From: Matthew Kaddatz
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Reconsider the 120-Night Cap for STR
Date: Thursday, May 14, 2026 8:31:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please read at the city council meeting on May 19th before a vote on A.3 26-206 Short-Term Vacation Rental Ordinance Amendments. My Name and phone are at the bottom of this email.
Dear Mayor Perotte and City Council,
I am a Goleta homeowner, the company I work for is based in Goleta, and I live here part time. I care deeply about this community. I agree with the City’s goal of protecting long- term housing. Housing affordability is real, and Goleta should absolutely prevent short-term rentals from becoming a future threat to housing supply. But the proposed 120-night cap is the wrong solution.
First, the City’s own study found that short-term rentals are not currently a significant driver of Goleta’s long-term housing shortage. The staff report frames this as a future-risk issue, not a current housing crisis caused by STRs.
Second, the best available research on day caps does not show that they reliably return meaningful housing supply to the long-term rental market. A 2024 study (link) of day caps in Berlin, Hamburg, and Munich found a sizable drop in Airbnb activity, but found no long-term housing increases. It found evidence of noncompliance, and concluded that residents “hardly benefit” from day-cap regulation. A 2025 study (link) of a 180-day cap in New South Wales found only a temporary reduction in active short-term rentals that “quickly dissipated.” Third, the 120-night cap will be expensive and difficult to police. Goleta’s own staff report acknowledges that effective oversight requires platform data, monthly reporting, complaint tracking, third-party tools, staff capacity, and potentially higher license fees to recover costs.
A cap sounds simple, but enforcing it is not simple. It creates bureaucracy, audit burdens, and more opportunities for noncompliance.
Fourth, the cap risks harming the very operators the City should want: licensed, tax-paying, professionally managed, compliant hosts. If responsible operators cannot operate sustainably, the market does not necessarily become safer or better. It may become more informal, less professional, harder to track, and more difficult to enforce.
Short-term rentals also provide real value to Goleta. Families visiting UCSB students, grandparents visiting local residents, people attending local events, and families who need kitchens, bedrooms, laundry, and neighborhood access often cannot be served well by hotels.
These guests support restaurants, shops, cleaners, maintenance workers, and local businesses.
A 120-night cap would damage that visitor economy while doing little to solve housing.
There is a better path. If the City wants to protect long-term housing, it should focus directly on that goal: limit the number of new STR permits, prevent new STR permits after no-fault evictions, restrict conversions of newly purchased homes, limit permit concentration, and strongly enforce nuisance rules against bad actors.
Those policies address the actual risk: too many homes being converted to visitor use or poorly managed rentals disrupting neighborhoods. A 120-night cap does not solve that problem. It punishes existing compliant homeowners, reduces tourism options, creates enforcement costs, and offers little evidence of meaningful housing benefit.
Please reject the 120-night cap and adopt a more targeted, evidence-based policy that protects housing, protects neighborhoods, and treats responsible Goleta homeowners fairly.
Sincerely,
Matthew Kaddatz
P: 805.689.5790
Eastport Village Homeowners Association
Entrance Rd. Goleta Ca.
( p.o.box 7127 Hollister Ave #25A-234 Goleta Ca .93117) Goleta, CA 93117
Bent Jensen : [email protected] 408-455-2449
Idris Hepp : [email protected] 805-448-7498
May 10, 2026
Members of the Goleta City Council
City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, CA 93117
RE: Urgent Request for City Council Review — Short-Term Rental Ordinance Revision and Enforcement Concerns at Eastport Village HOA, Entrance Rd. Goleta Ca.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Goleta City Council, We write to you on behalf of the Board of Directors of Eastport Village Homeowners , a nine- unit residential condominium community located at Entrance Road in Goleta. We respectfully request that the Council give consideration to the concerns outlined in this letter as you engage in the important process of revising the City's Short-Term Rental (STR) ordinance.
Background: Our HOA and Its Governing Documents
Our community is governed by a set of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that expressly prohibit the rental of any unit for a period of less than thirty (30) days. These restrictions exist to preserve the residential character of our community, protect the safety and quiet enjoyment of our residents, and ensure the long-term viability of our shared property.
The Ongoing Violation
For several years, one unit owner within our community has been operating her condominium as a short-term rental — in direct and knowing violation of our CC&Rs. Despite being formally notified of this violation on multiple occasions, she has continued this practice without interruption. In an effort to resolve the matter without incurring significant legal costs — costs that would fall heavily on our small nine-unit association — we have even posted notices on common property near her unit clearly stating that short-term rentals are a violation of our governing documents.
To date, these efforts have been disregarded.
A Procedural Failure in the Business License Process
When we learned that this owner had applied for and received a City of Goleta business license to operate a short-term rental, we contacted the City department responsible for STR licensing.
We were troubled to discover a significant procedural gap: the owner was required by City rules to provide notice to her neighbors before a license would be granted. She represented to the City that she had done so. She had not. We also asked the neighboring HOA if they had been approached and they had not . No owner or resident of our HOA received any such notice. In fact short-term rental license requires prior approval from the association’s governing board.
When we brought this to the City's attention, we were informed that the City's legal counsel had advised that it was not the City's responsibility to verify compliance with neighbor-notification requirements — and that enforcement was a matter for the HOA to pursue through private legal action.
We respectfully, but firmly, disagree with this position — and we ask the Council to consider its implications as the new ordinance is drafted.
Why This Matters to the Council's Ordinance Revision
A neighbor-notification requirement has no practical meaning if the City does not verify — even minimally , in this case only taking applicants word— that it has been satisfied before issuing a license. As currently administered, the process places the entire burden of enforcement on private parties, such as HOAs, that often lack the financial resources to pursue litigation. For a nine-unit HOA like ours, attorney fees associated with a civil enforcement action could consume a substantial portion of our annual operating and reserve budget, directly compromising our ability to maintain our shared property.
We therefore urge the Council to consider incorporating the following provisions into the revised STR ordinance:
1. Affirmative verification of neighbor notification. The City should require applicants to submit proof of neighbor notification — such as signed acknowledgments or certified mail receipts — before a license is granted, rather than relying solely on applicant self-attestation.
2. HOA governing document compliance. The revised ordinance should require STR license applicants to affirmatively certify that operating a short-term rental does not violate any applicable HOA CC&Rs or governing documents — and should establish that a license will not be granted, or will be revoked, where such a conflict exists.
3. A meaningful City role in resolving documented HOA violations. Where an HOA provides the City with documented evidence that a licensed STR operator is in violation of enforceable governing documents, the City should have a process — short of full litigation — to suspend or decline to renew the license pending resolution.
Our Request
We are a small community of neighbors who take pride in our property and our relationships with one another. We have acted in good faith at every step — attempting to resolve this matter internally, engaging with City departments, and absorbing costs and stress that no small HOA should have to bear because of one owner's willful disregard for the rules that govern our community.
We respectfully ask that the Council:
• Consider the concerns and proposed ordinance provisions outlined above as the revision process moves forward;
• Direct the appropriate City department to review the circumstances under which a license was granted in this case despite non-compliance with notification requirements; and • Provide our Board with an opportunity to present our situation in person before the Council or a relevant committee.
We believe that a well-crafted STR ordinance can balance the interests of property owners, residents, and the broader community — but only if it includes meaningful safeguards and does not leave small HOAs as the sole line of defense against violations.
Thank you sincerely for your time and consideration. We look forward to your response and welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further.
Respectfully submitted,
Bent Jensen
Board President: Eastport Village HOA
Board of Directors
Wanjie Zhao
Idris Hepp
Tracy Brenning
On behalf of the Eastport Village HOA
Entrance Rd , Goleta, CA 93117