CC SR 20160920 01 - Short-Term RentalsCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: September 20, 2016
Subject: Consideration and Possible Action to Review Development Code
Amendment Options for Addressing Short -Term Rentals (Case No.
ZON2016-00188)
Subject Property: Citywide
1. Report of Notice Given: Acting City Clerk Takaoka
2. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Dyda
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Director Mihranian and Associate Silva
4. Council Questions of Staff (factual only, no opinions):
5. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Dyda
6. Public Testimony: Mayor Dyda invites brief comments from the public.
Appellant: N/A
Applicant: N/A
8. Rebuttal: N/A
9. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Dyda
10. Council Deliberation: Questions of staff in response to testimony
11. Council Action:
1
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 09/20/2016
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to review Development Code Amendment options for
addressing Short -Term Rentals (Case No. ZON2016-00188).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Review the Planning Commission's preferred option to address short-term
rentals in the City; and,
(2) Provide the Planning Commission with direction regarding how to proceed with
drafting code language to address short-term rentals in the City, and to which
zoning districts the amended Code language should apply.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Depending on the option chosen, it is anticipated that code enforcement activities will
increase. At this time, utilizing a private vendor to assist with enforcement, the
estimated cost may be approximately $4,500 and $7,800 a year, based on the desired
monitoring services.
ORIGINATED BY: Octavio Silva, Associate Planner :l S -
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Managerv{A__
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. August 23, 2016, Draft Planning Commission Minutes (page A-1)
B. Public comments in opposition to short-term rentals in the City, received
since August 23, 2016 (page B-1)
C. Public Comments in support of short-term rentals in the City, received
since August 23, 2016 (page C-1)
D. Information provided by short-term rental advocates (D-1)
All previous Staff Reports, Meeting Minutes, and public comments on this topic can be
found on the City's website via the August 23, 2016, Planning Commission Agenda at
http://www.rpvca.gov/772/City-Meeting-Video-and-Agendas
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Planning Commission Review and Recommendations
2
On October 20, 2015, during discussions of future City Council Agenda items, the City
Council requested that Staff research the issue of short-term rentals in neighboring
cities and provide options for regulating such uses in the City.
On May 17, 2016, Staff reported to the City Council how other neighboring cities
regulate short-term rentals, as well as recommending that the City Council consider
initiating code amendment proceedings to prohibit short-term rentals in all of the City's
single-family residential zoning districts. After some discussion and considering public
testimony, the City Council, on a 4-1 vote, initiated code amendment proceedings to
prohibit short-term rentals in the City's single-family residential zoning districts.
On July 12, 2016, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing to review Staff's
proposed code amendment language to prohibit short-term rentals and the
advertisement of such rentals within the City's single family residential zoning districts.
At that meeting, the Commission raised several questions pertaining to short-term
rentals and directed Staff to provide more information, as well as to provide options for
allowing short-term rentals through a permit process and in the City's multi -family zoning
districts. The Commission continued the public hearing to its August 23, 2016, meeting.
On August 23, 2016, Staff presented responses to the Commission's questions, as well
as options for addressing short-term rentals in the City (see link to the August 23rd PC
Staff Report). Given that the Commission's discussion at its July 12th meeting differed
from the Council's discussion when initiating the code amendment, Staff recommended
that the Commission identify and forward its preferred option to the Council for its
review before proceeding with the preparation of specific code language, so as to
ensure that the Council could receive the Commission's recommendations before giving
staff final direction on the matter. At the August 23rd meeting, the Commission identified
its preferred option on a 4-2 vote, which involves the prohibition of short-term rentals in
the City, with the exception of such rentals that are limited to single rooms and guest
homes where the property owner is present at all times (Attachment A).
tions to Address Short -Term Rentals
At the August 23rd meeting, Staff presented the Planning Commission with the following
three options to address short-term rentals in the City:
1. Short -Term Rentals Permitted by Discretionary Permit
This option would permit short-term rentals through the issuance of a discretionary
permit, such as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or a newly created permit (i.e.
Short-term Rental Permit), by which conditions of approval can be imposed on the
hosting property to mitigate impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. This approach
provides a mechanism for permitting and regulating short-term rentals with
conditions, and collecting application fees and taxes (Transient Occupancy Tax)
typical to a short-term lodging use. However, it is important to note that such an
approach may discourage hosting properties from seeking such a permit if the
conditions of approval and permitting process are too complex, burdensome, and/or
3
costly. With regards to enforcement of this option, actions against a violating
property may be difficult for the City to demonstrate, as the City would have to show
that a violation of a particular condition of approval occurred or the property is
operating an unpermitted short-term rental. However, this discretionary permit option
could provide the City with a revenue source to offset the costs associated with
enforcement actions.
2. Short -Term Rentals Permitted By -Right
This option would permit the operation of short-term rentals "by -right" by allowing
this use in the City. This approach would require a host property to register with the
City, obtain a business license, and pay the City's 10% Transient Occupancy Tax
(TOT) without having to obtain some form of discretionary approval by the Planning
Division. Although the regulation of short-term rentals is fairly new to local
jurisdictions, Staff found that the City of Los Angeles is currently in the process of
establishing a "registration" approach, and is seeking to adopt a Home -Sharing
Registration ordinance. The City of Los Angeles believes that a "registration" option
would encourage participation and payment of taxes because heavy financial
penalties (including back taxes, penalties, and interest) could be imposed upon
noncomplying hosting properties. In terms of City enforcement, the fees collected by
the registration process and remittance of TOT, along with the fines collected from
violating host properties, could help to off -set the City -incurred costs for regulating
"by -right" short-term rentals. Similar to Option No. 1, the "by -right" regulation of
short-term rentals may also provide the City the opportunity to establish regulatory
measures on short-term rentals through specific Code requirements, such as
minimum on-site parking requirements, monitoring requirements, etc.
3. Prohibition of Short -Term Rentals
As previously reported to the City Council, a common approach taken by cities to
regulate short-term rentals is to prohibit them altogether. Currently, the three other
Peninsula cities have either adopted an ordinance or are in the process of finalizing
an ordinance to prohibit short-term rentals. Currently, short-term rentals are
considered to be prohibited by the City's Development Code because the
Development Code is a permissive Code (as described in Section 17.86.030) and
short -terms rentals are not a listed permitted use in single-family or multi -family
zoning districts. Staff's original recommendation during the City Council initiation
process was to add code language that clarified the prohibition of short-term rentals
and their advertisement. By prohibiting short-term rentals, the City can take a
proactive enforcement approach against a violating property owner, and once a
violating property is found, it can be monitored by the City. Although a ban may
appear to eliminate short-term rental uses from the City, it may also drive the hosts
underground. Some hosts may disguise their properties online, or eliminate the
rental paper trail, which makes enforcement even more costly and time consuming,
with no tax or filing fee revenue to offset the cost of enforcement.
El
After considering the options listed above, at its August 23rd meeting, the Planning
Commission identified a hybrid -approach as its preferred option, as described below:
4. Prohibition of Short -Term Rentals with Exceptions
The Commission's preferred option bans short-term rentals with an exception to
allow a property owner living on the property to rent a room or guest house on the
property through some form of a regulatory process. For example, if a property
owner is physically residing in the home during the rental period, a short-term rental
could be permitted by the City via a permit or registration process. This hybrid
approach was recommended in response to a number of residents who attended the
public hearings and noted that their short-term rentals provide a necessary
secondary source of income. Some of these members of the public noted that they
are actively living on the property while they rent out rooms or guest homes on a
short-term basis, and therefore are able to properly manage on-site activities. The
Planning Commission believes that this hybrid option would provide the City the
ability to prohibit short-term rentals that are not owner -occupied and as a result are
often "party -houses," which have been a source of many of the complaints from
neighboring residents. Enforcement of this option would involve monitoring website
platforms and City -permitted properties to determine whether they are operating in
compliance with the Code's criteria.
Based on the foregoing discussion, Staff seeks City Council direction so the Planning
Commission can develop Code language to address short-term rentals in the City, and
to which zoning districts (single-family residential and/or multi -family residential) the
amended Code language should apply.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Enforcement Vendor
As previously reported to the City Council, there is a private vendor (Host Compliance)
that provides monitoring services of short-term rentals, whether they are banned or
permitted uses. The cost for such services varies between approximately $4,500 and
$7,800 a year based on the desired services. The use of monitoring services by this
vendor, which is the only vendor currently in this niche industry, may provide the City an
opportunity to take a more pro -active enforcement approach in identifying violating
properties and will minimize potential Staffing costs to enforce the prohibition of short-
term rentals. If the Council is interested in utilizing services provided by this vendor,
Staff will return with a professional service agreement and budget appropriation.
In addition, after researching the experience of other cities in dealing with this issue,
enforcement is possible, although, admittedly problematic. Nevertheless, staff sees no
significant difference between enforcement ability in any of the options.
��
Public Outreach
Due to the heightened interest in the issue of short-term rentals within the City, Staff has
increased public notification to include publication of larger -sized notices in the
Peninsula News, as well as advertising in the Daily Breeze. In addition, Staff has
created a dedicated webpage on the City's website, and a listsery to ensure that the
most up-to-date information related to short-term rentals in the City is being shared with
the public interested in this subject.
As a result of the recent public notification, Staff has received 118 written
correspondences from the public related to short-term rentals since the August 23, 2016
Planning Commission meeting. More specifically, approximately 82 or 69% of the
correspondences received are in opposition to short-term rentals (Attachment B), while
approximately 36 or 30% of the correspondences received are in support of short-term
rentals within the City (Attachment C). Of the 82 correspondences received, 10
correspondences express a concern related to short-term rental activities along Crest
Road, 6 correspondences express concerns with activities along Hightide Drive, and 6
correspondences express concerns with short-term rentals along Avenida Altisima. The
table below provides a summary of the main themes characterized in the 118
correspondences received:
Opposed to Short -Term Rentals
Supportive of Short -Term Rentals
• The City should adopt a ban on
• Short-term rentals provide
short-term rentals, to be consistent
secondary income to residents and
with all of the Cities on the
TOT revenue to the City.
Peninsula.
• Short-term rentals provide
• Short-term rentals introduce a
alternative accommodations for
commercial element to residential
guests visiting the City.
neighborhoods.
• Short-term rental guests shop and
• Short-term rentals lead to
dine in local businesses and
increased traffic, noise, parking
restaurants.
and safety issues.
• Short-term rental ordinances,
• Concerns with the enforcement of
allowing such activities, are
the exceptions of the Planning
effectively administered in cities
Commission's preferred option to
such as Newport Beach.
regulate short-term rentals.
In addition, on September 9, 2016, City Staff met with a group of short-term rental hosts
who shared information that supports their position to allow short-term rentals in the City
including, but not limited to, documents from the City of Los Angeles and the Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department (Attachment D).
CONCLUSION:
The regulation of short-term rentals in the City has generated a great deal of public
interest, which is an indicator of the importance of ensuring that the questions,
A
comments and concerns involving short-term rentals are thoroughly vetted and
considered. The City's measured approach to ensuring that the Planning Commission's
and City Council's preferred option for regulating short-term rentals is consistent
demonstrates the City's willingness to draft code language that encompasses all of the
issues raised through the public hearing process.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendations, the following alternatives are available for the
City Council's consideration:
1. Identify additional options for Staff to research for City Council
consideration at a future meeting.
2. Direct Staff to take no action at this time.
7
C issioner Emenhiser moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded
byC issioner Nelson. Approved, (5-0-1), with Chairman Tomblin abstaining
since he s not at that meeting.
3. Time ex ion request (Case No. ZON2011-00349): 5317 Rolling Ridge Road
Director Mihranian r edthat the applicant is requesting a time extension to an
application previously ap ed by the Planning Commission. He briefly discussed the
reasons for the request, as tlined in the applicants request letter, noting staff was
recommending approval of the nsion request.
Commissioner Nelson moved to ove staff recommendation, seconded by
Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved,
4. Time extension reauest (Case No. ZON2 00174): 2947 Vista del Mar
Director Mihranian reported that the applicant and new erty owner are reconsidering
the approved design and are requesting additional time 'nalize the design before
submitting to Building and Safety.
Commissioner Nelson moved to approve staff recommendation, onded by Vice
Chairman Cruikshank. Approved, (6-0).
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Short term vacation rentals (Case No. ZON2016-00188)
Associate Planner Silva presented the staff report, briefly reviewing the questions that the
Commission raised as a result of the public hearing on July 12th. He reviewed the number
of short-term rentals staff found on Airbnb and VRBO, noting the majority of listings are
in the single-family residential zones. He noted that complaints to the City regarding
short-term rentals were primarily centered on three properties within the City, and that the
LA County Sheriff's Department reported eight service calls to one of the three properties
over a one year period. He noted that the Commission had asked staff to identify
additional options for regulating short-term rentals, and these options were discussed in
the staff report. He noted the three options would require an extensive code enforcement
framework, and discussed the components of the code enforcement process. He also
stated that at the July 12th meeting the Commission questioned if regulating short-term
rentals would require an amendment to the local Coastal Specific Plan. He reported that
if the City pursues the option to prohibit short-term rentals, Staff's opinion is that an
amendment to the Plan would not be required, however if the City pursues an option to
permit short-term rentals, an amendment to the local Coastal Specific Plan would be
required. He stated that staff's recommendation is to review staff's responses to the
Commission's questions raised at the July 12th meeting; identify a preferred option on
how the city should address short-term rentals; and request the Council's input on the
Commission's preferred option before proceeding to draft specific code language.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 3
A-1
Director Mihranian added that staff was recommending the Planning Commission's
recommendation on the short-term rentals be taken to the City Council to review to make
sure the City Council is in agreement with the option and to get direction from the City
Council before drafting the code language. He felt this would be the best and most
efficient use of time. He also clarified that the Local Coastal Specific Plan only applies to
properties in the city's coastal zone. He explained that the City's code is a permissive
code, and because short-term rentals are not explicitly allowed or prohibited in the Code,
staff is taking the position that because short-term rentals are not listed as a permitted
use they are, by default, not allowed in the City. Therefore, the Local Coastal Plan does
not need to be amended.
Commissioner Leon asked staff if the code allows for long-term rentals.
Director Mihranian answered that long-term rentals is not a use specifically identified in
the Code.
Commissioner Leon questioned that if it is not called out specifically in the Code, then are
long-term rentals also prohibited.
Director Mihranian did not think long-term rentals are prohibited, because they are not a
commercial operation. He stated that based on the city's transient occupancy tax, if
occupancy occurs for less than 30 days the use is considered commercial and the tax
would apply.
Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if the City came upon someone already renting
through Airbnb in the coastal area, could staff call for enforcement since it is currently
prohibited.
Director Mihranian answered that, technically, yes staff could call for code enforcement
on such a property. However, because the code is not as clear as it could be, staff felt it
would be better to go through this process to gain clarity before enacting any enforcement.
Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to explain how enforcement would happen when
looking at a permit process versus prohibition.
Director Mihranian explained that the process has not yet been fully vetted, but felt the
processes would be very similar with the exception of what is being enforced, prohibition
or lack of a permit or operation in violation of a permit.
Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked staff roughly how many multi -family versus single-
family residences are in the City.
Director Mihranian did not have that information available, but felt the multi -family was a
fairly small percentage compared to single-family residences.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 4
A-2
Vice Chairman Cruikshank noted in the staff report that the City receives one to two calls
per month, and asked if those are calls just to the City, or if that includes calls to the
Sheriff's Department.
Director Mihranian answered that it is just calls to the City. He noted that the Sheriff's
Department was only able to provide staff with statistics on the number of calls to a
specific residence, not how many calls were received regarding short-term rental
complaints.
Commissioner Leon stated he spoke to Senior Planners in both Hermosa Beach and
Manhattan Beach regarding their short-term rental prohibitions and/or ordinances. He
also spoke to several residents who have short-term rental homes nearby them. He noted
that he is a user of services such as VRBO and Airbnb, however he did not think that
would in any way prejudice his decision on this subject.
Commissioner Nelson asked staff to summarize the situation in Hermosa Beach, which
the Director then explained, noting the differences between the situation in Hermosa
Beach and Rancho Palos Verdes.
Commissioner Nelson asked staff to summarize how the neighboring cities are dealing
with short-term rentals.
Associate Planner Silva explained that staff found that the neighboring cities on the
Peninsula have enacted prohibitions on short-term rentals. He noted that San Pedro, as
part of the city of Los Angeles, is looking to adopt a registration process.
Commissioner James referred to the staff report, noting that other alternatives are being
explored. He specifically referred to a statement that the City Attorney is exploring
creating a list of prohibited uses for zoning districts. He asked staff to expand on that.
Associate Planner Silva explained that staff has identified certain sections in the Code
where language regarding short-term rentals would be added. The City Attorney's office
felt that if the City does prohibit short-term rentals then a list of prohibited uses in each of
the zoning districts should be included in the code. He noted the code currently lists
permitted uses and uses that are conditionally permitted, and this would add a new
category of prohibited uses.
Commissioner James asked if the major problem at the three homes identified in the staff
report is that there are large parties taking place which disturbs the neighborhood.
Director Mihranian answered that was staff's understanding from the complaints that staff
has received.
Vice Chairman Cruikshank disclosed that his engineering firm has done work at the
Avenida Altisima residence, and his son is friends with this homeowner's son.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 5
A-3
Chairman Tomblin stated he did not see a definition of a short-term rental in the staff
report, and asked staff if this was going to be included at some point.
Director Mihranian answered that was intentional, as staff wanted to stop short of
presenting any specific code language until the Commission has discussed their preferred
option and that option has been taken to the City Council for review and input.
Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing.
Anita Gash stated she has lived at her home on Eddinghill Drive for 45 years, and it was
a quiet residential neighborhood. She explained that the home across the street has
recently gone through a remodel, became a two-story home, and is now an Airbnb rental,
renting three or more rooms per night. She stated that as a neighborhood watch co -
captain it makes her uncomfortable, as part of her responsibility is to know the cars that
come into the neighborhood. She no longer has any idea as to whether or not the cars
in the neighborhood should be there, and the nature of the neighborhood has changed.
She also noted that a real estate agent recently informed her that if she were to sell her
home she would have to disclose that she is across from an Airbnb property and that
would have an impact on her property value. She asked that the Commission consider
what any decision in terms of short-term rentals will have on the neighbors and the
neighborhood.
Doug Maizimos stated he also lives on Eddinghill Drive and over the last few years he
feels like he lives next to a four room hotel. He noted that in 2008 this property owner
was given approval to build his dream home for his family. Now the property owner has
four separate listings on Airbnb offering bedrooms for rent. He felt a motel is a correct
description for this commercial business in this residential neighborhood. He discussed
the cars that come and go at all hours of the day and night, car alarms that go off in the
middle of the night, and travelers who ring his doorbell because they can't get ahold of
the owner and they want to check in. He felt this rental is changing the very fabric of the
neighborhood in unacceptable ways. He requested that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council a full and immediate ban of short-term rentals.
Sue Dunbar (Spindrift Drive) stated she does not support renting homes out for venues
and events, however she noted that she does have a vacation rental and has been renting
out the home for several years. She stated that she has had no complaints in four years,
noting that she has a very watchful and active HOA. She tries to be very respectful to the
neighbors on how and to whom they rent the home and rejects requests for any parties
of any size. She noted that she submitted a letter which includes some of the guest book
comments about what a peaceful and relaxing place this is to stay. She stated that if the
Commission considers a permitting process that there are ways to manage a short-term
rental and to manage it well. She explained that she is moving more towards longer-term
rentals and questioned if her advertising on VRBO or other third party site would create
some sort of code enforcement issue.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 6
i
Yinq Sai stated she has a short-term rental property, and noted that she manages the
property very well and has had no complaints. She explained the process for rental, and
explained her strict advertised house rules. She also explained that she recommends to
the renters the local businesses and restaurants for any large gatherings. She felt that
the tourist dollars, through short-term rentals, are being used throughout the City at local
businesses and restaurants and the City should establish public policies that
acknowledge the transitory travelers.
Chairman Tomblin asked what neighborhood Ms. Sai lives in and the average length of
a renters stay.
Ms. Sai answered that her home is near Peninsula Center and the average length of stay
is approximately five days. She stated she personally checks in each renter.
Michael Huang (7147 Avenida Altisima) felt that short-term rentals is a commercial activity
and he did not understand why the City would allow a commercial activity to take place in
a single family residence. He stated Avenida Altisima is a cul-de-sac and there are two
short-term rental homes on the street. He stated that there is excessive traffic on the
street, and cars are heavily parked on both sides of the street. He explained that he went
door-to-door on his street to see if neighbors would support a ban, and out of the fourteen
residents that he spoke to, all supported a ban on short-term rentals. He felt that there
are many residents in the City who are opposed to short-term rentals that haven't
complained to the City and just tolerate the situation. He stated that Rancho Palos Verdes
is currently the only beach city that allows short-term rentals, and felt that more and more
rentals will come to this City because of it.
Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked Mr. Huang if he has contacted the City or the Sheriff's
Department when there have been issues with the short-term rentals in his neighborhood.
Mr. Huang answered that he has not made complaints. He also felt that many neighbors
have not made complaints because they do not know who to complain to.
Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked Mr. Huang if the property owners of the two short-term
rental homes in his neighborhood stay at the property, or if they did not live at the property.
Mr. Huang answered that one owner says she lives there, yet there is a younger kid that
lives there. He questioned how something like this would be enforced.
Tracy Burns (Avenida Altisima) showed the Airbnb ad for her neighbor's house, noting
that the ad says this is a great place for a party. She also stated that the neighbor rents
out single rooms for one night at the home. She explained that she no longer calls the
Sheriff's Department because there comes a point where you realize it no longer does
any good. She felt that this type of use not only obliterates the neighborhood watch
program, it also obliterates Megan's Law, as neither can be applied to her neighborhood
any longer. She stated that Manhattan Beach tried a permit system which didn't work.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 7
A-5
Commissioner James asked Ms. Burns why she gave up calling the City or the Sheriff's
Department with complaints.
Ms. Burns answered that in the beginning when the larger parties were taking place she
would call the Sheriff's Department, who would come by and quiet things down. However,
she will not call the Sheriff's Department because someone vomits on her front lawn, or
because she finds cigarette butts all over her driveway.
Chris Huang (Avenida Altisima) stated she was in support of the full ban of short-term
rentals. She felt this use lowers the neighboring property values. She explained she lived
on Eddinghill Drive next to an Airbnb, and felt unsafe, so the family moved to Avenida
Altisima, and now there are Airbnb rentals on Avenida Altisima. She did not feel it was
right for a property owner to make money renting their home or rooms at their neighbors'
expense.
Carolynn Petru (Avenida Altisima) supported a total ban on short-term rentals. She
acknowledged there are some very well managed rentals, but that doesn't erase the basic
fact that this is a commercial use in a single family residential neighborhood. She stated
Rancho Palos Verdes has become a destination and people are flocking to the City for
all of the beautiful amenities the City has to offer. She did not think people should be
making a profit at the expense of the harmony and quietude of the neighborhoods. She
would also support looking into the prohibition of partying houses in the City, which has
an even worse impact to the neighbors than Airbnb rentals.
Commissioner Emenhiser asked Ms. Petru how she felt this type of ban would be
enforced.
Ms. Petru acknowledged that any type of enforcement will be difficult and require staff
resources, whether that be city staff or the Sheriff's Department. She felt that the ban is
the most straightforward and easily enforceable option, and won't include all of the layers
of enforcement that a permitting process might involve.
Chairman Tomblin asked Ms. Petru if she had any thoughts on how to define a short-term
rental.
Ms. Petru felt that anything less than thirty days should be considered a short-term rental.
Amar stated that intellectually and spiritually everyone needs a place where they can sit
and have peace. He felt that the Airbnb rentals is a relatively new business enterprise
which is mushrooming in big cities, but in small neighborhoods it should be kept away.
He felt these rentals in small neighborhoods destroy the peace and increases the crime
rate. He also did not think the City would make much money from this type of business.
Alan Siegel stated he is an Airbnb user throughout the world and has had nothing but
good experiences. He stated that Airbnb uses a reputation based system where one
applies to an owner to rent in their house, and the owner looks at your reputation and
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 8
WO
comments from previous owners and then chooses whether or not to rent to you. He
noted the City of Los Angeles is considering a ban, with their primary concern that housing
stock will be taken away from the City in an already tight housing market. He stated that
Palos Verdes Estates has also banned this use, noting that the City does not have a
Transit Occupancy Tax, and therefore would have no way to collect revenue to help offset
any enforcement needed. He empathized with his neighbors in regards to the problems
that have been caused by the three or four problem houses in the City, but felt a ban is
going too far, as he felt there are many who are good and responsible Airbnb hosts. He
suggested a measured approach, a permitted approach, noting a system used in La
Quinta. He felt that the City could collect taxes to offset any enforcement action.
Eric Mark (6527 Eddinghill Drive) stated he hosts millionaires, business executives,
attorney, doctors, and many others from all over the world. He stated that all of these
visitors are also consumers that come to the Peninsula to patronize restaurants, markets,
and other businesses. He felt that short term rentals are a key function to the local
economy, as they help create jobs and promote sales. He also felt that short-term rental
homes add to the neighborhood, as they are impeccably kept with well-maintained
gardens. He asked the Commission continue to allow short-term rentals.
Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Mark if he rents out his entire house, or only rooms in
the house.
Mr. Mark answered that he and his wife are always in the house with the guests.
Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Mark if he allows parties at his home.
Mr. Mark answered that he will allow no parties at his home, and is advertised as such.
Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Mark if he has had any complaints that he is aware of.
Mr. Mark noted that only one person complains, and he was forced to obtain a restraining
order against that person.
Minas Yerelian felt this was an important topic and that the City should be able to inform
every citizen that this meeting is taking place. He felt that large ads should be placed in
the Peninsula News and the Daily Breeze explaining what is going on, since the majority
of the residents don't know what's going on with this topic, and letting everyone know
when this meeting is taking place. He also suggested hanging banners advertising the
meeting so that all residents are aware. He also suggested that if short-term rentals are
allowed to remain, that every home that rents be required to have a sign advertising the
home is a short-term rental property because nobody wants to buy a property next door
to a short-term rental property. He stated that short term rentals are already not allowed
in the City per the City's Municipal Code, and questioned why these hearings are even
taking place.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 9
A-7
Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Yerelian what is required in selling a home, in terms of
disclosure, when living near a short-term rental.
Mr. Yerelian answered that you have to disclose what is next door to the home being sold,
especially if there is loud noise.
Commissioner Nelson asked staff when this meeting was noticed to the public.
Director Mihranian answered that the public notice was sent out for the July 12th meeting,
and at the July 12th meeting the Commission continued the public hearing to this evening.
Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked Mr. Yerelian if he would have to disclose that he lived
next door to a house full of teenagers who have parties every weekend.
Mr. Yerelian answered that you must disclose any noise or continuous activity.
Nelly Bertolina (Hightide Drive) urged the Commission to prohibit short-term rentals. She
explained that the Hightide neighborhood has changed completely since the nearby short-
term rental has started. She stated there are many parties and noises, and the Sheriff's
Department does not always respond. She also noted that there is now quite a bit of
trash in the neighborhood.
Noel Park (EI Rodeo Road) felt the speaker who live on Eddinghill and Avenida Altisima
have pretty much said all there is to say on this subject. He agreed that if all of the other
local cities ban short-term rentals and Rancho Palos Verdes does not, the city may
become overrun with this type of business. He noted the home next door to his is a long-
term rental and has its own issues.
Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Park if he could see any way to allow some short-
term rentals in neighborhoods, noting that there have been some speakers who seem to
have a very well-run business with their short-term rentals.
Mr. Park responded that by definition a short-term rental is a business being run in a
residential neighborhood, and therefore it degrades the quality of life in that
neighborhood. However, he questioned how a ban or a permitting system would be
enforceable.
Karen Chuanq felt the speakers before her had very eloquently put forth her concerns in
regards to short-term rentals and why there should be a complete and total ban of short-
term rentals in the City. She noted that, while only four houses have been targeted at this
meeting, there are Airbnb rentals throughout the City. She felt that the short-term rentals
had considerable traffic and parking issues to neighborhoods and brings people in that
the neighbors do not know. She felt that short-term rentals generate a very large profit
for the property owner at the expense of the neighbors who have a vested stake in the
community. She encouraged the Commission to support a complete ban of short-term
rentals in the City.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 10
W •
Maura Mizu uchi stated she is the owner of a short-term rental on Avenida Altisima. She
stated that she was quite surprised to learn about all of the complaints at a public meeting,
rather than being contacted by the neighbors personally through a phone call or email.
She explained she started with long-term rental of her home but found the renters to be
difficult and tended to damage the property. She stated she rents rooms in her home and
has two young boys at the home, who she felt have flourished with these rentals.
Chairman Tomblin asked Ms. Mizuguchi if she lives in the house and rents out the rooms.
Ms. Mizuguchi responded that she lives in the house and rents out rooms to short-term
renters. She stated that she wished her neighbors had approached her with issues and
concerns when the problems happened. She added that she has rented out the home to
people who have had family gatherings, but not parties.
Commissioner Leon asked Ms. Mizuguchi if she lives at the residence full time.
Ms. Mizuguchi answered that she does live at the residence full time. She felt that a ban
is a real tragedy, as short-term rentals provide opportunities that may not be realized.
Michael Yu stated he is an Airbnb host, and that Palos Verdes is no longer the quiet
community it once was, as it is now well known with Trump National Golf Course,
Terranea, and other outdoor venues which make the City a destination. He agreed with
all of the speakers before him and as a resident, he shared their sentiments, however he
also had disagreements with some of the statements. He felt that short-term rentals are
a shared economy that is now a global phenomenon. He felt a short-term rental ban is a
punishment for making a mistake, noting that no education has been given by the City or
by neighbors to the property owners. He felt that before any decision is made by the City
there should be some type of guidance given for all short-term rental hosts. He felt that
this could lead to a win -win-win situation, a win for the City, a win for the host, and a win
for the neighbors.
Greg Mitre did not think it was a coincidence that more and more short-term rentals are
showing up in the City, since every City around Rancho Palos Verdes has banned this
use. He stated he lives on Hightide Drive, and lives across the street from a short-term
rental. He stated this property does not have the owner present when it is rented, and
the owner is not present when the guests check in or check out. He has called the
Sheriff's Department on a few occasions, and noted that they do not always respond. He
stated he attended the City Council meeting when this subject was before them, and all
but one Council member spoke out strongly against short-term rentals. In terms of
enforcement, he explained that he is very aware of every car in his neighborhood and
who should be there and who should not. He felt that involving the neighborhood in
enforcement would be beneficial.
Barzia Tehrani stated he lives on Sunnyside Ridge near a short-term rental. He stated
that the HOA sent a letter of complaint was sent to the City, and felt that the reason the
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 11
•
number of complaints may have gone down in the past several months regarding short-
term rentals is because residents are waiting to see how the City Council will decide on
this issue. He discussed the nature of the neighborhood, and how the character of the
street completely changed once the short-term rental/party house started. He stated he
supports a complete prohibition, and did not think anything else would be enforceable.
Mary Gordon stated she is in support of a ban on short-term rentals. She stated she has
not complained about the short-term rentals in the neighborhood, mainly because she
does not want to have an adversarial relationship with the neighbors. She stated she
likes her neighbors and her neighborhood. She felt that this is an issue involving the
character and the safety of the community, as well as the neighborhoods and the children.
Paul Henrikson (Sea Raven Drive) stated he runs an Airbnb at his property. He stated
his guests all meet his requirements and follow all of the rules of the property. He
explained that he and his wife live in the house and rent out only one bedroom to guests,
and the guest typically stay two to three days at a time.
Irene Henrikson feel badly that a few party houses has to spoil it for the rest of the Airbnb
hosts who try very hard to comply with all of the rules and to maintain their homes. She
stated she has had very good experiences with their rentals, noting many of the guests
are former residents of the City who have come back to the area to visit relatives or attend
events. She explained that she and her husband allow only one to two guests, and these
guests must park in the driveway. She stated she has had no problems or complaints,
and did not think her neighbors even realized they rent the room. She hoped the City
could find some sort compromise for those who do try to comply without having an outright
ban.
Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated that many times during the public comments it has been
said that all of the cities around Rancho Palos Verdes has banned short-term rentals.
However, in looking at the chart in the staff report, it appears Rolling Hills and Manhattan
Beach have banned the short-term rentals, Palos Verdes Estates is considering a ban,
Rolling Hills Estates and Redondo Beach don't have anything, and a permit is required in
Los Angeles and Malibu.
Director Mihranian noted that the chart was prepared for the July 12th meeting and since
that time a few changes have occurred. He noted that Palos Verdes Estates now bans
short-term rentals and the City of Rolling Hills Estates is in the process of codifying a ban.
Commissioner Leon questioned if it would be possible to create a set of rules regarding
short-term rentals that would allow the well run short-term rentals to continue operating,
but would essentially ban the short-term rentals used for party houses.
Director Mihranian explained that all of the options before the Commission will require
some level of enforcement. He felt there will be enforcement challenges with each option.
However, staff's opinion is that if there is an outright ban on short-term rentals it may be
simpler to enforce, as opposed to some sort of regulated use.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 12
A-10
Chairman Tomblin asked staff if they felt noticing of this type of meeting should be
advertised and posted in a different manner, as opposed to the standard classified ad for
a typical public hearing.
Director Mihranian explained that for the July 12th meeting staff tried to reach as many
members of the public as possible, but felt that for the next meeting staff will try to increase
and improve the public outreach. He also noted that a Listserve page has been created
and anyone can go to the City's webpage and subscribe, and will then receive electronic
notifications regarding this item.
Chairman Tomblin noted that staff has presented three options, and suggested the
Commissioners discuss the option they preferred, and any amendments they may want
to add to that option.
Commissioner James stated he would support a total ban. He clarified that this is not a
total ban on rentals, but rather a ban on rentals that have been zoned residential. He felt
it was truly unfortunate that a few bad experiences have spoiled things for those that have
rented out rooms for quite awhile and are very respectful to the neighborhood. He stated
that for him this is a zoning issue, and suggested the City might look into creating some
zones that have multiple uses which would allow short-term rentals. He noted several
speakers stated that when they moved here they had an expectation in that they were
moving into a single family residential area, and they have a right to that expectation. He
stated that is what zoning means, and that expectation should not be taken away from
them. He also felt that the current code may be good enough, but after hearing the public
speakers, he felt new code language could be added that clarifies the already existing
code.
Commissioner Emenhiser felt this was a discussion on the nature of Rancho Palos
Verdes, as it is a neighborhood, family based city. He did not think Rancho Palos Verdes
is considered a beach city. He felt that many short-term rentals are taking advantage of
the good will of their neighbors, and the profit motive may drive many to run over the best
nature of their neighbors. He felt the Commission should recommend a ban of short-term
rentals to the City Council. He suggested banning short-term rentals for a period of six
months, and then over time open the door to some type of strict permit process. He
acknowledged that there are many rentals where the owners do live on site and do a good
job with the rentals.
Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated that without enforcement it really doesn't matter what
the City does in terms of short-term rentals. However, he felt that it makes quite a bit of
difference if the property owners are actually on site. He noted that many good people
have spoken in favor of short-term rentals, explaining they are always at the house and
control their guests. He stated that at this point he is leaning towards a six month period
of issuing permits for the use. He explained that once a ban is put in place, this use will
never come back. He questioned what would stop someone from renting a house long-
term and then subletting the home for short-term rentals, and how that would be enforced.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 13
A-11
He felt Airbnb and other agencies will find ways around a ban and a ban will be very
difficult to enforce. He therefore supported option No. 2 in the staff report.
Commissioner Nelson stated he was not in favor of a ban of short-term rentals. He noted
that a house down the street from him is rented out as a short-term rental. He stated that
at times there is a parking problem around the house, but there have been no loud parties
or disturbances. He stated he has a hard time discouraging people trying to expand their
living. He suggested a compromise might be to have the problem homes declared a
nuisance, and for the City to then abate the nuisance in small claims court. He was
therefore in favor of option No. 2.
Commissioner Leon stated he prefers option No. 2, but recognizes this option is a difficult
thing to do. He stated that he would accept a prohibition, but would prefer to have the
use allowed and regulated.
Chairman Tomblin discussed his feelings that short-term rentals are preferred in resort
and vacation communities, such as Lake Arrowhead or La Quinta, as opposed to cities
like Rancho Palos Verdes which are where people live and raise their families. He stated
he did not want to see Rancho Palos Verdes become a La Quinta. He stated that there
might be a fourth option to allow an allowance to a resident who lives in their home to rent
out one room. He therefore stated he would support a total ban of short-term bans.
Chairman Tomblin moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council option No. 3 that there is a ban on short-term rentals, with the provision
that the staff also report to the City Council the Planning Commission's
recommendation that a resident who is living on the property would be able, by
right, to rent out one room or one guest house, seconded by Commissioner
Emenhiser.
Commissioner James felt the motion sounds like option No. 1 in the staff report, which
allows permits with conditions. He noted that in the staff report staff commented that
enforcement may be very difficult with this option in terms of proving how many rooms
are being rented out.
Chairman Tomblin clarified that he was recommending a complete ban of short-term
rentals, and separately the topic of renting out one room or a guest house could come
back for review at a later date.
Commissioner James reiterated his concern that this is a zoning issue.
Director Mihranian asked for clarification on the current motion. He noted that the way
the motion is drafted, it is a bit ambiguous as to the preferred option. He noted the motion
recommends a ban on short-term rentals, yet there are caveats added which is closer to
Option No. 1.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 14
A-12
Commissioner Emenhiser stated the Commission has heard testimony that there are
some well-run short-term rentals in the City, and he did not necessarily want to take that
away from these people without some thought and consideration on the matter. His
understanding of the motion is to implement a ban of short-term rentals to be followed by
consideration of allowing owners to rent one room in their residence.
Chairman Tomblin added that his understanding of the motion is that the Commission
supports the ban, which is option No. 3, but add on to that a whole separate process to
look at one room or guest house rentals with the owner at the site.
Commissioner Leon felt the Commissioners are appointed to be an independent body,
and not just check the appropriate box when making a recommendation. He felt the
Commission is supposed to add value, and the value the Commission adds is to take
testimony from the public and then try to craft some language as advice to the City
Council. He felt the Planning Commission has come up with some good advice to the
City Council, that short-term rentals are very difficult to regulate and as a consequence,
having a prohibition is the practical way to go. However, there is some small subset that
could be allowed while having the overall prohibition.
Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated he did not support an outright ban, as he felt the ones
who are doing a good job should be allowed to continue. He noted these people tend to
be on the property and do not rent the entire house out, and it is closely regulated. He
also noted that he does not want to see party houses continue to disrupt neighborhoods.
However, regardless of what the City does, he felt enforcement will be very difficult.
Commissioner James felt that what is now being discussed is discretionary permits, as
noted in option No. 1. He felt the concept of discretionary permits would include the notion
that anyone who does not get a discretionary permit cannot rent their rooms.
Director Mihranian clarified that staff is really just looking for the Commission to identify
an option for staff to take to the City Council to see if they agree with the idea. Staff does
not want the Commission to get into the details of how it will be enforced and the details
of the rules and regulations at this point, but only to identify a concept of how short-term
rentals should be approached by the City. Once the City Council has reviewed the option
and given input, staff will then bring it back to the Commission to deal with the specifics.
Chairman Tomblin asked staff to read back the current motion.
Director Mihranian stated the current motion is that the Planning Commission is
recommending to the City Council a ban on short-term rentals with a provision that the
Council allows owners living on the property to rent out a room or a guest house through
some sort of regulatory process. He reiterated that this is a recommendation to the City
Council, and not a final decision. The City Council will discuss this recommendation and
send it back to the Commission with further recommendations. He recommended that
the members of the public who are interested in following this should subscribe to the
Listserve for all electronic notifications.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 15
A-13
Commissioner Nelson stated he could not support the current motion, noting there is a
way to control the issue through public and private nuisance, with abatement of the
nuisance through small claims court.
The motion was approved, (4-2) with Commissioners James and Nelson dissenting.
FUTURE
6. aenda for the meetina on September 13. 2016
The pre-agen s reviewed and approved.
Ie101[oil J 7�l►�il r•��
The meeting was adjourned at p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 16
A-14
Octavio Silva
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 9:18 AM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: FW: RPV - Request for LASD, LACoFD, Terranea and legal counsel to attend Sept. 20th
City Council Meeting
FYI...
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
C-',JV0FL
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aramP.rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Du you really need to print this e-rnail?
ir£ir.>i ration i��f�icr�r�t r: ?o Nt 0tv of Rancho Pak)s'•I:rdes, .. s� r'; •, c -d m
<it_ _ "— r ur .reel, €�car3t.<. r��, r.� t £i__ ,
r ssc_I?s,irfl(ndeL7 oNy'f! us", of i.-divi,,ual or enitity naneL, tUgaj- ":;-�zi, d E3 >-semifnti m, distPibut€o ; tai colpyiig pc,, .il::u d_ If:
V. .!.. cC`! £ lt�a
..:. F:y ;s,i :;t tr, c)t.i3tliif d.,.
the sem e" i,6y, t. "aNv � z�' abr yf ai u...crislaiice. ssn c . ei:...iLl;
From: Tracy Burns [mailto:akamomma@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 3:58 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Jerry
Duhovic <JerryD@rpvca.gov>; Anthony Misetich <AnthonyM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RPV - Request for LASD, LACoFD, Terranea and legal counsel to attend Sept. 20th City Council Meeting
Ara,
During the Planning Commission meeting last night several points were brought up about short term rentals that
I think require clarification by representatives from LASD, LACoFD, Terranea and legal counsel. I would like
to request their presence at the upcoming Sept. 20th City Council Meeting, could you please request/coordinate
their attendance? By having the experts give statements before resident testimony is scheduled would
streamline the whole meeting. It would eliminate redundancy, ensure accurate information is being presented
and provide an opportunity for City Council to have their questions answered immediately. Also, I'd like to
request that current information is presented by your department regarding the other local cities that have
already banned short term rentals, I know Torrance was still working on the actual language of their ban.
To Be Addressed:
LASD
Neighborhhood Watch - How are the residents instructed to maintain the security of their neighborhoods?
Nuisance Properties / Loud Parties / Blocked Driveways, etc. - How exactly is it enforced by the
responding deputies? What are the requirements and difficulties they face with enforcement? How many
properties have LASD and Code Enforcement actually shut down based on these requirements in RPV? How
long does the process take and what was the amount of work required to shut it down?
What is the average response time to party calls, since they are not priority or emergency situations?
Crime Reports - (for the zoned single home residential neighborhoods) Could a comparison of a LASD's crime
map with a map of short-term rentals available on the various platforms (AirBnB, VRBO, etc) be created?
LACoFD
In reference to parking issues and street congestion - What is the minimum space required for their vehicles,
specifically the larger trucks, to be able to respond to emergencies? What is the clearance amount needed for
ambulances to safely load/transport patients? During a hotel safety inspection what specific items do you look
for and are required by your department in order to pass?
Terranea (the only hotel on the entire Peninsula and is located in RPV)
What are the mandated requirements to operate a commercial hotel in RPV, CA? How many people does
Terranea employee in order to operate efficiently (specifically pertaining to security, groundskeeping, parking,
event planning, catering, etc.)? How often is the hotel inspected and by whom to ensure guest safety? How
much has Terranea paid to RPV in taxes, fees, etc in order to just be allowed to operate?
Legal Counsel
Small claims court was brought up by one member of the planning commission as an option at the last meeting,
basically encouraging residents to sue their nuisance neighbors instead of banning short term rentals
specifically or enforcing zoning laws. I'd like to know the legal steps involved with that type of neighbor -to -
neighbor enforcement? It seems this suggested approach makes zoning laws obsolete. Is there any liability the
city assumes in allowing commercial entities such as hotels to operate in residential neighborhoods without
requiring the usual business licenses or inspections?
At the City Council Meeting on May 17th, where they voted 4-1 to ban short term rentals, Mayor Dyda
specifically stated it should be enforced on a complaint only basis. At the planning commission meeting last
night there was an elderly couple that seemed to be responsible on-site B&B hosts. If they've never had a
complaint against them and they continue not to have complaints, then they won't have any problems. What the
City Council definitively made clear at their earlier meeting was the intent not to create more work for our Code
Enforcement and to make it easier for them to deal with nuisance properties operating hotels within our zoned
residential neighborhoods. The Planning Commission seems to be on a totally different page and have
been mulling over this for about two months and trying to come up with their own special permit
system. Again, I will point out that San Francisco estimates 76.6% of the short term rentals in their city are not
operating in compliance with their permit system. Manhattan Beach already tried their own permit system, it
didn't work so they've now banned short term rentals. I'm not sure why the PC insists on not facing facts and
wasting time.
Let's get this train back on the track and expedite the process.
Sincerely,
Tracy Burns
Reference re: SF stats
http://fortune.com/2016/04/08/airbnb-hosts-not-compliant-san-francisco/
Do your really need to print this e -snail?
.:.,., �.,.
,i
g;,.;l P,....i qv.`i l:i, .> :.:<._I Il . I. 4_: i.: 11 in;i?913 :.: r_l W, J ,. _. �,' 1',c SeC.df, i 't _ . i.:i� -_...3 .. P.;3
From: Michael Huang [mailto: i
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 11:28 PM
To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic
<JerryD@rpvca.gov>; Anthony Misetich <AnthonyM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Support for Full Ban on Short -Term Rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes
Hi Octavio,
I understand there is a planning commission meeting on Tuesday, August 23, 2016, concerning the proposed
regulation of short-term rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes. I am writing to to express my strong opinion along
with those of my neighbors on the street to support the full ban of short-term rentals.
I live on Avenida Altisima, and our street currently has two houses for rent on AirBnB out of a total of
approximately twenty houses on the cul -du -sac street. So on our street, we have approximately 10% of the
homes for rent on AirBnB as short-term rentals.
I am sure you know about the AirBnB home on 7242 Avenida Altisima at the bottom of the cul -du -sac, but we
just found out recently that 7131 Avenida Altisima in the middle of the cul -du -sac has also started renting on
AirBnB in August of this year.
We first noticed that there was a lot more activity of different people and different cars going and and out of
the house. There was also a lot more noise coming from the house. Also, in the past two weeks, there were
two separate functions at the house with so many guests so that both side of the street had parked
cars. Avenida Altisima is a curvy, narrow street. When there are cars parked on both sides of the street, it is a
safety concern because two-way traffic is impeded. This email will also serve to put the City on notice of the
safety concern concerning excessive parking and traffic on our street.
Because of the most recent suspicious and disruptive activity from the house at 7131 Avenida Altisima, my
wife checked on AirBnB, and sure enough, the house was listed beginning sometime in August. When I
checked last night, rooms was being rented for as low as $50 per night with a 1 -night minimum. When I
checked again today, the rate was as low as about $70 per night again with a I -night minimum.
In summary, because of the two short-term rentals on our street, we have had the following problems:
* Many different people coming in and out. We do not know what and what type of people are living in the
short-term rentals.
* Increased traffic and congestion on the street to cause safety concerns because our street is narrow and
curvy.
* Increased noise, traffic and trash.
* One resident has witnessed drug use at one of short-term rentals.
* Decreased sense of security and enjoyment of our property.
It is very disconcerting not knowing who and what type of person is sleeping in the house next to your. It is
also scary to know that the people staying in your neighbors house will change from day-to-day. Please keep
in mind many of our residents have children in the household.
It is also my understanding that many of the beach cities, such as Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills, Rolling
HIVs Estates, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach have all banned short-term rentals. We should also ban
short-term rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes.
I also understand that the planning commission is considering allowing short-term rentals to be permitted by
discretionary permits or by -right. Both of these options are too cumbersome and difficult and expensive to
enforce. It will be virtually impossible for the City to determine if a rental home is the owner's primary
residence. It would also be impossible for the City to track how many nights per year a property is rented.
I understand that the City of Los Angeles allows short-term rental by -rights, but we are not Los Angeles. We
are a bedroom community whose residents choose to live here because of the serenity and quality of life. We
do not have any major tourist attractions. Los Angeles is a much larger city with more resources for
enforcement and also with more tourist attractions. The neighborhoods in the City of Los Angeles is also
much more varied than our community.
6
I also understand the counter argument that a person has certain rights to do what they wish with their
property. I understand that. But that right has limits, and I believe that the limits are met when the rights of
their neighbor to a peacefiil and secure enjoyment of their property is impacted. I believe that everybody in
Rancho Palos Verdes living in single family homes have certain expectations because of the zoning. They did
not expect to live next door to a commercial enterprise that is effectively acting as a hotel. That is just not
right.
Previously, I mentioned we have about 20 homes on our street. Today, I went and knocked on my neighbors
doors to gauge their opinion on the proposed ban on short-term rentals. Out of the approximately 20 homes,
12 residents were home, and all 12 of the residents support the full ban. I have enclosed their signatures with
their addresses on the petition in support of the full ban. The remaining property owners were not
home. Nobody I spoke to was against the ban.
I know the planning commission asked the planning staff to review the number of complaints the City has
received concerning short-term rentals. I believe the number of complaints does not reflect the level of
dissatisfaction residents have with short-term rentals. Many of the residents' sense of security and enjoyment
of their home are significantly affected by the problems with short term rentals, but they have not officially
complained to the City. But they were sufficiently troubled to sign the enclosed petition supporting the full
ban. One neighbor I spoke to said that besides the increased traffic, noise and trash from the short-term rental,
I sometimes smells marijuana from the rental. I asked him if he has complained to the City, and he said that he
had not. The number of complaints the City has received is just the tip of the iceberg.
The trend toward more short-term rentals will accelerate and get worse. I believe that our street is a
microcosm of the City. We have 10% of the homes on our street listed on AirBnB. I spent an hour yesterday
and found about 60% of the homeowners had problems with the short-term rentals to sign the petition to
support a full ban. If the other residents were home, I am certain 100% of the residents would have signed the
petition. Please keep in mind that I could have obtained many more signatures for other residents who support
the ban, but I limited my effort just to the homes on Avenida Altisima to make a point. If we do not ban the
short-term rentals now, the problem will get worse and cause more problems for residents and the City as well.
Lastly, I would ask the Planning Commission members to put themselves in the position of the residents who
live next door to a short-term rental house. Although it is expensive, we choose to live in this community
because of the safety and quality of life. But living next door to a de -facto hotel in the form a short-term rental
significantly diminishes the resident's quality of life and investment.
Please do not hesitate to call me at I on have any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Huang
Octavio Silva
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 9:40 PM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: Fw: Support 100% ban on short-term rental in RPV
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
From: Gail Mail <fong2buy@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 10:47 PM
To: Ken Dyda; Brian Campbell; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Anthony Misetich; PC
Subject: Fwd: Support 100% ban on short-term rental in RPV
We agree with Janet. Please ban short- term rentals in our community.
Thankyou
George and Gail
Fong
From: Janet Nitz <nitzi@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Support 100% ban on short-
term rental in rpv
I understand that the city council is considering
whether or not to allow short-term rentals in
Rancho Palos Verdes. I support a 100% ban on any
and all short term rentals in Rancho Palos
Verdes. It is also my understanding that there was
a meeting with the Planning Commission this week
at Hesse park and concerned residents raised the
issues below.
• Short-term rentals are a commercial activity
that should not be allowed in residential
areas
• Short-term rentals will render
neighborhood watch and Megan's Law
useless because there will be a steady flow
of strangers into our community and we will
no longer know our neighbors or know who
is staying in our community.
• Short-term rentals have the potential to
negatively impact our property values
• Short-term rental are and will continue to
cause excess trash, noise, congestion, and
traffic
• All of the neighboring communities (Rolling
Hills, Rolling Hills
Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, Manhattan
Beach, Hermosa Beach,
and Redondo Beach) have banned short-
term rentals
• Allowing short-term rentals with
restrictions is a potential cause for abuse
and will be very difficult to enforce
I believe all are valid concerns and are grounds to
support a 100% ban on short-term rentals.
Sincerely,
Janet Nitz
7071 Crest Rd
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
. S
Octavio Silva
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 9:40 PM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: Fw: Short -Term Rentals, Planning Commission Meeting 8-23-16
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
From: James Bertolina <jnbertolina@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 4:01 PM
To: CC; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Margaret Shih; gregmitre@cox.net; Gail Parker; Joe Barger; Jeannette Peterson; fbstapleton@cox.net;
arlineg@cox.net; mikehgalaxy@gmail.com; akamomma@gmail.com; James Bertolina; jhevener@cox.net;
donway@cox.net; tbake377@gmail.com
Subject: Short -Term Rentals, Planning Commission Meeting 8-23-16
To RPV Council Members,
We attended the Planning Commission meeting on Aug. 23 and were
taken back by the action of the commission on the short-term rentals issue.
Only Commissioner James supported the facts that short-term rentals are a
business and that businesses are not permitted in RI residential zone.
One commissioner had acknowledged a conflict of interest. The
commissioners focused on 3 especially disruptive houses, which they
referred to as `bad apples', and on the apparently `nice' owners who
deserved special treatment. So they voted on a total ban with an exception
for owner occupied business (an arrangement that is very difficult to
determine or enforce).
The commissioners again with the exception of James did not understand
or accept what the speakers and the writers of the letters were saying. A
short-term rental is an assault on a neighborhood. It ruins the
neighborhood's sense of stability, comfort and safety. We moved to RPV
for the wonderful life style, did not expect and will not accept living next
to a hotel.
1
The City needs to explain why it has not taken any action on the code
violation by the operators of the short-term rentals. This failure of action
has caused emotional stress to many residents and financial loss if they
were to sell their house.
As the City Counsel has already voted to ban all short-term rentals, they
should not be swayed by the PC action. They should move quickly to see
that the code is enforced before more of these businesses invade our city.
Thank you for your continued leadership regarding this issue.
Nelly & Jim Bertolina
3713 Hightide Dr. RPV
(310) 265-446
To RPV Council Members,
We attended the Planning Commission meeting on Aug. 23 and were
taken back by the action of the commission on the short-term rentals issue.
Only Commissioner James supported the facts that short-term rentals are a
business and that businesses are not permitted in RI residential zone.
One commissioner had acknowledged a conflict of interest. The
commissioners focused on 3 especially disruptive houses, which they
referred to as `bad apples', and on the apparently `nice' owners who
deserved special treatment. So they voted on a total ban with an exception
z
B-11
for owner occupied business (an arrangement that is very difficult to
determine or enforce).
The commissioners again with the exception of James did not understand
or accept what the speakers and the writers of the letters were saying. A
short-term rental is an assault on a neighborhood. It ruins the
neighborhood's sense of stability, comfort and safety. We moved to RPV
for the wonderful life style, did not expect and will not accept living next
to a hotel.
The City needs to explain why it has not taken any action on the code
violation by the operators of the short-term rentals. This failure of action
has caused emotional stress to many residents and financial loss if they
were to sell their house.
As the City Counsel has already voted to ban all short-term rentals, they
should not be swayed by the PC action. They should move quickly to see
that the code is enforced before more of these businesses invade our city.
Thank you for your continued leadership regarding this issue.
Nelly & Jim Bertolina
3713 Hightide Dr. RPV
(310) 265-446
3
B-12
To RPV Council Members,
We attended the Planning Commission meeting on Aug. 23 and were taken back by the action of the commission on the short-term
rentals issue. Only Commissioner James supported the facts that short-term rentals are a business and that businesses are not
permitted in R1 residential zone.
One commissioner had acknowledged a conflict of interest. The commissioners focused on 3 especially disruptive houses, which they
referred to as 'bad apples', and on the apparently 'nice' owners who deserved special treatment. So they voted on a total ban with an
exception for owner occupied business (an arrangement that is very difficult to determine or enforce).
The commissioners again with the exception of James did not understand or accept what the speakers and the writers of the letters
were saying. A short-term rental is an assault on a neighborhood. It ruins the neighborhood's sense of stability, comfort and safety. We
moved to RPV for the wonderful life style, did not expect and will not accept living next to a hotel.
The City needs to explain why it has not taken any action on the code violation by the operators of the short-term rentals. This failure of
action has caused emotional stress to many residents and financial loss if they were to sell their house.
As the City Counsel has already voted to ban all short-term rentals, they should not be swayed by the PC action. They should move
quickly to see that the code is enforced before more of these businesses invade our city.
Thank you for your continued leadership regarding this issue.
Nelly & Jim Bertolina
3713 Hightide Dr. RPV
(310)265-446
B-13
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:29 AM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Subject: Fw: Rental of single-family home
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for iPad
From: Ralph Schack <rws.4057@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 12:00:29 PM
To: CC
Subject: Rental of single-family home
To the RPV City Council:
The home across the street from me — 30206 Avenida De Calma is occupied by serial renters. The last family
to rent stayed for about 2 or 3 months; the one before that was there probably about 4 months, and there have
been others before that. Now we have another rental family.
Every time a new family moves in, they have a lot of trash to get rid of, and when they move out, there is much
more trash lined up at the curb. Because these are short-term rentals, we have these large amounts of trash
rather frequently. The previous renter frequently put her extra weekly garbage in my trash can — full of ants
because apparently she did not know how to use the garbage disposal to get rid of her orange peels and other
leftover food items.
I like to get to know the neighbors who live close by, but with these frequent renters, there is no point in getting
to know them — I don't like being in this situation where as soon as I would get acquainted, they will be moving
away. We need to know our neighbors — for our own protection as well as theirs.
I, like most of my neighbors have lived in my house for about 35 years. I find this rental situation very
unpleasant and not conducive to the beautiful and stable neighborhood we live in.
The house is rented out by an aaencv. Is this leaal? If it is leaal. I would ask that you chanae the citv laws to
make such a rental situation in a neighborhood of single-family homes illegal.
Sincerely,
Gloria Schack
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for Wad
Kit Fox
Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:28 AM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Fw: Full Ban of Short-term Rentals
Follow up
Flagged
From: Pjbaduini <pjbaduini@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 1:36:11 PM
To: CC
Subject: Full Ban of Short-term Rentals
I reside at 7088 Crest Rd. in RPV and I support a Full Ban of short-term rentals.
B-15
Octavio Silva
From:
Kit Fox
Sent:
Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:25 AM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Subject:
Fw: Ban short term rentals
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
FYI
iin
Sent using OWA for iPad
From: Quinn Wu <gsidell@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 8:09:53 PM
To: CC; PC
Subject: Ban short term rentals
Hello City Council
I am a resident at 7102 Crest Rd and I support a full ban, without exceptions, on short term rentals.
Sent from my iPad
Ins
Octavio Silva
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 10:44 AM
To: jm ma fosse; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Ken Dyda; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich;
PC
Cc: mikehgalaxy@gmail.com; Octavio Silva
Subject: RE: Short Term Rentals
Ms. Fosse,
Thank you for taking the time to write the City on the topic of short-term rentals. Your email and
comments are part of the public record and will be provided to the City Council for consideration.
In order to receive the most up-to-date information and notification regarding the issue of short-term
rentals in the City of RPV, I recommend that you subscribe to the City's list -serve to receive email and
text message updates at the following link:
htt :/1www,vca.govllist.aspx
If you have any further questions, please contact me or Octavio Silva, Associate Planner, at 310-544-
5234 or octaviosrpvca.gov.
Thank you,
I_W
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
CITV0F LiRANCJ101'ALOSV DES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aramC@_rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
B-17
i:..�_•�£it) <.01;` fO-A.".ation LeIo td(iii o to 1 hc'Cit,/ of I�' mf ?- .,I.,S e, pi :ei-'.. ., confidenual andpor pwol-
L�7Ct b .
..0"[, :{ .. �;t ti. 11 ci=.4 .,a€� _ i. .1l=�;..,. s. .;1 ;r.t zed y .,:..... �£. §:�E}�..a.ii tai c pyf€ ,
. �..r.a, t6 t::£tte—,
From: jm ma fosse [mailto:jmafosse@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 2:59 PM
To: Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Brian Campbell <BrianC@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda @rpvca.gov>; Ken
Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic <JerryD@rpvca.gov>; Anthony Misetich <AnthonyM@rpvca.gov>; PC
<PC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: mikehgalaxy@gmail.com; jmafosse@yahoo.com
Subject: Short Term Rentals
Dear Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and Planning Commission,
I would like to go on record as being adamantly in favor of a strict ban on short term rentals within our city. It
is my understanding that all of our neighbor cities already have such a ban and I can see nothing but
disadvantages should it be allowed in any form in Rancho Palos Verdes.
I have been a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes since before we were a city and I know from first hand
experience how much work went into establishing a city that is conducive to quality family living. The
negative effects of the short term rental situation are already plainly evident and, I hope, can be stopped by
establishing a ban on the practice as soon as possible.
Thank you for your concern and help in this matter.
Sincerely,
Mary Alice Fosse
30089 Avenida Classica
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
IS
i
Octavio Silva
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 9:34 PM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: Fw: Short Term Rentals
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
From: June Treherne <junetreherne@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:00 AM
To: Steven Williamson
Cc: PC; Angela M. Williamson; Jeremy R Davies
Subject: Re: Short Term Rentals
Join us at the Council meeting September 20, there will be a large number of people present for this ban of short term
rentals.
June
Sent from my iPad
> On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:00 AM, Steven Williamson <sd_williamson@mac.com> wrote:
> I am strongly against allowing AirBNB or other short term rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes. If such rentals are allowed, I
shall work diligently to defeat the city council that appointed the members of the planning commission approving such a
measure.
> Sincerely,
> Steven Williamson
> Steven D Williamson
> 30419 Rh6ne Drive
> Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
> USA
> 1.310.377.9765 ( h)
> 1.424.634.1863 ( m)
> Sent from my iPad
B-19
Octavio Silva
From:
Kit Fox
Sent:
Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:58 AM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Subject:
Fw: Ban Short Term Rentals
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for iPad
From: ruyeminami@cox.net <ruyeminami@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:31:25 AM
To: CC
Cc: PC
Subject: Ban Short Term Rentals
Dear City Council,
My wife and I have been residents of Rancho Palos Verdes for over 45 years. We have enjoyed the peace and feeling of
community enabled by our friendly neighbors and a network of community members whom we've gotten to know over
the years. We feel that short term rentals in our city will threaten this peace by allowing a revolving door of strangers to
enter our neighborhoods. Potentially, the crime rate for break ins and petty thefts will rise with the increase of
strangers entering the city. We urge you to ban all short term rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes as our neighboring
communities (RHE, PVE, RH, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Manhattan Beach) have.
Thank your for your consideration of this very important matter.
Sincerely,
Richard and Miriam Uyeminami
1
Octavio Silva
From:
Kit Fox
Sent:
Thursday, September 01, 2016 9:52 AM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Gabriella Yap
Subject:
FW: Ban on Short Term Rentals
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
FYI
Kit Fox, AICP
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kitf@rpvca.gov
-----Original Message -----
From: June Treherne[mailto:junetreherne@hotmail.comj
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 9:47 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ban on Short Term Rentals
Dear City Council,
We are RPV homeowners and we support the Full Ban on short term rentals in RPV.
Thank you!
June & Derek Treherne
Sent from my iPad
B-21
Octavio Silva
From:
Ara Mihranian
Sent:
Tuesday, September 06, 2016 9:32 PM
To:
Octavio Silva
Subject:
Fw: Airbnb
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
From: Arline Grotz <arlineg@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 8:25 AM
To: CC
Subject: Airbnb
Dear City Council members and Planning Commission members,
Previously, I spoke to you at your meetings regarding the situation at our home on 3720 Hightide Drive, Rancho Palos
Verdes regarding the home being short term rented above our back yard. As you will remember short term tenants
(after partying all night) left the sprinklers on and the water came down the hill and was pooling in our back yard. I had
to call the Water Company to give them notice, because despite assurances that an owner representative was living in
the house, ringing the doorbell and knocking on the door, nobody responded. Now I find empty alcohol bottles thrown
from above onto our property. There has been considerable noise from endless partying also. Thank you for your
anticipated cooperation in joining the other cities on the hill in banning this nuisance and commercial use of residential
property. Thank you, Arline and Dick Grotz
1
B-22
Octavio Silva
From:
Kit Fox
Sent:
Friday, September 02, 2016 9:22 AM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Gabriella Yap
Subject:
FW: Ban Short Term Rentals
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
FYI
"t Fox, AICA
Citi of Rancho Pcilos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kitf@rpvca. ov
From: Carl Fung [mailto:docfung@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 8:59 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ban Short Term Rentals
To RPV City Council and RPV Planning Commission:
Please Ban Short Term Rentals. These rentals are not in the best interest of our community
Regards,
Carlton H. Fung, D.D.S.
Fung Family
30320 Calle De Suenos
Rancho Palos Verdes
1
B-23
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
FYI
Kit Fou, Aicp
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 5445226
kitf@)Wyca.$ov
Kit Fox
Friday, September 02, 2016 11:54 AM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Gabriella Yap
FW: Short Term Rentals
Follow up
Flagged
From: Wei's Gmail [mailto:senorweichen@gmail.coml
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 11:48 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Short Term Rentals
Hi, my name is Wei Chen and I live on 27018 Indian Peak Rd. I am writing to support banning short term
rentals which is in front of RPV City Council right now.
I have a neighbor across the street who short-term rented her house through Airbnb.com for several years now.
As a result, we are dealing with constant strangers in and out of the neighborhood and park their cars
irresponsibly all the time (i.e. In front of mail box, even block drive way!). Two separate incidents that stood
out: couple of years ago the house was rented out to collage -age kids who had a Saturday night party. For
several hours there was a constant circling of vehicles on the street looking for parking. By 10 pm there must be
50-80 people on that property; kids were drinking and talking loud on the street, loud music thumping late into
the night. In the end police was called to put the noise to an end. A second incident last summer when the same
property was short term rented out, one day I came home to find shattered glass shards all over the side walk
and the street near my mail box. Then I noticed the big pine tree there had a big chunk of the trunk knocked out.
It turned out the lady who rented the house backed her SUV into the tree from the other side of the street. We
had a 6 year-old and we naturally were concerned about his safety. When I talked to her about this and
requested to clean up the mess, she was rude and unapologetic. I had to call the landlady in the end.
We are dealing with these kind of irresponsible, rude and unsafe behavior constantly as a result of short term
rental. I like the good work our city officials have done so far, but please vote wisely to eradicate these
irritating and sometimes fearful memories from our citizens by banning sort -term rentals in RPV. I personally
want to see peace being restored to my street.
Thank you.
Wei Chen
(310) 775-2606
1A
Octavio Silva
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 1:41 PM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: FW: Ban Short Term Rentals - NOW!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
GITYOFL,fi iA1
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
I.1 q w tris info rina�io�t Nelon i K: f ; ilt,._ CA of kar cha,< G'a!o.; Ve dt�.�, 4.�,iCln s ': til O PH I CIe; c., C:.E.',l('= ,Cit' 3Mcj o` Protected ted ft"Q€Y€
t-�.�x,lE?9ii'i:. he i['i �{. �?1GtI0In :s i'h:e:n d ly` P01 use of 'he indiv.,.ival {„ L tlt, inaul;d n3. �� , .t -,d l€SS'.Tii?1a ., ..L�t; i._ :.;€T,�S; iI_ ..-.,>lli'.; y �ztt��f :. �r l7'C?zl �?'°�r:cP. If
'IN's email w er oi, �; at . .... an i O.PwJec. en, lent, ,olea ,e, fE�e:'i the sen,&° o ninediately. �I r )nk }oJ ��.?. ti�....,t ..;;, .-;. �t.a'� 4 �� 3t:r3f,I'.?C'.
From: marimond@yahoo.com [mailto:marimond@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2016 5:16 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Stacey A Michaels (TMS) <samichaels223@gmail.com>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ban Short Term Rentals - NOW!
Dear RPV City Council Members,
My wife and I have lived in our Los Verdes home for over 20 years.
Since 2012 we have lived next door to a 4 room motel at 6527 Eddinghill Drive. In the 2007-2008 timeframe the owner of this
property obtained approval from the planning commission to build his family's 4,000+ sdit dream home. But instead of using this
B-25
home for family, he has four separate listings on AirBnB offering a bedroom for nightly rental and proudly claims to have hosted
hundreds of guests since.
This commercial business plunked down in our community without any public discussion or permits has changed the character of our
neighborhood in very negative ways:
• Given the four rooms being rented, cars come and go at all hours with the accompanying slamming of doors and revving of
engines. And travelers with unfamiliar rental car key fobs constantly set off car alarms day and night outside our bedroom window.
• We have motel guests trespass on our property including one woman that brazenly walked down our side -yard in an attempt to use
our trash can for a bag of dirty diapers.
• Our curbs have been blocked by cars, so we've been unable to put our trash cans in front of our house. Frequently, we've had to
put them out at noon on Sunday for a Monday pickup.
These short term rentals must be fully banned in RPV. We and our neighbors have never been given a say in allowing this
commercial business in our midst. Yet, we have to take a financial hit to our property values, deal with the heavy increase in street
traffic and reduction in safety due to the constant stream of transients near our homes.
The Planning Commission's misguided attempt to allow "responsible" owner/occupiers to rent a single room or out -building is
completely un -enforceable. How can the code enforcement staff know if those two cars parked in front are all sharing one room? Or
two? Or more? How will enforcement work on weekends?
We respectfully request that you completely ban short term rentals and direct the planning commission and staff to draft the
implementing language.
Best regards,
Doug Marimon and Stacey Michaels
6533 Eddinghill Drive
i
Octavio Silva
From:
BW Riedman <rabbit943@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, September 04, 2016 3:59 PM
To:
Octavio Silva; CC
Subject:
RPV Short Term Rentals, Case No. ZON2016-00188
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
This is in response to the notice in the paper on September 1 concerning short-term rentals in Rancho Palos
Verdes and the Planning Commission's recommendation to be considered at the September 20 City Council
meeting.
I am very opposed to any short-term rentals including single -room or guest -home rentals when the property
owner* is present.
*Question. What if the property is rented? Does that mean the lessee has the authority to rent out rooms
as long as the lessee is present? Does the property owner have a say in this?
If you allow these exceptions, you have opened the door for unofficial "bed & breakfast" rentals with no
oversight and no regard to the residents living in close proximity to such an arrangement.
I don't see how the City can regulate this - will the owner/lessee need a permit to "rent out rooms?" If so, is this
another way for the City of make money?
How will the City monitor this? Are we now going to have to hire another entity to monitor the internet and
social media for people offering to rent out their homes/rooms?
What about those of us who live on cul de sacs with very limited parking? Will we now need parking permits
for our own streets to control the parking that will inevitably result?
We purchased our home because it is in a "residential" neighborhood and we know our neighbors and who does,
and does not, live here. In all the years that I have lived in RPV (since 1979), there has only been one instance
when a loud party caused the police to be called and that was on the street below. When someone rents out a
room (or rooms) to strangers, it's like having a hotel/motel next door. And we didn't choose to buy a home to
have it's value depreciate because of such an arrangement on our street. Undoubtedly, when you go to sell your
home, this will be one more negative issue to disclose to any prospective buyers.
Since I am also sending this to our City Council, I am asking that the City Council please NOT approve the
Planning Commission's recommendation. It will only benefit a few and make life miserable for anyone living
next to one of these homes. The City should ban ALL short-term rentals.
Betty Riedman
3668 Cliffsite Drive, RPV
310-541-8470
B-27
Octavio Silva
From:
Chris Huang <cgpharmd@cox.net>
Sent:
Monday, September 05, 2016 11:24 PM
To:
Ken Dyda; Brian Campbell; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; CC
Cc:
PC; Planning; Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva
Subject:
Short -Term Rental, Planning Case Number ZON2016-00188
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mayor Dyda and City Council Members,
I am submitting this letter in response to the planning commission's recommendation to prohibit short-term rental with
the exception of single -room or guest home rentals when an owner is present. I appreciate the time and attention that
the City Council and the planning commission members afforded thus far, but strongly disagree with allowing the
exception to the full prohibition of short-term rentals in the city.
I have been a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes for over 15 years. My family and I moved here because of its semi -rural,
low density nature and away from the hustle and bustle of the greater Los Angeles. We chose to pay premium dollars
for the serenity, safety and the feel of community. We have made many friends over the years in the city and found that
most, if not all of us, are here for the same reasons. The top notch school district is an added value for those of us with
children. I used to lived on a street in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes with an Airbnb across the street, 2 houses away,
and have experienced the excessive number of people coming and going at all hours of the day and parking
congestion. We chose to move because our sense of security was lost. I wondered who is moving in today, tomorrow,
what about next week or next month? The unfamiliar persons and cars made neighborhood watch virtually
impossible. We moved to another location within the city. Within months, I realized there is yet another Airbnb
operator on the same street. This time, its' not so close, but the number of cars driving through our curvy, narrow, cul-
de-sac street is alarming. This Airbnb operator is at the end of the cul-de-sac and at times, there are orange cones on
the street for their own or "guests"' use and convenience.
In mid-August of this year, I started to notice more than usual activities next door. With the number of burglaries on the
rise, our street neighborhood watch members are vigilant and watch out for each other. Due to the frequency and
nature of the activities, I checked the Airbnb website and sure enough, the house is recently listed on Airbnb with 4
rooms for rent on the daily basis. The combined number of people that can sleep in these 4 rooms are 16. 1 anticipate
that the activities will increase as the operator build a reputation with positive reviews on the website. I should note
that the house was originally for sale, but somehow, it got turned into an Airbnb short-term rental. We now keep our
bedroom windows closed because there are always strangers looking over our house and yard for the view and taking
pictures. Even on hot days, we do not feel comfortable without the shades drawn with strange people and cars coming
and going. It is even worst and unnerving when the dog barks when strangers are approaching or nearby. The transient
nature of the short-term rental business has destroyed our sense of security and serenity again. This is not what we
expect, nor bargain for, in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes in a residential, single family home neighborhood. The short-
term rental is an illegally operated hotel business.
The exception of single -room or guest home rental when an owner is present is ripe for abuse and misuse. Below are
some of the reasons why it is subject to abuse and misuse.
Single -room: Will this be a bedroom, living room or large play room or bonus room? An argument can be made
to rent out a large bonus room that will sleep up to 8, 10 or 12 people in that single room.
Ajir�ue
2. Occupancy limit: What is the occupancy limit in the 'single -room'? Will high occupancy in the'single-room'
violate fire code? Does the fire department need to have a say in this matter? The new Airbnb house that just
opened right next to my house described one of the 4 rooms for rent, the master bedroom, can sleep 6 people
with 1 king bed and 2 air mattresses.
3. Traffic and parking congestions is directly associated with occupancy. The number of constant and ever
changing "guests" disrupts the nature of our neighborhoods.
4. Owner presence: How does one proof the owner is present? Will an owner need to be onsite at all times? Can
the owner step out when the "guests" are in the short-term rental?
5. Owner of the single family house: can a house with multiple owners rent out their share of the 'single -room' in
the house? What about houses that are owned by corporations or trusts? Who are the owners and how many?
6. Enforcement difficulties: How will the city enforce the exception? I understand from the planning department
that enforcement has its challenges, but it will be straight forward for the prohibition of short-term rental versus
prohibition of short-term rental with exception with a list of conditions. I do not believe the enforcement staff
have rights to go in to these hotel businesses to verify and enforce the exception conditions. Is the city prepared
to hire additional staff to ensure the short-term rental business operators are following the exception
regulations and codes? Is this a good and appropriate use of city fund so the short-term rental business
operator can make money and not pay any additional taxes and shoulder the burden they created.
7. Many single rooms in the same house can be listed on various on-line platforms to work -around the
exception. Alternatively, the description of the various single -rooms can be changed to make them appear that
the short-term rental rooms are in different houses.
8. Advertisement of multiple rooms in the same house for rent by the business operator, but claim only one room
is being rented at any one-time. How does one verified that only one room is being rented?
Ultimately, any short-term vacation rental is a business that makes money for the operators. In doing so, these
businesses are changing the characteristic of our neighborhoods. The city of Rancho Palos Verdes mission statement for
the city government says that the city is "...dedicated to providing its residents, business and visitor with exemplary
municipal governance and services, while preserving our low-density, low tax and semi -rural character..."
Lastly, all the surrounding cities on the hill have banned short-term rentals. I think it's reasonable to anticipate an
increase in the number of short-term rentals in our city if exception is allowed. Most of the other comparable beach
cities, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach have prohibited short-term rentals. A few had tried to
have a compromised plan, but the reality was that compromise and/or exception created additional problems and thus
the outright ban. I strongly urge our city to learn from the experience of others and implement the prohibition of short-
term rental without exception.
Thank you for your service, time and attention.
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Huang
County Club area, RPV
►a
Octavio Silva
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 12:13 PM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: FW: Short Term Rentals
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
CITY0FL R 1,0P 0SNrFR
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Ao Do you really need to print this e-mail?
C r,taP in( aFconu%.i �. i >.�a<<t€Car t;elot 6ng', tc: the ,y re
C`ill R ,nch�o Fla:os Verde's, 'A"Mcn
�z w Ma", `_e ,,� r � �-_r .., is � �i<�.. 7�:€al an(Yo' protected fray:
ensclosu•e_ he in o . atnn < i N'nrk! 1-mly for rs:, of the [n(!M hual o e tRv narned. Una%n n.,r..r:Ci � „ :�,; ,; -, 3; ,1...:E�.>ution, or Copying is 'y1 o Y..tea, if
..,;J : CCe.iV.:; 'I,l,l$ e€ i .u. '€' r.:_ i& - P01 ��'? 13`<("T "�nC? re .(},.,"'.Rl, : I; 3`,;r P 1, f r`'€ 1? :r-: `P1CIE•" t1Tln3,. tJci i'h� _3i,;� t� �'f;..it £!SStS�'rillci'. aflf. f t)�.,�,FP:S f1.'?i':.
From: Diane Richman [mailto:dianejr@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 3:57 PM
To: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Short Term Rentals
Please ban short term rentals. We live next door to a house on Indian Peak Road that has short term rentals. Most of the
time the home is empty and when it is rented, they are just transient dwellers who party and leave. The landscaping is
not kept up as well as if there were people there all the time. For us, it is a safety issue. The man who lives on the other
side of us travels a lot, leaving our home vulnerable to burglars, etc. This used to be a family neighborhood which is why
we bought many years ago into this area. It is ridiculous to have these short term rentals bringing down our property
values.
Sincerely,
(310-541-7703)
B-31
Octavio Silva
From:
Sen
Cc:
Subject:
FYI
���^��
�~^.�,^.~^
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(510)544-5226
Kit Fox
Tuesday, September O62Ol68:l9AK4
Octavio Silva; Ara K1ihmnian
Gabriella Yap
FW: Ban Short Term Rentals
Ban Short Term Renta|s.pdf
From: gQb1907@auicom[maUto:cub1997@gaoicono]
Sent: Tuesday, September O6 20168:174M
To: [Z<[C@rpvoa.gou^
Subject: Fwd: Ban Short Term Rentals
Gem-ge Brandt
Palos Verdes Bowl
248OOCrenshaw Blvd.
Torrance, CAQO5U5
(310)32S -5i20
----- Original Message ---
Fronn:ggb19Q7
To: CC^
Sant Mon, Sep 5, 20162:45pm
Subject: Ban Short Term Rentals
Please see the attached letter supporting a full ban, without exceptions, on short term rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Thank you,
(�emrge Brandt
Palos Verdes Bowl
240OOCrenshaw Blvd.
Torrance, CAQU505
(310) 326-5120
-��u�
�
��
September 4, 2016
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council:
We live one house away from a residential house that is being advertised and used as a
short term rental. This is a neighborhood that is attractive to us because it is quiet, safe,
and has very little traffic flow.
It is unfathomable to us that our representatives would even consider allowing such a
use! All of the cities around us have banned short term rentals and we urge you to
follow suit. Would you seriously want such a rental in your neighborhood, next door to
you? We don't think so unless you are in favor of lower property values, increased
noise, decreased safety, and increased traffic from people you don't even know.
Although we are unable to attend the City Council meeting on September 20, 2016 we
wish to voice our displeasure with the Council's current position and trust that the
wellness of our neighborhood will hold preference over this obviously abusive use.
We want to go on record to ban short term rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Commercial use has no place in residential neighborhoods.
Thank you,
George & Diana Brandt
3716 Hightide Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
B-33
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 8:10 AM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: FW: "The Invasion Of Short Term Rentals"
FYI
Kit Fox, AICP
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kitf@rpvca.gov
-----Original Message -----
From: George C [mailto:gcinfo@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 9:44 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: "The Invasion Of Short Term Rentals"
Dear Members of the City Council:
I cannot believe that the Planning Commission is considering a plan for BnB's in Rancho Palos Verdes.
The only good the can come of this, is that BnB owners will make few bucks at the expense of their neighbors.
The single family residential home owners of RPV.
We don't need not knowing who our neighbors are week to week.
We don't need additional traffic in our already crowded community.
i live on a cul-de -sac street with 19 homes.
There are 2 BnB's on our street.
The road is narrow.
With the additional cars parked on the street make it tough for any Emergency vehicle to negotiate.
This is not a good idea.
We can't allow commercial activity in a residential area.
You might expect this in resort communities like Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach or even Manhattan Beach.
But guess what. They Banned It!
Just as Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills have.
Now Rancho Palos Verdes is the target for these BnB landlords.
We cannot let his happen.
I trust you will do the right thing.
Thank you!
George Cinfo
11a 30 year veteran of RPV'
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 1:01 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: FW: Short Term Rentals
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
FYI
Kit Fox, AICP
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kitf@rpvca.gov
-----Original Message -----
From: Joe Watson [mailto:joe.carole@me.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 11:08 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PC@rpva.gov
Subject: Short Term Rentals
We fully support a full ban on short term rentals in RPV. Thank you in advance for giving it your attention.
Joe & Carole Watson
30636 Via La Cresta, RPV
Sent from my iPad
1
Octavio Silva
From:
Kit Fox
Sent:
Tuesday, September 06, 2016 3:00 PM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Gabriella Yap
Subject:
FW: Ban short term rentals RPV
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
FYI
Kit Fox, AICP
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kitf@rpvca.gov
-----Original Message -----
From: narinder kapoor [mailto:simrankaro@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 2:58 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ban short term rentals RPV
Dear sir - I am writing to strongly urge you to completely ban short term rentals in RPV- we live on Avenida Altisima and
there are 2 airbnbs and there is noticeable increased car activity, streams of strangers coming and going with no
accountability- we do not feel safe with this going on and think it can only get worse. Also there seems to be no
explanation of why it is even being allowed when it is not a permitted activity according to the rules so far. Please do not
let our quiet city to become a getaway and thus a commercial enterprise- we did not choose this area for that reason.
Thank you - Narinder and Amar
Sent from my Whone
I
Octavio Silva
From: Valerie Grant <vgrantmd@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:08 PM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: Fwd: short term rentals
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
-------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Valerie Grant <vgrantmdggmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:59 PM
Subject: short term rentals
To: cc�r),pvca. ov
September 6,2016
Dear Sirs,
I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes on Crest road since 2002.1 am writing to express my opposition and
concern regarding the short term rentals that are popping up in my otherwise quiet neighborhood. Currently the
house next door has folks in it having parties often daily. There is increased noise heard from my back yard and
multiple cars lining my street. Just last week an old van sat outside in front of my home for over 1 week
without moving.
My children attended Palos Verdes High School and we could not even cut through the neighborhood in the car
to drive them to school because the residents complained near the school and the city put up signs. So why
would we consider allowing perfect strangers in high volumes on our streets and in our homes.
Please help us join Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills Estates in completely banning short term rentals.
Thank you,
RPV resident
B-37
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
FYI
Kit Fox, AICP
Citi) of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kitf@rpvca. ov
Kit Fox
Tuesday, September 06, 2016 8:07 AM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Gabriella Yap
FW: Home and room rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes
Follow up
Flagged
From: Carroll Gordon[mailto:carroll.gordon@toyota.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 7:28 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Robin Noah -Gordon <Robin_Noah-Gordon@Toyota.com>
Subject: Home and room rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes
Dear Sir or Madam,
My wife Robin and I own a home located at 5260 Elkmont Drive, RPV CA 90275. Regarding the pending decision on a
ban on short term rentals we are concerned that if these rentals are allowed the chances are very strong that it will have
a negative impact on the desirability of living in Rancho Palos Verdes and will naturally harm all home resale
values. While we appreciate the incredible advancements of VRBO and many similar services please know that if
someone cannot afford to make their home payments then possibly they should not be purchasing in that area. Just
because a person can rent out rooms or their entire house doesn't mean it always should be allowed as there are
negative impacts that must be considered and taken seriously. Also, we don't think it is appropriate to allow a hybrid
compromise to allow one room rentals as it has the exact same impact on nearby home resale values.
Thank you for your support on this issue, we understand it is a difficult topic.
Carroll Gordon
Cell: 310-200-2705
703103 •
•
Octavio Silva
From:
Kit Fox
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 9:36 AM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Gabriella Yap
Subject:
Fw: Short Term Rentals
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for iPhone
From: Pat Zigrang <pattyperfect@jtzeng.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 9:25:56 AM
To: CC
Subject: Short Term Rentals
As residents of RPV we strongly oppose short term rentals. Please vote to ban them in our city. Richard an Patricia
Zigrang - 28430 Lomo Dr.
1
B-39
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for Whone
Kit Fox
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:35 PM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Gabriella Yap
Fw: Please ban short-term rentals
Follow up
Flagged
From: Nancy Bruce <njbl@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 4:24:35 PM
To: CC
Subject: Please ban short-term rentals
To RPV City Council and Planning Commission,
I am asking you to totally ban short term rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes. With the recent rash of burglaries
and crime in our community it is hard to keep an out out for suspicious persons or activities. Short-term
rentals bring in unknown types of people. If one has a home in a nice neighborhood you do not expect to be
living next to a hotel. It certainly would bring down the value of your property, not to mention more traffic
and parking congestion. I have no idea where this idea started, but I don't think this kind of thing belongs in a
residential community.
Please vote for a ban on the short-term rentals.
Thank you,
Nancy Bruce
Rue de la Pierre
Rancho P.V.
Octavio Silva
From:
Ara Mihranian
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 11:26 AM
To:
Octavio Silva
Subject:
FW: Please ban short term rentals.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
M Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
-----Original Message -----
From: Donna McLaughlin [mailto:ddmclaughlin@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 10:54 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Please ban short term rentals.
Dear City Members/Staff
Please ban short term rentals. With the increase in crime in our city we need to take measures to prevent further
criminal activity that may result from these short term rentals. We are encouraged to report suspicious people and with
short term rentals there are people coming and going and its difficult to know who these people are. We are setting
ourselves up for possibly more crime by having short term rentals in our city.
Thank you
Donna and Dennis McLaughlin
RPV
Octavio Silva
From:
Kit Fox
Sent:
Thursday, September 08, 2016 8:38 PM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Gabriella Yap
Subject:
Fw: NO on short term renters rpv
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Completed
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for iPad
From: Michael Friedman <mlfriedman@me.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 8:27:37 PM
To: CC
Cc: Michael Friedman
Subject: NO on short term renters rpv
Dear Council: As a long time resident of RPV I would hate to see short term rentals in our neighborhood. We have
enough trouble with property crime and other criminal activity. I would like to know who is walking on the sidewalk or
street and would not like to have strange out of state or out of area cars parking in front of my house or blocking the
driveway. Please do not approve this measure. I do understand the economics of the issue but think it would be unwise
to accept and endorse the concept here. Thanks . Michael L. Friedman, MD. 29126 Warnick Road, RPV.
1
AI
Octavio Silva
From:
Gabriella Yap
Sent:
Thursday, September 08, 2016 6:52 PM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Kit Fox
Subject:
FW: Ban Short -Term Rentals
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Completed
-----Original Message -----
From: glenn spargo [mailto:spargo@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 6:49 PM
To: james young <jyoungortho@gmail.com>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; mikehgalaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Ban Short -Term Rentals
Great job Jim.
Thanks for helping out. It's for all of us.
Glenn
> On Sep 8, 2016, at 4:27 PM, James Young <jyoungortho@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members,
> I am writing you to express my strong support for the banning of short-term rentals in our city. I am appealing to you
to vote for the permanent banning of such unsavory activities in our community.
> Rancho Palos Verdes is known for its excellent schools and its safe environment. The recent increase in burglary
incidents and residential break-ins have cast a pall to the tranquility we residents have cherished.
> Allowing homeowners to rent out their rooms to short-term dwellers will definitely put an extra burden on
Neighborhood Watch captains in ensuring the safety of our neighborhoods. How do we keep out strangers or report
suspicious activities if we don't know who lives in a certain house?
> Our neighboring communities and their council members have seen the wisdom of banning short-term rentals. Hence,
the residents of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates are protected from owners who want to
commercialize their assets at their neighbors' expense
> For the sake of our residents and for the future of our city, I beseech you to vote for the permanent banning of short-
term rentals.
> Thanks.
> Dr. James Young
> Sent from my iPad
1
B-43
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 5:05 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: FW: Short term rentals
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
FYI
Kit Fox, AICP
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310)544-5226
kitf@rpvca.gov
-----Original Message -----
From: John Kolin [mailto:rosiejpk@msn.comj
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 4:26 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Short term rentals
I am against allowing short term rentals on the Peninsula.
Thank you,
John Kolin
30750 Cartier drive
RPV, ca 90275
Sent from my Wad
1
AI I
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 5:05 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: FW: Ban Short -Term Rentals
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
FYI
Kit Fox, AICP
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kitf@rpvca.gov
-----Original Message -----
From: Virginia Young [mailto:v3888@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 3:57 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: mike[
Subject: Ban Short -Term Rentals
To Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members,
This is to express my strong support for the permanent banning of short-term rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes.
As someone who has lived in this community for over thirty years, I find it appalling that short-term rentals are allowed
to exist in this city. Given the challenging safety issues we are facing with intruders, allowing commercial interests to
operate in our midst is like adding fuel to the fire.
In addition, there is the lack of accountability on the part of renters, additional waste and usage of our streets and
services, which will contribute to the decline in our property values.
Let us follow our neighboring cities in banning the rentals of single rooms or homes. Rancho Palos Verdes deserves to
remain a quiet and safe bedroom community.
Thanks.
Virginia Young
Sent from my Wad
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
FYI
Kit Fox, AICD
CitLj of Rancho Pcilos Verdes
(310044-5226
kitf@rayea.gov
Kit Fox
Thursday, September 08, 2016 5:04 PM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Gabriella Yap
FW: UPCOMING CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON SHORT TERM RENTALS
Follow up
Completed
From: julian [mailto:julianpfoley@msn.comj
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 3:43 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Gail Lorenzen <rpvnw@ix. netcom.com>
Subject: Fw: UPCOMING CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON SHORTTERM RENTALS
Re. getting around the system: Did the City ever enforce the issuing of permits? I think short
term rentals should be banned regardless whether it is enforced, especially since the other
cities listed have all banned it.
Julian Foley
RPV
----- Original Message -----
From: Gail Lorenzen
To: AAA Address
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 11:25 AM
Subject: UPCOMING CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON SHORT TERM RENTALS
This is going to all Block Captains in the City. Please network to all residents.
Many residents have called Neighborhood Watch with questions and concerns about short-term rentals in
RPV. The following is a notice of an upcoming meeting with the City Council regarding that
issue. Background: The RPV Planning Commission recently approved in a 4-2 vote to allow homeowners to
rent one room or a guest house as long as they live on site, However, the City Council has the final say on the
proposal. The neighboring cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Manhattan
Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Redondo Beach have all banned short-term vacation rentals without exceptions. If
you have concerns, one way or the other, this is your chance to make your views known. One concern many
residents have, besides the interruption to their neighborhoods, is enforcement of such a policy. Numerous
articles about other cities such as Santa Monica and Brentwood have exposed the difficulty of enforcing such a
policy. Enforcement exposes a big challenge regardless of a partial or outright ban. Besides the manpower of
enforcing the law, there are always ways that residents will find to go around the system.
Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2016, at 7:00 P.M.
Location: Community Room at Hesse Park, located at 29301 Hawthorne Blvd, RPV
Purpose of Meeting: Continue evaluation of possibility of banning short-term vacation
rentals in RPV. The City Council will meet to review the recommendation of the Planning
Commission concerning short-term vacation rentals. The City Council may give direction on
the language of the final ordinance at this meeting.
All residents are urged to show up and express their opinions on this matter. Any residents
that cannot attend are encouraged to mail the City Council and Planning Department of
their opinions. Please send your e-mail on or before Monday, Sept. 12, to make sure they will
be included in the staff report to City Council.
RPV City Council: CC@rpvca.gov - (310) 377-0360
RPV Planning Commission : PC@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5228
For more information on this matter, please refer to the following Peninsula News article or
contact the RPV Planning Deparment:
http://www.pvnews.com/news/rpv-planning-commission-votes-to-allow-limited-short-term-
residential/article 3d5b1 f04 -6a56-1 1 e6-86b0-fbf56c78f746.html
Gail Lorenzen
RPV Neighborhood Watch
Octavio Silva
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 4:19 PM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: FW: Short term vacation rentals
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
0 Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
-----Original Message -----
From: Karl Dullack [mailto:dulacado@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 4:09 PM
To: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Short term vacation rentals
We understand that the city of Rancho Palos Verdes es considering the issue of short term vacation rentals.
We would like to express our opinion that it should NOT BE ALLOWED because it will disrupt our neighbor community
with more traffic and strangers that are not concerned with the community.
We also feel that Neighborhood Watch will not be able to be as effective as it has been. It would be hard to watch who
is coming and going in the area. It would also be difficult for any neighbor to determine if it is a renter or an intruder
that is coming into a house.
Please consider our opinion in the upcoming meeting.
Sincerely,
i
Karl N. Dullack and Lucia V. Dullack
Octavio Silva
From:
Gabriella Yap
Sent:
Thursday, September 08, 2016 3:09 PM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Kit Fox
Subject:
FW: Short Term Rentals
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
From: junewhitmore [mailto:junemose@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 3:08 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Short Term Rentals
RHE, PVE, RH, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach have all banned short term rentals. Why is it not
banned in Rancho Palos Verdes?
PLEASE BAN SHORT TERM RENTALS IMMEDIATLY IN RPV
Thank you in anticipation of a favorable decision.
June and Fred Whitmore
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for Whone
Kit Fox
Thursday, September 08, 2016 3:07 PM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Gabriella Yap
Fw: Short-term vacation rentals in RPV
Follow up
Completed
From: Amy Rumsey <amyrumsey@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 3:03:08 PM
To: CC; 'mailto:PC@rpvca.gov'
Subject: Short-term vacation rentals in RPV
Dear City Council and Planning Commission members,
This email is to express our strong opposition to an ordinance allowing short-term rentals in RPV(with or without owners
on site), which is so obviously a bad idea for many reasons, including:
• The "owner -on-site" requirement is difficult to regulate and enforce. Do you call the police or the City of RPV
when violations occur? What is the penalty for a violation?
• Animosities will undoubtedly take place amongst neighbors. We live in a peaceful, high-end community. Let's
keep it that way!
• The profit for a few should not alter the private enjoyment of the sanctity and peaceful enjoyment of the place
we call "home"
• There are many large, beautiful homes, a great number of them with spectacular views, that would be perfect
for holding large parties while they are being rented "short-term". This is already happening in many
communities, and RPV will not be an exception. Renters have no reason to have respect for our communities.
• Why do we need unregulated mini -hotels in residential neighborhoods? Those interested in staying in RPV
should make use of the existing tax -generating hotels that are available.
• It diminishes property values
• There is ambiguity about applying safety and health regulations. Short-term rentals are a business.
• Noise, parking problems, strangers coming and going — adding to our escalating problem with crimes committed
in our neighborhoods.
Please realize that there are many good reasons to say no to short-term rentals, and saying yes benefits only a very
small segment of the community at the expense of others. Do some research and ask yourselves if you hear of any
communities similar to our saying that they love short-term rentals.
Please vote no on short-term rentals in RPV.
B-51
Respectfully,
Patrick and Amy Rumsey
RPV Residents
B-52
Octavio Silva
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 2:59 PM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: FW: short term rental in RPV
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
M Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
-----Original Message -----
From: Judy Platus [mailto:jdplatus@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 2:16 PM
To: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: short term rental in RPV
I am opposed to allowing ANY short term rentals in RPV. it can ruin relationships with neighbors, lessen property values
in the neighborhood, cause problems for the landlord and bring unwanted traffic into our wonderful surroundings. Let's
maintain the fine values we enjoy and not fall into the pit some other cities are struggling with now.
Judy Platus
RPV resident
Thanks.
B-53
Octavio Silva
From: Gabriella Yap
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 2:42 PM
To: Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva
Cc: Kit Fox
Subject: FW: Support for Complete Ban on Short Term Rentals
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
From: Marshall Langberg [mailto:friedegg1944@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:09 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Support for Complete Ban on Short Term Rentals.
Having lived in Manhattan Beach prior to the city's prohibition on short term rentals, I have witnessed the
disruptive impact on the residents of a normally quiet neighborhood street.
Loud music, late night slamming of car doors, noisy early morning street conversations, and haphazard street
parking with cars intruding into driveways were some of the unfortunate consequences of short term rentals.
Furthermore, these activities were not limited to weekends, they could occur on any day at any time.
To avoid this kind of behavior in Rancho Palos Verdes, I urge your support for a ban on short term rentals.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marshall Langberg
30009 Avenida Elegante
Octavio Silva
From:
Kit Fox
Sent:
Thursday, September 08, 2016 1:01 PM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Gabriella Yap
Subject:
FW: short term rentals
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
FYI
Kit Fox, AICP
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kitf@rpvca.gov
-----Original Message -----
From: Anke Raue [mailto:ankeraue@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:29 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: short term rentals
Please register our opposition to short term rentals!
Jorg and Anke Raue
28813 Rothrock Dr.
R.P.V, Ca 90275
310-377-2599
i
B-55
Octavio Silva
From: homecoding@gmail.com on behalf of Madeleine Mc Jones
<madeleine@homecoding.com>
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 3:41 PM
To: Octavio Silva; CC
Subject: Short -Term Residential Rentals but Not in Gated Communities
Short -Term Residential Rentals but Not in Gated Communities
I strongly feel that a person who purchased a home in a private gated community and pays association fees for
roads and insurance liability should not have the burden of liability for guest or the intrusions of paying house
guests using their paid community resources and changing the privacy expectations of the neighborhood they
purchased in.
This fundamentally changes the community, the homeowner purchased into. The expectation was gated
and private community and not liability or access to renters. If a person wants to make money then it should not
be in a gated community with association dues, and private roads the need maintained by the association
money.
Perhaps they should have to pay the association or city tax just like other rentals, this would be a renters tax,
most likely this is has been considered already.
In any case please consider not allowing this sort of rentals in Gated Communities in RPV.
Madeleine McJones
3 Tangerine Road RPV CA 90275
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 1:15 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: Fw: Please Ban Short Term Rentals in RPV
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for iPhone
From: Cathy Kendall <CLKJK-53-2-5@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 11:56:25 AM
To: CC
Subject: Please Ban Short Term Rentals in RPV
B-57
Octavio Silva
From:
Ara Mihranian
Sent:
Friday, September 09, 2016 3:21 PM
To:
Octavio Silva
Subject:
FW: Short-term rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
CITY OF LAI�ANU 10
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram(a),rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
lE5 t? `!31? 31"t4";Sr3Cl-: �C :�i 1s N�ift)t Clt�tt .C'. -if 2f.21L '() SIC' CRY of Rand'K t' 3 S (C.it�E� vl'1 n FV D f t € _c ed; co�'iIt".�� - t( a) ,iitti
e_, ht.: tri £..: <'flon i 7,n need .,t.1 "or Liss of .`le kndIv duM �.? i
1) This is a residential city with a traditionally low crime rate. We have recently been experiencing a
remarkable increase in crime. The influx and turn -over of a short-term rental population will undoubtedly lead
to an increase in crime, not to mention increases in noise, litter, and the other negative effects resulting from a
transient population which is not invested, financially or emotionally, in the quality of life of the tax -payers of
this city. The decline in property values resulting from the above issues is of deepest concern to those of us who
have invested time and money in maintaining the quality of life of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. The
"broken window" theory of law enforcement, so beautifully demonstrated in New York City, does not have to
be re -tested in our small city. Indeed, a transient rental population can only lead to the first cracks in our
window.
2) The RPV City Council members, as well as the RPV Planning Commission members, should look to our
neighboring communities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Manhattan Beach,
Hermosa Beach, and Redondo Beach. Every one of these cities have banned short-term vacation rentals without
exceptions. Clearly, they have seen and understood the many problems resulting from a short-term rental
population negatively impacting cities like Brentwood and Santa Monica. For a glimpse of what a transient
population would bring to our city, one need look no further than the disgraceful situation seen at our own Dei
Cerro Park! Furthermore, given the ban on the short-term rentals enacted by our neighboring cities, Rancho
Palos Verdes would, by default, become the short-term rental destination for the entire South Bay area, thus
magnifying all of the negatives mentioned earlier.
3) Suggesting that the residents of RPV believe that the law, permitting short-term rentals only if the
homeowner lives on site, can actually be enforced is disingenuous, if not cynically patronizing. Moreover, we
tax -paying residents have worked long and hard, encouraged by local law enforcement, to establish effective
neighborhood watch organizations. The ever-changing population of short-term renters would create
insurmountable difficulties in maintaining the effectiveness of the work of the dedicated members of these
neighborhood watch organizations.
In conclusion, as residents of Rancho Palos Verdes for over 30 years, we respectfully ask the members of the
RPV City Council and the RPV Planning Committee to categorically ban all short-term rentals, with no
exceptions, in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. We thank you for taking the time to read, and to consider
seriously, our concerns.
Very Sincerely,
Robert M. Miller, M.D.
Susan M. Miller
32050 Pacifica Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Octavio Silva
From:
Ara Mihranian
Sent:
Friday, September 09, 2016 3:21 PM
To:
Octavio Silva
Subject:
FW: Supporting a Total Ban on Short Term Rentals
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
GITY0FL RWI 10 1 0S VERDE,-,
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram ,rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.cgov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
I FIs e, -i> 1 lm.,.:aIr_ ;.:er;t1 ls ....3nliat, c t:; thF of R3rC,a„ Pak -)s vr 1di_ which n 1:;(, prIvii^CF(, cnnf1Jc Fr. �1���, ..� prot..tt�.,J it.>'ni
(z4st:iosll".:. l:
` of
iE� i,t;`�;'r=tc'=it:iii _,> t'1,'itt. :,� only t)� t,E�,;: i;3` 3f iYiEl€`a''LEIi81 C?" entity ,?2iri12d. . �);iri 1.i i� ,�:.di5s(?i3"113},}i?i,ii, l
,.i,�,.rr�.,.f:.. copying S �AlI Idly pri)hlbi!> d, if
You mce iv(?d this air i., ; E til . nr ar(E n an i i.€'.ndal r do€ ".nt; oleas(t notify (ik' S'al (o kvvwdflaU4 l}f, Thank you for your .... E`-t:31t.,c. and co(,gvration.
From: Robert Frinier [mailto:robert@frinier.net]
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 3:18 PM
To: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Supporting a Total Ban on Short Term Rentals
September 9, 2016
To Our Planning Commission Members and City Council
I strongly support the total ban on short term rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes and request that the Planning Commission
and City Council does also.
We have had experienced increased traffic , party buses on weekends bringing large groups to rental homes with
ensuing noise and disruption, as well as strangers walking up the neighborhood and canyons behind our homes. These
individuals seem to disregard the normal neighborhood etiquette of permanent residents.
Particularly considering that surrounding cities, have implemented a total ban on home rentals of less than 30 days /
short term rentals, I am concerned about dropping property values if RPV continues to allow loopholes in the current
regulations. Based on the short term / Airbnb / other rentals in our area, the issues associated with weekend, week or
so and rentals without the owner actually living in the home, it is obvious that a partial ban has proven to be
unworkable.
I encourage you to consider the detrimental effects to our residential neighborhoods and institute a total ban on short
term rentals
Respectfully,
Robert Frinier
- A 24 year resident on Crest Road
- robert@frinier.net
Octavio Silva
From:
Kit Fox
Sent:
Friday, September 09, 2016 2:35 PM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Gabriella Yap
Subject:
Fw: Support for ban on short term rentals
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for Whone
From: Judy Frinier <judy@frinier.net>
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 2:28:22 PM
To: CC
Subject: Support for ban on short term rentals
To Our City Council Members,
I fully support the full ban on short term rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes. We have had increased
traffic, a party bus, and strangers walking up the canyon behind our homes.
A partial ban has proven to be unworkable. I hope you will consider the detrimental effects to our
residential neighborhoods.
Respectfully,
Judith Frinier, 24 year resident
Crest Road
judy@frinier.net
1
B-62
Octavio Silva
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 11:07 AM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: FW: Ban on Short Term Rentals in RPV
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
W -1q
T Y OF I iViO 10 AIS - (-DFS
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram(a)rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
co la } information t„dm€ : hf Rancho, cho, 'a.t_5V it�L } Y EE v P etc. c f.� (€o{ rr€' i z€€ci zf
1?n n'r}'a ion iS Inie''nde only fo E.>._. , ir. E� .7'•,+iry l<_� 0 €'i4(Y 31uiY iL`:�. �..��ill !,� c, lr. c. `�) ?�... ,:��1"1 ., 3; � iss 1:)utio r`; or cape-', ,?€iC,';_.y :.'C3hibit d, If
, ,. .I ? £?£t?ii. 1:§ :;__.ul. l� :;`r�t3;. i)` ciP �, r1�3 an �.,. Eat FL, i L € 'rl' li<.c35n tl'l0 1 i�! �*._t'C v`3 ft`'l.l , t:€c= : I ,: nz I u ;�7= your a' ,;til5Llnc.-.:�F.
From: James Huang [mailto:jhuang711@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 9:57 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ban on Short Term Rentals in RPV
Dear City Council and Planning Commission,
I'm a homeowner in RPV and I am strongly for the ban on short term rentals. Short term rentals create a
nuisance in my neighborhood with the introductions of strangers coming and going in neighboring homes. I
looked into the Airbnb's website and the vetting process is very ineffective. I was easily able to create an
account for my dog, Molly. I could have easily made a booking using a fraudulent credit card. Airbnb has an
Instant Booking option that allows booking a place instantly without the owner's approval. There is no vetting
process.
Currently Airbnb is involved with a discrimination action where the owners are unfairly discriminating against
certain races of people trying to rent. Airbnb's response is that they will "accelerate the use of instant
bookings". This increase use of the instant bookings complete eliminates the vetting process that owner's
have in selecting their tenants.
The complete quote of that paragraph is included here•
"On Thursday, Airbnb took its most forceful actions yet to combat discrimination. It told its rental hosts that
they needed to agree to a "community commitment" starting on Nov. 1 and that they must hew to a new
nondiscrimination policy. The company also said that it would try to reduce the prominence of user
photographs, which indicate race and gender, and that it would accelerate the use of instant bookings, which
lets renters book places immediately without host approval."
Link to Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/technology/airbnb-anti-discrimination-rules html? r-0
Please consider the negative impact allowing Airbnb's would have on our lovely community.
Sincerely,
James Huang
26870 Basswood Ave, RPV.
1-0
•A
Octavio Silva
From:
Ara Mihranian
Sent:
Friday, September 09, 2016 9:54 AM
To:
Octavio Silva
Subject:
FW: Regarding short time rental
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
C-',1TV OF LiRANGI 10 I-W-08VERIDES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
sWIYiXNI WOW.
Win inf or rnadon bel €!t !. £ to, th �-ity of Rancho Palos
fog ? sy?' :r _<_'.� L:� t.F3) of: 0.ntity €1am,,..., tai, „ ,i_'f��.. �3; E€S.r4!1t.?lt1C ort-.ytii�� .s .�:r)d 1` jJ!"Q�'T �'H;:e'..c'l', 11`
r <d i€ error, o n(.1"',ars .,, a,-, did r c ": J(ca4c nfA;f,f the '-enck' Ol 3. € , }. f t €>c YoU fry your :ss€st nce o. d o efatiort•
From: pvyoko@cox.net [mailto:pvyoko@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 8:10 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Regarding short time rental
Hello
I can not attend the meeting on Tuesday September 20.
I support a ban for short time rental in Rancho Palos Verdes.
•
Best regards
Yoko Myhre
Octavio Silva
From:
Ara Mihranian
Sent:
Friday, September 09, 2016 9:54 AM
To:
Octavio Silva
Subject:
FW: Please ban short-term rentals in RPV
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
0T\/0FL kANCJ!0I--AJ_0SV�.RD_FS
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
T iFs a nlaii messy}c conn a_�s rrformation b'longing to the City of R._. cho Paas V:_r 7e.;; Nd' b-, rii ' :nFidenhad amV(; i Protected fre„
i'isdosAt e, 1.e S foiniAnf s mte.n iy :C use 0f :he irAv;d,,lfl o, >rntity named.Una'u; o €,e..J cl€,5£.r�E'3r1 ; i, (Il i'lti"'J -Ont N C ?,r27”
yolr : ec:ea ed ftas e r al in en o? , o: are r o* <a-) inc'.I' dec;rti i �«nt, 'k'as no; dv E he immediately l h anx You sn. y" -Ur a sist act r:U
From: Gilda Sebenick [mailto:giida@dgcc.com]
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 9:21 AM
To: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Please ban short-term rentals in RPV
Dear City Council and Planning Commission members,
As an RPV resident and a parent, I do not want to allow any short term rentals in RPV. Our community is
known for being a family -focused area with an excellent school district. Short-term rentals are for touristy
areas used to a transient population, not RPV. Even adding a requirement that the homeowner live on site is
not enough, because it puts the onus on the neighbors to keep tabs on the homeowner.
•
We are already being asked to be more watchful of strange cars/people in our area due to an uptick in
property crimes. Adding short-term rentals will only increase this need for vigilance. The benefit of short-term
rentals is mainly for the homeowner. The cost, however, applies to all of us. The benefits do not outweigh the
costs. Please do not allow any short-term rentals.
Thank You,
Gilda Sebenick
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for iPad
Kit Fox
Friday, September 09, 2016 8:55 AM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Gabriella Yap
Fw: short term rentals
Follow up
Completed
From: Dipak Ranparia<Dipak.Ranparia@rmslifeline.com>
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 7:58:00 AM
To: CC
Subject: short term rentals
Dear sirs,
I brought my family to RPV four years ago for the peaceful neighborhood that we fell in love with. I would be
against the constant stream of new people and cars coming in and out of my neighborhood. I am for a full ban
on short term rentals in RPV, which would make our community on par with all other surrounding cities that
already ban short term rentals.
With great importance,
Dipak Ranparia, MD
Chief of Interventional Radiology
Los Angeles Vascular Center
Office: 310-674-9300
Cell: 310-701-5505
E -fax: 888-244-9117
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL, INTENDED FOR THE NAMED
RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS (I) PROPRIETARY TO THE SENDER,
AND/OR, (II) PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, AND/OR OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE
UNDER APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PRIVACY
STANDARDS IMPOSED PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1996 ("HIPAA"). IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE
EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR
COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS
TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE (I) NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR BY
TELEPHONE AT (855.472.9822), (II) REMOVE IT FROM YOUR SYSTEM, AND (III) DESTROY THE
ORIGINAL TRANSMISSION AND ITS ATTACHMENTS WITHOUT READING OR SAVING THEM.
THANK YOU.
September 10, 2016
Dear Ara Mihranian, RPV Director Community Development
PLEASE PROTECT OUR CITY AND OUR HOUSE VALUES!
We have a beautiful city that we have all tried to make the pride of
America and it is.
We have a very global population with personal visitors to our homes
from all over the world.
ALL of us have strived, saved and labored for many years to be able to
afford to live here.
Our city and our home should never be a commercial hotel, motel,
residence or boarding house. Not even in a short term arrangement.
Please support a LONG TERM PROHIBITION ON ALL SHORT AND
LONG-TERM RENTALS other than yearlong lease rentals.
Do not allow AirBnB and other commercial operations to hijack you and
your Department staff s thinking for the profit of their pocket
book$!$!$!$!
Sincerely.,
Residents
Sandra Seed Hammersmark and Donald Hammersmark
30097 Avenida Classica
RPV, CA 90275
B-71
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 6:14 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: Fw: Full Ban on Short Term Vacation Rental
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for iPhone
From: Guri Otterlei <guri.otterlei@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 5:23:46 PM
To: CC; PC
Subject: Full Ban on Short Term Vacation Rental
To The RPV City Council and Planning Commission:
It was disappointing that the city decided in their 8/23 meeting to consider permitting sort -term vacation rentals
in RPV. The decision was a big "win" for those running these businesses from their homes and troubling for
everyone else. If our city makes this decision final, it would be the only one in the surrounding area to allow
such rental. This would benefit investors and a few residents - ie, those who recently discovered they could
make easy profit by simply renting out their house. However, this rental activity comes at the expense of
everyone else who moved here with the purpose to live in their houses and be part of their neighborhoods and
schools.
The "partial" ban solution that the city is considering will NOT work (eg. naive to think the city can enforce
that owner must be "there", see item 2 below and other loopholes). Instead, this rental activity will continue to
grow and become an even bigger nuisance and problem as investors realize the potential here. Is that what the
city wants?
We, like many RPV residents, moved here with our young son to be part of a small, safer community (where we
know who our neighbors are), and to attend the great schools. Of the approx. 90 houses in my neighborhood, we
already have at least 4-5 short-term rentals and a party -house. It brings strangers into our gated community that
no one knows, traffic, trash, delivery trucks, etc.. Unfortunately, despite the nuisance, most residents here don't
take time to complain to the city, express their opinions online, or attend the recent city meetings. It doesn't
mean they don't care, but they may have neither time - nor the same desperate motivation - as someone who has
made this activity their source of income.
Let our residential neighborhoods and zoning areas stay just that; residential. No vacation rental, being
advertised commercially online, belongs in residential neighborhoods. No one has a right to do whatever they
want with a residential property just because they own it, and the city should not help support it. Instead, our
city should enforce laws that support what was intended here in Rpv, ie a place for families to live. It was not
intended as a place to rent and vacation and it's not what residents wants.
B-72
Please take these concerns — and all concerns listed below — into consideration when you make this important
decision. Please vote for a full ban without exception!
Thank you,
Guri Otterlei
(RPV resident since 2010)
Considerations to support full ban on short-term vacation rentals in RPV:
1. The issue has moved beyond the party houses. We can all agree that nobody likes the party houses and want
to stop that practice. One of the main issue now is that by allowing the short-term rentals with the restrictions,
we still have the transient nature of the short-term rentals. Specifically, we still have a stream of strangers
coming into our quiet, residential neighborhood on a daily basis. The home that I bought in a single family
residential home is no longer so. I am living next door to a hotel. In the afternoon at check-in time, invariably,
I will see different cars and different people on a almost daily basis.
2. The restrictions are not enforceable. The code enforcement officer will not be able to catch the owners "not
being" at home. They are trying to prove a negative. Also, what happens if the house is owned by a trust? Or a
corporation? The code enforcement officer will not be able to track how many rooms an operator is actually
renting out. The operator can split the rooms in the house into seperate listings on different websites. Also, if
caught renting out more than one room, the operator can say he was only renting out 1 room on a short-term
basis, and the other rooms are being rent on a long-term basis. But the code enforcement officer cannot even
get that far into the matter unless they raid the house, and we all know that they will not have authority to enter
a private home. Short-term rentals are currently not legal in Rancho Palos Verdes. Allowing it with regulations
will create loopholes for operators to rent out their homes with impunity.
3. All of the neighboring cities around us have banned short-term rentals with no exceptions. Short-term
rentals are not allowed in Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa
Beach, and Redondo Beach. If RPV allows short-term rentals, we will be swamped with even more short-term
rentals in this City. As it is now, new rentals keep popping up in the City. Within 1 mile of my home, we have
approximately 15 homes for rent on a short-term basis. The problem will get worse, much worse.
4. The restrictions may not even stop the party houses. There is nothing stopping a renter from using the public
rooms in the house even if they are only renting one bedrom. With the owners consent, the short-term renter
can still have parties in the house, and it will still be perfectly legal.
5. Rancho Palos Verdes is a bedroom community, and a very expensive one at that. We can all live in other
cities, but we choose to live here even because of the community, peace, and serenity. We all bought our
houses knowing it is located in a residential area, but allowing short-term rentals effectively rezones residential
zones to commercial zones. The short-term rentals lower property value. When it comes time to sell your
home, you need to disclose to the buyer if there is a short-term rental next door to you; otherwise, you may be
sued. What buyer would choose to spend over $1.0 million for a house next to a hotel? If I had known my
neighbor was operating a short-term rental, I would not have bought my house. I am speaking from my more
than 25 years of experience as a real estate broker. Basically, the operators of short-term rentals are profiting at
the expense of their neighbors.
6. If you think this matter does not affect you because you have no short-term rentals close to you, you very
well may have one in the future. The proposal before the City Council to completely ban the short-term rentals
now is our best shot. It it does not pass, then all residents may have a short-term rental next door to them when
their neighbor sells the house or moves out. Many overseas investors are buying up homes in nice areas such as
Rancho Palos Verdes, and there are people who can be hired to manage short-term rentals for absentee owners.
2
B-73
Octavio Silva
From: Gabriella Yap
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 7:08 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Kit Fox
Subject: Fwd: Support for a total ban on short term rentals
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message --------
From: Joyce Nitz <joyceanitz@yahoo.com>
Date: 9/10/2016 3:27 PM (GMT -08:00)
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>, PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Support for a total ban on short term rentals
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Joyce Nitz <joyceanitzgyahoo.com>
Date: September 10, 2016 at 2:29:47 PM PDT
To: ken.dydagrpvca ov, ierry.duhovic9Kpvca.gov, anthony.misetichgrpvca.gov,
brian.campbellgrpvca.aov, susan.brooks(a vca. ov
Subject: Support for a total ban on short term rentals
I understand that the city council is considering whether or not to allow short-term rentals in
Rancho Palos Verdes; and that the RPV Planning Commission voted 4-2 for a ban of short term
rentals with the exception of allowing the owners living at the property to rent out a room or a
guest house.
I am in favor of a ban on all short term rentals, WITH NO EXCEPTIONS.
I believe that a total ban on short term rentals is necessary for the following reasons:
• Short-term rentals are a commercial activity that should not be allowed in
residential areas.
• Short-term rentals will render neighborhood watch and Megan's Law
useless because there will be a steady flow of strangers into our
community and we will no longer know our neighbors or ,know who is
staying in our community.
Short-term rentals have the potential to reduce our property values.
Short-term rentals are and will continue to cause excess parties, trash,
noise, congestion, and traffic.
All of the neighboring communities (Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills
Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach,
and Redondo Beach) have banned short-term rentals.
Hopefully the City Council will see fit to ban ALL short term rentals in RPV.
Thank you,
Joyce Nitz
7071 Crest Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Sent from my Whone
B-75
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for Whone
Kit Fox
Saturday, September 10, 2016 8:39 PM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Gabriella Yap
Fw: short term vacation rentals in RPV
From: ehunter2@aol.com <ehunter2@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 12:07:38 PM
To: CC; PC
Subject: short term vacation rentals in RPV
Dear City Council and RPV Planning Commission:
We on Martingale Drive are seeing the results of what can go wrong with having no ban on short term rentals on our
own street. We are paying over a million dollars for our homes and high taxes, but one house on our street has
been allowed to turn into a dump for transients that reduces the value of our homes. We have no idea who lives
there, since the "clientele" changes so often. Right now, there are 6 cars parked in the driveway and on both sides
of the street. We are zoned R1 and that, with exception, means single family residence. There is a zoning
regulation to enforce this, if the city chooses to. I want to know who my neighbors are, who is living in the houses
my grandkids are exposed to when playing outside. It's bad enough to have drug users in the neighborhood, but
now we have had drug dealing and prostitution as well, and law enforcement says they can do nothing because a
person can "sleep" with whoever they want in their own house. Are we crazy by not punishing drug dealing
anymore? The city's excuse for not wanting a ban on short term rentals is they can't enforce it? I don't believe that.
Without a ban there is no legal recourse. The city can choose to enforce a ban or not. That's not the issue. Without
the ban when we need to enforce it, we're screwed. We don't need short term rentals, we have Terranea. I have
no problem with someone renting a room or a guest house to a long term tenant who becomes part of our
neighborhood and acts responsibly, but unsupervised vacation rentals are unwanted, unnecessary, and potentially
dangerous to our kids and our community.
I know this is getting quite long, but I just want to show the good side of plans like "air B&B " aren't much better. My
very responsible out of town extended family members recently rented a gorgeous house for $7000 for a birthday
party week in Mission Viejo where they packed the house with 17 people ...kids, grandkids, aunts, uncles, grand
parents,etc. Then, they invited another 30 people over for an after party. The actual party was held at a large
facility with over 100 people attending. There were kids all over the house, screaming kids in the pool, screaming
adults in the pool with them, food, drinking, music playing outside,and cars all over the street. Every parking place
at the curb where residents needed to park were taken by our group at the house. We didn't leave trash around, we
didn't destroy anything, those who weren't staying there went home around 11 PM, but the 17 still stayed and
occupied the house with their 5 or 6 rental cars parked on the street. Now, nobody was drunk, nobody vandalized
anything, nobody was fighting, we didn't act rude, crude or socially unacceptable, but we were a neighborhood
nuisance for a week with the noise, cars, and large number of us at the house. I wouldn't have wanted us next door
to me for a week.
Without a ban there is nothing we can do when things get out of control. We need a ban for the exceptions that go
bad, or we run the risk of losing our safe neighborhoods. Please don't compromise RPV because you don't want
the hassle of enforcing a ban when it's needed. If the other three cities on this peninsula and the beach cities think
a ban on short term vacation rentals is necessary, what makes RPV think it is not? Please pass an ordinance
banning short term vacation rentals in our city. Keep RPV safe for its residents. You still will have the option when
and where to enforce it.
Please respond to this email with a notice that it has been received by Monday, Sept. 12.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Evelyn Hunter
18 Martingale Dr.
B-77
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 8:36 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: Fw: Do not allow short term rent!
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for iPhone
From: John Zhu <yuz12703@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 6:26:43 PM
To: CC
Subject: Do not allow short term rent!
As a rpv home owner, I am strongly against to allow short-term rent!
John Zhu
30420 via Victoria
Sent from my iPhone
7031&-j Me
•
Octavio Silva
From: Gabriella Yap
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 7:11 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Kit Fox
Subject: Fwd: Short Term Rental
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message --------
From: Mary Clarke <meelarke9@verizon.net>
Date: 9/10/2016 6:44 PM (GMT -08:00)
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Short Term Rental
Please note I and my husband are opposed at any short term rentals in the RVP area. In all cases where this type of
rental is allowed... there is nothing but trouble. We will end up spending countless hours and dollars cleaning up after
these people and enforcing our laws. Please keep our city peaceful and quiet and say NO to any and all short term
rentals. Please let us learn from our neighboring cities who have shown the good sense to ban this behavior.
Thank you,
Mary and Charlie Clarke
Rhone Drive, RPV
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 4:57 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: Fw: Short term rental in RPV
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for Wad
From: Udo Heyn <nemus@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 4:34:59 PM
To: CC; PC
Subject: Short term rental in RPV
Dear City Council Members -
Speaking as someone who already has a temporary rental residence on my street (Hightide Drive) and has heard of its
neighbors' unpleasant experiences with it , I would urge you in the strongest possible terms NOT to approve the
planning commission's request. The exception, in effect, would constitute a tilt in the zoning laws towards
commercialization of our residential neighborhoods - which, given the fact that RPV would be the only community
allowing this kind of rental would make it a magnet for a flood of uncontrollable and uncaring "invaders" from all over
the South Bay.
I cannot see how anybody in his/her right mind could invite this potential scenario into our homes.
Respectfully,
Dr. Udo Heyn
UH
i
B-80
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 4:53 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: Fw: Ban Short Term Rentals
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for iPad
From: Judy Rivera-Razipour
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 4:46:37 PM
To: CC; PC
Subject: Ban Short Term Rentals
To Whom It May Concern,
I strongly support FULL BAN, without exceptions, on short term rental in Rancho Palos Verdes!
I live on Avenida Tranquila, RPV (across Los Verdes Golf course) and there is a house on Crest
Road that is being used for short term rentals. There is constant stream of strange people and cars
coming in and out of our neighborhoods during the day and evening. This house is being used for
constant parties, weddings, gatherings, etc. Even from my house, we could hear loud music at night
during the weekends. I can't imagine how frustrated their next doors neighbors might be. When we
drive down Crest Road during the weekend evenings, there are many cars parked throughout both
side of the street. There is safety concerns, increase traffic on a very quiet residential neighborhood,
parking congestion, and lots of noise. Sometimes, they look like a very'rough' crowd and they gather
around the street. Since this house is located on a steep & curvy grade, we have to drive extremely
slowly when the streets is lined with cars because the visitors are walking on the streets and they are
opening their car doors unexpectedly. Yesterday, I stared at the multiple guests entering the home for
what looks like another wedding celebration. We've lived in this neighborhood for 21 years and I am
very disappointed that this house has been converted into a short term rental and being used as a
banquet room. During my morning walk on Monday mornings, I could see party rental trucks parked
in front of the 'party' house and the people are removing all the chairs, decors, etc from the house.
I am appalled that the city of Rancho Palos Verdes has not banned short term rentals in our
neighborhood. I am extremely concerned about the safety in our neighborhood, especially for my
children. There are multiple strange people coming in and out and weekend parties now occur
frequently. Whenever rented, there are multiple cars parked on their driveway and on both side of the
street when parties, weddings, etc occur. I'm also concerned that the property value in our
neighborhood has been affected.
Please BAN short term rental in Rancho Palos Verdes. This is a very quiet, safe, and family -friendly
neighborhood. We would like to keep it that way.
1-0
N6911
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:53 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: Fw: NO to all Short Term Rentals
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for Whone
From: Richard Stark <dimarstark@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:51:32 PM
To: CC
Subject: NO to all Short Term Rentals
As Ara Miranian pointed out, enforcement of any ban on short term rentals will be difficult, but even more so
if there are exceptions. "Home owner" is well defined, but what about "living on the property'? I'm told some
people recently bought into our neighborhood to use the house as a summer/weekend residence. So there
would need to be Municipal Code definitions as to residence on the property. Does the homeowner need to
be on the property during the duration of the rental period? During sleeping hours? Can he/she go to the
store? For how long? And more importantly, who checks to see that the code regulations are being met?
There have been elected officials who claim to be living in the city they represent, when in fact they are not, as
proven in court.
Sounds like a bureaucratic tangle to me.
Richard Stark
dimarstark(@cox.net
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:52 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: Fw: Short term rental in RPV
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for iPhone
From: Ela Heyn <elhe@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:46:26 PM
To: CC; PC
Subject: Short term rental in RPV
Hi,
I was informed about the discussion on short term rentals in RPV.
There is one on my street: Hightide Dr.
Please, ban those rentals! We like a safe, quiet neighborhood.
We want to know who lives next to us. WE DO NOT WANT CARS ZIPPING ON OUR STREETS, WHERE WE AND
OUR NEIGHBORS ARE IN DANGER.
As good neighbors we look out for each other. We do not know where these renters come from, who they
are....
These rentals devalue our neighborhood, our homes and ultimately our city!
Thanks for listening!
Ela T. Heyn
3618 Hightide Dr.
1
B-83
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 2:02 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: Fw: Ban of Short Term Rentals
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for iPhone
From: thebunnyl@cox.net <thebunnyl@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 1:47:58 PM
To: CC
Cc: PC
Subject: Ban of Short Term Rentals
To Whom it May Concern:
Please vote to ban short term rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes. It is very disturbing to find out that RPV is the only city in
the south bay that has not passed an ordinance banning short term rentals. All the surrounding cities have banned short
term rentals so that means anyone who wants to be in this business will buy homes in RPV for the purpose of making
money on short term rentals.
While I was out walking one day a man approached me and asked where the home for rent was. I directed him toward
the house, turned around and walked in the opposite direction. I had no intention of continuing my walk in the
direction he was going. It brings unwanted people to our neighbor, causes more traffic and concerns, and threatens our
safety.
Please vote to ban short term rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Thank you,
Rochelle Krieger
31227 Floweridge Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
1
B-84
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for iPhone
Kit Fox
Sunday, September 11, 2016 6:17 PM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Gabriella Yap
Fw: NO on short term rentals
From: Rpvcindy@aol.com <Rpvcindy@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 6:10:51 PM
To: CC
Subject: NO on short term rentals
We encourage NO short term rentals like our neighboring have adopted. We have a neighbor who has leased their house
and that is bad enough. Please vote NO on short term rentals.
Cindy & Tim McCully
•
Octavio Silva
From: Michael Huang
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 8:07 PM
To: Ken Dyda; Brian Campbell; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; CC
Cc: pc@rpv.gov; Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva
Subject: Letter in Support of Full and Absolute Ban of Short -Term Rentals without AnyExceptions
Attachments: Petition Supporting Full Ban of Short Term Rentals.pdf; Picture of 4S dollar rate on
AirbBNB.jpg
Dear Members of the City Council:
I live on Avenida Altisima, and I am writing to express my strong support for an absolute ban on short-
term rentals without any exceptions because of my personal experience with my neighbor's short-
term rental, because all neighboring cities have fully banned it, and because the planning
commission's short-term rental recommendation is flawed and unenforceable.
Section 3.16.020 of the RPV municipal code defines a "hotel" as any "structure, or any portion of any
structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging
or sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, ... or portion thereof." On
August 23, 2016, the Rancho Palos Verdes planning commission recommended rezoning all
residential zones, both legally and in practice, to allow hotels. They voted to permit short-term
vacation rentals by allowing owners living on the property to rent a room or a guest-house.
In August of this year, the house next to me became a hotel. My next door neighbor started renting
out her home on AirBNB. She added air mattresses in most of the rooms so that she can cram in as
many as 16 guests in four bedrooms. In the master bedroom, she has two air mattresses and a
regular bed so that the room can pack in six guests. She is charging rates as low as $45 per night
and with 1 -night minimum. This rate is cheaper than any motels in crime -ridden areas.
Because of my neighbor's hotel operation, we have experienced increased traffic, noise, and
congestion; but most of all, I have lost a sense of security I used to have in my own home. I have
lived in this city for 35 year. I choose to raise my family here because of the quality of life, security,
sense of community, and excellent schools. But now I do not feel safe in my own home. There is a
steady flow of strange cars and people streaming through the neighborhood on a daily basis. There
are usually at least 3 to 4 cars parked out in front of the house, and these cars change every
day. We have no idea who is staying in the house next door. We keep our windows closed and our
shades drawn to prevent strangers from peering into our windows. I check the street whenever our
dog barks. This intrusive environment was not I was buying into when I purchased my house in a
single-family zone.
From my conversation with other residents, the boorish behavior of short-term renters have caused
problems. As examples, they had the following complaints: a resident's young daughters out on a
walk witnessed an AirBNB renter urinating off the balcony; a resident smelled marijuana smoke
coming from the neighboring AirBNB; a resident's access to and from her driveway constantly being
blocked by AirBNB renters' parking on a narrow access road; a resident having to deal with excess
trash and broken bottles from AirBNB renters; a resident having to deal with AirBNB guest vomiting
on her lawn; residents having to deal with AirBNB renters who put out cones on public street to direct
traffic for their event; multiple residents complaining of almost getting into accidents because of
excess traffic from a short-term rental located on a windy downhill section of Crest Road.
On our cul-de-sac street of approximately 19 resident -occupied homes, 2 houses are listed for rent on
AirBNB; approximately 10% of the homes on our street are operating as hotels. Within a mile of my
house, there are approximately 15 homes for rent on AirBNB. New short-term rental listings keep
popping up in our city. Our neighboring cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills
Estates, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach all have an
absolute ban on short-term rentals with no exceptions. Here's what these city officials told me about
their short-term rental ban:
Rolling Hills Estates - Jessica in Code Enforcement - "Short-term rental is a commercial activity and
not allowed in residential areas."
Palos Verdes Estates - Luanna in City Hall Office - "Short-term rental less than 30 days is not allowed
- not even 1 room."
Rolling Hills - Heidi in Code Enforcement - "Short-term rentals less than 30 days are not allowed, not
even for 1 room."
Manhattan Beach - Jackie in Code Enforcement - "Can only rent rooms for 30 days or more."
Redondo Beach - Joanna in Code Enforcement - "Vacation rentals less than 30 days are not allowed,
not even 1 room."
Hermosa Beach - Bob Rollings in Code Enforcement - "Vacation rentals less than 30 days are not
allowed, not even 1 room." At that time, Bob also told me that they have sent out cease and desist
i
letters to owners advertising their houses for short-term rental and that they are getting ready to
enforce their ban after labor day.
If we allow short-term rentals in any form in our city, more and more rentals will show up because all
of our neighboring cities have an absolute ban. Our resident will suffer a deluge of hotels opening up
next to them.
Besides rezoning the residential zones to allow hotels, the planning commission's recommended
restrictions will not solve the problems caused by short-term rentals. Allowing short-term rentals of
one room or guest-house still produces a flow of strangers to come into our neighborhood on a
transient basis. Neighborhood Watches will be rendered useless because we will not know who is
suppose to be in the neighborhood. My neighbor is cramming up to six people in one of the
bedrooms. The number of strangers coming into our neighborhood from this one room is still
significantly more than the number of people in my household. There is nothing in the restrictions
preventing my neighbor from stacking more air mattresses in the living room and then renting out this
one room as a hostel. There is also nothing in the restrictions preventing my neighbor from rent the
room at a really low rate, like the current $45 rate. I have included a picture of the screen showing the
$45 rate on AirbBNB. Inevitably, the low rate will compromise the security of our neighborhood by
bringing unsavory characters.
The restriction of having the owner living on property is also problematic. The first problem is defining
the "owner" of the property. If an owner places title of the property into a corporation or trust, then
who is the "owner" that needs to be living at the property? A corporation or trust can easily hire an
employee or representative to live at the property and manage the rental property. There are many
companies and individuals that manage short-term rentals for owners. I know that many operators of
short-term rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes own multiple homes. In one case, a husband and wife
team owns two houses across the street from each other, and they are operating both houses as
hotels on AirBNB. These owners can easily transfer their houses to different corporation or trusts and
then hire people to manage these multiple rentals for them.
The enforcement of the restrictions are virtually impossible. The restriction of the owner needing to
live on the property can easily be skirted. If the code enforcement officer shows up, and the owner
does not live at the property, whoever is there can just say the owner went out to run errands or that
the owner is on vacation or a business trip. How can the code enforcement officer prove otherwise;
especially if the officer only works during business hours. How will code enforcement catch owners
"not living" on the property? It is impossible to prove the negative.
The restriction of only renting one room or guest-house is similarly impossible to enforce. First of all,
operators can list different rooms as separate listings. The operators can further list these separate
listing on different websites. It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the city to track how
many rooms an operator is advertising. Even if these operators are caught listing multiple rooms in
ii
the same house, they can say that they only rent out 1 room per night. How can the code
enforcement officer verify how many rooms are being rented nightly? Even if the code enforcement
officer somehow catches an operator renting out more than 1 room in a house, the operator can say
that only 1 room is being rented on a short-term basis and that the other rooms are rented long-
term. An operator can also rent out 1 sleeping room and still allow his guest to invite other guests to
use the public areas in the house. Under this scenario, the restrictions still do not prevent party
houses.
Currently, short-term rentals are not allowed in Rancho Palos Verdes. The planning commission's
recommendation will allow it and create numerous loopholes for operators to run their hotels at the
expense of their neighbors. We are a bedroom community that favors peace and quiet. Allowing
short-term rentals in any form is not compatible with many of the reasons why we call this city home.
Another detrimental effort of short-term rentals is that it lowers the property value of the nearby
houses. I know this fact from my over 25 years of experience as a real estate broker. Sellers need to
disclose to buyers if they know of a nearby house being operated as a short-term rental. The
average price of a house in Rancho Palos Verdes is easily over $1.0 million. Most buyers seeking
homes in our city also prefer the quiet, semi -rural nature of our community. They would be hesitant to
pay over $1.0 million to live next door to a hotel. For almost all residents, our home is our largest
investment. It is not right for us to suffer a loss to our investment and sense of security just so the
short-term rental operators can make more money. If I knew that my neighbor is running a short-term
rental, I would not have bought my house.
The short-term operators are in the business because of the huge profits. They can make more
money renting out their homes on a short-term basis than on a longer-term lease. For example, a
short-term rental operator on Crest Road is renting his house for approximately $1,000 per night with
a two night minimum, and it is rented out fairly frequently. When I spoke to the neighbor, the really
nice lady just thought the kids next door were having frequent parties when the parents are
away. She was putting up with the traffic, congestion, and noise because she was trying to be a good
neighbor. She did not know that her neighbor was making $1,000 per day at the expense of her own
enjoyment of her property.
I have spoken to many residents about this issue, and they all support an absolute ban on short-term
rentals without exceptions. To illustrate this point, I attempted to visit all 19 resident -occupied homes
on my cul -du -sac street. All sixteen out of the 19 residents I was able to reach eagerly signed the
attached petition supporting a full ban on short-term rentals. I was not able to reach the remaining
three residents; no residents refused to sign the petition. Another resident not on my street also
wanted to sign the petition. I am certain I could have obtained many more signatures if I went beyond
my street, but I just wanted to illustrate the point with my street. I believe most of the city's residents,
with the exception of the operators, support the full and absolute ban on short-term rentals.
4
B-89
The operators of the short-term rentals will argue that they have the right to do want they want with
their property. I also believe in property rights, but those rights have limits when they affect the
neighbors' rights. The zoning codes and regulations are there to protect the rights of all
residents. The operators will still have the right to rent out their rooms as long as they rent them out
longer than 30 days.
The operators will also argue that they carefully screen and vet their guests, but just like hotels, the
operators are not able to fully vet their short-term guests. Conversely, from my experience as a real
estate broker, for a long-term rental, an owner will verify salary, employment, check credit scores,
and references from the previous landlord. Some operators will argue that AirBNB screens the guest
for them. AirBNB merely checks public databases for criminal records if the guest provide authentic
names and birth dates. They do not verify the authenticity of the information provided. I was able to
set up an AirbBNB account by providing the name of "Name Unknown", a made up birth date, and a
picture of a tree as my profile ID. With this obviously made up account, I could have booked rooms
on AirbBNB if I wish to do so.
I acknowledge that enforcing the absolute ban on short-term rentals will also have its challenges, but
it will be many levels of magnitude easier than the planning commission's recommendation. The
recommendation will instead create loopholes for operators to openly profit at the expense of their
neighbors. Manhattan Beach actually first tried to regulate the short-term rentals, but their city council
eventually voted to impose a full ban. One of their councilmember, Amy Howorth, who supported the
full ban, summed up the issue perfectly by stating, "My property rights are sometimes imperiled
because of the movement of my neighbors. If people are coming in and out - that's a really different
neighborhood than I moved into and paid money for. That's why my house cost so much
money: Because this is a tight community."
Our neighboring cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Manhattan Beach,
Hermosa Beach, and Redondo Beach all have an absolute ban on short-term rentals. We deserve
the same protection for the peaceful enjoyment of our homes. I urge the city council to pass a
resolution for the absolute ban of short-term rentals without any exceptions on September 20, 2016,
at the city council hearing. Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael Huang
Petition in Support of Full Ban on Short Term Rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes
We, the undersigned below, are residents of Avenida Altisima in Rancho Palos Verdes. We
currently have two houses on our street that are short-term rentals. As a result of these two
short-term rentals, we have had the following problems:
* Many different people coming and going from day-to-day. We have no idea who is living
next door to us on any one day.
* When the renters have gatherings at the rentals, the guests park on both sides of the street,
and it is narrows the street so that 2 -way traffic is not possible.
* Excess noise, traffic, and congestion.
Because of the short-term rentals, the safe and secure feeling of the neighborhood on our
street is significantly diminished. Short-term rentals is a commercial activity, and should not be
allowed in a residential area zoned for single family homes.
For the above reasons, we support the Full Ban on Short Term Rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes.
(( �--7 Avenida Altisima
-` Avenida Altisima
7136 Avenida Altisima
rAvenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
(Avenida
Avenida Altisima
% /
Avenida Altisima
`3c,
Avenida Altisima
Z
Avenida Altisima
7) i
Avenida Altisima
—712-01
Avenida Altisima
it ) I Avenida Altisima
Petition in Support of Full Ban on Short Term Rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes
We, the undersigned below, are residents of Avenida Altisima in Rancho Palos Verdes. We
currently have two houses on our street that are short-term rentals. As a result of these two
short-term rentals, we have had the following problems:
* Many different people coming and going from day-to-day. We have no idea who is living
next door to us on any one day.
* When the renters have gatherings at the rentals, the guests park on both sides of the street,
and it is narrows the street so that 2 -way traffic is not possible.
* Excess noise, traffic, and congestion.
Because of the short-term rentals, the safe and secure feeling of the neighborhood on our
street is significantly diminished. Short-term rentals is a commercial activity, and should not be
allowed in a residential area zoned for single family homes.
For the above reasons, we support the Full Ban on Short Term Rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes.
I 'r/ Avenida Altisima
:1 X `}' k Avenida Altisima
'7-z 46 Avenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
a
�2 3
Avenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
Petition in Support of Full Ban on Short Term Rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes
We, the undersigned below, are residents of Avenida Altisima in Rancho Palos Verdes. We
currently have two houses on our street that are short-term rentals. As a result of these two
short-term rentals, we have had the following problems:
* Many different people coming and going from day-to-day. We have no idea who is living
next door to us on any one day.
* When the renters have gatherings at the rentals, the guests park on both sides of the street,
and it is narrows the street so that 2 -way traffic is not possible.
* Excess noise, traffic, and congestion.
Because of the short-term rentals, the safe and secure feeling of the neighborhood on our
street is significantly diminished. Short-term rentals is a commercial activity, and should not be
allowed in a residential area zoned for single family homes.
,s
For the above reasons, we support the Full Ban on Short Term Rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes.
( 7 Avenida Altisima
—7. )1 2�� Avenida Altisima
7/36 Avenida Altisima
'� Avenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
i
Avenida Altisima
/
Avenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
716q-
Avenida Altisima
7dr2-11 1
Avenida Altisima
( ( "> I Avenida Altisima
Petition in Support of Full Ban on Short Term Rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes
We, the undersigned below, are residents of Avenida Altisima in Rancho Palos Verdes. We
currently have two houses on our street that are short-term rentals. As a result of these two
short-term rentals, we have had the following problems:
* Many different people coming and going from day-to-day. We have no idea who is living
next door to us on any one day.
* When the renters have gatherings at the rentals, the guests park on both sides of the street,
and it is narrows the street so that 2 -way traffic is not possible.
* Excess noise, traffic, and congestion.
Because of the short-term rentals, the safe and secure feeling of the neighborhood on our
street is significantly diminished. Short-term rentals is a commercial activity, and should not be
allowed in a residential area zoned for single family homes.
For the above reasons, we support the Full Ban on Short Term Rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes
I rh Avenida Altisima
I \ -), � Avenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
C_.p�
%2- 3
Avenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
Avenida Altisima
Octavio Silva
From: Heedyo Tony Kim <heedyokim@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 12:27 AM
To: PC; CC
Cc: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Subject: Regarding to CASE NO.ZON2016-00188: Full Support on Total BAN on Short-term
Rentals
Attachments: l.jpg; 2.jpg; 3.jpg; 4.jpg; 5.jpg; 6.jpg; 7.jpg; 8.jpg; 9.jpg; 10.jpg; videol.mp4
To whom it may concern,
Thank you for taking into consideration to read this email.
It took me a lot of thought before writing this email before both City Council and Planning commission.
I've attended Planning Commission Meeting on the August 23rd 2016 however I did not make an statement first, because I didn't
prepare for a speech and second, I thought council members were going to support the full ban on the Short -Term Rental, which
proved not to be the case.
I'm a resident on the Crest Rd and one of the closest resident effected by Short -Term Rental.
We have been resident for RPV for over 15 years and 8 years on current property.
Last couple of years RPV and surrounding areas have been effected by huge amounts of increase in numbers of burglaries and other
illegal activities.
It has increased security threat in our area which lead us installing full-time CCTV surveillance system in our home.
I'm not stating that short-term rental is the problem causing the these illegal activity directly but it has caused our home owners to
take extra steps to feel our home to be safe.
Since the installation of our surveillance at our home, I have been watching closely activities that is happening around my home.
From these careful observations, I feel that we have been affected by short-term rental by:
1. Increase of security threat at our home simply because we don't know who is suppose to be here or not.
2. Broken glass and other objects causing damage to our personal property.
3. Traffic congestion almost causing several accidents that I have observed.
4. Unusual loud noisy in the area during middle of night causing our 9 month baby waking up.
5. Interruption of sleep due to these noisy even for adults.
6. Operators and/or renters have used our trash bins without permission.
7. Ringing door bells by the renters assuming our home was short-term rental property.
I even had to report some suspicious activity on the property causing Sheriff's department responding to the scene.
These problems putting aside I feel that this is MAJOR zoning conflict.
Residential zones should not be operated commercially.
If this is allowed we could purchase more homes to operate as hotel/short-term rentals to generate more income as part of
investment.
If something that can be operated commercially in the residential zones then other commercial activities should be acceptable such
as operating homes as coffee shops and etc.
We can market our home to possible customers for special events with the views of the beautiful view of PV peninsula.
Our surrounding cities have banned to the short-term rentals and we should follow these steps because it just can't be regulated
and causing inconvenience and security threats to residents.
Furthermore, this weekend operator on the Crest Property rented their home to a wedding party and caused major traffic issue
almost causing several accidents in front of our baby's window.
I have counted over 20 cars in single time parked on the street and their driveway. I even had to go and talk to one of the renters to
arrange their parking more appropriate.
i
I have taken several pictures which has been attached in this email.
This is not first time for a large party to arrive at this property and we really don't want to know how many more to come from now.
Lastly, we recently found out that this is one of the cause of decreasing property value.
This is major affect on the homeowners because most people purchase their homes with the hope that possible investment could
result increase in value.
We want to continue reside in the beautiful city for our baby and my family and this concern is growing bigger day by day.
I just wanted share my point of view and how short-term rental is affecting us daily.
This has caused major concern and if the city doesn't approve full ban we are considering to relocate to neighboring city which will
not effect us.
I'm saddened by the fact that I cannot attend the meeting to make my statement for the meeting on the September 20th due to
international business trip but hoping that this email will suffice the support on the ban on Short-term Rentals in Rancho Palos
Verdes.
Once again, thank you for your time to read this email and I hope that the City Council and Planning Commission makes right
decision for the residents residing within the city.
Thank you
Best Regards,
Heedyo Tony Kim
Resident of Crest Road
"Please note that I do not want attached pictures and video to be shared for public. I only provided them for the reference of
making right decision for City Council and Planning Commission.
Octavio Silva
From:
Kit Fox
Sent:
Sunday, September 11, 2016 1:01 PM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Gabriella Yap
Subject:
Fw: Ban Short Term Rentals
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for Wad
From: Jerry <jhashimoto3@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 12:48:34 PM
To: CC
Cc: Jerry; kinuhashi@cox.net
Subject: Ban Short Term Rentals
Dear City Council Members,
Please vote for a full ban of short term rentals in our city.
We are the only city in the southbay that has not done this.
This growing trend is affecting a number of our neighbors in the Mediterranea Homeowner Association.
It is increasing traffic, congestion, noise and trash.
We urge you to vote for a full ban without exception.
Thank you,
Jerry and Kinuko Hashimoto
31305 Floweridge Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca
Phone: 310-544-1539
1
B-98
Octavio Silva
From:
Kit Fox
Sent:
Monday, September 12, 2016 8:17 AM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Gabriella Yap
Subject:
FW: SHORT TERM RENTALS
FYI
Kit Fox, Aicp
Citta of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kitfgWvca.gov
From: Gail Lorenzen [mailto:rpvnw@ix.netcom.comj
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 6:22 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: SHORT TERM RENTALS
As people who communicate with a large portion of the RPV residents, we hear many stories about the
nuisances that temporary rental visitors cause to their neighborhoods. And we have looked at both sides of
this issue. From the comments and complaints, we conclude that the City should ban short term rentals
because of the negative effect on their neighbors. Most other local cities have such bans, and allowing short
term rentals will cause a huge problem for the city to control them.
Kindest regards,
Angus and Gail Lorenzen
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 11:05 AM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: Fw: Short Term Rentals
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for iPad
From: Fred Deraney <deraney@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:13:42 AM
To: CC
Subject: Short Term Rentals
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am hopeful hat I am writing to the appropriate RPV governing body. We are 30 year residents of this City. I
am still in awe of the City STILL,each time I drive in and out of the Hill. We consider ourselves so fortunate
that we were able to attain our personal goal of moving here from Redondo Beach. Unfortunately,the City may
change. We see the prospect of individuals turning their homes into either a Bed and Breakfast or Short-term
rentals.
While I do not wish to deny an individual from making any money for the Leasing of their home,for the long
term,I am concerned that short term rentals will become Party central in our quiet neighborhoods;that Bed and
Breakfasts will have a revolving door impact on the neighborhood. Thus making it difficult to be vigilant. Each
day we receive an update from our Neighborhood Watch indicating the Crime levels are on the rise. In short we
do not know who is coming to the neighborhood and/or who is leaving.
In short,we support Long Term Leasing and OPPOSE any B&B and or SHORT TERM rentals.
Thank you for reading this and I hope that this is the appropriate department.
Regards,
Fred G.Deraney
deraney(a,cox.net
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 7:56 AM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: FW: Short term rentals in RPV
FYI
Kit Fox, Aicp
Ciftj of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 5445226
kitf0Wvca. ov
From: peter.gasteiger [mailto:peter.gasteiger@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 7:12 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Short term rentals in RPV
Dear Council and Planning CommissoinMembers:
You have undoubtedly received many such emails and correspondences protesting your consideration
of conditionally allowing short-term rentals in RPV. As you are well aware, all other neighboring cities
fully ban this practice. Why would we even consider allowing it here? If this is being viewed as a way
to raised revenue, let me say forcefully that this is not the right way to accomplish that and I do not
support that. If you are trying to be "business friendly", let me point out that we are talking about
residential neighborhoods that are not zoned for business use and should never be. If I wanted to open a
car repair shop out of my garage, would I be allowed to do that? I think surely not.
The reasons are many to maintain the current FULL -BAN on short-term rentals in RPV:
Saftey & privacy — a virtual stream of steady unknown people. In our gated neighborhood, that means
also more people with our gatecode. We would be living next to, literally, a hotel. With children, as we
have, that becomes an even great issue.
Anything but a FULL -BAN is unenforceable. You will never be able to prove whether the homeowner
is living in the home or not. It should make no difference anyway, and that provision does nothing to
alleviate any of the negatives inherent in short-term residential rentals.
Party house use will not stop. The renter could still use the property, with owner consent, to host
events.
Home value will be negatively affected. Do you want to live next to a residential hotel? I even
understand via realtor friends that this information must be disclosed during a home sale.
B-101
This is becoming a big business. People, sometimes foreign nationals, are investing from overseas and
hiring others to run their short-term rental property.
Your vote will be on record and will be telling of the kind of city you envision for us. Do the only right
thing, as all of our neighboring cities already have, and reject any conditional allowance of short-term
residential rentals, and maintain the current FULL -BAN.
Sincerely,
Peter Gasteiger
Portuguese Bend, RPV
Sent From my T -Mobile 4G LTE Device
B-102
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
FYI
Kat Fox, AICD
Citi] of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544.-5226
kitf@rpvca.gov
Kit Fox
Monday, September 12, 2016 8:09 AM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Gabriella Yap
FW: RPV - Short Term Rentals banned in PVE, RHE, RB, HB, MB and Torrance
From: Tracy Burns [mailto:akamomma@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 8:07 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: RPV - Short Term Rentals banned in PVE, RHE, RB, HB, MB and Torrance
*update*
The Planning Commission decided to not go with any options provided by the City Staff. Instead, they decided
to go with permitting the short -rental of one bedroom in a home. How is this even enforceable? Many of these
AirBnB'ers list separate ads for each bedroom. AirBnB does not comply with local governments and the entire
industry is totally unregulated - unlike real hotels and event spaces. It's illegal to put cameras inside these
homes, so will Code Enforcement handle it?
Additionally, at the recent meeting on PC member (Cruikshank) admitted to a personal and working
relationship with my AirBnB neighbor. However, he did not abstain from the vote despite the
relationship. Another PC member (Nelson) bragged about his doctor friend owning a property near his and
renting it out and making about I OOK per year. He stated the guests rent the place and walk to
Terranea. Unfortunately, I do not live within walking distance of Terranea, so the AirBnB guests near me stay
here and drink. This same councilmember further stated that we could just take our neighbors to small claims
court and sue them for up to l OK for being a nuisance! First off, he is not an attorney and that is terrible legal
advice. My understanding is that is the job of our Planning Commission to ensure our city is organized and
liveable by establishing zones, developing infrastructure and ensuring safety and accessibility to all. So, if they
are not respecting/enforcing the zones they themselves set-up, i.e. single family residences, why does Planning
Commission exist? It seems we could save a whole lot of money and time by getting rid of them because they
sat on this for 2 months and tossed this back to the City Council with total disregard to the suggested solutions
by City Staff - the ones that have to do the actual job of enforcing the zoning laws.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tracy Burns <akamommana,gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 6:15 PM
Subject: RPV - Short Term Rentals banned in PVE, RHE, RB, HB, MB and Torrance
B-103
To: pc(krpvca.gov, Ara Mihranian <aramgKpvca.gov>
Cc: ken.dyda(a,rpvca.gov, susan.brooksna,rpvca.gov, jerry.duhovicna,rpvca.gov, anthony.misetichgrpvca. ov
Does RPV want to be the only city in the South Bay to allow short term rentals?
On May 17th, 2016, the RPV City Council voted to ban short-term rentals by a vote 4-1. But, after looking at
the posted agenda for the August 23rd Planning Commission meeting, it appears there is A LOT of
information on ways to legalize and regulate short term rentals. Why? Manhattan Beach already tried to
regulate short-term rentals by issuing permits and it did not work out, so they have now gone with a full
ban. The City of San Francisco estimates that 76.6% of the short term rentals operating in their town are not in
compliance with their permit system and not paying their fees/taxes. Plus, AirBnB is notoriously uncooperative
with helping cities ensure compliance. Why would they help local governments when it would make them lose
listings and eat into their profit margin? So, if RPV decides to use their resources to build and implement a
permit system, based on previous experience from other cities a majority of the owners with not comply
anyway.
RPV already has a short term rental option by having a hotel (Terranea). PVE and RHE do not even have hotels
and they still banned short term rentals. The residential areas in our city are already zoned for homes not hotels,
so it's difficult to understand the delay in enforcement.
HUGE PROFITS are the motivation with short term rentals, it's not just some needed income in order to survive
or the deep desire to make new friends. Some short term rental owners have multiple properties and/or do not
live on-site.
AirBnB.com available listing as of 08/21/16:
4 bedroom / 3 bath with pool $795 per night
vs.
Realtor.com available listing as of 08/21/16:
4 bedroom / 3 bath with pool $6000 per month
Income Comparison:
Short Term Rental $795 x 30 = $23,850
Long Term Rental per month $6,000
PROFIT DIFFERENCE $17,850
Living next a short term rental has not been a pleasant experience for my family. It was never our wish to live
next to a hotel with strangers coming and going all the time (one night minimum), nor was it expected when we
moved into our neighborhood years ago. Please consider the true motivation of the short term rental owners
and what is best for all the residents.
Sincerely,
Tracy Burns
Reference Article for SF stats on non-compliance
http://fortune.com/2016/04/08/airbnb-hosts-not-compliant-san-francisco/
Hermosa Beach - Official notice from Mayor dated June 23rd, 2016
http://www.hennosabch. org/modules/showdocument. aspx?documentid=7844
Hermosa Beach - Ordinance #16-1365 enforcement began on June 24th, 2016
(additional references - Municipal Code Sections 17.04, 17.08, 17.10, 17.12, 17.14, 17.16, 17.18, 17.20, 17.25,
17.42 of the Zoning Ordinance)
Manhattan Beach - Official City page regarding "Short Term Vacation Rental"
http://www.citymb.info/city-services/community-development/plannin -zg oning/short-term-vacation-rentals
Manhattan Beach - Ordinance #15-0010 passed on June 16th, 2016 / banning short term rentals
http://www.citymb.info/home/showdocument?id=23440
Redondo Beach - Reconfirmed on March 1 st, 2016 that short-term rentals are not legalproactive
enforcement of current laws is sufficient (see section N.2 of minutes)
http://redondo.siretechnologies.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=511 &doctype=AGENDA
Rolling Hills Estates - Ordinance #342 passed on June 8th, 2015 / banning short term rentals
http://rolling-hills.org/DocumentCenterNiew/856
Torrance - Voted to ban short term rentals on June 14th, 2016 (item 9G on agenda) / currently working on
ordinance
http://torrance.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view id=8&clip id=12979
Palos Verdes Estates - Ordinance #16-717 passed on June 14th, 2016 / banning short term rentals (see
attachment A)
hgp:Hl2vestates.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=1&clip id=807&meta id=29779
Comparison listings AirBnB (short term) vs. Realtor (longterm)
erm)
https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/93 82619?s=DgRO1Cza
http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/2507-Sunnyside-Ridge-Rd Rancho -Palos -
Verdes CA 90275 M15225-89183
B-105
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 8:24 AM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: FW: I support the complete BAN of SHORT TERM RENTALS
FYI
Kit Fc a, Aicp
Ciftj of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 5445226
kitf(g)WVC ., ov
From: Tracy Burns [mailto:akamomma@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 8:22 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: I support the complete BAN of SHORT TERM RENTALS
I live next to an AirBnB (hotel and event space) which only requires a (1) night minimum stay, which seems
odd since I live in an area zoned for SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. It is not a pleasant experience living
next to this place. There are strangers constantly coming and going. There is a steady flow of Ubers, taxis and
rental cars. There are family parties, launch parties, pool parties, weddings and the one night stand guests that
feel free to let loose. Our Neighborhood Watch is a joke because of the constant flow of strangers. Megan's
Law, which was enacted to help protect children from sexual predators from within their own neighbors, is
unenforceable now because a hotel is being operated on our street. This is not what I signed up for when I
moved to my quiet little cul-de-sac many years ago. According to our Code Enforcement our current law is
written in a permissive way and does not explicitly ban short-term rentals. Please fix this immediately and have
a complete BAN on short term rentals.
Sincerely,
Tracy Burns
Octavio Silva
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 8:48 AM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: FW: Ban Short Term Rentals
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
C IN OF RAN ICS I -'AL0S 14E -_RDFS
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aramP-rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
ADo you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Mary Clarke [mailto:meclarke9@verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 6:44 PM
To: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ban Short Term Rentals
Please note I and my husband are opposed at any short term rentals in the RVP area. In all cases where this type of
rental is allowed... there is nothing but trouble. We will end up spending countless hours and dollars cleaning up after
these people and enforcing our laws. Please keep our city peaceful and quiet and say NO to any and all short term
rentals. Please let us learn from our neighboring cities who have shown the good sense to ban this behavior.
Thank you,
Mary and Charlie Clarke
Rhone Drive, RPV
B-107
Octavio Silva
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 8:49 AM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: FW: Do not allow short rent!
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
M Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
-----Original Message -----
From: John Zhu [mailto:yuz12703@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 6:27 PM
To: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Do not allow short rent!
As a rpv home owner, I am strongly against to allow short-term rent!
John Zhu
30420 via Victoria
Sent from my Whone
Octavio Silva
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 9:13 AM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: FW: short term rentals
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
CITY0FLiRANO 10 RALOSV�_RDES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram(cD-rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
ADo you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited, If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: mmgatross@aol.com [mai Ito:mmgatross@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 8:59 AM
To: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: short term rentals
I am opposed to short term rentals as homes are in neighborhoods, not business areas.
Included in my opposition is the additional issue of more vehicles on our neighborhood streets,
many of which have no sidewalks.
With thanks for considering a no vote on the proposed short term rentals.
Mary Ross
30177 Rhone Drive
RPV
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 9:50 AM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: FW: Support Full Ban on Short Term Rentals
FYI
Kit Fox,.AIcp
Citij of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 5445226
kitf002vca.$ov
From: Janet Louie [mailto:EricandJanet.Louie@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 9:45 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Cc:'Michael Huang' <mikehgalaxy@gmail.com>
Subject: Support Full Ban on Short Term Rentals
Dear RPV City Council and Planning Commission members,
Thank you for your service to our city.
When Eric and I moved here 19 years ago with our oldest son, we never imagined we would
have to face an issue like this. We have since had two more sons and have loved being in the
same home, paying our property taxes, and being neighborly. We know our immediate
neighbors and have taken for granted that they are long time residents.
It is very disturbing to hear about the negative impact the neighborhood Air Bnb has had thus
far. I was at the most recent Planning Commission meeting to hear from both sides of the
argument. I appreciate the guidelines set in place to be able to voice your opinion.
I am blessed to be able to be a homemaker. I have been actively involved at Vista Grande,
Ridgecrest Intermediate School, and currently involved at Peninsula High as a parent
volunteer. I have volunteered in Region 10 AYSO as a board member and as a referee. Having
three sons has meant that I have had to rely on my school friends, moms and dads I know
from our neighborhood for community support and help. I still have 2 sons at home and I like
knowing my neighbors. Will transient people help volunteer at the local schools? I don't think
SO.
B-110
I do NOT like having people come in and out and the people who rent out their rooms for
profit at the expense of those of us who are trying to be good neighbors. Who knows if they
even report the income?
I am concerned for the safety of our boys, increase traffic, parking congestion, noise and trash
created by people who have NO VESTED INTEREST in maintaining our local neighborhood. I do
not like the idea of DECREASED property values, when we are planning to retire here in this
neighborhood. We like knowing full time residents who care about RPV and want to vote and
stay informed. Transient people DO NOT care.
I know that RPV is trying to find a way to get income from these Air BnB operators, but that
would be virtually impossible to keep track and enforce. These operators are also undermining
places like Terranea resort.
We wholeheartedly support a FULL BAN in Short Term Rentals. Keep these out of Rancho
Palos Verdes. We are a neighborhood community, not a tourist destination. When I invite
people to stay at our house, those are ourfamily and friends and our guests. We do NOT
charge for that. We show hospitality without that payment in return.
Thank you,
Eric and Janet Louie
28719 Lomo Drive, RPV
19 year RPV resident
PS I (Janet) cannot attend the Sept. 20 meeting, so this is my email to voice my opinion.
Octavio Silva
From: Guri Otterlei <guri.otterlei@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 10:05 AM
To: CC; PC; Octavio Silva
Subject: Fwd: Status of Upcoming City Council Meeting on September 20
To the Rpv City Council and Planning Commission:
The link below shows properties currently listed in Rpv on Airbnb and demonstrated the magnitude of this
rapidly growing problem. How can our city leaders let this continue? This business is about making easy money
at neighbors' expense, and not about property rights or a temporary arrangement to help someone pay their
mortgage here in Rpv.
https://www.airdna.co/city/us/california/rancho-palos-verdes/top
Please do the right thing and save our city by voting for a full ban on short term rental.
Thank you,
Guri Otterlei
Rpv resident
B-112
Octavio Silva
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 11:31 AM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: FW: Ban Short Term Rentals --Please Do It!
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aramCCD-rpvca.gov
www. rpvca.gov
ADo you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Donald Stuart [mailto:dmstuart@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 11:27 AM
To: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ban Short Term Rentals --Please Do It!
We are strongly opposed to allowing short terms rentals within the city of RPV. We have lived in the city since
1971, and have enjoyed the quality of the neighborhoods. Short term rentals decrease this quality.
Donald M. and Norma J. Stuart
57 Santa Barbara Drive
RPV 90275
B-113
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 12:13 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: FW: short term rentals
FYI
Kit Foa, AICD
Ciftj of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kitf@rpvca.gov
From: Terry Bettino [mailto:terry.bettino@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 12:05 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: short term rentals
As a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes I would strongly encourage the City Council to vote against allowing
short term rentals in RPV. Anyone who is familiar with the negative impact this practice has had on other
neighborhoods in Los Angeles -noise, late night partying and traffic and parking problems knows these things
are very difficult to control with short term vacation rentals. I live at the top of a very small spur of
Rockinghorse Road which is a private street that all residents pay to maintain. The road in a very narrow dead
end and cars cannot pass if the street is parked up on both sides, leaving residents at the top trapped. Also,
everyone on my side of the hill knows how the noise from loud, late night parties reverberate through the
canyons. There kinds of nuisances are bad for property values and expensive for law enforcement. If the
surrounding upscale communities have banned the practice, why on earth would RPV allow it? Better to ban it
in the first place than be forced to dial it back later. I urge the City Council to please oppose this now!
B-114
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 12:14 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: FW: Ban on short term rentals; I am in support of a total ban on short term rental in the
city of RPV.
FYI
Kit Fox, Aicp
Citic of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 5445226
kitf@ryvca.gov
From: Virginia y [mailto:vluckyee@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 10:34 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ban on short term rentals; I am in support of a total ban on short term rental in the city of RPV.
B-115
Octavio Silva
From:
Kit Fox
Sent:
Monday, September 12, 2016 1:23 PM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Gabriella Yap
Subject:
FW: Air B & B
FYI
Kit Fox, ,AICD
Citic of Rancho Palos Verdes
(510) 544-5226
kitf@)Wvca.A
From: Nancy Hauge [mailto:nlhauge@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 1:13 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Air B & B
support the full ban of short-term rentals without any exceptions in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. We
have enough problems with people coming into our city & committing crimes. These short term rentals are
just inviting more problems.
I also worry about the effect they have on property values.
No short term rentals!
Nancy Hauge
B-116
Octavio Silva
From:
Kit Fox
Sent:
Tuesday, September 13, 2016 6:05 AM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Gabriella Yap
Subject:
Fw: short-term rentals
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for Whone
From: Dana Lu <yideh1825@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 9:30:28 PM
To: CC
Subject: short-term rentals
Dear Sir:
We are against short-term rentals in our neighborhood. The neighbor across the street has started with
Airbnb. This has caused increase in traffic and strange cars parking the neighborhood. That house was
recently burglarized. With strangers going in and out of the house, we have no idea who is really
supposed to be there.
There is a house on Crest Rd up the street renting to Airbnb, where every weekend you would see about
10 cars parked in driveway and on Crest Rd, causing traffic congestion, with people going in and out with
their luggages. Ask yourself if you want to live next door to that house?
The cities surrounding RPV, like Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Rolling HIlls, and PVE have banned
short-term rentals (STR) so we would be the only city allowing STR in the area. In the South Bay,the
most listings for STR would be in Rancho Palos Verdes.
This would cause a decrease in our property value as we are supposed to disclose STR next to a home
when it comes time to sell our house. We moved here, because it was a quiet and secluded
neighborhood. This has all changed for the worse, with the introduction of short-term vacation rentals.
Thank you for your attention.
Dana Lu
resident Rancho Palos Verdes
i
B-117
Octavio Silva
From: Jeannette Peterson <janrpv@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 1:59 PM
To: PC; CC; Octavio Silva
Subject: SHORT TERM RENTALS - RANCHO PALOS VERDES
September 12, 2016
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I have been living with the nightmare of having an AireBnB, short term rental two doors from my home since
the new owner purchased the property at 3664 Hightide Drive, in 2015. This property was listed and sold as a
single family home at over one million dollars. The new owner has never resided in this home.
I have watched the party buses come and go. I have been awakened at 2 AM by the loud laughter, loud talking,
music and drunken behavior of many guests. I have had guests who had to move downstairs to sleep on a sofa
because of the excessive noise after midnight. I have witnessed cars exceeding the speed limit as they come and
go from this home. Hightide Drive was a quiet cul-de-sac wherein seniors walk, children play and bicyclists
ride. It is becoming unsafe.
The owners of this property are charging about $700/night to rent this home through AireBnB. Some owners are
now saying they will suffer if they lose this income. They knew when they purchased homes in an R-1,
Residential, Single Family Home area, they could not operate a business. AireBnB is a business.
We are all concerned about the excessive traffic into our quiet neighborhood and especially the fact that these
people are all strangers. The owners of this property are not here to monitor what is happening. The people
renting the property don't care about the residents. They pay a lot of money and just want to enjoy their
vacation. Meanwhile, our lives are disturbed while the owner is collecting a lot of money and sleeping
peacefully in their home away from the disturbance.
I have lived on Hightide Drive for 46 years and have never had to endure this type of disturbance in our
community. We all purchased our homes never dreaming we would have to fight to keep our surroundings free
from a business next door. The city incorporated in 1973 to keep Rancho Palos Verdes a quiet R-1 residential
community. What happened to no business in an R-1 zone?
If I sell my home I will have to declare that there is an AireBnB operating two doors away. That declaration will
definitely decease my property value. Who will purchase a million dollar plus home knowing there is a "party
house" two doors away?
Permitting short term rentals as a means of income for the property owner benefits the owner, but is detrimental
to the residents.
Permitting short term rentals to increase revenue for the City of RPV through collection of TOT, business
licenses and permits is beneficial to the city, but is detrimental to the residents.
Other surrounding cities have all banned short term vacation rentals.
i
If the City of Rancho Palos Verdes can post a "Zero Tolerance Noise - Motorcycle exhaust" on Palos Verdes
Drive East, I would hope they can honor the "Zero Tolerance Short Term Rentals" in Rancho Palos Verdes,
that was voted on at a previous meeting.
I ask that the City Council honor the requests of the residents rather than accommodate the owners of these
short term rentals.
Sincerely,
Jeannette Peterson
3650 Hightide Drive
310 541-7031
B-119
Octavio Silva
From: Carolynn Petru <carolynn.petru@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 8:00 PM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: Fwd: Ban on Short -Term Rentals
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carolynn Petru <carol lYin.petruw-mai_l.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:57 PM
Subject: Ban on Short -Term Rentals
To: "cc Dar v� com" <cca rpv.com>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM(a�rpvca.>, octvavios(crpvca.gov, DWillmore(cu.rpvca. ov
September 12, 2016
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Please enact a ban on un -permitted short-term rentals and provide Staff with the necessary resources to enforce it. The basis for this
request is simple - the unfettered transient, hotel -like use of residential property is a corrosive commercial enterprise that has no place
in our neighborhoods. It's recent proliferation has, and will continue, to fundamentally alter and degrade the character and value of our
residential community, not to mention our quality of life and property values.
We, like so many of our neighbors, are speaking from personal experience. There are now two short-term rentals on our short cul-de-
sac street of only nineteen properties. There is another one located midway up West Crest Road, right at the steep s -curve in the
roadway, which provides the only access to our neighborhood. Many of our neighbors have submitted excellent letters detailing their
experiences living in close proximity to these commercial uses. Therefore, we won't repeat the laundry list of negative impacts here, but
will state that it is a near certainty the problems with uncontrolled short-term rentals will continue to escalate unless decisive action is
taken immediately.
Please take the following action:
Amend the Municipal Code to prohibit the rental of a dwelling unit, or portion thereof, to a person or group of persons for
compensation of any kind, for lodging or sleeping purposes for a period of less than thirty consecutive calendar days
whether or not the property is concurrently occupied by the property owner, except for bed and breakfast inns as provided in
RPVMC Section 17.76.140.
The Municipal Code should also be amended to prohibit advertising of un -permitted short-term rentals, as well as to prohibit residential
properties from being used as "party houses."
As we heard at the Planning Commission meeting on August 23rd, there are some owner -occupants renting out a single room in their
homes to one or two guests at a time. These appear to be very modest operations that are carefully vetted and controlled by the
owners living on-site. These property owners could avail themselves of the permit process the City has had in place since 1997, which
can allow a Bed and Breakfast Inn through a Conditional Use Permit. This existing approval process is subject to a noticed public
hearing before the Planning Commission; can be conditioned to address operational issues unique to each property; would be subject
to carefully crafted conditions of approval that will streamline enforcement; and, any such permits would be subject to mandatory
findings of approval and development standards to ensure the use does not degrade the residential character of the community, nor
result in an over concentration of bed and breakfast inns in a given area.
It's important that the rules also apply to multi -family zoning districts. Consider what is going on in the City of Los Angeles - in addition
to entire homes being rented out, as has already been experienced in our community, Los Angeles is also seeing an increase in multi-
family units, and even entire buildings, being illegally converted into short-term rental properties. This could easily happen in our
community too, especially in the Coastal Zone. As the Council may be aware, the large apartment complex at 5500 Beachview Drive
was recently sold to a new owner. This 215 -unit complex is located immediately east of the Terranea Resort. If multi -family units are
excluded from the proposed ban, what would prevent the new owners from converting some or all of their apartment units into short-
term rentals? What would the good folks at Terranea think about a new "hotel" next to them, who's guests don't pay the City's Transient
B-120
Occupancy Tax, yet flood onto their property to use all their lovely public amenities? And how would this impact the remaining
permanent residents living around a de facto, un -permitted hotel?
One short-term rental operator who addressed the Planning Commission on August 23rd stated that "house sharing" is a wonderful
world-wide phenomenon. No doubt because the monetary stakes are so high for the short-term rental owners and the on-line
companies that promote them, they want us to think of them in benign terms, such as "hosts just sharing their homes." It sounds much
more altruistic than "people who profit off their residential properties at the expense of their neighbors." If they are participating in a
"sharing" economy, we wonder why they're not offering to share their profits with their neighbors who have to absorb the impacts of a
commercial businesses operating in their residential neighborhoods?
Please ask yourselves, would I like to have one or more un -permitted short-term rentals in my neighborhood? Perhaps next door or
across the street? Why did I move to Rancho Palos Verdes in the first place? Is it because Rancho Palos Verdes is a tranquil, family-
oriented residential community? Or because it's a transient, overcrowded resort town?
Thank you very much for your time and careful consideration of this important matter
Respectfully,
Carolynn and Andy Petru
7121 Avenida Altisima
cc: Doug Willmore, City Manager
Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development
Octavio Silva, Associate Planner
B-121
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 6:27 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: Fw: Short term ban
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
FYI
Kit
Sent using.OWA for iPad
From: June Treherne <junetreherne@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 5:39:18 PM
To: CC
Subject: Short term ban
Dear City Council,
We have already emailed you with our desire to vote for a ban on short term rentals. We did not explain why in our last
email, it is partly because we live above the party house on Crest Road. This weekend there was a wedding with many
people and cars parked everywhere on Crest. Most weekends there is some sort of party, last weekend a bus pulled and
unloaded a large group of people. One weekend there were a large group of people renting the property and I found
one guest wandering on our property below our deck. I was very upset to see a stranger wondering around, he didn't
know the boundaries as he was one of the large group renting. With all the break ins we have been experiencing in RPV
it doesn't help us feel safe with all these strangers in the neighborhood.
We have lived in our house for 33 years and it disturbs us to know these short term rentals are cropping up everywhere.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
June & Derek Treherne
Sent from my iPad
1
B-122
Octavio Silva
From:
Kit Fox
Sent:
Monday, September 12, 2016 6:26 PM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Gabriella Yap
Subject:
Fw: Short term rental ban
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Completed
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for iPad
From: Eric Louie <ejlouie@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 5:49:12 PM
To: CC; PC
Subject: Short term rental ban
Dear City Council and Planning Commission,
I am emailing to express my support of banning short term rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes.
I feel that this step is needed to protect the residents. While the argument may be that there is not a high percentage of
"bad" rentals, if thst is next door to you that is disruptive. Also, a home is typical a very large investment for a person
and not that liquid where someone can easily move.
Thank you for your consideration.
--Eric
1
B-123
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 5:21 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: FW: Thanks Ijust saw YOUR EXCELLENT LETTER....... e: Rental of short-term residential
homes - OPPOSE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
FYI
Kit Fox, AICP
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kitf@rpvca.gov
-----Original Message -----
From: Susan [mailto:sueestes@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 5:11 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Thanks I just saw YOUR EXCELLENT LETTER....... e: Rental of short-term residential homes - OPPOSE
---- Susan <sueestes@cox.net> wrote:
> As a home owner (Susan M. Estes, 3446 Seaglen Dr., RPV and 36 year
> resident of RPV) I strongly OPPOSE any short-term rental of
> residential homes in RPV. As I am unable to attend the Sept. 20, 7:00
> pm meeting at Hesse Park, please count my voice in opposition to this.
> Other Peninsula communities have wisely voted against this.
> Communities that have allowed these short term rentals find many
> difficulties, possibly lowering property value, and hence revenue for same cities.
> Please respond that my voice will be counted.
> Sincerely,
> Susan M. Estes
> 310-377-0773
1
B-124
Octavio Silva
From:
Kit Fox
Sent:
Monday, September 12, 2016 5:21 PM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Gabriella Yap
Subject:
FW: Short term rentals
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
FYI
Kit Fox, AICP
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kitf@rpvca.gov
-----Original Message -----
From: Noel Park [mailto:noelparkone@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 4:47 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Short term rentals
I support a total ban on short term rentals. The proposal put forward by the Planning Commission is unenforceable and
will only lead to endless scams by people looking to make money from commercial businesses in our R1 neighborhoods.
All of the surrounding and beach cities have banned them. If we allow this loophole we will be inundated.
Noel Park
6715 EI Rodeo Road
RPV 90275
562-413-5147
B-125
Octavio Silva
From:
Ara Mihranian
Sent:
Monday, September 12, 2016 5:02 PM
To:
Octavio Silva
Subject:
FW: Support for Full Ban on Short Term Rental in RPV
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
CITY OF LiRANCI 10 1
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram(-)_rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
s e r,sOd contains infonmaU b-,lon 4 ci to thc, City of Re#stL>ho _ l co fi£4�rtFEM�1
fie. mom natioln 'S € nier"dod, o'lly for „i,:. of 1,Wn in£I1v:dw l o` entity zn<:i inn ;. !.3. 0Un ..did disc Sn ina i n, ;Ibud" t:
I live next door to a home that was recently converted to short term rental, renting out all 5 rooms in the dwelling on a
nightly basis. Since becoming a hotel, there has been a steady increase in the parade of strange cars and people coming
and going at all times of the day. The house even served as a "convention center" of sorts by hosting some type of
religious conference over a weekend. As a result, I've had strangers ringing my doorbell by mistake, strangers that I have
no idea whether or not would pose as a security threat to me or my teenage children. I cannot begin to express how
unsettling and unnerving it is to see strangers loitering in the backyard next door as I look out my windows, knowing that
a different group of transients will be wandering about less than 20 yards away in a few days. There is no way of knowing
who these here -today -gone -tomorrow strangers are and whether they are impinging on my family's safety.
Unless a complete and total ban is codified, the flow of strangers and the attendant issues (safety, traffic, noise) will
continue to persist. Moreover, it is difficult if not impossible for the City to enforce any exception, such as the one
proposed by the Planning Commission allowing I room to be rented out when owner lives on premises. Director of
Planning and Community Development admitted as much at the Planning Commission hearing in August 2016. Are the
City staff supposed to "raid" these homes to see how many rooms are being used as vacation rentals? Are the staff
supposed to go on "stake outs" to see if the owners live in these houses?
As a 20 year-long resident of RPV, I cherish our community and wish to preserve our neighborhood of its residential
nature. Commercial activities like running a hotel decimates our sense of community and destroys the safety and serenity
that we have to love about RPV. Please vote to ban short term rental completely. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Karen Shiao
B-127
Octavio Silva
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 4:49 PM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: FW: Ban on Short term rental meeting - Absentee
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
or
CITYOFLi,�\NC) 10 HAI-aSVERDFS)
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram(sb,rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-rnail?
' . n-ssatw cont _.ins mfC)i-',,a lots beloi'i{ rx i:: the, City, of Ranch,,, al;.- 1; tai`€ e�: " k`"Nch be Privi'et�ea,, w,—,flId6`3h A ait(.l,lor Protected kmz
1..� n _.<';tic�rl _ intended rpt>Iv for i;,e� er �l �i;v ��tl<� r,.:>� €.; .�rrr�.:_. hz��'. o ,�_Cc( rl s�e�� :�� �; c,���t€ :i�or�, or r.��?�fit r� s?€Jr:Hy %r��hih'jl iii. is
c .11 , „ n, '.,.,it a ssiSta(Ice.. intEeJ coo )Cr�?
r rtv: an i.u�•rlclv�c; t . �i =��t. _ �,n # �..� ,.Eta.: f .�r; f nj�it.t_i tt €y ..1; ��r }c } i �„
From: Eric Doi [mailto:ericdoi@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 3:13 PM
To: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ban on Short term rental meeting - Absentee
My name is Eric Doi. I am writing this email because I am unable to attend the meeting on September 20 at Hesse Park.
My address is 6871 Crest Rd., in Rancho Palos Verdes. I am writing to express my frustrations and concerns that I have with our neighboring
residence at 6857 Crest Rd. that has been operating as a short term rental property.
The Homeowners at 6857 Crest do NOT live there. The House and property is mainly being used as an event venue/facility for wedding
receptions and big parties on weekends; and on other days, as a 2-5 day vacation rental during the week. The only day that no one is renting
the property is Monday, which is their designated cleaning day. Every Monday, the same cleaning crew goes in and cleans the entire property
o •
and takes the trash to the curb to be picked up on Tuesday morning by EDCO. They have a beautiful system all worked out
Ever since the previous homeowners moved out this past year, It has been a very frustrating and worrisome endeavor to live next to this
home. It's has literally been a weekly struggle putting up with different groups of short term renters that rent the property each week. For
example, THIS weekend's wedding party had so many guests that there was traffic congested on our street. So they had a lady in the middle
Of our street directing traffic. It has truly become a public safety issue. And LAST weekend, for a different crowd of renters, I had to call the
Lomita Sheriffs department AGAIN to come control the noise and rowdiness of inebriated guests.
There have been many weekends where live bands and/or DJs play late into the night. I have had to call the sheriffs department multiple
times. But even after the excessive IOrld music is shut down by law enforcement, after a few minutes it is only replaced with drunken yelling
and shouting. During the day we have found items that have been thrown into our backyard from the night before. On a few occasions, we
have smelled marijuana being smoked which worries us because we have young kids that play outside and that's not the type of atmosphere
that is representative of living in this beautiful city.
There have been multiple robberies on our street. For example, the neighbor directly below, the home across the street from us, and a third
house a few houses down were recently broken into all within a I month time frame. Our home is located directly below the short term rental
property. So we constantly have strangers watching us through the fence in the backyard. I'm sure they're just being nosy and harmless, but it
only takes one person with the wrong intentions for something disastrous to occur. Therefore, with the sheer number of people that we don't
know constantly coining in and out of that house; it scares us every time we leave our home unattended.
My family and I love this city, and we truly believe there is no other city like ours. It is beautiful, the people are kind, and above all we have
a City Council that takes pride and fights for its people and the betterment of our city. But when it comes to this issue, we truly feel helpless.
When you break it down, the only course of action that we currently have is to call the Sheriffs department after 10 o'clock for a nuisance
complaint. Which simply is not enough.
I know that there are many others in the the same situation.
Please help us,
Eric Doi
6871 Crest Rd.
Rancho Palos Verdes
B-129
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
FYI
Kit Fox, AICP
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kitf@rpvca.gov
Kit Fox
Monday, September 12, 2016 2:32 PM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Gabriella Yap
FW: Short Term Rentals - An Unregulated Enterprise
Follow up
Completed
-----Original Message -----
From: Tracy Burns [mailto:akamomma@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 2:14 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Short Term Rentals - An Unregulated Enterprise
Some of the AirBnB ads do cross marketing of other listed properties. This would indicate a single owner running
multiple homes in residential neighborhoods, strictly as hotels and event spaces. This business is not for a little
supplemental income, it's an unregulated enterprise.
For example -
30129 Via Rivera - this one cross references the AirBnB at 6857 Crest Rd <x-apple-data-detectors://O> ("Ocean View
Estate" - aka Lightening Bolt Driveway - they had more parties this weekend)
(3) separate listings
https://www.a irbnb.com/rooms/14078978?guests=l&s=y5ORW EzF&sug=51
<https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/14078978?guests=l&s=y5ORWEzF&sug=51>
https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/13981888?guests=l&s=WYXr2_gn&sug=51
<https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/13981888?guests=l&s=WYXr2_gn&sug=51>
https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/13865431?guests=l&s=PxJio2Ho&sug=51
<https://www.a i rbnb.com/rooms/13865431?guests=l&s=PxJ io2 Ho&sug=51>
B-130
The 6857 Crest Rd <x-apple-data-detectors://4/0> listing:
https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/7575081?s=Hzl6v8gf&sug=51
<https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/7575081?s=Hzl6v8gf&sug=51>
Review from AirBnB August 2016 guest -
AirBnB is notoriously uncooperative government entities or sharing records. This is a great way to make money (no
taxes, no regulations) and an even better way to ruin neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Tracy Burns
B-131
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
FYI
Kit Fox, AICP 77
Citi -i of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kitf0 vca. ov
Kit Fox
Monday, September 12, 2016 4:39 PM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Gabriella Yap
FW: Ban Short Term Rentals
Follow up
Flagged
From: de Lamare,R Gregory [mailto:gdelamare@mwdh2o.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 4:16 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; Sokun Kan <ksokun@yahoo.com>
Subject: Ban Short Term Rentals
Dear PV City Council Members & RPV Planning Commission,
This email is to support a full ban on short-term rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTIONS. The short-
term rentals are disruptive to the neighborhood due to excessive traffic and noise from large events, we never know
who is staying in the house next door to us, and these rentals are eroding the quality of life in Rancho Palos
Verdes. We deserve the same rights to peaceful, safe enjoyment of our homes just like the residents of neighboring
cities that have banned short-term rentals without any exceptions to protect homeowners in their cities.
Sincerely,
Greg de Lamare
7233 Avenida Altisima
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
=.7i`i ?LI i!.,U .;Cil.., 7:J=dt� i ",='t a ly ,Ua lt£ E, 1?i; Ci bi_i ,` dd *C tE �::: z ) the S01 USE, tI i-te: ded Ec..' ;i 9ii�D; and may c.Lwai i infcnnaticm that is
C e, La[.�t'!tiiE?i vau a' k_?gafly jl`o'�'c (ld 4. Y*ice � e of ., t jmclwk .,. - . Cs;:)--- ._ ii't � y i..,.i::ct that any it vel.
" . 6€S'IJS�.€i C, t l,. ''arEt Ci (i°1Uil
o?Y5e,
E.'sniciy en(,ONNtiad. it vii havo nocciv(-fd it i. sf "2i'.k,di,:"�"k .>ia il,E ;_`.t. 0-.aso nofi . „.,i.,t.r pmt .. au",.y b_ r<--twn ,: mai: a_ -d
I 13'!g nal and ,ad ;. r,, .,"' flh , . ho g �ai, riga. ,: � t �,.. �Iw3�c[d u ii= k : ; �aI V(�t t '.�'r >.�
B-132
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
FYI
Kit Fox, AIC:P
Citti of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310)544-5226
kitf@rpvca. ov
Kit Fox
Monday, September 12, 2016 4:39 PM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Gabriella Yap
FW: Support Total Ban on Short Term Rental
Follow up
Completed
From: Karen & Chan [mailto:ckchuang@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 4:35 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Support Total Ban on Short Term Rental
To whom it may concern:
I'm writing to voice my support for a total ban on short term rental without exception in RPV. We live next door to
a short term rental that rents out rooms by night. The flow of unknown cars and strangers coming into our neighborhood
has increased substantially since the dwelling became an inn. It is very disconcerting that we have strangers, many of
whom are male, passing thru the neighborhood transiently. I'm particularly concerned about the safety issues resulting
from the transient nature of these dwellers. Many of us have children, including myself, and are troubled by not knowing
who is spending the night next door. We chose to live in this family -friendly community because we wanted to feel
safe. Now, as a result of these hotel operations, we have lost that sense of security. Moreover, short term rentals are
commercial activities, with paying "guests" coming and going. Commercial activities are simply not permitted in
residential zoning area. Please codify the total and complete ban on short term rental as soon as possible before our
residential neighborhood is overrun with a slew of hotels.
Sincerely,
Chan Chuang
7131 Avenida Altisima, RPV
B-133
Octavio Silva
From: Michael Huang <mikehgalaxy@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 4:44 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: CC; PC
Subject: Information on Short -Term Rental in RPV in Support of Full Ban of Short -Term Rental
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Ara and Octavio,
The enclosed links below from AirDNA shows the number of AirBNB listings in Rancho Palos Verdes
compared to all other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. In summary, as of September 2016, there are 88
AirBNB rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and 13 rentals in the remaining cities of Rolling Hills,
Rolling Hills Estates, and Palos Verdes Estates combined. AirDNA is a third -party service that sells marketing
data for AirBNB.
Here's the link to the actual data -
City of Rancho Palos Verdes:
https://www.airdna.co/city/us/cal iforni a%rancho-palos-verde,/top
Palos Verdes Peninsula - includes Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, and Palos Verdes Estates:
https://www.airdna.co/city/us/california/palos-verdes-peninsu
The top part of the webpage shows the location of the rentals on a map and the bottom part of the page contains
links you can click to see the actual listings on AirBNB. The Palos Verdes Peninsula listing shows 16
properties, but 2 of them are actually in Rancho Palos Verdes and 1 of the listing is incorrect.
Again, in summary, just on AirBNB, here are the numbers is sharp contract as of September 2016:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes - 86 Air BNB listings
City of Rolling Hills, Rollings Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates - all three cities combined - 13 Air BNB
listing
Our city has almost 7 times as many listings as all of our neighboring cities combined. The main reason for this
stark contrast of numbers is that the neighboring communities all have a complete ban on short-term rentals;
whereas our planning commission is going in the opposite direction and have voted to allow it. The number of
rentals in the neighboring communities will decrease because they have just recently banned the practice. The
number of rentals in our city will explode if we allow short-term rentals in any form in our city.
B-134
Our residents are taking the brunt of these AirBNB renters coming into our once quiet, serene neighborhood and
destroying the fabric of our community. Please also keep in mind that this data is only for AirBNB. I am
certain there are other listings on other websites, but I am sure the ratios of the listings in Rancho Palos Verdes
versus the other cities combined will be similar to the above ratio.
This short-term rentals is big business and the operators in our city are only interested in protecting their
profits. They make much more money doing short-term rentals than longer term rentals. They do not care
about the effect their business has on their neighbors and community. In many cases, these operators do not
even live in the community.
And yes, this is a business. It is big business and will only get bigger. AirBNB was valued as a $20 billion
company as recently as March 2015. They have actively started advertising on the local radio urging
homeowners to rent out their homes for profit. KPCC reported that they have called operators to appear at the
Manhattan Beach city council meetings and that they have also sent employees to these same meetings. I would
not be surprised if AirBNB is supporting the operators in Rancho Palos Verdes for this upcoming meeting.
Another indication that this short-term rental is a hotel business can be seen form the information provided by
AirDNA, the website with the links above. This company sells data on occupancy and rate information of
short-term rentals in any given city for the operators. This information is typically used by hotels to set their
room rates and compare their occupancy to their competitros. I used to manage a hotel, and we had to buy this
same type of information. We are a bedroom community, and we do not want hotels in our residential areas. I
urge the city council to reject the hotels we have now in residential areas and vote for the complete ban of all
short-term rentals without any exceptions.
Sincerely,
Micheal Huang,
Rancho Palos Verdes
B-135
Octavio Silva
From:
Kit Fox
Sent:
Monday, September 12, 2016 4:45 PM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Gabriella Yap
Subject:
FW: Pro Ban Air B&B
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
FYI
Kat Fox, AICP
Cittj of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kit{@rpvca.Aov
From: Peggy [mailto:pegathaa@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 4:27 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Pro Ban Air B&B
My husband and I support the ban on Air B&B's in Rancho Palos Verdes. 100%
Peggy and John Tiberi
B-136
Octavio Silva
From:
Ara Mihranian
Sent:
Friday, August 26, 2016 12:41 PM
To:
Octavio Silva
Subject:
FW: Follow -Up Meeting. 8.23.2016
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
N'A , 0 0 b, 9_' m-49,2"
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram(aD-rpvca.gov
www. rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Michael Yu [mailto:ymichael333@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 11:52 AM
To: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Brian Campbell <BrianC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Follow -Up Meeting. 8.23.2016
Dear Planning Commission,
This is Michael from 9 Calle Viento - Oceanfront Estates.I participate in short term rentals. There were a lot of
emotions from the 8.23.2016 meeting and I corroborated on several comments:
1. Please do NOT believe everything you hear. Here is one example: Several speakers, including a realtor who
spoke, claimed they cannot sell homes because under law they had to disclose neighbors who do short-term
rentals.
C-1
My source, Stephen Haw, who has been selling homes in the Palos Verdes area for over 30 years (800-1000
homes sold), tells me sellers do NOT have to disclose this information. If they said this in court under oath, they
would be committing perjury (felony). Perjury, in CA, can be punishable up to 4 years in jail.
2. We are verifying rumors that city councilman Anthony M. Misetieh was sitting among the crowd at the
planning meeting on August 23, 2016. During the planning commission's vote and opinion session, the
councilman was allegedly seen in person and on camera to have shaken his head or nodded during each vote
and opinion. Please verify and investigate this matter as I request the councilman to recuse himself from voting
in the next "Short -Term Rentals" hearing as this is a clear violation if these rumors are true.
3. There are over 12,000 single -unit homes in Rancho Palos Verdes according to the Southern California
Association of Governments. Yet, only 2-3 homes are the root cause of the anger at the August 23, 2016
planning meeting. These homes do NOT represent short-term rentals.
Let's say you are a teacher who has 30 students. 2 of the students are making 99% of the disruption. Are you
going to pass detention on all 30 students? That is what you did when you voted for the full ban.
I understand a lot of votes are at stake. But you are the representatives of the city. You do not represent Side A
or Side B. Your job is to represent Both.
Please re -consider by examining each possible solution carefully. You will have to consult the sheriffs
department on this as well.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Michael Yu
(310) 720-7577
C-2
Octavio Silva
From:
Edwin Huber <Edwin.Huber@web.de>
Sent:
Saturday, August 27, 2016 10:11 PM
To:
Octavio Silva
Cc:
Ara Mihranian
Subject:
Restrictions for short term rentals
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
My name is Edwin and I am from Munich, Germany.
I have been a guest at 7242 Avenida Altisima and shared the home with Maura Mizuguchi, her boyfriend Mark
Coleman, and three of their seven children. My two children and I enjoyed interacting with her family and the
unique experience of being connected to a family in the community of Rancho Palos Verdes. My children
learned so much from being part of an "American family," and her children learned from a "German family."
While in Rancho Palos Verdes, we enjoyed the local restaurants, being near the ocean, and everyone we met.
There is no other way to enjoy such a beautiful coastline city than seek short term rentals on a site such as
Airbnb as Terranea is unaffordable.
For those who are unaware how Airbnb works, to rent Maura's property, you must verify yourself through a
verification process. One of the key elements is that, you must provide the following:
1. Provide a government issued ID
2. Connect another online profile to the Airbnb account, such as LinkedIn, Facebook, Google
3. Provide a phone number that is verified by Airbnb
4. Provide an email address that is verified by Airbnb
Be financially subject to a large upfront deposit
Sharing the home with such a lovely family exemplified the spirit of the city of which I was privileged to visit.
Please allow us to continue to do so.
Cincerely
Edwin Huber
C-3
Octavio Silva
From: Jianguo Zhu <812552011a@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 6:31 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Subject: Support short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
My name is Guo and have relocated from Guangzhou, China.
While I was looking for permanent residence in Rancho Palos Verdes, I needed short term housing and was a
guest at 7242 Avenida Altisima and shared the home with Maura Mizuguchi, her boyfriend Mark, and six of
their seven children. My 7 year old daughter, wife and I enjoyed interacting with her family and the unique
experience of being connected to a family in the community of Rancho Palos Verdes. We learned so much
from being part of an "American family."
Simple things that we did not know about were easily resolved living with Maura. We had never seen a
dishwasher before, nor an American sized washer or dryer. We did not know how to operate a cook top or oven.
All of this was made possible for an easy transition into the community when we moved out on our own.
Maura was so helpful in getting us settled into our new home. Assisting with the purchases of necessary
household items and educating us on city services and schools. We really would not have had such a positive
outlook on this city if it were not for the ability to live temporarily with local family.
Therefore, I would like you to support short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Thanks
Guo
C-4
Octavio Silva
From:
Ara Mihranian
Sent:
Tuesday, September 06, 2016 9:39 PM
To:
Octavio Silva
Subject:
Fw: proposal to restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
From: Jvnikita <jvaitkute69@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 4:17 PM
To: Ara Mihranian
Subject: Re: proposal to restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
My name is Jovita Vaitkus and I urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes.
I live in Chicago, IL, and each year, during the winter I travel to California to enjoy the coast line and temperate weather.
I have been a guest on multiple occasions at Maura's home at 7242 Avenida Altisima, Rancho Palos Verdes.
We enjoyed Maura's company and we are now friends. I loved the surroundings Rancho Palos Verdes has to offer and
hope you allow short term rentals to continue so that visitors such as myself can benefit everything the city has to offer
which include beautiful coastlines, quaint restaurants and shops, and most importantly, a connected feeling of a great
community.
For those who are unaware how Airbnb works, to rent Maura's property, you must verify yourself through a verification
process. One of the key elements is that, you must provide the following:
1. Provide a government issued ID
2. Connect another online profile to the Airbnb account, such as Linkedln, Facebook, Google
3. Provide a phone number that is verified by Airbnb
4. Provide an email address that is verified by Airbnb
5. Be financially subject to a large upfront deposit
We love the community of Rancho Palos Verdes and would like to continue to enjoy the city when we return again.
Please do not take this great opportunity from quests like me.
If you need to contact me my cell (224) 595-5511
Sincerely ,
Jovita Vaitkus
1
C-5
Octavio Silva
From: Hardy Lansaw <hardylansaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 11:26 AM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Subject: Rental
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes:
I live with my boyfriend in Rancho Palos Verdes and am the primary care giver of his school aged son.
During the college breaks when my boyfriend's daughter comes home from college, I like to give her space and
allow her time to reconnect with her dad. The divorce for his daughter has been difficult and my ability to stay
overnight a few days each week at Maura Mizuguchi's home allows her private time with her dad which has
helped the healing process.
During these college breaks, I need affordable short term rentals in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, as I am the
primary care giver of his school aged son, requiring me to be close proximity to his home. I take his son to
school, after school activities, and prepare meals for the family.
As a result, I rent a room sporadically from Maura and enjoy feeling safe in her home with Mark, her partner,
and their wonderful children. Without the ability to rent from Maura, I really do not know how our family could
cope.
Please allow a resident of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, such as myself, to have the ability to have the
option to rent from a family such as Maura Mizuguchi's.
Sincerely,
Hardy Lansaw, M.A.
304-617-2425
hzirdylansaw,( igi Lcom
Hardy Lansaw
C-6
Octavio Silva
From: Sheng Xu <shengxul7@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 8:33 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Albert Liu
Subject: Please reconsider short term rental restrictions
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
My name is Sheng Xu and I am currently a graduate student at the Wharton School of Business.
My husband and I were guests of 7242 Avenida Altisima, the home of Maura Mizuguchi where I shared the
home with her and her high school aged son.
I carne to visit Los Angeles from the east coast to interview at UCLA's Anderson School of Business. The city
of Rancho Palos Verdes is quite a distance to the interview location, but I yearned to he near a coast line in a
quiet neighborhood and enjoy what the restaurants the city had to offer. Without Maura's home, I would not
have been able to come to the city that is financially out of reach for most of us.
The shared economy is here to stay. We Believe future generations will look to these early proposed regulations
and laws by the City as, hopefully, a measure of its enlightened approach to an economy and a growing
community. A community that in itself is surely one of the best neighborhoods any city could ask.
I am writing this to ask you to keep an open mind when this subject presents itself. Short term rentals are good
for the economy of the city, the city's image.
As city council weigh the STR issue, we hope policymakers will honor the public trust and base their decisions
on what's real, not on what's merely claimed.
Thanks,
Sheng Xu
C-7
Octavio Silva
From: Daniel Ray <coach ray2003 @yahoo.com >
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 6:13 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Subject: Against Short Term Vacation Rental Ban
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes.
My name is Danny Ray, I was raised in Rancho Palos Verdes and now live in Carlsbad, California.
have been a guest at 7242 Avenida Altisima to attend my high school reunion at the local event
venue at Los Verdes. I stayed with Maura Mizuguchi and her boyfriend, Mark Coleman, and four of
their children. I enjoyed interacting with the family and am grateful that the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes provides the option of short term rentals. Without local affordable lodging I likely would not
have been able to return to the city I attended high school.
While there, I reconnected with friends at local restaurants and venues. I certainly want to return and
without short term rentals like Maura's home, it would not be possible.
Sincerely,
Danny Ray
MR•
Octavio Silva
From: twnshpgrl86@gmail.com on behalf of Jess Moy <jessica.hc.moy@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 4:23 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Subject: AirBnB in RPV
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes.
I have been a guest at 7242 Avenida Altisima in June 2014, the weekend of my wedding event held
at Point Vicente Interpretive Center. Four of my bridesmaids and I stayed with Maura Mizuguchi and
her son, Matthew Mizuguchi for the weekend. Without local affordable lodging for my bridesmaids
and I, 1 would not have easily selected Point Vicente as a venue for my 150 -person wedding.
My husband and I, along with our close friends, would like to use Rancho Palos Verdes for our
anniversaries and continue to rekindle our nuptials in the city that brought us together. To do this, we
would continue to need local affordable lodging provided through platforms such as Airbnb.
We love the community, the friendliness, and the connectedness we felt while staying with Maura.
Please reconsider your ban to keep beautiful Rancho Palos Verdes accessible to folks like us.
Kindest regards,
Jessica & Jonathan Moy
C-9
Octavio Silva
From: Svea Wagner <SveaWagner@gmx.de>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 12:01 PM
To: Octavio Silva
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
My name is Svea Wagner, and I am from Hamburg, Germany.
I have been a guest at 7242 Avenida Altisima and shared the home with Maura Mizuguchi, her boyfriend Mark, and six
of their seven children. I have been a guest there on more than one occasion and would love to continue to enjoy what
the city of Rancho Palos Verdes has to offer during my future visits. Terranea, the only other alternate lodging, is
financially out of reach.
For those who are unaware how Airbnb works, to rent Maura's property, you must verify yourself through a verification
process. One of the key elements is that, you must provide the following:
1. Provide a government issued ID
2. Connect another online profile to the Airbnb account, such as Linkedln, Facebook, Google
3. Provide a phone number that is verified by Airbnb
4. Provide an email address that is verified by Airbnb
5. Be financially subject to a large upfront deposit
Sharing the home with such a lovely family exemplified the spirit of the city of which I was privileged to visit. We love the
local restaurants and community. We would want to return in the future. Please allow us to do so.
Beste GrOge / Best Regards
Svea Wagner
C-10
Octavio Silva
From:
phuynh007@socaI.rr.com
Sent:
Monday, August 29, 2016 6:44 PM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Subject:
Short Term Rentals (Airbnb)
Attachments:
City of RPV -ST Rentals.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
Please find attached letter for my support not to ban and/or restrict short term rentals in your city. Your consideration
is greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Phu Huynh / Short term renter
C-11
Sunday, August 28, 2016
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Subject: Short Term Rentals via Airbnb
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes.
I have been a guest at 7242 Avenida Altisima with my family who were visiting from out of
town. I am from City of Gardena, but chose to host my visiting family in Rancho Palos Verdes,
where I could be close enough to my home. Without the availability of Maura's home, we
would not have been able to spend time with my aging parents.
My family will be forever grateful for the opportunity to spend time collectively and appreciate
the beauty of Maura's property as well as the city's openness to allow for such wonderful family
time.
For those who are unaware how Airbnb works, to rent Maura's property, you must verify
yourself through a verification process. One of the key elements is that, you must provide the
following:
1. Provide a government issued ID
2. Connect another online profile to the Airbnb account, such as Linkedln, Facebook, Google
3. Provide a phone number that is verified by Airbnb
4. Provide an email address that is verified by Airbnb
5. Be financially subject to a large upfront deposit
We personally love the community of Rancho Palos Verdes and would like to continue to enjoy
the city when my family returns again.
Sincerely Yours,
Phu Huynh
C-12
Octavio Silva
From: Me <mdpaul@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 10:02 PM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: Short term rentals
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
My name is Michelle Chilvers, and I am formerly from Palos Verdes and now live in Florida.
I have been a guest of several homes offered through Airbnb in Rancho Palos Verdes including the one at 7242 Avenida
Altisima. I shared the home with Maura Mizuguchi, her boyfriend Mark, and six of their seven children. I have joined in
her family gatherings and have felt at home in her surroundings. I would love to continue to enjoy what the city of
Rancho Palos Verdes has to offer during my future visits. Terranea, the only other alternate lodging, is financially out of
reach.
For those who are unaware how Airbnb works, to rent Maura's property, you must verify yourself through a verification
process. One of the key elements is that, you must provide the following:
1. Provide a government issued ID
2. Connect another online profile to the Airbnb account, such as Linkedln, Facebook, Google
3. Provide a phone number that is verified by Airbnb
4. Provide an email address that is verified by Airbnb
5. Be financially subject to a large upfront deposit
I would like to continue visiting the city and staying with its residents. Please allow short term rentals.
Sincerely
Michelle Paul
561-312-4567
Sent from my Whone
C-13
Octavio Silva
From: Colin M <cw3rld@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 5:06 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Subject: Reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
My name is Colin Miyajima, and I live in San Diego, California.
I have been a guest at 7242 Avenida Altisima along with my wife and my 15 month old daughter to attend a
wedding at Wayfarer's Chapel. I stayed with Maura Mizuguchi and her boyfriend, Mark Coleman, and four of
their children. I enjoyed interacting with the family and am grateful that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
provides the option of short term rentals. Without local affordable lodging I likely would not have been able to
attend my dear friend's wedding.
Maura had a deposit requirement of $2,500 for any damage done to her property, which would include any
damage to surrounding areas.
With event venues such as Wayfarer's, the city needs affordable housing for those of us who are traveling in
from elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Colin Miyajima
C-14
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for iPhone
Kit Fox
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 7:36 PM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Gabriella Yap
Fw: Rancho Palos Verdes) Airbnb
Follow up
Flagged
From: Chris <christinenayebyan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 7:05:40 PM
To: CC
Subject: Rancho Palos Verdes I Airbnb
Sent from my iThingy
Hello,
I hope this email finds you well. I am reaching out in hopes to defer the city from banning airbnb rentals from taking
place. I have been renting with a lovely host named Maura on a yearly basis and 1 can't stress how appreciative I am
for the city and my time spent in her beautiful home. I have built a caring friendship with her and i treat her home
like my own each time.
Our favorite brunch spot on our stays is the Yellow Vase as well as many of the delicious restaurants Palos Verdes
has to offer! Maura's airbnb rental has allowed me and my guest to truly understand the beauty of the city and have a
greater appreciation through the eyes of a warm hearted family who gives us genuine recommendations for activities
and places to eat. I cant say I would feel the same way about the city if I stayed at a generic hotel.
1 urge you to reconsider and think about the special experience you will be taking away from others to enjoy. I
appreciate your time and reconsideration on this issue.
I hope the right decision is made for the good of the community to allow airbnb rental to spread the appreciation and
small business revenue through an amazing technology that connects people and brings them together in a way that
has never been done before.
If you need any further information please feel free to reach out via email.
Best,
Christine Nayebyan
Analyst, The Walt Disney Company
clirstine.naycbyaiii r+1i,V!C..r,,M
C-15
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for iPhone
Kit Fox
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 7:36 PM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Gabriella Yap
Fw: Short term rentals in RPV
Follow up
Flagged
From: Jianguo Zhu <812552011a@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 7:00:59 PM
To: CC
Subject: Short term rentals in RPV
To whom it may concern,
I urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
My name is Guo and have relocated from Guangzhou, China.
While I was looking for permanent residence in Rancho Palos Verdes, I needed short term housing and was a guest at
7242 Avenida Altisima and shared the home with Maura Mizuguchi, her boyfriend Mark, and six of their seven children.
My 7 year old daughter, wife and I enjoyed interacting with her family and the unique experience of being connected to
a family in the community of Rancho Palos Verdes. We learned so much from being part of an "American family."
Simple things that we did not know about were easily resolved living with Maura. We had never seen a dishwasher
before, nor an American sized washer or dryer. We did not know how to operate a cook top or oven. All of this was
made possible for an easy transition into the community when we moved out on our own.
Maura was so helpful in getting us settled into our new home. Assisting with the purchases of necessary household
items and educating us on city services and schools. We really would not have had such a positive outlook on this city if
it were not for the ability to live temporarily with local family.
Therefore, I would like you to support short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Thanks
Guo
C-16
Octavio Silva
From:
Ara Mihranian
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2016 8:S7 PM
To:
Octavio Silva
Subject:
Fw: Short Term Rental Program From City of Pacific Grove, CA
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
From: Emeric Rodich <mickeyrodich@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 4:51 PM
To: PC
Subject: Short Term Rental Program From City of Pacific Grove, CA
I am aware that RPV has been discussing the implementation of a Short Term Rental Program (STRP). I have
a friend that lives in Pacific Grove and he forwarded me their STRP Program information. I think what they
have implemented would be worthwhile reviewing for our program in RPV. You can download it from their
web site:
"http://www. cityofpacipicgrove. orgllivinglcommunity-economic-development/short-term-rental-program"
They also have two other programs listed in their web site. It is interesting to see what they charge for permits
and how they collect their TOT tax.
C-17
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
FYI
Kit Fox, Aicp
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kitf@rpvca.gov
Kit Fox
Thursday, September 08, 2016 7:43 AM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Gabriella Yap
FW: Short term rentals
Follow up
Flagged
From: steven kwast [mailto:kwastfamily@icloud.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 4:11 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Short term rentals
City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
My name is Steven Kwast, and I am a service man in the United States military.
I currently live in Alabama and am previously a long term resident of Redondo Beach, where my mother still
resides. My wife and I frequently visit my mother and also bring our children to visit her as well.
My wife and I were guests of 7242 Avenida Altisima, the home of Maura Mizuguchi and Mark Coleman. While
there, I shared the home with two of their seven children, and her mother and step father who were visiting from
Honolulu, Hawaii.
Maura is an excellent Airbnb host — going so far as to install air conditioning to address an upcoming heat
wave. The installation did not go as planned and we suffered a night of unusual heat. As a result, Maura was
gracious to not only reimburse us for the night's stay but also to compensate us for the uncomfortable heat.
We applaud the city for allowing short term stays to accommodate service men such as myself to come and visit
and stay along the coastline and enjoy everything the city has to offer — including the great restaurants in the
City,
We were able to allow our children to have private time with their grandmother in Redondo Beach and allow
my wife and I to have our private time in Maura's home.
We plan to return again and hope to continue to use Airbnb for our short term stays.
C-18
Short term rentals are good for your community because they expose people from other places to the unique
beauty and quality of life in Rancho Palos Verdes. They come back again to visit the restaurants, hotels, clubs,
and historical locations of the community. It also increases the value of the community because of the Airbnb
guest feedback mechanism and the money they reinvest in their homes that increases the value of the
neighborhoods.
Please do not restrict short term rentals. It will steal away a vibrant part of your community's future business
opportunities and economic growth.
Sincerely, Steve
C-19
Octavio Silva
From:
Kit Fox
Sent:
Thursday, September 08, 2016 8:39 PM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Gabriella Yap
Subject:
Fw: Short term rental opinion
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Completed
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for Wad
From: Irene Henrikson <Irene.henrikson@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 8:12:43 PM
To: CC
Subject: Short term rental opinion
As a retired couple who have lived in RPV for over 25 years, we believe that short term rentals contribute positively to
our city. A owner who resides in the home and rents out one room is not a problem. Those guest/s would be shopping at
Golden Cove, Peninsula Center and our mall. They would be dining at Admiral Risty, Trump National and Terranea. This
contributes to the RPV economy. The income would also contribute to maintaining the host home and for providing
upgrades to their home.
Please do NOT ban short term rentals.
Irene and Paul Henrikson
32404 Searaven Dr.
Ranchersw
I
Ci -20
ERIC MARK
6527 Eddinghill Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275
(562)644-9418
September 8, 2016
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275
Att. Octavio Silva
Re: Short Term Rentals
Dear Mr. Silva
In my testimony at the last meeting I had stated that I host noted personalities like performers, dancers,
the Band Death by Chocolate from Switzerland, a US Diplomat on the way to Australia, Athletes from
South Africa, Canada and Iceland, who have participated in the Crossfit Games in Carson, Ca. etc.
To proof what I stated, I am enclosing a copy of the latest reservation by Mr. Mathias Sundin from
Sweden, a member of the Swedish Parliament who will live in my house from September 28 2016 until
October 2 2016 See exhibit 1
Also a copy of a reservation by Tammie acknowledging that my listing in Airbnb states that "I am a
straight person with high moral standards" See exhibit 2
Therefore I never allow parties in my house. Besides my valuable collection of art shown throughout the
house would be at risk if I allow too many people.
By renting rooms in a temporary basis, I am an asset to the community. I bring highly educated people
from different parts of the world, who would stay in other cities if I wasn't available.
I am also including photographs of the street scene when I have guests. Eddinghill Dr. is a long street
where hardly anybody parks on the street, therefore the congestion of car is zero.
Thank you for taking into consideration what I am submitting
Yours truly
Eric Mark
REC:EiVfv'L,
r a Q 161F;
.-OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
EQA
C-21
9/8/2016 Conversation with Mathias - Airbnb /
Ocean view and is decorated with expensive oil paintings. By the way, the Terranea resort isit L
only 4 or 5 minutes from my house. You will be very comfortable here. Regards Eric
Yesterday at 6:43 AM
Mathias Good morning Thanks for your inquiry. I will be happy to host you in my house.
This home is new, only five years old. The decor, the display of art and the price has
impressed and delighted my guests. The room which you are inquiring about, has a private
bathroom, balcony,
Yesterday at 6:39 AM
PRE -APPROVED YESTERDAY AT 6:35 AM
MATHIAS'S INQUIRY YESTERDAY AT 4:08 AM
Verified
Good morning Eric, I'm a Member of Parliament, travelling to L.A. for the XPrize P
Visioneers Summit at the Terranea Resort, late September. Excited to try Airbnb for the
first time! Looks like a nice place to stay and earlier guests seem very happy. I only have
one question: Do I have my own, private bathroom, or is it shared? All the best, Math
Yesterday at 4:08 AM
(/users/s h ow/38693845)
Mathias Sundin (/users/show/38693845)
Tingsryd, Sweden
4 verifications
�REOEIVED
4_P () 9 2016
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEW
DEPAR7)AFEN'
https://www.airbnb.com/z/q/243036050 77 2/5
9/8/2016
Airbnb Travel Itinerary, Confirmation Code 9ECQTQ
Itinerary for your guest, Mathias
Reservation code: 9ECQTQ.
Mathias Sundin
Member since July 2015
Tingsryd, Sweden
"Member of Parliament from Sweden.
I've traveled quite a lot - love airports! - but going to try Airbnb for the first time! As a guest I guess I'm kind of
Swedish: Quiet, neat and friendly.
Going now to L.A. for the XPrize Visioneers Summit. Or should I say, going back to L.A. My first big trip alone
abroad was to L.A. and the E3 Expo in the late 90s. Since then I've traveled a lot to the U.S. mostly to watch or
participate in presidential elections."
+ More
+46 72 538 36 74
1 guest going on this trip
Check In
Wed, Sep 28
Anytime after 2PM
Listing
3. -Mansion in Exclusive Beach Area (/rooms/2624493)
Private room
cancellation Moderate (/reservation/change?code=9ECQTQ)
4 nights total
Check Out
Sun, Oct 02
11AM
RECEIVEO
SFP 0 9 2016
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
C-23
9/8/2016
01
Conversation with Tam m i e - Ai rbnb
2
Thanks for the quick response, Eric. Could you please give us a few more hours to p
confirm the reservation? We are still working my husband's employer about the travel
documents. Additionally, this Airbnb app is not letting me go back to view your property
listing to show my husband who was not available while I was researching lodging options.
Could you please re ind me of your general location? I submitted several requests for
lodging (spreading a wide net), resulting in a hazy mind in the location of your property.
Thank you. Tammie
Aug 17, 2016
This home is new, only 5 years old. The decor, the display of art and the price has
impressed and delighted my guests.
Aug 17, 2016
Tamm Thanks for your inquiry. We are Christians and error are happy to hear from you. I
don't have room No 4 available. I only have room No 1 on the second floor, which has a
shared bath on the first floor. But Friday I can move you to room No. 2 which is the master
bedroom untilthe end of your stay.
Aug 17, 2016
PRE -APPROVED 08/17/2016
TAMMIE'S INQUIRY 08/17/2016
#�:Jgk
Hello, My husband and I have an unexpected delay in LA. Because of unknown timelines P
with employer's processing of required travel documents we need to find more
affordable and comfortable accommodations within a reasonable distance to LAX. I was
drawn to your post as a straight person with moral standards. We are happy to say we are
similar. We are a family of faith. We are looking for a place to stay at starting tonight (17
Aug 2016) if our travel document issue is not resolved. We are scheduled to check out of
our hotel room by 4pm today or extend our stay here longer if we cannot find a better
location. Would we have access to laundry facilities in the home and/or nearby? What
would you charge for the dates requested if you are willing to entertain our request. Thank
hftps://www.airbnb.com/z/q/235767997
C-24 6/9
�. B o l i aouEn 6t., Uemtos, Ca 90703
(562) 860-5510 F.(562)860-9640
ale.
C o,7 C e J-,-Zl d•7
hem
C-25
Y114;,)
have
ChicW Title Escrow
11811 South St., Cerritos, Ca 90703
(562) 860-5510 Fax (562) 860-9640
C-26
s
dilw0017
y
C-27
Octavio Silva
From: Mauricio Domingo <mauriciod@Herbalife.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 1:14 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: CC
Subject: For your reconsideration regarding Short Term Rentals
Honorable City Counsel members:
It has been brought to my attention that there is a motion to ban short term rentals in our city. Allow me to first share with
you that we benefited from a short term rental as we transitioned in to the South Bay area of Los Angeles, which ultimately
led us to purchase our home here in RPV. Derived from such experience we decided to rent our home and we have had
nothing but great experiences with our guests. Most of our guests come to weddings in the surrounding wedding venues,
such as Terranea, Trump Golf, etc. However, we have also had visitors from throughout the United States and Europe that
have come to enjoy our beautiful scenery and have chosen our community as a base for their LA or California visit. Most of
our visitors come as a family and have small children or toddlers, that choose our home to benefit from our own toddler's
room, play room and infrastructure that our guests would otherwise not benefit from in a hotel. STR provides people the
opportunity to enjoy our beautiful city, either in an affordable manner or simply the opportunity to enjoy a more local
experience while enjoying the comforts of a home.
We understand, stand by and support the city ordinance regarding noise, large gatherings, etc. We want our city to be as
quiet and peaceful as it is, while at the same time welcoming and celebrating the thousands of visitors, cyclist, trail walkers,
etc that enjoy the scene and beuty of our city on the weekends and holidays and that further represent a source of income to
the commercial business and our community in general. In such sense, we make it clear to our guests that large gatherings,
parties and non compliance with noise ordinance is absolutely prohibited. Further, this is our house and the last thing we want
is for it to be visited by guests that would use our house for improper purposes or that would put ourselves at odds with our
neighbors and our community. In order to accomplish this, all of our guests go through a thorough screening process that
includes but is not limited to identity verification, both on line and off line, as well as previous referrals. We have rented our
home out over the weekend or on holidays over 20 times in the last 12 months and have not had one complaint from anyone
and as a homeowner and family have received nothing but gratefulness and outstanding guests that have treated our home as
their own.
Last but not least, it is important to consider that such activity has become an important source of suplemental income for our
household, that would be detrimental for us to loose.
Given the above, I respectfully urge you to reconsider such motion and in turn, continue to enforce and educate our neighbors
about our city ordinances regarding noise, parties and all the other valid concerns that may have given light to the ban
initiative. Please know that we have been and will continue to be committed to such ordinances and that, just as everyone
else in our community, we want our city to continue being, quiet, peaceful and beautiful, while at the same time having the
opportunity to share such blessings with others while having earning much needed suplemental income.
Finally, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for all the hard work you do for the benefit of our City and
community.
With hopes that this letter may provide proper balance in order for the Honorable counsel to make a balanced and proper
decision I remain,
Committed and respectfully,
C-28
Mauricio Domingo Donovan
C-29
Octavio Silva
From: Maura Mizuguchi <mrmizuguchi@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 12:50 PM
To: Ara Mihranian; CC; Octavio Silva
Subject: Support for Short Term Rentals
By opening Terranea in 2009, we have chosen to make the city of Rancho Palos Verdes tourist
friendly. As a result, we encourage people all over the world to visit us. This hotel is financially out of
reach for most of the population and at many times, fully occupied. We are fortunate to live here but
visiting is unaffordable and unavailable for most travelers, including family members who come to see
relatives, and those attending events at the many venues in the city (Terranea, Los Verdes,
Wayfarer's Chapel, Point Vicente Interpretive Center, Trump National Golf Club, Norris Theater,
South Coast Botanical Gardens, and others).
Along comes the new 'shared economy'– a welcome relief to the alternative expensive lodging that is
often sold out and unavailable. Creating a connection beyond a transaction is what the sharing
economy is all about.
Travelers rely on short-term rentals for various reasons, including the need to accommodate larger
families that would otherwise require multiple hotel rooms, travelers with special needs or special
needs children, or simply a desire for more lengthy affordable stays. Travelers to Rancho Palos
Verdes, especially, have limited alternatives and must turn to home sharing alternatives. The City
should embrace this opportunity rather than stifle it.
There has been a good deal of misinformation spread about the "evils" of short term rentals. While
there are some issues that should and need to be addressed, the majority of the complaints are
overblown and in some cases manufactured. Nowhere in the City's report do I see any mention of the
benefits of STRs.
STR opponents have inflated their spurious claims against STRs, claims which have generally gone
unchallenged since it appears that many of those charged with the public trust—whether to govern or
inform—have accepted these dubious assertions, without real, unbiased data to provide the slightest
factual information.
am writing this to ask you to keep an open mind when this subject presents itself. Short term rentals
are good for the economy of the city, the city's image.
Sincerely,
Maura Mizuguchi
C-30
Octavio Silva
From: Gabriella Yap
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 7:07 PM
To: Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva
Cc: Kit Fox
Subject: Fwd: Anna Gandolfi's support for short term rentals in the city of Palos Verdes
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message --------
From: Anna Gandolfi <annagandolf193@me.com>
Date: 9/10/2016 2:45 PM (GMT -08:00)
To: Octavio Silva <Octavio S @rpvca. gov>, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>, CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Anna Gandolfi's support for short term rentals in the city of Palos Verdes
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I am an international student studying at Marymount California University and I am originally from Lake
Como, Italy.
My family comes to visit me several times a year and needs affordable short term rental homes in the
community. One of the homes we have benefitted from has been 7242 Avenida Altisima, owned by Maura
Mizuguchi. She has been so kind and generous with my family. I wouldn't have known where my family could
have stayed if it wasn't for Maura's generous offer.
I rely on the city to continue to allow this and I hope you consider my thoughts in your regulations.
Sincerely,
Anna Gandolfi
C-31
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 8:37 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: Fw: Support for Short Term Rentals
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for iPhone
From: Coleman, Mark S <Mark.Coleman@charter.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 12:28:33 PM
To: CC; PC; Doug Willmore; Ken Dyda
Cc: Brian Campbell
Subject: Support for Short Term Rentals
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I have lived on the Palos Verdes Peninsula for almost 20 years. For the past two and a
half years I have been a resident in RPV living with my girl friend. When we met she
told me about this great social experience that she was part of by renting out her home
to people from all over the world. At first I was skeptical but after moving in with her
and meeting our guests I had the opportunity to sit and talk with them to gain a greater
understanding of how the rest of the world thinks of America and the impact that we
have on others living around the world, I became a true believer. My faith in this new
paradigm of a shared economy only grew stronger after my four boys who stay with us
every other weekend began to meet and interact with the guests. Their initial reaction
was to be shy and insecure. Now they greet guests at the door show them around and
it they are traveling with children of their own play with them, even if they do not speak
English. Our children now understand what a privilege it is to live in America, especially
Palos Verdes an have become sensitive and considerate to people of different color
and ethnic backgrounds.
I do believe that some of the key benefits for having Airbnb in our community is the
infusion of dollars spent at all of the restaurants and shops. The availability for
attendees to stay close to all of the local event locations; Wayfarers Chapel, Trump,
Los Verdes, Terranea, La Venta, Palos Verdes Golf Club, Wayfarer's Chapel, Point
Vicente Interpretive Center. But one of the most important aspects that it brings to our
area is the feeling of security. When guest stay in our home they are usually on a
different schedule than we are so it is difficult for criminals to determine when the
house is empty.
C-32
So please remain open minded about short term rentals and look at the positive impact
to our community and not a few negative opponents who are basing their decisions
and comments on many misguided facts that have no validation, such as traffic impact
and crime.
Thank you
Mark S Coleman
z
C-33
Octavio Silva
From: Gabriella Yap
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 7:11 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Kit Fox
Subject: Fwd: Short -Term Rental Alliance with City of RPV
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message --------
From: Paul.Henrikson@cox.net
Date: 9/10/2016 3:36 PM (GMT -08:00)
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>, Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Short -Term Rental Alliance with City of RPV
We, as Short -Term Rental (STR) hosts, propose an alliance between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) and
selected STR host families. Goals of this Alliance areas follows:
a. Effective follow-up to RPV resident's complaints concerning STR activities through follow-up with RPV
City, Lomita Sheriff and STR hosts
b. Timely recommendations to both STR hosts and RPV city management on STR-related issues
c. Timely verification of facts and identification of misinformation on STR-related issues
d. Timely identification and implementation of follow-up actions.
Please provide feedback on goals and any recommendations for follow-up actions. Thank you.
Paul Henrikson
32404 Searaven Dr.
C-34
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 6:00 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: Fw: Short Term Rentals
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for Whone
From: Dorthea Montoya <dortheamontoya@msn.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 5:58:32 PM
To: PC; CC
Cc: Michael Montoya; asugano@adscon.com; Lori Bombard; Cengiz Volkan
Subject: Short Term Rentals
To the City Counsel and Planning Commission:
We appreciate the opportunity to express our views on short term rentals in the City of RPV.
Short term rentals create a very transient situation and the renters have no stake in the neighborhood. The
influx of out -or -town visitors upsets the peaceful enjoyment of long standing residential neighborhoods.
Short-term renters have no stake in the community, and therefore no reason to care how the neighborhood
around them suffers from their vacation activities. Zoning code laws exist to assure proper separation
of commercial and residential use to accommodate the inevitable disruptions of the influx of tourist visiting as
well as insuring the proper taxation of commercial use.
We have a neighbor that appears to have tenants for three days at a time. We have no way of knowing the
vetting process utilized to screen these tenants or the nature of activities occurring. Based on the frequency
of cleaning crews and trash removed it does not appear to add value to the property. The constant rotation of
strangers occupying the property is concerning for our safety and property values. We believe that short term
rentals are bad for our neighborhoods and recommend that RPV join the surrounding communities in banning
all short term residential rentals.
Thank you for accepting our comments and considering our concerns.
Michael & Dorthea Montoya
23 Albero Court
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
310-265-0501
C-35
Octavio Silva
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 5:56 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Gabriella Yap
Subject: Fw: AirBnB in RPV
FYI
Kit
From: twnshpgrl86@gmail.com <twnshpgrl86@gmail.com> on behalf of Jess Moy <jessica.hc.moy@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 5:38 PM
To: CC
Subject: AirBnB in RPV
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes.
I have been a guest at 7242 Avenida Altisima in June 2014, the weekend of my wedding event held
at Point Vicente Interpretive Center. Four of my bridesmaids and I stayed with Maura Mizuguchi and
her son, Matthew Mizuguchi for the weekend. Without local affordable lodging for my bridesmaids
and I, 1 would not have easily selected Point Vicente as a venue for my 150 -person wedding.
My husband and I, along with our close friends, would like to use Rancho Palos Verdes for our
anniversaries and continue to rekindle our nuptials in the city that brought us together. To do this, we
would continue to need local affordable lodging provided through platforms such as Airbnb.
We love the community, the friendliness, and the connectedness we felt while staying with Maura.
Please reconsider your ban to keep beautiful Rancho Palos Verdes accessible to folks like us.
Kindest regards,
Jessica & Jonathan Moy
C-36
Octavio Silva
From: Leslie Austdal <leslie.austdal@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 11:24 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian; CC
Subject: Short term rentals
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
My name is Leslie Austdal, formerly from Rancho Palos Verdes. I am the daughter of Fred Hesse, Jr. and I now
live in Norway.
For those who are not aware, Fred Hesse, Jr. was one of the founders of Rancho Palos Verdes in September
1973. He and a number of residents from neighboring cities also formed "Save our Coastline." He worked with
the residents, county and state, to form the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Without my father, RPV would be a
completely different community.
Because of Airbnb, I was able to find affordable lodging for myself and my family at 7242 Avenida Altisima.
Without Maura's house, I would not have been able to show my husband and my children the area I was raised,
and show them all of the great work my father had done to create the City.
Maura was gracious enough to notify city officials of my return to Rancho Palos Verdes. The city officials
hosted a wonderful reception at the community center named after my father, Fred Hesse Jr. My brother and his
family drove from San Diego to attend the event attended by: Susan Brooks, then Mayor of RPV, Councilman
Ken Dyda, Councilman Jerry Duhovic, Carolyn Lehr, RPV City Manager, and the original founders of Rancho
Palos Verdes: Dina Friedson, Barbara Gleghorn, and Betty Field Strauss.
I listened to the City Council Meeting held May 17, 2016 (very interested that this is available! My city here
does not make the meetings available like this).
It was interesting to hear the comments from the public on the problems: Problems related to noise, parties,
parking, trash. I can understand their worries. I can understand the City staff's recommendation as well. And it
is too bad that people will purchase a house for the soul purpose of renting it out as a "party house". It destroys
the idea of sharing and renting people's homes with respect, which is how I think of AirBnB.
I also understand the historical foundations of the city as non-commercial as Ken Dyda said. My father worked
for those ideals.
However, times have changed and a total ban would make it impossible for people like me to come back to my
home town to be close to the beautiful area I love, since I no longer have family living in the area.
We reflect on fond memories to Maura's home during our visit to Rancho Palos Verdes. I enjoyed interacting
with her and her family and am grateful that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes provided the option of short term
rentals.
Sincerely,
Leslie Austdal
C-37
Octavio Silva
From: CARAUX Christophe <ccaraux@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:29 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian; CC
Subject: Support for Short Term Rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes.
My name is Christophe Caraux and I am from Saint -Maurice, France.
My family and I were guests at 7242 Avenida Altisima and shared the home with Maura Mizuguchi,
her boyfriend Mark, and three of their seven children. We met Mark's extended family who were
visiting for a social gathering from Delaware, Portland, and Huntington Beach. We enjoyed interacting
with the family and the unique experience of being connected to members in the community of
Rancho Palos Verdes. We came as a recommendation from a friend who stayed with Maura and
Mark last year, who shared nothing but a positive experience in Rancho Palos Verdes.
While in Rancho Palos Verdes, we journeyed to many of Los Angeles' top tourist attractions, enduring
commute times averaging an hour each way. The distance did not bother us as we loved Rancho
Palos Verdes and its local offerings which not only included the spectacular ocean views, but the
neighborhood community, restaurants, grocery stores. There is no other way to enjoy such a beautiful
coastline city as a family than seek short term rentals on a site such as Airbnb.
I understand there is concern of strangers entering a neighborhood, but you should know that there is
a greater concern being a stranger in someone else's home. Because of the required verification
process and feedback loop required of each stay through Airbnb, any guest entering someone else's
home can be rest assured to their own personal safety as a traveler. As a father of three young
daughters, I have utmost concern for their safety. I know that Airbnb provides that safe haven through
the verification process and feedback loop.
Sharing the home with such a lovely family exemplified the spirit of the city of which I was privileged
to visit. Please allow us to continue to do so.
Kindest regards,
Christophe
Adress : 68 rue du Docteur DECORSE - 94410 SAINT MAURICE - FRANCE
C-38
Octavio Silva
From: Maret Marc emarc.maret@infocentric.ch>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:23 PM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian; CC
Subject: Airbnb
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes..
My name is Marc Maret , I am from Switzerland and I have been a guest at a home in Rancho Palos Verdes and would love to
continue to enjoy what the city of Rancho Palos Verdes has to offer during my future visits. Terranea, the only other alternate
lodging, is financially out of reach for my family of 4.
For those who are unaware how Airbnb works, to rent a property, you must verify yourself through a verification process. One
of the key elements is that, you must provide the following:
1. Provide a government issued ID
2. Connect another online profile to the Airbnb account, such as Linkedln, Facebook, Google
3. Provide a phone number that is verified by Airbnb
4. Provide an email address that is verified by Airbnb
5. Be financially subject to a large upfront deposit
Such great visit exemplified the spirit of the city of which I was privileged to visit. We love the local restaurants and
community. We would want to return in the future. Please allow us to do so.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Best regards
MARC MARET
CEO
m +4179 601 10 05
mmaret@infocentric.ch
Infocentric Research AG
Stadtturmstrasse 10
CH -5400 Baden
t+41 56 210 0120
f +4156 210 0121
infnrontrir rh
Social Business Collaboration 2016 (September 22-23, 2016, KOSMOS Cinema Berlin, Germany)
Tools and Technologies meet Business & Communication
Click here for more information
C-39
Octavio Silva
From: Christina Case <christina_case@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 7:05 PM
To: CC; Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Subject: opposition of banning short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I have been a guest at 7242 Avenida Altisima at various times from January 2015 to May 2015 and shared the home with
Maura Mizuguchi her boyfriend Mark, and their six of their seven children.
I was working temporarily in Torrance, and stayed at various neighboring cities, finding Maura's house a safe place for a
middle-aged mother working far from home in Kentucky. I was relieved to have been a part of a bustling household that
did not interfere with my privacy. I knew with family members coming and going, that I was safe from intrusion of
outsiders.
During my stay, I frequented the local businesses, my favorite being the Palos Verdes Mall, Del Amo, beaches in Palo
Verdes. I will continue to receive assignments bringing me back to the South Bay area of Los Angeles and have multiple
personal trips to the area and hope that I can continue to benefit from the generosity the city has provided by allowing
me to rent a room in a home in Rancho Palos Verdes.
My airbnb id is: christina_case@yahoo.com
Christina Case
Technical Consultant
cell (626)991-1408
christina_case@yahoo.com
C-40
Octavio Silva
From: Maura Mizuguchi <mrmizuguchi@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 11:58 PM
To: CC; Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva
Subject: Re: Short Term Rentals Increase Property Values
There has been concerns that short term rentals decrease home values. In much of what I have read,
this is contrary to academic research.
Attached is an article published by Cornell Real Estate Review, author, Jamila Jefferson -Jones, a
graduate of Harvard Law School and Associate Professor at Barry University School of Law.
She makes several key points:
• Policies that curtail short-term rental housing are of a bygone era and are ill-suited to address
the modern sharing economy.
Full prohibitions may constitute a regulatory taking of private property without just
compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
• Governmental restrictions on the use of real property for the purpose of short-term rentals may
be classed as "inverse condemnation" — an instance where the government has taken property
or impacted property rights without utilizing the condemnation process and, therefore, without
providing just compensation for the taking.
Property values may increase as a result of government's allowing owners to enter into the
short-term market, especially if, in the long -run, by doing so, the owner is able to alleviate
some of the burden of ownership and thereby avoid deferring maintenance or, in the extreme,
avoiding foreclosure.
Both vacationers and those traveling for business have expressed an increased interest in
staying in homes rather than hotels.
C-41
The ability to rent one's property — even in the short-term — may be a tremendous aid to
struggling homeowners. By providing short-term rentals, owner may shift and share the burden
of homeownership. This shifting can help to defray mortgage, homeowners association, and
real estate tax costs. Moreover, the sharing of this burden, through the consequent sharing of
the benefits of homeownership — use and enjoyment in particular — can help to avoid or at least
mitigate instances of blight due to disrepair, distressed sales at below -market -rate sales prices,
and even foreclosures. Thus, allowing owners to home share can protect a community's
character and property values by helping to insulate individual owners from the effects of
negative housing market downturns.
http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/ci/viewcontent.c i?article=1133&context=crer
Kindest regards,
Maura Mizuguchi
Avenida Altisima
C-42
Octavio Silva
Frorn: Roo Collins <rjdcollins@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 3:17 AM
To: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc: CC
Subject: Short Term Rentals
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I urge you to reconsider your proposal to ban or restrict short term rentals in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes.
My name is Richard Collins, and I live in London, England.
My wife and I have been a guest at 7242 Avenida Altisima to attend a wedding at Point Vicente
Interpretive Center. I stayed with Maura Mizuguchi and her boyfriend, Mark Coleman, and five of their
children. I enjoyed interacting with the family and am grateful that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
provides the option of short term rentals. Without local affordable lodging I likely would not have been
able to attend my dear friend's wedding.
It was clear that Maura takes great pride in her property, which is maintained much better than most 5
star hotels.
With event venues such as Point Vicente Interpretive Center, the city needs affordable housing for
those of us who are traveling in from elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Richard Collins
Flu(>> ( nolhorst Road
I ) 101)
NS SF F
C-43
Octavio Silva
From:
Lori Trull <loritrull@ymail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, September 11, 2016 11:08 AM
To:
Irene Henrikson
Cc:
CC; aram@rpv.gov; Octavio Silva
Subject:
Re: Airbnb and Me
> Dear RPV City Council members and Staff,
> I have lived in RPV for 26 years. My husband died a year and a half ago. I wasn't sure how I was going to stay in the
house I've lived so long. Airbnb income has managed to help me stay there.
> We provide recommendations to guests for dining and shopping in our area. I provide a safe, secure private haven for
guests who would otherwise not be able to afford to stay in RPV. My house rules are strict, no more than 2 adults, noise
levels down before 10 pm, no parties of any kind, no smoking, heavy drinking or drug use else they lose their $500
deposit.
> I believe STRs bring in money for local businesses, provide a safer neighborhood since now there is a car always parked
in my RV parking at night and add a significant value to the community. Please reconsider the proposed ban on STRs.
> Respectfully submitted,
> Lori
C-44
Octavio Silva
From: Irene Henrikson <Irene.henrikson@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 6:35 AM
To: CC
Cc: aram@rpv.gov; Octavio Silva
Subject: Airbnb and Me
Dear RPV City Council members and Staff,
We have lived in RPV for 26 years. My husband and I were employed in the Aerospace industry. At the time I retired, my
aged mother developed Alzheimer's disease.
It was important to us to maintain her dignity so we opted to keep her In her own home where she would be
comfortable with live-in caregivers. With one person employed, we had to sacrifice our standard of living, i.e., no
vacations, maintenance on our home, etc. in order to provide caregiving expenses.
Three years ago, my husband took mandatory retirement which added significant strain on our finances. He had worked
four years beyond official retirement age in order to provide support for my mother. Airbnb gave us an option to help
with my mother's expenses
One year ago my mother passed away. We have decided to continue with Airbnb because we enjoy meeting people
(many guests grew up in PV). Airbnb allows us to select the guest/s who will be staying in our home. As seniors, we
benefit from socializing with guests from all over the world and hearing their stories. The extra income bolsters our
retirement income so we can maintain our home and continue to live in RPV.
We provide recommendations to guests for dining and shopping in our area. We think STRs are also a significant value to
the community. Please reconsider the proposed ban on STRs.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul and Irene Henrikson
32404 Searaven Dr.
C-45
Octavio Silva
From: saiying@hotmail.com
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:34 AM
To: Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva
Cc: Irene Henrikson; Maura Mizuguchi
Subject: santa monica definition of home sharing vs vacation rental
Attachments: Santa Monica Short -Term Rental Home -Share Ordinance - Planning & Community
Development - City of Santa Monica.pdf, Ara meeting item 6 Airbnb is taking Santa
Monica and its short-term rental restrictions to court - Dan May Real Estate.pdf
Hi Ara and Octavia,
Please see the attached document about Santa Monica definition of home sharing vs vacation rental. I initially thought
they did a good job, but a recent lawsuit added a new twist.
I attached the recent lawsuit ( airbnb vs sonata monica) on this matter as well.
Thank you,
Ying
C-46
it . ii ,
Planning & Community Development
( Search the PCD Site
ABOUT US PERMITS ZONING TRANSPORTATION PLANS & PROJECTS CODE COMPLIANCE BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
There are new rules on
YOU Short -Term Rentals and
ow
Home -Sharing.
LEARN MORE AT
www.smgov.net/home5hare
Overview of the Home -Sharing Ordinance
On May 12th, 2015 the Santa Monica City Council adopted the "Home -Sharing Ordinance;' adding
chapter 6.20 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code clarifying prohibitions against short-
term Vacation Rentals and imposing regulations on Home -Sharing. This law becomes effective by
June 12th, 201 S. It allows eligible Residents (owners and tenants) to apply for a business license
through the City's Business License program,
This Home -Sharing Ordinance provides for regulations of two types of Short -Term Rentals:
• "Home -Sharing" —The new law authorizes Home -Sharing, which is an activity whereby a resident
hosts visitors in their home, for periods of 30 consecutive days or less, while at least one of the
primary residents lives on-site throughout the visitor's stay. The guest enjoys the non-exclusive
shared use of the unit with at least one of the persons who is domiciled at the location.
• "Vacation Rental" — 1 lie new law continues the City's lonystandina urohihii ion against Vacattan
Rentals. A Vacation Rental is a rental of any dwelling unit, in whole or in part, to any persons for
exclusive transient use of 30 consecutive days or less, whereby the unit is only approved for
permanent residential occupancy and not approved for transient occupancy. The guest enjoys the
exclusive private use of the unit.
Home -Share Application and Regulations Information for Home -Sharers
• Home -Sharing Registration Application and Package • General Information Flyer
• Home -Sharing Administrative Rules and Regulations • Tenant Information
• Property Owner Information
• Renting a Guest -House
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Council adopt the Home -Sharing Law?
What will happen to Vacation Rentals that are currently operating?
How much does it cost to register and to get a business License to operate a Home -Share?
Do I need a Business License to operate a Home -Share?
How much does it cost to apply for a Business License?
How much will I pay in Business License tax?
Permits
A -Z List of Permits
Apply for Permits
ePermits
Records Request
Applications & Forms
Plan Check
What is Plan Check?
Documents & Submittal Requirements
Pre -submittal Review
ePlans
Timeline & Status
Inspections
Inspection Process
Building Inspection Checklists
Schedule an Inspection
Codes, Standards,
Requirements
Santa Monica Municipal Code
County and State Requirements
California Building Codes
Building Design Limitations
Additional Resources
A -Z List of Permits
Applications & Forms
Department Publications
Terms, Definitions, & Links
C-47
Is there an Enforcement "grace period?"
I don't make very much money from my Home -Sharing rental, can I be exempt from having to have a
business license?
Does the law apply to houses, apartments, or both?
What are Transient Occupancy Taxes?
Can a tenant operate a Home -Share?
Is there a maximum number of days I can operate a Home -Share?
May I rent a guest house?
Can I rent a unit that I do not live in for more than 30 days?
Why did the Council adopt the Home -Sharing Ordinance?
The number of Vacation Rentals has increased over the last few years, with the growth of online
hosting platforms. This has reduced the number of rental units that would otherwise be available for
long-term rentals. In some cities, entire apartment buildings have begun to only offer vacation rentals,
essentially turning an apartment building into a hotel in a residential neighborhood. However, Council
wanted to still allow individuals to rent out a room or couch to a guest in their home, whether that be
an apartment or house.
What will happen to Vacation Rentals that are currently operating?
The City will be establishing a proactive enforcement program to identify Vacation Rentals that are
operating. This is where an entire unit is rented out without a host on site. Vacation Rentals that are
operating illegally may be issued fines of up to $500 per day, and could even face criminal prosecution
if they do not cease operating.
How much does it cost to register and to get a Business License to operate a Home -Share?
There are no fees to register or obtain a business license.
Do I need a Business License to operate a Home Share?
Yes, anyone operating a Home -Share must apply for a City business license. For more information on
applying for a Business License, visit www.smgov.net/businesslicense or call the Business License
unit at (310) 458-8745.
How much will I pay in Business License Tax?
Home -Sharing activities are classified as services and assigned Tax Rate Group III. As such, the annual
tax is $75 on the first $60,000 of gross receipts. Additionally, for every $1000 above $60,000 a tax of
0.3% is assessed. For example, if you make $75,000 in rent (without any deductions for expenses) in a
calendar year, the Business License tax due would be:
• $75.00 Tax on the first $60,000 of Gross Receipts, plus
• $45.00 Tax on the remaining $15,000 of Gross Receipts
• $120.00 Total Tax Due on $75,000 of Gross Receipts
Note: Business License taxes are not Income Taxes. Gross Receipts are the total amount of receipts collected
from rentals. No deductions may be taken for expenses, like with an Income Tax.
Is there an Enforcement "grace period?"
No. Any vacation rentals that are operating or any home -share this is operating without a business
license is doing so illegally.
I •
•
Vacation Rentals. Individuals or businesses operating a vacation rental must begin winding down
operations immediately and shoudl not accept any further reservations past August 31, 2015. Although
the City will not begin proactive enforcement against Vacation Rentals until September 1 st, Code
Enforcement will respond to complaints and will begin enforcement immediately in response to
complaints.
Home -Sharing. Anyone who operates a Home -Share is required to obtain a City business license. As of
June 15, 2015, all individuals must register with the City and obtain a business license and comply with
the Home -Sharing Ordinance and Administrative Rules and Regulations.
I don't make very much money from my Home -Sharing rental, can I be exempt from having to
have a business license?
Anyone who operates a Home -Share is required to obtain a City business license. However, a person
who makes $40,000 or less annually in gross receipts may apply for a Small Business Exemption (SMMC
6.04.025). A person must pay their tax on time to qualify for the exemption; otherwise the minimum
tax of $75 and the applicable penalties will be due. Please check with the Business License office for
more information at (310) 458-8745.
Does the law apply to house, apartments, or both?
The law applies to all residential units in all zones in the City, including single family houses,
apartments and condominiums.
What are Transient Occupancy Taxes?
The City levies a 14% tax on the total amount paid for rental of a Home -Share in the City. Federal, State
or City of Santa Monica employees on official business are exempt from this tax. The tax is paid by the
guest. If payment by the guest is made through the hosting platform, it may collect the tax on your
behalf. Please check with your hosting platform to see if these taxes are collected by them. Payment of
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is due on a monthly basis. For more information, please contact
Treasury Operations at (310) 458-8741.
Can a tenant operate a Home -Share?
Yes. However, a tenant's lease may restrict such activities. Tenants should check their lease before
operating a Home -Share.
Is there a maximum number of days I can operate a Home -Share?
No.
May I rent a guest house?
It depends. Any guest house that is located on a parcel that is classified as a single family can use the
guest house for home -sharing. It may not be classified as multi -family. Additionally, the guest house
many not be a "Rent Control Bootleg Unit as defined in section 9.04.18.075 of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code. Form more information please see the Renting a Guest House as a Home -Share flyer.
May I rent a unit that I do not live in for more than 30 days?
You may rent the unit for 31 days or more to a person or persons who do not live elsewhere and who
intend to use the unit as their permanent residence. You may not rent the unit out for any period of
time to a person or persons who reside elsewhere and intend their stay to be temporary. This is
defined as corporate housing and is a zoning violation. A Residential Rental Business License is
required to rent out a residence. Transient Occupancy Tax is not applicable if renting a unit for more
than 30 days.
C-49
Contact Information
General Questions
Planning and Community Development
Department.
(310) 458-8341
planning@smgov.net
Transient Occupancy Tax Questions
Finance -Treasury Division
(310) 458-8741
treasury@smgov.net
Report Illegal Vacation Rentals
Code Enforcement
Online: www.smgov.net/sm_go.aspx
Phone: (310) 458-4984
Email: code.enforcement@smgov.net
Mail: 1685 Main Street, Room 111
Santa Monica, CA 90401>
Business License Application Questions
Finance - Business License Division
(310) 458-8745
business.license@smgov.net
Rent Control Questions
Rent Control Board
(310) 458-8751
rentcontrol@smgov.net
Complaints can be made anonymously. Please include the address and unit numberof the location. If
you wish to speak with a Code Enforcement Officer, you will need to provide your name and contact
information
Home About Us Permits Zoning Transportation Plans & Projects Code Compliance Boards & Commissions Contact Us
i
i.�a t.m_L,
Facebook Twitter City Home
1685 .!lain Sheet Room 21
Sant; %,Iinica CA 9L1a0'
planning Wsmgov.net
Hours of Operacon
C-50
D AN M A Y
top " s■
R E A L E S T A T E
How May I Help You? Chat Below or Call (310) 739-8647
Airbnb is taking Santa Monica and its short-
term rental restrictions to court
Posted September 2, 2016 • �11,1 ' .
0 UUUU
0 oFLAFe-:S
Last May, the city of Santa Monica approved a series of tough restrictions on short-term rentals commonly found on sites
like Airbnb. Well, the popular hosting service struck back today, filing a lawsuit arguing that the city's new rules violate the
first, fourth, and fourteenth amendments.
Santa Monica has not been shy about enforcing its short-term rental restrictions, fining more than 89: individual hosts
and even onvicted one propel ty oavne; who was using the site to advertise five different rental properties. In July,
that the city had also slapped Airbnb itself with $20,000 in fines.
The company claims in the lawsuit that fines ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars have been rolling in steadily
since the city's ordinance went into effect. Airbnb maintains that it has paid all the fines, despite its belief that they are
unjustified.
The company argues in the suit that it should not be held responsible for users of the site that violate restrictions imposed
by the city. Under Santa Monica's ordinance, hosts cannot rent a house or a unit for less than a month unless they will be
staying on-site with the guest. Other restrictions include requirements that hosts register with the city and ensure their
offered units meet municipal fire and safety codes.
If hosts violate some or all of these requirements, Airbnb can be held liable for not removing their listings. The suit argues
that the only way the company could comply with the city's rules would be to "regularly visit the physical location of each
listing" to make sure everything was on the level.
The lawsuit also argues that the city's requirement that Airbnb disclose the names and addresses of Santa Monica -based
users is an invasion of privacy and violates due process rights under the fourth amendment.
C-51
Airbnb spokesperson Alison Schumer tells the LA Timesthat "Santa Monica's clumsily written law punishes hosts who
depend on home sharing to make ends meet and travelers looking for low-cost accommodations near the beach."
City officials, on the other hand, have been pleased with the law's effect on the overall number of Airbnb listings in the area. In
July, city spokesperson Constance Farrell told KPCC that the number of listings had more than halved since the ordinance
went into effect the year before.
FU_
One of the first cities to pass tough restrictions on short-term rentals, Santa Monica's ordinance was seen as a test case for
how to regulate the growing short-term rental economy, which critics say takes badly needed rental units off the market and
allows major property owners to operate what amount to unlicensed hotels.
This isn't the first time the hosting service has sued cities over their short-term rental regulations. It's also done so in San
Francisco and, most recently iii Avnabeim—where lawmakers have decided to do away, with short-term rentals all together.
• Airbnb sties Santa Monica over short-term rental ban [LA Times]
• Santa iVlonica Jtist Banned Airbnb's Biggest ,Vloneytiwkers [Curbed LA]
• Santa kloniea Just Used Its Toagb New Airbnb Rules to Convict a Host [Curbed LA]
• Airbnb Has Paid $ZOK in Fines to Santa Monica [Curbed LA]
Share iris
-% Share
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Name *
Email *
Website
A
C-52
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
FYI
Kat Fox, AicP
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 5445226
kitf9 vca.6
Kit Fox
Monday, September 12, 2016 8:23 AM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Gabriella Yap
FW: Short Terms Rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes
From: Andrew Hall [mailto:andrewrhall@icloud.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 8:22 AM
To: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: daleshire@awattorneys.com; tigermark9@aol.com
Subject: Short Terms Rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes
To whom it may concern,
I recently had the pleasure of staying in an AirBnB in Rancho Palos Verdes for some weeks at the residence of
Mr Eric Mark on Eddinghill Drive. It was an extremely pleasant experience to say at the residence of Mr Mark
where I would consider his home to be among the best I have stayed in with the benefit of being filled with
works of art and other memorabilia.
I stayed in Rancho Palos Verdes and other areas around Los Angeles in AirBnB to allow me to understand
better the neighborhoods and determine where I would like to relocate my family as I have recently moved to
the L.A. area. I found that a short term rental using a service such as AirBnB was extremely convenient and
affordable, particularly as hotels are typically full, expensive and of poor quality. I found this out the hard way
when my new company booked me into The Marriott Residence Inn on the corner of Torrance & Hawthorne,
where I couldn't get a good nights sleep because of guests in other rooms were either loud or banging around at
all hours.
The only negative experience I experienced is the fact that Mr Mark was always extremely concerned about
respecting parking in street to be only in front of his house, which I did and as far as I was aware so did the
other guests I had the pleasure of meeting. I found this behavior odd at first because a public street is normally
a place to freely park cars. However, whenever I did see his neighbors I could understand his concern, and even
I found it disconcerting the stares I received on occasions. What I found most odd was the fact the Mr Mark
would take care about his neighbors more than his neighbors would take care about him, with one of his
neighbors having an air conditioning unit installed directly adjacent to fence with Mr Mark's property, which
when on, projected sound straight through the guest bedroom I was occupying in the middle of the night.
I would highly recommend that you continue to support short term rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes as
accommodation is very limited in the Los Angeles area with hotels overcharging as a result, and often
full. Additionally, because many people like to visit Rancho Palos Verdes for hiking, or as a local base to
C-53
explore, I can see you having the potential to improve the area for the population as a whole through increased
employment catering to tourists without the need destroy the landscape with unattractive hotels, which bring a
concentration of traffic and additional congestion.
At no time did I see more that the occasional car passing along Eddinghill Drive.
If you have any questions regarding the contents of this e-mail, then please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Andy Hall
Sent from my Wad
C-54
Octavio Silva
From: Maura Mizuguchi <mrmizuguchi@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 11:15 PM
To: CC; Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Subject: College Acceptances Because of Short Term Rental Support
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
College Acceptances Because of Short Term Rental Support
My son Matthew Mizuguchi attended the public schools on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. He started
kindergarten at Point Vicente and graduated in 2016 from Palos Verdes High School.
The short term rental experience had such profound positive impact on my son, he wrote his college
application essay on his life changing experiences. Because it demonstrated that he embraced
adversity and new aged platforms, it resonated with many college admission officers. As result he is
now attending Vanderbilt University, 15th ranked college in the nation for 2015, tied with Cornell,
Rice, and University of Notre Dame.
His colleagues at the University are mainly from expensive and prestigious college -preparatory
private schools such as Marlborough and Harvard Westlake, demonstrating the considerable
achievements of the public school system in the Palos Verdes.
As the City of Rancho Palos Verdes produces students comparable to elite college -preparatory
schools, we as a community must allow them to accomplish unique experiences outside of the
classrooms.
See the essay below, provided by my son, Matthew.
Warm regards,
Maura Mizuguchi
7242 Avenida Altisima
On Sunday, September 11, 2016 7:53 PM, Matthew Mizuguchi <mattmakanamizuguchi@gmail.com> wrote.-
Discuss
rote:
Discuss an accomplishment or event, formal or informal, that marked your transition from childhood to
adulthood within your culture, community, or family.
Adversity to Advantage
C-55
2011 was a year to remember. A year of change. A year of growth. Egyptian rebels protested
violently to overthrow the government of Hosni Mubarak. The US launched its final shuttle for space.
Outside of world events, and something more local, many of the class of 2016 were experiencing
changes of its own. Changes in voice. Changes in looks. Hair. Height. All of it. Everyone going
through puberty with zits galore to prove it. Perhaps lagging behind others physically, I still had a
chance to grow and change in spirit.
This same year, our stepfather left the family after 12 years together. His sudden absence led
me to a greater role in the household. I guided my autistic brother Kapono though this tough time,
watching over him far more than before. Mother was busy with work and around less often, forcing
me to a more independent role inside and outside the family. With one less household income, we
slashed many luxuries from our lives. No more vacations. No frivolous unnecessary expenditures. We
focused on the basics. Despite these efforts, we needed a way to maintain our lifestyle in a privileged
community.
As a second income, we sought the services of Airbnb to rent out the extra rooms in our
house. This helped Kapono and I experience the world without actually going to see the world. The
world came to us. Through the years of Airbnb services, we've met people from around the world
we'd have never met without it. We learned to coexist with diverse people with unique personalities
and sensibilities. We've been exposed to different cultures and social graces, helping me grow more
confident as a person. Talking with this wide range of people has helped me build confidence in
everyday conversation. It has allowed me to speak effortlessly with total strangers who very quickly
weren't strangers at all. It's given me the ability to deal with seemingly different people and showed
that most of us have the same human needs.
Eventually, Mom let me take the reins of managing the renters and the household. I
established and maintained contact with potential renters, collect and manage the rent, and kept our
visitor families comfortable and content throughout their stay.
z
C-56
This experience and exposure has developed my business skills and sales techniques. I've
been able to translate this experience into my own business. My partner Jay and I have co-founded a
web development firm, Rack Labs Co. Jay and I have managed to become the fastest-growing web
development and digital strategy agency in our town. With Jay's coding skills and my business
development savvy, we've taken the Palos Verdes area by storm. We create websites for a collection
of clientele from app developers to photographers. The Airbnb experience I gained has translated
directly to easily meet clients and tell them Racks Labs story. We've generated leads, driven traffic,
and increased sales. The product and customers are different, but the process is the same.
In our early beginnings, we tried to land big clients that were out of our league and found little
success. Eventually, we determined that our approach to the market was ineffective. I suggested that
we stick with local companies due to the ample need from the outdated websites they had. At first,
Jay was against the idea. But, after hours of discussion, persuasion, we decided that "staying local"
was indeed the best course of action. After only a few clients and rave reviews, we found companies
and individuals alike seeking us out for our brand of services.
Although the absence of our stepdad hurt, it helped me reach a new level of confidence,
business intelligence, and personal independence. Without this opportunity, I'm certain that I would
not be the person I have today become.
As I move forward to college, a career, and life beyond, there will be challenge and adversity
every step of the way. But, with confidence, intelligence, and self-determination, I know that adversity
can be turned to advantage. When we open ourselves to growth and change and never quit, the
world is our oyster and the sky's no limit at all.
3
C-57
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
FYI
Kit
Sent, using OWA for iPhone
Kit Fox
Tuesday, September 13, 2016 6:03 AM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Gabriella Yap
Fw: Enjoy Stay at 6527 Eddinghill Dr.
Follow up
Flagged
From: Liu Lewis W. <lwl6613@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 10:10:07 PM
To: daleshire@awattorneys.com
Cc: CC; PC; tigermark9@aol.com
Subject: �R: Enjoy Stay at 6527 Eddinghill Dr.
To whom it may concern
Alt -A: Liu Lewis W. <lwl6613@hotmail.com>
X7± 17: 2016 * 9 q 13 Q 2:29
&#A: tigermark9@aol.com
Aim': Enjoy Stay at 6527 Eddinghill Dr.
Dear Eric,
It has been a great enjoyment stay with you at the 6527 Eddinghill in the past three months. I decided to
continue my stay since the friendship and experience have been created with your hospitality, clean room,
and organized in the house arrangement. I have NEVER seen any disorganized furnishing around the house,
everything are in order even I have met quite a lot tenants who stayed a short period of time at your house
during my stay. I definitely felt how diligent when gets to select who you extend the offer for staying at your
house. The parking is very convenient, the street is quiet and never experienced any bad traffic, or any kind of
traffic problem. I am so happy with the experience with the stay at your house during my transition into the
area and you helped me a lot in getting tuned into the local culture, and learned good things in the city of RPV.
I hope we can keep the relationship even after I become one of you and the resident of the city of RPV.
I will definitely recommend you to whoever has the needs to spent their valuable time in US, California and LA.
C-58
Cheers!
Lewis
C-59
Octavio Silva
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for Whone
Kit Fox
Tuesday, September 13, 2016 6:02 AM
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Gabriella Yap
Fw: I am opposed to banning short term rentals.
Follow up
Flagged
From: Ron R <ronreto@verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 1:06:29 AM
To: CC; PC
Subject: I am opposed to banning short term rentals.
Dear City Council Members and Planning Commission,
I am opposed to banning short term rentals.
The reason I support short term rentals is because:
1. I have frequently had short term renters staying at the house next door to me way back before AirBnB existed
(back when people traded homes for a few weeks). They came from all over the world and they have all been
extremely considerate, quiet, interesting, and very friendly. Most of them I liked even better than my neighbors.
2. 1 have recently looked at some AirBnB listings in Rancho Palos Verdes. Their homes all look spectacular and the
hosts seem great with high standards that would only allow credible tenants. If I didn't already live here, I myself
would want to stay at any of these listings (if they approved of me of coarse :-).
3. AirBnB verifies both the host and renters, which is good but what I found to be even more valuable is the feedback
provided from host about the renters and visa versa. The hosts and renters rate each other from 1 to 5 with
supporting comments. I have found the ratings together with the comments to be accurate for the hosts so I am
sure they are also accurate for the renters. Together, the verification and ratings with comments provide a more
accurate evaluation of the renters than renters of the long term rentals which rely only on referrals from past
landlords (or friends / relatives).
4. When I travel, I myself am a short term renter using AirBnB. In May, I used AirBnB to rent a room in Toronto and
another room in Montreal while traveling with my 2 adult daughters and it was a wonderful experience for all of
us. The host in Toronto made sure we had everything we needed and we had living in the residential area
meeting the locals and not feeling like a tourist. And the host said he loved having us, we were easy going, fun,
considerate and easy to communicate with
5. In April we rented a Swiss Chalet in Big Bear for 2 nights. The host was incredible. On our last night, the handle
on the antique fireplace broke off while tending the fire. I felt it was my fault so the next morning I told the owner I
will pay for it. She said it was already broken because it almost 100 years old, and refused the take any
money. So I went to the local hardware store, purchased some supplies and fixed it myself. She was so taken by
me fixing it that she insisted she pay me. But I refused, insisting it was my fault it broke. A few weeks later I
received a large package from UPS. It was 6 boxes of the best assorted chocolates (she knew I liked
chocolate). She wrote a note thanking us and said we are always welcome at her chalet and will give us a special
rate. This kind of personal experience has never happened to me at the many hotels I have stayed at.
6. 1 have owned and lived in the same house in RPV for over 30 years and have never had any problems with short
term renters. But I understand that a few (very few) residents have had issues especially when one is renting the
entire house for weddings, wild parties, which creates noise and takes up parking, etc. But the majority of us who
C-60
have never had these issues from short term rentals may fear that if approved, we will be vulnerable to those
same problems. I personally do not feel we will have issues if approved, maybe because I have been able to
experience the benefits of short term rentals from a renters perspective. My hope is that more of us can
experience and understand why short term rentals are good thing for everyone; the renters, the landlords, the
neighbors, and the city. We can all be winners.
Thank you for your time in reading this,
Ron Reto
5763 Capeswood Dr -
310 -418-8182
C-61
Octavio Silva
From: Maura Mizuguchi <mrmizuguchi@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 5:13 PM
To: CC; Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva
Cc: Mark Coleman; Craig Douglass; Fernanda; David G; Barbara Gore; Irene Henrikson;
Andrea Joannou; Eric Mark; Maya; Millie Oh; Frank Overbeek; Bonnie Porter; Yolanda
Quimbayo; Alan Siegel; Ling Tang; Lori Trull; Robert Wu; Michael Yu
Subject: Support STRs in RPV
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes:
As a middle aged single mother whose now ex had abruptly abandoned the family in late 2011 leaving me to
assume all the financial responsibility of maintaining a home and care for my two children, I had two avenues to
consider: selling my home in a depressed market, or renting part of my home out.
My first priority at that moment was to my two young sons (ages 12 and 10 at that time); one of whom is
autistic with severe special needs including extreme anxiety from change to his environment and engaged in
self -injurious behavior. The best thing I could do for him was to bring calm to his "world" that was turned into a
complete chaos.
My son's psychologist, neurologist, and pediatrician all shared the same comment - try not to change anything
further in his life. Keep further disruption to a minimum which meant figure out a way to stay in my home.
After much trepidation, I initially rented my home out to long-term renters. That proved to be a mistake. They
were complainers, expecting the same rights a property owner, without bearing the same costs, nor integrating
into the community. My long-term renters ruined my home and furnishings.
I therefore turned to Airbnb. The anxiety that wrought my thoughts of strangers in my home as a single mother
with two young boys was gut- wrenching. Publicly posting pictures of my intimate spaces, my bedrooms and
my bathrooms, and then inviting complete strangers into my home was an idea rejected by all my friends and
family. Yet it was the necessary step to keep the calm and consistency for my sons. With butterflies in my
stomach I portrayed to my young boys that short-term rental will be a fun adventure. At night, when I was alone
and frightened, I knew that was the only way to preserve the home and stability that my children desperately
needed.
As we welcomed these strangers in my home, we met people from all over the world. I soon learned that
coexisting with diverse people with unique personalities and preferences was a great experience for my
children. We've been exposed to different cultures and social graces. While at times we struggled to overcome
language barriers, we all had one thing in common ---the feeling of being part of a greater community. Our
guests returned our warm welcome with kindness. The gratification of having made positive impacts on our
guests made us better people and a better family.
In many instances, people that were labeled as strangers, were actually friends waiting to be discovered. My
children soon learned strangers did not always equal to danger.
C-62
I watched my children interact with guests and gradually develop to accept diversity in views, cultures,
language, and ways of living. This has opened their minds and hearts to accept others, to become a more
companionate and more understanding individual.
The positive impact was so profound that my older son wrote his college application essay on this experience,
and that essay got him placed in an elite university. His life will be forever changed because of the benefits of
short-term rentals guests in our home.
As for autistic son, I watched him develop and mature in ways that would not have been achievable without
hosting strangers in my home. He quickly learned that having destructive tantrums was not acceptable behavior.
At the start of this journey, his emotions were so volatile, that the district labeled him as "Emotionally
Disturbed." After a recent school district evaluation, I am excited to share that my son is no longer tagged with
that label. With his improved emotional stability, teachers are able to help him meet simple educational goals.
My home is safer, clearer, calmer, and better maintained than ever before.
It is understandable that people have "fears" of the new and the unknown. But for my family, opening my home
to short term rental guests has not only brought economic relief to my family, it also brought a priceless benefit
and a surprising gift to me --- it brought my autistic son back to me!
Warm regards,
Maura Mizuguchi
7242 Avenida Altisima
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
C-63
Octavio Silva
From:
Ara Mihranian
Sent:
Monday, September 12, 2016 4:48 PM
To:
Octavio Silva
Subject:
FW: AirBNB Ban
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
CITY OF LiRANG IQ HALOSVERDES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram _ rpvca.,gov
ADo you really need to print this e-mail?
This e nail Message contains information belonoinri to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, i:hich m y be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. he in`orrnation is intended only for�€se a4 the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
'od received this email in error, or are not an i Mended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Melissa Bettencourt [mailto:melissa@icondesignsinc.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 3:29 PM
To: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; daleshire@awattorneys.com
Cc: tigermark9@aol.com
Subject: RE: AirBNB Ban
To Whom This May Concern,
The purpose of this letter is to comment on the upcoming city council meeting of Rancho Palos Verdes in
regards to banning short term rentals through AirBNB. I have used AirBNB a few times for work and vacation
over the last 2 years. In June of 2015, 1 was invited to a wedding at the Wayfarers Chapel and while I was
looking for accommodations, the only options were renting a room at the Terranea Hotel for over $550 a night
or booking through AirBNb at an affordable rate of $90. With my recent experiences using AirBNB being all
C-64
positive, I knew that was the best option for my visit. I found a room at Eric Mark's home at 6527 Eddinghill
Dr. and he had outstanding reviews, which is why I chose his home to stay in. Upon arriving I was greeted by
Mr. Mark and surprised by how beautiful his home was. The surrounding area was gorgeous as well and very
easy to park as there were no cars on the street. My weekend in RPV was amazing, I was able to eat one night at
The Admiral Risty and of course had a few Starbucks visits. I believe AirBNB is a great asset to the city of
RPV as for my case with out it, I would not have been able to stay in the city. The only hotel option is the
Terranea and it is either sold out or priced very high making it out of reach for many of us. I do hope that the
City of PRV takes this into consideration and sees the benefits of this great service.
Thank You,
Melissa Bettencourt
Product Manager
Icon Designs Inc.
C-65
Octavio Silva
From:
Kit Fox
Sent:
Sunday, September 11, 2016 9AS AM
To:
Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Cc:
Gabriella Yap
Subject:
Fw: Rental
FYI
Kit
Sent using OWA for iPhone
From: Hardy Lansaw <hardylansaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 7:54:46 AM
To: CC
Subject: Rental
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes:
I live with my boyfriend in Rancho Palos Verdes and am the primary care giver of his school aged
son.
During the college breaks when my boyfriend's daughter comes home from college, I like to give her
space and allow her time to reconnect with her dad. The divorce for his daughter has been difficult
and my ability to stay overnight a few days each week at Maura Mizuguchi's home allows her private
time with her dad which has helped the healing process.
During these college breaks, I need affordable short term rentals in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes,
as I am the primary care giver of his school aged son, requiring me to be close proximity to his home.
I take his son to school, after school activities, and prepare meals for the family.
As a result, I rent a room sporadically from Maura and enjoy feeling safe in her home with Mark, her
partner, and their wonderful children. Without the ability to rent from Maura, I really do not know how
our family could cope.
Please allow a resident of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, such as myself, to have the ability to
have the option to rent from a family such as Maura Mizuguchi's.
Sincerely,
Hardy Lansaw, M.A.
304-617-2425
hardylansaw@gmail.com
Hardy Lansaw
C-66
August 8, 2013
8.2
TO: Honorable Board of Police Commissioners
FROM: Chief of Police
SUBJECT: PARTY HOUSES - CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
41,4011313151 DQ
1. That the Board of Police Commissioners (Board) REVIEW and APPROVE this report.
2. That the Board TRANSMIT the attached Fact Sheet containing findings and
recommendations to the Public Safety Committee.
GI 1
Pursuant to the November 12, 2012, motion by Fourth District Council Member Tom LaBonge,
Detective Support and Vice Division conducted research pertaining to the adoption of an
ordinance that regulates "party -houses." The research incorporated information from the Los
Angeles City Attorney's Office, Hollywood Area, Commission Investigation Division and
Emergency Operations Division.
In addition, similar ordinances from the cities of Santa Monica, Malibu and Newport Beach were
reviewed to evaluate the way in which each municipality managed their respective nuisance
party venue problem.
A comprehensive Fact Sheet is attached and makes recommendations in terms of ordinance
language and penalty considerations. Finally, an Ordinance Comparison Matrix is attached for
your review and consideration.
Should you have any questions, please contact Captain Kelly P. Mulldorfer, Commanding
Officer, Detective Support and Vice Division, at (213) 486-0910.
Respectfully,
Y
CHARLI B CK
Chief of Police
Attachments
D-1
FACT SHEET
Pursuant to a Motion on November 21, 2012, by Councilmember Tom LaBonge, the
Los Angeles Police Department (Department) was directed to research the adoption of
an ordinance to regulate "party houses" similar to recently adopted ordinances by the
cities of Santa Monica and Malibu that prohibit operating single family residential
property as an event facility for commercial purposes. It was further directed that the
research be conducted in consultation with the Planning Department, the Department of
Building and Safety, and the Los Angeles City Attorney.
Detective Support and Vice Division (DSVD) was directed to draft a report pertaining to
the Public Safety Committee Motion dealing with "party houses." This project was
assigned to Detective III Eric Moore, Serial No. 26676, Citywide Nuisance Abatement
Unit (CNAU) and Detective III Steve Park, Serial No. 25434, Field Evaluator (FE),
DSVD. Detective Moore is responsible for oversight of Citywide Nuisance Abatement
investigations and training. Detective Park is responsible for oversight of Operations -
Valley Bureau vice investigations and training.
In 2006, Councilmember LaBonge originally introduced this "party house" Motion.
The Hollywood Commanding Officer, Captain Beatrice Girmala, has deployed
ongoing enforcement to mitigate nuisances at party houses in Hollywood Area.
On January 17, 2010, she initiated a request for "507 Party" calls in the reporting
districts notorious for party houses. The respective reporting districts yielded 403 radio
calls for service in a six-month period that translated to an average of 67 radio calls for
service per month.
Captain Girmala stated that "party houses" not only disrupt the quality of life for
Hollywood residents by creating excessive noise, traffic, and parking issues, but they
create severe public safety issues by blocking narrow streets that allow access and
egress to emergency vehicles and personnel.
At the beginning of each summer, the DSVD CNAU identifies locations known for illegal
parties and initiates contact with residents and property owners to dissuade them from
hosting illegal parties. In May 2013, DSVD received notification of 25 illegal party house
locations. One party house business was so lucrative that the property owner actually
built a subterranean night club in the back yard. This particular location charged
customers $100,000 for one event. Another party house location was simply a front for
an illegal sexual encounter location in a residential zone. The suspects who operated
the illegal businesses deployed a number of "elaborate scams" to avoid prosecution
that included claiming to be a charity to save an endangered monkey species.
The related abatement investigations to remedy the locations were lengthy and
costly. Unfortunately, some of the locations were scenes for sexual assaults and
violent crimes before they were abated.
D-2
FACT SHEET
IMAMS]
The cities of Santa Monica and Malibu were contacted with regard to their respective
approach in dealing with party houses and copies of their recently adopted ordinances
were obtained (Attachments 2 and 3). The ordinances were reviewed in consultation
with the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, Police Commission, DSVD investigators,
Captain Beatrice Girmala, the Hollywood Area Vice Unit, and Emergency Operations
Division.
WJ�Jvlgl
A review of the aforementioned ordinances suggests that the most prudent approach
would be an ordinance that articulates the outright ban of this type of commercial use
in a residential area. Commercial "party houses" have historically had a host of negative
affects on residential communities. Pay for entry party house events often cause
excessive noise, illegal parking, traffic violations, congestion, and strained police
resources. Additionally, it creates an unfair business advantage for the illegal party
events competing against lawful, licensed, permitted, properly zoned venues.
The Los Angeles City Attorney advised that they currently address nuisance party
house locations by prosecuting for Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC)
§12.21.1.A.1(a), lllegal Land Use. The City Attorney suggested that there is a need for
stricter penalties that include community service, landowner fines, and property liens.
The Police Commission Noise Enforcement Team stated that if they are required to
address party locations with ongoing issues, a citation is issued to the homeowner or
tenant hosting the party for noise violations. In some circumstances, stereo equipment
is booked as evidence. Some homeowners or tenants hide or leave the location to
avoid being cited. In those cases, the disc jockey is often cited.
Detective Support and Vice Division, CNAU, is tasked with abating ongoing nuisance
party houses throughout the City when traditional enforcement at the Area level has
not resolved the problem. Investigators recommend enhancing the fines attributed to
party houses so the citations are not just considered as "the cost of doing business."
Investigators also suggested a requirement that any permit issued be
endorsed/approved at the Area level and that such enterprises be limited
to three times per year.
Hollywood Area Vice staff and an Area Senior Lead Officer stated that their most
effective tool to mitigate nuisance party houses has been preemptive contact with the
homeowners and tenants. They regularly monitor internet websites and liaison with
patrol to stop illegal parties before they occur.
D-3
FACT SHEET
Emergency Operation Division (EOD) was consulted due to their involvement with
granting film permits and advised that when film permits are granted at locations,
consideration is given to parking, traffic impact, noise, and safety issues.
The Emergency Operations Division protocols include a partnership with Film LA,
which is a private nonprofit organization that coordinates and processes permits for
on -location motion picture, television and commercial productions. The partnership
facilitates the timely evaluation by Film LA and EOD of film permit requests.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on past experience, research, and consultation with interested stakeholders, it
would be beneficial to enact an ordinance to address "party houses." The ordinance
language should be crafted in such a way as to include a variety of locations and
dwellings, as nuisance party locations are hosted in apartments, storefronts,
warehouses, parking lots, and a variety of other venues.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A "party house" ordinance will improve the quality of life for residents of the City of
Los Angeles and reduce police calls for service. The Department makes the following
recommendatiots.
1. It is recommended that an ordinance be adopted that prohibits party house activity
in residential areas of the City.
2. It is recommended that the City adopt the best practices of the Cities of
Santa Monica, Malibu, and Newport Beach to address the impact of
"party houses."
3. It is recommended that the term "party house" be changed to "unlawful party venue"
or similar terminology.
4. It is recommended that a LAMC ordinance be created to specifically address large
party events, and that it be written in a manner that affords discretion by the
investigating officer(s) to effectively manage an unruly event, but not restrict the
hosting of a "reasonable" event that does not negatively impact the community.
5. It is recommended that the following language be included in the ordinance:
"No person shall willfully allow or host any loud, unruly gathering that interferes
with the use and/or reasonable quiet enjoyment of any residential neighborhood.
6. It is recommended that social media and/or a press conference be utilized to inform
the public regarding the new ordinance.
FACT SHEET
7. It is recommended that a standardized number of attendees be established that
would generate the requirement for a permit and that a standardized method to
determine that number also be established.
8. It is recommended that a Council Motion be introduced that requires licensing for
event promoters and that all "for profit" party house events be hosted only by a
licensed promoter,
AGENCY AND PERSON S)
INTERVIEWED
Los ANGELES OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Noise Enforcement Team
Supervising Deputy City Attorney Asha GREENBURG
(213)978-4090
Los ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
Hollywood Division
Captain Beatrice GIRMALA, Serial No. 24916
(213) 972-2996
Police Officer Ralph SANCHEZ, Serial No. 34919
Emergency Operations Division
Police Officer Sam PARK, Serial No. 35234
(213) 486-0680
Operations -Central Bureau
Lieutenant Cindy RENES, Serial No. 22685
(213) 485-3101
Operations -South Bureau
Captain Anthony ODDO, Serial No. 26588
(213) 382-9045
Operations -Valley Bureau
Lieutenant Dennis BALLAS, Serial No, 25774
(818) 644-8080
Operations -West Bureau
Lieutenant Andy HEREDERO, Serial No. 20962 (Retired)
(213) 473-0277
Detective Michael OZAKI, Serial No. 25147
Detective Support and Vice Division
Detective Kyle LEWISON, Serial No. 24609
(213) 486-0910
Police Officer Michael DICKES, Serial No. 34919
Prepared by:
Detective Support and Vice Division
1. Ordinance Comparison Matrix (Santa Monica, Malibu, Newport Beach)
2. Santa Monica City Council Report
3. City of Malibu Special Event Packet
4. Newport Beach Police Department "Loud and Unruly" Gathering Policy
D-5
City Council Meeting: November 13, 2012
Agenda Item..
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Subject Ordinances Regulating the Commercial Operation of Residential
Properties As Event Venues
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council either addpt the attached regular ordinance on
second reading or adopt the attached proposed bmergency ordinance if circumstances
are determined to warrant emergency action.
Executive Summary
At its meeting of October 2"d, Council considered complaints from neighbors about a
series of lai°ge, night --time events at 2009 La Mesa Drive produced for the primary
purpose of marketing the home for sale. In response, Council directed staff to return
with an emergency ordinande banning .such activity in the City's R-1 districts. Staff
returned with an ordinance on October 23d. After the public hearing, Council modified
the prohibition in the proposed ordinance, revised it into a regular ordinance, and
approved the ordinance an first reading. That ordinance is now presented for second
reading and adoption.
Also presented for Council consideration is the same emergency ordinance that was
proposed on October 23rd. This emergency ordinance is presented in the event that the
activities which have taken place most recently at 2009 La Mesa Drive warrant
emergency action.
Background
Council* members placed an, item on the agenda for October 2nd in response to
neighbors' complaints that night-time events at the single family residence at 2009 La
Mesa Drive had created a nuisance- and were disrupting quietude in their R-1
neighborhood. Among other things, neighbors testified that 2009 La Mesa Drive was
being advertised as 'The Rolling Stone's House of Rock" (The House of Rock), that the
events included concert style performances, and that the traffic generated by the events
imperiled the safety and welfare by interfering' with access to their homes. At that
1
hearing, one of the .owners of The House of Rock testified that she is in the business of
"flipping" high-end homes acid that the series of events was a clever marketing scheme.
At the conclusion of the lengthy hearing, Council directed staff to return with an
emergency, ordinance- that would prohibit the activities on October 23rd. Before that
meeting, another large event was held at The House of Rock. It apparently did not
significantly disrupt the neighborhood.
As directed, staff presented a proposed emergency ordinance to .Council ori October
4rd. Again, 'many people testified, including both neighbors who opposed the
marketing scheme for The House of Rock and supporters who claimed, among other
things, that the events benefited worthy charities. After the hearing, Council approved
the proposed ordinance on first reading with two modifications. One broadened the
ordinance's prohibition, and the other made it a regular ordinance. 'Because concern
was expressed that future events, including a widely -publicized Halloween event, might
again severely disrupt the neighborhood, staff assured Council that it would return with
both the second reading'of the regular ordinance and the emergency ordinance..
Discussion
After the Council meeting of October 23rd, neighbors, the owners, and attorneys for both
contacted City staff. Neighbors expressed their concerns about the then -upcoming
Halloween party, asking that ample enforcement personnel be available to address any
legal violations, particularly those causing safety risks. Owners asked that the street be
closed the night of the event. City staff responded by formulating contingency plans for
that evening. The street was not closed pursuant to the owner's request. (While safety
personnel. can and do close streets when necessary to preserve safety, they do so
based upon their assessment of the exigencies of the moment; the City does not have
the authority to close a.public street at the request of a single property owner.) On.the
night of the event, enforcement personnel monitored impacts, asking that noise be
reduced on a couple of occasions. Apart from occasional. spikes in noise, no legal
violations were observed.
2
we*
Since the last Council hearing, concern has also been expressed about possible code
violations, These include, but are not limited to, the conversion of the attic into a
recording studio and the installation of outdoor cooking facilities in the back yard. Staff
is addressing these issues throughits usual processes. They include interpreting the.
code, evaluating potential violations, is -suing citations when appropriate and allowing an
opportunity to correct any cited violations,
The attorney for the neighbors has continued to complain that The House of Rock
constitutes a commercial endeavor in an R-1 zone and therefore the City should halt the
activity, As explained in the previous staff report, staff does not believe that a court
would issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction halting the events at
The House of Rock based on the presently existing record and current local law.
However, legal staff has communicated its willingness to carefully consider any legal
authority to the contrary and noted that the City could opt to. participate in any lawsuit
(such as a nuisance action) that the neighbors might file to attempt to halt future events.
As previously explained, staffs opinion is that local law should be modified to include an
express. prohibition against operating a residential property as an events facility.
Accordingly, staff continues to support adoption of an.ordinance.
Two ordinances are proposed with this .report. The first Is the second reading of the
ordinance approved on October 23'd. The second is the emergency ordinance that was
proposed the same evening. The substantive modification that Council made to the
ordinance on the 23d has not been included in the emergency ordinance for the
reasons previously explained. Staff recommends adopting the regular ordinance on
second reading unless new circumstances have arisen. that, in Council's judgment,
necessitate emergency action,
K
I
me
in
Financial Impacts
Adoption of either ordinance:wiil not cause direct financial impacts to the City.
Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney , ..
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
Mears a,Jon outrie V V Rod Gould
City A orn City Manager
Attachments:
A. Proposed Ordinance for Second Reading
B. Proposed Emergency Ordinance
El
D-10
WHEREAS, the City Council intends that this ordinance will respect the legal
rights of all. It will not prechfde marketing single-family residential real estate in Sarrta
Monica through standard means. Nor -will it preclude -large social gatherings, charitable
events or political fundraisers in residential neighborhoods;- and
WHEREAS, the ordinance is intended to preclude the operation of one particular
and specific type of marketing scheme that creates extreme nuisance conditions and
thereby degrades public welfare, safety and quality of life in residential neighborhoods.
and is particularly likely to proliferate; end
NOW THEREFORE, THE 011Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
pffl���
SECTION 1. Santa Monica Munidipal Code Section 4.08,800 is hereby added to
(a) Prohibition: No person shall operate a single family
residential property for a commercial purpose including, but
not limited to, as an event facility. No business license shall
. be issued for such an operation. For purposes of this.
section, an "event facility" is property that is utilized for
gatherings of more than 150 people at any one time.
(b) Penalties and Remedies:
�11) Any person violating this section shall be guilty
a misdemeanor, which shall be punishable by a fine. not to
exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per violation, or
M
D-11
Approved and adopted this 13�h day of November, 2012.
Richard Bloom, Mayor
State of California
County of Los Angeles )ss,
City of Santa Monica
1, Sarah P. Gorman, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 2412 (CCS) had its introduction on October 23,
2012, and was adopted at the Santa Monica City Council meeting held on
November 13, 2012, by the following vote:
Ayes: Council members: Holbrook, McKeown, O'Connor,
Mayor Pro r Mayor Bloom
[Ioes: . ' Co.uncil members: NonA
Absent: Council members: Shriver, O'Day
A summary of Ordinance No, 2412 (CCS) was duly published pursuant to
California Government Code Section 40806.
ATTEST:
Sarah P. Gorman, City Clerk
D-12
*rdinance No. 2412
D-13
City Council Meeting; November 18, 2012 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER 2412 (CCS)'
(City Council Series) -
• ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE -CITY OF SANTA
MONICA. PROHIBITING THE OPERATION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR. A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE INCLUDING,
B-UT -NOT LfMfT-E-D TO, AS AN EVENT fACILITY ' I
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica is a small, older' beach
community, which attracts visitors from- around the world and includes some of
the most desirable and expensive real estate in the country;
WHEREAS, throughout its history, the City has attracted large numbers
of visitors who -flock to the City, to enjoy the, beach and spectacular natural
setting 'in the day tand the vaist array of restaurants, 'bars, and clubs and
other entertainment opportunifies at night; and
WHEREAS, the City is very densely populated: 92,000 residents in just
eight square mHes. And,the workforce is much larger than the residential
population. Thus, though the residential population numbers approAmately
92,-000, on weekdays approximately 250,000 people are present within the
G-ity. And, on weekends and fiblidays, this number swelffs to 500,000 or
D-14
WHEREAS, traffic congestion and Parking shortages Pose significant problems
for residents, and
WHEREAS, given the present-day den*sity of the City, the older infrastructure,
an I d the. huge numbers of visitors, the City Council makes'a substantial and ongoing
effort . to 'balance residential and commercial interests and thereby protect residents,
health, . safety and quality of life through various laws and Policies that protect safety,
peace and quiet in residential neighborhoods, while also. preserving the City's robust
visitor -serving economy; and
WHEREAS, the Council also strives, through the adoption Of Policies and laws, to
strike, a balance that both respects individuals' rights, including their rights of privacy
and assembly; and, at the same time, protects s the general welfare and common good
against endeavors undertaken for commercial gain that endanger the public peace and
residential tranquility; and
WHEREAS, from time to time, individuals undertake commercial enterprises that
-are new to the City and require the re -striking of -these' balances; and
WHEREAS, one such new business. involves 'Tipping" a residential property by
transforming it Into an event facility. The home/facility is redecorated and furnished -by
Professional vendors who provide services and goods in return for the opportunity to
d! . splay and sell their talents and wares. The facility is then marketed as a fashionable
party and concert venue and held open for a series of large private events, 'nominally for
the benefit of charities. The events attract wealthy patrons, who are potential
purchasers of the home -and the design services and goods showca.sed there. To -
facilitate such purchases both those attending the events and "virtual visitors" can
K
D-15
T 1111 Pill Pill
MWA I IT MO
services and enables purchases of them; arid
WHEREAS, the series of charity events is a marketing ploy, which exposes the
home and its contents to very large number of potential purchasers in. a festive, party
setting, that is more like a large, exclusive nightclub than a.traditional open house or a
furniture showroom; and
WHEREAS, the adverse impacts of this marketing scheme upon the
neighborhood are significant. They far exceed the impacts of selling a home through
traditional. means, such as broker caravans and Sunday afternoon open houses
because of the timing, the large numbers of vehicles and party goers, the noise, and the
lights, among other things. The impacts also far exceed those of a homeowner hosting
an occasional large social or charitable event, in part because the scheme involves a
series of events -in a relatively short period of time; and
WHEREAS, testimony and evidence presented to Council show that the impacts
include, but are not limited to: major influxes of traffic to residential streets; oversized
vehicles, such as stretch limousines and buses, blocking streets and driveways;
attendant impairments to residents' access to their own homes and to ingress and
egress by emergency personnel; loud Music; bright, commercial lighting, front -yard
stage shoals and banner signage; degradation of air quality resulting' from large
. numbers- of idling vehicles; damage to street trees caused by oversized vehicles; and
Il 11 ll� I I '�!T� !Jill I � 111fg
WHEREAS, in addition to describing such nuisance conditions, residents also
testified to 'Council that they feared that their own and -their families' safety was
K
D-16
menaced by drunken event guests, disrespectful private security guards and dangerous
equipment left on the street.- Moreover, residents testified that family members who are
very elderly or infirm might not be able, in the event of a medical emergency to -receive
emergency medical care because the events caused gridlock on their street and
thereby made it impossible, in the event of an emergency, to travel to and from their
homes and receive emergency assistance.
WHEREAS, many of the streets in the neighborhoods that are most likely to
attract this type of commercial endeavor are very narrow and therefore particularly 111 -
suited to safely accommodate repeated, large influxes of traffic and over -sized vehicles-,
and I
WHEREAS, the desirability of property in Santa Monica, the number of very large
and elegant homes, and the Oity's reputation as 'a night-time "hot spot', and the
apparent profitability of this business model all indicate that this marketing scheme is
likely to proliferate unless it is prohibited; and
WHEREAS, neighborhood residents impacted by this new business have
demanded that the City Council protect the quietude and safety of their street; and
WHEREAS, neighbors and others, who host large social events and donate use
of their homes for charitable fund raisers, have expressed concern about the, protection
of their constitutional rights to privacy and to conduct non-commercial assemblies of
their own choosing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is mindful of the fact that property owners have the
legal right to freely buy and sell their land; and
4
D-17
WHEREAS, the City Council intends that this ordinance will respect the legal
rights of all. It will not preclude marketing single-family residential real estate in Santa
Monica through standard means. Nor will it preclude -large social gatherings, charitable
events or political fundraisers in residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance is intended to preclude the operation of one particular
and specific type of marketing scheme that creates extreme nuisance conditions and
thereby degrades public welfare, safety and quality of life in residential neighborhoods.
and is particularly likely to proliferate; and
. . read as follows:
(a) Prohibition: No person -shall operate a single fiamily
residential property for a commercial purpose including, but
not limited to, as an event facility. No business license shall
. be issued for such an operation. For purposes of this
section, an "event facility" is property that is utilized for
gatherings of more than 150 people at any one time.
(b) Penalties and Remedies:
(1) Any person violating this section shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor, which shall be punishable by a fine.not to
exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per violation, or
IBM
imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding six.
months, or bot, or shall be guilty of an inftaction, which
shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed Two Hundred
Fifty Dollars ($250,00).
(2) Any person violating this section may be subject to I
administrative citation issued pursuant to Chapter 1.09 of
(3) The City or any interested person may seek an
injunction or other relief to prevent or remedy violations of
this section;
(4) The remedies provided by this section are not
intended to be exclusive, and their specification here shall
not prevent the City any interested person from utilizing any
other remedies afforded by law.
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this -Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. If any 'section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any
court. of 'competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
R
D-19
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would
have passed this Ordinance i rid each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase not c(gpiared invalld'or, unconstitutional -without regard to whether any portion
of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this Ordinance. The City Clerk' shall cause the, same to be published once in the
official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall. become
effective immediately upon.adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
.9
MA HAj-,- ES MO TRIE
City 606m
h
D-20
Approved and adopted this 13u' day of November, 2012.
Richard Bloom, Mayor
State of California
County of Los Angeles )ss.
City of Santa Monica
1, Sarah P. Gorman, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 2412 (CCS) had its introduction on October 23,
2012, and was adopted at the Santa Monica City Council meeting held on
November 13, 2012, by the following vote:
Ayes: Council members: Holbrook, McKeown, O'Connor,
Mayor Pro Tern Davis, Mayor Bloom
Noes: . ' Co.uncil members: None ' I
Absent: Goundil members: Shriver, O'Day
A summary of Ordinance No. 2412 (CCS) was duly published pursuant to
California Government Code Section 40806.
F."VE1,94
Sarah P. Gorman, City Clerk
D-21
Event Location:
Event Start Date/Time:
Event End DaterTime:
Event Description:
Applicant/Contact:
Applicant Phone #:
Applicant Fax #:
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-48-G4-
(310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-7650
Los Angeles"dounty Sheriff — Malibu/Lost Hills Statiol
0 - - : . - * .
Edward Peykar
Submit this Approval form, with attached site map and event description, to:
Deputy Brownell
27050 Agoura Road, Calabasas CA 91302
818-878-1808 fax 818-880-5209
Hours: Monday — Thursday 9:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m.
Separate applications and fees may be required. A TUP will not be issued until this
form, signed by an authorized member of this agency, has been returned to the City
of Malibu. Any conditions imposed by this agency will be included in the TUP.
El Approved El Denied Conditions Imposed: 0 No 0 Yes (see beloWj'
Notes/Comments/Conditions:
Name
Signature
Date
Title
5.34.010
Chapter 5.34
SPECIAL EVENTS
Sections:
5.34.010
Purpose.
5.34.020
Prohibition on excessive
special events in
residential
neighborhoods --Events
requiring permits.
5.34.030
Application
requirements.
5.34.040
Special event permit
issuance.
5.34.010 Purpose.
The purpose of the special event permit is
to allow for occasional large events in residen-
tial neighborhoods, while preserving the pre-
dominately residential . character of the
neighborhood. Large events shall be regulated
so as to avoid incompatibility between such
uses and surrounding areas. (Ord. 322 § I
(part), 2008)
5.34.020 Prohibition on excessive
special events in residential
neighborhoods—Events
requiring permits.
It is unlawful for any person to conduct or
hold in any residence or on any residential
property any special event requiring a special
event permit as provided in this chapter with-
out such a permit. A special event permit is-
sued by the city prior to the commencement of
the event shall be required for all of the fol-
lowing events on property located in any RR,
SF, MF, MFBF, or MH zone:
A. Any event anticipating or prepared to
accommodate one hundred (100) or more per-
sons; or
B. Any event with any commercial com-
ponent such as an admission fee, renting of
facility, public advertising, or promoting a
product in the media by inviting persons who
wear or display a product or products for the
purpose of attracting media attention to such
products at the event, such as to attract the
attention of the paparazzi.
A special event permit shall not be issued
for an event of more than eight hours in dura-
tion. (Ord. 322 § 1 (part), 2008)
5.34.030 Application requirements.
A resident of the city may obtain from the
city a maximum of four special events permits
per calendar year per parcel in order to con-
duct a special event at the resident's residence
pursuant to the provisions of this section.
A. Requirements. A complete application
for special event permit shall consist of the
following:
1. An application, in a form as approved
by the city, completely filled out and signed
by applicant;
2. Filing fee;
3. Site plan, including the location of all
temporary structures, access onto the site, and
parking_areas;
4. A written description detailing the type
and nature of the event, the date and hours of
the event and information on how noise, gar-
bage, sanitation, dust and traffic will be man-
aged; and
5. An affidavit signed by the applicant
attesting that he or she is the person hosting
the special event. (Ord. 322 § 1 (part), 2008)
(Malibu Supp. No. 17, &08) 152-32
534.040 Special event permit
issuance.
The city manager, or his or her designee,
shall issue a permit for special events that
meet the requirements of this chapter within
D-23
five. business days of receipt of a complete applica-
tion. The city manager may impose conditions on
the permit to protect against the event becoming a
nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood due to
the number of people in attendance, the amount of
traffic to be generated, the type and volume of am-
plified music or entertainment to' be -
utilized and
other similar considerations. Conditions shall take
into account the size of the residential property, the
capacity of the street on which it is located, the
availability of parking and the proximity to
neighbors. (Ord. 322 § I (part), 2008)
152-33 (Malibu Supp. No. 24, 9-11)
D-24
I
cs
U)
41
r
M
C3
T:
O Ca
CN
a 9
m co
D-25
Newport Beach Police Department
11111 111�� I
F-011[123 � 1 2 1 Mwim
The Newport Beach Police Department yecognizes the important responsibility it shares in
maintaining a safe, quiet and secure environment for those who live, work and play in the City.
Along those lines, we currently utilize the following noise related ordinances to hold tenants and
property owners accountable for hosting large, loud or unruly gatherings within our city.
No person shall promote, host, organize or otherwise allow a large party, gathering or event to
occur on private property which is determined by a Police Officer to threaten the public peace,
health, safety or general welfare of the neighborhood or surrounding community.
If you have received a DAC violation you will be subject to fines as outlined in the blue section
of the chart below.
If the residence is a rental property and the DAC violation was given to a tenant, the property
owner will also be subject to fines as outlined in the green section of the chart below.
http://wv,rw.nbpd.org/insidenbpd/services/lugo_dac.asp 6/3/2013
D-26
AlMeDWIla-F, �
It shall be unlawful and constitute a public nuisance for any Owner or Responsible Person to
cause or allow a Loud or Unruly Gathering to occur atany Residential Unit within the City, A
Loud or Unruly Gathering may be abated by the City by all reasonable means, Incl6ding,
disbanding the Loud or Unruly Gathering at the request of the officer, the issuance of citations,
and/or the arrest of any person(a) committing a violation of law under applicable State or local
http://www.nbpd. dao.osp 6/3/2013
D-27
A"Loud orUnruly Gathering," means a gathering ofeight /8lormore persons onany
Residential Unit for a social occasion or other activity uponwhich loud cvunruly conduct occurs
and results in a public nuisance or a threat to the public health, safety, general welfare, or quiet
enjoyment ofresidential property ornearby public property. Loud Orunruly conduct includes,
without limitation, any or all of the following:
a. Excessive noise or traffic;
b. Obstruction of public streets by crowds or vehicles;
c. Obstruction of rights of way by people orvehicles;
d. Public drunkenness;
e. The service of alcohol to Minors;
f. Possession and/or consumption ofalcohol bvMinors;
g. Assaults, batteries, fights, domestic violence Vrother disturbances of the peace;
h. Vandalism;
|. Litter; or
j.
Urinating ordefecating inpublic.
When a0GO violation occurs, police officers post the residential unit with a black and white
notice. This posting conlcy on a laminated adhesive backed sheet of paper and includes the
following elements:
1. The intervention was necessary asaresult of a public nuisance caused byaLoud or
Unruly Gathering;
2. Date of the intervention;
3. Notice that any subsequent Loud or Unruly Gathering within 90 days from the date of the
posting will result in civil fines for all Responsible Person(s) or other persons present;
4. Notice that is it unlawful to remove, alter, tamper with or deface posted tag.
If your residence has been posted keep inmind you are responsible for maintaining the
posting. If the posting has been removed, altered, tampered with or defaced both tenants and
property owners will beassessed o¢I/OODfine. Ifyou asatenant orproperty owner realize
that your posting was wrongfully removed or damaged please contact NBPD Dispatch at 949-
644-3717 to have an officer respond and repost the house.
If you are aproperty owner and have removed the problem tenants you must appeal to the
Chief ofPolice inorder t0have the posting removed from your residence:
. Please include documentation proving that the problem tenants have
been permanently removed from the location.
The Fine Schedule for LUGOviolations isdetailed inthe chart below.
http://www.nbpd.org/insidenbpcVservices/lugo_dac.asp 6/3/2013
z
�n
uj
O
LL
E/I
tn
z
V)
z
D
0
uj
z
LU
cr-
LLJ
0
C'n
Slum BUNION
0
0
0
M
cw
r-
z
z
z
ai
0-
z
m
al,EM, SuPlaA SCIEd
o
o
o
cv
E
3:
z
z
z
C,
0
o
M
wiaqeuv
0
0
0
m
w
=
E
o
0
4)
S-
z
z
z
-C
sapsuvy, Sol
E
E
E
CL
0-
a-
aulOd
w
-0
Qj
-0
w
4�
±�
4--
o
E
E
E
cr
cl
z
CL
f —k
5-
Qj
�L
q3eaq ipodmON
E
E
E
z
43a9g 33§uaA
E
E
E
7,—
4-
�
�
�
EE
L-
"
E
—
z
a-
CL
qSea fl esowgap,
0
z
0
z
0
z
43eag uGaeluevj
0
0
z
z
z0
,!--31uojN eves
tw
M
cw
r-
4� V
4--
E
ai
0-
z
m
E
cv
E
3:
GJ
Qu 100-
-0
C,
0
o
M
x
m
4--1
tn
E cv
D-29
tw
M
cw
r-
c
M
m
a)
6
E
E
3:
tn
-0
C,
0
o
M
x
m
4--1
tn
E cv
m
w
=
E
o
0
4)
S-
0
>
-C
>
z
D-29
CRIME
HOMICIDE
RAPE
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
ROBBERY
BURGLARY
LARCENY THEFT
GRAND THEFT AUTO
ARSON
TOTAL
YEAR-TO-DA-rs
CRIME
LMT
LOMITA SHERIATraditinriFF STATION
MAY STATS
of
190 Since 1850
YEAR-TO-DA-rs
CRIME
LMT
RPV
RFI
MAY
UNINCOR P
HOMICIDE
RAPE
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
Irikly.
0
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
y—
. ......... .
ROBBERY
13
4
0
2
BURGLARY
LARCENY THEFT
35
85
40 1
90
3
4
13
41
-3
—4
16
GRAND THEFT AUTO 1
15
16
0
4
6
ARSON
0
0
0
1 0
1 0
TOTAL
160
157
7
�63]
34
YEAR-TO-DA-rs
CRIME
LMT
RPV
RFI
RHE
UNINCOR P
HOMICIDE
RAPE
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
0
0
12
0
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
y—
. ......... .
ROBBERY
13
4
0
2
BURGLARY
LARCENY THEFT
35
85
40 1
90
3
4
13
41
-3
—4
16
GRAND THEFT AUTO 1
15
16
0
4
6
ARSON
0
0
0
1 0
1 0
TOTAL
160
157
7
�63]
34
2015
Per the FBI UCR Guidelines Homicide, Rape, and Aggravated Assault are counted by victim. All other crimes are counted by incident. Info time
sensitive and subject to change.
Y >'
LOMITA SHERIFF STATION
APRWNL STATS f serviC
, � fir�tditiori °
'V yo Since 1850
"'1
Per the FBI UCR Guidelines Homicide, Rape, and Aggravated Assault are counted by victim. All other crimes are counted by incident. Info v rr tiBiltime
sensitive and subject to change. 1
APRIL.
1
•MIN
'iRAPE
...-
....
BURGLARY
,..
In
"'1
Per the FBI UCR Guidelines Homicide, Rape, and Aggravated Assault are counted by victim. All other crimes are counted by incident. Info v rr tiBiltime
sensitive and subject to change. 1
1
•MIN
'iRAPE
...-
....
BURGLARY
,..
In
"'1
Per the FBI UCR Guidelines Homicide, Rape, and Aggravated Assault are counted by victim. All other crimes are counted by incident. Info v rr tiBiltime
sensitive and subject to change. 1
LOMITA SHERIFF STATION
Tradition of germ
MARCH STATS
Snare 1850
12015
MARCH
ma
Im
Imm
HOMICIDE�
BURGLARY MEN
.A
fAli
•
emu,
12015
ma
Im
Imm
BURGLARY MEN
.A
fAli
emu,
Per the FBI UCR Guidelines Homicide, Rape, and Aggravated Assault are counted by victim. All other crimes are counted by incident. Infor&.a2me
sensitive and subject to change.
The Economic Impacts of Home
Sharing in cities around the world
At Airbnb, we want to learn about our community's positive impact on the cities we love, visit, and share.
Over the past years, we conducted economic impact studies in cities around the world. This is a
74=4617-IM0
To date, tens of millions of travelers have chosen Airbnb to experience
cities not as tourists, but as locals.
79%of travelers want to explore a specific
MMU�♦ .M
91 % of travelers want to "live like a local"
districts
Airbnb travelers stay longer and spend more in diverse neighborhoodic,
throughout the city.
Airbnb guests stay 2olxlonger than typical visitors Airbnb guests spend 2.1xmore than typical visitors
D-33
Hundreds ' of i,' nd, of hosts worldwide have welcomed
travelers into their homes. Hosting helps x ends meet.
81%of hosts share the home in which they live
53%say that hosting helped them stay in their
home
exchange.The Airbnb community benefits local economies across the world by
supporting residents and local businesses, and encouraging cultural
Learn more about the Airbnb community's positive impact on
cities around the world.
(http://blog.airbrib.com/econornic-impact-airbnb/#amsterdam)
Athens
(http://blog.airbnb.com/airbnbs-positive-impact-in-athens/)
D-34
(http://blog.airbnb.com/economic-impact-airbnb/#berlin)
London & Edinburgh
W � mo It 9 W IM NT p MTN . TO ME
Los Angeles
4
Montreal
(http://blog.airbnb.com/airbnbs-positive-impact-Montreal/)
(http://blog.airbnb.com/economic-impact-airbnb/#new-york)
Paris
San Francisco
(http://blog.airbnb.com/economic-impact-airbnb/#san-francisco)
Sydney
Facebook f (https://www.facebook.com/airbnb)
Google+ 9* (https://plus.google.com/+airbnb)
Twitter V (https://twitter.com/airbnb)
Pinterest 0 (https://Www.pinterest.com/airbnb/)
YouTube 03 (http://www.youtube.com/airbnb)
Instagram 90(https-//www.instagram.com/�irbnb)
D-35
We conducted economic impact studies inSan Francisco (https://www.airbnb.com/s/San-Francisco--CA), New York
(https://www.airbnb,con/s/New-York--NY),Paris(httpm://www.airbnb.con/s/Paris--France),Amsterdam
/https:/Ym/vmm'airbnb,corn/n/Arnotmrdamn—Nether|mnd^\, Athens (httpo://vvvvxvairbnb.cpnn/o/Bthmno--Greece), Barcelona
/httpu:/Yvoxxw.eirbnb.corn/s/Borce|ona—Spmin\, Bedln(httpu:/Yvmmvuairbnb.cprn/b/Ber|ln—Gernmmn»), Boston
/httpo://wmxmeirbnb'oum/s/Boston—MA0,Edinburgh(https://mww.mirbnb.com/s/Edinburgh—United-Kingdorn),London
(https://www.airbnb.com/s/London--United-Kingdom), Los Angeles (https://www.airbnb.com/s/Los Angeles --CA),
Montrea|(httpw://vvxxw.a/rbnb.conm/s/Montree|—Cmnmda), Portland /httpo:/Yvvvxw.oirbnb,00no/u/Pnrt|mnd—CjA1,and
Sydney (https://www.airbnb.com/s/Sydney--Australia). The data above is an average of our findings from those studies.
A E. � ' A i f
Airbnb
taking
term rental
Posted September 2, 2016
OFLAFbES
Last May, the city of Santa Monica approved a series of tough restrictions on short-term rentals commonly found on sites
like Airbnb. Well, the popular hosting service struck back today, filing a lawsuit arguing that the city's new rules violate the
first, fourth, and fourteenth amendments.
Santa Monica has not been shy about enforcing its short-term rental restrictions, hiiirig more than 890 individual hosts
and even corlvic;tec_l one property owner who was using the site to advertise five different rental properties. In July, MIC'C
reported that the city had also slapped Airbnb itself with $20,000 in fines.
The company claims in the lawsuit that fines ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars have been rolling in steadily
since the city's ordinance went into effect. Airbnb maintains that it has paid all the fines, despite its belief that they are
unjustified.
The company argues in the suit that it should not be held responsible for users of the site that violate restrictions imposed
by the city. Under Santa Monica's ordinance, hosts cannot rent a house or a unit for less than a month unless they will be
staying on-site with the guest. Other restrictions include requirements that hosts register with the city and ensure their
offered units meet municipal fire and safety codes.
If hosts violate some or all of these requirements, Airbnb can be held liable for not removing their listings. The suit argues
that the only way the company could comply with the city's rules would be to "regularly visit the physical location of each
listing" to make sure everything was on the level.
The lawsuit also argues that the city's requirement that Airbnb disclose the names and addresses of Santa Monica -based
users is an invasion of privacy and violates due process rights under the fourth amendment.
D-37
Airbnb spokesperson Alison Schumer tells the LA 'Phiiesthat "Santa Monica's clumsily written law punishes hosts who
depend on home sharing to make ends meet and travelers looking for low-cost accommodations near the beach."
City officials, on the, other hand, have been pleased with the law's effect on the overall number of Airbnb listings in the area. In
July, city spokesperson Constance Farrell told KPCC that the number of listings had more than halved since the ordinance
went into effect the year before.
One of the first cities to pass tough restrictions on short-term rentals, Santa Monica's ordinance was seen as a test case for
how to regulate the growing short-term rental economy, which critics say takes badly needed rental units off he ioa:r Net and
allows major property owners to operate what amount to unlicensed hotels.
This isn't the first time the hosting service has sued cities over their short-term rental regulations. It's also done so in Sari
Vr(,oicisco and, most recently in Al iaheii)i—where lawmakers have decided to do aivay with short-term rentals all together.
• Airhrth sires SaritaMonica. over- sliort t.crrr,, neral hear [LA Times]
• SaW:a Mortlea.JmL Banned. Ai.flPI'b's Biggest Nlo,nieyirtakers [Curbed LA]
• Sapi:ta Mort ica,f ast Used Its Torah hlety Airb,ah 141 fes to Cori via ( %lost [Curbed LA]
• Airbnb Flan Pa.i(l $20K rrr Fi tes to Sa'rrta Moit.i.ca-[Curbed LA]
Share chis;
Share
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked
Name
bm,ail ,
Website
D-38
J!ir
Will :;: 111 111017•- 111?7017�.�
Date: June 23, 20161
Time: After 10:00 a.rB
Place: Los Angeles City Council Chambe
200 N. Spring St., Rm. 340
Los Angeles, CA 90012 1
MUMM,
Case No.:
DIR-2016-1243-C/N
CEQA No.:
ENV-2016-1277-NVA;
Council No.:
14-1635-S2
Location:
Citywide
Council District:
111
PROPOSED The proposed Home -Sharing Ordinance (Exhibit A) amending Sections 12.03, 12.22,
PROJECT: 12.24, 19.01 and 21.7.2 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code; and amending Section
5.522 of the Administrative Code; imposing regulations to permit sharing of one's
primary residence, establishing an application fee and administrative fines for Home -
Sharing, and directing Transient Occupancy Taxes derived from Home -Sharing to the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
RECOMMENDED 1. Recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance (Exhibit A) by City Council;
ACTION: 2. Adopt the staff report as its report on the subject;
3. Adopt the attached Findings;
4. Recommend that the City Council, based on the whole of the administrative
record, determine that the ordinance is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15061(b)(3) and direct staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the County
Clerk's office (See Exhibit C); and, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15074(b), adopt ENV -2016- 1277 -ND and find that based on the whole of the
administrative record, in the independent judgment of the decision -maker, the
project will not have a significant effect on the environment and direct staff to
file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk's office.
Ken Bernst n, AICD, _�rin—cipal City - Planner
n
esne, City Planner, 213.978.2666
Claire Bowin, Senior City Planner
D-39
ProjectAnalysis........................................................................................................ A-1
Project Summary
Background
Issues
Conclusion
Findings......................................................................................................................F-1
General Plan/Charter Findings
CEQA Findings
.�TiTT+7f ISI
A — Proposed Ordinance
B - Environmental Clearance
C — Map of Short -Term Rentals in the City of Los Angeles
D — Comparison of the Short -Term Rental Laws in Other Cities
9 I1
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
/W
Project Summary
In 2015 the Los Angeles City Council directed the Department of City Planning to draft an
ordinance establishing a regulatory framework to legalize and regulate the short-term rental (for
less than 30 days at a time) of one's own home. The sharing of one's own residential unit, in
part or in whole, as short-term rentals is a practice that has grown rapidly in recent years,
facilitated by the Internet. The Department has chosen to call this practice home -sharing. Home -
sharing is not intended to include vacation rentals, where the home is not used as a primary
residence and the home is used exclusively for transient guests.
Legalizing limited home -sharing embraces recent technological innovation that facilitates the
efficient use of existing resources, including one's own residential space. There has been a
large amount of compelling testimony from many Angelenos who credit home -sharing with
providing meaningful assistance during difficult financial times or significantly enriching their
lives. They state the practice enhances local economic development, can help the City with
needed revenues and poses little to no impact to their neighborhoods. On the other hand, the
Department has heard equally compelling testimony about lives and communities that have
been negatively impacted by short-term rentals. Many have expressed significant concerns
about the loss of neighborhood character, the loss of valuable housing stock and various
nuisance activities associated with short-term rentals.
This issue has attracted intense interest from the community - from those on all sides. Some
believe short-term rentals should be completely banned, while others believe there should be no
limits to the activity. The challenge is to create simple, sensible and enforceable local policies
that appropriately balance the rights of homeowners and renters with the interests of neighbors
and other community members who may only experience the negative side-effects associated
with people renting out their homes on a short-term basis. The proposed ordinance seeks to
protect neighborhoods and preserve the City's critical housing stock. It holds hosts and
platforms accountable, but still allows people to legally share their home with short-term guests.
Specifically, the proposed ordinance would:
• Define and establish a regulatory framework to legalize and regulate home -sharing in
one's own primary residence (where one resides at least 6 months of the year)
• Require hosts to register with the City and limit home sharing to 120 days in a year
• Clarify and support the requirement to collect and remit Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
• Reiterate that vacation rentals and other short-term rentals not covered by the City's
approved use definitions are unlawful
• Establish various tools and administrative fines to enforce illegal short-term rentals
• Prohibit any person from advertising home -sharing that is not registered with the City
• Require hosting platforms to disclose to the City on a regular basis the name of the host,
the address of each listing, length of stay for each listing, and the price paid for each
stay, subject to privacy protections
• Ban the ability of residential apartments to be converted to short-term uses, by modifying
the Transient Occupancy Residential Structure regulations in the zoning code
• Direct the Transient Occupancy Tax generated from home -sharing towards pro -active
enforcement of the ordinance and the Affordable Housing Trust Fund
D-41
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
Background
The proposed ordinance is in response to issues raised from the dramatic increase in the
number of residences being rented informally on a short-term basis (fewer than 30 days) in
recent years. The total number of active short-term rental hosts and economic activity
associated with just the largest hosting platform company (Airbnb) has nearly tripled over the
last 19 months'. Airbnb estimates in 2015 there were about 12,270 active hosts in Los Angeles
who accommodated 560,000 total guests. Assuming that Airbnb represents about 65% of the
total listings in the City, as researchers have estimated, then there are likely about 20,000 total
active listings for short-term rental in the City of Los Angeles2. This figure compares to a figure
of 23,000 total listings (active and inactive) obtained by a "data scrape" of 18 of the top short-
term rental websites completed at the beginning of June 2016.
Short-term rental Internet sites, referred to in the ordinance as hosting platforms, enable
property owners, tenants and occupants to rent their living space to guests. The most common
listings are from hosts who live on their property and offer a bedroom for rent in their home.
Rentals can also take place in the entire home, a couch or suite of rooms. Typically, short-term
rentals consist of a duration of a few days up to a few weeks. The average Airbnb length of stay
is 4.5 days, and the average number of guests is 2.2.
While some level of home -sharing and vacation rental has likely always occurred in tourist -
friendly cities, the ease with which one can now advertise a residence to vacationers from
around the world has fundamentally changed the scale and intensity of this activity. The
situation has been exacerbated in recent years as mainstream tourist industry websites like
Expedia and Hotels.com have also begun advertising short-term rentals, increasing the reach of
short-term rental listings beyond a once niche audience.
Current Regulations on Short -Term Rentals
The rental of a portion of a dwelling for less than 30 days is presently not permitted by the
zoning code in the vast majority of the City. This was confirmed by a recent Superior Court
ruling (Chen vs. Kraft (2096)3). Unless a property is located in a commercial (C) zone, and more
than 500 feet from a residential zone, a special conditional use permit (CUP) must be obtained
before any residential use can be rented on a short-term basis. Owners of buildings in R4, R5 or
C zones may request one type of a CUP to enable an apartment/hotel hybrid use called a
Transient Occupancy Residential Structure (TORS). Smaller structures with fewer than five
guest rooms, if they are deemed to be historic, may apply for another type of a CUP to become
a Bed and Breakfast and rent on a short-term basis in any zone.
The TORS designation was created in 1992, primarily to differentiate regular hotels from the
influx of new "extended stay hotels", which were becoming more like regular dwelling units with
kitchens. Hotel and motel guest rooms are prohibited from having kitchens. The TORS definition
(below) refers to buildings that contain dwelling units (with kitchens) and are used for less than
30 days. The definition from 12.03 of the LAMC is copied below:
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. A residential building
designed or used for one or more dwelling units or a combination of three or more
dwelling units and not more than five guest rooms or suites of rooms wherein
occupancy, by any person by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or
' Martin, Hugo. Airbnb estimates its home -sharing platform added $920 million to L.A. economy. May 9, 2016. Los
Angeles Times.
2 Samaan, Ray. Short -Term Rentals and L.A.'s Lost Housing. August 24, 2015. Los Angeles Alliance for a New
Economy.
3The Appellate Court decision can be found here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/JAD16-01.PDF
D-42
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA A-3
other agreement is for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less, counting
portions of calendar days as full days.
The other zoning code definition that applies to short-term rental is Bed and Breakfast, which is
defined as follows:
BED AND BREAKFAST FACILITY. A building or portion thereof which is used as a
temporary lodging place for fewer than thirty consecutive days and which does not
contain more than five guest rooms and one kitchen.
The current regulations were not designed for the situation Los Angeles finds itself in today and
are therefore ill-suited to regulate the short-term rental market. For instance, the current
regulations allow a more straightforward approval process for the conversion of entire rent -
controlled apartment buildings into full-time hotel use/short-term rentals (as a TORS) than it
does for the legitimate sharing of one's own home during a few weekends a year. Given the lack
of clarity and specificity, enforcement of the current short-term rental market has been difficult
(see the Enforcement section below).
The proposed ordinance (Exhibit A) establishes home -sharing as an accessory use to the
primary residential structure, notwithstanding current zoning code definitions. However, all other
applicable building, zoning and housing code provisions remain in effect.
Benefits of Short Term Rentals
Short term rentals bring significant benefits to those who operate them, as well as their visitors.
The activity makes efficient use of space by allowing residents to host guests in a room or unit
when that room or unit might otherwise go unused. The Department has heard from many
individuals who use short-term rentals as a way to help afford their own home, cover healthcare
expenses, recover after the loss of a job, and have meaningful, culturally enriching interactions
with visitors from around the world. Airbnb, the largest home -sharing platform currently on the
market, recently published statistics claiming that nearly 23% of their hosts reported that the
extra income helped prevent losing their home to foreclosure or eviction. Given the significant
affordability challenges in Los Angeles, there is little doubt that short-term rentals help offset the
housing cost burden for many families. On the other hand, it should also be noted that many of
the listings tend to be located in the highest -priced neighborhoods in the city. Home -Sharing
does not appear to be assisting many people living in low-income neighborhoods or those far
from tourist destinations.
For visitors, short-term rentals often offer a more affordable and flexible option. The Department
has received testimony regarding the many types of travelers that benefit from a more
residential environment, including families with children, travelers with pets, large groups, etc.
Kitchens are often available as part of home -sharing, which is a benefit to many. Many travelers
also enjoy the feel of being in a "local" neighborhood as opposed to a typical commercial hotel
district. As such, short-term rentals bring tourists to neighborhoods that may be underserved by
hotels and therefore ordinarily do not receive tourist dollars. Airbnb recently estimated the
economic impact of its visitors in Los Angeles was $920 million in 2015, supporting 1,700 jobs.
Concerns with Short Term Rentals
Concerns regarding short-term rentals fall largely into three categories: nuisance activity, impact
on the housing stock and the relationship of home -sharing to existing building and zoning
codes. These issues are discussed below.
Nuisance Activities
Nuisance activities that have been reported include instances of loud noise, parties, trash,
inconsiderate guests, excessive coming and going as well as the commercial use of resj_%�
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA A-4
properties for private events. More broadly, some neighbors of short-term rentals feel that these
activities have resulted in the loss of stable residential character as their long-term neighbors
are increasingly replaced by short-term guests.
Impact on Housing Stock
Many have expressed concern regarding the potential impact of short-term rentals on the
already strained housing stock of the city. The Census Bureau reports the first quarter 2016
rental vacancy rate in the Los Angeles region as 2.7%, which is currently the lowest of any
major metropolitan area in the United States. To the extent rental units are removed from the
long-term housing market to be used solely for short-term use, overall residential supply is
reduced and the lack of housing will be exacerbated.
Many owners have an incentive to convert housing units from long-term to short-term use
because, in some neighborhoods, there is a substantial financial premium to be earned from
short-term rentals. Technology has allowed the easy pairing of willing hosts with willing renters
leading to a situation where long-term rents are under pressure as the regular rental market
increasingly competes with the short-term market. Some new multifamily developments in
communities such as Hollywood have been renting brand new vacant units as short-term
rentals, which reduces the normal pressure to lower the asking prices to otherwise lease up a
building to long term tenants.
When units intended for long-term rental are lost or replaced as short-term rentals, this
undercuts the City's housing goals, including Mayor Garcetti's 100,000 housing unit production
goal by 2021. For every unit that is converted to short-term use, another unit must be created to
make up for the loss. Any decrease in the supply of residential units available for the City's
permanent residents may put an upward pressure on price.
As a national and local standard (reflected in LAMC 12.95.2), the housing market is deemed to
have a shortage of housing units when the vacancy rate is less than 5%. Further, a vacancy
rate of less than 3% is considered "severe". The General Plan, and more specifically the
Housing Element, recognizes the issue of rising housing costs in Los Angeles, and its related
impact on the City's most pressing issues, including homelessness, overcrowding, and reduced
quality of life, traffic, and air quality.
Information consulted as part of this report suggests that there likely has been a citywide impact
on rents, as the result of the increase in short-term rentals, and this impact may be more
significant at the neighborhood level. Researchers found that the top nine Airbnb neighborhoods
have seen rent increases more than double the city average4. In San Francisco, the result of
lost housing units was estimated to have resulted in higher average monthly rents citywide of
between $19 and $76 in early 20155.
Another recent report from LAANE, released in August 2015, found that the percentage of hosts
offering whole units had increased markedly in Los Angeles (from 48% to 64%) between
October 2014 and July 20156. While not all of these whole unit listings are necessarily removing
housing stock, roughly 3,000 of these entire home listings, on Airbnb alone, were for more than
90 days. Other platforms, such as Home Away and VRBO, are believed to have higher
percentages of entire home vacation rentals than Airbnb. The current trends shifting away from
home -sharing and hosted stays add to concerns about the loss of permanent housing stock.
4 Samaan, Roy. 3 March 2015. http://www.laane.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/A!rBnB-Final.pdf
5 Kusisto, Laura. Airbnb Pushes Up Apartment Rents Slightly, Study Says. Wall Street Journal. 20 March 2015.
6 Samaan, Roy. 3 March 2015. http://www.laane.org/wp-contenVuploads/2015/03/AirBnB-Final.pb_44
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
M
The Department has also received testimony relating to evictions of tenants based on claimed
false pretense to establish a unit as a short-term rental. As a strong measure to stem any
incentive for abuse, the ordinance would not permit home -sharing in units subject to the Rent
Stabilization Ordinance.
Local Neighborhood Impacts
It is clear that the benefits or burdens of short-term rental is not evenly felt across Los Angeles.
Large sections of the City, such as South Los Angeles or the North Valley, have little activity.
Listings are largely concentrated in an arc that traverses from Venice up through West LA,
Hollywood, Northeast LA and downtown. As an example of the different amount of usage, a
January 2016 review of Airbnb data accessed from the website insideairbnb.com shows that
Leimert Park had about 19 listings on Airbnb, while Echo Park had about 500 listings'.
In terms of number of listings, one of the most impacted neighborhoods is Venice. According to
the same January 2016 data, Venice (an area with about 21,000 homes) had approximately
1,500 short-term rental listings available, meaning almost one in fifteen homes there is available
for short-term rental. 76% of those are entire home listings (seen in red in Map 1 below), well
above the City average of 60%. The average nightly rate is over $203 and the average listing is
booked 112 times a year. The top half of active listings are rented on average of 200 nights a
year.
1. Airbnb Listings in Venice, as of January 2016
n.H
Mwina del Eley
7 This analysis uses insideairb.com based on data pulled from Airbnb's site in January 2016.
D-45
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA A-6
Consistency with the Residential Use and Character
Vacation rentals "where the occupants are primarily transient in nature" (guests stay for 30 days
or less) are classified under the International Building Code (IBC) - and therefore the LA
Building Code - as R-1 occupancies. This occupancy type refers to uses such as hotels, motels,
boarding houses and congregate living facilities, when used by guests for less than 30 days.
Short-term rental use can fall within either the boarding house or congregate living definitions,
depending on their arrangement$. Therefore, converting a single family dwelling to a primarily
transient use, in addition to triggering zoning regulations, constitutes a change in use, which
would typically require plan submission, approval and inspection by the Department of Building
and Safety. Section 903.2.8 of the IBC requires an automatic sprinkler system to be installed in
all Group R structures.
The proposed definition of Home -Sharing would differ from a transient use in the building code
and zoning code because the primary occupancy would continue to focus on long-term
residential use by a single-family unit, not short-term transient guests. This is ensured by the
six-month per year residency requirement, in addition to the proposed 120 -day cap, which
would maintain the short-term rental use as an accessory use to the main structure.
Experience of Other Cities
Many cities have adopted regulations on short-term rentals and home -sharing in the last few
years. While approaches and outcomes have varied, there are several lessons to be learned
from the experience of other cities. While some tourist -oriented cities (Anaheim, Big Bear and
some desert cities) have chosen to embrace the practice largely without restrictions and other
communities have chosen to completely ban the practice (e.g. Manhattan Beach, West
Hollywood, Ojai), the majority of cities are opting for a hybrid approach, similar to the intent of
the proposed ordinance.
Most applicable to Los Angeles are the experiences of cities with concerns about housing
supply. While the City's proposed ordinance has some unique features, most individual
components of the proposed regulations can also be found in the laws passed by other cities. In
some cases, the Department has included proposed language based on suggestions from other
cities that are considering ways to improve upon current adopted regulations in those cities.
Some of the most important examples are discussed below.
San Francisco
nd effort on the issue of short-term rental than
San Francisco has probably spent more time a
any other city. The City has established an Office of Short Term Rental Administration within the
Planning Department staffed with six employees to enforce regulations and respond to
complaints. Despite all this attention, many community members remain dissatisfied with their
local ordinance. The Budget and Legislative Analyst's office, has recently issued a report with
several suggestions to increase the enforceability of the ordinance.
San Francisco's law has many similarities to Los Angeles' proposed ordinance, but several key
differences. Like the proposed Los Angeles ordinance, San Francisco's law requires hosts to
register, pay transient occupancy taxes and uphold cap on rentals: 90 days within a year. One
key difference is that San Francisco makes an exception to the 90 day rule when visits are
"hosted" (i.e. the host is present during the stay). However well intentioned, San Francisco's
Office of Short Term Rental has said it is virtually impossible to identify a hosted stay from a
8 Boarding House is defined as "A building arranged or used for lodging for compensation, with or without meals, and
not occupied as a single-family unit."
Congregate Living Facility is defined as "A building or part thereof that contains sleeping units where residents share
bathroom and/or kitchen facilities." D-46
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA A-7
non -hosted stay and therefore effectively enforce the 90 day non -hosted cap. This is an
important reason why the proposed ordinance maintains a 120 day limit on all stays, both
hosted and non -hosted.
The City/County of San Francisco has approved new legislation that places additional
requirements on hosting platforms to verify, prior to posting online, that the listings are for
spaces that are registered with the city. Second, to prevent abuse after registration, the
legislation would require that hosting platforms investigate and provide details on listings that
appear to be illegal, as identified by city, within one business day. While a ballot initiative on
short-term rentals was defeated last year, a second ballot initiative on this topic is planned for
November that would put a 75 -night cap on all short-term rentals, impose fines on platforms that
list unregistered units, and allow neighbors to take private legal action to enforce the ordinance
and recover attorney's fees if the city is shown to have not enforce the law. A similar ballot
initiative was defeated last November.
Santa Monica
In 2015, Santa Monica passed an ordinance on short-term rentals. It prohibits rentals of 30 days
or less unless a primary resident is also present in the home (except during work hours, etc.),
but does not limit the number of days that home -sharing may occur. Similar to the draft
ordinance, Santa Monica's ordinance makes it illegal for hosting platforms to advertise an
unlicensed rental and requires that platforms disclose listings to the City, including names,
addresses, length of stay and amount paid.
Hosts found to be in violation have to reimburse City costs and remit illegally obtained revenue.
In addition, any interested party is authorized to take private legal action to enforce the
ordinance and recover attorney's fees (i.e. neighbors or affordable housing organizations).
Three positions were created in the Planning and Development Services department for
registering hosts and engaging in proactive short-term rental enforcement. Staff combines
complaint -based information with online research to put case files together on potentially illegal
listings in order to document abuse. The City periodically sends out notices of violation to both
property owners and hosting platforms notifying them of listings that do not comply with the
ordinance. Santa Monica officials report that owners of rental properties are typically able to
gain compliance from tenants in terminating their listings and activity. Some of the platforms
have been paying fines and taking down listings as well. After approximately a year of
enforcement, Santa Monica officials report that the number of short-term rental listings is
reportedly down about 30% from 1,400 to less than 1,000.
Sacramento
In early 2016, Sacramento's City Council approved two ordinances allowing limited short-term
rentals. The ordinances require the city to notify all neighbors within 200 feet that a permit has
been issued and sets a six -guest limit per rental. Each owner is required to keep a register of
guests and to ensure all postings on hosting platforms are permitted residences. A short-term
vacation rental may operate from a location that is not the operator's primary residence for a
total of 90 days in a calendar year. After the operator exceeds 90 days in a calendar year, a
conditional use permit application must be filed.
New York
In 2010, New York City adopted regulations stating that most dwellings can be occupied as
permanent residences only, meaning for 30 consecutive days or more. Furthermore, the law
requires that tenants be present during occupation by guests and that dwellings being used for
other than permanent occupation be registered with the Department of Planning. This approach
makes short-term rentals illegal in New York City if permanent tenants are not present during
the guest's stay.
D-47
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA A-8
The New York State Attorney General issued a subpoena to Airbnb in October 2013 demanding
information on New York City's hosts and listings to determine those that are bypassing the
city's legislation. On May 21, 2014, the state reached an agreement with Airbnb under which the
company will provide data on its listings in New York City. City regulators and the Attorney
General nonetheless launched a joint enforcement initiative to shut down what they are calling
"illegal hotels," examining web sites operated by hosting services, videotaping properties about
which complaints have been received, and potentially conducting raids. Penalties for violations
can cost up to $2,500 per day.
Portland
In 2014, Portland approved new regulations that legalized STRs in single-family homes and
duplexes. Multifamily residential buildings were added in January 2015, along with significant
enhancements in enforcement provisions. The new city ordinance enables the Portland
Revenue Bureau to collect host names and addresses from short-term rental platforms. The
ordinance also requires that companies prominently display permit numbers and refrain from
advertising hosts without permits. It also gives the city authority to fine hosts and companies up
to $500 per violation.
In 2015 the City of Portland filed a $2.5 million lawsuit against HomeAway.com for violations of
the city's short-term rental code. The city accuses HomeAway.com of failing to collect hotel
taxes; failing to provide names and addresses of local hosts upon request; failing to display the
permit numbers for short-term rentals to demonstrate completion of health and safety
inspections; and failing to register with the city within 15 days of commencing business. The
case is currently ongoing.
In crafting the proposed ordinance, the Department considered the City Council motion, the
diverse and substantive input received from stakeholders across the city, discussions with City
departments, and the best practices and experiences of other cities. The main provisions of the
ordinance will be placed in the Use subsection (A) of the Exception section of the Zoning Code
(LAMC 12.22). The ordinance is structured according to the following subdivisions:
a) Purpose
b) Definitions for new terms such as Home -Sharing, Primary Residence, Host and Hosting
Platform
c) Process for Home -Sharing registration (including renewal, suspensions and revocations)
d) Prohibitions
e) Host Responsibilities
f) Hosting Platform Responsibilities
g) Enforcement
h) Administration and Regulations
In addition to the main ordinance, there are several proposed amendments to other parts of the
Zoning Code and Administrative Code, including sections that would:
1. Prohibit the conversion (through a Conditional Use Permit, in R4 zones and above) of
residential uses to Transient structures;
2. Establish new administrative fees for home -sharing registration and Nuisance
Abatement hearings regarding home -sharing;
D-48
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA A-9
3. Include home -sharing in the definition of hotel, and hosting platforms in the definition of a
secondary operator in the TOT code; and
4. Allocate TOT monies attributable to home -sharing to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund
and pro -active enforcement.
The proposed ordinance, as amended, establishes home -sharing as a legal accessory use to a
primary residence. The host interested in home -sharing will need to register for the Transient
Occupancy Tax (by completing a Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate) prior to
registering for home -sharing. Administrative Guidelines will be established prior to the effective
date of the ordinance that will lay out the registration process as well as the documents required
to prove a six month residency at the address where home -sharing will occur. The City aims to
create a streamlined and straightforward on-line registration process to encourage easy
compliance.
The Home -Sharing application process will establish the residency requirement and include a
signed affidavit that the host pledges to comply with the Home -Sharing regulations. These
include restrictions on the renting of space other than those approved for residential use, a limit
to 120 days each calendar year, and a requirement that no more than one property be listed for
home -sharing in Los Angeles. The process will also ensure that renters have permission from
their landlords for home -sharing, that units subject to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) or
dedicated affordable housing units are not proposed for home -sharing, and that units with active
Orders to Comply do not engage in home -sharing.
Registration
Home -Sharing registration would be good for two years. Hosts would be permitted to renew if
they are shown to have been in compliance with the provisions of the ordinance, pay a renewal
fee, document any changes on their initial application, and provide records to document the
number and length of each home -sharing stay during the past year. A process for suspending
and revoking registrations, based on violations of the law and/or repeated nuisance activity, is
outlined in the law. If there are violations, the Department may revoke authorization, or modify
an approval by adding conditions using an existing Administrative Nuisance Abatement process
in LAMC 12.27.1. The process provides a venue for Zoning Administrators to hear from
neighbors and the accused individuals in order to fully evaluate the extent of excessive
nuisances and provide for an effective solution.
Prohibitions and Enforcement
The prohibition subdivision (d) includes important regulations on the ban on advertising short-
term rental listings without including a registration number, the 120 day limit and the ban on
more than one set of guests (or more than one booking) at a time. These are explained further
in the Key Issues section below.
Most hosting platforms have created ways for property addresses to be hidden until after a
property has been booked. This is different than most other types of business. As such, cities
across the country are realizing they require the cooperation and assistance of the entities that
facilitate this activity - the hosting platforms. The City's ordinance reflects this reality, by
requiring that platforms actively prevent, remove and cancel any listings they know to be illegal
(those without registration numbers, those rented more than 120 days a year and/or more than
one listing at multiple addresses). Beyond that, it requires that platforms provide to the City, on
a monthly basis: 1) address of all sites facilitated or advertised by the Platform; 2) total number
of nights that the unit was booked; and 3) amounts paid for each stay.
Platforms can be fined $500 per day for advertising an illegal listing, $1,000 per day for refusing
(upon formal request) to provide the addresses of unregistered short term rentals to thCity
b-49
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
A-10
and $1,000 per day on any refusal to submit monthly documents required for City to verify the
accuracy of the Transient Occupancy Tax payment.
Key Issues
Based on public input thus far, there appears to be a fair amount of consensus on the core of
the proposed ordinance: the primary residency requirement, a system of registration, and TOT
collection. However, the Department has heard strong disagreement from those engaged in
home -sharing on a few of the limitations that are proposed in the draft ordinance. Others, with
concerns about short-term rentals, have questioned the effectiveness of enforcement. These
issues will be analyzed in detail in this section of this report.
Limitation on the Nights Home -Sharing Can Occur
Based on the number of comments received from hosts of short-term rentals during the
comment period, the originally proposed 90 -day limitation is a top concern from impacted hosts.
Hosts claim that as long as they are living in the unit used for home -sharing as a primary
resident, concerns about impact to the housing stock and significant nuisances are largely
misplaced.
Many hosts have requested that the Department make a distinction between hosted stays,
which many believe should not be subject to limits on the number of days, versus non -hosted
stays, which could be limited. San Francisco's ordinance differentiates between hosted stays,
which are unlimited and non -hosted stays, which are limited to 90 days. However, San
Francisco's Planning Department has reported that it is "virtually impossible" to discern what is
occurring on a night to night basis.9 Until the City can be assured that platforms will make basic
records available, and as long as regulating agencies are limited in staff capacity to audit and
confirm self-reported information, this challenge is likely to persist.
Given the challenges of differentiating between hosted and non -hosted stays, as experienced
by other cities, the Department proposes to continue with a single strategy that imposes the
same day limitation on hosted stays as well as non -hosted. But, in light of the fact that the new
primary residence registration requirement will limit future hosts to those that are occupying their
own primary residence and are therefore much more likely to primarily offer hosted stays, the
Department proposes to increase the day limitation from 90 to 120 days a year. From
information obtained by some of the platforms the 120 day restriction will not impact the vast
majority of current hosts. For example, Airbnb issued a report on the impacts on housing in Los
Angeles in September 2015 that found that 86% of entire home listings in L.A. are rented for
less than 120 days a year. On the other hand, the limit on the number of permissible short-term
rental nights per year would create an economic incentive to otherwise rent the unused
bedroom to long-term tenants, which is advantageous to the permanent housing market and
helps minimize neighborhood nuisance concerns.
Ban in Units Subject to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO)
Pursuant to the Council motion, the proposed ordinance prohibits hosts from renting units or
buildings that are not their primary residence or are units covered by the RSO. The aim is to
protect this critically important housing stock from possible abuse by removing any incentives to
evict tenants or to convert long-term housing to short-term rentals. The RSO housing stock is
particularly vulnerable to fraud or illegal evictions due to its regulations, which limit rent
9 Phil Matier and Andy Ross, `No way of enforcing' Airbnb law, S.F. planning memo says. (March 22, 2015). San
Francisco Chronicle. D-50
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA A-11
increases and evictions of long-term tenants. There are also regulatory issues with the RSO and
Ellis Act that complicate matters with their use for home -sharing.
It is believed from public testimony and analysis of current listings that the majority of short-term
rental use is in single-family neighborhoods. Most rental leases in Los Angeles already ban the
practice of subletting. The ordinance requires that all renters demonstrate they have explicit
permission from a landlord before being allowed to register for home -sharing.
Opponents of the RSO ban state that as long as they are living in the unit subject to home -
sharing there can be no abuse. Many lower-income renters of RSO units would also benefit
economically from home -sharing, making their living costs more manageable. Despite these
significant policy considerations, the Department is recommending retention of the ban on
home -sharing in RSO units. Without a ban, tenants may be evicted based on allowable reasons
such as family occupancy or significant repairs, even if the intent may be actually to open the
unit to short-term rental. Once an eviction occurs, it is difficult to prove that a prior tenant was
not evicted in accordance with the law. In the end, the need for an RSO ban depends on the
enforcement of the ordinance and how well the process is able to disrupt illegal vacation rentals
in RSO units.
Concurrent Guest Stays
The draft ordinance would not permit hosts to rent to multiple sets of guests (through multiple
bookings) at the same time. This is meant to prevent the establishment of a use more akin to a
boarding house or bed and breakfast, whereby multiple guests are using a property intended as
a primary residence.
The originally proposed enforcement language ((6)a.(1)) may have caused confusion and
concern amongst hosts on this point. It read that there could be fines imposed for "multiple
listings by the same host." The Department heard from many hosts concerned that this
language would prohibit the flexibility to list different spaces on the platforms, including a
primary listing for a shared space while they are home, as well as an entire home listing for
when away on vacation. This was not the intent and the language has been re -worded in the
proposed ordinance with more precise language intended to capture multiple illegal listings of
more than one property. Multiple listings on the same property will be permitted, although they
cannot be booked at the same time.
Primary Resident Requirement
The ordinance requires that any home used by home -sharing include a host who is a primary
resident on that property. This is defined as having resided on the property for more than six
months a year. The primary residence threshold was established as a key component of the
home sharing ordinance as it serves as a means to limit the number of residential units that can
be used for home -sharing to those units that are already occupied as one's home. Limiting
home sharing to units that are the host's primary residence also ensures that the unit is not
otherwise available as a full-time rental. Units that are not occupied by a primary resident are
therefore presumed to be available as a year round rental. The primary residence requirement
strikes a balance by allowing residents who live in their homes to participate in the home -
sharing economy while protecting the vast majority of units from otherwise being removed from
the year round rental market and requisitioned for the arguably more lucrative short-term rental
market.
While the vast majority of people on both sides of this issue agree with the primary residence
requirement, some owners of vacation rentals have expressed that they wish to be legalized as
part of home -sharing as well. The vacation rental owners argue that certain neighborhoods have
excess demand for tourist stays and their second homes or vacation properties serve the City
well. However, it appears these neighborhoods (Venice, Hollywood Hills, etc.) have also seen
D-51
A-12
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
some of the worst abuses where the City has heard some of the greatest concerns with the
activity. If the Commission is interested in pursuing vacation rentals where there is no
permanent primary residence, the Department recommends that it be a separate process from
home -sharing, such as considering an expansion of the current Conditional Use Permit for Bed
and Breakfasts (which are only allowed in historically designated properties currently). Another
option would be to permit the use of home sharing in units not occupied by a primary resident
for a very limited number of days.
Issues Raised by Hosts and Platforms
Registration Process
Most cities with short-term rental ordinances have enacted a registration process to regulate the
activity. Registration provides a method to ensure a host is a primary resident, that they can be
contacted if there is a complaint, and that they otherwise meet the ordinance's regulations.
Hosts have generally stated that they have no objection to registering, but have urged the City
to create a simple and efficient process.
The ordinance does not specify the details of the Home -Sharing registration process, which will
be further developed through administrative guidelines to be published prior to the effective date
of the ordinance. However, the ordinance does specify that hosts will need to register with the
Office of Finance for a Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate (TORO) prior to receiving
Home -Sharing registration authorization. The current process to obtain a TORC is laid out in
LAMC 21.7.6 and involves submitting a form online including some basic information such as
the name of the operators and the address of the "hotel" (referring to all transient stays). The
City hopes to integrate the TOT registration process as efficiently as possible with the Home -
Sharing registration process, as well as explore "pass through" cooperation agreements with
Platforms.
Impact on the Economy
Many hosts and platforms have argued that any limits on short-term rentals reduce economic
benefits that accrue to local neighborhoods. Small businesses have commented that they
appreciate the business from visitors and Airbnb claims their guests have brought $980 million
to the local economy in 2015. However, short-term rentals can only be said to increase total
economic activity to the extent they induce travel that would not have been possible otherwise.
The Department was not able to find any research on this point.
Any benefits to the local economy must also be weighed with losses. For example, San
Francisco's economist estimated that for every long-term housing unit that disappears from the
stock, there is a loss of $250,000 to $300,000 per year in impact to the city's economy. Those
losses may outpace the money that a short-term rental remits to the city in transient occupancy
taxes, plus whatever hosts earn and visitors spend.
The City has also heard testimony from workers who fear the loss of their jobs as a result of the
ordinance. House cleaning workers for vacation rentals fear they may lose their job if
enforcement is enhanced, while hotel workers fear the same if there are not strong protections
against illegal short term rentals. A 2016 report by CBRE has shown that the Los Angeles
region has the highest rate of "hotel penetration" by Airbnb than any other market10. That is, the
amount of revenue earned through Airbnb as a percentage of total hotel room revenue is higher
than any other market. Researchers at Boston University published a 2016 paper analyzing the
impact of Airbnb listings on nightly hotel prices in Austin, Texas and found that a 10% increase
in Airbnb listings is associated with a statistically significant .34 percent decrease in hotel
10CBRE. The Sharing Economy Checks In: An Analysis of Airbnb in the United States. February 2016. D-52
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
A-13
revenues, with lower budget hotels most affected. Therefore, while citywide impacts on net jobs
are likely to be minimal, different sectors may be impacted differently.
Privacy
Some hosts have expressed concerns regarding the public availability of information regarding
their home -sharing activity/business. For example, hosts have written that they "don't feel
comfortable knowing that information about how often and how much income I earn from home
sharing could be available to anyone who asks." As written, the ordinance would obtain
information on the number of nights rented as home -sharing when the platforms provide this
data to the City, as well as when hosts provide information at the time of renewal. This
requirement is largely a repetition of existing Transient Occupancy Tax law, whereby all "hotel"
operators (broadly defined) must provide monthly statements to City regarding total rents
charged and received (LAMC 21.7.7) as part of the reporting and remitting regulations. Given
the nature of home -sharing, the additional requirement to include total number of days rented
appears reasonable and necessary to ensure proper collection and remittance of the TOT, as
well as ensure enforcement of the ordinance's provisions. However, to address privacy and
safety concerns, the proposed ordinance includes revised language that information on stays
submitted by platforms and hosts will not be made publicly available. This exemption will not
apply to information on any application form for home -sharing, which is considered a public
record and placed in a public case file. This is the same for any business in the City seeking to
operate with a permit or approval anywhere in the City.
Key Issues Raised by Those with Concerns about Horne -Sharing
Loss of Residential Character
The City has heard from many residents who are concerned by the presence of short-term
rentals in their neighborhood. Many feel short-term rentals constitute a commercial and/or
transient activity, which should not be legalized in any form in the City.
Residential zones are intended to create, maintain and promote residential neighborhoods.
However, in Los Angeles, like most cities, they also allow for some nonresidential uses to the
extent they maintain the overall image and character of the residential neighborhood. For
example, the zoning code permits accessory uses "customarily incidental" to the main uses in
single-family residential zones, including Accessory Living Quarters (which are meant as a
place for the homeowner's guests to stay temporarily) as well as certain home occupation uses.
The Home -Sharing Ordinance defines home -sharing as accessory use to a primary residence.
The ordinance's primary residence requirement (which requires at least six-month per year
residency), along with the 120 day annual limit, ensures that home -sharing remains subservient
to the main use as a long-term residential structure. When used for home -sharing, the home
maintains its residential qualities, such as sleeping and eating, etc. The ordinance also includes
a prohibition on non-residential uses altogether, including but not limited to, sales or exchange
of products, events that charge a fee, or the promotion, display or servicing of any product
conducted on the premises.
Health and Safety
The ordinance requires a host to provide on-site fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, carbon
monoxide detectors and information related to emergency exit routes and a local emergency
contact person. It also includes a clause that precludes home -sharing in any multi -unit building
with "an open Order to Comply or other code violation..." (unless it can be shown to be
unrelated to the activity). This would require the compliance with any potential code violations
before home -sharing can begin or resume.
D-53
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
A-14
Some cities such as Portland and Austin have required a full inspection as part of the permit
process, in order to ensure the safety of the space. The ordinance does not include this
provision primarily based on a concern that an inspection requirement would add a significant
barrier towards registration, which undercuts a primary aim of the ordinance. For many online
platforms, it is also important to acknowledge that the safety and well-being of guests is already
partially supported by the guests' access to information and reviews of the hosts. As bookings
(and therefore revenues) are largely based on positive reviews from past guests, hosts are
incentivized to provide safe and clean accommodations.
Party Houses and Other Nuisances
Properties being rented on a short-term basis are ripe for becoming venues for parties. The
Department received considerable testimony about homes turning into "party houses", which
keep neighbors up at night and cause a neighborhood nuisance. On April 29, 2016 the Office of
City Attorney released a report, Council File No. 12-1824, on the broader subject of "party
houses", as the activity takes place in both short-term and long-term residential homes. The
primary residence requirement helps alleviate many concerns about the inappropriate and
disruptive use of a property. Most "party houses" have been reported to be non -owner occupied.
As mentioned above, the ordinance also includes a ban on commercial activities, including
"events that charge a fee." In addition, regular noise and use regulations remain in force.
To some extent, concerns about parties, noise, trash and parking would appear to be
associated primarily with non -hosted stays in vacation rentals. When problems do occur as a
result of home -sharing, contacting the on-site owner/host can normally resolve the problem.
Similarly, the primary residence requirement alleviates the concern about the loss of long-term
neighbors in certain impacted areas.
Enforcement
Current Enforcement
LADBS is responsible for code enforcement in single-family homes, and the Housing and
Community Investment Department (HCID) is responsible for multi -family properties. Current
violators are subject to the same fines and penalties established in the LAMC with regard to
other types of code violations. Additional fines and penalties specific to home -sharing activity
are included in the draft ordinance and may be established by the Council.
By its nature, effective enforcement of codes relating to uses like short-term rentals is a difficult
task. Compliance is currently based primarily on complaints. When inspectors arrive, there are
usually few tell-tale signs of any violation. If no one opens the door or is uncooperative, there
may be little visual evidence to warrant an enforcement order. While some operators are
unsophisticated, others are highly savvy and may instruct guests on how respond to
inspections. The financial temptation created by short-term rentals creates an incentive to flout
local regulations and the temporary and hidden nature of the use makes it difficult to spot.
As of August 25, 2015 HCID has received and investigated 52 complaints regarding STIRS on
multi -family properties, mostly in CD 4 and CD 11, and found 16 properties with violations.
Twenty-two had no evidence of an STIR and fourteen are scheduled for inspection, are pending
research, or are being monitored. LADBS has not formally tracked short-term rental complaints,
but officials estimate receiving approximately a dozen or more per year specifically related to
this issue. LADBS has investigated several cases in Venice and Silver Lake and has issued
citations for related violations.
If a property owner ignores enforcement orders to comply, the matter is referred to the Office of
City Attorney to take further action. These referrals require evidence of a transaction to prove
that an unlawful act has taken place, which may include taking witness statements, issuing
subpoenas, or engaging in undercover transactions. D-54
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
A-15
Proposed Enforcement
A primary goal of the proposed ordinance is to create the regulatory framework and tools
needed to increase effective enforcement against illegal short-term rentals. It introduces a
number of prohibitions that do not exist today and allows for an array of tools to be used in
enforcing the law. Today, successful enforcement is significantly hampered because nearly all
short-term rentals and home -sharing activities violate existing codes. The proposed ordinance
allows enforcement agencies to draw a clearer distinction between "bad actors" and legitimate,
beneficial home -sharing.
A critical provision of the ordinance requires the registration number to be provided on each
piece of advertising. This enables the City and the public to easily determine whether a
listing/rental is approved or not.
The City's enforcement agencies can then use information systems to track listings without
registration numbers or those exceeding the annual limit on rental activity and link violations to
each property. Enforcement of minor penalties could occur using the enforcement agency's
existing processes, or new tools such as the Administrative Citation Enforcement (ACE)
program could be used to "write tickets" on listing infractions. Repeated or egregious violations
could result in the modification or revocation of a home -sharing registration in the manner
prescribed in the Administrative Nuisance Abatement program Section 12.27.1. This process
allows for a due process and quasi -public hearing with a Zoning Administrator, if requested.
However, there are several barriers to enforcement. First, unless there has been a complaint
against a specific property, it is difficult to determine the address from an illegal online listing
alone (unless it includes a registration number). Second, it is not clear who exactly is
responsible for the rental, usually either the property owner or a tenant. Third, compliance with
limits on the number of days permitted to be rented for short-term use each year are difficult to
verify. Fourth, it will take significant resources and coordination to do the type of pro -active
enforcement of online listings that is envisioned to be needed under the ordinance. In such
scenarios, the City lacks an easy and direct method for determining if a listing is legitimate, who
is responsible and whether a complaint's allegations of short term rental violations at a specific
address correspond to listings on a platform. According to other cities, hosting platforms have
generally not been very cooperative without legal and/or regulatory consequences.
To address these critical issues, the ordinance proposes a system whereby platforms must
verify compliance with the registration requirements by actively preventing or canceling any non -
permitted listings, particularly those that can be easily identified (such as those without
registration numbers). This requirement is similar to what Portland and Santa Monica have
currently, as well as what Seattle and San Francisco are currently proposing. The ordinance
also lays out a system whereby the City will request information on particular listings believed to
be non-compliant, from hosting platforms, which must then either provide contact information or
directly contact the hosts regarding the potential violation. In addition, the ordinance requires
monthly reporting of short-term rental activity on each Platform, including address, registration
number and the number of nights booked during the period. Therefore, the City will be able to
track properties across platforms to prevent non-compliance on the 120 day provision. Hosts
are also required to maintain records for three years of nightly bookings, which are available for
viewing, upon request of the Office of Finance. If it is suspected that a host is renting for more
than the allotted 120 days, then these records could be requested. The City can then
immediately assess tax and penalties based on known violations. Much of this framework is
based on existing Transient Occupancy Tax regulations on transient operators, as found in
Article 1.7 of the LAMC.
D-55
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA A-16
In addition to the provisions in the ordinance, the Department proposes an administrative
system whereby:
• Upon enactment of this ordinance, the City (or a qualified consultant) shall begin to
actively monitor hosting platform listings to ensure that they are only listing home -
sharing units that have registered with the City.
• The City (or qualified consultant) shall complete a comprehensive review of active
Platform listings and produce an inventory of potentially non-compliant listings
discovered during the review
• Subsequent reviews of hosting platforms shall occur at least quarterly
• The City shall, upon completion of a hosting platform review or discovery of a potentially
non-compliant listing, immediately provide notice by electronic mail of all listings that do
not have valid registration number or are otherwise not in compliance with this Chapter.
These notices shall also be provided to property owners and the Office of City Attorney.
• For each listing that a hosting platform fails to provide with the requested information
within 21 City business days of the notice being sent by the City, the hosting platform
shall be subject to the administrative penalties and enforcement provisions of this
Chapter, including but not limited to payment of civil penalties of up to $1,000 per day
until the hosting platform complies with subsection (Q)(2).
Because of the nature of short-term rentals, the ordinance envisions a new way for the public to
contact the City regarding potentially illegal short-term rentals - likely a dedicated email
monitored by short-term rental enforcement staff who will be able to take the appropriate follow-
up steps to verify compliance. This will allow the complaint process to be more easily integrated
with the registration database. Residents who are disturbed by illegal listings will also continue
to be able to utilize the existing channels, including using 311 or the enforcement agency's code
enforcement system (online and phone).
Finally, it is worth noting that education is probably the easiest, cheapest and least adversarial
way to increase compliance. The City plans to work with platforms to making sure they are
partners in getting the word out on the new regulations.
Private Right of Action
Many opponents of short-term rentals have commented that, if a home -sharing ordinance is to
pass, it should include a "private right of action," which refers to someone's legal ability to
enforce statute's provisions through litigation. A private right of action can only be used when
language is included in a statute. In practice, the right would allow neighbors to sue other
neighbors for violations of the proposed ordinance. San Francisco's short-term rental law
includes a limited private right of action, only available to certain housing -related non -profits,
and only when the City has been documented as being unable to enforce the existing laws.
However, a right of private action would be unprecedented in the City of Los Angeles' zoning
code, and an existing remedy is already in place under the Professional Business Practices
code, which allows one to take action when one is actually harmed by an illegal/nuisance land
use. The Department recommends that this issue be revisited in a year's time, only if City
enforcement has proven to be ineffective.
D-56
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
General Plan/Charter Findings
P-1
City Charter Section 556
In accordance with Charter Section 556, the proposed ordinance is in substantial conformance
with the purpose, intent and provisions of the General Plan in that it would further accomplish the
following goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan outlined below.
General Plan Framework Findings
The proposed ordinance will meet the intent and purposes of the General Plan Framework
Element to encourage the creation of housing opportunities for households of all types and
income levels, while at the same time preserving the existing residential neighborhood stability
of residentially zoned neighborhoods. Home -sharing, as an accessory use to primary
residences, furthers those goals as they increase the utilization of empty space within homes to
assist with housing costs without significantly changing neighborhood character. In particular,
the ordinance would further the intent and purpose of the Framework Element of the following
relevant Goals and Objectives:
The proposed ordinance is consistent with Land Use Goal LU -4, which seeks to preserve and
enhance the residential character of existing neighborhoods, and furthers Land Use Policy LU -
4.2, which seeks to create convenient supporting services and alternative residential types
when they meet standards for development that protect neighborhood character.
The ordinance requires that home -sharing only occur in structures approved for residential use.
Allowing for limited short-term accommodation of guests as an accessory use to dwelling units
is an activity that is incidental and accessory to the primary residential use. Residents have
always hosted guests from out of town in extra rooms, for short or long term periods. The
charging of rent, in and of itself, is not any different from what occurs in almost one-third of the
City's single-family residential zones, which are currently renter -occupied. In the Los Angeles
Zoning Code, short term rentals of less than 30 days are already permitted through a CUP in
Bed and Breakfast establishments, which may be located in any zone. Other accessory uses,
such as Accessory Living Quarters, already permit the short-term stay of guests in residential
zones.
As the definition states, home -sharing is considered an accessory use to a (primary) residence.
As such, the dwelling unit is already used for sleeping, cooking, eating, and living. The unit may
be considered a residential dwelling regardless of whether its renters are primarily short term or
long term or whether it is vacant most of the time. Granted, short term rentals also have
commercial characteristics in terms of providing lodging for a fee. However, as a fundamentally
residential use, home -sharing is consistent with the General Plan Land Use categories that
allow residential uses within the range of uses.
Housing Element 2013-2021
The ordinance furthers the aim of preserving housing stock (Objective 1.2) through its focus on
new ways to enforce the current bans on vacation rentals, the ban on conversions of units subject
to the RSO to short-term rentals as well as the proposed prohibition on conversions of apartment
buildings to Transient Occupancy Residential Structures. The Housing Element also calls for
amending the zoning code to facilitate innovative housing models to make housing more
affordable, including shared housing and congregate housing (Program 67). The Home -Sharing
ordinance will allow thousands of Angelenos to efficiently use space in their homes to afford the
cost of housing. As such, the ordinance furthers the following Housing Element policies:
D-57
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
P-2
1.1.1 Expand affordable homeownership opportunities and support current homeowners
in retaining their homeowner status.
1.2.1 Facilitate the maintenance of existing housing in decent, safe and healthy condition.
1.2.2 Encourage and incentivize the preservation of affordable housing, including non -
subsidized affordable units, to ensure that demolitions and conversions do not result in
the net loss of the City's stock of decent, safe, healthy or affordable housing.
1.4.1 Streamline the land use entitlement, environmental review, and building permit
processes, while maintaining incentives to create and preserve affordable housing.
City Charter Section 558(b)(2)
In accordance with Charter Section 558(b)(2), the adoption of the proposed ordinance would be
in conformity with public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The
ordinance would align the City with many cities across the country that have recognized the need
for new regulations regarding the fast expanding use of residential spaces for short-term rentals.
Current regulations simply do not differentiate between the sharing of one's own primary
residence (home -sharing) and the conversion or rental of otherwise vacant units for short-term
rental (vacation rental). This needlessly stifles efficient use of residential space and prevents
hosts from sharing their home on occasion to help afford housing cost. The lack of current
regulations specific to this new use also makes enforcement very difficult. A new regulatory
framework is needed to adapt to the sharing economy, including new tools to enforce regulations
against vacation rentals. The ordinance would limit home -sharing to 120 days per year, which
ensures the primary use of any residential structure used for this purpose would remain as a long-
term residential structure (and not transient), thereby protecting residential areas from uses that
are primarily transient in nature.
City Charter Section 559
In accordance with Charter Section 559, and in order to ensure the timely processing of this
ordinance, the City Planning Commission authorizes the Director of Planning to approve or
disapprove for the Commission any modification to the subject ordinance as deemed necessary
by the Office of City Attorney. In exercising that authority, the Director must make the same
findings as would have been required for the City Planning Commission to act on the same matter.
The Director's action under this authority shall be subject to the same time limits and shall have
the same effect as if the City Planning Commission had acted directly.
CEQA Findin s
The proposed ordinance qualifies under the "common sense" CEQA exemption pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and 15060(c)(2), which provides that, where it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment, the project is not subject to CEQA. CEQA only applies to projects that have the
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment - either through a direct impact or
reasonably, foreseeable indirect impact. The proposed ordinance does not have that possibility.
Direct impacts of the ordinance on the environment will be minor. It is not expected to prompt
any new development or direct physical effects. The expected result of the ordinance is fewer
intensive short-term rental operations in vacation rentals compared to what currently exists in
the City, along with better regulations governing the sharing of one's own home for short-term
rentals. Both results are unlikely to create a foreseeable physical impact on the environment as
total tourist trips to the City of Los Angeles are not expected to change noticeably as a result of
the ordinance. A more complete analysis of the potential impact of the ordinance on the
environment is included as Exhibit B.
i
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
P-3
As set forth above, the City believes the "common sense" exemption is most appropriate for this
project. However, in case there is a challenge to this project and a court disagrees, the City has
prepared a Negative Declaration for this project (Exhibit B.2).
There has been an exceptional amount of public input and communications on this issue,
including prior to the proposed ordinance being drafted. Three "community listening sessions"
were held in Mar Vista, North Hollywood and the downtown area in late September and early
October 2015. Approximately 600-700 persons showed up to the three meetings, which
featured a brief staff presentation and the opportunity to provide written or oral comments on the
topic. The Department also provided boards for attendees to mark their support or disagreement
for about 20 regulatory ideas other cities have used in regulating short-term rentals.
The majority of speakers at the listening sessions were "hosts" currently engaged in home -
sharing, who spoke about their positive experiences. Many credited short-term rental income
with providing meaningful assistance during difficult financial times or otherwise having a
positive impact on their lives. They stated that the practice enhances local economic
development, can help the City with needed revenues and poses little to no impact on their
neighborhoods. On the other hand, the City heard testimony about lives and communities who
have been negatively impacted by short-term rentals. Neighbors expressed concern about
commercial activities and nuisance in residential areas as well as the loss of housing stock.
Issues regarding safety in multiple -family buildings, over -concentration of units and "party
houses" were other frequent complaints.
Also during this early period, the Department also distributed a brief questionnaire to
neighborhood groups, interested parties and meeting attendees. The questionnaire attempted to
gauge public attitudes towards short-term rentals as well ask about several specific regulatory
approaches. Approximately 1,300 responses were received in just over two weeks.
While in the process of drafting the ordinance, the Department met with groups opposed to, and
in favor of, short-term rentals, including community organizations, representatives of several
hosting platforms and hotel and tourism organizations. Staff also researched the regulations and
experiences of many other comparable cities, spoke to key experts in different cities and
consulted various academic reports and studies that have been published in the past year.
The proposed ordinance was released on April 15, 2016. More than 2000 written and oral
responses have been received in response to the draft, including comments received at the May
21, 2016 staff public hearing. The public hearing featured 289 speakers, including
approximately 43 generally supportive and 41 (largely hosts) with concerns. The majority are
from hosts with concerns about some of the limitations (mostly the 90 day limit and the ability to
rent more than one space at a time), privacy, and ease of registration. The second largest
number of comments came from those who prefer the practice to remain unpermitted. The third
largest grouping came from supporters of the ordinance, which included many community and
nonprofit organizations concerned about the impacts of unregulated short-term rentals. The
remainder came from neighborhood council or other groups/individuals with suggestions to
improve the ordinance. The main issues mentioned in the public comment period are discussed
individually in the Key Issues section.
D-59
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
Changes from the April 15th draft ordinance to the proposed June 14t' ordinance (Exhibit
A)
Significant changes from the April 15th draft ordinance are listed below for the public. Please
also consult the tracked change version of the proposed ordinance in Exhibit A.
1. Clarifies that notwithstanding any code provision to the contrary, home -sharing shall be
permitted in accordance with the ordinance 12.22 A.31 (c)(2)(b)
2. Clarifies that a major purpose of the ordinance is to protect housing stock
3. Clarifies that home -sharing may occur in a structure approved for residential use.
4. Clarifies that properties converted from units subject to the RSO ordinance to single
family homes are not eligible until five years after the conversion.
5. States that, to the extent permitted by law, the records submitted by hosts and hosting
platforms per certain provisions, shall be redacted to protect personal information.
6. Adds that if any property has an open Order to Comply as a result of code violations,
home -sharing cannot occur until it has been resolved.
7. Increases the number of days hosts are able to operate Home -Sharing rentals during the
year was from 90 to 120.
8. Clarifies that hosting platforms assume the same duties and liabilities as the Host when
it is assigned the functions or responsibilities regarding the collection and remittance of
the Transient Occupancy Tax.
9. Clarifies it is not a violation for hosts to maintain more than one listing at any given time
(however they may not be booked at the same time).
10. Ensures that the regulations and terminology used by the proposed ordinance (Host,
Home -Sharing and Hosting Platform) are in accordance with the Transient Occupancy
Tax code (Article 1.7 of the LAMC)
11. Clarifies that certain hosting platform responsibilities for sharing information are
dependent upon being designated a secondary operator pursuant to Article 1.7 of the
LAMC .
12. Changes from 100% to 95% the percentage of TOT attributable to short-term rental that
would accrue to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
13. Additional minor technical or clarification changes
Next Steps
The scope and breadth of the City's activities regarding short-term rentals and home -sharing
cannot be distilled solely in an ordinance. To be a successful policy, the Department
recommends that the following additional steps be implemented within the next year:
• Establish registration protocols and administrative guidelines
• Begin education campaign regarding the ordinance with public, preferably in
cooperation with the hosting platforms
• Establish proactive enforcement program, either through third party consultants
or staffing
• Evaluate the program and return to the City Planning Commission and Council
with any adjustments necessary to ensure the success of the program.
EXHIBIT A:
Proposed Ordinance
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
June 23, 2016
D-61
Exhibit A — CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
Page 1 — 6/14/16
ORDINANCE NO.
An ordinance amending Sections 12.03, 12.22, 12.24, 19.01 and 21.7.2 of the Los Angeles
Municipal Code; and amending Section 5.522 of the Charter and Administrative Code, imposing
regulations to permit sharing of one's primary residence as a short-term rental, establishing an
application fee and administrative fines for Home -Sharing, and directing Transient Occupancy
Taxes derived from Home -Sharing to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The definition of Accessory Use in Section 12.03 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is
amended to include:
The use of a Primary Residence for the purposes of Home -Sharing shall be considered
accessory to a residential use.
Section 2. The definition of Home -Sharing is added to Section 12.03 of the Los Angeles Municipal
Code to read:
HOME -SHARING. An accessory use of a Host's Primary Residence for the purposes of
providing temporary lodging, for compensation, for periods of 30 consecutive days or less.
Section 3. Section 12.22 A of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is added to read as follows:
31. Home -Sharing. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article to the contrary, and in all
zones wherein residential uses are permitted by right, the following shall apply:
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this Subdivision is to allow for the efficient use and sharing
of residential structures without detracting from residential character or the City's housing
stock.
(b) Definitions. When words are capitalized in this Subdivision they refer to defined terms
in the Municipal Code, including this section as well as 12.03, 21.7.2 and 151.02. For the
purposes of this Subdivision, the following words and phrases are defined:
(1) HOME -SHARING HOSTING PLATFORM. An entity that facilitates Home -Sharing
through advertising, match -making or any other means and from which the Platform
derives revenues, including, but not limited to, booking fees or advertising revenues,
from providing or maintaining the marketplace.
(2) HOST. An individual who has the legal right to rent his/her Primary Residence for
Home -Sharing under this Subdivision.
D-62
Page 2 ® 6/14/16
(3) PRIMARY RESIDENCE The sole property on which the Host conducts Home -
Sharing and in which the Host resides at least 6 months of the year.
(c) Home -Sharing Registration
(1) Application. To register for Home -Sharing, a Host shall file an application with the
Department of City Planning on a form provided by the Department, and shall
include all information required by the instructions on the application and the
guidelines adopted by the Director of Planning. Any filing fees required under
Section 19.01 E. shall be included with the application. Beyond basic information
needed to verify the identification of the Host and his or her Primary Residence, the
application shall also include information for a local responsible contact person, a
list of all Hosting Platforms to be used and the portion of the unit to be used for
Home -Sharing.
(2) Eligibility Requirements: The following requirements must be met at the time of
Home -Sharing registration:
(a) The Host must obtain a Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate from
the Office of Finance.
(b) Home -Sharing may only be authorized and take place in the Primary
Residence approved for residential use.
(c) Renters or lessees of units may not engage in Home -Sharing without prior
written approval by the Landlord. If a renter or owner is subject to the rules
of a lease agreement, homeowner's or condo association, or any other legal
contract, allowance to engage in Home -Sharing through this subsection shall
not be inferred to grant any permission that invalidates provisions in those
documents.
(d) Renters of units subject to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance may not engage
in Home -Sharing.
(e) Any multi -unit buildings, used for Home -Sharing, shall not have any open
Orders to Comply or any other code violation that is the subject of
enforcement or criminal proceedings, unless the violation is completely
unrelated to the safety or habitability of the space being used for Home -
Sharing, as determined by the agency which issued the order.
(f) No Person may apply for, or obtain, more than one Home -Sharing
registration, or otherwise operate more than one Home -Sharing unit or guest
room, in the City of Los Angeles.
(3) Expiration and Renewal. A Home -Sharing registration is valid for a maximum of
two years from the date of issuance. It may not be transferred and is valid only at
the original Home -Sharing site. A Home -Sharing registration may be renewed bi-
annually if the Host meets the renewal requirements including: (1) pays the renewal
D-63 2
i.
Page 6/14/16
fee; (2) is deemed to have been in substantial conformance with the provisions of
this Subdivision for the past two years; (3) documents and provides any changes
that have occurred to the information on the current Home -Sharing application; and
4) submits Home -Sharing records described in Subsection (e) 2 for the last two
years to demonstrate compliance with this Subdivision as part of the renewal. These
records will not be made public. Without a renewal application submitted within 2
years to the date of the issuance of the Home -Sharing registration, or prior renewal,
a registration is considered null and void.
(4) Suspensions and Revocations. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code
to the contrary, the Director may require the modification, discontinuance or
revocation of Home -Sharing approval if it is found that violations of this section have
occurred, in addition to any other city, state, or federal regulation, ordinance or
statute. Home -Sharing may not occur while an Order to Comply issued by an
enforcement agency remains open. Otherwise, the Director shall give notice to the
record owner and lessee(s) of the real property affected to appear at a public
hearing at a time and place fixed by the Director and show cause why the Home -
Sharing approval should not be modified, discontinued, or revoked pursuant to
section 12.27.1 (B). If a registration is revoked, the Host must wait at least three
years before they can apply and/or register for Home -Sharing again.
(d) Prohibitions.
(1) No Person shall advertise, undertake, maintain, authorize, book or facilitate any
renting to Transient guests in a manner that does not comply with this Subdivision.
(2) No Person shall advertise any Home -Sharing activity without a City issued Home -
Sharing registration number included on a visible location on the advertisement.
(3) No Person shall operate Home -Sharing for more than 120 days each calendar year.
(4) A second dwelling unit on a single-family zoned lot may not be used for Home -
Sharing, unless it is the Primary Residence of a Host.
(5) No Person shall offer or engage in Home -Sharing in any part of the property not
approved for residential use, including but not limited to, a vehicle parked on the
property, a storage shed, recreation room, trailer or garage or any temporary
structure like a tent.
(6) A Host may maintain multiple listings on a Hosting Platform, however, only one
listing may be booked at any given time.
(7) A Host may not rent all or a portion of his home for the purposes of Home -Sharing
to more than one group of guests, under more than one booking, at any given time.
(8) Home -Sharing is not permitted in units that are subject to affordable housing
covenants, are in units subject to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance, and/or are
income -restricted under City, state, or federal law.
3
(9) Properties that are converted from units subject to the RSO ordinance to single
family homes are not eligible for Home -Sharing until five years after the property
has been converted to the single family home.
(10) Non-residential uses shall not be permitted, including but not limited to, sales or
exchange of products, events that charge a fee, or the promotion, display or
servicing of any product is conducted on the premises.
(11) No Persons shall advertise Home -Sharing on a Hosting Platform not included on
the Home -Sharing registration form without prior noticing of the Department of City
Planning and amending of the Home -Sharing application form.
(e) Host Requirements
(1) A Host shall be responsible for any nuisance violations, as described in LAMC
section 12.27.1.13, arising at a property during Home -Sharing activities.
(2) The Host shall keep and preserve, for a period of three years, all records as may be
necessary to determine the amount of such tax as he may have been liable for the
collection of and payment to the City, including the number and length of each
Home -Sharing stay, and the price paid for each stay. The Office of Finance shall
have the right to inspect these records at all reasonable times. Hosts shall provide
a copy of the records from the last two years to the Department of City Planning at
the time of renewing the Home -Sharing registration.
(3) The Host shall fully comply with all the requirements of LAMC Article 1.7 (Transient
Occupancy Tax) and successor sections.
(4) A Host shall provide and maintain fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, carbon
monoxide detectors and information related to emergency exit routes and
emergency contact information.
(f) Hosting Platform Requirements.
(1) Actively prevent, remove and cancel any illegal listings and bookings of short term
rentals including where a listing has been offered: without a Home -Sharing
registration number; by a Host who has more than one listing in the City of Los
Angeles; or, for a rental unit that exceeds 120 days in a calendar year.
(2) In cases where advertisements appear on Hosting Platforms that are not in
compliance with this Subdivision, work with the Department of City Planning to
identify contact information and investigate and resolve any violations. This includes
contacting the alleged violator, particularly in cases where the City is unable to
locate them, and instructing them to apply for Home -Sharing. If the Home -Sharing
registration is not applied for within 21 days of the notice, the listing shall be
removed from the Hosting Platform.
(3) Provide to the Department of City Planning, within 45 days of the effective date of
this Ordinance, contact information for an employee or representative that will
respond to requests for information or verification of violations of this section.
Hosting Platforms established after the effective date, provide this information prior
to facilitating Home -Sharing or renting to Transient guests.
11
D-65
t + 1
Page 5 — 6/14/16
(4) Provide to the Department of City Planning and Office of Finance, on a monthly
basis, a log in an electronic format, including the Home -Sharing registration number,
address of all sites maintained, authorized, facilitated or advertised by the Hosting
Platform for Transient use during the period, the total number of nights that the
residential unit was occupied during the period and the amounts paid for each stay.
If the Hosting Platform does not have the technical capability to collect such
information, it shall provide written documentation to the City of Los Angeles within
75 days of adoption of this Ordinance that it either does not participate in the
booking of Home -Sharing or provide alternative methods to comply with the intent of
this provision, to the satisfaction of the Department of City Planning. This
information will not be made publicly available.
(5) If a Host assigns its functions or responsibilities regarding the collection and
remittance of the Transient Occupancy Tax to a Hosting Platform, the Platform and
the Host shall have the same duties and liabilities as the Host, including but not
limited to the collection and remittance of the tax to the City on a monthly basis.
(g) Enforcement of Violations. Any Person violating this Subdivision shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and or civil remedies provided for by this code, at law or in equity, or any
combination of these.
(1) The provisions in this subsection shall be in addition to any criminal, civil or other
legal remedy established by law that may be pursued to address violations of this
Subdivision. The selection of the appropriate remedies lies within the sole discretion
of the issuing Department and, as applicable, by the City Attorney, and shall be
consistent with the purpose and intent of this Article.
(2) Any person who has failed to comply with the provisions of this Subdivision may be
subject to the provisions of Section 11.00 of this Code. The Owner of the property in
violation may be assessed a minimum inspection fee, as specified in Section 98.0412
of this Code for each site inspection.
(3) The Administrative Citation Enforcement (ACE) program in Article 1.2 of this
Chapter may be utilized to issue administrative citations and fines pursuant to this
section.
(4) The Director may require the modification, discontinuance, or revocation of any
Home -Sharing registration in the manner prescribed in the Administrative Nuisance
Abatement program Section 12.27.1
(5) The Director shall have the authority to prescribe additional conditions and
standards of operation for any Home -Sharing that may require additional conditions
to avoid nuisance conditions or violations of this section.
(6) Violation or failure to comply shall constitute a violation of this chapter and shall be
subject to the same penalties as any other violation of this chapter, except as
follows:
a. Hosting Platform
1. $500 Fine per day for advertising a listing in violation of this Section,
including but not limited to listings without a City Home -Sharing
D-66 5
1 0
Page 6 — 6/14/16
registration number, multiple listings across more than one property
by the same Host or, a listing where the Host's home address does
not match the listing location, and any listings rented for more than
120 days a calendar year.
2. $1,000 Fine per day on any refusal to provide the addresses of un-
registered short term rentals to the City.
3. $1000 Fine per day on any refusal to submit monthly documents
required for City to verify the accuracy of the City's Transient
Occupancy Tax.
b. Property Owner and/or Host
1. A minimum $200 Fine, or two times the nightly Rent charged,
whichever is greater, per day, for advertising a residence for the
purposes of Home -Sharing without compliance with this Subdivision.
2. $2,000 Fine per day for Home -Sharing beyond the 120 day limit in a
year.
3. For the purposes of establishing an Administrative Violation under
the Administrative Citation Enforcement program for the Transient
use of buildings, structures, or land for which approval are required
but were not obtained, the Administrative Fine levied shall be in the
amounts described in LAMC section 11.2.04 (a)(2). If no approval
could have been obtained and no variance was sought, the
Administrative Fine levied shall be at four times (4x) the amounts in
that section. The square footage for the use in violation shall be the
amount of indoor space to which the Transient guests have access.
If the square footage is unable to be ascertained, it shall be assumed
to be between 500 and 2,500 square feet.
(h) Administration and Regulations. City Departments and Agencies may promulgate
regulations, which may include but are not limited to application requirements,
interpretations, conditions, reporting requirements, enforcement procedures, and disclosure
requirements, to implement the provisions of this Chapter. No Person shall fail to comply
with any such regulation.
(FROM THIS POINT FORWARD ALL UNDERLINED TEXT IS NEW CODE AND CTRIKEG TIS
DELETED)
Section 4. Section 12.24 to read as follows:
W. Authority of the Zoning Administrator for Conditional Uses/initial Decision.
D-67 6
Page 6/14/16
(a) Hotels (including motels), apartment hotels, transient occupancy residential structures,
or hostels in the CR, C1, C1.5, C2, C4, and C5 Zones when any portion of a structure
proposed to be used as a hotel (including a motel), apartment hotel, transient occupancy
residential structure or hostel is located within 500 feet of any A or R Zone. Approval of a
conversion from another residential use to a Transient Occupancy Residential Structure
under this paragraph shall not be permitted.
(b) Hotels (including motels), apartment hotels, transient occupancy residential structures
or hostels, in the M1, M2 and M3 Zones when more than half of the lot on which the use is
located is in the CR, C1, C1.5, C2, C4, C5 or CM Zones. In approving a request for a use
in the M1, M2 and M3 Zones, the Zoning Administrator, in addition to the findings otherwise
required by this section, shall also find that approval will not displace viable industrial uses.
Approval of a conversion from another residential use to a Transient Occupancy
Residential Structure under this paragraph shall not be permitted.
(c) Hotels, motels, apartment hotels, transient occupancy residential structures and hotels
in the R4 or R5 Zones, unless expressly permitted by Sections 12.11 or 12.12. In the R5
Zone, incidental business may be conducted, but only as a service to persons living there,
and provided that the business is conducted within the main building, that the entrance to
the business is from the inside of the building and that no sign advertising the business is
visible from outside the building. If the proposed use is to be established by the conversion
of an existing residential use; then a relocation assistance plan shall be drawn up and
approved in a manner consistent with Section 12.95.2G. Approval of a conversion_ from
another residential use to a Transient Occupancy Residential Structure under this
paragraph shall not be permitted.
Section 5. Section 19.01, Section P is amended and Section Z of is added to read:
P. Modifications or Discontinuance of Use Pursuant to Nuisance Abatement Proceedings.
[FILING FEE]
Type of Application
Fee
Home -Sharing Administrative Hearing
TBD
Z Home -Sharing Registration Application Fee.
7
Type of Application
Fee
Home -Sharing Application
(Section 12.22)
TBD
Section 6: Section 21.7.2 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
Except where the context otherwise requires, the definitions given in this section govern the
construction of this article.
(b) Hotel. "Hotel' means any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or
intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and
includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, Home -Sharing, motel, studio, hotel, bachelor hotel,
lodging house, rooming house, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, or other similar
structure or portion thereof, and shall further include any trailer court, camp, park or lot where
trailer spaces, or combinations of such spaces and trailers, including mobile homes, are occupied
or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes.
(f) Operator. (Amended by Ord. No. 176,005, Eff. 7/7/04.) "Operator" means the person who
is either the proprietor of the hotel or any other person who has the right to rent rooms within the
hotel, whether in the capacity of owner, lessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee or any other
capacity. The owner or proprietor who is primarily responsible for operation of the hotel shall be
deemed to be the principal operator. If the principal operator performs or assigns its functions, in
whole or in part, through a managing agent, a booking agent, a room seller or room reseller, or any
other agent or contractee, including but not limited to Hosting Platforms, on-line room sellers, on-line
room resellers, and on-line travel agents, of any type or character other than an employee, those
persons shall be deemed to be secondary operators.
Section 7. Chapter 122 of the Administrative Code is amended to read as follows:
1, -
(h) Ninety-five percent of transient occupancy taxes equal to the amount which would be
derived from a transient occupancy tax received by the City, which are attributable to any Transient
use other than a hotel, motel, apartment hotel or hostel, shall be placed in the fund.
EXHIBIT B:
Environmental Clearance
131: Statutory Exemptiorl
132: Negative Declaratiol
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
June 23, 2016
D-7
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
Exhibit B.1 — Statutory Exemption — 6/14/16
CPC -2016 -1243 -CPC
Project Description
An ordinance amending Sections 12.03, 12.22, 12.24, 19.01 and 21.7.2 of the Los Angeles
Municipal Code; and amending Section 5.522 of the Charter and Administrative Code, imposi
application fee and administrative fines for Home -Sharing, and diracting Transient Occupancy
Taxes derived from Home -Sharing to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. I
Summary
The proposed ordinance qualifies under the "common sense" CEQA exemption pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3) and 15060(c)(2), which provides that, where it can be
ojlect iv�% eYect owvAg
Direct impacts of the ordinance on the environment will be minor as it is not expected to spur
any new development or direct physical effects. The City reasonably expects that
implementation of the ordinance will result in fewer primary residences being offered for short-
term rentals compared to what currently exists in the City, and better regulation of the activity of
sharing certain primary residences for short-term rentals. Both results are unlikely to create a
foreseeable physical impact on the environment.
Current Environment
For the purpose of CEQA, the analysis of potential environmental impacts from a "project" is
based upon a comparison of the potential impacts of a project with the baseline. The baseline
is generally the existing conditions at the time the City commences the environmental review of
the project (CEQA Guidelines, section 15125(a)). This is the case even when the existing
conditions are the result of prior illegal activities, including of zoning and building code violations
(See Riverwatch v. County of San Diego (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1452-1453, Citizens for
East Shore Park v. State Lands Commission (2011) 202 Cal.App.41h 549, 559-560.).
Short-term rentals have a strong and fast-growing presence in many neighborhoods of the City,
despite their current illegality in all but a few cases (legal Bed and Breakfasts or Transient
Occupancy Residential Structures). The staff report cites two recent estimates that have put the
total market at about 20,000 active short-term rental listings in the City. The figure has been
increasing fast over the last few years (likely doubling every 12-16 months).
----------
v3wr Of"Urm IINZ-1m
platform facilitating short-term rentals in the City. Based on a Department analysis of a "data
D-72
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
Exhibit B.1 — Statutory Exemption — 6/14/16
scrape" of Airbnb information for the City in late 2015, roughly 15% of Airbnb users rent their
units for more than 120 days a year, nearly 40% of hosts have multiple listings and almost 60%
of listings are of whole units. More recently Airbnb released figures that show 84% of Airbnb
hosts in Los Angeles are sharing their permanent home, and the typical Airbnb listing in Los
Angeles is rented 62 nights per year. Over 560,000 total guests stayed with Airbnb hosts in Los
Angeles in 2015, with an average number of 2.2 guests per trip and an average length of stay of
4.5 days. These figures likely represent about 65% of the total short-term rental market.
Proposed Ordinance
The proposed ordinance includes new regulations to enable the legalization of a portion of the
short-term rentals already in existence. In addition, the short-term rentals permitted by this
ordinance will be subject to an enhanced regulatory environment. As set forth in the staff report,
the ordinance includes the following key provisions:
1. All short-term rentals must be registered with the City.
2. Only primary residences may be shared as short-term rentals.
3. Primary residences that are subject to the City's Rent Stabilization Ordinance are
prohibited as shared short-term rentals. 120
4. No primary residence may be shared as a short-term rental for more than
days per year. prohibited.
5. Full-time vacation rentals are pro
In addition, the ordinance includes additional enforcement tools and resources, including setting
aside 5% of the anticipated revenue from the Transient occupancy Tax (likely to be at least
$500,000 per year), which could be used to enforce the provisions of the ordinance'. (see the
Enforcement section in the staff report).
Analysis
The city's analysis shows, consistent with other studies that many of the short-term rental
listings are for shared housing or part-time single -listings. However, the greatest amount of
short-term rental activity (or total bookings) involve the full-time rental of entire single family
residences (i.e. vacation rentals.) Fully 35% of Airbnb revenues are from hosts with multiple
listings entire single family residences. While reliable numeric break -downs according to the
ordinance's provisions are not available, it appears the ordinance would have its greatest impact
on the more active and intensively used listings, specifically the full-time "short-term" rental of
single family residences as vacation rentals.
Stays in residential short-term rentals may occur at the expense of occupancies at typical
hotels, motels and bed and breakfasts. Therefore any change to the regulatory environment
must consider the impact on hotel and motel occupancy rates. The best research the City has
located regarding the relationship between hotels and Airbnb is based on a study of Austin, TX
While the study found a significant relationship between hotel revenues and Airbnb, it found a
Final decisions on year-to-year funding are made by the City Council separate from this ordinance.
D-73
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
Exhibit B.1 — Statutory Exemption — 6/14/16
near -zero impact on occupancy rates, which is more relevant for assessing environmental
impacts. Specifically, the study found that a 10% increase in Airbnb listings is associated with a
.0005 percent decrease in hotel occupancy rates. This is in line with current information in Los
Angeles, where demand for hotel rooms has increased significantly in recent years, despite the
ascendance of short-term rentals. Given this, if a 2040% reduction in short-term activity were
to occur, as is reasonably be estimated, changes in hotel occupancy rates would barely register
(an estimated .001-.002 percent increase). This .001 to .002 percent projected increase
compares to an increase in occupancy rate of about 4.7% recorded in Los Angeles County
through March 2016. Based on the current number of 2.6 million nights booked in hotel rooms in
the Los Angeles -Long Beach region2, this would equate to an increase of between 2,600 and
5,200 guest stays in hotel rooms per year. The impacts on hotels are thereby considered
negligible.
In the longer run, Airbnb may be seen to also affect the hotel industry's investment decisions.
However, the opposite has appeared to be true. Currently, during a time of rapid increase in
short-term rentals, hotel development is undergoing a significant increase. In January 2016, the
Los Angeles Tourism and Convention Board reported that approximately 14,650 new rooms in
development in 83 hotels were under development. Given past behavior of the hotel industry in
constructing a significant number of hotels during a time when short-term rentals have been fast
increasing, the ordinance is not likely to influence decisions on whether to construct a new hotel
or not. The increase in hotel development will help more than absorb the largely insignificant
increase in hotel occupancy rates associated with the ordinance.
One way to get a better sense of potential effects is to look at the results in a city that adopted
similar regulations. Santa Monica passed an ordinance about a year ago that features important
similarities to the proposed ordinance - in terms of requiring registration numbers, placing
responsibility on both hosts and platforms to enforce the law. Total short-term listings in the city
are believed to have dropped from about 1,400 listings to less than 1,000 in the course of about
a year's time (a decline of 30%) The reduction of online listings in Santa Monica is due in large
part to the staff resources devoted to pro -active enforcement. The proposed ordinance
contemplates the availability of TOT resources (five percent of the total derived from short-term
rentals) to hire a team of staff persons and/or invest in a technological solution. However, any
final decision on expenditure of resources will be taken by the City Council in the future.
Today, there is very little effective enforcement against short-term rentals, most of whom are
believed to be operating in violation of current zoning regulations. Therefore, if someone is
interested in renting out residential space on an online hosting platform, they are unlikely to wait
until a new regulatory system is put in place to engage in such activities. They are already
engaging in short term rental activities.
As such, the proposed ordinance would not likely induce any new short-term rental to take
owners of the few thousand homes that are ineligible for Home -
place. The City expects many
2 Bank of America/Meryll Lynch. Lodging. October 2015. Airbnb: Deep dive with data from AirDNA.
D-74
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
Exhibit B. I — Statutory Exemption — 6/14/11,
Sharing will re-evaluate their choice of renting units as a short-term rental business. Many are
likely to end their activities, leading to a net reduction in short-term rental activity. Any reduction
in short-term rental activity is likely to reduce any environmental impacts from a CEQA point of
view.
At the more local level, the impact on the residential environment is also likely to be minimal
regardless of the exact magnitude of y With the regulations set forth by the Home -
Sharing ordinance, the operation of Home -Sharing uses would be similar to the operation of
regular occupied home in any residential neighborhood. In fact, often times a bedroom or unit
being used exclusively for short-term rental is likely to be used less intensely than a full-time,
long-term occupied bedroom or unit. However, in other cases, spaces used for short-term
rentals would be vacant. Again, countervailing trends are likely to balance out.
Given the credible evidence currently available, it appears reasonable to believe that the growth
rates of short-term rentals will slow considerably and that the number of short-term rentals
should decline from the current level. However, noticeable change to the physical environment
is not likely not occur either way. If short-term rentals drop, some percentage of long-term rental
may increase and vice -versa (in addition to the projected slight increase in hotel room stays). In
the end the balance of forces - likely fewer short-term rental usage versus potentially higher
impacts associated with some amount of reversion to long-term rental uses - is likely to roughly
balance out and lead to almost no perceivable environmental impact.
EVALUATION
Summary
The above analysis concludes that short-term rental activity is likely to slow or decline as a
result of the ordinance for the following reasons: (1) the ordinance as currently proposed
permits only residential units used as primary residences to be used as short-term rentals; (2)
ordinance prohibits residential units subject to the City's rent stabilization ordinance from use as
short-term rentals; (3) the ordinance permits an individual or entity to list only one unit or single
family residence as a short-term rental; and (4) the ordinance requires that all short-term rentals
be registered with the City. These regulations will necessarily limit the units available to be
used as short-term rentals and may discourage individuals that are currently listing units or
residences as short-term rentals from continuing to do so because of the registration
requirement and the additional regulations. Reductions in the number of short-term rentals
should be more pronounced in areas with greater concentrations of entire residences that are
listed as short-term rentals. This appears to be in areas with the highest demand, such as
Venice, Hollywood and Silverlake. The proposed ordinance amends Sections 12.03, 12.22 and
12.24 of the zoning code and will be applicable to all parcels in which residential uses are
permitted or currently exist.
Below is a discussion of potential impacts in each environmental topic area. In most case -3
impact areas are not impacted at all, or only tangentially. In cases where there may be a
potential effect, the net result would be minor. As a result, the preliminary study finds no
potential impacts. I
D-75
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
Exhibit B.1 — Statutory Exemption — 6/14/16
fin- rax/i•i itwct of short-term rentals on residentiM
= � 0
Aesthetics
The Home -Sharing ordinance would only affect the use of a residential building and not its
physical shape or size. The analysis of the short-term rental market in Los Angeles indicates
that, if anything, the ordinance is likely to reduce the amount of such activity in Los Angeles.
There should be no more exterior lighting than if not used for home -sharing.
Mitigation Measures: 11%one.
Agriculture & Forestry Resources
The amendment will not result in the loss or conversion of any Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance. No loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non -forest use will occur.
Mitigation Measures: None.
Conclusion: No impact to agricultural resources,
Air Quality
The proposed amendment will not obstruct the implementation of SQAMD plans, nor will it
violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation. As no construction is proposed, it will not result in the cumulative net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment, expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, or create objectionable odors. Any future development and resulting structures would
be subject to the same building and environmental review process that currently exists and
impacts to sensitive receptors and the creation of objectionable odors would be subject to
subsequent environmental review and analyzed during the application process.
Mitigation Measures: None.
Conclusion: No impact to air quality.
Biological Resources
The proposed text amendment will not impact state or federally listed species, riparian habitat,
wetlands, sensitive natural communities, migratory fish or wildlife species, adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Plan, trees, or marine animals. No construction is
proposed as part of this amendment. Future development projects will be subject to subsequent
environmental review and will be evaluated for potential impacts to biological resources.
D-76
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
Exhibit B.1 — statutory Exemption — 6/14/16
Cultural Resources ains to the use of an existing residential property and in no
The proposed amendment only pert
se
way grants approval of physical changes to a structure. Although it may be possible for a
vacation rental permit to be granted for a historic property, any external changes would be
subject to the policies of the City's Historic Preservation Overlay Zone Ordinance or the Cultural
Heritage Ordinance, The Home -Sharing ordinance applies to existing homes in established
residential neighborhoods and would therefore not have the potential to destroy a unique
paleontological resource or disturb any human remains. Future development projects will be
subject to subsequent environmental review and will be evaluated for potential impacts to
cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures: None
Conclusion: No impact to cultural resources.
Geology & Soils would not increase the potential to expose Mort
d failure, or landslides than that oT the e;k4st�at
people to strong seismic ground shaking, groun
ee
single family uses. All homes constructed in the recnt past havrequired soils reports and
foundation plans that respond to the regional soils and potential for ground shaking.
Mitigation Measures: None.
Conclusion: No impact to geology and soils.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions umulative greenhouse gas emissions nor will it
The amendment will not cause an increase in c
conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing
greenhouse gases. Any future structures and uses would be subject to the application review
process that currently exists.
Mitigation Measures: None
Conclusion: No impact to greenhouse gas emissions.
Hazards & Hazardous Materials would not involve the routing or transport, use or
Home -Sharing use of existing single dwellings
disposal of hazardous materials. There are no known residential sites within the City that are
listed on a hazardous materials site. There are no residential sites within the airport land use
plan boundaries in the City. Therefore there is no potential for a vacation rental property to be
located within the airport land use boundary. The proposed uses will have no impact to any
emergency response plan for emergency evacuation plan above that of an existing single family
residence. The potential for wildland fires does not exist as the vacation rental uses will be
conducted only at existing developed residential locations.
Mitigation Measures: None. ous materials.
Conclusion: No impacts to hazards or hazard
D-77
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
Exhibit B.1 — Statutory Exemption — 6114/16
Hydrology & Water Quality s, that have been previously
The Home -Sharing Ordinance affects use of existing structure dy. Therefore, there is
permitted. These residential sites will not affect run-off or surface water bo
no potential for future significant and different impacts on hydrology and water quality. Impacts
on hotels are considered to be negligible.
gation Measures: None.
Conclusion: No impacts to hydrology and water quality
Land Use & Planning
The Home -Sharing Ordinance does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project. General plan and zoning consisten
is addressed in detail in this report. I
gation Measures:41one.
Mineral Resources
The Home -Sharing Ordinance will have no effect on mineral resources locally or regionally,
either in availability or future value. No loss or use of known mineral resources will occur.
Mitigation Measures: None.
Conclusion: No impacts to mineral resources
Noise
The Home -Sharing Ordinance does not expose additional persons to, or generate, excess noise
levels. The ordinance should reduce the number of large vacation rentals often used for parties
and other gatherings in short-term rentals, as these uses are not normally someone's primary
residence. This should reduce exposure or generation of excess noise. The ordinance will also
have a hotline for complaints, which will be able to be used for home -sharing, in the event of
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies. Impacts on hotels are considered to be negligible.
Population & Housing
The Home -Sharing ordinance will not induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly or indirectly. The ordinance would not result in any new development and is likely to
slow or reduce the amount of short-term rental activity in residences. It will not result in the
construction of any new homes or businesses. As such, it will also not result in the net loss of
any existing housing units affordable to very low- or low-income households (as defined by
federal and/or City standards), through demolition, conversion, or other means, The prohibition
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
Exhibit B.1 — Statutory Exemption — 6114/16
on RSO and Transient Occupancy Residential Structures, • top of the proposed •
tools, are •• assurances that greater protections will •` in place.
Mitigation Measures: None.
Conclusion: No impacts to hazards or public services
Public Services
The home -sharing ordinance would not adversely impact response time on any street
intersections with a level of service (LOS) of E or F. The ordinance does not create a net
increase in trips to Los Angeles. Trips may slightly increase in some areas and decrease in
others, but generally commercial areas with hotels are likely to see more activity. Hotels tend to
be located downtown and the LA basin, in general - in areas well -served by freeways and public
transit (and therefore relatively low regional vehicle miles travelled).
•r Measures: None.
6;AA
Recreation
The proposed ordinance would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the family
would occur or be accelerated.
Mitigation Measures: None.
Conclusion: No impacts to recreation
Transportation & Traffic
The ordinance would not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections). As the ordinance is projected to have a negligible to insignificant impact on hotel
occupancy, traffic impacts are also considered to be negligible. The most impacted streets for
short-term rentals in Los Angeles now may have a three to four active listings within a quarter -
mile or so. These are not sufficient numbers to cause a significant diversion or shift in traffic
patterns. Also, as mentioned under public services above, guest stays will be more likely to
occur in areas with low regional vehicles mile travel and better public transportation access than
most residential structures used as vacation rentals.
Utilities & Service Systems
The proposed ordinance will not violate any water or wastewater treatment requirements or
contribute substantially to wastewater generation. As no construction is proposed, it will not
result in a need for new water or wastewater treatment facilities. Any future development and
resulting structures would be subject to the same building and environmental review process
that currently exists. Additionally, as the ordinance will likely result in less short-term rentals, the
utilities and services impacts will likely be lowered.
D-79
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
ExhibitStatutory Exemption — 6/14/16
gation Measures: None.
Conclusion: No impacts to recreation
Based upon the information currently available regarding the current usage of short-term rentals
in the City of Los Angeles and the effect on Santa Monica's short-term rentals after it adopted
an ordinance that includes similar regulations and restrictions as those included in the proposed
ordinance, as well as the other information set forth above, in the staff report related to this
ordinance and the substantial evidence contained in the whole of the record of proceedings, the
City has determined that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption
and enforcement of this ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.
I
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
Exhibit B.2 — Negative Declaration — 6/14/16
Wrlrau
City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES
Home Sharing Ordinance CPC -2016-1
PREVIOUS ACTIONS CASE NO.
COUNCIL DISTRICT DATE
All I June 14, 2016
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
❑ DOES have significant changes from previous actions.
® DOES NOT have significant changes from previous actions.
Home Sharing Ordinance establishes regulatory framework to permit sharing of primary residences.
ENr/IROIdMENTAL SETTING:
City of Los Angeles
PROJECT LOCATION
City of Los Angeles
PLANNING DISTRICT p PRELIMINARY
® PROPOSED un 2016
All ® ADAPTED
EXISTING ZONING MAX. DENSITY ZONING DOES CONFORM TO PLAN
N/A N/A
PLANNED LAND USE & ZONE MAX. DENSITY PLAN p DOES NOT CONFORM TO PLAN
N/A NIA
SURROUNDING LAND USES PROJECT DENSITY 0 NO DISTRICT PLAN
N/A N/A
<70 ❑ DETERMINATION (To be completed by Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
Exhibit B.2—Negative Declaration —0h4/18
rA\find that the proposed project COULD NOT have asignificant effect onthe environment, and mNEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 1 find that although the proposed proje . ct . could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions on the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent.
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
E] I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
0 1 find the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated"
impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
be addressed.
0 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTfIm
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the
a fault rupture zone). A "No impact" answer should be explained where it
project falls outside I the project will not
is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g nalysis).
expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project -specific screening a
2) All answers must take account of . the whole action involved, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less that
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one
or more "Potentially Significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of a mitigation measure has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact"to "Less Than Significant impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analysis," cross referenced).
5) Earlier analysis must be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
Exhibit 13.2 — Negative Declaration — 6/14/16
A,rocess, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR, or negative declaration.
Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuaril
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were
incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated
7) Supporting Information Sources: A sources list should be attached, and other sources used or
1ii.dividuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a
project's environmental effects in whichever format is selected.
65) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected bvthis project, involving at least one
impact that iso"Potentially Significant Impact" oeindicated bythe checklist onthe following pages.
El Aesthetics
0 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
[] Air Quality
[]
Biological Resources
[]
Cultural Resources
0
Geology/Soils
0
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
[]
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
[]
Hydro|ogy8NaterOuaUh/
[]
LandUmo/P|anning
[]
Mineral Resources
[]
Noise
[]
Population/Housing
[]
Public Services
[]
Recreation
[]
Transportation/Traffic
0
Udhden/San/ioe8yatema
0
Mandatory Findings uf Significance
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST (To be completed by the Lead City Agency)
BACKGROUND
kidmuewt A
Los Anaeles Department of Citv Planni
NAME (If Applicable)
Home-Sharin Ordinance
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
Exhibit B.2 — Negative Declaration — 6/14/16
une 14.2016
10601:15
ENV -2015 -1377 -ND
Exhibit 8.2—Negative Declaration —O/14/10
(Explanations of all potentially and less than significant impacts
0"El ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS are required to be attached on separate sheets)
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Potentially with
Significant Mitigation Significant
1. AESTHETICS. Would the
determining whether impacts toagricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer
o. Have msubstantial adverse effect onascenic vista?
tothe California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
E]
�
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
El
Fl
determining whether impacts hoforest resources,
not limited to, traem, rock outcroppings, and historic
including timberland, are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer bzinformation compiled bythe
buildings within o state scenic highway?
regarding the state's inventory offorest land, including the
Forest and Range Assessment Project mndtheFonsat
o. Substantially
F�
��
[�
��
EJ
��
p�
�u
qua|itvofth�eibaanditoaurnJundingm?
quality
the p project: '
a. [�pnvedPrime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
�l �l El
�� ��
Farmland ofStatewide Importance (Farm|and).as
^
d. Create anew source ofnuhetanba|UQhtorglare vvhich
�7 ��
�� ��
F7 ��
��
��
would adversely affect day ornighttime views in the
-
b. ��on8ictvvithexisting zoning for agricultural use, ora
�l
�� �] ��
Williamson Act contract?
area?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, orcause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined inPublic Resources Code
11. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In
determining whether impacts toagricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer
tothe California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model� (1997) prepared by the California
Department ofConservation aaanoptional model touse
inassessing impacts onagriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts hoforest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer bzinformation compiled bythe
California Department ofForestry and Fina Protection
regarding the state's inventory offorest land, including the
Forest and Range Assessment Project mndtheFonsat
Legacy Assessment project; andfoneetoarbon
measurement methodology provided inForest Protocols
adopted bvthe California Air Resources Board, VVnu|d
the p project: '
a. [�pnvedPrime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
�l �l El
�� ��
Farmland ofStatewide Importance (Farm|and).as
shown onthe maps prepared pursuant bothe
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program ofthe
California Resources Ao�noy.t�non-o0huu|tur�iuma?
-
b. ��on8ictvvithexisting zoning for agricultural use, ora
�l
�� �] ��
Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, orcause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined inPublic Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources {�o-wsection 452G).ortimberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined bvGovernment
Code section 51104(g))?
d. R�ukinthe loss mf���land ornom��ionof���
Fl �l
[] �� u u�
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due totheir location or nature, could result in
conversion ofFarmland, tonon-agricultural use or
conversion Qfforest land tnnon-forest use?
0l. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria
established bvthe applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may berelied upon to make
the following determinations. Would the project:
ENV -2010 -1277 -ND
Exhibit B.2- Negative Declaration -8/14/16
e. Conflict with orobstruct implementation of the
Less Than
El Z
Significant
Potentially
with Less Than
Significant
Mitigation Significant
__hIUpayct_-|
{
Fl
��
[� 1:1y�
u u ��
e. Conflict with orobstruct implementation of the
Expose sensitive receptors tosubstantial pollutant
El Z
El
N
applicable air quality plan?
e.
Create objectionable odors affecting asubstantial
b Violate any air quality standard or contribute
El
11
1:1
Z
substantially 0uanexisting wrprojected air quality
El El El 0
through habitat modifications, onany species identified
violation?
oaacandidate, sensitive, orspecial status species in
|moe| or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
o. Result inacumulatively considerable net increase nf
the California Department ofFish and Wildlife or U.S.
El
Z
any criteria pollutant for which the project PeQionis
b.
Have esubstantial adverse effect onany riparian
1:1 Z
non -attainment under enapplicable federal orstate
habitat orother sensitive natural community identified
in |ou8| or regional p|Gnm' po|iuiea, or regulations, by
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
the California Department ofFish and Wildlife or U.S.
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
c.
Have asubstantial adverse effect onfederally
0
ozone precursors)?
protected wetlands andefined bySection 4O4mfthe
Clean Water Act Unc|udin8.but not limited to, marsh,
d.
Expose sensitive receptors tosubstantial pollutant
El Z
concentrations?
e.
Create objectionable odors affecting asubstantial
number Cfpeople?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
e.
Have asubstantial adverse effect, either directly or
El El El 0
through habitat modifications, onany species identified
oaacandidate, sensitive, orspecial status species in
|moe| or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department ofFish and Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
b.
Have esubstantial adverse effect onany riparian
1:1 Z
habitat orother sensitive natural community identified
in |ou8| or regional p|Gnm' po|iuiea, or regulations, by
the California Department ofFish and Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
c.
Have asubstantial adverse effect onfederally
0
protected wetlands andefined bySection 4O4mfthe
Clean Water Act Unc|udin8.but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, Vrother means?
d,
Interfere substantially with the movement mfany native
[l El 0
resident mrmigratory fish orwildlife species orwith
established native resident ormigratory wildlife
ENV -2018 -1277 -ND
Exhibit B.2—Negative Declaration —O/14/16
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
corridors, orimpede the use ofnative wildlife nursery
sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies o[ordinances protecting El El � �O
biological resources, such os atree preservation policy
or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat El El 0
Conservation P|an, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved |oco|, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the
a. Cause osubstantial adverse change |nthe significance
0 0
ofehistorical resource oodefined in§15084.5?
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial
b. Cause asubstantial adverse change inthe significance
F] EJ El
ofanarchaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5?
o. Directly Vrindirectly destroy a unique paleontological
�l �l El
resource orsite or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human name\nn, including those interred
�l �l �l z
outside of dedicated cemeteries /see Public
F7
Resources Code, Ch. 1.T5.§50Q7.98.and Health and
0on
SgfetYCod�
-�7O50.�(b\\?
`
*. Cause esubstantial adverse change inthe eigPi8
Fl �lcan�� �� ��
ofmsite, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred
Zoning Map issued bythe State Geologist for the
p|eoe, orobject with cultural value to o California
Native American Tribe that ielisted ordetermined
eligible for listing on the California register ofhistorical
resources, listed onelocal historical register, or
otherwise determined bythe |emdyagency tobeo
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
tribal cultural resource?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial
mdvensoeffeoin.|mcluU|n8znenoxoxx/us.xyu/yv/
death involving:
L RuotuneofahnovvneadhouahafauK'osdelineated
Fl
F7
El
0on
the ' most recent Alquiet-PrkoloEarthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued bythe State Geologist for the
area orbased onother substantial evidence cfm
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground ahaWnQ?
[�
��
�� ��
F� ��
iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including
[� ��
[�
��
F�
��
p�
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
[7
��
F�
��
[�
��
��
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
c. Belocated onegeologic unit orsoil that k;unstable, or
that would become unstable aaoresult ofthe project,
and potentially result in on-orVf-eite landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction nrcollapse?
d. Belocated onexpansive soil, aedefined in
Table 18-1-Bofthe Uniform Building Code (1SB4).
creating substantial risks to life orproperty?
e. Have soils incapable ofadequately supporting the use
pfseptic tanks oralternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal Vfwaste water?
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
Exhibit B.2— Negative Declaration —G/14/10
ViU. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the
m. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or Fl
indirectly, that may have asignificant impact onthe
environment?
IN
t, Conflict with enapplicable plan, policy or regulation El 11 El Z
adopted for the purpose nf reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Vill. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MAJ[ERIALS, Would the
Less Than
Significant
project:
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
j
|
Z
[:1[�
u
u
[� ��
u ��
[�
��
[�
u
F1:1p�
u m�
ViU. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the
m. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or Fl
indirectly, that may have asignificant impact onthe
environment?
IN
t, Conflict with enapplicable plan, policy or regulation El 11 El Z
adopted for the purpose nf reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Vill. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MAJ[ERIALS, Would the
project:
m. Create significanth3zardtothepubUcorthe
El
El
Fl
Z
environment through the routine transport, use, nr
disposal ofhazardous materials?
b. Create esignificant hazard bJthe public nrthe
1:1
Z
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous nnateho|e into the environment?
u. Emit hazardous emissions orhandle hazardous or
1:1
Z
acutely hazardous materials, substances, orwaste
within one-quarter mile ofanexisting orproposed
school?
d. B8located onasite which kyincluded onalist mf
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 058S2.5and, aaaresult,
would itcreate msignificant hazard tothe public orthe
environment?
e. For aproject located within anairport land use plan or, El E] El Z
where such aplan has not been adopted, within two
miles ofapublic airport orpublic use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people mJSidinOor
working in the project area?
f. For mproject within the vicinity ofaprivate airstrip,
would the project result inosafety hazard for people
residing mrworking inthe project area?
g. Impair implementation oforphysically interfere with mn
adopted emergency response plan oremergency
evacuation plan?
h. Expose people orstructures toasignificant risk ofloss,
injury or death invo|vingvvi|d|and Orem, including where
vvi|d|andeare adjacent bnurbanized areas orwhere
residences are intermixed with vvi|d|andm?
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
Exhibit B,2 — Negative Declaration — 6/14/16
IX HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
onzkact:
a. Violate any water quality standards urwaste discharge
requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies orinterfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be net deficit in aquifer volume ora
lowering ofthe local groundwater table level (e.g..the
production naha of pre-existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
o. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe
site orarea, including through the alteration ufthe
course ofastream orriver, inamanner which would
result in substantial erosion orsiltation on- orVf-m|te?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe
Site orarea, including through the alteration ofthe
course of stream or rivmr, or substantially increase
the rate oramount ofsurface runoff inamanner
which would result inflooding on- oroff site?
*. Create orcontribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing orplanned otVmowmter
drainage systems orprovide substantial additional
sources ofpolluted runoff?
[ Otherwise substantially degrade water
@. Place housing within 81 flood hazard area ao
mapped onofederal Flood Hazard Boundary orFlood
Insurance Rate Map orother flood hazard delineation
map?
k. Place within 8 1OU-yearflood hazard area structures
which would impede orredirect flood flows?
F7 [�
u u
F�
F�
u
El[� ��
u�
E] p�
u�
Fl
��
Less Than
p�
u�
Significant
Potentially
with Less Than
Significant
W1iUgmUun Significant
|T2act
Incorporated, __jTpactact
IX HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
onzkact:
a. Violate any water quality standards urwaste discharge
requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies orinterfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be net deficit in aquifer volume ora
lowering ofthe local groundwater table level (e.g..the
production naha of pre-existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
o. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe
site orarea, including through the alteration ufthe
course ofastream orriver, inamanner which would
result in substantial erosion orsiltation on- orVf-m|te?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe
Site orarea, including through the alteration ofthe
course of stream or rivmr, or substantially increase
the rate oramount ofsurface runoff inamanner
which would result inflooding on- oroff site?
*. Create orcontribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing orplanned otVmowmter
drainage systems orprovide substantial additional
sources ofpolluted runoff?
[ Otherwise substantially degrade water
@. Place housing within 81 flood hazard area ao
mapped onofederal Flood Hazard Boundary orFlood
Insurance Rate Map orother flood hazard delineation
map?
k. Place within 8 1OU-yearflood hazard area structures
which would impede orredirect flood flows?
F7 [�
u u
F�
F�
u
El[� ��
u�
E] p�
u�
Fl
��
F7
u
p�
u�
ElF�
[�
��
p�
»�
F:11:1��
u
u
u�
[� [� ��
�� u ^�
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
Exhibit B2—Negative Declaration —8/14/16
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with
Less Than
Significant Mitigation
Significant
pact a�|
N|ct
i.
Expose people orstructures bomsignificant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding aamresult ofthe failure ofmlevee ordam?
'
Inundation byneiohe.tsunami, urnnudflVw?
X LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
o.
Physically divide anestablished community?
b.
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
E]
regulation ofanagency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited tuthe general p|on,
specific plan, local coastal program, orzoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose ufavoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
o.
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
El El
El N
Ornatural community conservation plan?
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
o.
Result inthe loss ofavailability ofmknown mineral
El 11
El 0
resource that would beVfvalue tnthe region and the
residents ofthe state?
b.
Result inthe loss mfavailability ofalocally-important
El 0
mineral resource recovery site delineated unalocal
general plan, specific plan orother land use plan?
X1111. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a.
Exposure Vfpersons toorgeneration ofnoise levels in
El El
0 El
excess 0fstandards established inthe local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b.
Exposure nfpersons boorgeneration ofexcessive
El
El VA
groundbornevibration orgpoundbonmenoise levels?
c.
Asubstantial permanent increase inambient noise
El El
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d.
Asubstantial temporary orperiodic increase in ambient
El El
H El
noise levels i the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e.
For mproject |ooatedvvithinanairport|mndusep|anpr.
El Fl
E] E
where such aplan has not been adopted, within two
miles 0fepublic airport orpublic use airport, would the
project expose peop|e residing or working in the
project area 10excessive noise levels?
ENV -2018 -1277 -ND
Exhibit 13.2 - Negative Declaration - 6/14/16
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
| | |act act
f. For eproject vvithinthavicinKvofaprivateainstrp. �l ��
would the project expose people residing or working in -- -- --
the project area toexcessive noise levels?
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in8narea, either
� � � �
�� -- --
direct|y�urexarDp�vv
example, and
--
businesses) nrindirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers ofexisting housing,
�l �l
-- -- --
nemsaa|�din8the construction Cfr$p|auannenthousing
--
elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers ofpeople, necessitating
�� �l ��
-- --
the construction mfnap|acennenthousing elsewhere?
-- �~
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision ofnew orphysically altered governmental
facilities, need for new orphysically altered governmental
facilities, the construction ofwhich could cause significant
environmental inopmcta, inorder to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times orother performance
objectives for any ofthe public services:
a. Fire protection?
�� �� ��
`� �� ��
�� u�
b. Police protection?
�� �� Fl �7
u �� v�
c. Schools?
El Fl �u l ��
�� u�
d. Parks?
u �l Fl �l ��
u �� u�
o. Other public facilities?
�� �l El �ul ��
v�
XV. RECREATION.
@. Would the project incnaoeetheuGeofeximtinQ�l
Fl �l ��
neighborhood and regional parks urother recreational
-- -- -- �~
tmd|itimo such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur orbeaccelerated?
b. Does the project ioc|uderecn*atinna|focj|itimmor
�� �l
++ ��
require the construction mrexpansion mfrecreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
onthe environment?
XV0.TRANSPORTATUONO[RAFFUC. Would the project:
e. Conflict with mnapplicable plan, ordinance mrpolicy
�l �l
-- -- --
establishing nmeaeuneeofeffectiveness for the
--
performnon000ftheoirou|ationoyStanm.tmhingintn
account all modes uftransportation including mass
��-���
x� a n
ENV -20164277 -ND
Exhibit B.2 - Negative Declaration -0M4/10
K�-au��
x�
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
{ -n��Impact_-_N2iT2act'
transit and non -motorized travel and relevant
components ofthe circulation system, including but not
limited to interneotionm, mtrnete, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b.
Conflict with mnapplicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to, level Vfservice
standards and travel demand measures, orother
standards established bythe county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c.
Result inachange inair traffic patterns, including
either mnincrease intraffic levels ora change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d.
Substantially increase hazards due tomdesign feature
El 11 9
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g.'farm equiprnenU?
m.
Result ininadequate emergency access?
�l El 9
f.
<�onUictwith adopted policies, plans, orppognonne
��
�� [� �� F� �� F� ��
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,
orotherwise decrease the performance orsafety wf
such facilities?
XVU8.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
@.
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ofthe
El El 1Z
applicable Regional Water Quality ComdnJ| Board?
b.
Require orresult inthe construction ofnew water or
E] El
wastewater treatment facilities orexpansion ofexisting
facilities, the construction ofwhich could cause
significant environmental effects?
c.
f�nqUipeorresult inthe construction ofnew storrn
�� [� Fl [�
�� �� �� ��
water drainage facilities orexpansion ofexisting
facilities, the construction ofwhich could cause
significant environmental effects?
d.
Have sufficient water supplies available toserve the
El Fl 0
project from enisting entitlements and Peoounoeo' or
are new orexpanded entitlements needed?
e.
Result inedetermination bythe wastewater treatment
� El 0
provider which serves ormay serve the project thatit
has adequate capacity tnserve the project's p 'ected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
K�-au��
x�
ENV -2016 -1277 -NO
Exhibit B.2 - Negative Declaration -8/14/15
K�-a�
^�
x�
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with
Less Than
Significant Mitigation
Significant
|
Nohnp�o
t
Bmserved bvalandfill with sufficient permitted
El 11
0 z
capacity tuaccommodate the project's so|idwamtm
disposal needs?
0.
Comply with federal, etoba. and local etetub*a and
E7 1:1
El 0
regulations related b}solid waste?
XVIII.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
m.
Does the project havothepotantia|tode0nadethe
z
quality ofthe environment, substantially reduce the
habitat pfmfish orwildlife species, cause mfish or
wildlife population tVdrop below self-sustaining |eve|s,
threaten tneliminate e plant Vranimal cornmuDhv'
reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or
endangered plant oranimal oreliminate important
examples ufthe major periods ofCalifornia history or
prehistory?
b.
Does the project hammimpm(tathatmn*individu8Uy
Fl
0
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects nfe
project are considerable when viewed inconnection
with the effects ofpast projects, themfectnofcdher
current projects, and the effects ofprobable future
projects).
o.
Does the project h8veenvinoDnneDte|efentsvvhichwU|
1:1 z
cause substantial adverse effects onhuman beings,
either directly orindirectly?
K�-a�
^�
x�
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
Exhibit 13.2 — Negative Declaration — 6/14/16
0* [1 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
PREPARED BY TITLE TELEPHONE #
William Hsu I Planning Assistant ([SATE
June 14, 2016
M61:15
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
1. AESTHETICS
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista9
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
P -• ` M
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4626), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104 [g])?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. It will not change any land
zoned as forest land or timberland. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue would occur.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non -forest use?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
is
lip
•lim•
M' 19 .
6,
ENV -2016 -1277 -RD
Z&OA.9- 12 — fiva
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
2ny criteria pollutant. No related impacts would occur.
Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. There is no creation of
objectionable odors and therefore no impact.
_AL RESOUR -
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
Exhibit B.2 — Negative Declaration — 6/14/16
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
d2rptiow, — 6/14M.
,C.,ZLVC "s
FRICTION
Landslides?
No impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. it would not increase the
potential to expose more people to landslides than that of the existing single family uses. All
homes constructed in the recent past have required soils reports and foundation plans that
respond to the regional soils and potential for ground shaking, and all structures comply with
seismic building standards.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
Exhibit B.2 — Negative Declaration — 6/14/16
No •. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use • existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. No physical changes to the
environmental are proposed • no effects • • erosion or • of topsoil are anticipated to
• Therefore, no impacts related to this issue would •
C) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No •, The Home -Sharing ordinance • affects the use of existing •' structures
recent past have required soils reports and foundation • that respond to the regional soils
and potential for ground shaking, and all structures comply with seismic building standards.
Therefore, no related impacts would occur.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as identified on Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
ENV -2016-1277-N1
a
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
been adopted, witnin two mAes UT a plolic airpon or PTUAG 1.30 41re_TVU':"TT11k
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. There are no known
residences located within the airport land use plan boundaries in the City. Therefore, no impacts
related to this issue would occur.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. There are no known
residences located within the vicinity of a private airstrip in the City. Therefore, no impacts
related to this issue would occur.
Page 7
D-101
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
Exhibit B.2 — Negative Declaration — 6/14/16
g) —11ould the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in t i h i- r
Al�
maim=
F. I I Lei a W.71 Mo
Jr. 1V I I Eel 1 MIMI
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. There would be no conflict
with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. Therefore no related impacts would
occur.
C) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. Therefore, it would not
conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan,
and impacts related to this issue would occur.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. Thus, it would not result in
the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state. Therefore, no impacts related to issue would occur.
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
Ylan?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. Thus, it would not result in
the loss of availabof a locallTieim,�kortant mineral
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. Therefore, no impacts related to issue would
occur.
12. NOISE
a) Would the project result In exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing
residential structures in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. There
is a potential decrease in number of vacation rentals which could lead to the possible decrease
in noise levels.
b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. There is no potential for
exposure to groundborne vibration or noise. Therefore, no impacts related to issue would occur.
WM-mm=
101 M 1 «14 1011 INKOIA LIM Lol
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
C) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. Therefore, it would not
displace any residents, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objective for any of the following public services:
(I) Fire protection?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. Therefore no related
impacts would occur.
(ii) Police protection?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. Therefore no related
impacts would occur.
(III) Schools?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. Therefore no related
impacts would occur.
(iv) Parks?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. Therefore no related
impacts would occur.
(v) Other public facilities?
Libraries
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. Therefore no related
impacts would occur.
15. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
Exhibit B.2 — Negative Declaration — 6/14/16
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. Therefore no related
impacts would occur.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. Therefore no related
impacts would occur.
a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. There is no conflict with
applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance
of the circulation system. Therefore no related impacts would occur.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or
other standards established by the count congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. There is no conflict with
applicable congestion management programs. Therefore no related impacts would occur.
C) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. Thus, the ordinance would
not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks. Therefore, no impacts related to this
issue would occur.
d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. There is no proposed
changes for roadway designs or incompatible uses. Therefore no related impacts would occur.
e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Page 13
D-107
EXHIBIT
• p
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
June 23, 2016
� 1i
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
Exhibit B.2 — Negative Declaration — 6/14/16
f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. Therefore no related
impacts would occur.
g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. It affects existing residences
which complies with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste generation, and no significant impacts related to this issue would occur.
"..
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
No Impact. For the reasons stated in this Initial Study, the Home -Sharing ordinance would not
have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
No Impact. For the reasons stated in this Initial Study, the Home -Sharing ordinance would not
potentially result in any significant impacts would not have the potential to contribute to
significant cumulative impacts.
C) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No Impact. For the reasons stated in this Initial Study, the Home -Sharing ordinance would not
potentially cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
DPI�005
ENV -2016 -1277 -ND
Exhibit B.2 — Negative Declaration — 6/14/16
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. Therefore no related
impacts would occur.
f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. Therefore no related
impacts would occur.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
regional water quality control board?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. Therefore no related
impacts would occur.
b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. It does not propose
construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
Therefore no related impacts would occur.
C) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. It does not propose
construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore
no related impacts would occur.
d) Would the project have significant water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. Therefore no related
impacts would occur.
e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
No Impact. The Home -Sharing ordinance only affects the use of existing residential structures
in established neighborhoods and no new developments will occur. Therefore no related
impacts would occur.
Page 14
D-110
EXHIBIT D.
;
Comparison of
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
June 23, 2016
D-111
Exhibit C — Map of Short -Term Rental Listings In Los Angeles
CPC -2016 -1243 -CA
Source: Hostcompliance.com proprietary data, June 2016
D-112
z
-<
G
<
-G
G
<
G
Y<
N
6 m
cc 1
N
.<
x
070
r. V!
N
M
CL
..
U
J
7
Z
N
m 0 Q N
cn �—
Z
Gq ()1
-1 N
<
m
D
(n
m c^m
-n -4
O
o
�cn
(�
��
m
co
(Q p 5'
m
A
ro
z
<
<
z
c
c
z
z
c
ro c
cr j
J m �
O
7 (
o C
C
3 (p CO -1 N p
O O O -1
Q. 3 0 0 -1
c -0 C
-a C s
'o C (fl
o
C
N
p
CD
_ a O m
n n 0-
< O= m
= 0=
_ CO
(D O
0 O
O
O
ID
O
3
�'
'' O m m
"06 'D N
m O N 7
m
m 3• o
cD 3. o
_
N �� (D
m m (D' -I
G F
VOi
D N
(D
* CD m
CD
O
(D
NQ
Q
= O 3 O
aaa'0
M
� ((D fy
aNa
a
Q.-
o
a
w
=O S
sSN= m=
r• O
W O .c-«=
p S
O'er
=r
'Q
Q- 0
c O G_
_, O =O v
3 O- O
a 0
0
0
v
(=D
m
a CCD
��
mvi
viCD
5.C m
=
_ m
m
z
a
(D
a
mm-,
-,
(n
co
CD
a-0 Z
(n S. O
•a 2
N O
K
Q- cn
( Sv
=
CD
, T,
m
-p
w
-a m s
CD -O m CD m
S
O
'O
C 0 a
.� 3
c
m N
(a
_•
�•'0
`c
3 _• "a
y+
.�•F
m
c
M
room
cn
Q.
(D
o�mma'
<,o
(D
sli
n m
m
a o
v a* - o
ro
m
cn
O= 3
v 0 c
n
m
_
Q-
(n
(D -,
= O
su a�
p D (n=
3
m
3 0�
N
N
7
tD
SU
O
3 0
= O K O S
(%
CD
Q.
d
O W CD CDD
m
m
4
(D
U'm
v
O
-
CD
0-
u)
O
a
°
N
uQi
m
N (On
=0
n :li
m
(n
�'
3
Cl-
mm
0m-=.
(D FD'
o
m
m �
- roL
CL
Q-
v
_
n
-
.D
z
vm ,m
v
< -0
cn
c
m (Dv
'
O
ills (nom
c o�
am
ao
CD sv
(D mac c
3 0
zsnm
��
�(�'
o o a
o
(" -v
(n
(n
O
(nom
3
(n
-• v
=
ID
C m
m
U)
C) 5' m
(Q �
Q. o
c
(= m =
e
a
0
�� Q(°n
6
cn <
<
a
CD
-o(fl 3 v
O< O=
�
6-0
m 0°'
= p
sli
(n
o
(n n
0-a=m
3
_v
x 3 3 m
3
=
n=i
m m� -
cD
vn
9
i0S:0
t
= CD
;
��
m
p
Oam
=30 N
J
(nN
CD
(D
a
-�_ c'
1
O
N
Q
m (Q
(n O
N
w
z0
O "® OO
Cn v
m ='T
z n 0 z
vX mC CO
O
O
(CD CD= =
m m
M.
<
(n '
O O (D
(
{Q
= -1 m �, = w�
.ill
m
OQ
c
vv
C)
'C (D
OO
=
Q.
CD
(
QN T
N3
NOOC=
<(D
co
0
o�
(D
0-
3mw
:
m Q
CD
mCD
CD
c
m
'v
'o CD
�=
cCD
3o
9 cn
a
0-(DR:
O-
(Q o
m o ;:v
<
X
mO
m �O
OO
n (D
0-:
. —m
-a m
c CQ 6
CD
O
• m
cn
_cl
O
C CD Q'
�cr
N
cn
3
CD
3
C:
v
cn =
G
a O
u,
m oCD
m ?
a
m m
w"
O
-
0 v
< CD O
0a
N
co -O
C:
3
N N
CD O
Q O v
•O 3
-0
o
C CD
c
CD
°o
°
3 in
o v;
m
' m
cn
m
a v
3
C)
m -,
T.
m N
�. =
m
- � m