The URL can be used to link to this page

20161220 Late CorrespondenceANA ii 1 ,!� r y tie +•" air- g. -e rr v. _� TURNS _ � �` ,�3 y► �� SEN AYS 9pO 21 SSE- SE- n�. lie 4 d•V y':., Ip . e' I w r `sem 1 A. Ail ._� .. - -•,may. Al YMI YM13EANS CGM LA Warman *91" /� i / i I a " ■ r F Ad. v� l AW 4 Aw !. a °,_ ••, y ys t a ' r ks r fir•- 'r + - sr E' -�•��y' :�- _ter I. tom, V�>1�,t'M yep MEMORANDUM Date: January 16, 2015 RECEIVED FROM S h AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE COUNCIL. MEETING o Via- ho_/!L To: Mark Meyerhoff, Liebert Cassidy Whitmor OFFICE OF THE CITY CL.ER CARL;A MORREA6E, CITY 468K From: Lilley Planning Group Subject: Third Party Peer Review Green Hills Memorial Park: Process review for Modifications to Green Hills Memorial Park Area 11 — Memorial (Pacific) Terrace Mausoleum Review and Entitlement in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes BACKGROUND The Memorial (Pacific) Terrace Mausoleum (MTM) is located within the northwest corner of the Green Hills Memorial Park cemetery in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. In October 2014, the Lilley Planning Group conducted a third party peer review of the site's compliance with Conditional Use Permit No. 155 which established entitlement rights for, among other projects, the development and construction of the MTM. This report was presented to the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission on October 24, 2014. A supplemental memo related to height compliance of the MTM building was presented to the City on November 11, 2014 and December 2, 2014. This memo provides a summary of results associated with a third party peer review of the City's entitlement and approval process associated with the Green Hills Memorial Park Master Plan, with a specific focus on development and construction of the MTM in Area 11 of Green Hills Memorial Park. The issues under review with this assignment are as follows: • Were there any facets of the review process that were not in conformance with planning laws and standard professional planning practices? • Who is responsible for each nonconformance and were any processing errors found to be intentionally made due to staff/public official malfeasance? If. METHODOLOGY The determinations in this report were based on all available City documents, electronic mail and files provided by the City, a review of the City's Municipal Code, a review of applicable State Public Resources and Government Codes and one teleconference with City staff to clarify scope of review and obtain related documents. Documents received from the City include all those provided for the third party peer Master Plan Compliance Review and an usb drive containing Green Hills Memorial Park -related e-mail correspondence and electronic files provided by the City on December 12, 2014. The peer review was conducted by a Lilley Planning Group professional not previously a part of the peer review team for preparation of the Master Plan compliance report in order to provide the City with additional assurance of an unbiased and neutral analysis: Kathleen Haton Ms. Haton has more than 22 years of experience in the fields of planning, community development, environmental review, planning policy, transportation planning, public administration and code compliance. Throughout her career Ms. Haton has worked exclusively for local government agencies either as an employee or a consultant. She has held long term assignments with the Cities of Irvine and Anaheim. For the past 14 years, Ms. Haton has held the position of Development Services Director at the City of Rancho Santa Margarita. As a member of the City's Executive Management Team and Department Head, Ms. Haton was responsible for the administration and management of all planning, building, environmental, housing and code compliance functions. She holds a Bachelors of Arts degree in Economics and a Master of Arts degree in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of California, Los Angeles. 11112111411 As outlined in the October 18, 2014 LPG report, the Master Plan compliance review uncovered a number of issues associated with the Memorial / Pacific Mausoleum and Area 11. This study focused on the City's, as well as Green Hill's, role in creating these issues, particularly as it relates to professional processes and practices. In the consultant's review of related documents including: staff reports, resolutions, meeting minutes, environmental documentation, plans, written correspondence, permits, exhibits and e-mail correspondence, several inconsistencies and process errors were discovered with respect to the Master Plan development and construction of Area 11 of Green Hills Memorial Park. For ease of reference, our findings can be divided into the following topics: Consultant's Review, Environmental Review/Permit Streamlining, Implementation of Conditions of Approval and Zoning Requirements and Best Practices, Consultant's Review: The October 18, 2014 Master Plan Compliance Report points to a number of noncompliant issues associated with Area 11 as it currently exists. Incremental growth of the MTM building, building and ground internment setbacks and building height compliance are all areas of review that planning staff is responsible for monitoring in its review of proposed plans that are submitted. The planning project manager is expected to review each plan submittal against historical entitlement actions on the site (including Resolutions of Approval and Approved Plans) as well as past plans submitted throughout the application process for the proposal under review. Most applicants do not modify plans from submittal to submittal; however, our review of the Planning history on the site clearly reveals that Green Hills Memorial Park consistently expanded its development in such a manner. Unfortunately, the following issues may have been prevented through more comprehensive staff reviews: 2 Size. and Configuration of the Memorial (Pacific) Terrace Mausoleum Building Throughout the entitlement process for the Master Plan ZON2003-00086 project, the applicant misrepresented the size and configuration of the MTM building. Each applicant resubmittal would build on previously submitted plans and representations of the size associated with the "original" MTM (CUP No. 155) approval. Acknowledging that the applicant continually confused the situation with unresponsive piecemeal information and misrepresentations; nevertheless, it appears that the project manager took applicant representations at face value without verification. Had the planning project manager compared each plan resubmittal to previous submittal packages, the increased size would have been discovered. The attached comparison matrix depicts the evolution of the MTM building footprint through the review process for ZON2003-00086. The matrix includes the applicant's Area 11 development representations, their locations as depicted on plan submittals, control documents that outline this information and the project planner responsible for plan review. The final Master Plan exhibits for ZON2003-00086 which were eventually reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission were only provided to the project manager on January 30, 2007. With a scheduled hearing date of February 27, 2007, it would be nearly impossible to conduct a comprehensive review of the information submitted in time to prepare and release environmental clearance documents and a staff report with staff recommendations. As a result of the applicant's misrepresentation and staff's reliance on its submittal without a thorough review, the Planning Commission's approval of P.C. Resolution No. 2007-33 included a document (entitled "Master Plan Amendment Submittal Package" booklet dated January 29, 2007) (Exhibits I and F) that calls for Area 11 to consist of 1.39 acres of development including one mausoleum with no size restriction and ground burials located on top of the mausoleum. This approval was subsequently validated through the City's planning clearance for grading under ZON2008-00057 which clearly describes the project in Area 11 to include a "total of 8,068 cubic yards of grading to facilitate the construction of 14,909 square feet of the 1.39 — acres of mausoleum footprint on the Area 11 Mausoleum in the northwestern area of the site, pursuant to the approved Master Plan." Expansion of Ground to Rooftop Internments Similar to the historical expansion of the Memorial (Pacific Terrace) Mausoleum Building, an expansion of rooftop internments atop the building were inadvertently approved. The original 1991 Master Plan included a 27,007 square foot area for ground burials and along with 11,326 square feet of family estate area within Area 11. Both burial types were dedicated as ground level internments. The initial ZON2003-00086 application proposed an increased ground burial area (34,848 square feet). It also introduced a proposal to reduce the family estate area to 8,712 square feet and relocate it (i.e., family estate area only) atop the Mausoleum building. By the time the application was presented and approved by the Planning Commission in 2007, reference to the size of ground and family estate areas vanished and discussion of additional internments was limited only to the rooftop of the Mausoleum building. As the size of the building expanded, so did the rooftop internment area. We were unable to locate any record or evidence that staff analyzed these modifications or was cognizant of the relocation or expansion altogether. Memorial/Pacific Terrace Mausoleum Building Setback Approval of the Green Hills Memorial Park Master Plan ZON2003-00086 Conditional Use Permit resulted in a modification in the setback requirement for the MTM building from 80 feet to 8 feet from the property line. This modification was made between the public hearings for the Master Plan application. At the February 27, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented the project along with a draft of staff recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit J). The relevant condition of approval to the building setback requirements was a carryover from the original Master Plan approval in 1991 (Resolution 91-7). It states: Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums (except the Pacifica Mausoleum) and crypts shall be as follows: North: 801-0" or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is greater. South: 40'-0" East: 25'-0" West: 5 0' At the meeting, the applicant expressed concern regarding many of staff's proposed conditions of approval. The Commission continued the item to its April 24, 2007 Planning Commission meeting and requested that the applicant present its modifications to staff's recommended conditions at the April meeting, The City received the list of applicant proposed condition modifications on April 10, 2007 — a total of eight calendar days prior to the publication of the staff report for the April 24 meeting (Exhibit K). Among a host of other modifications, the applicant proposed a modification to the staff recommended setback Condition of Approval No..7. An edited version of the proposed modification presented to staff and the Commission follows: 7. Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums (except the Pacifica Mausoleum ' and the Mausoleum shown in Area 11 of the Master Plan ReKLsion and crypts shall be as J follows: North: 80�-O" or no closer than the northern perimeter roa whichever is greater L8' -O' -for the western-mostportion of t Mausoleum shown jaALqg_M. South: 4W-0-" 1 East. 25%0" West. 59-V The April 24, 2007 Staff Report for ZON2003-00086 outlined applicant proposed condition modifications into three categories: those that were acceptable to staff, those that were acceptable with additional revisions by staff and those with modifications that were unacceptable to staff (Exhibit L). There. was no staff report discussion of applicant proposed modifications that were acceptable to staff and the modified setback condition of approval (no. 7) was among the modified conditions in that category. As a result of the applicant's misrepresentation and staff's reliance on its submittal without a thorough review, PC Resolution 07-33 was approved with Condition of Approval No. 7 language, as modified by the applicant. The record shows no analysis, written discussion with the applicant or verbal discussion/deliberation at the Planning Commission Meeting regarding this Condition of Approval. Memorial (Pacific) Terrace Mausoleum Building Height As discussed in the previous Comprehensive Peer Review Memorandum, the height requirements for mausoleum buildings within Green Hills Memorial Park have fluctuated from 20 to 30 feet maximum throughout the development period. At the time the Memorial (Pacific) Terrace Mausoleum was approved, two conflicting standards were adopted. The Resolution of Approval for ZON2003-00086 adopted in 2007 includes a Condition of Approval that states, "With the exception of,the mausoleum building on Inspiration Slope, all mausoleum buildings shall not exceed 20 -feet in height as measured from the average elevation of the finished grade at the front of the building to the highest point of the structure and 30 -feet when measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the building to the highest point of the structure," The Master Plan Revision Booklet which was also adopted with the project, indicates that the maximum height for the building would be an average of 20 -feet maximum and no more than 25 -feet at any point. The oversight created an inconsistency that would make it difficult to review at the plan check stage of development. Regardless of this inconsistency, the building that was constructed is not compliant with either standard. Nor is it compliant with the elevation representations depicted as part of the plans approved as the "Master Plan Submittal Package" with ZON2003- 00086. Yet, the project manager approved both the construction plans and height certification at a height of 30 feet for the entire length of the building, The Planning Clearance that was made part of the approved set of building plans and signed by the project planner on November 1, 2011 reads "The maximum building height shall not exceed 30 feet, as measured from the lowest pad elevation to highest ridgeline (i.e., parapet)." As described further below, the 30 -foot height dimension should have been measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the building, not the lowest pad elevation. The difference between these two measurement points is 2 -feet. It also appears that the associated height compliance clearance process performed during the construction phase of this project was flawed. Given the City's location and proximity to the Pacific Ocean, view impacts are closely monitored. Normal protocol requires that a planner confirm height compliance for structures. As important as the height measurement itself, planners must consider where the measurement is taken. Grades and elevation levels are critical to determining height compliance in the City. Planners will typically determine the lowest grade of the building, circle it, and measure to the highest point of the structure. Planning clearance would provide a clearly demarked notation for maximum building height from the lowest grade on the plans. This did not occur with the MTM structure. In fact, if the proper protocol had been employed, the planner who signed the height clearance form (Eduardo Schonborn), would have discovered that the approved elevation (217.00' from top of guardrail) was 32 feet higher than the finished grade elevation (185.00'), well above any height limit established through the conflicting requirements or the height level Mr. Schonborn believed he was approving. View Impact Analysis As noted above, view impacts are critical to the development review process in Rancho Palos Verdes. Any historical review of development within Green Hills Memorial Park would have identified views as an area of concern for residences around the site. Additionally, the planner would be required to analyze views as part of the environmental review process (i.e., CEQA review). The only mitigation measures assigned to the project associated with an aesthetic review were related to light and glare. The supplemental comments provided in the CEQA Initial Study related to aesthetic impacts concludes that there would be no aesthetic impacts because of the location, topography and existing landscaping throughout the site (Exhibit W). Furthermore, the comments inaccurately describe the MTM expansion area as sloped and at a much lower elevation than the adjacent condominium project, thereby rendering the false conclusion.that these residences would not experience any view impairment as a result of the project. No discussion of view impact was presented in a staff report. More recently, in an e- mail from Eduardo Schonborn to Joel Rojas and Greg Pfost dated December 11, 2013, Mr. Schonborn indicated that he did not verify view impacts to adjacent residences because the condominium community was gated and he did not have access. Rather, he based his conclusion of no adverse impact on topography and site conditions (Exhibit X). Typically a project manager (and it is noted that this project manager was a high level planner) would have contacted the residents or property manager and arranged to access the condominium community in order to gain visual perspective of the project area. Indeed, requests like these are typically welcomed because they represent a resident's best interest. Since these residents were most impacted by the development of the MTM, a review of the various impacts (especially views) on this community would be imperative to provide a comprehensive staff analysis for the project. The fact that this did not happen illustrates a clear and significant oversight on behalf of the project manager. Public Notice for ZON2003-00086 It has been noted (see Exhibit X) that the City re-C.eiv rl nn written rnrrP.qnnnr1Pnr.P nnnn.qinn thp nmit=(-.fqcz a reqi ilf of fhp ni 1h1ir nntinp- process in 2007. Nor did anyone testify against the project at the public hearings for ZON2003-0076. However, the public notice for this project was inaccurate in its description of the location of the MTM building (Exhibit S). While the notice indicated that the MTM expansion would be located southeast of the existing maintenance yard (and further away from the condominium complex), the addition would actually be 6 located southwest of the existing maintenance yard and directly adjacent to the condominium complex. Residents have claimed that they did not come forward in opposition to the MTM expansion project because they relied on the misrepresentation in the public notice. The historical record would support this contention. The City has substantial evidence of the residents' opposition to development at Green Hills Memorial Park throughout the past 25 years. While there are no legal ramifications for the public notice misrepresentation in this case, it is significant because it effectively defeats the purpose of the public notice which is to inform the public and to invite their participation in the process. Encroachment Within 16' Below Ground Internment Setback Similar to the examples provided above and as outlined in the Annual Review Report provided to the Planning Commission at its meeting on November 11, 2014, the applicant, once again, revised its plans between submittals (for the truck ramp) and planning staff overlooked the addition of a row of below ground internments within the minimum 16 foot setback in Area 11 (Exhibit M). Environmental Review/Permit Streamlining: Two state laws apply directly to the development review process for local municipalities: the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) outlined in the Public Resources Code (Sections 21000 et. seq.) and the Permit Streamlining Act which is located in the Government Code (Sections 65920 et. seq.): Application Application Environmental Review Final Action on Received Complete ------D Completed, Processed and Adopted Application F Permit Streamlining Act [—CEQA F Permit Streamlining Act ♦ Permit Streamlining Timeline The requirements under this Act apply to the determination of completeness for an application. From the point of receipt of a development application, a municipality has 30 days to determine if the application is complete to proceed in the review process, The legislation also requires that, once an environmental clearance document is determined or approved for the project, a municipality must make a final decision on the project within a specified amount of time (based on the environmental document) or the project will be deemed approved automatically. In the case of ZON2003-00086, the City would have 60 days to take final action once the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was approved. Our review of the processing for ZON2003-00086 determined that the City's project review timeframes were technically compliant with the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). However, there is some evidence that suggests that staff may have been confused about the timing requirements under the PSA as compared to CEQA time limits (discussed in the next section), 7 As project review approached a milestone time limit established under CEQA, staff requested and received a letter from the applicant on October 12, 2005 agreeing to a one-time 90 day extension to permit streamlining requirements in accordance with Government Code §65950 "for a decision by the Planning Commission ... within six (6) months of the date upon which this application was deemed complete by the City for processing" (Exhibit N). Since no environmental action had been taken on the project, Permit Streamlining Act limitations would not be applicable here. Instead, the appropriate legislative timing requirement to extend would have been those established by CEQA. In acknowledgement that City staff is responsible for informing applicants of these requirements, and in light of advice provided by the City Attorney's Office on environmental timelines (see below), the action brings into question the technical expertise of staff. CEQA Review and Timeline Requirements Our review of project process compliance with CEQA requirements reveals two issues. The City technically violated §21151.5.(a)(1)(B) of the Public Resources Code related to the time limit for taking action on environmental review once an application is determined as complete. It also violated noticing requirements and the comment period requirement for public review of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for ZON2003-00086. Timeline for Completion of MND - ZON2003-00086 was deemed complete by Planner Kit Fox on February 25, 2005 (Exhibit 0). This date begins the clock for the 180 -day review period permitted under CEQA. Given Planner Fox's preliminary analysis, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was the appropriate environmental clearance for the project. CEQA required the MND to be prepared, circulated and approved no later than August 25, 2005. This did not occur. At around this time Au st 20051, the irolect manaer �' assignment was transferred to Eduardo i It is important to note -that failure to comply with the 180 -day review provision would not prevent the City from completing its environmental review; however, it would simply open the door for the applicant to compel the City to comply with the CEQA requirement through the courts. Director Joel Rojas did consult David Snow of Richards, Watson and Gershon approximately three weeks orior to the CEQA deadline There is no documentation that supports this was done, with the exception of the receipt of a letter on October 12, 2005 from the property owner requesting an extension to Permit Streamlining Act requirements (see above). Clearly the letter demonstrates confusion over the two Acts, as timelines, and Code references do not match. The record does not show documentation of any activity occurring on the application for a nprinri of zPN/sarni mr)nfh-_ A laffiar fmm Peli mrHn Orhnnhnrn to Porm Pni irlracki iv thea applicant's architect, dated June 26, 2006, indicates that after the application was deemed complete it was held "in abeyance and was deemed incomplete pending clarification on the full scope of theproject, which has included additional mausoleum buildings and other changes to the proposed master plan revision" (Exhibit Q). However, there is no documentation in the records provided that indicates the project scope had changed, As previously discussed, the applicant had actually expanded the footprint of the MTM to 60,548 square feet or 1.39 acres. Evidence of a formal letter of incompleteness for the "revised" project was provided in a letter from Eduardo Schonborn to the applicant dated October 11, 2006 (around 20 months after the first letter of completeness was prepared) (Exhibit R). This practice is highly unusual given the lack of written documentation on proposed modifications in the public record. We are unaware of other examples of projects that are deemed complete then incomplete, again, without any formal documentation of significant changes to the scope of the project. Public Comment Review Period - §21092.3 of the Public Resources Code requires that a public notice/comment period be provided for an Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration (Mitigated Negative Declarations are treated the same way) of not less than 20 days before final adoption of the Negative Declaration. Under CEQA, the notice is required -(among other things) to provide the dates for which the lead agency will accept comments on the document. The notice is required to be posted on and off site, filed with the county in which the project resides, published in a newspaper of general circulation and directly mailed to all property owners located within a.certain radius of the project. It is important to note that the remedy for failing to comply with this regulation and any CEQA regulation, in general, is to go back and observe proper procedures in analyzing the project. However, failure to comply with any CEQA regulation makes a project vulnerable to legal challenge which adds exorbitant costs and time delays. The public review period and notice for this project was not in compliance with state law. The environmental notice document for ZON2003-00086 was dated February 6, 2007. It indicated that public comments would be accepted by the City from February 6, 2007 to February 20, 2007; a period of time that was significantly less than the 20 day requirement under state law. Additionally, while the public comment deadline remained unchanged in all notices, it is noted that the document went on-line and was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on February 8, 2007 (Exhibit S). Finally, the notice was only filed with the County of Los Angeles on February 20, 2007. These dates are inconsistent with the requirements set forth under CEQA. The Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 27, 2007 indicates that the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was initially forwarded to the County Recorder on February 6, 2007; however the County returned the document because the City did, not include the County's posting fee. We were unable to verify that this occurred as the only record of. County receipt that we discovered in the documentation was dated February 20, 2007,, the date which also served as the 20 day deadline for comments on the document to be provided to the City. Approved MND for ZON2003-00086 — Our review of the approved environmental clearance document confirms that the review analyzed the modification of a 22,187 square foot footprint for Memorial (Pacific) Terrace Mausoleum to a 33,668 square foot footprint (Exhibit T). The analysis incorrectly identifies the baseline footprint and the planned footprint for this building. The document was prepared by the project planner utilizing the project description provided by the applicant. Implementation of Conditions of Approval: A few Conditions of Approval associated with the approval of ZON2003-00086 have not been satisfied to date: + Condition of Approval AQ -14 This Condition of Approval calls for an annual review of the Conditional Use Permit, Although there have been several amendments to the Master Plan that have been processed since the April 24, 2007 approval; only two staff reports specifically note the annual review of the ZON2003-00086. These reviews took place in 2008 and 2014. Given the records provided, we were unable to confirm that the required annual review was performed otherwise. + Conditions of Approval 36 and 38 As outlined in the LPG memorandum to the City dated November 11, 2014, the two Conditions of Approval related to building height are inconsistent with one another. Planning staff cleared the building permit application (ZON2011-00303 issued on November 1, 2011, with further clearances added to the plans on February 6, 2012) (Exhibits U and V) that authorized the construction of the existing buildingthat is noncompliant with both Conditions. This speaks directly to the competency of review because the purpose of including a planning clearance review through the grading and building process is to ensure that proposed construction is consistent with underlying entitlement plans, conditions of approval and the zoning code. The staff signature provided on the clearance document is Eduardo Schonborn. Protect Management Best Practices: ' Although there are no specific requirements that dictate the following, we note the following observations regarding best practices associated with processing this Master Plan: ZON2003-00086 Inconsistent Review While each project submitted to a city is evaluated on its own merit, it is common practice to review recent approvals analyze the historical record pertaining to the site. It does not .appear to have been the case with ZON2003-00086. As stated above, a historical reveal would have revealed the escalation in size, location and number of rooftop ground internments of the Memorial (Pacific) Terrace Mausoleum. It would also provide a clear picture of past controversy associated with resident views adjacent to the site. Every other publicly vetted entitlement case associated with the northern edge of Green Hills Memorial Park included some record of view concerns. These issues were brought forward to staff and the Planning Commission. In one case (Inspiration Slope), a silhouette was constructed on site to provide some visual context. We were unable to locate any information in the record that demonstrates that any visual analysis or historical reviiew was Conducted for ZON2003-0086. Staff reports for this application did not discuss the topic of view impacts and, furthermore, they dismissed the issue entirely by stating that additional mausoleum buildings would not be taller than those depicted in the original master plan, 10 Processing Time for ZON2003-00086 The process review procedure for this application was very unorthodox. This project should not have been active for the four years that it took to final decision. Significant periods of time went by when no activity took place. Additionally, the project was deemed incomplete on two separate occasions because of "significant" project scope modifications. In this situation, and given the state mandates for project review (CEQA and the PSA), the applicant should have withdrawn Application ZON2003-00086 or it should have been closed and a new application should have been filed with the City when the applicant was ready to proceed. Staff and Applicant Our review of the records did not uncover any evidence of malfeasance on behalf of the City, its officials, agents or staff. Staff oversights and errors appear to be unintentional. All reviewed correspondence verifies that City staff remained professional, Courteous and respectful to all interested parties. A review of the historical record demonstrates that the Green Hills Memorial Park acted in bad faith throughout the development of the project site. The applicant consistently modified plan submittals, changed its requests and persistently ignored the City's requirements and approvals. Given the applicant's historical practice of noncooperation, misrepresentation and disregard for local laws along with the public outcry associated with the site, it is somewhat surprising that the level of scrutiny and review was not carefully monitored at all professional and management staff levels. TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: ACTING CITY CLERK DATE: DECEMBER 20, 2016 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting Item No. Description of Material 1 Emails from Irene Henrikson, Carolynn Petru 5 Email from Carolynn Petru ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, December 19, 2016**. Respectfully submitted, WA01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2016 Cover Sheets\20161220 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 1:39 PM To: CityClerk Cc: Octavio Silva Subject: FW: Portland Officials Delay Recommending Regulations on Short -Term Rentals I Maine Public 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: Irene Henrikson [mailto:irene.henrikson@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 10:23 AM To: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Portland Officials Delay Recommending Regulations on Short -Term Rentals E Maine Public http://mainepublic.org/post/portland-officials-delay-recommending-regulations-short-term-rentals#stream/0 Sent from my iPhone 1 Portland Officials Delay Recommending Regulations on Short -Term Rentals I Maine Public Page 1 of 3 Listen Live • Maine Public All Things Consi6&4tTWI .Nora Flaherty - Maine " f Things Considered at 5:30 Portland Officials Delay Recommending Regulations on Short -Term Rentals By AP (/PEOPLE/AP) . DEC 15, 2016 Tweet (http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tinyurl.com% 2Fh7g5z7n&text=Portiand%200fficia1s%20Delay%20 Recommend! ng%20ReguIations% 20on%20Short-Term%20Rentals) f Share (http://facebook.com/sharer.phl2?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tinvurl.com% 2Fh7g5z7n&t=Portland%200fficials%20Delay%20Recommend ing%20Regulations%20on% 20Short-Term%2ORentals) Google+ (https:Hplus.google.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tinyuri.com%2Fh7q_5z7n) im Email (mailto:?subject=Portland%200fficials%20Delay%2ORecommending%20Regulations% 20on%20Short-Term%20Rentals&body=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tinyurl.com%2Fh7g5z7n) PORTLAND, Maine — Officials in Portland say further discussion is needed before they recommend regulations on short-term rentals to the city council. http: //mainepublic.org/post/portland-officials-delay-recommending-regulations-short-ter... 12/20/2016 Portland Officials Delay Recommending Regulations on Short -Term Rentals I Maine Public Page 2 of 3 The Portland Press Herald reports (http://bit.ly/2hwDejW) Jill Duson, chairwoman of the council's Housing Committee, concluded at a Wednesday meeting that the committee had more work to do. The city has been discussing short-term rental regulations amid the growing popularity of Airbnb, which allows people to advertise their rooms, apartments and homes for a relatively short period. In October, the committee agreed in principal with a framework that would allow people to rent out their private homes and operate short-term rentals in apartment buildings. Vice Chairman David Brenerman says the body would need at least one more meeting before it could make a clear recommendation to the council. Tweet (http:Htwitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tinyurl.com*/ 2Fh7g5z7n&text=Portland%200fficials%20Delay%20Recommend! ng%20ReguIations% 20on%20Short-Term%20Renta1s) Share (http://facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http/3A%2F%2Fwww.tinyurl.com% 2Fh7g5z7n&t=Portland%200fficials%20Delay%20Recommend ing%20Regulations%20on% 20Short-Term%2ORentals) `+ Google+ (https:Hplus.google.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tinyurl.com%2Fh7g5z7n) Email (mailto:?suWed= Portia nd%200fficia1s%20Delay%20 Recommend ing%20ReguIations% 20on%20Short-Term%20Rentals&body=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tinyurl.com%2Fh7g5z7n) http://mainepublic. org/post/portland-officials-delay-recommending-regulations-short-ter... 12/20/2016 Portland Officials Delay Recommending Regulations on Short -Term Rentals I Maine Public Page 3 of 3 Support (http://mainepublic.org/support-0) Contact Us (http://mainepublic.org/contact-us) Terms of Use (http://mainepublic.org/maine-public-broadcasting-network-website-terms-use) Privacy Statement (http://mainepublic.org/privacy-statement) Careers (http://mainepublic.org/topic/careers-mpbn) © 2016 Maine Public http: //mainepublic. org/post/portland-officials-delay-recommending-regulations-short-ter... 12/20/2016 From: Irene Henrikson <Irene.henrikson@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 1:34 PM To: Ken Dyda; CC; PC Subject: Airbnb: New Orleans will become nationwide model for short-term rental enforcement NOLA.com http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/11/airbnb_new_orleans_model.htmi I R E N E Airbnb: New Orleans will become nationwide model for short-term rental enforcement I ... Page 1 of 3 Greater New Orleans LOUISIANA POLITICS & GOVERNMENT Airbnb: New Orleans will become nationwide model for short-term rental enforcement Short-term rental issue Residents gather during a New Orleans City Council meeting as the short-term rental issue is debated at City Hall in New Orleans on Thursday, October 20, 2016. (Photo by Brett Duke, Nola.com ( The Times -Picayune) (Brett Duke, NOLA.com ( The Times - Picayune) By Kevin Litten, NOLA.com I The Times -Picayune Email the author I Follow on Twitter on November 30, 2016 at 4:06 PM, updated November 30, 2016 at 5:49 PM 132 shares Executives at San Francisco -based Airbnb say that regulations the New Orleans City Council is set to vote on Thursday (Dec. 1) could become a model for other cities nationwide. New Orleans has gone further than other cities -- some of which have been involved in litigation with Airbnb -- to regulate the controversial practice of renting out rooms and non -owner occupied housing to tourists. New Orleans, along with cities like Chicago, New York and San Francisco, have become ground zero for the hotly debated topic of how to handle new technology platforms that enable property owners to market and rent their homes to visitors. But Chris Lehane, Airbnb's global head of policy and public affairs, said New Orleans has taken the most comprehensive approach of any U.S. city to both regulate short-term rentals and address other urban issues such as affordable housing. "There's a number of things here put together that represent a significant leap forward in terms of model legislation," Lehane said. "I think other cities throughout the country will be looking to emulate New Orleans. In fact, we've gotten calls from throughout the country really tracking what New Orleans is doing and looking to emulate it." According to emails between city officials, lobbyists and attorneys for Airbnb, the negotiations that resulted in the legislation started in early 2015. What followed was a long series of meetings in both the Legislature in Baton Rouge and with key figures in Mayor Mitch Landrieu's administration. It appears Landrieu's administration took a strong stance toward enforcement, pushing first for a complicated permit structure that stirred strong objections from Airbnb. The mayor's staff relented, removing the permit structure in favor of what the council will vote on Thursday: an annual 90 -day cap on rentals in homes that aren't owner -occupied or in commercial districts. [The commercial zones where short-term rentals will be allowed by right are MU -2, EC, MC and LS. They will require conditional approval in C-1, C2, C-3 and MU -1. For a detailed breakdown of the proposal, click here.] The cap "was very hard to get my clients to agree," wrote Bob Ellis, a lawyer for Airbnb with the firm Canlas Ellis. He argued that the permit structure would mean that "no one but very wealthy people will be able to continue to operate" and could discourage compliance with the new law. But the end result is something the city will be able to enforce, Lehane said. It will include data sharing with the city that shows where short-term rentals are located, and that will be made available this week -- months before the April 1 effective date for the regulations, allowing the city to "hit the ground running" on enforcement, Lehane said. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/1 I/airbnb_new_orleans_model.html 12/20/2016 Airbnb: New Orleans will become nationwide model for short-term rental enforcement I ... Page 2 of 3 The key to enforcement will be what's known as a "pass-through registration" system. An Airbnb host registers a short-term rental on Airbnb's website, and the company turns over the information to the city's registry used for enforcement. Permits can be issued through the same system, Lehane said. Permits will cost between $50 and $500 annually, depending on the type of rental. "It's really going to be a 21st -century, forward-looking approach," Lehane said. "What it really does is help the city enforce and take action really efficiently." Short-term rental opponents have complained that the city doesn't have the tools to crack down on what's known as "bad actors" -- landlords who routinely allow renters to throw big, noisy properties and disrupt the neighborhood. Lehane said that while "bad actors" are a small minority of hosts, the regulations the City Council is poised to pass will help track down those owners and hold them accountable. Even so, the regulatory framework Airbnb helped craft is likely to be of little solace to opponents of short-term rentals, who would prefer a cap on the number of short-term rentals rather than the 90 -day cap. Opponents have favored eliminating all short-term rentals where the owner isn't present, or at the very least, limiting short-term rentals to one per block. Cities like Chicago, New York and San Francisco have all headed in that direction, either levying stiff fines against violators or limiting short-term rentals far more strictly than in New Orleans. But Lehane said that Airbnb views New Orleans as unique in trying to strike a balance between promoting and supporting tourism and ensuring residents can maintain a good quality of life. "What the city is really looking to try to do here is, 'how do we promote and support a new industry that's contributing in a significant way to the local economics here?"' Lehane said. "What the city has effectively done ... is to have these tools that will work with each other. They've identified the types of home -sharing they want. They've identified the number of days they want based on looking at the patterns in the city, and they came about it by identifying the tools they'd need." Another unique element of New Orleans' regulations contain a $1 contribution per night, per rental, toward affordable housing. New Orleans is the only city that has sought to steer revenue from short-term rentals into addressing needs like affordable housing, Lehane said. "I think you're going to start seeing cities use the tax dollars we can generate from those who travel on the platform to address a big public policy need," he said. Opponents insist platforms like Airbnb are driving up the cost of housing. Asked whether the platform is acknowledging its role in driving up housing costs by making contributions toward affordable housing, Lehane said, "we see ourselves as a solution and an answer to help address housing challenges, and we certainly want to do that as many places as we can." "It's really exciting that we're going to use money we're generating that otherwise wouldn't exist to help with affordable housing," Lehane said. "At the same time, the platform is generating money to help people stay in their own homes." Lehane acknowledged, however, that not everyone is happy with the regulations. Neither is Airbnb, he said. For example: There is a prohibition on short-term rentals in the French Quarter, which is among the most desirable locations in New Orleans. "We didn't get everything we would've liked, but that's the nature of this process," Lehane said. "Sure, we have people doing it in the French Quarter, but we also have people doing it all over the city. Bringing tourism dollars and benefits to people who live here full-time who might not have benefited in the past, I think the city took a look at that ... and said the French Quarter seems to be doing fine but this could be beneficial to other parts of the community." Kevin Litten covers New Orleans City Hall for NOLA.com ( The Times Picayune. Reach him at klitten@nola.com or 225-436-2207. Follow him on Twitter @kevinlitten. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/1I/airbnb—new—orleans—model.html 12/20/2016 Airbnb: New Orleans will become nationwide model for short-term rental enforcement I ... Page 3 of 3 Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy © 2016 NOLA Media Group. All rights reserved (About Us). The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of NOLA Media Group. Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site. p, Ad Choices http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/11/airbnb_new orleans_model.html 12/20/2016 From: Irene Henrikson <Irene.henrikson@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 1:26 PM To: Ken Dyda; CC; PC Subject: Short -Term Rentals Survive County Ban ( Santa Barbara Independent http://m.independent.com/news/2016/dec/07/short-term-rentals-survive-county-ban/?templates=mobile Short -Term Rentals Survive County Ban I Santa Barbara Independent Page 1 of 4 � IndRo � Sign in tir Desktop site Supervisors to Consider Otter Options, Including reefed Up Enforcement and Homestays Paul Wellman BAN `EM! Supporters of a ban on short-term rentals in residential zones will have to wait and see how next year's new board weighs in on the issue. Story by Keith Hamm Wednesday, December 7, 20,16 Proponents of short-term rentals breathed a collective sigh of relief Tuesday afternoon as the county supervisors struck down new rules that would have banned the cottage industry in residential neighborhoods and regulated it in certain agricultural, commercial, and mixed-use areas. The proposed changes to the county's zoning ordinance—drafted by the Planning and Development department and supported by the Planning Commission and the Montecito Planning Commission —arrived to the board after 18 months of public wrangling. The lucrative practice of homeowners renting out extra bedrooms or entire properties for stays of fewer than 31 days has ramped up considerably during the past five years, now adding upward of $1.7 million annually in transient -occupancy taxes (TOT) to county coffers. At the same time, residents against it have become more vocal. "My charge up here is to represent my community," said 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf, the only boardmember in favor of the new rules and regulations. "This is about neighborhood compatibility and the integrity of zoning." Her supporters reiterated that noisy, high - turnover short-term rentals often degrade the quiet family ambience that home buyers expect from a residential neighborhood. Among the four supervisors voting against staff recommendations, the 5th District's Steve Lavagnino said, "If we ban [short-term rentals], we'll end up with all of the impacts and none of the revenue." He expressed frustration that he'd signed on to Measure B—a 2 percent TOT increase approved by voters http://m.independent.com/news/201 6/dec/07/short-term-rentals-survive-county-ban/?tem... 12/20/2016 Short -Term Rentals Survive County Ban I Santa Barbara Independent Page 2 of 4 in November—while county government had largely turned its back on the cash infusion from taxes on short-term rentals. "There's just too much money on the table." Closing out his tenure with the board, Congressmember-elect Salud Carbajal joined fellow boardmembers Lavagnino, Peter Adams, and Doreen Farr in directing staffers to further explore several facets of a very complicated issue, from beefed-up enforcement and vacation -rental overlays along the coast to permitted farmstays and homestays, during which room rentals would be allowed in an owner - occupied residence. "This is too important to try to put to bed today," Carbajal said. "There has to be a balance." Share on Facebook Share on Twitter • Email Be succinct, constructive, and relevant to the story. Leaving a comment means you agree to our Discussion Guidelines. We like civilized discourse. We don't like spam, lying, profanity, harassment or personal attacks. 138 Comments Santa Barbara Independent Login ; Recommend Share Join the discussion... lynette la mere b 12 days ago Regulation would solve the handful of problems. A ban would cause so many to lose their homes and it would severely damage the local economy. The handful of problems don't outweigh the many 1000's of positive examples. Why is short term rental a "business" and long term rental is not? v - Reply . Share > Bob Field lynette la mere - 12 days ago Why is short-term rental a business is an important question. County Counsel has repeatedly referred to the most relevant and controlling legal case here, which is also eloquent in answering your question. For those with a sincere interest in this, as opposed to those just trying to create confusion and doubt, Google "Ewing v. City of Carmel -by -the -Sea, 234 Cal.App.3d 1579" 4 - ,,,.. - reply - Share > http://m. independent.com/news/2016/dec/07/short-term-rentals-survive-county-ban/?tem... 12/20/2016 Short -Term Rentals Survive County Ban I Santa Barbara Independent Page 3 of 4 16 Photos That Will Show You How Fit The First Lady Is! Dieflast.com Forest Gump Producers Kept This Secret From Fans NowBuzz.Me How To Fix Your Fatigue And Get More Energy Vital Reds Supplement Rancho Palos Verdes, California Residents Are Stunned By This New Rule Provide -Savings Insurance Quotes The One Little Device That's Going to Grow In The Market by 8000% Sovereign Society Now You Can Track Your Car Using Your Smartphone Trackr Bravo All News Angry Arts & Breaking Poodle Living News Drink Food Letters Reviews http://m.independent.com/news/2016/dec/07/short-term-rentals-survive-county-ban/?tem... 12/20/2016 Short -Term Rentals Survive County Ban I Santa Barbara Independent Page 4 of 4 Flock Sports Theater Visual Arts 02616 Santa Barbara Independent http://m.independent.com/news/201 6/dee/07/short-term-rentals-survive-county-ban/?tem... 12/20/2016 From: Irene Henrikson <Irene.henrikson@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 1:25 PM To: Ken Dyda; CC; PC Subject: Letter:+Response+to+Short-Term + Renta l+Letter http://www.danapointtimes.com/letter-response-short-term-rental-letter/ Letter: Response to Short -Term Rental Letter I Dana Point Times ASELF THE r flF i MENS GIVE YOURSELF THE Vs RIFT RF Page 1 of 5 She vy A tkinson, Dana Point This letter is in response to Nadia Starner's Nov, 25 tetter to the L term rentals (STR). I am a Dana Point resident. I oven one single-family s. Let me state emphatically; the city's STR ordinance that until recentl, of turning residential neighborhoods into "hotel zones" or anything t I maligns the average short-term renter in this city, at one point br see beyond the dollar." If you actually meet STR owners in Dana live in their homes part of the time and travel other times. Some t' cannot afford to without renting their homes during the summer, It is frankly a mystery why the STR issue suddenly turned white hot after the taw had been in effect for three years without significant public controversy. In fact, there are substantially fewer STRs operating today than when the ordinance was passed three years ago. Interestingly, one neighborhood focused on by STR opponents, the Beach Road community was initially developed over 5o years ago Largely for people wanting second homes or vacation homes. /fitnesstogeth http://www.danapointtimes.com/letter-response-short-term-rental-letter/ 12/20/2016 Letter: Response to Short -Term Rental Letter I Dana Point Times Several years ago my family and I lived on Beach Road for six m( Was a great experience Living there, STRs and all. Lots of Beach F doing so for many years, some Well over two decades, and love whether I wanted to Live in a community that has STRs or not. If Iil :10111CILL ,, neighborhood controlled by a private homeowners' association v RSEIF THE Finally, your suggestion that anyone that wants to share his or he GIVE YOURSELF THE OF zone is ludicrous. STRs are residential uses. They are not "busine: �� 30 days is a "business." The underlying land use for a STR is resid OF IESSTo submit a letter to the editor, email editorialca danapointtimes. c FITNESS Share this: Share City Council (Http://Www.danapointtimes.com/Tag/City-CounciV) Letter To The Editor (Http://Www,danapointtimes.com/Tag/Letter-To- Rental (Http://Www.danapointtimes.com/Tag/Rental/) Short -Term Rentals (Http://Www.danapointtimes.com/Tag/Short-Term-RF Soapbox (Http://Www.danapointtfines.com/Tag/Soapbox-2/) Str (Http:/0 Str Ordinance (Http://Www.danapointtimes.com/Tag/Str-Ordinance/) (http.A4f MtageLtper Mjn/mappaiWdEEhQbdau-M*OtnR6ferendum/: SHARING PREVIOUS POST At the Movies:'La La Land' Doesn't Miss a Beat (http://www.danapointtimes.com/movies-la-la- land-doesnt-miss-beat/) RELATED POSTS Page 2 of 5 cial than ,danapoint (http://www,danapointtimes.com/Letter- (http://www dana- point- learn -mi stakes- response -cot northern -neighbors/) Camino-capk Letter: Dana Point: Learn from article-dec-z/) EMMENNEEM the Mistakes of Your Northern Letter: Response to Comment (http://www,danapointtimes.com/letter- thank-voters-Capistrano-un ifid"�')ta l - Neighbors Posted on 'Camino Capistrano (http://www.danapointtimes.com/l�fiiic Calming' Article on Dec. Letter: Thank You Voters gttter% dana-point-learn-mistakes- 2 Capistrano Unified northern -neighbors/) (http://www.danapointtimes.com/Igiop://www•danapointtimgbom/letter- thank-voters-capistrano- unified/) http://www.danapointtimes.com/letter-response-short-term-rental-letter/ 12/20/2016 Letter: Response to Short -Term Rental Letter I Dana Point Times response-comment- camino-capistrano-t � calming-article-dec--;z �� COMMENTS (0) RSEIF THE RIVE YOURSELF THE r OF Your Name (required) 01FT F IESS Your Email(required) FITNESS Your Website (required) Your Comment Your email address wilL not be published. (http://fitnesstogether.com/danapoint/holiday-dptimes) You may use these HTML (Hypertext Markup Language) tags ar <acronym title="'> <b> <blockquote cite="'> <cite> <code> < <strike> <strong> Submit El Notify me of folLow-up comments by email. F1 Notify me of new posts by email. Search ... Current Issue Page 3 of 5 http://fitnesstogeth Check out this week's issue (http://www.danapointtimes.com/n, , http : //www. danapo inttime s. com/letter-response-short-term-rental-letter/ 12/20/2016 Letter: Response to Short -Term Rental Letter I Dana Point Times (http://www.r Don't get the DP Times delivered to your home? (http://WWW. Subscribe today. Recent Comments jutie on Investigation Continues in April 8 Fatal Car Crash in conti n ues-i n-apri l -8 -fatal -car -crash -i n-dp/#comment-170< (http://fitnesstogether,com/danapoint/holiday dptimes) Steve Stewart on Investigation Continues in April 8 Fatal Ca (http://www.danapointtimes,com/investigation-continues- (http://v RPMI LAGUNA BEACH —Wr CUCK HERE TO REGISTER OR FOR MORE INFORMATION Our Latest Tweets GIVE YOURSELF THE GIFT OF FITNESS Check out the Pet of the Week and help Boomer get a home for (https://t.co/J7xObSNFOo) #danapoint 7 hours ago (https://twitter.com Capo Beach family displaced by fire. Christmas tree and present ..;vl'_ZNy 7�,7 , (https://t.co/76DWoDYj6G) #danapoint 6 hours ago (https://twitter.com/danapointtimes/status/811309353747828737) Attn: History Buffs, we have a new book column and this month these suggestions are just for you I https://t.co/REj22XHgXD (https://t.co/REj22XHgXD) #danapoint 4 hours ago (https://twitter.com/danapointtimes/statUS/811270085222526980) Follow danapointtimes on Twitter (http://twitter.com/danapointtimes) Follow us on Instagram @DanaPointTimes Page 4 of 5 p://fitnesstogeth http://www.danapointtimes.com/letter-response-short-term-rental-letter/ 12/20/2016 Letter: Response to Short -Term Rental Letter ( Dana Point Times (https: //scontent.cdni nstagram.com /t51.2885- 15/s64ox64o/sho.o8/e35/c18o.0.720.720/15625297_221453308:; ig_cache-key=MTO wODkoNDYyNTc4MzYyODQxOA%3D%3D.2.c; RSELF THE r GIVE YOURSELF THE �� (https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885- 01FT OF 15/s64ox64o/sho.o8/e35/c180.0.720.720/15624020-243o6o88E IESS ig_cache-cacheFITNESS (https://scontent.cd ni nstagram.com/t51.2885- 15/s64ox640/sho.08/e35/15535414-760942057414708-3738162 ig-cache-key=MTQ,vODA4MzgxMTAzMTgxOTk3Nw%3D%3D.2) P (http: %fimgF"sf.AAIAe1.(on/JSA pu�ui;a c'1waptimes) Grill, Print rai_ir Free COLIpon,, Now! G) Page 5 of 5 (http://fitnesstogeth News E -Blasts Subscriptions A," Get important news and Don't get the DP Times Dr updates delivered delivered to your home? b� �repilot.ca �r ' straight to your inbox. Subscribe today. (h a t.E �_ €se - vena i-oim IlrrleS VILLA:// WWW.UanaiJUln UJrrleb.curn/ San Clemente Times(http://vwwv.sanclementetimes,com) The Capistrano Dispatch (http://thecapistranodispatch.com) DP Chamber Directory (http://content.yudu.com/A4odip/20162017Directory/) http://www.danapointtimes.com/letter-response-short-term-rental-letter/ 12/20/2016 From: Irene Henrikson <Irene.henrikson@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 1:20 PM To: PC; Ken Dyda; CC Subject: San Francisco Chronicle link SF mayor vetoes bill that would have slashed short-term rentals http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/SF-s-new-Airbnb-law-tightens-the-rules-will-10784313.php?cmpid=email- premium#photo-11794958 This message was sent via sfchronicle.com. ■;»►0� SF mayor vetoes bill that would have slashed short-term rentals - San Francisco Chronicle Page 1 of 3 SF mayor vetoes bill that would have slashed short-term rentals By Emily Green I December 8, 2016 ( Updated: December 8, 2016 5:55Pm M Photo: Jeff Chiu, Associated Press IMAGE 1 OF 2 FILE - In this April 19, 2016, file photo, Airbnb co-founder and CEO Brian Chesky speaks during an event in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File) http://www. sfcbronicle.com/politics/article/SF-s-new-Airbnb-law-tightens-the-rules-will-... 12/20/2016 SF mayor vetoes bill that would have slashed short-term rentals - San Francisco Chronicle Page 2 of 3 Mayor Ed Lee vetoed legislation late Thursday that would have restricted short-term rentals to 60 days a year, saying it would make enforcement of the current law "more difficult and less effective" and would drive "even more people to illegally rent units." The legislation, passed by the Board of Supervisors last month, would have barred hosts from having paying guests in a room, house or entire apartment for more than 60 days a year. The veto means that the current law will remain intact. That law allows hosts to rent a room in their house or apartment for an unlimited number of days, or entire homes for up to 90 days a year. Lee's veto is most likely the final word on the matter. The supervisors .need eight votes to override a veto, and the legislation appears to have the support of just seven supervisors. The bill was unexpectedly proposed by Board of Supervisors President London Breed, who had previously opposed legislation restricting short-term rentals to 60 days a year. She said she changed her stance because she wanted to give the law time to work. When she concluded that it wasn't, she proposed tighter restrictions. Only about 1,700 out of an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 hosts in the city are now registered, making it all but impossible to enforce the current annual rental caps. In addition to Breed, Supervisors David Campos, Aaron Peskin, Jane Kim, Eric Mar, John Avalos and Norman Yee voted for the legislation. Supervisor Mark Farrell recused himself from the vote because he has business interests in a company involved in the short-term rental industry. http://www. sfchronicle. com/politics/article/SF-s-new-Airbnb-law-tightens-the-rules-will-... 12/20/2016 SF mayor vetoes bill that would have slashed short-term rentals - San Francisco Chronicle Page 3 of 3 If enacted, San Francisco would have had some of the most stringent restrictions on short-term rentals in the country. Lee has historically opposed tougher restrictions on short-term rentals in the past, saying they help residents make extra money and stay in the city. Breed. said that she was disappointed with Lee's veto but that "the mayor has finally agreed to work with me and stakeholders to look at regulations and long-term solutions." She said they will develop a working group to make recommendations by the end of February. Avalos was more critical. "I'm sure Ed Lee is smart enough to understand how devastating short-term rentals have been to our housing stock, so it's safe to say the mayor cares more about Airbnb's bottom line than preventing homelessness." — Emily Green Email: cityinsiclet•(4),sfchi�oi7icle.ccoin, egreen(r,,sfchronicle.com Twitter: i,' sjcityinsicler, (a�emilyt��yReen Emily Green City Hall Reporter Q ?016 Heist Corporation http : //www. sfchronicle. com/politic s/article/S F-s-new-Airbnb-law-tightens-the-rule s -will-... 12/20/2016 From: Irene Henrikson <irene.henrikson@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 11:24 AM To: Ken Dyda; Octavio Silva; PC; CC Subject: Recent threats to the First Amendment and short-term rentals - PLF Liberty Blog http://blog.pacificlegal.org/airbnb-and-the-first-amendment/ Sent from my iPhone Recent threats to the First Amendment and short-term rentals - PLF Liberty Blog I - #� ... =t,i , .= 'I . 'i ill I'!' ° s,�. June 30, 2016 Caleb Trotter +1 0 Tweet F Share 'se 1S It should come as no surprise that governments struggle to regulate the disruptive nature of the "sharing economy." Lately, this struggle has resulted in increasingly burdensome regulations on property owners renting their property short-term, and on the websites like Airbnb and VRBO that provide a platform to list those properties for rent. Two recent examples from New York and San Francisco highlight the unconstitutional ways in which some cities are approaching the perceived "problem" of property owners exercising their property rights and right to earn a living. Earlier this month, the New York state Legislature passed a bill that prohibits any advertising of entire -home or apartment short-term rentals. Unable to enforce another misguided law that prohibits renting property short-term, New York apparently decided to double down and pass this blatant content -based speech restriction. But the government can't just single out speech it doesn't like for censorship. So long as the advertisements are truthful and not misleading, New York cannot ban them unless the law withstands strict scrutiny. Proponents of the bill claim the law is necessary to curb a lack of housing availability and high rents in New York City. But there is no definitive data supporting the proposition that short-term rentals have a significant impact on housing availability or costs. To the contrary, low availability and high rent are the completely predictable result of New York implementing rent control and restraining increases in housing supply. Alas, trying to solve a government created problem with a speech restriction that cannot withstand scrutiny under the Constitution is not the proper way to Similarly, San Francisco stringently regulates short-term rentals and requires all short-term rental property owners to register with the San Francisco Office of Short -Term Rentals. Displeased that only around 1,650 of the estimated 9,000 properties subject to the ordinance had registered in the year -plus since the registry went into effect, San Francisco passed a new law that punishes Internet companies like Airbnb and VRBO for allowing owners of unregistered properties to use their site to list the property. Despite the numerous complaints that the City's registry is overly complicated and difficult to navigate --resulting in the low number of registrations—the City instead chose to fine the websites $1,000 for every unregistered property listing. 1 Recent threats to the First Amendment and short-term rentals - PLF Liberty Blog There are a number of legal problems with this latest ordinance, including the unconstitutional content -based speech restrictions. The ordinance singles out one type of advertisement—short-term rental listings that an advertising platform cannot verify are registered with the city—and punishes the platform for publishing it. This will likely result in significant chilling of speech, and ignores less -restrictive alternatives like fixing the registration system to make it easier for property owners to register, or focusing on bringing the actual property owners into compliance with the registration law. Governments must stop flouting the Constitution if they insist on tightly regulating short-term rentals instead of letting existing laws and private market mechanisms operate. PLF will monitor these and similar situations for opportunities to remind regulators of their constitutional limits. Constitutional Law, First Amendment, Free Enterprise & Economic Liberty, Free Enterprise and Economic Liberty, No to Big Government, Property Rights Airbnb, first amendment, New York, property rights, San Francisco, short-term rentals, VRBO permalink[http://blog.pacificlegal.org/airbnb-and-the-first-amendmentt About Caleb Trotter Caleb Trotter is a CPIL Attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. View all posts by Caleb Trotter 2 From: Carolynn Petru <carolynn.petru@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 4:14 PM To: CC Cc: Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva; Michael Huang Subject: December 20th Agenda Items Concerning Short Term Rentals Honorable Mayor and City Council Members - Unfortunately, I'm feeling under the weather and unable to attend tonight's meeting to address Agenda Item Nos. 1 and 5 (Short -Term Rentals). However, I fully support the Staff s recommendations on both agenda items and hope the Council will approve them this evening. As my neighbor's have documented in their correspondence, the short-term rental operators are continuing to run their businesses with impunity. Due to the profitability, it's extremely important to provide Staff with all the necessary tools to enforce the City's zoning standards and protect our residential neighborhoods. More steps may be needed in the future, but these two agenda items are very solid steps in the right direction. I was also very pleased to see that the Planning Commission recommended including multi -family residential zones as well, which Staff has incorporated into the agenda items before you tonight. Thank you for your service on behalf of our community and for your attention to this important issue. Best regards, Carolynn Petru / 1 5 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: ACTING CITY CLERK DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2016 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, December 20, 2016 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material Emails from: Michael Huang; Nelly & James Bertolina; Jim and Vanessa Hevener; Tracy Burns; Chris Huang; Jeannette Peterson; Rochelle Krieger; Michael Friedman; Mary Ross; June and Derek Treherne; Faith Stapleton; George Brandt; Email exchange between Community Development Director Mihranian and avalanches123@yahoo.com 5 Email from Michael Huang; Jim and Vanessa Hevener; Jeannette Peterson; Rochelle Krieger; Michael Friedman; June and Derek Treherne; Faith Stapleton; George Brandt; Email exchange between Community Development Director Mihranian and avalanches123(@7yahoo.com Respectfully submitted, .tel .,jam � Ter -5a'Takaoka W101 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2016 Cover Sheets\20161220 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc From: Michael Huang [mailto:mikehgalaxy@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 14,2016 10:40 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Comment on Prohibition of Advertising of Short -Term Rental and Increasing Fines for Short -Term Rental Violations Agenda Items for December 20th City Council Meeting Attachments: Video from 6857 Crest House.MOV Dear Members of the City Council: Since the prohibition of short-term rentals in our City on September 20, 2016, many of the illegal short-term rental operators continue to rent their homes out illegally at the expense of their neighbors. Also most of the illegal short-term rental operators continue to blatantly advertise their short-term rentals on host platforms such as AirBNB. Here are some examples: Over the Veterans Day holiday weekend, the house at 6857 Crest was rented out to a large wedding party for at least three nights at approximately $800 per night. On Saturday, November 12, the wedding party held a ceremony at the house in which a very large wedding party walked up, down, and across the street in front of the house where the road slopes steeply and takes a dangerous blind s - curve. I received emails from at least three residents who stated that they almost had an accident in front of the house that day as a direct result of this wedding party. The Sheriffs department was called, and there were at least 70 cars parked on both sides of the street around the house. I have attached a video a resident took of the event. Then on November 19th, the following weekend, the house was again rented out to short-term renters as can be seen from six cars crammed in the driveway of the house in the picture below. 1�5 Here is an example of an AirBNB listing from Eric Mark's listing at 6527 Eddinghill Dr. in which he is paying lip service to the short-term rental prohibition but at the same time telling his renters they can "shorten your stay due to emergency" without any "cancellation fees". His calendar also takes reservations with only a 1 -night minimum. Here's a listing from an AirBNB listing for Maura's house on 7242 Avenida Altisima in which the she coaches her guest not to talk to neighbors and also to tell neighbors that they are her "friends". She also takes reservations with a 1 -night minimum. E C 4 oame6.tM.{ani: Nit,-<:::_..,:,ernr,.e, -111. 'E_.. _.:•s from The bed before sleep on. The material is �Vo smoking, no pets. &,vnefs are extremely allergic to cats and rings. Wet suits only it t;led areas fbathrooms, 1—dry room). The house is NoOred in premium maple and the wood wiil buckle rot if any dampness remains on the surface. 'vo high heels on the wood Noor - you wig leave knicks and ..,dentations on the wood's surface that will be costly to repair. Non—shook -se - a fee for odor removal will be charged for —n—corr.', <...:. The poo c durluq the winter. The heating stems* - .,.eking properly, c. .',e h - - sheet an, in a quiet ne'gnoorhoo<, on; .tto r _i %2`. PP'ease note that ever ^.. i 7t,:s* be put back in its origins: place. Fees for Mean Or a.�u re-posaios'i,ng of yaodsand furniture wi.. be assessed if the items are not put back in its a s: pia,sect your privacy. in this neighborhood. people mayand "chat" with guests. Please do not engage insion and let your guests know as well. Please lete know you are my friends. Do not give any personalation tb anyone. Ask them to contact me directly.you staying 'In our house no one should come andr you or ask any questions. We wwi: NOT give any offormation to anyone. We guard our guests personalave''. information with utmost attentlon - Che:kin Cheek Out Guests ln� -1,,-,—,- 1,, d,—, 1_ a .. novem�e.z11 r. _. 24 25 27 28 29 ( 30 Maura has since removed the portion about asking her renters to tell the neighbors that they are "her friends" after she was reported. Check In Check Out 1. -Mansion in Exclusive BeachQS E _= --Id: yl Area Oeeamb., 2016 E•c s rho t w to s [;uc=ts 1 Eed�aom 1Bed 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 About this listing 25 26 27 28 2929..3-031{� Live to luxury ':•1 a brand new 5 years old impeccable house New mattresses, fresh towers. Germ free home. �! We are straight peoplewith traditional moral values. will host only compatible guests with =Same. nd have fun I'ke many ooze have had. : ^' Emeil O Messenger - M9 epte, oer 30. the city of Ranco ales Verdes has banned short term allowed to gent monis for 3S days or longer. MEE ree to inouire. cancellation res f you must shorten your ,ray tlue to emergency. Contact host Here's a listing from an AirBNB listing for Maura's house on 7242 Avenida Altisima in which the she coaches her guest not to talk to neighbors and also to tell neighbors that they are her "friends". She also takes reservations with a 1 -night minimum. E C 4 oame6.tM.{ani: Nit,-<:::_..,:,ernr,.e, -111. 'E_.. _.:•s from The bed before sleep on. The material is �Vo smoking, no pets. &,vnefs are extremely allergic to cats and rings. Wet suits only it t;led areas fbathrooms, 1—dry room). The house is NoOred in premium maple and the wood wiil buckle rot if any dampness remains on the surface. 'vo high heels on the wood Noor - you wig leave knicks and ..,dentations on the wood's surface that will be costly to repair. Non—shook -se - a fee for odor removal will be charged for —n—corr.', <...:. The poo c durluq the winter. The heating stems* - .,.eking properly, c. .',e h - - sheet an, in a quiet ne'gnoorhoo<, on; .tto r _i %2`. PP'ease note that ever ^.. i 7t,:s* be put back in its origins: place. Fees for Mean Or a.�u re-posaios'i,ng of yaodsand furniture wi.. be assessed if the items are not put back in its a s: pia,sect your privacy. in this neighborhood. people mayand "chat" with guests. Please do not engage insion and let your guests know as well. Please lete know you are my friends. Do not give any personalation tb anyone. Ask them to contact me directly.you staying 'In our house no one should come andr you or ask any questions. We wwi: NOT give any offormation to anyone. We guard our guests personalave''. information with utmost attentlon - Che:kin Cheek Out Guests ln� -1,,-,—,- 1,, d,—, 1_ a .. novem�e.z11 r. _. 24 25 27 28 29 ( 30 Maura has since removed the portion about asking her renters to tell the neighbors that they are "her friends" after she was reported. As of tonight, December 14th„ the two rental houses on Avenida Altisima are still advertising their homes for short-term rentals: Maura at 7242 Avenida Altisima is allowing reservation requests on AirBNB with a 3 -night minimum for January, 2017: Check In Check Oel Feng Shui Beach House - Ocean Views . OY01,, 179 `& n , � .., a..., . 6 Guests 513— 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ,2a,6 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 About this listing �....... >, . ti Guests 1 Be4.00m 18etl 29 30 31 Wake up to panoramic ccea,, vie— of the Pacific! About this listing Contact host 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 My Residence has great views. nearby restaurants and dining, family -friendly activities. the beach. and art and culture. You'll love my place because of the home feel with the outdoors space, the neighborhood, the sunlight. the comfy Email O r.t.: Yolanda Quimbayo at 7137 Avenida Altisima is allowing reservation requests for her master bedroom on AirBNB with a 3 -night minimum: Ir Vmw Plwlos �� Since the ban passed on September 20, 2016, Yolanda has continued to run her short-term rentals. Her AirBNB shows three reviews from short-term renters from China, New York, and Tennessee who stayed in October and November. It can be seem from one of the reviews that she is also serving her Cnec4 In Check Out Comfy Master Bedroom in ,: ,,,,.✓; RPV, a Peaceful Home! ___ ,2a,6 �....... >, . ti Guests 1 Be4.00m 18etl 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 About this listing 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 My Residence has great views. nearby restaurants and dining, family -friendly activities. the beach. and art and culture. You'll love my place because of the home feel with the outdoors space, the neighborhood, the sunlight. the comfy beds. and the kitchen. My place is good for couples, sob adventurers. business travelers, and big groups. ¢man O Mactenper –More Since the ban passed on September 20, 2016, Yolanda has continued to run her short-term rentals. Her AirBNB shows three reviews from short-term renters from China, New York, and Tennessee who stayed in October and November. It can be seem from one of the reviews that she is also serving her guests coffee and breakfast in violation of the Bed and Breakfast Ordinance. We have also observed other short-term renters besides the renters who wrote these reviews. Verified info Government ID 0 Email address (2 Phone number 0 Learn more » Listings (3) Hey, I'm Yolanda! US • Joined to August 2016 Report this user TSuperhost ® Reviews 0 Verified Reviews (23) Reviews From Guests Panoramic ocean views abound. There Is no LA smog at this location. The RPV location is a portion of LA County that is actually a peninsula (surrounded by ocean on several sides). I found it medicinal and quiet. It was exactly what I was looking for. Yolanda is a fantastic host. She makes great coffee and breakfast too. he backyard had a full view of the ocean which is perfector observing the Joe un a revable sunsets. From Knoxvr e. TN - November2016 - ^ Comfy Private Bedroom in RPV, a Peaceful Home! Wow- this was amazing- Yolanda is a wonderful host 4D From Ne�Ywk. Y • Octobe�2016 1 Private Bed&Bath in RPV Home! J. B. Amazing stay in Yolanda's house. Beautiful ocean scenery, beautiful and warm Yolanda. She is talkative and we talked with each other a lot. Yolanda taught me to dance SaSa as well, what a happy 49 morning we had. I love her and bless her very much- Best recommendation- Yingwu From Hangzhou, China -October 2016 - ', Comfy Private Bedroom in RPV, a Peaceful Home! As you can see, because of short-term operators from the above examples, we still need to set up an effective enforcement framework to enforce the short-term rental ban. I believe the two items on the agenda will be critical for the effective enforcement of short-term rentals. Agenda Item #1 - Code Amendment to Prohibit the Advertising of Short-term Rentals Staff is recommending passing an urgency ordinance to prohibit the advertising of short-term rentals in single-family zones as well as multi -family zones. I think it is critical to prohibit the advertising of short-term rentals in both the single-family and multi -family zones. Short-term rental is an illegal activity; so the advertising of an illegal activity should also be prohibited. Also, we have seen that most short-term renters check-in in the late afternoon or on weekends when the code enforcement officer is not available. It is much easier and more cost efficient to stop the short-term rentals from happening than it is for the code enforcement officer to track down the illegal renters once they have checked in. If advertising is not prohibited, then the burden of enforcement will fall on the neighbors who have to document the renters checking -in after hours. I think the urgency ordinance should be passed so the City can start enforcing the short-term rental ban efficiently immediately for the sake of the neighbors. It is much easier to prove that an operator is advertising short-term rental than it is to actually catch the operators in the act. In many cases, we are seeing the operators and renters colluding to rent illegally. Please do not make us wait 60 days or more in order to prohibit the advertising of short-term rentals. Agenda Item #5 - Increasing Administrative Fines for Short -Term Rental Violations Staff is recommending setting a higher tier of fines for short-term rental violations as well as other more serious violations. The recommended higher tier fine is $1,000 for the first violation, $2,000 for the second violation, and $3,000 for the third violation. I think these fines are reasonable given the fact that some short-term rentals charges over $1,000 per night. Also, before the operators are fined, they are given multiple notices to cease and desist. These higher fines are needed to deter some of the operators who continue to rent illegally because of the huge profits to be made. For comparison purposes, Hermosa Beach's fine for the first violation is $2,500; so our fine of $1,000 for the first violation is very reasonable. I b I learned that the City of Newport Beach has also set their fines at $1,000; $2,000; and $3,000. According to their Director of Community Development, these fines are a good deterrent, and they have not been challenged as been too excessive. She said that they have had these fines for several years now, and it has worked well for them. I believe that we need to pass the two above agenda items not just to deal with the problems now, but to prevent future violations. Short-term rentals is a growing business and will continue to boom, and the problems it brings will get worse if we do not take concrete and swift action now. I thank you for your service to our City. Sincerely, Mike Huang From: James Bertolina <jnbertolina@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 10:30 PM To: CC Cc: Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva Subject: Enforcement of Short -Term Rentals We strongly support the prohibition of advertising for short term rentals and also increase the fine for violators. The rental house across the street from us at 3664 Hightide Dr. has apparently stopped advertising but continues to rent at a slower rate. We hope the owner may now be looking at his options. It is very important for the city to quickly show that it is going to stop this illegal activity. Also, it would be effective to highlight that continued violators could result in court action. Thank you for your consideration Nelly & James Bertolina 3713 Hightide Dr. RPV, Ca 90275 (310) 265-0446 From: Jim Hevener <jhevener@cox.net> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 2:26 PM To: CC Cc: Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian Subject: Short -Term Rental Advertising Ban My wife and I are writing this letter in support of (1) the Code Amendment to Prohibit the Advertising of Short-term Rentals; and (2) increasing Administrative Fines for Short -Term Rental Violations. (1) Enforcement Through Ban on Advertising. One of the key issues with respect to the ban on short-term rentals is enforcement. Many of these rentals take place at night and on the weekends, when Code Enforcement is off-duty. Further, it often is difficult if not impossible to determine visually whether visitors at a property are just guests or instead are short-term renters. We do not want neighbors to feel like they need to intrude on other neighbors (I do not want my neighbors spying on me or asking guests to my house whether they are actually guests or instead are paying customers). The best way to deal with this issue is a strict ban on advertising, as most people engaged in short-term rental are using advertising to generate leads and volume of visits. (2) Ensure Ban On Advertising is Effective. We already are seeing folks try to evade the ban by listing under "beach cities" vs. RPV. Also, by stating that rentals are only for 30 or more days, but (a) allowing reservations for less time or (b) stating that there will be no penalty for cutting the reservation short. City Staff/ City Attorney should be tasked with investigating how other cities are dealing with these efforts to evade and ensuring the enforcement mechanism is vigorous. (3) Penalties Must Be a Deterrence. With rents as high as $500-1000 per night, the incentive to violate the ban is huge. We support a single warning for people who may not be familiar with the ban on short-term rentals, but believe the penalties should kick in after the first warning. People may not be aware at first, but the law is pretty obvious and black -and -white once you know. This is not like a noise complaint or general nuisance where there is not a bright line for violations. Penalties should be high enough to really deter the conduct and after the first violation should be the greater of a set amount or the actual amount of the rental. I'm not so concerned if the set amount is $1,000 or $2,000, but if someone can rent for 10 days at $1,000 per night that is $10,000. A maximum $2,000 per violation (unless it is per day) will not be a deterrence. Also, having too many steps up toward the maximum fine puts too great a burden on Code Enforcement. Keep in mind that this is a new burden on Code Enforcement and all effort should be made to minimize the burden on City Staff and expense to the City. (4) Keep in Mind There Is No Ban On Long -Term Rentals. Some people claim they will lose their house if they are not permitted to engage in short-term rentals. This is bogus. People can always rent out one or more rooms or their house for more than 30 days. I understand that there are many legitimate reasons for financial stress and there are many legitimate reasons why someone would want to rent out part of all of their home. This is something my mother had to do so we could keep our house when I was a kid and my folks got divorced. There is a difference between long-term rental and short-term rentals, as already has been discussed and decided by the Council. Jim and Vanessa Hevener Coolheights 1ds From: Tracy Burns [mailto:akamomma@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 4:10 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: RPV - Short Term Rental (please include in Staff Report for 12/20/16 Clty Council Meeting) Dear Octavio, On page 34 and 35 of the Staff Report there are some serious and false allegations. In an email written by Maura Mizuguchi, an admitted short term rental operator, where she makes slanderous allegations against our fellow neighbor Greg deLamare. http://mv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=5&event_id=731&meta id=34479 In Maura's email she confirms - • she received a Cease and Desist letter from the city regarding her illegal activities • there was a bridal party at her property • she has continued to have more guests • she maintains a public calendar on AirBnB If none of her guests/'friends" are paying, then why continue to have a public calendar on AirBnB with a published daily rate? Maura's claims in her email that Greg engaged in serious criminal activity to document the activities of her guests. If so, why didn't her guests contact the police? I notified Code Enforcement of the bridal party and they responded that day to the property to document, but they were never contacted by the guests. In addition, at my request Code Enforcement notified LASD of the activity in case issues arose. LASD took it one step further and directed deputies to patrol our street. They patrolled our street frequently that day and I even conversed with one in the public road in plain view of all the neighbors. So, Maura's guests had ample opportunity to file a report if the allegations were true, but didn't. The guests also could have used their own professional photographer they had at the location to document, but didn't. Maura does not own the private road that divides our properties. It is owned by Derrick Gable, who has granted us easements for use to access our homes. To my knowledge Derrick has never denied any neighbors access, including those that do not live on our street who use it for exercise and the views. Also, for safety reasons Greg has always had my permission to use the shared private road because the land to the rear of my home is not completely enclosed with a fence allowing easy access to his property. So, if the private road is the trespassing Maura is referring to in her email, then she is mistaken about its' permitted use and about her ownership of the road. The solution would be for Maura Miziguchi to cease operating her illegal hotel/party venue in a zoned residential neighborhood, but her cooperation is doubtful. From Maura's own recent AirBnB ad: "In this neighborhood, people may come and "chat" with guests. Please do not engage in discussion and let your guests know as well. Please let anyone know you are my friends. Do not give any personal information to anyone. " Sincerely, Tracy Burns Maura's AirBnB Ad - The house is on a private street and in a quiet neighborhood. Quiet after 10PM. Please note that everything must be put back in its original place. Fees for clean up and re -positioning of goods and furniture will be assessed if the items are not put back in its original places. We protect your privacy. In this neighborhood, people may come and "chat" with guests. Please do not engage in discussion and let your guests know as well. Please let anyone know you are my friends. Do not aive any personal information to anyone. Ask them to contact me directly. While you staying in our house no one should come and bother you or ask any questions. We will NOT give any of your information to anyone. We guard our guests personal and travel information with utmost attention. atures ^^ 7242Avenida Akmnnm 4. 16 * Q Google ••• t_TF 2:13 PM 88% =I F Q 7242 Avenida Altisima 0 7242 Avenida Altisima From sw"Mu AM TO?, lu4wJr F 00 1,1� �ee �W� I w, �, 14 A',V J0,fi- 00') AiTkti htpsi u 4*� ut �e. 4 rx �p —d °•1'r,-nt ,,,al ,V4 -n oa c," r ,$h#�al, 'I,— p-4, A". 4AKC�fxl. fo'k., Wee k. _WN"Ifrm, A k- W,'w" rm r -m, ","Id m w."5 qv 'r p,psi &W R, V, 0 rem M Ix da.FV-- -0 k, r" lym %,,,a t do i,a :J c,ti'4 k-,,, w I 4T' "ti,;. �', i,,,::. i & ,Wt tgam-� 1, ?- I, t t-1 t -m ,,,q r-A",ev, 1A.". 13 o- lfw' "s t7, IF, W�w'n I ,W;-,'xow -'aN,4n. Im, 1A qM--o -wl Ov-, 0" N -i w"d tuq- 4s tu, p. Page 35 from posted RPV Staff Report 00000 AT&T LTE 9:07 AM 77% rpv.granicus.com „Q -.., n u;-rune-�,.nnc ,-ymg- rm- Y --1 ra" 5111 s fRIVIOg-I= WCULNug-IR 1,UV MIUSl"wnnc IWas arworK-In my oft. c ma„Sherman Oaks, a man fitting the description of my neighbor, Greg dcLamare, came out of his home and trespassed onto 35 of 38 D-7 my property with what was described as high powered lens and took pictures of my girlfriends undressing! My fi iend's mother, aunt, and husband saw him and his photography equipment as well and was so shocked and distraught. The bride was in tears!!! In fact, I was just speaking to them yesterday and they are still worried with where those pictures may be displayed, > > More distressful is that Greg then went into the backyard of Tracy Burns and both were reported to point cameras through the bushes snapping phows of ley friends in the living area. My friends asked them to stop and both of them continued to invade their privacy with these unwcicon9e actions. How would you like getting your photos taken in the privacy of your own home by your neighbors! > > Additionally, I have taken a friend's daughter and her boyfriend in my home while they both are sorting out where to live. They both recently moved back to Palos Verdes (where they attended high school) from Spain and needed a place to stay. They too were subject to being photographed by Tracy Burns as they unpacked and unloaded their cars for their 5 week stay with me. > > It has gotten to a point where I cannot enjoy my home and welcome friends to share the enjoyment of my home. I do not understand why these STR opponents feel they are above the law and have anointed themselves as the STIR police. I am gravely concerned what this ban has done for our community. The opponents claim they deserve peaceful enjoyment of their homes and so do I. > > I hope the City Council realizes what they have done and use their position as elected leaders in our community to heal our divides. They need to denounce the actions ofthese opponents who see the ruling of their votes as a license to demonize those who were supporting home sharing rules. » > >'I'banks for thinking of me and yes, would love to catch up soon!!! > > xoxo > > Maura » n_si 5rA I r.OF CALIFORNIA -NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. PROW N, )R.• GOVERNO.e CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION G^-. 45 FRFRANCIMONr CE 2000 SAN YkANCISCO, CA ')9t05-2219 O, �4�`•,%x`� VOICE (415) 904-5200 FAX(415) 904-5400 TDD (415) 597-5895 N—t individl-lly vim TTO Mnih •�-1. 0 q ?'016 From: Chris Huang <cgpharmd@cox.net> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 6:06 PM To: CC; Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva Subject: Short term rental advertisement ban Dear City Council, Please ban advertisement for short term rental in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. The operators should not be allow to continue to solicit or advertise an activity that has been banned. The owner of house on 7137 Avenida Altisima continues to operate short term rentals despite the ban and knowingly and willingly violate the law. The paying guests assumed that if the room is advertised, it must be okay and unknowingly participated in the unlawful activity. Banning the advertisement will be the one of the effective enforcements by city staff. Thank you. Chris Huang From: Jeannette Peterson <janrpv@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 2:26 PM To: CC; Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian Subject: Short -Term Rentals - Rancho Palos Verdes TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I am in agreement with the recommendation of the city staff to pass an urgency ordinance prohibiting the advertising of short-term rentals in single and multi -family zones. I think the urgency ordinance should be passed so the city can start enforcing the short-term rental ban immediately. I agree with the staffs recommendation of a higher tier of fines for short-term rental violations as well as other more serious violations. These fines are reasonable given the fact that some short-term rentals charge over $1,000 per night. It is my understanding that before the operators are fined, they are given multiple notices to cease and desist. These higher fines are needed to deter some of the operators who continue to rent illegally because of the huge profits to be made. Sincerely, Jeannette Peterson 3650 Hightide Drive From: thebunnyl@cox.net Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 10:25 PM To: CC Cc: aran@rpvca.gov Subject: Short Term Rentals To the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes: I am writing to ask you to continue to support the prohibition of advertising for short term rentals. Also, please support increasing the fine for violators. Thank you Rochelle Krieger 1ts From: Michael Friedman <mlfriedman@me.com> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2016 5:33 PM To: CC Cc: Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva Subject: short term rental ban and fines Dear City Council: We will try to attend the meeting this week. We have witnessed first hand the awful and dangerous manipulations of the short term ban and certainly realize that this whole issue degrades our city and community not to mention the health and safety of its citizens. If we cannot attend the meeting please approve the most strict of enforcement codes and extremely large fines for this unlicensed business owners. It is really quite a stretch to say a 30 day rental can be cancelled for any reason to one nite to get around the law or to misrepresent paying customers as "friends". We are all mature and sensible people and this menace needs to go away. Thanks. Michael L. Friedman, MD �j 5 From: mmgatross@aol.com Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2016 6:34 PM To: CC Cc: Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva; mikehgalaxy@gmail.com Subject: Re: Short -Term Rental Code Amendments to be considered by the City Council on December 20, 2016 Dear Council Members, Thank you for your actions thus far on limits to short-term rentals. I fully support the Planning Commission's recommended Code Amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to: • Affirm the prohibition of Short -Term Rentals in the City's Residential Zoning Districts • Prohibit the advertisement of Short -Term Rentals in the City, and; • Provide a definition for advertising, responsible party, and Short -Term Rentals. and hope that you will support these recommendations. Thank you again for your assistance in this important residential issue. Mary Ross Rhone Drive RPV [H� Think green, print only if necessary! -----Original Message ----- From: Michael Huang <mikehgalaxy@gmail.com> To: undisclosed -recipients:; Sent: Sun, Dec 18, 2016 5:20 pm Subject: Fwd: Short -Term Rental Code Amendments to be considered by the City Council on December 20, 2016 Hi Everybody, Here's the official notice from the City about the upcoming City Council meeting on Tuesday to consider prohibiting the advertising of short-term rentals and also to increase the fines for violations. I believe that these two items are critical for the effective enforcement of the short-term rental ban in our City. Please do not forget to express your opinion on these two important issues if you wish to do so. You can email the city council at: CC(o)RPVCA.GOV and please also CC: ARAMCo)RPVCA.GOV and OCTAVIOS(o)RPVCA.GOV. If you can attend the meeting, it will be held on: Tuesday, December 20, 2016, at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park Community Room located at 29301 Hawthorne Blvd, RPV Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Mike Huang ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Octavio Silva <listserv(o_),civicplus.com> Date: Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 3:00 PM Subject: Short -Term Rental Code Amendments to be considered by the City Council on December 20, 2016 To: mikehgalaxy(o)_gmail.com View this in your browser This message from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is being sent to subscribers of this list who might be interested in its content. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message, it is a non -monitored email address. If there is contact information it will be included in the body of the message. On December 20, 2016, the City Council will review the Planning Commission's recommended Code Amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to: • Affirm the prohibition of Short -Term Rentals in the City's Residential Zoning Districts • Prohibit the advertisement of Short -Term Rentals in the City, and; • Provide a definition for advertising, responsible party, and Short -Term Rentals. The City Council Staff Report is now available. Click Here for the December 20, 2016 City Council Staff Report Please feel free to contact, Associate Planner, Octavio Silva at (310) 544-5234 or via email at octavios(a-),rpvca.gov for questions regarding the proposed code amendments. This message has been sent compliments of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, If you do not wish to continue receiving these messages, please accept our apologies, and unsubscribe by visiting our website at: http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx Please note, The City of Rancho Palos Verdes will not sell or give your e-mail address to any organization without your explicit permission. You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Short Term Rentals on www.rpvca.gov. To unsubscribe, click the following link: http://www. rpvca..qov/1ist.aspx?mode=manage&Email=mikehgalaxy(o)-gmail.com If ckcKinq Iink oesrilAiorkoleasx,, clop' and z asllr the, fink into your browser, From: June Treherne <junetreherne@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2016 8:10 PM To: cc Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: Short Term Rentals Hello, We are going on a trip and will not be able to be at the upcoming meeting to vote on banning all rental advertising and increasing the fine for continuing to rent the property, we support the ban and increasing the fine. June & Derek Treherne Sent from my iPad i�5 From: Faith B. Stapleton [mailto:fbstapleton@cox.net] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 12:01 AM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: For Consideration Good Morning, It is my opinion a fine for continued abuse of RPV code making Short Term Rentals of Private Residences illegal, should be in excess of realized profit the rental will produce and doubled for a future offense. Furthermore notification be made to any site advertising RPV short term rentals (and there are many) that such rentals or illegal. I applaud your efforts to take any measure to control this blight on our community at the grass root level. We are surely becoming that "ME" society...... for my profit and too bad for everyone else. Thank you, Faith Stapleton RPV resident ids From: gb1997@aol.com [mailto:.gb1JJ7%c�l corn] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 8:02 AM To: Octavio Silva <Ociavio c� rpvca.Rov> Subject: Fwd: Ban on Advertising Short Term Rentals George Brandt -----Original Message----- From: ggb1997 <bl�)37 trac>l.co7�> To: CC <CC01ZPVC;A.G0\/> Sent: Mon, Dec 19, 2016 07:58 AM Subject: Ban on Advertising Short Term Rentals We wish to go on record as prohibiting the advertising of short term rentals. The first offense should have a fine of $500. per night, second offense of $1,500. night, third and subsequent offenses of $5,000. per night. Thank you, George Brandt its To: Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: Short Term Rental From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 12:11 PM To: Yahoo <avalanches123@yahoo.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Julie Peterson <JulieP@rpvca.gov>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Short Term Rental Thank you for taking the time to contact the City. Your email is part of the public records and will be provided to the Council at the December 20th meeting. The City will also look into the property you mentioned on Indian Peak and will provide you with a follow-up email. Ara 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: Yahoo[mailto:avalanches123@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 11:49 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Short Term Rental Hi City Council, thank you for passing city code banning STR in RPV on 9/20. Just want to let you know that short term rentals continued after the law became effect. And it was wider spread than just on Avenida Altisima as someone may want you to believe. On my street, a short-term renter at 27113 Indian Peak Rd rented the house out for three days on Thanksgiving weekend. On day 3 the renter had a party, there was limo and the streets were jammed with cars creating traffic hazard. The owner clearly disregard the city ban and thump their nose at the law. This cynical attitude ought to be stopped by passing ban on advertising and raise hefty penalties for law breakers. A concerned resident Sent from my Whone 1