er thing. Thank you Thank you, uh next is Sheila Lawrence Followed by Marie Piazza Followed by Maureen Linde If you could state your name for the record when you get to the podium And you can go to either podium either side Okay, my name is Sheila Lawrence And uh, you're not really going to get an argument from me because I actually think both sides are right I think the problem lies With the system Uh, the the vacation rental owners have a right to expect that they can Go ahead and rent their property short term Along with the guidelines that Sonoma county set out What I see with these Amendments is they're clawing some things back and they're putting some things out there that are Next to impossible to uh to reach that those goals The homeowners themselves have an absolute right To the quiet enjoyment of their home So you have you have property rights on both sides are different And we don't need to create losers in order to have winners We can have both sides win These uh amendments show me a lack of sufficient understanding of the business of vacation rentals And um, how much time effort and money it takes to set one up and to run one and um, I think that the The the sound and the Fire hazards can be enforced and I think that code should be an enforceable one and people should Be able to call the police of the reasonable Expectation that they will come out and that Um, you know this will have an impact on the vacation rental at least a notice Or something so that they know that if they get three strikes they're out Thank you. Thank you Hi, I'm Marie Piazza And um, we have one right next door to us short term rental, which is a nightmare But I want to talk to you a little bit more with some data about existing short term rental supply And that it is adequate to meet perceived needs The what I'm hearing is that the short term rentals are necessary for visiting nurses temporary construction workers Fire evacuees actors and others and I say there's already enough. There's adequate transient accommodations to fulfill these perceived needs In fact, the Sonoma county coalition of host's website says that there's currently 1873 short term rental permits within the county Okay in his presentation to the board of supervisors at their july 20 21 meeting brian o of permit sonoma Estimated that there's nearly 3 000 short term or vacation rentals within the county I think it's fair to say that within the county there's already between two and three thousand short term rentals Of these many are located a short distance from the city limits of sienna rosa A quick search on erb and b and vrbo websites revealed that there's 200 plus listings of short term rentals Within a 15 minute drive of the city limits of sienna rosa And in addition to these there's numerous hotels and motels within the city limits This combination of short term rentals and existing commercial rentings is more than adequate And we don't need to put these in our residential neighborhoods Where basically we have a revolving door hotel With no supervision Behavior that would never be allowed in a motel or hotel parties loud noise excessive parking Is allowed to happen in our residential neighborhoods And the fact that I have to disclose when I go to sell that there's a short term rental next door That says that this is a negative impact on the neighborhood along with you'd have to Reveal that you had a violent episode in your house, right? Thank you. Thank you Maureen lind Followed by larry la pair Hi, my name is maureen lindy. I live right next door to a non-hosted short term rental The short term rental has four bedrooms and a pool It is very close to our side yard abutting our primary bedroom and office the current rules allow Up to eight overnight overnight guests and an additional four daytime guests rental rules Do not allow events but eight to 12 people in a yard using foul language screaming splashing drinking Loud music etc from 8 a.m. Until 9 p.m.  We have had fighting cars peeling out We've had uh uber's lift wine vans door dash use our driveway to turn around Guests have come to our door late at night looking for the air b&b They bring their dogs to leave them out barking all day long the list goes on and on It has become difficult for my husband to conduct business in his office when this home is occupied To try to refuse the noise we keep our windows and patio doors closed This is not a neighbor. This is a business. This is not a regular neighbor activity The couple that owns his home does not even live here They don't care that we are inconvenienced or woken up at 3 in the morning They don't care that the dogs are barking or lights are left on throughout the night glaring into our bedroom What they care about is their bottom line which is to make as much money off of this property as possible It is disappointing that the city is allowing a business to operate next to a home that once provided peace and solitude When you love when you live next to a short-term rental every guest is a bad actor Doesn't matter how many rules you implement or contact names and numbers you provide The bottom line is that my husband and I are the ones policing this business Would you want this next to you? Would you be a thank you? Darn, okay. Thank you Uh larry lapire Yeah, hi. My name is larry lapire. Uh, I owned a short-term rental on the north side of town Before the doors were open I Had a very gracious conversation with two ladies I'm sure could you could you speak into the microphone? Okay. I'm sorry. That's thank you.  I'm on the same page with you As an host as an owner. I don't think there is a single owner in this room right now. It says, yeah rat parties That's where the money is now We hate the parties air b&b hates the parties They are aggressive. They have an algorithm that looks for anybody who could possibly have a party and they Totally reject their offer and their request to stay I Look at this Senate or council member sanders you asked what is our uh policing policy I don't know if I can talk about everybody but in 50 seconds. I can tell you kind of what I do It starts with me I set myself up on air b&b. I have uh, you cannot rent or you cannot Request booking if you have no Ratings you have to have at least a 4.0 rating or higher. Otherwise.  I've got Approval for my neighbors that they would Call me if there's any problems if they call me I'm over there.  I let them know there's a resource line And if that doesn't work, then I get a hold of law enforcement and I would stop it But my primary goal is to stop the party. Thank you or whatever at that time. Thank you Eric Dietz Followed by Cynthia Hermosillo followed by Bernadette Burrell All right. Well commissioners, uh, you've heard testimony from str owners telling us that they need the income for their From their non-hosted short-term rentals to make ends meet and I empathize, you know that Some people need to generate extra income to afford living here. We all know this is an expensive place to live Though we're less sympathetic towards individuals who operate short-term rentals merely because they can generate a greater profit than renting on a long-term basis We believe that the number of owners who truly need the additional income is small compared to the number of owners Who are just operating short-term rentals on a purely commercial basis And there are alternatives The most obvious answer is to rent out The same property on the long-term lease You know, this would be much less disruptive for the neighbors that live around the property and more importantly If current 198 Non-hosted svrs were converted to long-term rentals It would instantly add to santa rosa's available housing stock I think you all heard from sherry meads that if a new subdivision came in with 198 units But that would be a big thing people would be excited about it Now I can speak from personal experience That this is a viable solution, you know, my wife and I own a rental home In santa rosa and it's been a win-win. It's provided income for us And it's provided a home for a family in santa rosa that lives and works here All right, so now suppose you live next to an str A non-hosted one like I do You know, what what are your options, you know, you can continue living next to a nuisance and Thank you, mr. Lou kirk. You've you've come out to help On the str of this next to us, so I appreciate your help But it requires us to act as partners in enforcing the code. So we actually have to Do this because we happen to live next to one Or we could move away, but you know, then we'd have to disclose To a potential buyer that we live next to an str and that's going to depress the property values Thank you Cynthia hermeseo Hello My name I wish to remain anonymous But it was already said and the reason why is because the city has decided to mail out 150 letters in my name and I already got Two hate phone calls for establishing my home as a short-term rental So I just wanted to let you know part of your coding enforcements is not working out perfectly The couple of families called to wish my family the worst of luck and Our bad. It's just bad luck on us and how horrible We are as people to have our home as a short-term rental anyways I'm here to Ast out. I'm here to tell you that the amount of short-term rentals are in santa rosa Is obviously less than 1 percent. It shows it on your records. It shows it on your slides And thank you for terry for pointing that out less than 1 percent is zero It's zero percent. And if i'm here at every city council meeting possible that i've been in the past I've heard i've heard four homes that probably need to be Um Not allowed to do short-term rentals anymore Out of zero percent. We're here all night long every time fighting for our rights I think the city should do a better Much better at using your so-called code enforcements and your city officials to Reduce the amount of parties Um, I don't know what you're doing with our tax dollars I don't know what you're doing with the so-called city Officials that have claimed to be there for party purposes I have never had a party at my house and I think that you should Decline people who have had parties Thank you Thank you Bernadette burl Followed by rick abbott I have two strs that border my property one is a hosted the other is a non-hosted they hosted has never been a problem This is a couple that built an apartment above their garage to host people and supplement Retirement next to me is an investor owned non-hosted for the sole purpose of maximum return on the investment Also known as a great place for a large group according to the website Lou Kirk with his best intentions But because of the lack of enforcement prior to him coming on board all the violations that were submitted for for nine months was dismissed For 16 months the str next to me advertised for six bedrooms. The assessor's record said it was a four bedroom During that time The city essentially coached the applicant to help them discover how to properly complete their application before it was finally issued a permit With the courtesy notice sent to neighbors Nothing done for false or misleading information on their Permit during the same 16 months 16 months period that that city was assisting the applicant And despite numerous complaints by neighbors for noise disruptions at all hours of the night and over occupancy by overnight guests This operator in good standing was allowed to do whatever they pleased with little to no penalty They were allowed to resubmit plans after 16 months This did not result in a violation but a fixed ticket The city of santa rosa needs to eliminate non-hosted strs from residential zoning We are not nimbies. We are residents that do not want non conforming transient housing next to us It is absolute insanity to live next to a non-hosted sure-term rental and call the hotline Call the managers and basically manage the hotel Why are we the members of the community send our kids to school here volunteer donate and vote here Forced to live next to transient occupancy hotels Thank you for your time Thank you rick abbott followed by chris hentley-clark Good evening rick abbott. My wife and i Sharon have lived in this town for 45 years Numerous signs in the gallery contend that strs are a boon to our economy I'd like to argue the opposite Surveys have shown that up to 98 percent of visitors Will still come to an area even if there were non-hosted strs within that area They would simply stay in other accommodations That means they would still eat at our restaurants visit our wineries shop in our stores And do all that visitors normally do So there would be minimal loss of tourism by eliminating all non-hosted strs from santa rosa's residential areas Those strs could then house permanent residents Who would add their own economic benefit to that of the tourists staying in our hotels This combination of permanent residents in our residences And visitors in our hotels would provide a greater economic benefit than transient occupants Staying part-time in our residents So non-hosted strs Are a drain on our economy and not a benefit Someone asked about a cost benefit analysis The city generates somewhere in the neighborhood of a million and a half dollars annually in t o t and b i a If you consider the loss of property value for all the surrounding homes on that non-hosted short-term rental The 198 homes Have a hundred and one thousand five hundred and eighty four surrounding homes If each one of those homes is devalued by ten thousand dollars That's a devaluation of fifteen million dollars The cost benefit of one point five million versus fifteen million dollars Is pretty clear Thank you Thank you chris henty clark followed by shan hermeseo Yes, uh, my wife and I own three properties in santa rosa with three of which are non-hosted permits We wanted to let you know how becoming short-term rental hosts has changed our lives And how significantly capping the number of non-hosted permits would affect the future we've planned for ourselves And our two children we're asking you to please not cap the number of non-hosted permits Or at least to allow flexibility to transfer each permit into someone else's name on the current title of the property We all know sonoma county has a very high cost of living And it can be hard to have a stable financial future here Even with two parents working full-time middle income jobs I've worked as a pts assistant for 12 years and my wife has worked as an occupational therapist for eight We've been sonoma county residents for many years. We purchased our homes in santa rosa In 2019 2021 and 22 we've invested much of our extra time Lots of money into preparing our units to be beautiful useful well organized places for people to stay We've also been able to keep long-term renters in one of our houses Well under market value. They live in a two-bed one-bath house At 1900 a month, which is well under the current market value We employ a local mom. She's our only our only cleaner and she also helps us with managing She puts her kids in daycare. We pay her $50 an hour, which is a very fair wage Um It's it's been a huge benefit for us. We're hoping to put our kids through college with this We're hoping to continue allowing me to work part-time so I can be home with my my youngest son there when he's off school Um, that was a big blessing this year. Uh, no aftercare at his school. So I would have had to quit my full-time job Um, luckily that worked out Thank you. Thank you Sean Hermosillo followed by dan gunino Followed by fairman Escusia Hello, my name is Sean Hermosillo I'm 48 years old native to Sonoma county born in santa rosa. My dad was a cop in san francisco My mom was born in hillsburg and we had a board and care home for the mentally ill for 45 years on cherry street I'm now a real estate agent for the past 18 years after going to the jc I have two little boys and my first house Um After I had a condo we turned into an air bnb slash four bedrooms Total two were rented out long term and then we had traveling individuals come and visit while I was Convincing my wife to marry me traveling back and forth between san amonica After that we bought another home moved into it after we moved out of it We turned it into a short-term rental non-hosted We now have three permits and I've been a member of the community Did ffa 4h left sonoma county came back and this is part of how We pay for our life, right? We've had over 800 visitors between the three homes that we do rent And the other 20 properties that my wife helps manage With me helping her In addition to the real estate market, I have not seen a single buyer say I'm not buying that house because it's next to a short-term rental Um, there needs to be regulation anybody who's a bad behaving individual Or owner They need to be penalized and from what I heard the council asked some great questions Eight complaints since this ordinance has been put in place That's really good And I don't even think there's enough data points to show how well this ordinance is working. So please Make it make sense Take away the people's rights that are misbehaving Because I want a quiet community. This is my community And everybody deserves that right to have quiet enjoyment of their home. Thank you Dan Gunino Can you hear me? Yes Good evening. I'm Dan Modino representing one country getaway And I would like to discuss the challenges of poorly managed short-term rentals and how to ensure that Some of those that can benefit from this industry As a certified professional vacation rental manager I will see several properties in sonoma county Well, I understand the concerns of neighbors who have high face disruptions due to short-term rentals It is important to differentiate between amateur and professional operators in this market With access to technical solutions such as cloud recording outdoor cameras indoor outdoors The noise sensors guest screening and security deposits We can prevent and address issues like noise parking parties and trash By implementing best practice management practices Short-term rentals can be conducted responsibly and respectfully while addressing neighborhood concerns The vacation rental industry has been disrupted by web enabled technologies And with the evolution of technology more solutions will emerge and new instances will decrease Therefore, I urge you to consider the following steps to ensure that sonoma can benefit from the great opportunity that vacation rentals can bring To start my first recommendation is to impose hefty fines on rogue operators In order to ensure that they are stripped of their permits We can now allow them to view a fine as a mere expense of running their business This approach will enable professional vacation rental managers and law-abiding homeowners to continue their operations While providing relief for those who have had to endure poorly banished properties Secondly, we shall ask major unlike trouble agencies to collect a to t-tox mandatory Moving on to the third point I propose that we decouple the requirement for parking spaces from the number of rooms on a property Particularly in downtown areas where off-street parking can be scarce Instead, I suggest that we limit the number of on-street parking spots to to one permit To one per actor as permit and leave the responsibility of parking arrangements to be managed between hosts and guests Finally, I recommend I propose a hybrid license that permits primary homeowners to rent their homes for a maximum of 90 nights This approach can be advantageous to homeowners who wish to preserve their homes in the event of job loss Produce additional income or retirees who travel in the summertime. Thank you. Thank you Uh fairman escutche Fairman Oh left. Okay. Thank you. Sorry Ted Ted anastat Followed by mike bryant Followed by daniel gill Hello, my name is ted anastad and I Co-own and co-manage a property management company that specializes in short-term rentals in sinema county Um, I think that it's important whenever we have two polar opposites opinions to look to form a compromise and not Point fingers at what things are are right or wrong on the other side, but come to an agreement together And I think that's what's best for the community and so I'm talking about a couple Changes that I think we can make to the ordinance. Uh, that might help um from The standpoint of someone who's actually running these and managing all these all the time without any complaints Our goal is not to have any parties. We don't want any noise Um, we want to have our houses blend into the the neighborhoods just like Your neighbors that you like and so Uh, let's go with The main concern for strs is noise and partying. I think there's two easy ways to remedy this Um, one require a two-night minimum people coming for just one night. We've we found Uh, pose a problem. They're coming two party. We have a two-night minimum and all our properties It almost eliminated any noise right off the bat Um, two Propose a fine for the violators that are actually coming to the property and making the noise Um, just like someone's gets a speeding ticket You could write them a ticket for making the noise of the property and make it mandatory for these For the host actually Advertise that when someone sees that they could get a violation or a fine of a thousand fifteen hundred dollars for visiting A property and partying. It's easy to actually look the other way or look for a different place to stay um I think that we have Just like we had operators and good standing were omitted from the thousand foot rule and I was first put into place I think there was only 25 property owners that owned more than one property I think we should look at those operators and get standing the same way and allow Uh, property owners to have more than one short term on the area. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you Mike Bryant Yes Thank you for your uh Time this evening. I appreciate it. Can you um, please talk into the mic. Okay. Can you hear me better? Yes, thank you My name is Mike Bryant and I've lived in town here with my wife For 44 years raised our family here I heard the percent of one percent and zero to one percent of the housing market being at issue here But if you live across of backyard fence where there's a seven bedroom home And that's going to be a party house and that's a hundred percent for those that live next door to one Not one percent And I do know that the surveys that were conducted I appreciate the fact that Input from the community was sought But those surveys indicate that most people Do not favor non-hosted Short-term rentals in neighborhoods. They should be restricted to commercial districts I haven't met anybody that would uh feel that my backyard has Been improved or if I wanted to sell it that the the value of my property has been enhanced By the fact that I've got a short-term rental next door the um Hope is that the 198 will be the top end and that as those units expire we we don't replace them and I do hope that the commission Will listen to the community and respond to the Voice that came out in the surveys the majority of people are not in favor of residential communities having non-hosted short-term rentals Thank you Thank you Daniel gill Hello, my name is daniel gill I am a local real estate agent and also co-owner of a local Vacation rental management company that we manage properties throughout sonoma county And we currently manage seven homes and within the city limits of santa rosa I had a lot I wanted to talk about tonight But I want to just kind of touch on some specific issues brought up by by some of the individuals that are here tonight Real quick in terms of the comments on how strs are are In one way or the other destroying your property value So I pulled some numbers here from berries mls all from march 1st on so very current data Berry's mls is where about 99 percent of of sales take place residential sales take place in santa rosa And so here real quick are just some numbers to share Home sales are up 44 percent from the previous month Average price per square foot is up 7.8 percent from the previous month and up 1.9 percent from the previous year this same month Average days on market is down 19 percent showing that homes that hit the market are selling fast And then lastly supply of inventories down 36 percent over month 25 percent from last year Showcasing that there is not a mass exodus out of the city due to the presence of strs So those are just some facts to to to I think Respond to some of the emotion based argument And then I'd also like to just really quickly touch on the party house because clearly that's a big issue here And I have some things I wanted to say but Chairman sanders asked if a property management company could share some of their practices on what they do to limit parties And so real quick some of the things that we do as a company To limit parties number one we exclusively market our properties on air b&b because they have a two-way Two-way rating system if we have a guest at parties we can tag them to no longer Allow them to stay at our homes and future hosts will see that they are a problematic guest we communicate We communicate with our guests on at least three occasions before they check in to describe our no party policy And we have cameras installed along the perimeters of our home to monitor parking and also monitor noise And we engage our neighbors to make sure they have direct numbers to call when things escalate We have a two-day minimum as I mentioned and we also have a 24 hour We have a employee that is available 24 7 365 days a year to deal with the complaints. Thank you David long Followed by joe romano followed by laden timmar Good evening commissioners. My name is david long. I have lived in santa rosa for the past 35 years And I appreciate the opportunity for you to hear me speak in person this evening. Thankfully no mask Internet-based platforms like air b&b make it possible for anyone to offer and rent their residential property for short term enjoyment by anyone Being possible does not make it a good idea In fact these platforms simply provide the means for short term rentals to operate in an autonomous atmosphere This presents the city and its residents monumental problems And these problems are bound to continue unless the frequency and or duration of non-hosted rental operations are reduced Every non-hosted rental negatively impacts at least six neighbors I am thankful that staff have made recommendations for changes to the short term rental ordinance that will improve the current situation Contrary to claims by non-hosted rental proponents their business enterprise Enterprises are not essential to our community and are not compatible with residential neighborhoods Staff also provided very weak examples of in-home occupations to try and justify zoning code consistency Although the city is moving methodically to create reasonable regulations for short term rentals It made one critical misstep early in the process The urgency ordinance contains an overly broad list of zoning districts where non-hosted rentals are allowed to operate That list includes seven of the eight residential zoning districts and encompasses about 88 of the total land area Within the city's boundaries no other land use and the zoning code enjoys anywhere near that amount of latitude And neither should non-hosted short term rentals Santa Rosa's a well-rounded community where people live, work, raise children, go to school and grow to know one another We are not a resort town that depends on tourism to survive Please make choices that benefit our community rather than a few enterprising individuals. Thank you. Thank you Joe Romano See if I can get my phone to cooperate My name is Joe Romano. I've lived in Santa Rosa since 1968 I own a seven thousand square foot str on the second district And I'm also the president of a group called str a a team which is short term rental advocates association It's pretty difficult to Beat some of the concerns of the people here You can see that many of them have big financial problems not being able to operate their strs In my situation, this is a large night bedroom house With 7000 feet of deck a swimming pool a hot tub all that it is an entertainment palace I've actually had more trouble with long-term tenants paying five figure a month rent Then I have short term rental guests Most of our guests are corporate companies doing training personnel bonding sessions Bachelorette parties are good and actually our bachelorette parties are the quietest guests you could ever get We're going to be losing a contract with a major corporation that was renting space from us for 180 days a year guaranteed They actually paid for some of the remodeling to get the facility the way they wanted it But the deal breaker for them is they will not sign any agreement on guest Limits they think if they're going to rent the space if they want 40 people there they should get them there They also cannot agree to bedroom limits because one of the things they do is They take their top employees. They send them to an str To take their families on a vacation they pay for the whole thing including catering bus transportation all of that stuff And uh in meetings with them. It's just a deal breaker. They're not going to Put their employees through that and they're paying top dollar for these spaces They don't do it in hotels for thank you All right, I hope you will consider turning this down. Thanks Latin temir followed by christopher kane followed by Luke magarva Good evening. I'm vladen temer. I live in santa rosa district 4 I've been a santa rosa resident for 45 years and I've lived in my present home for more than 40 years As you look around the room you'll see on display two distinct sets of signs The science reading homes not hotels are all being held by residents of santa rosa Those residents have been actively engaged for the past two years with santa rosa city staff and city council With the goal of reclaiming neighborhoods from the nuisance of non-hosted short-term rentals The other set of signs has been sponsored by the sonoma county coalition of hosts As we all suspect from the name sonoma county those signs are being displayed primarily by people who do not live in santa rosa This is the same organization that rallied its members to appear before the sonoma county board of supervisors And the Windsor town council To push their agenda of increasing the numbers of non-hosted short-term rentals within all areas of the county Rather than being concerned residents attempting to protect their neighborhoods These folks are primarily commercial business owners driven exclusively by their business interests They are effectively outsiders attempting to impose their vision of short-term rentals everywhere while seeking to maximize their profits I urge you all to pay attention to the different agendas of these two groups as you listen to and evaluate the statements that you are hearing today Through the city's own surveys residents have consistently stated that we do not want non-hosted short-term rentals in our residential neighborhoods Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to please honor the wishes of those of us who are your constituents. Thank you Thank you Christopher kane Hello, i'm christopher kane. Can you speak into the microphone? Please absolutely. Is that a little bit better? That's much better. Thank you Great. My name is christopher kane. My family and I have resided in santa rosa for the past nine years I retired last year as an executive after 37 years of service with hula packard adulate and then keysight technologies Non-hosted short-term rentals located within residential neighborhoods likely provides an economic benefit to the owner But that comes at a substantial impact to neighboring long-term residents I have witnessed firsthand my neighborhood negatively impacted with higher traffic at all hours of the day and night increased speeding on our narrow and twisting neighborhood roads Parking that blocks access to residents and emergency vehicles increased litter especially liquor bottles excessive noise wood burning and offensive language Not all short-term rental tenants create these issues But more and more of them are using a short-term rental to let loose and party since they don't live here Our neighborhood increasingly is feeling more like downtown san francisco Filled with transients that don't care about our family oriented lifestyle And that has been putting our safety at risk and eroding tax-paying residents quality of living My family and I are giving serious thought to living elsewhere Where we can again enjoy a high quality of living in a beautiful quiet diverse and friendly neighborhood I know the city has received a number of surveys from residents who have consistently stated We do not want non-hosted short-term rentals in our neighborhoods Please honor the wishes of your constituents. Thank you Thank you Luke magarva Followed by jeff bean Good evening commissioners. My name is luke magarva. I am a longtime saner's resident. I've been here for over 40 years I Currently own my home of 12 of those years and I've been living next to an str for close to three years You know, we purchased our home with the expectation that the current zoning laws would preserve our neighborhood That's changed You know a couple things I want to address a lot, excuse me a lot. It already has been addressed But the key difference between these short-term rentals and the other allowable Businesses within residential areas is supervision While it was mentioned it's not required to have supervision on site for those type of businesses The nature of those businesses in fact for the most part would guarantee that Now when you have Folks that don't live our neighborhoods coming in, you know every weekend They are less concerned, you know, they're after one thing which is to have a good time And I can appreciate that you know all of our neighbors. We like to have people over at times But it's a frequency Consistency of every single weekend having new people next door that you can't go talk to You know, you're worried how they're going to react And uh, you know now we're closing our windows can't go outside, you know It's constant no solution coming into our house more than 20 feet of this stuff going on and it's uh It's It's the it's the daytime and the problem with the enforcement is It has to be at night So what happens between nine and nine o'clock and you have a constant Activity going on at loud noises every, you know thursday friday saturday It just gets to be exhausting and your anxiety goes up and it's affecting your family life And it just becomes a huge problem You know, we're considering moving ourselves But then of course, you know the disclosure of strs and the risk of who wants to live next to one of these things Is definitely prevalent. So please consider the impact to you know, all these individuals here that have these next to us now And possibly that increasing causing problems intentions that are in arids. Thank you Thank you Jeff bean Hi, Jeff bean I'm a lifelong resident of uh, santa rosa. I live in the mcdonald historic district Next door the home was a traditional rental When we moved in it was rented by drug addicts Who were up late fighting and arguing it took the owner about four months to get them evicted We had the opportunity to buy that house Uh 765 square foot home so we could have peace and quiet next door We turned it into an str And we've had many of our neighbors using the str to hosts that are visiting relatives We are right next door A mere 20 feet from the adjacent house Yet We're classified as non-hosted There's no one who wants peace and quiet at that str more than my wife and I do Thanks for listening Thank you. Is there any that's the end of the cards? Is there anybody else who would like to speak who didn't fill out a card? Okay, seeing no one We do have some people on zoom, but we are going to be taking a 15 minute break right now And then come back and take the comments from zoom And then go into our deliberations. So with that, um, we back about what is that? What's 15 and 10? 825, thank you I Ready to go okay Um, do you need to Recall the roll Okay So, um, we're back in session And we will now move to Um commenters on zoom if you are on zoom and want to make a comment, please raise your hand and you will be Asked to unmute and called upon so with that the first Yes Mario with stalsky Um, i'm going to give you a prompt to unmute yourself. Please state your name for the record And as a reminder, it is two minutes. My name is maria ustalsky My name is maria ustalsky I am from europe from communist country and I came here to have better life and uh Please keep short term rental and I make an income from short Income and I support my family and I feel comfortable here And that way I I can live a beautiful country Anyway, I have it will forest me to to leave the san jama county And I support that family because of course of the short term rental Please keep them sure friend. So thank you Thank you Amanda, I'm going to send you a prompt to unmute yourself. Please state your name for the record Hello, my name is amanda haykar I am the owner and operator two non-hosted short term rentals in the city of san aroza I want to see fair legislation That supports the majority of short term operators as well as our neighbors and focuses on stopping serious infractions like parties And noise and not small fractions like that don't impact the community in any significant way Like an individual holding their home in an llc. They own a hundred percent of Currently the income I receive from these parties is income my family and I rely heavily on When I was told that I would potentially be losing one of my two permits Both of which are in good standing. I became very fearful as this would be a devastating financial loss I had no idea that something was even legal The process of obtaining And now fighting to maintain these permits has been a stressful and frustrating process It continues to be a fight that seemingly never ending and stacked against us by the very vocal minority The majority of short term rental owners and operators are good hardworking people That included their property in their long-term financial plan including their retirement To have a governing body be able to take away a lifetime of hard work with one vote is unimaginable to me I ask the council, please consider how their actions will devastate these citizens In addition to voting no to taking away valid permits by limiting to one per person I ask that the strike system be amended to include a punishment that fits the infraction And add warnings for non-aggregious offenses My fellow hosts are having to pay hefty fines for things like allowing two daytime guests versus the higher number The city allows are not writing verbatim no amplified noise versus no loud noise in their listings Such minor infractions should come with a warning and not a hefty $1,500 fine and strike finally Arguing that short term rentals are impacting our housing stock is just not supported by the facts Our likelihood that these homes are coming back on the market has an affordable private rental is just very low Thank you Thank you Carl Rashad I'm going to send you a prompt to unmute yourself. Please state your name for the record Hello Pardon. My name is Carl Yeager Carl Rashad Yeager I bought my unhosted short term rental So that my parents as they age And they are they're 87 and 88 Could eventually move to santa rosa and be near us so that we could care for them And there's a way for me to afford to Purchase this home and have some income until they're ready to make that move and that move is Happily sadly imminent I think we can all agree That really good strong legislation that centers around noise nuisance and safety Makes a lot of sense So let's focus on that make them real Make them harsh Most hosts do it well I ran a short term rental in a condominium in sf Where we shared walls with others not one single complaint over six years We hosted a nurse in our house in santa rosa and we had Neighbors on our doorstep shouting at her that she is not welcome here. She was a nurse of color Haring for people during covid And saving lives. I think the families whose lives whose family members she saved would welcome her here When you have someone standing on your doorstep yelling at your guests That just is not a good thing So I would say that we need to have sensible legislation We need to tone down the rhetoric and we need to do with actual data of what are the noise and nuisance complaints Not all the rhetoric that I'm hearing tonight Thank you Thank you Eric frazier.  Please state your name for the record Thank you. This is eric frazier and i'm at truth in tourism at gmail.com Happy to join my community to discuss this important topic Uh, I do have a wc fields quote to start off with if you can't dazzle them with brilliance You've dazzled them with and I want to get on to shari mead's comments here because there's a lot of things that are defective In today's presentation For instance, she didn't mention that there's already a three property cap in place. Why not? I mean We're being jerked around quite frankly Confident managers that have something to say are given two minutes slices to talk As a planning commission, you should be offended that you didn't get a chance to hear this issue of short-term rentals That just came forward as an urgency ordinance Well, let me tell you about that shari mead's again is confusing the facts by saying that The economic subcommittee is the same thing as the economic recovery task force. No the task force No public meetings. That's behind closed doors Economic subcommittee rarely convenes and they did the ram ride these urgency ordinates through with no proof Anything that they offer doesn't get verified Look at the meeting with the santa rosa tourism business improvement advisory board also a faux thing here You know, if you read that law, there's no strs allowed on that board by law Even though that we've contributed over a million dollars in bia over the Life term of that. How can we don't have that money to actually research the facts? So we don't have to hear our neighbors Try to create these economic analysis on the back of an napkin Look at this stuff. It's too important to get wrong You guys are lying to the public. You're manipulating us. I want to get to those brass tax So when I heard shari say that her door is open to me with me My numerous requests over email certainly can't be ignored In fact, allowing people to filter whole testimony forward only helps us when it the rubber hits the road Either with the voters or in a court of law Thank you very much Thank you Alex see i'm gonna send you permission Sorry, i'm gonna send you a prompt to unmute yourself. Please say your state your name for the record This is alex Hi, first of all, I want to thank commissioner sanders for asking really good questions. You're purely paying attention After that, I really want to say that You know the financial benefit and security that comes with owning wine short and rent the wooden in my partner Is real.   So knowing that I have a little income coming is A piece of mind But I do want to now get into my point and I want to say that I also see kind of two Worlds here. I see the world of myths and anecdotes And I see the world of good point of facts, you know, in fact, uh, you know I see the the world of you know people wealthy rich people and people who are trying to make ends meet Um, so let's start with the myths, you know myth number one STRs take away from the housing stuff and contribute to the housing crisis and housing affordability So we saw we also the data is 30 basis points point three percent.  It's wrong. So myth number two Noise and parties are a common occurrence eight Eight complaints for noise out of 281 so three percent. So something doesn't add up here, right What's going on? Someone's lying. Someone's not saying the truth. So real data on noise It is not as big of a complaint myth number three my home value will decrease if I live next to an STR I don't know what realtor told you this but you should fire that person because that's not true If you're if your home value has decreased you should call Jerome Powell the fed guy It's because of raising rates your home value is going down Um, and then I want to make a couple a couple other points You know, there's something in your data says 119 finds out of 21 complaints. I'll call it the harassment rate.  Please state your name for the record Hi, my name is Jessica and I wanted to talk about Why we need to keep short term rentals and not put restrictions that are we already have so many restrictions on these rentals My mother she came from a communist country in europe to give her Self a better future and an income for our family. She worked for short term rentals And that's how she supported her family And as I've grown up and an adult that is how I pay for my books And for my college tuition to be a teacher And if I could not work for short term rentals, I would be forced to no longer Have the ability to go to college And I wouldn't have the ability to live in beautiful Sonoma county and In addition to be a Sonoma county resident my full life Short term rentals don't just provide an income for me But I also worry about other Sonoma county residents that are getting an income and supporting themselves from short term rentals Short term rentals provide local business Opportunities and local businesses profit from these guests. And I also wanted to mention how Guests are always very respectful And I haven't heard of any noise Complaints of all my years working for short term rentals. So I'd like you to think about the Impact that short term rentals would have on our economy if we restricted them. Thank you Thank you Joe schneider. I'm sending you a prompt to unmute yourself. Please state your name for the record Hi, my name is Joe schneider. I'm with the north bay association of realtors I want to thank the planning commission and staff for taking the time to analyze review and ultimately propose these changes On its face, most of these proposals make sense in weighing economic vitality and the perceived and or Real new nuisance is that short term rentals can sometimes cause However, there are still some concerning issues that remain with the ordinance Which I would describe as much more than some just technical changes First placing a cap on the number of strs in a city only serves to block current Santa Rosa residents from earning an income on their property As it was stated earlier This cap is based on a time when city staff had a backlog of permits versus actual rationale for making the cap We're teetering on a brink of a recession here in the country, which will have dire impacts to all residents The ability to legally rent out someone's home may be the only viable income option that that person may have The city has a lot of 215 permit applications And so you have effectively closed the door for that potential income for hundreds of Santa Rosa residents Second limiting the number of units that a person may own will not necessarily free up more inventory for renters or buyers We live in one of the most prolific second home markets in the country If someone who currently owns multiple homes is required to take one of those strs off the market They may choose to use that second as that use that as a second residence as opposed to put that into long Long-term rental inventory with that the the local businesses the city the county Will all lose out on the economic benefits and the toot tax We've heard from so many people this evening And you as legislators you have the you have the job to use facts to create policy rather than act on emotions Thank you Thank you. Uh, is there anybody else on zoom, uh, who would like to make a comment? If so, please raise your hand Christian this vaunthen. I'm sending you a prompt to unmute yourself. Please state your name for the record Christian if you're speaking you're still muted Christian you're still muted Lonnie, would you please remind her again how to unmute? Can you hear me now? Yes, hello Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you Okay, so my name is christiane gonzalez. I'm a citizen of california since 2006 And of center rosa since 2021 So I know the constitution I'm protected by the constitution And I would like to know why the city of center rosa is treating me differently from my neighbor Who lives 900 feet from me? He has five permits Non-hosted five permits and I cannot even apply for a permit just because he exists Sorry, this doesn't make any sense. I would like you guys to repair that So, uh, second point is that one of the points made by the city against a part-time hybrid non-hosted permit today Was the difficult difficulty in monitoring This also doesn't make any sense at the same time. You guys are saying that Uh, it's not monitoring the t o t taxes and it's relying in the self Reporting so what's the difference why you can rely on self reporting for one thing and not for the other thing Third point we should all of us here Be fighting against the bad operators Bad operators Not against each other's we are neighbors. We all have it have different reasons to like or not like But we have to live in a society and we have to take each other's needs consider each other each other's Needs as well. Sorry. I'm a little bit nervous because I'm quiet Disappointing by what I heard today So please you guys have the job to and have the obligation To fix the ordinance the ordinance doesn't make sense It's great to have an ordinance and have rules. We all want that But we cannot discriminate. We cannot segregate people and we cannot Disconsider other people needs that's all. Sorry for my moot Thank you. I don't see any other hands raised Okay, that is correct. I don't see any other hands raised either Thank you. So with that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing on this item And um, I think how we'll work this is I heard certain themes From the public as well as in the all the correspondence that we received Over the last weeks so, um If Let's let's start with uh, my fellow commissioners. Did you hear a certain theme you want to talk about? um, and we could ask staff questions Excuse me chair weeks. Um before you all start with deliberations Can I ask if someone would be willing to make a motion to? Read the resolution of a motion in a second to put that on the table before starting discussion Sure If if it becomes the will of the commission to propose amendments or friendly meant etc as you proceed through your deliberations That would be appropriate At that time Okay, if you could open with the resolution that would be great. Thank you Thank you. Is there somebody who's willing to? Commissioner siscoe I can do that I move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of santa rosa recommending to city council the adoption of zoning code text amendments to title 20 Of the santa rosa city code chapter 20 dash 48 Short-term rentals to revise and add new definitions and policies And to incorporate technical changes to improve functionality and aid in implementation and enforcement file number re Z 2 3 dash 0 0 1 and way for the reading of the text I second there second second. Thank you So that was moved by commissioner siscoe and seconded by commissioner duggin And now we'll talk about themes is that okay, so um, you want to start Commissioner sanders sure And we can talk we can take kind of one theme at a time and all will all comment on that And see if we need further information from staff Well, the two themes that seem to stand out to me is noise The party house will call it noise and nuisance and and quality of life In and being able to enjoy, you know, peaceful enjoyment of the home that you live in Those seem to be the two Things that we're trying to balance and it seems that we have to figure out a way to Uh enact an ordinance of policy That that generates an inclusive Opportunity for local wealth creation right And at the same time balancing the needs of all members of the community and that's the Balancing act that we're trying to you know balance tonight Um, so those are the two that I see Turn that on So with the noise, um That is something we heard also around the fines and that the fines should be somehow adjusted so that noise violations are Find differently than leaving the garbage can out um So I'm not sure can I have kind of a question on that for weeks So go go ahead because I'm not quite sure how to to do this. Sure. Sure. I um, so we'll we'll kind of learn as we go. I guess Maybe this is for uh, Mr. Kirk, but I guess the question is so we heard from neighbors. Hey, there's a party I call Nothing seems to happen Can you tell me a little bit about This this new ordinance that talks about verified complaints, you know How is that going to happen? Are you going to have to hear the noise if the neighbors call? But there's not 24 7 staffing for code at that point, you know, what happens? What are the different scenarios? The way the ordinance is intended I'm on uh, there would be 24 7 staffing now, of course, there's always vagaries about staffing in the future But I I think I said in the staff meeting that I would go out if no one else could so we'll have someone out Part of the confusion that we heard tonight Was that again the numbers that I gave you Were just from september of 2022 on Now when I came into this position in july We had a considerable backlog in str complaints that was resulting from some staffing shortages, frankly And you heard me mention point-in-time complaints And I was faced with Complaints that were six months old for a noise disturbance that nobody witnessed And was long since passed and I made the decision to close those cases And I think one of our residents made reference to that tonight So but that is in the past and now under the staffing we have under the ordinance we have We have that capability to come out when there is a noise complaint And again, we've only received eight since september of 2022 And have been able to resolve those all satisfactorily so far To the best of my knowledge and we'll continue that effort Well, but I guess the question maybe to argue a bit is assuming there's adequate staffing The process will work, but I think based on my time on up here That's can be a pretty big assumption So I guess the the concern is if there's not adequate staffing Our neighbors just left to twist in the wind or you know, where's the teeth in this? Well, again, if there's a staffing shortage and we receive a call I'll personally be out there taking a look at it You're in hawaii then then what? Then mr. Oswald will I'm volunteering him This is also for maybe my fellow commissioners. I don't mean to put you on the hot seat I think the point I'm trying to make and again, we are talking about uncertainties I think we're getting to a point where our staffing is much more robust And I think we're going to be able to to meet these demands I'm confident that we're going to be able to meet these demands So so then related what is the final? So let's say each each weekend for three weeks. There's a noise violation At what point, you know, does the permit get pulled? Is there enforcement action to things get red tagged? I mean, what's the next step after that? So upon a third citation being issued within a 12 month period as we've discussed I would alert planning that We have a three strikes case And then they would be able to commence their revocation process And to go back are these verified complaints? Meaning you heard them or a verified complaint is something that we've observed and have been able to write a citation for Okay Yes, commissioner deggen and I'm not Trying to dispute anything you've said But i'm just thinking about the weekends like the winter wine land weekend when it brings tourists from all over And they're all here to party And what if like all the big short-term non-hosted short-term rental homes with multiple bedrooms are full of People going to winter wine land And there you get numerous noise complaints at the same time Can you can it's capacity big enough to deal with that? You know, I I think we'll be able to call him back up as necessary. I'm going to stand by that One of the things that I'd like to discuss and I don't quite know logistically how to do it So miss crocker if you can help me is I would like to see a difference in the fine schedule related to noise complaints To be I think that would discourage Owners and managers from Renting to bad actors or people who come bad actors even if they didn't think they were So I would like to see that I think Actually if you could maybe do a list of Things that we'd like to see changed And then we can talk about that as we go So that's one thing I personally would like to see I don't know if my fellow commissioners Changed which way? Oh increase So that it's a really different it's really differentiated With the noise which seems to be the biggest problem we heard tonight and that we um Read in all the letters that we got um from people So that's something that I'd like to see changed I'm sorry. I want to clarify. You're asking to increase the fines Over and above the 1500 3000 5000 that are proposed I just would like to note that those are set as maximums under state law Okay, well then have it be that the maximum for the noise and something less for To differentiate between the different right fractions. Okay. Thank you. Yeah um commissioner carter um I'm not sure if it was uh sherry or you mr. Kirk, but I thought there was some obligation under the uh the fee schedule and the and the current ordinance to That obligated us to those fines. Can you review remind me of what you said? Those were the fine amounts that were uh, I'm not sure how they were established, but they were established in the ordinance They were less than the maximums so they were allowed Um, but uh, and then there was a senate bill that came sp60 that modified those california government could find amounts So that that's what prompted us to to align The fines with those amounts. I'm not certain what The the government could said at the time that the urgency ordinance was adopted ii so the The proposed fines are in line with state guidelines correct and Would would it be possible to lessen fines for other Infractions and still remain within those guidelines. I guess it's my guess these as as as actually said these are these are maximums Okay, thank you Mr. Duggan, okay, I've got um, I've got one sort of related to fines and then two other ones um, the fine one is is there a legal mechanism for a host To pass along a fine to like somebody the the person who rented from them that that hosted the party on site Is there a way for them to say I got this $5,000 fine and i'm going to pass it on to you Yes, the owner of the str can impose fines But there was one commenter who had suggested that the city imposed fines upon the renter and that would not be appropriate in that the city's permitting Relationship if you will is with the property owner And so fines would run to the property owner But in turn that owner could pass the fine or whatever fine amount They wanted on to The renter But I just wanted to clarify that it would not be appropriate to have the city going and imposing fines upon the renters Thank you. And then my other question was related to um, we heard people Saying that they they identified themselves as multiple permit holders And can you clarify what happened? So if we decide to adopt the recommendation of one non-hosted and one hosted permit maximum per person What happens to the ones there people who have multiple ones right now So they would be able to continue to operate as they are until their permit expires And then it would be up to them to choose which one they wanted to renew Then the others would become non-compliant with the ordinance. So they would not be able to apply for a renewal for those I would like to follow up on that question if I could so of the people of the folks who have uh multiple How many have two how many have five how many have 50? I know nobody has 50 but Gotta find it. I have too many notes My staple wasn't big enough to hold it together. So I apologize. I've got to I'll just add something well. Oh, you've got it. I finally found it. Um, so at this point I I want to clarify that this is taking names from gis and sometimes those names will be It'll look different so From my best knowledge and this is something we would obviously verify when somebody is trying to Renew their permit it appears that 13 entities own two four entities own three One entity owns five in various configurations. Their name is in you know with several other people And then one entity owns six So if if that is totally correct and we did end up Allowing only one per person that would um Again, I'm not saying this on the you know that it's for sure for sure because it would take some definite checking It would potentially open up 30 new opportunity opportunities for new non-hosted rental operators I had a follow-up that I remembered so, um We heard at least testimony from at least one person saying that they have multiple short-term rentals surrounding their house Obviously within a thousand feet of each other So there's if those people all Renew their Permits on time and don't get shut down because of fines Could that just go on indefinitely or are we going to have some sort of sudden setting provision where we're going to Maintain the thousand foot separation So that's something that would be at your discretion We don't have anything in the ordinance that would prevent that One of the thoughts with also limiting them to one per person is potentially that could eliminate some in the over concentration areas, but That's a hopeful So can I follow up in that? I want to make sure I understand So somebody comes in for renewal and they're We're Within a thousand feet of another one Do they get renewed? Yes, so the original ordinance did not the council wanted to Acknowledge folks that were already paying tot and bia prior to the ordinance being adopted And so they wrote into the ordinance that if Someone who had been paying tot and bia prior to You know the ordinance adoption If they applied for a short-term rental permit by december third of 2021 then they did not have to Comply with that one thousand foot separation setback They were called operators in good standing which we're trying to get away from using but that was what they were called at that time so since There is nothing written in the code that once that one-year permit is up and they're allowed to go through the renewal process They would be renewed in the same location And you know and like like you said unless they sell or or lose their permit in some other way Now that again that's something totally within your purview, but it's not something that We have had direction from council to include and any other comments on The issue of The noise and the One thousand feet and the I said we're going to do one thing at a time and here I'm going to more than one thing so Let's go with commissioner sanders With regards to this question about fines You mentioned, uh, mr. Kirk that Fines are levied when observed Can we define what? I mean because clearly you can't you know, you're not there waiting for the party, you know So no, that's true. Um, so again in most cases we're responding to a complaint of some sort If it's a point in time violation such as noise It would typically be a complaint that would come in through our hotline And then again, we would respond. We've got a pretty good track record of being there within half an hour We would observe we would listen. We would document. We would not necessarily make contact Because again the tenants are not going to be the people we're citing And then we would go back to the office and then Process the case how often is it that you show up and now the noise is not happening Then what? Well, if it's not happening then we do miss things Sometimes somebody's noisy for a moment and a complaint comes in and and it was just it was just a moment. So Those types of things will slip by we'll slip by habitual violators.  I was just talking about making noise during the day How does that work? Well, other than amplified sound I don't know that there are any provisions in the code that would cover that Now keep in mind. There are there are other provisions of law Such as there's provisions of the penal code that the police department could enforce For disturbance that is outside of the str ordinance So we could we could consider something like that if if the commission so desired to try to work something out for daytime disturbances, but Right now. I believe it's just amplified sound that we talk about in the ordinance So what do you think that would look like I'm just referring to your expertise? Oh, um It could be based upon decibel levels like our noise ordinances. We could we could refer the Reference the noise ordinance that might be the easiest way to do it Because again, it would apply to it would apply to all properties, but we could also apply it to strs That's the one that most comes to mind Thank you Chair weeks. Can I Can I add something just about the noise? Sorry I believe that our noise ordinance is based upon It's a cnl standard. I believe which is like a 24-hour standard So it doesn't capture single event noise Which I believe is like an l max factor so that if you've got a you know slamming door or repetitive Ball noise those are single event noises if I'm getting the terminology correct I'm not a noise expert, but so I think it would be difficult in this instance to say you you couldn't really compare A loud party that lasted an hour wouldn't necessarily violate the noise ordinance over the whole 24-hour period So I don't know that that would be a metric in our current noise ordinance in any event that would prove useful here, and then I just wanted to note also that Oftentimes to those those types of property rights for quiet enjoyment If you will are enforced through public and private nuisance claims I'm governed by some other sections of the code. So I want to offer that to you Thank you, I'm sorry just one comment. Mr. Kirk Kudos to you because there were people in the gallery today who thanked you personally for the work that you've done in helping this along and we have seen A a big difference between the wild wild west days prior to the ordinance and to now you being here and I think you refer to it as a you know landing into a maintenance Area, so I mean that tells me that you're doing a good job. So thank you. I'm surrounded by good people, but thank you for saying so Vice chair Peterson we're a little bit down the road a bit, but To put some structure on this. I'm just looking at the the presentation starting on slide 11 I mean is there a value to my fellow commissioners in going section by section with the proposed amendments and seeing Who's in what looks good who's in favor who's against any tweaks? Yes, that's I think that's a great idea. Yeah Thank you for putting some structure in this And then that would enable the commission if you desire to to talk in those um general Categories and you can you know engage in some straw votes and things that you've done in the past to try to To garner ideas for if anyone would like to propose any amendments So if we start with Section 20-48 Dot 010 the purpose Any Changes in that section anybody Okay, the next section Application of this of this chapter Any changes corrections Then we go into definitions Um were there any It was deletion of unnecessary terms adding some other definitions Uh, the one thing I had in this section is the Operator and good standing term, which I know you talked about before Sherry about making it that That is just a It's a hard concept. I think Um, so I don't know if there's I know you said you wanted to try and get away from that term So I would love to be able to just delete that term but because Of what we've talked about so far this evening and that these Original applicants were able to avoid that 1000 foot separation requirement. We have to keep that As a category of permit holders The good thing is it it's just those people that sounds terrible to say it that way It's just it just represents those applicants So it's not something that we have to say a lot But it does explain why in some cases non-hosted short terminal permits are You know on properties that are closer than 1000 feet apart We could change it and we could call it something else Um, which I would be totally open to but it would be kind of confusing because of us having used that all along Introducing something new would be yeah Yeah, so um any changes in that section for anybody? Uh, sure. I think uh, this is the first instance of it and I think it'll have implications throughout I guess my position after hearing the testimony From the public today reading what we've got online is that I would remove non-hosted Short-term rentals from this ordinance. I would only permit Hosted rentals and I wouldn't worry about the cap things like that Can you repeat that so for instance former sub m Current sub j I would just delete the non-hosted rentals are outside disordnance. They're not permitted in the city only hosted rentals Is that would that be a problem in any way for?  Yeah, I think can I ask for clarification? I think that's what I thought I heard Commissioner Peterson are you suggesting that the city not allow non-hosted? at all anymore correct So eliminate non-hosted In the city correct So I think we could have a discussion about that and figure out where we all stand on that Okay thoughts people I'll kick it off. Okay I guess, you know, so what what we heard tonight what we've read um Is that you know, if you own a non-hosted you're in favor and if you're a neighbor you're against And from what we heard from staff, you know the amendments to this what I see Short-term rentals seem to be a hotel that exists outside of the restrictions that are a hotel is normally subject to Um, there are some self certification aspects to it, but it's not ADA compliant It's not, you know, code enforcement isn't going out there to inspect to see where the fire pit is They theoretically have signs For emergency exits. They're theoretically training their guests if there's a wildfire But I'm a little skeptical of that Happening in reality, especially if it's a you know a frequent booking So There's sort of the the policy end of that where it looks like a hotel Hacks like a hotel, but it's not subject to the same kind of restrictions a hotel is Um, there's the resource issue for the city again I I think code enforcement is doing a great job. This is nothing to do with with staff, but I think Things are going to ebb and flow the city is going to have more and less resources to commit to this and Again, if it's a self certification enforced essentially by neighbors, you know, I think it's a it's a hard sell When it's non-hosted when there's somebody that's not there that's invested in the community On-site to kind of deal with it And then, you know, finally the the kind of the technical things when it gets to the the resolution is I think it's going to be hard for me to make a finding that a non-hosted rental As part of this ordinance is consistent with the general plan and the zoning code when you look at the the zoning code Um, you know It's to provide home rental and ownership opportunities Choices in housing types to improve access to affordable housing. There's nothing about, you know, owning two three four five 10 rental properties and short-term renting them It seems incompatible with the purposes of residential zoning And the same with the general plan, you know, if you look at the policies that the general plan lays out Meeting the housing needs of santa rosen's Maintain and rehabilitate the housing supply to support affordable housing Expand the housing supply to make it available to low-income households I just I I don't see that certainly. I mean, I I think you could go as as far as just banning short-term rentals but At least when it comes to non-hosted this this just seems outside the scope of The santa rosen's ordinances and policy documents, so And I understand the you know what we've heard too from Uh short-term rental owners, but you can still rent the property There's the just is just longer for than 30 days. So I don't know it's It's hard for me to make the findings and then as a policy recommendation to counsel uh, I don't see a lot of Value and and non-hosted rentals at this point Have you given it any thought as to how That would affect the the current short-term rental the 198 They would just at some point. Well, I guess that would be up to the attorney to Calculate to figure out As to how you would eliminate them. It would be the one-year renewal. They just aren't renewed Yeah, I mean the the technical implication Um, certainly I Need the assistance of Miss crocker, but I would say that after the one-year term as we had been talking about with some of the other proposals the You would not be able to renew that permit. So over, you know, a year's time They would all basically just be eliminated because nobody could come in for renewal and you could not issue any new ones They would become legal non-conforming uses during that interim period lots commissioner sisco well, I what I'm Hoping we remember is that there is a current ordinance. It was vetted very thoroughly through counsel With all of the same kind of public comments um The council at that time I assume assume that there's a place for short-term rentals in our Policies and What we're being asked to do is to take a look at the technical changes And I think making a move towards banning them would would be a fairly drastic Recommendation, I don't think that's what we were being asked to do And I think that it has been vetted and determined by the council that the short-term rentals Are consistent with the general plan and have a place in san rosa. They have some economic Benefit as well as A lot of the modifications that we're making Through code enforcement to make them operate better. So I would not be in favor of Making that recommendation commissioner duggan um, well, I can see the the logic of Vice chair peterson's comments I think if if that determination comes down, it should come from council in their direction I feel like um commissioner sysco said it's like we're just making some technical changes and policy should be at the council um And I think there's if we did Advocate for and or if council Decided to ban non-hosted rentals. There should be a place for People like one of the one of the public who spoke saying he lives within 20 feet of his short-term rental And it's a separate property, but he's right there and he considers it a hosted one But because of living in a separate parcel It's a non-hosted permit And I should think there should be consideration for someone like that in that situation that they are effectively managing the rental and Policing it, but they're not technically on site Commissioner sanders I guess it would seem to me that jumping to banning Is You know a couple of steps down in this process You know at this point Enforcement even by the admission of some people here who probably would like it to be banned Recognize that the new enforcement the new ordinance that we have put into place has made a drastic difference Uh Enforcement After the ordinance than it was prior. So it seems that you know, we're Working with something that's you know, it's a works in progress and it's It's moving in the right direction to then jump to banning Just seems a little less like the you know, those are a few steps Um, certainly easier, you know just to say oh, I'll just forget it. We'll ban it But I think you know, we could do a little bit more Work together To make this work for everyone or as many people as we can Commissioner Carter Yeah, I mean one of the first notes I wrote down is the The use that's allowed by right in residential neighborhoods is housing in residential use and It's hard to make an argument that there are Uh rights to making Making money off of the property in residential uses. I mean the way you do that is through sale or rental of them long-term rental Um, but I think as commissioner duggan pointed out and uh, commissioner sisco The direction from council was to create an ordinance to manage short-term rentals not to Eliminate them necessarily I do think that um, the ordinance as proposed now has a lot more teeth and gives more um capacity for enforcement and We've Been told by staff that the capacity exists to enforce the ordinance has written now So i'm going to take them at their word on it on that um So I think the ordinance is written as a Cleaned up regulatory devices going in the direction that the council wants. I certainly think the council Within their purview could decide for a much more restrictive ordinance Given the the problems we've heard with the operations of strs in In our residential areas um, so while i'm not ready to jump to a recommendation to the council that non-hosted Short short-term rentals and maybe if we called them casual lodging instead of short-term rentals We'd not be having a lot of this discussion because it is a lodging enterprise that we're talking about here um, so I think more regulation with staff's assurance that What we've got before us is a enforceable And again, it's a cooperatively enforceable involving the permittees the the renters the staff and code enforcement people um, there's a lot of responsibility spread around here, but It's not a perfect ordinance, but it may be workable as as we've seen it and I would be more on the side of supporting it to go forward to the council and perhaps um passing on Considerations our considerations for changes that that the council should be considering If that made any sense. Thank you Well, so let me respond to sort of two things one um, I do think it is within the the purview of the planning commission to make a Recommended change like that. We've done it with downtown station area specific plans. We've done it with the general plan I I think removing non-hosted short-term rentals from This ordinance Is is not beyond the the pale when it comes to our our powers and duties and I mean we started off with the statement of purpose so um, I You know look back at that I I guess I can propose a straw poll on Removing non-hosted Short-term rentals from this ordinance. Um, I have a sense of how it will go, but we can at least I'm looking at, um, mr. Crocker kid. Is that I believe I just heard uh, each of you provide your comments and thoughts on this except for chair weeks. Oh, sorry um, I It would be hard for me to eliminate all of the Non-hosted to eliminate non-hosted short-term rentals I think the ordinance the proposed ordinance In my view need some a few changes which we'll get to um to make it a little more I don't even know what the right word is a little easier on neighbors But I think until we hear from the council that they want to do away with non-hosted short-term rentals I would be it would be hard for me to make that So I think there you go Five one So then let's go on to the other amendments Oh, and do we have any other amendments on any other changes on the definitions section? So then, uh, we'll go to the requirements Uh section 20-48 About zero four zero Uh short-term rental permits requirements and limits In what I want to follow up on uh a comment that we heard from a member of the public that commissioner dug in mentioned uh where they live adjacent to their non-hosted short-term rental but It's a different address so they have to so they're You know very close so they can monitor what's going on, but it's a different address So it wouldn't it's not considered a non-host. It's not considered a hosted. It's considered non-hosted Was there any discussion in at any time about certain number of feet between your primary residents and your non-hosted str Thank you chair weeks. Good question. So when we design this ordinance, we wanted it to be ministerial So there's not discretion involved with, you know, uh, whether these 20 feet are You know more or less impactful than These 20 feet from another house So we did limit it to Being on the same parcel Originally, we actually said it had to be in the same home but then We did relax that to be if they're in a legal dwelling unit on the same parcel, but I I Obviously you're a discretion, but I I feel like We we're trying to keep things very ministerial and either yes, you're on the same parcel or You know or you're not type of thing. And so that's one of the reasons that we didn't Incorporate a whole bunch of different nuances like that and we also don't want to make it any more confusing to administer enforce or permit, but obviously it is totally your discretion Any comments on that commissioner sanders it would be difficult because I mean, you know The first thing that comes to my mind is well, I live right next door to it. And you know, I don't want to you know I will know first hand if there's Something going on and I can you know intervene personally by walking out my front door and going to next door Well, then the next one comes well, I only live two houses away So I can walk you know a few more feet and go knock on that door Well, I only live around the corner while I lived in the next neighborhood while you know and you can see where this goes So, you know, I don't know how You know at a certain point you got to kind of draw a line You know in my thought I I know it It doesn't it's not it's not I guess in the interest of you know the the broader picture It it stinks. I live right next door. Why can't this be? But you do have to you know make a decision or else you're down the road And you know the the horse has left the barn and you can't stop it Any comments on that? Well, I I agree with everything that uh commissioner sanders is saying I think it Where do you stop and you know Yeah, I can appreciate if it's um we're intending this to be ministerial It's like you have to draw the line somewhere and this is a good hard line so Okay, so then uh We'll continue with short-term rental permit requirements and limits Any comments on the rest of that section? I've got something for you. Yes um It for uh discussion. I mean we've seen it, you know, we saw it with the cannabis ordinance Is there a reason to treat hosted short-term rentals differently than non-hosted? I mean, I'm going to lose on that so For the record would remove but You know putting a cap on the total number of permits issued having separation requirements for hosted as well This is b sub 1 abc Was there any discussion uh in any of the work groups about that Originally somewhat we threw, you know, we talked about we tried to talk about everything but council was very um I don't want to say adamant they were very um They wanted hosted to be available to anybody anywhere So we took their direction completely when we wrote that there's no limit on hosted and they can be in any zoning district And they can be right next door to each other now I will say that we've worked with this ordinance for 18 months now So if if people want to see changes like that, maybe we ask lou have there been issues with too many hosted near each other with Parking issues or something like that, but that's how we ended up with that. It was it was Just we we felt that hosted were not causing the same level of complaints or potential nuisance issues Any discussion on that? Well, I think if we go back to the definition I think the reason everyone is or council was maybe um More considerate of the hosted is that it's required that they're sleeping in the same building at the same time as the rental So, you know living down the street or whatever and checking on it isn't the same as i'm in the room In the house with the you know, so I think it eliminates a lot of problems. So and They're valuable that way Mr. Sanders just question does that you know proximity, I mean does that refer to I know two different parcels, right or the same parcel with a separate living unit Does that you know does that count? It has to be on the same parcel and it has to be a legal dwelling unit Does that make sense to be hosted? So you can Stay in your adu and rent out your main house as a short-term rental And that's considered hosted because you're on the same parcel and the assumption there was again as Others have mentioned that you're going to be aware of what's going on And be able to you know manage the situation if anything arises So so here's my concern again building from the cannabis ordinance, you know Which was concerned with over concentration creating sort of a red light district for for cannabis We heard from the public that yes theoretically my neighbor lives in the 500 square foot adu And it's a hosted, but i'm also surrounded by Parties every weekend. So I guess that's you know, there's going to be neighborhoods that are more and less attractive for Hosted in quotes, uh rentals. So I guess that that would be my concern for for having them treated separately without setbacks Um and with without a cap on the number any other comments so then we'll go on to um See where are we the short-term rental permit? So we have the neighbor notification Transferability Loss of operating good standing status denial appeals Etc Any buddy have anything else on that section? Okay, uh, okay So then we'll go to registration Requirements, uh anything on that section or on the occupancy and parking requirements Which specifically which letters are you which letters are you looking at? Oh, I'm sorry. It's um 20-48 dot 060 Occupancy and parking requirements Thank you, okay um and then operating requirements Which is 20-48 Dot 070 commissioner dug in. Yeah on this one. I've got um A question for my fellow commissioners, let's say. Um, I personally am not Comfortable with having fire pits in the city and also having the owners to be on the neighbors to alert their Short-term rental neighbors that you know, it's a spare the air day and put out the fire and that kind of thing So I would be happy to take that out of the ordinance Uh comments as would I As would I I don't like those fire pits Even before we had fires Well as the firefighter I would have to say Bad idea So can we add that to the front a friendly amendment that we would eliminate the section? um, or somehow clarify this section regarding, uh outdoor fires Which is Outdoor burning it's Five points It's five, right? Yeah. So just to clarify. Um, are you talking about striking recreational fires fire pits? outdoor fireplaces Yes, and leaving barbecues and grills I Or do we wanted to maybe maybe clarify that it has to be only um Maybe we should get paul on here because are we talking about even if it's gas propane? Which I'm fine with I just want to make sure that we're covering all of it Because I would make a big distinction between a you know gas fired barbecue And an outdoor fire pit I mean, we're okay with the barbecue. Well I could be not necessarily but um, yeah But I would be happy if the whole section You know if it's outdoor burning was prohibited Uh question for consideration on this. So, um, they're allowed in all zoning districts Not all zoning districts have the same level of wild land urban interface or or fire danger um, do you want to tie it to Something like that. I mean I don't know if that's feasible for staff, but sorry are you saying if you're in the Bowie that you don't you can't do fires and if you're not you can Yes, I mean something that would again be feasible to include in an ordinance You know, I mean if somebody's having a barbecue on cherry street downtown, they're probably okay Um, yes and no I guess You know and an outdoor fire Thing Is you know, I've got my little paper cup right there and all of a sudden that falls in And then embers are flying around because that's what embers do Um as opposed to a grill Which has a cover Preferably someplace not near Wood structures old wood that kind of thing. So it just seems that you know with an open fire pit. You may be inviting you know Laziness not laziness is terrible word say um people may not be as diligent Around an open flame. It's my thought. Yes. Sorry to be clear. I I'm in favor of Outdoor burning pits. I think barbecues. Maybe You could tweak depending on the I don't know what the definition would be but like a covered barbecue grill Something for cooking Specifically for cooking Not charcoal If I may assist a little bit here Back in the day. I used to be a fire marshal There's some clear differentiations between outdoor burning with solid fuels versus gas barbecues propane barbecues So if we could be clear try to try to isolate what we really are after and hey paul paul is with us Um, I don't want to steal his thunder But there's there's already a prohibition for using solid fuels for flames in the wildland urban interface during fire season So would we want to carry that throughout regardless? Just within the willy throughout the city regardless of Where they are and they are an str. So we want to try and find that path To be clear. So we're able to write the ordinance To your desires or at least the recommendation to to help with that But but this particular uh prohibition would only be for the Non uh non-hosted rentals. It doesn't have to be city-wide. It's simply saying that City-wide wherever these non-hosted rentals are we don't want any fire Happening anytime whether it's wildfire season or not So I mean we could adopt it that way right we could amend it that way Without impacting our other fire ordinances Yeah, I think if we could have uh Our fire marshal paul lowenthal speak to this All right, thank you So, yeah, so the attempt was to resolve the concerns regarding fire We try to differentiate the differences between solid burning and gas fired So the risk associated with the open fires typically from amber cast Which is why we try to tie in the language specific to eliminating that solid fuel type fire during fire season when there's the risk that A fire pit could spread And then would transition it to A gas fueled where you're not going to be dealing with the the amber cast If there's a desire to be more stringent on it, then yes, we can look at potentially eliminating solid burning period regardless of time of year And or potentially the the gas fire as well. We were again just trying to Minimize the risks still allow some activities to take place, but cut the Cut the amber cast out and replace it with with fuel fuel fired Activities We can definitely take it further and again look at Additional restrictions that are tied to the wooey Or if there's obviously the desire from The commission to take it even further than we can look at what that means across the city specific to What the cabinet brought up earlier? We have Put these short-term rentals in our CAD and system So when we do respond to incidents or complaints that come in through the 901 system about a fire We do have the ability to Handle these from an enforcement standpoint much differently with it with a response From our department as well. So we did really did try and Look at it from all different angles to how we can Keep some of the activities taking place still but make them as safe as possible I guess my view is why I take the risk I mean, yeah, the the upside seems limited and the downside seems enormous so think saying Within fire season to somebody who's from out of town and hasn't lived here through fire seasons Like I'd rather have specific dates if we kept that anything in there about burning outside I'd also like to add that You know, no one's going to be as diligent and as careful with their home than the homeowner And and no, you know be familiar with what's going on in their home When you're bringing in guests, I mean, you know the fire marshal is correct And you are also correct that you know solid burning fuels are going to cast embers where gas fires don't or won't Under the best, you know conditions, but you know, again, I've seen that cup I've seen that Whatever place on the edge of the fire pit and because someone's not really paying attention And then, you know, it doesn't necessarily turn into a conflagration But you know having your deck burned down or your fence burned down Stinks so why I agree with the vice chair, you know, why chance it? I also would like to be stricter. Um, so I know Mr. Lowenthal said that you guys could work on something Um before it goes to the council I just think I mean, we've had such horrific experiences that I think it's better to be safe than sorry So if I'm going to propose a friendly amendment Again, I'm not sure what work needs to be done on it. If we're just saying this should be removed as an option I don't get what else needs to happen as far as recommending to council what we want Actually, you're you're right. If we just say there will be no outdoor burning So I think that would be on number five would be outdoor burning recreational fires fire pits outdoor fireplaces barbecue grills And other similar items are not permitted Yeah, that sounds like a really good simple statement to me So I would propose that friendly amendment uh to that particular section five And so anything else? Well, we'd need a second if somebody wants to go with there Well, I would second it and I also I would accept the friendly amendment as stated I didn't hear a friendly amendment actually be proposed. I thought we were still just Hypothesizing. Okay. Well, yeah, I would propose a friendly amendment amending section five to say Recreational fires fire pits outdoor fireplaces barbecue grills and other similar items are not permitted And just leave it with that. That's my friendly amendment. That's the first friendly amendment That's the first and only one so far. Yeah So And does commissioner duggan need to Commissioner duggan you agree to that friendly amendment? Yes, I do. Thank you So the motion On the table is now The friendly amendment, you know, it will include the friendly amendment correct And before we vote we I can go ahead and summarize That resolution again with whatever friendly amendments are other options. We've changed. So We'll keep it clear So do we vote on each friendly amendment as it comes up or do we wait till the end when we might have others? I think we should continue in the discussion And as a we should continue in the discussion because I believe You have more to go through here. So the motion on the table as it stands now is the original resolution amended to delete section 2048 070 or modify 28 070 sub five as Proposed and accepted in the friendly amendment So we move on to the next thing So we do vote on it. No, no, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's okay We're good. Thank you It takes a village. Thank you Chair weeks If I could before we move on to the next section, which I believe is the enforcement section I'm hoping that we can take a step back and go back to Section 20-48 point zero four zero It would be b2 Or sorry b b3. This is the one that is limiting the non-hosted short-term rentals to a maximum of one per property owner I I'm not sure unless I missed it I don't think that there was discussion from the commission on that one and it was a topic And so hoping to get some feedback from the commission on that one Mr. Sanders Yeah, I would like it to be three And I don't know how we move forward from that, but I guess my rationale is we've got I'm I'm uncomfortable Well looking at the numbers we only have what did we say one that has six And the vast majority have two Some have three but top out at six And you know to Say that you now can't do this activity Tomorrow that you were able to do yesterday. I'm not comfortable with that so I also think that you know it allows for you know, I mean My whole Thought process is about Creating opportunities for our citizens our people which most of the short-term rental Owners in santa rosa are santa rosa residents Let's not hamstring people who've You know have been counting on this For their retirements their income I mean what I'm seeing in this room is if they're not a lot of you know rich corporate fat cats To me, maybe you are I don't know maybe you guys are all rich fat cats. I don't know but you seem like nice enough folks to me and I think that that's a reasonable number Also, since we're talking about less than 1% at the numbers that we are now I don't think we're getting anywhere close to I mean I I'm sure that hopefully we'll get that those numbers like That question I asked about you know, what is the saturation before it really starts to affect housing? Maybe we'll get answers to that, but I don't think that through you begins to touch that so I'll bring that for more discussion from the My fellow commissioners any comments I mean, so my position would be zero, but in Instead I mean I think I think the idea again, you know looking at the resolution and trying to make the findings uh It starts to look like a very commercial enterprise if you've got three non-hosted and one hosted That doesn't look to me like, you know, hey, I want to make some extra cash I you know, I want to go travel for a month in a time or visit family for a couple weeks That starts to look, you know beyond the scope of this ordinance to me. Um, so I you know My my sense would be one non-hosted short-term rental per person Seem seems appropriate within the scope of what the ordinance is trying to do with what we've heard from the public the owners These are, you know, not generally, you know, big commercial Enterprises so, um, I would not be in favor of more than one I agree with uh commissioner peterson Commissioner dug in I also agree with commissioner peterson. I think especially if we have this um cap right now of 198 That if we restrict it to one per host Then we have that many more people who are eligible to participate commissioner carter I'm in agreement that the cap should uh remain as proposed And I'm also in agreement that it should remain as one so, uh lose Was there did you want to go on to enforcement or was there something else that we needed to clean up? No, that was it. Thank you. Okay So then uh 20 Dash 48 Dot 080 enforcement Um Yes, what yes, which what would you like to go back to? Um in 20-48 0.070 It talks about uh to Section 2 amplified music amplified outdoor music um What does that do? How do we address, you know, the music wasn't outdoors? It was inside. We just opened the windows Which which numbers? That's um Oh the next page b section 2 um subsection b so, um That is specific to outdoor as you mentioned however the ordinance does tie back to our This ordinance the str ordinance ties back to our normal noise ordinance So if something was happening in in the house that was beyond what the city's noise ordinance allows that would be That would still be a um A short-term rental violation because it's Noted here in the section that short-term rentals and daytime guests shall comply with all requirements of city code section chapter 17-6, which is our noise ordinance Does that answer your question? Yes. Okay, great Okay, uh enforcement, uh, this is going back to my comment earlier about um I'd like the Maximum fines to be associated with noise Uh Rather than Other things Um, I don't know is there any agreement on that or disagreement? Um, I I think it there's kind of a moral hazard question. Um, you know, if you carve out specific exceptions, um I think there's there's the opportunity for particularly non-hosted to engage in kind of consistent bad behavior potentially with with relatively minor fines So I'm in favor of keeping it as it is. I would Again, we heard I think enough and and read enough That in fact things are not working even with the heroic efforts of code enforcement So I think putting some sting into it Will incentivize the property owner, especially in a non-hosted to keep on top of the guests Any other comments on that? Um, I agree with commissioner peterson I also agree with commissioner peterson. Okay commissioner carter I think we've heard heard from a lot of, um operators Of how the ordinance could be tweaked to Deal with their situation more equitably but I think Coming back to the fact that we wanted a ministerial document here. That's easy to administer I'm more inclined to keep things as they are and and not try to carve out some different fine schedules Okay, commissioner sanders Yeah, I just It's tough to think that we're going to send someone a $1,500 bill because they had a sign that wasn't on the property That's not the same thing. It's not the same nuisance as You know a big party I'd love for us to be able to uh The counterpoint would be that we're relying on self-certification and self-regulation and I think Absence of teeth. It's really easy to You know, I I I tried but you know Yeah, and you won't you won't make the same mistake twice And I'm I'm hoping that when you present this to council that you'll as part of your presentation You'll you'll mention that some of the concerns we had as you know, like maybe one or two per People had a concern, but it didn't We you know it didn't rise to the majority Absolutely, and I do want to clarify too That when you mention like not having a sign or something like that Code enforcement is complaint driven We're not going out and knocking on doors and saying do you have your permit hanging in the right place or whatever so I think it's important to know that if something Is made a if code enforcement is made aware of something It's something that I most of the time I would say is going to be a noise or or Parking or occupancy Or advertising for too many people staying at your home And not so much a sign that's not posted I appreciate that. Thank you um Anything else on this section on enforcement commissioner dug in Uh, this is not um enforcement, but it's something that came up during the meeting Somebody mentioned that we could require two night minimum stay. I'm just wondering if anybody else was inclined to do that I have no idea how how you would enforce that that seemed more like an on an air bnb ad Maybe that's what you would put but I guess Jesse lou what what would we do with that as a requirement? That's true. It would be it would be very hard to enforce. I acknowledge that As mentioned a few times the this is a Many of the elements are self-certified One of the elements that this could look like is that It be clear because we because we do have very specific requirements on what their ads Shall and shall not indicate If The proposal is to move forward. It would be a requirement of at least the advertisement And then the the rest would rely on complaints that To to be able to enforce so it is a good question is how do you enforce that? So I I would say it would be basically on the advertisement and then complaints If I may um, I I heard that suggestion too and I thought it was very compelling But ultimately I think that that was a shout-out to fellow str operators that hey if you want to stay in good standing This is something you might want to consider doing on your own Not something that we should probably try and put into an ordinance I try for it I mean, I mean, you know if that's if that solves the problem that the neighbors are having for instance, right? So is that do you want to see if we have a Straw up to under a straw pole on tonight minimum sure Yes, I'll say yes No No No, no Okay, um One thing in my notes that nobody brought up tonight, but that we got in a couple of letters and it was about garbage cans About that the city should as part part of the permit should require the largest size garbage can Just to make sure there's not trash around and I wondered if there had been discussion about that in any of your meetings We didn't discuss specific Receptical sizes, but that's definitely something you could add if you wanted to Um, certainly we're hoping that people are recycling instead of just putting everything in the trash cans, but I think that that's definitely something we could include Although i'm not sure how we would verify that I guess upon Application they would have to submit a recology bill showing that it was the largest I mean we could figure out a process for it if that's something you guys wanted to do Yeah, I didn't think that the city monitored that I thought that was between The owner and the in recology So Does the city somehow have a say in what size we we don't and that's what I was saying We would if we wrote that into the ordinance as a requirement for a short terminal We would then um, and i'm assuming you guys are thinking of this more for non-hosted short terminals Then upon the application we would just request a copy of something showing that they have the largest receptacles that are possible But thinking, you know, what you just said about Recycling we want people to recycle and compost So kind of defeats the purpose saying you have to have a the huge just the biggest garbage can there is so Forget I even mentioned Well, and and we do have in here a new policy that says that they can't have trash and recycling That's not within the receptacle So if the owner ends up getting in trouble because people are leaving stuff laying around they would likely get the largest receptacle and and maybe Have something in their Rental agreement talking about recycling one thing um That I haven't asked before uh is do you when somebody comes in and gets a permit do you give them a list of Like good do's and don'ts for being a str host Like make sure you uh put the garbage in the garbage can make sure you Do all that kind of stuff So when somebody gets a permit we actually have something that goes with their permit that basically lists out every single thing That's required in the ordinance Um there are Also sections on the web page that talk about compliance and that type of thing, but we're always open to new ideas if you have anything to to um To make it better And I think lue had something he wanted to add Yeah, if I if I may just add on to that after the uh Urgency ordinance was amended and prior to the ramp up and enforcement that occurred in september We set out a notice to every known Uh str operator every known applicant every known local contact I think we set out over 500 pieces of paper Just letting them know that There had been a change in the ordinance that could enforcement was Going to be ramping up based upon where we'd been in the past And one of the things we included was something we called a success guide for str operators And it was just what you're describing. It was a list of of of dues and don'ts to uh to essentially Not run afoul of the ordinance and we still have that document. So that's something we could easily Revitalize it and continue to use Any other comments questions before we Take a vote So we have the excuse me the ordinance with the friendly amendment And that was commissioner sisco And commissioner duggin if I recall um, is that right? so, um Do you before you take the vote? Let me just ask Do you have what you need from us before you go to council? And then also I think you're going to council mid june. Is that right? So I believe that we have everything that we need and sherry can Verify, um, but at this point it's looking like the item will be scheduled for potentially the first meeting in july for council So you have what you need from us I just want to make sure there is only the one friendly amendment And that is to the outdoor burning section and instead of saying are permitted with the following restrictions We're going to strike that part and to say are not permitted Full stop. Yeah, I think is that That's that it and that was it. We've been taking notes feverishly. So we will summarize You know where there was maybe some discussion that didn't end up in a unanimous thought Hey, and just to add on to that just to clarify For the record that the section that we are referring to in the outdoor burning is 20-48 070 sub b 5 Hold on Yes It's the the section under operating requirements is 2048 070 Yes, that's current b 5. Yeah, that's it Okay, so we can call for the vote now Before we vote can we thank staff for all their hard work? Yes Especially you all what is this how many hours later, but thank you for all the hard work and Giving us all the good information we need to make this This happened tonight And thank you for those who I know are in the wings and for to captain corkman and officers And fire marshal lomenthal As well as all of you. Thank you so good And I will add all these citizens that showed up to let the feelings be known Yeah, I I do think a lot of times we're up here and there's nobody that shows up And we've not heard from anybody and it's really nice to see what I consider democracy in action and that's my little soap box So I'm sorry Do you have a comment you'd like to make? Would I do that now make my comment now before my vote? I don't know how this works Yes, if you all have additional comments and go ahead and make those now before we call the vote Yes, so long as everyone's clear as to the Proposed resolution on the table, right? So I guess I guess my comment And why I don't think that I'm going to be supporting this We have Someone can own 10 long-term rental properties And we're okay with that we're okay with that commercial endeavor But someone who owns three STRs somehow is That's incompatible And that's that's a money-making scheme That needs our attention that seems out of balance to me Um, you know if I own 10 long-term rental properties I'm making money So why are we upset that someone who owns three short-term rentals is also making money? It doesn't affect our housing our housing is A stock is less than one is less than 1 percent of that housing stock Um I think it's going to create a financial hardship for people Who operating multiple? Short-term rentals without incident And I fear where we may be punishing Uh the whole for the actions of eight Complaints from september if I have that number correct eight and so now anyone who has Because we didn't have you know in ordinance. I like to call it the wild wild west They purchased furniture They purchased homes. They are fixing up homes And now we're saying sorry And you know we listen to people talk about you know older folks talking about their future finances being tied To this activity and we are saying no um In a sense, we are determining the level of risk that we think is appropriate for someone to take Not everybody wants to take the risk of long-term rentals that comes with a whole another set of challenges that maybe they They don't want to take And I think this should be allowed to make those decisions so um I think that's it. I mean I I think that's It feels like an overstep to me That's all thank you. So will you be supporting the ordinance? I will not commissioner carter Well, I will be supporting the ordinance Nobody seems to like it. So it must be a good ordinance No, I think Staff has done what they were directed to do by council and I think The ordinance isn't perfect. It can get better I think we've given some suggestions to council as to how it may get better But I think it's up to the council to make that determination And I think uh our our uh discussion Was good and and we'll give some additional direction to council. So I'll be supporting Moving the ordinance forward Thank you commissioner duggan. I'm also in support of the ordinance. I think um Even though long-term renting can have challenges Long-term renters can add to a community just as homeowners can in a way that short-term rental occupants will not um I think also some of the people that came and spoke to us tonight Who are surrounded by short-term rentals mentioned that part of their discomfort is the level of activity of all the the house cleaners The bands picking up people not necessarily just an outside party Not just a disruption from that and I think that a lot of that would go away if we Adopt the ordinance as we've sort of made our small changes to it. So I'm in favor of the ordinance Thank you. Mr. Siscoe Yes, I'm also in favor of the ordinance and um, I know we're required to make the uh zoning code Findings which I can make and I'll be supporting the ordinance. I think it's you know So much work has gone into this and really I always feel kudos to our code enforcement department. You guys are amazing and um In a lot of ways Because of the the enforcement issues in this ordinance um The short-term rental Neighbors are better off than maybe someone like me Issues with my long-term neighbors and has code enforcement issues. They'll get treated faster, etc So I I think that's a plus as well Thank you vice chair Peterson Uh, so I also like uh, commissioner sanders do not support this ordinance for for different reasons as was discussed, I think uh To have continuing to have non-hosted short-term rentals in the city is is a mistake I think there's a meaningful difference between short and long-term rentals in terms of the the Relationships they build with the neighbors the quality of the neighborhood things like speeding parking trash Respect for your neighbors. I mean I I think there can be bad long-term neighbors, certainly But even if you've got a long-term neighbor, uh, that's bad They're probably not throwing a rager every weekend And if they are you can maybe at least build the relationship with them It's it's the same person that you're seeing so I think there is a meaningful difference. And I think Um non-hosted invites ad behavior And I'm also a little skeptical of of the financial argument. I mean We're talking about people with at least one house and often More than one house and one of the most expensive property markets in the in the country The restriction is not Anything other than you you cannot rent it for shorter than 30 days. You can still rent it Or you can sell it. Uh, so I I I think the the public comments on that we're we're pushing that a bit from my perspective But again with all that said it's it's hard for me to make the findings that are necessary With the inclusion of the non-hosted rentals because I I don't think it Is in line with the general plan or the zoning code Thank you. Well, I will be supporting the uh ordinance. It's not perfect Um, but uh, I think it is an improvement and uh at some point when it gets to council if they Decide they wanted major Changes and they would direct staff and we'd see this back again So, uh, but for this for what you were directed to do. I think uh, This is a good outcome. So I will be supporting it Vote commissioner carter I I Commissioner cisco I Commissioner dug in I Commissioner sanders. No Vice chair peterson. No Chair weeks I So that passes with four eyes and two nos And with that, I think uh, the meeting's adjourned Thank you all