Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0_Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment_PA2020-048CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT July 23, 2020 Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2020-007 SITE LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach PLANNER: David Blumenthal, AICP, Planning Consultant 949-644-3200, dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY In response to resident complaints about short-term lodging, the City Council formed a Short-Term Lodging Ad Hoc Committee (“Ad Hoc Committee”) to review the current regulations. While most of the Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendations focus on Chapter 5.95 (Short Term Lodging Permit) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), minor amendments are needed in Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan). These amendments would provide non-substantive changes to Title 21; as well as, instituting a prohibition on the City issuing new permits for short-term lodging in the coastal zone and establishing minimum-night stay requirements. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2)Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21065 of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378. The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-027 recommending the City Council authorize submittal of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2020-007 to the California Coastal Commission to amend Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code amending coastal zoning regulations for the operation of short-term lodging (PA2020-048) (Attachment No. PC 1). 1 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2 Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Planning Commission, July 23, 2020 Page 2 INTRODUCTION Background Short-term lodging is a dwelling unit that is rented or leased for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. The City initially regulated short-term lodging by establishing Chapter 5.95 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) in 1992, which includes permitting requirements, standard operating conditions, and penalties. Chapter 5.95 was amended in 2004 when the City prohibited the establishment of short-term lodging in the R-1 (Single-Unit Residential) zoning district. There are approximately 92 short-term lodging units operating in R-1 zoned properties. In 2010, the City adopted a comprehensive update to the Zoning Code, which listed short-term lodging in most of the residential zoning districts. This effectively prohibited the establishment of short-term lodging in mixed-use zones; although there are approximately 30 short-term lodging units operating in mixed-use zones that are non-conforming. Both Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Implementation Plan of Local Coastal Program) of NBMC permit short-term lodging in the R-BI (Two-Unit Residential, Balboa Island), R-2 (Two-Unit Residential), RM (Multiple Residential), and RMD (Medium Density Residential) residential zoning and coastal zoning districts. Short-term lodging is prohibited in the R-1 (Single-Unit Residential) zoning and coastal zoning districts, including any property designated for single-unit dwelling land use as part of a Planned Community Development Plan; however, short-term lodging units legally established in the R-1 zoning districts on or before June 1, 2004, are permitted to operate as non- conforming uses. Short-term lodging is also prohibited in all non-residential zoning and coastal districts. NBMC Chapter 5.95 requires an owner of a property obtain a short-term lodging permit from the Finance Director prior to commencement of operations. As of the date this report was written, the City has 1,524 active permits, which include 1,458 on coastal zone properties and 66 on non-coastal zone properties. This results in 95.7% of short-term lodging in the City being within the coastal zone. The number of active short-term lodging permits far exceeds the number of permits of similar cities (see Figure 1). Figure 1 City Active STL Permits San Clemente* 172 Carpinteria* 215 Huntington Beach* 266 Anaheim 277 Dana Point* 307 Santa Monica* 340 Carlsbad* 690 Newport Beach* 1,524 * = coastal community 3 Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Planning Commission, July 23, 2020 Page 3 On April 14, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 2020-37 (Attachments No. PC 2 and PC 3) initiating the subject Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment. Most Recent Changes Affecting Short Term Lodging Permits In January 2019, the City Council held a study session on short-term lodging and later formed an Ad Hoc Committee to review and recommend changes to the ordinance. The Ad Hoc Committee included City Council Members Diane Dixon, Joy Brenner, and Jeff Herdman. The committee members hosted several community events and meetings to gain public input from residents, property owners, as well as property managers and agents. In February 2020, after the Committee made its recommendations and more public comments were submitted, the City Council tasked the Committee with refining its recommendations. While the Committee was working on honing its recommendations, the COVID-19 outbreak occurred, and the City Council adopted emergency ordinances to protect Newport Beach residents: At the June 23, 2020 City Council meeting, the Council introduced Ordinance No 2020- 15 amending the City’s short-term lodging regulations. During the meeting, the Council took and considered further input from the public on the proposed changes. In total, nine public meetings were held with the community, including three district town hall meetings. Each meeting allowed community input from both owners for short-term rental property and residents living next to them. At the July 14, 2020, City Council meeting, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 2020-15, amending Chapter 5.95 (Short Term Lodging Permit) of the NBMC (Attachments No. PC 4 and PC 5). This ordinance was adopted in response to complaints about noise, too many guests in one unit, shortage of available street parking, and overflowing trash occurring at short-term lodging. The revisions contained in Ordinance No. 2020-15 include:  Expansion of the application requirements, including information about the short-term lodging unit;  Requirement that all short-term lodging rentals be to persons that are 21 years old or over;  Prohibition of lessees of the unit from sub-renting the unit as short-term lodging;  Requirement that all on-site parking available be provided for renters and their guests;  Prohibition of the use of street parking, unless all on-site parking spaces are occupied;  Interior posting of critical and necessary information for the renter, including refuse pick-up, street sweeping, and an amplified sound curfew from 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m.; 4 Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Planning Commission, July 23, 2020 Page 4  Prohibition of non-residential activities, such as large commercial or non- commercial gatherings, commercial filming, and/or non-owner wedding receptions; and  Provision of the necessary mechanisms to enforce the regulations, including the right to inspect, administrative subpoena powers, and a suspension/revocation process. DISCUSSION Proposed Amendments to Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) The primary regulatory framework for short-term lodging is contained in Chapter 5.95 of the NBMC. However, it is classified as a visitor accommodation land use, which provides lower cost access to the coast. As such, Section 21.48.115 of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC currently includes general standards affecting the regulations of short-term lodging in the coastal zone. Accordingly, the City Council Ad Hoc Committee has recommended further changes to short term lodging that affect Title 21. The proposed amendments (Attachment No. PC 6) would modify the short- term lodging regulations in a manner that allows those in the coastal zone to continue operations, but provide needed mitigation of impacts on adjacent residents. Limit on Permits After the effective date of the ordinance, the City would cease the issuance of new short- term lodging permits. Existing permits could be renewed, provided the permit was active on the day the ordinance becomes effective and the permit is continuously maintained. Should an owner let a permit lapse, they would not be able to obtain a new permit. While the change in this amendment would only impact the coastal zone, upcoming changes to Chapter 5.95 (discussed below) would extend this limitation Citywide. The limit on new permits is needed to stem the tide of short-term lodging operations within the City, and all of the associated impacts that come with said operations. Newport Beach has 1,524 active short-term lodging permits, which far exceeds similar communities. For example, Newport Beach has 473% more short-term lodging than Huntington Beach and 120% more short-term lodging than Carlsbad, both of which are coastal communities. Newport Beach also has 450% more short-term lodging than Anaheim, a community that draws visitors from around the world. While some of these units will be lost through attrition, the City Council Ad Hoc Committee is of the opinion the City will maintain the sufficient number of units to meet its fair share of lower-cost visitor accommodations. Permitted Use Table Table 21.18-1 (Residential Coastal Zoning Districts Land Uses) of NBMC Section 21.18.020 would be modified to include a reference to Chapter 5.95 and Section 5 Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Planning Commission, July 23, 2020 Page 5 21.48.115 in the Specific Use Regulations column. This addition would provide a clearer reference for the public and staff that additional permitting standards apply to the use. Non-conforming Short-Term Lodging There are approximately 122 non-conforming short-term lodging units within the City, which include 92 on R-1 zoned property and 30 on mixed-use zoned property. This amendment would allow the units to remain, provided they have a current short-term lodging permit that was originally issued before the unit became non-conforming and the owner continuously maintains the permit. Minimum Night Stay The proposed amendment would implement a minimum night stay for short-term lodging. If the property includes an owner-occupied unit, a three-night minimum stay would be required. If the property does not have an owner-occupied unit, a six-night minimum stay would be required. This provision would discourage the use of short-term lodging units for non-residential purposes (e.g. large gatherings, weddings, and commercial filming), and encourage vacationers to spend multiple days visiting the beach and other sites in the area. The proposal would also amend NBMC Section 21.70.020 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases) to provide a definition of an owner-occupied unit. Next Steps In addition to the changes to NBMC Title 21, it is anticipated the City Council Ad Hoc Committee will make additional recommended changes to NBMC Chapter 5.95. The revisions to Chapter 5.95 will likely be presented to the City Council in August or September 2020, along with the proposed changes to Title 21, which are detailed in this report. The future changes to Chapter 5.95 are not part of the City’s zoning scheme, and as such will not be presented to the Planning Commission. Exact language is still being vetted, however future amendments to Chapter 5.95 should include:  Cessation of issuing new short-term lodging permits Citywide. The renewal of active permits will continue to be allowed.  If a permit is suspended by the City, the applicant must apply for reinstatement within six months of the suspension period.  Implementation of a citywide minimum night stay that will coincide with the minimum night stay.  Elimination of the non-conforming status for short-term lodging units that operate on R-1 zoned properties if the unit is demolished, rebuilt, or the gross floor area is increased by more than 25 percent. 6 Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Planning Commission, July 23, 2020 Page 6 General Plan Consistency General Plan Policy LU 2.6 (Visitor Serving Uses): “provide[s] uses that serve visitors to Newport Beach’s ocean, harbor, open spaces, and other recreational assets, while integrating them to protect neighborhoods and residents.” The proposed amendment is consistent with this policy since it continues to allow short-term lodging at current levels (a visitor serving use) while provide necessary protections for neighborhoods and residents. Local Coastal Program This proposal includes amendments to Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC. Amendments to the LCP must also be reviewed and approved by the City Council, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission, prior to submitting the amendment request to the California Coastal Commission. Coastal Commission review and approval is required for any proposed amendment to the certified LCP. The City’s certified Coastal Land Use Plan includes Policy 2.3.3-6 that provides: 2.3.3-6. Continue to issue short-term lodging permits for the rental of dwelling units as a means of providing lower-cost overnight visitor accommodations while continuing to prevent conditions leading to increase demand for City services and adverse impacts in residential areas and coastal resources. The Coastal Commission has previously held that short-term lodging provides a low-cost alternative accommodation for families. Newport Beach hosts a variety of styles of visitor accommodations, including hotels, motels, short-term lodging units, and campground and RV sites. Short-term lodging accounts for a significant amount (28%) of the visitor accommodations within the City. Staff believes that cessation of issuing new permits will not result in a significant impact to public access, as the existing short-term lodging will be allowed to continue operations, should a property desire to do so. While some short- term lodging units may be lost due to a lapse in use, the City will still maintain approximately 4,086 hotel/motel rooms and approximately 471 campground/RV spaces above and beyond short-term lodging permits. Staff is also of the opinion that instituting a minimum night stay for short-term lodging will not prevent public access to coastal resources. The proposed LCP amendment would require a three-night stay if a unit is owner-occupied, which would easily accommodate a weekend rental that is desirable to many members of the public. A six-night minimum is proposed for non-owner-occupied units. This longer-term rental would appeal to families on vacations. This longer minimum will allow property owners to benefit from providing the short-term lodging, while preventing impacts, such as noise and additional traffic created by the frequent turnover of short-term lodging units. 7 Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Planning Commission, July 23, 2020 Page 7 It is staff’s opinion that the proposed changes under this amendment are consistent with this policy as permits would continue to be issued and the limitations are designed to address adverse impacts of short-term lodging permits. Additionally, staff believes the amendment would not have a significant impact to public access or views to coastal resources. Furthermore, the proposal would continue to allow a significant number of accommodations, as compared to other communities with coastal zones. Environmental Review The LCP Amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 21065 of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378. The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendment would reduce noise impacts, decrease impacts to on-street parking, and limit the number of short-term lodging permits to minimize impacts to residential neighborhoods. The Amendment itself does not authorize development that would directly result in physical change to the environment. Public Notice Notice of this amendment was published in the Daily Pilot as an eighth-page advertisement, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. The item also appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution No. PC2020-027 PC 2 City Council Resolution 2020-37 PC 3 City Council minute excerpts, dated April 14, 2020 PC 4 City Council Ordinance No. 2020-15 PC 5 City Council minute excerpts, dated June 23, 2020 PC 6 Redlined Zoning Code Text Changes 8 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution No. PC2020027 9 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE10 RESOLUTION NO. PC2020027 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL OF LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. LC2020007 TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION TO AMEND SECTIONS 21.18.020 (RESIDENTIAL COASTAL ZONING DISTRICTS LAND USES), 21.48.115 (SHORTTERM LODGING), AND 21.70.020 (DEFINITION OF SPECIALIZED TERMS AND PHRASES) OF TITLE 21 (LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN) OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE (PA2020048) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. On April 14, 2020, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopted Resolution No. 2020-37 initiating an amendment to Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) (“LCP Amendment”) related to short-term lodging. 2. Pursuant to Section 13515 (Public Participation and Agency Coordination Procedures) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 5.5, Chapter 8, a draft of the LCP Amendment was made available and a Notice of Availability was distributed on July 13, 2020, a minimum of six (6) weeks prior to the anticipated final action date. 3. A telephonic public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on July 23, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, due to the Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with Government Code Section 54950 et seq. (“Ralph M. Brown Act”) and Chapter 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. The LCP Amendment is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) in accordance with Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378 of the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”). The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general 11 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-027 Page 2 of 6 rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The LCP Amendment itself provides additional regulations on short-term lodging; but, since the use is already permitted, it does not authorize development that would directly result in physical change to the environment. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. 1. The LCP Amendment is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan (“General Plan”). General Plan Policy LU 2.6 (Visitor Serving Uses) “provide[s] uses that serve visitors to Newport Beach’s ocean, harbor, open spaces, and other recreational assets, while integrating them to protect neighborhoods and residents.” The LCP Amendment is consistent with this policy since it continues to allow short- term lodging as a visitor serving use, while providing necessary protections to neighborhoods and residents. 2. The LCP Amendment is consistent with the following policies of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan (“Coastal Land Use Plan”): Policy 2.3.36 : Continue to issue short-term lodging permits for the rental of dwelling units as a means of providing lower-cost overnight visitor accommodations while continuing to prevent conditions leading to increase demand for City services and adverse impacts in residential areas and coastal resources. Policy 2.73 : Continue to authorize short-term rental of dwelling units pursuant to permits and standard conditions that ensure the rentals will not interfere with public access and enjoyment of coastal resources. 3. The LCP Amendment will continue to allow the issuance of short-term lodging permits while providing necessary regulations to prevent conditions leading to increase demand for City services and adverse impacts in residential areas and coastal resources. 4. The LCP Amendment shall not become effective until approval by the California Coastal Commission and adoption, including any modifications suggested by the California Coastal Commission, by resolution and/or ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. 5. Title 21, including the LCP Amendment, will be carried out fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act. 6. The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. 12 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-027 Page 3 of 6 SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission finds the LCP Amendment is not a project subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 21065 of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378 of the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3. The LCP Amendment is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends the City Council authorize submittal of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2020- 007, as set forth in Exhibit “A,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, to the California Coastal Commission. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2020. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY:_________________________ Erik Weigand, Chair BY:_________________________ Lauren Kleiman, Secretary 13 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-027 Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT “A” LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. LC2020-007 Section 1: The row titled Short-Term Lodging in Table 21.18-1 (Allowed Uses) of Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 21.18.020(C) (Residential Coastal Zoning Districts Land Uses) of Chapter 21.18 (Residential Coastal Zoning Districts (R-A, R-1, R-BI, R-2, and RM)) is amended to read as follows: Land Use RA R1 R1 6,000 R BI R2 R2 6,000 RM RM6,000 Specific Use Regulations Residential Uses Short-Term Lodging — — A A Chapter 5.95 and Section 21.48.115 Section 2: Section 21.48.115 (Short-Term Lodging) of Chapter 21.48 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) of the NBMC is deleted and replaced in its entirety to read as follows: 21.48.115 ShortTerm Lodging A. Purpose. This section provides standards for the operation of short-term lodging units to prevent over-burdening City services and adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods and on coastal access and resources. B. Permits. 1. No owner of a short-term lodging unit, or any other person, shall advertise for rent, or rent, a short-term lodging unit for less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days without a valid short-term lodging permit for that unit issued pursuant to Chapter 5.95. 2. No new short-term lodging permits shall be issued after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE]. 3. No annual short-term lodging permit issued pursuant to Chapter 5.95 shall be assigned, renewed, or reinstated after previously being suspended, unless: a. The short-term lodging unit is a legal non-conforming use, or is located in a residential district where short-term lodging is an allowed use under Titles 20 and 21 of this Code; 14 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-027 Page 5 of 6 b. The short-term lodging unit is located on a parcel in the R-1 (Single-Unit Residential) Coastal Zoning District or any parcel designated for single-unit dwelling land use in a Planned Community Development Plan and was issued a short-term lodging permit on or before June 1, 2004; c. The short-term lodging unit is located in a non-residential or mixed-use zone and was issued a short-term lodging permit on or before November 24, 2010; d. A short-term lodging permit for the short-term lodging unit was active on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE] and continuously maintained thereafter; e. The short-term lodging permit was not subsequently revoked; f. The permit was not closed by the Finance Director in accordance with Section 5.95.080; and g. There is no other basis for denial of the short-term lodging permit as set forth in Section 5.95.035. C. Operational Standards. The owner, or any other person(s) or entity(ies) that hold(s) legal and/or equitable title to the short-term lodging unit, shall: 1. By written agreement, limit overnight occupancy of the short-term lodging unit to a specific number of occupants, with the number of occupants not to exceed the permitted Building Code and Fire Code occupancy limits. 2. Use best efforts to ensure that the transient user, occupant and/or guest of the short-term lodging unit does not create unreasonable noise or disturbances, engage in disorderly conduct, or violate provisions of this Code or any state or federal law pertaining to noise, disorderly conduct, the consumption of alcohol, or the use of illegal drugs. 3. Upon notification that any transient user, occupant and/or guest of his or her short- term lodging unit has created unreasonable noise or disturbances, engaged in disorderly conduct or committed violations of this Code or any state or federal law pertaining to noise, disorderly conduct, the consumption of alcohol or the use of illegal drugs, promptly use best efforts to prevent a recurrence of such conduct by any transient user, occupant or guest. 4. Use best efforts to ensure compliance with applicable health and sanitation regulations relating to waste disposal. 5. Post a copy of any applicable permits and conditions in a conspicuous place within the unit. 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-027 Page 6 of 6 6. Ensure the operation of the short-term lodging complies with all applicable federal, state, and City laws and regulations. 7. Not rent, let, advertise for rent, or enter into an agreement for the rental of any short-term lodging unit: a. For less than a three (3) consecutive night stay, if the short-term lodging unit is located on a parcel that has an owner-occupied dwelling unit; or b. For less than a six (6) consecutive night stay if the short-term lodging unit is located on a parcel that does not have an owner-occupied dwelling unit. For purposes of this subsection (7), the ownership of the short-term lodging and the owner-occupied dwelling unit shall be same person. 8. The City Manager shall have the authority to impose additional standard conditions, applicable to all short-term lodging units, as necessary to achieve the objectives of this section. Section 3: Section 21.70.020 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases) of Chapter 21.70 (Definitions) of the NBMC is amended to include the following definitions: “Dwelling unit, owner-occupied” means a dwelling unit that is occupied by a natural person with legal or equitable title to the lot who resides in the dwelling unit as the person’s legal domicile and permanent residence. “Owner-occupied dwelling unit.” See “Dwelling unit, owner-occupied.” 16 Attachment No. PC 2 City Council Resolution 202037 17 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE18 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 (PLANNING AND ZONING) AND TITLE 21 (LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN) OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, AND TO THE COASTAL LAND USE PLAN OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RELATED SHORT TERM LODGING (PA2020-048) WHEREAS, Section 20.66.020 (Initiation of Amendment) of Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") provides that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach City Council") may initiate an amendment to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC with or without a recommendation from the Planning Commission; WHEREAS, City Council Policy K-1 entitled "General Plan and Local Coastal Program" requires amendments to the City of Newport Beach certified Local Coastal Program to be initiated by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Title 20 and Title 21 of the NBMC, and the Coastal Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program related to short term lodging. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council hereby initiates amendments to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC, Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC, and the Coastal Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program related to short term lodging. Section 2: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative portion of this resolution. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 19 Resolution No. 2020-37 Page 2 of 2 Section 4: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it involves feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved or adopted. Section 5: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this resolution. ADOPTED this 14th day of April, 2020. ATTEST: 40, Leilani 1. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Aaron C. Harp City Attorney Will O'Neill Mayor 20 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2020-37, was duly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 14th day of April, 2020; and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Mayor Will O'Neill, Mayor Pro Tem Brad Avery, Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Diane Dixon, Council Member Duffy Duffield, Council Member Jeff Herdman, Council Member Kevin Muldoon NAYS: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 151h day of April, 2020. 6 4 Leilani I. Brown City Clerk Newport Beach, California Ni. 21 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE22 Attachment No. PC 3 City Council minute excerpts, dated April 14, 2020 23 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE24 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 14, 2020 recommendation to Council, and then Council would consider the items. He confirmed that there is still the ability for someone to appeal a Zoning Administrator decision to the Planning Commission, and a Planning Commission decision to the Council. Council Member Muldoon noted that the NBMC will conform to the U.S. Constitution and case law from the Ninth Circuit Court with adoption of Resolution No. 2020-35. Motion by Council Member Muldoon, seconded by Mayor O'Neill, to a) determine this action is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2020-35, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Initiating Amendments to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Related to Tattoo Services (PA2020-030). The motion carried unanimously. Regarding Resolution No. 2020-36 (Density Bonuses), Community Development Director Jurjis reported that State laws relative to density bonuses change often and the NBMC is currently out of date. He noted that this request is to update the NBMC to conform with current State laws. Motion by Council Member Dixon, seconded by Council Member Brenner, to a) determine this action is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2020-36, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Initiating Amendments to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Related to Density Bonuses (PA2020-032). The motion carried unanimously. Regarding Resolution No. 2020-37 (Short -Term Lodging), Council Member Dixon noted that the City Council ad hoc committee on short-term lodging will meet shortly and bring recommendations to Council. Community Development Director Jurjis clarified that staff will return with an update to the short-term lodging emergency ordinance at the end of May. He noted that the current item is to initiate NBMC changes that will not be in the update in May, pointed out that Council discussed imposing a cap, parking requirements, a more restrictive occupant standard, and a minimum night stay, and reported that proposed amendments will first be considered by the Planning Commission and then Council. Motion by Council Member Herdman, seconded by Council Member Brenner, to a) determine this action is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2020-37, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Initiating Amendments to Title 20 Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Related to Short Term Lodging (PA2020-048). The motion carried unanimously. Regarding Resolution No. 2020-38 (Food and Alcohol Service in the Industrial Zoning District), Community Development Director Jurjis reported that Council Member Muldoon requested the item through City Council Policy A-1. He indicated that the NBMC only allows the manufacturing of food and alcohol in the Industrial Zoning District, not the sale of food and alcohol, and indicated that staff is requesting Council's input regarding restrictions, which will guide staff in writing the NBMC change. Volume 64 - Page 363 25 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE26 Attachment No. PC 4 City Council Ordinance No. 202015 27 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE28 ORDINANCE NO. 2020-15 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 3.16.060 AND CHAPTER 5.95 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SHORT TERM LODGING WHEREAS, Section 200 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach ("City") vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules and regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in the Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to any and all rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California; WHEREAS, the City is a popular beach resort community that serves a large number of tourists during the summer months; WHEREAS, this influx of tourists' burdens City streets and services with heavy volume of vehicle traffic and heavy demand on parking, sewage, and refuse facilities, paramedics and police services; WHEREAS, the Police and Fire Departments frequently respond to complaints of noise disturbances, disorderly conduct and other illegal activity at short term lodging units; WHEREAS, a large number of short term lodging units are located in residential areas where dwelling units are occupied by the property owner or long term tenants and these permanent residents are adversely impacted by the noise, traffic, refuse and demand for parking resulting from occupancy of short term lodging units; WHEREAS, the presence of such visitors within the City's residential neighborhoods can sometimes disrupt the quietude and residential character of the neighborhoods and adversely affect the community; WHEREAS, the City has an interest in preserving its housing stock and the quality and character of its existing single and multi -family residential neighborhoods; WHEREAS, occupants of short term lodging units are generally not residents of the City and the City has limited ability to enforce provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the Penal Code related to disorderly conduct when violated by occupants of short term lodging units; 29 Ordinance No. 2020-15 Page 2 of 18 WHEREAS, on May 11, 1992, the City Council adopted Ordinance 92-13, establishing regulations for the operation of short term lodging units within residential zones to mitigate the impact of this use on the residents of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered evidence and documentation attesting to the need to further regulate and control short term lodging units in residential zones to ensure that short term lodging units are regulated in a way to maintain harmony with surrounding uses and all transient occupancy taxes and visitor service fees are properly collected and remitted to the City. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ordains as follows: Section 1: Section 3.16.060 of Chapter 3.16 of Title 3 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.16.060 Registration of Hotel. Within thirty (30) days after commencing business each operator of any hotel renting occupancy to transients shall register the hotel with the Finance Director and obtain a "transient occupancy registration certificate" to be at all times posted in a conspicuous place on the premises. The certificate shall, among other things, state the following: A. The name of the operator; B. The address of the hotel; C. The date upon which the certificate was issued; and D. The following statement: This transient occupancy registration certificate signifies that the person named on the certificate has fulfilled the requirements of the Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance (Chapter 3.16 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) by registering with the Finance Director for the purpose of collecting the tax from transients and remitting the tax to the Finance Director. This certificate does not authorize any person to conduct any unlawful business, to conduct any lawful business in an unlawful manner or to operate a hotel without strictly complying with all local laws, including those requiring a permit from any board, commission, department or office of the City. This certificate does not constitute a permit. The requirements of this section shall not apply to the operator of a hotel required to obtain a short term lodging permit pursuant to Section 5.95.020. 30 Ordinance No. 2020-15 Page 3 of 18 Section 2: Chapter 5.95 of Title 5 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 5.95 SHORT TERM LODGING PERMIT Sections: 5.95.005 Purpose and Findings. 5.95.010 Definitions. 5.95.015 Residential Properties Eligible for Short Term Lodging Permits. 5.95.020 Permit Required. 5.95.025 Agency. 5.95.030 Application for Permit. 5.95.035 Denial of Permit. 5.95.040 Filing Fee. 5.95.045 Conditions. 5.95.047 Violations of Permit Conditions by Transient User, Occupant or Guest. 5.95.050 Agent and Hosting Platform Responsibilities. 5.95.055 Issuance of Administrative Subpoenas. 5.95.060 Violations, Penalties and Enforcement. 5.95.065 Suspensions and Revocations. 5.95.070 Permits and Fees Not Exclusive. 5.95.080 License and Permit Closure. 5.95.005 Purpose and Findings. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach finds and declares as follows: A. An ever-increasing number of tourists renting short term lodging units is increasing the demand for City services and creating adverse impacts in residential zones. B. Over a thousand dwelling units within residential zones near the City's beaches and harbor are rented for less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days with the vast majority of those rentals occurring during the summer when the demand for parking and City services is the greatest. 31 Ordinance No. 2020-15 Page 4 of 18 C. Many of the occupants of short term lodging units are permanent residents of areas distant from Newport Beach and the City has no effective way to prevent occupants from continuing to violate provisions of this Code and the Penal Code relating to noise, disturbances and disorderly conduct. The only effective way to minimize the problems associated with occupancy of short term lodging units is to impose responsibility on the owner of the property, either personally or through an agent, to control the conduct of guests and occupants. D. Numerous incidents involving excessive noise, disorderly conduct, vandalism, overcrowding, traffic congestion, illegal vehicle parking and accumulation of refuse are directly related to short term lodging units, which increasingly require response from police, fire, paramedic and other City services. E. The increase in demand for City services resulting from short term lodging units overburdens and threatens the City's ability to provide necessary services. F. Many short term lodging units are operated by agents and/or absentee owners who exercise little or no supervision or control of occupants. G. There has been an increase in the number of lodging units booked on a short term basis where the owner of the unit does not have a short term lodging permit, affecting the ability of the City to properly regulate the impacts caused by the illegal operation. H. There has been an increase in the number of lodging units booked on a short term basis where the owner of the property has not taken steps to ensure the transient occupancy tax and visitor service fee is collected and/or remitted to the City, resulting in an unfair business advantage to these illegal operations and loss of revenue necessary to provide City services. I. Problems with short term lodgings is particularly acute in residential districts where the peace, safety and general welfare of the long term residents are threatened. J. To ensure the effective enforcement of this Code, it is necessary to have the owner include the short term lodging permit number issued by the City on all advertisements for a short term lodging unit so the transient user knows the owner is authorized to rent the lodging unit on a short term basis. K. To ensure the transient user knows the total cost associated with renting the lodging unit and to prevent fraud, it is necessary for the owner to make sure the transient user is informed of the amount of the transient occupancy tax and visitor service fee prior to completing a booking transaction. 32 Ordinance No. 2020-15 Page 5 of 18 L. The restrictions of this chapter are necessary to preserve the City's housing stock, the quality and character of the City's residential neighborhoods as well as to prevent the continued burden on City services and adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods posed by short term lodgings. 5.95.010 Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: A. "Accessory dwelling unit" shall have the same definition as set forth in Chapter 20.70 of Title 20 of this Code. B. "Agent" shall mean any person who is authorized in writing by the owner to represent and act for an owner. C. "Booking transaction" shall mean any reservation or payment service provided by a person who facilitates a short term lodging rental transaction between a transient user and owner for the use of a unit for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. D. "City Manager" shall mean the City Manager of the City or his or her designee. E. "Finance Director" shall mean the Finance Director of the City or his or her designee. F. "Gross floor area," shall mean the area of the lodging unit that includes the surrounding exterior walls and any interior finished portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than six feet from finished floor to ceiling. Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area. G. "Home -sharing" shall mean an activity whereby the owner hosts a transient user in the owner's lodging unit, for compensation, for periods of less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days, during which time the owner of the unit lives onsite, in the unit, throughout the transient user's stay and the owner, the transient user and any other occupants live together in the same unit as a single housekeeping unit. H. "Hosting platform" shall mean a person, other than an owner or agent, who participates in the short term lodging business by facilitating a booking transaction using any medium of facilitation. I. "Lodging unit" or "unit" shall mean a "dwelling unit" as that term is defined in Chapter 20.70, of Title 20 of this Code. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered a lodging unit or unit for purposes of this chapter. 33 Ordinance No. 2020-15 Page 6 of 18 J. "Owner" shall mean the person(s) that hold(s) legal and/or equitable title to the lodging unit. K. "Person" shall mean any individual and any form of business entity including, but not limited to, all domestic and foreign corporations, associations, syndicates, joint stock corporations, partnerships of every kind, clubs, business or common law trusts, societies, or limited liability companies. L. "Residential district" shall mean those areas of the City so designated by Title 20 of this Code as well as any other area in the City designated for a residential use as part of a Planned Community Development Plan, Specific Area Plan or Planned Residential District. M. "Short term" shall mean a lodging unit that is rented or leased as a single housekeeping unit for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. This also includes home -sharing. N. "Short term lodging unit registry" shall mean the published registry maintained by the City that sets forth a list of all owners and the address of all units that have a valid short term lodging permit and business license with the City, a copy of which is available, without charge, to any person who requests a copy and which shall be accessible on the City's website. O. "Single housekeeping unit" shall have the same definition as set forth in Chapter 20.70 of Title 20 of this Code. P. "Transient" or "Transient user" shall mean any person or persons who, for any period less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days either at his or her own expense, or at the expense of another, obtains lodging in a lodging unit or the use of any lodging space in any unit, for which lodging or use of lodging space a charge is made. 5.95.015 Residential Properties Eligible for Short Term Lodging Permits. Only properties in a residential district that are authorized under Titles 20 and 21 of this Code and this chapter shall be eligible for a short term lodging permit. Subsequent to June 1, 2004, no annual permit shall be issued to or renewed for any dwelling unit on any parcel zoned for "Single-family Residential (R-1)" or that is designated for a single-family residential use as part of a Planned Community Development Plan, Specific Area Plan or Planned Residential District, unless a permit has previously been issued for that lodging unit and the permit was not subsequently revoked. 34 Ordinance No. 2020-15 Page 7 of 18 5.95.020 Permit Required. No owner of a lodging unit shall advertise for rent or rent a lodging unit located within a residential district for a short term without a valid short term lodging permit for that unit issued pursuant to this chapter. 5.95.025 Agency. An owner may retain an agent to comply with the requirements of this chapter, including, without limitation, the filing of an application for a short term lodging permit, the management of the short term lodging unit or units, and the compliance with the conditions to the short term lodging permit. The permit shall be issued only to the owner of the short term lodging unit or units. The owner of the short term lodging unit or units is responsible for compliance with the provisions of this chapter and the failure of an agent to comply with this chapter shall be deemed non-compliance by the owner. 5.95.030 Application for Permit. An application for an annual short term lodging permit, or renewal thereof, shall be filed with the Finance Director upon forms provided by the City and shall contain the following information: A. The name, address and telephone number of the owner of the unit for which the short term lodging permit is to be issued. B. The name, address and telephone number of the agent, if any, of the owner of the unit. C. Evidence of a valid business license issued by the City for the separate business of operating a short term lodging unit or units. D. The number of bedrooms in the lodging unit. E. The gross floor area of the lodging unit. F. The number of parking spaces available onsite and a description indicating the location and size of each parking space. G. A nuisance response plan, which sets forth the owner's plan for handling disruptive guests. H. A certification that the applicant has reviewed the covenants, conditions and restrictions, if any, and a short term use is permitted at the location pursuant to the terms of the covenants, conditions and restrictions, if any. I. Acknowledgement of receipt and inspection of a copy of all regulations pertaining to the operation of a short term lodging unit. 35 Ordinance No. 2020-15 Page 8 of 18 J. Such other information as the Finance Director deems reasonably necessary to administer this chapter. 5.95.035 Denial of Permit. If permits are available for issuance, no application filed by an owner for an annual permit or renewal of a permit for a unit eligible to be used as a short term lodging unit, as provided for in Section 5.95.015 and this Code, shall be denied unless: the owner does not have a current valid business license; the owner has failed to pay transient occupancy tax, the visitor service fee, a penalty, a fine or inspection cost, due and owing to the City; the nuisance response plan is deemed inadequate by the Finance Director; or the short term lodging permit for the same unit and issued to the same owner has been revoked. 5.95.040 Filing Fee. An application or renewal application for a short term lodging permit shall be accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the City Council, provided, however, the fee shall be no greater than necessary to defer the cost incurred by the City in administering the provisions of this chapter and for providing the answering service. 5.95.045 Conditions. A. All permits issued pursuant to this chapter are subject to the following standard conditions: 1. The owner shall prohibit a lessee of a lodging unit from renting the lodging unit to a transient user for a short term and from home -sharing. 2. The owner shall not rent a lodging unit to a transient user that is under the age of 21. 3. The owner shall enter into a written agreement with the transient user that requires: a. All persons residing in the short term lodging unit to live together as a single housekeeping unit; and b. Limits the overnight occupancy of the short term lodging unit to the maximum permitted by the Building Code and Fire Code. 4. The owner shall ensure that the transient user complies with all terms of the written agreement set forth in Subsection 5.95.045 A (3). 36 Ordinance No. 2020-15 Page 9 of 18 5. The owner shall use best efforts to ensure that the transient user, occupants and/or guests of the short term lodging unit do not create unreasonable noise or disturbances, engage in disorderly conduct, or violate provisions of this Code or any state or federal law pertaining to noise, disorderly conduct, the consumption of alcohol, or the use of illegal drugs. 6. The owner shall, upon notification that any transient user, occupant and/or guest of his or her short term lodging unit has created unreasonable noise or disturbances, engaged in disorderly conduct or committed violations of this Code or any state or federal law pertaining to noise, disorderly conduct, the consumption of alcohol or the use of illegal drugs, promptly use best efforts to prevent a recurrence of such conduct by any transient user, occupant or guest. 7. The owner of the short term lodging unit shall use best efforts to ensure compliance with all the provisions of Title 6 of this Code. 8. The owner of the short term lodging unit shall provide the transient user with a copy of Sections 5.95.047, 10.28.007, 10.28.010, 10.28.020, 10.58.030, and 10.66.020 of this Code. 9. The owner of the short term lodging unit shall provide the transient user with a copy of the good neighbor policy created by the City and available on the City website, post a copy of the short term lodging permit and post a copy of the conditions set forth in this subsection in a conspicuous place within the unit. The notice shall be in substantial compliance with a template created by the City, which shall be available on the City website, and contain the following: a. The name of the local contact person(s) and phone number at which that person(s) may be reached on a twenty-four (24) hour basis. The local person(s) must be located within twenty-five (25) miles of the unit and shall respond to any call related to the unit within thirty (30) minutes; b. The number and location of onsite parking spaces; C. The street sweeping schedule for all public rights-of-way within three hundred ( 300) feet of the unit; d. The trash collection schedule for the unit, and the Code rules and regulations concerning the timing, storage and placement of trash containers and recycling requirements; e. Notification that no amplified sound or reproduced sound is allowed outside or audible from the property line between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m.; and 37 Ordinance No. 2020-15 Page 10 of 18 f. Notification that any transient user, occupant or guest is responsible for all activities occurring on the property and that any transient user, occupant or guest may be cited and fined for creating a disturbance or violating any provision of this Code. 10. With respect to any short term lodging unit that is located in any Safety Enhancement Zone, the owner of the unit and any agent retained by the owner shall take immediate action during the period that the Safety Enhancement Zone is in effect to prevent any transient user, occupant or guest from engaging in disorderly conduct or committing violations of this Code or state or federal law pertaining to noise, disorderly conduct, the consumption of alcohol or the use of illegal drugs. 11. The owner shall: a. Ensure that all transient occupancy taxes and visitor service fees are collected and remitted to the City and otherwise comply with all transient occupancy tax and visitor service fee requirements, as set forth in Chapters 3.16 and 3.28. b. If the owner uses an agent to collect and remit the transient occupancy tax and the visitor service fee, either voluntarily or as directed by the City, the owner shall be responsible for ensuring that the agent collects and remits the transient occupancy tax and the visitor service fee to the City pursuant to the requirements set forth in this chapter, Chapter 3.16 and Chapter 3.28. C. If the Finance Director directs, in writing, a hosting platform to collect and remit the transient occupancy tax and the visitor service fee, the owner shall: i) be responsible for ensuring that the hosting platform collects and remits the transient occupancy tax and the visitor service fee to the City in accordance with this chapter; and (ii) when filing a return in accordance with Sections 3.16.070 and 3.28.040, the owner shall provide the City with a copy of all receipts showing the date the short term lodging unit was rented, the name of the hosting platform, the amount of transient occupancy tax and visitor service fee collected by the hosting platform, and proof that the transient occupancy tax and visitor service fee was remitted to the City. 12. The owner shall provide the City with the name and twenty-four (24) hour phone number of a local contact person(s) (who reside within twenty-five (25) miles of the property) who shall respond to contacts from the answering service, respond to any call related to the unit within thirty (30) minutes, and ensure compliance with this chapter in a timely manner. The owner or agent must provide a new local contact person and his or her phone number within five (5) business days, if there is a change in the local contact person(s). 38 Ordinance No. 2020-15 Page 11 of 18 13. The owner shall ensure that all available parking spaces onsite, which may include garage, carport, and driveway spaces, as well as tandem parking are available for the transient user, occupant or guest of the short term lodging unit. The owner shall disclose the number of parking spaces available onsite and shall inform the transient user, occupant and/or guest that street parking may not be available. 14. The owner shall maintain a valid business license and short term lodging permit when engaging in short term lodging. 15. The owner shall include the City issued short term lodging permit number on all advertisements for the rental of the short term lodging unit and shall ensure the transient user is informed of the amount of the transient occupancy tax and visitor service fee prior to completion of the booking transaction. 16. The owner shall ensure that a permitted short term lodging unit is only used for residential purposes and not used for non-residential uses, including, but not limited to, large commercial or non-commercial gatherings, commercial filming and/or non -owner wedding receptions. 17. The owner shall ensure that no amplified sound, or reproduced sound is used outside or audible from the property line between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. and that the transient user does not violate the requirements set forth in this chapter, Chapters 10.28, 10.58 and 10.66. 18. The owner shall comply with the nuisance response plan submitted with the application for a short term lodging permit and approved by the Finance Director. 19. The owner shall allow the City to inspect the short term lodging unit to confirm the number of bedrooms, gross floor area, and number/availability of parking spaces, seven (7) calendar days after the City serves the owner with a request for inspection in accordance with Section 1.08.080. If, based on the inspection, it is determined that the information submitted to the City in accordance with Section 5.95.030 was false, in addition to any other remedy set forth in this chapter, the owner agrees that the owner shall be liable for the cost of conducting the inspection. 20. The owner shall provide the City with a copy of any written rental agreement(s) and the good neighbor policy, within seven (7) calendar days after the City serves the owner with a notice of request for written rental agreements and the good neighbor policy in accordance with Section 1.08.080. B. The City Manager shall have the authority to impose additional standard conditions, applicable to all short term lodging units, as necessary to achieve the objectives of this chapter. 39 Ordinance No. 2020-15 Page 12 of 18 C. The City Manager shall have the authority to impose additional conditions on any permit in the event of any violation of the conditions to the permit or the provisions of this chapter subject to compliance with the procedures specified in Section 5.95.065. 5.95.047 Violations of Permit Conditions by Transient User, Occupant or Guest. In addition to other provisions of this Code, it shall be unlawful for any transient user, occupant or guest of a short term lodging unit to: A. Exceed the overnight occupancy limit designated for the short term lodging unit. B. Use street parking prior to utilizing all available onsite parking space(s) for the lodging unit. C. Place trash for collection in violation of this Code's rules and regulations concerning: 1. The timing, storage or placement of trash containers; or 2. Recycling requirements. D. Amplify or reproduce sound between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m.: 1. Outside of the lodging unit; or 2. That is audible from the property line for the lodging unit. E. Use the short term lodging for any non-residential purpose, including, but not limited to, large commercial or non-commercial gatherings, commercial filming and/or non -owner wedding receptions. 5.95.050 Agents and Hosting Platform Responsibilities. A. If directed to do so by the Finance Director, in writing, agents or hosting platforms shall: 1. Collect all applicable transient occupancy taxes and visitor service fees that are imposed on the transient, pursuant to Chapters 3.16 and 3.28, from the transient, or from the person paying for such rental, at the time payment for such rental is made; and 2. Remit to the City any transient occupancy taxes or visitor service fees collected by the hosting platform or agent to the City before the last day of the month following the close of each calendar quarter or on the day specified by the Finance Director if a different reporting period has been established. 40 Ordinance No. 2020-15 Page 13 of 18 Hosting platforms shall not collect or remit such taxes unless expressly authorized to do so by the Finance Director, in writing. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to relieve an operator, as that term is defined in Sections 3.16.020 and 3.28.010, from complying with the requirements set forth in Chapters 3.16 and 3.28 of this Code, or to interfere with the ability of an agent or hosting platform and an owner to enter into an agreement regarding fulfillment of the requirements of this subsection. B. Subject to applicable laws, agents and hosting platforms shall disclose to the City on a regular basis each home -sharing and vacation rental listing located in the City, the names of the persons responsible for each such listing, the address of each such listing, the length of stay for each such listing and the price paid for each stay. C. Agents and hosting platforms: 1. Shall prompt any person utilizing their advertising services to include the City -issued registration number in their listing(s), in a format designated by the City and shall not advertise any short term lodging unit where a registration number is not provided. Upon notice from the City that a listing is non-compliant, agents and hosting platforms shall cease any short-term rental booking transactions for said listing(s) within five (5) business days. An agent or hosting platform shall not complete any booking transaction for any short term lodging unit subject to a City notice that a unit is non- compliant, until notified by the City that the short term lodging unit follows the local registration requirement. 2. Shall not collect or receive a fee, directly or indirectly for facilitating or providing services ancillary to an unpermitted short term lodging unit including, but not limited to, insurance, concierge services, catering, restaurant bookings, tours, guide services, entertainment, cleaning, property management, or maintenance of the short term lodging unit. D. A hosting platform operating exclusively on the internet, which operates in compliance with subsection (A), (B), and (C) above, shall be presumed to be in compliance with this chapter, except that the hosting platform remains responsible for compliance with the administrative subpoena provisions of this chapter. E. The provisions of this section shall be interpreted in accordance with otherwise applicable state and federal law(s) and will not apply if determined by the City to be in violation of, or preempted by, such law(s). 41 Ordinance No. 2020-15 Page 14 of 18 5.95.055 Issuance of Administrative Subpoenas. The City Manager shall have the authority to issue and serve administrative subpoenas to the owner, agent or hosting platform, as necessary, to obtain specific information regarding short term rental listings located in the City, including but not limited to, the names of the persons responsible for each such listing, the address of each such listing, the length of stay for each such listing and the price paid for each stay, to determine whether the short term rental listing complies with this chapter. Any subpoena issued pursuant to this section shall not require the production of information sooner than thirty 30) calendar days from the date of service. A person that has been served with an administrative subpoena may seek judicial review during that thirty (30) calendar day period. Failure to respond to an administrative subpoena in accordance with the terms set forth therein shall be punishable in accordance with Section 5.95.060 and the City may file a judicial action to compel compliance with the subpoena. 5.95.060 Violations, Penalties and Enforcement. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provisions or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter. B. In addition to, or separate from, the foregoing criminal penalties, any person violating any of the provisions or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter is subject to the issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.04.010(E) and Chapter 1.05. 5.95.065 Suspensions and Revocations. In addition to any fine or penalty that may be imposed pursuant to any provision of this Code including, but not limited to Section 5.95.060, a short term lodging permit for a unit may be suspended or revoked as provided in this section. A. Suspensions/Revocations. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, if any person violates any short term lodging permit condition two (2) or more times in any twelve (12) month period or any other provision of this Code, state law or federal law, two (2) or more times in any twelve (12) month period, and the violation relates in any way to the unit that has a short term lodging permit, the short term lodging permit for the unit may be suspended for a period of six (6) months in accordance with subsection (B). 2. In the case of a short term lodging permit for a unit that is located in a Safety Enhancement Zone, if there is a violation of any provision of this Code during the period that the Safety Enhancement Zone is in effect, the short term lodging permit for the unit may be suspended for a period of one (1) year or revoked in accordance with subsection (B). 42 Ordinance No. 2020-15 Page 15 of 18 3. If a lodging unit that is subject to a short term lodging permit has been the location of two or more loud or unruly gatherings, as defined in Chapter 10.66 of this Code, while the lodging unit was occupied on a short term basis, within any twenty-four 24) month period, the permit may be suspended for a period of one (1) year or revoked in accordance with the subsection (B). A loud or unruly gathering that occurred prior to the passage of fourteen (14) calendar days from the mailing of notice to the owner in compliance with Section 10.66.030(D) shall not be included within the calculation of the two or more loud or unruly gatherings required to revoke a short term lodging permit. 4. If a person violates Section 5.95.020 regarding any unit that has had a short term lodging permit suspended pursuant to subsection (B), the short term lodging permit for the unit may be revoked in accordance with subsection (B). 5. If any person violates any short term lodging permit condition or any other provision of this Code, state or federal law within six (6) months of having a previously suspended short term lodging permit reinstated for a unit, and the violation relates in any way to the unit that has the short term lodging permit, the short term lodging permit for the unit may be revoked in accordance with subsection (B). 6. If any person violates any short term lodging permit condition three (3) or more times in any twelve (12) month period or provision of this Code, state or federal law three (3) or more times in any twelve (12) month period, and the violation relates in any way to the unit that has a short term lodging permit, the short term lodging permit for the unit may be revoked in accordance with subsection (B). 7. If any person fails to collect and remit transient occupancy tax or the visitor service fee in accordance with the requirements of this chapter, Chapters 3.16 or 3.28 in regards to any unit that has a short term lodging permit, two (2) or more times within any thirty six (36) month period, the short term lodging permit for the unit may be revoked in accordance with subsection (B). 8. If any person is determined to have provided false information on an application for an annual short term lodging permit, or renewal thereof, the short term lodging permit for the unit may be revoked in accordance with subsection (B). B. Permits shall be suspended or revoked, only in the manner provided in this section. 43 Ordinance No. 2020-15 Page 16 of 18 1. The Finance Director shall investigate whenever he or she has reason to believe that an owner has submitted an application that contains false information or committed a violation of a permit condition, this Code, state or federal law related to a permitted unit. Such investigation may include, but is not limited to, on-site property inspections. Should the investigation reveal substantial evidence to support a finding that warrants a suspension or revocation of the short term lodging permit, the Finance Director shall issue written notice of intention to suspend or revoke the short term lodging permit. The written notice shall be served on the owner in accordance with Section 1.08.080, and shall specify the facts which, in the opinion of the Finance Director constitute substantial evidence to establish grounds for imposition of the suspension and/or revocation, and specify the proposed time the short term lodging permit shall be suspended and/or that the short term lodging permit shall be revoked within thirty (30) calendar days from the date the notice is given, unless the owner files with the Finance Director, before the suspension and/or revocation becomes effective, a request for hearing before a hearing officer, who shall be retained by the City, and pays the fee for the hearing established by resolution of the City Council. 2. If the owner requests a hearing and pays the hearing fee, established by resolution of the City Council, within the time specified in subsection (13)( 1), the Finance Director shall serve written notice on the owner, pursuant to Section 1.08.080, setting forth the date, time and place for the hearing. The hearing shall be scheduled not less than fifteen (15) calendar days, nor more than sixty (60) calendar days, from the date on which notice of the hearing is served by the Finance Director. The hearing shall be conducted according to the rules normally applicable to administrative hearings. At the hearing, the hearing officer will preside over the hearing, take evidence and then submit proposed findings and recommendations to the City Manager. The City Manager shall suspend or revoke the short term lodging permit only upon a finding that a violation has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the suspension or revocation is consistent with the provisions of this section. The City Manager shall render a decision within thirty (30) calendar days of the hearing and the decision shall be final. C. If a short term lodging permit is suspended, it shall be the owner's responsibility to vacate any future bookings and remove all advertisements related to the short term rental of the unit during the term of the suspension. If a short term lodging permit is revoked, it shall be the owner's responsibility to vacate any future bookings and remove all advertisements related to the short term rental of the unit. D. After any suspension, the owner may reapply for reinstatement of the short term lodging permit which shall be processed in accordance with Section 5.95.030, provided the owner has paid the City all amounts owed the City in accordance with this chapter and Chapters 3.16 and 3.28 of this Code. 44 Ordinance No. 2020-15 Page 17 of 18 5.95.070 Permits and Fees Not Exclusive. Permits and fees required by this chapter shall be in addition to any license, permit or fee required under any other chapter of this Code. The issuance of any permit pursuant to this chapter shall not relieve the owner of the obligation to comply with all other provisions of this Code including, but not limited to, those provisions pertaining to the use and occupancy of the lodging unit or the property on which it is located as well as the collection and remittance of transient occupancy taxes and visitor service fees in accordance with this chapter and Chapters 3.16 and 3.28. 5.95.080 License and Permit Closure. A. Any owner that has ceased operating a short term lodging unit shall inform the Finance Director in writing of the date of the last rental, and having done such, the short term lodging permit shall be closed. The City will send a final transient occupancy tax and visitor service fee bill, which will be due and payable thirty (30) days from the date of the invoice. B. The Finance Director shall close any permit that has no short term lodging activity for a period of two consecutive years as evidenced by remitting zero dollars on the required transient occupancy tax and visitor service fee forms or has failed to return the transient occupancy and visitor service forms. After any permit closure pursuant to this subsection, the owner may reapply for reinstatement of the short term lodging permit which shall be processed in accordance with Section 5.95.030. Section 3: The recitals provided in this ordinance are true and correct and are incorporated into the substantive portion of this ordinance. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 5: The City Council finds the introduction and adoption of this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. 45 Ordinance No. 2020-15 Page 18 of 18 Section 6: Except as expressly modified in this ordinance, all other Sections, Subsections, terms, clauses and phrases set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect. Section 7: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be published pursuant to City Charter Section 414. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the adoption of this ordinance. This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 23rd day of June, 2020, and adopted on the 14th day of July, 2020, by the following vote, to -wit: AYES: Mayor O'Neill Mayor Pro Tem Avery, Council Member Brenner Council Member Dixon, Council Member Duffield Council Member Herdman NAYS: Council Member Muldoon ABSENT: Council Member Duffy Duffield RECUSED: ATTEST: WILL O'NEILL, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AARON C. HARP, CITY ATTORNEY 46 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing ordinance, being Ordinance No. 2020-15 was duly introduced on the 23rd day of June, 2020, at a regular meeting, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting duly held on the 141h day of July, 2020, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit.- AYES: it: AYES: Mayor Will O'Neill, Mayor Pro Tem Brad Avery, Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Diane Dixon, Council Member Jeff Herdman NAYS: Council Member Kevin Muldoon ABSENT: Council Member Duffy Duffield IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 15th day of July, 2020. 1 r 1U C, % V1 w C FO l Leilani I. Brown, MM . City Clerk City of Newport Beach, California CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, LEILANI I. BROWN, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. 2020-15 has been duly and regularly published according to law and the order of the City Council of said City and that same was so published in The Daily Pilot, a newspaper of general circulation on the following dates: 2020. Introduced Ordinance: June 27, 2020 Adopted Ordinance: July 18, 2020 In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name this day of , Leilani I. Brown, MMC City Clerk City of Newport Beach, California 47 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE48 Attachment No. PC 5 City Council minute excerpts, dated June 23, 2020 49 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE50 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting June 23, 2020 Newport -Mesa Spirit Run $21,000 Total $255,000; e) Bring the item back at the November 24, 2020 City Council meeting for possible reallocation of funds; and f) Invite Coastkeepers and Newport Ocean Sailors Association (NOSA) to provide Council with information. The motion carried unanimously. 18. Resolution No. 2020-63: Underground Utility Assessment District No. 111 — Authorization of Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds (C-8648-1) [381100-2020] Council Member Muldoon recused himself due to prior business interest conflicts. Motion by Mayor O'Neill, seconded by Council Member Dixon, to a) determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)( 3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; b) adopt Resolution No. 2020-63, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Limited Obligation Improvements Bonds with Respect to Assessment District No. 111; and c) authorize the City Manager and or designee to take any and all actions necessary to execute and deliver any and all documents deemed necessary or advisable in consultation with the City Attorney and Bond Counsel in order to carry out the intent of this resolution, the Fiscal Agent Agreement and the Term Sheet. With Council Member Muldoon recusing himself, the motion carried 6-0. 19. Ordinance No. 2020-15: Amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code Restrictions for Short Term Lodging; and Emergency Ordinance No. 2020-006: Restricting the Short -Term Rentals on Newport Island to a Minimum of Four Consecutive Nights [100-2020] Community Development Director Jurjis utilized a PowerPoint presentation to discuss the ad hoc committee's meetings and public interactions, the Emergency Ordinance and the Short -Term Lodging Ordinance, an active properties history, short-term lodging phases, the ad hoc committee's recommendations, enforcement, resources for a 24-hour answering service, staffing, and permit fees, and a preview of upcoming topics. In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis advised that the active properties history reflects the number of properties rather than the number of units. Mayor Pro Tem Avery noted there are good operators and bad lodgers; if there is not a requirement for an owner/operator to live on the property, then the City needs a robust system to identify bad operators and to cite people, the fees should be passed on, and the City should support its residents by maintaining enforcement. Mayor O'Neill thanked the subcommittee for their efforts. Council Member Dixon stated the subcommittee wanted to protect residents and respect the businesses that are good operators, and these are the first Code amendments regarding quality of life violations. In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated the City has no real regulations for short-term lodging other than limited regulations for noise, reported to date, staff has received 130 complaints on the code enforcement side, not counting complaints to the Police Department. Council Member Dixon related that the volume of letters indicates there are clearly issues with quality of life and read provisions from other coastal cities. Volume 64 - Page 446 51 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting June 23, 2020 Council Member Herdman referred to comments that the Council wants to ban short-term rentals completely in the City, noted that in a recent meeting, short-term rental operators in a particular geographical area encouraged the subcommittee not to ban short-term rentals completely, and stated that implementing the revisions to the Code will cause the units that are having negative impacts to eliminate themselves such that Council will not have to ban this industry from the City. Jeff Bosson, SeaBreeze Vacation Rentals, supported three -night minimum stays in all areas of the City, properties providing parking, the two -person per bedroom plus two maximum occupancy, exterior signage, and the industry standard of three violations per year results in suspension of a permit and did not support a limit on the number of permits, including a permit number in listings, and owner -occupied rentals. He inquired whether placing a cap on the number of permits and requiring owner -occupied rentals would constitute a change in use and require CCC approval. Debbie Stevens, Corona del Mar Residents Association President, used a PowerPoint presentation to summarize the results of a short-term lodging survey. Dennis Baker, SPON Treasurer, complimented Council for taking this in phases and indicated SPON supports the City's efforts regarding short-term lodging. Nancy Alston, SPON Board Member, advised that she has researched and suggested short-term lodging regulations, discussed Los Angeles and Santa Monica regulations for short-term rentals and the history of rentals in Newport Beach, and stated short-term rentals diminish the supply of long- term housing. Rod Adams, Newport Island short-term lodging owner, supported some restrictions and addressing nuisances, appreciated the slight changes between Ordinances 2020-003 and 2020-006, and questioned the Council singling out Newport Island. Meagan Cooper, Newport Island short-term lodging owner, indicated Newport Island is being singled out, restrictions on Newport Island have put her in a difficult position to cover her mortgage, and wanted Newport Island to be treated like other areas of the City. Larry Leifer, Newport Island, believed the presence of short-term rentals are analogous to the COVID-19 pandemic, short-term rentals introduce a commercial element that lacks acceptance by neighbors and are incompatible with what residents should tolerate, and stated that requirements for short-term lodging should include an onsite owner, a minimum one-week rental, onsite parking, inspections, and penalties. Mike Ivey supported short-term lodging, did not believe Newport Island is different from any other island, believed residents' underlying motive is to remove all short-term lodgings from Newport Island, and asked Council to treat Newport Island as equal rentals. Jim Miller shared his experiences of living near short-term lodging after Airbnb came to Newport Island, city councils across the U.S. are stopping their communities from being destroyed and believed that not everyone screens their renters. Lori Bowman supported lifting the ban on Newport Island and understood the need to ban short- term rentals during COVID-19, but the ban for Newport Island is unfair. Sandy Pearson shared her experiences living on Newport Island next to a short-term rental, asked Council to adopt regulations such as decreasing occupancy, changing the minimum stay to one month, to increase enforcement, and to allow punitive citations and fines based on videos and photos provided by residents, and believed management companies should be fined as well as owners. Gary Cruz believed an onsite owner resolves a lot of problems, suggested more enforcement of existing rules, and understood there was a high percentage of short-term lodging on Newport Island. Volume 64 - Page 447 52 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting June 23, 2020 Thomas Horton explained why Newport Island is different and supported the City's attempts to retain quality of life and the phased approach. Jim Mosher inquired regarding the edits mentioned in the Community Development Director's presentation and believed the Emergency Ordinance should be a regular ordinance. Mayor O'Neill reported the edits were derived from Mr. Mosher's comments. Craig Batley stated he refuses to operate short-term lodging on Newport Island and Newport Shores because they are residential neighborhoods and supported stricter enforcement. Max Johnson believed the Peninsula is the mecca for short-term lodging, restrictions should be enacted, higher fines and phasing is appropriate, and the Peninsula is a war zone. Joe Bowerbank, Newport Island, noted changes to Newport Island since he moved there 10 years ago and believed there needs to be a balance of permitted short-term lodging on Newport Island. President of Newport Island Community Association believed that some owners of short-term lodgings ensure their tenants are vetted, but the majority of owners are not good managers and reviewed the results of a survey of Newport Island property owners. Ms. Wyatt indicated quality of life is an issue for residents of Newport Island, an influx of short- term lodging has created parking issues and traffic hazards, and asked Council to explore additional means to protect residents' safety and to cap the number of short-term lodgings. Don Abrams advised that his company manages vacation rentals and rents to families, supported most of the new restrictions, believed most complaints about vacation rentals are not true, and he opposed the limit on total permits and losing permits if not used after two years. Dr. Baccaro, vacation rental owner, indicated all her properties have security cameras that are monitored, inquired about protections against neighbors trying to sabotage rental units, and believed renters are being singled out. An unidentified speaker did not believe that 75% of residents are against the detrimental effects of short-term lodging, indicated the proposals for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are necessary, and believed 98% of short-term lodgings are in disrepair. Patricia Grady felt as though she is being punished for living in her home and questioned whether she should wait for a solution. Larry Robinson stated Newport Island is unique, he was told Newport Island had no short-term lodging when he purchased his property, supported owner occupation of the property and a minimum stay of a month, and noted the lack of monitoring short-term rentals. Gary Sherwin, Visit Newport Beach President, related that tourism in Newport Beach is always a balance of business and quality of life and Visit Newport Beach supports staffs proposals. David Grouse advised that over the past several years his neighborhood has changed from owner - occupied and long-term rental housing to nine short-term rental houses located within 11/2 blocks of his home, believed enforcement is the key issue, and suggested limiting short-term lodging to one every block or 500 feet and providing a 24-hour telephone line for complaints. Paul Hoffman believed short-term lodging compounds the parking problem on Newport Island and indicated roads on Newport Island are one lane. Volume 64 - Page 448 53 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting June 23, 2020 Charles Klobe named the Council Members who could not have short-term lodging near their homes, stated that short-term lodging lowers property values, residents' quality of life is negatively affected by short-term lodging and supported limiting short-term lodging on Newport Island. Jeff Jordan indicated his next-door neighbor turned her home into short-term lodging, and it became a nightmare and hopefully the Council can protect residents. Lisa Ducat focused on the Council's adoption of the Emergency Ordinance due to COVID-19, believed short-term lodging is a permit and zoning issue, and stated that Newport Island should not be singled out. Penelope Gilbert advised that her Newport Island property has been in her family since 1946 and the proliferation of short-term lodging has changed Newport Island. An unidentified speaker suggested resident's need to be better neighbors and life on the island has changed because of short-term rentals and large houses with more people and more cars. Scott McFetters indicated all residents have had problems with short-term lodging on Newport Island, cars block emergency access and garages, and a preference for requiring an owner -occupied situation or a ban through the CCC on short-term rentals on Newport Island. In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, City Attorney Harp reported the City does not get involved in contractual affairs between a business owner and tenant. Community Development Director Jurjis advised that the next phase includes a clause allowing a rental of less than one week if the owner lives on the property. He reported that the City's online database for short-term rentals can include the occupant load, occupant load is based on the Building and Fire Codes and is calculated by dividing the floor area in square feet by 200, a separate Emergency Ordinance is needed to increase the minimum stay to four nights, the City remains under the emergency health order, and the only way the City can ban these items is through an emergency process. Council Member Brenner remarked that long-term renters and property owners should not behave in the manner that generates complaints about short-term renters, the City needs to make sure citations are issued, the majority of people who have bought duplexes are business people and are losing tenants because of nearby short-term lodging, and hoped Council has come up with some fair and equitable solutions. Council Member Dixon clarified that a short-term rental permit is a privilege, not a property right. In response to her question, City Attorney Harp indicated a short-term rental is not a property right. City Attorney Harp corrected scrivener's errors in Ordinance 2020-15 as noted by Mr. Mosher, Section 5.95.065 should reflect "violates any short-term lodging permit condition;" and appeals should go to the Finance Director. Motion by Council Member Dixon, seconded by Council Member Herdman, to a) find this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; b) waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only, introduce amended Ordinance No. 2020-15, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Amending Section 3.16.060 and Chapter 5.95 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Relating to Short Term Lodging, and pass to second reading on July 14, 2020. With Council Member Muldoon voting "no," the motion carried. Motion by Council Member Dixon, seconded by Council Member Herdman, to a) find this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical Volume 64 - Page 449 54 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting June 23, 2020 change to the environment, directly or indirectly; b) pursuant to City of Newport Beach Charter Section 412, waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only, and adopt Emergency Ordinance No. 2020-006, An Emergency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Prohibiting the Rental of Any Lodging Unit on Newport Island for a Period of Four Consecutive Nights or Less, to Any Person Other Than a Medical Professional or Emergency Responder Coming to the City of Newport Beach to Aid with the COVID-19 Outbreak. In response to Council Member Muldoon's question, Mayor O'Neill explained the vote for the prior motion. Mayor O'Neill believed an Emergency Ordinance is the wrong avenue for Newport Island In response to Council Member Dixon's question, City Attorney Harp advised that the emergency remains in effect, Council is saying a complete ban is not necessary and will repeal and replace the ordinance with the four -night minimum requirement, and Council needs to provide justification for treating Newport Island differently from the rest of the City. Mayor O'Neill noted he could not make the findings for the original ordinance but must make the findings to reverse the original ordinance. In response to his question, City Attorney Harp indicated the coastal development permit was handled by CCC staff. Community Development Director Jurjis added that the City submitted the emergency ordinance to the CCC and did not receive any comments. Council Member Dixon stated it is only until the emergency is over. Mayor O'Neill clarified that he did not understand how adding a night will fix an emergency situation. City Attorney Harp suggested the basis for the emergency ordinance are similar to those of the original ban on Newport Island: the narrow streets and the density. Mayor Pro Tem Avery indicated if Council is not banning it; it is quashing it. Council Member Muldoon related that he will vote no because he opposes the four -night restriction. With Mayor O'Neill and Council Member Muldoon voting "no," the motion carried. 20. Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update [100-2020] City Manager Leung reviewed recent State actions for early Stage 3 re -openings, mandatory face coverings, the resumption of additional Stage 3 businesses and activities, and Health Officer approvals as of June 19. Fire Chief Boyles continued the presentation with statistics for COVID-19 cases and deaths, the Fire Department's call load and responses to COVID-19 cases, and Fire personnel exposure to COVID-19. Junior Lifeguard training for the A Division began that day, and training for B, C, and D Divisions will begin on July 6. Council Member Muldoon indicated he has been told the New York Times article that states that patients from other counties are being sent to Orange County hospitals is accurate, those patients count toward Newport Beach's numbers, the City's ranking compared to other Orange County cities is dropping, more testing is good because it provides data, and Newport Beach and the County are being very responsible. Council Member Dixon noted Council Member Muldoon is correct that the County includes those patients in the City's statistics and Hoag Hospital's patient number is still very low. In response to her question, Chief Boyles advised that no Fire Department employees have tested positive for the coronavirus and that Orange County hospitals have the capacity for COVID-19 patients. Mayor O'Neill added that the document is called the Medical Health Operational Area Coordination Volume 64 - Page 450 55 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE56 Attachment No. PC 6 Redlined Zoning Code Text Changes 57 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE58 Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) 21.18.020 Residential Coastal Zoning Districts Land Uses. Table 21.181 Land Use R A R 1 R 1 6,000 R BI R 2 R 2 6,000 RM RM 6,000 Specific Use Regulations Residential Uses ShortTerm Lodging — — A A Chapter 5.95 and Section 21.48.115 21.48.115 Short Term Lodging. A. Purpose. This section provides standards for the operation of shortterm lodging units to prevent overburdening City services and adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods and on coastal access and resources. B. Zoning Districts and Planned Communities. No shortterm lodging unit shall be permitted on any parcel in the R1 (SingleUnit Residential) Coastal Zoning District or any parcel designated for singleunit dwelling land use as part of a planned community development plan unless the shortterm lodging unit was legally established on or before June 1, 2004. B. Permits. 1. No owner of a shortterm lodging unit, or any other person, shall advertise for rent, or rent, a shortterm lodging unit for less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days without a valid short term lodging permit for that unit issued pursuant to Chapter 5.95. 2. No new shortterm lodging permits shall be issued after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE]. 3. No annual shortterm lodging permit issued pursuant to Chapter 5.95 shall be assigned, renewed, or reinstated after previously being suspended, unless: a. The shortterm lodging unit is a legal nonconforming use, or is located in a residential district where shortterm lodging is an allowed use under Titles 20 and 21 of this Code; b. The shortterm lodging unit is located on a parcel in the R1 (SingleUnit Residential) Coastal Zoning District or any parcel designated for singleunit dwelling land use in a Planned Community Development Plan and was issued a shortterm lodging permit on or before June 1, 2004; c. The shortterm lodging unit is located in a nonresidential or mixeduse zone and was issued a shortterm lodging permit on or before November 24, 2010; 59 d. A shortterm lodging permit for the shortterm lodging unit was active on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE] and continuously maintained thereafter; e. The shortterm lodging permit was not subsequently revoked; f. The permit was not closed by the Finance Director in accordance with Section 5.95.080; and g. There is no other basis for denial of the shortterm lodging permit as set forth in Section 5.95.035. C. Operational Standards. The owner, or any other person(s) or entity(ies) that hold(s) legal and/or equitable title to the lodging unit, shall: 1. By written or oral agreement, limit overnight occupancy of the shortte rm lodging unit to a specific number of occupants, with the number of occupants not to exceed the permitted Building Code and Fire Code occupancy limits. 2. Use best efforts to ensure that the transient user, occupants and/or guests of the short term lodging unit does not create unreasonable noise or disturbances, engage in disorderly conduct, or violate provisions of this cCode or any Sstate or federal law pertaining to noise, disorderly conduct, the consumption of alcohol, or the use of illegal drugs. 3. Upon notification that any transient user, occupants and/or guests of his or her shortterm lodging unit have has created unreasonable noise or disturbances, engaged in disorderly conduct, or committed violations violate provisions of this cCode or any Sstate or federal law pertaining to noise, disorderly conduct, the consumption of alcohol or the use of illegal drugs, promptly use best efforts to prevent a recurrence of such conduct by those any transient user, occupants or guests. 4. Use best efforts to ensure compliance with applicable health and sanitation regulations relating to waste disposal. 5. Post a copy of any applicable permits and conditions in a conspicuous place within the unit. 6. Ensure the operation of the shortterm lodging co mplies with all applicable federal, state, and City laws and regulations. 7. Not rent, let, advertise for rent, or enter into an agreement for the rental of any shortterm lodging unit: a. For less than a three (3) consecutive night stay, if the shortterm lodging unit is located on a parcel that has an owneroccupied dwelling unit; or b. For less than a six (6) consecutive night stay if the shortterm lodging unit is located on a parcel that does not have an owneroccupied dwelling unit. For purposes of this subsection (7), the ownership of the shortterm lodging and the owneroccupied dwelling unit shall be same person. 60 8. The City Manager shall have the authority to impose additional standard conditions, applicable to all shortterm lodging units, as necessary to achieve the objectives of this section. 21.70.020 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases) “Dwelling unit, owneroccupied” means a dwelling uni t that is occupied by a natural person with legal or equitable title to the lot who resides in the dwelling unit as the person’s legal domicile and permanent residence. “Owneroccupied dwelling unit”. See “Dwelling unit, owneroccupied”. 61 From:Mark Younglove To:Planning Commissioners Subject:SHORT-TERM LODGING LCP AMENDMENT (PA2020-048) Date:Monday, July 20, 2020 4:21:12 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As an owner of a short term rental in Newport Beach, I am writing to express my extreme displeasure at this additional restriction on people who rent and owners of short term rentals. I believe this expresses an ugly "locals only - everyone else go home" attitude which is uncalled for and unreasonable. There are already in place loud-party and other ordinances that can and do control disturbances at all residences, including short term rentals in Newport Beach. In particular, requiring a minimum 6 day stay is unreasonable and unnecessary. Many renters come for "long weekends" especially during the non summer months and restricting their use is not beneficial to anyone. The beach and bay and many other beautiful attractions of Newport Beach are rightfully for the use of all people who come to Newport Beach. They are not the private playground of anyone. This is recognized by the Coastal Commission and California Environmental Quality Act. Attempting to take away the right to enjoy these attractions is not only wrong it is illegal. My parents (with whom I own our rental at 517 36th St) and my wife and I and our family enjoy the use of this property and our Duffy ourselves and enjoy the income and pleasure gained from renting it part time to vacationers. We know that STRs generate many millions of dollars to the City each year which is much more than the cost to the city in providing services to these STRs. We ask you to stop the attack on the short term rental community and work with us for a healthy and vibrant Newport Beach for all. Thank you for your consideration, Mark Younglove and family 951 212 5984 markyounglove@gmail.com Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:David Prince To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Short Term Lodging Permit Addendum Date:Monday, July 20, 2020 5:03:24 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I respectfully urge the planning commission to prohibit the issuance of any new short term lodging permits. I live on Newport Island and have personally experienced the ad nauseum problems/issues associated with short term vacationers. They are ruining are quality of life. Please....no more. Thank You! -- David Prince Broker Associatec 949.500.1746 | o 949.554.1284 1200 Newport Center Drive #100, Newport Beach, CA 92660pacificsothebysrealty.com | dprince@pacificsir.com DRE #00580854 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Pat Chamberlain Subject:Short Term Lodging - Phase 2 - Villa Rentals Input Date:Monday, July 20, 2020 6:51:59 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council Members and Planning Commissioners, I hope this email finds you safe during these unprecedented times in our world. My name is Patrick Chamberlain, President/Owner of Villa Rentals, Inc. which is a residential property management company located in the city of Newport Beach since 1976. We specialize in both short term lodging (about 70 units give or take) as well as long term leases (about 85 units) within the city and have maintained a great relationship with not only the community but with the city as well. The purpose of my email is to provide some input on the phase 2 proposed short term lodging ordinance changes with regard to limit on permits and minimum night stay. I understand there has been a significant increase over the last 5 years in short term lodging permits within the city. I align this directly with the emergence of online platforms like Airbnb, Booking.com and Expedia offering an easier way to provide short term lodging which was not as easily accessible in years past. These online giants decided they wanted to enter into the leisure market creating a spike in short term lodging opportunities. This emergence has created the façade that further ordinances are needed to maintain the quiet enjoyment of our community and have magnified the decades old arguments against short term lodging due to parking, trash and noise issues. My input comes down to two key elements in todays market – Enforcement of the existing ordinances and regulation of the online platforms. These are the real issues. Enforcement: I feel the existing ordinances already provide a strong platform for regulation on short term lodging but they are simply not enforced. I find this to be the main cause for the increased issues we are facing today as the existing ordinances if/when enforced properly will in fact address the basic issues you are trying to amend in the coming weeks. I find that DAC’s and LUGOS are not issued when they should be on a regular basis. These are needed in order to find an owner in violation of their permit and then dealt with accordingly. With that being said, the paperwork part of this is atrocious. It may take up to 5 months or in some cases no notices sent at all for an owner to finally be notified of a violation or go unnotified. Furthermore, code enforcement is very spotty with their trash violation notices at best. These notifications need to be in real time for an owner/operator to act accordingly. Because of this, owners (and their operators if represented), long term residents and transient occupants are not being held accountable for their actions. I propose that the city council evaluate the enforcement of the existing ordinances as a first step instead of amending the ordinances adding even more areas where effective enforcement will still be the key component. Online Platform Regulation: The vacation market has changed drastically with the online platforms taking all the power and control away from the owner/operator. I feel this is a huge problem and needs addressed immediately. I know controlling or dictating terms to these large platforms is costly and most likely a losing battle. I propose the city set requirements for these online platforms (via the permit verbiage that an owner/operate receives) who want to operate in the city that an owner/operator have the Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) ability to easily cancel an unwanted reservation. This may force the online platforms to modify their cancelation policies as they will not have any listings within the city without an owner/operator having that control. Years ago, we would spend time on the phone or over email vetting the guests prior to the reservation being made. Now, in order for the online platforms to make money, they force the guest to book through their platform leaving the owner/operator with a reservation that they now have to vet. They do not like cancellations and are very guest heavy on their policies. The host is literally powerless and face a tremendous amount of red tape when trying to get that power back. In my opinion, it’s not the spike in permits that are causing the issues we are having, it is the lack of power owner/operators have with these online platforms that only care about their bottom line and not the community. There has to be a way to force them to adhere to the existing ordinances without adding more restrictions on the owners as I feel placing all the pressure on the owner to control these platforms is not the answer nor feasible. Villa Rentals has used all the platforms but now only uses VRBO as they allow us the control we need to vet and cancel reservations accordingly. The online platforms create problems by pushing to get days filled, discounting rates and filling one or two gaps between reservations. This has then led to owner/operators offering one or two night rentals which is just ridiculous. Guests who rent for that short period of time are looking to host a gathering or celebrate something causing the constant turnover and all that goes with that. Conclusion: Villa Rentals has offered three night rentals for years and never anything less. It has been very successful and offers a proven track record for community friendly reservations. The one and two night rentals have been the driving force behind the increased complaints and should be eliminated. I feel a three night min is a great compromise. The proposed six night min for non-owner occupied buildings is not necessary nor conducive to affordable family vacations. This leads to my position on the limit on permits. If the above areas are addressed, in particular enforcement of existing ordinances as well as a new addition of a three night min, then you will find that a limit on permits will not be necessary. Reckless owner/operators will end up with revoked or suspended permits ultimately allowing residents to feel confident in the system and that problem properties will be taken care of. I hope you found my input helpful and I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond accordingly as I would love to hear your feedback on it. Talk to you soon! Patrick Chamberlain Villa Rentals, Inc. 427 31st Street Newport Beach CA 92663 949-675-4912 Office 949-795-4038 Cell Villarentalsinc.com Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Larry Leifer To:Planning Commissioners Cc:Chris; Jeff Friedman; Ken Keirstead; Mark & Melissa Markof; Martin O"Hea; Richard Wolpow; Scott McFetters; Dept - City Council Subject:RE: SHORT-TERM LODGING LCP AMENDMENT (PA2020-048) Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 11:32:37 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners: The presence of short term rentals is analogous to the Covid 19 pandemic that we are fighting. It is equivalent to a growing infection in our neighborhoods that is foreign to the quiet enjoyment we should expect in our homes and neighborhood. Short term rentals introduce a commercial element that lacks acceptance by neighbors and is equivalent to creating mini motel lodging but without the presence of management to oversee the short term occupants. Commercial properties are only licensed if they meet building codes, have adequate parking and can handle the transient traffic of lodgers moving in and out. In the event of on-site tenant problems, commercial owners have their own on-site management and security procedures to rely on before calling on city resources such as law enforcement. This is not the case with short term tenant problems. The property owners of short term lodging, especially those owners who are absentees have found a means to increase the profitability of their property by short term occupancy. In the event of tenant problems there is typically no owner present and the burden of ameliorating disturbances is incumbent upon the neighbors and city resources and law enforcement. Newport Island is a very compact, limited bridge-access island that is a completely residential neighborhood that is predominately owner occupied. The impact of short term Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) lodging permitting has been a nightmare and has proven to be incompatible to what our residents should have to tolerate. In the absence of a means to totally eliminate short term lodging there should be a requirement that an owner of such a lodging should be present on the property, that the minimum rental should be 1 week, that any tenant occupant vehicles have on site parking, that the property is inspected periodically to be sure it complies with city licensing and strong penalties are imposed for violations. Newport Beach has permitted short term lodging in numbers far exceeding that of other beach cities and we residents are paying the price for it. There should not be any further permits allowed. Respectfully, Lawrence Leifer 3706 Channel Place, Newport Island Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:chris@harano.com To:Planning Commissioners Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 11:37:17 AM Attachments:2.0_Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment_PA2020-048_Final.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Committee, As a resident of Newport Island I would like to provide my input on the attached proposed STL LCP amendment. I think this amendment was well drafted and strikes a balance between the interests of full time residents in these areas affected by STRs and those owners who chose to rent their properties. I am glad to see there is a cap on the permits, especially given how many more permits Newport has by comparison to other cities. Enforcement of the existing permits is key and covering the additional enforcement resources with a increase to the permit fee makes common sense. Thanks for working the issue and moving this forward. Best regards, Chris Harano Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 1 Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: Short Term Rentals   ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: R G <cz49hk@hotmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 12:11 PM  To: R G <cz49hk@hotmail.com>  Cc: R G <cz49hk@hotmail.com>  Subject: Short Term Rentals    [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.    To Whom It May Concern:  My wife and I bought a duplex in Newport at 133 45th Street with our Uncle in 1986.  We  have owned it since then and tried our best to maintain the interior and exterior to meet the beauty and astethics of the  community while trying to keep the original beach bungalow look. We have relied on a full service local property  manager to manage, rent, and maintain the building since we live an hour away.  They have always done a great job  finding respectful and responsible tenants including vacation renters.    My wife and I are retired now along with our Uncle and we rely on this income to support us in retirement.    Regarding some of your stats provided,  I would mention that the comparison of the number of STR to some of the  neighboring communities is not apples to apples. Newport Beach has so many more properties right on the beach or  one/two blocks off the make it conducive for vacationers.  Most of the other cities do not have the layout with a bay and  beach on both sides within walking distanc.  The enforcement of current codes and regulations is an area that should be  a focus.  The city has done a good job bringing back control during 4th of July with a lot more work that can be done.  I  agree that one day or two day rentals should be stopped. However, three and above should be kept. There has to be  better screening and the ability of owners/managers to refuse to rent to undesirable people which has been difficult  with AirBnb and others like Expedia.  That is why we don’t try to do this ourselves.  We rely on a professional to screen  our tenants and for his judgement in using the right platforms.    Limiting the number of STR units will place undue hardship on owners that have purchased their property to generate  income and pay their mortgages especially those that recently or are in the midst of buying or building/remodeling.   The  last 5 to 10 years we have seen A tremendous amount of upgrades, remodels, new buildings and improvements made to  property all over the Peninsula.  This also includes putting the utilities underground.  It may be more prudent to study in  depth the capacity for this city to handle STR (more or less number of units) and the abilities of the cities to add more  enforcement to the current regulations instead of just jumping into more government restrictions on free enterprise.    Also the tax revenue that the city generates from STR has allowed this city to invest in beautification of the public spaces  and attract desirable business to this city.  The ability for many people to afford a weekend getaway on the beach is  available to them today in Newport.  Reducing or capping STR will make it much more expensive.    Thanks for your consideration.    Respectfully submitted,    Richard Ghazarian    Sent from my iPhone  Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Jon Elliott To:Koetting, Peter; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Lowrey, Lee; Weigand, Erik; Ellmore, Curtis Cc:oneill4newport@gmail.com; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Short Term Lodging Phase II Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 1:58:51 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom It May Concern, I am writing about the proposed Phase II revisions regarding short term lodgings. I have owned our home on 36th St. for many years and if you extend the minimum stay requirement from 3 Day to 6 days then I will no longer be able to afford the property. We put four children through Jr. Guards at this home and is a place we would love for our future grandchildren to enjoy, but the property taxes, business taxes, insurances could never be covered if all renters need to stay a minimum of 4 days or more – It just doesn’t happen that often & the majority of renters like to stay from Thursday to Sunday – Especially in the off-season. Our primary residence is up in Dover and we are reliant on this income to help put the kids through college & maintain both residences. During this chapter in our lives we have to rent it out consistently to even break even & I strongly feel that if you change all rentals to longer minimums it will greatly impact the revenue we are receiving… In several years, we want to lease out our house in Dover on a yearly basis and spend much more time at our home at 3600 W. Oceanfront but for now we rely so much on this revenue and I really don’t understand the need to change something that isn’t broken. The tenants eat at the restaurants, go whale watching, & spend their money at local establishments. We overpaid for our property (Our fault) all those years ago and would most likely lose money if we were forced to sell this property because the new owners wouldn’t even be able to get a lodging permit & it is a funky little property but all that we could afford to pull off back in the day. It was our long-term play to get our four kids out of Newport Harbor so we could then come down and enjoy retirement at the beach. I think enacting a longer minimum will hurt property values, decrease revenue to local businesses and the city, & I just don’t really understand the point of enacting all of this now when we are all (homeowners, local establishments) hurting financially as a result of the Covid shutdown & could be for years to come. I have never written to the city before & I hope I am sending to the right place – I never envisioned the city to enact these types of restrictions when I purchased the home – You restrict local Newport residents whose homes are in the area but let the Lido House build a massive, traffic inducing structure on Newport Blvd. which allow one night stays? I just don’t get it. Thank you in advance for taking the time to read & hopefully Newport will take the time to consider the financial impact on people who rely on this income moving forward at the meeting on Thursday. Happy Tuesday & thanks again for your time. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Jon Elliott 3600 W. Oceanfront 1200 Cambridge Lane Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Randy Beck To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:DIANEBDIXON; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Short Term rentals Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 2:07:41 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello commissioners, First, current homeowners payed a premium for their properties that included the right to a short-term rental, because they were told by the city it would be transferable once they sold. For families who planned their futures around having these rights, it is punishing to now take them away; therefore tremendously decreasing the value of the property. Ask this question to yourself… if this was your parent’s property situation, would you implement all these same rules because a group of people who are mostly new to Newport have issues with the way things have run for years? In regards to implementing a minimum night stay, I believe that 2 nights/3 days is a fair compromise. Six days is unrealistic for many families, and adds motivation for operators to cheat the system; leading to less regulation and lost revenue for the city. Finally, the 2 violation rule. What if it is 2 trashcan violations? There is also the concern that people would misuse the rule to try and control or threaten their neighbors. I believe this has become much more complicated than it needed to be. My last 3 renters have been Newport Beach residents, wanting to enjoy our beautiful beaches with their families. They come every year as their family tradition, as many families do. When they heard of the possible changes to short-term lodging, they became concerned how this would effect availability to rent beachfront properties. I have appreciated the work of the city in the past, and of course I know there is some give-and-take to all issues. However, current owners/residents that bought under certain regulations shouldn’t have their lives and finances turned upside-down due to such drastic changes. Thank you, Randy Beck Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Kristin Younglove To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Short term rentals Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 2:07:52 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon, My name is Kristin Younglove. I am writing to urge you not to put a 6 day minimum on short term rentals. This will hurt people like my family and I who have one rental home. Please instead consider limiting the amount of permits a person may have. This will keep corporations from infiltrating, but will prevent individuals and families like me/mine from being financially harmed. Short term rentals provide revenue for businesses in Newport by bringing in tourism. This is beneficial for the community when it is done properly. Please protect individual homeowners by not setting a cap at more than 3 days and considering limiting permits. This will prevent corporations, who don’t care about Newport, from taking advantage of the industry without punishing those of us who love Newport and are not taking advantage. I have been coming to my family home in Newport my entire life and I consider it to be a part of my life with many happy childhood memories. The city matters to me and my families’ single rental home is run in a fashion that demonstrates our care for the city. Respectfully, Kristin Younglove Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Lisa Beale To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:DIANEBDIXON; Jeff Herdman; Joy Brenner; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; Will O"Neill; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Phase Two STL Ordinance Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 2:08:20 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Newport Beach Planning Commissioners, I was never contacted or invited to participate in the process of revamping the STL code. We have owned our home for 20 years at 114 31st Street and have been renting it since my husbands’ death in 2015. Our TOT tax is paid on time each quarter to the city. I am a law-abiding citizen and I have diligently followed the rules set forth by the city. I depend on my STL income to supplement my income, maintain the property and pay property taxes. The Phase Two STL ordinance has me rather concerned. A 6-day minimum stay requirement will decimate my income. Times have changed and families wanting to take vacations are only able to get away for shorter periods of time: 3, 4 or 5 nights. Shorter stays have become the norm. We travel a lot and rarely are we able to get away for a solid week. We travel frequently and utilize vacation rentals, across the county, and the longest minimum stay we typically encounter is 3 nights. I would be in favor or a 3-night minimum but anything greater, again, would decimate my income. I do not agree with the provision to freeze the number of STL permits. Why is this STL amendment being rushed through during COVID-19 when travel is restricted and a personal appearance to speak is limited. What is the emergency? Other than the fact that you are taking advantage of the current situation to pass ordinances without the ability to hear from the actual property owners who are being directly affected. Sincerely, Lisa M Beale Owner @ 114 31st Street, Newport Beach Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Scott McFetters To:Planning Commissioners Cc:Mark Markos; Larry Leifer; Chris Harano; Ken Keirstead; Marty O"Hea; Jeff Friedman; Richard Wolpow; mike@goldcoastglass.com; Jim Miller; Dept - City Council; budreveley@gmail.com; thomas@stratcomponent.com; rlmequities@gmail.com; pennyreveley@gmail.com; Roger Saxton; acooperz@gmail.com; msannaplamer@gmail.com; stacywyatt68@gmail.com; patrickmccracken1@gmail.com Subject:Ban Short Term Rentals on Newport Island Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 3:23:00 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Newport Beach Planning Commission, I hope your day is going well! Short term rentals are a disaster on Newport Island and should be banned. They don't work on Newport Island period. To many people, not enough parking and we are a residential community. Not an un-supervised hotel row. As immediate relief we need owner occupied because of the mess we are in due to past incorrect zoning issues for Newport Island. Another big issue will be illegal short-term rentals. 515 36th ( No short-term rental permit ) has had six different groups stay there recently. Only two citations ( people won't answer the door for code enforcement, probably by instruction ) and the people get to stay anyway. They are not asked to leave. When will that end and what is the City of Newport Beach going to do about that? A small fine and the homeowner makes thousands and the city gets whatever the illegal short-term rental reports and we get the noise, pot smoking and the ongoing party without any punitive consequences for the owner? The residents on Newport Island do not want short term rentals per my prior email to city council below. We pay taxes and want higher home values. We did not buy into this zoo the City has created it and we want the planning department to fix it. It's not to late for Newport Island and we won't let it happen. Please see below. I hope all is well. I will start off with a reminder of one weekend on Newport Island pre-Covid-19. Please see the attached pictures and prior email below. I have a lot more pictures and video of other Newport Island STR issues if anyone would like to request. Next Tuesday is a big day for Newport Island and other neighborhoods that are negatively impacted by Short Term Rental businesses that are being run out of our neighborhoods. It is a time for the Newport Beach City Council and the City of Newport Beach to take responsibility for issuing STL permits on Newport Island which is a residential Island regardless of what the current zoning states or how the STR permits are currently issued or enforced. That is another entirely connected Newport Beach planning issue. You can't run a business without policies, rules, regulations and enforcement which could include closure. There are over 100 plus homes on Newport Island and less than 30 lots listed as duplexes. Out of the less that 30 lots some are utilized as single family homes. Newport Island is a true residential Island that is different than other neighborhoods that are mostly duplexes with some single family houses. We did not have a STL problem or awareness until they showed up next door and around the Island which have two addresses. Two or three prior to over 16 in just over a year. We still have not seen the full impact because of Covid-19 regulations. I am asking for a complete STR ban on Newport Island. STR's do not work and will never work on a true small residential Island that the vast majority of residents do not want STR's. Newport Island does not have the shape, parking, space, lot size, house size, access, noise controls, regulations and enforcement to support it. The vast majority of Newport Island does not want any more disrespect, noise, dog issues, parties, crime, traffic, speeding, trespassing, fireworks, intimidation, etc. due to unacceptable increase of STR permits in the last year. The person who signs the lease. The others who stay that aren't on the lease. The others who visit during the day. The others that party at night. Unlike other surrounding areas Newport Island is still a true residential neighborhood that did not have a STR issue until last year. It can still be solved with a City Council Vote and presenting solid support to the Coastal Commission. A vast majority of the Newport Island residents do not want STR's. Especially anyone who lives next to one. There is one resident who lives and the property and has a STR permit. The other exceptions Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) of people who want STR's on the Newport Island don't live permanently on the Island. They also have the right to voice their opinion. However, some might be the same people fighting any short term rentals that might be in their permanent neighborhood and would not want one next door if they lived on the island. SPON has a great report out on STR's. So does CDM. Newport Island's survey will be released shortly. Huntington Beach does not allow short term rentals. Laguna has very few and they are highly regulated. The trend is to get rid of them all together or regulate the hell the out of them. Wake up Newport... I have called the different departments in the City of Newport Beach and asked for traffic studies or other studies that support the City issuing STR Permits on Newport Island. I have not found one yet. What I do know is a triangle is the worst possible shape to be in for an island if it needs parking spots. I am sure that is the reason that Newport Island is one, if not the only neighborhood in Newport Beach that has permitted parking because of the long known parking issues on the island. Forget, construction, City water pump trucks, maintenance workers and regular family visitors. How do the STR fit into the equation with their multiple cars, dogs, family, friends and volume of people for their summer parties? Short Term Rentals park illegally by blocking fire lanes, sidewalks, garages, alleys and the main streets causing major safety and liability issues. Let's not forget about putting 10 plus people in a 1,900 square foot house on a 2,300 lot which was a 2 bedroom converted to a 4 bedroom ( 3717 Channel, feel free to google ). One bedroom used to be a closet the other room was a dining room. The renters can't fit inside so they go outside and make all the noise outside which travels over the water or next door into our bedroom. They should have no more than 6 people in a house like that and that is pushing it. Still no Code Enforcement investigation after 6 months because they can't enter? This is the same house that has one small garage that a large truck, SUV or Van cannot fit in and there is not a driveway so they park illegally over the sidewalk for part in the red emergency vehicle zone. Not having one legitimate parking space but letting 10 plus people over? This is where Code Enforcement should be earning its money and come up with solutions to the problems they see instead of saying they can't do anything about it? Don't issue anymore STR permit's until the holes are filled. Simple. If you see a problem work on fixing it like we all have to do. How can the permanent City employees not see what's going on? One of the many things that we all agree on is that the owners, operators and renters should all be held accountable. This means getting rid of the bad owners, operators, no more STR subleases, punitive fines ( make it hurt ), kicking problem tenants out immediately, taking permits away. Any nuisance such as illegal parking and mortars should count towards revoking a permit. The owner will have to think twice if they have the space or parking to support more than 4 or 6 people in their house. We as a neighborhood are not taking it anymore and will be calling the owners and owners of the operators in the middle of the night after we call the police if their tenants keep us up for any reason. The owners should have skin in the game. If they want to rent for less than 30 days then they should have to also live on the property. I am sure that would fix most issues quickly. Since most of the STR' permits were approved in the last year very few are impacted by having to rent more than 30 days. Please do the right thing and ban Short Term Rentals from Newport Island. Please feel free to contact me anytime to discuss. I am here to assist. Best regards, Scott McFetters 714-343-1657 -----Original Message----- From: Scott McFetters Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 9:40 AM To: hmoss@nbpd.com Subject: Short Term Rentals Issues from this weekend! Specifically 3717 and 3806 Channel ( Avantstay.com) I hope everyone had a great weekend! I have attached the following pictures and police call logs from this weekend! Just and another 10 guys staying next door at 3717 Channel and another 10 of their friends staying next door at 3806 Channel is a residential neighborhood. What could go wrong? Please see all the attached pictures. This is going to become a legal issue soon if the city does not step up and protect our quality of life and our overall Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) security. 3806 recently had all its patio furniture stolen and 3717 had a Kayak stolen. Please not that the police call log does not note specific addresses. It does not reflect all calls and it proves that the officers go out and ask people to move their cars instead of ticket. The same group of guys just kept doing it all weekend and got away with it. They said the officer let them off on Friday because it was the first night. They took full advantage the rest of the weekend with the 8 plus cars between the two houses. The 3717 does not even have a legitimate one car garage. You cannot fit a SUV in with without blocking the sidewalk. I called Friday at 4:04 PM about 3717 Channel. Truck blocking sidewalk and fire lane. Officer had them move. Called at Saturday at 8:04am Same truck blocking sidewalk and fire lane. Per the picture the truck at 3806 was parked illegally all weekend. Blocking the sidewalk and also leaving the gate blocking the sidewalk. Saturday morning the guys left their drunk friend passed out one foot from falling in the channel per the pictures. By the way my dog was barking all night because that guy was making noises outside all night. No one was home and I contacted Avantstay. Gets better. I go on a walk the dog when I get home around 10:00pm and one of the short term rental guys at 3717 was asking if I complained about noise and that they are getting a bunch of harassment for parking as his white car was parked illegally in the fire lane. He continued to tell me was to drunk to drive and was only going to move it in the driveway. I told him there is 10 of them so one of them can move it or they will get a ticket. They said there is no parking on the island so they had other cars parked at Pavillion's. They said that Avantstay gave them no special rules for the neighborhood or parking. He never moved so I called about all three cars that were parked illegally at 3717,3806 and the end of 38th. To my knowledge none were cited. However they arrested someone in front of my house and my guess is it was one of the drunk short term renters. You call can investigate that one. A picture is attached. Anyone who thinks it is an enforcement under current protocol is nuts. You should use the call log and not the actual cited complaints as your reference. It is not accurate. Everyone that comes in does the same thing. I am asking that 3717 and 3806 get their permits pulled. 3806 is and ongoing party house and was mentioned about the naked woman and pot. I witnessed it along with many others including at lease 4 police cars if not 6. Let's not forget two large dogs at 3717 jumping of the dock on low tide and running all over the low tide habitat and leaving two large dog craps that are probably still floating around the channel. Some of you have already seen the pictures. I am sure it destroyed some eel grass? We haven't even discussed possible code violations that have already been brought up regarding both houses. When will that be enforced? Enough is enough. Best regards, Scott McFetters 714-343-1657 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Scott McFetters To:Planning Commissioners Subject:More Short-Term Lodging Pictures on Newport Island Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 3:30:54 PM Attachments:FullSizeRender.mov [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please see below. From: Scott McFetters <smcfetters@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 11:40 AM To: kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>; Navarrete, Monique <MNavarrete@newportbeachca.gov>; Contino, Brian <BContino@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Rieff, Kim <KRieff@newportbeachca.gov>; Moss, Heidi <HMoss@nbpd.org>; Brenner, Joy <JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov>; Martin O'Hea <mohea@bixbyland.com>; chris@harano.com <chris@harano.com>; 'Mark Markos' <msm619@ymail.com>; Larry Leifer <lawrelei@gmail.com>; Richard Wolpow <rwolpow@pocnettech.com>; Jeff Friedman <jfriedman@turnerfiber.com>; newportislandjim@gmail.com <newportislandjim@gmail.com>; ken@eclecticfinishes.com <ken@eclecticfinishes.com>; Herdman, Jeff <jherdman@newportbeachca.gov>; avery@newportbeachca.gov <avery@newportbeachca.gov>; roger@catalinacomponents.com <roger@catalinacomponents.com>; citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov <citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Mike Veal <mike@goldcoastglass.com> Subject: Re: More Short-Term Lodging Pictures on Newport Island IMG_7971.MOV IMG_7971. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 3717 Channel Get Outlook for iOS From: Scott McFetters <smcfetters@outlook.com> Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 2:39 PM To: kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov; Dixon, Diane; Duffield, Duffy; O'Neill, William; Navarrete, Monique; Contino, Brian; Jurjis, Seimone; Rieff, Kim; Moss, Heidi; Brenner, Joy; Martin O'Hea; chris@harano.com; 'Mark Markos'; Larry Leifer; Richard Wolpow; Jeff Friedman; newportislandjim@gmail.com; ken@eclecticfinishes.com; Herdman, Jeff; avery@newportbeachca.gov; roger@catalinacomponents.com; citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov; Mike Veal Subject: Short-Term Lodging Pictures on Newport Island Honorable City Council, City Manager and City Staff, I hope everyone had a great Father's Day weekend! Now back to the theme of our pain is your pain. Would you want a business next to your home? Especially when not currently accountable. A second email later with more pictures will follow. I am forwarding a previous email that was sent to some of you regarding short term renters who are allowed to bring dogs without a fenced in back yard at 3717 Channel and then let them loose into our channel during low tide or other times with no disregard as if it is their personal back yard. There have been multiple dogs more than 3 or times in the last year. Some dogs run around including on my dock at low tide and others jump in after the ducks, stingrays and whatever else. Please see the pictures of what they leave behind. How is bringing transient, irresponsible short-term rental on the water without appropriate fencing or yard any type of restrictions positive for the charter of the Coastal Commission? The Newport Island residents on the channel cannot do any work without a permit from Coastal Commission but short-term rentals can allow habitat destruction and leave. They are the same dogs that bark because they are not used to the area and can see anything that goes by including the wildlife, boats, kayakers, etc. Why the short-term renters leave the dogs in a new environment lock up inside or with the backdoor open all day why they are having fun we the permanent neighbors get to listen to them bark and moan all day. I have notified Advanstay,com. and Code Enforcement and sent pictures and all we get is more multiple dog situations. The same people trespassed on my property to wash the channel mud of my deck and dock while we were on our boat so we would not see it happened. I noticed right away and contacted AvantStay.com. They did nothing. The owner is also aware but nonresponsive and wants me to talk to his attorney with any issues. This is the same person listed in the Newport Beach Short Term City directory as a contact with his phone number. Please ban short term rentals on Newport Island. in the interim if there is and in the interim, Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) please hold the owners and operators responsible by making them be owner occupied ( Santa Monica and other cities ), much higher fines, inspections, limit the amount of total people to 7 or less depending on the size of the lot, house and real bedrooms. Illegal parking, fireworks, etc. should count towards a permit infraction. Eliminate subleases for short term rentals where the owner is off the hook. If DAC ( Disturbance Activation Card ) is 8 or more people than allowing permits over 7 occupants are asking for a party on Newport Island. It is a neighborhood not STR hub. There are many more restrictions not mentioned in this email. Make it easy for Code Enforcement to enforce and pull permits. Make STR fees and fines more expensive to cover the costs of having dedicated police to enforce the STR's 24 hours a day. The hotels have to bear that expense whey do the STR owners have no skin in the game. They make money and the neighbors suffer in our own neighborhoods. Our pain should be the owner, operator, short term renter pain. Any further residential pain should be eliminated immediately. We live there and the almost all the owners of the STR's don't. Best regards, Scott McFetters 714-343-1657 Get Outlook for iOS From: Scott McFetters <smcfetters@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 10:03:12 AM To: Contino, Brian <BContino@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Short-Term Lodging on Newport Island Last time dogs stayed at 3717 Channel. No gates to keep them in. Get Outlook for iOS From: Scott McFetters <smcfetters@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 1:51 PM To: Jurjis, Seimone; Campbell, Jim; Dixon, Diane; Duffield, Duffy; Tseng, Evelyn; Navarrete, Monique; Contino, Brian; Rieff, Kim Subject: Short-Term Lodging on Newport Island I hope all is well! I wanted to give you an update and send you some pictures and video from 3717 Channel this weekend. I think two parking citations were given out Thursday and Saturday. I called to complain about them being out until midnight in the back deck and having two big dogs out at 6:30 am in the morning which woke up the neighbors who live on the water along with them talking. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) I came back yesterday on our boat and dogs had been on my back deck, dock and all offer the channel around the sea wall during the low tide. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Two piles of dog feces that are now part of our channel water supply. Probably killed a bunch of eel grass, etc. The dogs have been barking or making noise When they leave they put them in the house and they bark when anyone goes Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) outside including this weekend! Thank you for the support: I will be out of town this week along with some other neighbors. However we should still be represented. Best regards, Scott 714-343-1657 Get Outlook for iOS From: Rodriguez, Clarivel Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:21:36 PM To: Rodriguez, Clarivel <CRodriguez@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; Tseng, Evelyn <ETseng@newportbeachca.gov>; Navarrete, Monique <MNavarrete@newportbeachca.gov>; Contino, Brian <BContino@newportbeachca.gov>; 'Scott McFetters' <smcfetters@outlook.com>; Rieff, Kim <KRieff@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Short-Term Lodging on Newport Island When: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 11:00 AM-12:00 PM. Where: Mtg Room-Crystal Cove(Bay 2D, Max 26 A/V) The purpose of the meeting is to discuss short-term lodging issues on Newport Island, specifically at 38th St. and Channel Place. From: Rodriguez, Clarivel Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:21:36 PM To: Rodriguez, Clarivel <CRodriguez@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; Tseng, Evelyn <ETseng@newportbeachca.gov>; Navarrete, Monique <MNavarrete@newportbeachca.gov>; Contino, Brian <BContino@newportbeachca.gov>; 'Scott McFetters' <smcfetters@outlook.com>; Rieff, Kim <KRieff@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Short-Term Lodging on Newport Island When: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 11:00 AM-12:00 PM. Where: Mtg Room-Crystal Cove(Bay 2D, Max 26 A/V) The purpose of the meeting is to discuss short-term lodging issues on Newport Island, specifically at 38th St. and Channel Place. From: Rodriguez, Clarivel Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:21:36 PM To: Rodriguez, Clarivel <CRodriguez@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Dixon, Diane Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; Tseng, Evelyn <ETseng@newportbeachca.gov>; Navarrete, Monique <MNavarrete@newportbeachca.gov>; Contino, Brian <BContino@newportbeachca.gov>; 'Scott McFetters' <smcfetters@outlook.com>; Rieff, Kim <KRieff@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Short-Term Lodging on Newport Island When: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 11:00 AM-12:00 PM. Where: Mtg Room-Crystal Cove(Bay 2D, Max 26 A/V) The purpose of the meeting is to discuss short-term lodging issues on Newport Island, specifically at 38th St. and Channel Place. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Scott McFetters To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Fw: City of Newport Beach: Short Term Lodging Complaints ( Newport Island, AvantStay, 3806 and 3717 Channel ) Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 3:33:31 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please see below. From: Scott McFetters <smcfetters@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 6:49 PM To: Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; Navarrete, Monique <MNavarrete@newportbeachca.gov>; kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; Brenner, Joy <JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov>; Herdman, Jeff <jherdman@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>; Jacobs, Carol <cjacobs@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; 'Mark Markos' <msm619@ymail.com>; Mike Veal <mike@goldcoastglass.com>; ken@eclecticfinishes.com <ken@eclecticfinishes.com>; Chris Harano <chris@harano.com>; bavery@newportbeachca.gov <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; gleung@newportbeachca.gov <gleung@newportbeachca.gov>; Larry Leifer <lawrelei@gmail.com>; Chris Harano <chris@harano.com>; Jeff Friedman <jfriedman@turnerfiber.com>; ken@eclecticfinishes.com <ken@eclecticfinishes.com>; 'Mark Markos' <msm619@ymail.com>; Martin O'Hea <mohea@bixbyland.com>; Richard Wolpow <rwolpow@pocnettech.com>; newportislandjim@gmail.com <newportislandjim@gmail.com>; AnnO'Flynn <annofly@gmail.com>; Boles, Sharon <sharonboles@gmail.com>; Garber_Chris <Garber_Chris@allergan.com>; Gignoux, Suzanne <suzanne.gignoux@gmail.com>; thomas@stratcomponent.com <thomas@stratcomponent.com>; roger@catalinacomponents.com <roger@catalinacomponents.com>; mundocane@yahoo.com <mundocane@yahoo.com> Subject: City of Newport Beach: Short Term Lodging Complaints ( Newport Island, AvantStay, 3806 and 3717 Channel ) Honorable City Council, City Staff and Newport Island Neighbors, I hope you had a nice weekend. It is the responsibility of the different departments with in the City of Newport Beach to protect and provide a reasonable quality of life to the homeowners that it represents. These departments are not limited to Community Development, Code Enforcement, Police and the City Council of Newport Beach. It is my understanding that the Short Term Rental issues will not be addressed at the May 23rd meeting. The new date is sometime after the first week In June. Why? We continue have continued safety issues on Newport Island that no department in the City wants to take responsibility for. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) The city increases the amount of short term rentals on Newport Island over 500% in a year where there was no prior awareness or issues. We have had many problems in an off season with limited people. Can you imagine if all 17 were operational with probably 6 cars per day per house going on an off the island. Sports teams, bachelor or bachelorette, multiple families, etc. at the same house, There has been not time to establish a record of emergency access because the City of Newport beach created the short term rental pandemic on Newport Island it the last year and it has been flattened by the Corona virus pandemic so we not seen anything yet but what we have seen has been toxic, unsafe and poorly managed by all departments related to short term rentals. When our blocked fire lanes, bridge, sidewalks, garages and alley create a deadly situation there will be hell to pay! Code Enforcement and Parking Enforcement leave at 5:00 PM. Code Enforcement is a non-factor anyway. Code Enforcement and Community Development have been of no assistance when any issues regarding and code or safety issues such as a business operating out of 3806 Channel which left neighbors living i in fear for weeks. No assistance with the police who had to be called to investigate after multiple emails send to code enforcement. Prison tattoo's on some the in and out occupants. Cars coming and going all night. Cars blocking Driveways, Speeding, Breaks squeaking. Thugs. Please read the prior related emails below. We also have the ongoing 2 bedroom house being converted into a 4 bedroom house just to pack them in. Must be fun sleeping in a closet? Let's not for forget the one parking spot ( 3717 Channel ). Requested an inspection in the first meeting we had on the Newport Island issue months ago. Currently we have 2 service dogs at 3717 no response to my complaint. I am making an exception this time because they are only the second group of normal people who have stayed at that house since it became a short term rental in the last year. David the local Manager at AvantStay says he feels for us and he sends all of our texts, emails and phone calls to his boss Josh Bruener ( 415-847-2971 ) who is the Avant Stays owners brother. David says he ignores them even though they have video of people coming and going from their houses. He said Josh wants the houses filled all the time because they do long term rentals from the owner and have to pay the owner. The city needs to end this practice right away. The CIty of Newport Beach created this problem so the Newport Beach City Council should take responsibility to fix it since it to easy to put off or ignore by all the other City departments. The city can end the short term issues on the island now or we will do whatever is necessary to make sure all residents are safe and salvage our quality of life on Newport Island. While you are at it can get enforcement back in police department. They are my favorite Department in Newport Beach. We were told at a City Council meeting that there were only Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 35 complaints about STL's to the Police Department. My neighbor and I must have made 40 of them. Somebody has been giving out to many warnings. The police used to consistently enforce which created respect for the different laws and the department. We all knew not to speed in Newport or it was a ticket. You can't even cross the sidewalk at at 38th street without almost getting hit and it has blinking stop signs. Its like Mad Max out there now and if you don't see it you can hear it. I am sure that is a focus for the Police force right now. I really appreciate all that they do! Thank you for your time. I am available to discuss anytime and also here to help. Best regards, Scott McFetters 714-343-1657 From: Scott McFetters <smcfetters@coretechleasing.com> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 4:43 PM To: Scott McFetters <smcfetters@outlook.com> Subject: FW: City of Newport Beach: Short Term Lodging Complaint From: Scott McFetters Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 10:02 AM To: Roger Saxton <roger@catalinacomponents.com> Cc: Contino, Brian <BContino@newportbeachca.gov>; Brenan, Ellen <EBrenan@newportbeachca.gov>; Navarrete, Monique <MNavarrete@newportbeachca.gov>; sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov Subject: RE: City of Newport Beach: Short Term Lodging Complaint Brain, Ends up we were right and an investigation was warranted. Did the tenants at 3806 and 3717 stay 30 days or is that not required. Just a one month lease review at the beginning? AvantStay is an irresponsible short term rental business that is not in the business of a long term lease unless it is their own and they get to do the short term rentals. Do they need a permit if they are the ones renting the house out? They are not listed as a contact on the city website and the owner that is listed at 3717 does not respond to neighbors and told me to talk to his attorney. Your team has no control over the situation and those two houses. The city allow businesses in our neighborhood, we don’t. Please take responsibility of the cities actions and be helpful every other department I have dealt with at the City of Newport Beach. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Best regards, Scott From: Roger Saxton <roger@catalinacomponents.com> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 8:57 AM To: Scott McFetters <smcfetters@coretechleasing.com> Cc: Contino, Brian <BContino@newportbeachca.gov>; Brenan, Ellen <EBrenan@newportbeachca.gov>; Navarrete, Monique <MNavarrete@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Re: City of Newport Beach: Short Term Lodging Complaint Brian, So much for the 31 day rental! This place Advanstay is a scam & a degradation to our neighborhood. I can say that I walked away from our correspondence with the feeling you could not be any less interested in our situation. I am beyond disappointed that this is the case. The city of Newport Beach is supposed to protect the ordinances that are in place to protect us. FAIL On Apr 27, 2020, at 4:49 PM, Scott McFetters <smcfetters@coretechleasing.com> wrote: Brian, How does it work? Avantstay.com is a short term rental outfit. They lease from the owner who has the short term rental permit. They possibly do a long term rental one month and then go back to a short term rental. For enforcement purposes do they fall under the short term rental permit or not until it is short term again. Same operator same issues. How do we make it work with a bad operator in our residential neighborhood for 3806 and 3717 in the long term besides calling Avandtstay and the police all the time? What can the city do to help? If not, Is it the police we have to call or who at the city is in charge of nuisance long term rental issues? What are the current rules for long term rentals in the city regarding being a nuisance? Sounds like we need some fangs in the short and long term rental agreements if our only remedy is to call the bad operator that has a long pattern of bringing in bad renters. Please help the police out and give them something to enforce and please educate us on how we can assist to se can eliminate the problems based up todays codes and laws vs. what we need to project ourselves in the future. Thank you, Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Scott 714-343-1657 From: Roger Saxton <roger@catalinacomponents.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 2:53 PM To: Contino, Brian <BContino@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Brenan, Ellen <EBrenan@newportbeachca.gov>; Navarrete, Monique <MNavarrete@newportbeachca.gov>; Scott McFetters <smcfetters@coretechleasing.com> Subject: Re: City of Newport Beach: Short Term Lodging Complaint Until they have been there 30 days I would request that you treat it as it is registered… a short term rental. Please help us out here. On Apr 27, 2020, at 2:52 PM, Contino, Brian <BContino@newportbeachca.gov> wrote: I have a copy of their lease Sent from my iPhone On Apr 27, 2020, at 2:51 PM, Roger Saxton <roger@catalinacomponents.com> wrote:  [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Brian, It is registered as a short term rental. How do we know that this is not being rented short term? Advanstay has not been standup or forthright about this property up to this point. Short term or 30 day they have people shoehorned in there. Until they have been there 30 days I would request that you treat it as it is registered…a short term rental. Please help us out here. This group is a handful and we want to keep everything peaceful. Best Regards, Roger Saxton Catalina Components Inc. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Phone 949 375 6111 Fax 480 377 0436 The information in this email and attachments hereto may contain legally privileged, proprietary or confidential information that is intended for a particular recipient. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s),you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, retention or use of the contents of this e-mail information is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to Catalina Components Inc. customers or vendors, any information contained in this e-mail is subject to the terms and conditions in the governing contract, if applicable. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail, permanently delete any electronic copies of this communication and destroy any paper copies. On Apr 27, 2020, at 1:50 PM, Contino, Brian <BContino@newportbeachca.gov> wrote: Mr. Saxton, This property is currently being used as a montly rental. If you have concerns about the tenant and parking, please contact Avantstay at (424) 372 8268. From: City of Newport Beach <NoReply@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 1:05 PM To: Campagnolo, Daniel <DCampagnolo@newportbeachca.gov>; Contino, Brian Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) <BContino@newportbeachca.gov>; Navarrete, Monique <MNavarrete@newportbeachca.gov>; Brenan, Ellen <EBrenan@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: City of Newport Beach: Short Term Lodging Complaint A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name:Short Term Lodging Complaint Form Date & Time:04/27/2020 1:04 pm Response #:219 Submitter ID:16476 IP address:68.3.10.70 Time to complete:6 min. , 59 sec. Survey Details Page 1 Your Contact Information 1. All information provided in this complaint shall be considered confidential and is only used to assist staff with investigating your concern. Your First Name Roger Your Last Name:Saxton Your Call Back Number:9493756111 Your Email Address: roger@catalinacomponents.com 2.Address of Violation Address or Location 3806 Channel Place Newport Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Beach Please Provide a Detail Description of Your Complaint This is being used as a short term rental. There were no less than 12 different cars in & out of there ALL NIGHT long. They parked a truck blocking my garage multiple times as well as my 80 year old neighbors garage. Both my neighbor & my son have critical health concerns that could be disastrous if we are not able to leave do to the garage obstruction. They have also resorted to parking in the middle of the street! I have a strong feeling that there is illicit business being done there. This owner has completely disregarded their neighbors. This is boiling to a head. Thank you, City of Newport Beach This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System™. Please do not reply directly to this email. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Ron White To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Opposition to Short Term Leases Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 3:55:02 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello All, I am writing this email to voice my strong opposition to the existing and any future expansion of Short Term Leases on Newport Island. I am a homeowner on the island. Newport Island is a purely residential community so the comparisons to the peninsula as it relates to short term rentals are irrelevant. The peninsula is home to hundreds of bars and restaurants and has a much closer proximity to the beach so I strongly disagree with the proponents of short term rentals who lump Newport Island in with the peninsula and whine about unfair treatment. I don’t understand how a handful of homeowners have the power to drive zoning policy and make our lives miserable. We will not stand idly by and watch our calm quiet island turn into even more of a fraternity house than it already is. I also don’t understand how the City Counsel does not even have ordinances on the books related to short term rentals. It cannot be that difficult to set up ordinances and fines to curb bad behavior. The proliferation of short term rentals is not a new phenomenon. I experienced a somewhat similar situation in a prior home where my city counsel representative was not listening to the needs of the community. I got involved in a grass roots effort to bring about change that involved massive attendance at all city counsel meetings and also at individual city counsel members town hall type gatherings. In that instance, we were successful because council members concluded that if they did not represent the needs of the larger community, as they were elected to do, they were going to get voted out of office. This situation has become unbearable. Residents on Newport Island have the drive, determination and resources to fight the proliferation of short term leases and we are united in this effort. Frankly, the short term rental problem is not unique to Newport Island. Homeowners on the peninsula are fed up with it as well and it would not take much of a community organizing effort to make this the number one issue for voters when they cast their votes. I have yet to hear a good reason why our community suffers through this short term rental situation when our beachside neighbors to the north and south have a small fraction of short term rentals. The answer I usually hear is “Newport Beach has always had a lot of rentals”. That a really poor answer and response to what has become a big problem. Thank you for hearing me out and thank you for your service to the community. Best regards, Ron White Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 414-614-8411 500 39th Street Unit A Newport Beach, CA 92663 Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Bud Reveley To:Chris Harano; Scott McFetters; Planning Commissioners Subject:Newport Island STR’s Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 4:03:01 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 25 years ago I moved to Newport Island from 36 Street in West Newport. I moved because of the situation involving transients and drunkards and drug dealing. When I came to Newport Island it was a very quiet friendly residential neighborhood. Interestingly enough our first Halloween here we only had one child coming to our door. Many of the residents were elderly and their children had long since left for school or occupations. Now there are probably close to 30 children and many infant babies up to teenagers with their own cars. Because of many construction projects and a stream of visitors, the Island has become a nightmare of noise and confusion. People drive around endlessly to find parking. Most garages are full of stored items and not used for parking. That’s ok if an owner chooses to park on the street, but not ok if you have non-resident needs. Our streets are essentially one way. Lots of visitors drive as tho they are on the freeway not mindful of walkers, kids and pets. I want this to go back to strictly residential use by owners. Jennings Reveley 508 38th St, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Robin macgillivray To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Newport Island vs Short Term Rentals Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 4:19:57 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > My husband and I are residents of Newport Island. Since purchasing our home in 2009, we have seen a tremendous increase in short term rental activity here. This increase correlates to more noise, traffic, trash, cars and people on our island throughout the year, and especially in the summer months. Our streets are narrow, we have only one two-way road onto the island, parking is extremely limited, our homes are very close to each other, we have no front yards, we cool our homes by leaving windows open, and our residents include very young children as well as senior citizens. These Newport Island characteristics are not compatible with the large and rowdy groups that congregate in the short term rental properties. I join my fellow island residents who have written and spoken to you expressing objection to the proliferation of STRs and the related problems. We strongly urge you to take action that reduces the number of units on our island that can be rented out on a short term basis, increases the number of nights that constitute ‘short term,’ limits the number of people and cars allowed per property, requires parking permits year round, restricts parties and activities that spill into our streets, expands patrols by law enforcement and penalizes excessive noise, music, profanity and trash. > > Thank you for your support! > > Robin Macgillivray Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Linsi Helenius To:Planning Commissioners; ONeill4Newport@gmail.com Subject:Short Term Lodging Ban and Minimum Stays Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 4:30:54 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners- PLEASE do not allow this ban to take place. I also know the coastal commission will never go for the 6 night minimums anyways. Why even push this through and waste city dollars on lawyer fees etc.? I myself have personally booked over 5,000 vacation bookings with our vacation rental company Newport Beach Vacation Properties in the last 5 years with NO police calls. We do our due diligence to screen vacation guests. DON'T punish the people doing the right thing. Please URGE the city council to not follow through with this ban and the 6 night minimums. The ban on STL for R-1 homes on the peninsula already costs the city as much as $1 million in TOT per year. This also will leave us local businesses out of work or drastically impacts our businesses. This isn't good for any of us!! Thank you, Linsi Helenius Realtor Direct 808-721-6330 www.gobalboa.com DRE #02069327 The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The informationmay also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If youhave received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If youare not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or phone and delete this message and itsattachments, if any. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:robin voss To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Subject:STL ordinance thoughts and concerns Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 4:36:12 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Commissioner of Newport Beach; It was not even 2 weeks ago that I wrote a letter to the members of our city council regarding STL ordinances in Newport Beach. As a long term resident of this city I appreciate your time and consideration in reading my correspondence. My name is Robin Voss and first and foremost, I want to thank you for the service that you give to the community in Newport Beach. As I stated in my previous letter to the council members, I can’t imagine how challenging it must be as a public servant in today’s environment. There are many concerns you face and often the need for policy change is juxtaposed with inflexibility on the part of those promoting or protecting their interests. This can place important issues into a zero sum game where compromise gets lost. I write today regarding one of these issues as a STL owner of a home that I grew up in and inherited on Newport Island. I love this city and the tremendous community I have been so fortunate to be a part of for 64 years. As a long term resident, I attended Newport Elementary K-6, Horace Ensign, Newport Harbor High School, OCC, and graduated from CSUF with a degree in business in 1977. I raised three children who also grew up and thrived in this community and now watch as my grandchildren do the same. I’d like to specifically address the city’s mindset in revising the STL codes, freezing and prohibiting new permits, but most especially, the consideration of requiring a 6 day minimum stay which will decimate STL income by 50%. Anything more than a 3 night stay eliminates a huge chunk of tourists looking for a weekend or mini-week get-a-way experience. This would negatively impact many livelihoods in our community at a time where economic instability, safety, and quality of life are being greatly challenged. I am very much in favor of protecting the neighbors in close proximity to a STL from the inconvenience of parking, noise, and any illegal activity. It is why I chose to use the property management company, Burr White to handle the STL rental of my home, and this is not an advertisement for them. I only want to rent to families that respect my property and that of the other residents. By consciously using a company with long term standing in the community coupled with high screening standards imposing rules and regulations, in 6 years my STL has avoided any scenarios of police intervention, destruction of property, and parking problems that have occurred where these types of rentals are being executed solely via the internet. I believe handling it this way is a responsible and accountable way protecting neighborhoods and the needed myriad income flows these renters bring to the City of Newport Beach. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) It is costlier as an owner, but most problems that occur are due to faceless online transactions without clearly defined screening protocols, rules, and restrictions that renters sign on to. Qualified property management alleviates many of the problems residents are complaining about, not the length of the stay of guests to our city. Why not examine tightening regulations on STL transactions, allowing only approved management companies that respect, understand, and work in tandem with promoting and protecting the city, owners, and renters experience? My family and I love this home and we fervently want to be able to keep it in our family. My husband and I use the income to subsidize our retirement. We often spend time and enjoy the house together, and implore you not to make major revisions in the STL codes that would not only cut-off much needed revenue to us, but to our community at large. In this great time of uncertainty, please delay any major revisions of the codes and permits. I realize how difficult it is to hear the many voices in this time of extreme distancing, but this is such an important issue affecting so many people. All sides must be equally heard and considered, and compromise does exist that respects the quality of renters, owners, and business in our wonderful city. Sincerely, Robin Voss Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 1 Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: Short Term Lodging Permit Changes ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Cindy <cindydillion@cox.net>   Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 4:30 PM  To: Diane Dixon <ddixon@dixonfornewport.com>; Brenner, Joy <JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov>; Herdman, Jeff  <jherdman@newportbeachca.gov>; Will O'Neill <oneill4newport@gmail.com>; Avery, Brad  <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Muldoon, Kevin <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy  <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; Harp, Aaron <aharp@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone  <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>  Subject: Short Term Lodging Permit Changes    [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.    Hello all,    First, thank you for your service to the community during this very challenging time.    Second, with respect to the further modifications proposed for short term lodging  permits, our family objects to further  changes, especially on the heels of closing us down earlier this year.    Let me preface my comments by sharing that we lived in two of our short term units on the Peninsula with two of our  adult children for almost three years while our house was being built. Our other adult children lived in various of our  units for an additional five years.  We have owned one property since early 1990 and one since 2006. These properties  are an integral part of our carefully planned retirement income.  We do rely on the monthly income which we believe  would be negatively impacted by the proposed modifications.    On two occasions during our three years living on the Peninsula, there was a vacation renter who was loud or  inconsiderate. The long term renters next door to us, on the other hand, were loud and annoying three to four nights a  week for three years. Our personal experience causes us to prefer short term renters over the alternative. At least any  discomfort caused by a short term renter, if any, will be over shortly while the long term renter is a nuisance that never  ends. Our other adult children echo our  sentiments.    I believe we have never had a noise complaint. I understand there are problem properties that tend to attract  inconsiderate renters, but don't punish all of us for the actions of a few. Suspend the short term license of repeat  offenders, but please don't place more onerous burdens on law abiding permit holders.    Let us continue to afford access to our beautiful town and beaches to the public.    Very truly yours,  Cindy Dillion  900 & 916 E Oceanfront, NB  7 Bodega Bay, CDM      Sent from my iPhone  Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:TMP Enterprises To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Newport Beach Proposed Short Term Rental Restrictions Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 5:14:22 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Representative, As long-term property owners in the Newport Beach community we are writing you once again to ask for your help with the restrictions being considered for short-term rentals. We have owned a couple of vacation rentals (on 24th and 35th Streets) since 2004. We count on our rental income, (and particularly during the summer short-term rental season,) to generate enough money to pay our mortgage, taxes, insurance and maintenance and upkeep of our properties. When the rental ban was lifted in May, we breathed a sigh of relief that we could now return to collecting a source of income vital to covering expenses associated with owning and operating a quality, upscale family rental property. We are careful to ensure that we follow the rules and that our properties are in compliance with all local, state and federal guidelines. The problem we are running into is the requirement of a 6 day minimum stay. It has been helpful, in the past, to be flexible with the number of days required as a minimum rental. It’s been tough enough to book vacation rentals during the pandemic because people are watching their money and being frugal in how they spend it. But at the same time, people NEED a break from being cooped up at home all this time In other words, they are more than willing to stay with us for 3 or 4, even 5 days, but often cannot afford to commit to longer stays than that. Of course, we also would prefer longer stays, but the reality is --in this economy-- we need to be flexible to what our customers can afford and are willing to commit to… not simply what we would like to see. We don’t rent “party houses,” we rent to families. In fact, we have families that return each year and look forward to coming back to their “home away from home” for their family vacations. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) As property owners, we count on this income to stay afloat and need have the flexibility to welcome all who are willing to stay with us regardless of how long they can commit to. So, we are asking you to please ensure that there is no “minimum night stay requirement” (at least no shorter than 3 days) to open up our properties to more potential renters. We have been hit hard by the pandemic, so anyone willing to invest in a stay at our home we want the ability to continue to rent to. This not only helps us financially, but also helps our struggling City, local businesses in addition to the families wishing to take a much needed vacation from this nightmare in which we have been living. The second issue is the freeze, “grandfathering in” and future ban of short term rentals . It has come to our attention that the city is considering -- upon the sale of a short-term rental property-- that it can no longer be considered a short-term rental once sold-- which dramatically cuts a huge chunk of the value off of the property right up front. These rentals were purchased as a family investment for our future. We originally bought in Newport Beach because of the tremendous investment potential and expected increase in value of the properties being in such an upscale and desirable area. Having a beautiful property in a prime location attracts higher end short- term renters which means we can ask for higher rents, ultimately making our property highly desirable for someone looking to purchase an investment property in the area. So, not being able to sell it as a short- term rental would be a huge and unexpected blow to the value of our investment going forward. We have no intention of selling our buildings, but if the need were to arise, the ability to sell it as a short-term rental greatly increases the potential value of our property. We just want to be given the option to sell it as a short term rental and not have that all of that value taken away from our property. Particularly since we've done our best to add beauty and value to the community through our investments. We have always followed all local ordinances, we pay our local rental taxes, we maintain our properties inside and out to such a high level that we aren’t just another house for rent-- our buildings are always refurbished, improved, beautifully furnished and impeccably maintained. We count on the short term rental income to enable us to continue to do that and, as investors, we counted on all our hard work paying off by being able to sell it as a short- term rental in the future as part of our initial investment decision. Additionally, If the opportunity presented itself for our family to invest in yet another property in the area but we could not use it as a short-term rental, we probably wouldn’t be able to afford to do that to the level we are accustomed to without the income a short-term Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) rental brings. We invest not only for our future but also to better the community and we would like to have the ability to continue to do so. Bottom line, now is not the time to be adding restrictions to an already tough financial situation. We’ve all been hit hard by this pandemic so as members of the community we ask that you take these things into consideration, eliminate the 6 day minimum requirement and allow homes in good standing to continue to operate as short-term rentals in the future. We appreciate all you can do to help us protect our investment and soften the blow during these tough times. Sincerely, Judith Staley Rental properties on 24th and 35th Streets. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Alan Morcos To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; lkleiman@newportbeachba.gov; mrosene@newportbeachca.gove Cc:Blumenthal, David(Contractor); Campbell, Jim; "Ellis Morcos"; alan@alanmorcos.com Subject:Short Term Lodging, July 23, 2020 - Agenda Item No. 2 Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 5:12:28 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners, We have owned 122 and 122 ½ Marine since the late 1960’s. We are opposed to the proposal to limit short-term rentals on Balboa Island to a six-day minimum. This will prevent people (who don’t have the budget to stay for 6 days) from visiting during 3-day weekends or for periods shorter than 6 days. We currently have a 3-day minimum and have never rented for just a day or two. During the last couple of months, we have had very nice quests visiting (mostly local people who live inland) who need a change of pace given the COVID-19 pandemic. They were not party people like the ad hoc committee implies, in fact all of the guests have been friendly, cordial, responsible professionals. Our Property Manager heavily screens all short- term enquiries and our rental agreement is very extensive and covers the noise ordinance, no parties etc. In addition, our immediate neighbors have been introduced to the Property Manager and have had no complaints. If all of the people with short term rental permits adhered to these standards there would not be a problem. Newport Beach and Balboa Island have had a long history of embracing short-term rentals. The local merchants and restaurants earn a large portion of their revenue from people staying in short term rentals. We are also opposed to capping the number of short-term rentals. If the City is worried about individuals or corporations buying multiple homes and turning them into short-term rentals, we suggest the Commission implement a cap on the number of permits an individual or corporation may have. We take pride in our short-term rental and we depend on the income it generates. For more than 40 years we have had no problems and have paid our share of bed/occupancy tax to the City. Respectfully submitted, Ellis Morcos and Alan Morcos 122 and 122 ½ Marine Ave. Balboa Island, CA 949-690-7611 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:markyounglove@protonmail.com To:younglovekristin@yahoo.com; Planning Commissioners Subject:Re: Short term rentals Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 5:21:17 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Right on! Sent from ProtonMail mobile -------- Original Message -------- On Jul 21, 2020, 2:07 PM, Kristin Younglove < younglovekristin@yahoo.com> wrote: Good afternoon, My name is Kristin Younglove. I am writing to urge you not to put a 6 day minimum on short term rentals. This will hurt people like my family and I who have one rental home. Please instead consider limiting the amount of permits a person may have. This will keep corporations from infiltrating, but will prevent individuals and families like me/mine from being financially harmed. Short term rentals provide revenue for businesses in Newport by bringing in tourism. This is beneficial for the community when it is done properly. Please protect individual homeowners by not setting a cap at more than 3 days and considering limiting permits. This will prevent corporations, who don’t care about Newport, from taking advantage of the industry without punishing those of us who love Newport and are not taking advantage. I have been coming to my family home in Newport my entire life and I consider it to be a part of my life with many happy childhood memories. The city matters to me and my families’ single rental home is run in a fashion that demonstrates our care for the city. Respectfully, Kristin Younglove Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Winfield Wells To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Fwd: Short Term Rental Ordinance: Newport Island Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 5:54:53 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners Please see below the letter I wrote last week to the city councilors. This outlines the issues and problems I would like you to consider. Respectfully Winfield Wells MD Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Winfield Wells <winfieldwells@gmail.com> Date: July 14, 2020 at 11:06:20 AM PDT To: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov Subject: Short Term Rental Ordinance: Newport Island Dear City Council Members I am writing you to encourage passage of the ordinance regarding short term rentals that is on your agenda for tonight. I have lived on Newport Island as my primary residence for over 5 years now. When we first moved in the Island was a family friendly neighborhood where many people knew each other, families often went to the small park with kids to play, and it was common to run into neighbors while walking your dog. The Island was quiet and there were seldom if ever parking issues. Unfortunately much of that has changed in the last couple of years. We now have three short term rental properties within 5 houses of ours. As a result we have had numerous instances where the renters were disrespectful of the surrounding neighbors. This has included partying late into the evening with loud music and shouting, often with foul unwelcome language. We have also had persistent illegal parking on our cul-de-sac street. When asked to move some of the renters have argued that they are entitled to park where they are even though it is clearly illegal. In one instance a renter became belligerent and threatening. Many weekends my day starts with calling NBPD and asking for Parking Control to come over and tow a car away from the front of our driveways. This takes time and is aggravating. I wonder how each of those on the council would feel if that was the start of their weekend time to relax and enjoy being home? It is clearly the case that the density of short term rental properties on Newport Island is out of control and inconsistent with the spirit of protecting those who are full time residents. How all the permits were granted needs to be reviewed and corrected. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Meanwhile please pass the ordinances on the agenda tonight to give those of us that live on the Island full time the peace and tranquility you would want in your neighborhood . Respectfully Winfield Wells 3710 Channel Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:STACY WYATT To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Short Term Rentals Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 5:54:55 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing to you to express my concerns relating to the negative impacts that Short Term Rentals are having on my neighborhood and community. Our community is in dire need of more reasonable regulations as it relates to short term rentals. As homeowners, we should have some protections in place to preserve our safety, quality of life and our investment in our HOMES. Newport Beach has far exceeded any other coastal city with regards to the number of short term rentals that have been permitted in our area. It is imbalanced and is impacting the fabric of our community. There needs to be more oversight of these businesses and caps on the number of units our city allows to operate. For me personally, I live on Newport Island and the growth of permits that have been issued for this small enclave is ruining the neighborhood we call home (17 plus permits issued for an island of 109 homes). We have neighbors that have been here for generations, now considering to sell their family home due to the unreasonable number of STL that pepper our island and contribute to numerous safety issues (illegal parking, speeding in the neighborhood, trash left all over the street and park area, loud and aggressive STL tenants that confront neighbors if asked to reduce noise or other reasonable request, etc.). Emergency service vehicles can’t even reliably access homes due to the volume of vehicles on the street and STL properties dramatically compound this safety issue. Lastly, I think it is important for ALL city officials to consider the impact STL have on our community housing needs. As I understand, we are struggling a great deal trying to come up with ways to increase available housing to help meet the RHNA. It seems very counterproductive to continue to issue permits for STL properties which remove available housing from the market. There are cities that have moved to prohibit them for this very reason. I truly appreciate the recent strides that have been made by our city council which address some of the negative impacts this wave of STL properties is having on Newport Beach. However, these steps are just a beginning a much more still needs to be done for the people that LIVE in this community. Thank you all for your service to our community. Sincerely, Stacy Wyatt Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Joan L. Mikkelsen To:Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners; Koetting, Peter Subject:New ordinance Phase Two for STL Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 7:16:40 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioners and Council members; I am a home owner on the Balboa Peninsula. My husband and I live in Northern California and enjoy using our second home many times throughout the year. But we do like to rent it out in the summer. I see that there may be a new ordinance requiring a minimum 7-day rental period. That seems restrictive and unfair to the many nearby folks who like to get to the beach for a long weekend. Staying in a hotel doesn't give the same experience as staying in a home. A 3 or 4 day minimum makes more sense to me. We would not have been able to buy our house originally (in 1998) if we hadn't been able to have some income to help pay the mortgage. I grew up in Newport, on the Peninsula, and have loved being part of the community for the past 20+ years. And it seems onerous to have this come up now, when owners cannot come in person to a meeting to hear arguments pro and con. I hope there will be a postponement of this proposal. Thanks very much, Joan Mikkelsen 319 Coronado St. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Anna Robinson To:Robinson Larry; Planning Commissioners Subject:Negative consequences of STRS in Newport Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 8:24:39 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon. I understand that you are addressing the issue of STRs at tomorrow’s meeting and despite all of our previous emails to city council, we also need to address our concerns to you. Please note how disruptive these units are to tax paying residents who want to enjoy their neighborhood. They bring unnecessary noise, parking issues, partying and non compliance to basic rules. For example, I have sent in pictures of people sleeping on air mattresses in garages and shopping carts in our alley ways... all courtesy of STR guests. It is making life on the island intolerable and it is the city councils and planning commission job to protect our interests! Please imagine yourself in our position... imagine being woken up by people yelling for no reason, or someone blocking your driveway! It feels like the only way to improve the situation is to institute harsher fines and consequences to the owners so they will begin to police their tenants. We personally would love to see nothing shorter than a 3 month rental period enacted. We have some wonderful neighbors who rent year to year and are invested in the neighborhood. If people come down for a short visit, they bring loads of people and just create chaos! Thank you for your time! Anna and Larry Robinson, 405 40th St Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Alfred Christensen To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Fwd: Newport Island and Short Term Rentals Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 8:43:27 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Alfred Christensen <saybrook@mac.com> Date: July 14, 2020 at 11:19:16 AM PDT To: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov Subject: Newport Island and Short Term Rentals  Good morning, My wife and I have been homeowners and full-time residents of Newport Island since 1998. Members of my wife’s family have been homeowners and full-time residents since 1950. My wife’s grandparents, the Edwards, donated the land that is now Newport Island Park to the city many years ago. I’m writing today to voice my opposition to the proliferation of STRs in our RESIDENTIAL community. There are now over 16 STRs in our neighborhood of 100+ homes. By allowing these permits you are essentially allowing hotel businesses to operate in what is a residentially zoned and developed community. In the last couple of years as more of these permits have been allowed it’s been our experience that these short term renters show little respect for the people who live here. Just in the last couple of weeks I’ve been awakened in the middle of the night by drunken people outside our windows screaming that they are lost and can’t find their way home. Not to mention the fireworks that seem to occur more and more frequently (with the apparent lack of interest from the NBPD). The quality of life suffers tremendously in a neighborhood where these STRs are allowed. I get it - Newport Beach has virtually no economy beyond tourism. But these permits should not be allowed in traditionally residential neighborhoods that had no history. Keep them where they’ve always been - further down the Peninsula and the ocean side of Balboa Boulevard. Please don’t give in to the STR owners and politically connected businesses that support them. One of the charms of Newport Island for us has always been it’s supportive community vibe. The STRs have most definitely had a negative impact on the neighborhood. At least try to preserve the quality of life for some portions Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Newport Beach. Keep businesses where they belong - keep them off Newport Island please! Regards, Alfred (Chris) Christensen 3905 Channel Place Sent from my iPad Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Lani Christensen To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Fwd: Newport Island STRs Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 8:49:23 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners, I am forwarding to you the email I sent to the City Council regarding Short Term Rental properties on Newport Island. Thank you for reading it. Begin forwarded message: From: Lani Christensen <lanisamjack@mac.com> Subject: Newport Island STRs Date: July 14, 2020 at 11:30:45 AM PDT To: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov Dear City Council Members, My name is Lani Christensen and I live at 3905 Channel Place, on Newport Island. I’m 63 years old and have either lived on Newport Island or visited my grandparents who lived on the island, my entire life. My grandparents first bought a home here in the 1940s, and became full time residents in 1954. My parents moved onto the island in 1956 to be near their parents and raise their three children here. My husband and I raised our children here, as has my sister. When my son’s were little, they had their great-grandma, their grandma and grandpa (my parents), their other grandma (my husband’s mom), and their aunt and uncle all living within a block of each other. I think that’s pretty special. And, what’s even more special, is I am not unique in this. There are quite a few families on Newport Island who have similar situations and histories. Families with multiple generations living here for many decades. It’s one reason why we residents think Newport Island is a very special and unique neighborhood. I tell you this to illustrate how family oriented Newport Island is. And because of the natural boundaries a small island provides, it has been a very safe neighborhood in which we can raise our children. Lifelong friendships are forged here by kids playing in our park (the land for which my grandparents donated to the city), then kids advancing to hide Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) and seek, and then inventing their own game of “Island Tag”. Many parents consider all the island children “our children” and look out for them accordingly. We highly value “family” and “community”. These are not just “buzz worlds” for us. They are words we actually live by, and you can see it manifested here every day. Newport Heights is considered “family oriented”. Dover Shores is considered “family oriented”. Please put Newport Island in your “family oriented” category, even though we are a West Newport Beach community. Life on Newport Island has completely changed since we became inundated with Short Term Rental properties. There are now so many people here on vacation. They don’t know how many families have young children here, walking to the park or learning how to ride a bike. They don’t know how many kids are here to visit their grandparents. They don’t know how many elderly residents we have who are just trying to go for a walk. So, they speed in their cars, blow through stop signs, whip around corners, and make it very dangerous for residents. And that’s when they are sober. (Perhaps we need speed bumps?) Additionally, there are so many crazy loud parties, yelling in the streets, mobs of people walking around, dropping the “F bomb” every other word. We don’t want to hear that and we don’t want our children to hear that. The street are littered with beer cans, decorative items have been taken from my front yard, and they sit on the big rocks in my front yard to take selfies. I don’t like it. Parking is very limited on Newport Island, even without STRs. The many construction crews here daily have compounded that problem. To add STR parking on top of that makes it untenable. (Perhaps we need year round parking permits?) Cars double park, block residents’ garage doors, and park on the sidewalks, which forces our kids and elderly to walk in the street, putting them directly in harm’s way of the speeding cars. Our Newport Island neighborhood is too small and too dense to sustain this high influx of people. Especially in this era of Covid 19. There are too many people coming here from who knows where. Both my husband and my son have recently contracted Covid, and we have been following all the guidelines and have rarely even left the house. We are especially vigilant because I care for my 87-year old mother who lives across the street, which I now cannot do. I beg you to disallow all STRs on Newport Island. Our neighborhood is too small and too dense to sustain it. It is imperative that you do so in Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) order to protect or residents’ safety and health, as well as to preserve Newport Islands’ long existence as a unique neighborhood preserving family values and strong community ties. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lani Christensen Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Vicki Hagan To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Short Term Lodging Ban Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 9:19:36 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners, Please URGE the city council to not follow through with this ban and the 6 night minimums. Theban on STL for R-1 homes on the peninsula already costs the city as much as $1 million in TOTper year. This will leave our local businesses out of work as well as drastically impacting our business.This isn't good for any of us. Our guests that stay in our homes return every year to Newport Beach from other states andlove our city. They are nice respectful families. Thanks for taking the time to listen to my concerns. Sincerely, Vicki Hagan See you at the Beach! (949) 734-7416 Ext. 1 (949) 444-3321 cell ​Newport Beach Vacation rental magazine ads vicki@nbvacationproperties.com Newport Beach Vacation Properties 709 East Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92661 http://www.newportbeachvacationproperties.com Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail or phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:gohea To:Planning Commissioners Subject:NEWPORT ISLAND Short Term Rentals Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 10:17:32 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission Members, Thank you for your time! It's been painful to watch the changes to this formerly family oriented neighborhood as it has become a full on party zone over my 31 years of residence here (especially so in the last two years). The City of Newport Beach would like to see each of our residential neighborhoods retain its residential character -- meaning that parking is managed, commercial activities are limited, and neighbors respect neighbors (in terms of noise, clutter, debris, secondhand smoke, profanity, and other nuisances). Here is one vivid incident. I returned from my evening choir rehearsal one hot September evening two years ago and my daughters were grossed out from the 70(ish) year old couple who'd been having vigorous sex, accompanied by slapping and the woman repeatedly yelling "You F'd Doris Day! You F'd Doris Day!" Only she didn't say F! As I was not home to go pound on the door when it was happening, my only defense was to play Doris Day at full volume the following day. In general, the parking is notorious on our fair island, and the "guests" who use these short term rentals see no need for staying off sidewalks, cramming cars everywhere, and blocking personal driveways and residents whose cars are in street ends. Also the speeding around our little, triangular island has increased 30 fold and I am fearful with kids coming out of alleys and on the streets running, or on their little bikes. On our first Friday back with street sweeping, the streets were filthy and I was pre-sweeping 40th street as my neighbors waited patiently to park after the sweeper arrived. No tickets were given as it got past one, and a STR buzzed in and gave me a challenging "look" when I was shocked by his behavior. But hey, why should he care about our streets or neighbors? My husband and I regularly pick up trash around Newport Island left by the STR's parties and our park/beach users. The front of our island is a huge eyesore and liability as they also add scores to the numbers jumping off our bridge. So far a kid deeply sliced his foot on something in the bottom (requiring 16 stitches at Hoag) and another kid hit his hand on my neighbor's Duffy as it went under the bridge (scaring my neighbors!) Sorry so long winded-- just pining for our residential neighborhood to REGAIN its residential character! Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Very truly yours, Gail O'Hea 4001 Marcus Ave. Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 1 Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: Short Term Lodging - Phase 2 - Property owner input   From: Mohammed Walid Khalife <mwalidkhalife@gmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 6:05 PM  To: MWALIDKHALIFE@GMAIL.COM  Subject: Short Term Lodging ‐ Phase 2 ‐ Property owner input    [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  Dear City Council Members and Planning Commissioners,     I hope this email finds you safe during these unprecedented times we are all facing. My name is Mohammed Walid  Khalife, owner of two properties I have rented throughout the year through Villa Rentals, Inc. Villa Rentals, Inc. is a  residential property management company located in the city of Newport Beach since 1976 that specializes in both  short term lodging as well as long term leases. I utilize villa rentals for both my short term and long term rentals for my  two properties.     The purpose of my email is to provide some input on the phase 2 proposed short term lodging ordinance changes with  regard to limit on permits and minimum night stay.     I understand there has been a significant increase over the last 5 years in short term lodging permits within the city.  I  align this directly with the emergence of online platforms like Airbnb, Booking.com and Expedia offering an easier way  to provide short term lodging which was not as easily accessible in years past.  These online giants decided they wanted  to enter into the leisure market creating a spike in short term lodging opportunities.  This emergence has created the  façade that further ordinances are needed to maintain the quiet enjoyment of our community and have magnified the  decades old arguments against short term lodging due to parking, trash and noise issues.      My input comes down to two key elements in todays market – Enforcement of the existing ordinances and regulation of  the online platforms.  These are the real issues.     Enforcement:  I feel the existing ordinances already provide a strong platform for regulation on short term lodging but they are simply  not enforced.  I find this to be the main cause for the increased issues we are facing today as the existing ordinances  if/when enforced properly will in fact address the basic issues you are trying to amend in the coming weeks.  I find that  DAC’s and LUGOS are not issued when they should be on a regular basis.  These are needed in order to find an owner in  violation of their permit and then dealt with accordingly.  With that being said, the paperwork part of this is atrocious.  It  may take up to 5 months or in some cases no notices sent at all for an owner to finally be notified of a violation or go  unnotified.  Furthermore, code enforcement is very spotty with their trash violation notices at best.       These notifications need to be in real time for an owner/operator to act accordingly.  Because of this, owners (and their  operators if represented), long term residents and transient occupants are not being held accountable for their actions. I  propose that the city council evaluate the enforcement of the existing ordinances as a first step instead of amending the  ordinances adding even more areas where effective enforcement will still be the key component.     Online Platform Regulation:  Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 2 The vacation market has changed drastically with the online platforms taking all the power and control away from the  owner/operator.  I feel this is a huge problem and needs addressed immediately.  I know controlling or dictating terms  to these large platforms is costly and most likely a losing battle.  I propose the city set requirements for these online  platforms (via the permit verbiage that an owner/operate receives) who want to operate in the city that an  owner/operator have the ability to easily cancel an unwanted reservation.  This may force the online platforms to  modify their cancelation policies as they will not have any listings within the city without an owner/operator having that  control. Years ago, we would spend time on the phone or over email vetting the guests prior to the reservation being  made.  Now, in order for the online platforms to make money, they force the guest to book through their platform  leaving the owner/operator with a reservation that they now have to vet.  They do not like cancellations and are very  guest heavy on their policies.  The host is literally powerless and face a tremendous amount of red tape when trying to  get that power back.       In my opinion, it’s not the spike in permits that are causing the issues we are having, it is the lack of power  owner/operators have with these online platforms that only care about their bottom line and not the community.  There  has to be a way to force them to adhere to the existing ordinances without adding more restrictions on the owners as I  feel placing all the pressure on the owner to control these platforms is not the answer nor feasible.  Villa Rentals has  used all the platforms but now only uses VRBO as they allow us the control we need to vet and cancel reservations  accordingly.     The online platforms create problems by pushing to get days filled, discounting rates and filling one or two gaps  between reservations.  This has then led to owner/operators offering one or two night rentals which is just  ridiculous.  Guests who rent for that short period of time are looking to host a gathering or celebrate something causing  the constant turnover and all that goes with that.      Conclusion:  I have been renting out my two properties via Villa Rentals for close to 40 years. I have never offered my properties to  be rented less than three nights in the summer.   It has been very successful and offers a proven track record for community friendly reservations.  I sincerely believe that  the one and two night rentals have been the driving force behind the increased complaints and should be completely  eliminated.  I feel a three night min is a great compromise.  The proposed six night min for non‐owner occupied buildings  is not necessary nor conducive to affordable family vacations.     This leads to my position on the limit on permits.  If the above areas are addressed, in particular enforcement of existing  ordinances as well as a new addition of a three night min, then you will find that a limit on permits will not be  necessary.  Reckless owner/operators will end up with revoked or suspended permits ultimately allowing residents to  feel confident in the system and that problem properties will be taken care of.     I hope you found my input helpful and I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond accordingly as I would love  to hear your feedback on it.     Sincerely,    Mohammed Walid Khalife  Property owner of 2 rental properties in Newport Beach  Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 1 Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: Phase II Short Term Lodging Permit Changes // Art White   From: Arthur White <art@whitesailrealty.com>   Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 9:08 PM  To: Diane Dixon <ddixon@dixonfornewport.com>; Brenner, Joy <JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov>; Herdman, Jeff  <jherdman@newportbeachca.gov>; Will O'Neill <oneill4newport@gmail.com>; Avery, Brad  <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Muldoon, Kevin <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy  <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>  Cc: Harp, Aaron <aharp@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Leung, Grace  <gleung@newportbeachca.gov>; City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>  Subject: Phase II Short Term Lodging Permit Changes // Art White    [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  Dear Council Members, City Manager, City Attorney and Community Development Director,       Rather than elaborate upon my disappointment in these sudden and ill‐conceived Phase II ’solutions', I’d like to ask a  simple question.        How many STLP permits has the City of Newport Beach revoked for cause in the last 5 years?        I ask this because I am told we need these draconian limits, limits certain to reduce tax revenue, reduce income to  owners, and reduce income to tourist‐industry businesses, all struggling under in our current economy, because there  are some properties that cause noise and parking problems. Properties where the neighbors have complained to the city  for years on end, without relief.        And I have to ask, why?        Why is the City considering punishing our 1500+ STLP holders, including the 95% of property owners and managers  that by your admission are doing nothing wrong, simply because of the City’s inaction in revoking the permits of action a  handful of bad operators? An action that would actually stop noise complaints and other calls for service.        Is the number of revoked permits twenty?        Is it ten?        Is it …. zero?        I suspect the number of revoked permits is much closer to zero than it is to ten.        For inexplicable reasons, Phase II is not configured to reduce problems, and instead deploying measures that will  merely reduce revenue, with the apparent hope that our problems will die alongside our profits. Phase II is an anti‐ business and anti‐economic activity measure, at a time when our property owners and tourist businesses are suffering  enough already.     Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 2    Let us not go that route. Please rewrite Phase II, so as to crack down on deadbeat owners and managers, instead of  cracking down on the rest of us.     ‐ Art          Art White Broker | White Sail Realty "Your Local Expert for Balboa Peninsula Sales, Rentals and Property Management!" m: (949) 350-1229 p: (949) 673-9900 DRE: 01905655 a: 700 East Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92661 e: art@whitesailrealty.com w: www.whitesailrealty.com               Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:trvlntoomuch@aol.com To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Stop STR on Newport Island Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 7:41:51 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the city council of Newport Beach: As homeowners who are full time residence at 405 39th street on Newport Island, we are 100% opposed to allowing STR. Given the amount of construction on our small island, congestion has been a terrible inconvenience but accepted as something which will result in improving our community. How does STR improve the value of our community? Allowing it to be part of the war zone is not a value added strategy. The city has expended money with a complete renovation of our park. Patterson Construction is nearing completing on 3 water front properties being marketed at $6M each. There is one newly constructed house on the market, 4 houses under construction with 2 planned for demolition. At most there are only 100 physical properties with 10% having construction related workers and equipment daily for another 1-2 years. We have very limited parking and the new construction has extended into the alley and further limited parking behind the structures. Allowing STR will only add to the restricted parking, increase the traffic congestion, noise and potentially an element which would not treat the park in the manner that a residence would. The city has not been able to control the dozens of youths that jump daily off the bridge, how does it plan to control the addition of STR. Please do not allow this to proceed. Larry Stolzenberg Carol Ghelarducci Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:ron anderson To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners; ccCitycounc@aol.com Subject:Phase Two STL Ordinance Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 8:02:50 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning all, I hope you are weathering the current conditions in this time, the good news is it will pass! I want to express my concern regarding the possible passing of the Phase two STL Ordinance. We have owned our home on the Balboa Peninsula from 1997 until the present date. We use it as a vacation home and we use it as a part time vacation rental. We are very close with the residents and consider this our second home as my wife and I grew up in the area. I understand and am in total agreement with the need to maintain the quality of life that we all enjoy and have for years at Newport Beach as well as not only reducing but eliminating the burden to the city that comes with the overflow of people and crowds; however, I think if you consider the revenue these crowds bring to the party and contributions to the local business it would seem to me that we would welcome the influx of cash given the last 6 months of this year. The point of my email is to encourage you not to pass at this time the Phase Two Ordinance until you have had a chance to hear in person from the local residence, vacation rental property owners and local business owners. I would appreciate either an email from one of you regarding this matter or better yet, a phone as I do have additional questions. Have a great rest of the summer! Ron Anderson (626) 222-7886 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Andy Lane To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:What’s the emergency? Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 8:56:51 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To all the Newport Beach city members, Why is the STL being rushed through for covid19? What is the emergency? Why is there a phase 2, we didn’t even know there was a phase 1? Feels like another power grab to never let a good crisis go to waste just like the rest of the government. I don’t even recognize this country anymore, it’s all about power and taking away liberties. Most people work and kids go to school and can’t always come for a minimum stay of 6 days. It will be even tougher to have anyone stay that long during the school year, especially when school starts, if you guys ever let us go back to a “normal life” again. There’s no science that says kids can pass this scam disease on. And barely anyone with young families can even be critically ill from this virus. The virus is our government and their overreach of power. Do what you were elected to do, and protect the constitution, keep our liberties before you destroy America. Andy Lane Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Patricia Moore To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners; dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Short Term Vacation Rentals Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:01:37 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello:  I writing to you regarding your recent decision to introduce a phase two Short Term Lodging ordinance which I believe would require a 6 day minimum stay.  I know many properties require a 3 day minimum stay which is the most I think should be imposed on a short term rental.  Requiring a 6 day stay would eliminate many workers from being able to get a much needed break since not everyone is able to get that much time off of work.  In fact, it's the most economically challenged middle class who would affected by this change.  My family and I love visiting your community and have done so a few times already this year.  We look forward to a few days away from the pressures of work and life.  Introducing this new minimum requirement would drastically alter our ability to do that since most of us cannot afford to take that much time away from work.  Please reconsider your decision.  Thank you.  Patricia Moore (818) 772-9315  Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Kelly Waterman To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; Jeff Herdman; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:STL Changes Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:05:06 AM Attachments:59afb555d76587f799a99d5aafc427e8.png b3aa05db2cbacd833e97b0b3e087bc41.png 9610ceb2d195b5455de52a8152c9bd29.png 8eec02e0b9c48e5a85a67ac3399086bb.png f50baa039643bdf8c57623fa8fcfa020.png 5df004c5768feb85cc64ab27d0323776.png 202cc3f9a773a1aa1f1d8bed94fb2e71.png [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Newport Beach Planning Commissioners, My name is Kelly Waterman and I, along with my husband, have owned a duplex on the peninsula for the last 22 years. I find myself again writing another letter this time to voice our concern about the proposed amendment changes concerning STL Phase II and how it may negatively affect myself, my family and hundreds of other property owners. My husband and I depend on the revenue from our property to subsidize our income, which is needed to help make our mortgage payments and maintain our properties. It is used jointly as a STL rental and vacation home. We just completed (Oct ’19 – July ’20) a major renovation of this property with the intended purpose of generating more rental income. The renovation cost was substantial. Our family and friends look forward to visiting us here and the beach when in town and it is our legacy to leave for our children. The proposed Phase II changes to the STL permit is very concerning to us. We do not live at our property and the six-day minimum would greatly reduce our income up to 50% since many guest stays are 3, 4, and 5 nights. A three-day minimum for all STL permit holders would be acceptable. We are also against the proposed freezing of new STL permits. To do this would greatly impact one’s ability to sell or buy a property since the purchaser would be unable to apply for a STL permit. Only the current property owner could use the STL permit and it is not transferable to the new property owner. This would greatly reduce the value of our property if we were to sell it. Because of the major implications of these amendment changes and the inability to appear in person at the council meeting because of the Coronavirus the revisions to this amendment should be delayed and fair to all the property owner. I believe we and other owners should be allowed to physically attend the council meeting and have our concerns heard. Sincerely, Kelly Waterman Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Kelly Waterman Owner/Photographer Kelly Waterman Photography p: 949-294-0794 w: www.kellywatermanphoto.com e: kelly@kellywatermanphoto.com a: 1048 Irvine Ave #1088 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Follow us: Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:duswenson@aol.com To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Subject:Short-term Rental restrictions should not impact new house sales Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:07:55 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City Commissioners, My family has been visiting the Newport Beach area for over 25 years. We have enjoyed our family time so much that we have purchased a residence on the Balboa Peninsula. Our kids loved this area so much that they chose to attend college in the area. Our third generation has been able to come to the beach for the past five years. They look forward to coming here every time. With that said, we are in favor of a minimum of 3-nights' stay but are against the restriction that new home owners cannot rent out their homes to other families that want to enjoy the wonders of the beach, restaurants, shops, small businesses that support these businesses. Most of these businesses cannot survive without the number of families that visit our areas and buy things such as t-shirts, jewelry, hats, food for the house and going out to dinner. It is these family vacations that are forever etched into the fondest of memories of each and every family member. The Newport area is a nice place to visit and to live. Its weather, small businesses, community, and beaches are exactly why each and every one of you folks on the city council have chosen to live and work. It is the reason you have such fond memories of raising your own family and watching those families in your neighborhood grow up. A minimum of 3 days for a rental is OK with me and my family, but please do not limit the future home buyers to not be able to rent out their homes for other families to enjoy. Before you make your vote, you must consider the amount of money spent in the local economy, the city tax dollars that we need to keep providing services to this city, and maybe even most important, the thousands of positive family memories that are made each and every day by those visiting our beach community. Please vote yes for a restriction of a three (3) days' stay minimum for rentals and vote yes so that future home buyers will be allowed to rent out their homes. Thank you, Duke Swenson Resident of Balboa Peninsula Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Dane Hillyard To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Re: Vacation rentals- please vote no on new restrictions Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:25:36 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Honorable commissioners, I am former resident and a long time visitor to Newport. I went to OLQA and CDM high, but moved for work 30 years ago. I have family and friends in Newport and we come every summer for a family vacation. It has been wonderful with the kids having a week or two and now grandkids, sharing a beautiful time at the beach. We always come after labor day to avoid the crowds. I understand you are voting on additional restrictions on nation rentals. Please don't. Restricting rentals to 30 days will mean long time visitors like me and my family will not be able to continue our family tradition. Limiting the number of homes also obviously means the costs will go up making it unaffordable for many. The covid virus is not fully understood yet, I am reading doctors who say getting it from surfaces is extremely rare as is getting it outside. So limiting vacation rentals is not the answer to slow the virus as when we are there we are outside most of the time, just walking the boardwalk, swimming or having a barbqon the patio. Restricting people indoors is how the virus will slow not outside. Thank you for considering people like my family who have a very long tradition of calling Newport home for a week or two a year. We are coming again this September at a house on the boardwalk by the Balboa pier we have rented many years. Dont let the temporary situation we are in sway your always reasonable judgement. Thank you! Dane Hillyard Reno, Nevada Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:NF REYNOLDS To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Public Comments: July 23 Agenda Item #2 Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:25:47 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ST lodging should be limited and reduced in NB. Huntington does not even allow it. Any owner who has more than 3 complaints should be permanently shut down. This would reduce the number of allowable ST lodging properties over time. Parking spaces must be provided, as in code for new residences, depending on square footage of property. Nicole Reynolds Corona del Mar Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Carlson, Brent (Flight Systems) To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Phase Two Short Term Lodging ordinance Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:35:26 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Commissioners, I reside in Phoenix Arizona and have been visiting Newport Beach every summer for the past 25 years. We rent a beach house on the boardwalk for a week from a local company. It has been increasingly difficult to find a property for a single family. Please do NOT freeze the current level of STL permits. If the current property I am renting is sold, the new owner would not be able to get an STL permit. This would in time limit my opportunities to rent a beach house and continue my family tradition of a Newport Beach vacation. Thank you for considering my request. Brent Carlson Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Becky Huss To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; Duffield, Duffy Subject:SHORT TERM LODGING Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:41:03 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Commission – please do not move forward with your plans to eliminate short term stays less than 6 days or freeze current levels of STL permits/prohibition of new permits. Newport Beach is a vacation destination for many families in the summer including my own. My family has been renting a beach house for more than 70 years in Newport Beach without missing a single year. It would be devastating for all of us if we were not able to continue a tradition that my grandmother started for us so many years ago. It is already difficult to book a stay during the summer months, bookings begin in October for the following year & reducing the inventory of rentals would only make this more painful or nearly impossible for most people. Please consider all the families that have vacationed @ Newport Beach over the years & helped business thrive in that area before you make any changes. Thank you, Becky Huss Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Sam c To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners; cc City council: dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Re: A Message From Burr White Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:42:02 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Morning, I am replying to a message sent by a local rental agency, in regards to restrictions placed upon rental properties. I would first like to introduce myself and then explain my situation. My wife and I are teachers. I currently live in the Inland Empire, but spent my teens through late twenties, living in Irvine, Santa Ana, Tustin and Placentia. I graduated from Vanguard University, while my mother graduated from UCI. She worked at Vanguard University as an instructor, until her death in 2008. I met my wife, while attending Vanguard and we spent much of our time in Costa Mesa and Newport. Needless to say, Newport Beach holds many, very special memories. We waited until later in life to have a child, in order to assure our stability. We have been taking our daughter to Newport Beach every year, for one to two weeks. It is something we look forward to every year. It has come to be known as "Our Christmas." It is our chance to eat at my favorite burger restaurant of all time (Ruby's Diner), which I have patronized, since its opening in 1984. We have the opportunity of exploring the newest and best restaurants, like Hook and Anchor, while trying places with a more international flair, such as La Farola. Aside from the food, we enjoy the weather, the sound of the ocean and (especially) the weather. Our job (being what it is), requires us to constantly be checked for COVID symptoms. For now, we are symptom-free. Having worked in a hospital, we used extra precautions, which most people may consider to be excessive. My view is the old adage, "It is better to be safe than sorry." Having stated this, I would like to state my observation, during our week-long visit, mid-June. GETTING TO THE POINT: The issue is not a problem with renters, but rather, the bars in particular. During our stay (near 31st Street) one could not ignore the mass of inebriated youths, gathered at Mutt Lynch's or the Cabo Cantina: packed shoulder-to-shoulder (all day until 2am). I do understand that they have been a staple of the community for many years. Temporarily closing down the bars, however, will severely limit the "party atmosphere" and the sheer amount of foot Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) traffic. Anyone who has lived in Newport Beach or the surrounding areas for any amount of time can easily attest to the reputation of the community, North of the Newport Pier (in particular). North Newport and alcohol are practically synonymous. BOTTOM LINE: The problem of the spread of COVID-19 does NOT lie on the shoulders of renters and rental companies. Out-of-town renters tend to be "clannish" and usually remain in and around their rental homes. If the bars can be controlled, you WILL be able to control the sheer amount of bodies, in close proximity to one another. Please fact check and you will find that the greatest amount of new COVID cases is among drinking-age youth . . . NOT among older families on vacation. The families which go on these vacations tend to be (at least according to my personal, non-scientific observation) established, conservative (personally - not necessarily politically) and cautious. While on the beach, most families absolutely maintained a proper distance. Every restaurant we visited, spaced out guests properly and cleaned in a sufficient manner. Rather than "shut down" Newport Beach (and lose millions of dollars in business and enjoyment), the focus should FIRST be on the epicenter, rather than the end result. Thank you for your time, Sam Carreras Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Phil Rodas To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy; press@harleyforcongress.com; FELLOWS@harleyforcongress.com Subject:Short Term Lodging (STL) ordinance "What is the emergency?" Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:44:15 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear planning commissioners and City Council members, I have been enjoying Newport Beach for over 50 years. in some cases have lived and owned in Newport for years and often rented the same house. These new restrictions you are looking to impose will result in my family and I being unable to visit the beach at a price point that is affordable, since shorter stays will be eliminated. I must ask the commissioners "why is this STL amendment being rushed through during COVID- 19 when travel is restricted and a personal appearance to speak is limited." I live 25 miles away. And at times I want to rent a home for only 3-4 days at a time. This is the first time I have heard of this phase two and "I" didn’t even know there was a phase one. What is the emergency? 6-Day Minimum Stay requirement Freezing Current Level of STL Permits Prohibition of New Permits. I see this as abuse of power. Phillip Rodas Constituant Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Jerry Lomax To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Short term rentals Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:48:59 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the Newport Beach City Commissioners and Council, We have been informed that new restrictions on short term rentals may impact our ability to visit Newport Beach and wanted to voice our concerns. We have been visiting there for years, renting various properties, sometimes on the spur of the moment to just get away for a day or two, or a few days, at the beach. Forcing minimum rental periods to more than 3 days will severely limit our ability to affordably and frequently visit Newport Beach. COVID restrictions are already negatively impacting our ability to travel to the beach, and making restrictive changes to rental policies will only make it worse, causing us to have to locate other places to visit, and obviously negatively impacting tourism revenues for Newport Beach. Therefore we request that you refrain from making visiting Newport Beach more difficult. It will undoubtedly result in less revenue for your city and also keep thousands of us from enjoying the beach. Jerry A. Lomax 180 ACCOUNTING Phone: (719) 495-9688 Fax: 877-309-7946 NOTE: This e-mail and files transmitted herewith are confidential and are only for the use of the person to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you have received this e-mail in error. Any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or reproduction of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify 180 ACCOUNTING immediately by replying to this message. Thereafter, delete this message from your computer. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Michelle Brown To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy; dianebdixon@gmail.com Subject:STL Ordinance Proposal Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:50:28 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing in opposition to your proposed STL ordinance. My family has been coming to Newport Beach annually for the past 10-15 years renting properties with STL permits. The first house we rented for many years is up for sale and we had to find another property this year (we just returned), and we will be renting that property for as long as it's available. I am curious as to why you would hold this hearing when no one can come and speak. Also, at this point what is the emergency? We are well into the COVID issue. I will say that not only is this a poor business decision (we spend about $15,000 a year in Newport Beach during our annual vacation), but it's also an emotional one. My children's memories are of spending their summer vacation on Newport Beach, our family pictures are of Newport Beach. They learned to surf there in surf school, we have purchased bikes there, we spend an enormous amount on clothing from Jacks and on the boardwalk, in addition to the many meals at the local restaurants. If you limit the STL permits the market will drive the prices to a rate that will not be feasible for most, and it will adversely affect the local businesses which are sustained by tourism. I personally don't have an issue with requiring a rental for a full week but I know it will limit others from taking short vacations. I would just ask that if this is really an issue then it will be an issue after COVID as well and should be taken up when the public can come and be heard. There is no emergency. Thank you for listening. Respectfully submitted, Michelle Scray Brown (909)855-7000 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Robert Petrokofsky To:Planning Commissioners; info@cdmra.org Subject:Public Comments: July 23 Agenda Item #2 Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:57:56 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. There is a never-ending procession of new occupants going in and out of the Air BNB or similar type rental by me, including at least one group with Arizona license plates. They often leave during the day and presumably go into the community, restaurants, and stores. It has turned a residential neighborhood into a motel district and is inexcusable in the midst of a pandemic when people should be quarantining for two weeks after traveling. -- Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:jaciwit@gmail.com To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Please put an end to short term lodging in Corona Del Mar Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:58:52 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners, My name is Jacqueline Wittmeyer. My husband and I have lived in our home for 35 years in Corona Del Mar. I am a Realtor with Surterre Properties. I have up to this point been silent and suffering living next door to a short term rental. The tenant in the rear unit next door is renting one of their bedrooms on Airbnb. Many of their rentals have been one night stays. I own a duplex with my husband, and we live in the front unit. We rent our back unit to long term tenants. I am hoping to eliminate the short term rental activity in our neighborhood as it has been so disturbing to what was once a peaceful home and neighborhood for us and for our tenants. Let me share some of my thoughts with you, please forgive the random order: 1. No one will be denied their property right to rent with the passing of this ordinance. What I am hoping for is to gain protection from the “hotels” being operated in our residential neighborhoods. Income from long term rental units is available to any owner of a duplex. The argument of denial of income is not accurate. 2. The owners/Landlords of R-2 properties can and do rent their properties for income, they do not need Short Term Lodging to get an income. I am one of these R-2 duplex owners. It is the large internet companies operating short term rentals that are benefiting at the expense of our residents. 3. No one is denying property rights because long term rental income IS allowed in R-2 properties. What this ordinance is doing is preserving my property rights for income from my long term tenants, including my right and theirs to peace and tranquility in my home and neighborhood. 4. Sleepless nights- Coming and going throughout the night, suitcases rolling, loud conversations…“where is it?”, visitors arguing at times with f-bombs flying between 2:30 and 3:15am. Perhaps late flights from LAX? I have found myself sleep deprived after nights in a row of such disturbances. 5. This is affecting my long term tenants and their peace, which is my income. This is decreasing my property value, and I am concerned. 6. One morning at 7:40am this week one of the visitors was standing in the alley behind our home on a loud and long speaker phone conversation, f-bomb conversation about a woman, while he was smoking pot. Do I need to spend the later years of my life calling the police regularly to complain? I don’t want to live like that. 7. 10 more years of sleepless nights is frightening. I would like this to be considerably shorter. I know of Corona Del Mare residents who finally gave up, sold their home and decided to move in order to live in peace. 8. Overnight guests are vacationers, not neighbors. Their mode and agenda is different from a quiet night’s sleep. Allowing Short Term Rentals is allowing a hotel business in a residential Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) neighborhood. 9. With 3 foot side yard setbacks, our properties are less than 6’ apart from one another. 10. I have not filed a formal complaint with the police because of intimidation and threats from the “manager” of our next door short term rental, at my front door after dark. I have talked with several police officers who have encouraged me to file a complaint, but I have explained to them my fear of reporting and therefore hesitation to do so. 11. Many residents are silently suffering. These vacation rental companies are concerned with making money, but it is at our expense, we suffer as they profit. How could this be allowed to continue? 12. I would like the 10 year time frame reduced, the minimum night stay significantly increased. 13. We are not allowing our garages to become auto repair shops, we don’t allow our patios to become restaurants, why would we allow our bedrooms to become hotels? Please help us. Sincerely, Jacqueline Wittmeyer Jacqueline Wittmeyer jaciwit@gmail.com 949.338.9393 DRE #01124168 JACQUELINE WITTMEYER jwittmeyer@surterreproperties.com 949-338-9393 DRE#01124168 ________________________________________________________________________________________ S U R T E R R E             P R O P E R T I E S 1400 Newport Center Drive * Suite 100 * Newport Beach, CA 92660 * DRE#01778230 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Jeff Millwee To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:newport beach rentals Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:00:46 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I have been reading about some legislation that may affect short term rentals in Newport Beach. We are Kern County residents and we do take a trip annually to Newport Beach. We have a large family and often rent a house. My husband is self employed so we typically come for 5 nights as that is about the longest he can be away. From what I understand this would affect any rentals less than 6 nights. That would affect us. When we are there we eat out, shop, rent paddleboards and kayaks and have even been out deep sea fishing. Not only do we enjoy visiting but we are contributing to the tourism money brought into Orange County each year. In light of all the changes and restrictions that we are experiencing in California I ask you to reconsider this rule. I'm not convinced that the science California is relying on is being accurately reported. I see no reason for these restrictions in short term rentals. Thank you, Melany Millwee Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:gregory cox To:Planning Commissioners; planningcommissionets@newportbeachcityca.gov Subject:Public Comments: July 23 Agenda Item #2 Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:04:08 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The short term rentals are popping up everywhere in CdM in view of a large number of recent vacant long term rentals. We are in a global health pandemic and many of us cannot afford to get sick because a neighbor want to make money. The City ought to prioritize residents over tourists. Most short term rentals in CdM are unregulated. Noise and age restrictions are not being honored Gregory Pierre Cox 404 Goldenrod Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 310-882-8259 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:gregory cox To:Planning Commissioners; info@cdmra.org Subject:Public Comments: July 23 Agenda Item #2 Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:06:43 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The short term rentals are popping up everywhere in CdM in view of the large number of recent vacancies in long term rentals. We are in a global health pandemic and many of us cannot afford to get sick because a neighbor wants to make quick undeclared money. The City ought to prioritize residents over tourists. Most short term rentals in CdM are unregulated. Noise and age restrictions are not being honored. Gregory Pierre Cox 404 Goldenrod Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 310-882 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:dave wooters To:Dept - City Council; Planning Commissioners Subject:Proposed short term rental changes Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:10:16 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello all, I am a 60 year resident of Newport Beach and I strongly oppose extending the minimum stay to six nights. I own a short term rental property and the financial burden on me would be extreme if the minimum went to 6 nights. I purchased the property knowing my only chance of keeping it was to be able to rent it with a 3 night minimum in the winter months. I have never had an issue with neighbors complaining about anything and have found that it is mostly families that rent short term. On the other hand, I own a duplex on the peninsula that is a yearly rental. As everyone knows it is mostly young people that rent yearly near the beach and once you have a bad apple in a yearly rental it is extremely hard to get rid of them, especially now with the new renter laws. So to the residents that want to get rid of short term rentals be careful what you wish for because many owners would have to rent yearly and then they could be stuck with someone bad for many years instead of a just few days. In conclusion, please do not extend the minimum stay beyond 3 nights. Anyone complaining knew there were short term rentals around when they bought their property just as I knew I would always live under an airport when I bought my residence. Thank you for your time and service, David Wooters 20442 Bayview Ave. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Mark Markos To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Short Term Rentals on Newport Island Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:13:23 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners, The residents of Newport Island love where they live and the overall community neighborhood feel of our island. We have 123 lots of which only 26 are duplexes (6 of these are used basically as single family homes) the balance of the majority of homes are owner occupied. Therefore, approx. 84% of our island is basically R-1 even though it is zoned R-2 where the rest of the peninsula is 50%+. Many of our residents and their families have lived on the island for decades and never want to leave until recently when they were overrun with short term rentals. Somehow our quiet family oriented neighborhood with its pot lucks, Easter Egg hunts, Christmas events, 4th of July parades, and park events has become a hotel zone completely changing the landscape and environment of our beautiful community. Between the STR parties, noise pollution, excessive trash, congestion, parking problems (we only have 55 guest street parking spots in total), and complete lack of respect for the residents that own and live there, it has become a nightmare! There was an oversight at some point allowing 16 STR permits (most in the last 2 years) to exist on the island which is over a 12% density. For example, in one corner of the island there are 4 Short Term Rentals next to 12 homes and in this area of the island there are only 4 guest street parking spots. This should have never been allowed to happen. The residents of Newport Island have made significant investments and sacrifices to live there and they are the ones paying the price while the STR owners, management companies and the city profit. In the absence of eliminating all STR's on the island there should be an immediate cap of all permits allowed, with the remaining permits being owner occupied rentals with a minimum 7 day rental. Please help us get our island back! Sincerely, Mark Markos Newport Island Community Association Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 1 Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: STL Changes   From: AL BRUDER <ajb1126@gmail.com>   Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:50 AM  To: Dept ‐ City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>  Subject: STL Changes    [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  I am concerned about changes you are about to make in the STL agreements. see my notes below and understand that I  am NOT in favor of any changes.   I do NOT want:   An artificial cap on the number of permits issued by the City (or a cap of 2,000 would be ok).  ‐ A minimum nightly stay cap more than 1 night.  ‐ Artificially low occupancy of 2 per bedroom (Hotels have occupancy of 4 (2 doubles) or up to 5 or 6 with a sofa sleeper  for example at Marriott Spring Hill Suites).  ‐ Anything that would limit sales tax paying visitors to our City or force them to go to another City.    I DO want/are ok with:  ‐ 1 night stays banned  ‐ 2 night minimum stay, or a compromise, where if a stay includes a Friday OR a Saturday then it needs to be a 3 night  minimum.  ‐ Occupancy limits at 3 per bedroom/loft (so a 3 bedroom would be a 9 and a 4 bedroom would be 12 etc.)  ‐ No new permits issued outside the CA Coastal Commission's Coastal Zone      ‐‐         Al Bruder  Property owner on Balboa Island and Newport Coast                                                                 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Rieff, Kim To:Mulvey, Jennifer Subject:FW: Newport Beach Short Term Rentals Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 2:02:32 PM From: Heather Luna <lunatwins@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 1:37 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Newport Beach Short Term Rentals [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom It May Concern, As a short term vacation rental owner, I have some serious concerns with some of the changes that are being made this next month. Increasing the minimum night stay to 6 nights will make a huge impact on the many families that visit Newport Beach throughout the year, especially over three day weekends. I believe the city should continue with the three night minimum and no more. We have had many amazing families stay at our property. These families follow all rules and do not use our home as a party place. Many of these families have young children, grandparents, that are just looking for a beautiful place like Newport Beach to call their home just for a few days. Also, small businesses in the city of Newport Beach are already being negatively impacted during this unprecedented time, this will only make things worse and create a hardship for city services. In reviewing the STLP spreadsheet from the City web page, I did not see an alarming number of permits issued to only one entity. If there is concern, maybe the planning commission can implement a cap on the amount of permits that an individual may have at 2 per individual, allowing individuals who already have their permits to be exempt.Thank you for your consideration, Heather Luna Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Rieff, Kim To:Mulvey, Jennifer Subject:FW: DRAFT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT RELATED TO SHORT TERM LODGING Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 4:39:22 PM From: Steve Jones <steve.jonz@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 4:37 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: DRAFT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT RELATED TO SHORT TERM LODGING [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern: As a 68 year resident of Newport Beach and a property owner at 600 E OceanFront, I would like to express my concern with the proposed amendment to the short term lodging ordinance. In summary: I am opposed to: - An artificial cap on the number of permits issued by the City (or a cap of 2,000 would be ok). - A minimum nightly stay cap more than 1 night. - Artificially low occupancy of 2 per bedroom (Hotels have occupancy of 4 (2 doubles) or up to 5 or 6 with a sofa sleeper for example at Marriott Spring Hill Suites). - Anything that would limit sales tax paying visitors to our City or force them to go to another City. I am ok with: - 1 night stays banned - 2 night minimum stay, or a compromise, where if a stay includes a Friday OR a Saturday then it needs to be a 3 night minimum. - Occupancy limits at 3 per bedroom/loft (so a 3 bedroom would be a 9 and a 4 bedroom would be 12 etc.) - No new permits issued outside the CA Coastal Commission's Coastal Zone Thank you for your time and consideration. Steven C Jones 600 E Ocean Front Balboa 714.272.9213 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Rieff, Kim To:Mulvey, Jennifer Subject:FW: Vacation Rental Permits Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 7:21:54 AM -----Original Message----- From: Michelle Smith <0412michelle@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 6:39 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Vacation Rental Permits [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am a vacation rental owner and I was just made aware of the changes you want to make to my business. You will be trampling on my property rights, and killing my chance to monetize my investment. It will hurt small businesses, decrease sales taxes and limit access to the beach for those people who cannot afford a 6 or 7 night stay. Specifically I am against: a minimum night stay of more than 2 nights A cap on number of permits issued by the city (or cap of 2000 would be ok) Low occupancy of 2 per room when a hotel allows 4 or 2 doubles or 5-6 with a sofa bed Anything that would limit sales tax paying visitors to our city or force them to go to another city What I am ok with: 2 night minimum stay or a compromise of 3 night minimum if it includes a Friday or Sat night Occupancy limits at 3 per bedroom/loft No new permits issued outside the CA Coastal Commission’s Coastal Zone If you go through with these changes I will have no choice but to sue the city. Sincerely, Marc & Michelle Smith Michelle Smith Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:City Clerk"s Office To:Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject:FW: Short Term Lodging - Phase 2 - Property owner input Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 6:05:04 PM From: Mohammed Walid Khalife Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 6:04:53 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: MWALIDKHALIFE@GMAIL.COM Subject: Short Term Lodging - Phase 2 - Property owner input [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council Members and Planning Commissioners, I hope this email finds you safe during these unprecedented times we are all facing. My name is Mohammed Walid Khalife, owner of two properties I have rented throughout the year through Villa Rentals, Inc. Villa Rentals, Inc. is a residential property management company located in the city of Newport Beach since 1976 that specializes in both short term lodging as well as long term leases. I utilize villa rentals for both my short term and long term rentals for my two properties. The purpose of my email is to provide some input on the phase 2 proposed short term lodging ordinance changes with regard to limit on permits and minimum night stay. I understand there has been a significant increase over the last 5 years in short term lodging permits within the city. I align this directly with the emergence of online platforms like Airbnb, Booking.com and Expedia offering an easier way to provide short term lodging which was not as easily accessible in years past. These online giants decided they wanted to enter into the leisure market creating a spike in short term lodging opportunities. This emergence has created the façade that further ordinances are needed to maintain the quiet enjoyment of our community and have magnified the decades old arguments against short term lodging due to parking, trash and noise issues. My input comes down to two key elements in todays market – Enforcement of the existing ordinances and regulation of the online platforms. These are the real issues. Enforcement: I feel the existing ordinances already provide a strong platform for regulation on short term lodging but they are simply not enforced. I find this to be the main cause for the increased issues we are facing today as the existing ordinances if/when enforced properly will in fact address the basic issues you are trying to amend in the coming weeks. I find that DAC’s and LUGOS are not issued when they should be on a regular basis. These are needed in order to find an owner in violation of their permit and then dealt with accordingly. With that being said, the paperwork part of this is atrocious. It may take up to 5 months or in some cases no notices sent at all for an owner to finally be notified of a violation or go unnotified. Furthermore, code enforcement is very spotty with their trash violation notices at best. These notifications need to be in real time for an owner/operator to act accordingly. Because of this, owners (and their operators if represented), long term residents and transient occupants are not being held accountable for their actions. I propose that the city council evaluate the enforcement of the existing ordinances as a first step instead of amending the ordinances adding even more areas where effective enforcement will still be the key component. Online Platform Regulation: The vacation market has changed drastically with the online platforms taking all the power Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) and control away from the owner/operator. I feel this is a huge problem and needs addressed immediately. I know controlling or dictating terms to these large platforms is costly and most likely a losing battle. I propose the city set requirements for these online platforms (via the permit verbiage that an owner/operate receives) who want to operate in the city that an owner/operator have the ability to easily cancel an unwanted reservation. This may force the online platforms to modify their cancelation policies as they will not have any listings within the city without an owner/operator having that control. Years ago, we would spend time on the phone or over email vetting the guests prior to the reservation being made. Now, in order for the online platforms to make money, they force the guest to book through their platform leaving the owner/operator with a reservation that they now have to vet. They do not like cancellations and are very guest heavy on their policies. The host is literally powerless and face a tremendous amount of red tape when trying to get that power back. In my opinion, it’s not the spike in permits that are causing the issues we are having, it is the lack of power owner/operators have with these online platforms that only care about their bottom line and not the community. There has to be a way to force them to adhere to the existing ordinances without adding more restrictions on the owners as I feel placing all the pressure on the owner to control these platforms is not the answer nor feasible. Villa Rentals has used all the platforms but now only uses VRBO as they allow us the control we need to vet and cancel reservations accordingly. The online platforms create problems by pushing to get days filled, discounting rates and filling one or two gaps between reservations. This has then led to owner/operators offering one or two night rentals which is just ridiculous. Guests who rent for that short period of time are looking to host a gathering or celebrate something causing the constant turnover and all that goes with that. Conclusion: I have been renting out my two properties via Villa Rentals for close to 40 years. I have never offered my properties to be rented less than three nights in the summer. It has been very successful and offers a proven track record for community friendly reservations. I sincerely believe that the one and two night rentals have been the driving force behind the increased complaints and should be completely eliminated. I feel a three night min is a great compromise. The proposed six night min for non-owner occupied buildings is not necessary nor conducive to affordable family vacations. This leads to my position on the limit on permits. If the above areas are addressed, in particular enforcement of existing ordinances as well as a new addition of a three night min, then you will find that a limit on permits will not be necessary. Reckless owner/operators will end up with revoked or suspended permits ultimately allowing residents to feel confident in the system and that problem properties will be taken care of. I hope you found my input helpful and I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond accordingly as I would love to hear your feedback on it. Sincerely, Mohammed Walid Khalife Property owner of 2 rental properties in Newport Beach Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Rieff, Kim To:Mulvey, Jennifer Subject:FW: STLP 6 DAY RULE Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 2:02:14 PM From: Tina Lawler <t.lawler@aimatsuccess.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 1:13 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: STLP 6 DAY RULE [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Copy of what was sent to each Member of the Planning Commission:I wanted to send an email to voice my strong opposition the proposed 6-day minimumShort-Term Lodging Permit rule that is being proposed.I feel that a 6 day rule, while I understand may detour a party-like atmosphere, it willhave a huge negative impact on the sales tax revenue that the city collects from theseweekend properties as well as a direct impact to the small business. With the effects ofCovid-19 shutdown these business are already struggling. It is also important for the Cityto maintain outstanding City Services, funded by this revenue during theseunprecedented times.I have had nothing but positive results with renting for 3day weekends. There has neverbeen a noise or nuisance complaint from any of my short-term tenants. They are familieswith young children and grandparents, spending quality time together, enjoying ourbeautiful beach. They follow the rules and spend money at he surrounding businesses.Which again results in positive Tax Revenue to the City.In addition, I took the liberty of downloading the STLP spreadsheet from the City webpage. I did not see an alarming number of permits issued to only one entity. If you haveconcern about an overwhelming number going to larger corporations for STL use thenmaybe consider:1. Grandfathering in the Entities that have maybe 5 -7 or more and then label them as“High-Issue”.2. Entities that have less they should be granted up to the number such as 5 specifiedabove, and then they would fall into a “High-Issue” category.3. “High Issue” permits would come with conditions such as a limit on how many theycan be granted in the future in a considered timeframe and high cost per year per permit.Other than that the Permits Issued should remain and new “Low Issue” (under 5-7) Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) permits should remain as is.Thank you for your consideration,Tina Law Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Rieff, Kim To:Mulvey, Jennifer Subject:FW: VOTE NO: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT RELATED TO SHORT TERM LODGING Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 3:47:07 PM From: Derek Marshall <marshallbalboabeachhouse@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 3:46 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: VOTE NO: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT RELATED TO SHORT TERM LODGING [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon, I am writing to express my concern with the Local Coastal Program Amendment Related to Short Term Lodging (STL). I am asking for the city council to vote NO. Please stop trampling on property rights, killing the chance for STL owners to monetize their investment, kill jobs and hurt small businesses on Balboa Island and the Peninsula, decrease revenue from STL transient occupancy taxes by 25-50% (and the additional sales tax revenue that STL tenants/guests spend at local businesses), and limit access to the beach for people who can't afford a 6 or 7 night stay. Why would the City wish to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend multiple lawsuits as well as lose millions in revenue only for their illegal laws to be overturned? Please vote NO on the proposed amendment. Blessings, Derek and Kathy Marshall STL Owner on Balboa island Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:jaciwit@gmail.com To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Please ban short term rentals Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:40:35 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners, Please ban Short Term Rentals. We live in the flower streets in CDM, right next door to a short term rental. We are 35 year residents of Corona Del Mar on Poinsettia Avenue. Our properties are 6 feet apart, joined by a shared walkway. We have 4 windows on this shared walkway (dining room, kitchen, and 2 bedrooms), so that the nightly visitors at the short term rental pass right next to these windows, clearly not the minimum 6 foot “social/physical distance” separation required these ongoing unprecedented Covid days. We are restricted from opening these windows as I have no comport for our safety. Please take this opportunity to protect us. Both my husband and I are well over 65 years of age. Most of the residents are against these neighborhood nuisances as evidenced by petitions, previous meetings, and comments to the City Council. Thank you for helping us. With best regards, Jacqueline and Wes Wittmeyer Jacqueline Wittmeyer jaciwit@gmail.com 949.338.9393 JACQUELINE WITTMEYER jwittmeyer@surterreproperties.com 949-338-9393 DRE#01124168 ________________________________________________________________________________________ S U R T E R R E             P R O P E R T I E S 1400 Newport Center Drive * Suite 100 * Newport Beach, CA 92660 * DRE#01778230 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Sydney Erickson To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:phase two Short Term Lodging (STL) ordinance Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:42:59 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioners, I am writing to you regarding the Phase 2 Short Term Lodging (STL) ordinance. As I understand this ordinance, I see two main items of concern: First, my family and extended relatives have been coming to Newport Beach for years most often for family celebrations and short get away trips and an occasional vacation. We have a good size group (minimum of 6 people) at times and enjoy home rentals rather than stuffy hotels. We like to enjoy the beach and hanging out together afterwards in a house or condo. Often times we can only get a short 3 or 4 day window of time that works with all the variable schedules and renting a home/condo is more affordable. We have enjoyed coming back to a few of our favorite homes over the years. Because the Phase 2 STL ordinance changes the minimum stay to 6 days means we will not be able to rent a house or condo to visit the beach at a price that is affordable because the shorter stays will be eliminated! Please DO NOT change the the short term lodging to a six (6) day minimum. I recommend and support at a minimum 3 day rental. The second item of concern is the rush. What is the emergency? This is the first time I have heard of this Phase 2, what happened with Phase 1? Why is the Phase 2 being rushed through since travel is restricted and no opportunity to complete a personal appearance is limited. The circumstances of this ordinance and the rush to make a drastic change really makes me wonder which commissioner or council member has a hotel interest that is to benefit from such an ordinance. Or, there is such a panic with COVID19 that you don't care about the property owners, the short term leasing market availability, or the commissioners and city council are just being in your own world of isolation. Just an observation worth mentioning. Please consider shorter minimum stays of 3 days. We like Newport Beach however, there are other places to go ... if you really don't care about the economic health of your community. I thank you for your time in reading my concerns. I look forward to being in Newport Beach again. Sincerely, Sydney Erickson Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 1 Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: 400 38th Newport Island ________________________________________  From: Barry Mycorn  Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:43:34 AM (UTC‐08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)  To: City Clerk's Office  Cc: Scott McFetters  Subject: 400 38th Newport Island    [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.    Dear mayor and honorable Councilman &Councilwoman    I have lived on the Newport island for five years and love it! It’s so so special It horrible with short term renters coming  in droves more each year most reserved Internet or Airbnb everything about the peace quiet and caring neighbors and  children that live is destroyed by short term renters please don’t fool yourself and come to party city noon the party  they have new management company responsible they reserved it over the Internet and they just don’t care !they stay  up parting on there patios with zero respect for there neighbors they work and need  get up in the morning or children  to have to get up and go to school, The parking even with passes is out of control mini mini times I come home and my  garage is blocked and I have to call the police have to spend money that’s fair money to come out and cite them or Tow  the vehicle I live directly across across the Chanel from  the infamous short term rentals in the are 308 & 310The Rialto   for 2 rental properties side by side Both are in terrible condition owned by one investor who will rent to 10 people or  more, I have reach out to him but no return calls.  If you looked into the NB Police logs the past 5 years I have been forced to call and request police assistance, when  usually does no good I cannot control anything off Newport Island Parking I think it’s important for you to go and look  into how they break the rules how the penalties are high enough anyways I really thank you for listening to me I love  living in this island I beg of you please do not let short term rentals become what they are on the other side of the bridge  on the peninsula for your information I lived on the peninsula for over 40 years in this wonderful city for over 60 years  and I love it here and I think you for listening to me respectfully Barry Mycorn  400 38th street  Newport Beach  92663  7142407706    Sent from my iPhone  Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Sharon Grimes To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:STL - Please do not approve Phase Two Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:50:56 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioners, As a frequent visitor to Newport Beach I would like to ask that you do not consider Phase Two as proposed. The most recent alterations would restrict the ability to rent property short term and this would have several repercussions for owners and renters. The last four years have found my family in the Newport Beach and Balboa Island area frequently as my daughter and her family moved from NJ to CA and it is easiest for us to visit her and her growing family. Since we visit with extended family our schedules do not always allow a visit as long as we would like and most times it is less than 6 days. Our ideal visit allows us to rent a house with room enough for all to be together during our stay. We do not overcrowd the house but use as it was intended. Freezing current levels of STL permits and not allowing new owners to obtain permits will impact both renters and owners. Renters will have fewer choices and rent prices will rise. Owners will have restricted rent income with less people able to rent and afford extended stays. Also, the ability to sell a property that will generate less rental income due to short term limits can impact the sales price for owners. I hope you are able to see the limits from my point of view and it will have merit to allow you to cautiously approach this restriction and take the time for all to have input. I feel the COVID restriction is wise. This restriction does not seem like a good fit for a tourist area and owners who bought and may depend on rental income. Please consider a rental that is a minimum of 3 days and not 6 days and allow the rental permits to continue as they stand. Thank you for your consideration. Very truely yours, Sharon Grimes Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Sam Sham To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Changes to Newport Beach Vacation policy Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:53:44 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern, For the last 10 years we have been coming to Newport Beach from up North twice a year, in November and in August; we arrive Friday afternoon and leave Tuesday morning. And for the last 5 years we have been renting the same house. This has been an ongoing tradition for my family where we feel we are taking a great vacation, recharged and looking forwards to it for the next visit. I just heard of a Phase II amendment to NB Short Term Rental ( wasn’t aware of the existence of Phase I) The new restriction eliminating shorter stay that Newport Beach planning to implement, will result in us being unable to visit the beach at a price point that is affordable. My business will not allow me to be away for more than 5 days. Eliminating 4 day short rental will prevent us from visiting a city that we love and became our family tradition that we all look forwards to it. Why this Short Term Rental amendment being rushed through specially when travel is restricted these days; what is the emergency? Please don’t take away our family tradition from us. Our NB Short term rental vacation is what the kids look for every year. I am sure you still want us to come and visit. Sam & Family Get Outlook for iOS Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Penny Gilbert To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Fw: Short Term Rentals on Newport Island Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 11:16:37 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From: Penny Gilbert Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 12:32 PM To: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov <citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Short Term Rentals on Newport Island I am writing to you today to suggest that you adopt the Short Term Rental ordinance before you. I am the owner of 409 38th St., a property that has been owned by the Gilbert family since 1946. Currently my son and his young family live there with me and since we are surrounded on both sides by short term rentals, even before the Coronavirus pandemic, his children have not had the freedom of movement that he and his sister had growing up due to the transient nature of the rentals. Now even from our patios and decks do we feel in danger of the virus when outside as the properties in question are only 3 feet away from my property line. Many times we have been disturbed by noise and talking after 10:00 PM. If you'll look at the police log you'll see that each week there are calls to the 400 block on 38th St. due to "talking". The lower unit at 411 38th St. seems to be rented to persons under the age of 21 who spend each evening in their patio talking, drinking and inconsiderately partying. The upper unit is rented at the moment to a group of persons who are motorcycle enthusiasts and travel in a pack. Both units have been temporarily leased for 3 months or longer so that they no longer need to conform to the Short Term rules but the permits are still active. It is imperative that you continue to protect our neighborhoods. The Short Term Rental business is NOT compatible with properties that are only 6 feet apart with the current setbacks. Please note that many of the letters that have been submitted opposed to the ordinance before you are also from Real Estate professionals and absentee owners who make a business of renting their properties and not the pensioners that need the additional income and have owned the property for many years. Perhaps those who have multiple permits could be considered hotels. Sincerely, Penelope Gilbert 409 38th St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 (760) 861-2499 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Albert Bruder To:Planning Commissioners Subject:STL amendment Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 11:18:31 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am concerned about changes you are about to make in the STL agreements. see my notes below and understand that I am NOT in favor of any changes. I do NOT want: An artificial cap on the number of permits issued by the City (or a cap of 2,000 would be ok). - A minimum nightly stay cap more than 1 night. - Artificially low occupancy of 2 per bedroom (Hotels have occupancy of 4 (2 doubles) or up to 5 or 6 with a sofa sleeper for example at Marriott Spring Hill Suites). - Anything that would limit sales tax paying visitors to our City or force them to go to another City. I DO want/are ok with: - 1 night stays banned - 2 night minimum stay, or a compromise, where if a stay includes a Friday OR a Saturday then it needs to be a 3 night minimum. - Occupancy limits at 3 per bedroom/loft (so a 3 bedroom would be a 9 and a 4 bedroom would be 12 etc.) - No new permits issued outside the CA Coastal Commission's Coastal Zone -- Al Bruder Property owner on Balboa Island and Newport Coast -- Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Barry Mycorn To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Fwd: 400 38th Newport Island Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 11:19:39 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Barry Mycorn <rlmequities1@gmail.com> Date: July 22, 2020 at 10:43:35 AM PDT To: cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov Cc: Scott McFetters <smcfetters@outlook.com> Subject: 400 38th Newport Island Dear mayor and honorable Councilman &Councilwoman I have lived on the Newport island for five years and love it! It’s so so special It horrible with short term renters coming in droves more each year most reserved Internet or Airbnb everything about the peace quiet and caring neighbors and children that live is destroyed by short term renters please don’t fool yourself and come to party city noon the party they have new management company responsible they reserved it over the Internet and they just don’t care !they stay up parting on there patios with zero respect for there neighbors they work and need get up in the morning or children to have to get up and go to school, The parking even with passes is out of control mini mini times I come home and my garage is blocked and I have to call the police have to spend money that’s fair money to come out and cite them or Tow the vehicle I live directly across across the Chanel from the infamous short term rentals in the are 308 & 310The Rialto for 2 rental properties side by side Both are in terrible condition owned by one investor who will rent to 10 people or more, I have reach out to him but no return calls. If you looked into the NB Police logs the past 5 years I have been forced to call and request police assistance, when usually does no good I cannot control anything off Newport Island Parking I think it’s important for you to go and look into how they break the rules how the penalties are high enough anyways I really thank you for listening to me I love living in this island I beg of you please do not let short term rentals become what they are on the other side of the bridge on the peninsula for your information I lived on the peninsula for over 40 years in this wonderful city for over 60 years and I love it here and I think you for listening to me respectfully Barry Mycorn Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 400 38th street Newport Beach 92663 7142407706 Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Connie Nicholas To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Newport Beach Rentals Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 11:23:40 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioners/City Council members: We have been coming to Newport Beach with our families for at least 15 years - renting a house near the beach and enjoying the restaurants and outdoor activities in the area. If you enact this ordinance, it could result in us not being able to visit your great city. We have rented the same house off and on over the years (it fits our needs perfectly!), and it would be a shame if you prohibited them from renting it out due to the fact they may not be able to procure a permit or if we had to rent it for an extended period of time (which would be way too expensive for us). This is the first I've heard of this Phase 2 initiative - why do you think it will help your city? We come and spend our money in your stores/restaurants. I'm also curious as to why you are trying to rush this ordinance through now when travel is restricted and personal appearance to disagree is limited. Why are you in a hurry to pass this? I really hope you vote no - Newport Beach is a great place to enjoy a week in the sun with family!! Sincerely, Connie Nicholas Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:sgemueller@aol.com To:Koetting, Peter; lowrey@newportbeachca.gov; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Proposed changes in Newport Beach leasing policy Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 11:25:23 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom It May Concern: My family and I have recently been alerted to some proposed changes in the rules for rental property in Newport Beach. In hopes that these will not be enacted, let me tell you the story of our long history with your lovely city. We have been renting various properties in Newport Beach for around 30 years. Our kids have grown up enjoying your beaches and now that my brothers and I are retired, all our children now vacation in Newport, teaching their own children to love the ocean, sea breezes, boardwalk and sea gulls as we have done. We have rented mainly from 3 or 4 different owners, most recently and long-term, Mrs. Debbie Gale, although this year we will be living in a different unit since some of us can't climb stairs anymore. Typically we have leased our units for 2, 3 or 4 weeks. We are obviously mature renters, as well as law-abiding, responsible, retired teachers, doctors, bankers and lawyers from Oklahoma who enjoy spending time and money in your happy climate. I hope you'll reject the proposed changes, so that we can continue looking forward to our summer weeks in Newport Beach. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Kathie Wicker To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Newport Beach STL Ordinance Phase II Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 11:31:44 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the Planning Commission and City Council Members, We’re writing to express our concerns regarding the proposed Phase II STL City ordinance. We rented yearly in Newport Beach for 23 years, then bought a rental condominium 10 years ago. We’ve thoroughly enjoyed our vacations there, making numerous friends and enjoying seeing our So Cal family and friends. We’re in our 60’s, on Social Security, and we rely on the rental income from our property to supplement that. We have always had property managers, and have enjoyed a wonderful renter experience through their careful vetting and management of our condo. We respect our neighbors and the City of Newport Beach, and we take good care of our property. We don’t feel we should not be penalized for the few rentals that don’t do the same. As far as the new proposals, we would hate to see the minimum stay raised to 6 nights, as many people in these difficult times are excited to get away to the beach even for a few days. Also, we are opposed to no new permits. If we have to sell our condo and the new owner can’t get a transfer of our permit or even apply for a new one, it will be a huge detriment, and we expect property values would fall as a result. We value your work, effort, and time, and we ask you to please consider this new Ordinance carefully with our (and I’m sure many others') thoughts in mind. Respectfully, Kathie and Jeff Wicker Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Patrick McCracken To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Newport Island STR PROBLEM Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 11:48:10 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners, I have been a 23 year resident of Newport Island and our Family has owned this house since 1975. I have never seen it this bad until this summer 2020. There are so many STR's this year. There is a loud party pretty much every night. There is absolutely no parking on the Island now. People encroach into driveways of homes. You can't park! Just the other night a guy got all upset when I asked his girlfriend to move her car from impeding our driveway. He cussed me out. He was threatening in his behavior. I know how Newport gets in the summer, but this is getting ridiculous!!!!! Best Regards, Please consider a minimum 1 year lease. Patrick McCracken Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Brandon Craig To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Newport Beach Short Term Lodging Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 12:01:37 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello LEADER, As a long time Newport Beach visitor, I have come to love the city and my experiences there. The way that we, as a family, have been able to experience NB is through the short term vacation rental community. As I understand it, there are some ordinances being proposed that could impact this at some level. My hope is that in sending this email to you (all of you) you are able to see that in discouraging new short term rentals and creating restrictions on current short term rentals, it will result in making families like ours unable to come and enjoy the amenities of NB. For over twenty years we have visited NB as a family multiple times each year. Now three of my children are adults and they are following suit. In many cases, we can sneak away from our permanent residence in Gilbert, Az and head over to NB for a long weekend. If a minimum stay requirement is imposed, we will no longer be able to do this. Please consider this plea and work together as community leaders to produce the outcomes you desire in a different way than imposing restrictions on the Short Term Leasing community. Leadership is about producing outcomes that fulfill on or attempt to fulfill on all the relevant parties. I encourage you to get clear on the outcomes and let’s all work together to create a future with those outcomes being a reality without the cost of negatively impacting the Short Term Leasing community. If I can provide further context or be of service to you in some way that will help you and the community, please respond to this email. Be blessed, Brandon Craig Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Paul To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Short term rentals on Newport Island Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 12:02:10 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello As a resident of Newport Island for 25 years now, I can tell you that the explosion of short term rentals on our small island has detrimentally altered the lifestyle of us long term residents. I'm sure you've heard about the noise, loud parties, vomiting in the street etc... The other issue that has a HUGE impact is parking. Newport Beach already has obvious parking problems. Add to this that every street on Newport Island is a one-car street (somebody has to pull over for 2 cars to pass each other). On the one side that is available for parking are everybody's garage door entrances, reducing the parking even further. Short term renters typically have multiple cars and there is already no available parking for anybody. I invite folks to come by on a Friday and follow the street sweeping truck around the island to watch how the game of "all parking spots constantly occupied" plays out. It's crazy. Please stop short term rentals on Newport Island to help us preserve what is left of our deteriorating lifestyle! Thank you Paul Hoffman 3702 Channel Pl Newport Island Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Kevin Deeble To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; mrosene@newportb; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Proposed "phase two" Short Term Lodging ordinance Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 12:13:05 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ladies and Gentlemen, My family has lived in Orange County for four generations. My elders largely worked in public education, and thus could never afford to purchase a property on the coast. But in the summer of 1965, my grandmother rented a small beach house on Balboa Island, to provide a nice summer vacation for her daughters and grandchildren. Thus began a tradition that has continued without interruption for 55 consecutive years! When my grandmother died in the early 90s, my mother took over the tradition. And when my mother passed just a few years ago, I took on the responsibility to keep this important family tradition alive. My hope is that future generations of Deebles can experience the joys of summertime in Newport that are the backdrop for many of my most cherished memories. So, it was with great concern that I learned of the proposed “phase two” Short Term Lodging ordinance. In particular, the proposal to prohibit new STL permits will gradually and inevitably shrink the inventory of available rentals, as existing permitted properties change ownership. It is already traumatic enough when my family is forced to find a replacement beach house within our budget (we have been renting the current one for more than 10 years). This would only become more difficult under the proposed ordinance. I also question why this ordinance is being rushed through during a pandemic, when there is less opportunity for public discussion. In more normal times, you can be sure that my family to would show up at a hearing to voice our concerns in person. For while we are not technically residents of Newport Beach, we have probably spent more time living there than many of your current constituents. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kevin Deeble Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Andy Sham To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Subject:STL Minimum Stay Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 12:17:30 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.Planning Commission Members, The proposed 6-day minimum stay is going to negatively affect Short Term Lodging Owners aswell as families visiting NB. Majority of our guests come to the City for 3 to 5 day stay and theyare all families who love Newport beach and this is where they want to spend their shortvacation. I don't rent my places for 1-night stay because I definitely don't want my properties to be usedfor a party place. However, I always have a great experience with the great families coming for 3to 5 night's stay. and I am pretty sure you still want to invite nice families and have them feelwelcomed to the City. Placing a 6-day minimum stay will result in many families being unable to come for a shorter staywhich will result in a negative effect on our income properties The majority of STL operators are good operators taking good care of their properties and theCity and therefore it is not fair for them to get penalized. I have no doubt that the Planning Commission members & the City Council members will do theright thing and set the STL minimum stay to no more than 3-day. Andy Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Richard Kinnersley To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:proposed ordinance Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 12:31:51 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We have recently learned of the proposal to enact a new ‘short term rental’ ordinance. My wife and I and now our extended family, numbering 52 have been coming to Newport for beach rentals for more than 50 years. We are often joined with dozens of other friends and neighbors when we com. We always come every summer and often many other times during the year. We started renting all of the units owned by Jackie Doyle and have since spread out into many different locations because of our numbers and the need for increased flexibility in the time available to stay. Busy young families don’t have the the luxury to stay for a week or more these days. Without arguing the stupidity of this hastily proposed ordinance we simply write to inform you that should this ordinance pass as it is proposed we will no longer come to Newport Beach in the future. Our various needs cannot be met there under this ordinance. We have already identified several suitable locations in other beach communities that will meet our needs. The only reason we continue in Newport is tradition. Please reconsider and oppose this ill-conceived ordinance. Thank you. Richard B. Kinnersley Salt Lake City, Utah Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Stacy Eidem To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Caring NI Resident Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 12:31:55 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, As a resident of Newport Island who absolutely loves the safety and tranquility it brings, STR is single handily destroying that. Children cannot safely ride their bikes on the island due to excessive speeding. Part of living on the island brings a sense of security knowing who is supposed to be here. The constant rotating of people in the STR gives an enormous cause of concern in regards to safety. Requiring longer rental time would help with that. I understand it’s a business of income, but with that understanding is the respect and safety of the permanent residents. As you are all aware, the Island appreciates your service and just wants to maintain this tight nite, safe community just that. The foul language, excessive speeding, late night partying, no parking available are just a few stand out problems these STR’s are creating. Please, help us maintain this wonderful island we’ve created with no more permits being issued and longer rental agreements. With care and concern, Stacy EIdem Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:paul ash To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Newport Island "parking" crisis Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 12:33:46 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Commissioner's  Paul Ash, 4000 Channel Place, been associated with this property since 1972.   There's has been a community and culture change over this time frame.  The decline in Senior full time residents and the increase in wealthy young renter and home buyers has lead to very limited parking on Newport Island.  The introduction of Newport Island summertime "parking stickers" has not helped reduce the amount of cars on the island.  In fact, the parking stickers make home owners and visitors travel in circles around the island looking for parking. I'm a senior that walks the Island everyday. I see garages full of personal property rather than a car parked in the garage. My suggestion is to use code enforcement to inspect each residence to determine if one car has available garage parking space even in a double car garage. If the inspection determines that there is no space to park a car in the garage, two ( 2 ) summertime parking strickers should be withheld allowing only one parking sticker to be purchased prior to the May enforcement which starts May 15 each year. Then, more inspections should be conducted before issuing all the other parking passes, a total of 3 parking passes per house and a total of 6 parking passes for duplex or condo. The parking issue is an Island community issue that has been present for a long time.  The current and past council representative have not been involved to the degree necessary. The diverse Island population has little interest to communicate with each other The Island need an outside force. Paul Ash 4000 Channel Place 949.764.1724  . Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Meredith May To:Planning Commissioners Subject:IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED: SHORT TERM RENTALS on NEWPORT ISLAND Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 12:52:48 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Newport Beach Planning Commission: Please see my prior emails I sent to all the Newport Beach City Council Members. I have lived here for 11 years. The prior owner wanted me as the buyer since I was going to live here and not use it as a business for rental income. It was great living here for about 5 years until the nice old lady living next door to me died in 2014. The house was left to her kids in her Trust. They turned a residential home into a money making business. They get about $3,000/week when they only pay about $2,000 a year in property taxes since the house is valued at $150,000 in a trust dated back to the 1940's. Needless to say, I live next door to a weekly rental all year long. Last summer was the worst. This summer has been OK only because of COVID-19 pandemic causing short term rentals to be banned until just recently. It is a terrible environment to raise my 2 young children (ages 4 and 5). I usually cannot even park my car behind my garage when I get home with my 2 kids. Every day, I would have to get out of my car, walk next door and ask the tenants to move their car. Such a terrible inconsiderate experience to have to deal with on a daily basis for living in such an expensive neighborhood. Foul language, loud music of all sorts (rap, pop, heavy metal), peeing in the street, party boats when they rent out the dock for an additional fee with Burr White Realty, along with all the cigarette smoke. The smoke is the worst part since we live only 3 feet away and I have no air conditioning. So I have to open up my windows for air ventilation, yet my kids are getting exposed to excessive second hand smoke from chain smokers day and night. When short term renters are here, it is not just a party on the weekends, it is a party every night of the week until 2-3AM. They paid good money to stay there, so they are going to party, all day and all night, everyday. It used to be a nice place to live on Newport Island. Everyone had family or dogs. When you crossed the bridge, it was peaceful and quiet. There were no people renting short term. No loud parties. You expect it over on the beach side near Seashore where there are a lot of weekly rentals and college students, but not on Newport Island. The dynamic has definitely changed in the past 5 years. Please stop allowing STR on Newport Island. The parking is also a huge problem. Usually my husband and I cannot even find a spot to park our cars on a daily basis. The construction on Newport island is also out of control. I have no idea why so many construction permits were Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) approved all at the same time on Newport Island? Major construction projects are currently in progress on every street. There is no parking with all the construction workers taking our spots along with all the short term renters! Thank you for your time and consideration, Dr. Meredith May Newport Island Resident since 2009 714-326-7161 From: Meredith May <may_meredith@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 2:07 PM To: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov <citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED: SHORT TERM RENTALS on NEWPORT ISLAND Dear NB City Council Members: I have been a NI resident since 2009. My opinions have not changed since my prior email I submitted a few months ago in February 2020 (see below email) before COVD-19, in fact I feel even more strongly that the STR should be banned on NI not only due to the constant parking and noise issues, but also being a public health issue. Back in 2009 when I moved here, NI was a quiet peaceful family neighborhood which is why I decided to move here rather than be closer to the beach. I also specifically remember that the sellers took my offer over another since they wanted someone to live there and not make it into a rental. I was single then with 2 dogs, but now I am raising my young family here. I have a 4 and 5 year old and we could NOT use our patio last summer. I did not want my young children to be subjected to the constant smoke from cigarettes and marijuana use along with all the terrible loud foul language. I could not even keep my windows open and I do not have A/C. Some weeks it was loud partying/music and drinking all night long on the patio and dock. Additionally, practically every time I arrived to my house last summer, I could not park in front of my garage due to it being blocked by the STR tenants next door. I had to get out of my car leaving my 2 kids inside, walk next door and ask them to move their car so that I can park in front of my garage. This was a terrible inconvenience to me on a daily basis. Now with the COVID pandemic, I should not have to walk next door to ask them to move. Last summer, I complained on a weekly basis to both the owners of the STR and to Burr White Realty who managed it. I handled it the nice way and either called/sent texts with photos to them to deal with it personally instead of escalating the problem. I spoke with Joan Trout (owner of Burr White) a few times about it over the last few years. Last summer was the worst and this summer I will start logging complaints on the city website or call the police. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) I recently heard my STR next door is going to be rented for exactly 30 days starting July 1st to avoid being termed a STR. I foresee this to be a problem. I am open to options to deal with these issues such as one NI resident recently suggested following Santa Monica's STR policy to where the owner must be living on the premises in order to rent out their property nightly or weekly. I think this would really cut down on the STR issues. I guarantee the owners would hate living on the premises with the people they rent to. My husband and I talk about it, the owners are not the ones inconvenienced here, it is the residents who suffer. I appreciate your time in making sure my concerns are addressed at the city council meeting tonight. Thank you, Dr. Meredith May Newport Island Resident From: Meredith May <may_meredith@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 11:20 PM To: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov <citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fwd: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED: SHORT TERM RENTALS on NEWPORT ISLAND ATTN: NB City Council Below is my email I sent to Diane Dixon on 2/15/2020 and received no response. Unfortunately I cannot attend the city council meeting on Tuesday 2/25. Please use my email to voice my opinion/concerns. I live next door to a Newport Island short term rental on Marcus Avenue. This property has a huge patio on the water with a dock and it is a constant party everyday and night. NOT a good environment to raise my 2 young children. Thank you, Dr. Meredith May Begin forwarded message: From: Meredith May <may_meredith@hotmail.com> Date: February 15, 2020 at 8:47:28 PM HST To: "ddixon@newportbeachca.gov" <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED: SHORT TERM RENTALS on NEWPORT ISLAND Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Hello Diane, I attended the NB City Council Meeting on Tuesday 11 February 6:30PM as I was informed by a neighbor that short term rentals on Newport Island was on the agenda. I brought my 2 young children with me that night (no babysitter) and could not stay as I learned from the officers at the door that the regular meeting would not start until 7PM, but that the study session was not even completed. My husband and I decided that we could not sit through 30 minutes, let alone 2 hours with our 2 young children. I later heard from a neighbor that the issue was not addressed at the meeting until 9PM, so I am glad I did not stay. When will the short term rentals on Newport Island be addressed again with the city council? I want to make sure I attend and would like to know the time I should be there. Short term rentals on Newport Island is a major issue right now. I have lived here for 10 years and last summer was one of the worst. I live next door to a short term rental and it is a constant party everyday and every night! You expect this on the beach side over on Seashore, but not on Newport Island. That is what made this island so special. When I first moved here, I was told by my neighbors that everyone on the island either has dogs or kids which was true, but not anymore. The family quiet residential feel is gone. It is very unfortunate that we pay high taxes to live in a nice neighborhood that is now going downhill by all the rowdy teenagers and twenty something year old tenants that arrive weekly or for just a few nights. It is not normally families renting, it is groups of young adults in their twenties or an adult renting it out for younger kids who is not on the property. I do not appreciate the bad language and cigarette/marjuana smoke next door to me and my small children all hours of the day. I do not have A/C since I live at the beach and now I cannot leave my windows open as we will be engulfed in 2nd hand smoke. Foul language, hiring DJ's to play on the patio, partying on huge boats with music blaring when tenants are allowed to also rent the boat slip from the property owner, loud music/yelling, peeing and smoking in the street, trash, etc, PARKING is a constant issue since the tenants think it is fine to park on neighbors property. I have contacted the owner of the rental property and Burr White rental management company multiple multiple times last summer with emails, phone Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) calls and texts. It is a complete inconvenience for me and my family to have to deal with this on a daily basis. I should be able to come home and be able to park behind my garage to get my kids out of the car safely without having to ask the renters every day to move their car and every week to move their trash cans to their property. This summer, I am going straight to the city with my complaints and pictures. I hope to hear from you soon as to how this issue is going to be addressed. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Dr. Meredith May Newport Island Resident Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:sheila zamucen To:Planning Commissioners Subject:New short term regulations Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 1:04:45 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City Council As a vacation rental owner on Balboa Island for the past 6 years, It is very disturbing that the City council is considering putting even more regulations on property owners who have invested in property in this community under the belief that our investment was made with the understanding that we would be able to pay our mortgages, and possibly increase the value of our investment, due to the ability to rent out our property to vacationers. I also know that limiting the stay to a minimum of 6 nights would greatly decrease tourism to our community, which brings in a significant amount of income to our businesses and restaurants, as well as our community by way of the income it generates through collected taxes. At least 2/3 of my rentals are made up of those wanting a 3 night stay over the weeked, especially during the off season. I am a responsible property owner who takes pride in my rental property and has never had a complaint from neighbors. I urge you to reconsider this regulation for the good of both the businesses and fellow Newport Beach citizens who would suffer economically from this decision. Sincerely, Sheila Zamucen Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:patriciadarquea@gmail.com To:Planning Commissioners Subject:RE: Phase 2 | STL Ordinances | Thursday Meeting Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 1:05:55 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  Dear City Council Members and Planning Commision, I’m writing on behalf of your Phase Two STL Ordinance. This is my second letter and phone-in from last week’s meeting regarding the drastic changes being implemented against Newport Beach property owners who survive on Short Term Rental Income. Last week, I voiced my concerns since the City of Newport Beach Planning Commision is not notifying nor involving STL Property Owners regarding this scheduled meeting on Thursday, while altering and limiting what we can and cannot proceed with for the future of Short Term Rentals. Many of us rely on Short Term Rentals to pay mortgages; property taxes and TOT Taxes on time. Now, there’s suddenly discussions to “Freeze Current Level Of STL Permits” and add a “Prohibition of New Permits”? This is a asinine idea, since these two amendments will reduce the value of so many properties if new buyers cannot rent their homes for short term income to pay mortgages; nor will I or others be able to continue investing into Newport Beach peninsula properties without the ability to procure a permit. Since when has the City of Newport Beach Planning Commision become a “Home Owners Association Committee” restricting property rights and freedom to thrive and survive? The City of Newport Beach is making a handsome profit on us as property owners with our taxes and STL Permit fees, along with the revenue we drive into restaurants; boutiques; boat rentals and arcades from our short terms guests, therefore, I say we as neighbors should all be notified properly; come to certain agreements and not quickly rush through amendments until there is proper discussion from those who are trying to survive economically during this COVID-19 pandemic. Any amendment is like a “double edged sword” which cut both ways. Passing rushed decisions during a time of economic hardships and growth within our City due to this pandemic is preposterous, especially since travel is restricted and personal appearances is limited. By passing STL Amendments and provisions in a rushed manner is simply ruthless and seriously damaging to proprietors who rely on this as a retirement income. I’m not in favor “Freezing STL Permits” for future peninsula property purchase. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) I’m not in favor “Prohibition of New Permits” I’m in favor of a (3) day minimum stay and anything greater than (4) (5) or (6) day minimum stay for my retirement income. I’m not in favor of amendments passing without proper discussion nor notifications to property owners affected by amendments passed by the City Council. You may read my letter since I’m not able to attend due to the COVID-19 Virus. Patricia Darquea Property Owner & STL Proprietor Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Sheila Axelson To:Planning Commissioners Cc:Kleiman, Lauren; Lowrey, Lee; Weigand, Erik; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Koetting, Peter; Rosene, Mark Subject:Proposed short-term rental regulations Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 1:11:43 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Planning Commissioners, We first visited Newport Beach in 2015 for our daughter’s high school graduation trip. We fell in love!! We scoured the area and finally purchased a home that we can use for vacations and holidays with the bonus of hosting short term rentals. As a responsible vacation rental owner that manages every single guest booking and stay, I encourage you to reconsider the additional proposed changes to the City of Newport Beach's short-term rental regulations. I do not support the proposed changes. I strongly oppose the minimum night stay. We consistently offer our home with a four- night minimum, and rarely offer our home for less than this. We have found this is a good minimum stay for many guests. Innumerable guests would not have the luxury of a six-night stay. Implementing a six-night minimum would drastically reduce the number of rentals and impact our ability to maintain and pay property taxes for our beautiful home. We have a good relationship with our neighbors and have been told that our tenants are great. We have given no reason to be penalized by these proposed restrictions to the short- term rental regulations. I oppose a cap on the existing number of short-term rental permits for the City. Without short term rentals, guests would not have the ability to fully experience the beautiful beaches, vibrant boardwalk and unique restaurants and shops that Newport Beach has to offer. Let’s be honest, staying in a hotel and driving to the beach is just not the same as walking out the door and being minutes from the beach. Please reconsider these changes to the City's short-term rental regulations. Regards, Sheila Axelson 209 42 nd Street Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Jacquelyn Chung To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Fwd: SHORT TERM RENTALS Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 1:25:42 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners, I watched and listened to the most recent City Council meeting. I am aware you understand from the residence of Newport Island, who spoke in person or called via telephone, how we as a community feel about the short term rentals on our very precious island. I've had the great privilege of living on this island oasis and bringing up three children on what at one time was a safe haven. I feel for the young families who currently reside here. Since short term rentals have been allowed I have myself witnessed the degradation of what at one time was the epitome of Newport Beach; a safe and secure place for young families to once again live that "Leave It To Beaver" existence. I manage my families rental properties. I understand "that side." But, without setting clear expectations and enforcement of offenders this terrible situation will just exacerbate the already existing problem. I am writing you today to implore you to pass this ordinance in its entirety for the sake of your residents and young families. Kind Regards, Jacquelyn Chung Resident Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Tammy DiGiamarino Subject:PA2020-048 - Not in Favor Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 1:33:24 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioner, Today, I became aware of the proposed resolution (PA2020-048) restricting issuance of short-term rental permits. My husband and I purchased our home at 125 E Bay Street in 2014. It has been used as a long-term rental with the goal to do short-term rentals allowing our family to use the property as well. (The short-term rental off-sets the monthly expenses associated with owning a second home.) At the beginning of 2020 our long-term tenants moved out. We are ready to take on the additional monthly expenses of a second home with the additional help of short-term rentals to off-set some of the monthly expenses. So, in April, we applied for a short-term rental permit. The application has been processed, and we hope, will be issued once the moratorium is lifted, allowing us to move forward with our long-term plans. As mentioned above, we were unaware (even with a pending short-term rental application) of the proposed changes. We were also unaware of the discussions, town halls, etc. that were available for homeowners regarding this matter. I wonder if we are the only family in this situation? I hope you will take this into consideration when adopting any resolutions. Thank you for taking the time to consider our position. Warmly, Tammy and Ed DiGiamarino 2533 Via Dominic La Verne, CA 91750 951-204-3419 cell -- Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY! Tammy DiGiamarino DRE# 01188276 951-204-3419 Kaleo Real Estate Company Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:astastny1@aol.com To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Subject:a request to be heard re rentals in Newport Beach Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 1:39:23 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I hope that this email will serve as one voice hoping to convey the joy my family has experienced over many years to rent a house in Newport Beach. I hope that restrictions for length of stay will not be applied moving forward. Respectfully submitted, Allison Stastny 120 Fleetwood Drive San Carlos, CA 94070 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Ann Engar To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Vacation Beach Rentals Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 1:40:22 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council: I am writing to protest the freezing of the current level of STL permits and prohibition of new tenants. My family and I have been vacationing for 6-7 days every year in Newport Beach for thirty years, often staying at the same property. My husband's family vacationed in Newport for thirty years before that. Enjoying Newport Beach has thus been a family tradition, and we have added to the city's economy not only through the rental home but through patronizing restaurants and shops, equipment rentals, attractions and even attending its churches. We most recently stayed in Newport Beach July 5-11 where we celebrated my daughter's birthday. We look on Newport as our second home, have several friends in the community, and want to ensure that our beach tradition continues for decades to come. I have several concerns about the proposals. One concern is that new owners of rental properties will not be able to get permits for an extended period of time and thus the number of available rentals will decrease. Another is that properties may only be available for long- term rentals over a month, a time period that is impossible for my family. A third concern is affordability. These actions seem to move toward making staying at the beach difficult for families. I can assure you that these measures are not necessary even with the outbreak of COVID-19. In our recent visit, we wore masks, maintained social distancing, ordered takeout and delivery groceries and restaurant food, and purchased clothing. None of us had the virus, and none has since come down with it. Please reconsider the stringency of your regulations and long-term consequences. Your city has been a beautiful and gracious host--I strongly urge you to continue your hospitality. Best wishes, Ann Engar Sent from Outlook Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Penny Gilbert To:Dept - City Council; Planning Commissioners Subject:Short Term Rentals Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 1:49:13 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing to you again in anticipation of your next meeting. I am the owner of 409 38th St., a property that is surrounded on both sides by owners that have short term rental permits. The owner of 411 38th St. has leased both of his units for 3 months or longer so that he no longer needs to conform to the Short Term rental rules but still has his permits active. 407 38th St. has a Short Term permit but is said to be occupied by one of it's owners in the back unit. I believe that stipulating the number of rental days necessary to keep the permits active is a step in the right direction. The 3 day minimum for owner occupied properties should cut down on the violations reported regarding noise, parking and trash in the past and the 6 day minimum on properties not owner occupied, that are used as an income producing businesses, will cut down on the transients visiting our residential neighborhoods.. The Short Term rental business is NOT compatible with properties that are only 6 feet apart with the current setbacks. Hopefully the imposed limits indicated above should help with problems experienced in the past. Please note that many of the letters submitted in the past are from Real Estate professionals and absentee owners who make a business of renting the properties. Some absentee owners have multiple permits and I believe that those should be reevaluated and their operations considered hotels. Sincerely, Penelope Gilbert 409 38th St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 (760) 861-2499 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Wayne Smith To:Planning Commissioners; info@cdmra.org Subject:Public Comments: July 23 Agenda Item #2 Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 1:57:17 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings, I writing you in response to the changes you are making on the Airbnb. This is absolutely a terrible idea for several reasons, while I support at lease a three night minimum. Guest from all over the world love Newport Beach, the community and the entire area. Many guest cant afford to take there family on vacation for a whole week simply because there not in a financial situation where it makes it possible. Less than three nights is a no brainer. They just want to party and disrupt the neighbors, 3 night guest are respectful, they can afford it and very appreciative. Lets talk about the owners of these properties. They really rely on the income to pay there property taxes, put money into there properties to keep them up, enhance the values in the area and gives the City of Newport Beach added revenue. Im requesting that you give this proposal another thought. Thank you, Wayne Smith Broker Owner 3407 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, California 92625 Cell: 949 300-2215 Office: 949 673-8494 Email: mailto:wayne@coronadelmarproperties.com Website: www.coronadelmarproperties.com License # 00922140 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Betty Thompson To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Short Term Rentals Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 1:59:28 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Members of the Planning Commission As property owner at 4207 Seashore, I have serious concerns regarding 6 day rental minimum. I believe that 7 day minimum would be appropriate for summer and 4-5 day minimum during the "off season" would achieve the desired results. Betty Thompson Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 1 Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: Rentals   I would like this to stay anonymous.  I have lived on Newport Island for 25 yrs.   I rent and have lived in 4  different locations on the island.  My most recent location is near rentals that have all been  horrible.   Noise parties parking illegally during the week on the weekend.  I lived in the war zone for a  short time and could not wait to move on the island.  The entire island has changed.  No parking, parties  that go on every night, and the duplex that I share an alley with because the owners garages are made  for smart cars.  People leaving me nasty notes on my car which is  parked legally behind my house or  banging on the door asking for my keys so they could move my car  to get theirs out (when it was an  Airb&b).  It is really sad and upsetting that what was once a neighborhood is turning into just another  party zone.  I repeat I want to remain anonymous.    The only way is to fine landlords enough to make a  difference or 3 strikes your out.     Sent from my iPhone  Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Sharen Thompson To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:New Phase II for Short Term Lodging Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 2:14:48 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioners and Council Members, First and foremost I would like to thank you for your hard work and dedication to moving the city in a forward direction. You are making it accessible, safe and affordable to visitors, while trying to maintain the residents safety, entertainment and happiness. It is an understatement to say your job is difficult and often unappreciated. So, thank you all very much. The main reason for writing is to voice my opinion over the new Phase II ordinance for Short Term Lodging. Although I do not live in Newport full-time, I own a house in the area with my sister, so this ordinance will have a direct effect on us. Please do not dismiss this opinion because of the lack of residency. Newport is like our second home. The house was left to us by our parents after they died. My father’s family has been living in Newport for over 140 years! We have a great deal of family in the area and have been coming to Newport for almost 60 years; before there was a bridge. Having the house allows visits and create memories within our own families. My son actually proposed to his wife on the rocks at the end of Esplanade a few years ago. Unfortunately, the only way we can afford to keep, and still use the house, is to offer it for short-term rent. We have been renting for 5 years now. Part 1 of the ordinance proposes that to only renters for a minimum of 6 days at a time. In the summer we actually require a minimum of 7 days, which works perfectly. Due to the demand in summer we have no problem fully booking our property every year. However, before and after summer is a different story. While school is in session, families cannot take vacation for a week. Therefore, we have adapted and in June and September we drop down to a 3-day minimum. In May and October, with even less demand, we drop to 2-days. Even then we have plenty of availability. We have tried to rent it over the winter, but it is cost prohibitive due to lack of interest and cost of heat. Passing this ordinance is certain to have a negative financial effect on the local businesses. Owners of these establishments are already having financial trouble with Covid-19, and this may be kicking them while they are down. So, as the old saying goes...”be careful what you wish for.” Quiet neighborhoods are one thing, but empty stores and restaurants are something else entirely. Perhaps following the changing demand will help retain business during the off- season. Please choose to adjust off-season times to 2 or 3 days, instead of the 6-day minimum as proposed. Part 2 of the ordinance proposes prohibition of new permits in the future. Although I have a permit and shouldn’t care, I do have a few thoughts to share on this subject. I do this in an effort to help the city, as well as the next kids whose parents leave the house to them. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) As you are aware, overseeing the rental industry is a is a very tricky balancing act and a huge headache for the city. It comes with a giant learning curve and, no offense, but in the big picture, you guys haven’t been doing it that long. It feels like you may be rushing this decision through out of frustration, without fully investigating if the pros outweigh the cons. It may be more difficult to get the cat back in the bag, while still trying to stop illegal and disruptive rentals. You may also miss the newfound income from taxes and fees. Perhaps a moratorium on new permits for one year would allow time to look at the problems you are trying to solve from rentals, be it: noise, traffic, litter, costs... and to research experienced, high rental towns to see how they manage their problems. You can always extend the moratorium. And don’t forget - you already have the power to rescind a permit and shut a problem rental house down. Although I am aware of the rules and know that having a permit is a privilege, I have no idea how often the city has actually pulled one. Generating an email message to rental owners saying - “Another one bites the dust. Don’t let this happen to you” would motivate the rental owners to toe-the-line. As a side note: Rentals aren’t all bad. In addition to being beneficial to the economy, the neighborhoods do see benefits. The run-down, unpainted, weed-infested homes that exist are most likely NOT rentals. We market our homes to win a booking over the next rental, so our rental profits go right back into the house. In doing so, we add to it’s value and comfort for ourselves and in turn, our neighbors. I imagine you will find most homes being purchased with the intention to rent, have the same agenda. My family history in Newport may be different than most of the other rental owners, but our existence serves the same purpose: To help the city bring the magic of Newport to visitors. Best wishes in working together to make a plan that best suits the Newport area. Gratefully, Sharen Thompson Owner of The Cottage on Ellery Sent from my iPad Sent from my iPad Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Connie Adnoff To:Blumenthal, David(Contractor) Subject:FW: City Short Term Lodging Proposed Changes Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 1:27:28 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the Newport Beach Planning Commission, Community Development Department & Staff: My name is Connie Adnoff. My husband, Mike, and I founded Beachview Realty at the end of 2012 after many years of successfully and responsibly operating our family’s vacation homes throughout the peninsula. The peninsula has been our home for over 60 years. Each of our parents invested in properties in the 50’s & 60’s. We raised our own four kids on 35th Street to give them the same magical experience we had growing up. It’s this longtime love and concern for our Newport neighborhoods that prompted us to step into the management of properties here in town, with the goal of making a positive difference in the rental industry. We saw, firsthand, that it desperately needed to be done better. Over the years, we learned what worked and what didn’t – everything we implemented had to pass the test of “will this be good for the neighbors” or “will this improve the block”. Because of this, we would like to weigh in on the 2 most important aspects of the current Short Term Lodging LCP Amendment for your consideration: We understand the recommendation to place a cap on the number of Short Term Lodging Permits. We are hoping that it can be a temporary cap. Everyone and their brother is short term renting (with or without a permit) their primary residences, their driveways, their garages, etc. It’s gotten out of hand and I believe it’s these renegades that are ruining it for those of us who try hard to operate by the rules and with consideration for our beloved community. But while we understand the need for the City to address this issue, we’re in dialogue with the Council about other alternatives instead of simply slamming the door shut in our faces. The Council has recently voted in many restrictions/guidelines for the acceptance of a permit application; likewise, they have voted in many ways in which a permit can be suspended and/or revoked. Our request would be to take some time to enforce these newly-added elements now that it is feasible for the City to control who gets the “privilege” of operating a short term rental and to shut down the folks who either don’t appear to be good candidates to begin with, or who have created a nuisance to the community and therefore should certainly lose the privilege to keep their permit. Put these mandates into play before shutting down the possibility of a permit altogether. Otherwise, what was the point? We would also add, to look over our shoulders at what other cities are doing is a bit insulting as our city is nothing like any others. (Anaheim, Santa Monica, etc.) Apples and oranges. We are 100% against the parameters that are proposed for 6-night minimum booking requirements. Once again, the City Council just did mandate a 3-night minimum for short term rentals, (finally) which our company has utilized from Day 1. Anything less is just asking for trouble, and that’s exactly what they’ve been getting: trouble. Please allow this to play out before piling on more restrictions. Three-night minimum bookings are tried and true, plus it provides a better method in which property owners can pay their mortgages. It is not possible for the majority of potential guests to get away for more than 3 nights in the off-season. And with the Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) current pandemic conditions, folks desperately need the ability to get a break close to home. Yes, we do get weeklong bookings, or even month-long bookings in the off-season by “snowbirds”, but those bookings do not pay mortgages. Even more concerning: mandating 6-night minimum bookings will give many property owners no choice but to go back to the old school business model of the 9-month winter lease to college students, so they can generate consistent off-season income, and still garner summer weekly income. This would be devastating to our community. We have worked hard to eliminate the “frat house” mentality from the peninsula as much as possible; (it’s why we initiated 3-night minimum bookings in the off-season 20 years ago.) The college students are the #1 chronic nuisances throughout the peninsula. We know: we live here! The excessive drinking, drinking games, loud music, trashy disregard for the properties and neighbors in our community are why we are constantly calling for police back-up….not for short term guests. (And most of the college student properties are not being properly managed by the longest- existing company in town, to be perfectly honest….it’s because of them that we decided to offer an alternate management company.) Long term lease tenants – even 9-monthers - cannot be immediately evicted as short term renters can be. There is a financial domino effect that would certainly backfire on everyone – especially for those that say short term rentals are the nuisance. Enforce what has been put into place, and the negative issues will sort themselves out. The council has justified the new ordinances targeted at short term rentals to show their constituents that they are listening and taking action to ensure a quality of life that is expected in our city. We get that. So let’s allow those new ordinances to play out before dumping on more. This is not the time to squelch our industry which was singled out and shut down already this year; and which is, even now, teetering on the brink naturally due to the fears and uncertainties of the general public. To be honest, we are beaten and battered already. Enough. Thank you for your time and consideration, Connie Adnoff Beachview Realty (949)673-2627 personal cell Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Rieff, Kim To:Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: Short Term Lodging LCP Amendment PA2020-04816063,Local Coastal Program LC2020-007 Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 2:49:13 PM -----Original Message----- From: John Kiralla <jckiralla@me.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 2:48 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Short Term Lodging LCP Amendment PA2020-04816063,Local Coastal Program LC2020-007 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council Members, I am a condo owner on Balboa Peninsula at 600 E Oceanfront. I am retired and I have owned this property for just over 2 years and it is a second home. Like many people that have purchased property in the last 5 years or so, it is necessary for me to use short term lodging part of the year to help pay my mortgage. I have an HOA at my condo and that sets high standards for the whole complex and I use Newport Beach Vacation Properties for bookings and they also have the highest standards for renters. Newport Beach has been the favorite vacation destination for my family and for the past 25 years I have used short term lodging from the perspective of the renter. I now find that the times are such that you cannot always find renters for 6 or 7 days as in past years. I find it is necessary to rent for 2 or 3 night stays to make ends meet. It is also necessary to have occupancy limits at 3 per bedroom. I feel it is very important to the city to keep these short term rentals alive to keep many of the small businesses alive and operating. They could never survive if they had to depend on support from the locals only. And, these small businesses are part of the charm and attraction of the Peninsula community. As a concerned member of the community I am requesting that the city council does not make the changes that are being proposed as they will be a detriment to both the home owners and the small businesses. Thank you, Sincerely, John Kiralla Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Don Soughton To:Planning Commissioners; info@cdmra.org Subject:Public Comments: July 23 Agenda Item #2 Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 2:50:21 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We are very much against short term rental for Corona del Mar. The traffic and parking is a nightmare already without short term rentals!!!! When we moved to Corona del Mar in 1964 it was a true village and it has become a traffic logged nightmare. The noise from motorcycles and fast speeding cars with loud tailpipes have become almost unbearablve. If there were short term rentals that would just bring more cars, more people and much more noise! Please please do not even consider this measure. Thank you, Don and Doris Stoughton 3708 Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mar Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Mary Hyatt To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Re: Phase II Short Term Lodging Permit Change Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 2:57:14 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioners I’ve just heard that council is considering changing restrictions again. Last time this was done ( in April I believe) it was understandable given the emergency nature and lack of scientific information. When that expired in May I felt the 3 day minimum that continued was reasonable, as not everyone who would like to vacation here can get away for longer than that, but they were still able to come and spend their $$$ in our city. The Phase II idea is to double the minimum?? I’ve lived here 43 years-for the 1st 35 years units rented by the week because that’s how people vacationed, often the same weeks every year. That hasn’t been the case for almost a decade and as a business with a city Business License we and the industry have adapted while still bringing the city TOT taxes as well as supporting numerous local small businesses and restaurants. I am interested in knowing the purpose of implementing revenue reducing measures at anytime, but especially in the precarious situation the economy is in at this time. Is there a good reason, a necessary one, you are looking to do this? I can’t imagine it would be because there may be a few rentals that are not following the rules-surely you wouldn’t punish all rental owners just to contain several unlawful ones. Please listen to property owners and agencies before you put in place policies that will be economically detrimental to so many, including city revenue. Sincerely, Mary Hyatt 110 31st Street Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:John Kiralla To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Fwd: Short Term Lodging LCP Amendment PA2020-04816063,Local Coastal Program LC2020-007 Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 2:58:36 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Begin forwarded message: From: John Kiralla <jckiralla@me.com> Subject: Short Term Lodging LCP Amendment PA2020- 04816063,Local Coastal Program LC2020-007 Date: July 22, 2020 at 2:48:16 PM PDT To: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov Cc: woneill@newportbeachca.gov Dear City Council Members and Planning Commissioners I am a condo owner on Balboa Peninsula at 600 E Oceanfront. I am retired and I have owned this property for just over 2 years and it is a second home. Like many people that have purchased property in the last 5 years or so, it is necessary for me to use short term lodging part of the year to help pay my mortgage. I have an HOA at my condo and that sets high standards for the whole complex and I use Newport Beach Vacation Properties for bookings and they also have the highest standards for renters. Newport Beach has been the favorite vacation destination for my family and for the past 25 years I have used short term lodging from the perspective of the renter. I now find that the times are such that you cannot always find renters for 6 or 7 days as in past years. I find it is necessary to rent for 2 or 3 night stays to make ends meet. It is also necessary to have occupancy limits at 3 per bedroom. I feel it is very important to the city to keep these short term rentals alive to keep many of the small businesses alive and operating. They could never survive if they had to depend on support from the locals only. And, these small businesses are part of the charm and attraction of the Peninsula community. As a concerned member of the community I am requesting that the city council does not make the changes that are being proposed as they will be a detriment to both the home owners and the small businesses. Thank you, Sincerely, John Kiralla Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Sanjay Agarwal To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Short-term rentals Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 2:59:19 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi there, I have been operating a short term rental in Newport Beach for the last few years, and I have always been very careful about who I rent to as are most people that rent out their homes as well. Allowing people to visit Newport Beach with their families is vital in not only allowing people to experience California culture but also to create further revenue streams in the economy especially through tourism. As everyone with a family knows, it is quite expensive to rent multiple hotel rooms, making it not feasible for many families to visit Newport Beach especially when taking into account plane tickets, meals, etc. By allowing the greatest amount of flexibility in regards to short-term rentals, we allow all individuals regardless of socioeconomic status to be able to enjoy the wonderful city of Newport Beach. Also, from an owner’s perspective, having the greatest flexibility in regards to what we do with our own property allows us to more effectively market our homes if we were ever to sell them, which increases the sale price and ultimately the revenue in regards to property tax to the city of Newport Beach and the County of Orange. Thus, in summary, I find that any further restrictions on short-term rentals would be Ill-advised and would rob people both domestically and internationally from enjoying the beautiful city of Newport Beach, rob local businesses of revenue especially in these very difficult and perilous times, and also lower the value of our homes reducing the revenue to the city and county. I hope my words have some impact in the decision process as I only want what’s best for this lovely community. All the best Sanjay Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Mary Kristy To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:NB Rentals Phase 2 Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:03:30 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Commission and City Council, Was very surprised to find out that NB rentals are under such scrutiny right now in the middle of COVID epidemic especially since travel is so limited and having the ability to speak in a personal appearance is also limited. Had no clue short term rentals and STL’s were being reevaluated right now and now Phase 2 is being considered? Why is this top of mind and being rushed through for new restrictions? So many people are without jobs right now and for the foreseeable future why would you want to remove or limit the income I make and others from renting our properties? I need this income to pay my mortgage and keep my property in the condition it needs to be for tourist to want to stay and visit the area. These same tourists are the ones that bring income to our local businesses that struggle to survive without it! How many people do you thing can afford to take vacations longer than the weekend or 5-6 days? What rose color glasses are you wearing? Requiring a 30 day min rental is not reality with 99% of the population therefore without my rental income now will totality jeopardize my ability to own a house and live on the peninsula.  I am also struggling with the STL amendment recommendations and why this is such an emergency to be addressed? Newport Beach already put a limit on the number of STL’s last year. Why does this need to be amended again and why is this being rush through?  Due to COVID and travel restrictions my rental income this summer is going to be half of what it was last year. I am sure other rentals are experiencing the same reduction in income so, just don’t understand why rentals and STL permits are on the agenda for any changes at this point in time? Please reconsider my points above before you throw the baby out with the bathwater! Thank you, Mary  Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Pam Muth To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Newport Beach short term rental regulation meeting. Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:10:19 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, my name is Pam Muth. I own a duplex on 35th Street that I have been renting out as a vacation rental since summer of 2018. The rent generated is my sole source of income. I don’t have a management company. I actively manage my two units, meaning I am on site to greet guests, supervise the cleaning people, water the outdoor plants, sweep the sidewalks etc. I also do all the laundry. I retired from a corporate position two years ago and really love this hosting job. To date I have had no problem guests. Perhaps it’s because I make it clear in both my listings as well as in all written communication (which is repeated several times) that parties and large gatherings are not allowed under any circumstances. I stipulate the minimum age for the primary renter of 25. All that being said, I’m very concerned about the idea of changing the minimum stay requirements to some crazy long length like 6 days. This will most definitely have a huge negative impact on my business and therefore, income. Sept - May I mostly see couples coming for long weekends. 33% of my business are 3 day rentals, 39% 4 days, 10.5% is 5 days, 7.5% is 6 days and 10% is 7 or more. I’m not solidly booked during those months as I am in the summer so every rental matters. In the summer (June-Aug), I see more families who are coming for longer summer stays. I don’t allow 3 day stays then because it's not necessary. 26% of the stays are 4 days, 22% are 5 days, 22% are 6 days and 30% are 7+. People are generally not looking for long stays in the winter months. I would lose business if I had to require more than a 3 day minimum during that time. Could the minimum length of stay rule be seasonal? I would imagine the worst of the noise/nuisance challenges come in the summer months when it is most crowded. I don’t know that as a fact. But it seems likely based on noise levels when I’ve stayed down there. If I ever did have the misfortune of having a problem renter, my husband and I can be at the house in 20-30 minutes, depending on traffic (we live in Tustin). My co-host, who lives in CDM, can be there even sooner. And my beach neighbors, who look out for me, are awesome and right there. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) It seems as though the majority of rentals have no noise/nuisance issues and to put a blanket policy in place in order to hold the problem rentals accountable, seems like overkill and patently unfair to those of us who are doing things right. Why would you penalize the whole for the problems of the few? It seems like it would be a better idea to penalize transgressions with strict penalties. First offense, a strict fine. Second offense a huge fine. Third office, lose license. I understand some have said vacation rentals take away from the sense of community. We don’t have enough hotels in Newport to accommodate all of the tourists who come. As a beach community, many businesses rely on tourism for their livelihood. We need the tourists and they need someplace to stay. Whether someone stays 3 days or 6 days will not change the fabric of the community. It doesn’t make them members of the community any more or less if they stay 3 or 6 days. Thank you. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:halvy@west.net To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:New rules? Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:12:13 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, I object to 6 day minimum for short term rental. 3 day is ok. I can work that a few times per year and spend money in your city as such. But 6 day minimum will see me not coming. I also object to no new STR permits and freezing current number. What if my landlord sells? I’vw been renting the same place for years. Rgds, Mark H Ojai, Ca 805 340 4047 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Rieff, Kim To:Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: Short Term Lodging Permit Proposal Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:17:02 PM Attachments:Burns Short Term Lodging Permit.pdf     From: Doug Foster <dfoster@teleport.com>  Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:16 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: dburns@teleport.com; Doug Foster <dfoster@teleport.com> Subject: Short Term Lodging Permit Proposal   [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please find attached input concerning the STL Proposal for your next meeting   Kind Regards,   Diane Burns 503-510-6868   Virus-free. www.avast.com   Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Ken & Carmen Rawson To:Planning Commissioners Cc:Leung, Grace; Dept - City Council; Jurjis, Seimone; Lewis, Jon Subject:STL LCP Amendment (PA2020-048/LC2020-007) Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:31:01 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Commission Members and City Council, As a 30+ Peninsula Newport Beach resident and STL owner I wanted to voice my thoughts regarding the subject issue. As you read, the emails sent in from other Newport Beach residents (including those from Newport Island), clearly show what is at the core of this problem is lack of effective enforcement...by ALL involved. Just like the city did with LUGO's...make the fine hurt and enforce... enforce...enforce! I have experienced, and the other emails you received collaborate my position, that enforcement is currently not being done effectively. My point: 1. Noise Complaints - Have the police and or Code Enforcement provide the data showing the number of complaint, actions taken (citation or other city action) and whether the offending house has a STL permit or not. 2. Parking Complaints - Have the police provide the data showing the number of complaints, actions taken (warning, citation, or other action) and whether the offending house/location has a STL permit or not. 3. Trash Complaints - Have Code Enforcement provide the data showing the number of complaints, actions taken (warning, citation, or other action) and whether the offending house/location has a STL permit or not. Minimum Number of Night Stay: - For All STL's the minimum night stay should be 3 nights. Anything more during Sep. - mid Jun will reduce the actual number of stays by over ++60%. Our business model is to rent only to families with children. This gives us a respectful, rule abiding guest (ie. example setting for their children). But this also restricts the number of days said family can stay. More than three days means extended time out of school for the children, which most families prefer not to do. For this reason 6 night min. stays do not work. Please adjust this proposed ordinance to provide for a minimum of 3 night stays for both single, duplex and multiple units. Thank you for your consideration regarding the above. Ken Rawson Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Gary Schniepp To:Planning Commissioners Subject:STRs Newport Island Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:33:34 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear sirs, My wife and I moved to Newport Island in 1967. We have enjoyed living here but recent years have lessened that enjoyment. The short term renters show little or no regard for residents.   The disturbances and burden on the island’s limited parking are increasing. We fully support our neighbors in their efforts to mitigate these problems. Regards, Jo Ann and Gary Schniepp 408 39th st Newport Island   Sent from Mail for Windows 10   Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Joe Bowerbank To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Re: Email Regarding Growing Newport Island STR Problem for City Planning Commission Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:43:32 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Newport Beach City Planning Commission: My wife and I are residents of Newport Island and have ben for nearly a decade. The number of STRs that exploded on the island over the last few of years has completely changed the dynamic of the island. We moved here to raise our son; now we want to move off. The level of traffic, number of ongoing parking violations, noise issues, crude language, partying, disturbances, and more that STRs have single handedly brought to the neighborhood has almost completely canceled out the feeling of living in a residential neighborhood and family-oriented community. My wife and I are in complete support of putting an end to this torture. Interestingly, we remember a day when some residents (including ourselves) took offense to Newport Island being bucketed as being in the Safety Enhancement Zone during the 4th of July. Now, however, and as a direct result of the increasing number of STRs on the island, I believe that the City of Newport Beach is well on its way to creating a War Zone 2.0. Newport Island is now a Party Zone starting in the spring, all summer long, and into the fall --- as summer rentals and partiers take our neighborhood over. This island is far too small to have STRs on it. The streets are incredibly narrow and STRs routinely block sidewalks and our vehicles. Put simply, it’s unsafe. If the city doesn’t get STRs under control, we’re simply going to move and get away from this changing landscape. It simply isn’t want we signed up for and do not want to raise our son in this environment. He learned the F-word at 6 years of age listening to STR partiers. I motion that the city change the name of Newport Island to either “Vacation Island” or “Party Island.” It’s much more befitting as to the current state it is in. Real estate agents need to stop selling this as a quiet community, for it is no longer. If I bought in Newport Island under the impression that it’s a quiet, family-oriented atmosphere, I would 100% sue the real estate agent for false representations and seek to rescind the transaction. I know one resident that is already talking about suing their agent. Below is a picture of a summer renter/partier urinating on our garage last month. When my wife heard the stream of urine, she looked out the window and said something to this weirdo. He looked up, used an expletive, and continued relieving himself in public. Nothing shocking, as it’s nothing new. Thank you for your time, Joe & Mona Bowerbank 4007 Marcus Avenue Newport Island, CA 92663 949-378-9685 Enclosure: recent photo of man urinating in public on our garage Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Lisa Mauck To:Planning Commissioners Cc:Steph Busch Subject:Short Term Lodging Amendment Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:45:09 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners: My sister and I own our parents family home located at 5911 Seashore Drive, Newport Beach. We have one 9 month winter tenant (for the past 5 years a physician) and during the summer several families rent the house typically staying for 2 weeks per year. Many of these families have been returning for 10+ years and enjoy wonderful relationships with our neighbors. We are concerned about our short-term lodging permit being non-transferable should we decide to sell our home. This rule could reduce the value of our property since a new owner would not have the option to rent the property. Please reconsider and delay any revisions to the ordinance at this trying time. Best Regards, Lisa Mauck | Senior Director Project Management The Busch Group Pacific Hospitality Group | The Busch Firm | Trinitas Cellars 2532 Dupont Drive | Irvine, CA 92612 Office 949.474.7368 Ext. 164 | Cell 949.337.5336 | lmauck@buschgroup.org P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Planning Commission Public Hearing July 23, 2020 Ref: Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2020-007 Subject: Comments to Staff Report and Proposed Amendment Modifications Planning Commissioners, In response to the above referenced Public Hearing you may have received comments from Newport Beach residents about the negative impact of Short Term Lodging Units (STLUs) in our community. References are made to traffic, lack of parking on the street, noise disturbances, overflowing trash, etc. These issues are not uniquely caused by SLTUs. They are the result of the nature of where we live and they will continue to happen independent of the STLUs. I have been a resident of Newport Beach (in the Balboa Peninsula) since 1989. Since then I have managed, on the Balboa Peninsula, our own STLUs, 9-month tenancies with mainly UCI students, and long term tenancies. Consequently, I have an understanding of the impact of each of these type of rentals. My approach to the subject matter is that living on the Balboa Peninsula means we live in a tourist town and the issues some residents complain about are here to stay even without STLUs because the beaches are public property and tourists will keep coming. Number of Short Term Lodging Permits (STLPs) in Newport Beach The staff report states under “Background” that:  the number of active STLPs in Newport Beach far exceeds the number of permits of similar cities (shown on Figure 1 of the staff report).  the City of Newport Beach has 1,524 active permits, which include 1,458 on coastal zone properties and 66 on non-coastal zone properties.  there are approximately 92 STLUs operating in R-1 zoned properties and approximately 30 STLUs operating in mixed-use zones that are non-conforming. First of all, a straight comparison of just the total number of STLPs for each city does not provide a clear “apples to apples” comparison. For example, when we look at the geography of Dana Point and of San Clemente most of the housing, in said cities, is located North of Pacific Coast Highway and even North of the 5 Freeway. The same applies for Huntington Beach. Those cities do not have a “Balboa Island”, or a “Balboa Peninsula”, or a “Bay Front Property” equivalent. So when we want to evaluate the “over-saturation” of STLUs in a city the true correlation to be used would be the number of STLUs compared to the number of housing in the specific coastal zone of these cities. Where is such data? For the non-coastal city of Anaheim a real evaluation would be to compare the number of STLUs versus the number of housing in a specific area, for example, near Disneyland. Regarding the non-conforming STLUs (located in R-1 and mixed-use zoning) my suggestion is to phase out such non-conforming properties in a time period of, for example, 10 years. About the STLUs located on the non-coastal zone they could also be phased out if the particular neighborhood where they are located is solely impacted by the STLUs and not by the tourists coming to the area from nearby cities. During the community outreach meetings held by the City, the City recommended to cap the number of STLPs and basically everyone agreed on the concept of establishing a STLPs cap. However, what is being Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) proposed now does not establish a STLPs cap but sets up a path forward to decrease the number of STLUs over time. Page 4 of the staff report states that while some of the STL units will be lost through attrition, the City Council Ad Hoc Committee is of the opinion the City will maintain the sufficient number of units to meet its fair share of lower-cost visitor accommodations. There is no recommended mechanism to have such assurance as there is no specific number of STLPs associated with “fair share”. Instead my recommendation would be to limit the STLPs to a maximum of 1,524 (or the current number) at any time. Minimum Number of Nights Page 3 of the staff report states that the Ad Hoc Committee members hosted several community events and meetings to gain public input. I attended such meetings in the Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island and Corona del Mar areas. During those meetings the City’s proposal did not suggest/establish a requirement of minimum number of nights per stay or for a property owner to live on the premises. Such requirement is “new” to the community. Page 5 of the staff report states that if the property includes an owner-occupied unit, a 3-night minimum stay would be required and if the property does not have an owner-occupied unit, a 6-night minimum stay would be required. The staff report also states this provision would discourage the use of STL units for non- residential purposes (e.g. large gatherings, weddings, and commercial filming), and encourage vacationers to spend multiple days visiting the beach and other sites in the area. As a clarification, I live on the property where I have two (2) STLUs so apparently I would still be allowed to book 3-night stays. However, although this new requirement may not negatively affect my personal situation, the decision to have a minimum of 6-night stays has no substantiated basis. During the peak summer season (mid June through mid August) most stays are already 7-nights. The 3- night stays come into play during the rest of the year especially during the “slow winter months”. If the minimum 6-night stay requirement is implemented many property owners of STLUs will be forced to implement the “weekly summer / 9-mo lease winter” rental approach. Based on my experience such rental business set up is more detrimental to the community based on the reasons explained below under “Traffic and On-Street Parking” and “Noise Disturbances”. Page 7 of the staff report states that a 6-night stay would appeal to “families on vacation”. Note that family vacations are constrained by kids school schedules. So during the “winter months” a 6-night stay will not help to bring families to the City – instead families will be discouraged from vacationed in Newport Beach. Traffic and On-Street Parking When the City of Newport Beach enacted Emergency Ordinance 2020-001 banning short-term lodging (STL) from April 03, 2020 through May 20, 2020 the Balboa Peninsula did not see a reduction of traffic or a reduction of on-street parking demand. We still had traffic and no parking! And the tourists creating the traffic and taking away the available parking spots contributed practically no revenue to the City. If you are a permanent resident of the Balboa Peninsula or Balboa Island you should then know what to expect – it will not change. Residents of our nearby cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, Santa Ana, etc will still come to the beach – like it or not. And said nearby cities are developing lots of high density housing so more people will come in the future. STLUs are blamed as the cause of no on-street parking availability so they are being singled-out by some residents and by the City. On the other hand, many businesses in the Balboa Peninsula area have been allowed to increase capacity without providing additional parking (for example, Stag Bar’s occupant load increase of 53 people approved on June 20, 2019 with no provided on-site parking despite the code requirement of 73 on-site parking spaces). Then, the City approved the Cottage Preservation project allowing cottages to increase their size with no additional on-site parking. The “on-site parking Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) requirements” message and the ordinances being approved by the City are not consistent – they are punitive towards STLUs. Additionally, as I walk the streets of the Balboa Peninsula daily, I have seen garages that are being used – by long term residents – for storage or as a permanent gym area (in other words not available to park a vehicle inside). Two particular properties have built a permanent partition inside their garages. There are also older properties in the area where the garages are being used as (most probably unpermitted) living areas. I have also seen several carports being used as a patio area (with patio furniture permanently located on the carports). Those are not STLUs – they are permanent residents placing their vehicles on the street while their garages/carports are being used for something else. Lastly, most STLUs do not cause more vehicles on the street. A 3-BR long term rental, for example, usually means 3 roommates (or more) and their 3 vehicles (or more). As a STLU the same unit will usually be advertised as “sleeps 8” and the guests will most likely have no more than 3 vehicles as many STLUs advertise to rent to a family (not a party group of 8 single adults). Note that on a 9-month lease situation, most of the tenants will be college students either from UCI or from nearby community colleges. Some college students have the tendency of sub-leasing (illegally, and it is very hard for a landlord to prove it) to other students – that is the way they lower their portion of the rent. That means more vehicles on the street. A 3-BR unit may have 6 people living in the unit and their 6 vehicles coming and going or on the street. Noise Disturbances There is a general misconception of who causes noise disturbances in the City. Based on my experience managing different type of rental units most of the police responses due to noise disturbance have been related to the 9-month tenancies to college students. I have seen fraternities and sororities holding their initiation ceremonies in the “West Newport” area of the Balboa Peninsula (totally out of control). I believe many Disturbance Advisement Cards (DACs) are issued to 9-month lease tenants – not to STL guests!!! Where is the detailed and transparent data on this issue? Additionally, a STL guest booking a 3-night stay is not the equivalent of a large gathering, party, etc. We have many guests that stay for 3-nights while attending a business conference in the area, visiting nearby family or simply to relax at the beach. Many of these guests are quiet and respect the neighborhood. Note that the approved Ordinance 2020-15 already prohibits commercial filming, large gatherings, etc. Trash Collection Although some STLUs may generate more trash many permanent residents set their trash out for collection either in loose bags or using non-standard CR&R trash containers. This past Monday July 20, 2020 I took photos of numerous properties with overflowing trash containers, loose trash boxes/bags, etc. These properties are owner occupied and/or have long term tenants living there. I will be sending a separate correspondence later on with specific property addresses and the photos of their trash accumulation. Once again STLUs are being singled-out when the trash collection challenge persists throughout the Balboa Peninsula independent of the properties at fault being STLUs or not. I thank you in advance for taking into consideration the comments provided in this letter prior to making your decision regarding the subject proposed amendments. Sincerely, Carmen Rawson (Resident of Balboa Peninsula) Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:me To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Phase Two Short Term Lodging Ordinance Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:55:14 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To All Concerned Parties First, I would like to introduce myself. I am a resident of the Inland Empire who has been enjoying family 'staycations' in your City since I was a little girl. I am now a married homeowner and mother of two adult children, not living with me. I have carried on my family tradition of renting a beach house during the summer, and even at times during the 'off-season'. Your City has provided me with a central location to vacation together and spend precious time with my family. I'm sure many of you are in the same situation as me - family members in different locales, all with busy lives and different work schedules. To be able to carve out 3 or more days for a mini vacation is priceless! I chose Newport Beach as my destination because of the fond memories I had as a child and now my own children have the same memories. It is the perfect place in Southern California, because while we may not always be able to take a week off from work, we can usually find 3-4 days that work for all of us. Newport Beach is easily accessible to all, a relatively easy drive, and the perfect place for a quick getaway. I am now hearing of an ordinance which will severely restrict our rental options. I am afraid if you only allow rentals of 6 or more days, there will be years in which I will have to forego the family staycation. This would be unfathomable to me, someone who has vacationed in your City at least once a year for over 40 years (including the time I was a child). If there must be ANY restriction at all, why not a minimum of 2 nights/3 days? Being a VRBO owner myself, this is the minimum I set to allow for weekend getaways. Another item that concerns me is the fact that if a property is sold, the new owner will not be able to apply for a short term rental permit. As you are all well aware, rental properties in a desirable area (close to the beach/oceanfront) are already limited. It this item is passed, you will effectively be eliminating rentals and changing the landscape of your City forever. Let's be real, how many people are willing/able to rent a vacation house for a MONTH?? Finally, why does the discussion of this ordinance feel like it is 'under cover of night'? Again as you are well aware, public gatherings are highly discouraged during this time. Which means public comment and input will be severely limited. I feel it is only right to give voice to the hundreds (?) of people who pour revenue into the City of Newport Beach each year!! A Concerned Visitor/Guest/Patron Laura Zendejas Upland California Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Mulvey, Jennifer To:Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: Phase II Short Term Lodging Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:57:49 PM     From: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>  Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:57 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer <JMulvey@newportbeachca.gov>; Rieff, Kim <KRieff@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: FW: Phase II Short Term Lodging     From: Julia Morton Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:57:19 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Diane Dixon; Brenner, Joy; Herdman, Jeff; Will O'Neill; Avery, Brad; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; Leung, Grace; City Clerk's Office Subject: Phase II Short Term Lodging [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members, City Manager, City Attorney and Community Development Director,   I oppose the implementation of the Phase II short term lodging changes as they are written. In fact, I am really confused as to why the City is pushing through all of these changes.  I’ve worked in the vacation rental industry on the Peninsula for over 12-years. The only problem that I see is that we have a few bad operators out there that need to be held accountable. Why paint us all with the same brush?     Questions -    1. Why are STL property owners being penalized for the few bad operators? 2. What has been done to prevent these bad operators from continuing to conduct business? Citations, fines, cease and desist orders, legal action of any kind?  3. How many STLP have been revoked over the last 5-years?  4. Why is there not a department within the City that monitors STL on a full time basis. STL certainly brings in a lot of TOT that you should be able to hire someone to not only monitor but partner with the STL community. 5. Is it true that the City has a single person scouring the internet for people violating STL on rental platforms? Is this person issuing cease and desists or fines or at least educating? I certainly hope there’s more to this position then looking for bad operators online. 6. Have you called a face-to-face meeting with all of the vacation rental agencies for their input? This should have been a vital component in the decisions up to this point. We are the experts on STL and want to partner with the City! Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 7. What areas are complaints coming from? I would want to see specifics including the number of complaints. I’m guessing it’s just a few loud and constant voices. Why are we allowing a small group of people to change an entire industry?   I encourage all of you to stop and re-evaluate before an ordinance is implemented that will no doubt kill business on the Peninsula. We should not be allowing a few bad operators to change an industry that helps to keep Peninsula businesses alive!   Respectfully,   Julia Morton Realtor | White Sail Realty "Your Local Expert for Balboa Peninsula Sales, Rentals and Property Management!" m: (949) 933-2906 p: (949) 673-9900 DRE: 02016387 a: 2919 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 e: julia@whitesailrealty.com w: www.whitesailrealty.com     Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:K To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Public Comments: July 23 Agenda Item #2 Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:06:30 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please please please limit short term rentals further! I have lived next door to a nightly Airbnb duplex with 2 rentals for about 5 years, and it has been a nightmare. Please increase the minimum number of mandatory nights from 7 to 14. Despite existing regulations, the police have never issued enough citations within one year to pull the short term rental permit for one or both of the units. Instead, they either miss the infraction or issue a warning, meaning the behavior starts again as soon as they leave. The current restrictions have proven to be COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE. For this reason, we need the council to protect homeowners who are now forced to live a few feet away from what are essentially motels in our beautiful city of Newport Beach. The problem is particularly onerous with low end rentals like my neighbor’s duplex, which was previously listed for sale (it fell out of escrow twice) as a TEAR DOWN. That means the owner rents for a lower amount of money and is not concerned about damage to his property or creating a nuisance in the neighborhood since he no longer lives here full time . Typically, larger groups of people come from inland to “party at the beach” and no one has enforced the maximum number of allowed people. He has had wedding parties, film crews from Chapman University and on another occasion, a private film crew flying DRONES (which the police ignored despite neighbors’ complaints, including footage of the drones flying by our windows), and other groups of people who sit outside drinking, smoking pot, and talking loudly after the bars close, which keeps the neighbors awake. They often have dogs (mostly pitbulls) off leash, leave debris, make noise, and park IN my driveway. Please protect homeowners from this imposition on our ability to enjoy our property and increase the number of required nights for short term rentals from 7 nights to 14. No one would knowingly purchase a home literally feet from what has effectively become a motel. It is unfair to neighbors living next door to short term rentals to be forced to live with the problems they cause, while the homeowner lives in another county and happily receives his rent checks. We pay the price and have not been protected by the city. 7 nights is not enough of a restriction to eliminate the nuisance of groups of people splitting the cost among themselves to rent a flophouse near the beach. Newport Beach should not have more short term rentals than neighboring cities. Please help us! Thank you. Katharine Keith Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Barry Gauthier To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Subject:term rentals Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:06:45 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Our family has been renting in Newport beach for many years. We stay for a week but also stay many times for 3 days at a time as a quick get away and to share in the ambiance of Newport beach. We are not able to stay for more than 3 days due to work or family schedules. I respectfully ask that you do not restrict the number of days required for rentals in Newport. This would create a hardship for landlords and for renters such as my family. Thank You for your consideration. Barry Gauthier 101 S Avenida Felipe Anaheim Hills, Ca 92817 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Ray Peden To:Planning Commissioners Cc:Sabrina Peden Subject:PHASE 2 SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING AMENDMENT Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:23:51 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners, I hope this email finds you well and safe during these very trying times. My wife Sabrina and I are writing this email to voice our support for the Phase 2 STR lodging amendment. While we fully support the need to protect public access to our beautiful beaches as a right for all to enjoy, and we appreciate the privilege we have by choosing to make this our home, the explosion of str's that are facilitated by online booking agencies has resulted in numerous issues that negatively impact our quality of life on a daily basis. The proposals that are being considered are fair and reasonable, and are not in conflict with the beach access rights of the public. These are common sense rules that will help ensure our beautiful area stays that way in the years to come. Without these measures, residents, including home owners such as ourselves, will continue to be negatively impacted by the daily influx and churn of visitors who display little consideration and regard for the rest of us. My wife and I chose to buy on Newport Island because it wasn't the same party situation as on the peninsula. The past two years (estimate), Newport Island has seen a dramatic increase in str's on this very small island. We are kept awake at night by large parties and loud music. We often find our parking overrun and access to our properties blocked, garbage and worse. When awoken, we normally try to engage civilly with the guests and if that doesn't work then we will call the authorities. This is bad enough, but the worst part is that if not tomorrow then the next day we have to start all over again as another group of inconsiderate guests show. Repeat and repeat. It is exhausting and quite frankly, we have already started to talk about moving out if things don't change. The guests who come here for only a few nights are by and large here to party. This isn't the Strip in Vegas or a resort community like Ibiza or Cabo (all far from residential houses themselves). It is also not a frat house on campus at USC. This is a residential neighborhood with hard working families who are asking for nothing else than common sense rules to be adopted that will allow both the residents and general public to be able to enjoy the beach without the awful side effects that we see today. We appreciate the Planning Commission's attention to this matter and implore you to approve these measures. Kind Regards, Ray and Sabrina Peden Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) p.s. For reference, below is our previous email to the City Counsel regarding this matter: Dear City Counsel, We kindly call to your attention the issues that we, along with our fellow neighbors, too often face with the tenants of the short term rentals in our area. We called in to the last meeting and therefore won't go into every detail again. Rather, we believe it is in everyone's interest to institute the very reasonable enhanced regulations before you in their entirety. Setting clear expectations and enforcing offenders is the only way to improve this terrible situation. We as owner-occupiers are being forced to the front lines, calling and turning in one group, only to have to do it again as soon as another group comes in. Repeat as necessary. We are tired of the disrespectful and downright dangerous behaviors of these transient tenets and the absolute lack of support from the property managers and owners. Many of these properties are old and decrepit, lacking years of maintenance. The owners simply do not care what happens to them. Never, not once, have we seen a property manager proactively drive by to check on a property at night, when trouble is more likely to brew. Never have they stopped a disturbance before a phone call from an impacted neighbor. We heard they want to be good neighbors but their track record says otherwise. If they do, then they would support these reasonable measures. We implore you to pass this ordinance in its entirety for the sake of your residents. Kind Regards, Ray and Sabrina Peden Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Gary Cruz To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Short Term Housing on Newport Island Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:44:25 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I know the STR issue is a hot item. As a resident of Newport Island, I have expressed my views on the amount of construction, lack of parking, increased STR and increased poor behavior. It is not my place to cast all the blame on STR but certainly much of it is related to the increased in numbers of STR. However probably our worse culprit is currently a house that is a long term rental. I know the police have been there multiple times and I look forward to the date they move. This past July 4 was the worst I have seen since the late 80’s. From what I hear it was not limited to Newport but was SoCal wide. We had fireworks up to 2 am. I would like to relay something I saw on the date. Somewhere around 10:45 pm, the police came on the island when fireworks were being set off at the park. They had been going off since 7 pm or earlier. I was in the alley and watched the culprits scatter. Where did they flee to…short term rentals and the long term rental house mentioned above. After the police left, the fireworks resumed. I called it in and when the police returned, the culprits scattered again, going into the same homes as before. At least one of these STR are managed by the same company that spoke at the last council meeting about what a great job they do vetting out their tenants. I certainly would support a limitation on STR but code enforcement is the next best step. I have attached wording from the Newport website that reflects what I feel most residents want. I also have looked at codes and see that LUGO is on the books. http://www.nbpd.org/insidenbpd/services/lugo_dac.asp Enforcement of those violations would be a step in the right direction. It is my hope that Newport Island returns to being a neighborhood and a place to live and not an investment and a place of business. Thanks again for your time and attention to this serious matter. Gary and Gina Cruz 503 38th St Newport Island  Gary Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) July 23, 2020, Planning Commission Item 2 Comments These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 2. SHORT-TERM LODGING LCP AMENDMENT (PA2020-048) As indicated in the staff report, the Planning Commission is coming to this contentious issue rather late in the game, most of the existing STL regulations, and their recent modifications, having been subsumed into the permit/licensing requirements in Chapter 5.95 of the NBMC, and hence not having required PC review. As a result, the PC is now being asked to make a recommendation without benefit of having heard the extensive prior public conversation about STL’s, or being sure how this may fit the Council ad hoc committee’s additional schemes as described on handwritten page 6 of the staff report. That latter description contradicts Slide 7 from staff’s June 23, 2020, PowerPoint presented to the Council, which suggests Phase 3 in September will also include components that need to go through the PC and the Coastal Commission. Among the things that bother me, the staff report begins by saying “Short-term lodging is a dwelling unit that is rented or leased for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days.” This is not the customary definition, nor was it the definition in Newport Beach prior to the 2010 Zoning Code update, nor is it the definition described on the City’s own STL page. The prior (and “normal”) definition, which derives from the City’s state-mandated authority to collect Transient Occupancy Tax from people who rent for “30 days or less.” That is, 30 days is considered short term by the state, not outside the range of short term as “less than 30 days” says. Why City staff is bent on propagating a definition inconsistent with the state’s Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7280(a) is beyond me, and has never been publicly explained. Since the PC is being asked to opine only on a recommendation for review by the California Coastal Commission, it may wish to know that at its July 2020 meeting, the CCC heard two similar applications for Implementation Plan amendments one from Carmel by the Sea (agenda Item Th12a) and one from Oxnard (agenda Item F13a). It might be wise to review those, and how they were handled. As an LCP amendment, the current proposal is unusual in that it cites and relies, for some details of the regulations, on a part of the municipal code (namely Chapter 5.95) that is not part of the Implementation Plan and has not been certified by the CCC for consistency with the Coastal Act. What bothers me most about this proposal is its ban on new STL permits, while allowing existing ones to continue. While I sympathize with those impacted by STL’s, that seems extremely inequitable to me. The public has been repeatedly told by City staff that short-term rental is not a property right. Yet, the proposal appears to create a right to rent attached to certain properties, and not available to other properties, however similarly situated. Moreover, it seems wholly inconsistent with LCP Policies 2.3.3-6 and 2.7-3 as quoted on handwritten page 12. Those promise to continue issuing STL permits. But under the proposal, the supply of permits will gradually dry up as they are lost for particular properties and can never be regained. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) July 23, 2020, PC agenda Item 2 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 A previous staff proposal, not mentioned in the present staff report, but to me far more equitable, as well as consistent with LCP policies, would be to cap the total number of STL permits at 1,600 (see, for example, Council Item 4 from February 25, 2020). It would be particularly equitable if the permits were awarded based not on a waiting list, but on an annual lottery in which all eligible properties had an equal opportunity to participate. Such a lottery would also be able to enforce such rules as maintaining a spacing between STL’s. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:David Macleod To:Blumenthal, David(Contractor) Subject:vacation rentals... Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:51:34 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello. As a homeowner and rental property owner in Newport beach I am strongly against any new laws limiting an individual owner from renting their property on a nightly , or weekly basis. It should be an individual right with what they do with their properties, but also maintaining proper permits and paying all the city /bed taxes that go with it. The demand has always been there in our beautiful town and still will be. Property values /cash flow to retired people could suffer if you take away their rights!!!. please stand up for the individual property owners.. thank you David Macleod Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Karen Tringali To:Planning Commissioners; info@cdmra.org Subject:Public Comments: July 23 Agenda Item #2 Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:55:39 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We continue to strive to find a balance in these unusual times of COVID-19, which seems only to strengthen not diminish over time. Add to the health risks of non-essential activites the increases in crime that some of our neighborhoods experience and you end up with unwanted consequences which could be avoided by the stricter rules the proposed amendments to Short Term Lodging seek to remedy. Please support these amendments by your vote, and then advocate for them with both our City Council and the California Coastal Commission. It’s the right social contract for extraordinary times such as these. Thank you for your consideration. Karen Tringali Corona del Mar Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Craig Batley To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; Jeff Herdman; Joy Brenner; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; Will O"Neill; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Phase Two STL ordinance Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:59:24 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Planning Commission: Let me begin with BW and my STL properties have operated for many years almost without incident. When and if a situation arises with our live 24-hour answering service and personnel living on the peninsula all inquires are handled expeditiously. I can’t remember a time when one our properties while occupied by a STL guest a DAC has been issued nor has a LUGO ever been issued. Why? Because we have been practicing a good neighbor policy for 20 years. Our guest contract allows for immediate expulsion from any one of our properties IF a guest violates its provisions. Similar to a hotel we operate under the guest-proprietor relationship allowing us to control all guest infractions. Since we specialize in booking to families these occurrences seldom materialize. The current STL ordinance on the agenda references all the public meetings and input from most neighbors, one or two mgt companies and not one guest, many who have been bringing their families to the beach for generations. Furthermore, no notices were sent to any of the 1.500 STL permit holders regarding these “public” meetings. I know this, because as a permit holder I received no notice inviting me to any of these “public” meetings. I might add as soon as the debate was over and the city passed the PHASE ONE ordinance, as a permit holder, the city sent out notice of its passage with a summary of some of its provisions. Of course, by then it was too late for the 1,000+ STL permit holders who knew nothing of this debate to offer any meaningful input. During these “public” meetings never was there mention of a 6-night minimum, in fact there was tacit agreement after much discussion that 1- or 2-night stays could be curtailed and a 3 night minimum would be acceptable. Also, city staff gave a presentation dealing with some of this debate discussing a possible CAP for STL permits, such as 1,600 or 1,650. Never was there talk about freezing the amount of existing STL permits. Thus, the FREEZE of STL permits and the 6-night minimum were concocted by city staff. Why? Don’t know and was a surprise to all involved in the public discussion. The phase two ordinance talks about the burden on city services as if STL guest are the only culprits draining city resources. What about the 8-10 million daily summer beach visitors? Do they take up parking? Do they leave trash all over the beach? Do they bring their food and ice chests? STL guests spend a lot of money while visiting balboa Island and the Peninsula, so much so that many businesses will fail if STL is cut back 25%. The Phase Two ordinance refers to “It is the opinion of staff” that….! Yes, it is ONLY the opinion of staff that comprises most of this ordinance. Where is the empirical data that backs up the suppositions made in Phase Two? There is no empirical data offered, only assumption and opinion. City says it has 4,086 hotel/motel rooms approx. 471 campground/RV (Dunes) which is has nothing to due with coastal access, since most of these rooms are not in the coastal zone. What does this fact have to do with STL accommodations located ON OR NEAR THE BEACH & BAY? There is a Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) reason STL is an attractive accommodation choice and appears on a tab of EXPEDIA. Families can afford access to the beach when staying in a STL dwelling, something the coastal commission favors. As written Phase Two is dead on arrival at the coastal commission. Why: Because it reduces affordable beach access by 25% via the 6-day minimum, resulting in 1,000’s of lost bookings for guests seeking coastal access. Phase Two says only 29% of visitor accommodations within the city (completely misleading- 1,500 vs 4,086), BUT the figure is more like 80% when compared to beach accommodations eliminating any hotel accommodations of more than ½ mile from the beach. Thus, the arbitrary 6-night minimum provision eliminates a high percentage of available STL demand, eliminating 3, 4- & five-night stays. The marketplace has changed, and most people cannot get away for 6,7 or more nights. Additionally, where is the empirical data to back up this “in the opinion of staff” conclusion? Again, there is none offered. This ordinance is crafted with the goal of reducing STL units and thus reduce coastal access. Phase Two falsely states “The proposed amendment is consistent with visitor serving uses, since it continues to allow short=term lodging at current levels” This claim is FALSE for two reasons: 1. This ordinance freezes STL permits. Attrition will reduce permits even more due to numerous obstacles put in place in the Phase Two ordinance. 2. Also Phase Two ordinance does not provide a process for new permits replacing those expired permits to maintain a constant number of permits.. What happens when active permits fall below current levels? How are they replaced or reissued? Apparently, over a period of years the intention is attrition, thus reducing affordable beach accommodation. How is this amendment as stated in Phase Two “consistent with visitor serving uses, when there is no mechanism established to keep the STL permits “at current levels” over time. We did a little analysis of actual booking data. Question, what is the impact of a 6-night minimum on the number of annual bookings? It reduces overall bookings by approximately 42% or hundreds of potential guests unable to have affordable beach access. The coastal commission will not look favorably on this provision. Modifying the LCP won’t help. Further, the ordinance states the STAFF is of the opinion that instituting a minimum night 6 day stay for STL will not prevent public access to coastal resources. Allowing a 3 night stay in an owner occupied unit (5% of all permits) and a 6 night for non-owner occupied units is ludicrous, since 95% of all STL permits are held by non-owner occupied units, thus reducing total coastal access bookings by 42% Not only does a six night minimum drastically reduce coastal access but costs the city millions in TOT (42% of 4M is$1.6M per year, every year). When the code states “the staff is of the opinion” it means they have no idea what they are talking about due to the fact their opinion is not fact based, otherwise they would refer to actual statistics or surveys. The 42% booking reduction is fact based on 2 years of 4,500+ bookings. I think you all get the point. This ordinance is not ready for prime time. It is a good start, but needs a major overall, rather than being hostel to STL it should take a more neutral tone. Wy raise eyebrows at the coastal commission? Newport Beach, unlike any other Orange County city does a better job of managing STL than any other city. One reason is the long STL history, the DAC issuance of noise violations, the LUGO ordinance AND most STL is on the peninsula where 65% of properties are rentals. I urge the planning commission to refer this ordinance back to staff for modification and fact Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) finding for data justification, instead of “staff opinion.” I see time is up for the5:00 PM deadline. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Tresa Rowe To:Planning Commissioners Subject:No short term rental restrictions please! Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 5:00:46 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Planning Commission: I’m writing to ask that you carefully consider the impact that tighter short term rental restrictions will have on Balboa’s property owners like myself. If you review public input from the last City Council meeting, you’ll see that many citizens support short term rentals and don’t see a need for more restrictions. Especially on the Balboa Peninsula. People supporting the city’s new STR ordinances were the minority and they were not from Balboa. How many good renters visit our city every year, spend money here, add to the friendly vacation spirit of Newport Beach, and leave without incident? We don’t know because the city’s ad hoc committee report failed to show any percentages. Not the percent of rowdy renters (ratio to good renters), the percent of resources these folks require, the percent of city money lost as a result, or how much of that came from TOT tax paid by owners/STR operators. Instead, the city unfairly combined all STR operators and all vacation renters into one problematic group. That is not the reality! My sister and I own one unit, a single family dwelling, in the Lido Marina area. We screen our renters carefully and are available 24/7 to help with concerns. We purchased the home as a final residence for our 83 year old father when the time comes. Hoag is less than a mile away and he will be able to walk everywhere. To cover expenses, and provide a (always available) spot for dad in an emergency, we are temporarily operating the house as an airbnb. But our long-term goal for the home mandates that we operate judiciously. We only rent to guests who have reviews stating they respect property and neighborhood. We Carefully chose this option for our family and we are not abusive operators! When you vote tonight, please consider the following: We personally screen and manage each guest. Which is not the case with large “hands- off” agencies we are being grouped with. We have a 5-star rating and dozens of good reviews - one guest even mentioned how welcoming our neighbors are. 95% of our guests are small families who have vacationed in Newport for generations. Our home is popular with grandparents/grandkids. We are permitted for 8, but we only allow families of 6 — housed in three bedrooms (no sofa sleepers). It is unfair to group us with large agencies and abusive operators when we’ve had NO problems. It’s unfair to us, our guests, and our father. Arbitrarily penalizing us after we purchased a permit, carefully follow STR rules, pay our TOT, ensure good relations with neighbors, and have never gotten a complaint is unjustifiable. The city of Newport Beach and local businesses are promoted in our rental listing content, in the materials we leave inside the house for guests, and with the Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) ambassadorship we convey in personal messages. Balboa has been a vacation rental destination since the 1920’s. It is part of Balboa’s character and a huge source of its revenue. Along with many other property owners, we purchased a home in this area because of the above vacation rental tradition and acceptance. Prepaid short term rentals offer property owners a guaranteed income. Unlike long term leasing which is risky in this post-Covid, era where many tenants have stopped paying rent. Tighter restrictions will threaten rental income (as described in last bullet) and may cause a sell off. At a time when property values and city coffers are already compromised. Thank you, Tresa Holloway A sampling of our reviews: "We absolutely loved your charming beach cottage it couldn’t have been more perfect! All of your special touches did not go unnoticed. You literally thought of everything to make it the perfect stay. By far the best Air B&B we have ever stayed! We loved it from the minute we pulled up. The charming front porch with the blue floral ottomans and blooming bougainvilleas , obsessed with the white and tan basket planter and the bucket to wash your sandy feet … genius. Also just wanted to mention how sweet your neighbors were (the three girls next door) They were so nice and welcoming to us! We loved the whole time we spent there and we hope we get to stay again soon." -The Harris Family "Thank you again for making it possible for my sister and nieces to stay close by their husband/father during his rehab at Hoag Hospital. Your thoughtful touches meant a lot to them. They loved your stylish home and it’s location near beach, marina, shops, and restaurants. The girls were thrilled with the bikes and the ability to walk to the beach. My sister appreciated the cleanliness and comfort of your home. They were beyond impressed. Thank you so much!! -Sincerely, Tami Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Andy Lingle To:Lee, Amanda; rgarciamay@newportbeachca.gov Subject:Short Term Lodging July 22, 2020 Planning Commission 100 Newport Center Drive. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Commissioners, I whole-heartedly support the need for the new short term rental ordinance that has been proposed by Joy Brenner, Jeff Herdman, Diane Dixon, and Simone Jurgis and the staff. Short term rentals have historically been small Mom and Pop rentals for short periods during the summer months. Now they have become a million dollar business that has been gobbled up by by AirBnB, who provide little or no oversight. Many of these rentals have become nuisances and are destructive to the peace and quiet of their neighborhoods. I urge you to listen to the residents and pass this ordinance. Thank you, Andrea (Andy) Lingle andylingle@gmail.com Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Andy Lingle To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Fwd: Short Term Lodging Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 5:02:59 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please support this Ordinance. Thank you, Andrea Lingle July 22, 2020 Planning Commission 100 Newport Center Drive. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Commissioners, I whole-heartedly support the need for the new short term rental ordinance that has been proposed by Joy Brenner, Jeff Herdman, Diane Dixon, and Simone Jurgis and the staff. Short term rentals have historically been small Mom and Pop rentals for short periods during the summer months. Now they have become a million dollar business that has been gobbled up by by AirBnB, who provide little or no oversight. Many of these rentals have become nuisances and are destructive to the peace and quiet of their neighborhoods. I urge you to listen to the residents and pass this ordinance. Thank you, Andrea (Andy) Lingle andylingle@gmail.com Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Jane Trahanovsky To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Short Term Lodging Restrictions Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 5:13:33 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I'm a 34 year resident of Newport Beach. I've lived on the 300 block of 34th St since December 1, 1986 - I was 30 years old when I moved here from Western Pennsylvania. I've worked at Burr White Realty doing vacation rentals since August of 2004, which gives me a unique and balanced perspective on the vacation rental issue. I now have short term vacation rentals on both sides of me. One is owned by a very nice couple who screens their renters amazingly well - in the 3 or 4 years they've owned the property, they've only had one bad group of renters. The elderly widow on the other side of me rents her home through Beachview to pay for her retirement care. I'm not as crazy about the renters they have, but I grin and bear it knowing summer only lasts three months. Besides, most of the renters are quiet and respectful. The two most problematic properties on our block since 1986 were yearly rentals at the 307/309 34th St property - they burned the house down in 2014. We suffered through raging drunken parties sstarting up at 2:30 and 3:00 in the morning off and on for decades. The long term renters at that address have caused more grief for residents of our block than any vacation renters ever could. I don't think most people who complain about vacation rentals realize how much money pours into city coffers from the bed tax. I know Newport Island recently got nice big cement "picnic" tables and benches. We all appreciate the landscaped parks and free doggie pick up bags. Will we have all of these ammenities if a chunk of the bed tax goes away? I expect these same whiners will then complain that the city doesn't provide the services to which they've grown accustomed. Beach rentals have been a part of the fabric of Newport beach for over 100 years. People who move onto the Peninsula and want to change things should not have the final say in how the city develops in the coming years. Newport Beach has a history of welcoming families to one of the most beautiful areas of Southern California that should not be destroyed by a few roudy renters nor a few grumpy citizens. Please don't legistate away Newport's personality and quirks. Newport is not Irvine. If it was, I wouldn't live here. Jane Trahanovsky 306 34th St Newport Beach CA 92663 949.293.4632 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Lynn Friedman To:Planning Commissioners Subject:STR"s on Newport Island Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 5:14:22 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners, My husband and I are residents of Newport Island for almost 20 years now. We have enjoyed and loved it because it is has been, until recently, a quiet, friendly, residential neighborhood. This island is NOT the quiet, friendly, residential neighborhood it was. Parking was always a challenge, now it is almost impossible to find a spot on the island. It is now a hot spot of large parties with loud noise until late at night (way beyond 10:00). This is completely due to the fact that STRs have increased We have a townhome in Portland, Oregon. We cannot rent it out for less than 30 days because we do not live on the property to control the renters behavior. If we lived there we could rent it as a STR. This we were disappointed about at first but then realized that this was best for the neighborhood and it is not so difficult to rent out for 30+ day increments. AirBNB has been wonderful in many ways, but the increase in STRs because of it has damaged or begun to damage many, many communities. Cities are starting to take control of the disintegration of neighborhoods by putting in smart rental control. We hope that you will do the same and protect our beautiful Newport Beach, and in particular, Newport Island. Sincerely, Lynn Friedman Jeff Friedman Newport Island3 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Jon Hamkins To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Fwd: A Message From Burr White Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 5:21:18 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing to express my support for implementing a short term lodging ordinance in Newport Beach. I have stayed in Newport Beach in the past, and I enjoyed it. However, we are in a pandemic. Please protect our health. Listen to the health experts, not realtors. The best way to protect health and businesses in the long run is to limit the spread of the coronavirus. I am particularly appalled that Burr White Realty, a rental company I have used in the past, is creating an astroturf campaign, by blasting out messages to all of its customers asking them to send support for their dangerous position that their immediate income this month is worth more than our health, while instructing them not to mention Burr White Realty. Please see their outrageous email below. I hope you censure them in your meeting. ----Jon -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject:A Message From Burr White Date:Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:23:23 +0000 (UTC) From:Burr White Realty <promotions@burrwhite.com> To:hamkins@alumni.caltech.edu Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Hi All: The city has decided to introduce a phase two Short Term Lodging (STL) ordinance which may significantly restricts selection of future STL weekly rental inventory. We have listed a few of the more egregious items below for your review. I strongly encourage you to send an email to the planning commissioners objecting to these elements regarding the most recent alterations restricting your ability to rent your property short term. The two main items of concern are: 1. 6-Day Minimum Stay requirement will eliminate any reservations of less than 6 days. You will no longer be able to vacation for the weekend for 3, 4, or 5 days. You will ONLY be able to reserve for a period of time for 6 days or more. We know many of you cannot get away for one, even two weeks. Shorter night stays are popular now. If the city approves this ordinance, you will unable to rent for less than 6 days. IF there is to be a minimum stay, a 3- day minimum would be acceptable. Make your voice heard. Be in favor of a 3-day minimum and against anything greater, such as a 4, 5, or 6 day minimum stay. You are OK if 1 or 2 nights is not allowed. 2. Freezing Current Level of STL Permits Prohibition of New Permits. This restriction will slowly eliminate properties, perhaps the one you have been visiting for years, due to the fact IF the property is sold, the new owner will not be able to obtain a permit to continue renting weekly. This prohibition ultimately reduces your choices, due to the fact no new properties will become available to rent for less than 30 days. Any new owner who desires to place his Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) property in the STL rental pool will be unable to do so due to the fact a new property owner will NOT be able to procure a permit. First, tell your story how you have been coming to Newport Beach in some cases for years and often to the same house. In your emails emphasize how these new restrictions may result in you being unable to visit the beach at a price point that is affordable, since shorter stays will be eliminated. Also, ask the commissioners why is this STL amendment being rushed through during COVID-19 when travel is restricted and a personal appearance to speak is limited. Mention this is the first time you have heard of this phase two and you didn’t even know there was a phase one. ASK what is the emergency? You must email the planning commissioners and cc the city council TODAY or TOMORROW. The planning commission is meeting on Thursday. Copy and paste the commissioners into your email and cc the city council. Commissioners: pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov; eweigand@newportbeachca.gov; llowrey@newportbeachca.gov; cellmore@newportbeachca.gov; sklaustermeier@newportbeachca.gov; lkleiman@newportbeachca.gov; mrosene@newportbeachca.gov;planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov cc City council: dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; bavery@newportbeachca.gov; aharp@newportbeachca.gov; sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov; oneill4newport@gmail.com; kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov; dduffield@newportbeachca.gov; The future of STL rentals as we know it is imperiled. It is important to email them TODAY, make your voice heard. DO NOT MENTION BURR WHITE REALTY, THIS NEEDS TO BE MESSAGE FROM YOU ONLY. This email was sent to: hamkins@alumni.caltech.edu Unsubscribe | Update Profile | View Online This email was sent by: Burr White Realty 2901 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA United States 92663 NAVISDNIS8663004774 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Mark Ferraro To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:phase two Short Term Lodging (STL) ordinance Date:Thursday, July 23, 2020 6:27:02 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Commissioners: I’m terribly disappointed to hear you are short-sighted. I’m learning of your restrictions on phase 2 short term rentals. Big mistake for the city and for renters. Your loss of revenue from the proud rental tax you charge will be significant Not everyone can take the time or afford a complete week – a 3-day minimum is a good minimum Your offseason business will deteriorate to virtually nothing Your overreacting to cover your butts so you don’t have to take heat from Sacramento government – cowardly. Stand on your own and use common sense – its not your responsibility to solve a public health crisis and this action won’t impact it. And pay attention to the facts – not the wind of government sentiment. You’re better than this. Mark Ferraro Brea, CA M: 714.920.6440 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:BILL & SHARON BARRETO To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Short Term Rentals Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 6:24:20 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom It May Concern: My name is Sharon Barreto and my family and I have been coming to Newport Beach for 20+ years for our family "Beach Week Vacation". For at least 12 of those years we rented the same property, and we have many wonderful family memories of our many weeks in Newport. We consider Newport Beach one of our favorite destination and Beach Week our favorite week of the year. We have, occassionally, come down for shorter periods of time, as well. I'm so connected that I have your weather on my phone and read what news I can find about your town. So it was with great surprise and dissapointment that I found you were considering doing away with short term rentals. I've heard that you are trying to do away with weekend rentals first and trying to make a 6 day limit, but then to eventually become like your sister city, Huntington Beach and have only 30 day plus rentals. We would be so saddened by that decision. I know I don't live in your city and I don't pay your taxes, but as one who loves your city and loves "living" there for one week out of the year, I would be so disappointed if you took that away from us. Many of us will never be able to afford living by the ocean, so to be able to come for one week and enjoy all the pleasures that you have year round is truly amazing and such a blessing. This would have been my grandson's 19th year of coming with us (we had to cancel due to COVID), and we're all so disappointed to not have our week together in Newport. I know there are issues of rowdiness and misconduct and I've noticed such an improvement through the years that I thought that wasn't a problem anymore. But I recently read that some residents feel the rowdiness has not been totally controlled. But, I must say, it feels like those of us that come down and enjoy your town and are well behaved are being punish because of the few that are out of control. Is there some other solution that could be found, instead of doing away with the short term rentals? I hope you will reconsider implimenting these changes and vote in favor of the many wonderful families that love on your city throughout the year for 2, 3, 7, 10, or 14 days. God be with you as you make your decisions. Sincerely, Sharon Barreto 500 W Everglade Ave Clovis, Ca 93619 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Robert Hawes To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Phase Two of STL Ordinance.... Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:05:22 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the Newport Beach Commissioners, I’ve been a visitor to Newport Beach for over 17 years. I have stayed at (rented) the same and different homes, at different periods of time (based on my available funds and vacation time) throughout the year. Most of my stays are for a 3 day weekend, but I have brought my family for an entire week. It has been brought to my attention that the city is considering changing the ordinance to require a minimum of 6 – Days per stay for Short Term Lodging. As well as Freeze the current level of STL permits. Which I understand is part of the Phase Two STL Ordinance; I’m not even sure what Phase One did or was? In any case, I would ask the city reconsider what the effect of Phase Two will do to some visitors like myself. This will reduce the majority of my visits as they are often 2 or 3 days. My visits for 5 or more days are usually once per year. In addition, with a limited number of STL permits, this will limit the selection of STL’s and in turn raise the price of what is available. I would ask to please consider these implications to visitors like myself who enjoy spending our time and money at Newport Beach throughout the year, before changing such ordinance(s). Best Regards, Robert D. Hawes Jr. Chandler, Arizona Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Curtis Wesseln To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Subject:Proposed regulations for short term rentals Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:09:16 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioners: My wife Debbie and I strongly disagree with two of the proposed changes to short term rentals. We oppose the minimum of a six night rental. The preferences of our guests through BNR and VRBO are preferring shorter term rentals. During the summer months we have a one week rental requirement. We also oppose to the cap on number of rental units in the city. Many years ago we had a two week summer minimum and were able to make that happen with our guests. During the off season we preferred one week rentals but changed to 3 day minimums due to the changing preferences of our guests and the cleaning and maintenance involved. Thank you for your time in your roles on the commission. We appreciate your service to our city to keep it a wonderful place to live, rent, and visit. Sincerely, Curtis Wesseln 2910 West Oceanfront #A and #B 714.747.1378 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:David Caruso To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Fw: Phase ll short-term rentals Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:11:07 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. plz consider my comments as a beachfront homeowner since 1985.... David Caruso From: David Caruso Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:39 AM To: ddixon@dixonfornewport.com <ddixon@dixonfornewport.com> Subject: re: Phase ll short-term rentals I am an owner/ resident at 5109 Seashore Drive...I purchased it in 1985 after falling in love with the area on previous vacation trips. I went there for vacations and offered it for summer/winter rentals. Since 2005, I have moved from New Orleans and lived on Seashore except during summer, so I can get needed income from short-term summer rentals. I am retired and my only current earned income is social security and rental income from Seashore. I am opposed to the restrictive and unnecessary changes in this proposed Phase ll. I am a responsible owner. My home has never been a party house or the source of problems. I engage a responsible rental/ management company, White Sail Realty. Families have enjoyed their vacation time there. I should note from my long years of experience that the market for rentals of a week's length has weakened and In order to survive, three-night minimum rentals are necessary. Again, we make sure to rent responsibly to vacationers who share our love of the area. ...if there are a few bad operators, adequate means exist to resolve any problems without harming the good owners and the good visitors. Short-term rentals, properly regulated, are a positive plus to the area and should be welcomed as such. "Phase ll" changes should be rejected. David Caruso Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:TOMLU BAKER To:Planning Commissioners Cc:Jurjis, Seimone Subject:Short Term Rentals Date:Thursday, July 23, 2020 1:08:14 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Commissioners, The City needs to tighten the current restrictions on Short Term Rentals (STR) to restore the quality of life. Revised restrictions should include but not be limited to : ---length of visit, ---parking requirements, ---number of visitors in one unit, ---renter age, ---a centralized answering service for complaints, ---a method to ensure owners take responsibility for their guests (noise,large parties, trash, etc.) ---require an owner to obtain a rental permit number, ---all ads must display the rental permit number ---owner must respond to complaints within one hours. Establishing stricter constraints on the STR will help restore the quality of life for the residents, renters and visitors of the City. Thanks, Tom Baker Newport Beach Get Outlook for Android Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Charles Challah To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Short term rental Date:Thursday, July 23, 2020 1:13:29 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To those that work hard to continue to make Newport Beach the best vacation spot in the world, Good Morning I discovered Newport Beach about ten years ago right after the birth of our twin girls Angelina and Jezelle. We as a family of five including my son who’s 15 and my wife along with the twins fell in love with Newport, especially the peninsula. Ever since we come to Newport several times a year and enjoy a family vacation for a weekend. Our favorite location is close to the Newport pier. My twins favorite place of course is Jan’s corn dog. We love to walk from our rental on the boardwalk and go to Jan’s corn dog anytime of the day even as late as 1 in the morning. I just heard that we might not be able to rent for less than 6 nights minimum in Newport; I really hope that you vote against that as if this to pass you will be depriving our family and thousands of hard working Americans from enjoying a short stay at Newport I’m a small business owner who can only afford to leave my business for 3 or may be 4 days max few times a year and I honestly reserve those days to take my family to Newport. It would be impossible for me to go for a minimum of 6 nights. As I’m planning our next trip this summer before school starts, I’m praying that this wont be my last trip to Newport. Our ten year old twins will be devastated. I hope you find it kind in your heart to vote against this and bring the news of joy to thousands of hard working Americans during these very tough times who can only afford to rent for few nights in Newport. I appreciate you taking the time to read my email and may God bless you and help you in making the right decisions at all times. Sincerely Charles Chahlah Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Nancy Alston To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Short Term Rentals Date:Thursday, July 23, 2020 7:13:55 AM Attachments:Negative Effects of Short Term Rentals.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Commission, As a member of the SPON Board of Directors (Still Protecting our Newport), I researched the issue of Short Term Rentals for the organization. I was amazed at the number of universities, institutes, and cities that had completed papers on the mainly negative effects on communities due to the industry’s exploding growth and its power to change communities especially those in desirable locations. It is important to note, however, that the negative effects began with the advent of companies such as Airbnb, and not with the hosted rentals that have been part of Newport Beach’s tourist industry for years. I concentrated my research on the California coast. I submit my short paper with its conclusions and suggestions based on primary and secondary research but written before I saw the proposed ordinance. SPON agrees with City on the ordinance and believes that it can reclaim quality of life issues for those affected neighborhoods in Newport Beach.  Nancy Alston Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Research by SPON 6/23/20 Negative Effects of Short Term Rentals Short Term Rentals (STRs), vacation rentals from 1 day to 30 days, have become in thirteen years a controversial issue for cities all over the world particularly those in desirable locations like Newport Beach. Starting out years ago as a way for a homeowner to pick up extra cash by renting out extra rooms, an apartment, or an entire house while the owner traveled. In expensive housing areas like Newport Beach, longtime property owners sometime need to host vacation rentals to continue living here.The problem with STRs is primarily with unhosted rentals. STRs have now become big business with owners, individuals or corporations buying several houses, condos, or apartments, and renting them continuously for a brief periods often for one or two nights. As a coastal town with a great harbor and several beaches, Newport Beach historically became a magnet for tourists, not only from Southern California but from other US areas, even foreign countries. For years the number of tourists was seemingly a good balance with the number of our residents. What happened? In 2007, the “sharing” business model was introduced by Airbnb. Beginning with three customers, Airbnb has now reached 500 million check-ins around the world and shows no sign of slowing down. Starting out as a way to advertise empty rooms in a homeowner’s house, Airbnb, Homeaway, and other booking agents now compete with hotels, lodges, resorts, and other commercial enterprises for lodging. Some STRs are owned locally, but they have also become big business for investors both across the country, and from foreign countries as well. In fact, plans by Airbnb for a multimillion-dollar public stock offering this year are underway. As more and more STRs are rented legally and illegally in Newport Beach without code enforcement after 5 p.m. or on the weekend, residents, both property owners and long term renters in several areas of Newport Beach where short term rentals have proliferated are not only unhappy and angry but feel as though their quality of life, and their needs have been overlooked, even discarded by the City, while their property tax and sales taxes adds a significant amount to the City treasury. Research studies from major universities, institutes, and city departments assert that unless a city lays out a specific plan for regulations, including permits, on-site City inspection, and enforcement, it will be inundated with STRs advertised by the internet companies not only in neighborhoods that have always provided tourist accommodations, but even in neighborhoods where they are illegal Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 2 Changes the character and cohesiveness of a neighborhood and a city In a poll of residents of a neighborhood in Silicon Valley with several STRs, the most bothersome aspect of the STRs was the changing of the character and especially the cohesiveness of the neighborhood. We all know that neighborhoods are about social interaction through schools, civic associations, politics, libraries, charities, sports, church, clubs, and talking to one’s neighbors. In one city survey residents worried about STRs and listed the decline of the sense of community “twice as frequently as property values and affordability.” But when you are an owner or long-term renter with several STRs on your block, and your neighbors are like a revolving door, the situation eventually becomes permanent with fewer homeowners or longterm renters. Then a neighborhood changes irrevocably and as a resident your quality of life declines. With legal STRs permits totaling over 1500 with a limit of 1600, Newport Beach has more rentals than other cities along the coast except for San Diego and Los Angeles, hardly comparable cities in population. To prevent too many STRs in one neighborhood, some cities have capped the number of STRs in addition to the total number by restricting the following: •Number of units allowed in a given area, neighborhood, or street •Number of units an individual or corporation can list as an STR •Minimum Number of feet of separation between STR’s •Number of nights an STR unit can be rented. For example, some cities have three, four or even a week. Carmel, CA decided that STRs were ruining the character and quality of their town. The City Council voted to ban all STRs with the exception of 39 hosted units. Residents and the Council said that the town was becoming a place to visit, not live full-time. Carmel was ceasing to be community. STRs Nuisances A constant irritant in neighborhoods with too many STRs are the everyday nuisances of scattered trash, lack of parking, excessive noise especially during the night, too many people for the number of rooms, too many day visitors, and frequent parties. Worse are the illegal activities which include drug use and drunkenness Enforcement is the key. The City needs a full-time 24/7 code enforcer, available by phone with a number posted on City’s website. Newport Beach has a code enforcer from 8-5 weekdays. Most nuisance problems happen after 5 p.m. and on the weekend with the police receiving the calls. A better system would be for the non-emergency calls to be transferred from the police to the code enforcer. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 3 The seriousness of the enforcement can be conveyed on the City’s website, in the Good Neighbor Brochure, in the Regulations posted in the rental unit, and in the local media. Residents should have the contact information for the code enforcer. Presently, all they can do is call the police. Unless it is an emergency, the police have better things to do. *The key to successful enforcement is holding the owner responsible, not the renter, not companies i.e. Airbnb, etc., nor even a local agent. The City must be willing to hold the owner of the property responsible for infractions of STR rules. •City must have contact information for the person in charge of a unit. A working phone number directly to a person, not an answering machine, and not a corporation’s main number. •All STRs could be listed on City website by address of rental, name of contact person and contact information. (Oceanside does this.) •In addition to the contact person, the City should have in its files the name and contact information for the owner of each property. Fines for infractions must be large enough to deter future problems. Nuisance of trash, noise, and parking can ruin a neighborhood and is unfair for both homeowners and longtime renters. Properties rented illegally must be shut down immediately, the owner fined and prohibited from renting. Some cities control the nuisances better than others. Successful measures have included •Code enforcement empowered by the City to take action •24-hour code enforcement with contact information made noticeably available to residents, the police, the media, and the residents of the City. Police should not be called for non-emergency calls, but should forward those calls to the code enforcer on duty. •Holding property owners responsible, not Airbnb, not the rental agent. •Rules and regulations written by the City and posted conspicuously in each unit •Additional information by the owner should include trash pick-up day and parking information, and quiet hours. •A Good Neighbor Brochure given to each renter listing rules and contact numbers (Unfortunately, some cities’ brochures are only a public relations effort ) •Owners of STRs must submit nuisance response plans to the City for disruptive guests •City must have contact information for the person in charge of a unit. A working phone number, not an answering machine, and not a corporation’s main number. •A set time that the responsible person must answer the code enforcer. For example, Oceanside sets 60 minutes for the responsible party to answer the city’s enforcer. •Fines for infractions must be large enough to deter future problems. Evictions for Illegal properties, followed by prohibition of the rental for a lengthy time. •Two people per bedroom and two more if there is a living room. No closets, bathrooms, or porches can count as a bedroom •Number and kind of pets allowed •Number of visitors during the day should be capped •Age of renter required is 21 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 4 Impact on the community’s longterm housing supply Concern exists is many cities that corporations and individuals will purchase and rent apartments and houses to short-term visitors, taking them out of the year-round rentals housing supply. Newport Beach is facing a mandate from the state to find/develop over 4832 dwellings in the next 10 years. Every time a building/house converts to an STR, our city’s supply is diminished. Harvard Law Review published research in Winter 2016 by Dayne Lee concluding that Los Angeles housing crisis was exacerbated by Airbnb’s short term rentals in two ways. First, it removes a unit from the rental supply, causing a steady increase in citywide rents. “Tourists and renters are traditionally non-overlapping populations with different needs….“Airbnb brings an increasing number of the 45 million tourists who visit Los Angeles each year in direct competition with renters, distorting the housing market.” Second and more important STRs causes “hotelization.” “If a property owner can rent out a room cheaper than a hotel room while earning a substantial premium over the residential market, . . . there is an overpowering incentive to list each unit in a building on Airbnb rather than rent to Los Angeles residents.” “Airbnb claims that it provides middle-class renters and homeowners with supplemental income, it generates 89% of its revenue in Los Angeles from whole unit STR's without on- site hosts.” LA residents formed an activist group with a website Keep Neighborhoods First whose main purpose was to encourage the City to pass a tough ordinance. The LA new ordinance was adopted in 2019 and is summarized at the end of this paper. Unfortunately, Airbnb continues to organize political support throughout the US and the longer it is allowed to expand in a city, the “industry calcifies” and becomes harder to regulate. Compliance with fire/safety standards Hotels and motels have many safety and fire regulations to follow not only during construction, but inspections continue. When a dwelling unit becomes an STR, then the City should also make certain commercial fire and safety standards are met. An STR unit should be inspected for the advertised number of bedrooms, but also for electrical and gas issues, fire hazards, smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. Oceanside, for example, has the Fire Department check for fire and safety and the Code Enforcer inspect each potential property for number of bedrooms and on-site parking for the STR. Accurate collection of lodging and sales tax Newport Beach collects a permit fee, an annual fee, and TOT tax from each owner of a vacation rental totally $4 million last year. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 5 When other cities have checked the accounting books of STRs more closely, there are several examples of Airbnb and the owners of owing more money. For example, New York City sued Airbnb and recovered millions of dollars. The honor system does not work. Examples of Recent Ordinances Los Angeles adopted a new Home Sharing Ordinance effective July 1, 2019 whereby residents may be authorized to rent their primary residence to short-term visitors, called “home-sharing.” In short, the owner can rent the home for as long as 90 days if said owner resides in the home at least six months a year. An owner can apply for an extension of 120 but that requires additional qualifications. "Any host who intends to share their home must register with the city and obtain a permit for the sharing activity. Hosts must also keep all records for at least three years and pay appropriate Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT).” The ordinance requires listing platforms to remove and cancel any listings that have no registration number and/or have been rented for over 90 days. It also requires them to turn over monthly booking data, including registration numbers for all listings, addresses, total number of nights each unit has been occupied and cost of each stay. These provisions are critical, because this is the missing link in the short-term rental ordinances of other cities that are struggling with enforcement. Santa Monica permits City residents who obtain a City license to host visitors for compensation for a period of less than 31 days, as long as the resident and visitor are both present in the home. In August 2019, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its rejection of Airbnb, Inc. and Homeaway.com’s challenge to the City of Santa Monica’s Home-Sharing Ordinance, which penalizes the online platforms for unlawfully booking short-term vacation rentals of unlicensed properties in Santa Monica. Un-hosted short-term rentals of residential housing, known as vacation rentals, remain unlawful in Santa Monica. As amended in 2017, this legislation also imposes regulations on businesses, such as Airbnb, Inc. and HomeAway.com, that engage in booking transactions for short-term rentals of housing units for profit. The City’s ordinance prohibits such businesses from providing and collecting a fee for booking services for unlicensed (and therefore unlawful) short-term rentals. Huntington Beach “What homeowners and citizens should know is that within the City of Huntington Beach, vacation rentals are currently prohibited. Short-term vacation rentals are defined as any residence rented for a term of less than thirty (30) consecutive days. The commercial operation of a short-term vacation rental in single family and multiple family zones is not permitted under the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.” Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:RT Services To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Please do not pass the short term lease amendment. Date:Thursday, July 23, 2020 8:17:18 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear commissioner, I am writing to ask you, please do not pass the short term lease amendment. My husband and I and my seven adult children and their families have been visiting Newport Beach multiple times every year for many years and desire to continue to visit for many years to come. We feel as if the homes we rent for three or four days at a time, are our own vacation home. If you pass this amendment stopping three and four day visits then our family will no longer be able to afford to visit or to have our annual family reunions there at the beach. The short term beach houses are the only affordable way for us to stay there in Newport. I know this is also true for much of my extended family members as well. I most respectfully plead with you not to pass this amendment blocking three and four day short term rentals. It is so very important to our family. Respectfully, Teresa B Fitzgerald   Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:dorothyjkraus To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Item 2 - Short Term Rentals, LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Date:Thursday, July 23, 2020 8:37:19 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Chair Weigand and Commissioners, Please support this ordinance and the proposed LCP amendment. The proliferation of STR's in our city is a runaway train that is straining taxpaying residents patience, impacting their safety, and property values resulting in the deterioration of their quality of life. The table in the staff report showing STR counts in other cities, demonstrates how serious this issue is in Newport Beach. It's time to put measures in place to control this citywide problem. Thank you for your consideration of this comment and your support of this ordinance. Sincerely, Dorothy Kraus Typos compliments of my Galaxy Tab® S2 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 1 Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: Short Term Loding- for the public record   From: Fred Levine Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 9:09:04 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Denys Oberman Cc: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; City Clerk's Office; Brenner, Joy; Dixon, Diane; Sheri Morgan; Danielle Holland Subject: Re: Short Term Loding- for the public record  [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  We Agree   Sent from my iPhone    On Jul 22, 2020, at 4:10 PM, Denys Oberman <dho@obermanassociates.com> wrote:     Members of the Planning Commission:     We are residents of the Balboa Penninsula. We wish to register our voice and support of the proposed  regulations concerning,  Short Term Lodging in our residential neighborhoods, which staff have submitted.     It is critical that STL uses be regulated to prevent nuisances and also protect the health and safety of our  residential neighborhoods.     No more STL units should be allowed , and for those that do exist, both renters/occupants, managers  and property owners need to respect and comply with the reasonable regulations that have  been set  forth—as well as be accountable and subject to enforcement for noncompliance.     We ask for your support to preserve the safety and integrity of our residential neighborhoods.  Thank you     Denys Oberman  Resident and Community stakeholder        Regards, Denys H. Oberman, CEO  <image001.jpg>  OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel (949) 476-0790 Cell (949) 230-5868 Fax (949) 752-8935 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 2 Email: dho@obermanassociates.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 949/476-0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of the document(s) to us.     Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Kristie Haugh To:Klaustermeier, Sarah; Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Blumenthal, David(Contractor) Cc:O"Neill, William; Brenner, Joy Subject:TONIGHTS MEETING ABOUT STR CHANGES Date:Thursday, July 23, 2020 9:45:12 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Attn Planning Commission: My name is Kristie Haugh and I am an owner-occupied short term rental permit holder. The proposed changes to STR standards are completely unfair. I rent a spare bedroom in my home on occasion for 1-3night stays. My renters are typically grandparents of neighbors who don’t have room for everyone visiting, single persons on short business trips or couples in town for a wedding. My guests are alway courteous and I have never had any complaints. I thoroughly enjoy my occasional renters and love meeting new people. These restrictions of 6 night minimum and 3 night minimum are absolutely absurd! I don’t even want anyone in my house more than 3 nights!!! My income is supplemented by these occasional short term rentals and if these changes go into effect you will be ruining my second income. I urge you to vote no on these changes. This is a complete government over-reach and completely unfair. There must be another way to achieve your goal rather than punishing those of us who are operating a pleasant rental. Please consider this closely! Thanks Kristie Haugh 620 Narcissus Ave Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Mike Arnold To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Proposed Short Term Rental Ordinance Date:Thursday, July 23, 2020 10:32:12 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Morning and thank you for taking the time to consider the following as you deliberate changes to the rules for short term rentals. In one respect, I do not have any skin in the game as I don't lease or own a vacation home. On the other hand, as someone who has lived in the same home of River Avenue for over 20 years, I am presumably the exact person whose interest you are seeking to protect. As briefly as possible, below please find my thoughts and experiences about vacation rentals on the upper peninsula (at least, from PCH to 32nd). You might find them counter-intuitive, but please give them fair consideration as they have an impact on my life. These are my observations from living in the area and walking my dogs multiple times a day for two decades. 1. THE INCREASE IN VACATION RENTALS HAS DRAMATICALLY IMPROVED THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. It seems like every other house on my street has a short term rental. My neighbors and I agree this is a GREAT thing. As a result of VRBO and the like, at least 40% of the homes have been rehabbed, painted and/or otherwise improved. The area has gone from having run down homes to nice looking, well kept homes. In between guests, the owners or cleaning services will actually sweep sidewalks and pick up trash to keep things clean. Landscaping is vastly improved. There is simply no comparison between the aesthetics of the area from ten years ago to today. Moreover, vacation renters are a vast improvement - at least in our area - over long-term (month to month or annual lease) tenants. Prior to the increase in short term renters, most of the rental homes in this area were to a group of young people (usually 4 or more) who were tasked with taking care of the home(s) they leased. In short, they did not. With few exceptions, they were party houses with a lot of people, noise and trash. This remains true today. The two houses in the area between my place on 40th and River and PCH which are routinely have parties, play loud music, congregate on the street and park their cars in peoples driveways are year leases with multiple people living in the house. Take all the complaints regarding vacation renters and apply them to the long term tenants. No doubt, in this neighborhood they are the worst. To get an idea, go back a few years to when there were a number of homes leasing out to rehabs. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) The crowding, the trash (although fewer cigarettes), etc remain for long term renters. To the contrary, maybe because they have deposits, with a few exceptions, the vacation renters are much quieter, more respectful and almost always in a good mood and friendly which is nice. 2. INCREASE IN VACATION RENTERS HAS REDUCED CRIME Again, at least in this neighborhood, crime has gone down drastically. It used to be that I would have at least one bike or something out of my garage stolen once or twice a year. Once the neighborhood changed from groups of 20-30 year-olds living together and having frequent large parties and almost nightly gatherings of smaller groups, the crime, like littering and random vandalism, has stopped. 3. PARKING IS BETTER WITH VACATION RENTERS I have not done a study on this, but again, from my perspective of my neighborhood for 20 years, the parking situation has drastically improve the last few years. It used to be with multiple households with multiple tenants that it was next to impossible to find a spot on the street even in the winter. Additionally, it seems there were always 2 or 3 beat up cars in the same area moved only for street sweeping. This problem is almost gone. It is always going to be difficult to park in this area due to the proximity to the beach, but for us, it has been much better with short term renters. This is also likely due to the fact that vacation rental homes are vacant for periods of time reducing the traffic burden. 4. SHORT TERM RENTERS OVERALL ARE BETTER NEIGHBORS THAN LONG TERM LEASE TENANTS There will be good and bad neighbors whether they are for a weekend or for a year or more. The difference is a bad neighbor on a long term lease will be a bad neighbor for a long time. A bad neighbor for a weekend is gone in three days and usually replaced by someone who is in a good mood because they are on vacation and respectful either because they are in someone else's neighbor hood or maybe even the damage deposit. I don't know the reason, but life is much better here with vacation renters than groups of kids partying all the time. Just a personal example, I have neighbors who are now vacation renters and I can think of maybe two or three issues over the years. Prior to vacation renters, I had a number of truly bad neighbors I could do nothing about. They would drop beer cans and cigarette butts over the balcony, play loud music and have parties. Not just one, but multiple bad neighbors we would be stuck with for months. In summary, in my opinion as well as all the neighbors I have spoken with, vacation renters are better than long term renters the vast majority of the time. I fear that if you extend the minimum stay, it will adversely impact Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) the people who are renting the vacation homes and they will go back to renting long term which will be bad for the neighborhood. I understand a 2 or 3 night minimum, but 6 days seems excessive. In short, please don't do anything that will bring back the long term renters who pack into a house and increase the noise pollution, degrade the neighborhood, block streets and generally have a bad impact on the quality of life in this neighborhood. My suggestion for the problems I hear complained of would be to hold the property managers and vacation home owners. Make them take a larger deposit, that will stop the nonsense. At minimum, please consider that issues with noise, parties and parking get worse with long term renters. That I can say for sure because I have lived through both over the last two-plus decades in the same home. If you are still reading, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME....also, since I have you, the problems in our neighborhood that need to be addressed are the onslaught of commercial grade fireworks/explosives (not just on the week of 4th of July) and, sadly, the homeless problem at Channel Place Park and the shopping center located at PCH and Balboa. There is at least one person literally living at that shopping center which I assume is some sort of code violation. Anyways, it is an awful problem for the homeless and the neighborhood and I'm sure you guys are dealing with it. Thanks again for the time. Mike Arnold 949.742.0422 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Nicholas Rosenthal To:Dept - City Council; Planning Commissioners Subject:Short Term Rentals Date:Thursday, July 23, 2020 12:17:34 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission and City Council, I hope you are well and healthy during what is certainly an interesting time. I am reaching out on the topic of short term rentals. As a Peninsula Point resident and Board member of the BPPA I wanted to express my concern for the large number of short term rental permits that have been issued. We seem to be a significant outlier relative other coastal cities and we have allowed this issue to get out of hand. The trash, noise, lack of civility has escalated with a near direct correlation to the issuance of these permits and it has become a quality of life and property value issue for residents. I wanted to express that I am in favor of freezing the issuance of new permits and suspending permits for those that continue to violate ordinances or receive an elevated number of complaints. It seems like an issue we should make every attempt to reign in if possible as many of the owners of these short term rentals are not city residents and they are creating issues for property owners and residents. Thank you for your efforts. Best Regards, NIck Rosenthal -- Nick Rosenthal (949) 514 1160 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:ronald doutt To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Short Term Rentals Date:Thursday, July 23, 2020 12:27:39 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Morning Planning Commissioners. May I suggest that you consider pushing a "pause" button tonight on the agenda item that introduces a new short term lodging rental (STL) ordinance. Actually it is my understanding that what is being considered is a so-called "phase two" of the new ordinance about which I have procedural, structural and equity concerns. I suspect that other concerned citizens are similarly bombarding you with thoughts that deserve review which is why holding over the item and directing staff, city manager and/or the city attorney to consider matters that resonate with you may be the most prudent course of action. My background is in business having served for 24 years, at various times as CFO, COO, Treasurer, Executive VP, President and CEO of the Santa Catalina Island Company. Before that I lived in Hermosa Beach doing corporate financial planning work in the mid Wilshire area. Since retirement we have lived in Lake Arrowhead where my wife and I were honored as Citizens of the Year last year. Thus for the last 48 years I have resided in three separate resort areas where short term rental issues are passionately debated and in some cases have reached meaningful compromise. I have also been a short term rental customer in Newport Beach on at least a half dozen occasions dating back to the late 1960's. Does all this make me an expert on the topic? No way. Rather I present this background so you can assess the degree to which you wish to give my points any credence. In the interest of time my procedural issues are: If this is phase 2 whatever happened to phase I? Proceeding with tonight's meeting in the middle of a state mandated shut down seems to be at best inconvenient to those with vested interests in the outcome and at worst perhaps illegal. Are any elements of the current arrangements of the existing set-up envisioned to be grandfathered to guard against undo or unintended consequences? Regarding "structural" matters I am primarily referring to the freeze on the number of new permits issued and the new "days stayed" requirements. You might consider adopting a version of what Avalon does with vehicle permits...a gradual reduction as opposed to an instant freeze with no chance for renewal or for new homeowners to secure a STL permit. Does the plan assure that any unit now in the STL "pool" will retain its permit even if ownership changes are within the same family? Regarding the gradual implementation concept, Avalon's vehicle permits are awarded to the individual at the top of a waiting list on the basis of one new permit for each two that are turned in. For Newport's STL permit it Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) might be better to award 2 new permits for every 3 that are relinquished, a slower phase out concept. I am told that the cost of home ownership in the Newport area is in some cases (including amongst selected long term family owners) mitigated by the current STL arrangements. This phase in idea might allow more of these types of homeowners to amortize their investments with everyone knowing that there is a time certain that that income source will no longer be available. The suggestions in the preceding two paragraphs seem equitable. In these uncertain times with government costs ballooning and constituent needs escalating and with revenue risks rising it MAY be best to consider adopting some of the foregoing thoughts in your program or at a minimum to delay rocking the boat on this TOT revenue source to the community and thus trigger the Law of Unintended Consequences. Best of luck in your deliberations tonight and thanks for your service to the community. Sincerely, Ronald C. Doutt Sent from Outlook Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Donald Keys To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Short Term Rentals Date:Thursday, July 23, 2020 1:12:48 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please adopt the most stringent requirements possible on short term rentals. They are a major problem in our neighborhoods. Thank you. Sent from my iPad Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Patty Harpst To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Short term rental Date:Thursday, July 23, 2020 1:29:27 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My son and I as homeowners on Balboa Peninsula are not in favor of short term rental. I am sure this issue has been addressed many times Short term rentals usually involve many people in one Cottage and disruptive behavior in a quiet little neighborhood. Thank you for considering our definite opinion. Patty Harpst Sent from my iPad Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Debbie Stevens To:Planning Commissioners Cc:sjurgis@newportbeachca.gov; jcampbell@newporbeachca.gov Subject:Short-Term Lodging Date:Thursday, July 23, 2020 2:09:21 PM Attachments:Survey ShortTermLodging Report_2020-06.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I apologize for the late email. The Corona del Mar Residents Association did a survey in March-April 2020 and asked our members to answer survey questions regarding short-term lodging that were developed by Community Development Dept. staff and councilwoman Brenner. The results of our survey is attached and provide valuable information for the decision before you this evening. We had over 300 total responses, 75% of which are from residents that live in Corona del Mar. The results show a clear majority of residents supported additional restrictions on short-term lodging. Restrictions such as capping occupancy based on the number of bedrooms (96%), requiring on-site parking (90%), requiring rentals to be at least 3 days in duration (75%), and capping and/or decreasing the number of permits (76-82%) received the highest majority opinions. Our survey results are statistically significant for all Corona del Mar households given our sample size and consistently high majority opinion on restrictions. We appreciate your consideration of our survey results. Debbie Stevens President Corona del Mar Residents Association Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) SURVEY: SHORT-TERM LODGING MARCH-APRIL 2020   Page 1  CdMRA | P.O. Box 1500 | Corona del Mar CA 92625 | Info@cdmra.org | www.cdmra.org  PURPOSE In response to a great many concerns expressed by residents and property owners about short‐ term lodging (at least 1 day but no more than 30 consecutive da ys) in residential neighborhoods,  Councilmembers Joy Brenner (D6), Jeff Herdman (D5) and Diane Dixon (D1) were appointed to  an ad‐hoc committee on short‐term lodging (STL) to review and propose updated regulations.     Councilmember Brenner, the STL Ad Hoc Committee and Community Development staff were  interested in feedback from CdMRA members about changes to the existing short‐term rental  ordinance.  The survey was later circulated by SPON to their members, but 75% of all respondents  were from Corona del Mar.     BACKGROUND   Several  years  ago,  the  City  Council  voted  to  ban  short‐term  lodging  in  single‐family  neighborhoods (zoned as R‐1) but does allow them in neighborhoods with condos and duplexes  (zoned as R‐2).      The City of Newport Beach has the potential for over 10,000 short‐ term lodging rentals.  Newport  Beach has issued 1,536 permits so far, which is 2‐to‐3 times more than other cities in Orange  County or along the Southern California coast.  The next largest coastal city with short‐term  lodging is the City of Carlsbad with 650 active short‐term lodging permits.       Renting a residential unit for 31 days or more is a property right, but renting the unit or any  portion of it for 30 days or less is not.  This is a very important distinction, and the reason why  cities can regulate short‐term lodging activity.    City staff prepared the questions for circulation to CdMRA’s membership.     SURVEY STATISTICS Corona del Mar Population: 6,400 residential households  CdMRA Membership: 700 residential households (11% of CdM households)   CdMRA Survey Recipients: 643 households with email addresses (10% of CdM households)  Corona del Mar Household Responses: 232 (75% of 311 total responses)    Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) SURVEY: SHORT-TERM LODGING MARCH-APRIL 2020   Page 2  CdMRA | P.O. Box 1500 | Corona del Mar CA 92625 | Info@cdmra.org | www.cdmra.org    RESULTS AS OF APRIL 30, 2020. Survey Conclusion There was a clear majority preference for every question asked, ranging from 66%‐96%, which  leads us to conclude that additional restrictions to the City’s existing STL ordinance would be  supported by residents in our community.    Restrictions such as capping occupancy based on number of bedrooms (96%), requiring on‐site  parking (90%), requiring rentals to be at least 3 days in duration (75%) and capping and/or  decreasing the number of permits (76‐82%) received the highest majority opinions.    This survey was taken just at the beginning of the COVID‐19 pandemic, and we know more today  than we did at its start.  One finding that is consistent acros s the globe is that higher‐density areas  are harder hit by infectious diseases than low‐density ones.  If we took the survey again today,  we would expect to see resulting majority opinions even higher when weighing in on restrictions  that focus on reducing density.  Confidence Level  We can conclude that the survey results are statistically significant for all Corona del Mar  households given our sample size and the consistently high majority opinion on restrictions.   We have a 95% confidence level that survey answers represent CdM residents within a 6%  margin of error.    Allow NEW STL permits?  76% No …… 19% Yes …… 5% No opinion    Require operator to provide at least one parking space @ property?  90% Yes …… 6% No …… 4% No opinion    Cap STL permits?  82% Yes …… 14% No …… 4% No opinion    Allow permit transfer to new owner when property sold?  68% No …… 24% Yes …… 8% No opinion    Cap occupancy: 2 per bedroom + 2?  96% Yes …… 2% No …… 2% No opinion    Require rental be a minimum of three (3) consecutive days?  75% Yes …… 14% No …… 11% No opinion    Decrease the number of STL permits whenever possible?   72% Yes …… 22% No …… 6% No opinion    Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) SURVEY: SHORT-TERM LODGING MARCH-APRIL 2020   Page 3  CdMRA | P.O. Box 1500 | Corona del Mar CA 92625 | Info@cdmra.org | www.cdmra.org    SURVEY RESULTS ‐ March‐April 2020 Residence Zip Code? Audience awareness of a STL Ordinance? 66% Yes 30% No 4% Don’t Recall Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) SURVEY: SHORT-TERM LODGING MARCH-APRIL 2020   Page 4  CdMRA | P.O. Box 1500 | Corona del Mar CA 92625 | Info@cdmra.org | www.cdmra.org  Allow NEW STL permits? 76% No 19% Yes 5% No opinion Require operator to provide at least one parking space @ property? 90% Yes 6% No 4% No opinion Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) SURVEY: SHORT-TERM LODGING MARCH-APRIL 2020   Page 5  CdMRA | P.O. Box 1500 | Corona del Mar CA 92625 | Info@cdmra.org | www.cdmra.org  Cap STL permits? 82% Yes 14% No 4% No opinion Allow permit transfer to new owner when property sold? 68% No 24% Yes 8% No opinion Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) SURVEY: SHORT-TERM LODGING MARCH-APRIL 2020   Page 6  CdMRA | P.O. Box 1500 | Corona del Mar CA 92625 | Info@cdmra.org | www.cdmra.org  Cap occupancy: 2 per bedroom + 2? 96% Yes 2% No 2% No opinion Require rental be a minimum of three (3) consecutive days? 75% Yes 14% No 11% No opinion Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) SURVEY: SHORT-TERM LODGING MARCH-APRIL 2020   Page 7  CdMRA | P.O. Box 1500 | Corona del Mar CA 92625 | Info@cdmra.org | www.cdmra.org  Decrease the number of STL permits whenever possible? 72% Yes 22% No 6% No opinion Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Avo Avetisyan To:Planning Commissioners Subject:2406 W Oceanfront Date:Thursday, July 23, 2020 3:38:39 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners, My family and I purchased a home with a short term logging permit earlier this year (paid a premium) in the Newport peninsula after screeching for multiple years. I wouldn’t have purchased this home if didn’t come with a short term, 3 day minimum lodging permit. Extending the 3 day to 6 days would greatly reduce the percentage of renters on an annually basis causing major financial hardship onto me and my family. This pandemic has been hard on all of us already - please, I don’t want to lose my home. Keep the 3 day lodging minimum as is. Thank you, Avetis Avetisyan 2406 W Oceanfront Newport Beach,CA (818)644-5006 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Wetherholt, Drew To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Short-Term Rentals Date:Thursday, July 23, 2020 4:00:32 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Commissioners/Councilmembers: I’d like to offer some of our thoughts and concerns regarding STRs. I am both a resident of the Peninsula for over 28 years and an owner of several STRs both in Newport as well as other communities. We self-manage and are very hands-on with our properties. Simply put, we do not tolerate problematic guests and that begins that proper screening before they even book. With over 500 bookings, we have never had a single complaint from neighbors and/or a police call for disturbances/parties etc. Proper management, limitation, and enforcement is extremely important in controlling STRs. Unfortunately, we also live across the street from some poorly managed STRs and it is difficult given the constant problems and disturbances. As a result, we understand both sides of the equation. Aspects that we would like to share with the STRs: 1. Limited occupancy- Only 2 persons per bedroom and NO “floaters”; Limited daytime occupancy to only double the permitted occupancy. 2. 3 Day minimum bookings would be better- Having a min. of 6 days really will not be enforceable. City already has a problem enforcing occupancy levels; how is the City going to enforce a 6-day minimum? 3. Cap the number of STRs. We truly have too many compare to other beach communities. There needs to be a balance. 4. Start a “Respect Our Neighborhoods!” campaign entailing how we expect our guests to treat our neighborhoods when they’re on vacation and the residents are not. This could be done at both the City level and the City could encourage the STR platforms like Airbnb and VRBO to start a similar campaign. 5. Police and Code Enforcement & Fines- Do we really need more regulations when the existing ones really are not enforced? Base on my observations, personal experience, and discussions with both the police and code enforcement, there is little to no communication between the departments. Let me give you an example. The police are called to a property for a party disturbance and they come out and simply do a “advise & complied”. The minute the PD drives off the street that party only continues. Police are again called out and the same thing happens. It is not uncommon to see the PD called out to a property 2-3 times in a period of 1-3 days. Yet there not any citations or DACs. In fact over the last 3 months there have been probably several hundred disturbance calls for police service on the peninsula with the police often going to the same problem properties multiply Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) times and there have only been 2-3 DACs according to the police calls for service logs. Now its my understanding after talking with police dispatch that the responding officers do not make note in the file that the disturbance call is a STR. In fact, when we have asked the dispatch to note this in a call is for a problem STR property, dispatch says they do not do that and instructs people to call Code Enforcement. Yet dispatch wasn’t even able to provide the phone number for Code enforcement. Clearly, the PD and Code are not effectively communicating. In discussions with Code, they have said they are only aware of problem property if the property gets a DAC. Needless to say, the average resident does understand this process and/or doesn’t have the time to chase down multiple departments to address their disturbance complaints. When residents call the police for a disturbance, there is zero impact to the STR management company and/or owner. Complaints/disturbances are only repeated, and the residents only grow more frustrated due to zero enforcement and the pattern only continues to repeat itself. Should police be called to a STR 3-4 times, the Code department should know about it in order to take action. 3-4 legitimate disturbance calls to a STR should result in a significant fine to BOTH the property owner and the property manager. This will hold the property management companies and owner accountable. So many of these property management companies do not properly screen their tenants or enforce their rules. They simply cram as many people into the STR and they really don’t care about the problems since they get their management fees regardless. Try calling any of these property management companies at 2AM and experience the lack/no response for yourself. When Mommy & Daddy rents a STR for their high school student and his 18 friends- this is not acceptable practice. (this just happened this weekend on our street). Police were called twice. However, code doesn’t even know about it unless residents then make separate calls to code ( and code doesn’t work weekends). By the time code gets out there Monday or Tuesday the guests are gone. There needs to be better communication, enforcement, and significant penalties to hold the management companies and owners accountable. Should any of you have further questions or wish to discuss in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact me. I’d be happy to provide you greater insight have how a STR should be properly operated to eliminate neighborhood disturbances, photos, and copies of the police calls-for-service logs. Thank you for your consideration! Drew Wetherholt 949-466-6088 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Melanie Maxwell To:Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Planning Commissioners Cc:dianebdixon@gmail.com; jherdman204@icloud.com; joybrenner@me.com; Avery, Brad; Harp, Aaron; Jurjis, Seimone; oneill4newport@gmail.com; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy Subject:Concern regarding Short Term Lodging ordinance Date:Thursday, July 23, 2020 6:41:33 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing you regarding the ordinance under consideration regarding Short Term Lodging. I request that you not pass this bill. I spent years planning and saving to have enough money to spend a week each year at the beach with my family. We were able to make that happen 4 years ago and have been coming to the same house each year since then. In addition, my brother and his wife as well as my parents often spend a weekend in Newport to enjoy the ocean. With the restrictions you are proposing, it will end this family time as the rentals that will be available will become even more costly than they already are. In addition, I encourage you to consider the impact to the businesses in Newport who are already struggling due to the impact of COVID. Now is not the time to limit income opportunities for businesses. Thank you for your consideration of my concern, Sincerely, Melanie Maxwell Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:Scott McFetters To:Planning Commissioners Cc:Mark Markos; Chris Harano; Jim Miller; Larry Leifer; Mike Veal; Ken Keirstead; Bud Reveley; Marty O"Hea; Roger Saxton; citycouncil@newportbeachgov.org Subject:Re: Ban Short Term Rentals on Newport Island Date:Friday, July 24, 2020 11:05:13 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners, I hope all is well. I felt for you last night. How can you vote on something that others have been working on for 2 years in the last last minute? Many of you asked about Newport Island. The Newport Island homeowners Association’s recent survey had 85% of the residents not wanting STR’s. I am resending my prior email because it covers most of the issues. The city is turning a residential neighborhood into hotel row and it does not work. 70 houses on the water an it only takes two STR’s out talking and laughing outside all night to keep houses up. Same thing at 6:00 am. The last two rentals next door were companies which bring shifts of people in and out. All the cars and constant noise. A lot of people are working out of their houses and kids our taking online school courses only to live next to a revolving door. Party, party, party... There seemed to be a lot of concern for the 6 or so neighbors on Santiago because they are going to split one large lot. Our lots are mostly 30 feet long with no high walls between them and one bad actor can impact the entire channel that they are located on. We also have the echos in the alleys. We only had 2 or 3 STR’s on the island until the last 18 months. I am sure many of the owner operator’s have repeat families. We mostly get out of town operators like Avantstay and Seabreeze with multiple families or groups or people who get one house and cheap hotel rooms. There is usually at least 3 or 4 cars per house not including their and some houses only have one spot including street parking. Why are the short term rental companies or an alliance of smaller players not obligated to provide private security like hotels. The operators around us not involved. The get a code and the pary gets to begin with no on person onboarding. The neighbors become the unpaid and overworked security. This needs to end. STR’s do not work on Newport Island and we will not allow it to become a duplex rental zone like it is across the bridge. Please look up Santa Monica’s recent STR case that is final which only allows owner occupied and it is my understanding that it gets around Coastal Commission. That is what we want on Newport Island for immediate relief of our STR hell. It will only increase the property tax intake and will not impact a vast majority of the STR business in Newport that are predominantly in areas that are mostly STR duplexes vs. single family home or R-2 that is Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) utilized as single family like we are on Newport Island. Other parts of Newport and Corona Del Mar have similar issues but not the massive disruption, character change and problems we have had in the last year. We will take any measures necessary protect our neighborhood. Please read below and call me anytime if you have questions. Best regards, Scott McFetters 714-343-1657 Begin forwarded message: From: Scott McFetters <smcfetters@coretechleasing.com> Date: July 21, 2020 at 4:22:00 PM MDT To: "planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov" <planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Mark Markos <msm619@ymail.com>, Larry Leifer <lawrelei@gmail.com>, Chris Harano <chris@harano.com>, Ken Keirstead <ken@eclecticfinishes.com>, Marty O'Hea <mohea@bixbyland.com>, Jeff Friedman <jfriedman@turnerfiber.com>, Richard Wolpow <rwolpow@pocnettech.com>, "mike@goldcoastglass.com" <mike@goldcoastglass.com>, Jim Miller <newportislandjim@gmail.com>, "citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov" <citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov>, "budreveley@gmail.com" <budreveley@gmail.com>, "thomas@stratcomponent.com" <thomas@stratcomponent.com>, "rlmequities@gmail.com" <rlmequities@gmail.com>, "pennyreveley@gmail.com" <pennyreveley@gmail.com>, Roger Saxton <roger@catalinacomponents.com>, "acooperz@gmail.com" <acooperz@gmail.com>, "msannaplamer@gmail.com" <msannaplamer@gmail.com>, "stacywyatt68@gmail.com" <stacywyatt68@gmail.com>, "patrickmccracken1@gmail.com" <patrickmccracken1@gmail.com> Subject: Ban Short Term Rentals on Newport Island Dear Newport Beach Planning Commission, I hope your day is going well! Short term rentals are a disaster on Newport Island and should be banned. They don't work on Newport Island period. To many people, not enough parking and we are a residential community. Not an un-supervised hotel row. As immediate relief we need owner occupied because of the mess we are in due to past incorrect zoning issues for Newport Island. Another big issue will be illegal short-term rentals. 515 36th ( No short-term rental permit ) has had six different groups stay there recently. Only two citations ( people won't answer the door for code enforcement, probably by instruction ) and the people get to stay anyway. They are not asked to leave. When will that end and what is the City of Newport Beach going to do about that? A small fine and the homeowner makes thousands and the city gets whatever the illegal short-term rental reports and we get the noise, pot smoking and the ongoing party without any punitive consequences for the owner? The residents on Newport Island do not want short term rentals per my prior email to city council below. We pay taxes and want higher home values. We did not buy into this zoo the City has created it and we want the planning department to fix it. It's not to late for Newport Island and we won't let it happen. Please see below. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) I hope all is well. I will start off with a reminder of one weekend on Newport Island pre- Covid-19. Please see the attached pictures and prior email below. I have a lot more pictures and video of other Newport Island STR issues if anyone would like to request. Next Tuesday is a big day for Newport Island and other neighborhoods that are negatively impacted by Short Term Rental businesses that are being run out of our neighborhoods. It is a time for the Newport Beach City Council and the City of Newport Beach to take responsibility for issuing STL permits on Newport Island which is a residential Island regardless of what the current zoning states or how the STR permits are currently issued or enforced. That is another entirely connected Newport Beach planning issue. You can't run a business without policies, rules, regulations and enforcement which could include closure. There are over 100 plus homes on Newport Island and less than 30 lots listed as duplexes. Out of the less that 30 lots some are utilized as single family homes. Newport Island is a true residential Island that is different than other neighborhoods that are mostly duplexes with some single family houses. We did not have a STL problem or awareness until they showed up next door and around the Island which have two addresses. Two or three prior to over 16 in just over a year. We still have not seen the full impact because of Covid-19 regulations. I am asking for a complete STR ban on Newport Island. STR's do not work and will never work on a true small residential Island that the vast majority of residents do not want STR's. Newport Island does not have the shape, parking, space, lot size, house size, access, noise controls, regulations and enforcement to support it. The vast majority of Newport Island does not want any more disrespect, noise, dog issues, parties, crime, traffic, speeding, trespassing, fireworks, intimidation, etc. due to unacceptable increase of STR permits in the last year. The person who signs the lease. The others who stay that aren't on the lease. The others who visit during the day. The others that party at night. Unlike other surrounding areas Newport Island is still a true residential neighborhood that did not have a STR issue until last year. It can still be solved with a City Council Vote and presenting solid support to the Coastal Commission. A vast majority of the Newport Island residents do not want STR's. Especially anyone who lives next to one. There is one resident who lives and the property and has a STR permit. The other exceptions of people who want STR's on the Newport Island don't live permanently on the Island. They also have the right to voice their opinion. However, some might be the same people fighting any short term rentals that might be in their permanent neighborhood and would not want one next door if they lived on the island. SPON has a great report out on STR's. So does CDM. Newport Island's survey will be released shortly. Huntington Beach does not allow short term rentals. Laguna has very few and they are highly regulated. The trend is to get rid of them all together or regulate the hell the out of them. Wake up Newport... I have called the different departments in the City of Newport Beach and asked for traffic studies or other studies that support the City issuing STR Permits on Newport Island. I have not found one yet. What I do know is a triangle is the worst possible shape to be in for an island if it needs parking spots. I am sure that is the reason that Newport Island is one, if not the only neighborhood in Newport Beach that has permitted parking because of the long known parking issues on the island. Forget, construction, City water pump trucks, maintenance workers and regular family visitors. How do the STR fit into the equation with their multiple cars, dogs, family, friends and volume of people for their summer parties? Short Term Rentals park illegally by blocking fire lanes, sidewalks, garages, alleys and the main streets causing major safety and liability issues. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Let's not forget about putting 10 plus people in a 1,900 square foot house on a 2,300 lot which was a 2 bedroom converted to a 4 bedroom ( 3717 Channel, feel free to google ). One bedroom used to be a closet the other room was a dining room. The renters can't fit inside so they go outside and make all the noise outside which travels over the water or next door into our bedroom. They should have no more than 6 people in a house like that and that is pushing it. Still no Code Enforcement investigation after 6 months because they can't enter? This is the same house that has one small garage that a large truck, SUV or Van cannot fit in and there is not a driveway so they park illegally over the sidewalk for part in the red emergency vehicle zone. Not having one legitimate parking space but letting 10 plus people over? This is where Code Enforcement should be earning its money and come up with solutions to the problems they see instead of saying they can't do anything about it? Don't issue anymore STR permit's until the holes are filled. Simple. If you see a problem work on fixing it like we all have to do. How can the permanent City employees not see what's going on? One of the many things that we all agree on is that the owners, operators and renters should all be held accountable. This means getting rid of the bad owners, operators, no more STR subleases, punitive fines ( make it hurt ), kicking problem tenants out immediately, taking permits away. Any nuisance such as illegal parking and mortars should count towards revoking a permit. The owner will have to think twice if they have the space or parking to support more than 4 or 6 people in their house. We as a neighborhood are not taking it anymore and will be calling the owners and owners of the operators in the middle of the night after we call the police if their tenants keep us up for any reason. The owners should have skin in the game. If they want to rent for less than 30 days then they should have to also live on the property. I am sure that would fix most issues quickly. Since most of the STR' permits were approved in the last year very few are impacted by having to rent more than 30 days. Please do the right thing and ban Short Term Rentals from Newport Island. Please feel free to contact me anytime to discuss. I am here to assist. Best regards, Scott McFetters 714-343-1657 -----Original Message----- From: Scott McFetters Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 9:40 AM To: hmoss@nbpd.com Subject: Short Term Rentals Issues from this weekend! Specifically 3717 and 3806 Channel ( Avantstay.com) I hope everyone had a great weekend! I have attached the following pictures and police call logs from this weekend! Just and another 10 guys staying next door at 3717 Channel and another 10 of their friends staying next door at 3806 Channel is a residential neighborhood. What could go wrong? Please see all the attached pictures. This is going to become a legal issue soon if the city does not step up and protect our quality of life and our overall security. 3806 recently had all its patio furniture stolen and 3717 had a Kayak stolen. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Please not that the police call log does not note specific addresses. It does not reflect all calls and it proves that the officers go out and ask people to move their cars instead of ticket. The same group of guys just kept doing it all weekend and got away with it. They said the officer let them off on Friday because it was the first night. They took full advantage the rest of the weekend with the 8 plus cars between the two houses. The 3717 does not even have a legitimate one car garage. You cannot fit a SUV in with without blocking the sidewalk. I called Friday at 4:04 PM about 3717 Channel. Truck blocking sidewalk and fire lane. Officer had them move. Called at Saturday at 8:04am Same truck blocking sidewalk and fire lane. Per the picture the truck at 3806 was parked illegally all weekend. Blocking the sidewalk and also leaving the gate blocking the sidewalk. Saturday morning the guys left their drunk friend passed out one foot from falling in the channel per the pictures. By the way my dog was barking all night because that guy was making noises outside all night. No one was home and I contacted Avantstay. Gets better. I go on a walk the dog when I get home around 10:00pm and one of the short term rental guys at 3717 was asking if I complained about noise and that they are getting a bunch of harassment for parking as his white car was parked illegally in the fire lane. He continued to tell me was to drunk to drive and was only going to move it in the driveway. I told him there is 10 of them so one of them can move it or they will get a ticket. They said there is no parking on the island so they had other cars parked at Pavillion's. They said that Avantstay gave them no special rules for the neighborhood or parking. He never moved so I called about all three cars that were parked illegally at 3717,3806 and the end of 38th. To my knowledge none were cited. However they arrested someone in front of my house and my guess is it was one of the drunk short term renters. You call can investigate that one. A picture is attached. Anyone who thinks it is an enforcement under current protocol is nuts. You should use the call log and not the actual cited complaints as your reference. It is not accurate. Everyone that comes in does the same thing. I am asking that 3717 and 3806 get their permits pulled. 3806 is and ongoing party house and was mentioned about the naked woman and pot. I witnessed it along with many others including at lease 4 police cars if not 6. Let's not forget two large dogs at 3717 jumping of the dock on low tide and running all over the low tide habitat and leaving two large dog craps that are probably still floating around the channel. Some of you have already seen the pictures. I am sure it destroyed some eel grass? We haven't even discussed possible code violations that have already been brought up regarding both houses. When will that be enforced? Enough is enough. Best regards, Scott McFetters 714-343-1657 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) From:NF REYNOLDS To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Short Term Lodging in NB Date:Saturday, July 25, 2020 12:34:58 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. After watching/listening to the PC meeting about short term lodging, it really upsets me that NONE of the commissioners even addressed the issue of what happens to the desirability, upkeep, and property values when a neighborhood is overtaken by short term lodging. Mission Bay and Avalon are perfect examples. I vacationed there as a child and was recently shocked at the deterioration of the properties there. When large corporations and others who buy up many properties to use as short term lodging, their interest is no longer in the City, but only in making money. Avalon, has almost completely become short term lodging. Just one tour of the homes in the "village" there, will let you see how the housing has deteriorated. It looks like the Crystal Cove cottages BEFORE they were restored. It's only a question of time for heavily used STL in still quaint neighborhoods of NB become like this. When an owner (mentioned in the meeting) owns 80 properties in NB, that tells you something about the growth of STLs. Certainly there should be a restriction on how many units one owner can own to rent out. The point is not to restrict individuals from receiving income, but to keep out the mega-owner or corporations making this big business, without any regards for the quality of life in NB. The PC's agenda is to constantly defend "property rights" vs the quality of life and rights of citizens who own very expensive properties and mostly live here full time. Do the Commissioners even live in NB? They sound so afraid of Coastal Commission. Santa Monica and Huntington Beach have even stricter restrictions and no STLs under 30 days. Coastal Commission has not objected to those. Can't NB City Council just add a number of permitting requirements through City ordinance, making requirements more stringent without going through an amendment to the LCP? Does it have to be a zoning issue? My recommendation is to make serious changes to the permitting for STLs along the lines that SPON and the STL Committee have recommended. 1) Noise & nuisance control with contact/point persons from City & owner. 2) Holding property owners responsible with substantial fines. Multiple violations = permit cancellation for ALL units owned by that owner. 3) Posted rules & regulations, like motels have. Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 4) Limit number of guests and pets by unit size and minimum age. 5) Conformance with fire/safety regulations. 6) Parking minimums. 7) IMO, 3 nights minimums (which seems to work for both owner and visitors) Any other important regulations that the committee on STLs feels is a high priority. Thank you for your service and all the work you do. Obviously the PC did not feel prepared or able to make any decisions....and it's not their final decision anyway. Nicole Reynolds Corona del Mar Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Short Term Lodging LCP Amendment Planning Commission July 23, 2020 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 2 Why address STL Complaints received on short-term lodging by the City Council and City staff. Complaints are City wide. Very little regulations on the books. Note: Short-term lodging 30 days or less is not a Property Right Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Community Development Department -Planning Division 3 Early 2019 To address complaints from residents. City Council Ad Hoc Committee formed to develop a STL Code that balances the quality of life needs of the residents with the needs of the property owners Note: STL allowed in residential zone except R-1 or Mixed-Use zones Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 4 STL CODE ENFOR CEMEN T STL 2017 2018 2019 2020 Complaints 294 240 128 136 NOV 120 63 70 10 Citations 102 44 40 33 STL BAN 2020 Complaints 87 Citations 17 STL CODE ENFORCEMENT Community Development Department -Planning Division Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 5 AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS Joy Brenner, Diane Dixon, Jeff Herdman PUBLIC MEETINGS 1 Jan 19, 2019 City Council Study Session 2 Aug 19, 2019 Community Meeting 3 Oct 14, 2019 District 5, Town Hall 4 Oct 26, 2019 District 6, Town Hall 5 Nov 19, 2019 City Council Study Session 6 Feb 3, 2020 District 1, Town Hall 7 Feb 11, 2020 City Council Meeting 8 Jun 23, 2020 Ordinance 2020-15 Introduced Community Development Department -Planning Division Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Community Development Department -Planning Division 6 Hours, Hours, & Hours Spent City Council Ad Hoc Committee spent a lot of time with: Residents Community Groups (Non-City Surveys) Operators Businesses Meetings, Conference Calls, Emails…Meetings Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Community Development Department -Planning Division 7 Potential Over 10,000 Units Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) 8 ACTIVE SHORT-TERM LODGING PERMITS CONCENTRATED AREAS (2020) Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Active STL Comparable Cities CITY Active STL Permits San Clemente*172 Carpinteria*215 Huntington Beach*266 BNB Anaheim 277 Dana Point*307 Santa Monica*340 Carlsbad*690 Newport Beach*1,524 9 *Coastal City Community Development Department -Planning Division Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Year Number of Properties Registered 2007 707 2008 731 2009 678 2010 677 2011 661 Low Point 2012 704 2013 738 2014 749 2015 769 2016 957 2017 1028 2018 1070 2019 1055 +60% 10 Active Properties History Community Development Department -Planning Division Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Year Active Units 2016 1068 2017 2018 2019 2020 1523 +43% 11 Active Units History Community Development Department -Planning Division Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Community Development Department -Planning Division 12 ORDINANCE #2020-15 Adopted -July 14,2020 –Phase I Changes to Title 5: Operational Rules Permit number postings Platform responsibility Tighter enforcement Minimum age to rent Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Community Development Department -Planning Division 13 Ad Hoc City Council Phase II -Recommendations Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Title 21 LCP Community Development Department -Planning Division 14 Ad Hoc City Council Phase II - Recommendations Amends Title 21 –Local Coastal Implementation Plan Wil be reviewed by the City Council Will be reviewed by the California Coastal Commission Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Short Term Lodging Permits Community Development Department -Planning Division 15 No new permits after effective date of ordinance Renewals allowed, provided: Not lapsed Not revoked Permit can be assigned to new owner Ad Hoc City Council Recommendations Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Operational Standards Minimum Night Stay Three (3) night stay if owner-occupied Six (6) night stay if non owner-occupied Post of Permit and Conditions of Approval Owner to address noise and disturbance complaints Community Development Department -Planning Division 16 Ad Hoc City Council RecommendationsPlanning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) Recommended Action 1.Conduct the public hearing 2.Find this action is exempt/not subject to CEQA 3.Recommend City Council approve Code Amendment Community Development Department -Planning Division 17 Approve the City Council Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048) For more information Contact Questions? David Blumenthal, AICP 949-644-3204 dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov Community Development Department -Planning Division 18 Planning Commission - July 23, 2020 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Short-Term Lodging LCP Amendment (PA2020-048)