From: Gay
To: Santa Rosa Govdelivery
Cc: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Notice of Public Hearing: Short-Term Rentals on Aug. 9 Date: Saturday, August 6, 2022 8:24:03 AM
Date: morning of August 6, 2022
To: the Santa Rosa City Council regarding the proposed Short-term Rentals Urgency Ordinance which will be presented on August 9, 2022.
Greetings to all Members of the City Council,
I have been using the guest house on my property as a Hosted Short-term Rental through Airbnb, for 9 years. I have a dedicated parking area off of my driveway for the use of my guests so there is no on- street parking issues. I have always met my guests when they check-in in order to show them around and let them know the rules and restrictions of being in my guest house. I have never had any trouble.
Whenever my neighbors have an overflow of guests or relatives coming to visit them, I am their solution.
My neighbors are very supportive of my STR because there never has been a problem and I help them with their problems.
I have always paid my TOT and BIA taxes on the quarterly basis that the City of Santa Rosa has asked. I have always been a Superhost on the Airbnb site because of the reviews by my guests.
This arrangement has been working for the last 9 years, until the development of the Permit.
Automatically, I paid for this Permit when it was announced in late October of 2021. However, I was told that I could not get the Permit and was reimbursed about ¾ of my original payment (due to paperwork issues, I was told). The reason that I was given for refusing to give me a Permit was that there were no building permit records to be found for the ADU, my guest house. I was told that I could move into the ADU and rent out my primary residence in order to get the Permit. Otherwise, it was not possible.
My home was built in the early 1930's. I have no idea when the conversion of the garage into a nice guest house was done. There is a skylight in the bathroom, sliding glass doors, a full refrigerator, a 2-burner gas stove, a full stainless steel kitchen sink, nice laminate flooring, its own hot water heater, access to my beautiful backyard and many other amenities. I have had the electrical system updated when I did the same for my primary residence. Because I did not do the ADU conversion myself with building permits from the City of Santa Rosa, I am being denied the ability to continue using my guest house as a Hosted Short-term Rental.
I believe that it is wrong for me to not be able to continue the positive way I have been able to supplement my Social Security income by using Airbnb as a Hosted Short-term Rental now that I am retired and my husband has passed away.
Thank you for your time,
Gay Barner
From: Sane Regulations
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: [Document Released] City of Santa Rosa public records request #22-569 Date: Sunday, August 7, 2022 9:28:53 AM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2022-08-05 at 8.06.59 AM.png
Screen Shot 2022-08-07 at 9.04.00 AM.png
Why is Santa Rosa not approving permits being submitted in the Southwest quarter of the city? Please look at the map on your own slide 6 (screenshot attached with shapes added) and see the visual pattern of where permits have been stuck for months and note where a significant fraction has moved forward.
Also now attached here, please see a zoomed in map of these permits in the Southwest area.
West of
101, the city is not serving applicants, while East of 101, it is clear there is more activity. My understanding is that the residents West of 101 are paying the exact same fee as those Downtown and in the rest of the city. Should they not receive the same base level of service from the city? Even if the intention is not active discrimination as there was during redlining, there are structurally racist impacts to prioritizing and deprioritizing different applications. There is certainly at least a suggestion that there is a disparate impact here.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Sane Regulations
<[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Document Released] City of Santa Rosa public records request #22-569 To: <[email protected] >, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Dear Mayor Rogers, Vice Mayor Alvarez, and Council Member Rogers, We are researchers in the United States looking at some key policy issues. We are now looking into the permitting process for vacation rentals to understand why people in Southwest Santa Rosa applying for permits have not been able to get their permits through, while others in the City have had success.
We have done requests for information and found information to be very difficult to understand. We have been trying to get how many permits have been approved and how come the ones in your district almost have no approvals.
I am assuming this is not due to you requesting a pause on approval in your district.
We have attached a map from your slide for Tuesday's city council meeting. I put in the orange square and you can see almost none of the permits in your district are approved. I circled some areas in green to show that others in parts of the city who are wealthier have had some success with approvals. While we have not been able to get data that shows information in an easy clear way, we have done this request which freedom of information request with the city that just seems to show that people have to keep bugging the city to get it to approve their applications, but we still don't have a good picture of how the approval process works or the number of successful approvals. These five cases had many documents, but the info was provided in a format that is hard to open the files.
I hesitate
to raise this issue, but friends in the area say that Southwest Santa Rosa systematically received inferior service than other residents. They say the city systematically discriminates against BIPOC people in those neighborhoods. You represent them. We think the problem may be something different, that people who work cannot spend all their time following up with city staff the way that people with office jobs or are consultants and investors do and can call their city council
From: Linda Juster
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] August 9, 2022 City Council STR comments Date: Sunday, August 7, 2022 8:16:00 PM
I applaud and appreciate the Council’s action in passing the STR emergency ordinance. It’s a solid first
step. However, it falls
dismally short by failing to include a real-time
enforcement response (I.e., police action) to address the most egregious ordinance violations should the property manager repeatedly fail to rectify the situation.
During its planning phase, the Council heard a variety of community concerns about the proliferation of unhosted STRs in its residential neighborhoods. Lamenting that there was
no STR ordinance, the police chief discussed his frustration when taking late night calls from angry homeowners complaining about the loud, often drunk, out of control crowds at nearby “party houses.”
He said that an
ordinance would give him the authority to act. It’s
my understanding that this has not been the case. Are “party houses” still operating?
STR violations, by their
very nature, are fleeting. Many, if not
most, occur in the evening
and on weekends. By morning the
offenders are gone. Filing a Code
Enforcement form on
the City website (if you can even find it) does NOTHING for the homeowner dealing with a loud party at 2 a.m.
Or the homeowner whose street
is filled with cars.
The Council passed the
emergency STR ordinance to provide real protections to the City’s homeowners by reigning in a growing, unregulated industry. I live next door to a new
STR. There are two
others within a three minute walk of my house. I urge the Council to
take ordinance enforcement seriously by adding provisions that include direct and immediate action to address the most egregious code violations and the property owners who demonstrate a blatant, willful
disregard of the ordinance.
Thank
you.
Linda Juster
From: Cleary, Eileen
To: Bliss, Sandi; Williams, Stephanie
Cc: Meads, Shari
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Fw: Short Term Rentals - Public Comment for 8/9/22 Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 4:37:36 PM
Hi Sandi & Stephanie,
Below is an additional Public Comment for the Short Term Rental item on tomorrow’s City Council Agenda.
Thank you,
Eileen Cleary
Administrative Secretary, Economic Development
Planning & Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Ave., Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Tel. (707) 543-3227 | [email protected]
From: Hopwood, Kimberly <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 4:28 PM
To: Cleary, Eileen <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Fw: Short Term Rentals - Public Comment for 8/9/22
From: Lisa Heisinger <[email protected]
>
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 4:18 PM
To: Hopwood, Kimberly <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fw: Short Term Rentals - Public Comment for 8/9/22
Good Afternoon Kim,
I was hoping I could attend this session tomorrow, but working mom life is not gonna let that happen! I just sent the below letter in hopes that it can be shared. As you were so kind to provide the link to the meeting, may I ask you the favor of ensuring it gets into the right hands? I hope I sent it to the right place!
Thank you again for your kindness in listening to my concerns last month, and enjoy the rest of your summer!
With appreciation,
Lisa
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Lisa Heisinger <[email protected]
>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 at 04:12:38 PM PDT
Subject: Short Term Rentals - Public Comment for 8/9/22
Dear Ms. Meads,
I am emailing my comments because I am unable to attend your meeting on August 9th, 2022, if you could kindly share them please.
First, I would like to echo the sentiments of fellow Santa Rosa residents Maureen and Erik Linde, forwarded to you on July 28th. We don't know each other, but I saw their comments on your website, and everything they wrote very much reflects our experience and perspective.
Second, please allow me to share our concerns in the area of safety:
For the last 10 years, my family has been fortunate to live at the end of a once-quiet, private drive beneath Annadel State Park. The short-term rental across the street has not only brought a lack of privacy, increased traffic, parking issues, noise and trash, but also safety concerns. Our drive is a narrow, dead-end easement with no room for turnaround at the bottom. In spite of the fact that the drive is an obvious dead end, we have been shocked by the speed at which some renters drive (often following a day of wine tasting), causing us to fear for the safety of our 8-year-old son and his young friends.
Perhaps most alarmingly, however, are the cigarette butts we have found on multiple occasions right next to the dry field below our homes since the rental was approved. Our neighborhood is surrounded by forest on three sides. It is in a high wildfire risk area that was evacuated three times in four years, and narrowly escaped the Glass Fire in 2020. Understandably, renters don't know what our community has been through, and they aren't vested in the long-term health of our neighborhood and its residents like we are. Like we count on you to be.
As a winery executive, I fully understand the importance of tourism for our region's economy. And as a (long-term) rental property owner, I wholeheartedly believe in protecting the freedom to generate revenue from my investments. But neither of these things should be allowed to the degree that they place an unreasonable burden, nuisance or safety risk to its residents. This is where you come in.
This brings me to my last point: simply limiting the number of short-term rentals in the City is not a viable solution. Capping supply will only increase demand for existing units, placing further burden on those of us who are forced to endure their effects. If short-term rentals are allowed to continue in our community, there must be more effort made to mitigate their negative effects on residents, and more stringent criteria for evaluating whether they are appropriate for a given property, such as proximity to neighboring residences, street and parking access, wildfire risk, etc. The operating permits and courtesy notices are a step in the right direction, but they are not enough. A "one size fits all" approach to permitting is not sufficient to protect the long-term health, safety and vitality of our neighborhoods.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Lisa Heisinger
From: R.C. Rondero De Mosier
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item Number 15.1 - PUBLIC HEARING - SHORT-TERM RENTAL ZONING CODE TEXT
AMENDMENTS URGENCY ORDINANCE AND FEE ADOPTION RESOLUTION Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 4:52:30 PM
Honorable Members of the City Council of Santa Rosa:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed SHORT-TERM RENTAL
ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS URGENCY ORDINANCE AND FEE ADOPTION RESOLUTION being considered August 9, 2022.
As a member in good standing of this community, and as a Short-Term Rental Property Manager, Avantstay has a strong interest in the well being of this community as well as those in which we operate. The city’s Short-Term rental industry allows numerous visitors to enjoy the City of Santa Rosa and adjoining areas. These visitors drive a tremendous amount of business growth and tax revenue for the city. The vast majority of Avantstay’s customers are families who may not otherwise be able to enjoy the idyllic Santa Rosa environment if not for the ability to share a rented out home for a family outing. These diverse families provide Santa Rosa the opportunity to showcase its welcoming nature.
In Santa Rosa and its adjoining jurisdictions, Avantstay operates as a short term rental property manager and sometimes lessee, and despite assertions to the contrary, Avantstay does not have plans to purchase homes in Santa Rosa for use as short term rentals. We do pride ourselves on allowing families who use us as a property manager a means to supplement their incomes so that they can afford their costs of living in the northern California area. As we do in other jurisdictions, we encourage comprehensive and balanced regulations which reign in the bad actors while allowing those that operate responsibly to continue contributing to their community.
While we support reasonable non-hosted permit caps and regulations designed to reign in bad actors, continued diminishment of the short term rental industry would serve only to harm the city’s economy. With no clear indication of what it means to be an operator in good standing, and with the opaque nature in which the city has held back possible short term rental ordinance violations, it would be detrimental and inequitable to pass any new measures without addressing how the city will approach some of the proposed new standards.
We are all working towards the same goal of a safe and prosperous city of Santa Rosa. I appreciate the opportunity to collaborate.
Regards,
R.C. Rondero de Mosier (he/him)
Head of Policy
[email protected]
512 • 502 • 4307
__
The content of this email and its attachments, if any, may contain confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution, reproduction, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify me immediately.
From: Meads, Shari
To: Bliss, Sandi
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Short Term Rentals - Public Comment for 8/9/22 Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 7:51:54 AM
Shari Meads (she/her) | Senior Planner
Planning & Economic Development |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3| Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-4665 | Fax (707) 543-3269 | [email protected] All emails are subject to the California Public Records Act and neither the sender nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications.
Due to increased demand, limited resources, and time constraints, delays are expected in the City's permit processing. The Planning Division anticipates returning to standard processing and response times by Fall 2022. Thank you for your patience and understanding as City operations are reestablished following the coronavirus pandemic.
From: Lisa Heisinger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 4:13 PM
To: Meads, Shari <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning Shared <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Short Term Rentals - Public Comment for 8/9/22
Dear Ms. Meads,
I am emailing my comments because I am unable to attend your meeting on August 9th, 2022, if you could kindly share them please.
First, I would like to echo the sentiments of fellow Santa Rosa residents Maureen and Erik Linde, forwarded to you on July 28th. We don't know each other, but I saw their comments on your website, and everything they wrote very much reflects our experience and perspective.
Second, please allow me to share our concerns in the area of safety:
For the last 10 years, my family has been fortunate to live at the end of a once-quiet, private drive beneath Annadel State Park. The short-term rental across the street has not only brought a lack of privacy, increased traffic, parking issues, noise and trash, but also safety concerns. Our drive is a narrow, dead-end easement with no room for turnaround at the bottom. In spite of the fact that the drive is an obvious dead end, we have been shocked by the speed at which some renters drive (often following a day of wine tasting), causing us to fear for the safety of our 8-year-old son and his young friends.
Perhaps most alarmingly, however, are the cigarette butts we have found on multiple occasions right next to the dry field below our homes since the rental was approved. Our neighborhood is surrounded by forest on three sides. It is in a high wildfire risk area that was evacuated three times in four years, and narrowly escaped the Glass Fire in 2020. Understandably, renters don't know what our community has been through, and they aren't vested in the long-term health of our neighborhood and its residents like we are. Like we count on you to be.
As a winery executive, I fully understand the importance of tourism for our region's economy. And as a (long-term) rental property owner, I wholeheartedly believe in protecting the freedom to generate revenue from my investments. But neither of these things should be allowed to the degree that they place an unreasonable burden, nuisance or safety risk to its residents. This is where you come in.
This brings me to my last point: simply limiting the number of short-term rentals in the City is not a viable solution. Capping supply will only increase demand for existing units, placing further burden on those of us who are forced to endure their effects. If short-term rentals are allowed to continue in our community, there must be more effort made to mitigate their negative effects on residents, and more stringent criteria for evaluating whether they are appropriate for a given property, such as proximity to neighboring residences, street and parking access, wildfire risk, etc. The operating permits and courtesy notices are a step in the right direction, but they are not enough. A "one size fits all" approach to permitting is not sufficient to protect the long-term health, safety and vitality of our neighborhoods.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Lisa Heisinger