Attachment 11 - Public Correspondence — Santa Rosa City Council, June 6, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

From: Robert Anderson
To: Short Term Rentals; _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Regarding STR ordinance update.

Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 3:05:58 PM
Dear Commission and city council,
I would just like to provide some feedback on the proposed ordinance updates. I am asking you to reconsider the maximum of 1 non-hosted str permit OR grandfathering in those who already have more than 1. I have 2 permits for non-hosted str. I am 33 years old and am born and raised in Sonoma County with no college education due to various reasons. STR allows me to provide for myself and my wife nicely in this high-cost-of-living area and without it, I sincerely don't know what work I could do that could provide a living wage. Santa Rosa simply does not have alot of high paying jobs. I have been able to do a tremendous amount of volunteer work in our community due to having this income. Many of us with multiple permits are not bad people or corporations. Or please consider allowing multiple permits in commercial or downtown areas. My permits are in downtown areas that do not disturb neighbors at all since all the neighbors are businesses that shut down at 5 pm. In fact, some of the nearby businesses cause much more of a commotion than my guests do.

I have paid my
TOT diligently and maintained the requirements. I would like to have a continued positive relationship.

Thank you for your consideration in this regard. It is greatly appreciated! Attachment 11
From: David Long
To: Kirk, Lou; Meads, Shari; Jones, Jessica
Cc: Hartman, Clare; Dunston, Daryel; _CityCouncilListPublic; Short Term Rentals Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 2636 Knob Hill Drive
Date: Sunday, April 30, 2023 10:02:10 PM
Hello everyone,
Dale's message below is another example, albeit a relatively

minor one, of why City Planning
and Code Enforcement staff have been barking up the wrong tree for the past 18 months in attempting to regulate Short-Term Rentals. The current form of the ordinance and the strategies being employed for

its enforcement are not not protecting neighbors from
undesirable and life-altering disturbances coming from Non-Hosted Rentals.This is because those with the power and responsibility to enact rules that protect Santa Rosa citizens are failing to recognize the reasons why Non-Hosted Rentals are not compatible with residential neighborhoods.

The basic reason why they are not compatible is that nearly every Non-Hosted Rental is used primarily by out-of-town people that are on vacation or celebrating either a holiday or a meaningful event in their lives. Most Non-Hosted properties are rented for 2 to 5 nights at a time, which can occur 3 to 5 times a month. That equates to as many as 25 nights per month, with occupancies being in the higher end of the range from May through October. Therein

lies
the problem of incompatibility. These out-of-town and unfamiliar people may be inherently nice and law abiding, but they behave differently here than when at home, because they are on vacation and often feel entitled by

virtue

of having paid hundreds or thousands of dollars to
stay in the Non-Hosted Rental. They also likely have no in-person contact with the owner or host of the property. Even when disturbances do not happen or when the Short-Term Rental property is vacant, neighbors experience anxiety about when disturbances might next occur or when unfamiliar

and NOT inherently

nice and law abiding people might be the next renters.

These scenarios play over and over again, day after day, month after month, year after year.

An end to this should occur ASAP.

That different behavior of Short-Term renters manifests

itself in many ways that are disturbing
to neighbors and could be as simple as Dale's example where 3 or 4 people are having a celebratory-level conversation outside, in earshot of his bedroom window at 10 PM. These types of disturbances will never turn into a code violation, yet they are intensely bothersome to nearby neighbors, AND they can occur 25 out of 30 nights per month,

AND the people
generating the disturbances are not full-time neighbors. If they were full-time neighbors, (a) one would feel reasonably comfortable

in speaking to them directly about it, and (b) the
disturbances would be far less frequent.

The City's code enforcement

practice of requiring investigation and obtaining proof at a level that can support deliberations in a

court of law is absurdly

ineffective in the instances of place
and time violations. There is no level of staffing or response that will make this course of action a value proposition for the City.

Right now you are probably saying to yourself, "we've heard this before." That may be true, but perhaps when you hear it for the 50th time and with different examples and details, you might feel compelled to do something

proactive

and effective to address it. I guarantee that if a
few staff or Councilmembers lived adjacent to a habitually disturbing property similar to 2636 Knob Hill Dr, 1611 Manzanita Ave. or 2603 Rancho Cabeza Dr, Non-Hosted Rentals would have been prohibited in residential zoning districts long ago.

Despite the favorable action by the Planning Commission this past Thursday to move staff recommendations for Ordinance

change on the the

City Council, their overall sentiment was
that much stricter enforcement of much stricter ordinance terms are needed. It would behove staff to include that sentiment in the next Short-Term Rental presentation that will be prepared for the Council.

Despite a few minor stumbles, staff did a good job in presenting at the Planning Commission meeting. Unfortunately, when it came time to provide guidance on the Zoning Code and General Plan consistency issue, staff

was inept, incorrect and perhaps being a bit defensive in trying to justify the section of the original Urgency Ordinance that allows Non-Hosted Rentals in nearly every residential zoning district - which Ordinance language was, by the way, initially crafted by staff.

Please remember, it's okay and even admirable to admit when a mistake has been made. To offer a thoughtful

correction of the mistake as a solution to the problem created is even more admirable.

Non-Hosted Short-Term Rentals are incompatible with residential neighborhoods, and residential zoning districts should be removed from the Ordinance's list of where they are allowed. There are plenty of reasonable ways to administer the resulting creation of non- conforming uses from the 198 Non-Hosted Permits.

Until that or something similarly

proactive happens, we will continue

to seek engagement with
staff and Councilmembers to discuss these issues. We hope that everyone approached will be willing to engage in true back and forth discussions. You are of course welcome to contact us at any time even when we do not ask!.

Thank you,
David Long
Save Our Santa Rosa

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From:

Dale Sessions <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 9:15 AM
Subject: 2636 Knob Hill Drive
To: Kirk, Lou <[email protected]
>
Kirk,
With warmer spring weather upon us, so has the outside activity at the lovely non-STR (hotel) begun to sprung at 2636 Knob Hill Drive.

Thursday early evening around 4:pm with the arrival of party guests was a lot of yelling swearing and music pounding from the walls at the property. Contacted Albers and he was responsive however accused me of yelling at his guests. Not the situation at all and it came from another neighbor apparently. But the bigger picture here is the constant corrective action required as every rotation of guests the new problems occur.

Friday evening guests were at the figure pit chatting it up near 10:pm. Not outrageously loud but enough so no one can sleep around here. Sent a txt to Albers at 10:05pm and he responded back at 8:41am. Apparently the 30min response is null and void here again. I called the hotline as well and was told they can be outside after 9:pm and if it’s not loud/party there is no violation. The alarming situation here is Alber’s delayed response as this is a clear violation.

Images below with time stamps.

Appreciate your feedback to the ongoing issues here.

Thank you,
Dale Sessions

--
Dale Sessions
2619 Fir Park Way
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Cell: 415.244.1283
--
Thanks!
David Long
707.322.8823
From: Javier Tenorio
To: Short Term Rentals
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment Date: Saturday, April 29, 2023 3:43:00 PM
Hello,
I attended the Santa Rosa Planning Commission meeting on Thursday 4/27 and have a comment regarding the recommendation of the Planning Commission to eliminate the use of all BBQ grills and fire pits at STR locations. Unfortunately, this recommendation cannot be enforced for hosted STRs. As a homeowner who lives in a hosted STR, I am entitled to use my gas grill and fire pit whether

I have STR guests on my property or not. I urge you to reconsider the guidance from the Planning Commission as they are not aware of this loophole (or reality for that matter). I encourage you to use the guidance provided

the Fire Chief and Fire
Marshall as it creates a level playing field for ALL businesses in the hospitality industry such as hotels, STRs, Bed & Breakfasts, wineries, and restaurants.

Thank you,
Javier

From: rick
To: Meads, Shari; Kirk, Lou; Oswald, Jesse; Crocker, Ashle Subject: [EXTERNAL] Planning Committee Follow-up
Date: Friday, April 28, 2023 11:50:38 AM
Shari, Ashlie, Lou and Jesse, Thank you all for your patient leadership through the Planning Commission meeting last night.

As residents of Santa Rosa having a tremendous vested interest in the peace and tranquility of our neighborhoods, we appreciate all you are doing to retain the residential character of those neighborhoods.

We realize this is a challenging process and we
appreciate the work you are doing to get it right.

I think you all understand, we still have a considerable amount of work to do to alleviate the suffering some of your neighbors continue to experience with those non-hosted STR operators who have no consideration for the neighbors. The sooner we can revoke the permits of those egregious violators the better off we all will be. We look forward to working with you to make that happen.

Regards, Rick Abbott

Sent from Mail for Windows

From: Julianne Linares
To: Short Term Rentals
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 2023 Short-term rental legislation
Date: Friday, April 28, 2023 12:02:04 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am writing this email as a resident and homeowner in Sonoma County that favors the support and ongoing use of short

term rentals in our
community. I believe that the permitted, responsible owners of these properties offer a valuable contribution to the growth and well being of our community as a whole, whether it be helping provide jobs for businesses servicing these properties, helping boost the local tourist economy for our small businesses,

or having provided refuge for
displaced fire victims and most recently storm victims from this substantially rainy winter we experienced. Please, consider what is at stake for taking away the good these homes provide to our communities here, and for the individuals running them that have already shown that they are abiding by the rules and regulations that have been asked of them, and not the few bad apples,

that can be found in any walk of life.

In addition, the income that many owners use from their short term rentals is arguably, I believe, a core fundamental right that should not be restricted upon,

in giving people another avenue to pursue towards
financial securities for the circumstances that we all as humans face continuously (i.e. healthcare costs, dependent care costs, education, retirement, costs of living).

It is my hope and expectation that the governing bodies that oversee this legislation carefully and prudently consider the impact that their decisions have on these short term rental property owners and not solely and with what appears as bias towards the worries and fears of their objecting neighbors, or from groups that have made it their mission to target these tax paying, ordinance compliant, and responsible homeowners.

Thank you & sincerely,

Julianne Linares

(Sonoma County resident since 2008)
-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Abela <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 12:01 PM
To: Short Term Rentals <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Short term rental ordinance - comments Hello, I cannot attend the city meeting regarding the new short term rental ordinance under consideration but would like to provide my comments.

Is this where my comments can be provided
to the Board ?
My comments are:
- I do not believe that short term rental guests cause any more disturbances than regular residents of our city.
- If they city takes away a short term rental license due to complaints, why is this not applied to hotel licenses as well ?
It should be.
- The city should follow the law and provide for adequate DUE PROCESS before taking away a license or before counting a complaint against the owner. This means a proper investigation of the complaint prior to any city action, not just accepting what the complainant has to say, an administrative evidentiary hearing after the action has been taken and ability to appeal to superior court.

From: Guasco, Cher
To: Carlos Abela; _CityCouncilListPublic
Cc: Hartman, Clare; Jones, Jessica
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Changes to Short Term Rental regulations Date: Friday, April 28, 2023 4:52:31 PM
Good afternoon,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with the City Council. We appreciate input from our community. All City Council Members have received your email and I have also forwarded it to the appropriate department.

Sincerely,
Cher L. Guasco | Senior Administrative Assistant
City Manager’s Office |100 Santa Rosa Ave, Rm 10 | Santa Rosa, CA 95405 Tel. (707) 543-4647 | Fax (707) 543-3030| [email protected] All emails are subject to the California Public Records Act and neither the sendor nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications. -----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Abela <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 4:45 PM
To: _CityCouncilListPublic <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Changes to Short Term Rental regulations My comments are:
- I do not believe that short term rental guests cause any more disturbances than regular residents of our city. - If they city takes away a short term rental license due to complaints, why is this not applied to hotel licenses as well ?

It should be.
- The city should follow the law and provide for adequate DUE PROCESS before taking away a license or before counting a complaint against the owner.

This means a proper investigation of the complaint prior to any city action, not just accepting what the complainant has to say,

an administrative evidentiary hearing after the action has been taken and ability to appeal to superior court.

Thank you, Carlos Abela
From: Dave James
To: Meads, Shari
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Short Term Rentals Changes
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 8:55:45 PM
Shari:

I appreciate all you have done administering the no win issue of the short term rentals problem plaguing Santa Rosa. It is truly a no win issue.

We all know it.

You know it better than anyone.

Having watched the meeting tonight, which is almost to conclude, it has become apparent . . .

The City of Santa Rosa was behind the eight ball and let this situation get to the point where it is now

next to impossible, as I see it, to eliminate these horrendous short term rentals in previously occupied

regular residential neighborhoods where peace and tranquility previously existed.

Even if some of

the public comment opposing these short term rentals was exemplified, based on what these poor

people living next to them have endured, it doesn't change the fact anyone owing a home here wants

these abhorrent places next to them.

They are not all bad, I am sure.

But the ones that are bad -

and are not very well monitored - it is a living nightmare for those poor people stuck with the fact

they have to live next to one and nothing can be done.

Unless I am mistaken, we residents stuck

with them are just that - stuck with them.

Period.

It is too late to eliminate short term rentals in

Santa Rosa as I see it.

I might be missing something.

I don't think so.

Correct if I am wrong?

The City of Santa Rosa is not ready to renege the permits issued to these short term rental home

operators.

To say the City missed the boat is about the biggest understatement ever regarding

administering these places.

It's too late.

If I'm wrong, let me know.

I don't believe I am wrong of

what to expect moving forward.

On a go forward basis, we are going to have to live with these

establishments if that is what we want to do or endure.

It is a pretty sad scenario as I see it.

The legal cost of killing short term rentals to current operators would probably be such a huge

financial hit to the City of Santa Rosa - from how many litigation cases coming forward from

owners of these commercial business operating them now - it would be impossible the City would

ever even consider taking this on.

Correct me if I am wrong.

I am sure I am not.

I'd appreciate
getting

a contact with someone in the City's legal department that could verify that.

But I think I'm spot on.

So as someone who has lived here for 62 years and now faces living across from one of these god

damn places - I am left with a couple of options.

Rent my house to someone who doesn't care-probably someone wouldn't care.

Sell the house at a loss since you have to disclose you live next to one of these places.

It is not your fault, I want to emphasize that.

It is the fact Santa Rosa let it get away from them.

I suspect I might as well start accepting the fact I am done here in Santa Rosa and sell my house.

It was a great place to live but this situation has made it clearly no longer favorable.

Period.

Hope you stay sane through all of this and thanks for what you have done to try and mediate the

issue.

But at the end of the day - it seems old Santa Rosa residents might as well fold their cards

because the damage has been done.

The Damage Is Done.

S-T Rental owners have the upper

hand here by all accounts and all of us old Santa Rosa residents are basically sucking swamp water.

The public comment forum was especially nice tonight.

But it was basically never going to favor

those opposing existing short term rentals in this City.

Thanks for your help again.

I'm out.

Thank you

Dave James

From: Jenny Romeyn
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission; Short Term Rentals
Subject: [EXTERNAL] in support of STR ordinance
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 3:34:32 PM
I'm writing this email as a lifelong resident of Sonoma County, since 1975, a local business owner and short term rental operator. I have owned my business, Cupcake, in Santa Rosa since 2005. My family recently moved out of the area but we kept our home so that I could go back quarterly to check on my business and, as a family, we can go back to spend time with our friends and loved ones. We chose to short term rent our house so that we could afford to continue making the mortgage on what is now our second home, so that we can schedule when we want to use it personally and so that we can move back one day when the time is right.

I am in support of the requirement to hold a permit and to limit the number of permits available. I'm also in support of regulations and compliance requirements. I do think there are some issues with the current ordinance that could be improved, but overall, I think it's important to have guidelines to keep short term rentals operating as what they should be- places for visitors whom we want to welcome to beautiful Sonoma County to use for vacation when a hotel room won't work (as a family of five, hotel rooms generally don't work when we're travelling so we opt for short term rentals). I do not want parties in my home, nor do I
want them in our community and for that reason, I'm in support of some form of compliance requirment.

I am in continual communication with my neighbors and all of them have told me that not only do they not have a problem with visitors staying in my home, but that they enjoy the hospitality aspect of meeting them, hearing about where they're visiting from and welcoming them to the area. Meeting new people is great!

My business also benefits greatly from visitors coming to the area and I would hate to see the negative impact that would have should STR's be banned altogether.

My hope is that our community can find a mutually beneficial balance of welcoming visitors to our community, into our businesses and into the homes of those who want to host them.

Thank you for your time,
Jenny Romeyn, owner/chief f ashion officer

CUPCAKE

FOR SWEET & STYLISH KIDS
723 Village Ct. Santa Rosa ca 95405 | 707.579.2165
1300 1st St., ste. 325, Napa, CA 94559 | 707.637.4383
www.shopcupcake.com
---------------------------------------------------
.

From: Julianne Linares
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Short term rental legislation 2023
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 8:35:13 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am writing this email as a resident and homeowner in Sonoma County that favors the support and ongoing use of short

term rentals in our community. I believe that the permitted, responsible owners of these properties offer a valuable contribution to the growth and well being of our community as a whole, whether it be helping provide jobs for businesses servicing these properties, helping boost the local tourist economy for our small businesses,

or
having provided refuge for displaced fire victims and most recently storm victims from this substantially rainy winter we experienced. Please, consider what is at stake for taking away the good these homes provide to our communities here, and for the individuals running them that have already shown that they are abiding by the rules and regulations that have been asked of them, and not the few bad apples,

that can be found in any walk of life.

In addition, the income that many owners use from their short term rentals is arguably, I believe, a core fundamental right that should not be restricted upon in giving people another avenue to pursue towards financial securities for the circumstances we all as humans face continuously (i.e. healthcare costs, dependent care costs, education, retirement, costs of living).

Thank you & sincerely,

Julianne Linares

(Sonoma County resident since 2008)
From: Larry Slater
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Non- hosted rentals
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 2:47:23 PM
Hello,
I’m writing in support of a ban on non- hosted rentals in residential neighborhood.

We live in close proximity to such a property and have submitted complaints about noise violations in this past year.

The home was initially listed on a site called “ Avant-Stay”, and is now on VBRO.

The listing advertises it as an “entertainment paradise” for 8 people.

We’ve been informed that the company owner of the property was fined for repeated noise violations, and they responded by suing the city.

Enforcement seems to be an endless problem; I believe we are better off as a community by eliminating them altogether, or at a minimum, developing clear guidelines and substantial fines for violations.

Sincerely,
Larry & Ann

Slater
3019 Santa Anita Ct
Santa Rosa
Sent from my iPad
From: Luke McGarva
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose non-hosted STR in residential neighborhoods Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 4:12:58 PM
Good afternoon.

My name is Luke McGarva, I have lived in Santa rosa for nearly 40 years and have owned my current home for nearly 12 years.

My wife and I have raised our two daughters at our home and purchased it with the confidence that our family-oriented neighborhood would be preserved by long standing zoning codes.

When the home next door was sold a few years ago
and purchased for the sole purpose of running a commercial hotel enterprise that changed.

We now have a new set of strangers partying next door most weekends over the course of 6 to 7 months per year.

We are regularly run out of our own back yard and forced to close all our back windows due to constant noise pollution.

During the hot summer months this
becomes even more problematic since air flow through our home is our only means of keeping things cool.

We have little recourse in this matter since the festivities typically run from mid-morning to 9 or 10 at night, not early or late enough to warrant a response from enforcement authorities.

The current zoning code allows several non-residential usages and one transient lodging usage in residential areas. Those allowable non-residential usages include community care facilities, child or adult day care, and certain home occupations.

The single allowable transient lodging
facility is a traditional bed and breakfast.

All the allowable nonresidential usages have several
commonalities that distinguish them from a non-hosted STR.

First of all, they all provide for
some sort of on-site supervision. For example, Daycare facilities (both child and adult) have on-site supervision for the entire time they operate during the day. The same applies to community care facilities. Supportive and Transitional housing are generally linked to other supportive services which act to provide a level of supervision of the participants.

A
traditional bed and breakfast typically rents only a bedroom in the home occupied by the owner/operator of that home. That owner provides on-site supervision. This is in many respects is similar to a hosted STR. This on-site supervision is critical not only for the clients of those businesses but for the surrounding neighbors. Secondly, the bulk of these allowable usages require the application and approval of a minor conditional use permit. The process for receiving a minor use permit requires public notification and a public hearing if requested in writing.

Further, there is an appeal process open to the public to appeal the granting of a MUP.

This entire process gives the neighbors an opportunity to weigh in on any proposed non-residential usages. Thirdly, all these usages are specified in the current zoning code.

Non-hosted STR’s are not legitimate residential usages but instead are transient lodging facilities and commercial businesses that are taking advantage of the fact that they are not addressed by the current zoning code.

They are in distinct contrast to the currently allowable usages because there is no on-site supervision, there is no requirement for a conditional use permit which would allow the neighbors to weigh in during the process, and the current zoning code does not specifically allow this usage. Incorporating non-hosted STR’s into the zoning code as an allowable usage would not change the fact that there is no on-site supervision, and there is no opportunity for the surrounding neighbors to voice their concerns.

For these reasons, I oppose both the inclusion of non-hosted STR into the zoning code as an allowable usage in residential areas and the continued operation of non-hosted STR in our residential neighborhoods. I do support a specific provision in the zoning code limiting non- hosted STR to the non-residential areas of our city.

Thank you for your time.

From: Marsha Douthit
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Non hosted Air B&Bs
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 2:49:19 PM
Sent from my iPadThe non-Hosted Airbnb’s do not comply with the rules and regulations we have one right next- door to us they have more people there than they’re supposed to quite often we see them go in the house when they come in and this is in winter when summer comes it’s just gonna get worse with a noise factor I am also concerned that they have a fire pit next-door we live in a high fire neighborhood they moved it off the house to under the oak trees if a wind comes up in Oak tree catches the leaf here goes the neighborhood and brush Creek and we all know what that’s like that is a huge concern thank you Marsha and Jim Shotwell the non-Hosted next-doorIs 1611 Manzanita
From: Nikki Stoddart
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed new Short Term Rental Ordinance Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 5:22:36 PM
Hi SR City,
I unfortunately cannot attend today's meeting, however I wanted to send you my thoughts regarding the proposed new ordinance for STR's in Santa Rosa.

I have been an Airbnb host for 11 years, and have managed 3 Santa Rosa properties as STR's for various owners.

The proposed ordinance has some short sighted and unfortunate restrictions

which I believe

are unnecessary, misguided, and poorly thought through. 1) Restriction limiting 1 STR per owner:

This is unnecessary.

There is already a cap on the
total number of permits allowed.

Those operators

in good standing, who have proven over
time to run safe, clean, drama-free airbnb properties should be allowed to own multiple properties.

Especially if those properties already have permits in good standing.

To suddenly
decide that owners can only have 1 permit is a massive overreach and frankly, an abuse of power that seems to have no real point other than a naked power grab. It seems intended to satiate the rabid and loud few homeowners who are out to see STR's restricted into oblivion.

And for what point?
2) Increase in the fines:

This is unnecessary and a profligate abuse of power.

Already, owners
can be dinged $500 for very minor issues.

We were fined because we didn't have some bit of
bureaucratic

minutiae on our listing.

Now, I understand fines for

nuisance, noise issue, or
other major problem. BUT THOSE SHOULD BE PUT IN PLACE FOR EVERY PROPERTY, NOT JUST STRS.Allowing anyone with a bone to pick to just hassle STR owners is wrong to begin with.

Allowing them to nitpick at $1500 a pop is just grossly abusive.

In sum, I am all for ordinances that make sense and solve problems.

However, it seems to me
that the currently proposed ordinance neither makes sense nor solves problems,

Focus on
removing problem listings- the party houses- and for God's sake leave the rest of us alone.

We pay taxes, we bring jobs to the community such as cleaners, handymen, tradespeople etc and most importantly, we bring happy tourists to Santa Rosa, to shop in our stores, spend money in our wineries, eat in our restaurants, and visit our cafes.

We are not causing
problems for the community.

We run well organized, safe, beautifully designed properties that are an asset to neighborhoods.

Lets keep it that way.

Nikki
From: steve Murdock
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Hosted short term rentals
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 2:52:41 PM
I have a hosted short-term rental in my house. I don't think it is fair to lump us together with the unhosted str's. It is my understanding that hosted str's have almost no complaints. I also find the permits and fines to be related to unhosted

str's
income. If I get a fine

of $1500 that will be 60 to 100% of my monthly income. If it happens during the off-season one fine could be several months of income. I'm afraid of fines and I am doing everything in my power to prevent them but if I get two fines I will be put out of business and will need to go on welfare. --
Steve Murdock,

short term rental host
From: Susanne Lake
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item 04/27/2023 Short Term Rentals Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 4:29:27 PM
Good afternoon.

My name is Susanne Lake. I have a hosted rental in my family home.

As the former Executive Director of the Sonoma County Tourism Program, I understand the importance of tourism dollars to our city.

Tourism is our #1 economic driver. We generate transient occupancy tax revenue and BIA revenues, and we generate visitor spending once the guests get here. Short term rentals create jobs, providing a living wage to housekeepers, landscapers, electricians, plumbers, wait staff at restaurants and wineries, and more. We are part of the tourism eco-system.

Please do not cap the radius or supply of short-term rentals.

1. We, Sonoma County, the destination, will lose competitive edge in the visitor industry.

2. We know that limiting supply only increases costs. Vacation rentals provide an affordable alternative to hotels. For example, a family of six can stay in a vacation rental for $300 a night.

There isn’t a hotel in Santa Rosa that would accommodate 6 people for $300. This creates a situation where only the elite can travel here.

The fee hike, which tripled, is excessive. Violations should be on a sliding scale and categorized by administrative, noise, and safety.

I am opposed to someone searching my home at any time.

I am a retired widow now.

1. It’s expensive to live in Sonoma County. I can’t afford to live here without this income.

2. My home is too big for one person. I get to share it with others who come to our beautiful destination and who are looking for alternatives to hotels. My guests even get to bring their dog.

3. I have lived here for fifty years. I don’t want to move. I want to stay in my family home and this is my retirement strategy.

Thank you.
--
Susanne Lake
(707) 583-5993
CAUTION: This email may contain a sensitive financial request. Please verify the sender's identity before taking action.

From: Tiffany A
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission; Short Term Rentals
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Santa Rosa strs
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 4:37:44 PM
Hello all-
I wanted to voice my opinion. Vacation rentals provide access for families who want to visit amazing cities like Santa Rosa. They also allow my family to visit. We spent two months in our home last year and celebrated Christmas there but we love to share our home with others when we are not there.

When we rent our home we recommend many amazing local places like Willis wine bar, Spinster Sister and Fredia cafe supporting local businesses. I also always recommend wineries in town. The restrictions are tighter than nearly any city. I think a balance between permanent residents and renters can be found.

Also, it seems unfair to have a system were permanent renters or owners can call anytime they want on a vacation home, even without real reason to. I fear any more restrictions will just make this worse and cause more unwanted calls to the city.

Tiffany Katuls
Client Communications Manager
Full Circle Home Loans, Inc
Call or text: 949-287-2288
Branches in Upland, Newport Beach & Temecula

BRE #

01971313 NMLS # 235211
w:
www.FCHomeLoans.com
e:

[email protected]
WARNING! WIRE FRAUD ADVISORY: Wire fraud and email hacking/phishing attacks are on the increase! If you have a closing transaction with us and you receive an email containing Wire Transfer Instructions, DO NOT RESPOND TO THE EMAIL! Instead, call FCHL loan officer/closer immediately, using previously known contact information and NOT information provided in the email, to verify the information prior to sending funds.

From: Carl Campbell
To: Short Term Rentals
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Planning Commission Discussion
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 2:10:39 PM
I was notified of this meeting and am unable to attend, but wish to share my comments.

It would appear that the City has received comments about bad behavior by short term rental guests, in particular at non-hosted rentals.

These bad actors would

be handled by the owners/City ordinances.

What concerns me is the
majority

of the non-hosted rentals have no problems whatsoever, but

are negatively affected
by your oft changing rules, fees, fines, etc.

I am writing because I live adjacent to one of these non-hosted rentals on Humboldt St. and feel you should also hear positive comments rather than just negative.

I am retired and am at home much of the time.

I and my family have had no problems of
noise, traffic, parking, etc.

In fact, the owner checks in frequently to ask about any problems or concerns.

A couple of
times she called about complaints and asked me to check - one about parking, the other about noise.

I went outside and then walked over to the property. In both instances the complaints were bogus.

I would urge you to objectively review the issues.

Punish the bad actors but not the great
majority

who are following the rules.

Thank you,
Carl Campbell
740 Carr Avenue
707-888-8042
[email protected]
From: Diana Mambretti
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Non-Hosted Short Term Rentals Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 1:53:21 PM
As a Santa Rosa resident and a resident of an area in which there are non-hosted short term rentals, I would like to express my objection to these types of rentals.

Non-hosted rentals are in my opinion similar to a hotel and do not belong in a residential area. These types of lodgings should be in an area zoned for commercial type businesses not

in areas zoned for single family homes.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,
Diana Mambretti

From: Eric Fraser
To: Weeks, Karen; Sanders, Terrence; _PLANCOM - Planning Commission; Holton, Jeffrey; Duggan, Vicki; Cisco, Patti; Carter, Charles; Peterson, Julian
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Santa Rosa STR Program
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 12:25:23 PM
Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners, Staff;
Please accept my heartfelt thanks for the roles you play in developing

the
City's STR program.

You are between that proverbial "rock and hard spot".

As a researcher involved in studying STR policy in the City, County, Coast and in many jurisdictions in this State and Country, I can understand the tremendous pressure on public officials to "get it right". Looking at the list of anti-STR complainers that includes retired law enforcement, retired senior government officials, "movers and shakers", and other VIPs underscores the pressures you are under civically and politically.

They feel they know
what strings to pull; facts be damned.

Some are expecting to have STR owners/operators and pro-STR folks encourage testimony from the tens of thousands

of guests who have
enjoyed

staying at a STR here.

Assuredly, visitors were pleased, as seen in
the comments received for feedback that are prompted for almost every stay that is booked online.

STR owners/operators and their agents love
their Santa Rosa, so why would there be an expectation for guests to need to defend the reputations of owner/operators as well as their own and other members of their group?

Many anti-STR advocates have claimed that
guests (Short-term Renters) are the source of negative impacts, when facts tell a different story for the most part.

Short-term renters and their guests
will just vote with

their money rather than care about the potentially racist*, anti-STR rantings of a few.

It's not the visitor's problem to solve, and they
have alternatives to take their families to other places and away from any perception of corruption.

The "Homes not Hotels" signs are not an
indication of the STR owner/operator acting dishonorably, instead it's a reflection of people who have granted themselves permission to be threatening, inhospitable, and war-like. (*refers to the undefined "neighborhood character" claim.)
Unfortunately, the City started off on the wrong foot in 2021 by convening

in
secret, pushing through an Urgency Ordinance, and straying away from actual fact finding.

In 2022, the City engaged in several unjust actions
against STRs including another Urgency Ordinance, pretextual actions by government officials to put STRs in a bad light, and the persistent use of propaganda and methodologies

apparently designed to denigrate

STRs
further.

The City has been responsible for a huge amount of unsavory conduct against STR owners/operators and their agents and guests.

In the
background have been political campaigns, a suspicious deal regarding the Arthouse (a project of affordable

condominiums that opened as a "boutique
hotel".

More on that below), an arrest of a code enforcement officer, at least one lawsuit, and a continued assault on STR properties from a home-grown terrorist group with the slogan "Homes Not Hotels!" that has the implied consent to operate without

legal crosschecks by senior City staff.

I don't like to study any of this, it's so distasteful and shows at the core that our City is composed of a lot of bullies who feel they

can force their will on
others.

No, I'm not talking about STR Owners/Operators who operate their homes within the regulations, and who are trying to keep up with the City's manipulative strategies, or must defend themselves against vexatious neighbors.. well, by now you know who I'm talking about.

As an experienced STR host who has been creating TOT (and BIA, but that's another story) for the City for over 7 years, I can say I do love hosting and STRs,

and my City. That's probably why my neighbors encouraged me to start a neighborhood group that has engaged over 175 residential properties, 150 businesses, and thousands of volunteers to perform over $500,000 worth of beautification in our historic neighborhood.

My guests are great, having caused a few problems for me but NONE for my neighbors and NONE for the City from their stays.

The guests to our
STR tend to be representative of the Bay Area and the rest of the world as a whole, and do not fit into the characteristics of the City's monolithic demographics as we host people from many other cultures and races.

During the Tubbs fire, and subsequent disasters, our STR has hosted evacuees, victims, first responders and essential workers.

Our research
shows that there is a huge amount of unused sleeping capacity in our existing housing

stock, estimated at over 36,000 bedrooms in the City!

It's
not uncommon to see one or two people living in a 3+ bedroom home. STRs are a proven method for leveraging unused sleeping spaces and empty second homes.

I'm wondering if a requirement to be a leader in Santa Rosa is to be a bit of a sadist.

I'm wondering in Senior Staff and elected officials actually enjoy seeing conflict, considering how inflamed the conversation has become since the City has refused to deal in facts, has staff that are anti-STR activists, and has engaged in much behind the scene dealing with anti-STR activists, and has denied legitimate
participation by STR advocates in a
substantive way.

The time has come to have a legitimate series of
workshops with a steering committee so we can have a mutually beneficial STR program.

The apex of STR activities in the City was apparently in 2017.

STRs are not
a new phenomenon, and the decision to not regulate STRs historically was based on the infrequency of legitimate nuisance complaints received.

Now
the City has called a War on STRs that allows the anti-STR forces to attack with all sorts of claims and stories, few backed up by verifiable facts.

By the
way, the apex of second/recreational homes probably occurred in the 1970's, but today the estimate is that around 3,500 second/recreation homes are present (this is important because

activities at second homes
and other properties are frequently blamed

on STRs).

Now activist staff will present the concept that the number of complaints against STRs is significant without disclosing

that over 97% of those
complaints came from just a few anti-STR activists and have little to do with verified nuisances.

Instead it shows the conspiratorial approach used by
City staff to accommodate anti-STR activists.

Government managers who
operate in good faith would instead see a problem in coddling unfounded and vexatious complaints, the potential for corruption within their ranks, and basic injustices that would open them up to judicial review and legal actions.

In many ways, the War on STRs shows the essence of what this City is, unfortunately.

Samuel Johnson seems to have summed up our situation best: 'Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.' (from The Idler, 1758)
In the preparation of information to be foundational in protecting people's civil, property, and due process rights, I'm working hard not to "hate" on actors engaged in the War who have abdicated their civic duties to engage in fact-based gathering and deliberation, but when I see members of our government taking sides and even fomenting the War, it creates a very deep sadness and feelings of hopelessness within my core, and the undue burden of stress upon my mind.

If the government is dishonest and
manipulative - the quality of life for all people, regardless of their

opinions
about STRS, in all areas of governmental interface is impacted. I think most residents would agree with my sentiments.

Before I prescribe an antidote to diminish the War, restore peace and justice, and deliver increased quality of life to all who live and visit Santa Rosa, I do need to get to the bottom of the Arthouse project (620 7th).

We
have yet to take a deep dive but from what we know, condominium projects sometimes are created to allow owners to be managed by the developer as an STRs when not in use by the owner.

This project appears to fit that
description, but unlike other similar projects studied, the Arthouse did not go through the City's STR permitting scheme- why?

Who owns the individual
units? Are anti-STR activist staff, elected officials, and other connected political players being protected by having this project "off the radar"? I assume that today's Planning Commission will be another battle in the War, so I'll participate remotely.

I don't like seeing how people behave in
War - I'm a lover. Because truth is an essential to freedom - I'll fight, but only when processes that can produce justice are deployed.

For today's business, the Commission is placed in a position of demanding verified and truthful information. They need to rise above the noise of War, the manipulations of activist staff (even if it supports individual political ideologies) and order the creation of a forum where facts are sought out and verified, and the STR policies flow from that.

This should include the formation of a STR working group, and a series of public workshops. This approach would yield the best solutions for managing STRs, resolving neighbor v neighbor conflicts in many scenarios and property types (not just STRs), unlock opportunities for economic growth AND quality of life - and be FAIR and JUST.

Respectfully submitted,
Eric Fraser

TRUTH IN TOURISM
707.479-8247
[email protected]

From: Stan Paule
To: Short Term Rentals
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Santa Rosa Proposed Short Term Rental ordinance revisions 042723 Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 1:47:38 PM
Good afternoon:

The Santa Rosa planning commission has solicited the input of current Hosted and Non- Hosted short-term rental operators. My wife and are Hosted STR operators in your district.

We pay our property taxes the same as those neighbors who are up in arms about the viability of their neighbor's STR operators. The current ordinance comes close to criminalizing hosts of
short-term rental operators.

We request that no additional punitive restrictions be placed on STR operators until there is a working group assembled

for ordinance discussion revisions that include the City Council Member in each district with one Hosted and one Non-Hosted STR operator and an equal number of neighbors in order to hash out reasonable objections and remedies.

All voices
must be heard.

CURRENT FINE STRUCTURE

Our recent experience with an administrative citation illustrates the severity and the injustice of the current ordinance that begs to be reviewed.

Having been sent a notice that our online Hosted BnB listing was missing several elements cited in section 20-48.070 D, we quickly

made the changes within hours. I wrote an appeal to
the enforcement officer stating that this was an oversight due to a family emergency and that the corrections had been made within hours and asked if he could reduce the $500, 1 st offense fine to a warning.

The City Council must amend the ordinance to remove "shall pay" to "may pay" to give
code-enforcement officers the discretion to exercise judgment to respond to a first offense with a warning rather than an immediate $500 fine.

HOSTED-SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE NOT THE SAME AS NON-HOSTED WHOLE-HOUSE

SHORT-TERM RENTALS
The City Council and Staff don't appear to have a good understanding of the nuances in the Short Term Rental business.

I believe this is probably due to the "torch and pitchfork" mentality the neighbors tof Non-Hosted STR homes have brought to the Council's attention.

As mentioned earlier, there should be an established work group in each district to advise the Council Members.

One size doesn't fit all
and there are substantial differences between a Hosted "mom and pop" STR and a Non-Hosted STR.

A $500 fine for a Hosted STR equals about a week of revenue for the Hosted, and approximately one night of revenue for the Non-Hosted.

Please ask your staff to report how many public nuisance violations have been reported about Hosted STR. It is probably very low if any; and If they can't provide that number readily, it illustrates my point that there is a lack of understanding about the difference in impacts on the neighbors of Hosted vs Non-Hosted

We request The City Council to amend Table 48.1 Enforcement Penalties to be changed to
lesser amounts for Hosted STRs: 1st violation for administrative or public nuisance violation-a warning;

2nd citation $250 fine
3rd citation $750,
4th revocation of the STR permit.

THERE IS NO VIABLE APPEAL PROCESS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OR NUISANCE

CITATIONS TO

BE ARBITRATED

There is no appeal process that fairly arbitrates complaints and grievances between neighbors' complaints and STR rental operators. If an up-in-arms neighbor next to an STR wants 'stick-it- to" the STR operator next door, all they have to do is repeatedly complain to code enforcement, and under the current STR Ordinance Enforcement Penalties, the third violation within a year costs the operator $2000 fine and revocation of the STR permit for the remainder of the year.

We request the City Council establish a grievance hearing process to hear both sides of the
story in order to provide justice for all parties. The current process does not provide for an appeal process allowing the operators a reasonable objection to be heard and understood that may allow for a repeal of an alleged violation

THE CURRENT ORDINANCE IS TOO RESTRICTIVE FOR GUESTS OF SMALL STR UNITS Under the current ordinance for a one or two-bedroom Hosted STR allows two guests per bedroom and 50% of that amount for visitors during daytime hours. This is too restrictive for small Hosted STRs.

We request that the City Council amend
the ordinance to be amended to allow a one-to-one
ratio of visitors to guests when the permit allows up to four overnight guests.

THE CURRENT ORDINANCE VIOLATES PRIVACY AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT CONCERNING "NOTICE TO INSPECT"

The current ordinance states that "#8. The short-term rental unit shall be made available by the owner for inspection by code enforcement, building, police, or fire personnel by request at any time."

This is an undue process that would reasonably fail in a court of law adjudicating a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches by the government. Even landlords must give their tenants a 48-hour notice to enter or inspect a rental property under California Law.

We request that the City Council amend
the ordinance to state that an STR unit shall be
made available for inspection after a 48-hour notice.

Please discuss our proposals. We are willing to meet with Council Members or their staff to explore viable working groups and fair and just outcomes.

Thank you for your consideration,

Stan and Janette Paule
707-331-0024

Stan Paule
707.331.0024
From: Anne Fenlon
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Non hosted STRs
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 5:07:53 PM
I support the guidelines the city of SR has worked on But non hosted STRs have created disruptions in neighborhoods, with City PD and

FD covering these complaints.

Please continue with the permit limits set forth and only grant new permits when an existing one expires or the property is sold.

I vote for ONLY HOSTED STRs in santa rosa
Thank you
Anne
From: Bernadette Burrell
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] STR ordinance
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 8:08:54 PM
Hello
Thank you for considering my email. Living next to a non-hosted short term

rental has
changed the character of our neighborhood. Unless you are forced to live next to one you just don't really get it.

I realize there are other businesses that happen in residential zoning but day care and adult senior living serve the community. Non-Hosted serve the investor. Hosted STR's serve the community by allowing income for families and they live on the property.

As a Santa Rosa resident, I oppose any increase in the current cap of 198 non-hosted STR in our residential areas. Furthermore, I believe all non-hosted STR should be located only in commercially zoned areas of the city, where all other commercial lodging facilities are located.”

Respectfully,
Bernadette Burrell
Elim
From: Eric Fraser
To: Weeks, Karen; Sanders, Terrence; _PLANCOM - Planning Commission; Holton, Jeffrey; Duggan, Vicki; Cisco, Patti; Carter, Charles; Peterson, Julian
Subject: [EXTERNAL] STRs: List of Source Documents using the City"s Nextrequest system Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 4:59:32 PM
Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners,
The City of Santa Rosa uses a third-party cloud-based server to manage public records requests called NextRequest.

Below is a list of records requests available on the Nextrequest system.

https://cityofsantarosaca.nextrequest.com/

You do not need to sign up for an account to view records, and requests can be made anonymously, although all ours were prepared to share source data with other researchers.

Most of our requests were made in response to the 2021 STR Urgency Ordinance and the 2022 STR Urgency Ordinance but contain information that can still help keep activist staff from straying too far from a basis of facts.

You can review the original requests, and on another
tab, the documents.

The City refuses to post readable documents in some cases, so you may need to download a file for further conversion (e.g. “.msg” files).

You can search the entire log of complete requests to find a lot of information from government documents on many topics.

We have an additional 700 pages of responsive
documents from our requests made prior to the implementation of Nextrequest in 2019.

These additional documents are informative about the response from heroic responses of Airbnb to design systems to quickly house evacuees and victims during the Tubbs Fire, TOT payment records that show that most STRs voluntarily submitted TOT, problems with SRTBIA accounting, and the City opting out of the Voluntary Collection Agreement with Airbnb to be paid TOT directly (2015).

The City may have lost over $1 million in tax revenue over the past 7 years because of this misfeasance (the City originally asked for the agreement, but then reneged.

Sonoma County signed one.)

Contact me for copies of these files.

We'll also provide a new enforcement matrix that should make those processes more transparent and just.

Eric Fraser

TRUTH IN TOURISM
707.479-8247

Next
Request
File
Topic
22-727 SRTBIA
22-440 SUBJECT MATTER

EXPERTISE - ENFORCEMENT
21-1280 SHORT TERM RENTALS;
Permit application fee
21-1271 SHORT TERM RENTALS:

Accounts in "Good Standing"
21-1233 CHANGES MADE TO PAGE ON
SRCITY.ORG WEBSITE
21-1207

SHORT TERM RENTAL
URGENCY ORDINANCE: CITY

STAFF WORKING GROUP
21-1208 SHORT TERM RENTALS
URGENCY ORDINANCE: CEQA
21-1209

SHORT TERM URGENCY
ORDINANCE: 9/22/21 Montecito
Heights Neighborhood Meeting
21-1210

SHORT TERM RENTAL
URGENCY ORDINANCE:

ECONOMIC RECOVERY TASK
FORCE
21-1172 FIRE PREPARATON SURVEY
21-1085

GRANICUS - CONTRACTS,

PRESENTATIONS, AND
EMAILS
21-1086 CODE ENFORCEMENT FILES
21-1087 SHORT TERM RENTAL
SURVEY (August 2021)
21-1089 TOT ACCOUNTS WITH

MISSING ADDRESSES
21-1090

TOT ACCOUNTS WITH

MISSING RECORDS OF

REMITTANCES
21-927 Ordinance establishing short
term guest
21-928 Ordinance that establishes
lodging types
21-929 "Registered" Short-Term Rentals
21-930 Revenue (TOT/BIA) from STRs
21-931 Revenue (TOT/BIA) from STRs;
automated collection thereof
21-932 BIA Governance
21-933 TOT Financial Impact
21-934 STR "web scrape"
21-935 Regarding "161 Unregistered
Short-Term Rentals"
21-936 "Renter Displacement"
21-937 "Super Hosts and Venture
Capital Ownership"
21-938 "Decrease Available Housing
Stock"
21-939
"Overconcentration and
Commercialization of Residential
Neighborhoods"
21-940
"Uneven Playing Field Between
Other Lodging Providers and
Short-Term Rental Owners"
21-941 "Tension Between Short-Term
Rental Owners and Neighbors"
21-942 "Noise, Trash, and Exterior
Lighting"
21-943 "Parking"
21-944 "Events and Party Houses"
21-945 "Potentially Difficult to Contact
Transient Renters"
21-946 "Evacuation Impacts"
21-946 Emergency Response
21-947 "Open and Unattended Fires"
21-947 "Limit Outdoor Fires"
21-948 "How Bad Can it Get?"
21-949 Temporary Use Permit
21-950 Extend Quiet Hours to Between
9 pm and 8 am
21-951 "Look to Existing Regulations …
as Guides"
21-952 Economic Analysis of STRs
21-953 Politically Active Organizations
21-208 Economic Interests of Elected
Officials
From: Eric Fraser
To: Weeks, Karen; Peterson, Julian; Carter, Charles; Cisco, Patti; Duggan, Vicki; Sanders, Terrence; Holton, Jeffrey; _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Planning Commission Presentation; errors and ommissions Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 4:38:07 PM
Attachments: Presentation (44).pdf
Hello Chair Weeks and Commissioners;
I'm forwarding you a message sent about the staff presentations and a list of errors and omissions we have found.

Our hope was to get some additional insight from staff prior to sending it on to the planning commission, but time is short.

Staff, despite representing extensive public outreach have only interacted with the community in a way to create anti-STR sentiment.

These refuse to work with facts, finding more use with
informal surveys that can be twisted to support pre-conceived notions.

STRs have never been
"at the table" and allowed quality time to present our information.

It's always reacting to the
manipulations of the City; short notice meetings, 2-3 minutes testimonials - tour city is acting like bullies!
There have been no workshops, only sessions made for "listening" but produced in a way by staff to be anti-STR echo chambers.

We want to deal with facts, not wild claims of negative impacts or with anyone impeding the understanding of the mostly positive impacts of STRs.

We know from experience

that most
STRs pose no problems, and contribute positively to the community in many ways.

We also
know the economics

of STRs, and staff makes wild claims about STR impacts without any foundation in the Economic Sciences.

For instance, staff cites research showing increases in housing

costs, but that's for a jurisdiction with a 4% concentration of STRs in housing compared to our 0.1%.

The author of the study, Dr. Davide Proserpio (UCLA) followed up the study staff cited to show however that significant

spending on improvements and
maintenance occurs when a jurisdiction has operating standards but no cap or limit on STRs,

even when the number of STRs is so small.

In a healthy STR ecosystem, opportunities
taken to be a STR host ebb and flow, specific houses do not become lifelong

STRs, yet the
investments made to houses linger on.

The restrictions that the City is now considering will
only give a handful of properties competitive advantages, and assure that high-occupancy rate STRs will extend for a long period of time at the same locations.

The competitive advantages
are something that will also increase the likelihood of corrupt acts within

government.

Some
STRs may have a long life as an STR, but in an unrestricted marketplace that is because it is conveniently

located and well operated.

With all the hysteronics, the number of STRs
currently in Santa Rosa is very similar to 2017, the high water mark of STR activity in the City.

Furthermore, research shows that as regulations increase so does corrupt government acts in the permitting process.

We have seen evidence of permits being approved out-of-order, for instance or apparently given preferential treatment.

Unfortunately, staff set policy on the wrong foot by being so abusive as to the facts, fomenting conflict among neighbors, and

creating a fictitious narrative for the Urgency Ordinance.

Why?

What's the real story?
It continued with how code enforcement administered the ordinance with abuses of due process, soliciting unfounded and vexatious complaints, a secretive abatement and collections policy, and much more, all during a time when a Code Enforcement Employee was arrested for Attempted Extortion.

For policy to be useful and durable, it needs to be constructed with justice in mind.

More research is needed in the public domain to cut through the City's false narratives and present facts to guide policy, so we would advise that the Planning Commission call for an actual workshop in May or June.

Perhaps a STR working group.

With the excessive amount of unfounded complaints, over-the-top testimony, staff manipulation of data and process, lots of misunderstandings, and little transparency, the next document we'll prepare before the meeting will be an enforcement chart to introduce justice back in the process.

This

would have a pathway for removing scofflaw

operators, hold
violators accountable including guests, and put vexatious complainers on

notice.

You'll see that the approach through a transparent and legal code enforcement process will eliminate the need for any other restrictions, and the loosening of existing ones.

I'll also send over a list of source documents available through the City's nextrequest PRA portal.

Most of the information was requested in response to fact finding the two Urgency Ordinances, and verifying information about TOT/SRTBIA collection, spending, and governance.

People have been finding it helpful.

Respectfully submitted,
Eric Fraser

TRUTH IN TOURISM
707.479-8247
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Eric Fraser <[email protected]
>
Date: Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 11:10 PM
Subject: Planning Commission Presentation; errors and ommissions To: <[email protected]
>, Rogers, Chris <[email protected]>, Rogers, Natalie
<[email protected]>, Meads, Shari <[email protected]>, Alvarez, Eddie <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, MacDonald, Dianna <[email protected]>, Fleming, Victoria <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Mayor Rogers and City Council;
Today I testified to the City Council about errors and omissions by staff leading up to the 4/27/23 Planning Commision Meeting regarding changes to the STR Ordinance

and City Code.

In addition

to the problems related to the document
package noted in another email to the city clerk, I have identified problems within the staff presentation (slide show, attached) as noted below:

Staff Presentation – submitted by Shari Meads, Senior Planner

1) Page 4: Refers to the timeline of 8/10/21 and 9/14/21, however we have public records showing that STR policy was already in motion as of 12/08/2020 with the Economic Recovery Taskforce (no public meetings), nine months before Ms. Meads indicated the work was ordered on an Urgency Ordinance by the infrequently convened Economic Development Subcommittee meeting 8/10/21. Source:
https://cityofsantarosaca.nextrequest.com/documents/8909288

2) Page 4, 5: Refers to community feedback received since August 2022 through online surveys.

We’ll attach exhibit 131-21-1 related to a claim filed
10/11/21 showing a responsive document provided by the City for PRA 17- 065 to our fianl submissions to the Planning Commission and into public documents.

This quote is from a vendor to the City called Probolsky Research (Newport Beach, CA): “Online surveys are not considered to be statistically valid by the American Association of Public Opinion Researchers (AAPOR)…

Why is there a heavy reliance on information that can easily show bias, be deceptively

created to obtain preconceived conclusions?

3) Page 5: Virtual Community Meetings were not recorded/transcribed for public record completely, including the main staff presentations as well as the breakout sessions, but the information is being used by staff to shape public policy.

4) Page 5: Santa Rosa Tourism Business Improvement Advisory Board meeting 11/16/2023.

This was called as a Special Meeting of a board that
infrequently meets (see online agenda at https://santa-rosa.legistar.com/.

There are no representatives of STRs on this Board; they are not allowed to serve as authorized City Code 6-56.260
(https://library.qcode.us/lib/santa_rosa_ca/pub/city_code/item/title_6- chapter_6_56-article_iv-6_56_400). Also see existing SRTBIA board members at
https://www.srcity.org/1392/Tourism-Business-Improvement-Area-Adviso One property owner and SRTBIA boardmember, Hugh Futrell, may have skirted around the STR ordinance by opening a ”Boutique Hotel” instead of planned condominiums for the Arthouse project. Why was this information of keen interest to the assessed properties of SRTBIA delivered in a way that excluded STR owners and managers?

5) Page 6: 198 Non-Hosted Short-Term Rental Permits. According to information on Page 9 only 167 permits have been approved.

Furthermore,
the actual number of non-hosted STRs is fewer than 167 for a number of reasons including that many hosted STRs in good standing applied for non- hosted permits but continue on as hosted operations, several dozen non- hosted permits were issued to owners who have not remitted TOT (yet?) with many doing so to preclude others due to the proximity requirement.

Staff wildly overstated the number of non-hosted STRs operating in the City, misrepresenting the need for an Urgency Ordinance (see S. Meads slideshows in the 8/10/21 and 9/21/21 Economic Development Subcommittee meetings).

As of 4/13/23, we estimate that around 50 of 167
non-hosted STRs operate at an occupancy < 70%, ~50 of 167 at an occupancy of 30 – 69%, ~30 of 167 at an occupancy of 1-29%, and ~38 of 167 at 0% occupancy.

6) Page 9: Please provide information regarding the claim: “4 non-hosted and 1 hosted located in a nonresidential district.

Specify all zoning districts
according to the number of STR permits issued.

Do I need to order this
information as a PRA?

7) Page 9: Santa Rosa with 69,495 residential units, it is important to indicate the number of second/recreational homes, for accurate comparisons.

US Census data on “Vacant Homes” and the subcategory
seasonal/recreational homes would reveal around 3,500, or around 5% of the all residential units in the City.

With the number of ~100 non-hosted
STRs operating above 30% occupancy, this is only 0.1% of Santa Rosa’s housing units, truly a de minimis number well under 1%.

More importantly,
only 2.8% of the estimated 3,500 second/recreational homes are enrolled in the STR Permitting scheme, although the use of these other non-permitted second homes create similar negative impacts attributed to the regulated non-hosted STRs (parties, occupancy, parking, fire threat). There is no evidence that STRs take housing stock “off the market” in any statistically significant way.

8) Page 10: Code Enforcement Statistics.
-281 Complaints received, however that does not track with the actual number of code enforcement cases noted through the citizen portal.

Do I
need to request the list via PRA?
-263 Cases Closed, but only 119 Administrative Citations Issued.

Our
research shows where some cases were closed without penalty, but others were assessed penalties for the same class of complaint (i.e a case was opened for a defective advertisement, or confusion over the permitting process.)

Even the few quality of life complaints (noise, occupancy) have had an uneven disposition with some STR owners able to avoid penalties, but others really jerked around.

Based on records received via PRA and through
the citizen portal over 100 are low-level “administrative” violations for defective advertisements, etc.
-263 Cases Closed but only 119 Administrative citations issued, meaning there is only a rate charge rate of 45%.

The other 55% cases represent
unfounded or vexatious complaints, or cases closed without a fine being paid.

As stated above, research shows where some were fined but others not for similar violations.

Research also indicates that where regulations
increase in a jurisdiction, corruption of public officials also increases in permitting as well as enforcement (Santa Rosa has had a problem with this), so if some cases were settled with a little “grease”, the appropriate oversight authorities should want to know (FBI, State Attorney). As troubling the prospect of public corruption is, having a system where members of the public can make unfounded and vexatious complaints without repercussions is unconstitutional.

Many of the complaints received by the City came from
just a few individual anti-STR activists that were encouraged by activist staff.

With 162 complaints settled without penalties, the corresponding cost to process the complaint internally may be $500 per or $81,000 spent pursuing baseless complaints,

or more (staff will ask for an increase in fines on this go- around, ostensively to cover "costs").

The solution is fines should only be
levied for substantial cases left unresolved using the complaint procedure regarding noise, parking, occupancy, or fire risk. Fines and compelled mediation should be required for complainers who file 2 or more unfounded or vexatious complaints.

9) Pages 11 – 15. We’ll comment on proposed amendments by referring to the actual proposed zoning code text amendments.

10) Page 15: “aligns penalties for STR violations with California Government Code provisions applicable to STRs”.

Which codes exactly?

11) Page 16, 28: We maintain that the major changes to Chapter 20-48 require CEQA-level fact finding.

We base this on the volume of information
submitted by City staff regarding STRs which is incorrect, incomplete, and misleading.

Also, the impact on civil rights, due process, and property rights.

As well, the claims of negative impacts to residential quality-of-life are being analyzed.

Emergency preparation is being considered both by the claim of STR creating a hazard (unproven) to the proven aspect of the role of STRs in housing evacuees, victims, and essential workers.

12) Pages 17-23: Community on-line surveys, see comment # 2.

13) Page 24: Using the statistically inferior collection method of online surveys, whisper campaigns, and public input that is not transparent, Staff lays out their secret agenda first by stating “advantages”

14) Page 24: Economic Benefits – why is the economic benefit noted as “potential” when you have proof of economic activity from TOT.

These guest
stays produce accepted economic benefit as noted in reports by the Economic Development Board, Sonoma County Tourism, and Visit Santa Rosa.

See comment #11.

15) Page 24: “Provide a good investment opportunity” needs more explanation.

Missing from this would be a economic impact research, as well as research about the market forces that impact STR demand and therefore supply.

16) Page 24: Missing are benefits to the local community by STR owners, managers, employees, and guests (many STR owners contribute lodging and cash to area non-profit organizations and schools)

17) Page 24: Missing are extensive benefits to a neighborhood and housing stock paid for by property improvements and a higher standard of maintenance. In a STR regulatory scheme

that only enforces standards and
does not have proximity limits, exclusion areas, excessive fees the benefit of property improvements is intensified as STRs go in and out of lodging short term tenants.

In an unlimited environment the average length a STR may naturally operate is around 3 years; in jurisdictions with limits that property will increase in occupancy and remain a STR for a longer time (estimated at 7+ years).

18) Page 24: Missing are the extensive benefits of having bedrooms available during a time of crisis including natural disasters, disruptions in power, or other community or personal disasters.

According to extensive public
records, Airbnb and other booking platforms mobilized 1000s of housing units for victims, evacuees, and essential workers responding to the Tubbs and other fires.

I know we did!!!

STRs have the ability to pivot to mid-term
and long-term leasing of furnished spaces when the need arises.

19) Page 24: Missing are the benefits that STRs provide to families, and small groups, as well as people who need or desire to cook their own foods.

20) Page 24: Missing are the benefits to provide affordable lodging alternatives to pricey hotels and motels.

21) Page 24: Missing is the benefit to consumers in having lodging choices so they can reduce vehicle miles driven.

22) Page 24: Missing is the opportunity to provide essential funds to maintain a historic structure, respond to an emergency, care for aging parents or special medical circumstances.

23) Page 24: many second/recreational homes are not, would not otherwise be available to long-term tenants.

24) Page 25: Non-hosted STRs are not hotels or motels. Prove otherwise.

Differences in tax basis, number of rooms, laws protecting the operator of a hotel/motel, taxes directed to schools and more differentiate ANY STR from hotels/motels.

This is a false equivalency.

25) Page 25: The concept of “overconcentration” is just the City’s attempt to malign STRs and requires verifiable research to support that contention.

See
comment #11.

26) Page 25: Comparing STRs to hotels needs verifiable research not innuendo and misleading information.

27) Page 25: “Each STR potentially removes a residential unit”, is one of the major reasons for the Urgency Ordinance and informing the changes to 20-

48.010.

See comment #7 and #11.

The likelihood that this is true on a
reasonable scale is statistically very, very small.

The market determines
demand for STRs, not the supply.

When STRs pivot to longer term
occupancies in a jurisdiction that has no limits or proximity, the long-term tenants benefit

from maintained and renewed properties.

Research suggests
that the presence of STRs INCREASES the availability of housing units for long-term tenants as otherwise unused second/recreational houses are activated.

28) Page 25: STRs DO NOT increase real estate process according to research ordered by the County of Sonoma and provided by Dr. Rob Eyler of Sonoma State University (EFA).

There has not been any instance where a real estate
seller needed to disclose that a STR permit, or license existed in an adjacent property, according to industry experts.

Prove it or stop fear mongering.

29) Page 25: The possibility that a non-hosted STR could turn into an incident is real.

However, neighbors of STRs should fear their own government due to at least two pretextual incidents where government officials in Santa Rosa “commandeered” STRs, in violation of leases and permissions by the owners and booking platforms, to produce events with large numbers of people (these are the only significant incidents to report about STRs since the licensing system began). Because STRs are regulated, the likelihood of owners causing an incident are very remote.

There is a possibility that guests
might break the rules; that’s why the person who breaks the rules should be held accountable.

Activist staff, pandering politicians, and anti-STR forces have been trying to use fear to their advantage, so if residents are fearful then the parties who fomented the fear should answer to that.

If there was
no “neighborhood notification” many neighbors would be otherwise unaware a STR is next door.

30) Page 26: The City’s “War on STRs” has pitted neighbor against neighbor using rumor, innuendo, propaganda and fear techniques, by not providing verifiable facts in the deliberations over policy and regulations, and by not providing a fair and functioning code enforcement system for ALL property complaints that is free from corruption, STR owners, managers and guests as well as property owners and residents overall are negatively impacted by the City’s War on STRs.

31) Page 26: There is no proof that STRs have a negative effect on neighborhood cohesiveness and character.

There has been a consequence
of the City’s War on STRs in that a local terrorist group called “Homes Not Hotels” has emerged, so I guess that is one form of neighborhood cohesiveness.

The few dozen Homes Not Hotels members, because of the
implied permission of staff and elected officials have abused STR owners, workers and guests including trespassing, swatting, business interference, vandalism, slander/libel, and assault.

Without proof, the City (our City) is just
trying to demonize STRs.

32) Page 26: There is no proof that STRs reduce the number of students in public schools.

The leading indicators for a declining school population include an aging demographic, lower birth rate, educational alternatives.

33) Page 26: There is no proof that STRs reduce the number of community volunteers, or “regulars” to local businesses.

STRs increase business,
REGULARLY, and STR owner managers and associated business have an admirable record of community involvement. On behalf of our non-hosted STR, we lead our
local neighborhood group, responsible for over $500,000 in improvements over the past 7 years.

34) Page 26: Problematic homes occupied by long term tenants, owners in residence, or even vacant have as high or higher propensity to “damage feelings of community and safety” than STRs.

35) Page 27: Beware the double-speak, activist staff and pandering politicians have their agendas.

36) Page 29: Comments about the proposed changes to Chapter 2-48 to the City Code will track those changes.

Respectfully submitted,

Eric Fraser

TRUTH IN TOURISM
[email protected]

Short-Term Rentals
Ordinance Amendments
Planning Commission
April 27, 2023
Shari Meads
Senior Planner
1 Project Description
2 Short Term Rentals Ordinance Amendments
• Revise and add new definitions and policies
• Incorporate technical changes including reorganization and the addition of clarifying language to improve
functionality and aid in implementation and enforcement • Review community feedback received since August 2022
What is a Short-Term Rental?
3 Short-Term Rentals (STRs) are the rental of a private residence for less than 30 days
Hosted STR: The homeowner lives and sleeps on site
during the STR period.

Non-Hosted STR: The homeowner does not live
and sleep onsite during the STR period.

Background
4 • Prior to 10/13/2021 - No regulations for STRs, other than prohibiting in most accessory dwelling units, and requiring Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and Business Improvement Area (BIA) assessments
• 8/10/2021 and 9/14/2021 - Economic Development Subcommittee directed staff to regulate STRs
• 8/2021 and 9/2023 - Online community survey and virtual public meeting • 10/13/2021 - City Council adopted Ordinance No. ORD-2021-011 to add Chapter 20-48, Short-Term Rentals to the Zoning Code
• 5/17/2022 - Economic Development Subcommittee directed staff to bring forward amendments to stop accepting new non-hosted applications and clarify code enforcement
Background
5 • 08/09/2022 City Council adopted Ordinance No. ORD-2022-008 and Resolution RES-2022-177 to set a maximum number of 198 non-hosted STRs, clarify enforcement penalty information, and establish a STR Permit renewal fee
• 9/23/2022 to 12/18/2022 – Online community survey
• 10/2022 and 12/2022 – Pop-up events
• 11/14/2023 and 12/12/2023 – Virtual community meetings • 11/16/2023 – Santa Rosa Tourism Business Improvement Area Advisory Board meeting
Standards and Requirements
6 Permit Requirement
198 Non-Hosted Short-Term Rental Permits Citywide
1000’ Separation Between “New” Non-Hosted Short-Term Rentals Overnight Guests = Two per Bedroom (Maximum of 10)
Daytime Guest Allowance = ½ # of Overnight Guests
Parking Requirements = One Space per Bedroom
Quiet Hours = 9 p.m. to 8 a.m. and no Outdoor Amplified Sound Fire and Life-Safety Requirements
Events Prohibited
Neighbor Notification
Code Enforcement Penalties
7 Initial Complaint Directed to 24/7 Contact
Non-Hosted Short-Term Rentals
- Locations
8 https://SRCity.org/STRSearch or go to srcity.org/STR and select “Search STR Permits” Data retreived 4.6.2023 at 0844
Current STR Permit Status
9 • New STR Permits as of April 13, 2023:

Approved /
Issued
Pending /
In Plan
Review Denied Withdrawn
TOTAL
PERMIT
APPS
Hosted 58 17 1 7 83
Non-
Hosted 167 19 8 15 209
TOTAL 225 (77%) 36 (12%) 9 (3%) 22 (8%) 292
• 60 renewal applications received
• 4
non-hosted and 1 hosted located in a non-residential zoning district • As of 2021, the City had 69,495 residential units -less than 1% are STRs Current Code Enforcement Status
10 Code Enforcement Status as of April 13, 2023:
• STR related complaints received: 281
• Enforcement cases closed: 263
• Enforcement cases open: 18
• Administrative citations issued: 119
• Assessed penalties: $85,000
 First citation: 88 at $500
 Second citation: 21 at $1,000
 Third citation: 10 at $2,000
Proposed Amendments
11 • Section 20-48.010, Purpose.
 Technical changes.
• Section 20-48.020, Application of this chapter.
 Technical changes.
 Clarify that requirements apply to STR owners, agents, local contacts, short-term renters, and daytime guests of short-term renters. • Section 20-48.030, Definitions.
 Technical changes.
 Deletion of unnecessary terms.
 Addition of definitions for: Renoticing Fee, STR Permit Application – New, and STR Permit Application – Renewal.

Proposed Amendments
12 • Section 20-48.040, Short-Term Rental Permit requirements and limits.  Permit requirements: Technical changes and addition of unit type restrictions.
 Location requirements and permit limits: Technical changes and addition of policy to limit owners to one hosted and one non-hosted permit.
 Initial application: Technical changes, clarify application requirements, remove language related to Operators in Good Standing and New Operators.
 Duration of STR Permit: Clarify that permits are valid for one-year and automatically void upon expiration but can be renewed.
 Annual Requirement: Clarify renewal process, requirements, and limits.

Proposed Amendments
13 • Section 20-48.040, Short-Term Rental Permit requirements and limits (continued).
 Neighbor notification: Clarify notification and renotification requirements.
 Transferability: Clarify non-transferability.
 Loss of Operator in Good Standing Status: New section to clarify causes for loss of status.
 Denial: Technical changes and addition of justifications for denial.  Appeals: Clarify appeal process.

Proposed Amendments
14 • Section 20-48.050, Registration requirements.
 Technical changes.
• Section 20-48.060, Occupancy and parking requirements.  Technical changes.
 Clarify parking size requirements consistent with City standards. • Section 20-48.070, Operating requirements (formerly Operational standards).  Technical changes.
 Reorganize to include general and life safety operating requirements.  Prohibit bonfires at STRs.
 Add language for outdoor lighting, trash/recycling, water conservation, and exit, fire and emergency signage requirements.

Proposed Amendments
15 • Section 20-48.080, Enforcement.
 Rewritten to clarify enforcement remedies and options and provide an overview of how complaints may be submitted.
 New language:
 Reenforces local contact failure to respond per requirements constitutes a violation of the permit;
 Aligns penalties for STR violations with California Government Code provisions applicable to STRs, and indicates when and how such penalties shall be assessed; and
 Establishes circumstances under which revocation proceedings are triggered and clarifies the types of violations that constitute verified violations for revocation proceedings.

Zoning Code Text Amendment Findings
16 • Zoning Code Section 20-64.050(B) requires the following findings to be made for a text amendment:
 The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, and any applicable specific plan.
 The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
 The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code.
 The proposed amendment has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality ACT (CEQA).

Community Outreach and Engagement 2021
17 Community survey August 2021 - responses:
• Establishing a permit requirement and occupancy limits; • Extended quiet hours;
• Noticing of adjacent property owners;
• Requiring a limit on the number of STRs allowed by owner; • Advertising requirements;
• Annual renewal requirements;
• A limit on the number of rental nights allowed per year; and • Enforcement policies that include fines and removal of license/ability to operate STR.

Community Outreach and Engagement 2022
18 • Community outreach and engagement August 2022 to present:
 Focus group meetings with industry representatives and neighborhood individuals/groups
 Public survey
 Pop-up events
 Two citywide meetings
 Santa Rosa Tourism and Business Improvement Area meeting  Sonoma County Action Partnership Roseland Community Building Initiative meeting
 KBBF live radio broadcast
Community Outreach and Engagement 2022:

Survey Results Summary
19 • Demographic information (respondents could choose all that apply):
 87% of respondents are full-time Santa Rosa residents  76% own residential property in the City
 15% live in rental property in Santa Rosa
 22% own commercial property in the City
• STR Ownership (respondents could choose all that apply):
 87% are not STR owners
 13% own an STR in the City or another jurisdiction
• Living proximity to a STR (respondents could choose all that apply):
 17% live near a hosted STR
 36% live near a non-hosted STR
 21% do not live near a STR
 36% are unsure if they live near a STR
Community Outreach and Engagement 2022:

Survey Results Summary (continued)
20 • The existing cap of 198 non-hosted STRs citywide:
 63% responded that the cap should be unchanged or that fewer non- hosted STRs should be allowed
 35% responded that there should be no cap or that more non-hosted STRs should be allowed
 3% did not answer
• Should the City limit how many STRs an entity can own:
 68% responded yes
 29% responded no
 3% did not answer
Community Outreach and Engagement 2022:

Survey Results Summary (continued)
21 • The existing 1000-ft minimum distance between non-hosted STRs in single family dwellings:
 65% responded that the 1000-foot minimum distance should be unchanged or made larger
 29% responded that the 1000-foot minimum distance should be made smaller or eliminated
 5% did not answer
• The existing 1000-ft minimum distance between new non-hosted STRs in single family dwellings Downtown:
 60% responded that the required minimum distance should be the same as citywide
 35% responded that the required minimum distance should be less Downtown
 5% did not answer
Community Outreach and Engagement 2022:

Survey Results Summary (continued)
22 • The 1000-ft minimum distance between non-hosted STRs in multi-family units citywide and Downtown:
 66% responded that multi-family units should be separated by 1000-feet, more than 1000-feet, or not allowed in multi-family units  29% responded that the required distance should be less than 1,000-feet or removed entirely
 6% did not answer
• Code enforcement penalties:
 75% responded that the existing penalties are adequate or not harsh enough
 19% responded that they are too harsh
 6% did not answer
Community Outreach and Engagement 2022:

Results Summary (continued)
23 • Council district in
which respondents live:
 1: 4%
 2: 12%
 3: 11%
 4: 33%
 5: 6%
 6: 6%
 7: 5%
• 10% of respondents do
not live within City
limits, and 10% did not
respond
Community Outreach and Engagement 2022:

Advantages Sited
24  Economic benefits (TOT and potential for related activities to increase sales tax).
 Positive impact on businesses that support STRs.
 Provide a good investment opportunity.
 Positive impact on tourism (helping Santa Rosa remain attractive and affordable market).
 STR guests frequently visit local attractions/businesses/restaurants.  Offer alternative lodging for traveling families and professionals.  Allows individuals to keep their homes in challenging economic times.  Non-hosted STRs provide greater income/flexibility than long-term rentals.  Non-hosted STRs allow families/individuals who live in different places for periods of the year to make money while they are away.

Community Outreach and Engagement 2022:

Disadvantages Sited
25  Non-hosted STRs are hotels/businesses otherwise not allowed in residential.  1000-foot non-hosted separation did not apply to Operators in Good Standing so has not reduced overconcentration.
 STRs not subject to same degree of inspections and restrictions so have an unfair advantage over other lodging.
 Each STR potentially removes a residential unit that could be used by someone/a family hoping to live full-time in the community.  STRs inflate real estate prices, but neighbors wanting to sell must disclose a STR nearby – potentially negatively impacting home values.  Possibility that non-hosted could turn into an incident requires neighbors to be constantly on alert.

Community Outreach and Engagement 2022:

Disadvantages Sited (continued)
26  STRs can pit neighbors against neighbors.
 STRs have negative effect on neighborhood cohesiveness and character.  STR owners making money at expense of neighbors’ ability to peacefully enjoy their homes/outdoor spaces.
 Non-hosted STRs reduce community connections and reduce number of students in schools, community volunteers, and “regulars” at local businesses.  Frequent turnover of guests damage feelings of community and safety – guests do not consider impacts on neighbors and do not keep same waking hours of surrounding homes.

Issues
27 • Based on community response, the following potential additional amendments have been identified:
 Prohibit non-hosted STRs in residential zones.
 Decrease, increase, or eliminate non-hosted STR cap.
 Reduce or increase required non-hosted setback.
 Provide alternative separation requirement for multi-family units. • Staff is not recommending any of above changes at this time.  Implementation may make existing permits filed/issued in good faith non-conforming
 Staff has not received direction to make fundamental changes to the Ordinance
 Suggestions would be major shift from adopted regulations California Environmental Quality Act
28 • Not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c) - The activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
• Not a project as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15378, as it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
• Exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this Ordinance or its implementation would have a significant effect on the environment.

Recommendation
29 It is recommended by the Planning and Economic Development Department that the Planning Commission, by resolution:

1. Recommend to City Council adoption of Zoning Code text amendments to Title 20 of the Santa Rosa City Code, Chapter 20-48, Short-Term Rentals, to revise and add new definitions and policies, and to incorporate technical changes including reorganization and clarifying language to improve functionality and aid in implementation and enforcement.

Questions
30 • Shari Meads, Senior Planner
• Jessica Jones, Deputy Director-Planning
• Jesse Oswald, Chief Building Official
• Lou Kirk, Assistant Chief Building Official
• Paul Lowenthal, Division Chief Fire Marshal
Short-Term Rentals webpage:
srcity.org/STR
Short-Term Rentals dedicated email address:
[email protected]
From: Erik Linde
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission; Fleming, Victoria
Subject: [EXTERNAL] No non hosted STR’s in residential neighborhoods Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 8:08:48 PM
Hello commissioners,
I would like to address a couple things that I see as problematic with allowing STR’s in residential neighborhoods. We all know that there is a affordable housing issue in Santa Rosa. There are other consequences to low availability of housing.

I. The citizenry is getting older, these citizens no longer have kids. Without available affordable housing, families with kids can’t find housing or afford housing. School funding and enrollment is being affected and schools are closing. Workers are unable to work where they live and we are forcing workers to drive into town to work.

The city councils mission is:

To provide high-quality public services and cultivate a vibrant, resilient and livable City

1. Deliver Housing for All
Pursue housing options for residents of all income level.

4. Promote Economic and Community Vibrancy
Sustain and develop a diverse and thriving economy that benefits Santa Rosa residents and businesses and contributes to the community's economic health.

Airbnb is a $74 billion company, netting 2 billion a year. I would say at the expense of our housing stock and community fabric.

Please outlaw STR’s in residential neighborhood. Allow working families to live here, enrich our neighborhoods, sustain our schools. The general plan is asking for more units to be built, that will take time. We need all available housing to be for our families and community. Then, maybe our children will be able to move back and make a life here instead of being priced out by speculative and predatory buisness model. How does this make Santa Rosa a more livable vibrant city? Erik Linde
(C) 530-945-4612
From: Jose Arturo Ibarra
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose any increase in the current cap of 198 non-hosted STR in our residential areas.

Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 5:36:46 PM
As a Santa Rosa resident, I oppose any increase in the current cap of 198 non-hosted STR in our residential areas. Furthermore, I believe all non-hosted STR should be located only in commercially zoned areas of the city, where all other commercial lodging facilities are located.
-----
Best regards,
Jose Arturo Ibarra
Contact CELL #: 707.858.8040
From: Monica Bryant
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose non-hosted Short Term Rentals in residential neighborhoods Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 4:42:02 PM
Dear Planning Commission,
As a Santa Rosa resident, I live next to a non-hosted short term rental. It is out of place and harms the neighborhood with

its commercial approach. Wine Country
Redwood Estate comes up on google maps when friends and family come to visit us at our house adjacent to this "estate". Hosted short term rentals are fine with me. I have friends who rent a room over

their

garage on airbnb. A non-hosted
"estate" next to our home of 37 years negatively

impacts our neighborhood. I
oppose any increase in the current cap of 198 non-hosted STR in our residential areas. And when those 198 non-hosted

STRs end, phase them out completely. In
addition, I believe all non-hosted STR should be located only in commercially zoned areas of the city, where all other commercial lodging facilities are located.

Thank you for your work for our community. Santa Rosa is a great place to live. It has gone through so much with the fires. Please keep the long view in mind for making Santa Rosa a healthy beautiful community.

Sincerely,
Monica Bryant
--
Monica Bryant
Mo Ni Kai Art Studio
2625 Fir Park Way
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
707 481 3415 mobile
[email protected]
https://www.monikaiart.studio/
@monikaiart
@monikaiart
From: priscilla bale
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to unhosted short-term rentals Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 9:05:43 PM
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
My name is Priscilla Bale.

My husband and I own our home in Bennett Valley.

Before I begin this letter, I want to acknowledge and thank the Santa Rosa Code Enforcement staff who have been very responsive and helpful to us.

There is an unhosted short-term rental house located directly behind our home.

According to its permit application, it is owned by a wealthy out-of-town couple.

It
is managed by a professional vacation rental company.

The internet rental listing for the house extols it in detail as an ideal entertainment spot.

I'm sure you have heard all the horror stories about unhosted short-term rentals.

Our experience has been typical - a steady stream of loud, disruptive, daytime and nighttime outdoor parties that often culminate in shouting, drunken carousing, and foul language.

One drunken tenant even began shouting the "F" word over and over.

My husband and I are concerned about inviting our granddaughters, ages 13 and 8, over to our home.

Complaints to the management company have resulted in the parties being shut down at 10pm, but the managers have done nothing about screening their tenants.

Consequently, we do not feel secure in our home when there is a

party across the
fence. We don't know who will be living across the fence from us on weekends nor do we know if they are bringing drugs into our neighborhood.

Our next door
neighbor, an elderly widow, was afraid to call the police during the last rowdy party.

She told me that she was afraid of reprisals.

Last month, NBC News reported on a story from August, 2021.

A 19-month-old
toddler died from fentanyl exposure at an unhosted Airbnb short-term rental in Florida. The previous tenant had hosted a drug party in the house a few days before.

House cleaners did not do a thorough job and probably left some fentanyl residue behind.

The City has instituted some new rules that should help this situation.

A City
employee will come to our neighborhood to validate complaints about a party.

If a
weekend is busy, though, it may require some time for the employee to arrive - meanwhile, the neighbors will have to endure the noise. The new City rules still do nothing about identification of strangers that the tenant has invited into the rental home.

Finally, proponents of unhosted short-term rentals are arguing that they bring income and jobs to Santa Rosa.

Actually, short-term rentals diminish our local
economy.

They remove prospective family homes from our very limited housing inventory and they reduce the value of the homes surrounding them.

Our realtor
has told us that having a short-term rental behind us has probably reduced the resale value of our home by at least 15%.

There are 6 homes located around the rental
house - causing 6 families or couples to suffer a substantial equity loss.

If you
multiply

the number of unhosted short-term rentals in the City by 6 and then by

0.15..you will end up with a multi-million dollar loss to residents.

If all these homeowners seek to have their property tax assessments reduced, how much property tax money will Santa Rosa lose?
Unhosted short-term rentals are destroying our residential neighborhoods.

Residential neighborhoods are the beating heart and soul of Santa Rosa.

Unhosted
short-term rentals belong in commercially zoned areas - not in residential areas.

Houses not Hotels.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

From: Scott Barbour
To: Short Term Rentals; _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment for STR Meeting on 4/27 Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 7:03:42 PM
Hi there,
I'm the owner of a non-hosted, properly permitted, STR in Santa Rosa and have been operating in good standing by the City regulations and have a 5 star rating on AirBnB. As far as I'm aware, there have been no complaints made to anyone about any of my guests.

I take pride in being a positive contributor to the neighborhood and broader community. My housekeepers earn $200 each time they clean the home, which is 100% of the fee I collect from guests. My property manager has a daughter

whose business connects traveling visitors
to local Santa Rosa restaurants and attractions they may enjoy. These positive guest experiences are, I believe, good for the image of Santa Rosa and benefit the economy during their stay at my home as well as when they refer friends/relatives to the area for visiting or relocation.

I'm fully supportive of heavy fines for violations and reasonable restrictions, such as limiting permits to 1 per owner.

There are two amendments to the current STR regulations that I firmly oppose:
1) Limiting the number of nights per year I can host STR guests.

If I'm in good standing, and will be punished harshly for violations, it seems my incentive is to continue to be on my best behavior. Why punish me when I'm a good host and neighbor?

2) Disallowing STRs in residential zones.

This would not only ruin my investment opportunity (which isn't your concern, I know) but would deprive visitors wanting to visit/stay in Santa Rosa's actual neighborhoods and enjoying what we have to offer them. Families may not be able to afford so many rooms in a hotel here, so may instead choose to go elsewhere. This would result in the loss of many positive opportunities for Santa Rosa.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration in these important matters, Scott
From: Paule, Stanley
To: Meads, Shari
Cc: Janette Paule
Subject: [EXTERNAL] STR ordinance Review-THIS EMAIL IS MEANT TO BE READ INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD AT SR COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27,2023
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 7:22:13 PM
Good evening:

The Santa Rosa planning commission has solicited the input of current Hosted and Non- Hosted short-term rental operators. I and my wife are Hosted STR operators.

We pay our property taxes the same as those neighbors who are up in arms about the viability of their neighbor STR operators. The current ordinance comes close to criminalizing hosts of short-term rental operators.

We request that no additional punitive restrictions be placed on STR operators until there is a working group assembled for ordinance discussion that includes the City Council Member in each district with one Hosted and one Non-Hosted STR operator and an equal number of neighbors in order to hash out reasonable objections and remedies. All voices must be heard.

Our recent experience with an administrative citation illustrates the severity and the injustice of the current ordinance that begs to be reviewed.

Having been noticed that our online Hosted BnB listing was missing several elements cited in section 20-48.070D, we quickly

made the changes within hours. I wrote an appeal to the enforcement officer stating that this was an oversight due to a family emergency and that the corrections had been made within hours and asked if he could reduce the $500, 1st offense fine to a warning.

He passed the appeal onto a senior code enforcement officer who wrote to me stating
"Though I completely understand this sentiment, please understand that Code Enforcement staff have been given specific direction by the City Council to enforce the Short-Term Rental Ordinance in a vigorous and assertive manner that we must follow." The City Council must amend the ordinance to remove "shall" to "may" to give code- enforcement officers the discretion to exercise judgment to respond to a first offense with a warning rather than an immediate $500 fine.

The City Council and Staff don't appear to have a good understanding of the nuances in the Short Term Rental business.

I believe this is probably due to the "torch and pitchfork" mentality the neighbors to Non-Hosted STR homes have brought to the Council's attention. As mentioned earlier, there should be an established work group in each district to advise the Council Member.

One size doesn't fit all and there are substantial differences between a hosted "mom and pop" STR and a Non-Hosted STR.

A $500 fine for a Hosted STR equals about a week of revenue for the Hosted, and approximately one night of revenue for the Non-Hosted.

Please ask your staff to report how many public nuisance violations have been reported about Hosted STR.

We request The City Council to amend the Table 48.1 Enforcement Penalties to be changed to lesser amounts for Hosted STRs: 1
st violation for administrative or public nuisance violation- a warning; 2nd citation $250 fine; 3rd citation $750, 4th revocation of the STR permit.

We fear that there is no appeal process that fairly arbitrates complaints and grievances. If an up-in-arms neighbor next to an STR wants 'stick-it-to" the STR operator next door, all they have to do is repeatedly complain to code enforcement, and under the current STR Ordinance Enforcement Penalties, the third violation within a year costs the operator $2000 and revocation of the STR permit for the remainder of the year.

We request the City Council establish a grievance hearing process to hear both sides of the story in order for there to be justice for all parties. The current process does not provide for a reasonable appeal process allowing the operators a reasonable process to be heard and understood.

Under the current ordinance, a one or two-bedroom Hosted STR is allowed two guests per bedroom and 50% of that amount for guests during daytime hours. This is too restrictive for small Hosted STRs.

We request that the City Council amend the ordinance to allow a one-to-one ratio of visitors to guests when the permit allows up to four overnight guests.

The current ordinance states that "#8. The short-term rental unit shall be made available by the owner for inspection by code enforcement, building, police, or fire personnel by request at any time."
This is an undue process that would reasonably fail in a court of law adjudicating a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches by a government. Even landlords must give their tenants a 48-hour notice to enter or inspect a rental property.

We request that the City Council amend the ordinance to state that a STR unit shall be made available for inspection after a 48-hour notice.

Please discuss our proposals. We are willing to meet with Council Members or their staff to explore fair and just outcomes.

Thank you,
Stan and Janette Paule
707-331-0024
*Wire Fraud is Real*.

Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions.

Additionally, please note that the sender does not
have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication.

From: Anna Patterson
To: Jones, Jessica
Cc: Meads, Shari
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Non-Hosted STR in Residential Neighborhoods Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 9:04:02 AM
Hi Jessica,

Great, thank you so much for responding.

One additional note that I should have included.

I am a
full time resident and homeowner in Santa Rosa on Alta Vista Ave.

I just wanted to make sure this
was received as an opinion from a local resident, since I am, born and raised in Santa Rosa.

Thanks again,

Anna Patterson

From:

Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 8:13 AM
To: Anna Patterson <[email protected]>
Cc: Meads, Shari <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Non-Hosted STR in Residential Neighborhoods

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the proposed Short-Term Rental Ordinance amendments.

Your
e-mail will be provided to the Planning Commission and included in the project materials.

Thank you,
Jessica

From:

Anna Patterson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 7:34 AM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Non-Hosted STR in Residential Neighborhoods

Dear Planning Commission,

Non-hosted STRs do not belong in residential neighborhoods, so I object to increasing the allowed limit and believe they should be restricted completely. In our neighborhood, non-hosted STRs are being used for wine tours and party weekends with continually loud pool parties, oversized groups, and police intervention.

The neighborhood has seen groups walking down the street to the other Airbnb with glasses of wine, garbage being thrown in their yards while they “bring the party down the street” after the police show up, visitors driving the opposite direction on one-way street, and glares at homeowners in their yards.

To mischaracterize this as temporary housing for workers in the construction and medical fields is disingenuous.

Hotels are zoned for a reason, and this does not match a residential neighborhood.

The non-hosted STRs are being used as hotels for wine country experiences and directly impacting the housing values of the people living next door to one.

Thanks,

Anna

From: David Quenelle
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Cc: rick; Jose Arturo Ibarra
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Short Term Rentals in residential areas of Santa Rosa Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 6:16:30 AM
Dear City Council members,
I am writing to encourage the Santa Rosa City Council to vote against any increase in the current cap of 198 non-hosted Short Term Rentals in our residential areas.

It seems to me that limiting non-hosted STRs to commercial areas of the city would offer people who live in residential areas protection from the inevitable intrusion STRs bring to our neighborhoods.

Thank You for your consideration.

David J Quenelle MD

FACS
2734 Treetops Way
Santa Rosa CA

95404
707-484-7136
From: Eric Fraser
To: Weeks, Karen; Sanders, Terrence; _PLANCOM - Planning Commission; Holton, Jeffrey; Duggan, Vicki; Cisco, Patti; Carter, Charles; Peterson, Julian
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Roles of persons in the STR ecosystem; Draft Enforcement Matrix Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 10:32:03 AM
Attachments: Santa Rosa Enforcement Matrix Draft 042723.pdf Santa Rosa STR Program- Roles.pdf
Santa Rosa STR Program - Roles and Enforcement Matrix 042723.xlsx Hello Chair Weeks and Commissioners,
As promised, attached are pdfs of the worksheets we prepared for discussion of the roles of people in the STR ecosystem, and enforcement actions that may be directed towards people in those roles.

The attached Excel workbook has two tabs; one for defining persons with legal responsibilities, the other contains the Enforcement Matrix.

Our information includes the following suggestions:
- The person who creates the violation is responsible for the violation. - Unfounded, false, and vexatious complaints penalize the Complainer. - Most violations that are administrative in nature are infractions, more serious violations for nuisance are misdemeanors.
- When calculating fines for Owner/Operators, verified violations at ALL of their permitted properties over the past year are considered as prior violations.

By holding Owners/Operators with multiple properties (limit: 3 non-hosted) accountable for all prior violations when calculating the fines or other enforcement actions they would be subjected to thereby escalating more severe penalties when compared to an Owner/Operator of a single STR.

I'll send an additional email summarizing our sentiments for today's commission meeting.

Respectfully Submitted,
Eric Fraser
Truth in Tourism
707.479-8247

[email protected]
(Permission granted to publish phone and email address) Chapter
section Description Law Reference Issue Type of Action Who is primarily subjected to the enforcement action? Process Notes Fine Appeals process
20-48.040
Failure to File
for hosted STR
Permit
Owner/Operator fails to file for
hosted STR Permit Infraction Owner/Operator
Administered
by the Code
Enforcement
Director or
assigned
junior
officials.

Allowed to cure and pay TOT, if failure to cure,
violation becomes a infraction with penalties of
$500, $1,500, and $2,000.

Code Enforcement Director
followed by appeal to a
Judicial Officer
20-48.040 Failure to File
for STR Permit
Owner/Operator fails to file for
non-hosted STR Permit, or
deliberately misrepresents their
permit as "hosted".

Misdemeanor Owner/Operator
Administered
by the Code
Enforcement
Director or
assigned
junior
officials.

Allowed to cure and pay TOT, if failure to cure,
violation becomes a misdemeanaor with
penalties of $1,500, $3,000, and $5,000.

Code Enforcement Director
followed by appeal to a
Judicial Officer
20-48.050
TOT Certificate,
payment
requirements
City Code 20-

54.100
Certificate not obtained, TOT not
remitted
Misdemeanor with specific
processes in City Code 20-54 Owner/Operator
Handled
entirely
within the
Finance
Department
20-48.060 A
and B
Occupancy
Limits
Short-term Renter exceeds
published and contractual
requirements for total occupancy
anytime during day or night
according to proof by Complainer
and legal process
Infraction against Short-term
renter at first, creates an
infraction for the
Owner/Operator if the problem
is not addressed in 45 minutes
of complaint. If "party", "special
event", or a declared nuisance
than it may be a Misdemeanor
for the Short-term Renter
Short-term Renter, with repercussions for
the Owner/Operator if not addressed with
in 45 minutes.

Administered
by the Code
Enforcement
Director or
assigned
junior
officials.

For the Short-term Renter, a penalty of $500 for
first violation, for the Owner/Operator a
warning on first violation for not responding to
the Complainer within 45 minutes, followed by
increasing fines of $500, $1,000, $2,000. For
the Owner/Operator the assessment of
penalties considers enforcement history over all
properties for the past year.

Code Enforcement Director
followed by appeal to a
Judicial Officer
20-48.060 C Parking City Code
Chapter 11-08
Short-term Renter and guests
violate Parking Restrictions.

Owner/Operators' defective
advice may have contributed to
the problem. According to proof
of the Complainer and legal
process.

Depending on circumstances, a
citation to the owner of the
vehicle will be cited. The
Citation will contain more
information about fines and
appeals
Owner of the vehicle is the primary subject
for enforcement. If the parking problem
was caused by misrepresentations on the
Owner/Operator's permit application,
advertisement, or contract then the
Owner/Operator will be subjected to a
penalty of Misdemeanor
Administered
by the Code
Enforcement,
Fire, and
Police
Departments
in the City
The vehicle citation is handled by the vehicle's
owner according to information on the citation.

If the Owner/Operator is cited, the fines are
levy after given an opportunity to cure good-
faith errors followed by fines of $1,500, $3,000,
$5,000. The owner/operators' history over ALL
registered STR properties for that
Owner/Operator is considered for level of fine.

For the Vehicle Owner, the
process is stipulated on
the Citation. For the
Owner/Operator, the
process is administered by
Code Enforcement with an
administrative review by
the Code Enforcement
Director, followed by a
Hearing Officer, then a
Judicial Officer, if
necessary.
20-48.070 A
1 Other Codes and
Laws TBD According to proof and legal
process
Enforcement Matrix for Chapter 20-48, Short-term Rentals 20-48.070 A
2 Noise City Code 17-
16 A violation of either quiet hours
or daytime standards according
to proof provided by Complainer
and legal process
Depending on the
circumstances, a citation will be
issued to the Short-term
Renter.

Short-term Renter, with repercussions for
the Owner/Operator if not addressed within
45 minutes.

Administered
by the Code
Enforcement
Director or
assigned
junior
officials.

For the Short-term Renter, a penalty of $500 for
first violation, for the Owner/Operator a
warning on first violation for not responding to
the Complainer within 45 minutes, followed by
increasing fines of $500, $1,500, $2,000. For
the Owner/Operator the assessment of
penalties considers enforcement history over all
properties for the past year.

Code Enforcement Director
followed by appeal to a
City Hearing Officer, then
a Judicial Officer
20-48.070 A
3 Outdoor Lighting According to proof provided by
Complainer and legal process
Infraction if good-faith error,
Misdemeanor track if bad-faith
Owner/operator. If violation was caused by
a material omission or deception on the
permit application, the Owner/Operator is
subject to the Misdemeanor track for fines
and appeals
Administered
by the Code
Enforcement
Director or
assigned
junior
officials.

If good faith error, Owner/Operator is allowed
to correct. If bad-faith misrepresentation on the
permit, the fines are $1,500, $3,000, $5,000.

Code Enforcement Director
followed by appeal to a
City Hearing Officer, then
a Judicial Officer
20-48.070 A
4 Trash According to proof provided by
Complainer and legal process Infraction Owner/operator
Administered
by the Code
Enforcement
Director or
assigned
junior
officials.

Infraction: Allowed to cure, followed by fines of
$500, $1,500, $2,000
Code Enforcement Director
followed by appeal to a
City Hearing Officer, then
a Judicial Officer
20-48.070 A
5 Permit Posting According to proof provided by
Complainer and legal process Infraction Owner/operator
Administered
by the Code
Enforcement
Director or
assigned
junior
officials.

Infraction: Allowed to cure, followed by fines of
$500, $1,500, $2,000
Code Enforcement Director
followed by appeal to a
City Hearing Officer, then
a Judicial Officer
20-48.070 A
6 Water
Conservation
Advice for Short-
term Renter
According to proof provided by
Complainer and legal process Infraction Owner/operator
Administered
by the Code
Enforcement
Director or
assigned
junior
officials.

Infraction: Allowed to cure, followed by fines of
$500, $1,500, $2,000. Violations at all the
owner/operator properties over the past year
considered when assessing fines.

Code Enforcement Director
followed by appeal to a
City Hearing Officer, then
a Judicial Officer
20-48.070 A
7 Events or
Gatherings
City Code 17-
16 According to proof provided by
Complainer and legal process
Misdemeanor for Short-term
Renter, Misdemeanor for
Owner/Operator is failure to
address the problem within 45
minutes.

Short-term Renter, with repercussions for
the Owner/Operator if not addressed within
45 minutes.

Administered
by the Code
Enforcement
Director or
assigned
junior
officials.

For the Short-term Renter, a penalty of $2,500
for first violation, for the Owner/Operator a
warning on first violation for not responding to
the Complainer within 45 minutes, followed by
increasing fines of $1,500, $3,000, $5,000. For
the Owner/Operator the assessment of
penalties considers enforcement history over all
properties for the past year.

Code Enforcement Director
followed by appeal to a
City Hearing Officer, then
a Judicial Officer
20-48.070 A
8 Advertising
Requirements
According to proof provided by
Complainer and legal process Infraction Owner/operator
Administered
by the Code
Enforcement
Director or
assigned
junior
officials.

Infraction: Allowed to cure, followed by fines of
$500, $1,500, $2,000. Violations at all the
owner/operator properties over the past year
considered when assessing fines.

Code Enforcement Director
followed by appeal to a
City Hearing Officer, then
a Judicial Officer
20-48.070 B Emergency
Planning
Failure by Owner/Operator to
submit and update emergency
plan with application
Misdemeanor Owner/operator
Administered
by the Code
Enforcement
Director or
assigned
junior
officials.

Misdemeanor: Allowed to cure, followed by
fines of $1,500, $3,000, $5,000. Violations at all
the owner/operator properties over the past
year considered when assessing fines.

Code Enforcement Director
followed by appeal to a
City Hearing Officer, then
a Judicial Officer
20-48.070 B
5 Outdoor
Burning, etc.

Failure by Owner/Operator to
follow requirements according to
proof provided by Complainer
and legal process.

Misdemeanor Owner/operator
Administered
by the Code
Enforcement
Director or
assigned
junior
officials.

Misdemeanor: Allowed to cure, followed by
fines of $1,500, $3,000, $5,000. Violations at all
the owner/operator properties over the past
year considered when assessing fines.

Code Enforcement Director
followed by appeal to a
City Hearing Officer, then
a Judicial Officer
20-48.070 B
5 Outdoor
Burning, etc.

Short-term Renter brings
additional devices or violates
house rules according to proof
provided by Complainer and legal
process.

Misdemeanor Short-term Renter
Administered
by the Code
Enforcement
Director or
assigned
junior
officials.
$2,500
Code Enforcement Director
followed by appeal to a
City Hearing Officer, then
a Judicial Officer
20-48.080 Enforcement Unfounded, false, and vexatious
complaints by Complainer
Misdemeanor or Felony, subject
to law and private legal action. Complainer TBD According to State Law 20-48.080 Enforcement Unfounded, false, and vexatious
complaints by City Employee
Misdemeanor or Felony, subject
to law and private legal action. City Official TBD According to State Law Roles of people with contractual
and other legal responsibilities: Definitions:

Agent
Authorized in writing by the Owner/Operator to
handle day-to-day management of the STR. Agents'
contact information is on file with the City and is
public record.

City Manager (City) The City employee with ultimate responsibility for managing the City's STR program.

Code Enforcement, Director (City) Lead City official legally responsible for administering code violation against STRs
Complainer A person who files an official complaint against any other person in the STR program.

Daytime Guest A person invited into a STR by the Short Term Renter
Finance Director (City) A City Employee responsible for issuing the TOT certificate and administering TOT collection efforts.

Fire Marshall (City) Lead City employee tasked with developing and administering fire saftey and abatement programs.

Hearing Officer (City)
A City employee tasked with hearing the initial
appeal to a decision made regarding STR permits or
code enforcement actions.

Host A person who greets a Short-term Renter and
physically monitors their entire stay.

Local Contact A person stipulated as primary contact when a property is in the pocession of a Short-term Renter
Officer of the Court (State)
A State of California administered professional
assigned for judicial review of an appeal of a STR
issue after the actions of a City Hearing Officer.

Owner/ Operator
The owner of the STR property. The
Owner/Operator's information is on file with the
City and is public record.

Owner/ New Operator The owner of the STR property when first applying for a STR permit.

Owner/ Operator in Good Standing The owner of a property with a history of paying TOT prior to 10/27/21
Parking Director (City) A City employee responsible for creating parking policy.

Planning Director (City) A City employee responsible for issuing permits, and the initial appeals process.

Police Chief (City) A City employee responsible for law enforcement activities.

Short-term Renter A person who contracts with an Owner/Operator for a term of fewer than 30 days.

Tenant
A person who contracts with an Owner/Operator for
a term of 30 days or more. This person is exempt
from STR provisions unless also an Agent.

Vehicle Owner A person who is the registered owner of a vehicle.

From: Jackie Guilford
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission; Short Term Rentals
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment for April 27 Planning Commission Meeting (STRs) Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 10:11:30 AM
I am IN FAVOR of keeping the current STR Rules the way that they are.

I am a single working mom with one hosted and one non-hosted short term rental. I live in Santa Rosa with my two daughters. I am not wealthy and I am not a corporation. The extra

income provided

by listing these homes on Airbnb is critical for paying my family's bills.

I am friendly and in constant communication with my neighbors and I have stricter house rules than the ordinance

requires. I have a noise monitor and I am available 24/7 in case an incident comes up. I have been compliant with all rules and have been paying TOT/BIA since 2017.

I appreciate that rules

are being developed around short term rentals and I think that the ones in place are fair and should

remain. I do not think that responsible, local operators should be limited

to only one permit. If anything

were to change, I would like to see limitations on short term rental operators that live out of the county or are corporate entities.

One other concern that I have is the use of noise monitors. The one that I have notifies me of sounds outside

louder than 65 decibels, which I think is quite strict. I would appreciate

more
guidance on what decibel level constitutes a noise violation as it seems to be quite arbitrary right now. I want to be sure I am in compliance but there is presently not guidance in this area.

Thank you for considering community voices on this ordinance. -Jackie Guilford
STR operator and resident, Montgomery Village Neighborhood From: Jon Atherton
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission; Short Term Rentals
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Short Term rentals allow me to stay in CA - do not do this! Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 9:45:23 AM
Please protect short term rentals and your own constituents who voted for you and expected you to protect them! Quashing short term rentals will not solve California's housing crisis - it will only drive folks out.

With the cost of living dramatically increasing over the past few years and only accelerating with rampant

inflation, being able to rent one's resident on a short term basis allows many people, including myself as a senior, to stay in their home rather than move out of the area.

Some of your residents

travel around California for work or to visit family, and yet call Santa Rosa home base. Short term rentals allow us to afford our homes, not lose access since we again live here the much of the year, and rely on this income to survive and pay our mortgages.

The City Council should protect property rights. Folks bought and made a life here expecting that if they spent their hard earned money, sometimes their life savings, to secure a home, that they should be able to rent it in order to meet the needs of their life.

I visit my granddaughters
in the bay area frequently and will stay for 6-7 days sometimes to help out. Short term allows me to afford to do this!

The City Council should be looking at ways to incentivize more housing and long term rentals if that is the prerogative of the City Council. It does not need to and should not

punish law-
abiding SR residents with new prohibitions and restrictions on private property that propose to fundamentally change the rules to the severe detriment of its constituents.

FAIR rules based on a good neighbor policy is reasonable. Draconian fines with no due process that allows neighbors to abuse the system, and frankly residents is unconstitutional
and will invite litigation and liability for the city.

For all of these reasons, I strongly oppose any rules or ordinances that unfairly target homeowners that use short term rentals to survive and stay in the county.

JJ
From: Judy Gantz
To: Short Term Rentals
Subject: [EXTERNAL] April 27th meeting Please read
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 2:39:45 AM
Those of us who earn income from Short Term Renters have become misrepresented in the Council meetings. The majority of us run really good rentals. Please protect our rights too.

I am a retired widow and this rental income is allowing me to keep my home with a yearly rise in all expenses on a set income. I have NEVER had a complaint from any neighbors about my STR and yet, I could give you many stories about how rude, noisy, and disrespectful some of my neighbors have been to me and my family over the twenty years. If you opened a hearing for people in the county to complain about neighbor behaviors, you would have a meeting for at least a

month!
Please create rules that support those offering STR and their neighbors without prejudice for either side.Using a heavier and heavier hammer of just increasing fines is not the answer. I suggest the following:

BEFORE someone

“breaks the rules” in STR GIVE A handbook simple to read and follow.

Then, if a rule is broken:

First time:

Give ONE warning
Second Time:

Go to mediation with the complainant ( the mediators decide who pays for the session after listening)
Third Time: Give a fine

If the Offense happens a 4th time
1) Remove their license or permit
In this process you recognize humans make mistakes. Let someone fix it. Second time you make two people face and hear each other and hear the complaints or justification. This has the opportunity to create a county culture of tolerance and hopefully more face to face for respect. Normal neighbors make noise, drive fast on roads, etc.

Third time the fine is a harsh consequence, and then the 4th time stops all renting after going through a very fair process.

Making these rules clear to EVERYONE puts us all on equal footing.

Thank you for sharing this perspective I can not attend the April 27th meeting.

Judy
From: Judy Gantz
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] April 27 meeting Please read
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 3:03:19 AM
I can not attend the April 27th meeting online or in person. I urge you to consider my voice in your decision on the STR situation.

After participating in the first meeting April 25th, I understand the difficulty of the decisions you must make around the STR issues. Overall, those of us who earn income from Short Term Renters have become misrepresented in the Council meetings. The majority of us run really good rentals.

I could give you many stories about how rude, noisy, and disrespectful some of my neighbors have been to me and my family over the twenty years and this has NOTHING to do with STR. If STR did not exist and you opened a hearing for people in the county to complain about neighbor behaviors, you would have a meeting for at least a

month!

“Normal” neighbors can be reclusive and do not want to be friendly or have a “cozy" neighborhood. Putting all these neighborhood problems on STR’s is inaccurate.

I am a retired widow and this rental income is allowing me to keep my home with yearly rises in all expenses yet on a set income. Having STR ’s allows more people of different incomes to come our county because of the varied price range for lodging on air bnb. At present, Sebastopol has ONE hotel. The proposed new hotel will be much more expensive than renting air bnb.

I have NEVER had a complaint from any neighbors about my STR. It is hard work to clean and maintain a good rental. We are NOT rich people who run STR’s. We need our rights protected too.

Please create rules that support both those offering STR's and their neighbors.

I do not think
using a heavier and heavier hammer is the answer to the STR complaints.

I suggest the following:

BEFORE someone

“breaks the rules” in STR’s, GIVE out a handbook that is simple to read and follow. Distribute it to County home owners. Ask town mayors to spread the word and get the information out.

Then, if a rule is broken:

First time:

Give ONE warning
Second Time:

Go to mediation with the complainant ( the mediators decide who pays for the session after listening)
Third Time: Give a fine

If the offense happens a 4th time
1) Revoke their license or permit
In this process you recognize humans make mistakes. Let someone fix it. Second time you make two people face and hear each other with the complaints or justification. This has the opportunity to create a county culture of tolerance and hopefully more face to face for respect.

Normal neighbors make noise, drive fast on roads, have parties, blast music, etc. Third time the fine is a harsh consequence. The 4th time stops all renting after going through a very fair process.

Making these rules clear to EVERYONE puts us all on equal footing.

Thank you for sharing this perspective at the April 27th meeting. Please preserve the rights and efforts of STR’s.

Judy
From: Kristin Guerrero
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Reduce and revoke STR permits in the city of Santa Rosa 4/27/23 Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 10:06:16 AM
Hello to all,
Please include in your reading today and for the meeting set for today.

You all have promoted, and permitted excessive amounts of Short Term Rentals throughout the city and the county.

This must stop.

Do all that is needed to reduce and revoke STR permits in residentially zoned neighborhoods.

The 198 cap needs to be addressed, by reducing and eliminating STR’s in our city.

A glaring example of what NOT to do and permit:

Tillmont Way - 2 non hosted STR’s near each other
Kelsey Knolls - 1 hosted STR that is right next to one of the others with the shared property line Three large residential homes that are far less than 1,000 feet apart and on one street the STR homes consume 50% of the homes on that street.

This is vastly unacceptable, and you all know very clearly why.

Do expect solution oriented actions to remedy these problems you all have generated.

Sincerely,
K. Guerrero & Family
Sent from my iPhone
From: Mark Sokol
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission; Short Term Rentals
Cc: Karen
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Feedback for today"s meeting
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 7:34:01 AM
Dear Santa Rosa Planning Commision,
We are writing to express our concern regarding the proposed vacation rental restrictions being considered by the city council. We strongly believe that these restrictions would have a negative impact on our community, and we urge you to reconsider them.

Vacation rentals have become an important part of our local economy, providing additional income for homeowners and supporting local businesses such as restaurants, shops, and attractions. Many families and individuals rely on vacation rentals as a source of income to cover their mortgage payments, property taxes, and other expenses. By imposing more restrictions on vacation rentals, we risk taking away a valuable economic opportunity for our residents and potentially harming our local economy.

Furthermore, vacation rentals provide tourists with a unique and flexible lodging option that allows them to experience our city in a different way. Vacation rentals offer travelers the opportunity to stay in different neighborhoods, experience local culture, and interact with residents, contributing to the diversity and vitality of our community. Restricting vacation rentals would limit the options available to tourists and could potentially discourage them from visiting our city, which could result in decreased tourism revenue and negative impacts on local businesses.

We understand that there may be concerns about noise, parking, and other issues related to vacation rentals. However, we believe that these concerns can be addressed through effective regulations and enforcement, rather than imposing blanket restrictions that could adversely affect the entire vacation rental industry and our local economy.

Based on the
data provided it seems the majority of the complaints come from a small percentage of the vacation rentals.

Why not draft regulations that narrow down the irresponsible managers?

An example would be any non-hosted vacation rental must use a professional property management firm with certifications.

We value the diversity of housing options and the economic benefits that vacation rentals bring to our community. We respectfully request that you consider the potential negative impacts of additional vacation rental restrictions and seek alternative solutions that balance the needs of residents, tourists, and local businesses.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. We are available to discuss this further or provide additional information if needed.

Sincerely,
Mark Sokol & Karen Lambertz
714-227-3334
Owners of

TK4361 - 1505 Jewell Drive
&
TK5122 - 1665 James Ave
From: Mylodge
To: Short Term Rentals
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Sort Term Rentals
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 9:52:46 AM
To Whom it may concern,
As a single guy I always knew it would be hard for me to afford a house in this market.

When I First saw my house I knew it was perfect for me. Not only did it have the classic C
raftsmen

style that I love it had income potential.

I
wouldn’t have to eat rice and ground beef every day of the week to pay my mortgage.

It was a friend of mine who turned me on to Air BnB. She had a granny unit that she rented and had used Air BnB when she traveled.

It has been far more work being a host than having a long term tenant but I make a little more money and have met some wonderful people along the way.

I love to share my favorite places with guests. Not only is it great to hear how much they liked my recommendations but I feel good knowing I have helped the small local businesses that I like so much.

Matt Lodge
830 3rd Street, Santa Rosa
707 799-9173
JOHN GRAY, REALTOR®
CalRE #01971913
600 Bicentennial Way, Ste.100 | Santa Rosa, CA 95403
C. 707.871.7275
Email: [email protected]
Web: johngrayhomes.com
Instagram: @johngrayhomes
WIRE FRAUD IS REAL. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. Real estate agents are independent contractor sales associates, not employees. Owned by a subsidiary of Anywhere Advisors LLC.

From: Gray, John M
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Short Term Rentals Legislation
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 4:33:35 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Hello,

I’m a realtor in the Santa Rosa/Kenwood area and am concerned about the proposed short term rental restrictions under consideration.

Research data shows that only 0.3% of homes in Santa Rosa are engaged in short-term rentals, a tiny amount.

Rather than focus on limiting short-term rentals (which bring meaningful tourism dollars to the community), we should focus on building more housing.

Additionally,
reasonable regulation can address specific neighborhood concerns.

As a short-term rental property owner in Palm Springs, I would encourage you to investigate the well- thought out permitting and restrictions in that city.

These have thoughtfully balanced neighborhood
concerns with property owner inputs.

I believe it’s a model that could work in Santa Rosa.

Link for PS ST Vacation Ordinance

here: https://www.palmspringsca.gov/government/departments/special- program-compliance/vacation-rentals-1098

Best,
John Gray

From: Jonathan Storie
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support Short Term Rentals
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 9:01:46 PM
I am a retired 25 year long Santa Rosa/Sonoma county resident. I operate a licensed, responsible, short term rental in the city of Santa Rosa.

My home is the best maintained
property in the immediate area.

We actively monitor the property and do not alllow parties or neighborhood disturbances.

My rental brings. valuable tourism dollars to the area that supports restaurant’s, shops, the fairgrounds event center and other local businesses.

Exactly
the small businesses that provide living wages to our residents.

It also provides valuable
occupancy and sales tax to the city and county to maintain public services that we all rely on.

Responsibly managed short term rentals don’t detract from our community, they enhance it.

A
few, unfortunate incidents in wealthy neighborhoods should not be impetus to ban and further restrict responsible and lawful STRs in the city.

Please concentrate your efforts on eliminating
unlicensed operator’s, not

the many licensed, law abiding, tax paying community members such as myself.

My wife and I personally rely on our STR to sustain us in retirement.

Please
support responsible and lawfull STRs in our community.

Respectfully,
Jonathan Storie
From: Justine Malone
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Cc: Short Term Rentals
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Short term rentals
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 5:43:57 PM
Hello, I’m writing in support of having legal permitted short term rentals in Santa Rosa. I’ve owned my home for over 20 years. I’ve owned my small business for 15 years. I can’t live on either income alone, so it’s important for my family that we continue to be able to rent out our home to travelers. We have the occasional and regular need to use the home for visiting family so renting it out as a long term rental is not an option for us. If short term rentals were banned in Santa Rosa I will say with almost complete certainty that I would have to sell my beloved family home and even possibly my business, and relocate to another state. We have never had any complaints or violations at our str, and we pay our TOT on time each quarter. We have been hosts for 8+ years. Renting out our home has also allowed us to be able to afford to upkeep it at a level we couldn’t otherwise, and of course to also support other Sonoma County businesses. My business Cast Away Yarn Shop is a popular local shop, I served on the Historic Railroad Square board for 5 years, and I love Sonoma County. I live on the same site (hosted) as my Airbnb. I think hosted single permit holders should remain permitted. Thank you, Justine Malone
Cast Away Yarn Shop
100 4th st
Santa Rosa, Ca 95401
(707) 546-9276
castawayyarnshop.com
From: Monument Home Services Inc Larry Jenks
To: Short Term Rentals
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Short term rental ordinance
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 10:39:53 PM
I am writing to urge loosening of the extreme rules regarding vacation rentals. I feel like it doesn't matter what the public or anyone says, regardless of the multiple zoom "town hall meetings"
None of the suggestions and explanations of short term rental operators have been considered and no part of the ordinance has been relaxed, in fact it seems to be going in the direction of more restrictive rules.

1. First and foremost we have property rights to use our property as we see fit when we own it.

2. Short term rentals are not "party houses".

As owners have testified repeatedly noise
detectors and security cameras have been installed to combat any disturbances.

Due to
probably damage and mess no owner would ever knowingly allow a party. It is one of the greatest fears an owner has.

3. The typical vacation renter is a young family with kids, sometimes traveling with a friendly dog.

Often grandparents rent local homes to vist new grand children. There are many reasons for travelers to prefer to stay in a single family home vs. a hotel. People who rent short term are not crazed partiers.

4. This ordinance is really based upon NIMBY neighbors not liking the lack of control and not liking seeing "new" people in their neighborhood.

Sometimes people are just
complainers, Nextdoor is full of them, for example.

5. It is very hypocritical to vigilantly persecute short term rental homes and at the same time allow homeless to run wild starting fires and severly impacting the lives of people who live nearby.

If you put the same energy into stopping people camping on the Joe Rodata Trail that would be a much more reasonable pursuit.

It appears that the city and
county cares less for residents of Casa Del Sol, southwest santa rosa or Doyle park areas than wealthy residents of Montecito who complain about seeing new people but are very lucky not to have RV;s full of crack heads parked in front of their homes as residents of the west side endure daily.

6. Long term rentals can be a problem too.

Long term renters typically do not care for the
landscape, and do take up the street with excess cars, and do not stay for the very long term.

Why is this ok vs. short term rentals which are impecably maintained.

7. Short term rentals create high paying jobs for landscapers, handymen, and house cleaners.

Short term rentals also generate a significant amount of TOT money.

8. The ordinance was created in a very unfair, sneaky way in that the 1000 foot rule was added after telling new operators to wait until Dec 5 to apply. Many people waited from October until December 5 in good faith only to have the rules changed during the process on the very last day.

In closing do you really have enough real negative data to justify affecting the income of so many short term operators?

This ordinance is based upon a small but vocal group of busybodies and killjoys who get away with harassment of their neighbors and will be soon assisted by the City of Santa Rosa in doing so.

From: Lynette Mcneany
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Short Term Rentals
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 4:44:25 PM
I am writing to you to express my support for short erm rentals in Santa Rosa.

Short term rentals are great neighbors when managed properly, and they help support local jobs in our community, including shops, restaurants, and wineries.

Best regards,
Lynette

If you enjoyed your experience, please take a moment and leave me a review. Click here.

**************************************************************************** **************
This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.

If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter.

If you received this email as a commercial message and would like to opt out of future commercial messages, please let us know and we will remove you from our distribution list.

Thank you.
**************************************************************************** **************
FAFLD
From: JenKin, Madeleine@DOC
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Pro str
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 5:13:42 PM
Hello
I am single 72 year old state worker who owns and operates one Airbnb in sr. As soon as I can I will retire back into my home. When Sonoma developmental center shuttered I had to work in the capital. Later my grandson was born there. I don’t love

living in sac but for now I have
to. My home is well maintained and I can keep it all because it’s an Airbnb. I have a cleaning crew, a gardener and have a group of grounds people at my call. I audit m neighbors frequently to see how they feel. They say few cars, maybe 1, very quiet, no parties.

I leave it
with call me if for any reason you have a concern. LTR lowered my overall value, they always cost me tons of money to return the pty to its better shape. Str let’s me get in weekly. I am depending on the Airbnb to sustain me until I can relocate back to where my heart is, Sonoma county. 1. We are good for businesses.

2.we do add significantly to the tax base, 3. We are not lessening my neighborhood 4. There are constitutional issues with the str ordinance on its face and

in application. 5. Non hosted
are being singled out and unfairly treated. 6. Original promises are being whittled away, reneged on and forgotten. 7. The fines are too high. 8. Sr lacks the resources to investigate complaints fairly. Thank you.

Madeleine Jen Kin, JD
818 523 7078
[email protected]

Get
Outlook for iOS
From: Andrew Smith
To: Meads, Shari
Subject: [EXTERNAL] STR Rentals Comments- Planning Commission - April 27, 2923 Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 6:49:27 PM
The city of Santa Rosa has a housing shortage and still suffers from the Tubbs Fire. Despite thousands of homes rebuilt that were destroyed, additional housing is limited by resources.

Santa Rosa’s housing costs going up despite mortgage rates increasing. People leaving our city due to housing costs. Schools losing students due to housing costs. And governments including Santa Rosa and Sonoma County having trouble recruiting due to housing costs despite good salaries and benefits.

Non-hosted STRs take away existing housing and drive up the cost of housing by investors willing to bid up the price as they can recoup their higher costs with short term rentals. So why would Santa Rosa want a housing policy that does this?
I would recommend the following for the STR program:

Keep the Hosted program as is for owners renting out their property while living there.

No more permits given to Non-hosted STRs.

Phase out the program over two (2) years to give those owners a chance to recoup their investment and even make money. Then decide whether to live in the property, lease it out on a yearly rental or sell it.

Andrew Smith
Santa Rosa
From: Eric Fraser
To: Meads, Shari; City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Deficiencies in the packet for the 4/27/23 Planning Commission Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 6:40:44 PM
Hello Shari;
We are taking a deep dive into the document package provided by your office to the Planning Commission for their meeting 4/27/23.

I'll get into the defects in the information in future communications.

This email indicates serious flaws in the document package.

Attachment

6 - Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments - Redline - appears incomplete as the text ends at the end of the Enforcement Table and does not align completely with Exhibit A, and the pages are not numbered.

Please confirm that Attachment 6 is complete.

Attachment 7 on the Agenda - August 2021 STR Survey Results - is actually labelled as Attachment 8...there is no Attachment 7 apparently.

Attachment 8 on the agenda - Survey 9/23-12/19/22 - is actually labelled Attachment 9 In addition, many of the attachments are unnecessarily large and were not saved using standard procedures that reduce the size of the attachment.

Thank you for your attention to this matter...

Eric Fraser

TRUTH IN TOURISM
707.479-8247
From: Chris Cain
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Cc: rick; Julie Cain
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose non-hosted STR in residential neighborhoods Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 12:24:28 PM
Hello Santa Rosa Planning Commission!

My family and I have resided in Santa Rosa for the past 9 years in the Proctor Heights neighborhood. I just retired from Keysight Technologies as an executive vice president, after 37 years of service to Hewlett Packard, Agilent Technologies and Keysight Technologies. Non- hosted Short-Term-Rentals located within long-term residence neighborhoods likely provides an economic benefit to the non-hosted Short-Term-Rental owner but comes at substantial impacts to neighboring long-term residents. I have witnessed first-hand my neighborhood negatively impacted with higher traffic at all hours of the day and night, increased speeding on our narrow and twisty neighborhood roads, parking that blocks access by residents and emergency vehicles, increased litter (especially liquor bottles), excessive noise, and offensive language. We have rarely had the city respond to requests for enforcement, so these issues continue to happen and are growing as the number of non-hosted Short-Term Rentals grow in our neighborhood. Not all short-term-rental tenants create these issues, but more and more of them are using a short-term-rental to “let loose and party, since we don’t live here”. Our neighborhood increasingly is feeling more like downtown San Francisco, filling with transients that don’t share our family-oriented lifestyle and that has been putting our safety at risk and erodes taxpaying residents’ quality of living. We are giving serious thought to moving elsewhere, where we can again enjoy a high quality of living in a beautiful, quiet, diverse, and friendly neighborhood.

Best Regards,
Christopher Cain
From: deborah leaf
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Short-Term Rental Ordinance changes Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 3:38:54 PM
Dear Planning Commissioners,
On April 27th you will consider recommendations by staff for changes to the Short-Term Rental Ordinance (City Code Section 20-48).

As you consider changes to the Ordinance, the most important and pertinent fact for you to understand is that
Non-Hosted Short-Term Rentals are transient
lodging businesses and a commercial use that is inconsistent with the City’s Zoning Code for Residential Zoning Districts and the General Plan.

The changes being proposed by staff will do nothing to correct those inconsistencies. Achieving consistency with the City's guiding documents is one of the overarching responsibilities of the Planning Commission and at this juncture can only be accomplished by making the following changes to the Ordinance. 1 . Prohibit
future Non-Hosted Short-Term Rentals in all residential zoning districts by removing such districts from the list in City Code Section 20-

48.040.
2 . Allow
existing Non-Hosted Short-Term Rentals that were issued permits within the established cap of 198 to continue operating but restrict their rental to some maximum number of days per calendar year - no more than 45 to 60 days is a good starting point for discussion.

You will hear, or maybe have already heard, stories from people that own, manage and/or support Non-Hosted Short-Term Rentals about how these businesses are essential, beneficial and even welcomed in our community. The sad truth is that they are none of those things. Rather, their stories are self- serving and orchestrated by an industry trade group (Sonoma County Coalition of Hosts) as part of a strategy where pure investment-driven Non-Hosted Short- Term Rental businesses are blending in with the hardship stories of a few truly deserving “Mom and Pop” rental situations in an attempt to preserve their very profitable enterprises.

By choosing to allow Non-Hosted Short-Term Rental to operate in residential neighborhoods the City has consciously chosen to serve and support a privileged minority of 198, while all but ignoring thousands of residents whose daily lives, safety and property values are in real jeopardy because of those 198 Non-Hosted Short-Term Rentals. That is wrong.

It's time to make substantive changes to the Ordinance that preserve the character and safety of our residential neighborhoods and restore houses to being residences rather than businesses. Please do that on April 27th.

Thank you.

Deborah Leaf
From: Peter Borberg
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] SRT
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 4:09:20 PM
I have lived in my Santa Rosa home for 43 years in a quiet neighborhood with 35 homes. We now have two Short Term Rentals on our street.

One is next door to me, which is a large 5 bedroom with a pool on our property line.

There is never a resident living there, only a constant stream of transients.

While not all are “bad actors”, we have
had many loud parties and constant street parking.

Too often they totally ignore the standards set by the ordinance and feel they have a right to disrespect the neighbors because they paid for a weekend of partying.

Calls to the
contact people are minimally effective at best.

I often receive a text stating they have contacted the renters and the car, noise, loud music, whatever, is not from them.

I am then asked to provide verification of complaint.

This is not
my responsibility to enforce standards.

STRs are commercial enterprises and should not be allowed in residentially zoned neighborhoods.

Diane and Peter Borberg
Sent from my iPad
From: Diane Andreini
To: Short Term Rentals
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I support STR"s
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 9:41:41 PM
I have operated a hosted STR thru Air BnB since Sept 2016. This has been a very positive experience for me.

I have met wonderful people from all over the world.

Not one of my
guests has caused any problems.

It has provided me with extra earning so that I can continue to living in Sonoma County.

They have enjoyed staying in Santa Rosa and spend there vacation money here in Santa Rosa.

All in all, it is a wonderful

way to bring new people into
our community and spend their money here.

HOSTED STR'S ARE NOTHING OTHER THAN POSITIVE !!!

Stop trying to do away with STR"s --
!!!
From: Diane Andreini
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Good things about STR"s
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 8:41:31 AM
I have had a hosted private room for many years -- during this time I have not had any problems with any of my guests.

I have meet wonderful people.

These guests bring revenue

into the City and County.

I pay the City 12% TOT (just like the hotel system), guests spend money at small business and restaurants.

I REALLY think if you look at the numbers you will see this a good thing for the City and not a bad thing.

You might like to spend your time and energy on controlling the amount of homeless people that come into our town and how they are supported by local government -- which cost lots of money with no

source of revenue!
Please STOP trying to doing away with STR's that can be a valuable asset to the City and its residents!!
Thank you, Diane
From: Erich Rail
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Non-hosted Short-Term Rentals in Residential Neighborhoods Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 4:03:22 PM
Dear members of the Santa Rosa Planning Commission,
As a Santa Rosa resident, I oppose any increase in the current cap of 198 non-hosted Short-Term Rentals in our residential areas. Furthermore, I believe all non-hosted Short-Term Rentals should be located only in commercially zoned areas of the city, where all other commercial lodging facilities are located.

I’d like to remind you that the decisions you have made in the past and will make tomorrow evening have consequences

- -

serious consequences

- -

to the residents of Santa Rosa that you are duty
bound to serve.

I’d like to share with you the consequences your previous decisions have had on two of those residents.

My wife and I bought our dream retirement home in Fountain Grove in March 2017. We lost it to the Tubbs Fire in October of that year.

We worked very hard, and spent several hundreds of
thousands of dollars of our retirement savings, to rebuild our home and our lives; reoccupying it in April 2019.

Since that time, the 5-bedroom 4,900 square foot house across the street from us was sold to a woman who lives in Georgia and immediately converted it to a non-hosted Short-Term Rental.

Shortly thereafter, the 5-bedroom 3,400 square foot house next door to us was sold to a gentleman who owns two other homes in Sonoma County, and he immediately applied for a non-hosted Short- Term Rental permit.

Finally, the 5-bedroom 4,600 square foot house that shares our back fence was recently sold and the buyers applied for a hosted Short Term Rental permit.

Apparently, after
spending in excess of $2,000,000 for their new home, the new owners have represented to the city that they will utilize the 4,600 main house as a hosted Short-Term Rental, and they will live in the 500 square foot guesthouse.

This defies logic.

As a result of Santa Rosa’s current Short-Term Rental ordinance, we are now surrounded by, what are essentially, three “Boutique Hotels”.

The current ordinance now allows the three Short Term
Rentals surrounding our property to bring in a total of 30 renters each night and a total of 15 additional guests during the daytime for a grand total of 45 unknown people to enjoy the amenities offered by these rentals. We’ve had family reunions, business retreats, anniversary weekends, bachelor parties, bachelorette parties, golf outings; all with the associated good times, loud voices, and loud music that creates anxiety for my wife and me virtually every weekend. This constant flow of unknown people don’t have the respect for the peace and tranquility of our neighborhood that we and our other neighbors do because they are not our neighbors

- -

they’re simply here
temporarily … for a good time.

All of this comes with a steady stream of gardeners, pool cleaners, repairmen, house cleaners, property managers, and the regular sound of “beep, beep, beep” at all hours of the day and night from the minibus that is utilized by the property management company to shuttle its guests to different activities. The rental’s trash cans go out on Monday (the day the gardeners come) and stay out on the street in front of our picture window until the property management company finally takes them in before the next guests arrive on Thursday or Friday.

The circumstances and activities that we endure on a weekly basis describe exactly those of commercial Boutique Hotels.

That’s exactly what these Short-Term Rentals are, and they simply don’t belong in a residential neighborhood.

Some people talk of property rights of Short-Term Rental owners “in good standing” being potentially infringed upon by the implementation of restrictions; but what about our property rights as homeowners “in good standing” of a residential neighborhood? Non-hosted Short-Term Rentals exist to maximize the profit of nonresident owners at the expense of surrounding homeowners whose property rights are being infringed upon.

This body and the City Council has made mistakes in the past. No one could have anticipated the damage that the unrestrained growth of the Short-Term Rental industry would cause to residential communities across our country.

I encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity to correct past mistakes and
beginning the process of undoing some of the damage you have allowed to occur.

I beg you to reject the “technical changes” proposed by city staff and direct staff to draft an ordinance limiting non-hosted Short-Term Rentals to commercially zoned areas of the city.

Thank you.

Erich and Melissa Rail
3615 Tillmont Way
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

From: Josette Brose-Eichar
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Short term rentals
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 10:54:15 AM
Dear Santa Rosa Planning Commission Members,
I do not live in the city of Santa Rosa.

I am a short term rental owner
in an unincorporated area of Sonoma County.

I have read the proposed
changes for your upcoming meeting.

I can find nothing in it that
addresses the rights or obligations of existing short term rental owners.

It appears your document needs to be improved to designate clearly what changes apply to all permit holders, existing or grandfathered permit holders and new permit holders. Specifically it is not clear on the one owner per property point.

I do think it would be
illegal to revoke an existing permit of someone who currently has more than one property that you issued permits for.

Those of us who buy and
improve a property do it with a financial plan to recoup our investment and provide future income. We make these financial decisions based upon the ordinances in place for our business segment a the time.

So
revoking an already issued permit would seem to illegal.

I would suggest that revoking permits that you have already issued under changed rules may result in a lot of lawsuits for the city of Santa Rosa.

The county had this realization, and those of us who had permits kept them.

Sincerely,
Josette Brose-Eichar
Boyes Hot Springs.

From: [email protected]
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose non-hosted STR in residential neighborhoods Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 10:14:09 AM
Please do not raise the current cap on Non-Hosted STRs in residential areas. The large home behind me is already trying to get an STR permit – we have lived here 20 years and it would be a complete nightmare for us to have constant weekend partiers right behind us while we are trying to enjoy our home and yard.

This particular house has converted their garage to a game room –and build an un-permitted bathroom and granny unit – both of which they are already advertising on both AirBND and VRBO without an STR permit. They only have two parking spaces on the property and are promoting a 5- bedroom / Sleeps 12 rental with “plenty of street parking” and “an amazing sound system”:
https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/710060941916376590?
source_impression_id=p3_1665420744_lGqYupDuMUJu0E6X
https://www.vrbo.com/2998973?adultsCount=10&unitId=3571017

These rentals are devastating for neighbors’ peace and quiet, not to mention negatively affect local hotels and restaurants which have already felt the impact of COVID.

I vehemently oppose new STR permits. Thank you for listening!

Keli Vice

Vice Communications
(707) 527-8423 (voice)
(707) 228-5028 (text)
[email protected]

From: Ken Piazza
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Non-Hosted STR in Residential Neighborhoods Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 1:57:41 PM
Planning Commission Members,
I am a concerned Santa Rosa resident and homeowner who is extremely opposed to any increase of the current Short Term Rental cap of 198 and the loosening of any restrictions on Non-Hosted STR units. All Non-Hosted Short

Term rentals have no place in a residential
neighborhood and belong only in an

industrial zoned area of the city where you find
other

commercial

lodging. I have lived in Santa Rosa for 35 years and am a homeowner

in a
residential neighborhood in Northwest Santa Rosa. With the allowing of Non-Hosted STR units in residential neighborhoods, my wife and I ,who live literally next door to one of these STR hotels,are saddled with the increase noise from the occupants, underage drinking and loud parties,large parties in violation of STR regulations and revolving tourist and venue buses coming in and out of the neighborhood during various times of the day We have no idea who these occupants are, who come and go on a weekly basis.To top it off,the owner of this STR Hotel by us

doesn't even live in the area or state. He lives on the eastern seaboard.

As a Santa Rosa Resident I am extremely opposed to Non-Hosted STR "hotel" units which have no place in residential neighborhoods which are for the residents of this community, not hotel occupants

who belong in commercial

zoned areas of our city.

Thank you for your time.

A Concerned SR Resident,
Ken Piazza
From: Marie P
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] No unhosted short term rentals!!!
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 11:22:23 AM
Hello,
I live next door to an unhosted short term rental and it is a nightmare. We never know who will be there. We dread Fridays when they arrive. Will this be a good weekend or a bad weekend for us? Who IS next door to us??? There have been parties, excessive cars and two weeks ago the house was broken into. No house on our block has even been broken into that I know of.

I don't understand why a hotel is allowed in a residential neighborhood??? It is unsupervised.

It is a business. In a residential neighborhood where we have lived for over twenty years! Here's a picture of a wine van picking up people this past week, it happens all the time. We're in a regular subdivision. This is a business masquerading as a home. It's awful. We have plenty of hotels in Santa Rosa for people to stay at. Hotels belong in commercial areas.

Please stop all unhosted short term rentals. I have no problem with hosted rentals. I have no problem with rentals. But these unhosted short term rentals are a hotel and a business in a residential neighborhood. They don't belong here!!! Please stop our nightmare. No unhosted short term rentals should be allowed in residential neighborhoods.

Regards,
Marie Piazza
From: Maureen Linde
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Cc: Fleming, Victoria
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Short Term Rentals
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 11:06:17 AM
Good morning- My name is Maureen Linde. My and my husband and I are Sonoma County natives and we live next door to a short term rental. I will be at the upcoming meeting to speak, but I also wanted to send you an email in case one of you aren't present, or if the meeting goes too long and I am unable to speak.

husband and I moved to our current east Santa Rosa home in 2014. It is in a beautiful area of Hidden Valley. It was not the most attractive home on the block when we bought it and we have worked tirelessly for the past 8 1/2 years to make it our own.

About a year and a half ago our next door neighbor at the time put her home on the market and unbeknownst to her sold it to an AirBnb host. This "neighbor" I must mention, lives in Southern California and has eight other short term rentals throughout California and touts herself as an "STR expert". This has become her business. It is very big business! If you don't think one homeowner owning 8 short term rentals doesn't have an affect on the housing and rental market, you are mistaken. This homeowner does not volunteer to clean up the parks (as my husband and I do), she doesn't volunteer in

schools or vote for you (as my husband and I
do), she is a property owner here because it was easy for her to get a license and start her lucrative business on the backs of unsuspecting homeowners.

This short term rental next to our home is listed as a 4 bedroom, however on the tax records it is a 3 bedroom and was sold to my prior neighbor as a 3 bedroom. How the short term rental can list it as a 4 bedroom is hard to comprehend. I have asked code

enforcement about this
discrepancy and I haven't had a reply to my inquiry. Also this home has a pool. The 8 people that they can legally host as well as an additional 4 people as their guests creates a party atmosphere. There is typically drinking, smoking (even though it is a non-smoking home), yelling, foul language, splashing, dogs barking, kids yelling, music well beyond the 9 o'clock curfew, cars coming and going, etc.

My husband works from home and it has become difficult to conduct business from his office when this home is occupied. We typically leave all our doors and windows closed to minimize the distraction and noise from the property. It has greatly affected our peace and privacy.

I have been given names and numbers to call and it seems easy to make a call to get a complaint rectified, but sometimes it takes hours of back and forth texting and calling to get a resolution. We are the ones policing this home, It is unfair that you are allowing this business to reside in a beautiful, once peaceful neighborhood. Please take into consideration how you would feel if this home were next to you. How would you want the city to react? You can make all the rules and regulations, but the fact of the matter is, this is a business and it should not be allowed to ruin the sanctity of our neighborhood.

I want to mention one other thing before I close. I am also a licensed real estate agent. If we were to sell our home to escape this insanity, we will have to disclose living next to this short term rental. Our equity is greatly affected by this short term rental. Who will compensate us for that? Who wants to buy a home next to a short term rental? Would you? Would you want your "neighbor" to be a short term rental? I bet not.

Please I implore you to do the right thing as other cities have and ban non-hosted short term rentals within a residential neighborhood.

Thank you,
Maureen Linde
From: Mike Bryant
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Cc: Mike Bryant
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose non-hosted STR in residential neighborhoods Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 10:57:51 AM
Dear Planning Commission members,

I believe all non-hosted STR should be located only in commercially zoned areas of the city, where all other commercial lodging facilities are located.

No one in favor of non-hosted STR's is sharing a backyard to backyard fence with one.

The
noise and drinking is burdensome.

Please support our homeowner interests and keep non-hosted STR's out of residential areas.

Thank you,
Michael Bryant

distressed homeowner living next to a non-hosted STR
From: Peter Burrell
To: Short Term Rentals; _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Objection to Short term rentals in residential neighborhoods Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 2:14:00 PM
Good Day,
I am writing to express my objection to Short term rentals in residential neighborhoods.

I live next to a short term rental.

It's been a concern for us and causes great anxiety for our

family whenever new people arrive.

It attracts big groups of people of all sorts coming to party in Santa Rosa.

We've all

heard
horror stories of what has happened in short term rentals.

The LLC that owns the next door property is made up of out of town investors

from the East
Bay that own multiple Short term rentals in Santa Rosa and other Bay Area communities.

You can tell by the way they operate the property they don't care about our neighborhood, only maximizing their profits
Many cities have outlawed short term rentals because of the destruction of the

social fabric of
neighborhoods.

It must be expensive for

cities to regulate and police the rentals that seem to
be disregarding

the laws.

Have you considered allowing them only in the same zoning as hotels? You should consider that there are more than 3000 short term rentals in the area, so they will have a louder voice than the opponents of short term rentals.

These owners have money to use to garner support so they can continue their large annual income streams.

Please consider allowing short term rentals only in commercial neighborhoods.

Thank you,
Peter Burrell
Santa Rosa, CA
From: rick
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Short term rentals-SOSR vs SCCH
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 9:27:20 AM
Much of Santa Rosa is eagerly anticipating the Planning Commission meeting tomorrow. The residents of Santa Rosa are eager to present our case for maintaining the existing 198 cap and arguing for a reduction in that cap.

In addition to all the residents composing Save Our Santa Rosa, you will be hearing from many members of a group called the Sonoma County Coalition of Hosts (SCCH).

This group is composed of owners and operators from throughout the county, not just Santa Rosa.

It is the same group who rallied its members to appear before the Board of Supervisors and the Windsor Town Council.

Based on the fact that there are between two and three thousand “vacation” rentals in Sonoma County and only 198 non-hosted STR in Santa Rosa, it’s reasonable to assume that most of the members of SCCH are not Santa Rosa residents. They are effectively outsiders trying to impose their vision of unlimited STR’s everywhere not only in Sonoma County and Windsor, but now ,also, in Santa Rosa.

Please keep this in mind as you read their emails and hear their testimony.

Thank you, Rick Abbott

Sent from Mail for Windows

From: SCOTT VOTEY
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose non-hosted STR in residential neighborhoods Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 10:18:08 AM
To the Planning Commission:

As a Santa Rosa resident I oppose any increase in the current cap of 198 non-hosted STR in our residential areas. Furthermore, I believe all non-hosted STR should be located only in commercially zoned areas of the city, where all other commercial lodging facilities are located.

Scott R. Votey MD
5784 Trailwood Dr, Santa Rosa, CA 95404
From: V T
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission; Jones, Jessica
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Non-Hosted Short-Term Rentals
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 3:03:38 PM
Dear Ms. Jones,
If I may, I would like to add to my previous email and emphasize how stressful the burden of monitoring non-hosted short term rentals is for those of us living next to them, or nearby. As you recall, even the Santa Rosa Police Chief was frustrated with the complicated enforcement situation.

The burden of monitoring, documenting, and reporting violations is not something the residents should assume. We merely wish to enjoy our home-time when we get back from work. We don’t wish to invest in sound pressure meters, recording equipment, cameras, or to hire attorneys to litigate. The emergency ordinance is for all practical purposes impossible to enforce. We really should not have any non-hosted short term rentals in residentially zoned parts of town.

Thank you very much for taking these comments under consideration.

Best regards,
Vladan Temer
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023, 04:03:48 PM PDT, Jones, Jessica <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for your e-mail to the Planning Commission regarding the proposed Short-Term Rental Ordinance amendments.

Your e-mail will be provided to the Planning Commission and included in the project materials.

Thank you,
Jessica

-----Original Message-----
From: V T <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 9:07 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Non-Hosted Short-Term Rentals

Dear Planning Commissioners,

On April 27th you will consider recommendations by staff for changes to the Short-Term Rental Ordinance (City Code Section 20-48).

As you consider changes to the Ordinance, the most important and pertinent fact for you to understand is that Non-Hosted Short-Term Rentals are transient lodging businesses and a commercial use that is inconsistent with the City’s Zoning Code for Residential Zoning Districts and the General Plan.

Prohibit future Non-Hosted Short-Term Rentals in all residential zoning districts by removing such districts from the list in City Code Section 20-48.040.

Allow existing Non-Hosted Short-Term Rentals that were issued permits within the established cap of 198 to continue operating but restrict their rental to some maximum number of days per calendar year - no more than 45 to 60 days is a good starting point for discussion.

You will hear, or maybe have already heard, stories from people that own, manage and/or support Non-Hosted Short-Term Rentals about how these businesses are essential, beneficial and even welcomed in our community. The sad truth is that they are none of those things. Rather, their stories are self-serving and orchestrated by an industry trade group (Sonoma County Coalition of Hosts) as part of a strategy where pure investment-driven Non-Hosted Short-Term Rental businesses are blending in with the hardship stories of a few truly deserving “Mom and Pop” rental situations in an attempt to preserve their very profitable enterprises.

It's time to make substantive changes to the Ordinance that preserve the character and safety of our residential neighborhoods and restore houses to being residences rather than businesses.

Please do that on April 27th.

Thank you.

Vladan Temer
From: Eric Fraser
To: [email protected]; Rogers, Chris; Rogers, Natalie; Meads, Shari; Alvarez, Eddie; Stapp, Mark; MacDonald, Dianna; Fleming, Victoria; Okrepkie, Jeff
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Planning Commission Presentation; errors and ommissions Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 11:10:57 PM
Attachments: Presentation (44).pdf
Dear Mayor Rogers and City Council;
Today I testified to the City Council about errors and omissions by staff leading up to the 4/27/23 Planning Commision Meeting regarding changes to the STR Ordinance