looks good to me. > Sincerely, > Don > Sent from my iPhone 1 Received After Agenda Printed August 9'2016 Item No. SS3 From: Brandt, Kim Sent: Tuesdoy, August 09, 20l64:2] PM To- Brown, Lei|ani Cc: VVisneski, Brenda; [osy|ion' Matt; Locey, Mary Subject: FW: Short Term Lodging Update More comments. no From: bob Sent: Tuesday, August O9,Z0164:16PM To: Cosylion,Matt; Brandt, Kim Cc: Locay,Mary, Subject: RE: Short Term Lodging Update Kim and Matt, I think that the meeting at 5 is a closed session, so I hope to make the regular meeting at 7. But | still wanted tomake just a couple of comments. Most important bthat the requirements that are proposed toward the STLproperty owners. Most ofthe issues with unruly neighbors falls unthe long term tenants. Not the vacationers. Sowhy not make the rules for any non owner occupied properties the same, across the board? - Next up, the peninsula must behandled differently than CDM. The number nfpeople and the noise, parking and trash associated with people coming to the beach again are not just vacationers, it is families visiting the beach for the day. Then, allowing every house to have a short term permit is not going to change our lives at all. But itwill increase tax revenue, income toall the businesses. This element does not seem tobementioned inthe report. What isbrought up is the cost to manage or monitor the situation, all of which that could be covered with the increased revenue from the vacationers. We have the perfect properties onthe board walk that donot qualify for weekly rentals. Sowecan only offer monthly I hope this gets brought into the discuss.