CC 4-2-19 Study Session #1 Short Term Rental PresentationApril 2, 2019
Study Session Regarding Short-
Term Rental Regulations
Background
●Voluntary Collection Agreement
with Airbnb –June 2018
●Direction to develop STR specific
regulations with PC input
Background –Timeline
●Jul 24, 2018 –PC Study Session
●Aug 2018 –Online Survey (140 responses)
●Oct 2018 –Community Mtg (26 attendees)
●Nov 27, 2018 –PC recommendation
Objective of Study Session
Input in following areas of regulation/fees:
1.Minimizing Neighborhood Impact
2.Preserving Long Term housing stock
3.Discouraging Violations
4.Enforcing Regulations
5.Fees
What do other cities do?
Regulate STRs STR
Prohibited
No
Regulations
Drafting
Regulations
Sunnyvale Saratoga Palo Alto Santa Clara
Mtn View Campbell
San Jose Los Altos
Los Gatos
Los Altos Hills
San Francisco
Objective of Study Session
Input in following areas of regulation/fees:
1.Minimizing Neighborhood Impact
2.Preserving Long Term housing stock
3.Discouraging Violations
4.Enforcing Regulations
5.Fees
Neighborhood Impacts
●Number of Guests
●Two times the # of bedrooms or max.
two in studios
●Restricting rentals
●One STR agreement per night
Neighborhood Impacts
●Commercial Activity prohibited
●Guest Manual required
●Local Contact
●24/7/365
●Within 60 mins
Neighborhood Impacts
●Parking
●Minimum required by zone
●Designate one STR spot onsite
●Non-habitable spaces
●Attics, garages, balconies
Neighborhood Impacts
●Type of Unit
●Single-Family Homes
●Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
●Multi-Family Units
Objective of Study Session
Input in following areas of regulation/fees:
1.Minimizing Neighborhood Impact
2.Preserving Long Term housing stock
3.Discouraging Violations
4.Enforcing Regulations
5.Fees
Impacts on Long-Term Housing
●Primary Residence
●Limit number of STRs on a parcel
●One rental agreement per site
●Limit rental days
●Hosted (365) vs. un-hosted stays (60)
●BMR Housing
Objective of Study Session
Input in following areas of regulation/fees:
1.Minimizing Neighborhood Impact
2.Preserving Long Term housing stock
3.Discouraging Violations
4.Enforcing Regulations
5.Fees
Violation Penalties
●Penalty
●SF -$484/day
●Revocation
●Consent to inspection(s)
●Permit number in listing
Objective of Study Session
Input in following areas of regulation/fee:
1.Minimizing Neighborhood Impact
2.Preserving Long Term housing stock
3.Discouraging Violations
4.Enforcing Regulations
5.Fees
Reactive Enforcement Proactive Enforcement
Pros −May use existing staff
(depending on #of
complaints)
−Maintains City’s current
code enforcement
philosophy.
−Addresses complaints and
actively work to identify
noncompliant activities.
−Typically results in higher
compliance rates throughout
the City.
Cons −Addresses complaints only.
−Does not ensure a high
compliance rate in the City.
−More resource intensive and
require additional staff
support.Estimated that at
least one additional CE
officer needed to enforce
STR program and regulations
proactively.
Objective of Study Session
Input in following areas of regulation/fee:
1.Minimizing Neighborhood Impact
2.Preserving Long Term housing stock
3.Discouraging Violations
4.Enforcing Regulations
5.Fees
Fees
●STR monitoring and enforcement
●Vendor ~ $35K (Big Data/identification)
●Full-time CE officer -$133K (compliance)
●Business License Fee
●Home occupations = $150
●Hotels, etc. = $150 + $9.71/room
New -Regulations for STR Platforms
●Appeals Court upheld City of Santa
Monica regulations which include*:
●Collect and remit TOT
●Regularly disclose listings and booking info
●Refrain from booking unregistered STRs
●Not collect fees for ancillary services
related to unregistered STRs
* HomeAway.com Inc. v. City of Santa Monica
Recommended Action
Input in following areas of regulation/fees:
1.Minimizing Neighborhood Impact
2.Preserving Long Term housing stock
3.Discouraging Violations
4.Enforcing Regulations
5.Fees