Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

You're not able to attend.

Yeah. So, you're applying. So, Don't mind. No, I'm talking about contract. Right.

Why don't you bring out I don't think so. In other cities, I'd have to check because it's in other cities, commissioners have business cards, but I don't think here.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I have to speak. We could do it. I wouldn't Yeah. I don't think that's the policy here. I mean that's I came from Los Altos and commissioners had cards there. Just depends on the city. So

actually city attorney is working on a policy about use of the city logo because some nonprofits stuck our logo on some stuff that we didn't really want. Anyway, so that's why you're you're making me remember. So, What else? doesn't take you out.

But you have Hopefully it's I'm thinking whenever you guys want to start, we're ready. Oh, but you know what? Hold on. That other TV is not on. Hold on.

One second. Brett, is it the TV or what? But it's not projecting the

All right. That's kind of funny. Hold on. I'm trying to No, if I shake this and I can hear it. Oh

Why is it not You're supposed Yeah. How do you change the

color? Okay. Well, thank you. How did you show me? Yeah, I don't know what's as long as audience.

Yeah. Uh, Chair Woodson, we're ready. So, Thank you. Thank you. Guess it's a formal session, so I have to actually open it, don't I? No.

Where is it? Hidden. All right. Do that works. Not very loud. All right. called order. Special planning commission. I got the wrong date, but it is December 18th, 2025. Um, we do need a roll call. Commissioner Baron, Commissioner Rana,

yes. Vice Chair Walmouth here. Chair Woodson here. Commissioner St. John here. Commissioner Jang here. Commissioner Jacobson here. Yeah, of course.

Thank you very much. Um, we have moment of silence and pledge of allegiance. Somebody like to do that. I did it last month. Okay. Commissioner St. John I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much. All right. So that's during Octo. So on this I just want to make sure I get it right. So we do the study study session first and then we go through the regular. Okay. So and we don't have And because it's a study session, there would be we wouldn't why would we not do just curious why would we do the because it's staying in line to the normal meeting. That's why we do the public the opening comment public.

Yeah. Speaking of the microphone. Okay. So the reason that we don't we don't do the communications from the floor at the beginning now is because we're just saving that for the regular meeting. Yeah. We're just trying to jump right into the just the purpose of starting at 5:30 was just to jump right in, give as much time as we can to really slice and dice the issue and then um and then move into a very small ADU ordinance update that's required by state law.

Okay. So, let's go ahead and jump into the study session. Okay. Good evening, commissioners. I'm here again to discuss the ordinance amendments uh proposed for short-term rentals chapter 17.42.170.

Yes. Next, please. Oh, you are sorry. A history of short-term rentals. Uh, the most prominent platform began in 2008. Uh, its purpose was to provide a bedroom rental for guests when hotels were completely booked. Uh, property owners then began using their properties as short-term rentals without any regulations since it was a new business opportunity for them. uh short-term rental issues. Uh they were unregulated in the beginning. Uh owners began renting out the entire house. Uh some short-term rentals were used for large parties and gatherings. Uh some STR activities resulted in stabbings and shootings in most extreme cases. Uh short-term rental platforms have since banned parties and they're strictly prohibited in their rules. Next.

You can just say next slide.

Okay. Uh short-term rental ordinances. Uh jurisdictions began enacting STR ordinances in the mid 20 uh 2010s. Uh some cities banned short-term rentals altogether while others provided different options. Uh some cities like Santa Monica only allow hosted STRs which means the owner has to live on site and only you know part of the house can be rented. Uh some only allow them in commercial zones only such like Los Angeles and San Diego. Uh some which is San Franc one city like San Francisco which is where short-term rentals initially started uh they only allow um short-term rentals for primary residences and they only allow 90 nights per year. Uh some jurisdictions only allow them in the coastal zone only to provide the community access to the coastal zone via short-term rentals. Cities like Oceanside, Pacific Grove, and Monterey County. Uh some cities have banned them altogether. Cities such as Irvine, Delmare, Santa Ana, Anaheim, Carmemell, uh Rancho Palosis, Roondo Beach, uh Salo, Tibberon, Beverly Hills. Next slide, please. Short-term rentals in the Monterey Peninsula. In the city of Monterey, they are prohibited. In Carmel by the Sea, they're also prohibited. In the city of Pacific Grove, only 250 permits are allowed. In Delray Oaks, uh 25 permits are allowed in Seaside. 90 permits are allowed and they offer hosted and non-hosted. In Sand City, 15 permits are allowed. And in Marina, uh, short-term rentals are permitted. There currently is no limit, and there's 33 issued permits as of today. Next slide, please. We're going to delve into each uh city

in our jurisdiction in our county, or at least in the peninsula. Uh, Pacific Grove. Uh, short-term rental licenses are limited to 250 citywide. uh they must be the the applicant must be the owner of the uh of record and the subject property must be in the coastal or commercial zone. Uh they do have an exclusionary uh rule of the 55 ft zone. So, you can have more than one within 55 ft of each other. And they require a site manager or property manager um is required to be available to manage their property unless the owner lives no more than 30 minutes away by vehicle and can respond if there's any issues. Next slide, please. Delray Oaks short-term licenses are uh short-term rental licenses are limited to 25 citywide. Once again, the property the applicant must be the owner of record. They must provide a nuisance response plan filed with the city and each host must either act or appoint a uh rental site manager who shall be on call 24/7. And they shall respond within 30 minutes from the time of notification of any issue to address concerns or complaints. And they must have a contact information placard posted on the property. and they require uh the host to provide or preserve three years of records for city inspection. City of Seaside they have a limit of 90 permits citywide when they must be the owner of the property and if a permit is revoked they cannot reapply for 2 years. They also have the 55 ft zone of exclusion and the property must be safe to inhabit. Properties under construction or vacant land will not be considered for the waiting list. Uh each host or site manager might must respond within 60 minutes from time of notification.

They also must have the short-term rental placard and they do have a maximum number of vehicles uh cannot exceed the total number of bedrooms included in the rental. And uh staff is required to complete a property inspection initially and with each renewal they must go out to the property. Next slide. Sand City, they have a cap of 15 permits. The applicant must be the owner of uh the the pro the owner of record and they must also appoint a site manager who shall be on call 247 and they must respond within 30 minutes of notification. They also must have a short-term rental placard displayed and they are also staff is also required to pro uh complete a property inspection initially and with each renewal. Next slide, please. Uh, city of Marina's short-term rental ordinance. On November 5th of 2019, city council adopted ordinance 2019-02 amending uh the zoning ordinance to include 17.42.170 42.170 entitled short-term rentals which established a permitting process and appropriate standards for whole dwelling units or portions of the same for a period of 29 consecutive days or less along with associated regulations to mitigate negative impacts. Next slide, please. Here is a current slide. I know it's kind of small, uh, but it has the little houses displaying the locations of the short-term rentals. We currently have 33 permits and it's mainly in Central Marina because uh, some of the HOAs of the major developments have banned them. Uh, the Dunes, Sea Haven, and there's a condo property, a large property, Peninsula Point, that have banned short-term rentals in their in their u developments. So they're not allowed.

Next slide please. Short-term rental toot revenue. Uh you can see that initially in fiscal year 1920 there was minimal revenue. Um with every year it began increasing. Um currently the last uh last fiscal year the revenue from toot was 192,000 and uh that only represents 10 months of activity. Next slide, please. Short-term rental issues. Um, properties have some of the properties are being purchased specifically to obtain a short-term rental permit. Um, at least the number is a little off. At least 11 of the properties were previously listed as long-term rentals. So before they were purchased, um they served as long-term rentals and then the new owner bought them and requested a short-term rental permit. Um we have LLC's with two members each holding a short-term rental permit. uh we have one owner uh purchasing four properties and then when they were notified that they could not have more permits they transferred those properties to family members. Uh we have another owner that uh wanted to obtain a short-term one that obtained a short-term rental permit while holding a state facility license. And we have some property owners that have ad uh accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units. And even though they sign deed restrictions that stipulate the rules that they cannot be rented or used as short-term rentals, um they do list them as short-term rentals and then I find out and then I notify them. Next slide, please.

City council direction. On August 6 of 2025, city council initiated a discussion on strengthening the city's short-term rental program to better protect neighborhood integrity. A city council directed staff to identify ordinance amendments that would improve the effectiveness of the program. Next slide, please. Outline of targeted changes. Uh primary res defining primary residence. uh forms of identification, advertising, parking requirements, uh permit application procedures, specific prohibitions, hosting platform requirements, and liability and enforcement. Next slide, please. Primary residents, the background, uh LLC's, couples, and immediate family members purchasing multiple properties for investment purposes. the issues. The STR ordinance was enacted as a way to support owners living on the property, not for investment purposes. Uh the city has a difficult time ascertaining the primary residency requirement. Solution: require homeowner exemption on the county property record. Uh require a minimum residency by owner of at least 6 months and require rental ledger as proof. limit the short-term rental use to a maximum of 180 days. For example, San Francisco limits it to 90 days. Uh the STR applicant would be required to provide a proposed rental calendar for the fiscal year and submit a short-term rental platform transaction ledgers during the short-term rental permit renewal process. Next slide, please. Forms of identification background. Uh currently two forms of identification are required for initial short-term rental application. Currently a driver's

license and a utility bill suffices. The issues new applicants are initially submitting their driver's license with their actual residents address and once advised of the short-term rental requirement, they submit a change of address through DMV and uh and they are not required to submit a copy of their driver's license upon renewal. A change of address is easily submitted online. Solution require submitt of two forms of identification upon renewal to include DMV vehicle registration, driver's license, state and federal tax returns, a bank account statement, voter registration, or a utility bill dated within 60 days. Next slide, please. Advertising background. Property owners and/or their agents are listing properties as short-term rentals and advertising without a short-term rental permit and a business license. The issue the short-term rental ordinance is currently lacking an enforcement tool to address advertisement of unpermitted rentals. Solution create created subsection 8 to SDR ordinance 17.42.170 section B. Uh we defined advertisement or advertising and we created subsection 11 uh that states that advertising a short-term rental without a short-term rental license is already a is a violation and the owners or agents can be cited for it. Not just the property owner. It can be the property owner and the company they hire or the person that they hire. Uh they can all be cited. Next slide, please. Parking requirements. Background. The city has received a couple of complaints regarding the large number of vehicles brought in by short-term rental guests.

The issue. Some short-term rentals may host up to 12 adults with equal number of vehicles, reducing street parking. A solution. We created subsection 12 to section C of the ordinance. Uh we've listed that each designated on-site parking space at a transient use site shall be made available for use by overnight occupants of that site and any on-site driveway must be available for the use of the guest of the site. Um and each private contract or tenency shall specify what the maximum number of tenant vehicles to be parked at or in the proximity to a transient use site whether on street or off streetet will sh which shall not exceed the number of bedrooms included in the contract or teny. Uh the short-term rental owner will be required to provide their platform listing and staff will ensure the parking requirements are listed on the platform listing. Next slide, please. Permit application procedures. Background. Short-term rental listings did not match property records. The issue applicants are not submitting proper documentation or supporting documents. Solution clarified and added additional procedures to section D. The added that the short-term rental permit application fee is a non-refundable fee. Sometimes once uh some applicants were getting denied, they wanted their application fee run refunded. So we we added that in there that it's non-refundable. It's the cost of reviewing the application. Section five, uh require site plans uh which do not need to be drawn by a professional but drawn to scale including the following. a plot plan showing location of all property lines, location of all existing buildings and location of dimensioned on-site parking spaces and a floor plan

showing all rooms with each room labeled as to room type. This is to confirm which confirm that the that the listing is and the property that is being listed matches the actual um the the platform has the correct number of bedrooms that matches the property of record. Bless you. Uh because we came across one property that the property of record listed three bedrooms, but they were listing it as a fourbedroom house and that fourth bedroom was created without permits. So that's why it matters. Bless you. Section six, require a rental or lease agreement to be used or um or house rules and requirements will sh which shall include but not necessarily be limit to the follow limited to the following. Uh number of guests allowed which shall not exceed two per legal bedroom plus two additional guest. uh number of vehicles a guest is allowed to park on site and offsite per section C12. And once the short-term permit is issued, the short-term rental permit number must be listed on all platform listing headlines and the platform web links provided to the city. Next slide, please. Specific prohibitions background. The short-term rental ordinance was enacted as a way to support owners living on the property. However, new permit applicants are recent buyers uh owning more than one property reducing the housing supply. The issue, the short-term rental ordinance currently lacks a prohibition section listing specific prohibitions. Solution. We created subsection 14. The activities prohibited for short-term rentals are examples that include but are not limited to the following. Senior housing units and below market price units may not be used for short-term rental purposes. Uh, an owner may not have a short-term rental permit on more

than one parcel for short-term rental use in the city's jurisdiction. And in addition, the parcel listed on the permit and must be the owner's primary residence. And more than one short-term rental booking may not occur concurrently per parcel. Uh, commercial or assembly uses such as weddings, corporate events, and parties are prohibited uh in short-term rentals. and uh short-term rentals uh to unaccompanied minor is prohibited. Next slide, please. Hosting platform requirements. Uh background uh platform providers are not compelled to share host information. Uh the issue, the city is unable to obtain short-term rental host information. solution. We created subsection six uh to section E to include the newly newly enacted Senate Bill 346. Uh this bill basically uh directs the platforms to share information with local jurisdictions. So we're adding it to our ordinance. Next slide, please. Sorry. Uh liability and enforcement. Uh background. the property owner is held responsible uh for short-term rental violations. Uh the issue property owners uh use property management companies and agents as host. So we added solution. We added section F. Um, basically holding what like listed stated before uh hope uh were able to uh hold the owner, the representatives, the the the agents, brokers, anyone assisting in the use of a short-term rental uh hold them accountable. Um and section two, violations of the chapter may be pro uh prosecuted pursuant to chapter 1.12.080 080 and issued a civil penalty not exceeding the amounts in government code section 36900D.

Next slide, please. Summary of the ordinance updates. Primary residents clearly defined primary residence and implemented duration limit. Uh forms of identification listed acceptable proof of identification and require homeowner tax exemption requirement. advertisement uh defined advertisement methods and clearly listed that advertising an unpermitted short-term rental is a violation. Uh parking requirements uh limits the number of vehicles equal to the number of bedrooms. Permit application procedures uh defi are clearly listed that non that the application fee is non-refundable require the site planned and lease agreement required and short-term platform links must be provided prohibitions senior housing and BMR properties commercial or assembly uses and unaccompanied minors are prohibited from the short-term rental program hosting platform requirements must comply with Senate Bill 346 and they must share information with the city and liability and enforcement added to enhance enforcement to all involved parties. Next slide, please. So, some of the best management practices from other agencies include capping number of STRs. As we saw earlier in the Monterey Bay Peninsula, Marina is currently the only city that does not cap their STR. And deciding this number um based on total number of licensed and unlicensed short-term rentals is one of the options that we can pursue. And this does raise an issue of equity and fairness with limits on one property per owner. And another um practice that a lot of

other agencies did was setting a deadline for renewal period. This past year I was in charge of the renewals. And even though I did um send out a lot of reminders leading up to the June 30th deadline, um a lot of a lot of u permit owners did not follow through. So if there if we do cap the number of STRs, this might uh increase a sense of urgency as if they fail to renew then it they would have to go to the wait list. So that is another option that we can consider. And another thing that other agencies did was considering two types of licenses, non-hosted verse hosted. We currently do not distinguish either. So, and the last thing other agencies did was having one STR per parcel, which we proposed. Next slide, please.

Analysis on Oh, the mic. analysis on proposed ordinance updates. Uh to strengthen the short-term uh rental program um defined primary residence and acceptable forms of identification. Defined advertising to enhance enforcement for the advertisement of unpermitted short-term rentals. Established parking requirements. Prohibit short-term rental activity on properties for senior and below market rate housing. Um, and for commercial events or unaccompanied minors, update the permit application procedures, uh, add specific prohibitions, update the hosting platform requirements, and add liability and enforcement. And these, uh, or ordinance updates are in line with ordinances in neighboring jurisdictions. Next slide, please. And here we are at the study session.

I think that concludes the Yes, this concludes it. And now rolling into the stud. That was a lot of information. That was much clearer. Not that it wasn't good before, but that and really outline the the issues, I think, to a much better degree. And I think it shows the complexity of what we're trying to do that it's very easy to have a set of rules that's just a list, but then trying to provide the context to that. Um, which I want to do. Do we actually have other people online?

Uh, chair, we have one, two, three, four, four people online. Okay.

So, before we get into our discussion, I'm going to open up to public dis public discussion first that because I know we can go one way. However, I am going to set some rules on this. Um I am quite frankly a little bit frustrated from our last discussion that we had last month. Um that we just need to make sure that when a person gets to speak, they get to speak. It's one time. It's for a period of time. That's the end of it. That does not mean that they get to speak, pass their cell phone off to somebody else, call in on another number, and speak again. I don't know what I can do from an enforcement perspective, but I can tell you that that is a not a good way to build up goodwill and trust with the commission when there is active deception that is being executed to try to fool the commission. Um, so last time that happened just for the rest of the commission to know. So that will not happen today. And if I find out it does afterwards, then we will have additional discussions about where this goes. But it is I want you I want everybody to treat the commission with the same respect that we treat everybody who's a citizen who comes to speak before us. Um, and that's one reason why I'm also opening it up to the floor first to let you all present your opinions directly after the staff presented theirs so that we can hear both sides of what people think before we start kind of having our discussion. Um and so I am going to start with opening the floor here um for discussion first and then we'll go to people who called in

just press the button.

Yeah. Oh, I see. Perfect. Um, hi, um, commission, uh, chair, vice chair. Uh, my name is Sean McDonald. Uh, as I mentioned when I came previously, uh, I'm been a Marina resident for near, uh, the better part of a decade now. And I previously spent years working in Marina schools, uh, myself as a teacher, my wife is a special education service provider. Uh, my my home has a short-term rental permit. Um, I want to express appreciation to the city's effort to improve the enforcement of the short-term rental ordinance. Uh, I I fully support the proposal to strengthen primary residence verification. I think that's really important um that the people that are operating are operating according to the rules and if uh the rules say that they have to be a primary resident that that the city is able to enforce that. Um, one thing I'm concerned about is the restriction on rental property to 180 days per year and the restriction to a single concurrent rental on the property. These sections of the ordinance would have a significant negative impact on families like mine who have followed the rules of the court or ordinance. We have an ADU on our property. It was built prior to the rules that the state had put in place um that would disallow other ADUs that were built or that were permitted. um from 2020 on. So ours is a a pro a ADU that it does not have to be disallowed from ADU uh from STRs. Uh the ADU on the property where I live is my home for the majority of the year. The main main home is rented uh short-term throughout the year and the ADU is rented short-term for a minority of the year uh primarily during the summer months. Uh this upheaval of moving in and out uh is really tough. Um but you know it's really important for the financial stability of our family. Um as they are currently proposed the changes to the STR ordinance would have a signific significant negative impact on

my family should they come into effect. I ask that commission remove the 180day maximum and the restriction on concurrent rentals from the proposed ordinance. Please focus instead on primary residence verification. I think the other thing to note is um while some cities have completely banned STRs, Marina does have some of the more strict regulations, the the cities that do allow them largely allow um them to not be primary residents in the home, the ones in Delray Oaks, the ones in Seaside, they're those all can be investors purchasing the homes uh and don't have to be the primary res. It should be I think this is really about who's who is a Marina resident who who can provide provide this extra income through the through STRs. Um and I just hope that the the city focused efforts on enforcing those regulations and gets the help for that. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening chair uh members of the commission. Um I don't really have a lot of comments. I don't even know how passionate I really am about this issue. But what I I do know is I was involved in the first iteration of it very heavily and so um it's been kind of fun to watch um how it's kind of evolved over time. I think your staff report was really good. I think they heard you and provided you solutions that um seem reasonable to me. Um there's something that I'm noticing here tonight though is that there's nobody here. Um, and one of the things that that tells me is that I'm trying to find a politically correct way to say this, but nobody really cares, right? There's for most people it's not a big problem, right? Um, you haven't seen a lot of um outcry on Next Door. Maybe a few here and there, few comments on on Facebook, but by and large, I don't think it's been a huge problem. Um, I think that there's some areas that can be improved. Um, uh, and I think staff presented you some solutions for that tonight. Um, the other thing that I think is interesting, the the city council talked about the our affordable housing program on Tuesday, and that program disallows folks who qualify for an affordable house from renting any room, long-term or short-term. And it occurred to me that the people that need that income most are systemically being kept from earning income like their wealthier peers are. Um, and for me that seemed really problematic. City council didn't change that on Tuesday and maybe they'll look at it in the future. Um, but I would encourage you to kind of keep that lens when you look at this short-term rental ordinance, too. Make sure that you know people who you can really have an opportunity to help that that you're helping. Um, and I think that there's a lot of those folks in Marina. It's a it's a really tough thing to kind of try to figure out how to to make sure you're covering all those bases. But, um, that's just kind of the lens that I'm

looking at things. Um, I wrote down weight list application comment. Oh, that was just something I was thinking down the side. But anyway, um, yeah, those are my comments. Thanks for the the hard work and thanks for, um, looking at this issue. I'm Brian McCarthy, by the way, for the record. All right. Uh, go to our online. Hey, is Seth here today? He is here today. Just wondering, he's been quiet. Hi, Seth. Uh, hello. You wanted to say something? Go ahead, Seth.

Oh, hi. No, I just wanted to say hello. I I uh I missed the little panelist promotion when it popped up. So, yes, I am here. But if someone could resend it, then I'd be on the screen. Thank you. Oh, what? I didn't hear what he Oh, maybe you don't know about that. Uh, there's a way to to promote me to a panelist. I think whoever is controlling the Zoom has I did but you denied the request that Oh, I think it just timed out. I'll do it again. Thank you. Oh,

it's all good. I was just feeling like you you missed out. You can show up to help us. Uh, so Chair Woodson, we do have one, two, three people, four people online, but no one has raised their hand at this point. So, okay. So, I'm going to open it up and say, is anyone of the four people want to speak tonight? This is your chance. No one. Uh, I don't see anybody has raised their hand. Chair Woodson. All right. and we will close public call. Actually, I apologize. Two have just raised their hand.

Okay. So, go ahead and pick which one. Uh, Linda, if you want to speak first.

Hey everyone, do you guys hear me? Yes.

Awesome. Thank you for inviting us for uh tonight. Um I just want to touch base for um some issue that you talked about. Um there is um parties issue or people like stabbing or stuff like that. This all happened in other cities. It never happened here in Marina or in the Bay Area or in the peninsula. We don't tolerate any party or like anybody that come here make noise or anything like that. We live on site. We live close by of our properties and we never like hear any issue like that. and we have zero tolerance for stuff like this and that's clear for each any of our uh client or guest. So that's number one. number two that you guys offer a 90 days or 180 days short-term rental. It's hard for us to figure out days like this for our client or guest and basically if we apply this rules 90 days or 180 days that basically it shut us down. It kill us. It kill us the whole business the everything. So nobody going to rent um a property 6 months or like three months of the year and how do you live of that? Like how do you rent it? Um, so that's going to be tough to choose like 90 days or 188. Hopefully you guys look into it in a in a different or like positive way because we never experience any bad thing here or any negative stuff that you guys mention like stuff like this. So uh the third one that you guys mention um if it's a short-term rental reducing the housing needs. So basically if you buy a property in 2025 or 2024 um for like maybe 800,000 um so the accessor office they apply the property tax for $800,000. So you have a big bill to pay uh insurance uh big bill to pay as well. So everything is jacked up. So if you rent it as a long-term you will never find somebody to live in it for a long term because nobody can afford 5,000 or 5500. Nobody can afford it. So there it would be a bad investment for a home owner or a or a millennials or

somebody in their 30s or like 25 years old buy like uh their dream home or like the American dream you call it. Um so that's going to be tough. So if you put yourself in our shoes uh and we put our ourself in your shoes as well, we apply the regulation. We respect the rules, we respect the policy or like the safety, all the stuff. But don't shut us down for one negative thing that happened elsewhere and apply for us and just say hey 90 days or 180 days because that won't work for us. It will hurt our business. It will kill us and it will shut us down. Thank you. Thank you very much Mia. Next.

That is all for now, Chair Woodson, but let me let me just give people a couple seconds to Okay, it's fine. Time. Um, I don't see anybody else has raised their hand.

All right. Go ahead and close public comment. All right. go ahead and close my comment. Um I think like last time what we started to do is we started to try to classify things. I think last time we when we tried to do it we we were trying to go through the regulations itself and then that got corrected to the the like very clear I just need you to come to my regular work and teach some people there on how to organize task distance standard um to that. They're laughing. That's I dealt with that yesterday and it wasn't pretty. So, I think what I would like to do is just we can open up to just general comments and walk through it or we could again maybe just go through go around the room at a high level first get comments from each of the commissioners. This is so cool. All the commissioners are here tonight. This has been a couple months that we've had everybody here. Um, and then maybe just go through each of the slides themselves specifically if we have specifics and then we can address each of the the areas. Does that work as a concept? All right. So, I'm going to start with Vice Chair Walton.

Thank you. I feel honored. So, so I'm going to go and pick up right where Brian McCarthy was with the below market rate units and and I guess my my question is why are those units restricted? It does seem um I don't want to say counterintuitive, but it does seem like there's some equity pieces missing. I'm not sure why. So, I guess I'll start there with the why. uh he mentioned it's already in the city's BMR policies about prohibiting uh subleasasing of the units. So that's but I'd have to do some further research as to why, but that's that's already a restriction that somebody voluntarily agrees to do if they get one of those units. So that I would like the city to revisit that with the um the BMRs.

Okay. For the same reasons that Brian approached. Thank you, Ellen. Is that it? That you said high level first, right? Yeah. Yeah. So, I think um if you could just take the notes of those little add-on type of things with that and then we'll just come back to those. Sure. That'll be the easiest way which I'm trying to keep organized here. Um all right. Next up is we'll go with I'm just going to go to people I haven't heard from recently in person. So, Commissioner Chain.

Thank you, Chair. Uh before we discuss on this SDR draft um KTO could you explain your memorandum um item one remove the language that proposed to pro prohibit properties with accessory ding ADU and J AU from operating a short-term rental.

Yeah. So in the draft ordinance that we brought a couple weeks ago is that October or November? I can't remember. Uh, we were trying to not have ADUs where STRs, but the commission kind of pushed back hard on that and said, "No, we don't support that." So, we took out that. So, if you have an ADU, you're not automatically prohibited from having an STR on your property. So, and uh however on item eight on our agenda tonight and um there's an update of ADU ordinance to comply with the new state law especially AB1154. So would there be a conflict? um

because we are discussing the draft right now and then later we present to the council and then the the state law have another ordinance on it and then there will be a conflict

uh there there's no conflict I mean ST ADUs so so okay so let me clarify so the draft ordinance that we brought several weeks ago said if you have an ADU on your property you would be prohibited from having a short-term rental for the whole property. The commission pushed back hard on that. So, we removed that restriction. The ordinance that's later in today's evening just reaffirms that Jadus and ADUs cannot be used as STRs and that's been in state law for more than 5 years. So, there is no discrepancy.

I thought the AB 1154 prohibit the city from issuing a SDR permit. All right. Uh, are you are you looking at this? So, so, so once again, the issue is the ADU itself cannot be used as a short-term rental. The ADU, the what we brought to you earlier was saying if you have an ADU on the property, you couldn't have an STR for the whole property, but there's no conflict. Okay. So, I'm sorry if I'm not explaining. I wish I could explain it better, but

Okay, that's clear. Thank you for clarifications. And the um Can I continue, Chair? What's that? Can I continue? Yeah. Uh I have a few questions on the uh the primary residence uh definitions u that Melissa brought up. You were owner of a property and um may have two property and then decided to have another one in the LLC. Would you consider the same owner or different primary residence doing business? Question.

If this owner have two property, all right, one is under the owner's name and knowing that he cannot have another one for SDR, then he had it register under LLC and his LLC. So would you consider that? Yes, our ordinance considers that one owner. Why don't So the other thing is the 180 days uh annual cap you had and how will the staff audit this 180 days? How will we what how do you audit this?

Uh they would provide a ledger. So they would provide a oh sorry they would provide a proposed calendar. if they're a new applicant, they would provide a proposed schedule, right? Or we're going to rent it out the month of August, June, July, August because it's the summer months or something to that effect, right? At the end or upon renewal, they're going to submit their ledger to a test that or prove that they didn't rent it out for more than 180 days or whatever days we agree on or we propose uh or we amend the ordinance to. So, it's going to be a checks and balance, right? they're going to submit a proposal and then at the end of of the renewal period or during the renewal period they'll submit their evidence their ledgers.

So I think the way it's written also right now there's a second way that would be done is that since they can you can't have concurrent rental there would only be one day per per unit. And literally you would just multiply the the business tax that was paid for each day. I mean, you just multiply that. Okay, I submitted 100 $100 and it was it was $10 a day. Then, okay, 100 drive by 10 is 10 days. I mean, that would be a quick and easy way to calculate it. Um, because we would have the we would actually have those records also. Correct. And um, yes, and especially under the SP 346, we're actually going to be able to get more information

required as part of that. Yeah. So, so I think that there are restrictions on that. I now I do want to come back to the concurrent rental because I have I questions about that.

All right. So So you're saying basing on the information submitted and and also in the last meeting we talked about it seems like the enforcement is depending on the complaint driven that means when there's a complaint then you look into it. I I'm thinking of should we be pro more proactive in enforcement rather than reactive. So, I'm very proactive when it comes to the short-term rentals. Um, I do a search at least once every few weeks because they're supposed to have the permit number on top, right, at the on on the main description. So, you're able to quickly see if it's a permitted or unpermitted. The difficult part is finding the owner, right? Looking at the photos, trying to determine what house this is in Marina because it doesn't have the address. Now, we have a Senate bill that we can contact the platform and obtain the address. Um, that's why it's added to the ordinance, but for the most part, myself and the inspectors that we have, we're able to identify the houses um by the photos and then I contact them uh via either in person or at the house or um by sending them a notice. The quickest way is to send them a message via the platform informing them that they need to contact the city to obtain a permit for short-term rental or remove the listing.

And uh I know how many staff do you have? How many what staff do you have? It's just her. How many employee? It's just me. Okay. Me myself. So it is time consuming, right? So adding some of these updates will make my job easier. um and we'll clarify right for the public um as to the rules and regulations

and and that's why I I feel kind of funny you're alone and you have to carry out all this and basically I don't think you have the time and u you need u waiting for someone to complain but again according to your data here in 2025 the revenue is about 192,000 and my study is you could easily have 300 to 600,000 revenue if we based on the uh your talking about 180 houses will be STR the last time I think you bas 180 days 180 days 180 days no I think that's uh let me check

right now we only have 33 permits um you have 33 permit I think you have you could have more can we I think let's base on $200 a night and 180 nights and the the housing we have right now is uh 8,474 units basing on US census and let's say we estimate 150 um units that we are renting out with 1.8%age on the housing stock we based on 1.8% and uh with the tax of 12% you can have $648,000.

We'll keep going. Yeah. Thank you. So if let's let's say do the minimum let's say 324. All right. What I'm saying is maybe you could you have the revenue to hire another staff and a full-time to regulate this to enforce this rather than basing on reactive approach. That's that's my view. I think um maybe it's good to do a tell your council member in the audience they should hire more staff though. So we have Brian. Okay.

And then the uh the last I had is uh I know someone brought up 180 days and why not 90 days and um I think over here we did we proposed 180 days um 189 sorry um so I would suggest because this is a significant change in in this draft so maybe it's good in the uh motions to add a sunset clause into it for three years so that the city council could come back and review it again. You know, I think I mentioned that in the last meeting about Sunset CLS if we went to go forward with this. Right. That's all I have to say. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Thanks. All right. Uh I'm just going to go back and forth, Commissioner Ron. Okay. the state version. Each city defines it. No, you don't have to have str.

You can define the purpose of this kind of policy. It can be the generation mitigating the number of rooms available for giving to property owners to some So what is the underlying purpose as far as green is?

Um the purpose of the ordinance is to potentially to continue to allow this use in the city but do so in a way that's respectful of the neighborhood. and that that that for as long as I'll I'll be working as a planner, these type of permits will continue to um property owners will want to continue to rent them out for income purposes, which is in our city allowed for now. Um, and neighborhoods will continue to push back in terms of is it too many, is it how many days, is it too loud, is it too many cars, and and so that's that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to strike a balance here between supporting the local business owner, but do so in a way that respects the neighborhood. So, thank you for asking. It's a very good question you asked. So, It's it's the it's the text that we get from them. Yeah.

Law enforcement report any complaints anything that uh we have not, but that actually might be good for the council to hear if there were significant calls for service. That's something if uh we could, you know, bring back to commission or council. So, yeah, that's a good question. So, so calls for service. Yeah. All right. Request

and ever since we have Not that I'm aware of in the four years that I've been here, but but I do think there have been violations that have been documented. Yeah. I'm sorry. I thought I think he asked revocation. Did you ask revocation or violence? Revocation. But I think to kind of build in between the two is the number of is is there is there a periodic do we have consistent violations that are showing up at certain STRs?

Yes. So, no revocations, definite violations, but part of the goal of the ordinance is to make Marissa's job easier so that if we do have problematic sites that she can not have to expend so much of her time and we can quickly move towards, you know, whatever code enforcement. So, that is part of the goal is to free up staff. We can get some of the edits here from the commission and council. That's what you said. But my suggestion is that uh the whole moderate peninsula people come from outside as tourists and much more seasonal. So can we have some kind of a study that in what season what months we have the maximum influx and pressure on the local hotels and others that people prefer to go to the STR. So in that analysis if it comes more than 180 days why not permit that very purpose is to give benefits to the renters and even revenue only. So if uh the requirement is there, increase that limit to 180.

Uh we we currently don't have that data. That would probably take a little bit of Marissa and Brian's time to put together. Uh but as of now, we don't have that data right now. So

and other issue is that uh generally in the neighborhood the nuisance part the houses with the swimming pools and barrs and everything the people party outside and then comes. So if he can incorporate in the rules some limitations that up to this time we can have this party outside and beyond that it should not be there because that passes inconvenience to people and in fact I know some police officers uh and they say that they get calls at late at night that the party is on they creating nuisance in the living room having barbecue party and all that and they are the best food outside

so we can incorporate that limitation usage

uh I'd have to work with our legal department on that that gets into some first amendment freedom of association issues in terms of um you know what people do in a house and gather gathering and all that. So, I mean that that would take a little bit more and in terms of enforcement that would be a little bit of a challenge in terms of because we're not here at midnight monitoring that. But I I understand the sentiment and once again the sentiment is to try to support the STR permit holders but do so in a way that respects the neighborhood. So, yeah. So, primarily Bryant does uh it's quite a bit of paperwork and if he could go over that now if the commission wants or not or is collective overight on the whole process and more transparency.

Okay. And my last question is on the one part of somebody has two properties one and the other one has no Yeah. And maybe Marca, you can elaborate. If if four people are in an LLC and each of them own an STR, can you walk me through what the new ordinance would say on so I understand

defines one owner as being either an LLC, a partnership, married couple, they're all one owner. Doesn't matter if they add 10 people to the LLC. They're one owner. Right. And that I I believe that's the genesis of the beefing up the primary resident language in the draft ordinance before you tonight. So is that correct, Miss?

Yes. Thank you, chair. See where to start? At the beginning. Okay. I don't have a lot of notes, but on the short-term rental requirements and conditions C uh paragraph C. Uh, Commissioner S, do you want to reference the if it's 1742170 or what? And what subset just so we can follow?

1742170. A B A is purpose, B definition, C is requirements and conditions. Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. Or the uh the short-term rental permit fee. Uh the fee should the the permit fee is for the year one one fee. That's correct. collected. That's correct.

Prior to the issue of the license or the renewal of the license. That's correct. Right. And it should cover not just the the uh issuance of the license but the administrative costs throughout the year and in enforcement costs. Uh yes, that that's the goal of all of our fees is to cover staff type. That's correct. Okay. and keep on going down to specific prohibitions. Oh, so you're in you're in uh section 14. Section 14. Section 14.

Okay.

Yeah. You've listed two. One of them was the senior housing units which appears to be argumentative and the bulmo market rate units. I don't have any arguments with that. Uh nor the next one that the short-term permit is for no more than one parcel. But so what but the the prohibition essentially is in an the general prohibition is for investment properties and rental units, apartments, any other investment. it you we're only allowing this current uh use permit

would only allow primary residences. That's I guess the key key. Um actually no we the if you look at the memo that Brian prepared the introductory memo um yeah so bullet point two of the memo that Brian prepared we did remove the language proposed to limit STRs to only single family because we got push back from commission and the community saying that that might not be equitable. So it's more than just single family. So,

but you said to get a license you had to be the owner. In fact, whether your owner called an LLC or very there's a distin So, just to clarify, uh yes, we want you to live there. Uh the original language was taken out related to just single family zones. So that that's the distinction. We want you to live in the property, but we're not limiting it to just single family residential zoning districts. So that's the distinction. Okay. Are we excluding investment property? Yes.

Okay. We're It's not a specific prohibition according to section 14, but if you put all the pieces of the puzzle together, we're in excluding we want you to

specifically prohibiting investment property to be ineligible as a short-term rental. Yeah, just to clarify, like we're we're not restricting people's property rights because that would be, you know, we have to be careful there. Um, we want you to live there. We want you to live there for a majority of the year and we want you to uh be a good property owner and rent out these units in a way that doesn't disturb the neighborhood because once again, the balance is people using the property but doing it in a way that respects the neighborhood. That's that's really what we're trying to do here today. Would it be proper to say under section 14 number three investment properties are excluded?

Uh I'd have to defer to SEP on that in terms of property rights issues our attorney. So I he'd have to weigh it on okay if we would be able to use that language. So I think the bigger problem there was like how do you define that? I I'm not aware of a definition in a single definition in state law. So I think the staff what staff is trying to do is do it objectively by using the number of days and and the primary residence requirement.

I guess jump in on this one move on off to this topic is investment property has a very specific legal definition from a financing perspective and primary versus investment versus second versus vacation. And if we have a if we have somebody who it's not their primary they have they live in Marina they have a home that's down the street it's two houses down that's their primary home the house next door that they want to use as an STR it's they're not living there but it's it would be considered an investment property because it's not their primary home but it's still meeting the intention of what we're trying to do which is promote responsible use of of the property in this in the city. So, I think I the investment definition is a is one that I've been kind of hung up on

for the last couple months reading through this. Um, but we can come back to it. But yeah, I think that that's there is the there's I know what we're trying to do here, but then I'm trying to balance that off of okay, if from an enforcement perspective, if I went to a bank and I said this is an investment property, the bank would say, "Yeah, it's an investment property because it's not my primary that I'm living in."

Okay. Yeah, we would have to work with SEP in terms of some definition. Just to follow up on what Chair Woodson has said, if you live on address one and down the street in close proximity to you, you have a piece of other property that is not your primary residence. Is there any way that you can put that other piece of property as short-term rental? So, in our in this ordinance update, we are proposing or we're requesting to amend it to include that the property record has to have the property listed or has to have um the homeowner's exemption for taxable purposes because that definition for the state definition means that it's an owner occupied home.

Okay. Okay. That's the simplest way for us to determine if the if that property is the owner's primary home. Currently, only nine houses or nine properties have those of the 33 permits. Uhhuh. So by inference, the other 21 or so properties are because they don't have the homeowners exemption, which the primary residence is entitled to. And if it's not your primary residence, you're not entitled to the homeowner's exemption. Right.

Right. So, if they don't have the homeowners exemption, they should get it to get their short-term rental or it's not eligible. Correct. And that's what the other cities in the count in the peninsula require. More than likely, if you don't have the homeowners exemption, it's investment type property. More than likely. More than likely.

More than likely. Okay. Okay. Uh, just moving on. Yeah. Yeah, I I caught it again. Let's see the We're still under We're under uh paragraph D, the application procedures. Item four, the short-term permit application is non-refundable. the the the the permit application is a non-refundable fee and it is the primary fee for the license. Is that that's correct? I'm reading into that, but

that's correct. It's it's put in there just to be redundant, but all of the planning fees are non-refundable. But we just wanted to be abundantly clear because I understood from Marissa that when people run into some issues, they now all of a sudden want their refund back, but we've already expended four to six hours on that permit. So, so I would say that the fee will cover the estimated costs of reviewing the application, administrative costs or the year or the life of the license. Yes. And enforcement for violations. That's true.

Yeah. Because right now you're just saying that it's the cost of reviewing the application. Yeah. I mean, it's Yeah. If you if the commission wants, we could certainly add verbiage that says and for enforcement of the ordinance or something to that effect.

Yeah, I don't I don't know what the value of the fee is, but you know, reviewing an application, some people might think that that's a uh eight or 10 hour job at the most. And yet to manage this program, each license for the year takes considerably more time and cost than just reviewing the application and issuing the license. The real challenge is throughout the year when things go south. Okay. Um, there's discussion on limiting the number of STRs, but I don't think we've reached any any consensus on it. And right now, we have unlimited.

Correct. There's no limit. And so, we do get questions from agents and from the public asking if we allow them right right before they buy the house. If is there a limit on you if you only have so many within 20 houses or something like that? No,

I think we need to look at at least saying no more than X number and that might be as low as one per block or per side of the street per block. Otherwise, what you're you what I'm trying to avoid is a concentrated disruptions that are probably the source of most complaints on short-term rentals. And if you have a concentration of STRs on one block or two blocks, then you're going, which I didn't notice. I I I thank you for the the the dot the uh map showing the location of the 30 some odd STRs. It didn't look like there was a concentration. It looked like they were

Yeah, he's zooming in trying to Yeah, there can be minor circles of concentration, but that's curious. we might want to consider, if not this year, in the future to limiting the concentration per block. Yes, we currently only have two sets of properties, so four properties, but in one neighborhood, we have two houses across from each other. Yeah.

Actually, two neighborhoods. The two houses are short-term rentals, and they're across from each other, across the street on two different streets. Okay. Now, is there any before a license is granted, is there any inspections of the property, physical inspection? We're going to be starting to do that. So, yeah, we started to do that.

Yes, we started doing that because that's I started coming across, you know, issues where the records didn't match the property. Yeah. Um, and typically before the house is sold, I go out there and inspect the property, the outside of it, uh, so I'm familiar with the site and then shortly after, typically how it works is after I do the inspection, you know, it goes through escrow and then within a few weeks we get an STR permit in the queue. Like I just did the inspection. So, you know, it's a it's a house that just got bought and obviously was for an investment and now it's going through the permit process. Um, so I'm familiar with the properties usually for the most part.

All right. Is there any requirement for health and safety? I I guess fire alarms depending upon the age of the property, smoke and CO2.

So when well they through the permit process they're there's a they're attesting that the house is safe, right? And um same when they get the business license, right, for the for the smoke alarms, most of these short-term rental permits that are coming in through the queue are new properties or properties that got recently purchased and the seller has established that through the residential property inspection that I inspect that every how every room or sleep room has a smoke detector. But are they subject to the fire standards, you know, for commercial properties? No. Fire does not go out there. Um the fines the state law has defined how much fines can be. Is that right?

Yes. The government code establishes the max limit. Are we aligned with that? Yes. Yes. It was one of it's that's why we added the government code because before it wasn't included. We have our chapter chapter one regarding fees, right, which is $100 and 200 and then 500 per day per violation. But the government code specifically for short-term rentals has their own fines which is it's a lot more.

Okay. Okay. And the last thing, instead of a sunset clause or something, I would propose that this ordinance be reviewed every two years from now. But after this year, maybe it not necessary to do it next year, but at at the most every two years because regulations change and market behavior changes and we might want to stop it all together or expand it to 500 homes or something. So anyway, have the ordinance be reviewed every every two years.

Oh, we can certainly add that to the planning work plan. That's fine. That's all I've got. Thanks. Two more then me. Commissioner Baron. Thank you, Chair. Uh, a couple of things. I want to raise the 180 days. I want to raise the issue of the 180 days that other two more commissioners mentioned. I I still don't understand why 18.

So there's 365 days in the year. We're trying to make sure that somebody's actually living in the property for approximately half the year that it's their primary residence. What if it's an addition like an ADU? Uh they can't rent out the ADU as an STR. So um okay. Uh I I do know that some people live on the property and rent a bedroom, right? So they are there all the time. So why can't they um rent the other bedroom more than 180 days? They live there.

That's a good point. And I'd have to defer to Marissa about that specific addition to the ordinance. So if it was just a room, not the whole house. Yeah, we do have a couple um and you can find them online. I maybe two properties that only rent a room and you can tell because they're not renting the whole house out. Um so I mean if the commission wants to create an exemption for the owners that only rent a bedroom, we can definitely add it. And I would just add in case the commissioner is asking about long-term rentals of a room in a home where the o the owner is occupying the residence. I don't think the ordinance intends to affect long-term rentals. Correct.

I'm I'm speaking about shelter shelter. Yeah, she's mentioning. Yeah, because I have Yeah, I know. I'm aware of one property that they live on site and they only rent a bedroom. It's a short-term rental, not longterm. Yeah. Um the other thing I want to add to ultra below market rate I understand below market rates have a lot of limitations not just short-term uh what but apartment complexes are still included um so if an apartment complex does not have um prohibition on shortterm why shouldn't somebody who has an apartment rent their apartment for

short term Right. That so that's what the commission told us. So we took that out of the ordinance. So you could potentially allow that. I saw apartment complexes on the on the Yeah.

So I just want to bring that up. Um question to Brian. Did you ever deny uh somebody a permit? Uh they I have nine and they have applied in the past. They have a big due of TOT that they have not um paid off yet. So I have denied in the past. Is there a list of uh reasons for denial?

If they do not meet the requirements that our current um ordinance has, then they are subject to denial. So, it's very clear to people who ask for the per for who apply for permits why they're denied. So, there's not going to be any lawsuit or complications. That is correct. All right. Thank you. I'm done. Thank you. Commissioner Jacobs, we're just going to skip you. Sorry.

Okay. Thank Thank you, Chair. Um my my comments I I don't think they're odd, but so we have a number of people um who have a primary residence. They've since built an ADU. They're living in the ADU and they are using the primary home as an STR. Um, number one is that kind of violates the the purpose of the ADU. The ADU was built so we could help people that needed lowcost housing, not as a primary residence for the resident. Secondly is when when I apply for a mortgage, I get a mortgage for this home. Um, then I figure out it'd be better if I built an ADU and I moved into the ADU. Does that primary building on the property now become a subsidy? Does is it now a a commercial building? Is it a rental? What is it? I don't live in it anymore. Um, depends on how you I mean, is it for mortgage loan purposes? Is it for living purposes? It kind of depends on

Yeah. So, we talked I'm I'm trying to remember the word that we used um for somebody that's buying a house just to use it for an STR. What's that word? Investment property. That's the term. Investment property. Yeah. So, the primary residence becomes an investment property. Uh I guess in that scenario, yes. So, it is. So, I don't think we should deny um STRs because there's an ADU on the property, but I do think that we should prohibit people from renting out their primary house and then moving in the ADU, thus violating the purpose of the ADU to begin with.

Um, so we proposed that at the first meeting, but the commission and the community pushed back hard, so we took that out. But if it's the will of the full commission, it can be added back. Yeah. I don't I don't think it needs to be um I mean it would be day forward. So anybody that's in that situation now stays in that situation, but it's prohibited from Well, the thing is the permit the permit's only good for one year. So it would the next year when it comes up for renewal, it will become an issue for those. It just it just troubles me as you know I wanted to make the comment and have it heard. it

right which is why Marissa brought that point up that it kind of defeats the purpose of the UDO ordinance is yeah so we we would concur but we were trying to be respectful of the intent and direction we got from commission so yeah to add I remember that discussion I remember the whole thing and I remember the people that were here saying if I didn't have this ADU I couldn't afford to live here right and it's like well wait a minute you got a mortgage for the house when you bought it I you I'm I'm just troubled by it. I want to see ADUs built and used as ADUs, not as primary residences for somebody that already lives there. Are homestead exemptions given for ADUs? I don't know what that means.

I don't I don't know what a homestead exemption is. Homestead exemption is given by the county or the primary residents. You have to apply for it. And if you sign the paper saying that you live there, that's your primary residence, then they will give you a homestead exemption, and it cuts $7,000 a year off. Yeah.

So, so if you go to the draft ordinance, that's on the primary residence definition. So, under section B2, that's what Marissa is adding, the Monterey County Assessor Homeowner Exemption. So, yeah. I don't understand that the county gives a homeowner exemption different from I think they give it for the piece of property with a residence on it and not whether it has an ADU or a junior ADU you're that is for that it's for the property it's a home

it's for the property property Right. So, if you have an ADU and a junior ADU and you choose to live in the ADU and rent out the property, you're still in accordance with this plan, you're entitled to the license or STR. That's true. But Commissioner Jacobson was pointing out the intent of ADU law, which we'll talk later on in this meeting. So, kind of related but separate topic. pretty related.

So, I do want to add that Santa Cruz County, it was mentioned in the previous meeting, Santa Cruz County um has banned um the issuance of STR permits for properties that have an ADU, right? Because the intent of the ADU law is to create housing. But if you're issuing an STR permit where someone is going to live in the ADU and then rent out, then that's defeating the purpose. Yeah. I don't I don't want to go that far to say you can't have an STR, but what I what I do I I if you want to live in the house and have it as an STR, meaning you go live somewhere else when somebody is in the house, that's fine with me. Yeah.

But to go live in the in the ADU, which violates the purpose of the ADU, that bothers me. So, I'm trying to see if there's a medium in there. There's language somewhere where we could where we could not eliminate STRs because there's an ADU on the property, but set some kind of a guideline that says you can't do this and you can't do that. I'm not sure what that is. That's one of the reasons why we added the 180 days, right? But it doesn't really do it. that I don't think that really does it.

And of the 33 uh permits, you know, a lot of them are newer or recently purchased homes. And yes, as soon as they either add a Jedu or an ADU, they request the permit. Sometimes they get the permit first and then they we get another building permit or ADU construction. Right. So,

right. So, yeah. So, maybe that's one of my questions that goes with this. The series of ADU regulations that have been put in place in the last five years since 2020 have generally been about streamlining the the process to increase the housing stock. And so part of the ADU regulations are about waving waving requirements. It's about getting there getting in and getting in a at a lower price point which is giving them basically an incentive to create an ADU. And so if I can get it from an incentive perspective, which is I think maybe where I'm kind of where I'm not in complete agreement on this is if somebody builds an ADU, but they have not taken the incentives from the state and they have spent the full price of permitting and the full timeline of permitting that it would take to go through the normal process and it's still an ADU, then why would I care at that point if they're using their regular home or their ADU because at that point I'm I'm they have not taken advantage of the incentive programs from the state. And that's where I kind of draw my line is if if they're just building a second property on their home or a residence on their home and they're following the normal process, I don't really care if it's labeled an ADU or a house or or whatever that they're allowed a dwelling that they can live in. Now, if they take an incentive from the state and I mean I think this goes back to some bigger conversations that are going on in the city right now, but that's I mean I think that's where I'm yeah where I I I come back to your conversation and and these points of okay I'm asking somebody to I'm putting an artificial limit 180 days on it. Um, we're saying that people can't afford to stay in the area, but we're they're living and

they're literally moving in and out of their residences so they can create the capability to provide this. All we're doing is creating a we're creating a hassle. Now, again, if they've if they've taken an incentive to do that to streamline the process to get it in place, I think that's a different story. You took the incentive and if you took and you didn't understand it, then well, maybe that's just the way it is. But if you haven't taken that incentive or you were before it, then I just don't see I I think that that that's where I I draw my line on it is and we can look at that because we can we can literally in our file system have a attribute that states did they receive incentives from the state to to to build this ADU? And if they do then they're not eligible.

Well, what about not just from the state? What if they use one of the pre, you know, plans that we already have to streamline that process? Well, anything that's using a streamlining of the as an incentive. Okay. Yes. But you said state incentive.

Well, state well state a state law driven incentive programs and we use that grant program based on So I I get your point. I mean, I think that the point is if they've received some type of benefit from us during the pro the permitting process, whether it's from the prefab designs, whether it's from a specific regul one of our AB regulations that are driving the housing crisis response, then the check mark is nope, you've driven it, you don't you're not eligible to be able to do this. But if you didn't do anything and you just paid full price and you paid retail MSRP for both your properties just because one is labeled an ADU by definition and one is labeled a primary residence by ADU then why would I why would I want to restrict that

right

and so I think that that's that may be the drawing line that you're talking about of okay how do we measure it and maybe that's maybe that is kind of the point that we would like to be put in place and it's I think it's a realistic one it's not something that's just arbitrary. It's like you either got something or you didn't as a benefit. And I mean that would be my my first thought on that. It's a good one. Good. All right. To uh move on to u another topic. Um some of the cities have put um limits or you know top end how many a uh how many uh STRs they can have in their community. One of one of my questions is it it seemed rather arbitrary as I looked at the different as you put them on the screen. I mean larger cities have less some smaller cities have more. I mean there doesn't seem to be any room or reason for that. is has anybody actually used a formula in the United States of America that it works? Well, I I I would say anecdotally, we've all spoken with different cities, and Marissa can correct me, but I think part of putting a cap is when we've reached out to other cities, if you violate the ordinance, you get taken off of the approved list and you get put on the wait list and you have one or two year penalty where you can't reapply. So there is a little bit of um incentive to use the word to fully comply make sure you don't have any violations. So the answer to your question is yes it has worked.

Yeah. Uh we actually re reached out to Nick in Sand City and they don't have a code enforcement problem because they have a gap and you get a penalty for for violating. So to answer your question, it does work in other cities. So, so how do you determine what the cap is?

So, we spoke to City of Seaside. Brian scheduled the meeting and the way they did it when they created the cap was they looked at how many permits they had at that moment and then they added how many like it was just kind of like a guesstimate of like the unpermitted ones that they were trying to legalize and then they set it. I think theirs is 90 or something. I got to look I have to look. Um so even though seaside is bigger than us um their number is not that is not really large in my opinion but they basically said oh we have 50 or 60 legal we're going to add half of that and just say the max is 90 we're not going above that. So the point was to drive compliance yeah to a level to say okay we're not going to restrict you

because we hope we are getting in that we're going to be conservative. We're going to try to get the full number. We want everybody to be registered, but what we're not going to do is set a a a level that all of a sudden could leave some people outside of that and just say, "Oh, well, I'm 101. I'm out." So, they set a safety level and then they added a factor above it. That's that's what it sounds like they did. Yeah. I I I would almost um flip that on its head

and I'd say that um here you are one person managing this program. What is the city's goal in terms of a revenue number that they'd like to see coming from these that could help the community maintain the enforcement and not overburden the city? So I would almost do it that way as opposed to an arbitrary 10% or 20% or something and do a little business study on it and say okay we can we can we can manage 100 but we cannot manage 150. Good point.

So there's there's some I just gave you a job I think. I did I didn't mean to do that. That's fine. That's fine. financially if you go to 150 I know but that's hire a second person but do we want to hire a second person do we want to be managing all it's a business it's a business I think it's a better not just a revenue issue it's a better floor it's a it's a more businessdriven use case that yes

that we're looking at instead of the case of seaside was we need to get something in place and it's not just seaside because I've watched this in South Lake I've seen it in plasterville I've seen in some other that they want to get something in place and and so they put it in place and they get it and then they find it didn't work and they have to adjust right

and they and the reasons they adjust for multiple it works it doesn't work as nor is this I mean there lots of a myriad of reasons the point is that they they just drop something in place and I think that's where I agree with you I'd rather see a more use case driven response than just a hey how many do we think we have um because that if it's use case driven. We put a and it's I don't it doesn't have to be this massive big study but we have that then we have something we can justify right and then we keep that for going back to to Congress to congressman I I promoted you to congressman Chang

Commissioner Chang it uh it goes back to kind of your sunset issue some of the other things you've raised which is what we're doing is we're now setting standards and and he's talking about a sunset clause ours is a it's a review clause that okay after a few years we can go back and re relocate that we're not telling us that we're not setting a cap because we are setting a cap for cap's sake. We're setting it so that we can manage growth of the process

and we just come back to it and after two years we do a quick study and like okay it makes sense to come back to the city council and say okay we think it should from 115 to 165 because we think we can manage it and it's not impacting the city or whatever whatever the metrics are that and SLAs's that you me that you're going to put in place against it. Yeah, I remember in the last meeting a number was thrown out 150 units STR. Yeah, that's why I'm basing on that. I think we can generate about $648,000. Yeah, I definitely think a way we want to do that. But I think a business use requirement I think is a better way of looking at it because coming back to

the multiple discussions that that the Brian city council have of where's our budget come from how do we project our budget everything else we it it just falls in line of how you build a budget usually we don't build budget lines by just saying hey I wish I wish I had another fire station someplace There's a reason why we want a fire station where we want it is my point. And so we justify why we need it and where we want it. We should do the same thing here. So I think those are two very valid points that you raised.

Um I have a another one and then I'm just going to let everything else go and it's most of it's coming up. Um, I live on a culde-sac. The culdesac is residential. It's zoned residential. Um, all of a sudden I've got two STRs on my culdesac that have business licenses, are conducting a business, but they're in a R1 area. So, how how does that happen? I mean, is that a business? So, is should it should it be a a something special, a commercial, too, or something? I I don't know. I'm serious. If you're running a business out of your house and it's interfering, it's

Well, that that's that's why we're here tonight. Okay. So you don't I mean that's that's that's that's what I've been articulating that that's that will be the central issue of this permit for as long as we're planners is is it is it an investment property is it somebody's residence how do we respect the neighborhood and does it change right and so what Marissa has brought up is other cities do have a 55- ft exclusion zone that's currently not in our ordinance if the commission wants to recommend that so you don't have an over concent concentration in one neighborhood. That is a recommendation the commission can make to the council. Is 55 ft enough?

100 ft whatever that seems to be the mag that seems to be the number from PG and was it seaside? It makes a 55 foot clear space which so if that is a recommendation it puts a lot between each that is a recommendation the commission can carry forward to council. So chair, you may have everything back. Okay, we've gone through everybody. Thank you. Um,

I'll give my comments and I think we'll just go through the slides. I mean, we can I think we can go through the slides pretty quick if we just go one by one through it. Um, I think I've got an idea of how to to do this next part. What I will say is STRs are and 180 days. I I just find it I find it so arbitrary. I know why we get it. I know where it comes from. I have seen it in so many different places over the last four years. And every time I come back to it, I'm like, "Okay, it's 180." And then, oh my gosh, it's 181 days and they're in violation. What changed? Nothing changed. It's just 181 days versus 180. And we are trying to we are ultimately all of this is an investment at the at the end of the day an STR is an investment. It is a business in that is being done and they're they're investing in themselves as a from a property perspective of what they're trying to do. And the reasons on why they're doing it can be a hundred different reasons that are doing it. Um, I think the ones that we think about most are a little bit extra pocket money. Um, or they're just trying to survive and they're just trying to stay where they were. I mean, those are the two maybe two of the biggest ones that that come up the most. But there there lots of different reasons why people would do this. Um, so the 180 days and it goes back to how did that ADU get filter? How did that second property get built and allows it and do they have to do this and why does why does he have to move out of his property for 6 months just so he can and it's very capriccious on what how we got to this and I get it and and I've seen it and I've read enough about this over the years but I'm not sure I agree with it um that we have a problem now I think and then the other challenge that I have that we haven't really discussed um which is in here is the concurrency

And I think my my question coming back on concurrent um rentals is if you have a three-bedroom STR let's you have two different rentals and one is one takes one bedroom one takes two bedrooms and that become I'm assuming that would be the definition of concurrent here um that we're applying and again why does why do I care why am I making a big deal about concurrency on this. If I have a problem and there's a compliance issue, whether it's with bedroom one or bedroom two and whether they're they're two different contracts or one contract, I'm still having a problem that needs to be rectified. I don't know if necessarily having a concurrency issue is is increasing the risk to the neighborhood or the community or anything else. If we're limiting vehicles and therefore people to the number of bedrooms and I and we don't change that, then I'm not sure the concurrency that we add on top of it makes a difference. I think again we're just restricting it. And I'm not sure I understand the theoretical reason why we would say, you know, you can only have one contract at a time from concurrency or am I just missing the definition of concurrent here? I I I just want to take a step back. So the commission seemed very supportive of the general concept that this is a lot of work for staff to do. And I think the idea was that you have one property, you get one permit, you can divvy it up among five bedrooms or one bedroom or the whole house. It's a lot easier from enforcement purposes just to say, "Hey, we saw on Airbnb you have six different rentals on Saturday and you had 15 cars there and you blew up the neighborhood." That that's really what we're trying to

avoid. We actually have good STR permit folks in the crowd who are following the rules. We want to we want to encourage that. And so people following the rules, not blowing up the neighborhoods, doing this in a way that is fair and equitable that has clear guidelines. And I mean that's that's really what we're trying to get to. I'm not saying I'm not saying no. I'm just saying I want to un I just want to understand

and and our conversation last time Guido went it was it was very kind of family circleish cartoon where and if anybody remembers family circle it was kind of like the the kid is walking home and it's this he's walking literally from here to the door but he ends up walking a mile down the road and around and and the path is and it was because at the time we were presented with a lot of things and we just we were we had there was a lot of information overload that this is clarified tonight. Um so and I and I think it's much more structured and I think we've had I it's not really been a big conversation piece but I think there's been a lot of good good discussion on topics that are that I think are more that are more tuned to specifically what our real questions are where I think last time we ended up off a little bit and we didn't end up we ended up on some tangents last time. I'm just I just I was asking about the

concurren and and my my goal is that I I really would like at the end of this study session for each of these items if it's okay with the commission and chair for if we're going to go slide by slide I really need on a study session you can't take a formal vote but I would really like an informal kind of straw poll for each of these if

that's the commission support the 180 days or not if if the answer is no then we will take that out of the ordinance because I really want to come back in February with this is the final ordinance that the commission supports and let's drive on. And then for all of this other stuff that's been brought tonight, I'm going to be asking the commission, do you support this or not? Straw poll, not a direct official vote because we need to draft an ordinance and get this to council. Okay.

It's only It's only 7:28. We started early. You fed us. Maybe you shouldn't have fed us and we'd be more hungry to be out of here. So I do ask the commission politely for the 180 days a straw poll. Does the commission support that? Yes or no? I just need to know. Do we we're doing yes. I mean, however the chair wants to do it and the vice chair. I let you let you because now you're now you're like how would you like us to do the straw poll, Seth? How would you like us to do the straw poll? Uh that's up to you, chair. Um but

what what can we what can we do and what we can what or more specifically what can't we do? Could we do a raise your hand type of thing? Um yeah, just because we're on Zoom um and you know we're supposed to be audible and visible, I would have someone maybe Guido or someone in on the staff side of things just kind of call the vote and we just so we we can do a vote by just down the line. Yeah. And again, this is not a this is not this is simply a straw pole to get the commission's position a direction. It's not it's not a recommendation. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, that's fine. Is that okay with you? But you're the chair. You're right at the meeting. So

I'm just trying to get guidance so when we come back we can give you a clear ordinance that you guys all support. All right. So once all right. So on the 180 days for item one on primary residence keeping the way it's written on that okay 180 days limit or an option to even go beyond 180 days. So is the question has to be clear. Does the commission support limiting the rental of STRs on properties for 180 days or less? So if someone wants to support but okay let's go beyond 180 days

then the answer would be no option then the answer would be no the answer would be no and then there would be I would I will suggest that there'll be a follow-up question to that if the if there are no I'll take care of it all right so the question the straw poll question is do we want to limit STRs to a maximum of 180 days so 180 days or less yes or Start at the with All right. Commissioner Baron, do this. Okay. Commissioner Ron, no. Commissioner Walton, yes. Commissioner St. John, yes.

Commissioner Chang, yes. And we have sunset review clause. Yes. That would be no. Okay. So, and Commissioner Jacobson, no. All right. So, right now we have four that say no. Chris, why do you is what is the reason for no? What is the reason for now? Yes. I don't think we should limit it to an arbitrary number and I think we're done. You have a sunset. You want because of sunset.

Commissioner Ron, why did you say no? I say it is demand based. If the demand is there and it is more than 180 days, okay, you should be limited, right? And Commissioner Baron um the same as um conditioner. So, and mine is I agree I'll incur the other three right there. So, my answer is no. So, you have five nos. Okay. On the main straw hole. So we will take

of of the subset to that to take back. Four of the five who said no are suggesting that it should be demand-based without a without a number in mind but that it's demand based and one is fine with the 180 days but would like a sunset clause to have it re-reviewed after a certain period of time. Next. All right, sounds good. um requiring more identification so we can make sure people are legit living on the properties.

So I have one question on that one. I'm just curious now. Somebody buys property here and they're going to be here for three or four years and they want to have this but they're military and they have formal legal residence to maintain a license in the state of Tennessee. Are they allowed to have an STR? According to this the way we're rewriting it, the answer is no. Yeah, I you know we can we can have some staff discretion on that particular I think the the gist of this is for the regular I just wanted to make sure again so I I raised that issue because there are there situations so it's just

yeah we we can address that on a case by case but for the main part of this is does the commission support staff asking for more identification this is a this is a regulatory change that's going to be written into our code and so once It's there. It's there. Um, so how do you I mean I'm sorry. I'm just curious. How do you do staff discretion into our code? I mean that I mean this I mean that's a a scenario that we have. I don't believe we've come across. We don't have that scenario that you're presenting chair to the staff. That has not happened in the four years I've been here. So

all right. So is everybody. So we'll start with Mr. Jacobson. Are you fine with the increased identification requirements? Yes. Mr. Chang. Yes. Commissioner St. John. Yes. Commissioner Walton. Commissioner.

Identification. I think that that's not uh a big issue and that will encumber the work of the staff itself. Um I talked about the very purpose of it, the intent and also the transparency. If that is taken care of, identification is not a big issue. So my vote is no. Okay, that's fine. Uh Commissioner Baron. Yes. And I am no. So that would be I don't know what is that five to two, right?

So I know because I I love that it oh well the exception hasn't been raised before. I'm that's a little disingenuous. I think personally the just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't come up. So I I and I don't think there's a something in our in our city code that says we just have staff discretion. So it's fine if we do and it's and it's fine if that's there. That's that's my reasoning. But it's still no it doesn't change everything. It's still going to be five to two. But that's my reasoning. That's fine.

Just clarification. The purpose of this enhanced uh forms of identification, the purpose of digging in to the ID is to solidify that the license is the property owner and the resident homestead exemption person.

That's correct. Right. And that they live here. Right. So I if that's what our requirement is that that is the basis of basic the fundamental eligibility for a license then I see no reason not to show the identification that you are that you know people were changing their identification. So, oh, so, so this this prevents,

so what here, let me give an example. I I'm to cut to cut to the chase. I I am literally dealing with this this week um in Minnesota on a different issue, but it is in the news, like all over the news, and it's an addistation issue because that's what this is about. And the the fact is that fake documentation at or an add astation of eligibility for a program whatever this is is a massive easy fraud program and whether this is fraud or it's waste or or abuse in this case it could be more abuse and it would be fraud I guess by definition it would be fraud it is something that's easily out there and so that's from that perspective having the additional requirements the having two forms of ID is nice having three or four. What ends up happening is having more ends up reducing the risk that we have violations and it's a one-time thing for registration. I mean, and that's it's literally what we're dealing with right now at Medicaid.

Are you saying that this should be really We're saying that that right now it's the two forms. Um we're saying now it's going to be more than right. So five, correct me chair if I'm wrong, but five voted to support the staff directive of right asking from our identification so that we can make sure as commissioner St. John said that people legit live in the property, right? He's just asking for clarification of what it was and I and I'm supportive of explaining but why why is it a problem? It is the middle of two forms of identification which could include any of the following 10, right? pick two out of 10

and you're suggesting it should be more. No, I'm fine with it. Wait, it's fine. Okay. So, this this was requested.

Go a description of a staff. That's another thing is I I know Brian had rejected somebody before because not compliance and uh I'm not sure whether Seth would you agree that there's no dual processing here that means the staff could decide and uh shouldn't we have a a dual process if anything is agree on I'm not sure I could hear the question could you If you could get into the mic, commissioner,

I'm sorry because this is uh the whole renewal is depend on the staff, right? So the staff could reject it. But what happen if the applicant disagree with it? Would that be a due process? I can answer that. See, I can answer that. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah. So, uh, every decision that the staff makes can be appealed to the planning commission and eventually to the city council and if they want to to superior court. So, that is their due process rights. Okay. Is that that people have the ability to kick up the permit to a higher level through an appeal process. So, it's not final is

right if somebody every decision we make at staff can be potentially appealed. Okay. Thank you for clarification. Thank you. Next,

uh, advertising. So, we currently don't have an a really strong enforcement tool if somebody has an unpermitted STR uh to to unless Marissa goes through a very exhaustive factf finding to prove that they actually are renting it out. Um, we want to just make it abundantly clear if you don't have an STR permit and you're renting it out as an STR that that is an automatic violation. And so that's the request if the and does the count does the commission support that or not to make it easier for staff to ensure people are following the ordinance. I have a question on that

and I'm not quite sure where it is in here, but is a house hosting platform shall not compete complete any booking transaction for any residential property or unit unless it is listed on the city's registry. um that that particular one. What are the consequences of if they if we find a if Marissa finds a property listed from the city um that doesn't have the requirements, what are the consequences to that platform? Correct me if I'm wrong, Marissa, but SB346 gives us the ability to issue administrative fines and to go after the platform. Now, now that we have that under state state law, SB what?

SB 346. It's a new state law that gives us more authority to go after the platforms. Perfect. So, thank you. All right, Commissioner Baron. Commissioner Rana, yes. Vice Chair Walton, yes. Mr. St. John, yes. Mr. Chain, yes. Mr. Jacobson, yes. And I say yes. 70. Next,

um, parking requirements. This has actually been an issue and Marissa can give more substantive details, but should we limit the number of people with vehicles and whatnot? And so that that's uh the direction we're asking for from the commission. And that's under subsection nine. It shows the number of bedrooms and the number of guests. That that would be the max. Chair, may I ask a question? Sure. Um I have 12 guests. Um have four bedrooms. I've allowed four cars. So I parked the other eight around the corner.

Uh let me let me see what the staff recommended for the parking. So under subsection 12 it says each designated on-site parking space shall be made available made available for use of the gats of the due site. Each parking shall specify a maximum to be parked in maximum transit use shall not exceed each designated on-site parking uh shall be made available. So, the way it's written now, and Marissa can correct me, it would be you would have a maximum of 12 cars for the five bedrooms, but that would be all on site of the property because you wrote on site, correct? Right. So, it's so if it's we only have a few that have five bedrooms, but it would be five vehicles, right? Is the max.

One per bedroom. One per bedroom. So, it says number of guests allowed 12 per bedroom. Okay. Okay. Is that is that correct? which shall which shall not exceed the number of bedrooms included in the contract or teny.

Right? So for a fivebedroom which I think we may have one house the rest are four or three um it would be three vehicles etc. That the intent of that um that update is so that the host adds that to their listing and their rules. Right? Are we going to be able to catch every person that has four cars for a three-bedroom house? No. But at least it will be articulated and it will be a warning to the tenants or the renters um the customer that's going to be there to be mindful, right? If they're going to have six girlfriends or you know six gentlemen not to bring six cars because there's not going to be enough parking in carpool. So

what what happened to condo units? Every condo unit have one assigned space for parking and then they rent it out to a group of three and you have three cars. Where the other two cars going to park? Then the guest in the free guest parking. It's not just condos. It's it's apartment complexes. It's family. Well, yeah. So So I'm sorry. So if you have a five bedroomedroom, just so I understand I'm sorry, you get you get 12 total guest, right? Got it. Okay. Okay. Just trying to understand. So probably the only enforcement on this is if somebody complains. How about HOA? Would they come in?

There would be a complaint. Well, they would get a complaint from the HOA, right? Yeah. Okay. So, and then I know you I just heard we don't we have just one five- bedroomedroom home in Marina. Is that what you're saying? Or or just on the list? One that has a permit. Okay. Good. So, so here's my question. Because it says five plus bedrooms. So, so I if I have six bedrooms, am I still restricted to 12 guests? 14. So, so same if I have eight bedrooms, the restriction is still 12 guests. 18. The number I want them to be clear on it.

So, that ordinance is already there. We we did not modify the chart uh on the max occupancy that is that was there initially from 2019. So, yes, the max No, I'm just I'm just trying to understand the max is 12. He's saying if I go if I have eight bedrooms, I get 18 guests. And you're saying 5 plus is limited to 12. Correct. That's the cap. You can have no more than 12 guests. Correct. No matter how many bedrooms. Yeah. Thank you. Sorry. You're right. Thank you. Because I don't I don't touch the ordinance. So, thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. I'm No, you won't. Um,

so actually I apologize, Chair Woodson. I don't think we're actually asking for clarification on that. Is that is that correct? Or is the the subsection 12 of Okay. So, sorry about that. On parking. Okay. Next one. So, I the only one the only question I have on it and as I'm as it's somewhat philosophical and I'm just curious. They were supportive

because I've run I have run into this is if you have a a studio onebedroom and it's usually not a studio but it's a onebedroom. If you have a onebedroom and you have bandw comes up and they come in two vehicles because they've got their kids but they come at different times. You've got a onebedroom that only has one car. Now, every other one makes sense when you start getting above two and more. Studio probably is never going to be more than one, but I think the one is, and I don't know, maybe it's just you let it go and they can just figure it out on their own and they're just restricted. Yeah.

But there's a part of me that I've seen this multiple times in different cities where at the one-bedroom level, you have a family that has actually come up in in split vehicles and they have to have two vehicles. And most driveways usually can handle that or street parking. Just me? You guys going to say yes? Okay. I Okay.

And if we we kind of restrict our own resident or we are asking our own residents to be a little more restrictive with how many cars they're parking around their their housing. And I I think there's some places where um where we were considering if you're so close to a bus stop, the restriction or the so so if we're already having that conversation for our residents and and trying to It's okay. I'm okay with it. It's fine because they can just park on the street like you said. They just walk around the corner. Um

so Chair Watson, there were also a lot of really good ideas brought up. If if you allow me, can I go through the ones and then also get some additional clarification from the commission? Okay, if they fit right here in the discussion or they do.

Okay. So, um, there was some comments tonight about should staff or the commission put in its motion when we come back about should we limit BMR, should that be looked at? Um, is that something you want us to research or just bring that up in our staff report when we go to council? We're going to come back in February, but I just wanted to get some clarification about that. It sounded like from Commissioner Walton there was a equity issue about limiting SDRs not to be in the affordable units. Is that something you want us to I would like to have it looked at because I think that Okay. Does the rest of the group I know there's two of us who say that. Yes. Three.

Okay. Okay. Sounds good. Um it's four. I'm just trying to go through this so that when we come back we can get you guys a proper ordinance. Um there's been a lot of discussion tonight about a sunset clause reviewing of the ordinance in two years. What is the will of the commission? I can add it to my work plan as a department head or we could write it into the ordinance that you guys are recommending that it be reviewed and it was either two or three years. So what what is the will of the commission?

I mean I'm fine as a staff action if it's just bought if it's built into your operational plan. I don't think it needs to be into the law that it needs to be rewritten. I think revoking it. Okay. But the rest of the commissioners that would be my mine is I'm fine with operations versus law. What about anybody else? So sunset clause and periodic revision is a good suggestion. I say yes. So for sunset I say yes revisit every three years. I think two is like right around you doing it every time you turn. But I

I think we need a legal definition of sunset laws. So, so, so the question before the commission is, do you want to recommend to the council that in three years you'll go through the same exercise again or are you recommending to staff, specifically me as a department head, that we just build it into our work plan and that we'll just automatically bring it back, but it's not a codified officially in the code forever and ever and ever. That's the that's the ask right now. It's been six years, right? Yes.

So, it wasn't built in until there was some noise, right? Whereas if we said in the in the we said every two years or every three years this will be reviewed then it's it's not reviewed for noise. It's reviewed by prescription, right? So, what you're saying is to let it ride until there's enough noise where the staff say, "Woo, we better

No, that's not what I'm saying. That's not what I'm saying. Either I, as a department head, put it on my to-do list and we come back in two years or you put it officially in the city code that says in 3 years, thou shalt review the ordinance." It's really your recommendation that you guys talked about tonight. So I need to hear from the commission. What's the recommendation? So operate. So operations or law it

should it should it be just a task list in his oper in his annual plan. Oh okay. So what happens question what happens when there is no Guido that we understand is going to do what he says I Guido's yes everything to this city without Guido I don't I don't know where the city would be right now. Um so so when it's not on Guido's task list because it's not Guido anymore and we don't have it codified what happens? That's a good point. Will it get? But that's the kind of stuff I feel like slips through the cracks. And so for me, I think I think we're on me. Um I'm I'm for codified at three years.

Okay. Yes. What? So yes, at some duration. Yeah. Not you. I'm not codify at three years, not two. That's what I think. Codify at three years. They would keep coming back every two seconds. Yeah. And and the thing that I I'm a little concerned about that is what happens if that slips through the cracks? Well, no. If it's in the code, I mean, it's Oh, just like all the stuff that was in the general plan got looked at. Well, I mean it's in the zoning code, so I mean there's But you're here now, so none of that stuff slips through. So

that's got really up to the commission. So I I'm a little concerned about the term sunset because my past life the sunset meant that it ended. Yes. So we're saying that it ends at the end and ends is end. Just make it review. Make it review. No, no, no. Well, sunset is not the same as a review. So we're not saying I think there everybody's asking for review. I I will agree with review.

Or do you want the policy to go away at review? The sunset means there's a day that's the end of this correct because then then everybody will then no one has a license or anyone can have a license. But if we put it up for review and we bring it back intact and then add to or take away from it as opposed to sunsetting it. Oh, I you know something I'm honestly I I'm willing to keep it at sunset at three years if only because it forces an issue on the count on the council just just because I want to watch them hit a deadline.

Okay. So, it sounds like come back in three years, maybe do an update. This is how we're doing. These are the issues we're facing. Okay. Sounds good. Roger that. Thank you. All right. Um, one one thing we haven't gotten consensus on is do does the commission want to recommend some type of 55 ft exclusion zone? Yes or no? And this actually is a major thing to ask. That was the driver that started this whole thing was two houses sitting across the street from each other with a potential maintenance person going between the two houses seen by somebody on the council and wondering if they were there. I mean that was the driver that started the conversation. and to Commissioner Jacobson and Chang. This could be some due process because this has not been part of the ordinance. If the commission recommends this and the council adopts this, we would have to do a little bit of outreach between now and when the permit expires July 1st to tell those people, hey, by the way, they added this rule and now you're 55 ft from the guy down the street and we'd have to work with legal. So, But we just need to know what the commission is will on this and do need to hear from you. So I think the the question is and I don't know if it's 55 so I'm going to leave it as a number is yes there should be a buffer and yes that that art B of that yes is that buffer should be the equivalent of whatever is one property one property separation between it because that's what 55 ft is designed around

street 36 to 40t potentially three to three to six three to six feet 3 to six three to three to six 3 to six feet with curve line so that's how you get to 55 by the way it gets across the street um also say only one per block hold on how do you define a block just All All right. So, here's what I want to have.

I truly wish I could like whistle like this. I can't do it at all, but I want to right now.

Okay. Wow. That's got That's as wild as this commission's ever gotten in three years. It's why we live in a small back. Everybody says we're growing too much. It's like, have you ever been to the plane commission meetings? Because it's not contentious at all. All right. So here's where we stand right now. It is the intention of the 55 foot radius is to create a separation of at least one away. So create at every other property is what they're trying to do. So some type of patchwork on a block. That's why the 55 ft exists. So, I don't necessarily need to set it at 55 feet because our streets 55 feet means nothing in our streets because you go up some of our streets like we have streets that are 50 feet wide in a residential area for who knows what reason on the north side of town. So, I think what I would like to say is yes, with the caveat that we would have to determine what this what the distance is to create an offset because that's what they're trying to do is they're trying to create a patchwork so that houses aren't directly across or directly next to. So, they're trying to create some type of every other type of patchwork built on a street. That's why that that's there. So the first part of this is yes, you would think that there should be something that should being looked at that from a staff action to add to the requirements and that there should be a distance to be determined by the city during that study.

Is it a distance or could just be no adjoining properties? It could just be no however however you wanted to. It could be that could be the definition. So it could be could be done because because you commissioner had brought up earlier that evening you know we don't want three or four in the same cult right so whatever the commission's recommendation is remember that adjoining property means two houses back to back right

on the other side so joining is a 360 thing I'm I'm fine so so yes I guess all right so first one is do do we want to just make it nonadjoining or do we want to leave it up to the staff to decide what that is given that we've given them staff guidance of nonadjoining to some distance right does that work for you yes okay so yeah so before the struggle would be yes with the staff able to create a definition of adjoining to distance and whatever makes the most sense does that do we have consent it's us it's seven it's we all

okay so when we come back in February we will have a GIS map that shows a 55- ft buffer from all of the existing ones and then we'll have a GIS map that shows if we do a joining and then the commission can decide is that is that a fair yes and I think some of the context behind this that I would add to it is that and the reason I'm supporting yes is that I do believe on the quality of life issue on the on the streets knowing that at the same time I am physically pun I am physically setting a negative consequence on the other people who weren't first in right

to the process and for whatever reason and I just and that's just the way it's going to be because we have to it's about this one is about a quality of life issue for the community. Okay. Uh the other we had a lot of discussion tonight with the commission about should we follow seaside in sand cities and about having a cap yes or no and staff comes up with some number or not. I don't personally think it's been an issue here and Marissa can disagree. What is our what is our growth numbers actually? What do you what is your opinion Marissa about the cap for the commission this that you can share with them? How fast are we?

What my own? Yeah, I do too. Well, I can just state that probably 10 properties were purchased recently within the last few months and a permit was obtained or applied for. So, 33% in a year. You know, we are getting calls from agents asking about our STR ordinance, asking if those are allowed, right? So, the intent of those purchases are strictly for an STR strictly for an for the entire house to be an STR. And you're not sell the So, what happens then? They don't get the permit and then they sell the house. No. No. So,

they leave because they purchased it specifically to set up the STR. Correct. You don't give them that. You do. We No, I I think I think the scenario, correct me if I'm wrong, that Marissa's painting is what is your STR policy? Do you have a cap? The answer is no. Okay, then I'm going to buy the property and make it into an SDR. Is that the scenario that Okay. Like an investment then like an investment which makes it an investment property, but they can't Well, no, but they can't make it a true investment property because that's part A. Part B is that we've required them to live on site. We've made it a hosted versus non-hosted environment. Right.

But I also thought earlier we we asked rather than trying to figure this cap out, we have a business study that says we we think this is the right number for these reasons. Okay. So, so that can be the direction from the commission tonight is but I guess the question is do we do a cap because we want the the do we do the business study because we want the cap or do you just want us to come back with some more information about what a reasonable number would be based on some analysis? I guess guess that's the question for the commission.

I think it should be capped or uh Marissa's going to continue to those phone calls.

So mine I Yes, I agree. No, I'm not sure this is time to do it. And but maybe that's it doesn't matter. Maybe that's just you you put a calf into it. And my thought on it is if even if we grew at 33% next year um and 33% the year after and 33% the year after um we would still only be at about 72. units and if we're looking if we were looking at a cap of 100 between 100 and 150 let's say for the city in three years we're still not we're still going to barely be at half of what that cap would be and so do I think that a cap long term is necessary yes do I think short term if if going back to commissioner Walton's kind of decide what she and I have been having kind of just Just thinking about this process of this is about re this is for us as a city is also about revenue that if the question comes into the city hey do you have an STR rig? Uh yes. Do you have a cat? No. Oh, I'd like to buy this. Okay, but you have to live here. It's hosted versus non-hosted. Okay, I still want to do this. If from a sales perspective and perception, if we answer no right to that first question, they're like, "Okay, let me go to another city." And so, do we are we hurting ourselves on something by setting an artificial cap right now that we know we're not going to reach in the next three years knowing that we just recommended that we're going to re review this entire thing in three years? I didn't hear anybody recommending an artificial cap.

So what's the point of setting a cap? No better not be able to achieve it. So we don't set a cap right now, but then three years from now we can look at putting a cap in place. That's my point is is we could put we put a cap now, but why? We're not going to get we're not going to get it. We don't know what it is. We're not we're not worried about it. But three years from now, we can rebook at it because we can reook at it. Yes. Okay. So, so no cap but study it in three years. Is that what I'm hearing? Okay. I'm just trying to understand. Yes. Okay.

I would like to say that cap provides leverage to the staff when they are processing the applications. So if there is even even an ordinary number would help and provide help to the staff because the city is growing and this demand you never know because people find it attractive and they like to but I don't know if it is how much is it growing because right now we have nei correct neither Sea Haven or the dunes are allowing STRs at all.

Yeah. Really? That was that was the president and that's our primary I mean that is our growth I mean that's our growth areas until we get Marina Heights, right? So we've got and they haven't we haven't started building there. They're not starting building there for another year or so. So I'm not sure even though yes we have a lot of growth going on the places where most of the the majority of the growth is going is areas that don't allow it by HOA but they are not allowing it now but uh is it is it something which is going to stay sometime they change but okay we allow so

that won't change that's in the charters it's it takes It's harder to change the constitution than to change an actual but it's the people people who live own property if they want to make the change. No they it's people buying people buy them because they know it's not going to happen. Yeah. It it the HOAs is part of the deed

and you no his no you can't because you have an HOA board. The board can propose every year, usually once a year to make a ch a set of changes to bylaws and it but it it to your now to your point it is extremely difficult to override and get those changes. It would take five years to change the

I and I understand your point but his his contracts and co CCRs are not easy to change and the HLA is embedded in the CCNRs. I'm actually I'm actually more concerned that the state would come out in the next year and make a change than I am with the CC the CCR issue. And the main reason to your point is that CC CCNRs literally can be nullified by the state right now by homeless and we've seen that done on multiple ABS. So I that's actually a bigger concern to me is that the state would come in. I think in that respect if that something like that ever happened but it was counterproductive to what the state tried to do

right then what the state would be doing is that and it would come back to us anyway on the commission if that ever happened. So it's kind of a okay yes it could. So I mean to your point I think that it's valid but we most of our growth are in areas that right now are restricted and that we're going to take would take two to three years to even try to make a change if they started trying to pursue it right now.

Yeah. So in any case putting a cap does not harm. Leaving it open at least can come to a possibility that the number grows and it becomes inconvenient. The whole character of the city changes. So you put a cap staff has this thing that they can deny that okay we have this number we cannot give it give more than that. So we have this thing in place. We can revise the review it after 3 years as to how things are working. But having no cap at all is uh a concern to me. Okay. So let's go down.

Would you rather have no killet nano than have no STRs? Then we have nothing to worry about. That's not what he's saying. Three years we don't have to worry about being extreme. That's we have 31 right now. That would be disappointing. That's not that's 30. It's 33 and it's that's not realistic. Um so all right. So right now where we're at is because we're not going to get rid of STRs. That's why it's not realistic. That's an example. That's a use case that's not going to happen. Then why don't we set the cap at 50 and then there's a few more lucky people.

I mean I would I still would like to have the uh business not proposal business what was what was the word you used it's actually a business plan that's business plan yeah or not well you know but what where the use case that's what I'm looking for so we you know the city has an understanding like with respect to our budget what do we need to accomplish where how you know where's the money if we have this many people with this many STRs on the market at 180 days and they book all of them solid is beautiful and perfect all across the city. How much revenue

would we get from that and and bring that number back? You know, kind of like and how would we use like those those kind of items? I would be very interested. That's why I woke up 150 units. Okay. Generate. So, thank you. All right. So, it's gonna be a two-part. Got it. I think so. The first part of this is how many people would like yes or no. No. Would like to see a cap put in place right now? Yes, if you would like a cap or no if you would not like a cap. Fine. Commissioner Walton. Yes. Yes. Yes. A cap. Yes, a cap.

I'll come back to that. Commissioner Chang. Okay. Okay. Commissioner St. John. No. Commissioner Jacobson? No. Commissioner Ra. Yes. Go. And Commissioner. No. Then me and No, I'm gonna go next. So, yes. So, I'm gonna say yes, Cap. And then the second part of the question. Now, Commissioner Baron, you get to be last. Oh, no. No cap. No cap for her. Okay. But now I'm not Now, now the second part of the question

is for those who said yes on a cap there. Do you have a specific half or do you want a business study? I want mine is a Don't look at me like that. Well, I then I have to change my first vote. Well, because I thought you wanted to set a cap right away. Now you've said I litally said after the business I said cap or no cap. Yeah. When? Now. I mean, yes. Yes. I want a cap. I changed over. I changed my We're gonna start over. Oh my gosh. It's too late. It is not Nobody who no

uh to the chair just just by way of reference if we have 35 permit holders if they have 180 days which you guys have eliminated but just by reference and each each day is $250 that's $1.5 million right and we get I think I said 14% of that so times.14 about $200,000 about $200,000 that covers it covers a third and I think Marissa shared in her presentation we got 190

193,000 I'm going to go back with that in mind yes is that we want a to recommend a cap be put in place now yes or no No. No. Cap. No. No. No study. No study. Yes or no for a cap? No. No. Nobody wants a cap. Not without a study. Without a study. There has to be a study. Okay. So, just to help out the commission, why don't we do this because this could be actually study. How many people want a study?

Yeah. Why don't we do this if the Yeah. Why don't we do this? Why don't we when we come back in February, we will sl out the numbers about it's going to be the answer is that the the it's evenly split, right? Just put it right evenly split. I'm just down the middle. That's on it. And that we want a study on what a cap would look like. Yes, sounds good. Um I I appreciate the commission. I know I was a little pushy right now trying to get some direction, but we really the the intent is I'm trying to bring you guys back an ordinance that you guys can support. So, thank you for engaging me in this exercise. The last one, the last section.

Uh, is there other stuff that the staff needs direction on? Brian and Marissa. Um, there was I think a couple slides on enforcement and changes, right? Is that what you're referencing? Yeah. So, the enforce what what's what section the Yeah. when you can like cut into you can literally cut into their presentation. You like I know

section Marissa I think enforcement should include we were on uh loss of license we were on five we haven't gotten to six yet. Yeah. One more back. Go to six. Roman numeral. No one more. There we go. That's five. Sorry. This is where we're at. Okay. So, the the ask here, Marissa, is what? Just so I understand. Um, you're just asking for a site plan. That seems reasonable. And you're requiring a rental lease agreement or house rules which will include number of guests allowed and vehicles. I mean, that all seems unless the commission disagrees, that seems very reasonable, right?

I don't have any problems with this. Has anybody does anybody have a problem with this as written? Okay. So, general consensus on that. There is one issue with the extra two guests. I'm I'm not really clear of that. I know that uh when it comes to rental, long-term rental, it's usually two people per bedroom and one extra, not two. So, I'm I'm This just surprised me. I I'm not sure why it's two, not one. Uh but if it's uh absolutely you see it's working then I'm not going to argue against it. Yeah that was existing before my time um it was already there.

Um but yeah that's the and that's typical for like the other jurisdictions as well and my only on 6A is that I think it should actually the wording on 6A should match the table because it's no it's not to exceed 12 section to add not to exceed 12. Okay. Not to exceed 12. Thank you. because that brings it in compliance with the the overall table of residents. Yes. Roger. That sounds good. Okay. Now, let's go to the next. Okay. Uh was enacted or we've already looked at below. We So, yeah, we talked about senior housing. We said we want to look at senior housing and below market rate.

Yeah. We'll we'll we'll bring back some why why that stuff is in there. That's fine. Uh more nothing in there.

Okay. Now, no we want to go through two because two is a if I understand it right right now under current the way it's been done an owner an owner may not have short-term rentals. So if a a owner is a family and they have a husband and a wife and then they put the husband has it in one and the wife has it in another. Again, I think it's we're primary residents, but it's it's we're not defend we're not defining family. We're not defining legal mortgage rates and what's on the title of a home. We are literally just saying that. So, I'm not sure. I guess mine's from a a a enforcement perspective. I mean, the easy enforcement perspective is to go to the the county property records and say, who is on the who is the person on the property record? Is it Glenn and Karen Woodson? Is it Glenn Woodson or is it Karen Woodson? Those would be the three options that are available.

Uh trust or well, yeah, family trust or but ultimately it's still going to go back to have to dig. But you'd have to dig. And so I think that that's my my challenge with two is that I don't disagree with the intent of what we're trying to accomplish with two. I'm just trying to understand the enforcement side of it because I think there are I think it's it's opened up some gray areas that have can be taken advantage of.

So it's already listed in uh I one section five uh se B5 it's already existing. That section was added just to clarify and reiterate because even though it's listed in B5 of the ordinance defining you know an owner means the person or persons individually jointly and common or a living trust. Um regarding trust uh trustees um they are considered the same person even though it's clearly listed. We still get the questions my wife my wife and I have a house. I'm going to buy another house down the street. Can I put that house in her name and can I put this house in my name? Right. If it's if they both

intent and the intent right now is long if they live separately like instead of separate bedrooms they had separate houses kind of like whatever the movie was a few years ago that I guess would be legal but not by this that's fine. I I just do we but do we not have issues with that right now? Do we have of the 33 properties, do we have any that will violate six paragraph 2 here if this was approved? That's already they won't violate it at the moment. Okay. But the question has been asked, right? They we did get a submitt for that specific example and we did deny it.

Okay. So, as long as we don't have anybody that is currently out of compliance with that put in place, then I'm fine with it as it as it's written. I just I wanted to make sure that we don't have anybody there. Not that I want to grandfather them in, but I just want it makes it very it makes it a clean issue for us. Okay. Um the paragraph three is my issue of concurrency which I guess feeling of the rest of the commission is that concurrency should not be allowed. Correct.

You you get one permit or that property. That's it. So I can't rent out the bedrooms separately at one time. That's I think that's the intent of what we're trying to written. Yes, that's the way it's written. And the the I guess the background on that specific one is is that I got a we got a new STR permit that peace meal the entire house to include the living room but they had like four or five listings and it was really difficult to manage right to confirm whether they were legal because initially they didn't have the permit listed the permit number. So that's how that but once it becomes so well that's getting it legal once you get legal

one permit per property that's our goal. We're not trying to overload the neighborhoods because otherwise you'd have three bedrooms with three different separate guests unrelated not together. Maybe they came to the same conference here together, but they would be three different bookings maybe. Exactly. Right. And and that I think that that is taxing. And then you get into the issue, well, it's a bedroom, so now I get my bedroom with two people and I'm going to get two people in the living room, right? Who it seems to be hard to manage that. And then and Yeah. And then

that's actually well I I don't think that's the use case is that what ends up happening is they put a lock on each bedroom and they it's an Airbnb out by bedroom and then you have access to your door and you have access to your bedroom is what happens. I mean it's not a living room issue. It's that they do that so they can get they have a greater chance of getting small each in a bigger house. Yeah. That's that is a huge issue. That's a huge kind of happening up in the whole Tahoe region. So I'm used to seeing it. All right. So that's fine. Um I'll just leave it where it is.

One one question if uh does it does this apply to international student who coming here for summer vacations or short-term and then they are renting a bedroom from family. Uh yeah, I mean it's you're renting out a bedroom. Yeah, but for SDR, but it's longer than 29 days, right? That's a I guess. Yeah, I guess. No, no, for for some Yeah, that's over 29 days. Yeah. Yeah, I guess. Yeah, it would be longer. 29 days. It would turn it would turn into a longerterm rental. And usually what happens then makes a decision that they're going to give them a discount or not.

Okay. Um it's that's the same issue that comes up with like military who move here who could have a wait list of 21 days or they could have a weight list of 80 days, right? And so they it starts the short term and it may just convert to a long-term rental. Right. Okay. So three fine or commercial assembly weddings. Yeah, we all agree with that one. Uh and short-term rental to unoccupied minor is prohibited. I just don't see what's wrong with that. That's all. Jeez. let my 16-year-old rent a house. All right, next up. All right, so I think we're fine on 67. Um,

this is this is the new seven is that we're required to show except for except for one, which you're going to go back and study. Two, three, and two, three, four, and five, we all agree with Okay. or six. Got it. Right. For seven, that's a new law. So that's it is what it is. So seven would be yes I'm like I'm clairvoyant. Seven is going to be the new provide all the information and we can go after people and then I think that leaves eight. Isn't there an eight? Um I think I don't know. Wait, could I make could we go to seven just for a minute?

Um when you're saying seven, are you saying subsection? Next slide. Roman numeral 7. Next slide. I thought you were referring to No. Okay. I'm I'm playing completely off the slide, Dick, right now. Okay. No, that's not the one I'm talking about. Disregard. Okay. Go to eight.

So, so, and Marissa can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is something I think we feel real strongly about. There's been a little bit of a card game with some of the enforcement. Well, it's the agent of the LLC. You need to go talk to him or you need to go talk to the property manager or you need to go talk to the real estate broker or if you're tied to the property and you're a problem STR that we're getting calls for service or whatnot and you're tied to that permit, you're going to be held responsible for parties, loud noise, calls for service. This seems pretty reasonable to me. That's how normal rentals are handled. Yep. So,

so why would I do something different for short term? What's it take to have loss of license? If I really Well, Brian didn't you you mentioned the one that they hadn't paid up their tax. So, they don't pay their tax. So there violations there was cannot lose the license well violations kind of it's actually defined why not

if we have a bad actor we can't well I mean we follow our normal you know that that there is a little bit of discretion there from the staff So, and we currently have a section which allows us um an STR permit may be revoked by the city due to failure to meet requirements set forth in the ordinance at any time. What section? So, technically could be one strike in your house. No, just give me the C6. Okay.

Imagine if we did. I think I think if we don't enforcement, this is a a the reason we have the STR is because it's a profitable business model. Seth, what's Hi, Seth. businesses that violate their trust lose their licenses, right? And and Brian just pointed that out that se section C6 of the ordinance, Commissioner St. John revocation,

an SDR permit may be revoked by the city due to failure to meet the requirements. So, we already we already have that language.

I think it's covered. And and Steph, just if you can clarify for me, I think because of the way it's written and and because of the legal review that was done at the time when this was written, which is still valid, that it's not us having the ability to provide some subjectivity during a review or an issue. So that it's not just one strike and you're out, always one strike and you're out, depending on who it is. But that difference to the the commission the staff doesn't do any doesn't set the city up for any liability. Correct.

No, I mean I think you're the the as you know the enforcement division has you know pretty broad prosecutorial uh discretion right to and and it has to be administered equitably um and not you know favorably for some and not for others. But that's but Marissa knows that and that's the purview of all enforcement divisions. Is that your question chair? Yes. Yes. Thanks. I figured that was the answer. I just wanted to make sure that I hadn't lost something in the last

few cells. Okay. The revol revocation clause need to be more specific as to what number of complaints or violations and even neighborhood complaints uh against an STR will lead to revocation. We need to be more specific leaving it open that okay it can be revoked that becomes more discretionary so that discretion will be taken out and we should be more specifically but it's pretty thank you Brian for pointing C6 says due to failure to meet the requirements set forth in this code and state law. I mean that's pretty broad.

It's big. No, it's actually better for the city that it's broad. It says, right, it gives us the capability made due to failure to meet the requirements set forth in this code. This code is the whole municipal code. I mean, and state law. So it's actually helpful that it's purposely vague that right if you have one loud party that a hundred people show up to or you have three violations that gives us the discretion to say that one awful event. Right? So,

and I do want to state that we have been focusing on we have been focused on education, right? Educating the STR permit holders when there is a violation, giving them a warning and then if they keep continue to violate, then we uh then I issue a citation, right? We have not gone the route of revoking but we can you know we can educate again and state hey these are the guidelines and the requirements and if you if you violate the code we will revoke your license right your permit um that's something yeah it's I think the vagueness helps

no I understand the vaguess helps it does help us but we have not except for the one that didn't pay to taxes we have not revoc uh revoked permits because they've rented out the ADU which is they they've been aware they signed the deed restriction and they still rented it and more than one person instead we cited them we did not revoke which we could have right um that's what I'm saying is is we do have that option

so I think someone may have said this but typically re revocation requires you know a process and a hearing and appeal opportunity and all of I think there's a I think that to your to your point, there's a there's a point where we have to trust that that the city staff are actually going to do things that are respectful of the city's regulations in the community. And so I think what we're the way that is written right now, it's it gives them the staff pretty significant difference to serve in the best interest of the city.

Yeah. See my boy B is that uh it can come to some dispute sometimes like you work some somebody for some kind of a violation and in other case you give show some kind of a lineage and you don't then people start making comparisons that you punish the other person well and I think that was that was kind of my point very specific that number of strikes thems goes away. That specificity defines that. Okay. And there is no ambiguity.

I just I'm just not sure that that this regulation is something that we want to put that drop that into and create some type of matrix of punishment of oh three of this equals two of that versus one of this significant one. That's a significant escalation matrix and consequence matrix that we don't actually have across most of the rest of our policies in the state. So I'm not trying to say in city. So I'm not sure that's something we want to add here. But I I guess I think we're done talking about STRs Chair Woodson. So I I I think that's the

just take that as there's a disagreement on that portion of it, right? and just so just document that that it is there are six with one one set of clarification they was looking for that's fine

okay so I want to I want to thank the commission that was a three-hour discussion and I really appreciate we got a lot of good feedback um I know I was a little pushy trying to get direction but like I said we so the reason why I was trying to get some direction is Um, we have to put in a 20-day notice into the newspaper in order to bring this item back. We would normally bring this back January 22nd, but none of us are working December 29th when the legal ad would be due. So, we're probably going to have to kick this to the first meeting in February. So, um, anyway, so that's why I was because it's going to take a while to prepare all this stuff. And so, we do appreciate the thoughtful consideration. We do have one more item to go and it's up to the commission.

We have open comment first. Is there any general open comment to the floor on any other subject matter tonight? Anybody who is still online? Um we have one, two, three, four, five, one, four people online. Chair, does anybody who is online have a general comment about any other item that would be relevant to the plan commission that you would like to raise? Going once, going twice. Uh we have one person Mow would like to speak. Sure.

Uh uh Ma, you can go ahead and speak now. Hello. Do you guys hear me? Yes, absolutely. Thank you.

Okay. So um I want to discuss something about the 55 ft or whatever between each property or each listing. So I want to tell you something that we work really hard to get one property or like two property or whatever. We work three jobs. I I personally work three jobs to be able to afford the mortgage to get the property running to get some money in in my pocket just to survive the expensive living here in the coastal and even the beach like 4 minutes away from me. I never been to the beach for like maybe um eight months. I've been so busy running this stuff. Um I own property. My brother own another property across the street that you guys mentioned and we live in a wide open street at least like 100 parking open and available. Whenever heard a single complaint, if you guys hear any complaint that you can discuss, you just mention it and just tell me there's a complaint comes in for this property or whatever. So if you want to shut one property, you're affecting me. maybe maybe you're going to affect my brother and work hard for it. So I don't know which one which way you're going to go for it. Um it will be like nonsense across the board to eliminate this because we just have like very face to face like housing. Thank you.

You're welcome. Thanks. What I will say is that as we discussed in this we actually did not set a 55T limit. The 55 limit belongs in a different city. We specifically asked the staff to go back and look at property lines and setting up a distance or non joint and that would then be presented from the staff side when they roll all this up to the city council and that would be for the city council to make that fin. So it is not 55 ft right now. All right. Uh, Chair Woodson, I believe that's the last person from the

Okay, so go ahead and close public comment. We have one item on the regular agenda tonight, which is a minor update to the ADUs. Yeah, it's gotten so I didn't have to look at the agenda anymore. I just like that's the chair. That's right. 4:30 was really early and I'm really

um so I will make this incredibly brief because we've all been here for a while. Thank you for the commission's patience. Um so every year the state adopts new ADU bills uh on in September or October. The governor signed four new ADU bills. This is a cleanup legislation. This is timely. Uh, I've been working with HCD. Um, we could potentially be getting our pro housing designation in the next couple months. When I met with them, they flagged our AD ordinance as something that needed to be updated. So, this is all part of this overall trying to be recognized for all the good housing that we're doing.

Uh, these bills do take effect January 1st, so we're a little bit ahead of the power curve. And there are four bills. All the stuff's in your staff report. Um the first one, ADUs. You can get up to eight detached ADUs on a lot or the number of units on the property that are already existing. Um there's further restrictions for parking. If you're in an architectural or historic zone, or when the garage, carport, or uncovered parking space is demolished in conjunction with an ADU, we can no longer require parking, on-site parking. Um, there was a new bill that if you if a nonprofit housing organization builds an ADU, it can be sold separately from the main house. Um, very timely. We were talking about uh no short-term rentals. It was already generally understood, but they made it abundantly clear that the through AB 1154 that JADUs cannot be rented for short-term rentals fees. The fees that we charge uh it was always for the main ADU, but they made it clear for the JADUs and the JDUs for the commission. So, they're generally the ones in the garage. Uh we need to make sure that the fees we're charging are proportional to the impact from the house. Uh number six that was added because of the fires down in LA, but it's now statewide. If you let's say the governor declares a state of emergency and there's earthquake or fire or flood, a lot of people will try to build an ADU first and then they'll build the house after that. So now that's allowed by law. Uh fire sprinklers, that's been this has been the law of the land for the last 5 years. Now it applies to

Jedus. You can't make a customer put in fire sprinkler for the Jedu if it's not required for the main house. That's been in the case for ADUs for several years. There were some technical edits to the Jedu law in terms of what what is a kitchen and the entryways. There was some clarifications about the unit size and it just made it abundantly clear about the different permutations of how ADUs can be built on the property. So this is a lot of this is super technical and minor but for the commission I would say or the bigger ticket ones which was kind of interesting to Commissioner Jacob's point earlier in the year earlier in the evening. um if you're a nonprofit housing organization, you could build that ADU and literally sell it separately from the main house. So, that's kind of a new way to actually get more housing um that's actually reasonably affordable for folks and you would have to parcel off that from the rest of the property. Um so, that really concludes my very very brief presentation. I'm here to answer any questions. only one I had and just going back to it and maybe it's just irrelevant and I can't remember where in one of the myriad of things that we've updated in the last two years was it was I thought it was last year was the splitting of multif family into you could I can't remember I can't remember what it was you we was you could split a multif family dwelling twice and then you could build an ADU to support each of that split

yeah I'm not familiar with that I'll have to find and get with you separately.

Okay. I don't have anything specific on. I read through them. They're relatively straightforward. I mean, the only thing I was really concerned about was initially the the dimensional issues, but they didn't go against anything we had already put in place for ADUs. So, we didn't have to re I didn't see I was looking at it. I didn't see that we would have to make any adjustments to our currently our current regulations on height and setback. Anybody else? That other discussion just bore them out. Study sessions more often at the beginning of all right.

Our opinion doesn't matter. Can always try. Our opinion doesn't mean it does matter. This is why we're here. It matters. We They care. I'm just the perspective of the mayor. He said, it's on camera. All right. Would somebody like to make a motion? Make the motion the motion that is in front of us on the screen to the new formatting. Who changed the formatting? Sorry, did you open public comment already, chair? Oh, sorry.

Oh, no. Thank you. Is there public comment? Open up. Thank you very much, Steph. Is there any public comment on the changes in the regulations? Uh, no one on the the Zoom has raised their hand, Chair Watson. Okay, thanks. Thank you, Seth, for reminding me. Um, I still want to know who made the change to the formatting of the slide deck. This is an old slide deck. Chair Woodson, I like the format. Okay, it's clean. It's bright. And who's making the motion? Ron. Ron,

I move to adopt PC resolution 2025 recommending that the city council adopt the proposed amendment to section 17.42.04.0 access of the Marina Mal code. This action is exempt from C for section 15 15303 alpha of the C guidelines and section 21807 of the public resources.

Is there a second? Commissioner Chang seconds. We got through a vote. Commissioner Baron. Commissioner Rana, yes. Commissioner Walton, yes. Chair Woodson, yes. Commissioner St. John, yes. Commissioner Chang, yes. Commissioner Jacobs, yes. Motion passes. Okay.

Any special announcements or other announcements or briefings or whatever? Ah, the minutes from the last meeting on November 18th. So, can we go? That's fine. We do it out of order because this all started with the o the meeting open period the very beginning being off. I'm just going to track it back to that. Okay. Uh the minutes. Did everybody get a chance to review the minutes? Look over them. Does anybody have any changes that they would like to recommend to the minutes from last month? Oh,

I will get to the announcements. I haven't gotten to that yet. You are just you are trying to mess me up at this point. So, nobody has no comments. So, take a vote on the minutes. Sure. Commissioner Baron, yes. Commissioner Rana, yes. Commissioner Walton, yes. Chair Woodson, yes. Commissioner St. John, yes. Commissioner Chang, yes. Commissioner Jacobson, yes. Motion passes. Okay. Okay. So, we've done like special things. So now we have announcements. And we do have announcements. He has been waiting for three hours to do this.

Like I could have gone home a while ago. Good evening. Um so I just want to announce that we are open for applications for the planning commissioner appointment. So any renewals, anyone interested to apply to any of our commissions, um, including the planning commission, we are accepting applications right now, you could go to city of marina.org and download the applications, submit it to the city clerk and if you have any questions, you could always contact the CDD office. Thank you.

Which ones of us are due to do that? So the commissioners on the disad are due are um Commissioner Chang, St. John, Walton, and Baron. And we've already touched base. Thank you. Surprisingly enough, you are still going to get another year. It's kind of scary, is it? Well, after everything we got, we got you back. So like, might as well just keep you. that reel on the hook. All right, we've got that. No other correspondents. Guido? No.

All right, that would be it. Thank you everyone. Have a great holiday and thanks for a good year. Thank you comm.