HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 - NBMC and Local Coastal Program Amendments Related to Short Term Lodging (PA2023-0116) - CorrespondenceReceived after Agenda Printed
November 28, 2023
Item No. 18
November 27. 2023
Letter to Newport Beach City Council re City Council Session of November
28,2023
CITY COUNCIL SESSION- November 28,2023
COMMENTS REAGENDA ITEM 18,--Ordinance No. 2023-23 and Resolution No.
2023-83: Newport Beach -Municipal Code and Local Coastal Program
Amendments Related to Short Term Lodging ( PA2023-0116)
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC AND
ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD
Mayor Blom, Mayor ProTem O'Neill and Members of the City Council:
I am submitting this letter of behalf of our coalition comprised of individual residents and
community associations, as organized to preserve the integrity of our residential
neighborhoods. We previously organized and voiced our opposition to establishment
and expansion of commercial timeshare/FHO businesses in our residential zones.
Please see our comments to the proposed Ordinances, below:
1.We appreciate the City's stated desire to transition vacation -serving, short term rental
uses from Residential zones to Commercial and Mixed Use zones more appropriate for
commercial hospitality use. We have reviewed the Staff Reports submitted to the
Planning Commission, and the City Council bringing forth a proposed Ordinance to
reallocate some of the currently allowed Short Term Units and permits from Residential
zones, to certain designated MU and MU -CV zoning districts in the Balboa Peninsula
and Lido area.
• We are in favor of a policy and Ordinance which encourages STLs or other
appropriate forms of vacation- serving lodging to be developed and located in
appropriate Commercial and Mixed Use zoning districts.
• in favor of a policy and Ordinance which reduces the currently allowed maximum
of STL uses and permits, subject to a plan for more effective Enforcement
2. However, we do not support,the proposal as submitted to the City Council for
consideration . It has some significant gaps in its ability to actually accomplish the
stated objectives of reducing the number of STLs in Residential zones Our comments
are based on review of information made available to date concerning the number,
location and ownership of Short Term Lodging units and permits( STLs); and the
policies and practices applied by the City to regulate permitting and impacts on
neighbors as conveyed by senior staff in multiple departments, including Revenue,
Community Development, and Enforcement.
3. The City's current policies and practices create an "evergreen" effect, whereby
under the City's permit system, it is virtually impossible to get to a number of
permitted STLs below the maximum limit on a sustainable basis.
• There may be short time periods, typically 30-60 days, where the City drops
slightly below STL permit maximums, due to laps in TOT reporting and tax
payment. City staff indicate that once the elapsed time for renewal is expired, if
permitted transfer or renewal not completed, the permit is closed and
automatically is offered to parties on the Waiting list, in order. NOTE: Waiting lists
are reported by the City at 516 -543 parties.lf closed permits are promptly filled
by those on the Waiting List, there can be no effective reduction without some
change in policy.
The City's current proposal to simply reallocate 75 ( or 95, if one properly
includes the 20 units already in MU ) is not alone sufficient to ensure a
corresponding reduction of STL permits in Residential district zones.
Other policy modifications are required.
• The City treats Transfer of property purchases/sales as providing permit
opportunity which "runs with the land". We believe that this is inappropriate, as an
STL permit is an Operating permit submit to conditions. When a property is
sold/purchased, the permit should not be transferrable to the new property
owner, other than to provide for the party to apply as any new applicant.
• Transfers to heirs or family members can be permitted, subject to good standing
and within 60 days of title transfer.
4. There are other elements of the current Short Term Loding program, including
permitting and enforcement of STL and NBMC violations, which exhibit lack of
controls. These elements including those , at minimum, below, need to be
addressed prior to finalization or enactment of a modified Ordinance and LCP.
a) Lack of controls-STL permitting process: Entire residential buildings have
been given STL permits FOR EACH AND EVERY UNIT, even though City
code (and the CCC) state that in residential properties of 5 or more units, not
more than 20% or 1 unit rounded down should be granted an STL permit. The
City has granted to multiple Residential apartment owners, one STL per
dwelling unit for every unit in the building.
Examples: 7 unit residential apartment building was granted 7 STL permits ;
and, a 9 unit residential apartment building was granted 9 STL permits. In
both of these cases, the regular residents who were living in the buildings
were kicked out. (Specific addresses are in the record, and available upon
request).
Further, there are entire blocks in our Residential neighborhood, particularly in
District 1, where an entire side of the street is occupied by Short Term Lodging.
These practices have resulted in the displacement of many regular residents.
They have taken and misappropriated much -needed regular Housing stock from
the neighborhood, and allowed it to be used as commercial Short Term lodging.
This practice has eroded the resident base and population of the City's District
One, in particular, in favor of commercial type investment .The City is well aware
of its shortage of Housing stock, particularly affordable stock, available for regular
residents.
The City needs to curtail this, and modify policy to cure the situation,and restore
the residential integrity of the coastal community.
No more than 1 STL permit per building should ever be granted. Further, areas
should be evaluated so that there is path to deconcentration and reduction of
STLs on the Balboa Penninsula and surrounding areas.
Our STL permitting processes are inconsistent with NBMC, STL Ordinance, the
direction of CCC , the City's Housing element, and the State's Housing Plan.
b) The City, per its own admission, has been "ineffective in its Enforcement
efforts relative to Short Term lodging."
• Code enforcement staff is limited, and either unable or unwilling to take action to
protect the regular residents from adverse impacts associated with STL use in
the dense residential zones. The City is well aware of these adverse impacts
including but not limited to:disturbance from loud and unruly, nighttime partying ,
parking blocking ingress/egress , overflowing garbage, smoking. All of these
impacts are frequent and particularly intense due to over -concentration of STLs
in coastal Residential zones.
Neither the Police nor Code Enforcement staff have demonstrated willingness to
enforce.
A more effective approach to Enforcement needs to be developed by the City —a
spot -zone type reallocation of only 75-95 units does not adequately address the
problems.
c) The proposal suggests at least 50% Ownership in any proposed MU -
Commercial project. We do not agree with this concept —who actually would
be the holder of the permit, exactly what would the City be permitting, and
who would be responsible/accountable for compliance? Shouldn't the
proposed larger property owners and number of STL uses be subject to an
CUP?
We request that the Council move to remand the proposed Ordinance and LCP
modifications to staff. We recommend that a working group be formed to develop
a more thoughtful approach, so that a meaningful reduction in Short Term
Lodging units in residential zones can be accomplished.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Denys H. Oberman,
Oceanfront Resident and Member of Coalition to preserve residential
neighborhood integrity
Cc: residents and representatives of: Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Peninsula Point,
Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, Lido Island, West Newport, SPON
From: City Clerk"s Office
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: City Council Mtg 2023-11-28 - Agenda Item # 18- Municipal Code Amendments related to Short Term
Lodging (PA2023-0116)
Date: November 28, 2023 12:11:22 PM
From: Carmen Rawson <carmen_rawson@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 12:10:14 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council
<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Stapleton, Joe <jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: City Council Mtg 2023-11-28 - Agenda Item # 18- Municipal Code Amendments related to
Short Term Lodging (PA2023-0116)
XTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
co�fe.
Mayor and City Council Members,
Regarding the subject please refer to my previous comments sent to the Planning Commissioners. Staff
proposal is unacceptable. The "Mixed Use zone" property owners shouldn't have more rights than other
property owners. Just because there is a particular party(ies) pushing for this change to their benefit
does not make it right to bypass everyone else.
Regards,
Carmen Rawson
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Carmen Rawson <carmen_rawson@att.net>
To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov<planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: City Clerk's Office <cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 11:29:19 PM PDT
Subject: Planning Commission Mtg 2023-10-19 - Agenda Item # 3- Municipal Code Amendments related
to Short Term Lodging (PA2023-0116)
Planning Commissioners,
Regarding the subject I am in favor of allowing short term lodging permits (STLPs) in the specified Mixed
Use zoning districts. However, I have the following comments about the proposed path forward:
According to the Active Short Term Lodging Permit Dashboard there are currently 1,533 active permits in
Newport Beach (or 17 less than the total 1,550 allowed). Does that mean there are no pending permits
for property owners that had been waiting for one (STLP Waiting List)? If that is the case then any new
additional STLPs (17 to achieve the maximum of 1,550) should be reallocated to the Mixed Use zoning
districts.
However, if there is a STLP Waiting List then any "Mixed Use zone" property owner wanting to get a
STLP should get on the waiting list as everyone else. With time the reallocation of a maximum of 75
STLPs to the Mixed Use zoning districts will happen as other current active permits (in the residential
zones) are cancelled/closed.
In my opinion it is not right for the "Mixed Use zone" property owners to be given all of the sudden priority
and bypass the existing STLP Waiting List.
Sincerely,
Carmen Rawson
Balboa Peninsula Resident