HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Code Amendment Related to Reinvestment and Improvements of Short -Term Lodging Units (PA2023-100) - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed
May 23, 2023
Agenda Item No. 16
From: janedavis110@roadrunner.com <janedavis110@road run ner.com>
Sent: May 19, 2023 12:33 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: agenda item short term lodging
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Ordinance No. 2023-9: A Code Amendment Related to Reinvestment and Improvements of Short -
Term Lodging Units (PA2023-100)
I am writing you to express my concern over this proposed ordinance. I own a home on Balboa
Island that is rented out for 3 months in the summer and I live in my home for the rest of the year.
The revenue I make is what allows me to continue living on Balboa Island. I proudly maintain my
home so that I can demand good rental rates. My guests would not pay my rates if my home were
not maintained well.
I think the 10% requirement is too high. Especially for those owners who put in their own sweat
equity to maintain their home (gardening, painting, etc.)
At most I think a 5% requirement would get your point across.
Jane Davis
Received After Agenda Printed
May 23, 2023
Agenda Item No. 16
From: Laura Katangian
To: City Clerk"s Office
Cc: Dennis Katangian; Jack Katangian; Junior Junior Junior Katangian
Subject: Ordinance requiring short term lodge owners to put 10% reinvestment into property
Date: May 19, 2023 4:53:03 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
The City of Newport Beach should stay out of the short term lodging business.
It shouldn't be up to the city to tell owners how to spend their income.
The market will work itself out because properties that aren't well maintained either won't get rented or won't be
able to charge as much rent as a well maintained property, and that would incentivize owners to fix their place up.
I am totally against the city getting in the middle of private businesses as laid out in your proposed ordinance.
Thank you,
Laura Katangian
Sent from my iPhone
Received After Agenda Printed
May 23, 2023
Agenda Item No. 16
From: Craig Batley <cbatley@burrwhite.com>
Sent: May 19, 2023 3:37 PM
To: Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Agenda Item No. 16
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Seimone,
Please call me regarding the above agenda item. It seems the assumption of the ordinance is there
are many STL permitted properties that have significant deferred maintenance that reflect poorly on
the upscale image of Newport Beach. Since, Burr White Realty manages dozens of STL units I can
categorically state our vacation rentals by and large are maintained such that guests who pay
upwards in some cases $3,500 a night appreciates renting a $15M home on the oceanfront and are
very pleased with their accommodations. The 10% reinvestment of the previous 3 years total
bookings as a requirement for all STL permitted dwellings older than 5 years is at best arbitrary and
unfairly imposes a burden on most property owners who maintain their properties to satisfy
discerning guest clients. This proposed ordinance is in search of a problem that does not exist for
most STL.
For instance, we have a home a little more than 5 years old generating over 3 years $961,087 in
revenue which would under this ordinance require the owner to spend $96,000 on his already very
nice home that rents for $2,000 per night every 3 years or approximately $32,000 per year. Yes,
many homes need reinvestment but certainly not ALL homes should be subject to an arbitrary
minimum dollar amount.
Granted, there may be a few properties out of the 1550 permitted properties that need special
attention. Rather that impose a blanket remedy for all 1550, most of which are well maintained
(otherwise guests would either not rent or want money back), why not focus on the few STL
property owners who do not meet standard minimum requirements (which are not defined).
I recommend you pull this item. The ordinance should focus of those few owners who do not meet
minimum standard requirements. The marketplace pretty much demands a minimum standard to
meet guest expectations. I would be happy to discuss further if you like.
0; (949) 675.4630 r; (949) 675•2127
BRE 2, 4U4U?51
Burr White Realty wkN-w. burrwhite.coin
2901 NeWpOel li❑ult�W, NCWPOtt gcoch. CA 92663
Received After Agenda Printed
May 23, 2023
Agenda Item No. 16
From: Philip Bettencourt
To: City Clerk"s Office
Cc: "P. F. Bettencourt"; Murillo, Jaime; Campbell, Jim; Juriis, Seimone; cbatley(a)burrwhite.com;
steve(a)newportbeach.com; "Carrillo, Susie"
Subject: Short-term lodging: The proposed reinvestment and improvements ordinance.
Date: May 22, 2023 2:36:28 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Distinguished colleagues, I Love this city, but just a thought please
about the City Council agenda for Tuesday May 23rd, specifically
proposed ordinance No. 2023-9 - a code amendment related to
mandatory reinvestment and improvements of short-term lodging units.
I wonder if the measure is not a solution in search of a problem.
The ordinance arrives on the agenda after an informal discussion by
the City Council (I was there.). Thus far there is no guidance from the
Planning Commission or even the sort of study committee that reviewed
earlier short-term lodging measures going back to 1992. (Thus far,
there is no input from the Finance Commission either.)
What about the "high-level guest experience?"
As the staff report notes, the stated need for the ordinance is to
ensure that renters receive a high-level guest experience and that
residential neighborhoods are not burdened by unkempt short term
lodging units.
In terms of the high-level guest experience the staff references,
isn't that what the marketplace is all about?
• Interested renters have such services as VRBO and several
well qualified specialty Realtors to assist with their search and to
reconcile their rental choices.
• There are also energetic YELP reviews which instill a good deal
of market discipline. As we all know so well, YELP contributors are not
bashful.
Where are the burdens? In terms of the burdens on residential
neighborhoods the city government already has a number of regulatory
measures in place to respond to living challenges. Most of the challenges
seem to deal with boisterous visitors and/or parking and not so much
building conditions. Perhaps we have missed something.
Whether or not government mandated physical improvements on
individual units would result in a better experience for adjacent
neighbors burdened by "unkept short-term lodging units" is unknown.
Certainly, this need was not addressed in the updated Housing Element
of the General Plan. (We could not find any information about any
unhappy short-term rental guests.)
Where are the Findings of Fact? Finally, there are no specific
findings with the ordinance that document any building and/or
environmental deficiencies that would be eliminated or mitigated by
these mandated private investments.
Perhaps a second look and appropriate stakeholder facilitation would
be a good thing. It certainly can't hurt.
Philip F. Bettencourt
Real Estate Development Planning and Stewardship
23 Corporate Plaza, S. 150
Newport Beach, Ca 92660
949-874-4443 1 Telephone or text at will.
From:Steve Rosansky
To:Philip Bettencourt; City Clerk"s Office
Cc:"P. F. Bettencourt"; Murillo, Jaime; Campbell, Jim; Jurjis, Seimone; cbatley@burrwhite.com; "Carrillo, Susie"
Subject:RE: Short-term lodging: The proposed reinvestment and improvements ordinance.
Date:May 22, 2023 3:17:00 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Great letter Philip! My sentiments exactly.
Steve Rosansky
President and C.E.O.
Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce
The Business and Community Resource
______________________________________
4343 Von Karman Ave., Ste. 150-W
Newport Beach, CA 92660
PH: (949) 729-4404
www.NewportBeach.com
Click to sign up for eMail updates
You have received this message from the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce (NBCC). It has been sent to you individually from the sender as a
result of you voluntarily submitting your e-mail address for use in the course of business with us. Please don’t report this message as SPAM. If you do
not want to receive e-mail from the NBCC, please let us know by replying to this message, or by calling us at the number below. The NBCC does NOT
ever send Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail (UCE). Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce – 4343 Von Karman Ave., Ste. 150-W, Newport Beach,
CA 92660 – (949) 729-4400
From: Philip Bettencourt
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 2:36 PM
To: cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov
Cc: 'P. F. Bettencourt' <pbcourt2018@gmail.com>; jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov; 'Campbell, Jim'
<JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Seimone Jurjis <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>;
cbatley@burrwhite.com; Steve Rosansky <steve@NewportBeach.com>; 'Carrillo, Susie'
<SCarrillo@IID.com>
Subject: Short-term lodging: The proposed reinvestment and improvements ordinance.
Received After Agenda Printed
May 23, 2023
Agenda Item No. 16
Distinguished colleagues, I Love this city, but just a thought please
about the City Council agenda for Tuesday May 23rd, specifically
proposed ordinance No. 2023-9 - a code amendment related to
mandatory reinvestment and improvements of short-term lodging units.
I wonder if the measure is not a solution in search of a problem.
The ordinance arrives on the agenda after an informal discussion by
the City Council (I was there.). Thus far there is no guidance from the
Planning Commission or even the sort of study committee that reviewed
earlier short-term lodging measures going back to 1992. (Thus far,
there is no input from the Finance Commission either.)
What about the “high-level guest experience?”
As the staff report notes, the stated need for the ordinance is to
ensure that renters receive a high-level guest experience and that
residential neighborhoods are not burdened by unkempt short term
lodging units.
In terms of the high-level guest experience the staff references,
isn't that what the marketplace is all about?
· Interested renters have such services as VRBO and several
well qualified specialty Realtors to assist with their search and to
reconcile their rental choices.
· There are also energetic YELP reviews which instill a good deal
of market discipline. As we all know so well, YELP contributors are not
bashful.
Where are the burdens? In terms of the burdens on residential
neighborhoods the city government already has a number of regulatory
measures in place to respond to living challenges. Most of the challenges
seem to deal with boisterous visitors and/or parking and not so much
building conditions. Perhaps we have missed something.
Whether or not government mandated physical improvements on
individual units would result in a better experience for adjacent
neighbors burdened by “unkept short-term lodging units” is unknown.
Certainly, this need was not addressed in the updated Housing Element
of the General Plan. (We could not find any information about any
unhappy short-term rental guests.)
Where are the Findings of Fact? Finally, there are no specific
findings with the ordinance that document any building and/or
environmental deficiencies that would be eliminated or mitigated by
these mandated private investments.
Perhaps a second look and appropriate stakeholder facilitation would
be a good thing. It certainly can’t hurt.
Philip F. Bettencourt
Real Estate Development Planning and Stewardship
23 Corporate Plaza, S. 150
Newport Beach, Ca 92660
949-874-4443 | Telephone or text at will.
Received After Agenda Printed
May 23, 2023
Agenda Item No. 16
From: Craig Batlev
To: Steve Rosanskv; Philip Bettencourt; City Clerk"s Office
Cc: "P. F. Bettencourt"; Murillo, Jaime; Campbell, Jim; Juriis. Seimone; "Carrillo. Susie"
Subject: RE: Short-term lodging: The proposed reinvestment and improvements ordinance.
Date: May 22, 2023 4:19:43 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Philip,
Yes, indeed you make some excellent points. The city is jumping the gun by requiring an owner to
invest in a $15M dollar "6" year old very nice property. Such a requirement is onerous and
superfluous. One size does not fit all properties.
This item should be continued, maybe appoint a committee to examine this issue more thoroughly
and propose a more apropos solution.
Burr White Realty www.burrwhite.com
2901 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Received After Agenda Printed
May 23, 2023
Agenda Item No. 16
From: Mary Hyatt
To: Avery, Brad; City Clerk"s Office; willoneill(a)newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Date: May 22, 2023 4:17:15 PM
Attachments: icon.pnng
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mary Hyatt <mauima 92663 .umail.com>
To: bavery@newportbeach.gob, cityclerk(onewprtbeach. gov, eweigand@newportbeach.gov,
jstapleton@newportbeach.gov, willoneill@newportbeach.gov
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 16:09:21 -0700
Subject: 5/23/23
I'm writing regarding May 23, 2023 council meeting Agenda item 16. I was just made aware
of this and have quite a few questions and objections.
I think this needs more discussion and explanation. It seems to be discriminatory in making
mandatory financial requirements to one particular business in the city, or will restaurants etc.
be required to spend equal percentages of their receipts on interior or kitchen improvements?
Where can I see the complaints and property addresses that you are basing this idea on? I can
come to city hall on Thursday. There must be a large number of them to warrant considering
something that will be very expensive to implement in the long run. Is there a reason you
don't just contact those owners? Or would that be too efficient?
If the city has excess funds may I suggest paying down at least the way over budget portion of
building the city hall debt?
Very much appreciate your giving residents more time for input and your consideration in this
matter.
Concerned Citizen
Mary Hyatt
Received After Agenda Printed
May 23, 2023
Agenda Item No. 16
City Council Meeting 2023-05-23 — Agenda Item No. 16
Ordinance No. 2023-9: A Code Amendment Related to Reinvestment and Improvements of
Short -Term Lodging Units (PA2023-100)
City Council Members and City Staff,
First of all I want to convey that I do believe in upkeeping and maintenance of real estate property
independent of what type of property a person/company owns. However, I do not agree with the proposed
ordinance to force "bad actors" to improve their properties.
Page 1 of the City Staff Report states "These new reinvestment requirements are intended to ensure that
visitors to the City of Newport Beach (City) experience a high-level guest experience, and that residential
neighborhoods are not burdened by unkept short-term lodging units".
STLUs ARE BEING TARGETED BY THIS ORDINANCE
It seems the assumption here is that "unkept properties" around the city is a situation unique to short-term
lodging units (STLUs). There are many properties, not only residential but also commercial, that are unkept
around the City and they are not STLUs. Just look at the businesses located on Newport Boulevard
between 26th St and 28th St, and look at some of the residential properties located around the same area,
which are not STLUs. They are the very definition of unkept and this proposed ordinance will not require
the owners of said properties to upgrade their buildings.
So the first question is: does the City of Newport Beach have an ordinance in place for ANY KIND of
business (restaurants, bars, hair salons, grocery stores, offices, etc) to reinvest every 3 years 10%
of their prior 3 years GROSS revenue? If the answer is Yes please provide the ordinance numbers. If
the answer is No why is city staff and city council targeting STLUs? Lastly, if there is an improvement
requirement already in place for all other businesses how come we still have unkept businesses around the
Newport Pier area and other areas of our city?
And how about unkept residential properties that are owner occupied and/or have long term tenants living
there? City visitors will not discern a permanent resident property from a STLU. An unkept property is an
unkept property.
MUNICIPAL CODE ALREADY ADDRESSES ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPERTY UPKEEP
The Municipal Code, as written, already have provisions to allow Code Enforcement to enforce the upkeep
of property exterior appearance and this is independent of the property being a STLU or not. Refer to
NBMC's Section 10.50.020, specifically 10.50.020.E addressing "Unsafe, unsightly, or poorly maintained
property'. The City already has the tools to enforce maintenance and upkeep of the properties in the city.
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PENDULUM - BALBOA VILLAGE COMMERCIAL FACADE IMPROVEMENT
ppr)npAm
I know as a fact that few years ago (maybe around 2016-2017) the City paid businesses located in the
Balboa Village area for them to improve their businesses (property) fagade. So taxpayers paid for said
businesses to improve their property. Why? Obviously said businesses were not forced to reinvest 10% of
their Gross Revenue into their property. Even worse, STLU property owners paid — as taxpayers — for other
property owners to improve their commercial property.
This proposed ordinance is totally punitive against STLUs. This is treating STLUs under a different
standard/parameter and it is government overreach.
"IMPROVEMENTS" VAGUE DEFINITION — THE DEVIL IS ON THE DETAILS
Page 3 of the City Staff Report states "... "improvements" means structural and/or fagade maintenance or
repairs, including but not limited to finishes and fixtures, along with landscape and associated maintenance
or repair to the exterior or interior of a lodging unit."
The definition of "improvements" is very vague. Does this include only improvements to the building itself
and/or fixtures attached to the building? Or does it include what many visitors/guests care about such as
beds, furniture, kitchen ware, etc?
10% OF GROSS REVENUE FOR "IMPROVEMENTS" — TOO HIGH FOR UPKEPT PROPERTIES BUT
TOO LOW FOR UNKEPT PROPERTIES
City Staff's proposed 10% of Rent, for reinvestment in "improvements", makes no sense at all except that
the 10% would conveniently match the TOT dollar amount each STLU property owner has to pay every
year. So it will make it easy for City Staff to monitor.
Note that already upkept properties will most probably have less vacancies and higher Rent revenue but will
require a lesser dollar amount in "improvements" reinvestment as the investment has already being made.
So 10% of Gross Rent Revenue is too high as there will be no need to have such expenses — the property
is already nice.
On the other hand, unkept properties will probably have more vacancy and lower rent revenue (booking
rates) but to become well maintained these properties will most probably require more than 10% of their
Gross Rent Revenue to fix the property!!!
Page 3 of the City Staff Report states "Recognizing the large investment required by new construction,
newly constructed lodging units are exempt from this reinvestment requirement for the first five years
following receipt of a certificate of occupancy from the City." Five (5) years from Certificate of Occupancy is
really short — what was the basis for this? A well built property will still look/perform like new in twenty (20)
years or more. Construction contractors normally provide 10 years warranty for new construction. So the
proposed time frame is not reflective of the construction materials life span well built structures will have.
HOW WOULD YOU ACCOUNT FOR SELF -PERFORM MAINTENANCE?
Some property owners self -perform the maintenance of their properties. My husband Ken and I are the
plumbers when garbage disposals or faucets need replacement; or electricians when GFCI outlets, photo -
sensors, breakers need replacement; or painters when the interior walls need a fresh look; or deck
contractors when the deck surface needs repair; or carpenters when furniture or cabinets need fixing; or
appliance technicians when dishwashers or refrigerators have minor issues; etc; etc.
So how much dollar value will the City accept for our labor? Is the City going to force us to contract out the
work we can do ourselves (which by the way is quality work)?
In conclusion, I believe the proposed ordinance is not the answer to improve the unkept properties around
the city.
I thank you in advance for taking into consideration the comments provided in this letter prior to making your
decision regarding the subject proposed ordinance.
Sincerely,
Carmen Rawson
Received After Agenda Printed
May 23, 2023
Agenda Item No. 16
From: Julia Morton, Realtor
To: City Clerk"s Office; Stapleton, Joe; Avery, Brad; Weigand, Erik; Grant, Robyn; Blom, Noah; Kleiman, Lauren; O"Neill,
William; Judis, Seimone
Cc: Kelly Carlson; Colleen Daluisio; Chris Clarizio; Pam White; Aaron Batley; Realtor Julia Morton
Subject: Agenda Item #16 / Council Meeting May 23, 2023
Date: May 22, 2023 4:58:09 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Mayor Blom and Council:
My comments today are regarding the proposed Ordinance 2023-9 Agenda #16. This proposed
ordinance seems to have come out of left field. I'm guessing it's from the few "squeaky wheels"
who have forced the recent changes to STLP's. I've worked in the vacation rental business for 15-
years, specifically on the Peninsula, and have not seen any neighborhoods "burdened" with
unsightly rentals. As a Realtor, I can assure you that property values in Newport Beach are not
being negatively effected by a few bad apples not keeping their vacation rentals up to par.
If you plan on going after property owners, may I suggest directing your efforts, and our tax
dollars, on the blight that is the Balboa Village. Has anyone from the City paid a visit lately to see
the numerous vacant long-term commercial properties that owners have let sit and have become
eyesores? Here's an example:
Aw
is
This is what visitors see day in and day out when visiting Balboa Village. However, City Staff is
suggesting that an ordinance is passed that will force a short term property owner to spend an
inordinate amount on the upkeep of the exterior of their property? It seems to me that short term
owners are being targeted unfairly. It's simply not fair and further investigation with people who
are in the know, not City Staff, is highly encouraged. I, along with several of my colleagues
running vacation rental businesses would be more than happy to meet with Council.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Regards,
Julia Morton, Realtor
DRE 02016387
(949) 933-2906
White Sail Realty
500 E Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92661
www.whitesailre.com