HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 - Amending Chapters 5.95 (Short-Term Lodging Permit) and 15.02 (Administrative Code Related to Construction & Demolition Waste Permits) of the NBMC - CorrespondenceRecieved after Agenda Printed
October 8, 2024
Agenda Item No. 3
From: Denys Oberman
To: O"Neill. William; Avery. Brad; Blom. Noah; Grant. Robyn; Kleiman. Lauren; Stapleton, Joe; Weigand. Erik; Leung,
Grace; City Clerk"s Office
Cc: Fred Levine; sherimorgan08Ccigmail.com; BOB YANT; Gary Cruz; Nancy Scarbrough; Debbie Stevens
Subject: Comments for the Public Record- City Council Session Agenda item no. 3-Proposed Amendments to Ordinance No
2024-23
Date: October 07, 2024 3:48:27 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC AND ENTER INTO RECORD IN
CONNECTION WITH CITY COUNCIL SESSION AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.
Mayor and Members of the City Council:
We understand that the City Council will be considering proposed Amendments to two chapters of
Ordinance No. 2024-23:
1. Various provisions related to Short term Lodging Permits —Chap. 5.95
2. Administrative Code re. Construction & Demolition Waste Permits —Chap. 15.02
Below is a brief Summary of neighbors comments:
Firstly, other than that each of these is addressed in the NBMC, and that Revenue is potentially
collected for the City from each,
there is little in common between these subject matters . We therefore request that these be
unbundled and each addressed separately by staff and Council.
We believe that the Demolition Waste permits item is fairly straightforward .
As to the Short Term Lodging permits items referenced and bundled, the reference includes items of
considerable policy significance to the Community and the City.
The Residents have been vocal in expressing their concerns for the extraordinary number of STLs
which the City allowed, over electorate objection, and concern expressed by the CA Coastal
Commission.
Over concerted objection expressed by the Community for the extraordinary number of STLs
allowed( citing values of residential neighborhood integrity and concern for adequate housing stock,
among others), the City Council recently persisted in allowing an additional 75 STL permits to be
granted, WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC PLAN OF HOW TO BLEED DOWN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF STLs such
that the City could maintain no more than the allowed maximum cap.
Areas cited by the Community where the City could establish a meaningful roadmap to acheive net
stabilization and/or desired reduction of total STLs including
• Plan to eliminate Transfers
• Accelerate expiration whereby STL permits have not been renewed in timely manner,
and/or holders have been in reg. violation
• More rigorous enforcement policy, including progressive fines and actions for permit
suspension or revocation.
To date, the City has failed to take any specific action relative to the items, above —nor come
forward with any specific meaningful action plan to reign in the number of STLs .
Nor have there been any meaningful results through the Code Enforcement path.
The proposal put before the Council on the upcoming Council Session Agenda No. 3 Consent
calendar actually contradicts these recommendations. It creates more latitude for perpetuation of
excess and noncompliant STL permit holders. Further,
This is a serious issue adversely impacting our City. Instead of opening the door to more lax
management of the STL over -concentration, the proposal allows for an inappropriate functional
party, Revenue to be determining Standards for exemption from regulation.
We ask that the City Council in the upcoming Council Session:
1. Pull the Agenda Item No. 3 from the Consent Calendar, and move to set time for more
deliberate review of the critical policy areas in the STL plan.
2. As part of the requested action in Item 1., the STL discussion needs to include a robust Public
process, including public hearings.
3. Conduct organizational review to determine most cost-effective approach for development of
STL management standards, and enforcement responsibilities
Thank you for your consideration.
Denys H. Oberman -Resident
In capacity as, Individual and On behalf of Residential groups and other impacted stakeholders who
have registered positions re. STLs
Regards,
Denys H. Oberman, CEO
flOBERMAN
ShcdoW ondd VXV c+oi dviunr
OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors
19200 Von Karman Avenue, 6th Floor
Irvine, CA 92612
Tel (949) 476-0790
Cell (949) 230-5868
Fax (949) 752-8935
Email: dho e_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.
From:
Garrett, Errica
To:
City Clerk"s Office
Subject:
FW: Consent calendar
Date:
October 07, 2024 4:55:09 PM
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and City Council
City Manager's Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
-----Original Message -----
From: Gary Cruz <gdcruzl949@outlook.com>
Sent: October 07, 2024 4:52 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Consent calendar
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Dear Council Members,
I took a look at the Agenda for Tuesday, October 8 and noted the consent calendar includes discussion regarding
short term rental permits.
"The finance director has determined that, in certain circumstances, there is good cause to extend deadlines for the
transfer of permits and the filing of a request for a hearing related to suspensions and revocations."
I do not feel it is appropriate to not discuss this item. The transference of a STR permit makes any reduction in the
number of STR permits in Newport Beach improbable. Extending the timeline makes a bad idea even worse. I
thought the goal was to reduce the number of STR permits?
Gary Cruz