 anticipated by the end of the month. Given the criteria, the county expects the mask mandate will likely remain in effect through the end of the year with hopes of being able to lift the order sometime in January. Our own organizations update related to COVID-19. A total of 80% of our permanent city employees have submitted proof of COVID vaccinations at this time. Those who have not submitted proof of vaccination have been enrolled in the COVID-19 testing procedures which are now ongoing on a weekly basis. The city continues to plan for Monday, November 1st as our official back-to-campus date for the entire organization. We also look forward to getting back to participating in and hosting more in-person events and community meetings beginning this month and going forward. We also want to make sure that we recognize all of those employees that have continued to work in person in the field throughout the pandemic. Our firefighters, our police officers, our transit and public works employees, our recreation and park employees, and many of the employees who have staffed public counters and operations here at City Hall. We are very grateful to their dedication during the pandemic and their continued service to the community. Our second update this afternoon is our Community Empowerment Plan update. Magali Telus, our Deputy Director of Community Engagement, will share this update with the City Council. Good afternoon, Mayor Rogers, members of the Council. I wanted to be able to provide a very quick, brief update on what the Community Engagement Division is doing in terms of our Community Empowerment Plan. A quick update on the Mary Lou, which is the Santa Rosa lowrider patrol car. The staff is working with the Sonoma County Lowrider Council to craft a plan for our unveiling event, which hopefully will be January 8th of 2022. Lots more to come on that, and that will include the documentary that we've been working on with FTA Productions. That sort of highlights the inception of the car, the idea, where we are situated today, and then after the Mary Lou will take its maiden voyage downtown followed by other cars. So we're very much looking forward to that. In terms of the Multicultural Roots Project, I wanted to announce an exciting opportunity for the community. Through our collaboration with the Sonoma County Museum, we will be hosting an exhibit for our Multicultural Roots Project. There will be a display for the Adelos Muertos, and the exhibit will open starting October 16th through November 7th, with October 16th being the first day and a free day for families. So we do encourage folks to check that out. In terms of the resolution for declaring racism a public health crisis, staff will be bringing the resolution to council on November 16th, and included in the resolution are steps that will be taken by the city and address issues as well as commitments that the city can do through the adoption of the resolution. And we look forward to presenting the resolution again on the 16th and having further discussion on how we can address issues of systemic and institutional racism as an organization. Lastly, through the Community Empowerment Plan listening sessions, we're going to be holding the first set of listening sessions regarding the sideshows that are happening in our community. And the first one will be held actually tomorrow from 6 to 7, and we thought the park and this listening session was designed for community members and business owners in the Roseland area. The second sideshow listening session will be Thursday, October 21st from 6 to 7, that will be via Zoom. And the listening session that will be in Spanish co-hosted by Mujeres Unidas, which is one of our community groups. So we'll have more information on our website. If folks would like to join us for that Zoom meeting in Spanish on the 21st, and definitely keep an eye out for the upcoming other English opportunities to join us. And that is the end of our report. Our third briefing is the Glass Fire Recovery Update, and Paul Lowenthal for our assistance fire marshal will provide this update to the council. Good evening, Mayor Rogers, members of the council. The Glass Fire Recovery Task Force reconvene to discuss the need for the existing proclamation of a local emergency related to the 2020 Glass Fire. The local emergency was originally declared following the September 27, 2020, shading fire that eventually merged and became part of the Glass Fire. That local emergency will actually come before you as a consent item during today's meeting for its extension based on the timing of it. With that, the city received notice from Cal OES at the end of September, roughly two weeks ago, that they've completed 100% of the debris removal within our region, which includes properties in and around the city. We also just recently received the last of our final signoff reports related to the state's debris removal program in the city. This paperwork is necessary to allow rebuilds to proceed on state debris removal sites. That left the private program with us to fully resolve within the city. Earlier last week, we received confirmation from the county of Sonoma that they've completed the remaining ash removal on their campus and the city limits off Pithian Road. The completion of both the state and private debris removal programs has significantly reduced the risk to public health and the environment locally. Based on the status of the debris removal program and the emergency repairs that we've updated council on related to city infrastructure and our open spaces that have been made to date, staff recommending releasing the local emergency and having that release formally placed on an upcoming council agenda for the necessary action. All of their needs related to recovery from the 2020 fire will continue without the need for a local emergency in effect. So with that, we want to note that eight of our rebuilds from the glass fire in progress, six of them are through plan review moving on to the rebuild phase are already in it. We're hopeful that Will's numbers will start to go up quickly following the final signoffs that we've received. As you know that many of the task force numbers that are helping our community through the 2020 fires are the same team that continues to be directly involved in the tubs and nuns recovery. So two quick note were the items from the 2017 fires. First, as you know, we just passed our four year mark for the 2017 fires and based on this timing and the decreased level of risk to our hills as the soils have continued to stabilize and regrowth of vegetation has occurred. Street staff at the request of our watershed representative will be removing the high risk signs from in and around found grove that were placed in those areas for the risk of mudslides and debris flow. The high risk signs will remain in place for the glass fire. Second, we've got roughly 2,618 permits have been pre-processed and just shy of 2,000 rebuilds have been completed. Jesse Oswald provided me with a great breakdown of all the numbers and large projects related to the 2020 fires and the 2017 fires that will work with Adrian to help get provided to council. And lastly, bringing it back to the glass fire, we continue to work with our city attorney's office and outside council regarding the ongoing issues with the trees fell by PG&E following 2020 fires. The current and future impacts this has and will have on here locally. We followed another letter with the CPUC with the city of Santa Rosa County of Sonoma and Napa in late September regarding the status of the current wood management program. Following the direction from the CPUC issued to PG&E that was due in part to our efforts here locally. Last week we met with CPUC's executive director Peterson. As a follow-up to our letter it was a productive meeting and executive Peterson heard our messages loud and clear and ultimately these efforts are intended to help keep our risks minimized and help provide the framework for us locally and at a regional level as well as across all much of Northern California for any future fires and the effects of the PG&E wood management program. With that that ends the briefing and be available for any questions at the end. And our fourth briefing this afternoon and final briefing is on the housing choice voucher program waiting list update. Rebecca Lane our housing and community services manager will provide this update. Good afternoon Mayor Rogers and council members. My name is Rebecca Lane and I'm the manager of the housing choice voucher program and the city's rental assistance programs. I am pleased to be here today to provide you with information about the opening of the housing choice voucher program waiting list. Next slide please. I'll start with some background. The section 8 housing choice voucher program is the largest rental assistance program in the city. We currently assist over 2,000 households who each pay approximately 30% of their income towards their rent with the program paying the balance of the rent directly to the owner. The housing choice voucher program is funded by the department of housing and urban development and administered by local public housing authorities through a funding contract that specifies a certain number of vouchers per jurisdiction. In general there are not enough vouchers under the contract to assist everyone in the jurisdiction that would qualify so housing authorities establish a waiting list for the program. Next slide please. In the city of Santa Rosa the waiting list is organized by date of application and by lottery within the application year. There are a small number of vouchers set aside for target populations through what is known as the limited preference system designed to address specific local needs and we have separate subgroups in the waiting list for openings and properties that are funded by project-based vouchers. Next slide please. In the past our practice has been to open the waiting list to new applicants for one month every other year. The applications were on paper and widely distributed throughout the community. This process was very labor intensive and even before COVID we were developing an electronic alternative to not only improve efficiency of the system but also improve access to the application process. Next slide please. The pandemic did delay our planned waiting list opening for the year 2020 which would have been our final year for paper applications but ultimately we moved implementation of our electronic waiting list from a planned rollout of mid 2022 to September 2021. Next slide please. On the last slide you saw a screenshot of the actual electronic application and here we have a sample of just some of the marketing tools that were implemented to share the waiting list information with the community. Over the last couple of months you may have heard spots on local radio stations, seen ads in print media or through various social media outlets. We've also have posters throughout the city bus system. We included information in the water bill enclosures and we have directly engaged social service agencies in the effort to let people know about the waiting list opening and educate everyone about the new online system. Can we go to the next slide please and can you hit play on the video in this slide if that works? Great thank you. So in addition to outreach and marketing efforts we are providing technical support for anyone who has questions or needs assistance applying. The video that's playing here is one that we can share to walk people through the application process. We also do have staff answering our hotline during business hours who can provide additional support. Also if people can't access the application online we do have a process in place to request an alternate format and we can go to the next slide. Thank you. Oh maybe it's going to finish the video. Thank you. The list has been open for new applications since September 1st and in the first month 4,817 households have successfully submitted applications. By way of comparison during previous one-month openings using paper forms we would receive about 2,500 to 3,000 applications. This year's opportunity to apply to the waiting list will close on October 31st and our outreach will continue throughout the month. And this concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions. All right thank you so much Rebecca. So I'll ask a couple of questions first and then I'll throw it over to my colleagues. For folks who are watching the meeting how would they know if they are eligible? What are the eligible requirements for the voucher program? They will need to be income eligible based on their household size which is at or below 50% of the area median income and that those numbers based on household side are available when you log into the system. They're also available on our website and they are also listed on the paper application that we have set up for alternate access. Okay. Council any other questions? All right thank you so much. You're welcome thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for the other staff briefings? We'll see if there's any public comment on our staff briefings tonight. If you do have a comment go ahead and hit the raise hand feature on your zoom for item 7.1 through 7.4. I'm seeing no hands. I'm seeing nobody move towards the podium in the chamber. Do we have any pre-recorded voicemails? No we do not. All right we'll keep moving then. City Manager and City Attorney of Reports who wants to start tonight. I'm happy to start Mr. Mayor thank you very much and good afternoon almost evening. I'm here to report on the settlements and litigation currently pending in our office. I do want to report out two settlements. I know the materials that were included in the agenda item listed just one but we have reached final settlement on a second case just in the last week or so. The first settlement is in the matter of Terracon versus California versus San Rosa and this is a settlement of a construction contract dispute. It rises out of a contract for replacement of contaminated water lines up in the fountain grove area following the 2017 wildfires. It was a large public works contract. The total value of the contract was a little over $3.2 million. The dispute that led to the litigation concerned payment for certain construction materials and the settlement provides for a single payment of $395,000 to resolve that dispute and that is a full resolution. It's inclusive of costs and there is no payment for attorney's fees. So that settlement is now final and the case will be dismissed. Dismissal is pending. The second case that was just recently resolved is the airport business center versus the city of Santa Rosa. This was a sequel challenge to the city's downtown station area specific plan. We have reached agreement with the airport business center. The agreement is in a form of a parking agreement that will ensure specified access to two existing parking garages. This will be done through the issuance of a number of non-reserved parking permits for garages 5 and 9. With the execution of that parking agreement, I will note that the parking agreement is still going back and forth for final revisions, but the substance is all agreed upon. And with execution of that agreement, airport business center will dismiss the lawsuit and each party will bear their own costs and attorney's fees. So no financial payment in that settlement at all. In terms of pending litigation, those are listed in the chart that was provided. 29 pending matters. All are moving forward. I will note that a couple of the cases that were scheduled for trials in November and in the next couple of months, those trial dates have been continued based either at the request of the plaintiffs or by order of the court. We have not asked for any continuance. We have been ready to go to trial on those cases. In terms of claims, we received one new claim that was listed on the chart. We have received a couple additional claims since the agenda was published. And I will note, just because it may be mentioned later in the day yesterday or the day before, we did receive a large batch of claims related to the short-term rental proposed ordinance that you will be considering later today. And those claims were filed on behalf of an organization opposing that resolution. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Do you have any questions for the city attorney? Okay. Mr. City Manager. Nothing further to report today. All right. Let's see if we have any public comment on item number eight. I see no hands on zoom. Any email or voicemails? No. We received no written public comment on item eight. All right. Are there any statements of abstention from council members? Item number nine. Council Member Tibbets. Thanks, Mayor. I'll be abstaining from item 12.9 declaration of homeless emergency and item 14.1. Both are related to homelessness, which is what I do for work and could tangentially have a material financial effect on my organization. So out of abundance of caution, I will be abstaining. Okay. We'll have that noted. Let's go on to mayors and council member reports. Who wants to start? Council Member Alvarez. Thank you, Mayor. Well, I just want to let everybody know that on October 9th, along with the City of Santa Rosa water, we held a drought drop by event at Colgan Creek Park. It was held from 8 to 12. And I'm happy to report that we pretty much got rid of all the buckets that were there for that day. And we're looking to see where else within district one, we can set up other sites to give away buckets that hold a lot of items to help with not only water conservation, but energy as well. And probably the coolest tool that is within the bucket is a timer. A timer that lets us know we're taking too long of a shower. So it definitely tells us a hurry up. So hopefully, I should say, be on the lookout for future events with the drought drop by. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Fleming. Thank you, Mayor. I'm pleased to announce that after it was brought to my attention following our presentation by Assistant City Manager Nutt that we would be going forward with the 101 pedestrian overcross, there had been a $6 million expended funding gap. And I was able to work with MTC to secure the last $3.4 million and through a deferral of repayment of an earlier loan. So I'm pleased to announce that we have the last $3.4 million in the door. And in the next year, we should see that projects begin to move forward, which I know will mean so much to the Junior College neighborhood and neighborhoods on the other side of the freeway. It's going to really, in my mind, fix a problem that has been too long without remediation. So very grateful to Public Works, SCTA, Suzanne Smith, as well as MTC's Alex Brocklman and staff who work so hard to make this happen. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Swidow. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Alvarez was at one drought drop by event. I was at the other at Youth Community Park on the same day. What was really nice about it is just the fabulous Mr. City Manager, Santa Rosa Water staff. Director Burke was out there, Assistant City Manager Jason Net and some fabulous staff. And what was really nice about it, and I'm not going to talk about all the goodies, there'll be a little teaser to have people come by the next drop by event, but just the positive attitude. I mean, there's some actual, some audits of waters, sprinkler systems went on there just by chance because staff was there. But all the smiles and the appreciative community and our numbers are showing that. So it's a wonderful event. I just want to compliment staff that just made it a fun morning out at Youth Community Park. Council Members on Zoom, any reports? Okay. I wanted to start my report with SCTA, Cinema County Transportation Authority and the Regional Climate Protection Authority meeting yesterday. And I wanted to start by giving props to Council Member Fleming. I think the mad props is the word. So she did touch on it, but SCTA was going to be required to pay back a $3.4 million loan in what's called our STIP funding. And Council Member Fleming, with the work of Suzanne Smith and others from SCTA, were able to convince MTC to defer that repayment to be able to get that $3.4 million in the door instead for a really critical project for our community. As one person said, we'll pay you tomorrow for a project today every single time. And so I just wanted to commend the Council Member for her work on that. We'll still owe that money, but that'll be deferred down the road. And instead of having to compete for additional funding for that project, we now have that project funding in the door. We had a Cinema County, excuse me, Cinema Clean Power meeting last week where SCP is pursuing a geothermal opportunity zone. It's another critical element in addressing climate change within our region. We had a long-term finance meeting this morning with myself and Council Member Schwedhelm, where we did look at the staff's prioritization for the American Rescue Plan Act and the PG&E settlement funds based on the input from Council Members, staff, and the community, and then putting it through the filters that we had discussed from the day, including equity and impact and sustainability. That full list will be coming to the Council on October 26th for approval. We had a Health Action, a Cinema County Health Action meeting last week where they also were looking at the county's potential ARPA funds and giving a presentation to the group on what they're pursuing. There's a lot of overlap and commonality between the city and the county, and they also are in the process of doing a redesign of the Health Action workload based on the equity lens that we've all been pushing forward as well. Finally, last thing to report, we did last Friday have our remembrance for the four-year anniversary of the Tubbs Fire. I want to thank my colleagues, staff, fire survivors, first responders, who are able to attend the bell ringing. It's always a very impactful and moving moment, I think, in our community. It's great to see the progress as homes continue to go up, but it is nice to be able to pause and to remember the impact that it's had both on the lives that were lost and the thousands in our community who continue to be impacted by fire. So I did want to thank staff for arranging that as well. We have one more item associated with our Bears and Council Member reports. I'm going to go ahead and take public comment on individual Council Member reports, as well as comment on the next item, which is the appointment of the City Charter Review Committee Chairperson as one item. We'll do public comment, and then we'll bring it back and see if there's a motion on item 10.2.1, where the recommendation is to select Patty Sisko as the Chairperson for the Charter Review Committee. I'm seeing nobody in chambers with comments. I don't see any hands on Zoom. Are there any public comments? One moment. While you queue that up, I'll come to Council Member Tibbets. I'm sorry, Mayor, I was going to give you a motion for Patty Sisko. All right, we'll come back to you in a moment. Let's go ahead and listen to our voicemail public comment. From Roseland, the appointment of the City Charter Review Committee has been something that a lot of people are not well informed about, because it seems to have been just kind of off to the side and not really advertised real well in typical media format. It's really problematic that you would be appointing a chairperson rather than letting the committee members elect their chair. To many folks in our area, it seems like it's the old go-along-to-get-along approach, same old stuff, different day, the picking inside or somebody who's been on there for a long time. In this case, a woman off of the Planning Commission who always goes along to get along, and that's not a help to the citizens, to the people that want a different approach on our charter. There needs to be changes, district elections, popular elected mayor, opportunities like term limits. These are the things that are really important to most folks out here in our area of Roseland, although we know in your eyes we're newcomers, we've been around a long time and it would be really nice if we could have you folks look at the idea of members of boards and commissions electing their own chairperson like happens on most others happening also here on this Charter Review Committee. They should elect their own chairperson and not have it be chosen by the politicians. Thank you. Mayor, that concludes our voice message public comments on 10.2.1 and item 10 entirely. Great. Thank you so much, Madam Deputy City Clerk. So I'll bring it back. Council, when we discussed how to move forward as a council with the appointment of the chair, I was given authority as the as the mayor to make a recommendation with the pending approval from the full council. Ms. Sisko is on the planning commission, has been the chair of the planning commission appointed by one council member. She was appointed to the Charter Review Committee by a different council member. She lives in a third council member's district from the two that have appointed her in the past. And my recommendation to her is in from a fourth different council district. She's very well regarded. I think she would do a very fair job listening to a number of voices and has a pretty wide perspective on the issues that are facing the city. And I think would do a good job of chairing that committee. So that is my recommendation. I'll see if there's a motion to approve. So moved. Second. We have a motion from council member Tibbets and a second from council member Fleming. Council member Sawyer, did you have comments? His video is off, but his hand is now up. Sorry. I wanted to just force my dissatisfaction and disappointment that a member of the Roseland community would be demeaning the reputation of a very dedicated woman from Roseland that has given so much to this community and to suggest that she goes along to get along is insulting. And I don't appreciate that personal comment from some of it has given so much to this community. Thank you. Thank you council member. Are there any other comments on the motion? All right, let's go ahead and call the vote please. Council member Tibbets. Aye. Council member Schwedhelm. Aye. Council member Sawyer. Aye. Council member Fleming. Yes. Council member Alvarez. Aye. Vice mayor Rogers. Mayor Rogers. Aye. Let the record show, oh I'm sorry that motion passes with six ayes with vice mayor Rogers absent. Thank you madam clerk. So that I believe will conclude our appointments to the charter review committee. I think every council member has now made their three appointments. We've now selected a chair. I want to just express my excitement looking at the committee where it is I think council members were very thoughtful on who they appointed, the skill set that they bring, the background that they bring and the perspective that they bring. It's a lot of new names for folks that have not been particularly involved in the city before and it is a couple of call them old hands who can help steer and provide some historical perspective as well. So I'm really excited to see what comes out of those charter committee meetings. That will move on. We have no minutes tonight. We do have a lengthy consent calendar and so go ahead Mr. City Manager. Mayor Rogers and members of the City Council. We have 10 items on the consent calendar this afternoon. One of those items requires a good cause finding item 12.10 to add to the agenda. Item 12.1 is a resolution for an agreement with the Sonoma County Library for funding to assist in the creation of video public access facilities. Item 12.2 is a resolution approving the adoption of a memorandum of understanding with unit two firefighting represented by the International Association of Firefighters. Local 14.01 effective July 1 through July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024. Item 12.3 also a resolution authorizing administrative cost recovery leans against the real property located at 4760 Granada Drive in Santa Rosa, California. Item 12.4 a resolution providing authorization to continue participation in the Clipper Start low-income transit fare subsidy pilot program. Item 12.5 a resolution fiscal year end 2020-21 budget adjustment related to emergency response expenditures incurred during fiscal year 2020-21. Item 12.6 a resolution making required findings and authorizing the continued use of teleconferencing for public meetings of the City Council and all the City's boards, commissions, and committees pursuant to Assembly Bill 361. Item 12.7 a resolution authorizing the extension of a proclamation of the existence of a local emergency relating to the 2020 glass fire. Item 12.8 a resolution authorized an extension to the proclamation of the existence of a local emergency relating to the threat to community health posed by COVID-19. Item 12.9 also a resolution authorized an extension of a proclamation of local homeless emergency. And then finally item 12.10 a resolution in opposition to the application of the North Coast Railroad Company LLC to transport high-volume shipments to the port of Humboldt Bay through Northern California and support of the North Coast Railroad Authority's request to rail bank its line from Willets to Humboldt Bay for potential future multi-use trail use. That concludes the consent calendar items and I'll turn it over to the City Attorney regarding item 12.10. Thank you. I actually want to address two items that are on the consent item consent calendar. The first is 12.7 which is the extension of the proclamation of existence of a local emergency related to the 2020 glass fire. Earlier this afternoon you did receive a report from Assistant Fire Marshal Paul Lowenthal indicating that the grounds for the declaration of the local emergency have resolved and that is that resolution is no longer necessary. We will be bringing back to Council in the next meeting or two a formal termination of that declaration of emergency. But in the meantime I would recommend that the Council simply withdraw that item, that 12.7. The declaration will then expire by its own accord but we also will need to take formal action to confirm that termination of the emergency. Then turning to item 12.10, this item was not on the Council's preliminary agenda for this evening and as you know the Council's early agenda policy generally requires that all items of business appear first on the preliminary agenda published at least nine days before the Council meeting and then again on the final agenda published at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. There is an exception that allows for that Council to consider items that were not on the preliminary agenda that can be placed on the final agenda and considered only if there is a showing of good cause and only with a concurrence of six Council members. Showing a good cause requires a finding by Council that as a result of exceptional circumstances beyond the control of Council compliance with the preliminary agenda requirement would quote impose a substantial burden on the City's ability to conduct its business or result in prejudice to a private person. As I mentioned, item 12.10 did not appear on the Council's preliminary agenda and this item is a proposed resolution that will state the Council's opposition to the application of North Coast Railroad Company to acquire and rehabilitate the rail line from through Northern California in order to allow the North Coast Railroad Company to transport high volume shipments to Humboldt Bay. It is anticipated that those shipments will be for coal. The resolution will also express the City's support for the North Coast Railroad Authority's request to rail bank its line for future use as a multi-use trail. Meetings are scheduled in Washington D.C. to discuss these proposals and those meetings will happen before the Council's next regular meeting. Were we to delay this item to the next meeting, the City would lose its opportunity to advocate for its position in those meetings and therefore we do believe that there is a basis for a finding of good cause to move forward with this item. Thank you. Thank you Madam City Attorney. I will first open up for public comment the Consent Calendar and include in it whether or not to add item 12.1 to the agenda and then after that I'll come back for separate motions first on 12.12.10. I'll come back for a motion on 12.10 and then potentially the full Consent Calendar after. Do we have any comments tonight on the Consent Calendar? I do see a hand from Gregory. Thank you. My name is Gregory Farron. I want to applaud Anne Hammond and Eric McHenry for 12.1. I've been probably a pest on this for at least four years, five years, trying to restore video access, public access to residents of Santa Rosa has been one of my primary goals and this looks like it's going to do it so I want to thank the staff of both the library and the city. I'm looking forward to helping people implement this. I think one of the best ways to get Santa Rosas to know about Santa Rosa is to have videos about Santa Rosa on our television station and I thank the city for helping pay for it for the next five years and I hope to try to expand it. Thank you very much. Thank you Gregory. That's the only hand that I see. Madam Deputy City Clerk, do we have any prerecorded voicemails? We do. Item 12.6 resolution. This is about the meetings being hybrid approach teleconferencing. Hopefully you folks would see that it's possible to have large gatherings now and that these meetings could be held in such a way with this hybrid approach where people could be coming in to the chambers like you're doing with the council meetings occasionally. But for all boards and commissions it's really important that we get back to the norm as much as possible as soon as possible. Right now the baseball and football games have stadiums packed with 60,000, 70,000 people and right next to each other and here at these city meetings you want people to tend in 30, 40, 50 feet away from the podium where you're at and wearing masks still and then armed guards to make sure it all happens. This is really strange folks. Let us get back to a more democratic approach. Allow the hybrid meetings and do so in such a way that people feel comfortable in our government. Thank you. Here that concludes public comment on the consent calendar. Great thank you. Great thank you. I will first entertain a motion on whether to add item 12.10 to tonight's consent calendar. So moved. Second. Motion by council member Sawyer and a second from council member Fleming. Is there any discussion? All right let's call the vote. Councilmember Tibbets. Aye. Councilmember Schwedhelm. Aye. Councilmember Sawyer. Aye. Councilmember Fleming. Yes. Councilmember Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with six ayes with Vice Mayor Rogers absent. All right I'll come to councilmember Fleming for a motion on the consent calendar. Through the mayor have we determined if we're going to withdraw item 12.7? I think if you make that motion I think that'll carry. I wasn't sure if we wanted a full council on that or if that's up to me. So I will go ahead and take the city managers or city attorneys advice and remove that and move items 12.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 and 10. Okay. And wait a second. All right is there a second? Second. Motion by council member Fleming and a second from council member Sawyer. Any discussion? Councilmember Schwedhelm. Thank you Mr. Mayor. I just had a question or a question on item 12.1 regarding the peg funds. Since my understanding the last five years we've allocated about 750 to the library. I couldn't find what did that what do we buy with that and what's the future plan for that? Sawyer just asked it doesn't need to be I don't need an answer now but if we can get communication to find out here's where those investments are going in addition to those peg funds that didn't go to the library what is the city buying with that specifically we've had some council discussions about overhead some of that equipment in this chamber I'd be interested in hearing where we are with those projects. We'd be happy to provide the council with an update. Great thank you. Any other questions or comments? Yeah just a point of clarification is the I don't have the agenda in front of me is the item the declaration of homeless emergency 12.7 or 12.9? 12.9. So that is not part of the motion currently. Okay great thanks. All right Madam Clerk please call the vote. Thank you. Mayor I didn't get a second. Oh you had a second from council member Sawyer. Okay thank you. Okay council member Tibbets. All right. Council member Schwedhelm. Aye. Council member Sawyer. Aye. Council member Fleming. Yes. Council member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with six ayes with Vice Mayor Rogers absent. Okay excellent and then I'd like to move item 12.9. Second. Motion from Fleming second from Sawyer. Let's call the vote. Council member Schwedhelm. Aye. Council member Sawyer. Aye. Council member Fleming. Yes. Council member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with five ayes with Vice Mayor Rogers absent and council member Tibbets recusing. Okay and council as a reminder based on our open government ordinance our sunshine ordinance we take public hearings that are of high interest as close to five o'clock as we can so we will be moving to item 15.1 that's our public hearing on short-term rental urgency ordinance. I am going to give staff a five-minute break to prepare for that and then we'll come back and take item 15.1. We'll take public comment for non-agenda items after and then we'll do item 14.1 to finish out the meeting after that. That will take a five-minute break. He is such an use. Council member Sawyer. Oh thank you. Thank you. Your mic was live council member and we just muted you. All right Madam City Clerk let's see if we can get some council members back to the dais. All right let's call the roll and see if we have a quorum. Council member Tibbets. Council member Shredham. Here. Council member Sawyer. Here. Council member Fleming. Council member Alvarez. Present. Vice Mayor Rogers. Mayor Rogers. Here. Council member Tibbets have you joined us? Okay let the record show that all council members are present with the exception of vice mayor Rogers and council member Tibbets. All right Mr. City Manager. So we're going to jump to item 15.1 consistent with our ordinance that's our public hearing for the night. I did want to walk through for the council and for the public how we intend to run this item. This is an urgency ordinance. Half of council has not seen this yet and this council in particular likes to make sausage from the dais. So we have a process that tries to help us to get through that. What we'll do tonight is hear the presentation from staff. Council members will ask questions. We'll open the public hearing and take in public comment both the prerecorded and those who are here in person or on Zoom. Then when we come back to the council I think what we'll do is we'll go through everybody's list to see if there are parts of the ordinance that they would like to change or amend or delete. We'll put that all on the table. Then we can walk through it issue by issue as a council. Take a straw poll to see where we're at on each of the items and then that'll allow the city attorney and her team who are working both here and remotely to coordinate on what that language could potentially look like to wordsmith it and then to present it back to council. At that point we then can see if there's support for moving forward on the ordinance or if there's some other type of motion that needs to be made at the time. Does that work for everybody? Great. And I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to you Mr. City Manager. Thank you Mayor Rogers and members of the City Council. The item before the council is a short-term rentals urgency ordinance. Claire Hartman our interim assistant city manager and Sherry Meads our city planner have been doing a lot of outreach and research on this item and we'll be sharing their results and recommendations with you this evening for the short-term rentals urgency ordinance. Good evening Mayor Rogers, Vice Mayor, Vice Mayor Rogers isn't with us. Good evening Mayor Rogers and members of the council. Claire was actually going to kick this part of the presentation off but I don't see her as a panelist so I will just go on ahead and repeat what City Manager Colin said and that is that there she is. I'll be quiet you'll hear enough from me later. All right good evening. Yeah I'm just going to kick it off. Sherry does have the bulk of the presentation so we'll just go ahead and get started next slide. So we're here tonight with the urgency ordinance so not your traditional ordinance that's had you know several months of public engagement gone through design review and or planning commission and then makes it way to the City Council. Urgency ordinances are are unique in that you are making special findings that you can't wait any longer to take action and these these findings relate to essentially public safety health and welfare. So short-term rentals we're at that point. We have no regulations we haven't had any regulations so we're not here to amend regulations we're here to have some. So prior to what we're presenting tonight a house is a house whether you rent it for a weekend or whether you rent it for 12 months or three years. So we don't distinguish in Santa Rosa we haven't and vacation rentals is another way we call these but we're going to call them short-term rentals it's broader. It kind of snuck up on our city four or five years ago you know we would check in with code enforcement or police and and and find out if we were having the same issues that we were hearing about in Sonoma or Spastopol or Hillsburg and and we simply weren't and then we started to get some complaints we started to hear about some vacation rentals moving in next door to our residences and it wasn't until I would say the last 24 but in particular the last 12 months it really has exponentially increased in terms of our awareness of short-term rentals where they are and some of the nuisance factors that can be experienced if they're if they're left unchecked. So one of the things that we've also heard a lot about are impacts to not just neighborhood compatibility basic compatibility issues but also concern about fire safety one is access to the residents that are there for just a weekend or a day and how do we get communication to them if we are in a wildfire season like we are and we're trying to get notifications to all residents even those that are just staying through the weekend. Also if there's over parking that happens at a short-term rental what that happens in terms of impacts to evacuation routes. We've also heard a lot about housing right we are in a housing crisis we're still in the housing crisis I wish someday we'll get there soon that we are no longer in a housing crisis and we have solved that issue but for now we are definitely still in a housing crisis and we need to protect the housing stock that we have and left unregulated we really have no controls over that. We have when we adopted our accessory dwelling unit so as things came up we took note and said oh accessory dwelling units you can know you can't rent those at short-term rentals when the city allocated money towards the red housing fund we put a stipulation in there you can't have it be short-term rentals but we didn't come in with a comprehensive ordinance of any sort to address short-term rentals in general and what that means is no regulations means there's no accountability right there's no way to monitor them to track them to speak with them to work things out there's no enforcement power so we handle a lot of calls and and we meet people out in the field there's very little the city can do and so that's the impetus for the urgency ordinance and here you see the goals so it's accountability you know having that 24-7 contact having some monitoring abilities to have them register and have them be regulated meet basic compatibility standards to be good neighbors and in terms of an urgency ordinance we really focus on the highest highest problem areas in terms of nuisance factors so we you'll hear about noise you know parking events occupancy and so these are the things that we want to address tonight and probably most importantly you don't want to pass an ordinance that you can't enforce so we have developed an ordinance tonight that is is lean and to the point to buy us some time while we take more time to think more comprehensively about this especially as we start to collect more specific data but give us a framework in which we can levy fines and apply enforcement and then last but not least you know there are great things about vacation rentals that support the city's economic engine and also our our restaurants our tourism base and there is a collection of tax so tot is transit transit occupancy tax and bia is business improvement area assessment and these are fees that over you know with the if we can register and track fees is is definitely an opportunity for the city to support next slide so as mentioned by the mayor thank you for that urgency ordinance is is unique it is based on very specific findings out of our the Santa Rosa City Charter we do have the allowance to pass such a measure we have to make specific findings to talk about why it's urgent and most importantly it has to be so important and so in alignment with council's goals and vision it requires a five out of seven council vote so tonight i understand we have one council member absent we still need five council members to vote in a direction so this sausage making will take place tonight we will help you with that but keep that in mind as we look at pivots in the ordinance that we will need almost a unanimous vote to move something forward next slide and what we've learned just in the last few months as we've dedicated some time to this effort is that it has really touched across the organization and we are finding that as we're sharing information that we do have across the organization planning handles a lot of land use questions our counter staff handles a lot of questions about how we regulate or not regulate what the implications are complaints come in to various different staff members so we have engaged representatives of code compliance police and fire and also of water so we've learned a lot in terms of how all these different unique ways that we we hear about short-term rentals and if there's issues or just compliance questions we've also learned that finance and economic development play a big role in helping to either answer questions or support the industry and then we also have worked with obviously our city attorney's office and our communications team to complete the work and before we go to the next slide I do want to give a special thank you to three council members that have played a part in helping us just talk about the issues and to get direction on where to go and it was also supportive of doing an urgency ordinance while we take the additional time to do something more comprehensive and this is council members Fleming Sawyer and Alvarez I just want to thank you for your time because we've spent time in the council's economic development subcommittee on this issue next slide so in terms of out about region engagement this is a short story and we often with urgency ordinances have very little time to go out we did build in a little bit more time than normal because we quickly saw that this was a great interest to the community so it wasn't the it wasn't really appropriate to come up with a draft ordinance on our own in the dark and then put it on the next Tuesday's agenda it did need some vetting needed to be informed and so we did buy ourselves a few months of time to to outreach and one of the biggest opportunities that we came up with was a dedicated webpage so that we could it was a one-stop area so citizens or people interested in this industry could go to one place and and access information follow the project and we'll continue to use this as we move forward we also had a dedicated email address setup and then we'll hear about tonight a short-term Reynolds community survey which greatly informed the urgency ordinance we did get quite a bit of response and I won't still share your thunder on that but that was kind of an eye-opener about how important this issue is for Santa Rosa and how important is to act quickly and not wait another few months to get to a comprehensive ordinance we also took up offers and there was interest on part of the industry to hold a focus meeting which we did we had about about a hundred participants to that we were also invited out to the Montecito Heights neighborhood to walk walk a site and talk with the neighbors that are living next to short-term Reynolds and so I think there was about 30 members that attended that and then as soon as we heard a framework emerge you know we posted the draft ordinance to the website and started to collect comments from the public in that way and since it's posted from from the website to the council obviously it's been informed by public comments that have come along the way and in fact you know it's an evolving process so we are still getting comments and so tonight there are three four items that staff will be recommending that we make an adjustment to make it clear or easier for us to implement or to enforce and with that we'll go on to the next slide and sherry will take it from here that we have some other speakers i'm just going to go over sort of how we ended up with the urgency ordinance why and how the public comments came in and informed the the ordinance that you have tonight and so with that sherry thanks claire so as claire mentioned we we started out gathering information from the different departments that have been hearing from constituents be it code enforcement be it police we would have these regular check-ins and and we took that information first to the what was called the economic recovery task force which was a group that was formed by the city manager in spring of 2020 to work on things during the pandemic and and that type of thing so that group met weekly and then bi-weekly it eventually was reabsorbed into the economic development subcommittee which we met with later but our first our first outreach was with them the economic recovery task force in december of 2020 and because things weren't too too crazy at that time they told us just keep monitoring collect data see what see what other jurisdictions are doing and that'll help inform our next steps so next slide please and what is a short-term rental is probably a question some of you have that are on the on the call and and they're a rental of a private residence for 30 days or less is just a general definition that's that's agreed upon by the industry and there are two different types they're hosted short-term rentals which are the rental of a single room or sleeping area within a dwelling unit where the property owner remains in residence and that definition is a little bit old school it can be more than obviously just a single room but the main point is that the property owner stays in the residence at the same time as the short-term renters and then a non-hosted short-term rental is when the property owner is not in the residence so it can it's typically can also call the whole house short-term rental next slide please and back in july when we had finance dropped this map for us there were 197 registered short-term rentals now since that time the latest poll what on october 7th was that we have a 232 or 237 that have registered so just in that period of time it's increased by 40 so you know that's a that's a pretty dramatic increase from that point next slide please and this shows the revenue that we have received in july so far from those 197 registered short-term rentals the transient occupancy tax and the BIS A assessment that claire mentioned earlier next slide please and at around that same time we engaged with a company known as host compliance who is a third party short-term rental expert if you will they help with per they help with writing policies they help with compliance enforcement they do data mining and they did a web scrape of our area and found at that time in july there were 358 unique short-term rentals advertising so as you can see there's not it's not consistent with how many that were registered at the same time next slide please taking that one step farther they gave us a median nightly rate and an average occupancy rate and just doing a little bit of math shows you that if there were 161 unregistered short-term rentals renting at the median nightly rate for the average occupancy rate there is a hypothetical revenue recovery of $900,000 and bia recovery of $300,000 most of the rentals that they found in our area are whole house aka non-hosted short-term rentals and they're in single family dwellings next slide please so along with gathering that type of data we also started taking a good look at what type of things were we hearing from our constituents what what about a short-term rental made them uncomfortable to live next to and so these are broken into a couple of a couple of different summaries here the community and effects that we heard most about were people worried about their neighbors who were being displaced by short-term rentals owners with multiple properties and absentee corporate ownership coming in and and purchasing up housing stock which then would drive up property rates rental rates and that type of thing how these impacts available housing stock if somebody is renting it out as a short-term rental then that takes it away from the possibility of being a long-term rental or a you know a home on the market for somebody that wants to live here long-term we heard a lot about certain neighborhoods where there were just a lot of them moving in at one time you know several on a block several within two blocks and how they were worried that that would erode their neighborhood cohesiveness and character and you know school enrollment declining and that type of thing we also heard that you know there there's a discrepancy between other lodging types and short-term rentals and that a hotel has you know they have to be ADA compliant and their pool has to be inspected every day and that type of thing and they have to have you know permitting and that type of thing where a short-term rentals were just completely unregulated and we heard a lot about neighbors having a hard time with contacting the owners of of properties and getting the type of resolution to to the more nuisance quality of life type of issues and parking in one neighborhood a short-term rental was being used and there was so much parking on the street which was you know not designed to have parking on both sides of the street that their garbage wasn't able to be picked up one week and so that you know you translate that into somebody needing to evacuate or an emergency vehicle needing to get through and that causes you know frustration and tension among owners and guests and then police and code and fire dealt more with the you know the noise trash and exterior lighting to hear a lot about again the over parking events people were having you know large gatherings and party houses as they were described and then we worried about as Claire mentioned getting a hold of these transient renters that are coming up here from different areas and and you know we don't know that they're signed up for alerts or or that type of thing and so yeah open in the unattended fires and again in evacuation impacts next slide please so we took all of the information we had at that time to the economic development subcommittee in august and we were optimistic that we would be able to prepare a comprehensive short-term rental urgency ordinance relatively quickly and that was their direction to to get one together and bring it back to council as soon as possible and we made a good faith effort in that regard next slide please we had even more people meeting um just to on a regular basis weekly sometimes you know some of us meeting daily um trying to to just get something together that was really thoughtful and we thought would reflect what the best we could you know encouraging tourism to our beautiful area yet recognizing that you know residential neighborhoods are also residential neighborhoods and we wanted to be able to to try to find that balance and and do the best we could to to get some regulations on the books to try to make um the short-term rentals better neighbors and next slide please with that in mind also we thought you know what let's hear what the public has to say Claire summarized it pretty well but we just we really wanted to with the limited time that we knew we had we thought we would be able to get quite a few responses nowhere near as many as we ended up getting I don't think anybody anticipated that we actually ended up getting the second largest survey response in the city of Santa Rosa history second only to uh one other survey that was actually published for a month and we were only out for two weeks so there was a lot of response and we we did want to hear from short-term rental operators and and we did hear from 13 percent of the respondents who were and in addition to all the multiple choice responses there were 1719 individual comments left by people that wanted us to really think about what they had to say next slide please and so I'm just going to very quickly go through the slides they're on the short-term rental website hopefully folks have had a chance to see them already but the first question was just to establish okay who are you how how how do short-term rentals you know do you live here do you own property here next slide then we wanted to find out if people live near them if they operated them and you know how that could impact their their further decisions in the in the survey next slide please so we asked them how you know what did they think we should do to limit short-term rentals some said nothing at all some said you know they should be limited city-wide by neighborhood by street and then 205 people left us their idea of what would be the best way to limit them next slide please we asked where short-term rentals should be allowed and as you can see the the highest response was in commercial zoning districts followed by residential and and on and on next slide please the the most highly responded question in the poll was that they believed short-term rentals should require a permit license or some other type of certification requirement and fees as you can see there was a high response on the limit of total occupancy day guests and vehicles extension of quiet hours was a popular response and and on down I highly recommend you look through this report that's on the website if you haven't already next slide and then this question we should throw this one out but we included it because it was in the survey so for transparency sake it's still here the the question was worded rather poorly and the 103 open ended responses let us many of them let us know that it was just interpreted many different ways so there's really not I don't give any weight to this one personally next slide please then again we asked about enforcement you can see that fines was the number one and so on next slide please so after gaining that much input from the constituents and residents and also amongst city staff saying we need some more time to do this right we went back to the economic development subcommittee and suggested and recommended that we do a more limited urgency ordinance to try to hit the hit the most important public safety issues that we had been hearing about and also the quality of life you know public peace and welfare issues so they graciously agreed to give us more time and that's what we ended up doing and now we're here tonight with the urgency ordinance that was discussed next slide please so now the ordinance itself the ordinance itself is adding an entirely new chapter it's chapter 2048 short term rentals we're giving definitions permit registration registration requirements occupancy and parking standards operational standards and enforcement procedures next slide please this just goes through typically when an ordinance is introduced we go through each of the sections and this is the applicability section it just talks about how it applies to hosted non-hosted short term rentals but not any other transient occupancy types of rentals next slide please we added a bunch of definitions with the draft ordinance because they are so specific to short term rentals or they're just not anywhere else in the city code or zoning code so that's what this slide indicates we also since this time have added a definition for short term rental permit application fee since that was not specified so that is going to be one of the amendments that we discuss later this later this evening next slide please so annual permit requirements this is we developed an entirely new permit for this it's a short term rental permit and it at this point is an annual permit and it allows for short term rental permits in hosted short term rental permits in all city zoning districts so again hosted is when the resident the property owner is in residence during the short term rental period non-hosted we looked at a little bit differently there where we typically hear more complaints and so we wanted to you know think about where we thought there would be the least impact to neighbors and so they're allowed with the short term rental permit in the mixed use districts the single family dwelling also known as R1 the plan development districts the residential plan developments where they're not explicitly prohibited rural residential neighborhood commercial office commercial and general commercial and I want to I want to mention there was a question asked about where that means what's left where are they not allowed so I made a list of that and I want to make sure I cover that to make it very clear so non-hosted short term rentals would be prohibited in our two zones which are medium density multifamily residential R3 multifamily residential TBR transit village residential mobile home park motor vehicle sales open space districts industrial districts public institutional districts and then like I said any plan developments where they're explicitly prohibited and the rationale behind that was to leave our multifamily more dense neighborhoods available for longtime rental use so that was the the reason behind excluding the R2 and our three districts and the TBR is transit village residential again that's near transit and we're really hoping to have transient oriented you know folks that live here that are going to use transit to get to work and and school or etc next slide please so we established a operators and good standing provision in this ordinance and and what we were trying to do is recognize those short term rental owners that have been operating in good faith that have that have registered for TOT and BIA and you know done that essentially voluntarily because it's not like anybody was able to go out and find out who they were and and you know do it as an enforcement mechanism so operators in good standing we were we were hoping to give them a I guess you could call it a grace period of 50 days to submit their application and be to planning and economic development and during that period they'd be able to continue to advertise and operate and and do all the same things they're doing now and and throughout getting planning approval this last bullet point is one of the things we're actually staff is going to recommend that we remove from the ordinance because we're hoping that you know applicants will respond to planning requests as quickly as possible so operators that are not considered operators in good standing in other words new operators because they haven't been registered to pay TOT or BIA would follow the standard permitting process that's established by this chapter next slide please so registration requirements this is nothing new short-term rental operations are our lodging operations and so they have been required to register for transient occupancy tax and BIA assessments quarterly payments I we included it in the ordinance just for clarity but like I said that's been something that's been required for years next slide please so now we get into the occupancy standards and parking requirements and this was where we you know we had to look at what what are we hearing most complaints about and and most of the time it's hey there's a lot of people in a in a small area making a lot of noise they have a lot of cars it's dangerous so we looked at different jurisdictions we you know tried to to you know come up with a logical way to look at this and most jurisdictions do have a two persons per bedroom type of system if you will some allow an extra person or two or or cut it off at a at a certain number you know some Cupertino has you know two per bedroom opetus two per bedroom with one extra person Sacramento says no more than six period so there's just so many different flavors we came up with this as you know if you have five bedrooms you know that's 10 people that's that's a that's we considered that a good size group and then in terms of the additional daytime guests we we considered what other jurisdictions had some have no limit some have a limit of six some have no additional daytime guests period and what we tried to do was consider neighbors and the fact that you know some of us will have that many people over at our house you know once twice three times a year but neighbors that are adjacent to a short-term rental could potentially have you know these 14 people out and about and making noise and parking and all that type of thing every single day of the year 365 days a year and so we tried to you know make it reasonable um we tied parking to this uh occupancy as well based on the fact that a lot of the issues seemed to be with cars and not being able to evacuate and and just being you know being a good neighbor so we looked at one off-street space per bedroom which matches other lodging types like bed and breakfast hotels and in our zoning code um and also other other jurisdictions some other jurisdictions are more lenient say one space per two bedrooms that type of thing um we just followed what uh other lodging types in our in our zoning code have properties in the downtown station area so that's the CNU, MMU, NMU and SMU zoning districts they have no minimum parking requirements for commercial or residential uses so they will not be um required to have this minimum parking and we also allowed one on-street space to count where available next slide please operational standards I'm going to turn over to John Cregan and Paul Lowenthal so uh police captain John Cregan and assistant fire marshal Paul Lowenthal are skillfully going to walk through this slide and give me a chance to take a drink of water and be quiet for a moment all right I'll start off with the first part uh Paul Lowenthal and I will go through this but some of the bigger issues that we're getting from community planes that the police department is seeing is with the large groups coming so we're seeing large events whether it be weddings corporate events bachelor parties family reunions and then the complains are coming in saying hey they're out in the backyard until 10 11 12 and then sometimes it's all and delayed into the early morning hours so one of the things that we think that will really help with some of the complaints that are coming in to the police department is putting a clear guideline on the outside quiet hours and 9 p.m gives it a time a reasonable time for them to still be out there in the evening and then for neighbors to still have some peace and quiet in their neighborhoods and we're hearing stories from people talking about my kids can't go to sleep every single weekend there's loud parties there's amplified music so that's an important one from the police department's perspective I think will really reduce a lot of the neighborhood concerns and then reduce some of the calls for service coming into the police department and I'll let Paul touch on the next one here with the evacuations so as you heard from the survey enforcement was one of the things that we heard back a lot from the community and in the survey process and we tied enforcement into kind of the way we looked at the overall public safety issues that related everything from fire safety to evacuations and whatnot with that we took a pretty long list of public safety concerns both from police and fire and whittled it down to what we truly felt was kind of those highest highest most priority issues the first of which is the need to ensure that the transient residents that they're the people that are using these occupancies have access to knowing what's going on especially with the conditions we're currently faced with and the uncertainty of how long fire season is really going to last and and some of the issues that were experienced especially over the last four years and this is our attempt to help minimize some of those risks to the people living in them and around them so the first one is the reverse 911 obviously there's a lot of work the city's done to make sure that we're doing those emergency alerts much earlier than we could have before but making sure the people that are there having the access to them is critically important so the reverse 911 the homes will be required to opt into through we refer to as POTS or VOIP so it's plain old telephone system those are technical actor acronyms or the voice internet service and the residents the address will actually be opted into the so-called alert system having the evacuation checklists posted as well as the zones posted in addition to know your ways out so these are all the things that we've been educating our community on and it is critically again important that those occupancies have that information especially for people that are in them that don't know the area and need to have that access we want to ensure they have it we also put language in here regarding outdoor fires that's something else that we've heard a lot about and have had concerns with people not from the area not knowing some of the risks in these areas and some of the feedback we heard was aren't these rules applicable to a lot of people and yes some of them are some of them aren't but the reason and rationale behind having them in this ordinance allows us to actually take that enforcement action so when you look at parking for example parking that restricts fire department access or emergency vehicle access very well can be ticketed any given day but if we start having these same enforceable actions time and time again from the same resident allows us to escalate the enforcement through our relationships with the police department and code enforcement in this process and the next we'll talk about some more about with the event planning so that's the one that we had talked about about specifically talking about and we're seeing right now some of the bigger complaints i'm sure you'll hear about from some of the callers later tonight is large weddings with 30 40 vehicles coming in parking in the residential neighborhoods and sherry had talked about that of some of the things that causes with residential neighborhoods not being able to park their cars it affects trash delivery and what we're most concerned with is some of the access for our emergency vehicles and to some of these residential neighborhoods and so it'll specifically prohibit that and then the advertising and listing requirements if you look at the ordinance it actually lists out there's five separate prongs so on your advertisements you list a maximum occupancy based on the number of rooms that sherry talked about with the max of 10 the number of dedicated off-street and on-street parking spaces available the notifications for the renters on the quiet hours between nine and eight the notification of no amplified music being allowed and then the actual permit number and that would have to be on these and for this is where it really is what city staff is hoping to get out of this too is it's going to provide clear guidelines and the guidelines is going to be for multi-purpose it's going to be for those renters who are staying at the homes it's going to be for the owners who are renting out these homes for the neighbors and then for city staff who's tasked with enforcing and going to these calls so by having these clear guidelines in place it helps all of those affected parties to have an understanding and what we really hope it's going to it's going to work out where we're not seeing these complaints emerge weekend after weekend that the neighbors are frustrated with the homeowners are frustrated with who are trying to rent this out and then city staff are frustrated with because now they're getting tasked with kind of managing neighborhood complaints and some of the worst events are basically turning in these commercial event centers and residential neighborhoods and they're difficult for us to manage right now with none of these regulations in place and i'll turn it over paul for our last one with the accessibility requirements yeah so just again the accessibility and us eventually being able to not only have access to the properties through the permitting standpoint but just the real the open our open ability to sorry to have access to the properties for inspection purposes for enforcement purposes to make sure that the rules are being adhered to that's critical again these rules are put in place not to be a burden they're intended to make a primarily a lot of them just the neighborhood safer the the process work and ultimately make our communities again safer better prepared for fire season and allow code enforcement and san rosa police the ability to take action where necessary so again there's a lot of work that went into this there was a long list we whittled down to what we felt was going to be the most applicable the best language to put forward for the urgency ordinance ordinance knowing very well that there's a lot of things that we'll need to tackle eventually but we just need more time to to do our teeth into them so the next slide cc moella is going to talk about enforcement for us okay so the next slide we're talking about enforcement measures in response to many violations that may result from the operational standards so in this case the initial complaint would be directed to the 24 seven contact so the person that is local and that is appointed by the property owner the operator to respond to any complaint that they may receive regarding the short term rental so the penalties in response to anything that could result in a violation would then start with the first violation at $500 and education at that moment so the education would include going through what would be required to be complied with in regards to the operational standards so given them you know not just that citation if you will in the form of a penalty but also then reminding them that this is what needs to be appeared to the secondary violation within one year of that permit issuance would result in a thousand dollar fine with the third violation within that one year result in the $2000 fine and result in an improvement revocation so that's the urgency ordinance in a nutshell and from that point once we posted the draft ordinance on the website we had a couple of different um outreach events and the industry focused community meeting was one of them that was on september 29th and we wanted to make sure that we gave a platform to the short term rental owners and operators and groups there are a couple of groups that we heard from that wanted to have a voice in this and so we we listened and as Claire mentioned I think there were close to a hundred people and the themes that were talked about most often was that we need to recognize that short term rentals are a benefit um and I think that that that was a very good good point and we recognize that um they were hoping we would allow them in more commercial zones and we did we expanded in the ordinance the packet the ordinance it's in the packet that you have tonight have um we've expanded to include more commercial zones than what was originally posted um the permit to allow continue operating during permanent approval process and that's where we um establish the uh operators in good standing provision um that is added to the that was added to the ordinance we will definitely be looking at a renewal type of process and in the comprehensive ordinance it was just not something we could put together right now but we're hoping to come back with the comprehensive ordinance before anybody would need a renewal anyways so occupancy we heard several people say hey you know I I do a hosted short term rental I own a five bedroom house why can't I rent out four bedrooms um we didn't change that that will be we obviously will be ready to to do that if that's council's direction um parking they we heard from from some people that they were hoping that we would reduce the requirements or allow a parking exception some places do Petaluma has a parking exception policy and that's definitely something again that we would look at with the comprehensive ordinance enforcement um they were hoping that we would allow more than 45 minutes for complaint resolution and and wanted more information about how complaints would be verified um we included language in the ordinance that videos code enforcement calls you know all of that type of stuff would be in would be considered evidence I guess is the best word or or a way of recording what had happened at the time and the 45 minutes for complaint resolution we kind of split it in the middle some jurisdictions say you know they were saying that you had to be on site and fixing the problem within 30 minutes some said 60 minutes so our code enforcement team came up with 45 minutes and that's what's included um tonight uh we heard again that all of these standards should apply for long-term tenants and homeowners and and you know I'm not saying that they shouldn't but we're addressing one certain thing at this point and that's that's short term rentals and they would have like more opportunity to influence the ordinance and and we'll obviously be in engaging more with them throughout um the comprehensive ordinance process when we'll have more time next slide please so this project is not subject to CEQA it is not a project because it will not result in a direct or for reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and for the other reasons listed here next slide please again I'll reiterate that an urgency ordinance is allowed by the city charter we will need a five of six council vote tonight for adoption and because we will not have a five of seven vote we will have to strike the from the ordinance the information regarding the the government code next slide please so our next steps are to just keep working on this um tonight doesn't end anything um even if we pass something tonight we will still be working on a comprehensive approach refining this collecting information on how this one's working what else we need to look at um we'll definitely plan on doing some additional community engagement and hoping to be before the planning commission and city council in 2022 so next slide please okay this is where I've got to I've got to be careful here because we're going to talk about the potential amendments so staff is recommending five amendments to the ordinance that is before you tonight we recommend an updated definition of operator and good standing deletion of the five-day response to planning requests provision no longer requiring two documents that are listed in the application requirement section and revising the neighborhood notification section to reflect that the city will take responsibility for this process and I I need to add here too that I didn't have on here is that we added a definition for short-term rental permit application fee um so with those changes and I can you can I can either read the full text of the proposed amendments at this time or if you would prefer I do it during your deliberations of the proposed ordinance but the planning and economic development with those changes recommends that the city council approve an urgency ordinance to amend title 20 of the city zoning code to add chapter 2048 short-term rentals to regulate short-term rentals defined generally as the rental of residential property for a period of less than 30 calendar days next slide please and with that we've got a full bench here ready to answer any questions and take suggestions and amendments as necessary right thank you so much sherry I'm actually going to start with somebody who's not on the list madam city attorney could you clarify for the council and for the public the various vote requirements and iterations that could happen tonight yes thank you mr. mayor there are a couple of different provisions that we're operating under tonight the first is our city charter section 8 which concerns adoption of ordinances and does provide for adoption of urgency ordinances where appropriate to preserve public peace health or safety to adopt an ordinance under the charter it requires five affirmative votes of the council and one of the recommendations is that we clarify in the ordinance itself that it is that provision under our charter that we are moving forward with that would then just require the five councilmember affirmative councilmember votes there are two other code sections state statutes that could be relevant tonight one is the state law provision for adoption of urgency ordinances by a city and that section is section government code section 36937 and that allows a city charter or general law city to adopt an urgency ordinance for preservation of public peace health or safety with a four fifths vote given our seven member council that would require six affirmative votes the but those are alternative we do not need to go under the state statute we can go under our charter alone the other provision that has been mentioned is government code section 65858 that is a provision under the zoning and planning law that allows a jurisdiction both county and city to adopt an urgency measure to prohibit a use while you are studying the issue further so basically that is an ordinance a moratorium and is commonly used when an issue has arisen in a community you adopted a moratorium on that use while you're studying it we're not operating under that we're not at this point what's before you is not a moratorium and is an is an interim yes it is an interim ordinance but not a moratorium so that provision is not relevant that provision also requires the four fifths vote if we moved forward with any version of a moratorium we would require the six affirmative votes I hope that helps and happy to answer questions just as a point of clarification uh so what I heard and I I think the public hopefully heard is if this goes into moratorium territory it'll take all six of the council members who are present if not the regulations as being proposed right now because the city has the authority in its charter to do it with five out of seven uh you'd have five out of the six that are present that could pass it that is correct and I do want to clarify this hearing today this meeting today has not been noticed for a moratorium so if the council decides to move towards a moratorium of any sort we would need to bring that back at a subsequent meeting and then at that time we would be requiring the six affirmative votes if the council wants to go with a moratorium all right thank you thank you all right council we'll turn it over to questions for staff on the proposed ordinance who wants to start council member Sawyer thank you mayor I have one it's kind of a preliminary question I'm sure it'll be dealt with um as we get into the into the language but I'm I want some clarification on the operators and good standing um I'm a little bit um I'm not clear on the definition and what and what that status provides for those operators in good standing now and the reason I ask because I can um if it's as an example someone who it has a short-term rental in one of the zones and it's it's it's unhosted in one of the zones where it was not that this ordinance would exempt them from being able to be or would decline their application under normal circumstances if they were an operator in good standing and had never had any complaints basically no one even knows that they're that it is a vacation rental or a short-term rental and they were except for the fact that they're because of this ordinance they would not normally be allowed to have an unhosted rental in or a short-term rental in that particular zone if they were an operator in good standing would they then be able to continue functioning until we come up with our comprehensive ordinance so what is the definition what does the what does the good standing status provide them I guess is really the question I'll start with that and then I'm going to defer to Claire for part of part of the answer to that question so operators in good standing are defined as short-term rental operators who have registered and who have registered for TOT and BIA as of October 7th 2021 and that is a revised definition because we were asked to have a date certain for that to be you know a cutoff date so that we could pull the records and get that information ready and so that's the definition that we're proposing for operators in good standing that it be people who have been registered as of October 7th and what that allows is instead of feeling like they have to rush in and get a permit to operate tomorrow they have a 50-day grace period to even apply and and during that 50-day grace period and all throughout the city's approval process they'll be continued they'll be able to continue operating as if nothing's changed if you will the only time they would have to stop is if their permit is you know if their permit is denied that type of thing and then I'm going to defer to Claire on the answer to your question about what that means to property owners who are in excluded zones okay thank you yes thanks for the question it's a good question my initial response to that would be that the intent for operation operator in good standing is to comply with the urgency ordinance so to comply with the operational standards so it's not a free pass to literally continue on as those the ordinance hasn't passed right so we have set basic operational standards set up and it would be we would look to them to comply with those standards the tougher question is the locational inconsistency so if they are located in a prohibited zone then I my initial response to that is that they would not be allowed they would not be an operator in good standing because they can't comply with the ordinance so they would have to wait for the comprehensive ordinance or if this is a zone that the council wants to add in or consider allowing you know that could be done tonight but not site by site it would be unilateral well I appreciate that and perhaps what we hear from the public there will be it will be interesting to hear how many of the operators and let's face it what we're trying to do is is to um fair it out the um the bad actors and um what I what I fear you know especially and then this is this is a fairly comprehensive ordinance albeit um temporary in nature and and and urgent um is that we are because of the nature of some of the decisions about the zoning um putting placing people that have had really good records um denying their their ability to continue operating and that so we'll have to wait and see what the what the what the community says and I don't want it to overly complicated um and make it confusing to staff or to the community but it does uh it it does concern me that there would be some people that have been very good neighbors and never had any complaints and then because of our zoning restrictions they get um they become uh their ability to continue would be compromised so I'll I'll wait to hear from the community and thanks Claire I appreciate the clarification and sharing that can I add one thing through the mayor so I did some initial research into who are registered at this point and it did appear that there were 10 potential property owners um that are in an r2 or an r3 zone that is our higher density residential development so I think the the bigger question maybe to look at is do we want to allow short-term rentals in those type of more dense residential areas like Claire mentioned rather than having one offs is that something the council would like to consider and we'll be prepared to to you know answer that in any way you would like through the ordinance thank you and that would be something that the council could do given that this is a potentially what five months six month ordinance um what we would be doing in essence if we were to have that conversation and to make that determination that this would be a temporary decision so but I appreciate that flexibility I think that that is going to be the key to a successful urgency ordinance is is the flexibility that is embedded uh in in this conversation tonight so I very much appreciate the answer thank you council member alvarez thank you mayor my question is what proof is needed to constitute a violation and what opportunity do the homeowners have to contest so we we are currently drafting um the operational standard requirements so when someone does apply they're going to receive a list of items that they're going to basically sign off on and say I do understand that I have to comply with the operational standards now those would include noise complaints parking they would include access to the unit they would include any other type of operational standard that could could turn into a violation so in that regard if somebody does file a complaint we would follow up either by means of the fire department the police department or the could enforcement unit and verify whether or not that is a valid complaint that we determine that in fact it is a valid complaint that at that point that's when it would be substantiated that in fact they are in violation of the ordinance and what recourse does the homeowner have to contest of a violation so currently we don't have that built out in this in this urgency notice they do basically have a three three time you know opportunity to kind of correct the behavior so for example if I go out to a specific property or send some of our staff to go out to a specific property we go ahead and notify them hey we received a complaint we we did verify or didn't verify we verify it we're going to go ahead and provide that education there really isn't a recourse for contesting it however we do let them know listen you know this is your first complaint received you have two more opportunities although we don't want it to get to that point right that that education component is what we're hoping is going to correct any further complaints that may result in regards to the violations of the operational standards council member Fleming yes thank you my question is a center around fire safety I have two to that end one is did staff consider the wild and urban interface when they were going through the zones that might be most appropriate to prohibit short-term rentals and the other is if not were the publicate the drafting and publication of fire evacuation routes in these operations considered and if not would staff recommend putting these in so I'll try and answer it if I don't hit it maybe we'll clarify but when we looked at the fire specific requirements knowing that a number of the the short-term rentals were in the wild and urban interface which is where a majority of them are it highlighted the need to deal with specific code sections that are identified in the California fire code and addressing them as well as putting in some of the language that is specific to the know your ways out know your zones but we didn't just do it specifically because they're in the Louis we did it based on some of the risks we've seen around our entire community I also really quickly wanted to back up to the previous question if I can related to council member Alvers this question some of it is going to be specific to what the violation was Captain Creek and I were talking offline there could very well be a parking violation where somebody specifically parked in a fire lane blocking our access and that would can be a ticket that's issued by either the police department or the fire department under the vehicle code and so that resident or renter or if you want to call them would be subject to the typical appeal process through that but then our violation would also be turned over to code enforcement so they can track that and then I'll let maybe Claire Sherry jump in to clarify anything specific to council member question I think if I understand the question correctly we didn't specifically exclude the wildland urban interface area at this point we just tried to figure out how to best make things safer in that area and like Paul mentioned earlier we had a really long list of things that we will eventually want to include in the comprehensive ordinance most likely but I think we hit on the things that that make it as compatible as can be thank you council member Schwedell thank you Mr. Mayor I had a couple of questions starting on slide 30 and they're regarding enforcement so if someone were to complain that hey there's more than four additional daytime guests and or any of the other requirements here who would investigate that that would be investigated by the code enforcement unit so if if the complaint comes in and we can go out there during the daytime hours obviously we would follow up with the person that's on call the H&N or the owner whomever is accessible to allow a sentry so that we can go ahead and verify if it's after our after hours the wording in the ordinance does suggest that you know the police department and or the fire department can also look at those however it would be primarily code enforcement and we would keep following out that complaint and do we have the current capacity to hold this accountable with what our current staffing levels are because my assumption is there are no additional staffing additions if this ordinance urgency ordinance goes through that's a great question so this is actually something that we've been discussing as far as our staffing level currently and what would be something that we would need to be able to follow up on this so currently what we are looking into is perhaps getting some temporary relief to be able to assist us in response to any potential complaints that come in so I know if I can if I may add through the mayor just additional in terms of the staffing question so this is something that we we obviously don't want to enact an ordinance we can't enforce there is a little concern about having an ordinance that's too broad which is why you've got this streamline and focused we do think that we can take this ordinance on implement it and enforce it to reasonable expectations of the community we will have to hire some temporary staffing we're not looking to hire new technical or professional staff for urgency ordinance we're not looking at hiring a third party entity for the urgency ordinance we will be evaluating how how this goes and how successful we are implementing and enforcement and it will that will lead into an informed comprehensive approach and for that we are open um whether it's city staffing or if it's third party to support but most importantly we need we don't really have the information the experience yet on on how much time and what extent of staffing is required to do a comprehensive ordinance which is another reason why we're we decided to focus on just urgency for now and so where would these type of complaints fall within their priority calls for code enforcement because I know we've been told previously that they prioritize the you know obviously the safety ones too many daytime guests does it fit within that top priority or where does do these type of violations fall within the priority list for code enforcement so these these would be a priority in that so we have we have it set up as priority one two and three with our um one and two is being the most exgent one being an imminent so this would be a priority two we would definitely go out there and respond within about a two 24 hour time period to go out there and just assess what's going on so it would definitely be on that high priority level for us okay so priority two thank you and then if um on slide 32 if you just walk me through let's say it's midnight probably on a holiday weekend um the only city employees working I'm guessing would be police dispatch so they get a call about violation of this ordinance does the dispatcher tell the caller to call the 24-7 contact or would a city employee make that call and relay the information that they've been relayed how would that work well it would work um a couple of multiple ways and I'll go ahead and let Captain Creakon speak on this as well so the complaining party can provide us with a video evidence uh photo evidence to our department that we can then follow up on in addition to making a call um if it warrants it which then I'll go ahead and defer to um Captain Creakon to follow up on that secondary part yes that's a good question so we're still working out the dispatch protocols once we get whatever ordinances may or may not be passed tonight but that's going to be one of the things that we're going to be working using our our city of communication team and our social media platforms to educate neighbors on how they can call and what the number is and hopefully we'll be doing the notification to the neighbors in the surrounding 600 feet so what we're really hoping by having these guidelines in place we're actually going to get less calls to the police department and code enforcement and they're going to follow that and now they're going to have a contact person the call and they can call the homeowner and by having these clear guidelines for the homeowner or the rental and the neighbor that a lot of these are going to get resolved at that level but if they're not then we will have a police officer would respond to the scene would document it uh in uh about if there's a violation or not and then we refer to code enforcement to follow the typical code enforcement enforcement strategy but the the big thing that from city staff is by having these clear guidelines and the instruction we really believe that it's going to hopefully reduce some of the calls for our city staff as of right now they're just calling frustrated and they kind of get bounced around between police fire code planning all over the place and so we're hoping now they'll have a centralized way to be able to enforce these and give clear guidelines for our community if i get add to uh councilmember cap and krigan i've been strategizing about how to handle i think some of the questions you're talking about so again it goes back to the complexity of all the different types of potential violations out there and one of the common calls that we get this time of year is the legal burning so if fire responds out for an illegal burn which is a typical routine call we'll have the ability potentially behind the scenes now to pull different addresses tied to these type of rentals and then track that information and then relay it to code enforcement so we may respond we may document it uh the way we would typically document it through a typical incident report and then provide that information to code enforcement for for tracking and enforcement so i guess i'm still kind of struggling again using the midnight if if someone is calling because it's a loud party or something just like any other party call i heard they could take pictures video i'm guessing most of our residents of our community just wanted to go away and it sounds like and let's say they would have to get up find the number associated with that short term rental make the phone call and i'm not sure is that going to be realistic flip side does the police department have the capacity to respond to some of those calls they just wanted to end and so maybe again this will be feedback that we're going to have to work our way through what i heard you know the captain and assistant fire marshal talk about but it's just i'm not really clear as to how that's going to work out and what the community could expect would be the response from the city with a complaint at midnight on a holiday weekend thanks as a member tidbits thanks mayor this question is probably best directed to miss means or miss hartman the maker mixed use and neighborhood mixed use zoning i admittedly i can't envision what that looks like can you give me a specific area of town that would be maker mixed use both all of those jurisdiction or all of those zoning districts are in the downtown station area so maker mixed use i believe anybody else can can jump clear you got that one okay thank you maker mixed use i believe that's in our roberts road downtown neighborhood as well as uh like the uh upper west end uh go dean property that areas also make maker mix use okay thank you and neighborhood mixed use it's also station area so it's kind of that core okay um and then this my second question was i did notice in the staff report that uh the that the fiscal impacts will be uh offset by fine and application fee collection but do you know or have an idea of what the cost of this addition to code enforcement will be what the the fiscal impact will be not until we have a chance to try it okay fair enough that's what this interim ordinance is hopefully gonna inform okay thank you so if i can if i can back up to kind of the 50 000 foot view um one of the stated goals of the ordinance is to address over over concentrations and loss of character of neighborhoods how did staff come to the decision that looking at it by zoning district was the way to address some of those issues uh and my concern is by banning it in certain zoning districts you don't have any concentration there but it does nothing to address the over concentration in areas where it's allowed so i mentioned over concentration um as something that we hear quite a bit about from our constituents this ordinance does not address over concentration it it is something that we will be looking at how to best um consider that in the comprehensive ordinance whether it's a city-wide cap whether it's by neighborhood by street you know a spatial distance requirement between units that type of thing so that that isn't addressed in this ordinance it's just something that we heard we do hear about um from folks and that's why that was included in the slide and so i'm sorry what was the second part of that question i i guess this is a follow-up for the public that uh doesn't follow local land use policy as much do we have a map that they can access to see when we talk about allowing it in core mixed use but not in r2 is there any type of a visual that the community can see about where we're proposing to allow it and disallow it and i asked specifically that i i know you you've already heard this from me but i asked specifically because we are having community conversations around equity and making sure that the impacts are felt equitably across the community and not banning it from one side of town versus other sides of town and this is an issue we saw with cannabis so we're definitely not trying to to do that at all and look more at density um rather than location like r1 zoning districts are throughout the city and and we we will have something online that says know your zoning district but i think to your point that we can work with gis and actually have something um that will show you you know spatially and and for visual people where where things are and are not allowed and again the the idea behind excluding the r2 and r3 was wondering if a unhosted short-term rental is appropriate in a really dense neighborhood and again none of bed and breakfast and other things like that those type of lodging are excluded from there so we sort of followed that trail um and i'll let claire she had something to say sorry that was great and this is a really good question so i mean back on slide eight um you don't have to bring it up but unless you want to but that is where we have the registered um short-term rentals and you can see it is city-wide so one of the early discussion points was where are the where are they happening and i think it was uh somewhat folklore that they were only on in our brink of valley areas skyhawk areas you know areas that are higher elevations have used it's not it's uh literally city-wide um so one of our first determinations is just recognizing that short-term rentals and these are just the registered ones right we know that this is about 200 and there's 300 getting advertised so we do need to figure out where exactly they are and get those mapped um and then i think so i think we just recognize that they are city-wide um it's going to be easier to map like where you're not allowed to do them um but we and we can produce that map and we'll put it on the website um it's a fluid conversation um as you can tell tonight um we may or may not consider adding back in r2 and r3 or you know so those are all things that we'll take note of and then once we have this ordinance and we know the locational criteria just like what we did with the cannabis program we're going to load that website um with all kinds of helpful not just applicant tools but tools that our residents can see um but we do hope that because most of these districts that we are talking about are in in across the city that it would generally be equitable in that in that manner and also just recognizing they are already located across the city i am over concentration definitely came up um and over concentration as you know is quite tricky um in terms of figuring out uh per street per neighborhood per district um per zone there's a lot of different ways to do that and then once you decide you're going to um address over concentration uh who gets to be first um is a is is a first come first serve is it um someone who is in this good um operation operator in good standing category you know a lot of different things or is it a competition of sorts a lottery there's so many different ways um and we need to have a lot more discussion about that if we when we when we talk about over concentration or cap that was in the same category yeah and i'm particularly interested in the over concentration conversation i get a little bit weary when we're doing uh decisions like this based on land use designation as you know the socioeconomics follow the land use designation if you put an asphalt plant in a specific area you know what that does to the property values in that area and so by by looking and having a thoughtful approach to what our zoning looks like and where we allow these we can potentially not have some of those disparities pop up but i am concerned about the over concentration aspect um i did have a question about uh the definition of hosted versus non-hosted uh so it's it's proposed it's current city law you cannot have a vacation rental in an ad u if an individual lives in the ad u but does a vacation rental or a short term rental for the front house is that considered hosted or non-hosted at this point that would be considered non-hosted but that's something we can look at and and that was based on uh conversations that if somebody's in an ad u it doesn't necessarily mean they're gonna pre you know prohibit activities at a um primary residence that they're not actually in and having to sleep through um that type of activity but again that's something we're totally open for and i think um captain cregan has something to add there yeah another thing that we saw that web to consider is when we reached out to other cities we saw a lot of abuses with that and we have that even with some of the current uh high complaint residences right now of residences saying hey i do live there and i spend one night a week at the at the ad u of my property and then so i live there as my primary residence so that's another thing for us to consider and we we met with some uh talk to san francisco and they have the a rule of just the non-hosted there and they are only hosted in their city and talked a lot of abuses that they see with some of those so that was one thing we were trying to steer away from okay and do we have any type of or have we seen in other jurisdictions any type of an attempt that once an individual owns five six homes that they're using as short-term rentals that actually they become a hotelier instead uh or or some other type of regulation on those individuals i haven't seen that what i have seen is that jurisdictions that don't have an ordinance in place and then bring one on board with that situation already in place typically allow a amnesty period for the person to come into compliance which means if the regulation is that the city only allows someone to have one say non-hosted or two non-hosted and someone owns five they would have to bring those other three either into a long-term mental situation or sell them so it's still an investment for them but it just wouldn't be allowed to be a short-term rental beyond whatever number is allowed by that jurisdiction okay i appreciate that i and one of the things that struck me reading the materials was the conversation around whether somebody cares for their neighborhood and cares for their community and so i'm not going to do it tonight but i would be interested when we go through this process down the road to talk about is there a difference that the council sees in somebody who actively lives in the community versus somebody who does not because i think that that's one of the main concerns that i do hear from people my last question for the 160 or so that we identified that are currently unregistered how do we go get the transit transient occupancy tax and bia that is due for them having operated that's going to be a tough one so most of that type of work is done by a a data mining company if you will or an enforcement compliance type of company they have the tools to do those you know web scrapes and check all the i think there's up to 60 now platforms that advertise these types of things and so one step in that direction for us is requiring that for operators and good standing since they'll be continuing to operate before they have their short-term rental permit we require that they include the transient occupancy tax account number on their advertisements so a step towards you know finding those people that are operating without paying the tot and bia and ready being registered is to do a web scrape okay any of these people that don't have that information included which will eventually be replaced by the short-term rental permit number but it's an identifier if you will um we can catch up to those people that are advertising but that don't have that information and and hopefully bring them into compliance i think if uh in the survey i think if you had asked uh operators and community members whether they wanted us to go after the folks who were doing things without paying their fair share i think it would have been pretty unanimously high so i'd be interested in figuring out how we do that as well as we go towards regulation are there any other questions from council council member alvarez thank you mayor in slide number 32 uh i understand that this is definitely uncharted territory for the city san rosa and definitely a learning experience with that in mind i'm wondering if if if i were to be one of the renters at these uh short-term rentals and i had loud music as well as a violation for parking would i be coughing up the $1,500 or was that or is there a way to implement a system where the first time is learning and the second time should never happen type of scenario uh was that was that discussed and what were the pros and cons if any before cc's gonna have the better answers that but what i will say is that in order to apply for or to submit your application for this permit we're requiring that people you know certify if you will or acknowledge that they have read the requirements of this ordinance and that they agree to you know to follow the regulations and and stuff included in the ordinance so they should be educated already to be operating at all um and so the education listed in that first column is really kind of a re-education or a reminder and now let cc the subject matter expert take it over yes uh council member alvarez we did actually do a sampling of various jurisdictions to kind of see how this works in their jurisdiction and one of the things that we did consider was you know penalties to the operator penalties to the permit holder and how that would interface as sherry mentioned in this case we would start with the education component at the time of submittal for application and their acknowledgement that they understand the operational standards and subsequent to that obviously when we verify that first violation and redoing that education we providing that information again so that they know that even while they're working their program they can relate that information to the person that's going to be renting their str so that they're in understanding that hey you know we have operational standards that we have to adhere by and if they're violated in a way shape or form then we're held responsible that puts the onus more on the permit holder to be able to ensure again it's it's education that's walked through from the beginning all the way through the existence of that actual permit any other questions council okay we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing so for folks who have not participated in the council meeting before you'll have three minutes to address the council we won't get into a back and forth during public comment but we will take notes down and can ask follow-up questions of staff or can acknowledge them afterwards when we do our deliberations because this is an urgency ordinance and I understand that there are folks who feel like it's they haven't had a chance to be heard we're not going to limit the time beyond the three minutes that's allowed what I would say is if somebody before you said what you would would want to say feel free to say me too because we do have a lot of folks who want to speak tonight we'll start with folks in the chamber and then we'll do zoom and then we'll finish up with our pre-recorded voice mails that were provided so we'll start with Anne followed by Dan and I promise I didn't do that intentionally thank you very much for all the work you've done on this issue it's a issue close to my heart because 500 feet from my house there's a airbnb that hosts 13 people routinely and there's different issues with that house a block to my left there's a house also an airbnb frequently but the biggest concern is five feet from my property line there's an airbnb who according to the ordinance now you'd have find her four times she wouldn't be in good standing my biggest concern was she started this when we were all on a public pretty much public health lockdown and the first night there were 13 people showed up in a house that was supposed to have four and they had a great time at Dillon beach and they went clamming and they left the garbage there for a week I thought that was pretty bad until the unpermitted bathrooms in the place started dumping raw sewerage down her driveway right next to my property line and I have animals and stuff so I understand that some of these issues are enforcement issues but when I have raw sewerage coming down next to my house and she's not responsive we do actually call her directly all the time she tries to get us to call her property manager but no we call her so I do appreciate that you've been working on this for me it's been 574 days and we exceed the 76 occupancy we're close to 90 percent there's always somebody new there so I want to thank you and I look forward to seeing the work that you do and and I appreciate that you're taking this on I'm I'm kind of in that purple heavy density area and I'm in the JC area thank you thank you and we'll go to Dan followed by Charles thank you city council for giving me the opportunity to make public comment my name is Dan Godino I am a homeowner in a certified professional vacation rental manager operator with one country getaway I would like to state that I fully support a well-taught out regulatory SDR package a package that addresses the mutual interests of homeowners neighbors city officials and operators it appears this urgency ordinance came about specifically to regulate a continued noise dispute between a neighbor and a vacation homeowner in the bonacito community it is puzzling to me there were no enforcement options available to address this issue are there no tools at the city's disposal that can address this type of particular neighborhood disputes some of the proposals in the urgency ordinance seem to be overreaching and will stifle the vacation rental industry as far as I can tell there was no input taken from the vacation rental industry to craft this urgency ordinance a lot of the problems that the ordinance is trying to address are already solvable via professional management I hope you're open to get an input from vacation rental operators in crafting a comprehensive regulatory package that is an overly restrictive in the meantime if the public needs any help with vacation rental issues you may join the senator california short-term rental association on facebook I thank you for allowing me to speak thank you Dan we'll go to Charles followed by Ivan my name is Charles Mets and I've been hosting since 2013 and I hope you will consider the good reputation hosted rentals and allow them to purpose all rooms they have available and not limited to only two since the host lives on site and can deal with any issue that may arise because I want to sleep too also there are times when I'm away and list my property non-hosted so I hope you allow a permitting process that would recognize that so I can continue to host when I'm there and can continue to share my home when I'm not regarding a required front and side setback many folks in santa rosa long-term and short-term have parking next to or accessible to a driveway they've created or was established before they purpose to purchase their home short-term rentals should be allowed to create off-street parking spaces that are accessible to a driveway similar to what long-term residents often create parking could be verified or approved by a photo when applying for a short-term rental permit I ask that you look at the county guidelines for daytime and nighttime visitors for non-hosted rentals that would only be an addition of two extra people from what you're currently proposing for day or nighttime visitors that's all because right now you don't allow any visitors pass curfew so mom or dad or grandma and grandpa can't spend a night with a family who's coming to visit them in santa rosa and allow the county's guidelines that children under three shouldn't be counted as guests because they are usually in cribs or sleeping with parents also align quiet hours with the county from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and regarding r2 allow homeowners the option to choose how they wish to purpose their home and don't prohibit certain zoning districts and housing types from being used as a short-term rental if an ordinance is created that only allows more expensive homes to be purpose short-term only the wealthy will be able to own a non-hosted short-term rental and only the wealthy will be able to stay in a short-term rental thank you thank you charles yvonne followed by gordon thank you for this opportunity my name is yvonne rosal my husband and i have had a hosted rental here in santa rosa since 2015 when we started we registered our property with the city of santa rosa to comply with the tot taxes we were blessed to be able to generate this volume income in order to stay living in our home during our retirement hosted rentals must be treated differently prior to our retirement i was in the travel industry for over 30 years i am aware of how much a city can benefit from the tourism industry not all cities have this opportunity i strongly believe that visitors should obey the rules of the city and be respectful with the residents in my view this is a must for the reason for that reason i want to be present at all times when i have guests in my home in order to maintain order and be available for their needs our guest benefits um our guest benefits santa rosa in sonoma county we refer them to restaurants winery stores and shops guests who come to our home then to this area are people who are coming from out of the country sometimes we welcome them we want to make sure that they have unforgettable experiences here in the city of santa rosa which is the center of the wine country so when they return home they will refer their family members and friends to our friendly city indeed we have had numerous visits we are the ambassadors of santa rosa sonoma county losing two of our main hotels the chariton and the fountain grove in and the tufts fire was a detrimental loss to our tourism and business industry but short-term rental units have helped to fill that void more and more we get business travelers thanking us for sharing our home with them so they can still come to santa rosa and have a productive business day during the entire time we have hosted we have never gotten any complaints in fact our neighbors have asked us if we are still hosting because they have a family member coming to town and they wanted to stay with us they don't have the space the answer is always yes of course we have regular family members coming to visit their parents who are in retirement homes and they don't have facilities for them to stay we also have traveling nurses who prefer to stay with us than to stay in a motel it was mentioned that no i think i'm going to end there because i'm almost done with the time but i wanted to just thank for having this opportunity to talk thank you thank you yvonne gordon followed by carl oh that's better thank you good evening it's not day anymore i'm gordon scott my wife and i have an air bnb over in ring con valley i was a little bit concerned having read the proposed ordinance that the city council was conflating what i believe is two distinct things the difference between a hosted rental and non-hosted rental the problems that are delineated in the urgency ordinance are almost invariably tied to unhosted short-term rentals where people come in i apparently they're putting in several of these in our neighborhood uh my understanding is that the uh cost to rent them is astronomical and that one can conclude that the people who rent those houses believe that because they pay from great expense comes great liberty um these are things that aren't good for us we live in ring con valley in an area that appears to be rural we want that residential quality that's what we use for our guests that's what attracts them what i'm concerned about we uh now we have since 2015 pumped approximately 23 000 into the city on to tot we have uh personal relations with many of our guests they come back they come back to santa rosa and they come back to our place what i would not want to see is to have the hosted rentals which are a different animal lump together with the non-hosted rentals which seem to be the bulk of the problem i know air b and b provides an alternative to we lost two of our big hotels in the tubs fire there's a limit to how many number how many hotel rooms they have we have people come to stay to our house for business they stay with us because they want to go to one country back when we had the uh the uh iron man they'd come to go running and these are people who take advantage of our our hosted rental because it is more familial it is less expensive is less stressful none of the concerns that are evidenced in the urgency ordinance actually relate to the specifics of how we operate because there aren't a lot of cars there isn't any noise because we would shut them up and i just want to ask the city council to distinguish these two things they're different thank you very much thank you gordon carl followed by michael my name is carl yeager i started home sharing after i adopted my children as a single dad it was a way for us to stay in the bay area and afford it i could then help them with their many emotional needs i recently bought my home in santa rosa so that i could provide a home for my son jason and his girlfriend elissa as well as income for them while they go to college here we engage in home sharing which means we operate a hosted rental here in santa rosa where a family member is present during our this day of our guests the people that we host act like guests in our home because that is exactly what they are we are home to make sure they act safely and do not make noise we like to sleep too i've hosted for two decades first in san francisco and now here thousands of guests not one single complaint as a matter of fact my next door neighbor in san francisco for a decade didn't even know that we hosted folks we can all agree that noise safety guidelines and nuisance guidelines make sense in fact our guidelines for those things are stricter than what is being proposed by the city we love our neighborhood we act responsibly we don't allow events we are also home to direct guests to santa rosa's many restaurants coffee shops bakeries that translates into jobs here's the real part that i don't understand this ordinance you have written caps hosted rental short-term rentals for hosted folks at two bedrooms in our home yet the law has no such cab on the number of bedrooms for unhosted vacation rental use so if the goal is to lessen noise complaints how does this make sense at all why not hold us to the same standard as unhosted two per bedroom with a cap of 10 that sounds very fair to me and sounds like it's equitable the other thing that this ordinance does it creates an economic incentive for me to change my home from a hosted rental to an unhosted one if i go unhosted and move my children and myself elsewhere i can rent out all five bedrooms in my home if i obtain a permit why would we create an economic incentive to do the thing that might cause more noise and nuisance i just don't understand it um if we are kept to the two bedroom cap we will have 50 less income that is crushing for a filmmaker like me and that means 50 fewer people going to our restaurants coffee shops i think that the urgency here seems to be around noise nuisance and safety let's urgently legislate that and all work together over the next few months to craft an ordinance that's a win-win for everyone including our economy thank you so much carl we'll go to michael followed by ed hello my name is michael larris um i was born and raised in santa rosa um i run a arabian bee in the northwest santa rosa i've been doing so for about three years again i just like to reiterate the part about hosted versus non-hosted i'm on my property it's a farm it's actually a farm share so there's an educational component to it and we're there as ambassadors to the city we're really careful about who we have and we follow all the rules in the city and we're you know everything that we what we make goes back into our community unlike a lot of hotel chains that the money goes to some corporate headquarters so i'd really like you to take a close look at this and and really consider the hosted versus non-hosted part and thank you for your time thank you michael we'll go to ed followed by gary uh hi my name is ed kidding thank you for letting me speak tonight um i have a big interest in this um i have a lot of history in short-term rentals i've had short-term rentals for 20 years unhosted and in that 20 years i've never had one complaint one thing i like to emphasize is i understand the importance of being good neighbors that's that's the key to success here the other part of it is when there are certain problems government has a tendency to over-regulate so if you have one or two complaints you may you know say well now we've got to create these draconian rules so that we don't have these problems when you know in when in the big picture there are very very few of these noise big noise complaints of course you would have more information of that but i'd like to have you look at it and say of all the rentals and the rental nights which you have a lot of information on how many actual complaints do you have so that you can make a rule that makes sense um the other part of this is again as non-hosted renner it is my house and we my wife and i travel and we uh we're both retired so we want to be able to make a little income from the house while we're there while we're gone excuse me that being said it is our house even though we're not there we don't want our house destroyed by parties so should we get involved in this which is our plan we would have extensive rules we would have security systems monitoring systems not inside but outside the house to make sure that the number of guests that are supposed to be there are there not to be exceeded no wild parties things like that so i think you know you could incorporate some of the rules that um you know maybe you want to have some way for the owners to survey what's what's happening on the property so that they could be more proactive in the in the idea of keeping it you know more of a community sensitive environment just saying don't deny responsible owners of short-term rentals the opportunity to make money thank you very much thank you Ed we'll go to gary followed by k that's as high as it goes uh good evening mr mayor and council members i come to you my name is gary lens i've had a hosted property for about six years and i come to you as somebody tonight who uh air bnb and vrbo has really saved my financial future and my home i you know after the the downturn 10 12 years ago i went through a rough time and it was at risk of losing my house when i decided to get into something that was commission based and the ability to rent out my house during that period of time was critical and you know i i hate to think that we're going to come down with some draconian rules that are going to limit this to the point where people can't do this very easily i think a lot of the stuff you're talking about is common sense i give everybody who rents in my place four different warnings that they are to come to me they are they're not to bring a lot of people to my place and to bring bring big parties um it's to me it's common sense my neighbors i don't want they didn't sign up for a hotel near them so i want to make sure that this is a a good experience for them as well so they have my number as well it sounds like you guys are going to take care of that that sounds right but you know a lot of the things you know limiting the number of people per bedroom i think is overreach and too much you're trying it seems like you're trying to solve problems and i think that's fine we don't want big parties as the gentleman just said but why not make it evidence-based and and outcome-based if there are problems then then start limiting it and you've done some of that but to me it's very easy to to do this as an owner and have people come to me when there's a problem and take care of the issue but not do it with arbitrary limits like that and with the parking and the other things the other thing is you know we're talking about enforcement you guys are creating a regulatory regime where you're gonna have to have people come in and and regulate this um you're not doing it now it sounds like or or where you are it's it's sort of hit and miss the story i read in the paper today was outrageous i would have never allowed that to happen i don't allow events at my home um so you know i i think if you're you're setting yourself up for more regulation when you're not able to enforce what you're already doing trust me the city knows how to collect taxes i i know sooner that put up my ad than somebody from the treasury the finance department reached out to me and said hey you've got an air bnb you guys know how to do this you guys know how to find those folks i think if you just enforce the rules you already have for you know noise ordinances and parties and and being bad neighbors and not paying your taxes that would take care of itself but um i appreciate what you're trying to do and bring it in hand i just ask you to not do it in too heavy handed away that throws the baby out with the bath water and takes away something it's great for our community i mean i refer people to all of our local restaurants and stores they ask me for things all the time and and it's great for our community so thank you thank you gary go to k um okay i'm k board and i've had a rental since 2013 and i've had no complaints when the people come i meet them i show them around the house and i explain where the light switches are and things and answer all their questions i live in the back house and i consider myself a hosted air bnb and i'm not sure you do because i live in a different house but only twice i've had the blink of the lights at 9 15 and ask them to move in the house and rather than stay out in party outside and they went in right away so i would like clarification i've had no problems i enjoy the income i pay my t o t on time and just consider all of it please thank you thank you k is there anyone else in the chambers who would like to give public comment right we'll go to zoom if you're interested in providing public comment and you're on zoom hit the raise hand feature we'll start with gay followed by trinidad hello go ahead oh my name is gay barner i have a hosted short term rental since 2014 in san rosa i pay my bia and t o t taxes i have off-street parking for my guests i feel the non-hosted rentals should have different requirements and be treated differently hosted rentals should not have any limits on the number of rooms or guests allowed non-hosted rentals don't have any restrictions that should since there is no one there to monitor noise or behavior it seems kind of backwards to me to do that non-hosted rentals should be treated like hotels and zone differently especially if the owner is a corporation or not a local and i would just want to add if there are fires or anything like that in the area a hosted rental can communicate with their guests they know what's going on and they can help them and my neighbors love me because they they use me for overflow guests of their own therefore all short term rentals should not be lumped together thank you very much for your time thank you gay we'll go to trinidad followed by james hello go ahead okay i have my name is trinidad and i am just starting to get into the game of being a short term rental um october is my first month in doing so so i have a few concerns as a person that has rented airbnb's for last 10 years or so um there are a lot of rules as far as quiet times and parking restrictions and all that um i'm concerned that if the city changes those times and those structures for um santa rosa that people that normally rent these places are going to be not sure what's going on by following different rules it's pretty much a standard out there about quiet times and everything else so why enforce something that's different than kind of the standard that's out there that everybody's well aware of so that was one of my comments there the other thing is about the uh having the phone in the house to get the alerts and everything else um i think that the renter can get onto the next tell or nick tell or whatever that that emergency thing is about that gives what's going on in the area i know in airbnb's that i rent i don't answer the phone i don't pay attention to the phone and i think i feel like the owner is going to be coming by or something to check messages or something like that so that's one thing that i do not have in my home and i really don't want that it's an extra cost and everything else and like i said guess i'm not going to answer those phones and stuff so um in listening to all this other stuff i'm actually thinking about putting together an evacuation plan and then have that posted to my door just like the hotel room would have how to exit promises and stuff and things like that so i'm learning a lot through all of this and i'm going to take some extra precautions and keep being my guests saves and stuff so um we'll do what i can so thank you for your time i appreciate you letting me talk and hope you can consider kind of the industry standards that are out there and stuff and not have guests confused and things like that um also on that real quick on the noise thing is it would be odd from an end my neighbors would be able to make noises till 10 o'clock at night but my guests can't and that'd be a confusion there um the place that i have my airbnb the neighbors do tend to be out late at night as well too so um we'll just go from there um i've also talked to my neighbors and everybody seems to be pretty good about it so far i've given my numbers to them so we'll see how it all goes thank you for your time thank you trinidad we'll go to james followed by nancy good evening my name is synthia lozano and i'm not just only a host i'm a superhost on the airbnb global platform and i'm also have my own business that has been registered by the city of san arosa as a manager of several homes and i manage eight homes in san arosa over the seven years that i've managed these airbnb's or short term rentals since 2014 i have had only one complaint and that was from a neighbor who had at eight o'clock in the evening had a little bit of a noise issue with my guest who were here for a wedding and over seven years i've only had one issue which was you know that that that was addressed immediately by a phone call from myself to the guests i wanted to commend you on the the quiet hours i think that's very important because i do respect my neighbors and my neighborhood i also want to commend you on tot taxes i feel like that's also very important for for for us to enforce now i wanted you to be aware of something really important which i'm not in agreeance at all the $1,250 um is out is in my opinion very an outrageous amount of money considering that i did some research and i found out that the city of new york it costs nothing they don't they don't require a fee san francisco has a $250 fee los angeles has $89 fee dc has zero chicago is zero to 250 boston has a $200 fee seattle has a $75 fee and los vegas has a zero fee so my question to you is our little city of san rosa is thinking about a $1,200 fee from us responsible hosts why are you doing this to us and why is it so much higher than bigger cities like new york san francisco los angeles dc chicago boston and seattle and los vegas i don't understand this and this is where i think that you should reconsider that part of the um other ordinance so thank you so much for hearing us out and um just please reconsider that thank you simpia we'll go to nancy followed by bernadette nancy are you able to unmute all right nancy we'll come back to you let's go to bernadette followed by d beaver hi there every day i now live in fear of who will be occupying the house next to me the single family home next door is a sleep 16 santa wrote uh short-term rental in a four bedroom house with parking for seven cars there was no warning no zoning chain signs in front of the property to let me know that it would now be a commercial business that out of town investors own the house that once had a family now is an ever-changing flow of strangers i have two short-term rentals that touch my property lines one on the west side and one in the back of my house the circle we live in now has five short-term rentals only one of them is someone's primary residence and is a host at rental every time a for sale sign comes up on our street we brace ourselves for who will be buying it beer pong shotgunning and intoxicated adults are the noises that have replaced the voices of my old neighbors an excess of 20 cars now drive up and down our circle looking for the party house they rent it for the weekend i've called city planning and asked if i can split my double lot they said yes i told them i wanted to build a five bedroom house for the sole purpose of renting it out on a nightly basis i was told by a senior planner that it is a non-conforming use and not per a minute in a residential zone a home on rancho cabesa sold on 9 20 three weeks later it's open for business as a 14 person hotel no zoning change no permits required no regulations i asked you all then why are the proliferations of santa rosa short-term rentals allowed around me why are out-of-town investors permitted to buy up homes with a shortage of housing and turn a profit why my house has decreased in value because of the party house being next to me these investors don't spend their profits in sonoma county or volunteer send their kids to our local schools or donate to the local charities like the residents of santa rosa have they are from out of town i asked your city council as the leaders of our community to protect us know to short-term rentals in residential areas and there should be a moratorium on all short-term rentals until the city of santa rosa has regulations in place like every other county in santa rosa thank you for your time thank you bernadette we'll go to d beaver followed by chuck yes first and foremost i would like clarification on the open fire i understand we live in a fire sensitive community would that include propane fire pits or just log burning fire pits so some clarification there would be much appreciated also in regards to the fees and the taxes that we will be paying what support will we as the air bnb operators have or are you only after our money in collecting these fees hopefully their support for the air bnb operators as well as for the the neighbors that live near the air bnb's thank you thank you d beaver we'll go to chuck followed by chris hi much this is chuck hope i live near k and i have some similar concerns we have a hosted location here we've never had any complaints we take our neighbors very seriously as far as making sure that what we're doing isn't compromising their lifestyle or their their daily lives and we've done a very good job of it much like many of the hosted people have said we have people that come back and return regularly because we've been gracious hosts and we're salesmen for santa rosa with the even with the current program that's being talked about within the 50 days we no longer may be able to host while it's written and i think that's very unfair as a host and someone that's been paid i appreciate all the effort that went into putting this together however the my phone number and my address is listed with the city and i was never contacted to get my input i just recently received my form for submitting my taxes for this quarter which i'll be paying almost two thousand dollars and there was no mention in that so i think that there's been a a shortcoming in the effort that was made or the opportunity to have contacted paying hosts on a number of occasions i've called the the office is there and express my concern about people that are not paying the tot because that puts me at a disadvantage because i have to charge 12 percent more to be able to make the same amount of money and conversely they can list for 12 less and every time i've called the comment has said has been yeah i we appreciate that we're short staff we really can only do very little about that so the idea that now we're going to take on this additional enforcement with limited staff is concerning and the final point that i would make is that i also feel that this is focus more on the complaints of a few which i i really feel badly for those people but there seems to be very little effort to be going after the people that are not paying tot and i feel that's very unfortunate thank you thank you chuck we'll go to chris followed by laura good evening good evening everyone this is chris betler i am a realtor and a an airbnb super host i've hosted since april 2019 through the airbnb platform and i've paid my 12 percent taxes faithfully since day one in fact when i moved back to santa rosa from oakland where i lived for three years i went to the city asking about the policies and signed up for the program immediately because i want to be compliant and contribute to the financial well-being of the city to date i've paid four thousand eight hundred and six dollars and seventy eight cents in my 12 percent tot taxes and in addition to the forty seven hundred dollars i paid for my property taxes i'm a super host and have three listings in my bungalow in which i live full time my str is my main source of income right now as i'm a newer realtor and i won't be able to stay here without that income there have been zero complaints from guest or neighbors about my home i live here since the city went digital for special parking permits this year as own in which i live near the fairgrounds 100 of my guests who arrive with a vehicle and that's not all of my guests but those who do have a vehicle are registered as daily parking guests with a city parking permit and a scan code in the vehicle so it's easily identified as a guest doesn't i mean dozens of local restaurants and businesses have directly benefited from my personal listing and the guests that i refer to them for dinner car repairs musical events wineries stationary stores and more coveted in the fires as many other hosts have mentioned have devastated our economy the responsible hosted homes like mine provide a seamless short-term rental experience for the guests practically invisible to the neighborhood and a place to stay for those who can't afford the cost of the remaining hotels that didn't burn down and a much needed source of income for people like me who are trying to hold on to their homes it feels punishing to pass this umbrella ordinance when the problems appear to be due to a few mega mansions with off-site hosts they don't represent the scr community we are responsible and we have a sort of a variety of legitimate and responsible guests visiting santa rosa for a variety of business and personal reasons please don't punish all of us for the sake of a few outliers it's possible to deal with them directly since they have so many complaints lodged against them perhaps begin with those offenders and adapt the ordinance as needed add in as needed do more research collect the taxes from those who aren't paying um and that that concludes my comments thank you so much i appreciate all the time you're putting into this thank you chris we'll go to laura followed by land paths hello yep go ahead laura thanks um i'm in favor of adopting the ordinance and establishing a moratorium and i'm not just directing this at my district city council member but to all city council members listening tonight because all of you have unhosted rentals in each of your districts and it will only get worse unless something is done but i'm trying to be objective and considerate about this whole thing so i tried to think of something positive to say about unhosted rentals let's see do i enjoy all the loud party noise on most nights no do i appreciate all the cars parked on our small one-way one street blocking the road so it's impossible for fire trucks to get through heck no do i relish all the overflowing trash bins left out in the street for a week attracting all kinds of critters not at all but mostly do i really adore that our neighborhoods are becoming hotbeds for makeshift hotels and tearing apart our communities absolutely not i guess i'm not so objective thank you laura we'll go to land paths followed by eric hi actually my name is leilani clark that's my work uh name so please don't put that on the record well we'll welcome leilani thank you um so good evening mayor rogers and city council members my name is leilani clark and i live in mayor rogers i work full-time at a local nonprofit and my husband also works full-time at another local nonprofit our daughter is eight years old and a third grader in the santa rosa city schools district in 2012 we were lucky enough to be able to buy a house in downtown santa rosa so far away from the mega mansions we moved to the neighborhood excited about the prospect of getting to know our neighbors and getting involved in the community we made friends with other families including the working parents uh who lived next door and who rented the downstairs unit and who had a little boy not much older than our daughter in 2018 that family was asked to move out by the owner of the property and both the upstairs and downstairs units were turned into a short term vacation rental advertised on airbnb it soon began the near constant flow of visitors that continues to this day because it's a duplex it draws large groups and over the past few years we've had to regularly ask the people on the patio which is just a few feet from my daughter's bedroom to be quiet after 10 p.m a couple of weeks ago i had to go out at 3 a.m to ask a loud group to quiet down um my daughter goes to bed by 8 30 in order to be rested for the school day people on vacation kind of think of their surroundings differently than working people like myself with my husband and honestly many times they don't even appear to be aware at all that they're staying in a residential neighborhood with children nearby we've been forced to ask people to turn down music pouring through our windows late at night we've had to shut the windows and close up one side of the house when people cuss yell and talk about all manner of adult subjects as my daughter plays with Legos in her bedroom just a few feet away from them if these guests were actual neighbors we could develop a relationship with them and deal with the noise in a community oriented way but these are strangers and we have no recourse since the owner who doesn't live there and has two other unhosted vacation rentals in the neighborhood hasn't made us feel safe in expressing concerns and so we have no contact with him the new ordinance puts homeowners like me in the uncomfortable position of having to quote police the visitors at the vacation rental i supported any ordinance that regulates short term vacation rentals and i'd love to see the ordinance go so far as places like the city of los angeles which passed rules in december 2018 that limit people to renting out only their primary residence and not a second home or investment properties so we do support the hosted rentals just not the unhosted please think about families like mine whose lives have been negatively impacted by close proximity to short term vacation rentals when you vote tonight on the proposed ordinance uh thank you for listening thank you leilame we'll go to eric frazier followed by eric deets thank you very much mr mayor appreciate that so yeah obviously i'm not in favor i'm a five-star hosted host in downtown santa rosa and even if you were to draft this ordinance to exclude hosted rentals i still reject uh strongly to this whole process basically what you're doing is using an urgency ordinance as an end round around a proven planning process that include robust public involvement i mean you had you're saying that you have 168 or 163 hosts their strs in good standing but yet you don't even invite them in on the policy setting you guys have been working on this for over a year what that isn't time to have a competent planning process no this urgency ordinance is an end round around the law and quite frankly it is a moratorium you're expressing a moratorium on certain zones of the of the area obviously you haven't explained to people that by law this has to expire as you you have to replace an urgency ordinance with something and it has to have grounds factual grounds for why something is urgent the problem is just the amount of false testimony by your staff it's endless the reason why you're not collecting tot from this purported 190 some rentals is because they're a mirage they're fictitious even if they existed six years ago you had the opportunity to sign off and still do to this day with a voluntary collection agreement with Airbnb and presumably other platforms in fact they're speculation that because the county has these agreements in place that some of the tax revenue that's due to the city inadvertently flows to the county because they're on top of their game you guys love to play in the shadows you don't like strs for whatever political reason and you set this up for a lot of got you moments you're insisting on creating policy and legitimizing policy under the urgency ordinance that normally would be going through a planning process once the policy is established it would be very difficult to remove you had no outreach even though you now say that there's 163 good standing accounts you've had no outreach to them it's outrageous really what you're doing is beyond the pale sorry for getting emotional about it but I hate seeing you guys push around senior citizens and other people not even having a robust complaint process for all of our citizens false testimony against our neighbors is what you're engaging that's got to stop you are going to have to be accountable thank you thank you Eric we'll go to Eric Dietz followed by Erica yes hi are you able to hear me yes we can okay great my name is Eric Diaz I live in the Montecito Meadows neighborhood and I'm sure you're all familiar with the problems we faced here with the short-term rental property this in our area if you're not familiar you can just look at the front page of today's press democrat and read about it but I'm not going to rehash those details what I want to say was that the issues that we've been having in our neighborhood they're not unique short-term rentals are causing problems in neighborhoods all over the city you know we've we've heard about the the loud noise the big parties the parking issues fire safety emergency access issues and all the rest but really most importantly short-term rentals reallocate scarce housing resources that we're facing here in the city it reallocates it to tourists rather than to the residents that need to live here on a long-term basis now I've heard some of the str owners here say they depend on the income either right now or part of their retirement plan but I would say to those people that there are alternatives you know specifically you can rent your properties out on a long-term basis instead and that would actually help our housing shortage rather than hurt it so I want to thank all of you on the city council for addressing this is a complex issue and I want to say thanks to all the other city leaders you know people in the planning department code enforcement police and fire departments and others for all the hours you've put into researching the issue and drafting this inter-emergency ordinance so I urge the city council not only to approve the ordinance but also to enact a moratorium on any new short-term rentals between now and whenever the final regulations are enacted in a few months that will prevent new problems and new neighborhoods from happening and give everybody some time to focus on crafting a solid well-thought-out ordinance so thank you very much thank you Eric we'll go to Erica followed by Ryan hello hi my name is Erica Lepanovic I appreciate Mr. Mayor I appreciate city council members thank you for hearing us all out my my husband was born and raised in Santa Rosa and he always spoke so highly of his childhood he used to bite to school he used to be able to walk to his neighbor's house he felt like he knew all of his neighbors it was just it was that sort of small town vibe that a city girl like me who grew up in Southern California Los Angeles mega plex never had and when we decided to move to Santa Rosa it was it was clear as we were ready to have a family I wanted to be where the families are I wanted to be where the community was I I was excited about that so when we finally did move back to Santa Rosa we were so blessed to move on to a very quiet street in the Hidden Valley neighborhood and we were just so grateful because at the same time we moved here six other families happened to move here at the same time and we now have over a dozen children that live within our block and we play in the court you know my kids bike in the streets and it's just been such a wonderful opportunity we started a a block party that we get together you know once a month or as we try to you know just COVID but we know each other we we call each other during fire season we make sure we have a buddy system these are all aspects of a community that I moved to Santa Rosa for so I could raise my children in an area in a different world than I grew up and it was really really sad to me when I saw that a house up the street I was ready to go drop off a little welcome to the neighborhood package I found out that it was bought by an investment group some people who've never seen it who knows and now it's going to be a five bedroom short-term rental and it was really sad because you know this was supposed to be a new family that was supposed to join us on the block parties and get to know us and be contributing members of our community but you know things happen so that's how I felt until a week later the house across the street also sold and became a short-term rental now we have two brand new um short-term rentals that have pools that are less than 300 feet from each other and I'm really concerned that this trend is just going to continue unless we push for passage of this ordinance and a moratorium on any new short-term rentals that has the capacity of completely changing and altering the Santa Rosa that we all love there are people who've been here who boast about having been here for 40 years 60 years and I really hope that someday my children see Santa Rosa as a place where they want to come back and raise their own family just like my husband and I did so please I strongly hope that you will consider passing a moratorium on new short-term rentals until something else can be decided thank you so much thank you Erica we'll go to Ryan followed by David uh hi I'm Ryan and uh I got to spring like middle school and I am here talking about the issue of homeless people near my tennis club lock and tear on Montgomery Drive um at lock and tear there have been like a lot of homeless people making a lot of noise and frightening like children of younger ages below 10 during classes there um we've also found needles and homeless people sleeping on courts and our structure and our instructors have not let us go on the courts at the back of the club because that's where they're most left found um and I just wanted to address this here to bring attention to this and try and like fix this problem because like my parents and my brother my younger brother feel like afraid of them and like they could go on to the court at any time and there's some really dangerous problems there and yeah I'm just speaking for many of my friends and my family on behalf of this issue thank you all right thank you Ryan we appreciate you being here with us uh we have uh an agenda item that'll come up after this for everything not related to the short-term rental urgency ordinance so we'll hold your comments for then and we'll we'll consider them at that point we'll go to David followed by Sharon good evening council people thank you so much for working on this really important issue the short-term rental urgency ordinance is an important first step towards what I think would should be a full and appropriate regulation of the short-term rental industry in Santa Rosa and make no mistake short-term rental is an industry it is an industry enabled by internet-based service firms like Airbnb, VRBO and Avon State it is an industry that is exploiting and profiting from transformation of single family homes into quasi small hotels and it is an industry that is disruptive and growing in Santa Rosa industries require regulation unfortunately the urgency ordinance as it's written will do very little to curb disruptions and will do little to achieve the stated purposes the correctly stated purposes of the ordinance its enforcement clauses are weak and they rely on general citizenry to be stealthy investigators the stated purposes can really only be achieved by severely limiting the frequency with which non-hosted short-term rentals are allowed to be occupied or by just eliminating them from residential neighborhoods this needs to be the focus of your future effort to fine-tune the regulations of the supposed benefits that are often touted by the short-term rental industry none of them including the generation of transient occupancy tax income for the city actually outweigh their detriment and many are really just simply not true there is a comprehensive economic cost benefit study that was performed in 2019 by the economic policy institute and it provides ample proof of this and it concludes that short-term rentals should have to play by the same rules as hotels and other lodging providers council members and city staff would be really well served by reading this report the city Santa Rosa is late to the short-term rental regulation party county of Sonoma and all major cities in the county have already had ordinances in place that limit short-term rental operations while city staff and leaders contemplate the next year short-term regulations they should really recognize that a moratorium on all new short-term rental is the most effective immediate action that can be taken and will at least prevent the short-term rental problems from growing worse it's time to alter the formula that is currently being employed time and time again by non-hosted short-term rental owners primarily in the R1 and R rural residential zones of Santa Rosa that formula is a purchase a home with three or more bedrooms and attractive outside space and preferably a swimming pool be advertised as sleeping in quotation marks 10 or more persons see charge a nightly rental fee that covers the primary expenses of ownership with just five or six rental nights a month d look at as often as possible with a little regard for the result and disruption then rinse and repeat please stop this ridiculous practice thank you David i need you to wrap up your comments please adopt the urgency ordinance install a city-wide moratorium on all new non-hosted short-term rentals thank you very much thank you David we'll go to Sharon followed by Jan hi this is Sharon Abbott um i live across the street from a nine bedroom seven bath party house and it has been an absolute nightmare and i won't go into all the woes of that because you've heard many of it tonight i just would like to say i'm in favor of this passing of this urgency ordinance and definitely a moratorium please thank you Sharon we'll go to Jan followed by Javier this is Jan Gilman and i want to thank um mr mayor and council for considering this very important issue as an owner of over four 15 years of a vacation rental in Hawaii i am concerned about the unlicensed stvrs in Santa Rosa they i know can have value to a community by bringing tourism into the community they increase business opportunities for local tourism based business they increase the tax base and they add a positive visibility to the community they offer an opportunity for families to vacation in a more structure a more relaxed structure than the typical hotel and they become an important fixture in the sharing economy however however i am alarmed that there are new unhosted short-term rentals in my Montecito Heights neighborhood i am alarmed that two houses with swimming pools have been purchased across the street from each other together they have nine bedrooms and seven baths perfect for quiet family reunions but also for raucous parties with these houses we could potentially even under the restrictions have 26 people daily on our three short block street there's few ordinance prohibiting these owners for traffic noise size of gardening gatherings trash and waste water conservation most alarmingly we are very concerned about fire our neighborhood has recently requested and received a fire mitigation consultation from will powers of the senate rose a fire department because of our community concerns we have no assurance that s dvr guests will have any sense of this after living in center Rosa for 45 years and raising my family i've been delighted to see our neighborhood filled again with young families who are committed to modernizing these older homes as a long-term investment for their families they will bring energy enthusiasm and leadership to the community the two recent sales have dramatically inflated the cost of buying into our neighborhood if the city is unprepared to take on this measure of control i'm afraid these units will proliferate it will certainly reduce the quiet enjoyment we all require as a condition of living working and contributing to the city of Santa Rosa thank you for your time thank you jan we'll get a Javier followed by Ted hi my name is Javier and i operate what appears to be the only legal hosted vacation rental in the oakmont community i have been doing it for four years now and have uh we have many wonderful people from around the world i would like to echo the comments from other hosted rental hosts most of my neighbors didn't even know there was a vacation rental in my neighborhood and when they found out they would tell their neighbors and friends and family members to send business our way the reason being is that as a hosted rental host we follow and enforce all the rules as a hosted rental host we are a dedicated resource to our guests and eliminate any and all issues that arise in the four years we have been in business we have never had a complaint or had the police called to our property however with the proposed ordinance that as it currently reads uh we will be losing 25 to 30 percent of our potential rental revenue every year it doesn't seem fair for a host who is following the rules to be negatively impacted by this ordinance so i asked that if an ordinance isn't acted more lenient rules be implemented for hosted vacation rentals thank you thank you Javier we'll go to Ted followed by ZTA hello my name is Ted Honestead and i grew up in Sonoma County i'm a head coach of a high school sports team here and i run a short-term uh rental management company i'm very committed to the current and future well-being of the community and i think a lot of what we have to look at comes down to the complaints that we're listening to tonight mainly what we're hearing are complaints of loud noise fire safety and just general public nuisance um i think a lot of these are complaints on properties that aren't frankly managed correctly um i think there should be a difference between hosted not hosted but also a special designation for professionally managed airbnb's or short-term rentals seems as though if a airbnb or short-term managed rental uh is is managed correctly we wouldn't have a lot of these problems um in addition to that i think one other issue that we might see um decline uh is with TOTs i think it's very hard to pay the TOTs based off of the system that's currently there um i can't tell you when people come to us for advice and ask how do they actually get a hold of the city to pay their TOT um and right now if you were to go on the website to download the form uh to to fill out you click on the form and it it shows it's unavailable so you can't even download the form online i think it'd be easier if you know along with this ordinance that we're putting in place we made a you know uh a more efficient way for people to actually log in and pay their TOTs online just some pieces of advice thank you for your time thank you so much tid we'll go to ZTA followed by Ivan good evening thank you for hearing this very important issue my name is Julia Adams ZTA is my employer so if we could take that off the record that would be great um i own a single family home in Rincon Valley and it's a very quiet residential street where most evenings the loudest noise is birds and little animals running around that's until the next door house became an str the house sold in 2020 and a three bedroom two bath became a six bedroom two and a half bath it is a non-hosted rental it is professionally managed it is a party house there is no other definition for it so my quiet neighborhood became a fraternity rope with one house alone we have tried to work with the management company we have resorted to calling the police multiple times i i won't go into all of the details simply because the stories are the same that other people have been saying tonight it is outrageous that these people can come into our neighborhoods and treat them like hotels but it's worse than that because if this were a hotel and they were acting the way that they act the hotel would kick them out and that's not what happens some guests that stay multiple nights we've had to call the police on them night after night after night sometimes multiple times in a night one of my favorite evenings was the police came and knocked on the door around midnight and five minutes later they turned on please don't stop the music as loud as they possibly could and we're screaming it at the top of their lungs just because we called the police the police obviously had to come back and take care of it i strongly urge you to vote for the urgency ordinance and consider stronger regulations for non-hosted rentals as well thank you for your time thank you julia we'll go to eric followed by shan hi i'd like to say a couple things and echo some of the things that have been said already i believe that this can be boiled down into a couple things i unfortunately live in a neighborhood has two short-term rentals and i've had to have similar some things happen in the neighborhood that they've spoken for already but i think we're really the to boil us down as we're losing the fabric for our communities by having these short-term rentals come in and i i also agree that the hosted rentals is a different animal altogether they're part of the community we want them to be part of our neighborhoods in our community but that's not what's happening with the unhosted versions of this so and i feel very sorry because i like some of the comments i grew up in this town i've been here 60 years i had grew up in a neighborhood where i knew everybody i knew the kids i knew the parents we all took care of each other and we're losing that fabric within the community when these these short-term rentals non-hosted come into the neighborhoods and i'm also sorry because i have children they're young adults they'd like to return home but they can't afford to live here and we have a housing shortage as it is that increases prices by itself and then we have this influx of people with money many don't live in the community it's a business to them and it it's an opportunity for our our families to be maintained our kids to come home but they can't do it they can't afford it rents go up long-term rentals are being reversed into short-term rentals so the rental market is impacted as well rents go up so even if they want to come back to community and and rent for a while i'm gonna try to save up money to buy they can't even do that so i'm strongly for the moratorium and the short the urges use that's proposed at this point and let's nip this in the bud for it is way out of hand thank you thank you eric we'll go to shawn followed by shila hello my name is shawn hermesee i'm a local realtor uh attendance at heiner high school was a coach at santa rosa high and i started renting one of my houses at well the night house out in coffee park while i was living there and i had traveling nurses to people for other professionals coming from one to three weeks and then when i moved out of that house i kept two long-term tenants and then two rooms continue to be a short-term rental for traveling professionals and um even during the fires they got they got out safely we contacted them and it fortunately worked out for everybody since in my family and i have one other short-term rental and we helped manage other people's rentals i've helped people purchase uh second homes well a new home so they can leave the home they were living in to do a move-up purchase and in in the same opportunity they're able to make a little bit more money to keep that other home for retirement purposes so i'm all for and i feel very empathetic to people who that have had severe noise problems we've never had any noise problems and let's talk about the the issue at hand some bad actors who are not being responsible to their neighbors that's awful and that needs to be addressed in a much better way and it seems like it's in a very couple focused areas but all these other homeowners that are either hosted rentals or non-hosted that have one or two homes that are doing this they shouldn't be punished for this like somebody also mentioned about the fee structure of $1,250 just to rent your own home out that's that's rather exorbitant that's one of the big issues that i'd like to bring up and have it being equal because a non-hosted rental versus a hosted having more stringent rules for a hosted rental when there's more control more ability to correct problems quickly that's seems rather heavy-handed for individuals that are really relying on that income fortunately i don't have to rent out my primary residence we do it sometimes when we go on vacation and that's a huge help so that's considered non-hosted rental even though it's once in a while for primary residence in short i want you to reconsider some of these details of the ordinance i'm all for holding people accountable that's very important i'm all for a permitting process but let's make it reasonable $150-$200 and that would be on the high side compared to a big city and let's really be thoughtful about this so we can have a ordinance that makes sense and also punishes the people that needs to be punished thank you thank you Sean we'll go to Sheila followed by Johanna hi can you hear me yes we can great i'm calling because this ordinance does not go far enough and regulating non-hosted short-term vacation rentals which i believe should be uncommitted or abandoned land use one of this council's top three goals is housing and affordable housing in addition to the housing crisis created by a lack of inventory there is increased competition for housing from both fire survivors and the influx of buyers from higher-cost housing markets who are now able to telecommute and purchase homes in Sonoma county due to the pandemic now the city is contemplating adding regulations to provide for more competitions from investors and corporations with the resources to buy homes to use as de facto hotels and residential neighborhoods which will further reduce housing inventory the fact is the city cannot regulate who buys properties they can be mom and pop investors for a global investment company and it really doesn't matter because the end result is the same a reduction in housing inventory in 2015 the county of Sonoma commissioned a study of vacation rentals by consulting firm economic and planning system which included data from the city of santa rosa the study found there are several costs to permitting vacation rentals in this region some of which are one shifting existing scarce local resident housing to the lodging sector two encouraging tenant evictions if a landlord concludes they can earn more money from short-term rentals than from a long-term tenant and three the negative effects on quality of life for residents in the area this report also mentioned that vacation rentals typically provide double the income than a long-term rental the first recommendation this report was to prohibit vacation rentals in urban residential zones it should be noted that this report was submitted prior to housing impacts experienced from the tubs buyer and the pandemic this ordinance does not ban or cap vacation rentals this does not retain housing units for long-term renters or buyers who would live there bad behavior occurs on weekends and nights when city staff are not working further the police department does not have the time or the resources to address these lower-level complaints which will not criminal create a high level of concern and impacts on surrounding neighbors the staff report mentions preserving housing stock however based on a review of the city's zoning map vacation rentals could be permitted in the bulk of every residential zoning district what we know is we have a housing crisis and by permitting vacation rentals in this blanket manner this ordinance will only exacerbate supply and affordability issues for long-term renters and prospective home buyers who would live in the neighborhood and contribute to the schools and community further i think the city should consult with aback to determine whether there are impacts to the city's housing units by allowing conversion of residential units to a commercial lodging unit thank you sheila johanna followed by rick hello this is johanna's husband speaking my name is benjamin goldstein i'm a resident uh senator rosa a homeowner in the monocetal heights neighborhood um four points one i really want to commend city staff for running an open inclusive transparent public engagement and comment process um it was one of the most inclusive processes i've ever been part of there was ample opportunity for the public to be engaged so i just want to thank city staff for that i um i urge the council to to vote uh and to approve the urgency ordinance tonight it's well written it's an excellent first step into getting a handle on regulating short-term rentals in san aroza it's well drafted it had ample public comment i urge the council to uh approve it tonight i appreciate the economic arguments that some of the short-term rental owners are making but that's exactly why we have hotels in san aroza in commercial areas to host tourists send them to our local businesses um and showcase san aroza and the greater sonoma county that's exactly why we have hotels for that purpose and i'll just conclude by saying um we really need this housing stock uh to be available for single family owners um after losing three thousand units in the tubs and nuns fire additional units in the glass fire we need every single possible residence available to um to house people living here and not for tourism so thank you again um appreciate staff and your excellent work on this i urge you to approve the ordinance as written thank you thank you we'll go to rick thank you mayor rogers and council members and i'd like to thank the staff for all the effort you put into this uh i think i heard benjamin say that he seated his last minute to me so i think i have four minutes here um you've all heard testimony that any problems associated with unhosted short-term rentals are isolated incidents and incidences created by negligent operators nothing could be further from the truth it is not an isolated instance when 350 to 400 houses are taken away from those who would like to live and work in the area it is not an isolated instance when close to 2,500 people respond to a survey on short-term rentals 87 of whom are not owners or operators of short-term rentals it is not an isolated instance when every other major city in sonoma county has limited short-term rentals and the county of sonoma has placed the moratorium against further additions it is not an isolated instance when cities are geographically diverse as Santa Monica palm springs and south lake tahoe regulate or limit short-term rentals south lake tahoe has banned them all together Santa Monica only allows hosted rattles and palm springs limits permits to only non-corporate owners similar ordinances stretch across the country as far away as bangor main the truth is that unhosted short-term rentals inherently remove housing stock from the supply available to local residents and change the character of neighborhoods we urge you to pass this urgency ordinance amended to respect hosted rattles and establish a moratorium to prevent further erosion of the housing stock available to those who live work and vote in santa rosa thank you very much thank you rick the last hand that i see on zoom i'm gonna give folks on zoom one more second here to put your hand up okay we have dale everybody um just want to say that i live next to one of the party houses um it's actually on my back part property line um i know everybody's probably seen my story and heard my my issues here but i'm just as a recap uh this is a non-hosted venue house weddings events large groups dj music small gatherings as the property owner calls it which consists of 15 people or more uh recently a limo bus dropped off 17 people just the other evening so this is not a single family house um party rental trucks dropping off catering equipment banquet tables and chairs this is a hotel this is an event space non-hosted it is the biggest problem um the frequency the there's a huge factor here of of what happens you know it's 80 to 90 percent of the month it is occupied uh eight to 10 different groups um it's a bit insane uh with this much turnover everyone around here has had enough who wants to live next to this i don't i simply don't i think it's very wrong this is not about being good neighbors here this is about caching in i just feel like we really have to step up we have to act now we have to approve this ordinance um it's the foundation for a greater work i know there's a lot that's been put into this there's improvement that needs to happen and there will be but for now i do feel that uh i strongly encourage city council to approve this i do the right thing so i support the urgency ordinance and moratorium on any new strs thank you thank you deal a little monica followed by caroline hi this is mark i'm speaking for monica and i just wanted some clarifications however i do am concerned about the enforcement issue certainly because the house just down the street which was on a septic system with a four bedroom septic it's now a six bedroom house and i don't know how that got approved through the city uh so that that is a concern i also have a question on the definitions basically on your 20-48.30 you note on section l that owner includes personnel family such and such but does not include residents or condominians owned or time share limited liability partnerships corporations or business entities so therefore the house that was bought by a corporate entity should not be able to participate as a vrbo i also am concerned about the areas of the occupancy you know certainly this is a six bedroom house advertised for 14 you have a limit on 10 i don't understand how the city enforces that finally as far as the enforcement penalties go i think that they are two lacks the first violation at five hundred dollars that's less than half the cost of renting this house for one night i think the first penalty should be one week of rental equivalent and then the second violations would be one month of violation equivalent and and therefore you would have a lot of these hosted homes they don't have any problems they all come out and say they're fine it's these non-hosted events that are creating all the issues and i think we need to make penalties high enough so these people will stand up pay attention and understand what they're facing if they do violate thank you very much thank you we'll go to caroline followed by nancy caroline are you able to unmute there we go can you hear me yes we can okay um first of all i'd like to say that this is obviously a really complex issue and i'd like to thank um all the staff and elected officials who are spending time to try to get this resolved in an equitable manner the fact that it's titled an urgency ordinance leads me to think that there is some urgency and with that in mind given it's a complex issue i would suggest that there be a moratorium put in place until a more comprehensive ordinance can be put into place addressing all the complexity of the issue um another comment i have is the enforcement and i heard staff tonight say well if you had your video footage of something then that would be sufficient to prosecute um that's almost going to require trespassing and i think is an undue burden to put on neighbors of these facilities another thought that i had is so we're looking at police and fire resources responding to complaints of noise at short-term rentals i would hate to call 911 if my loved ones needed police or fire assistance and be told sorry they're out monitoring a noise complaint at a short-term rental that's just untenable to me so i'd like to just reiterate that there really should be a moratorium until you have more time to figure out how best to manage this thanks for your time thank you we'll go to nancy followed by harry can you hear me yes we can okay finally i got in my name's nancy wong i'm 44 years resident in santa rosa raised all my three children and all went to public school now my grandchildren is going to the public school they stay the city um actually i'm favorable for the on-site hosting short-term shelter rental i have no problem with that one thing i really wanted to say thank you for the city um concert the mayor the city staff to put on these urging elements as myself serve for the city council advisor for 12 years our goal is go out to get a neighbor together know each other with community residential area now turning to the commercial area it's unbelievable it's all the hand this big corporation coming in to purchase the big house you watch them to bring in the fire pits and the barbecue things that purchased the house with the pool and i think we went through the 2017 the fire our police department our fire department is it's already handful now you're adding more things for them it's going to be disaster also for the residential area i really want to ask in the city council to amend this short-term rental because we're going to have no residential no community nobody wants moving into santa rosa a beautiful city i live in for 44 years and you're going to school enrollments in the drop you want to ask the time i remember we had a surf the town hall meeting to let the neighbor to know each other to help each other so whenever the disaster we're going to have a who's coming for dinner we have all this program to try to put the residential together community together work together now you're turning to our residential to the commission zoning i think it's going to be disaster for our city please please consider it don't like the short-term unhosting i mean we have a wonderful neighbor they are hosting short-term member but we have no problem with i just can't stand the doing the act asking the people for investment to santa rosa to buy in the big house for the short-term rental thank you very much thank you nancy we'll go to harry hi my name is harry albert's i know one owns the property that's probably gotten the vast majority of complaints to the city some of the people around me have written the letters to the city almost almost every weekend and you can go and look at the record it's luminous i did allow some weddings to occur after covid since then i've stopped them there are no new events scheduled my place which is being mentioned so much is only rented on a weekend rarely ever during the week and the time it's rented is posted online everybody could see it the issue i have here there's so much misinformation and i think the city should take their time and do the rules right the first time we all want rules but it's hard to make mistakes and change them later it's much better to take your time do the research get correct information not just people complaining which isn't documented and do it correct my property has video cameras and i'm listening to what people are saying and i've got video to prove that their comments are grossly exaggerated so please take your time do this right the first time and i urge you to be calm be patient and i don't think there's an urgency these rentals have been going on for a decade in town it's time just to be careful and make the rules right first time and get everyone's input so that we don't have to make changes later thank you thank you harry let's go to tl followed by sarah hi can you hear me yep hi hi i'm tl i lived in santa rosa for almost two years um we have um short term rental next door um you know one of the owner the owner claimed that uh oh it would correct everything receive you know complaints but turns out it twisted everything wrong that other neighbor is making the problem but which is not and there's no regulations doing anything to account holding these types of owners so i urge the city council tonight to vote to pass this urgent ordinance because if you never start any ordinance to begin with how can you able to account holding this back that um unhosted um how so and especially these owners making all these excuse and you know i just heard like you know working with the neighbors but i if there if there is to work with the neighbor why would the neighbors keep complaining so once again moving to santa rosa for two years as a nightmare and i hope you know this can stop a lot of neighbors concern thank you very much thank you tl we'll go to sarah hi um my name is sarah i work as a local nurse here in santa rosa i don't belong to a big corporation i grew up here went to high school here um and i really wanted to buy a home here but um as a single woman it was really hard so i moved in with my partner and bought a home and i use it as an unhosted short-term rental and um i really feel that it's been a really invaluable asset to me and i think to the community i've actually housed other nurses respiratory therapists and doctors during the pandemic when they were on two-week contracts with the hospital for covid you're extremely short staffed and also PG&E workers that came to um upgrade power lines and cut down trees and whatever people contracted through PG&E so um i thought that was i thought i felt like i was giving back to the community by doing that i've also hosted um families that can't afford to stay in hotels because they have three or four kids and want to be able to cook meals for them um my house is managed by a property manager and um uh i'm at work so i can't answer phone calls but she does an amazing job we have had no issues um and i think that because it's it's managed so well that that it um hasn't had a lot of the issues that other people have had unfortunately i also have cameras all around my property and i monitor people if they're in my backyard i can even talk to them through the cameras and tell them to go inside if i have to it alerts on my phone after nine o'clock at night so i think there's a lot of things that can be done without passing a huge ordinance and i'm really hopeful that you guys will take some of this stuff into consideration because this is the reason i can stay in sonoma county with my family as a single woman and have my own house so um i really appreciate it thank you for listening thank you sarah that's the last hand that i see on zoom madam deputy city clerk let's move on to our pre-recorded voicemail comments and for uh for folks listening at home i believe there's about a half hour worth of public comment this is regarding agenda number 15.1 short-term rentals urgency ordinance we live in a quiet family community called woodside hills my wife and i and several neighbors want you to know the following our cc and r specifically prohibit short-term rentals and we are violently opposed to short-term rentals in our neighborhood due to increased fire hazard noise safety and increased traffic recently two properties have been operating in our neighborhood under the air b and b platform woodside hills is heavily wooded and it would take would not take much to start a fire by groups of partygoers who are not used to the extreme precautions that we all take in 19 and 2017 fire entered our community and slightly damaged several homes noise levels are also increasing and by the way noise matters at all times of the day not just between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. as stated in your proposal for quiet times both air b and bs are over 4 000 square feet and one of them has a pool we move here and not intending to live near two hotels we have witnessed large wine tour buses that hold well over 20 people coming to our quiet neighborhood to pick up wine drinkers we strongly urge city council to vote to ban short-term rentals especially in heavily wooded communities such as the similar bands in glen ellen pitch mountain etc and those neighborhood that neighborhoods that have ccnr's that prohibit such rentals and just as important the city needs to have a department to enforce the band thank you for asking the community to provide feedback we will be anxiously awaiting and watching the decision this is a comment on the short-term rental problem i urge the city to set a moratorium on short-term rentals until some reasonable laws and regulations can be established please stop the flood of short-term rentals sonoma county is a popular destination other cities have acted on the problem my urge senator was a city council to do so that frequently are just too many cars sometimes blocking the street noise after hours they really need to be more regulations thank you my name is robert wells i'm calling in regards to the short-term rental ordinance and the problem i have is that in my neighborhood there's five short-term rental ordinance excuse me five short-term rentals in my neighborhood i live on a real small cul-de-sac half the time there's cars parked on the street the noise is loud i could throw a rock to two of the short-term rentals one is really loud on the weekends they've done burnouts on the streets sometimes there are as many as 10 cars on the streets as well as what's parked in their driveway there's one down the street that i think is a lot bigger and they have a lot more problems with them they have blocked the streets the other thing is that with the ordinance that is maybe on the books now with the permit requirement and the policies related to occupancy limits who polices that who says that if the place can only hold 10 people that there's only going to be 10 people there and what about all the people that drive in later and park and then they have a big party and then the neighborhood's all disrupted because of it on on the area where i live you might as well put a big motel sign up in the air and say right here it is because all it's doing is disrupting everybody that that bought a house and lives here and wants a quiet neighborhood you never know who's coming or who's going i live next door to a lady that had her house built in the eighties raised her family there she's moving because she has does not know who owns the house next to her and all the people that come and go and to me that's just a disgrace and you've already let the genie out of the bottle there it's just the life safety and parking requirements and noise is just the city of santa rosa is in my opinion will probably never get a handle on that and the people in the neighborhoods are just going to have to deal with it so anyway it should never have started to begin with thank you item 15.1 on the agenda ross liscum santa rosa resident an outright ban on any type or use in 22 of 29 zoning districts is premature and quite frankly an overreach this will lead to economic losses to property owners local businesses public services tourism in our workforce like our visiting nurses on the short-term rental proposed ordinance what are critical and and deficient in this proposal are effective transparent permit costs and standards performance and enforcement procedures parking restrictions quiet hours and occupancy proposed should be the same as any property in the neighborhood in the city this seems to be looking for another revenue generator for the general fund where is the problem that you cannot manage under the existing rules hi there this is jane avalar and i'm a local realtor in sonoma county and i wanted to comment about agenda item 15.1 and i just think that it's unfair because the tourists and all of the revenue that comes in from tourism and food and wine would be affected plus the fire victims you know do the short-term rentals and they need that access i mean they've benefited greatly from that transient occupancy taxes um we can't let the complaints of a few disgruntled people and to you know punish the entire industry and a better solution would be to monitor the activity and escalating punishments for specific owners who are not responsible i have lived next door to an airbnb for years and i have never had a problem with it the owner is very responsible and his guests have been really cool please don't punish everyone for a few bad actors thank you. Hi my name is Stacey Golan i would like to speak on behalf of short-term rentals i feel they create revenue for the city via shopping restaurants revenue also through transient transient occupancy taxes to help support vital services like fire police road maintenance etc the short-term rentals have also been instrumental in the aftermath of the fires housing medical professionals contractors and displaced families a better solution for people who do not maintain good relations with their neighbors or uphold good rules for rentals should be having a series of punishments possibly for owners who are not responsible but to punish everyone for doing something wrong it's not the solution thank you. This is Adam Minkroni this is regarding item number 15.1 regarding further uh rental airbnb restrictions i don't believe that anything supporting further regulation of private property rights is needed i believe that that is completely asinine to what we need to do as a community to continue to grow and to continue to build and be relevant as other communities are expanding and doing different things Sonoma County as a whole has decided that it really does not want to change and making a change like this is unfortunately moving in the wrong direction thank you. Hi my name is Avery i'm a resident of Santa Rosa calling about agenda item 15.1 the regulation of short-term rentals in Santa Rosa. I think these restrictions are much too strict and they target business owners that are bringing revenue to the city and their transient occupancy taxes that all Santa Rosa owners short-term rental owners must pay they help fund vital services like fire police roads etc and to over again punish responsible owners will effectively end short-term rentals in Santa Rosa and cut this vital flow of funding. We can't let the complaint to a few disgruntled people punish an entire industry that is responsible provides the vital service and brings money into our community is working well in the whole a better solution would be to monitor short-term rental activity and have a series of escalating punishments for short-term rental owners who are not responsible neighbors to punish everyone as if they've done something wrong it's not a good not a good solution to this i've had experience with many airbnb rentals in the city and i've not experienced any of these issues so to punish everybody for a few a few bad players in the game be detrimental to our city into our our income thank you bye hi i'm calling my name is scott seeding and i'm calling about the judge item 15.1 and i am in the favor of the airbnb to still continue in santa rosa i had no problems with my neighbor and i've met some really nice people and i think it's a great opportunity for people in the city of santa rosa to stay thank you very much bye hello this is karen grady calling regarding item 15.1 i'm a board member calling on behalf of the north bay association of realtors thank you for allowing us to comment on this there are a couple of things happening here first the subcommittee found the need to mitigate legitimate bad actors where renters were creating nuisances this requires targeted effective management standards how do we best regulate this we agree neighborhoods should be peaceful safe and laws well enforced much is already in place via the general plan code and law enforcement standards is enforcement effective here why or why not but a second element has crept in a prohibition on short-term rentals although in several zones most oftentimes fueled by assumptions rhetoric and a housing crisis that will never be solved by banning owners from renting out her home as a retirement plan having to get here to a proposal that includes full-on prohibitions on rentals in several zones more short-term rentals would be banned in multi-family residential transit village mobile home and the gateway historic scenic road downtown station and north station areas the county has held more than 15 public hearings on this in recent years their policies are mired in confusion overlays and housing supply has not been benefited by to any observable degree before moving to ban or any ban or moratorium we urge you to reject a fashionable antidote that calls for well basically limiting housing to create housing and to focus on uniform management standards zone by zone bans result in hyper concentration confusion and often simply missed their target entirely a couple of specifics the permit would automatically renew annually with no standards on how to renew what constitutes justification and not to renew a permit a three strikes in your out system is already included and they don't transfer upon sale which is why annual renewal is necessary doesn't annual renewal just cause more staff time and owner fees what happens to those already owning and renting properties several owners register and pay tot some do not what what opportunities have they had to understand what is required before we speak to them as bad actors they must have the opportunity to comply many cities and counties begin with hiring a neutral independent firm to evaluate and bring these properties into compliance with tot et aluma has had great success with this thank you for allowing us to comment we remain eager to serve as a resource and collaborator for sustainable santa rosa housing economy my name is eddie stevens and i live in santa rosa and i'm calling on item 15.1 for short-term rentals uh short-term rentals not not only bring tourists and their shopping dining dollars to our area they also have over the past four years housed thousands of fire affected families and of house the thousands out of the area contractors who were vital to rebuilding our depleted housing stock uh to regulate strs out of existence within this vital service transit occupant taxes tot's and all strs owners must pay help fund vital services like fire police roads and more to overregulate and punish responsible owners will effectively end short-term rentals in our city which will cut off this vital flow of funding also we can't let complaints of few disgruntled uh punish the entire industry that is responsible provides a vital service brings money into our community and is working well on the whole providing more housing and bedrooms for all a better solution would be to monitor str activity and have series of escalating punishments for str owners who are not responsible for neighbors to punish everybody as if they have done something wrong is terribly the wrong way to go you might even say something like I have lived next door to an Airbnb for years they have never had a problem with it the owner is very responsible and his guests have even been terrific please don't punish everyone for a few bad apples I vote to keep short-term housing rental alive here in Sonoma County it funds our tourism and adds to our local industries thank you my name is Sarah Carlson I'm calling in regard to the short-term rental properties agenda I am in opposition to putting regulations on short-term rentals I believe that it should be the property owner's right to have a short-term rental it not only is good for our community it's good for our business owners it's good for people coming into our community and I feel that it would be a shame to do away with such properties I also believe that it should not be you know I've actually lived next door to a rental property and have had no issues I've stated many rental properties have had no issues I do believe there are irresponsible homeowners that should be regulated that aren't regulating their own vacation rentals however I don't think that all property owners should be penalized I am in I am opposing this hi my name is almond deep and I am calling to voice my opinion for the Airbnb that's on the agenda and I truly believe the Airbnb is a great alternative for families that are traveling and looking for a safe place and I truly believe they get more for their dollar than staying at some hotel or some resort I'm paying those high fees I've always used Airbnb whenever I've traveled I prefer it over hotels because I'm just not a fan of staying in the hotels and I think it does great for our community it does great for small businesses and I wish that everybody sees a positive and will continue to support the Airbnb adventures thank you for your time and I truly hope that my voice matters thank you yeah hi this is Mike Lynch 15.1 I believe that this is a knee jerk reaction to something has been beneficial to the city I myself have done Airbnb prior I don't do it currently but it's nice to know that that option exists and I think that the laws out there exist to make this happen you just have to enforce the laws and if there are repeat offenders then deal with the repeat offenders this is a knee jerk reaction trying to make rules to limit it for all people instead of just the offenders again enforce the existing laws thanks bye bye mayor that concludes our public comments on item 15.1 great I will close the public hearing bring it back to council so I have a couple of follow-up questions based on some of the comments that we heard or questions that we heard I will start sherry there I'm here hi there so one of the questions that I forgot to ask that you and I had talked about but thought was worth clarifying and somebody kind of touched on it a little bit so the the definition that we have in the ordinance of owner would prevent apps such as Picasso because of the definition around not allowing an LLC correct correct the definition of an owner is a natural person or persons blah blah blah blah and it says includes a personal or family trust consisting solely of natural persons does not include residents or condominiums owned as a timeshare limited limited limited liability partnership or corporation fractional ownership of six or more interests or a business entity so that was the other that I appreciate that because that was the what was touched on by a number of the different comments was the concern that LLCs out of the area corporations that they were coming in and purchasing homes specifically for this purpose and as a point of clarification based on the definition of owner that is not allowed if this ordinance passes that is correct okay there was a question that was asked about children under three not counting towards the the person count for the for the for the the short term rental that comes from the county's ordinance did staff consider that sort of consideration sorry I muted myself when I meant to go the other way so we did consider that and we worked with code enforcement and the building side of things when we tried to figure out how best to look at occupancy and cc can maybe speak to this better than I can but there are actually building code standards that you have to consider the size of the bedroom when you're talking about how many people can be in the room I know for the first person at 70 square feet and anything any additional people would be an additional 50 square feet and that doesn't discriminate based on age and since we're not really mandating in the ordinance anything about the size of bedrooms we felt it best just for safety reasons not to overcrowd them but if cc has more to add I'm all ears I know that that's exactly right so currently the the international property maintenance code does provide provisions for what would constitute minimum square footage for occupancy for the very purpose of preventing overcrowding in a unit so like Sherry said exactly that 70 square feet minimum would be what would be required for one occupant and every occupant there would require an additional 50 square feet and that is taken into account the fact that even a twin bed in a 70 square foot space is still pretty tight so you know the provisions that are set forth for the additional square footage would then provide a little bit more ease of comfort for that particular space okay and remind me I believe with section eight housing I think the way that they do the occupancy is it two people per room and then plus two I'm not sure of how they have their provisions set for their occupancy of bedrooms okay there are a couple of comments about cameras one of the things that Sherry I think you and I had talked about before and something to put on the table for council to consider is I do know that some jurisdictions have required that if there are cameras that they be disclosed because there have been negative elements around that and so that might be something to add but there were a number of comments around cameras and that triggered that for me there was a question about operators in good standing and whether they would be able to roll their approval forward obviously still pay what they need to pay but if they're in good standing and we do go in the direction of addressing overcompens over concentration uh rolling forward have you there were conversations around how to do that for folks in good standing and I'm just wondering if you could share it with the public are we talking about for the comprehensive ordinance looking at over concentration type of things yeah yeah it'll be addressed in in that ordinance as I understand it so at this point we haven't really ironed any of that out I am I don't think we were taking the approach of a grandfathering in type of thing but again that would be something that if council feels strongly about um that would be a time to let us know um and Claire I don't know if you want to add anything to that my understanding is you were talking about the comprehensive ordinance and we can we're going to be all ears and take notes for that but if it's a if it's about the urgency ordinance then um I mean one thing I heard about operators in good standing is what if there's uh non conformity with the locational criteria I didn't hear a lot of objections from the operational standards or the registration and all that but there may be a conflict with the locational criteria and there would be an opportunity we would have to write it in because it's not set up that way to allow for that non conforming it would doesn't mean they would have it forever but for the life of the urgency ordinance you could add in a clause that it would be okay if like you would exempt them from incompatible locational criteria or something like that there was a comment slash question about why the noise hours are different for the short-term rental than it is for the city as a whole I'll let um um probably address that but I will say that are for you know quite a few of the jurisdictions that I looked at there are extended quiet hours this isn't something that we just came up with it was just something that we had seen in other jurisdictions that felt that it was a very successful compromise um for the neighbors and yeah I think the biggest point of that we've looked we look comprehensively at ordinances across the state and it's it's important to understand there is a distinction between a residential neighborhood our residential home and a short-term rental because these are commercial locations rented out where you have weekend after weekend large events and we saw over and over one of the common complaints we have is the noise in the evenings and into the late night so we think it's really going to eliminate some of the biggest neighborhood concerns and then also just having the firm understanding that these are commercial locations and so they're going to have regulations that you won't see in some normal residential homes all right thank you there was a question about the $1,200 fee and why was it so much more expensive here than in some other areas the examples that were given were all areas that had no fee or a smaller fee are there examples of other jurisdictions that are in line with what's being proposed or I guess a better way to ask this how did we come up with the $1,200 number I'll let Claire talk about how we came up with the $1,200 number and I'm looking at my note so that I can answer the part about other jurisdictions if that's fair that's good because I only know the answer to the one and not the other so this is good separation so the cost of service for processing the permit is a little over $1,100 and that represents a hundred percent cost of service so I think it was back in the 2016 2015 2016 when the city last adopted our fee schedule for cost of service and we looked at the true cost of service of supporting questions related to this type of permit this type of permit in terms of the steps that are needed to process the scale of permit just the the quality control that happens and answering questions about it is most similar to our temporary conditional use permit and so that's the short answer is that's why it's in the $1,100 range is because it's an exact match to the cost of service or the service associated with the work that would be involved with implementing this ministerial permit so that covers the questions we're going to get about how to file your application or how to file the complaint if that is the case the the intake of the application the review of the application which will include some site plan review it will include the cost of service does include preparing an action letter or a determination and also providing a notice to the to the neighbors and so that is what the fee goes to and we do have some fees that are subsidized they're deliberately subsidized such as you know tree permits and fence permits where we want to the city of Santa Rosa has decided very deliberately to subsidize because we want applicants to the incentive ice to get permits so that's could be something that the council considers but the true cost of service is the $1,100 okay so me again um cloverdale requires a conditional use permit for non-hosted which is a similar uh similar fee healdsburg requires a planning commission level conditional use permit for um non-hosted which are only allowed in downtown commercial districts um their residential districts require a use permit Petaluma has a short term vacation rental permit which i don't i don't have the fee for that one um sabastapool has an administrative use permit and also requires a business license the county of Sonoma has a $638 use permit for um certain size plus they also charge an amount for noticing so we are higher than some um i haven't found any similar size cities at all that that have no fee whatsoever what i have seen is um a less expensive initial permit or or a similar starting point and then a less expensive renewal which is something that we were going to be hoping to like automate and make it much easier so that there isn't as high of a cost of service there would not be a noticing requirement for renewals um unless of course information has changed based on like the local contact information and that type of thing all right thank you uh there was a question about clarifying will we talk about an open fire does that apply to propane as well as wood yes that is actually clear sorry that is actually clarified in the language we do restrict the use of wood uh outdoors during fire season but we do allow the use of of propane and natural gas uh both during fire season and outside of fire season so that language is actually in there okay and then the last one that i have uh someone brought up that the city opted not to have airbnb and other platforms collect the tax for us uh is there some truth to that and is there something that we actually could do to have them collect that tax for us at this point i'm going to defer to alan alton who is on the call so hopefully he can raise his hand and answer that he is our finance guru on the call he's being promoted hi um could you repeat the question just to make sure i have it right i i think the the fundamental question is for the collection of the tot and the bia can we have the platforms that rent out the units or that were the homes can we have them collect the tax for us yeah that's a that's a good question i i believe so i i but i need to research that a little bit further okay mayor if i could yes it's possible to have the platforms collect the tax however the platforms refuse to share the data on the number of rentals and the location of rentals and we can't audit or verify the accuracy of the taxes paid okay thank you that's helpful if i may mayor i do know that that some of the third party um hosting type of situations host the the compliance agencies they do um offer that service so that would be something that we could look at and and consider for the comprehensive ordinance as well okay that's great to know thank you council are there any other questions before we go into discussion about the ordinance council member soyer council member you're able to unmute ready for me mayor there you go thank you i i want to go back to the um the issue of of noise um is it is it currently in our um restrictions at night is it 10 o'clock or is it nine o'clock as far as every as just of the standard when people with the quiet time begins at what time throughout the city the standard is 10 p.m okay so this is my concern um especially with someone calling the police um there's a there is a um short-term rental in home on a block to the left or they are on they're on the left the neighbor the complaining neighbors in the middle on the right they're having a party and they can be allowed until 10 on the left is it is a short-term rental they can be they can't go until they can't go past nine and the police probably gets a call and they're the the neighbor on the right is is is now or on the left is now quiet the one on the right still having a party and they can go to 10 so i really think we need to do make it consistent we either need to make it nine o'clock throughout the entire city or we need to make it we need to make the noise piece in the ordinance the same as as standard um for the for the rest of the city um i just think it's too confusing i i don't think there should be a to have the short-term rental more restricted or you make them both restricted so i i think it's just i think it's going to be crazy making i think so it might be a minor issue but noise has been a major problem so i think we need to be really clear about what we're looking for and i think it needs to be consistent this is my opinion thank you all right thank you council member so if there are no other questions uh we'll go into the sausage making a little bit uh what we'll do first and foremost i think it'll make it a little bit easier uh on staff and a little bit easier for the public to understand as i'll go around to each council member first to give some initial thoughts and based on the ordinance that's being proposed are there sections that you want removed added or amended and share those i'll keep track of them i know staff will keep track of them and then once we have the full list on the table of possible changes we can go through and do a straw poll to see what the direction that the council wants to go on each of those is i think that'll that'll make it easier for us to to clarify uh council member tidbits do you have a question it's all right i pulled up the presentation on my computer but i was going to ask if we could have that slide pulled up that kind of encapsulated and summarize the ordinance i think we can do that council member soyer can i start with you for your comments uh and i'll also mention i think as we talk about the urgency ordinance and then the proposed changes down the road for a more comprehensive ordinance let's have a conversation after we deal with the urgency ordinance on what data council would like to ask staff to collect in order to better inform the comprehensive ordinance but let's set that aside until after we deal with the ordinance that's in front of us okay council member soyer sure thank you mayor um you know it's it's um there are so many elements to this and and facets to it it is rather complex and difficult to know exactly which i'm going to have a hard time prioritizing these so i'm just going to put out a few of my concerns um i do have concerns about the um uh the amount that we would be for violations i think they look they appear to be fairly um onerous um so i would want to have a conversation about the first second and third violation um i just i they just seem a little over the top um and and also a uh a way to kind of a um a due process uh i'm not sure how that's going to be dealt with in in code enforcement but i think that if we're going to charge someone two thousand dollars for a violation they better have a very pretty good idea that the person deserves that kind of that they have been um that they're worthy of a two thousand dollar violation so i have concerns about that um i do um the operate the operators in good standing i would like to see them um uh their ability to continue during this uh urgency ordinance as mentioned by miss harman um i think that they're given that the target that my target personally has always been um the bad the bad players and generally what we have seen as far as i know is the um the bad players uh have unhosted uh environments not always but that seems to be the um the at least in my knowledge to my knowledge they seem to be the this a source of the most frustration um over concentration we haven't had that conversation i think it's a really really important uh conversation to have i would i would i would uh hope that there's some there are some models out there that can deal with that over concentration issue miss hartman brought up a really good point as to how do you decide uh who's going to stay and who's going to go not unlike our cannabis regulations so that is a it's a difficult hill to climb but i think it's an important one um let's see just checking my notes um so the um as far as the ordinance appears to put higher limits on the number the number of people per bedroom for hosted as opposed to unhosted i don't understand why that's the case um because when i think of a hosted environment i think of much more control um much more eyes on on the um on those that are that are the client um so i would think that if we were going to put more a heavier restriction on the number of people per um per bedroom or you know in total that we would be doing that for the um unhosted environment as opposed to the the hosted one um let's see oh there was another thing that that has come up to it did not come up tonight but it came up in um in one of the conversations that i had from the numerous phone calls that i had that i received are were existing contracts so you have a um a hosted environment they have a contract with someone to come uh maybe during that holiday so maybe the Thanksgiving weekend that's Thanksgiving weekend or think or one of the holidays or what really wherever whenever and they have a contract and that person's coming from um Florida to California or and they are expecting to stay in this in this in this uh um short term rental and all of a sudden we um because of this because of the the ordinance that we put into place that person it cannot satisfy that contract where what is our what is our legal standing in that case so that's something i it's a question i didn't ask before um it and it may not be able to be answered tonight but it did give me pause i thought it was a good question and how will the um how will the operator or the short term rental host deal with a contract that can no longer be satisfied due to the provisions of our short term ordinance um i think at this point uh i'll stop um i just yeah i'll stop there will be time for comments later and i'm and i'm sure that that when i after i hear my colleagues it may spur some more questions but i'll i'll i'll leave it at that for now okay councilmember tibbetz thanks mayor i'm going to start off with my comments to kind of underscore what my philosophy is coming out this and maybe it'll help inform the public what some of my thought process was um you know my experience with uh short term rentals began when i was a young man and they were just kind of coming out and my good friend's mother who lived down the street was recently divorced immediately turned her one of the rooms in her house into a short term rental and she made it she was mostly i guess what you would define as a hosted uh rental but she also would go on trips and leave and then have a kind of an unhosted environment for the most part it went off without a hitch why i share that story is is because i'm convinced that because of her situation in life if she didn't have the ability to tap into that income making the mortgage would have been difficult to say the least maybe she would have made it but it would have had a negative financial impact on her this is how she recovered from divorce um so i i i want to kind of maintain that function of short term rentals for people that's really where i'm coming from is is how does this help people live in a community that is increasing in cost we all talk about this at every single council meeting that being said i really really don't like the idea of corporations coming in and buying up our housing stock and mayor you asked the same question i wanted to ask which was is there a way in which like calm springs as i heard that we can you know try to negate that or prevent it to some extent and it sounds like we can i'm very happy for that i want our short term rentals in santa rosa to be for the common person who lives in santa rosa period it's not something for speculation it's not something for outside companies to come in and buy um and to take away our housing stock so i'll go through um my thoughts on the ordinance take taking that approach even though i think it actually makes a lot of sense not to have our two and our threes be incorporated in this i think we should because again when i think about our twos and our threes that might be somebody who may be uh mid to lower income actually who maybe wants to rent out a unit and get a little extra money while they go on a trip so i want to try our ordinance to include that at first i do think there could be some speed bumps with that down the road i would even like to explore a system where you know i don't know if this can be done i raised it with staff last week but where basically you have one one short term rental limit per resident of santa rosa only you know this idea that you go out and buy short term rentals and basically create a business out of it to me is really a circumvention of of of what of where my philosophy is which this is meant to help you get gain income and get a get a tow hold financially in this community but once you start buying up houses and turning them into this you're you've become a hotelier that's not adhering to our our zoning and land use laws which is really what it becomes at that point so i'd like to see something like that you know one one unit or one permit for one parcel per per person in the community um it's a woman i forget her name brought up ad use you know is that considered single or excuse me ad use with a single family residence is that considered hosted or not hosted i actually consider that hosted so that's just a definitional thing but i think as long as somebody's on the parcel you know they can probably pretty reasonably in a timely way respond to any incident or crisis that's going on and that that should i think be the definition of hosted um equality i have another note here you have to bear with me i'm reading my chicken scratch um equality between number of guests of hosted versus non-hosted carl brought this up uh in the public comments i think he's right i think that the number of people per rooms and mayor i think you brought this up as well should be the same in my opinion those should be treated consistently uh i do believe that again in the spirit of affordability and accessibility to people who benefit from this supplemental income permit registration fees should be affordable um when we say a permit fee is 1200 dollars that actually suggests to me that the speculative llc or rich person uh who really doesn't need immediate access to this income is going to be the only person who does it which to me is flying in the face of where i'm hoping it goes um disclosures on cameras i i would agree but i think that's less a city issue that's more of a uh civil rights issue between the i guess the occupant and the person providing the space but there should be disclosures about cameras um you know and the one thing too going back to permit fees i think that for hosted parcels those fees should be much lower than an unhosted one again coming at that accessibility standpoint um like all the people who said hey i like rent this out because it's it's added income i'm a live-in host we should really make that accessible for them um over here i've got uh i agree with john on the the noise thing i actually see the benefits and the jurisdictions and having an earlier noise curfew but i i just would hate to be in an inconsistent situation so i think it makes a heck of a lot of sense to make that consistent with the city's noise ordinance um i'm actually okay with the fines and the amounts i would rather see us pay for city infrastructure staff bureaucracy through i guess a penalty-based system as opposed to a permit application system so if there can be balance found there terrific um on the the issue of over concentration i agree over concentration is going to be a problem at uh i'm very concerned about the residents who came and spoke today who talked about having two of these on their street i think that could be very disruptive and problematic that is something we should look at in a future ordinance um and then i think in the in the current in the meantime there was some discussion about moratorium um well how i'm feeling is is that the people who are registered today who we can verify have been paying taxes today should be allowed to continue to operate but i do think there is benefit in saying until the new ordinance the new comprehensive ordinance rolls out we are not going to approve any more of these in that period of time my fear being that we're going to create an artificial moment or a lot of people are going to rush in to uh start operating obtain permits get in good standing for fear that our comprehensive ordinance is going to work them out we don't know if it is or not yet hopefully we can have a an ordinance that is just that comprehensive both in terms of the ordinance itself as well as who it's serving but in the meantime i think trying to bring stability and stasis to our neighborhoods and and this issue would be a good thing that's it thanks mayor all right thank you council member council member schwedhelm thank you mr mayor first i really want to applaud staff the entire team and the subcommittee this is a tremendous amount of work that's very complex i know uh attending some of the classes up in sacramento it really was an eye-opener for me and it was very clear and i heard um share you see several times no one's doing it all the same way it's total local control so we get to do this and sometimes that's good and sometimes it can be a challenging evening or several evenings to come up with what's best for our community but i really do appreciate all the work and so i also don't want anyone on the team to interpret any comments i have pro or con about what's suggested don't take it personal because again this is just what we're trying to do is our vision within the best interest of the city of san rosa and i um also can't wait for the comprehensive strategy because more community input more discussion that'll be an i'm excited for that next process so i'm just going to go through uh things that i like and things that i would like to see us change in the ordinance first of all regarding the non-hosted and only certain zoning districts i'm not supportive of that i think both hosted and non-hosted should be allowed within the city wherever they may be it adds to too much confusion to separate those regarding daytime guests in parking i'm not supportive of eliminating of those i just think that enforcement is uh that's how you do it because it's hosted versus non-hosted i just don't think those limits should be there um the quiet hours i am supportive of they should be consistent whether it be nine o'clock in the evening or 10 o'clock in the evening but setting those hours i think it is um important and i do appreciate captain kregan's comments about residential this is a commercial business and residential i i get that but the enforcement of it is what mr soyer mentioned house on my west side is loud east side is quiet it that'd be difficult for enforcement i'm supportive having no amplified sound no events prohibited or all events prohibited um i appreciate what we heard the adjustments were regarding the neighborhood notification that the city would do that that makes a heck of a lot more sense to me so i'm supportive of that change i'm supportive of the advertising listening requirements and last thing is on the hosted i don't think there should be a limit on the number of rooms in a hosted uh single um str then a non-hosted so don't limit it if it's hosted there should be no limits to the number of rooms they could use and i think that's it thank you all right councilmember fleming yes thank you i i agree largely with everything that the council members have said before me i do have a couple of thoughts on on where i'm coming from for this just for for us going forward in the future which is um you know around you mostly heard from folks living in in my district and people who are trying to maintain character of their neighborhoods and preservation of these residential neighborhoods and you know we heard a lot from industry and what the industry needs and and i find it to be in the term industry to be really annotated to neighborhood and so what i'll be looking for and when we do the comprehensive ordinances one that does balance individual property rights including the the right to be able to sleep in your own home without disturbance to to get out of your home during an emergency event without fear to have your children play without strangers rolling up and down all the time that said i do acknowledge that these uses particularly hosted uses i'm very sympathetic to and i don't believe that we ought to put restrictions on amount of rooms that you can have in a hosted rental that said hosted to me means that you are sleeping on the property every night that you have guests on the property it's i'm not too hung up if you're in the accessory dwelling unit but do keep in mind i say to my council members and our staff that that does mean that effectively we are taking an additional unit of housing stock off of the market so i am also in favor of having an earlier quiet time for going to 9 p.m. for these for units in in particular because if you're living next to one of them you know you think that how many times a year we have parties in our permanent residences you go and you talk to your neighbors and you let them know and and you communicate with them but if you're living next to one of these things that's having a party every weekend that could get quite onerous the other reason i really like hosted rentals over unhosted rentals i mean i know when i've gone to unhosted rentals with large groups typically you get food and you cook it at home you're not out in the community you're really there to spend time with the people that you went with which is wonderful but it's not contributing much to the economy or the tourism of of our city in our region so in short what i'd like to do is i'd like to work most of this stuff out in the the permanent or the comprehensive ordinance and in the interim i'd like to give those actors both hosted and unhosted who have been paying tax and who have been doing their best to abide by our rules i suppose we're calling them i i the term is alluding me right now but um our hosts in good standing i'd like to give them an opportunity for a temporary use permit and then have a moratorium on additional uses while we're working this out and um so that way we could prevent what council member tidbits suggest as an artificial period in which we have an influx of of purchasers and then i i do hope that we have a clear affordable path forward for hosted rentals in the future okay council member alvarez thank you mayor first and foremost thank you to the people that spoke on both sides of the issue and really sharing what this means to them both financially and the service that they provide to the community for myself i definitely take account into the the rights of of the san rosen who deserves to enjoy san rosa peacefully without others coming to our neighborhoods and disturbing such peace but i also take into account the 3000 homes that were lost in the fire and if we're at 85 of them being rebuilt it leaves us with 450 still of a deficit deficit not to mention the two hotels that went with it so i believe the words ambassador that was used today and how it was used today that we're referencing our guests to our local establishments therefore creating a stronger more vibrant economy that helps us recuperate from those fires that took them homes uh i i definitely also want to thank my colleagues as well as staff for educating me on on the subject and even changing my position on some of the items uh and and and a word the the common sense you know if we all had common sense we wouldn't need laws or policies but sometimes that's something as as a village we lack and therefore we must have this discussion which i'm thankful that we're all willing to enter into in regards to the different items i definitely see the difference between hosted and not hosted and even those that spoke against the the the short term rentals had nothing bad to say about the hosted so i definitely want to applaud those individuals for really being not only the ambassadors but making sure that the guests respect the city san rosa and your fellow neighbors so i definitely want to applaud you for that in regards to the hours of operation i think there should be some type of uniform so there isn't as we stated different situations depending on if you're on the east side of the west side of the home in question moratorium i do not agree with the moratorium i believe that this is a learning process for us as a city and definitely uh an opportunity for us to learn how to best serve both sides of the the the coin i definitely would like to see the issue of no events though definitely i believe we have halls we have places where we can throw these larger parties again we are suffering both with the fires and the pandemic and i understand the restrictions that that causes in regards to to the pre-approved parking i definitely see that causing a lot of confusion uh and also why i was saying for the uniform hours and and i would like to see a difference of and actually this was mentioned by one of my colleagues the difference of fees that are being charged to the hosted and the unhosted it is true that we're seeing some of our residents have the ability to cover their mortgage because of this program so i definitely see the the the positive aspects that the strs offer especially to the to the hosted uh participants in regards to to the maximum again there's a there's a conflicting difference between the hosted and the unhosted in regards to the rooms to the people allowed per room there definitely has to be more uniform in that so i would like to see that be aligned in regards to the r2s and r3s at first i felt that r2s and r3s were definitely zones that we should not participate in but then i thought well remembering back to the days when we lived at west ninth there was always another family that was there with us throughout even today i still open my door to someone who needs a night or two nights to spend the night they're always welcome but i also see the aspect of again making sure that they cover whatever uh shortfall they have economically and i do have issues with the with the violation and the fees being assessed as well as the permit fees i do understand that it covers 100 percent of the the cost of service but i would like to be aligned with with our our fellow cities or even our county with the 600 but if at the end of the day 100 cost of our service is being covered and this allows us for a program to be vibrant and to continue forward i definitely see the the positive aspect of that as well so i retract that it's good that we're charging the fee we're covering the the the cost of services i retract the statement of of maybe it being too much but i do not retract the statement of the difference between hosted and unhosted and the fees that are being charged the adu i believe that that they should be considered hosted if we're if our one of our main complaints is the noise unless you're a couple parcels down from your own property you will lose sleep so therefore if you are within the noise range you should definitely be considered that you are hosting your guest and hosting uh well hosting the property really other than that i am in line with a lot of the comments that my fellow colleagues made and again i thank everyone for speaking up it is a beautiful Santa Rosa and i definitely want to keep it that way thank you cast member tibetz do you have something to add to the list uh no just really quick mayor at one thing that i didn't talk about and haven't heard he's talked about tonight is uh the number of of housing units that this does take off the market um and one of the things that i saw i was actually pretty impressed by the amount of tot tax that we were able to record that has been brought in by this program so i wanted to suggest to the council not necessarily for conversation tonight maybe when the final ordinance comes back i know we don't like doing budgeting from the dais on the fly but to kind of answer that question for the community understanding the nexus between that tot tax and the need for that tot tax to go into affordable housing down the road so i just want to make sure that somebody mentioned that tonight okay thank you councilmember soyer thank you mayor i'm i'm not sure if this was mentioned but i don't believe it was as far as the permits um i think it's there there might be some consideration that it not be an annual fee and that um maybe it could be every so many years maybe it's just once unless there are problems if there are problems um that that would suggest that they not that the permit potentially could would not be renewed that we would i'm sure we would be tracking the if there if there was a a str that had issues i don't see why they would need to pay an annual fee for a permit and i believe that's the case that was that was recommended but i think it should be on a that it could go a number of years unless there are issues with that particular str and just want to throw that out there thank you all right thank you councilmember so the two that all add to the list for discussion was the issue of children under three not counting towards the headcount as well as throwing out there that perhaps the city should have on our website the contact list of the direct contacts for each of the registered short-term rentals so that that way if i get a notice from the city because i'm within 600 feet of one a year down the road two years down the road i'm not likely to have that and if or i might have lost it and so having some form of central location where i as a neighbor could then log on and see who my direct contact is i think the city should own that and make sure that we make that available to folks is there anything else that everybody wants to add on the list councilmember yeah i did bring this up during the questions portion i would like an egress route suggested evacuation routes posted in the the short-term rentals somewhere like near the refrigerator or something like that i think sherry that's already in the the current ordinance good okay all right so let's do this then council if it works we'll go through the list we'll take a straw poll so hands up if you agree hands down if you disagree on each of these items staff will capture that and then we'll probably take a quick recess chance to grab a bite to eat if folks want to grab a bite to eat while staff prepares what the ordinance can look like so that that way we're not asking them to do it on a moment's notice then we can come back and talk about what that ordinance now looks like and vote on final adoption or approval does that sound good everybody great so the the first uh the first that was brought up was the violation amounts and it was brought up as it may be excessive is there interest from a majority of the council for lowering the violation amounts hands up if you agree hands down if you want to leave them the way that they are right i'm only seeing one so we're going to go ahead and take that off the list sorry councilmember no problem there was a question about adding a due process clause for those fees uh so that if somebody feels like they're being assessed a fee erroneously that they're they have some type of recourse or some way to be heard is there an interest from council in putting in some form of an appeal or due process on the fees hands up or hands down okay so i see four of us i'll put that one on the side let's deal with the zoning really quick um there was a question and and i didn't share my comments on it uh but i spoke earlier i think that the banning based on zoning district has unintended consequences for uh where things are allowed and not allowed so i'll be in favor of uh not not put and i should also ask uh madame city attorney there were a number of comments about moratorium i heard that from you in the beginning a moratorium cannot be considered tonight yes that's correct it was not noticed to have a moratorium okay um we can can talk about noticing that or putting that in with our comprehensive ordinance if that's the direction that council wants to go as to the question of yeah turn on your mic right um i understand the thing about the moratorium uh in general but you said you referenced earlier moratorium on it while while a municipality or jurisdiction is considering an issue so just because council member alvarez said earlier he wasn't in favor of moratorium i wanted to be very clear i'm not proposing to stop the uses i'm proposing to stop corporations and individuals coming in while we're working on it so just no new uses while we're working it out uh yes the ordinance already precludes um applications from corporations i understand so uh that that addresses that issue you can put restrictions uh on but if they're um there's probably a little bit of gradation um but i had understood at one point you know maybe a moratorium on uh non-hosted uh um short-term rentals that kind of blanket uh would i think require new noticing but if you want to reshape portions of the ordinance for example to exclude in certain additional um a zoning districts or you want to restructure how you're doing um kind of that that issue of where they're located you can do that so you can shape the restrictions um but again just not so far as prohibiting all new uh applications in a particular category how do we protect ourselves against i mean one of the reasons why it's my understanding one of the reasons why we're in this pickle is because every jurisdiction around us has a moratorium or very restrictive uses and so we're we're really just open like open season here if we notice the community that we're going to be coming for with a comprehensive ordinance and we don't have a lot of protection you're right and i what i was also going to say is that we don't have to wait for a moratorium for until we have the comprehensive ordinance in fact with that wouldn't really make any sense we could come back you know within uh at your next meeting i think maybe i'm going to get shot by uh um by claire and sherry um but putting together uh a moratorium is a very short document um it's pretty straightforward and i know that i at least talked to some of the members of the of the group that that is something that we could bring back very quickly so if you're interested in that we can we can we can do that we can head in that direction yeah no i get that it sounds dracony and i just want to make sure that we craft a policy while we we have housing stock to to craft it with but i've got defer back to the mayor who had a more specific question so could we in the short term so here's so bringing something back at our next meeting i already know what our next meeting looks like uh and i think i think it's going to be a long meeting already in the short term until we have the comprehensive ordinance could we consider something uh like that unhosted uh in order to get an unhosted permit grandfathering in the existing but in order to get a new unhosted permit you have to be a resident of santa rosa yes i think you could do that i'm just um what what concerns me is restrictions that allow permitting only for residents versus non-residents that raises a whole different set of legal issues kind of unrelated to moratorium requirements um so unless members of the team have um seen anything like that or dealt with that i do have concerns um about only allowing um city residents to obtain permits would it be acceptable to put a moratorium on new uses in the wild linner of an interface yes you could limit you could restrict no new no new applications within the within the woey areas um that i i i think there's a very rational basis for that and that that would be within the scope of tweaking the ordinance and where it applies and where these uses are permitted it's in effect comparable to adding additional zoning districts where short term rentals are not allowed this is just identifying it by a different criteria okay thank you all right so let me ask the question this way then council hands up if you are interested in limiting based on any type of zoning whether it's the land use zoning or the wooey or if you are not interested in limiting via land use yes so hands up if you are in favor of having some form of limitation based on the land use type hands down if you are not we're going to get some clarification before we have that that though um if i could um the as far as the limiting the zones and it has come up could that be coupled with um the over concentration conversation because what i if we if we allow if we allow the strs any in any zone in the city and we don't have an over concentration um dealt with that would that starts to concern me so is there can we couple both of those conversations of both of both of those ideas because one without the other i just i it makes it it's uh concerning yeah and that's actually why i asked the question about unhosted and limiting it to people who currently live in the city um because because to me as i mentioned the zoning and i absolutely get the rationale for not allowing them in the wooey but in effect when you look at it through an equity lens you're banning it in our higher income neighborhoods but not throughout the rest of the city so that concerns me um but from a policy perspective though then it's giving an economic opportunity especially if we say hosted uh no new unhosted rentals in the wildland urban interface you're giving the economic opportunity to the the not wildland urban interface i mean and and it's really interesting when you think about the r2 and r3 i think that that's a really great conversation that we ought to have about not preventing them in those and how do we preserve our affordable housing stock while not interfering with individuals ability to to have this supplemental income but i do think that by prohibiting them in the wildland or interface and by saying that we can't have unhosted ones elsewhere then then i'm not sure that we're discriminating against anybody but the rich people i think it depends on how you see the issue because you can absolutely make the case that uh you are allowing the economic opportunity in other districts and also you could look at it from the other districts and say you don't care about the character of my neighborhood as much as you care about it now and to that point i care about every the character of every neighborhood and think that they only ought to be hosted and we haven't heard one bad word about a hosted rental here today degrading the character of any neighborhood in our city right so council member i heard from you uh that perhaps the zoning conversation is linked to over concentration uh i'm open to suggestions from the council on how to do that the concern that i have is if you burn if you ban it in specific neighborhoods you don't address any over concentration areas from where you do allow it you just selectively choose which neighborhoods you're going to protect and i think that that is the broader problem that i have with the land use designations i have no problem with addressing the over concentration we absolutely need to address the over concentration but it needs to be across the city and not pick winners and losers in terms of which neighborhood it's going to apply to yes i agree with that concern i'm just not sure how to get there council member sweat helm if you could just reframe the question because i think the over concentration i think we've agreed that should be addressed in the comprehensive strategy that we're not having a discussion about tonight but we are so to me that is that longer range the urgency ordinance we said over concentration because right now we could have that right now because it may not there's 161 i'm not sure we know where they are so if you can just reframe the question let's get a straw vote yeah so then the question for the straw vote is do we uh have land use designations that lead to where we can and cannot have hosted in hannah hosted uh in the city so that's the the conversation about the r2 and r3 that's the conversation uh about the wooey are you interested in putting a limit based on land use designation if you are go ahead raise your hand if you are not do not raise your hand may or can i ask a question yes we're not willing to differentiate between hosted and unhosted in that question are we i'm open to that if folks want to do that they want to throw that take that question on the table well i'm thinking i'm my my thinking is that the unhook that the hosted seems to have very minimal if at all complaints and i'm thinking of the r2s and r3s that could benefit financially while still being hosts to the strs and i'm seeing that as a benefit unlike my interpretation of the unhosted okay so let's start with the hosted then and see let's get that one out of the way does it anybody want to regulate where hosted can be based on the land use designation hands up if you do hands down if you don't okay so i'm seeing none of that so hosted as we craft the ordinance hosted uh short-term rentals will be allowed in any land use designation in the city agreed i'm seeing nodding heads so now the issue is the unhosted uh sorry who had claire just a point of clarification that is exactly how the ordinance is currently drafted hosted is allowed in all zoning districts right right so now the unhosted is by frankly all the ire that we heard uh what i was looking for when i asked the question about Santa Rosa residents is the concerns that i hear is that they don't care about the community they might not be as responsive they might not be from here so that's what i was trying to figure out how do we still not create a disparity amongst portions of our city and also help control the impact of the unhosted i'm open to suggestions if if anybody has some council member yeah mayor i actually disagree a little bit on this point some of the worst hosts are residents i mean we have this one individual who is the senator most of this who's a prominent businessman who who lives in santa rosa i don't know that and i also don't know that we can easily you know preference property owners who are santa rosans are not i'm i wish we had a little bit of time to think about another way to do this and i'm wondering if the city attorney might give us some guidance on how maybe she's seeing this or how we might more more broadly because i get that the saying the wildland urban interface could i i don't think it will drive over concentration outside of that it's i mean we see like i want to say 70 to 80 percent of these uses in the wildland urban interface and in the historic districts those are i'd say almost maybe 90 percent of these are in those two designations but um i wouldn't want to over burden the the districts that don't or that don't meet those criteria i don't see that that happening but i don't want to risk it so how can we get as broad as we can without violating the the issues around moratoria excuse me i i'm not quite sure that i'm understanding the goal uh unless it is to restrict i'm understanding that you want to restrict unhosted short-term rentals in terms of where they're located my personal goal would be to entirely restrict any new unhosted rentals while we're collecting data on how our our hosts and good standing perform in the six-month period while we're working this out so then we can go forward and say this works for unhosted rentals and and so forth so how how can we most broadly restrict that use without having to to bring this back next week and go through this lovely process once more i think i need to think about it a little bit and i'd certainly would invite any thoughts from the team that have been looking at this but um you know my quick reaction is looking at different zoning districts um which i'm not sure you want to do um looking at certainly you could restrict in the wooey where there's the fire risks are highest um there might be other geographic criteria that you want to use in terms i'm thinking of uh you know the nature of the roads that are um that they can be allowed on you know that they're not on the small um you know where there may be evacuation concerns um you've already provided in the ordinance that there needs to be a local contact who can respond to any issues um i'm i'm not thinking of things right off the top of my head but the team may have and i see a couple of hands up so all right and i'll come to you just one second i i'll also throw out and perhaps sherry or claire you can respond to what about the idea of grandfathering in the existing uh unhosted and then putting a restriction that no new unhosted until we have our comprehensive ordinance can be within a thousand feet of those existing ones that that might get to the heart of the over concentration question uh the council member soyer brought up but i'll go to go ahead sherry and then i'll come back to you tidbits gosh i couldn't figure out the mute unmute sorry about that so i i was thinking possibly a way to do this would be to something similar to what you're saying mary rogers would be just to consider all of the operators in good standing um that are non-hosted to be um legal non-conforming and then just change the ordinance to where non-hosted short-term rentals are only allowed in commercial districts so i repeat that so if we were to consider all of the existing non-hosted operators in good standing as of october 7 we'll just consider them non-conforming and legal so they get to continue doing what they're doing as long as they follow the regulations and you know apply for their permit that type of thing then we can amend the ordinance where we now say non-hosted short-term rentals are allowed in all these different districts including residential we can just limit where they're allowed either just period to one or we can include all of the commercial districts maybe not even the mixed-use districts right now and that would have an effect of allowing the ones that we have now to continue as non-conforming because they wouldn't be in conformance with the ordinance which would now say only allowed in commercial um which would then stop them from happening ideally within the residential zones while we collect this data and that type of thing just an option sue uh yes that would be within uh within the boundaries of the public notice for this item tonight and that would be that would be fully legitimate thank you council member tidbits uh chris i was just going to actually say something along the lines of what you brought up and i think that if your proposal is legally allowable then we should put that to a straw poll to the council so the the straw poll would be uh grandfather in the uh folks who are in good standing and then any new proposed until we have a comprehensive ordinance would not be allowed within a thousand feet of those those operators what council member i apologize to make this more complicated but when we do if we were to say that the existing operators in good standing are illegal non-conforming use could we say until um you know things change or or stay the same with the comprehensive ordinance we want to avoid a situation where we just determine in the future that it's not it's making us crazy and we're stuck with like a boudine type of situation where you know in 20 or 30 years we still can't move them along no once you've determined that they're illegal non-conforming use and they are illegal non-conforming use that would be subject to um um the allowances and the restrictions that apply to illegal non-conforming uses we make that a temporary use rather than a legal non-conforming use and still maintain what the suggestion on the floor from the mayor yes you could you could um say that those in good standing will be issued you know uh can obtain a permit um a one-year permit um then all the one-year permits have to be renewed um and then that no new no new permits are going to be issued um and i i'm hearing two proposals right now on the table one is the mayors which would be nothing within a thousand feet and the one from sherry which would be only in commercial zones either you know all of the commercial zones are one or more of the commercial zones um you know either of either of those options yeah i think i think what i'm trying to avoid is a de facto ban you know banning it without calling it a ban because i think that that becomes problematic for us what i'm trying to do is address the over concentration so i'm happy to do straw poll let's see uh we'll start with uh sherry's suggestion of the legal non-conforming uh and then accept the only allowable location is uh commercial that's a member soyer thank you mayor um but you're right you just said a couple of seconds ago that that is that not just a de facto ban except in commercial districts i mean it's it's it is very limiting and and i i have to say that even though we did not hear any criticism of hosted rentals this evening i know that there are good players out there that are unhosted and so i'm i'm a little bit i mean i i guess i could deal with it or go for it for during this interim until we get the more comprehensive um ordinance but it does sound like a ban to me um and that i didn't think that we would be going down that road let's do the straw poll on uh on sherry's suggestion did it's do you want to say something first yeah i'm sorry mayor i had to do this to you but um i i guess i'm confused about about calling it a ban to me when we say we're banning something we're saying there's going to be no more short-term rentals in santa rosa from tomorrow until we come up with a new ordinance what i was trying to say is that everybody who's operating now gets to continue to operate we're not going to rob anybody of contracts of expect financial expectation but trying to prevent a situation where frankly like rent control where you see something on the horizon you anticipate a change in the way in which you anticipate it is you dive into that market and you get there before the law does and so that's that's what i'm trying to prevent is a situation like that where there might be you know rentals long-term rentals coming up for renewal lease renewals or new leases in the next five months but owners are going to say well i want to be in good standing because i think the council is going to take make a move to issue people like me permits because i already have one that's what i want to avoid all right the other option council is we've still got a full list we could come back to this item once folks have a chance to think about it a little bit and we can keep working our way through the ordinance for now all right we'll come we'll come back to this this portion in a minute there was a question an amendment that was suggested to coincide the bedroom limit for hosted and unhosted hands up if you're supportive of doing that hands down if you're not supportive of of that right that looks unanimous so we'll make that change to the ordinance john you asked about the breach of contract we'll come back to that when we actually figure out what we're doing with the unhosted if that works for you yeah there was an amendment that was suggested that if you were living on the parcel it is considered hosted let's see hands up if you are interested in making that amendment to the ordinance yeah living and staying on that looks unanimous there was a amendment to lower the permit fees for hosted let's go ahead and see hands up if you are interested in lowering the permit fees for hosted i've got three yes and a neutral job do you get to try to convince us okay so that one does not move forward for now uh disclosure of cameras on site hands up if you agree um sounds like a legal to me you're the deciding vote john so this is the two week two um that we need to disclose that there are cameras on site that if the uh if the owner has cameras on site monitoring what happens in the home or out of the home that they have to disclose that and i'll share this the the reason that i brought this up and the reason that i heard about this from council members at league of cities is because there was a regrettable instance where an owner had hidden cameras within the home which is obviously problematic depending on where they have them uh and just making sure that people are able to make an informed decision about what they do in the home and out of the home i would say that that it's the property owner's right to have it outside of the home there's no reasonable um uh privacy when you're outside of a space i'd say inside you gotta say okay so i i'm okay with that if it's you know cameras nanny cams whatever you want to call them in the home that that has to be disclosed uh at the time that somebody rents it that'd be my suggestion and and i think it'll i'd go with that and i think it also suggests that they are under us a fair amount of scrutiny and i think that adds to their to the change in potential behavior okay so hands up all right i can support that but cameras hidden cameras inside the home is actually i think criminal behavior and yeah there's already okay litigation out there laws out there about there i was gonna say what point is it overreaching are we are we stepping outside our lines with with the contractual understanding between the tenant and the inside the home i completely understand the outside of the home i'm just thinking is that understanding between lesser and lessy yeah we we limited it to it's inside the home yeah there's an amendment uh that suggested coinciding mr mayor may i just clarify what we're doing is requiring disclosure of um of cameras on site we're not regulating where the cameras can be we're not getting into that level no no correct just just disclosure that there are cameras within the home there was an amendment that was suggested to coincide the noise ordinance and i can ask sue about this uh my suspicion is that the only way for us to do that with this ordinance is actually to move it from nine o'clock to 10 o'clock because otherwise redoing the entire city's noise ordinance would require notification correct okay um all right so hands up if you're in favor of moving the nine o'clock noise ordinance in this to the 10 o'clock for the full city i only see three at the moment sherry i was just going to say that if we do decide to change this it it changes from uh if we want to coincide with the city it's 10 p.m to 7 a.m rather than 9 p.m to 8 a.m as written in the proposed ordinance okay so it's moving both directions one hour all right so i saw three hands for that i personally i'm in favor of the nine o'clock in coinciding it i i'm not in favor of the the 10 to 7 while we have the urgency ordinance there was an amendment that was suggested to eliminate the section on daytime guests and parking associated with that hands up if you're in favor of eliminating that portion okay looks like that has five i'm just going to confirm sherry your five that you had put on the table some of them were mentioned by council members some of them were not one was the updated definition can you go over that one more time sorry let me pull that up so uh we recommend that we revise section 20-48.030 in definition of operator in good standing to read a short-term rental operator who is registered for tot and bia assessments as of October 7th 2021 we recommend that you strike section 20-48.040 b1b and c2 and c3 and amend subsequent numbering we recommend that we revise section 20-48.070e2 to read upon permit approval the city will provide mailed notice of permit issuance local contact information and short-term rental limits to property owners and tenants within 600 feet of the short-term rental and then we staff proposes that we strike section 20-48.030i which is the language that no more than two bedrooms in the dwelling may be used as a short-term rental all right hands up from council if you accept those recommendations from staff saying unanimous for that i suggested an amendment having the city create a database or a website that has the contact information for all of the registered point people hands up there's the amendment to not have children under three count towards the overall head count in the in the rental hence saying four and a half i think oh i'm i'm aware and then council member soyer had a amendment and i think i'm going to paraphrase johnson tell me if i'm wrong the amendment was that the permit is every two years if there have been no complaints yes i wasn't specific on the frequency but i think it should be i think it should be longer than one year and it's and it should be unless there are complaints yes all right i'll offer that trigger which would i guess that would trigger the the complaint would trigger the need to reapply all right i'm going to go to sherry and claire and then i'll come back to you council member okay there so the concern with that is this being an urgency ordinance we really want to limit it to that one year maximum we don't want to provide a two-year period here because we will be coming back with a comprehensive ordinance but we can look at that as part of the comprehensive ordinance as being the permit approval period that sounds reasonable i would withdraw the the item based on that information yeah we'll look for that in the the comprehensive sounds good and i think i took a note down here i think this was from you council member tidbits it was limiting one rent maybe it was council member so where i apologize it's been five hours it was limiting one rental per person in the city that you couldn't have more than one uh in the city that did i get did i get that accurate that wasn't it was jack yeah okay and is that grant just as a point of clarification does that grandfather in people who currently have more than one uh i would say if people uh jeez yeah that's a tough one people have already been operating more than more than one i think that over time they should fall into compliance with this maybe three years okay so perhaps that can be then if we've got the comprehensive that's coming perhaps that's something that we could look at in the comprehensive um yeah i actually intended that comment to be for the comprehensive okay yeah so raise so hands if uh if you want a one rental cap uh for the urgency ordinance of can i make a comment mayor yep would it be possible to move them the number from one to two and the thinking or the reasoning behind that is if i have a property which i am a resident of that would be the house but if i have a secondary dwelling which i do not live at that would be the unhosted i'm sorry hosted and unhosted so i see the point of not beyond two but one seems limiting for the obvious reasons or the reasons i just stated council member tidbits i'd maybe try to shorten that and simplify it to one parcel per per owner then my my my thing is is that you're either a landlord you know offering long term rentals in the city which are needed or you're a hotelier frankly circumventing our land use uh laws i mean i i feel pretty strongly that if if you own if you have enough money to own two vacation rentals one of those should probably be in the long term housing market um that's not somebody of limited means that's member solier thank you mayor you know i think jack has a point because at what point does someone start just buying i mean i think it's important to limit it because it is they do become hoteliers just broken up into individual homes and i and when when dealing with the issue around housing stock i think it that means it turns our homes into nothing but a business and i and i just think that that's a an unfortunate direction to move in if you if someone wants to buy 10 homes and turn them into into little hotels all over the city i'm sure that they would have be very pleased to do that it's not it's not a city that it's not a neighborhood i would want to live in and i i think we need to one way or another um deal with that with that um a limit i just don't know what the number is um i just i but i i agree with the concern so how about a suggestion um i think we can have that further conversation in the comprehensive ordinance what i'm hearing is is a desire to grandfather in the existing operators who have more than one but then put a cap while we have the urgency ordinance in on people who do not currently have more than one from having more than one that's remember alvarez not different actually differentiating between the hosted and unhosted i'm completely on the same page with the unhosted that a person should only be allowed one unhosted property i'm just wondering what the what if we're also going to limit the person who lives at the second dwelling and they cannot actually participate in the program with one of the rooms so we wouldn't really be taking off anything off the market that isn't being done already in regards to the unhosted what was the the reason behind that well to my mind that the reasoning here is that i think we're all saying that these unhosted or these hosted rentals provide a a needed stream of revenue if you've got it so good that you've got a full-on unhosted rental and then you still need to rent a room out to make your mortgage something's going wrong there so i i'm really you know which is one is enough and i do agree with that my my thinking was after the housing crash where people didn't purchase a second dwelling this would allow them to stay afloat but not become a hotelier with five or six or even eight houses or even three and in that case but i am willing to entertain and participate in the fact of only one unit parcel such as council member tibet stated let's go and see hands then for that proposal i'm seeing three are you upper sideways council member okay let's so i think we're going to need a little bit of clarification on that and i'm a little concerned um how we're defining the person who owns more than one parcel how we're going to be monitoring that um if you have a family put one of the properties in another name another family member name um if you want us to try to craft something for tonight we can try to do that but this may be a whole concept that might be better dealt with uh in the comprehensive ordinance council member tibet yeah again i'd like to clarify since this is was my idea i'd like to be clear about it um this was my idea for the comprehensive i don't think that we should be trying to enforce this on people who are used to operating a certain way right now when the new ordinance comes out i hope to see it in there and it applies to everybody maybe with some ramp up time for people uh who are operating today that are used to a different system but i think in terms of this ordinance mr mayor we should leave it status quo and not have a calf okay so we're back then to the conversation about over concentration and individual land use designations uh so i'm gonna suggest out there and see where the council goes with the vote the idea of not banning within any individual land use designation grandfathering in the existing operators in good standing and then putting in a thousand foot buffer for any new ones that are proposed during the urgency ordinance and then leaving the conversation to the comprehensive ordinance uh down the road let's see if there's hands can i get a clarifying question yes where do the 161 folks that are not registered fit into that uh i'll be honest councilmember i if you haven't been operating under the rules and paying your t o t and your b i a maybe we have a small buffer window but i'm not that sympathetic to those folks i just have heard one of the speakers talk about other cities have done amnesty period you've got x number weeks to get online otherwise which i can support that but i don't think it could support the way it was said i'm comfortable if we want to do a short amnesty period i don't know what's what's reasonable two weeks what was that councilmember my thought is that if you've been skirting the rules that you know we give you you know 14 days or something or 28 days but that you can no longer operate until the um comprehensive ordinance comes out and provides guidance on on new uses because i don't consider you to be an existing use if you haven't been contributing sherry my comment was actually related more to eliminating zoning districts i just want to be clear clarify that you guys are including open space districts and things like that in in saying that they can that non-hosted could be in any zoning district or if we want to clarify that we just want to expand it to r2 and r3 because there's public institutional there's open space um things like that that i'm not sure um it's up to the council obviously we would want to have non-hosted short-term rentals here's the sausage is council so if if we add r2 and r3 i'm i'm doing this a little bit out loud so help me claren and sherry if we include r2 and r3 then what's excluded i heard public institution i heard open space maker space uh industrial public institutional sherry you're abuted i keep going back and forth so if we include r2 and r3 it would we could include tv r transit village residential if you guys wanted to open it up to that it would still exclude mobile home park motor vehicle sales open space districts industrial districts public institutional districts and any plan developments where short terminals are explicitly prohibited so we'd be adding in r2 r3 and tv r yes and from the little bit of research that i did based on um who is operating now that um actually seems to encompass anybody that would have otherwise been excluded okay i could i can compromise and and go that route so the let's see hands for adding in r2 r3 tv r grandfathering in our existing operators i'm going to suggest a two-week amnesty period for those who have been operating who will give them a little bit of the benefit of the doubt perhaps they didn't know the rules will make it very clear now that we know where they're at to come into compliance all right we'll we'll take them we'll take them separate so bear question yes um we haven't had any conversation about historic districts um and i have a feeling that we have um well run hosted rental um short-term rentals in historic districts um are we just is that not the case so historic districts so given given the proposal adding in r2 r3 tv r i don't think it designates makes any any different designation for historic districts than it does anywhere else in the city i'm seeing sherry nodder her head okay i'll just clarify that um historic is an overlay to a base district of r2 r3 you know cmu smu whatever so it would not have any exclusion in a historic district council member tidbits thanks mayor you know i'm starting to wonder uh with this level of sausage making going on if we might be well served to leave a lot of this for the comprehensive ordinance and again just try to focus on what can we legally do to let the current operators continue to operate on a temporary basis until the permanent ordinance comes out and then you know i i was supportive of doing a lack of a better term a ban on any new people coming into the market in the next five months while the comprehensive ordinance is getting developed and i thought i heard sue say that we could do that but we would have to go through another week or two of noticing and knowing how this night's going to stack up we're going to recess and this is all going to come back you know procedurally might it make sense to just keep it as simple as possible bring it back in a week with with the moratorium later i'm just throwing that out there to you all right i'm i'm gonna suggest since we're five hours in on this rather than coming back in a week we try to at least get some product if we can get there tonight happy to come back and have the conversation about moratorium but the suggestion that i'll throw out and i'll take it in two is adding r2 r3 and tvr back in as permitted zonings grandfathering in the existing good operators and we'll come back and we'll talk about buffer and and others in a minute we'll start there so add an r2 r3 tvr and grand grandfather in operators in good standing at the moment let's see hands okay and then allowing operators who have not up to this point uh registered with the city a two-week amnesty period to come into compliance and and mayor do we will will the staff have the capacity to deal with the flood if there's in two weeks that's just it's a curiosity question do we have the capacity to deal with what could be a fair number of applications coming all at once how about uh i'll go to sherry but the suggestion could also be that their application has to be in within two weeks with no guarantee that they get their approval within two weeks i like that sherry so my question is actually a clarifying question if we're talking about um having this two-week period to bring not really operators and good standing but existing operators if you will into compliance are we saying that they only have to apply for their permit and throughout the entire process of planning approval they have the same benefit of being able to advertise operate and that type of thing because i don't think we're going to have any permit that's turned around in a day or two i mean these are going to take a little bit of time especially because we'll have to um you know once they're approved we still have to notice the the neighbors and and it will take a little bit of time and that was kind of the benefit of staggering the um operators of good standing and giving them that 50 days so that we weren't inundated with you know 197 plus permit applications tomorrow morning or we're almost there you know on the on the day after and then that others would have to wait that hadn't followed suit so just if you could clarify what exactly you mean by that two-week amnesty period and how that relates to what we're doing with the operators and good standing 50 day period i think i think what i heard from from council members what help was give folks an opportunity to come into compliance give some folks the benefit of the doubt that perhaps they didn't know the rules and and now we're clarifying everything and for me that two-week amnesty period doesn't mean that they are able to operate until they get approved they still need to to get approved to me that two-week period was the what is potentially the next question around creating a buffer between the folks who are in good standing the folks who are currently in and not in good standing but then also before you have new people coming in who haven't been able to operate that's that's what i was hoping to find claire um well i don't know if this will help um but i'm gonna offer it anyway um the current definition that we're proposing for operator and good standing sort of puts the line in the sand at october 7th um and the threshold upon which you can't even begin to be operator and good standing is that you've registered for tot so we could extend that date by two weeks or two weeks from tonight whatever date we'll pick a date um two weeks from tomorrow and that could be the amnesty period in terms of they do need to at least do that they could do that online um what i won't what i don't want to do is commit to an action date on the part of staff i don't think we could do that week i think they can submit an application within two weeks from say tomorrow i think we'll have our application up that they can start to fill out and i think they can submit for tot i think they can get started um and that's what i would look for councilmember yeah for me the whole objective of this is to get people in a voluntary compliance of ordinance no more no less and so what we'll incentivize that and i think a two week is reasonable otherwise and then and then we start holding people accountable for not being in compliance with our ordinance and to that point my whole thing is trying to protect our housing stock from people who've been behaving unscrupulously i think that we ought to not allow them to to operate so the suggestion that i heard from claire is essentially move the operational date of the ordinance two weeks and if folks come into compliance before then and become good operator good operators they're able to continue if they don't they're out is that what is that correct claire yes they would be able to catch up to those that um um are pre october 7 they'd be able to catch up by filing an application for a short term rental and by registering for tot okay so let's see hands for the operational date mr mayor may i may i just clarify um the the effective date of the ordinance would still go the ordinance will still go into effect tonight what um i understand claire's proposal is um the definition of operator in good standing would get moved from october 7 to two weeks from tonight or i'd say october 27 so two weeks from tomorrow okay 27th and um now under the current ordinance an operator in good standing then has 50 days to file to get their permits that right so that would then open that period up to anyone who had gotten registered um with tot and bia by the two weeks is that correct did i state that so the the 50 day period for the operators in good standing was before that's how long they have to even just apply and that however long it takes us planning to give them their approval they're still allowed to continue business as usual as long as they're in compliance with all the regulations that go along with the ordinance and they're paying their tot that type of thing so by if we extend the operator in good standing period until the 27th that's giving them 50 days to apply whereas i think we were trying to say we wanted to keep that to a two week period um so i think we need to maybe consider adding different language that treats them as existing operators or something like that to give them that two week period or whatever that ends up being unless we want to just give them 50 days to apply which is what i thought i heard i i think for me and uh let me lay this out and see if there's a way to do it for me i want the folks who are not in good standing to have two weeks and if they come into good standing great then they can then continue to move through the process just like a good operator right now if they miss that two week period then they can't and through the mayor how are we going to communicate that and we don't if there are some if they don't we don't they don't know what they don't know some of them know and are are defying are just being you know in defiance but how do we get the word out to the to those that don't know what they don't know i'm looking to staff we don't know who they are so there's really no way for us to reach out to them besides what we've been doing through the city connections the the the website you know we can we put stuff out on next door to all neighborhoods we you know put stuff on facebook and twitter i don't i don't know outside of hiring a compliance company to tell us who these other operators are i don't i don't know how else we can reach them besides what we've tried to do so far you know that makes it i mean we don't know what they don't know what they don't know and we can only do what we can do so um i i guess that we we're both in a in a in a bit of a in a restricted environment if you will so um you know it's it's a compromise if it helps councilmember we have a reporter that's in the the audience that's been here for five and a half hours so that might help i'm sure it will mr ranger it looks like that we got on slide whatever slide this one is 161 on registered short-term rentals someone did a google search wine country short-term rental July 3rd 2021 wouldn't that be a place to start and i was going to take an employee to do that or volunteers i mean there might be some way to get some sort of notification good faith effort we're trying again i would hope our local newspaper our city connections we're trying but for me it's a little bit easier yeah you had this two weeks if you didn't do it i'm sorry that ship has sailed right but somehow we got up with 161 councilmember thank you mayor the unintended consequence we go from 167 so also we have 500 people that claim that they want to apply within the the window i do see that as an unintended consequence that um that causes concern thank you all right so i'll see if there's a majority of folks to move the operator in good standing date to october 27th i'm seeing a majority to do that the final thing was adding in for operators in good standing or operators who come into good standing by october 27th a thousand foot buffer that while the emergency ordinance is in place we will not approve any new uh any new short term rentals uh within that thousand feet let's see hands okay that looks unanimous okay so i'm going to read back to you through the mayor one last thing about that sorry to go back one point to the operator in good standing are we comfortable with um with if if it comes back that we have like a thousand new applications in the next two weeks not from a staff can can staff handle it from a policy perspective are we okay with tons and tons of people just saying i'm going to enter this market because we really have no way to verify we're not going to be able to go i mean like councilmember schwaatham said you know you could go to this this web scrape but realistically we're going to have to take people at their word really anybody's going to be able to say i'm an operator in good standing i'm now registered to do this is that what we want to do sherry we'd love to be able to hear you maybe you wouldn't by now the my comic was actually directed towards the 1000 foot buffer we stated it as no new short term rentals within that and i want to make sure we mean hosted and non-hosted versus just non-hosted correct okay thank you so councilmember flammings bringing up a policy question which has kind of been through this entire thing which is even with that that buffer zone in or even folks coming into compliance right now for the operator in good standing amnesty period for for lack of a better way to put it what if we have an influx of a thousand people who suddenly say that they're operators in good standing so i'm assuming that the fee structure is still a component in this discussion you'd be assuming that they're willing to pay that 1100 dollar fee right and then we would have you know tons and tons of cannabis style evenings here of picking between one constituent and another i just think that it it leads to a lot of unintended consequences that if we're putting in an sort of an open door for a couple of weeks followed by a con over concentration policy if you all want to stay here for those those nights i mean that i'll be here but was was not my first choice councilmember tibbetz you know i'm wondering there's got to be i keep coming back to this is intended to help people who have done this before were used to a certain way of doing things and maybe didn't understand the rules all the way right so they they're gonna have an air bnb profile i'm guessing they're gonna have emails from air bnb you know dating prior back prior to 10 seven or whatever day we just landed on do you see what i'm saying i think there could be some way to to verify that they it isn't just jack tibbetz wanting a good business opportunity walking in tomorrow saying hey i want to get my ticket to the future air bnb market here i think the staff could ask for some sort of verification so i'll put that to us a straw vote requiring that the folks who are not currently in good standing show proof of prior operations during that two-week period to be able to to come into good standing let's see hands all right i'm only saying three i'm saying a lot of sideways looks on it councilmember i mean ask ask me what proof you want and i'll produce it all right are there any other suggestions on how to handle that increased fee for for folks who haven't been operating uh legally i mean there's a couple of other policy options we can throw out there because i understand councilmember fleming's concern i think it is a concern that we'll hear from the public uh it would be nice if i don't want i want to make sure that folks who have been operating have a chance to come into compliance but i also i'm looking for a way for us to limit people who haven't actually been operating trying to jump in uh just because they hear that there's a deadline councilmember tibbetz yeah you know i'd support that and i think there's a logical and political nexus to what you're saying we're defining good actors predominantly as somebody who has paid taxes in the past well if they didn't pay taxes either knowingly or unknowingly by charging them a higher fee you're recovering some form of cost recovery for the city so i'd support it this is in in addition to the uh the required fees to operate uh 1100 1200 yeah i mean personally i still think that's that's too high but i recognize we're we're past that point now hope to see that come down in the comprehensive ordinance but yes that's in addition to the 1100 okay is there any recommendation on let's call it a compliance fee to come into compliance but that should be for those operators you have a question what is the average tot um payment for um an unhosted and what's average for a hosted annual basis i'm not sure that we could provide that alan maybe you would have more information i mean we've seen if you just do a quick google search you'll see that some some places charge 1600 1700 dollars a night some are down in the 200 range so you know nine percent of each of those would be a dramatically different amount but i'm going to let alan speak to that yeah the information that we have isn't broken down between hosted and and um not hosted uh it's just total tot that's i have total tot revenue amounts um um and i'm not even sure our form uh goes into hosts that are not i'd have to double check out where i'm driving at this i think everyone can see would be you know a per a year or a percentage of a year of tot to essentially make us somewhat whole for for them getting to conduct business and not paying tax so i'd be interested to hear from my council members what percentage that ought to be mayor if i may uh in the staff presentation there is a slide uh it's titled um 161 unregistered short term rentals and on that slide the median nightly rental rate is 225 dollars and the average occupancy rate is 277 nights per year so if you wanted to get an annual revenue figure based on that data to just multiply the two numbers which we can do in a moment here yeah i mean i think we want to make it such that you know i think where my council members are coming in is wanting to make the give the existing operators an opportunity so i think that we should base it off of that it's approximately 62 000 a year i don't know what your appetite is for a percentage of that i'll leave it up to you guys so so based on that with a 12 percent tot 12 percent right it comes out to be about 7500 mayor is it's clarification so are we are we talking we're basically talking a fine for you know is that kind of the the the basic concept is we're going to they're going to be paying a fine for not coming into compliance earlier that's that's the direction that we're going uh the intent is a barrier to entry for folks who have not been operating so that you don't have people jumping in front as we're trying to get people in sherry i was just going to say that i have seen other jurisdictions that if somebody comes in to apply for a permit and it's been demonstrated that they have not been paying tot and bia i've seen it from as much as two times the regular application fee up to you know five times the regular application fee um so i didn't know if that was maybe something to to put on the table i thought about doing this is actually not to fine people but it's to um one recoup our lost revenue and also differentiate between individuals who can um who are operational and can bear it and those um and dissuade people from pretending to be um operators so we might get a few people who are willing to pay that much to have the pleasure of operating but i think most people would say that's not a startup cost they'd like to bear again i'm just going to suggest the easiest way to i think to achieve this is to show proof of proof that you've been operating uh prior whether it's emails whether it's an active air bmb profile there are ways that the staff could verify um so i'll i'm just gonna throw that one out there there were three votes for it is anybody willing to change their vote so that we can do that i will mayor now so here's what i heard from council so the existing ordinance plus the five amendments suggested by staff adding in a due process or an appeal for the penalties removing the bedroom limit for hosted clarifying that if if the owner lives on the parcel that it is considered hosted disclosure of cameras within the home eliminating the section on daytime guests and parking creating a city database or contact list of the the point person or the contact person for each home not considering children under three as part of the headcount adding in as allowable uses r2 r3 and tv r grandfathering in good operators allowing those who are not currently in compliance to show proof of prior operations and a two-week period to come into compliance and to see what that start date of october 27th and then once all that's dealt with a thousand foot buffer from anyone who remains in good in uh in good standing for new operations while this ordinance is in effect i can give you the full list while we take a recess if that's helpful that generally matched my list and the two clarifications that i would ask is you're eliminating the daytime guest limits and then you said and parking there's a section in the daytime guest limits about the guests parking okay but just the park you're only eliminating the parking limitations with respect to the day the day guests okay and then with respect to the i know we've been talking about it um but perhaps i'm a little bit confused um with in terms of grandfathering in those folks that are that have been operating without being registered for tot and bia they have until 1027 to file for their tot and their bia correct and and so proof of prior and they need to show proof of prior operation um and then at that point they will be considered a operator in good standing and they will have the 50 days to submit their application correct i i think i'm clear but i i do see sherry has her hand raised um and i did want to ask if sherry or claire had questions it as long as somebody understands the difference between the two week period and the 50 day period because as we have it now operator in good standing we have the definition specifically saying registered for tot and bia assessments as of the 7th so i was going to switch that up to the 27th but that then does not allow anywhere in the ordinance that somebody has to apply for their permit within two weeks if that makes any sense they're given the same 50 days but maybe i'm misunderstanding the mayor but i thought he was saying he wanted them to apply within two weeks let me let me clarify and then we can figure out how to actually write it into the ordinance and counsel let me know if what i say is not what you heard so for folks who are currently in good standing they can start to apply immediately for folks who are not in good standing they have a two-week period to register for their tot and bia and to show proof of prior operations once they have that they become good standing and then they go through the process just as a good standing operator does i'm seeing nodding heads from counsel claire over concentration clause on cannabis i just want to put out for consideration the no new within 1000 feet um we could have a situation where you have someone who's been abiding by tot and the original form of good stand good good operator get beat out by someone who's new who's going to register for tot within two weeks and could be first in line right and unless you specify it's first come first serve to clarify claire uh what the counsel said was in good standing or comes into good standing during that two-week period can be with the can be near each other it's any new application that comes in the door that's within 1000 feet will be will not be allowed so that way those that are currently operating are unimpacted by it but it would address any over concentration issues going forward while we have this ordinance in place i'm not seeing any council members jump up and say that i'm wrong we will learn a lot with this ordinance all right uh let's go ahead then if staff is clear let's go ahead and take 15 20 minutes what do you need to i would ask we've we've been having uh we've been keeping track of everything uh in a you know offline um so i would really ask sherry or claire um how long it'll take for staff to put this together is this a 15 or 20 minute effort claire i don't know i'm thinking 30 minutes but i i also am looking at the time going holy moly so what do you think claire can we bust it out in 20 minutes yeah i think we can make a go in 20 minutes and sue can we uh i don't know what the procedural term would be pause this item while they do that move on to 14.1 take 14.1 in public comment for non-agenda items and then come back to finish this item once once they have time to craft the item yes we can do that great and mayor i am so sorry i just thought of something else when i read that original change to the operator and good standing definition as part of my original staff suggested recommendations i need to strike that original definition and reread it to include the updated date yeah i think that that's fine i think you've got the thumbs up from the council let's go ahead and make the amendment to then bring it back perfect thank you right uh and council i know we've been going since well since 12 30 so if you need to take a dinner break go ahead feel free to step away from the dais have some food come on back but we'll move on to 14.1 if there's no no big objections uh councilmember soyer thank you mayor so um staff is going to come back with language that i will be able to read uh as because i have the item um it'll be included in the language in the work in the um in the ordinance so i'll be they'll be they will be readying it for me correct uh the answer is yes councilmember and what i'm being told is that staff actually does need a break so we're going to go ahead we'll take uh let's say a 10 minute break and then come back for item 14.1 sounds good all right all right madam city clerk let's see if we have a quorum thank you mayor councilmember tibbetz here councilmember schwaitham it's right there council member soyer here councilmember fleming here councilmember alvarez president vice mayor rogers mayor rogers here councilmember schwaitham here thank you let the record show that all council members are present with the exception of vice mayor rogers right mr city manager let's go on to item 14.1 mayor rogers and members of the city council item 14.1 is a report and a request for a waiver of competitive bid and approval of two agreements for the city's in response program with catholic charities and buccaloo programs john cregan captain in the santa rosa police department will be presenting the staff report on the site thank you sir thank you mayor and city council members and i know it's been a long night so we'll get right into this can we go to slide number two in may and june of this year we saw a local and national demand to reimagine policing in our communities and i'm proud to say that the city of santa rosa heard these calls for change and has responded we've developed a comprehensive plan and created a specialized team to respond to those experiencing mental health crisis substance abuse concerns and homelessness throughout our community and how we've done that is starting of hearing some of the demands from our community about the gahoots program in eugene oregon we reached out as a city and entered into a consulting agreement with the whitebird clinic which is the nonprofit organization which runs the cahoots program in eugene oregon and we've been working with them over the last year very closely to help mirror our program for our community right here in santa rosa we go to slide number three so what i'll get to for us is we've examined what they're doing right in eugene oregon really worked with comprehensively with some of our key community stakeholders our city leaders hearing from our community and created what we really consider an even improved program from what they're doing in eugene we kind of refer that effectively as a cahoots plus model here and i'll explain that so what we've done here with our team that we're proposing it's going to have licensed mental health clinicians as opposed to in eugene they actually have non licensed mental health clinicians as part of a cost savings but we've seen that we're going to get a much more of hands level of service and expertise by having licensed mental health clinicians we're also going to upgrade and have a paramedic versus an amt this is where we're going to build in the santa rosa fire department it's been a key partner in helping us build and develop this team and by having the paramedic we're going to have a lot higher level of expertise in our field for medical evaluations and be able to work for diverting more individuals away from our local emergency rooms also we're all very aware of the acute acute homeless problem that we have here in the county is Sonoma and specifically in the city of santa rosa so we're going to work to build with a homeless outreach specialist built into our van which is not something that they have there in eugene oregon and then such a critical part that we're going to add is our holistic wraparound services and this is going to be a group that are working to provide services to those who our team has contacted throughout the week and then working on some of the upstream approach issues of making sure they're getting individuals make sure they're going to doctor's appointments getting their prescription meds filled getting other assistants and they're going to kind of help them navigate the rather complex system we have within some of our mental health and substance abuse programs here in sonoma county the key partners that are part of our team are the santa rosa fire department they'll be handling our medical response the county of sonoma and through their behavioral health division is going to be assisting us with their mobile support team catholic charities is proposed to be the uh nonprofit which is going to focus specifically on our homeless outreach efforts and buccaloo programs is going to be providing two key parts not only our wraparound services but also like an administrative uh oversight of the team to work for the day-to-day operations of working toward staffing scheduling and liaisoning with the police and fire department individuals we're also in early works to be able to introduce new monodad to our team which is a local nonprofit which specifically focuses on our latino community uh community members and we think that's going to be an integral part of our team we go to slide number four so we've presented to the public safety subcommittee several times over the last year to keep our council members aware but also our community and as you all know in this last fiscal year the council awarded 1.1 million dollars for one time funding for this fiscal year to launch the pilot program of this year and we've still been working to build up the capacity and the staffing and get these contracts finalized to be able to get this program off the ground we go to the next slide for our community who hasn't heard this before it's important to understand the scope of our services this team is going to be focused on the uh most predominantly of those struggling with mental illness in our community but obviously going to work with a wide array of other things with people with substance abuse with alcohol intoxication they're going to be doing welfare checks on those in our community our medical team will be providing basic uh medical aid for suicidal our self-harm calls another important part is going to be delivering death notifications so currently a police officer and a chaplain goes out there now we're going to reduce having an officer go to those calls um request for transportation like we talked about to assist those with getting meds filled and doctor's appointment and this is so important because this this part of the program really helps reduce getting people the services they need before they go into crisis so you're not ever getting that call the 911 because our team is focusing on some of these uh issues before they go into crisis and we're also obviously working with our unsheltered population and assisting with people with mental health and substance abuse issues and get some of the permanent and supportive housing they need and emergency shelter resources can we go to the next slide so it's we have to make sure that we're very clear on some of the service restrictions and we talked about this extensively in some of our community education but here for tonight to make sure that our team understands that everyone on our team is not armed they're not performing law enforcement duties they're going to be wearing uh we have a slide coming up that we'll talk about they're just going to be wearing polo shirts blue jeans tennis shoes they have a little ball caps that are distinctly look different than a police officer but they're not going to have pepper spray or any type of weapons with them but with that we have to make sure that we're ensuring the safety of our team and this team is not going to go to service calls that involve crimes and then they're not going to go to calls involving hostile people potentially dangerous situations are emergency medical issues and that's where we would still have to call an ambulance and a fire engine to those these are handling more low-level medical calls and doing some of the medical observations and and checks on the individuals who we're having mental health and substance abuse calls with and then obviously all calls will be within the city limits of the city of santa rosa since the city of santa rosa is paying for this team we can go to the next slide calls for service are going to be received to our dispatch center and this is modeling off of what they're doing in eugene oregon because it's much more expensive and complicated to set up a separate dispatch team for this and the training and equipment comes with that so we're focusing on training our dispatch team to be able to evaluate these calls triage them and make sure they're sending the right resource to the issue and our problem that our community is facing at that time so all calls were received through the santa rosa police department 911 dispatch center they'll be able to dispatch though directly to this team so our team is going to have a police radio and a mobile data computer in their van they'll be able to communicate just like a police officer or firefighter does directly with the dispatchers and that also is going to be a safety perfection for them that they're going to be able to call for assistance if they need that because they're going to have direct communication with our police dispatch center we're working on some extensive dispatch protocols that make sure that our dispatchers are clear on what the criteria for this team to assist with and to make sure that our team feels comfortable and safe and the calls that they're responding to next slide please so this is something that really brings a smile on my face because we put a lot of work into this and this was such a team effort not only with our internal our internal city team but really got a lot of community feedback on this so we didn't want to use the same name cahoots like they're using in eugene oregon we wanted our own unique team here that meets the needs of our own unique community and so we really worked on getting a lot of community feedback we went through dozens of different names and and little taglines and colors and what we ended up we're coming to is in response and in response was really symbolic to us meaning that we wanted to be a constant reminder that this team was created and built in direct response to the cry from our community for a different police model so it's in response to that we chose the color green because it's the mental health awareness color we have the arms right here in the o which is supposed to be going toward like a comforting or warm feeling that our team has and our tagline here of the mental health support team we want to be continually emphasizing about this team is here to support those in our community provide assistance that we've never had provided here in the city of san aroza and we wanted to also make sure we were staying away from the stink colors like blue or red that represent fire or police we want to make it very clear when people see it on the uniform so when they see it on the car this is not a police vehicle that's responding to assist their family member who may be in need and we worked with a local branding company here the city of san aroza who helped us create this and kind of use their expertise with that in our city communication team was also a key part of that we go to the next slide so this is just we we're still working on getting our vans which has been quite a struggle with some of the national shortages with vehicles and micro trips across america this is just a mock-up so we're going to order these four white four transit vans that look similar to this and we're going to have the in response on the side of it it's going to look a little prettier once we get ours actually and done but this is the mock that i want everyone to see in our community about that it distinctly does not look like a police car and it's going to be very clear when it's coming up to a call for service or driving around in our community that it's such a separate and distinct response vehicle if we go to the next slide so this is a this is actually a picture from some of my individuals i'm working with in Eugene Oregon so this is the cahoots team right here so we're modeling our vehicle identical to their vehicle there so they have the white four transit band as well you're going to see just the writing on the side and then our team members is stressing again we're going to be modeling what they're doing Eugene with the khaki pants or blue jeans we have our polo shirts are gray because it goes with our logo so we have gray polo shirts with our in response and gray ball caps and they're going to be doing so when you look at this team they don't have some of the triggers that we've heard from our community if members that get triggered our community members that fear the uniform and especially someone armed with a gun so you look at this team and it's something who's going to be very responsive doesn't come off as intimidating and can really i think that we're going to be able to see a greater calls for service because people are going to feel so much more comfortable not only with the enhanced level of education from this team but even the look of the vehicle and their uniforms if we go to the next slide so what does success look like and i know that's a question we've been getting a lot from our community and we certainly expect to get from our city leaders here as we invest this money so one of the things that we're looking for is that we believe obviously what we talked about that we're going to have a better response model for those in crisis in our community we know right now that we have some community members that will not call the police department for fear and their their fear is that maybe their young daughter son husband wife whoever it may be is going to get into confrontation with law enforcement and they could get harmed they could even worse get end up getting in some type of fatal confrontation with law enforcement so they choose not to call the police department we believe that they're going to be able to reach out for this service we believe obviously the holistic wraparound services is going to be such a crucial part that doesn't exist right now in our city we believe that will divert calls from both the police department and the fire department that are going to be able to go to this we've talked in some of the early presentations that we're estimating with a full 24 seven response model that we could see in excess of 5000 police calls a year that get diverted to this team we're looking at what we talked about for more people calling in for the level of service we expect to see a dramatic diversion from our local emergency rooms with people with low level medical issues are going to be able to evaluate it with our team and then also get directly transported to our crisis stabilization unit and the arena detox facility and not have to go through local er's one thing that I'm really excited about is I believe that we're going to see a decrease in our jail bookings so many times over and over we see those in a mental health crisis that commit some type of low level crimes and they end up get treated just for the criminal offense and sitting unnecessarily in our local county jails so this team is going to be able to work to be able to evaluate what is the root cause of the issue and it may not be a criminal offense is occurring but they're really needing mental health or substance abuse training and available to provide a better level of service for that and then we're really excited to be able to work with with our large homeless population here in the city of Santa Rosa is to be able to work with our housing and community services and with our homeless program manager here in the city and obviously with our local nonprofits to be able to increase the number of unsheltered individuals in our community receiving emerging emergency shelter placement we go to the next slide so as some more indicators of success we're going to be really evaluating in the debt and the data comprehension and analysis for us is going to be critical and that's going to be that we're going to be tracking on the team and we'll be working with the crime analyst team here at the police department but we're going to be really examining about obviously the calls for service that are diverted within the police and fire if we're seeing an increase in calls for service the shelter placements we're really going to be looking about what are some of the cost savings that we're seeing in the city in the long run so we're going to be looking at a host of these issues and we'll be reporting out in our next slide we'll talk about some of our reporting mechanisms that we're going to come up with we can go to the next slide if you don't mind so the continue in the report back that we're going to have our team has built in a steering committee that we're going to be having in the steering committee is going to be posed of representatives from the police the fire department from each of our nonprofits which are involved our local hospitals and some of the other key community organizations who are part of the success of our team we're going to have a stakeholder group and that's where we're going to have key families like nami sonoma county we're going to be working with some of our other mental health providers or homeless providers or substance abuse and other key community organizations are going to be part of that group and then obviously we'll be coming back frequently to our city council public safety subcommittee reporting back to them on the progress in our team what the data collection has been so far and where we are as we progress toward expanding this team and our hours in the future can we go to the next slide so our next step we're going to be continuing to work with some of with the fire department with behavioral health we're evaluating uh petaluma police department has started a a reduced team and we're working closely with them in the city of rona park and then red com which is our medical dispatch uh program we're working on uh continuing on how we're going to track some of our internal success we're here tonight to be able to get the nonprofits be able to fund it and we're still working toward launching 10 hours a day for seven days a week in november of this year so we're just weeks away from being able to do a soft start with this team if we go to the next slide so here's a common question that we've asked about how quickly are we going to be able to get to the 24 hours and really right now the two things that hold us back from the 24 hour seven day a week is funding and then the capacity of us hiring the staff so we're starting off with the 10 hours a day for seven days a week we've already received the city council funding for the 1.1 million dollars and so we're going to be off to a start with that to be able to go to the 17 hours which is our next model it would be in addition of eight hundred and sixty five thousand dollars to what we have now now we're working aggressively toward some local uh private funders to be able to fill that gap and also we've applied from some county state and federal grants to be able to work toward bridging that gap and we'll have more information come into council in the coming weeks and months once we're able to finalize some of this other funding options to be able to support our invaluable program and that's going to help us getting back toward this for 24 seven model and we'll have to evaluate how much funding we're able to get from the private funders from the county's measure program and from other state and local funding grant opportunities that we're working on and we'll be able to count to our report back to council at the end as we start the budget hearings in 2022 looking at the 2022 2023 fiscal year and be able to see how large that funding gap is at this point and also be able to report back to council about what is our data showing how successful this team has been and then we can make an informed decision as a city about where we want to go from there and how quickly we can reach this full 24 seven response model we go to the next slide so i know this is a very late night so we were going through this quickly but i wanted to make sure that our community and each one of our city leaders was available to hear the important steps we've made with this program so what we're asking for tonight is that the city council by two separate resolution waive the competitive bidding process for catholic charities and buckaloos and that we would enter into three year agreements with each of these organizations and the combined total for each of these organizations would be the 1.473 and that's the combined for both catholic charities and buckaloos at the end of a three year contract and we're asking for the waiving of the competitive bid process because we've heard such an immediate cry from our community to get this ground this team off the ground as quickly as we can and to be able to respond to really the crisis that we have in our community of those experiencing mental health concerns substance abuse and homelessness and this is the fastest way that we can provide this level of service to our community and at the end of this three year contract we'll be able to evaluate the success of this program and be able to go out to a competitive bid process at that time so i know i was very quick going through this but i'd like to take any questions from the mayor or council that you may have on this thank you so much captain council member fleming you have a question i have a brief i know it's late i hate to bug you with the question but you did mention one thing about diversion from emergency to crisis stabilization and one of the challenges that we're currently having a crisis stabilization is that everybody who comes to us we have to send out to the emergency department for covid clearance so that may be something to keep in mind that that everybody who comes in until until the nut gets cracked so i don't know if your team would have the ability to do rapid tests or something and i really beyond me as to why we can't do it at csu given that we but anyway that i don't want to lose my job today why don't you consider maybe a way to get that done without going through the emergency department as a way to not overburden that service that would just be my question comment yeah that's an important question and one that we've evaluated so i meet with the vapor health director bill carter quite regularly on this and then cid mccoy who runs the csu she joins us on the meeting so we pose that question about having our our paramedic because that higher level of medical training be able to provide the rapid test which is pretty simplistic to apply and be able to avoid that so they're considering that and we still and that will certainly be a county decision in the long run but that's something that we pose to them and we would really our hope is that we could provide a rapid test in the field with our paramedic and their training and expertise providing that rapid test and being able to read the results and then be able to assure the csu staff that they've passed that test or that they haven't come back positive on that test and then divert them from the er so i'll keep you posted on that and and we're working with csu to get that approval else members what i'm thank you thanks for presentation john can you just give us an update on another potential funding stream if we get to 24 seven with the cahoots act in the medicare or medicaid reimbursement where we have yeah so that's that's an important one and we've been working with congressman topson's office he's been very supportive of this program and looking at some of the federal funding so with the cahoots act they passed where simplistically that you'd be able to charge getting some of the medicare funding but right now the federal legislators wrote it that it would have to be a 24 seven response model will be eligible for that so right now with us starting at the tan and then working toward the 17 we wouldn't meet that criteria but we're working with congressman tomson's office to see what changes can be made for that and how our team can as quickly as possible meet that criteria and we're really looking at a host of other federal funding options and as we see our federal legislators see the importance of these teams and helping to help them grow across the country i think we're going to see more federal funds coming toward supporting these teams and we're excited about the possibility of getting some of those funds and using them to expedite our team getting the full capacity so just to confirm the act has been signed into law no it has not been signed into law at this point there's and that's why we've given strong strong consideration from our perspective about the limitations of putting the 24 seven into that great thank you else any other questions all right let's open it up for public comment if you're interested in providing comment on this issue go ahead and hit the raise hand feature on zoom i see nobody baking their way towards the microphones here in chamber so we'll start with eric followed by gregory thank you very much mr mayor appreciate that and i also appreciate this program coming to fruition it's been um you know fairly rapid to pull it together right when i was looking online it looks like the effort started in mid 2020 like around august 2020 um and so you know i appreciate within that time that you've made a deliberate effort to engage the community uh to get feedback from stakeholders uh to have a serious in-depth look at how other jurisdictions operate and again i want to applaud your effort for doing that i can't help though but compare and contrast that with the thing that we're mired in with today and you know it's really sort of stunning the difference so on the one hand when you want robust public involvement you can do that ironically in the same time frame of the other issue that we're dealing with today which had no stakeholder engagement uh was built on a bed of lies which the codes or this program isn't and it just really strikes me that really the conversation is about mental health and yet by abrogating just processes public involvement what are you doing to people's mental health that you're dragging through the mud in this process that's still ongoing this evening when on the one hand you're investing time and creating robust mental health support programs it's just again one of these things that the city you know it sort of amazes me actually where you can just sort of go like a pinball machine with no real rhyme or reason i suppose there's rhyme and reason if you take down to it mental health is a crisis that's obvious the other thing that we're dealing with is a political football so again i appreciate it and thank you very much thank you eric appreciate your comments gregory greetings my name is Gregory Farron i want to thank john and all of the people who've been putting this together the homeless community has been waiting for it for a long time and advocating for it and it's it's going to be a terrific program the advice i want to give you however is i didn't hear anything in there about the participation of or the involvement of lived experience homeless and people who are going to be served i can tell you because most people know i'm pretty uh much an advocate of finding money i'm on several large foundations and i'm also involved with some local fundraising and grant writing and i can tell you that the writing is clearly on the wall for most state and federal monies that unless you involve them in the process of both planning and evaluating programs you're not going to get that money every grant that i've seen lately especially the large ones is demanding that participation by those being served is essential in the evaluation and in the design and though i heard agencies and i want you to understand there's a very different point of view and evaluating and deciding on things between agency staff and those they serve um you're not going to get very far john i can't advocate for the program with a straight face at the same time uh we're we're advocating on the coc board and lots of other areas that lived experience be involved we're doing a lot of things to get them involved in the process and i just didn't hear that in in your description of how you're putting the program together how you're evaluating it how you're making decisions they seem to be left out and i think that's a weak part of your of your grant writing process thank you very much thank you gregory to the last hand i see do we have any pre-recorded voicemail public comments we do not okay captain i'm going to give you a chance to respond to that question about lived experience and is there a way that we are incorporating those voices and if not is there a way we can incorporate those voices gregory you bring up a really good point and so we have nami sonoma county's been a key part of this conversation and helping us create this team from day one and we are going to incorporate two elements of lived experience and they're going to be in our stakeholder group so we have nami sonoma county they teach a peer to peer class where they have someone who's struggled with mental illness and uh they teach the other peers of those struggling in our community and they're going to have a stakeholder and then we're going to work with catholic charities to be able to get someone from living from the homeless community to be part of the lived experience on our team so they're both going to be part of our key stakeholder group and that stakeholder group's going to be meeting regularly evaluating the success of our team and helping us create this team as we get it off the ground and we'll look for other opportunities and and and using some of the different organizations and other nonprofits in our community that are going to get to be invited to be part of that local nonprofit but we have from day one had both someone from the lived experience from our homeless community and from the mental health community who will be part of that stakeholder group hope that answers the question are there any other questions or comments okay uh councilmember fleming you have the item it's my great honor and pleasure to introduce this item and uh I think that I speak on behalf of so many of us in the community and on the council and saying that it's really exciting to be bringing this forward and thank you to all of your hard work so with that the first of two resolutions resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa waving competitive bidding pursuant to section three dash zero eight dot one zero zero d of the santa rosa city code and approving the agreement with buccaloo programs a californian nonprofit corporation to provide program implementation services to the city for the in response program and wave further reading of the text second second it's a motion by councilmember fleming and a second by councilmember schwedhelm let's go ahead and call the vote councilmember tidbits councilmember tidbits is recused from this item oh thank you for the reminder councilmember schwedhelm hi councilmember soyer hi councilmember fleming hi councilmember alvarez hi vice mayor rogers mayor rogers hi that motion passes with five eyes with vice mayor rogers absent and councilmember tidbits recusing resolution to a resolution of the city of the council of the city of santa rosa waving competitive bidding pursuant to section three dash zero eight dot one zero zero d of the santa rosa city code and approving the agreement with catholic charities of the diocese of santa rosa to provide program implementation services to the city for the in response program and wave further reading of the text all second second councilmember fleming with a second from councilmember alvarez uh councilmember soyer was slow yet again are there any final comments on this item before we go to vote i just want to thank you captain for everybody who's been working so hard on this item i think in response as as you've explained what the name is supposed to encapsulate uh is the perfect name for it uh quite frankly i think that that's what you're doing is you're responding to the community we're going to have a better response to these types of calls i just really want to appreciate everybody who's been working on this and thank you to the subcommittee for for driving this process as well thank you mayor and i just want to add one last thing to to tag on to that the graphic i think does a really great job of visually demonstrating the care that we're we're going to be providing to the community so it's well done all the way around i'm really excited for its inaugural ride and madame city clerk if you could call that vote councilmember schwaith howl hi councilmember soyer hi councilmember fleming hi councilmember alvarez hi vice mayor rogers mayor rogers hi that motion passes with five eyes with vice mayor roger's absent and council member tidbits recusing all right thank you so much captain before we go back to item 15.1 we have no written communications and we'll do public comment for non-agenda items so if we can go ahead and see if you're providing comment for non-agenda items feel free to raise your hand i'm seeing nobody in the chambers so we'll go to eric followed by gregory thank you very much mr. mayor so i rise on this agenda item uh to speak about uh well first of all my name is eric frazier with truth in tourism at gmail.com so i rise to speak specifically about the lack of transparency that seems to be surrounding the selection of a new city manager um i haven't seen any public hearings on this when i requested through public records requests on 921 next request number 21-1133 where i was inquiring about any advertisements responses head hunter firms that were hired to aid in the search anything really uh even at this late date i haven't received any responsive documents and so it leads me to believe that this process might be some sort of inside deal some inside track and of course we know the power of that city manager's job especially since we have so many ambiguous laws and processes and policies in the city and you know probably even be adding more of them that the city manager has a great power really to by administrative fiat uh create new law practically um and i'm concerned that there what's being planned behind closed doors might be an extension of what we see as a corrupt environment that's caused by this bia scandal and the rise of this funded tourism economy where there's been millions of dollars that have not been accounted for properly and so on behalf of my fellow residents i would hope to find more transparency in selecting this the new person to take over a city manager and i can't really explain i can't i can't explain to other people who say well isn't that a transparent process i can't really explain why it isn't and why on every city council agenda there isn't an update on this um and i i think you're passing over the opportunity of engaging people that come from a minority or from an outside point of view you're just really setting it up for some sort of inside play and we need to grow out of that thank you very much thank you eric Gregory this is Gregory Farron again um my wife just told me the only thing that you guys probably want to hear from me is um you're adjourned or something to get you out of that council you've been there a long time but i know you're also like hearing about how Santa Rosa is a pilot for the rest of the state and it is a um is selected for its excellence so i want to give you an example that you probably don't know about a couple of months ago the binyaf uh center on uh vulnerable populations uh announced a study uh in eight counties of california in which they would hire uh near uh recently homeless and homeless themselves to interview 350 to 400 in this county at the arlene frances center this week and next week and the following week uh and administer a survey which they're going to ask a lot of questions that we've all wanted to ask uh and it's going to be it's one of eight counties we're the first county we're we're what they chose to test this out first and get it right uh and they spent all last week training the surveyors uh kara young dr young from uh back east it was brought out and the ucsf uh team is up here uh and this week uh today and yesterday they began asking uh homeless questions in a long survey homeless action is having a welcome lunch on friday for the staff uh who are asked asking the questions and the staff from ucsf and i'm here to ask that either the mayor or the vice mayor come join us for lunch the lunches are being provided by the living room they're the lunches the living room prepares and we've asked them to prepare 15 more and we're going to be there at 12 o'clock on friday to welcome this team and this study and to thank them for choosing sonoma county and to be here in our community that's all and i hope you take us up on it it's going to be a wonderful lunch and i think we all need to get to know them they need to get to know us and hear that we are appreciative of their being here and we look forward to the results of their survey thank you so much gregory and if you could email me the details i'll do my best to try to be there adam deputy city clerk so we have any prerecorded public comments we do one moment item 13 public comment for non-agenda items name is newain d witt from roseland the city has been spending a lot of money for what they call a community engagement department it came about after the andy low pass killing and the dissatisfaction with government response by many citizens and this community engagement department seems more about just having another bureaucracy instead of actually doing authentic community engagement with citizens throughout the city it may be occurring in some other areas but here in roseland it's been very deficient it's not reaching out to long-time roseland residents many of whom had tried to be actively involved in positive activities for the future of roseland attended meetings participated when they could spoke up in a positive manner and yet then get ignored down the road the dilemma that we face right now excuse me is that many folks are becoming disenchanted not just because of dissatisfaction with the decisions that city officials and politicians make but outright feeling that they're being ignored and that this whole community engagement department is almost a fraud it's money being spent in a big way and bureaucracy build people getting jobs and pensions but not really invigorating our democracy or really helping community members who especially coming from disadvantaged underserved areas have been historically ignored and neglected that benign neglect of racism and classism that's looked down the nose at those low-income people from areas like the roseland creek neighborhood please at least reinvigorate that community engagement department so they'll come out and talk to a lot more people not just the old standbys they've been going to apparently we're uncertain who they actually talked to and we can't find folks that they've engaged with so maybe you could get an email or some sort of a written comment about who these folks are and where they can be contacted so that they'll be some true authentic community engagement for the roseland creek neighborhood shepherd and roseland neighborhoods the lowest in the human development index of the portrait of Sonoma County this next census might show it's not even any better but we would hope that the millions being spent on community engagement you folks could come and tell us in person thank you that includes public comment received via voice message thank you so much madam city attorney are we ready to go back to 15.1 with the proposed text amendments yes we are this is council member Sawyer's item i think his request was to make sure that he had the language in front of him i think the urgency ordinance language is is going to be the same and so perhaps what you can do is help him craft a motion with the proposed amended language does that work for you council member yes i could just read the the ordinance and then refer to the changes or or just have the city attorney add those changes to my language i think i can make it i can i can read it in such a way that it would open that door all right let's do that work okay so i'll introduce an ordinance an urgency ordinance of the council of the city of san aroza amending title 20 of the san aroza city code to add section 20-48 short-term rentals to include to include regulations and operational standards for short-term rentals plus the changes articulated by our city attorney now thank you council member i am going to though i am happy to walk through the changes that have been made but i also know that sherry and claire are here and that sherry has been actually the one making the changes and i would offer if she would like to walk through them i'm happy to if you if you prefer that i do but i know there is let's go ahead let sherry get this one across the finish line great thank you okay so we'll start with page four the fourth whereas which is whereas pursuant to section 36934 and 36937 etc we are striking that based on the fact that we do not have seven council members present and then we can scroll down to if i may um we we could share the screen so that you can visual you can visually see these amendments because there are so many maybe for the sake of the public that would be best that's a great idea thank you claire so we are now going to move to page seven and we will be looking at item i the definition of a hosted short-term rental we're going to modify it to read a short-term rental where the host lives and sleeps in the dwelling unit or lives and sleeps in another legal dwelling unit on the same parcel throughout the short-term rental period striking no more than two bedrooms in the dwelling may be used as a short-term rental but keeping hosted short-term rentals shall be allowed only in the host's primary residence moving down to adding a new definition item l new operator a short-term rental owner that is not registered for t o t and b i a assessments as of as of october 27th 2021 moving down to renumbered item o operator in good standing to read modify to a short-term rental operator who has registered for t o t and b i a assessments as of october 27th 2021 and provided proof of prior operation during 2021 scrolling down to page nine section 20-48 0.040 adding to modifying to include the language a short-term rental permit may only be issued to an owner capital O and only for a dwelling unit at a fixed location and address we're simply adding the words to an owner and only to that section section 20-48 0.040 b application submittal number one operators in good standing we are changing the number to within 51 days of the effective date of this ordinance by december 3rd 2021 and that's given the fact that we are now at october 13th changing 20-48 0.040 b 1 a operators in good standing may continue to rent offer or advertise a short-term rental at the location specified in the short-term rental permit application while obtaining required senior city approvals except as specified in subsection b below striking section c so we are striking section 20-48 0.040 b 1 b and remembering we're adding section 20-48 0.040 b section 2 new operators item a new operators may not apply for a short-term rental permit until after december 3rd 2021 b new operators may not propose short-term rentals within 1 000 feet from the property line of a short-term rental owned by an operator in good standing c new operators shall obtain a short-term rental permit prior to renting offering or advertising a short-term rental moving on to section c application requirements striking items 2 and 3 and remembering as follows adding section let me get back up there make sure we're still in the same one 20-48 0.040 adding a new section i appeals to read as follows the procedures related to appeals and revocation in division 6 zoning code administration shall apply following issuance or denial of a short-term rental permit on to page 12 occupancy limits b adding language that the occupancy maximum shall not exceed 10 short-term renters including children over the age of three changing item c daytime guests to read as follows daytime guests shall be allowed to visit the property at any time between the daytime guest hours of 8 a.m to 9 p.m we had some good discussion about this and are concerned about some unintended consequences that could could happen with this and have some proposed language as an alternative we were concerned that if a short-term rental does not have a maximum daytime guests they could have say 10 short-term renters overnight and invite 50 people over during the day and there would be no enforcement or or way to prevent that from happening so in discussions with police and fire and code we decided to to propose alternative language that would say in addition to the maximum number of short-term renters allowed pursuant to 20-48.060 b daytime guests shall be allowed to visit the property at any time between the daytime guest hours of 8 a.m to 9 p.m the maximum number of daytime guests shall be equal to two times the maximum occupancy for the short-term rental so what we're trying to achieve here is that if there are 10 short-term renters then 10 guests would also be able to visit during the day or if you want to go even farther we could do that scrolling down to page 13 item b life safety requirements adding item 2 all video surveillance or any mechanism that can be used to capture or transmit audio video or still images on site shall be disclosed to short-term renters and then renumbering as follows item c no item d i apologize advertising and listing requirements we are because we struck item c um item b from above now the it's renumbered to one a and b and then i'll give the section number again because it's been a minute so i've done that 20-48.070 section e2 reword to say upon permit approval the city will provide mailed notice of permit issuance local contact information and short-term rental limits to property owners and tenants within 600 feet of the short-term rental unit and then the only other change is to the last page of the ordinance page 17 of 17 updating the in-counsel duly passed and adopted this 13th day of october 2021 so the only thing that we would need to potentially have further discussion on is whether you guys would would still want to have no limit on daytime guests or accept the proposed language all right thank you sherry and i did have one question the way that i read the amendments that you scrolled through could potentially open the door for somebody who is in good standing as an operator to propose a new location that's within a thousand feet so long as they're in good standing by the operational date does that make sense the the section with the thousand foot buffer i think by you placing it within the discussion of new operators which by definition is different than the in good standing operators it would seem to me that the thousand foot buffer does not apply then to folks who are in good standing who propose a new operation boy that is a very good point um boy anybody have some advice on how to reword that because that that is not the intent of what we're trying to say here so what we're trying to say is that no new short-term rentals so much here's my suggestion you take that you take that language you have a portion of the uh of a separate section of the ordinance that becomes operational on a specific date which is a date that is once our good operators and our folks who come into compliance are at that point so you have a an enactment date for the thousand foot buffer that goes into place before new ones can be proposed but is after the compliance does that make sense it does um so maybe we could say applications submittal by oh i hear somebody making noise help me do i hear somebody willing to offer something or is that just a random background noise i'll weigh in um please the the um provisions on the operator in good standing um those applications must be submitted by december third right um so any new any new um short-term rentals have to come in would come in after december third right and we have that language but what what mayor rogers is suggesting is that because we call them new operators right he makes the point that somebody that is one of these operators in good standing could then come in with an application for one that is within 1000 feet even though it would be a new short-term rental use but not a new opera right and so i i i had two options one is to change that number two to new short-term rentals uh so that applications for new short-term rentals permit or permits for new short-term rentals um you know may not be submitted until after december third so would have no new submissions from now until december third the other um for the other way to do that would be to still keep this as new operators but take b into a new um new section three which would be um could we do application submittal by december 31st 2021 and have it only be that and then have application submittal after december third 2021 and and include right that's that wouldn't solve it though so i'd work on that for a couple of minutes and see if we can come up with something i'll bring it uh back to council for the discussion about the daytime guests language yeah okay while while you uh while you all work on that uh councilmember tidbits yeah my feeling is that this is something that we can probably do without i'm happy to support it i seconded the motion if it's in the paperwork but i think that this that's one of those details that should come in the comprehensive ordinance member fleming my concern is um can staff remind me did you say two times the number of of nighttime guests so if you have because you said two times the number and then you said for a total of of 10 guests plus the 10 nighttime so i need that reread yes so just to clarify for guests while they're working on the other language um it is basically you would not be able to more than double the occupancy in total so yes if you if based on occupancy and bedrooms and whatnot if you maxed out at eight then you couldn't have any more than eight guests during the day um so the concern i have is on the larger places the places that like say sleep 16 and having an additional 16 um i would maybe tie it to um you know the amount of guests that um half an additional 50 percent and say that the cars you know that there needs to be parking um for those additional guests well as you can see in the subsection b the total maximum is 10 you can't exceed 10 oh then i say i think five five more is reasonable i mean 20 is a lot of people to have at a residential place but um i mean so that that's the issue we're trying to reconcile we not having a limit we we don't know how we would enforce that um um so we we're looking to a council for direction on guests and if i might just somewhere and then tidbits thank you sardine about um not only would 20 be a fairly high number but they would also be there from 88 potentially from 8 a.m to 9 p.m so that's a lot of a lot of extra people all day long cast member tidbits sorry mayor that hand was old all right so we'll do uh we'll do uh the straw poll uh hands up if you want to accept the alternate language that would put the cap at uh twice the maximum during the day that's the 20 if i may mayor i i we need to reword that it's a little confusing um so so how it really should read is that i'm sorry let me get back down to it i'm trying to work on two things at once um that the maximum number of daytime guests shall be equal to the maximum occupancy for the short short term rental not two times because that would then imply the 20 could arrive in addition to the 10 and we were just trying to make it equal to does that make sense or should i reread it go ahead reread it one more time so in addition to the maximum number of short term renters allowed pursuant to 20-48.060 b daytime guests shall be allowed to visit the property at any time between the daytime guest hours of 8 a.m to 9 p.m the maximum number of daytime guests shall be equal to the maximum occupancy for the short term rental okay so if if 10 are allowed 10 day 10 short term renters 10 daytime guests eight short term renters eight daytime guests okay that's clear to me council let's see hands for accepting that language uh or if uh if not keep your hand down i'm seeing one hand sherry can you remind us what the current language is not the alternate version and after your recommendation or what i started with i'm not sure i know how to answer that question uh the language that was not the alternate language that you had that you showed us okay so what you proposed was that um daytime guests shall be allowed to visit the property at any time between the daytime guest hours of 8 a.m to 9 p.m so there was no limit involved at all okay let's see from council hands hands up to accept that language hands down to not i'm having a hard time seeing john and jack all right john do you have comments i just i agree with victoria um i'm looking for half another 50 another 50 percent in addition to the 10 and i'll speak to that i'm looking to avoid people coming for weddings and large gatherings during the day i'm not looking to avoid people having you know family over for a meal you know time you know if you've got a 10 person rental and you have five people come over for for lunch or whatever that's all good and great but if we don't cap it people are gonna have large events well and to to be fair it the rest of the ordinance does ban all events that's understood but i i think that people will figure out a way to get around things okay so john i'm not sure i don't remember where your hand was so the suggestion the suggestion from staff for the alternate language would put a cap of no more than than 20 essentially but it would be tied to what the maximum occupancy was so if your max if your max in the the evening was eight your max during the day would be 16 if your max in the evening was four your max during the day would be eight uh as i understand the language that sherry was proposing so let's see one more time let's see if there's hands from council to include that language in the ordinance here what is that that language if you can explain what that is uh sherry if you could pull it back up can you guys share the screen yeah the ordinance the alternative language thank you so originally when i came before you we suggested a maximum of four daytime guests that um council recommended um that we eliminate a cap entirely staff took that suggestion we had our conversation during the break while you guys were working on another important project and decided that that no cap would not serve the you know serve the community and i don't think that was what was intended so we were trying in the spirit of being uh lenient came up with equal to the maximum occupancy for the short term rental that said if council prefers to make it more restrictive closer to the original four we could say half the occupancy we could cap it at five whatever council would prefer okay we're going to do it this way then because the original direction from council when we went through the straw pole exercise was to have no cap was to eliminate that section entirely so council we're going to do a straw pole if you would like a cap of some sort and then we can sort it out raise your hand if you would not like a cap keep your hand down all right so i'm seeing three so the existing language is to have no cap council member soyer like 50 percent but i'll you know in the spirit of moving forward um i could act we asked and i i'm just you know i i just think that 20 people all day long is going to is is impactful to neighbors and that's kind of who i'm thinking of protecting right because you know by that if you get if we did 20 and you don't have an event but you have a pool there and you got you a butt to a pool you're going to be listening to 20 people in a pool for eight or 10 hours in the middle of the summer every saturday and sunday i just think that that really degrades the quality of life so i'm not trying to be overly restrictive here i'm just trying to make it manageable for people who have to deal with this on a regular basis every weekend all right council member soyer i heard you say daytime guests 150 of the maximum for the for the site so let's see if there's support from that from the council for that so to be clear if your maximum during the evening is 10 during the day you can have up to 15 let's see all right i'm going to go ahead and throw a vote that way let's change that language so it's 150 percent and let's move on and then sherry were you a were you or sue or anybody else able to come up with language to address the buffer issue uh yes um i think that the language i think that we're settled on proposed language now for the short term for the new short term rentals um and i don't know if that's been has that been sent to you dina i can say i can try forwarding it to you did that come through so do you want to read it to us while we try to send it over sure um what we've done is in the section on applications to middles we have a paragraph one concerns operators in good standing um and that is revised only to say that their operators in good standing shall submit a short term rental permit application for existing short term rentals accompanied by the fee and you submit that by december by december third then we have a paragraph two which is the new new operators and the new operators may not apply for a new short term rental permit until after december third um and then we've moved the provision about the uh thousand feet to a new paragraph three which now reads um new short new short term rentals after december third 2021 no short term rentals may be proposed within 1000 feet from the property line of a short term rental owned by an operator in good standing and in operation as of december third 2021 and the idea is that this will capture both new operators proposing new short term rentals and operators in good standing who might be proposing a new location um and that would be the the intent of that paragraph okay i'm comfortable with that language counselor are there any additional questions about the proposed amendments or on the motion mayor i'll need to stipulate the final number as a as a as the final piece of this ordinance if this is the right time yep please do stipulating file number re z 21 dash 004 and waive further reading excellent we have a motion from council member soyer a second from council member tibets are there any additional comments on the motion before we go to a vote i'm sorry mr mayor yes we wanted to also point out um and claire i don't know if you want to speak to this the discussion on um i apologize for not mentioning it earlier uh you had a discussion of having the uh list of contacts um on uh database of contacts listed on the website and that was not incorporated and i'll hand it over to claire to explain uh why why that why we made that decision yeah so um as i we mentioned in our presentation our intent to support the program for residents and for the industry is to use that website um and it's a one you know one stop shop for all all things short term rentals and our intent is to provide that as the as the location for mapping short term rentals posting of the contact um phone numbers so we we do intend to use that and um i don't feel like that exercises need to be memorialized in a in a zoning ordinance but that that is something that you can direct us to do and that we will commit to to doing this posting that contact information through our city website i'm comfortable with that if council is uh the only other two that i just want to verify because we talked about them before and i we gave direction on amendments one was the uh bedroom limit for hosted and then the other was adding in r2 r3 and tv r as acceptable land uses yes those were both both those revisions were made and i can tell you the sections the of course sherry probably knows the sections right off the top of her head but i'm looking for the i was just going to mention that um in the definition of hosted short term rental so it's 20-48.030 item i um we struck completely no more than two bedrooms in the dwelling may be used as a short term rental and actually added the language that um uh it's considered a hosted rental if the um property owner lives and sleeps in another legal dwelling unit on the same parcel and then let me let me get down to the zoning districts oh i typed those in and you know what i don't see them on this copy so do you guys see it on yours and looking at 20-48.040 item two is it showing up there it is not so i need to retype all of those in um i'm not sure what happened because i did type them in in one version of it so i will do that immediately yes it was in the earlier versions yeah i don't know i don't know how it how it got lost that's the joys of share point um it is there part of it is whoa it's okay so it must have been i've got to fix this and i think that we can move forward um those additional uh districts the r2 r3 and tv r will be added into this um section 20-48.040 a2 okay okay they're in there now i typed them in you can't see it because it's not updating your document but they're in and i'm saving right now i just get saved and so these thank you this uh this draft of the ordinance will be available to the public uh published tomorrow morning uh it will be no we'll we'll need a little bit of time um to i want to go through it given that we're doing this uh drafting at rather late in the evening um i will want to have us have a chance in the morning to walk through make sure that we've gotten it all cleaned up so that the version that we can give to the public will be a clean copy i know um that we have a public safety subcommittee meeting from no oh is it cancelled it's cancelled okay then we will have time to focus on this in the morning so we will get it out as quickly as we can perfect thank you so thanks all right council are there any last questions or comments on the motion all right just a big thank you to sherry to claire to everybody who has participated in this process and stuck with us tonight thank you guys for still being here uh with that let's go ahead and call the vote council member tidbits hi council member schwedhelm hi council member soyer hi council member fleming hi council member alvarez hi vice mayor rogers mayor rogers hi that motion passes with six eyes with vice mayor rogers absent all right thank you council thank you sherry thank you claire with that i believe we are ready to adjourn i ask skeptically of the city attorney with that we adjourn thank you yes