June 20, 2022
City of Pismo Beach
City Clerk's Office
JUN 2) 1022
To the City Council, Received
RE: City Council June 21, 2022 Agenda Item 12.A
I wish to emphasize the fact that the City has a massive, massive problem with how you are implementing your short term rental regulations. Your City staff desperately need further guidance and instruction on how they are approving permits and also how they are handling complaints and violations.
My recommendation is that you make a motion tonight and vote for a suspension of allowing any new STIR permits to be approved until such time as a complete and thorough administrative review of the process is conducted. This comprehensive administrative review should include a review of the permits already granted. Our neighborhood further asks the Council to re-examine the City's STIR regulations as presently codified and determine whether they are effectively serving the interests of Pismo Beach residents and property owners.
There is no better example of this major problem that you have than the property at 125 N.
Silver Shoals Dr.
I have lived on this street for over 20 years and most of the residents have lived on this street even longer. You have received correspondence on this issue from many of them. Everybody knows everybody. We have a Neighborhood Watch program where we all look out for each other's personal and property safety. We know who lives here and who does not.
The gentleman who built and lived at 125 N Silver Shoals Dr passed away last year, and his children inherited his property. None of them live there or have ever lived there. Immediately after taking title possession on October 15, 2021 with two of her siblings, Babe Franey did not move into the home as her primary residence but instead immediately began an Airbnb operation, unpermitted and illegal per your City Code.
This activity and all of its transient negative implications came to a head around Christmas time last year with a constant revolving door of strange people coming and going, overflowing trash in the street and beer cans thrown onto adjacent properties. Many of our elderly neighbors felt very uncomfortable and unsafe with all this transient activity. We have no idea who any of these renters are.
The residents of our neighborhood are the ones who documented all of this illegal activity and brought it to the attention of the City. We documented at least 6 separate violations. The City did finally take action and this owner was notified and fined for her illegal activity which was the proper course of action. While reviewing the City Code on short term rentals, we were particularly interested in Section 5.22.1000 which states,
C. "Primary residence" shall mean the dwelling owned and occupied as the property owner's principal place of residence, where the owner lives more than fifty percent of the year, defined herein as one hundred eighty-three days or more per year. For purposes of short-term rental or homestay licensing, a person can only have one primary residence at any time.." Moving forward, we knew that if she attempted to apply for an STR permit, she would not qualify since she did not meet the requirements of 5.22.100.C. We asked City staff to please make us aware if and when she did apply for a permit, because we had documented evidence that would be pertinent to her application. City staff agreed, we checked in periodically, and were informed that no application had been requested. All of a sudden last month, the neighbors received a little yellow announcement in the mail from the City staff that her property had been approved for a STR permit. We were stunned that staff reneged on their promise to keep us informed of any application. We had also been informed that the City would also consider the number and severity of violations in granting applications for STRs. This was not done. (See attachment 1) She had owned the property for exactly 6 months when she made her application but she couldn't have lived in the property for the first three months because she was renting it out illegally. In fact, in May, she was at the house exactly one night, on May 2, which happened to be the exact date the STR inspector came to inspect her property. She left early the next morning. Our neighborhood knows this because we have security cameras on our street and ever since the illegal activity earlier this year, the neighborhood has been keeping detailed records of the activity at this property. She drove down from her home in Clayton to let the inspector in, spent one night, then drove home to where she really lives. So far in June she has spent zero nights in the home.
In the last 6 months she has spent a total of 20 nights in the home out of a possible 182 nights, yet she claims that she is in compliance with the City Code that requires this to be her primary residence.
While engaging with the Community Development Department, we were told that the applicant met all the criteria because of the documentation she submitted, and they had no choice but to approve the permit. This is your major flaw in your protocol for approving permits, which ignores the requirement to own AND OCCUPY the property for more than 6 months per year. The regulations state that 'In addition to the requirement that the licensed property be the property owner's principal residence, the city shall also review documentation." The problem in your system is that staff is ignoring the main requirement to OCCUPY the property. The legal definition of an occupied premise means "a premise on which any person over one year of age lives, sleeps, cooks, or otherwise maintains actual possession." (see attachment 2) She should NEVER have been granted the permit. She had numerous violations of operating an illegal and unpermitted STR operation, and she now already has more than 3 significant violations per your Code. Her permit should be revoked and she should be prohibited from ever applying for a permit in the future. How many times are we going to allow these significant violations without any consequences?
We recently discovered that she changed the address on her drivers license on Feb 14, 2022 to reflect Pismo Beach as her address. (see attachment 3) This was AFTER she was fined by the City and learned what the staff wanted to see to issue her a permit. Less than three months after she changed her drivers license and I suspect also her voter registration and other items, the City issues her a permit and accepts her claim that she has lived and occupied the property for more than 6 months. The permit process for this property has been outrageous. Somebody with some common sense needs to take a hard look at this. We have correspondence from her to our HOA dated January 31, 2022 requesting that all correspondence to her be sent to her primary address in Clayton, Ca., not Pismo Beach.
There is nothing in your permit application that specifically requires the applicant to certify under penalty of perjury that they comply with the requirement to occupy and live in the property as a primary residence more than 6 months per year.. I have included with this correspondence an example of how I think your permit application should have incorporated this language. The language I am suggesting is indicated in the red print. The current application requires the applicant to state that they have read all the regulations, but I question whether this is sufficient. (See attachment 4)
and I filed a request for an appeal of this permit approval with a full public hearing on the matter, but we were denied and were told it was not possible. So the situation we now have is that a permit is issued not in compliance with the City Code, and there is no recourse for our neighborhood even though we have evidence this is not Babe Franey's primary residence as defined in your own City Code. This is like being in Alice in Wonderland. It makes no common sense.
When we bring violations to the attention of the City Staff, they have their own interpretations which our neighborhood strongly disagrees with. We point to the actual language in the Code but never receive a satisfactory answer. I have example after example but no forum to provide these inconsistencies. This is wrong. I have attached email correspondence that I have had with Staff that reflect the inconsistencies of how Staff is interpreting and applying the Code.
Your staff recently verbally told me that it is really not required that she actually live in the home six months per year because she could go on vacation for months at a time. It's hard to go on vacation from a home that you don't live in. They also told me the only thing they check or care about is that she doesn't rent the property more than 6 months per year and they then just assume she is living there the other 6 months. They will simply take her word for it. This from the same individual who already has indicated she could care less about following the City Code and has been fined by the City. This interpretation and implementation by Staff means that an individual can spend zero nights in the home as long as she doesn't rent it more than six months per year. That is all they check and care about. This does not comply with either the intent of the Code, nor the wording of the Code. This interpretation completely negates Section
5.22.100.0
Staff is relying on a third party service called Rentalscape to track this activity which may or may not be accurate. This is another major flaw in your compliance protocol. The owner could be advertising and renting on Craig's list, the newspaper, or other places. The intent and wording of the code is that the owner actually OCCUPY and LIVE in the property more than 6 months per year. This is not the case with 125 N. Silver Shoals Dr.
Staff also verbally told me that the 30 minute response time to a complaint only begins after the owner receives and reads her email regarding the complaint. This is a faulty interpretation and is not what the code says. The code says that the owner shall respond to a complaint within 30 minutes. Using this staff logic, an owner could not respond to a complaint for over a week, but as long as she responds within 30 minutes of reading her email or perhaps voicemail, then that is OK. This is not what the Code requires. Your Good Neighbor Policy states that "The owner, or responsible party shall be available 24 hours per day, seven days a week to respond to complaints concerning the condition, operation, or conduct of STIR occupants." The recent trash incident should be classified as a significant violation, not a "complaint." The situation was not resolved within 30 minutes of contact by the City as required. (see attachment 5) Our neighborhood initially took the STR complaint hotline number from the City website (805-792-8007) and utilized it to make numerous complaints. The City never received our complaints from this hotline number. Apparently it was the incorrect number and the website has now been updated to reflect the correct number of 800-866-4301. This is another example of the deficiencies that exist in the monitoring and enforcement of the STIR code.
I am asking this City Council tonight to reexamine how staff is approving these STIR permits and enforcing the intent and language of the Code. This review should be done independent of the staff who initially approved this permit. Afresh set of eyes needs to go onto this property. I want to emphasize and be clear that I am not specifically criticizing any individual staff member but am attempting to illustrate the need for a complete overhaul of the STIR code and the guidance given to the staff to properly administer and enforce the Code as written.
As part of this complete review, the City Council should also consider sending a letter to every STIR permit owner that has been approved in the last 6 months and request that they sign a statement that specifically includes the language in 5.22.100.0 under penalty of perjury as suggested in the attached permit application.
Our neighborhood handed the City all the information they needed to fine this individual $12,000 for her illegal unpermitted rentals in October, November, December, and January.
We are now handing you again all the information you need to reexamine and revoke the permit for this property. (see attachment 6)
The actions of this owner are a slap in the face to the City Council and your City Code and also to the good, honest, and decent citizens of this City. Her permit should be revoked and she should be prohibited from ever being granted a permit in the future.
Please take the requested action on this property. Otherwise, what is the purpose of having rules and regulations in the City Code if staff is misinterpreting and not following them properly? What about the rights of the other residents on this street? We all bought/built our homes with the understanding that we are in an R-1 and R-2 zone which means residential, not a commercial or a hotel zone. The City is turning our communities into transient hotel zones, destroying the character of our neighborhoods, and we object.
As part of the entire STIR process, I recommend that the City Council seriously look at the regulations of the City of Monterey and also South Lake Tahoe where they do not allow STRs in residential areas. There is plenty of room in Pismo Beach for both commercial activity and residential neighborhoods. Our current situation will destroy and devastate our residential neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
M Gmail
A4o ti M e -,�
STIR Permit for 125 N. Silver Shoals Dr., Pismo Beach
Palms l
Sun, May 15, 2022 at 3:38 PM
To: Matt Downing , James Lewis , Ed Waage
, Scott Newton , Sheila Blake , Mary
Ann Reiss , Marcia Guthrie , "Fleishman, Dave"
May 15. 2022
Matt Downing
Community Development Director
Pismo Beach
Dear Mr. Downing,
I am in receipt of your most recent email to me regarding your approval of a STIR for 125 N. Silver Shoals Dr. I am sending this also to all City Council members, the City Manager, and the City Attorney.
I think it is vitally important that they all be kept totally in the loop on all aspects of this application.
Unfortunately, your responses continue to raise more questions than they answer, and you did not reply or address my very specific questions presented to you in my previous emails. Our neighborhood would like for them to be answered.
You continue to refer to "ministerial permits" but you ignore the very important process of verifying compliance with City Code 17.113.020.C. Exactly what is the ministerial process? Please explain to me and the other members of our neighborhood your rationale and how the neglect of this portion of the Code by your Department could occur in light of the information the City has on this property. If the nature of your ministerial process excludes this portion of the City Code, then it appears your process is woefully inadequate and needs to be revised.
You state that you cannot consider previous violations as grounds for denial yet I am including an email from Megan Martin from January that states that you do in fact consider the number and severity of violations in granting applications for STIR. So what is your process? Do you or do you not take into account previous violations?
In this same letter I also asked Ms. Martin for any status updates of a STIR application. In numerous conversations I indicated to her that our neighborhood would like to be kept apprised of an application so that we could provide the City with proof that the owner is not a resident of this property.
I am including an email I sent to the City last January regarding this property's multiple violations and citing very specifically the penalties and fines required when violating the City Code. You stated in your latest email that you may have forgiven these previous transgressions but it is unclear what action the City took in this case. Our neighborhood would like to know the number and amount of fines levied on this property for the violations that occurred in October, November, December, and January. Please provide us this information, or if you did not issue fines, please explain how this lack of enforcement
�- .L Z
complies with the City Code. Do you and your Department have the legal discreeion to ignore the City Code?
I will remind you once again that it was not the City that discovered the numerous violations from this property last October, November, December, and January. It was the neighbors who brought it to your attention. Explain to us how you can accept the same property owner's claim that this property is their permanent residence that they have lived in for the last six months when three of those months were filled with illegal STIR rental activity that your Department is aware of and that should have resulted in numerous penalties and fines per the City Code.
We are asking you to put this application on hold and conduct a further review of this application with the reasonable and considered input of the people who actually live in the neighborhood. This is not an academic exercise for us. This directly affects our neighborhood, quality of life, and property values.
Sincerely,
Pismo Beach
Email to/from Megan Martin on January 14, 2022
From:
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 11:48 AM
To: Megan Martin
Subject: STR applicaton
External Email
Hello, Megan,
A number of my neighbors have asked me to contact you to learn if the home at 125 N. Silver Shoals Dr has applied for a STIR permit.
They would also like to know if, in light of the numerous violations that have occurred at this property over the last month and a half, would the City even consider the granting of their application? Thank you very much for providing this information.
Sincerely,
January 14, 2022
Hello
The listing has been removed from AirBNB and the City is not in receipt of an application for an STIR license. The City does consider the number and severity of violations in granting applications for STRs.
Thank you for your questions, if you need anything else, please do not hesitate to contact me. My direct number is (805)773-7043.
Sincerely,
Megan Martin
she/her/hers
Planning Manager
www.pismobeach.org
All permitting, and plan check correspondence shall be sent to [email protected].
Applications received in any other manner will be returned.
Email to/from the City on January 4, 2022 regarding documented violations at 125 N. Silver Shoals Dr.
External Email
January 4, 2022
To the Pismo Beach City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney Dear Councilmembers, Manager, and City Attorney
I represent the 10 lot owners in the Silver Shoals HOA comprising Tract 2173. 1 also am writing on behalf of the majority of the 11 homeowners on the north side of North Silver Shoals Drive. We are a close neighborhood with an active Community Watch program to insure the safety of our neighborhood. We are very aware of what happens on our street.
We wish to bring to the attention of the City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney the problems we are experiencing with an unauthorized and unpermitted Short-term rental situation at 125 North Silver Shoals Dr.
The City regulations are clear. If the City does not enforce their own regulations, then what is the purpose of having said regulations?
This property has violated the following regulations:
1. 5.22.110
2. 5.22.120
3. 5.22.130. D
4. 17.113.040
5. 17.113.060
6. 17.113.070. A, C, and F
7. 17.113.080
The penalties called for are in Section 5.22.140.B.1.a and in 17.113.100.A which call for an initial fine of $750 for an administrative violation with a fine of $1,000 for each subsequent violation. Each separate day or rental night in which a violation exists may be considered a separate violation. Any attempt to rent an unlicensed residence as an STIR by advertising said property for short-term rental purposes shall be deemed a violation of this chapter.
Since the owners were notified by the City during the first week of December of the need to follow the regulations, they have ignored their warning and rented their property on Airbnb for a minimum of 10 nights over the Christmas and New Year's holidays. While most people were enjoying the wonderful Christmas lights on their street, we were forced to look at overflowing garbage bins and empty beer cans thrown on an adjacent property. The garbage bins were left on the street for two weeks even after the trash was collected on trash day. The owners currently continue to advertise said property for rent on Airbnb despite their warning. At a rental rate of $800 per night they have collected over $8,000 in unauthorized income, not including at least two other unauthorized rentals in November prior to being warned by the City. They have also been charging their customers an occupancy tax that should be going to the City if, in fact, they were operating legally.
I have heard an unsubstantiated rumor that the City intends to fine them $250 for a violation. This amount is not what is called
J ( &f e 1�
for by City regulations, and especially when they have collected over $8,000 in income in the last two weeks. It is woefully insufficient and is not what is called for by the regulations.
By my calculations and following the City's own rules, the fine totals should be closer to $10,000-15,000. There needs to be a consequence to blatantly violating the City regulations that were constructed to preserve the residential feel and character of our community. This is a major issue that is not going away until it is properly dealt with.
Please enforce the rules you have written and put an end to this illegal activity.
Thank you,
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
-
We certainly understand your concern about the unpermitted vacation rental in your neighborhood.
While code enforcement cases are confidential and must include due process, I can assure you that staff is aware of many potential violations at this property and the process is moving forward to address these multiple potential violations. You lay out the process of how the city implements the ordinance below quite well so please be assured that the City is following this process. These processes can take time and each alleged rental or advertisement to rent after any subsequent violation would constitute yet another violation. The City is currently defending this process in court on a similar matter in another neighborhood so again I assure you we do enforce the ordinances. Thank you for keeping an eye on the neighborhood and for encouraging a close-knit community.
Regards,
Jim
James R. Lewis
City Manager
City of Pismo Beach, CA
"Classic California"
805-773-7007
www.pismobeach.org
Gmail
4 M / / IaY_� s
125 N Silver Shoals Dr, Pismo Beach
To: Megan Martin
Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 2:30 PM
Hello, Megan,
Here is a recap of the activity at this unlicensed STR.
One Airbnb review in October and two over Thanksgiving.
Airbnb guests on December 23-26
December 26-29
December 29-Jan 1, 2022.
Jan 1-6 occupied by known family members
Jan 8-18 occupied by known family members
Jan 20-23 occupied by 8 people we believe to be renters. Not family members. Attached are photos of this group.
They said they were "friends of Babe" but we have never seen them before in over 20 years of living here.They checked out at 1015 on Sunday morning which is the Airbnb checkout time, and by 1040, the cleaners were there cleaning up. These are cleaners we see not on a regular schedule, but only after guests have occupied the home and then left.
Thank you for your efforts to put an end to this illegal activity which is disrupting our neighborhood immensely. We are seeing transient people come and go from this house on a frequent basis and we are beginning to feel unsafe in our neighborhood and home. We have no idea who these strangers are.
This is a quiet residential neighborhood, NOT a hotel one.
Sincerely
9 attachments
948CO22A-E352-47F3-9208-936E5359709C.heic
1136K
OB4025A4-2651-44EC-9F82-EOCF6589F719.heic
1129K
� Gmail
125 N. Silver Shoals Dr. STIR application
Matt Downing Wed, May 11, 2022 at 5:12 PM
Cc: James Lewis , "Fleishman, Dave"
Good afternoon, Mr.
have removed the City Council from this message , but I will be forwarding this response to them. First, thank you for the email and I am sorry that you find yourself in this situation. This is a tough place for both the residents on N. Silver Shoals Drive and for the City to be. I can tell you that this is not the first time we have been faced with this type of situation and the diligence of the neighbor was paramount in successfully terminating that permit.
With regard to process, one of the items I have found neighbors are not aware of is that in evaluating permit applications for short-term rentals, staff are limited to evaluating the documentation submitted with the application.
These applications are ministerial in nature, meaning that if the information they submit checks the boxes of —7 Icrequirements, we have a hard time denying the request. The third -party information is essentially hearsay when it 1 comes to evaluating the permit application. JJJ
Based on the information submitted, Ms. Franey has the property listed as her primary residence on tax returns, has changed her driver's license to that address, and registered to vote at that address. We view these actions as substantiating that this is the applicant's primary residence. I am always hopeful that the operator complies with all the requirements of the Code and the Good Neighbor Policy, particularly in situations such as this where a neighbor knows they will be operating under the watchful eye of the neighborhood.
Where your documentation is immensely valuable is the enforcement of the primary residency requirements on a rolling 365-day basis moving forward. Daily logs of when the owner was staying at the residence compared to when it was occupied by renters or even unoccupied spoke to the credibility of the applicant on the other rental where this matter was an issue. However, this process does take time if a violation occurs. I am aware that your HOA took steps to prohibit STRs through the CC&Rs for the development. As you know, the City does not enforce CC&Rs, but I do believe this is an avenue for the neighborhood to take to address this matter more immediately than we might be able to.
I can assure you that as a Pismo Beach resident myself, I do not take these matters lightly. I am grateful for your efforts to date, and I hope that you do not see this as ignoring your concerns. I do believe that our previous enforcement actions on the unpermitted STIR evidence our commitment to ensuring the rules are followed. If violations of the ordinance occur following the permitting of the STIR, please do not hesitate to contact our Code Enforcement personnel so that we may immediately document the issue and enforcement action can be pursued if warranted. If issues are occurring after hours, please utilize the City's complaint hotline so that we can have a record of these transgressions.
Sincerely,
Gmail
125 N. Silver Shoals - Follow-up
Megan Martin Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 1:43 PM
To:
Cc: Mason Denning , Matt Downing
Ed,
response to your inquiry from earlier this week, the driver's license was issued February 14, 2022.
Sincerely,
Megan Martin
Planning Manager
Community Development Department
Office: (805) 773-4658
Email: [email protected]
Website I Facebook I Twitter I YouTube
SHORT TERM RENTAL LICENSE APPLICATION 41_1_-tc " &Ie_4� C�tqe
Return this completed form with the $415 application fee and $207 mailing service fee. This form will be your permit when approved. In some cases, you may have to comply with additional conditions.
NOTE: Private property regulations such as deed restrictions or Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)cf homeowner's associations may restrict or prohibit short term rentals even if such use is allowed by City regulations. Applicants are encouraged to determine compliance with any applicable private regulations before applying for City approval.
For additional information regarding the Short -Term Rental (STR) application process, please visit our webpageat www.pismobeach.org/STR .
A. Propertv Owner
Name
Phone #
Site Address
APN
City
State, Zip
Email Address
Property Owner Mailing Address
❑ Same as above, skip to B. Responsible Party
I It ditterent mailing address, complete the following:
Name
Mailing Address
City
State, Zip
B. Responsible Party
❑ Same as A. Property Owner, skip to C. Short Term Rental Property Information U It ditterent than Section A (i.e. Property Management Company), complete the following:
Name Phone #
Business Name
Address
City State, Zip
Email Address
C. Short Term Rental Property Informa on
Living Area (sq. .)
Zoning Designa on
No. of Bedrooms
No. of On -Site Parking
Spaces
Homestay Only?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Requested STR Start
Date
Is the rental an Accessory
Dwelling Unit?
❑ Yes ❑ No
l
IPeye-,
D. Pismo Beach Short -Term Rental/Homestay Good Neighbor Policy The City of Pismo Beach Short -Term Rental (STR) regulations are intended to minimize the impacts of STRs on residential neighborhoods. Consequently, the City requires that all occupants of STRs adhere to the Good Neighbor Policy as outlined below:
1. The owner, or responsible party (as defined by the Pismo Beach Municipal Code) shall be available 24-hours a day, seven days a week to respond to complaints concerning the condition, operation, or conduct of STR occupants.
2. "Responsible party" shall mean a person, over the age of eighteen, who shall be legally responsible for compliance of all renters and visitors of the STR or homestay with all applicable provisions of the Pismo Beach municipal code. The responsible party shall sign the good neighbor policy and is designated as the point of contact for the short-term rental or homestay.
3. The responsible party shall assure the maintenance of the licensed property in compliance with this and other applicable regulations, and shall be responsible for the conduct and acts of said renters and visitors to the extent provided herein. The responsible party's contact information shall be provided to all short- term renters and neighbors within three hundred feet of the STR or homestay in the manner prescribed in Chapter 5.22.
4. The owner/responsible party shall respond to a complaint within 30 minutes.
5. Parking — Parking shall be provided in a garage or on a driveway. STR occupants shall use the of -street parking that is provided for the rental.
6. Noise —The STR renters and visitors shall not generate noise to an extent that unreasonably interferes with the quiet use and enjoyment of neighboring properties. Any noise occurring after 10 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m. shall be contained within the STR/Homestay.
7. Trash — Trash shall not be left stored within public view, except in proper containers for purposes of collection. There shall be no accumulation of storage of trash and/or debris on the site or within the STR/Homestay.
8. Traffic — Vehicles used and traffic generated by the STR or homestay shall not exceed normal residential levels or unreasonably interfere with the quiet use and enjoyment of any other residences or businesses in the area. What is reasonable in terms of traffic generated shall be determined under existing legal standards applicable to evaluating alleged nuisances.
9. Maximum Occupancy — Maximum overnight occupancy of an STR or homestay shall be limited to two people per bedroom, plus two additional people. For example, a two -bedroom STR may have up to six occupants overnight. This calculation shall be inclusive of children.
10. Visitors —The number of visitors to an STR or homestay shall not exceed a number equal to the allowable occupancy of the STR or homestay at any time. Visitors are not allowed in the STR or homestay between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and shall not stay overnight on the premises.
By initialing below, I am confirming that I understand and agree that it is the responsibility of the owner/responsible party contact to ensure that all STR/Homestay rules and regulations are acknowledged and adhered to by the STR renters and visitors.
Owner Initials Responsible Party Initials
r_
4, pal-e-
E. Primary Residency Requirement
The property to be licensed for STR use must be the primary residence of the owner at the time of STR permit application and at all times thereafter while the property is being offered for legally permitted STR occupancy. The applicable definition of primary residence is provided in Municipal Code section 5.22.1000 as follows:
C. "Primary residence" shall mean the dwelling owned and occupied as the property owner's principal place of residence, where the owner lives more than fifty percent of the year, defined herein as one hundred eight -three days or more per year. For purposes of short-term rental or homestay licensing, a person can have only one primary residence at any time.
By initialing below, the owner certifies that the property described above presently serves as their primary residence, as defined above.
Owner Initials
F. Attachments to include
❑ Site Plan with dimensions
❑ Floor Plan with dimensions
❑ Mailing Service Fee - $207
❑ Primary Residence documentation:
❑ Previous year Income Tax Document (1040 and Schedule E; personal information redacted) • Must show the residence as the subject of tax deduction ❑ Driver's License or State issued identification card showing residence ❑ Voter Registration (as applicable)
❑ Vehicle Registration (as applicable)
❑ Homeowner's Tax Exemption Form
❑ Utility bill or similar documentation
❑ Any other documentation demonstrating primary residency G. Declaration
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that this application and all information submitted as part of this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I have read and understand all rules and regulations associated with Short -Term Rentals in the City of Pismo Beach, including City of Pismo Beach Municipal Code Chapter 5.22 Article II. Short -Term Rental Regulation. I further declare under penalty of perjury that the property for which this STR application is being submitted is my primary residence as defined in Municipal Code 5.22.1000. I understand that an inspection will be conducted as part of the review process. I understand that I am responsible for all fees set forth in the City of Pismo Beach Master Fee Schedule associated with this application.
Property Owner Signature: Date:
'4714A,14,w 4
1-�) p2y;e- /
M Gmail
Trash cans out at 0700 on Sunday June 5. Trash pickup not for another 5 days Megan Martin Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 9:03 AM
To:
Cc: Mason Denning , Matt Downing
Good morning
I'm glad to hear the cans were removed from public view.
As Mason mentioned, I wanted to take a minute and provide additional context to your question regarding how the City processes violations of the City's Short Term Rental Ordinance. Upon further review of the Municipal Code, Section 17.113.100 — Violations further describes the City's procedures:
Revocation. If the property owner or responsible party is deemed by the city manager to be non -responsive to a complaint more than three times in a twenty -four -month period, or if more than three significant violations, as defined below, occur in any twenty -four -month period, or if the property owner or responsible party is cited three or more times in a twenty-four month period, the STR license may be revoked. Appeals shall be conducted pursuant to Section
1.24.110.
Significant violations. "Complaint" as used in this subsection means the need or requirement to contact the property owner or responsible party to rectify a situation that is disturbing to a neighbor or resident.
As used in this subsection, a "significant violation" means a situation where the property owner or responsible party is either unable or unwilling to rectify the situation within thirty minutes, and/or when public safety personnel must be called to assist in resolving the situation, and/or a situation that causes substantial disturbance to the neighbors or neighborhood.
Examples of significant violations include, but are not limited to:
1. Failure of the property owner or responsible party to take action to respond to a complaint within thirty minutes after the city contacts the property owner or responsible party.
2. The inability of city staff or the Pismo Beach police dispatch to reach the property owner or responsible party.
3. Violation of the STIR or homestay maximum overnight occupancy, number of visitors, parking, noise, trash, or other requirements as set forth in this chapter.
4. Failure to notify city staff when responsible party or property owner contact information changes.
5. Failure to pay fees or make TOT/LBID/TMD payments in accordance with this chapter or Chapters 3.20 or
3.26. 6. Providing false or misleading information on an STR/homestay license application or other documentation as required by this chapter.
7. Violations of state, county, or city health regulations.
The city manager, or designee, shall have the authority to determine what other violations of this chapter constitute a significant violation, as necessary, to achieve the objectives of this chapter. (Ord. 0-2018-006 § 1 (part), 2018).
Based on the above Code section, the complaint you filed related to the bins does not constitute a `significant violation' because the property owner resolved the issue within the time limits established. Had the property owner not resolved the issue by this morning, a `significant violation' would have been cited and counted as 1 of 3 leading toward possible revocation. Any future complaints will be addressed in the same manner.
It is always our intent to seek voluntary compliance and to assist and/or educate community members in the operation of their homes and businesses. We appreciate your thoroughness and the opportunity to work together to ensure the STIR operates successfully and in compliance with the Code.
If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. (805)773-7043.
PS — I am still looking into the issue of the STR hotline. Please continue to use Pismo Pulse to file any complaints.
Once the hotline is operational, I will let you know and you may begin to use that service.
Sincerely,
Megan Martin
Planning Manager
Community Development Department
Office: (805) 773-4658
Email: [email protected]
Website I Facebook I Twitter I YouTube
From:
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 4:39 PM
To: Mason Denning
Cc: Megan Martin
Subject: Re: Trash cans out at 0700 on Sunday June 5. Trash pickup not for another 5 days External Email
Matthew Downing, AICP
c�tY Director
UP�4ioBe
Community Development Department
Office: (805) 773-4658
Email: [email protected]
Website I Facebook I Twitter I YouTube
From:
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 2:41 PM
To: Matt Downing
Cc: James Lewis ; Fleishman, Dave ; Ed Waage
; Mary Ann Reiss ; Sheila Blake
; Marcia Guthrie ; Scott Newton
Subject: 125 N. Silver Shoals Dr. STR application
External Email
Matt Downing
Community Development Director
Pismo Beach
Dear Matt,
I am writing in regard to the Short Term Rental application that was recently incorrectly approved by Megan Martin of your Department for 125 N. Silver Shoals Dr., Pismo Beach.
This property has a long history of violating the City rules and regulations concerning STRs. The residents of N Silver Shoals Dr. brought this illegal activity to the attention of the City last December. Our objections to this illegal activity resulted in the City issuing numerous warning letters and possible fines to the offending owner. This caused a cessation of this illegal activity by the end of January.
Our neighborhood worked closely with your Department to identify and confirm these illegal STRs. We followed the suggestion and recommendation of Ms. Martin to document on a calendar the activity of this property which is what our neighborhood did. We also asked Ms. Martin to notify us if and when the new property owner applied for a STR permit, since we know that this home is NOT her primary residence as required by City Code and we wished to share the information we documented with the City. We were stunned when we all just received this week a notification in
4�-, , �e
the mail that a permit had been approved for this property and that the owner was claiming this as her primary residence. We know this to be false since we have been documenting her presence over the last 6 months. She has spent a total of 18 nights in the home, less than 10 percent of the requirement.
City Code 17.113.020.C. states that "Primary residence shall mean the dwelling owned and occupied as the property owner's principal place of residence, where the owner lives more than 50 percent of the year, defined herein as one hundred eighty-three days or more per year." This provision is not optional, it is a requirement as defined above.
Since the application for this property was received on April 15, if we go back 6 months that brings us back to October 15, exactly the time at which Babe Franey took possession of this property with her two siblings and began her illegal STIR activity. Ms. Martin assured us that the property owner is required to establish her principal residence for six months prior to the City entertaining a STIR permit. For at least the first 3 months of her "primary residence" time frame she clearly was not living there but operating an illegal STIR. We were also told that previous history of noncompliance would be taken into consideration when considering an application. This clearly was not done.
The approval of this property as a Pismo Beach STIR that complies with the City Code is incorrect and the permit should be disallowed until such time as the owner complies with the regulations. If this is allowed as currently approved, that means any person can purchase a home anywhere in Pismo Beach without living there but simply by changing voter registration, car registration, drivers license and indicating they intend to make this their primary residence without actually doing so, totally bypassing the intent of the City Code.
We cooperated with and provided good -faith information to the City regarding the problems with this property as an illegal STIR, but we now feel like we were totally blindsided by your Department. We are the people who live on this street and know who really lives here and who is perpetrating a fraud on the City.
You should relook at the facts and history of this property and make the correct, legal decision on this STIR application.
If you do not, this sends a very bad message to the law-abiding, tax -paying, and voting citizens of Pismo Beach,, Sincerely,
Pismo Beach, CA 93449