Those people should be leaders in creating rules That make this an acceptable part of our life Thank you Thank you for your comment and thank you for the public comments from council chamber. I'm going to turn it over to our zoom host Please go ahead ronda Please go ahead when you're ready all desideri you're being asked to unmute Okay, i'm going to If you're having challenges unmuting from zoom you can also dial star nine to unmute yourself Believe it star six star six. Thank you ronda I'm gonna go ahead and give paul a little time. I'm gonna go ahead with jonathan Jonathan you're being asked to Unmute Please go ahead when you're ready Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Please go ahead Great. I'm a 25 years sonoma county resident rental property owner and as far as uh The the permit expiration Why can't we just have the The permit expiration and and the and a bold reminder put on the quarterly tax form so that everyone sees it At least three months before it expires I also lost my home in the 2017 fire, so I understand the intent but The ban barbecues and space heaters for People renting a short-term rental, but it's fine for the neighbor next door that owns their property It really doesn't seem fair to me. Whatever should be done should apply to all properties in the area Regarding the thousand foot limit that limits density and it mitigates most of the negatives It seems like the majority of the complaints are in areas with a high density of short-term rentals combined with poor management So rather than penalize You know responsible operators Let's try to focus on enforcement and getting rid of the bad actors And I would say in terms of hosted versus non-hosted If you only allow hosted rentals you effectively turn all short-term rentals into rooms for rent because No one can really effectively rent a home an entire home unless they live on site in an 80 You still there jonathan We're going to next all desideri. I'm going to ask you to unmute Go ahead and You're having issues star six Okay, I'm going to go ahead and go to ramisha followed by eric frazier Ramisha you're being asked to unmute Hi, this is ramisha Um Yes, perfect. I'm glad you can hear me. Um, thank you everyone for your time today and for all the effort done and putting together The proposal It's clear to me from hearing the presentation today And to all the comments thus far in the public comment section That the problems that are being cited are enforcement issues and not necessarily regulation issues And I think that you know finding a way to enforce the existing regulation without introducing new regulation Is perhaps the best outcome here it allows the responsible operators to You know benefit from the discipline that they've been they've put in so far and it also allows The city to take care of the residents who are having problems with the bad actors So the alleged bad actors in this situation But I think this is more of an enforcement situation than a regulation situation And I hope that there's a way for the enforcement to be beefed up I also did want to bring up another point in terms of the permit renewals It is a very interesting process that there are no reminders set whatsoever Whereas this county of Sonoma has absolutely no problem sending reminders asking for the tot payments and for the bia payments, which was all done in a very orderly fashion They don't provide reminders for permit renewals So it to me it's it's enforcing an onerous burden from what I understand from other Cities and counties that have short-term rentals solutions in place Reminders are sent for permit renewals So I think the city of Santa Rosa is you know singular in this regard and not taking care of that And not sending something in an automated fashion and finally It cannot be understated that hospitality is a major industry in the county of Sonoma And short-term rentals drive a lot of business towards the hospitality Proprietors the hotels the restaurants the wineries So please consider short-term rentals and not changing the ordinances. Thank you Thank you Eric Frazier will be next followed by elix c Thank you. This is Eric Frazier with truth and tourism my address is truth and tourism at gmail.com As you know, I'm a researcher. I also have experience as a hosted str owner in Santa Rosa for seven years And you also know my stance knowing that the urgency ordinance is truly defective and broad in bad faith And you're only going to sow the fruit from that and that's sort of what's going on now It's got to be very frustrating for anybody and regardless of what their ideology is or what their experience or fact Is what we're subjected to now and just building on it You you ignore economic science as if this was some sort of socialist program. Why don't you believe in economics when some of when The staff brings forward this conjecture of 846 strs. That's Ridiculous poppycock to that Absolutely ridiculous. I noticed also staff glazed over Things about the complaint process. It's totally unfair. Totally illegal Europe city attorney good thing that she's leaving because the advice is really bad Pretty much everything here stumps from the fact of actually not having a workshop So that these issues can be addressed by adults in the room Not ideal logs. They're just trying to ram something through down somebody's throat Certainly you read my research that showed that staff was trying to extort over a hundred thousand dollars in fines from str operators Based on defective advertisements on other ridiculous reasons Why don't you guys grow up and start spending our money right? And we'll also get down to the bottom as to why this exists in the first place Why are you singling out these property owners for this type of treatment the next step will be alexi followed by baria Alex you're being asked to unmute go ahead when you're ready Uh, good evening everyone. I'll talk really fast because I only have two minutes The first point I want to make is about taking and I don't think that what the city council said that It's not a taking is true. Actually, there's been only one case in New Jersey about that There has not been a case of the California Supreme Court nor the u.s supreme court So I think that's still out in the open. I do think it is a taking and you know We'll see what happens in the future in the courts Number two, I want to talk about the Taking people's rights if you already had a permit and you know, those that have more than one You know, you're trying trying to take these away Please don't because the damage that you do to those homeowners is much much higher Much much greater than not issuing new permits Um, do you want to you know, I want to make a point about you know, when Elon Musk says, you know, California is a crazy state. We're having these crazy regulations Well, guess what the barbecue rule is one of those you can have the the fire chief telling you It's okay to have barbecues and yet we're trying to ban barbecues now We're the state that bans barbecues. Just imagine how that sounds crazy Um, then I want to you know in my last 50 seconds Um, I want to you know make a point about who's here You know, we know str owners are here and they're about 0.5 percent of the population And I always see the same 10 20 people that hate str so they keep on talking against them So I want to really what's the percentage of of truly the people that don't like them and you might say Well, look at the study, you know, we did a study and the study is biased Any survey person who would look at that study and the question will tell you that the way you Ask ask the questions and presented the data is biased. So I would say use an independent company Lastly to the person with the car analogy, you know, unfortunately, there are cars that hit people But guess what we haven't banned cars. There are cars there, you know, we just have rules and regulations without drive Thank you Next up Maria followed by Jessica Maria you've been asked to unmute. Please go ahead when you're ready Yes, I am ready Thank you. Go ahead My name is Maria. I work for someone who own two short term rental If you limited those rental to only one That would be hard my salary in half I would like to you to change your mind because this How I support my family it affect very bad Thank you so much Thank you Jessica is up next followed by Jamie Jessica you've been asked to unmute. Please go ahead when you're ready Hi, my name is Jessica and I would really like you to consider Not putting any more restriction on short term Rentals I work For someone who owns more than one short term rental And this is how I provide for myself And if we limit it to only one short term rental It'll be very hard for me to support myself And for me to go to school And reach my goal of becoming a teacher and paying my bills And unfortunately I'll only have to pick one. I'd really like you to consider Not putting on a limit on how many short term rentals there are Thank you Thank you Jamie is next followed by ted Jamie if you've been asked to unmute please go ahead when you're ready Hi, my name is Jamie Um, I'm a I've been the long-term resident of Santa Rosa. I have taken your surveys And I believe that that Question regarding the thousand foot buffer zone is is quite misleading because a thousand feet sounds like I could walk out my door And see as somebody else said, you know the eight neighbors around I could walk a couple neighbors down Those are neighbors. I would know that are within a thousand feet of my house We had applied for a short term rental for my father when he moved into a care home So that we didn't have to empty out his house so that in case the care home didn't work out We could move him back into his house and we were denied based on the thousand foot radius The house that was used as the thousand foot is nowhere near my dad's house You would have to walk down his street turn on another street walk past another street turn on another street I mean it is literally streets away, but this bird's eye view That is being used It doesn't say that in the survey. It doesn't say a bird's eye view It says a thousand feet which makes it sound like those surrounding eight neighbors, which is reasonable Three or four streets away seems unreasonable. Um, so I just think that the accuracy of that question is a little misleading um in you The house my main my main point was I thought that was quite Quite misleading because I probably thought that was reasonable when I took the survey and then when it affected my father It was very much like a shock um For myself I have lived in centrosa most of my life recently moved to tahoe Our home is a short term rental with a permit I use it all the time to visit my parents who are elderly and have lived in centrosa You know decades and decades paid into it and it would be a huge burden on me to not be able to come to my hometown That's not what you're really addressing. Not sure why we're going up to barbecues. Even the fire guy said Barbecues aren't really a big risk. I'm not sure why we're going up to barbecues And um, I'm assuming my time's up. So thank you for your time your research And managing all this we do appreciate it. It's just A little can be very confusing that thousand foot radius was definitely misleading. Thank you Ted you're next followed by charles Ted you've been asked to unmute. Please go ahead when you're ready Hi, my name is Ted and I currently manage about six percent of the short term rentals in centrosa with zero neighbor complaints Due to our company policy, which I would love to discuss with council when I have more time I'm not here to argue with the opposition of scrs. I'm here to compromise and create an environment Where we have a win-win for both sides as evidenced by the current Policy our regulation is working We have a long way. We've come a long way since the process of str regulation I'm going to stress the five main items we're looking at today limiting per owner Permit renewals fines totes and fire limiting per hour owner. We have 28 Current properties that are owned or 28 current owners that own more than one short term rental and most of them own Just two There's 180,000 people in centrosa. Why are we not grandfathering in the property owners who've invested millions into these short terminals that they own permit renewals We need to organize How we're actually renewing these permits If we had either an annual basis that was that everything linked up or if that was too much for the city to organize Maybe we break that into quarters and then we break that into four zones of the city So it's easier for the property owners to know when their renewals are coming up Fines these need to be associated with uh The act or they need to have discretion on them We had a property owner who was fine for too much restriction in their marketing Totes, this is a conversation we keep circling around. Let's build it into the code But it makes it mandatory to pay direct from the rental sites like airbnb and very the rbo. We have no Restrict or we have no way to To actually hold people accountable as of right now and then fire Imagine running a house for a weekend and not being able to cook outside at all for an evening This is just gone too far. I think we need to like scale it back and think about things on more of a Rational level than than trying to limit things too much. Thank you for your time Charles you're speaking next followed by lauren Charles you've been asked to unmute. Please go ahead when you're ready Charles carter Yeah, this is charles carter 530 benton In san aroza I'm here this evening to support the council's efforts to regulate lodging and residential areas of the city My perspective is both as that of a homeowner and as a planning commissioner Committed to enacting land use policies that protect neighborhood character and promote the vitality of san aroza While the commission did have opportunity to weigh in on the current draft short-term rental ordinance in may My recommendation for adoption should not be construed to suggest that the ordinance in its current form is ideal Or represents the type of regulation most widely desired by the community While staff is to be commended on in its creativity professionalism An ambition in creating an order and ordinance that they feel is implementable and manageable There is considerable opportunity and precedent for more restrictive regulations That are more consistent with established policies and likely fit within current operational structures The ongoing debate on the matter of strs has raised many reasonable questions about how they can operate appropriately in residential neighborhoods And shown how many property owners have made financial plans and investments that assume a commercial return from the residences The ordinance should as a first priority protect the residential use that the general plan policies and zoning code are intended to promote Secondarily it should make clear For property owners how and under what conditions the properties may be used for income or commercial activities And how those activities would be regulated by city departments Home occupations child care and rehab facilities have been cited as examples of supporting commercial uses Operating compatibly These are not Comparable to non-hosted strs where there is no end keeper and the responsibility for proper operation falls largely to the city The renters and the neighbors the council could in its wisdom Charles your time has ended Lauren you'll be speaking next Followed by Carl Lauren you've been asked to unmute go ahead when you're ready. Hi, my name is Lauren I'm speaking in support of short-term rentals unhosted in wine countries Sonoma county and santa rosa in particular Like uber task rabbit and instacart airbnb and short-term rentals become a part of the modern way of life and travel Str operators should not be made out to be villains They buy in larger responsible neighbors who make needed improvements to homes and take better care of those homes and yards Than the average owner or renter They increase property values and the eiler report will show there's no negative impact on housing on the housing stock I support a grace period With vines for those whose business license owners who may have accidentally missed their renewal this year I support permit transference to anyone on the title of a home or relative of a current permit holder And I would support owners owning up to three strs as well Thank you very much to council staff and certainly to code enforcement for all of your hard work Especially in the last seven or eight months Eliminating nuisance and bad operators who do need to get out of town Let's continue to welcome tourists and families with open arms improved at santa rosa is an open and inclusive community By continuing to allow short-term rentals to operate and then as far as barbecues go We're taking it ridiculously far by limiting By limiting barbecue grills. You got to keep the grills. You should be able to keep gas fire pits And if anything limit wood burning Fires outdoors so that we can we can be respectful of Nature and our neighbors. So let's like I said, let's uh continue to welcome other families because that's really who we're hosting at strs Um in our community improved that we're open and inclusive. Thank you Carl will be speaking next Followed by dam Carl you've been asked to unmute. Please go ahead when you're ready Hello, my name is Carl Yeager um Point number one We've heard tonight that hosted rentals are not the problem And yet we make we have a very limited view of what a hosted rental is Other jurisdictions have expanded what a hosted rental can be san francisco, for example allows a renter To get permission from his landlord so that he he or she can participate in that economic activity San francisco also allows an adult family member to be a host The idea is to have a person there not that it has to be just the owner of record The next point renewal dates are not clear Fortunately, I have submitted mine and I'm within but I feel bad for all of the people who have missed it I received in december an email from the city saying that I would get a quarterly reminder I will send it to everyone on the council No quarterly reminder then came That is very confusing Um, additionally, I have found the renewal process Harder more arduous more confusing than the initial application It's really hard. I will forward to you an email that I got from staff Telling me all the different things I have to do that were different from the initial application. It's really hard Complaints that elected officials are getting please verify with the city staff that they are real complaints Every single complaint sent to my elected official Was verified by the city as either false or vexatious In a lot of cases you have a lot of people Making claims about Complaints that just are not real. These are privileged people who just want what they want I would ask you to verify the complaints that you're getting and make sure that they're real because This law has made it really hostile out there We speaking next followed by herbert Dan you've been asked to at one of our Was I great? It's dan Can I start Yes, go ahead. Okay, great. Thanks guys greetings city council mayor rogers and council people I am a short term operator and responsible manager Of a number of properties in sonoma county I see there is a heated disagreement between neighbors experiencing negative effects From a small but annoying group of non-hosted renters And diligent responsible owner operators providing a vital service welcoming guests to sonoma county That disgruntled neighbors have every right to complain The owners who were given permits have a right to manage their homes Why is this happening? because of technology Technology has created a better way The ability for an extended family of grandparents nephews siblings etc to all stay in one location Is a more preferable way than spreading over three hotel rooms When uber first came on the scene there was tremendous tumult over time However, it became a part of everyday life We don't restrict everyone from using a cell phone But we do restrict cell phone use While driving a car Pandora's box has been opened and it's not going back inside. So what do we do now? I agree with gary who pointed out given our current situation enforcement is the key During this meeting it was brought up by code enforcement They're they're in a maintenance holding pattern because they've had such a dramatic reduction in the number of complaints There are party houses But a large percentage of rentals Are for extended families with toddlers young kids grandparents who can enjoy their time together in one place So council focus on how to reduce the noise from parties after 9 p.m And you'll fix the majority of this problem Number two barbecues. What's the difference between a regular homeowner and a guest homeowner using a lighter? Does the council really think people visiting from outside Sonoma county don't know how to use a barbecue as well as current residents Thank you for your time Thanks. We'll be her followed by lindsay Herbert you've been asked to join me. Please go ahead when you're ready Thank you. My name is Herbert terriere. I'm an attorney in Healdsburg, California I provided a letter to the mayor and city council members on behalf of several property owners I want to briefly touch on a few points here I want to thank the mayor and the council for Taking all of the time that they have on this When I look at the I've been here. I was there in person at the meeting earlier and then I left The in listening to the questions posed by the council and the responses by the city staff The record is actually pretty clear that the program is working Describing the ongoing enforcement activities as being in a holding pattern Shows that things are functioning if there are bad actors Enforce and remove that's the way to treat that There are aspects of the register of the proposed modifications and legislation that are arbitrary There really is no rational relationship to limiting a property owner to only having one One rental I'm not certain if there's ever been an articulated problem as to what that's about or why Similar to the prohibition against having an LLC or a corporation as long as an individual is accountable And responsible there shouldn't be any problem with doing that I've represented property owners who owned LLCs In short and held their properties in short term for their short term rentals in Santa Rosa And when the regulations changed they had to remove their properties from the LLC, which was Contrary to their good planning I've encouraged the council not to take any action today if they need to study things further To get something that's more focused and more appropriate to the circumstances I think that would be much more favorable than finding the city and litigation Over some of the problems that are presented Time is complete. Thanks Lindsay is next followed by jace story Lindsay Thank you very much So the reality is is that we need progress Just like the seven story apartment building that is being built in downtown santa rosa Is the largest of its kind and i'm sure there were plenty of santa rosa residents Probably some that are even in the room now that were against that project But we need infill housing just like that Similarly the face of travel is changing and short term rentals make it easier for families to travel to santa rosa adopting an ordinance with regulations like you are is Really going to the gentleman's earlier car analogy if cars were put on the road without traffic signals There would be accidents the solution isn't to remove or limit cars on the road It is to put in traffic signals or create regulations which is which is exactly what you are doing Finally with the renewals As others suggested obviously there's been quite a bit of challenges regarding that I would suggest if possible maybe do renewals on a quarterly basis based on the homeowner's last name Uh, something like that that might be easier for them to remember and then I am very curious what the planning entitlement permits Are that the city issues that must be renewed before expiration where it is no longer valid Similarly to what the short term rental permits are like. Thank you so much Jay story is next followed by david Go ahead when you're ready Great. Thank you. I would just like to um second the uh the person who was pointing out that Non-hosted rentals are renting homes It allows people to come into the area and rent a home to bring their family to stay together to enjoy a place and and have community in a remote location hotels and and motels do not offer that so Non-hosted rentals actually provide something and bring people to our area who wouldn't otherwise come So let's try to you know find ways to allow that to happen and still be respectful of neighbors but to Do it in a way that still allows that to occur. Thank you David you're Being asked to unmute. Please go ahead when you're ready Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes, I like terrific. Thank you very much. I'm sorry. It's a around meeting tonight, so I'll be very brief The city planners have a vision for Santa Rosa and that includes neighborhoods being limited to Family dwellings neighborhoods that support people that live here um Short-term rentals non-hosted short-term rentals do not fit into that vision And they don't fit into the vision because they're not consistent with the zoning code or the general plan It's as simple as that staff no one has made a credible argument as to why non-hosted short-term rentals Are consistent with the zoning code or the general plan. So you start from there and you try to Create some rules and regulations that would allow A limited number of non-hosted short-term rentals to exist sure There are reasons that people would like to have them, but they just are too Disruptive on a large scale They need to be limited. They need to be strictly regulated and there are two three four ways of doing that and so I encourage the council to Take a look at those two three or four ways. They've all been suggested before and adopt one of them moving ahead with a one-owner rental or any middle of the road kind of thing that just lets everybody into the short-term business is not the way to go Thousands and thousands of residents have expressed their desire to have non-hosted short-term rentals limited So let's get it done Thank you very much. Thank you. We have no additional speakers on zoom Excuse me and no pre-recorded messages for this item Thank you. I will now close the public comment. I apologize. We have one additional speaker Anon Hi there, my name is camille and put an on because I didn't know how to put my name in there Thanks for letting me talk tonight. I'm a non-hosted str operator And I wanted to talk about the barbecues and the banning of that Before other folks jumped in so i'm glad other folks commented on that Um, I think that the fire chief and the fire department worked really hard on the ordinance as it was for the barbecue and grills I agree with the mayor that I love grilling I think it's a great way to enjoy property and to spend time with family and friends In a at a property. Um, I put in a natural gas line That's a compliance with the ordinance. So I'm requesting that city council reconsider that change regarding barbecue and grills I also want to make a comment on economic benefits of strs compared to longer-term rentals I suggest that the city hire economists to conduct to conduct the study And um, I just want to add that I've been approached to turn my short-term rental into a longer-term rental but I haven't wanted to do that because That would take away work from the cleaners that I have that come multiple times a month As well as my laundry service small business That helps me with that I also am requesting how the city came up with By removing the 1000 foot buffer that we would somehow get 800 plus strs I just don't quite understand how that was determined And I think it's a big a miss to not have more information or analysis Conducted on the violations that have been recorded so far So we can get more insight about what those violations were and who were they, you know, what locations And are we having bad actors? Thank you We have one additional speaker jail Dale, please go ahead when you're ready Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. Thank you. All right. I'm really sleep deprived. So bear with me I really appreciate all that everyone has done and put an effort towards this Economic development group and city council amazing. I know this is a hard one Um, I just want to give my little stories. So I actually left San Francisco a couple years ago for some peace and quiet moved Santa Rosa moved to a house that I thought was going to be my nirvana And I moved into a house that was adjacent to a party house It was advertised as sleeps 18 comfortably 18 one eight and numerous weekends all the way through the pandemic there were wedding after wedding There was no fence between the properties. There was people drifting into my my yard There was live DJs. There was weddings. There was parties Drunks there was people throwing up. There were people screaming on and on and on so I just want to say You know, there there are the bad actors and They are not the community. They are not this neighborhood. They are not Santa Rosa. I absolutely love Santa Rosa now I have grown to just be so engaged with this community and the people that show up here It's hit or miss. You never know who's going to show up. It's all on the the just honor society of 10 people are going to show up at the adjacent non-hosted Airbnb We need to just eliminate the non-hosted simple. It's very simple. It's not supposed to be a hotel and motel in a residential area I don't know what to say. So I just hope the city council will do the right thing and eliminate non-hosted Appreciate it. Thank you so much I am now seeing no additional speakers to be in zoom Thank you so much. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 10 12 I'm going to go ahead and bring it back to council for further questions or comments council member Fleming Thank you to everybody who took the time. I know it's late. I appreciate regardless of your position that you came out My question is one more about the Idea of having an Airbnb in a residential neighborhood You said that it does require a minor use permit but it can But it doesn't require a zoning code amendment or any sort of zoning change. It can be just in a straight r1 r2 Is that the case You're referring to a bed and breakfast? Yes, the bed and breakfast is allowed in our residential zones with a minor use permit And can an existing structure that has been used as a residential Habitation be converted into one of those with a minor use permit? Yes Okay, and do we see that happen with any regularity Not in my tenure here, which is only 10 years Okay, do we have any sense why they don't get converted Through our legally allowable pathway That's consistent with our general plan Or is it really expensive or difficult And I don't know that we would have to answer that question In the time that I've been here. I also am not I can't think of a bed and breakfast That has come through with a minor use permit, but we could certainly do the research to see And you know why they don't I I don't have the answer to that question. Okay. Thank you Anything else from council? All right Go ahead councilmember alfraz Thank you madam vice mayor if you could Remind us of the five points that you would like to for us to address tonight. I would appreciate it Give me a moment while I sift through my papers Okay, so um, we just had five potential considerations for council One being outdoor burning And whether the council wanted to bring back in things like barbecues Um, the second was the maximum non-hosted short-term rental permits allowed per owner And what do we want to keep that at the recommended one or increase it or remove it completely? Um, number three was the maximum number of non-hosted short-term rentals allowed city-wide Currently the cap is 198 Um, and you know whether the council wants to keep that Elevate it or remove it Um, the fourth was duration of short-term rental permits Um, and again, that's right now. It's at 12 months. Um, and Council could consider Providing a grace period like what was suggested tonight by some Speakers Increasing that to a longer period of time or or any other options And then the fifth was the code enforcement penalty schedule Whether we wanted to provide Variety of tiers for more minor violations council member I'll rise. Thank you, madam vice mayor We didn't touch on the amount of the state maximum penalties we kind of just kind of Under this the state maximums are $1,500 for first violation 3,000 for a second and 5,000 for a third and subsequent within a 12 month period. Thank you council member crepeki Yeah, just one quick question. Um Do we track, um, how many vacation homes? Second homes investment properties that are in the city of santa rosa Not that i'm aware of Do we track Vacant homes people that just might might be for sale or No, we don't uh, to my knowledge have a mechanism to track that Okay, so we have no idea of knowing how much of the housing stock those take up as well I would say that's correct. Thank you. All right seeing nothing further from council I'm going to go ahead and ask council member rogers to put the motion on the floor All right. Thank you so much vice mayor so I think uh What i'm going to do if it works for the council And we've done this with kind of complex Ordinances that might need a little bit of sausage making done from the dais is Go through And hear from each council member what? Using the existing ordinance that's in front of us What changes or amendments would you be interested in seeing? and If it works well, what i'll do is try to collate all of that information into A ordinance that I think is something that we all can get behind As is often the case. I don't think anybody will get their way a hundred percent But I do know that we all share some additional concerns So those five questions that staff asked it'd be helpful for me to hear from council members What you'd like to see or where you're headed on that as well as if you have anything in addition To add into it or to throw on to the table for discussion But we'll start with the assumption of The ordinance that's been presented by staff and then work through additional changes at that point And so Vice mayor if you want to call on people and go through it I'll take some notes and then at the end of that if that works for you I'll see if there's some level of consensus we can throw into a emotion Is everyone okay with that Vice our mayor. Thank you Okay, let's go ahead and start with the um barbecues and outdoor burning or you want to go ahead. Okay Council member O'Crapkey any thoughts Thanks vice mayor, um I think out of the out of the outside of the five items you want to address the What I mentioned earlier about the uh the the trusts and the transferable Transferability between beneficiaries and trust and stuff like that is important Charles I think made an excellent point that I didn't even think about which was domestic partners conservators legal guardians I think that needs to be addressed as well and then the transferability between A a surviving spouse from the decedent Or or our domestic partner or anything like that. I think those are fairly easy to track with legal documents as to Who is married to whom or who has some sort of legal standing with with somebody else? Let's see With I'm not going to use the term barbecue because that I think there's southerners that are going to drive that's going to drive them nuts sorry grills or Not we can use either gas or or solid fuels. I think after hearing The response from staff about Hosted rentals and open flames. I I don't think a another set of Um for hosted rentals Another set of rules and regulations that we'd have to essentially underwrite or verify whether it's hard plumbed or this or that as well as the I guess inability to sufficiently enforce Any sort of code violations with a hosted rental? Um, I I'd be okay with with waving it For hosted rentals Non-hosted rentals I'm a hundred percent against solid fuels Um, so, uh, you know wood charcoal forgets stuff like that things that cast off embers I understand people say well, why can't a home why can a homeowner do it and why can't uh, uh a guest do it? Um Homeowners know what red flag days are homeowners know what we've gone through homeowners know what the dangers are I can tell you right now if I started up a a charcoal briquette grill in a red flag day My neighbors would lose their mind And I think it's because of our community and how aware we are of the issues that surround us That it makes it safe for us to do it But not guests because they have no idea what could happen. They may not even know what has happened um So I think with definitely with solid fuels on on non-hosted. I'm I'm uh against that Um For hosted non-hosted rentals per owner um I think With the ones that already exist. I'd like to see a freeze on that So it's their their grandfathered in if we're gonna allow people to be grandfathered in within 200 feet of each other We should be able to grandfather people in their own multiple Um, whether it's a taking or not. I just don't think it's if they've Haven't been deemed to be a good operator or an operator in bad standing Then I don't see what the point is of taking away going forward. I'd be interested to see what the rest of council's Appetite is for how any future Ownership possibilities are In terms of the duration of the permit, um, I'm fine with the year I don't see I mean an annual renewal. I think that gives us enough time to review It gives us enough time to get a a good sense of of the behavior of the owner and the property Fines I think it's been fairly well expressed that there there needs to be some sort of A little more detail when it comes to the fines of you know, I there's no way I would be able to say I'm okay with Somebody typing you know Four and accidentally hit five and it's not conforming and therefore they get fined $1,500. I I mean Look at how any of us do emails and how many typos we have right like that's just something I don't want to find somebody that much for Now noise complaints and and and um, you know other things at that level. I think the discretion I think the discretion I I trust your discretion on what is more severe versus what is not But I don't want to punish people for for minor infractions I do I do agree with I believe was councilmember rogers who said that the first Um, the first infraction of not having a permit that should be number one Um, I don't think that a warning with not not being on your record is appropriate. I mean, you know Ignorance of the law is not you know equal innocence um And then which ones am I missing? Um the cap um The I asked the question about vacancies and second homes and vacation homes and stuff like that I I think a number is insufficient I think a percentage is much more reasonable because then we can look at how much housing we're building And say okay, if it goes up by x amount then we can have y amount become available just to say, you know If if we you know, let's say it's 200 because I'll round up from 198 and then we build 5 000 homes Does that make sense? It doesn't make sense to me. It should be a percentage available What that percentage is I'm open to hearing from the rest of my colleagues as to what they feel comfortable with but I just think it It's easier math and easier to accept as a percentage than it is a number That we just decide councilmember Alvarez Let me begin by addressing the comment of You wouldn't want to live next to an str I Just last week I had to kick two people out of my boat who are in the backyard living for apparently over a week They weren't paying me rent But this is what i'm dealing with where I come from. So maybe I wouldn't want to live next to an str But I show you I understand the difficulties What we have before us is a prior property right issue And I ask myself We have retail zoning We have residential zoning industrial zoning And it is true When you purchase a property you look at appreciation of value You look at rental income But you don't look at the short term Revolving tenants And how this becomes a cash register But then I have to ask myself the question that's the way I feel But is that local government governance? For me it's a difficult line between The right to enjoy property my property and the way that my neighbor enjoys his or her property With that being said When it comes to cap We come from a capitalistic society that tells us we have the right to seek financial freedom We see people who missed the date of their Renewal periods So I'll address those both in one sense I don't think that we as governments should be able to put a cap On what people do with the properties But for the good players in the society in the game There should be a grace period of 30 days Should they be good players? We've heard the maximum from the state of california, which we do not equate to I would like to see the penalties increased for those bad players If the good players feel that they are doing their due diligence to provide A property which respects their neighbors they should be applauded and respected and appreciated Those that don't don't In regards to barbecues Again Who am I as a council member to tell you how you eat your food?  And the fires did not affect my district. They did not affect me Personally And I'll tell you I was within the fires, but I didn't lose my home It just got filled with smoke But yet I cannot tell you how To break your rib It's not my job to do so In regards to the duration of penalty or permits. I'm sorry. I think I touched on that with the grace period For a permanent tea that's done a good job and respect that such as are hosted After one year of being a good Asset to the city san rosa Or actually after the second year, maybe we give them another year. Maybe the permit process now goes to three years three to five We know that they are great at what they do and we want to keep them We see this in different permit processes throughout the state of california Something that we could practice here Especially when we have mothers who have cancer And are able unable to open their mouth. I understand that I see where where her sons were coming from But again At what point do we as local governor govern government Tell you what you could do and that's definitely a fine line and and this is a lesson that I learned from our Our former council member of Sawyer We must respect property rights, but we have to respect community and I believe the definition of the community is where we live So no caps Actually, that's the street term as well, but we'll say no caps um again and if If the penalties are increased There will not be a serious about enforcement and that's where I think code enforcement should be given an opportunity to have more discretion And the way that they go about their interpretation of what's happening at the property. We as council members are not there We heard uh false calls But the boots on the ground is what ultimately has the same in the subject or or the issue And and I and I do want to see more enforcement when it comes to those bad players It's somebody said it earlier. It's the first year that we're doing this going to the second year If it's about weeding out the the bad weeds, and that's exactly the process that has to happen now There must be teeth to the issue. So so so that's my feeling and I'm sorry if I'm not that clear if you have any questions I'm here to answer anything. Thank you council member step I think that council member alvarez and council member ocrepti pretty much summed up my thoughts on the matter too um just Going through it in a bullet point fashion. Um, yes, let's let's revert back on the the uh the grill and the Gas grills or propane grills and even gas fire pits sound like something that we need to be considering as allowable for uh for scrs Um We need to if if if during our discussions We choose to limit the number of of non-hosted strs per owner Then we do have a we do need a grandfather in the the current owners. I'm in agreement with that as well um With respect to the time or the length of the permit Especially if we have staff if it's if we have staff bottlenecks on issuing the permits and there's there's um It's a burden within the city to say nothing of the burden on the str applicants We should be considering allowing longer longer permit times at least in some capacity If it's an initial one year and then revert then it goes up to two or three years or just two years At a crack that sounds reasonable both for from our perspective from the city's perspective and from the str perspective Um, certainly better differentiate differentiation in the infraction and fine structure So minor administrative matters should be should be treated and fined differently than than major behavioral issues at the strs I I agree with that as well I think that's did I hit the main bullet points? I think that I think that's it for the moment. Thank you I'll go ahead with a couple of mine and then i'm gonna go to by our pardoning mayor rogers And then i'll go to victoria and then pardon me councilmember flimming and then back to you chris So, um, I would like to see as increase the permit fees It seems like those are not being consistent with the amount of work that staff's putting into actually processing that So i'd like to see if we could actually get to a point where we're We're able to pay for the work that we're doing to issue these permits As far as the barbecues and the outdoor burning anything on a hosted short-term rental To me we can't enforce any of that if somebody's at that house. We don't know if they're using the barbecue They're using a fire pit. They're using their outdoor fireplace So i'm not interested in us trying to enforce any of that as far as for the non-hosted I think any type of grilling or an outdoor barbecue doesn't make sense to not allow people to cook their food when they've rented something As far as fire pits go if it's not a gas fire pit I'm not interested in seeing somebody put wood in a Outdoor fire pit mostly because if they're not from the area They might not be as cognizant of the major issues that we've had around fire So I am interested in you working with fire marshal so that we can come to a best conclusion for safety for the community And I do come from an area that has Had several fires in it as far as The actual amount of permits that we're allowing for short-term rentals I have a little different theory on this one and it goes to if you are a an offender If you have three your third strike for me, you'd be out and you never get your permit back again You're just done So that puts it on the owners of the property You know the rules if you can't comply with those rules. You don't get to play So that's the way I feel about that one So I'm going to be no more of this will go back in a year or then it's not enforcement. It's in the ordinance. It's just clean As far as how many should an owner have it sounds like Council is interested in grandfathering in Those that have multiple ones I would prefer to reduce it down to say even three and mostly it's because as we reduce down that I'd like to continue to reduce reduce down the number of permits that we allowed I don't care about the 198. I'd see us go even lower than that. So as we lose And somebody who's a bad player then if we are 198 and one is lost You're down to 197 if you're down to 196 or whatever and so and so forth same with If you own multiple ones and you need to get rid of a couple then we reduce down our number of short-term rentals As far as the penalties I'd increase the penalties so that it actually is consistent with the amount of work that we're putting in for that And it's paying for it I think the penalties aren't hefty enough then enforcement isn't going to be seen as an actual threat. And so That's back on the owners of running a business. You've got to be able to take care of your things You can put the cost off on to the people that are renting that are violating that if you know that It's going to impact your business thing. You've got to crack down as well um as far as I think did I hit all of your actual Questions as far as what you needed from counsel on feedback Oh a grace period I do see that that could be problematic for this year for those that maybe were understanding the process So we might want to look at a grace period Of a 30 day as councilmember avarice said But I think that looking at our current cap number and seeing how many people may be lost their permits And and maybe mitigating some of that right now might be in order but moving forward This is the last year since it is the first year as far as i'm concerned We give somebody that opportunity to make it good again, and then that's it And now I will go to uh mayor rogers Thank you vice mayor mcconnell Um, so first outdoor burning. I don't think that we should do anything with that I think that people should be allowed to To cook and have Outdoor burning. I I really I understand that hesitancy, but I also know that the people who Who's home that Is being rented out.  So, um, I wouldn't want to Do anything with that. Um maximum allowed per owner. Um, I Don't agree with that. Um with the one I think it should be the One to three one or maybe two Um, and uh, and I say that probably more so because there are people that have already been doing this for a while And so, um, I think if we had a grandfather clause then that would Uh make me feel a little bit better about that so people aren't penalized for um doing what they Did know was the ordinance and the laws of Santa Rosa Um, and now they're being penalized because we decided to change it. Um And then I have to agree with uh councilmember o'crapki about maybe a percentage and I don't know what that percentage is Um, maybe if we look at what 190 198 is and if that is a number that everyone likes, uh to go more so along Along those grounds. Um And the reason why I want to cap in the first place Is because I believe it was councilmember flaming that asked the question about where are the funds coming from? Um To facilitate this this program and they're coming out of the general fund And I can find a lot of other things to spend money from the general fund on Not for people to Uh secure their retirement or but things like that So, um, but I don't want to interfere with them having the ability to do that also um Permit limit, um I think That it should stay at a year. I do think that there should be a grace period because of what is that sake if they um don't need it and I wouldn't Be mad at us sending out Like a reminder email or something that just Something that's not too labor intensive for our staff because we already know that they're doing a lot But that says, you know for the prior month it says your Your permit is going to expire next month and I know we don't do that for the rest of them but the reason why I'm looking at this one like that is because um like the gentleman did explain his His mother was in the hospital and she missed it. I mean life happens and things happen um And I just feel like that is not what we're about or that's what we shouldn't be about that we should be about Making it Santa Rosa a great place for people to to live work and in play um and so That's why I think that there should uh be some leniency there and not just this year I think it should be every year um and then consider um Providing fine schedule for minor violations. I think it should be at the discretion of staff I think we have wonderful staff and I think the First defense on a violation. I think staff should be able to um Look at all the facts and and say whether or not they are going to Have it be a Reduce fine or are they going to have it be a warning or what they're going to have it be because they're the ones that are out there um, and they're looking at specifically what's going what's going on and I think that is probably it but I'll look to staff to see if I can answer the questions Oh, I can't see so someone actually has to say something because I can't see Let me let me check for you mayor Were you able to get feedback from the mayor on all the questions or was there something that she missed? um, yes, I think um, we we've got all of that for All of the comments that we've received thus far I've heard a number of comments about a grace period and so I'd be interested to hear Kind of what the council is thinking about for a grace period One council member brought up 30 days So anyway that I just want to make sure that we get clear direction on specifically what the council Wants. Thank you. And I do have a clarifying question for mayor rogers. Um, she was mentioning A max per owner somewhere between one and three and I was wondering if she meant Even those that were being grandfathered because we do have people that own more than three at this time Or if she is just talking about new ones moving forward Oh So I think if someone already had multiple Uh multiple properties then what what is the max actually? Right now we don't have a maximum at all but in the proposed ordinance. We uh, restrict it to one What is the max? I mean, what is the max number that a person actually owns? Sorry. What is the the highest in the city five? Okay, um, so Sorry, it's 742 a.m. Here. So my brain is working not really So I think that uh, we should allow if that person owns No, I don't want to say that because I really do think one to three is a good number. I'll defer to my my colleagues. Um Because five is is a lot and there are other Uh ways that you can use a property Um besides having a short term rental so um, I think I'll stick with one to three and 30 day grace period seems like adequate it seems like enough for me Thank you, mayor. I'll go ahead and go to councilmember fliming now thank you so much and You know, I want the comments that are going to come to be heard with the respect and care that I have for each of you but also Understood that I'm significantly disappointed because The when we heard the staff report what we saw is that disproportionately based on the survey results And the map this is an issue that impacts my district Three times more than the next highest one of yours and When you guys come to me and say you need a change whether it's to a low riding ordinance or you need a police substation community center Little before your time golf course improvements You know, I don't say this doesn't impact my district. I say we're a city and how can I help? I need your help Because my residents are suffering tremendously And so going down a laundry list of how we're gonna permit something that we just heard wasn't really consistent What the general plan is a flawed premise to begin with And that's not something that I can support what I could support is An unlimited number of these with a thousand foot setbacks in commercial zones and the downtown stationary specific plan because that meets our goals That we have set forth for economic development in particular And it helps support our tourism industry in a way that I don't believe is particularly disruptive I'm also in support of hosted rentals And I don't have as in even hosted rentals where the adjoining property Is one that's owned, you know, you don't have to live on the property But if it's directly adjacent and shares a property line with you, I'm fine with that I also don't have any problem with barbecuing at hosted rentals But the the real reason that that issue came up is because when people come from out of town Not only are they not just aware of Of our fire risks necessarily sometimes they might be but also the there's Um An attraction that happens around novelty and it's with hot tubs as well and that people come in and they're excited I have a hot tub in my backyard, but I I don't get in it too frequently But when I go on vacation, there's a hot tub. I use it every time And so the intensity of the use really changes When people are on vacation and experiencing something for the first time You know that effect of staying in a hotel or staying in a in a vacation, you know, it changes us That's why we go on vacation Because it revitalizes it invigorates us And so I'm asking you guys to consider going back to our our founding documents our charter which calls for a general plan And try to adhere to those and to adhere to our principles around economic development When we look at these other cities that weren't impacted by the 2017 tubs fire The way that we were they all got it together and they have really stringent um Rules about this and I don't think that they have lesser council members than we do I think that they weren't put in the spot that we were put in tonight of having people who have invested money Into these non-conforming uses and then us having to decide Do we preserve the quality of life of the people who are long-term regular residents or do we take away the property The enhanced property value that these non-compatible uses are generating And so I ask you to really consider if this was plaguing your neighborhood your residents the way that it was mine And I said to you well It's not me. It's not my neighborhood How would how would that make you feel about your ability to work with your council to meet your residents needs? so I think With that I'll add a couple of small details, but I'm not going to answer all the staff's questions because I'm I don't believe I'll be supporting This as it is I think I mentioned the fire pits unhosted I don't have any issue with hosted or adjacent even and I'd actually like to see adjacent added in and I'd like to see um No cap in the downtown station area plan with a thousand foot Separators and then if that doesn't work Um or if it's going so well that we could reduce the separators And that would be good, but I'd also like to see a limit of six people and I have a reason for that Six persons. I've never been to a rager or heard of a rager that had six or fewer people It's a good number for going on a girls or guys weekend It's a good number for having a small intergenerational family or a single family with a bunch of kids But it really doesn't lend itself to big problematic uses Also under this it would allow people are coming to interview for jobs who are Coming to care for a dying parent or a new baby Or to check out the area for living compatibility To to stay there and and experience our city in a different way than a hotel And I think that that's really appropriate in the downtown in our commercial zones Then Let's see so six persons is pretty important to me Um, and then I'd like to see an affidavit certifying that a hosted owner Regardless of what happens. I think that an affidavit with some Significant forms of ID that don't include a utility bill Are pretty important because utility bills are are really meaningless In terms of proof.  Those kinds of things Are pretty strong So I'd like to make sure that we move forward in a way that really respects our neighborhood character that doesn't allow for These unhosted Literal but not airbnbs But literal bed and breakfast that have not gone through the minor use permit program To operate and I'd like to direct existing owners to our our minor use program for bed and breakfast and If the council in their wisdom sees fit to continue This plague upon my neighborhood I would request that you not remove Them from any existing owners. I don't think that people who have been operating these businesses If you do allow them picking some arbitrary number that one person could have but rather focusing on the The actual Infractions and having it be the case that If they behave badly that we do revoke their permits and that they can never have another permit again And that that would go for for all of their properties I think we need to be really clear about enforcement. I also think that Whatever fee we charge Needs to not just cover staff time but cover enforcement which would necessitate a differential between Unhosted and hosted. I don't want to be paying for this out of the general fund But I don't expect to be supporting this tonight unless You can come around understanding that this is a city-wide issue and that we all have to be there for each other Are you done council? I don't believe I spoke to the the the penalties But um, I'm I'm fine to give staff the discretion It makes me a little nervous that people will be fighting you frequently over it I do wish that it would come in the form of a study session So that you could have gone back and come back with a fee schedule I think that that's If this had been and could be a study session that we would be in much better stead, but um You know, if you prefer to have discretion I'll give it to you. I think that it opens a can of worms that that'll be Generating a whole bunch of emails Thank you councilmember Fleming councilmember alvarez Thank you, madam mayor. Uh, first first. I want to uh Second in a sense what our vice mayor stated about Too many violations you're out of the program. I think that's a uh a strong Position to take But being one that I think it shows how serious we are about Compliance Secondly, I want to address councilmember Fleming's comment I'm only going off the information that they gave us the reality is that 4% in comparison to what you have to deal with Is very minimal in comparison. I didn't mean to discount what you have to hear What what I'm what I'm stating by my comments is what I'm hearing which is minimal to zero about STRs, but that's the beauty of district elections that for me to bring the table of what I'm not hearing But you have an opportunity to out towards state. Look, and this is actually what I'm hearing And and that I should that's that's the beauty of district elections And I think that's where we can definitely appreciate What we as the representatives of our community can bring to the table to educate one another So it's definitely not me discounting what what your your your constituents are telling you as you hadn't yet spoken before Any of us made our comment, especially Myself but no for myself It's definitely the position that we've dealt and I told you the story of the people that were living in my boat You know, this is the reality that I deal with not the STRs That's another issue that we deal with but we deal with it together So no, I'm not discounting your position or what you hear in fact I'm very appreciative of the recommendations that you make because that definitely educates me On what we as the entire city of san rosa want to do to improve each and every member of our beautiful city. So absolutely. Thank you Mayor rogers Um, I had a question for councilmember flaming when you say six people Is that in children and adults because I wouldn't even be able to fit myself My husband and my children with six people and that's our immediate family. So I I just want to clarify Yeah, that's correct So children and adults Oh, I do mean children and adults I mean, I I understand that you have a large family, but I think that This would cover The great majority of families, but I'm open to another proposition if you're open to my overall suggestion and changing the The ordinance are you open to that? I'm definitely open. I just think that we're more looking at families It's almost It's almost as if people get penalized for having more children, which economically is easier to stay in a short term Rental than it is to book multiple hotel rooms. Sure. I could be flexible about the children count For sure. I think that that you make an excellent point Okay, so that was just my like me back from that one. Are you interested in in changing the to To my position Um definitely interested in seeing the sausage making that councilmember rogers has and I and I would like to say that I do agree with Three and you're done and that's why I would like to give a staff the the option for the warning on the first one because Santa Rosa prides itself on educating people that do business and things in Santa Rosa And so to me the first one would be the educational part So yes, but three and done Then yes, I support you without the question here I'm going to go ahead and move over to councilmember rogers now to Some things up and also give his perspective All right. I appreciate the council's patience and for working through it Um So I'll go ahead by starting By introducing a motion to approve the ordinance with some of the following changes First Having a distinction and I can There you go Yeah We can find each of the sections if we need to but I think because this isn't an urgency ordinance I believe I can just give direction to staff to make The substantive changes and have it come back for the second reading is that right great So the ordinance is presented with the following changes One an amendment that clarifies that the prohibition around Fire however, we want to phrase it for hosted rentals Does not apply And that for non-hosted rentals It is permissive of gas Or propane, but not solid fuels We'll have an amendment that allows the transferability to registered partners or spouses for the multiple The question about multiple STRs will grandfather in The current operators who have multiple STRs But won't touch it or change at the moment Going forward folks who want to add additional ones or would want more than one in the future So grandfather is an existing but then leaves what was proposed by the planning commission moving forward We'll retain the one-year permit review Uh, but We'll create a 30-day window where in which the operators who in their first year Missed the opportunity to renew if their operators in good good standing To come in and file their paperwork and pay their fees And renew their permits We will give Staff discretion to determine between a minor offense And a major offense in terms of how the fines play out We will eliminate any warning that exists in the code for First time violation for not paying your tot or your bia Or not obtaining a permit they'll count as one of your three strikes We'll amend this so that three strikes in a given year and you lose your ability to operate period I heard an interest to Increase the penalties for major violations We'll require an affidavit for proof of a hosted rental Council member Fleming suggestion not just using a a bill but some actual form of idea registration That the fees when we do our annual fee Adoption through the budget process that the fee covers enforcement and permitting So that we aren't pulling from the general fund for STRs And then I did not hear any type of a consensus from council on what to do with the 198 cap So i'm going to leave that one alone for now and see if there's any additional discussion Leave it as it currently exists. I heard some folks want to do percentage Some folks want to raise the number some folks want to lower the number I'm just going to leave it where it's at right now But I will specify that for the folks who were kicked out because they had renewal issues If those folks coming in exceeds the cap that they are also then grandfathered in so the cap may end up moving depending on Folks getting this this grace period And what I heard from council as consensus was one month grace period at the end of your first year on the permit But then not in the future I also I'm comfortable with staff if staff wants to make a recommendation About allowing you to set a consistent date quarterly And have it rotational for people to come in for their permits do instead of the actual specific date Uh and having to track each individual one Let me go through my notes and see if there's anything else All right, that's my motion I saw council member Fleming's hand raised as well as council member Alvarez But do I need a second before we go back to comment, please? I'll second. Thank you I'm going to go to discussion now. So I'll go to council member Fleming Yeah, I just wanted to speak to council member rogers his question about the 198 At a bare minimum what I'd like to see is that upon sale of the property Or that's associated with the permit or upon Um The person and their spouse You know being deceased that the permit ceases to exist not just with that property, but period So that we go from let's say I have one and I sell my property tomorrow Then there's only 197 pure properties Um allowed for that outside of the commercial zone In the downtown station area specific plan Except where in those areas, they are over concentrated less than a thousand feet So that like the county does You know where areas of over concentration in some parts of the county They they hope to over time Reduce Over concentration in areas where it's not working and then at some time a future because I do see that there is a limited Use for these as I mentioned earlier At some point it probably will take many generations for this problem to be relieved, but at some point The council Can then come back and say how many they do affirmatively want Without getting so tangled up in worrying about depriving people of their their earning abilities So I'd like to see a natural attrition of the number Until such a time as the community actively sees a need to add more And I'd be To be honest, I don't entirely know how I feel about that, but I'd be supportive With in the future call it two years after we've been operating the council then has an opportunity to Revisit that number either as a percentage that some folks were interested in or as a real number but in the interim Allowing the people who are operating to continue to operate that when they're in good standing But not to your point creating a more tangled mess Until we have a a concurrence or around the the cap number So are you agreeing that we would then ratchet down over sale and natural death Yes, okay So the permit number goes down Yes, but With some certainty to the public that staff Council will continue to refine what that perfect number is Because there is no consensus on council on what to do with that right now Is everybody comfortable with that? I just want to be really clear. I'm not trying to reduce the number in The commercial zones. I think it's a good use in the commercial zones Yeah, I understand and uh We got into this a little bit in the last conversation when we were doing the urgency ordinance around And I understand that your district is by far the most impacted Largely because of the types of properties the sizes and the people wanting that experience I'm not interested in getting into the spot zoning conversation And I'm specifically not interested in having the downtown specific plan be the reference point Uh that we we cling to I think If we're all in this and looking at it from a city perspective We all need to be operating from the same rules Not just using spot voting Spot zoning to move them into an area where perhaps we think people will complain less I hear that I'm I'm not actually it's not so much about that It's that actually I when you we did the downtown station area specific plan and we look at the purpose of that and the economic generation Opportunities in the downtown. I think that this use accelerates our common goals. So that's what it was. It's not about You know foisting them on the downtown It's that you know with a thousand foot setbacks or first of all, you're not going to get very very many in the downtown because the downtown's Frankly, not that large But it's that it supports and Healdsburg made this finding where they don't allow any of them outside of commercial zones And they said that it specifically it supports their economic goals of intensifying use around Restaurants in the downtown. So I get that we may agree to disagree But I think that we have pretty good planning documents that would support the finding that I'm trying to make councilmember alvarez Yes, through the mayor a question for a council member rogers Would guardians be beneficial to the designated principles? in your in your amendment I'll actually I'll ask councilmember okrepke. Uh, since he was the one who Oh, it's the only one who actually weighed in on that to be honest Um, I would say yeah, I would add legal guardians are and conservators. So anybody that has a legal I might have to look to our city attorney to address this but a legal Uh standing over somebody else's financial interests Right, it would likely it would likely be a guardian that would I'm thinking in terms of who owns property I mean they're a power of attorney someone who has power of attorney doesn't own the property. They're just managing it On behalf so it's never in their name Um a guardian I I'm not familiar enough Um Whether the guardian would hold title it could then go to the Person who is subject to the guardianship um When the guardian ship ends, but we can look at that And I and I think you're hearing the intent from council Yes, what we could do is as you look into it a little bit to bring the second reading so long as in alignment with that intent Yes, I'm going to scroll with that and and as I understand it what we're looking for what you're looking for is Uh, if if the if the owner of record is holding it really on behalf of someone else that if that It can be transferred to the person that they're holding it for I'd like to add that as well if you have a husband and wife But the permit is only in the husband's name He passes away that the wife can take it over right and not and that's that's why I said spouse or domestic partner Yeah Through common law that would be much more clear than the guardianship That kind of relationship or scenario is what I'm looking at and and I do have a second question first staff We're saying that some of the the Applicants were confused about the date that their permit had to be renewed. Is it possible to go through a peranum? Application where we are seeing a prorated from the date to the December 31st sunset Well, so I think right now in the proposal it wasn't to a we'd uh, I'd ask the question about December 31st or end of the the fiscal year and staff expressed that it's actually easier on them right there Right now this way where it's different So I think that'll only become an issue if we did set a specific date For them, but I did want to clarify in the fixing of individuals who had trouble Repermitting or renewing theirs this time I also think we need to build into the ordinance that we will notify people Whether it's when we ask them for collection around to t taxes, but at least provide them with One notification of hey your permit's coming up Yes, we can certainly figure out a way to send out a notification the one thing I did want to clarify is So I was hearing a 30 day grace period just to the council knows We do have we have a wide range of folks who have missed their Exploration date from people who missed it by one day to people who have missed it by 60 to 90 days Um, I don't have the specific list and how how much you know, how long it is in front of me right now But just something to consider if you're wanting to allow those if you set it at 30 days That might still keep some out Yeah, so what I meant is from the second reading adoption or even if you just get uh Approval from council tonight you open a 30 day window where in which anybody who has missed Can come in and do it um because I am concerned that there are folks that When turned away Two months ago would have given up at that point My intent is for us to create a window where in which people who are going through this for the first time Have a fair process To to come back into compliance But for clarification in the ordinance, I believe that we also wanted to build in a 30 day grace period After that's what I was getting from mayor rogers as well as other council members And then I just have one more thing on on what I has suggested is if you have your third strike And you lose your permit you lose it completely Did you add that into the ordinance because that would effectively continuously reduce down our number or our cap? I did yes, okay, and then just for clarification then we would be saying that Over time or through attrition we would start to lose short-term rentals in the city of santa rosa With and again the caveat That this council has not reached consensus on what to do with a cap whether there's a cap or a number of a cap or a percentage or a number and Let's put the ordinance in place Not make things worse for us, but then also keep that specific question around the cap As part of our discussion moving forward I think at second reading what will be helpful is the clarification on the applications that are still outstanding that need to be cleaned up That will give us a total number because if I looked at the number on slide nine you were at 186 Of a total amount, but depending on how many come back We will either hit our current cap or we could be below it based on how many people can clean up that application Or we may be over it and then we'll set the number then Correct. Thank you to be clear though that that number was the combined hosted and non-hosted and the cap applies only to non-hosted So I think that with when we clean them up. We'll probably get pretty close to the cap but not exceeded I think that that's the The hope here Yeah, I don't I don't think there should be any way to exceed that cap because the cap at that time Did represent everyone that had already been approved Or that was in the process. So what we would continue to do at this point is not take any more It sounds like from what the council is saying is is continue to not take in new non-hosted short-terminal permit applications And then I did have another clarifying question about the the grace period I'm thank you for the clarification that we're going to open up a 30 day But then did you want to include in the ordinance moving forward that for an operator's first year? They are allowed a 30 day grace period. Correct. Okay. Thank you. That's what I heard from my colleagues Can I on that? On that window can we extend that to 60 days not the the Rio the re application window you described because the second reading is going to be June 20th, and then we go to july 1st the new fiscal year And then a lot of july there's a lot of staff that tends to not be around The second reading won't be june 20th When do we expect the second reading to be We it will be difficult to take all of this and put it into writing time to publish next week Or you know in order to in the two weeks in order to get to the 20th, and I think that's what Staff has suggested. Yes. I'm sorry. I should have been more clear It would be very difficult for us to do a second reading on june 20th for several reasons So I would anticipate this coming back vetted On july 11th for a second reading Yeah, so I think uh what we'll do then and we can do this in the discussion or in the voting Is bifurcate this into two motions one is the ordinance as we're amending it And then for the issue of fixing the renewal issue Maybe taking that as an urgency directive from council to To staff to be able to clean that up because otherwise we have folks that will Continue to not be able to come into compliance until at least july right I'm looking to the city attorney and the city manager that is just having that in the ordinance or the cleanup for the renewal issue Is that enough for staff to be able to execute that Starting tomorrow hypothetically as opposed to waiting until the second reading No, you are going to have to wait You wouldn't be able to translate into an urgency ordinance tonight. That was not Part of the agenda I don't recommend going that that direction But you could go ahead give the direction Tonight that you want that incorporated in And you could make it retroactive to whatever date you you want So however, that makes sense so that it didn't staff can be telling people We will be accepting this but we can't accept it until Um, that ordinance becomes effective and if you want that piece to become effective on july 11th or maybe Right or But you could also do that piece as an urgency ordinance on july 11th When we come back so that would be effective immediately at on july 11th Yeah, for clarification. We're not able to do the urgency ordinance on june 20th because the preliminary has already gone out Or can we make an amendment to our agenda that's already been published? The pre-limb agenda has not yet been published for the 20th Today's the sixth So we would be able to add the Just the pre-limb tomorrow Tomorrow, so we would be able to add the urgency ordinance to the june 20th For that part of the motion for tonight Again, I think that's going to be difficult to do that And put that together But what i'm suggesting is if you brought the urgency ordinance on July 11th, but made it You know, we can structure it so that it will it will capture the folks that have missed their deadline this year Is that my okay my clarification on that is we don't need the back date that because The ordinance itself is going to say they're already captured The back dating is to help them operate if we get it cleaned up We can't help them get it cleaned up until it comes forward to council So by us waiting until july that extends their ability to continue to operate Is that the problem that i'm hearing? Yeah, what i'm what i'm really looking for is can we give direction to staff? to begin taking in Those renewals to fix them so that folks can start to operate We could have just a couple minutes Mayor rogers, would you like to ask your question while they're conferring? Yes, it was just uh two two points. The first was the grace period rather is 30 days 15 days, whatever I was talking about having it every year because life happens. It just doesn't happen this year And then when we say the three strikes and you're out they lose their permit or ever or or how long? So i'm i'm comfortable with that clarification about the Grace period every year if that's where council wants to go so i'll include that The three strikes what I heard from you and from the vice mayor And I imagine the council member fleming would also agree with this is three strikes in a calendar year And you lose your permit forever Okay, i'm not the current iteration in the that that's in the packet is It three strikes in a year you lose your permit and you have to wait a year But then you can reapply a year later, which would not be allowed under our proposed rules around Loss of permitting and and whatnot that's already been proposed anyway it'd be inconsistent Okay, I just wanted to be very clear with staff if that is the direction of the council that we mean three strikes And you're out like completely you don't get to come back up to that council member fleming I'd like to say two things one is to mayor roger's point Uh, I agree with that and to reiterate you would lose it for all of your properties Forever including any spouse or dependents or conservators or whatever you have That might be able to inherit it and I would change it from 12 months in a calendar year to our rolling 12 month period So you can't okay. I thought I heard calendar year my mistake Look, I I would be I get that this may not be popular and but I would be remiss If I didn't do this i'm going to put a substitute motion on the floor My substitute motion is that we eliminate all non-hosted uses in strictly residential residential zoning areas That we allow unhosted rentals in um commercial zones And that we we maintain consistency with the general plan Mayor roger's is your hand up Oh, no second Did you say second? Yeah So the discussion now is on the floor for the substitute motion from council member Fleming And seconded by mayor roger's I'll move to discussion council member alvarez. Could you repeat the motion on the on the floor, please? Yes, if it gets any traction, we can flush it out a little bit But the motion would be to remove all non-hosted uses from residential areas In order to maintain consistency with the general plan And for clarification, I think you also added language around adding it to the commercial zone area Well by default when you remove it from residential areas It therefore then is in But allowing it in commercial Yeah, that's that's making it more worthy than necessary. It's simply just removing unhosted rentals These non conforming and frankly not legal uses under our general plan from residential areas Maintaining consistency with the general plan that we all vote on Okay, the motion is on the floor with a second I'll go ahead and ask dina to a roll call vote if there's no more discussion from council Thank you council member step And i'm voting on the substantive substitute motion, right? Uh, no council member roger's Yeah, I would be uh Maybe supportive of putting it to the voters and saying you answer the question Do you want them in your residential neighborhoods or not? But given all of the work that we've done in all of the community outreach around This ordinance i'm going to vote no for now Council member okrepke no council member fleming yes Council member alvarez Yes, uh in respects of property rights. I would have to vote no vice mayor mcdonnell No, and mayor rogers No Let the record show that uh substitute motion failed So we're back on the original motion. Did we get clarification on what you were conferring on city attorney? Yes The I think what we'd like to do is to bring back an An amendment that would give the 60 day no 60 day grace period for those that missed the deadline this This time around and does that capture then everyone who? Ran into that problem No, I'm I'm not sure I would have to go back and look Is it the council's intent that it capture all the Individuals that have missed their deadlines so we can structure it that way Yeah, the the intent is because this is the first time going through the renewal and what we've heard consistently is It didn't go smoothly and it was complicated and people miss things Um that we are creating a space where in which people people in their first year renewal so they're I mean couldn't go back more than a year at this point have the opportunity to still come back into compliance Okay, and um and just for this year So I heard a desire from the mayor and I I am willing to go there of creating a 30 day grace period Imperpetuity for people on their renewal on their first year No in perpetuity. There'd always be a 30 day grace period correct Um, well we come we With the caveat they have to be an operator in good standing That that that was clear, okay Um Let me ask for some clarification. Are you saying you want? To allow 60 days For individuals to be able to come in And the ones who have missed their renewal period give them 60 days August to October to be able to come in And renew their permit correct. So it's okay So I'm good with 30 days even just making it quicker on both ends which might be causing the confusion So the first 30 day window is for anybody who has had a renewal issue right now They have 30 days to come in and correct it and if they can come in in that 30 days and correct it They can continue to operate in good standing Then as in the future people have their renewals that are due There's a 30 day grace period if something goes wrong and that they need to fix it before they're Completely bounced without the opportunity to ever come back into the process because we now have this Ever restrictive Permitting In order for us to operate or in order for us to allow them to come back to staff and clean up their permits Do we have to have an urgency ordinance or can we just allow that? No, we'll we'll just We were discussing I think we'd have a hard time making the findings for an urgency ordinance But we can go ahead and bring it back on the 20th. It'll be a regular ordinance that will go forward We'll also explore if there's some other way to get quicker relief It's not coming to my mind right now But we'll we'll look otherwise what we do is bring back on the 20th An amendment that only addresses that all the rest will wait until Until july 11th To make that that change But it'll be a regular ordinance which would then take 30 days to go into effect But we'll then give folks that 30 days thereafter When they can still come in and get their permit their renewal I saw councilmember alvarez and then back to councilmember fliming and then we'll go back to the motion the original motion If if we're speaking of of the grace period and perpetu- Thank you, sir and ma'am I would I'd hope that we include that it's those permittees that do not have violations on their Their property councilmember fliming I know it's late And I know you guys love me, right? So we're going to hang in there for one more substitute motion, which is a in a little bit of a different tack Which is that We would do two things one is that we would pass a motion tonight Um Something like where y'all are going and the other is that we would Ask staff to come back To help us craft either in a study session, which I think would be advisable Something to put on the ballot Since two-thirds of respondents of the survey said that these are either Okay, not enough or too much Um So we got nearly every question two-thirds of residents said that they weren't interested in this Being here or we weren't being strict enough. I think that the voters definitely deserve to be heard And the democracy is Could be functioning really well if we were able to put in the rules tonight the y'all are crafting And then have staff come back With something that we could put on the ballot in the primary or the general So it wouldn't be a special election or anything of that sort And then the voters will let us know whether or not they want these in in their areas I second that motion. I was going to ask if that's your motion Yeah, it wasn't super succinct, but it is my motion What i'm trying to say is that if my motion passes I don't want us to not then go be able to go and pass the motion that's On the table now Okay, I heard uh It's a it's not a substitute motion It's actually a new motion because you're not substituting out councilmember rogers, correct You're adding a new motion to the floor Which is a substitute motion when there is one on the floor So we'll go for the substitute motion that eddie has seconded to add ballot language have staff come back and add ballot language For as to consider to putting forward to voters This is a substitute motion. It's been seconded any discussion on this. It looks like the city attorney has a question I'm sorry because I I missed the original motion, but your motion would be to have To have staff bring back An ordinance to place on the ballot To restrict to prohibit short-term rentals in residential zones, right um, you know what? I think that I I would Perhaps retract my motion and put this friendly amendment on the floor That in addition to the language that councilmember rogers is crafting That he also include a request to staff to bring us back Um some language and ordinance toward seeing if the voters have an appetite for is eliminating These uses in residential areas You still second that motion council member rogers to accept if I understand All right councilmember rogers it is getting late. It's all good. Um, no, I I'll accept that into the motion um, and and just to tighten up a little bit what I heard was uh, a study session where in which the council can consider Putting on the ballot either in march or november Um, but not a special which I think is important A question to the voters of do you want to allow This use in residential neighborhoods So with the friendly amendment on the table just so i'm cleared is the second still in order from you councilmember alvarez Yes, it is Thank you councilmember o'crapki. So to clarify This is just to have a study session Not to put something actually on the ballot Yeah, the the council would at the study session have to choose to put it on the ballot But I think that there are so many Different macinations of how because we have to talk about grandfathering and we have to talk about right that I think Saying we're putting something on the ballot tonight would be putting the cartway before the horse But it would be to have the study session where in which we can consider Crafting something along those lines to put on the ballot That Mayor rogers if I may Just to get clarification. So You have your motion this councilmember rogers original motion Which is giving us direction for amendments to the ordinance And this addition is really a motion to direct staff to come back with a study session On a potential ballot measure At another time. So it's not part of the ordinance itself. It's really a Simply a direction to staff. Yeah, if the if the councilmember is comfortable, we can take it as two motions I'm happy to make both motions as part of the Sausage making process. I think it would be Cleaner to have it as two separate motions, but it could be combined I think that I'd be more comfortable with it being part of What if we did that motion first before the ordinance motion I think that it'd be better to have it be part of the same vote I think that everybody's getting a little bit of something and this is The one little bit of something that i'm asking for I'm good with that If staff could ask a clarifying question regarding the three strikes Would that include minor classes of violations? For example, if there were three advertisement violations in a one-year period Would that result in a permanent revocation? So if council is comfortable the way that I envision that is creating the tiered system where in which staff can distinguish between minor and major I'm talking about three major not somebody put a typo in the wrong place kind of a thing but Thank you I would amend that to say that there are people that do purposely Misrepresent themselves and I would like to give staff discretion to be able to Yes, to give the severe So not to differentiate by type but give you the discretion to say like this person is like 10 times made a typo So let's address it in a manner that's more severe Thank you. And then just as a follow-up question Would council I know there were concerns about discretion in the exercise thereof Would council have a preference as to whether We establish the fine schedule by internal policy or is that something that you would like to see brought back before you I'm fine with it being Internal policy and if we just get reports from time to time on On what it's at and then that gives the public and the council an opportunity to Course correct if we think that staff is not doing something appropriate. Thank you I have a question about that. I'm just going to go to mayor rogers. She's had her hand raised and we do have a motion And an amendment on the floor So I want to make sure that we are trying to get back to what's on the floor All right Thanks, mayor rogers Oh my question What or is a comment about victoria's? Friendly amendment I would just like to make sure that we have enough time To see the implementation Of the new ordinance at work to see if it's even An issue because I think with the new ordinance we really are being able to What would they say the bad players like we're really being able to look at them and get them out of The program so I would just hope that there's enough time for us to to evaluate that with the study session Councilmember flimmy Yeah, thank you and to that point the people that Have been living next door to these for years that i've been working with for them enough time is enough time and You know the ballot measure would come forward In march and if they're satisfied with our program or or november, so that's either I don't know nine months or However, I can't count at this hour, you know a year and a half from now I think that the voters will have enough time to make a decision about if what we're putting forward is working or not But I agree that there is time, but there's time naturally built into government, right Okay, we are at the motion that's on the floor the amendment to the motion that's on the floor since we're taking these as two separate votes We're doing one. It's combined. Okay. Let's let's if we can though. Let's ask staff. How confused are you? And do you need any additional clarification? So I won't speak for the others, but I do have two clarifying questions one Councilmember roger is I think I heard you say when you were going through your list To set a quarterly date for permits No to give you the ability to give staff the ability if that makes more sense if you want to To do it through a quarterly Process for renewal as opposed to the specific date for each individual permit Okay, I'm trying to give I'm trying to be a little bit more permissive for staff to be able to actually navigate and operate Okay, um, and then Um, are we not Touching the cap at this time. Is that what I'm hearing? Correct. Okay well So we're we're the only ways that we change the cap and I heard from sherry Is it won't be necessary is for the folks who had renewal issues? Coming back in And then it'll be more restrictive from there moving forward. So Technically over time the cap will go down the the amount will go down Until we make a determination around What that number could or should be in the future So there's one thing to clarify is that staff has not been accepting new applications Um, you know, we had the cap and we know that there have been some that in that were in process That have been denied or withdrawn Um, so we do know that there is a little bit of a buffer right now But we wanted to wait to see what council did with this before we started accepting new applications Um With keeping the cap as it is we'll need to come up with an equitable way to start accepting new applications If that's what the council wants or if the council doesn't Want to accept new applications We can go that rabbit as well. Yeah, I heard from council not accepting new applications at the moment Councilmember operas I support your statement councilmember rogers and the reason that I do is if we do have A permit team who is one within 1,000 feet and we have another person that comes in they would be Excluded from obtaining the permit. So I definitely do agree with that statement Is there any more clarification needed councilmember o'crep? He needs more clarification. I apologize councilmember o'crepki So to try to make this a little bit more concise The motion is all the all the Clarifications you put forward and and changes you put forward Having the cap stay at 198 plus those in process No new and a natural attrition Did we decide if we're going to come back in two years and readdress that or is that yeah, that's part of the motion. Okay, so 198 plus new applications plus coming back in two years to see if that Cap is appropriate and have a study session to see if we should put this on the ballot in march Yep, so theoretically you'll have the discussion around the ballot that'll inform whether or not we need to change the cap number Okay, is that your yes vote So I am so sorry can I please ask for just for final clarification? Of course you can so the cap is going to end up being less than 198 It's likely to be 186 or maybe lower than that if any of those that are still in process And we're so we're just going to craft it worded so that We're not taking any new ones Non-hosted. Okay. Thank you. And again Hosted totally different right absolutely. Thank you Is there any more clarification needed from staff? Are we clear on the motion that's on the floor? Can we I just want to know how many times staff is going to have to rewatch this I apologize in advance then We'll go ahead and do a roll call vote Councilmember step. Yes Councilmember rogers. Hi councilmember okrepke. Hi councilmember Fleming. No Councilmember alvarez. Hi Vice mayor mcdonald. Hi Mayor rogers I The record show this motion passes with six affirmative votes Thank you. We're now moving on to 17.1 Which is just an update of state legislature that is being supported by us And we are now to our public comments on Number 18 last public comment of the night Thank you. We are now taking public comment on item 18 non-agenda matters This is the second period where you can make public comments on non-agenda matters If you did not provide those comments under the earlier agenda item under 14 Please make your way to the podium if you choose to provide public comment On non-agenda matters or raise your hand via zoom Vice mayor i'm seeing no one in council chamber approaching the podium for public comment on non-agenda matters We do have one hand being raised via zoom again This is for public comments on non-agenda matters If you've already provided public comment on non-agenda matters earlier in the agenda This is not a second opportunity to provide comment That hand is now down Vice mayor That concludes public comment on non-agenda matters You now the meeting is adjourned