CQG - Isnd Short-Term-Rental Comments Attachments 10-6-15

Citizens for Quality Growth
A non-profit, public benefit organization
101 E. Alma Street, Suite 100-A

Mt. Shasta, CA 96067
City Council
City of Mt. Shasta
305. No. Mt. Shasta Blvd.
Mt. Shasta, CA 96067
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON:
Proposed Zoning Amendment to Allow Short-term Vacation Rentals in R-1 Zones
(Section 18.16 and 18.20.080 Municipal Code Text Amendment)
Honorable City Councilmembers:
October 6, 2015
This detailed comment letter addresses the serious and unresolved problems of short-term
vacation rentals potentially being allowed to operate in R-1 residential zones. We ask the City to
carefully consider the various problems and environmental impacts that typically occur when
such businesses are not regulated sufficiently.
Here is an index of our comments which identify that this zoning change would potentially:
Page:
1234567891011-
Harm single-family residential neighborhood character ................................2

Conflict with General Plan to protect neighborhoods.....................................8
Conflict with General Plan polices to protect motels and B&Bs ..................10
Conflict with Zoning Ordinance's rules on home-occupancy businesses......12
Create greenhouse gas emission impacts from increased fireplace use.........14
Create Air Quality Impacts due to increased particulate pollution ...............15
Be inconsistent with General Plan's air quality policies ................................17
Lead to affordable housing impacts...............................................................18
Create parking capacity impacts....................................................................21
Create police protection impacts .....................................................................23
Result in significant noise impacts ..................................................................25
So far the City has not evaluated this range of potentially serious problems. The Initial
Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) that the City prepared for this short-term rentals in
residential areas project does not come close to adequately evaluating and protecting against
such readily foreseeable problems. The IS/ND fails to analyze the likely problems that short-term
rentals may cause with harming neighborhood character, increased noise, traffic and parking
problems in residential neighborhoods, additional air pollution from increased fireplace use, and
the loss of affordable local housing.
Commercial businesses1 within the City of Mt. Shasta in the form of mini-hotels, also called
Short-Term Rentals or transient occupancies2, are slowly proliferating in our existing residential
1
City of Mt. Shasta Municipal Code section 18.16.050 Transient occupancy tax Business licenses.
neighborhoods that are zoned for non-commercial, single-family dwelling use only. The City is
now proposing to make this zoning problem even worse, but without adequately informing the
public of the possible consequences when secure single-family residential neighborhoods may
become harmed by intruding strangers.
1
Short-term Rentals in R-1 zones may harm the
neighborhood character of single-family neighborhoods.
With short-term rentals in many communities comes noise, overflowing trash cans, strangers
coming and going from the neighborhood, drunken parties late at night during the week as well
as weekends and numerous other nuisances. That such problems are not as well known within
the City of Mt. Shasta is likely the consequence that such short-term rentals in R-1 zones are
illegal. Those owners using Airbnb or VRBO are likely being especially careful not to get caught
or attract negative community reactions. But such careful restraint may significantly vanish if
this new Short-term Rentals in R-1 zoned Residential Neighborhoods zoning change is approved.
The California Supreme Court has acknowledged that such neighborhood problems can occur. In
Miller v. Board of Public Works, the highest court of this state recognized that maintenance of
the character of residential neighborhoods is a proper purpose of zoning. The California Supreme
Court employed language now a bit dated yet plainly relevant to the case at hand:
"[W]e think it may be safely and sensibly said that justification for residential zoning
may, in the last analysis, be rested upon the protection of the civic and social values of
the American home. The establishment of such districts is for the general welfare because
it tends to promote and perpetuate the American home. It is axiomatic that the welfare,
and indeed the very existence of a nation depends upon the character and caliber of its
citizenry. The character and quality of manhood and womanhood are in a large measure
the result of home environment. The home and its intrinsic influences are the very
foundation of good citizenship, and any factor contributing to the establishment of homes
and the fostering of home life doubtless tends to the enhancement not only of community
life but of the life of the nation as a whole."
Miller v. Board of Public Works (1925) 195 Cal. 477, 493. 3
(B) The operation of any lawful short-term rental shall be deemed to be a business under MSMC
5.08.010, and shall therefore require a City business license under MSMC 5.12.010.
2
Municipal Code section 18.08.795 Transient occupancy. Transient occupancy means paying guests occupying
a dwelling unit for periods of less than 30 days.
3
Online at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=7096126473085722048
CQG to Mt. Shasta City Council
Oct. 6, 2015
Short-term Rental Zoning Amendment & IS/ND
-2-
The court observed that with home ownership comes stability, increased interest in the
promotion of public agencies, such as schools and churches, and
" . . . recognition of the individual's responsibility for his share in the safeguarding of the
welfare of the community and increased pride in personal achievement which must come
from personal participation in projects looking toward community betterment." (Ibid.)
In another case about short-term rentals, an appellate court more recently ruled:
"It stands to reason that the "residential character" of a neighborhood is threatened when
a significant number of homes at least 12 percent in this case, according to the record
are occupied not by permanent residents but by a stream of tenants staying a weekend,
a week, or even 29 days. Whether or not transient rentals have the other "unmitigatable,
adverse impacts" cited by the council, such rentals undoubtedly affect the essential
character of a neighborhood and the stability of a community. Short-term tenants have
little interest in public agencies or in the welfare of the citizenry. They do not participate
in local government, coach little league, or join the hospital guild. They do not lead a
scout troop, volunteer at the library, or keep an eye on an elderly neighbor. Literally, they
are here today and gone tomorrow without engaging in the sort of activities that weld
and strengthen a community."
Ewing v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (1991) 234 Cal. App.3d 1579, 1591

Oct. 6, 2015
-3-
In this more recent 1991 case decision for Ewing v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, the court stated:
"In the findings and purposes appended to Ordinance No. 89-17, the city council
observed: "The purpose of the R-1 District is to provide an appropriately zoned land area
within the City for permanent single-family residential uses and structures and to enhance
and maintain the residential character of the City." The council found that the use of
single-family residential property for transient lodging was a commercial use inconsistent
with the purpose of the R-1 District. Moreover, "[c]ommercial use of single-family
residential property for such purposes create unmitigatable, adverse impacts on
surrounding residential uses including, but not limited to, increased levels of commercial
and residential vehicle traffic, parking demand, light and glare, and noise detrimental to
surrounding residential uses and the general welfare of the City. Such commercial use
may increase demand for public services, including, but not limited to, police, fire, and
medical emergency services, and neighborhood watch programs."
The court continued:
"While plaintiffs have presented some evidence to counter the council's finding that
transient rentals increase traffic, parking demand, light and glare, noise, and the need for
public services, they have not met Carmel's chief purpose in adopting Ordinance No. 8917 "to provide an appropriately zoned land area within the City for permanent singlefamily residential uses and structures and to enhance and maintain the residential
character of the City." (emphasis added.)
Accordingly, because our neighborhoods deserve such protection, the City of Mt. Shasta in its
IS/ND needs to more thoroughly address and analyze the potential impacts this proposed shortterm rentals in R-1 zoning change may cause to harm our City's residential character.
Elsewhere such harm to neighborhood character has occurred:
One can also look to other communities to see problems we might expect here in Mt. Shasta.
Data obtained by Inside Airbnb on June 22, 2015 shows that the majority, 65% (2,283 out of
3,530), of Airbnb listings in San Diego are "Entire Homes or Apartments" being rented out in
their entirety. An estimated 999 homes are being rented out for more than 60 nights out of the
year - in fact for an average 155 nights of the year at $196/night. These mini-hotels are changing
the character of residential neighborhoods across San Diego, as long-term renters and families
are being priced out of the housing market. And, information represents only one of many online
vacation rental services because VRBO (Vacation Rentals by Owners) also rents short-term
rentals. People in San Diego realize they are quickly losing their neighborhoods.4
4
Source: Press release from Save San Diego Neighborhoods;

http://www.savesandiegoneighborhoods.org/pdf/090815release.pdf
That citizens group, Save San Diego Neighborhoods, claims that proper environmental review will identify
significant impacts that the City will be unable to mitigate, including depleting housing stock, noise

Oct. 6, 2015
-4-
In San Francisco, approximately 57% of Airbnb hosts are listing their entire homes and
apartments for short-term rentals meaning that owners would not be present during the rental
use.5 That same 57% percentage is reported for Oakland, CA.6 In Los Angeles, approximately
60% of Airbnb hosts are listing their entire homes and apartments for short-term rentals.7 In
Portland, OR, about 58% are listing their entire homes for rent.8
Using entire houses as vacation rentals as would be allowed by the City of Mt. Shasta's proposed
zoning change would impact the available housing market. Investors could buy existing homes,
convert them to absentee-owned Airbnb rentals, and make more money than renting them to fulltime local residents.9 That problem is driving up the price and availability of for-sale and rental
housing in recreational areas such as at Bend, Oregon, Lake Tahoe, and elsewhere. It also
damages the very 'fabric' of existing residential neighborhoods where long-term neighbors rely
pollution, air pollution, traffic congestion, additional and unmanageable stress on City services, in
particular first responders fire and law enforcement, water, trash, and parks and recreation personnel and
facilities. The Save San Diego Neighborhoods CEQA letter was served because the City is moving
forward on a draft ordinance that would make short-term vacation rentals in residential zones lawful. The
proposed ordinance permits absentee-owned, commercial, mini-hotels to operate in San Diego residential
neighborhoods. Residents of San Diego and members of the San Diego Community Planning Groups have
voiced strong opposition to short-term rentals, demanding the City enforce the Municipal Code and remove
these minihotels from their neighborhoods. Earlier this year, the Pacific Beach Planning Group
unanimously passed and sent to the City Council a resolution asking the City Council to enforce the
Municipal Code and reiterate that short-term rentals mini-hotels are unlawful in single-family zones. The
problem of short-term rentals in residential zones continues unabated. Airbnb, one of dozens of online
vacation rental companies, has more than 3,500 vacation rentals in the City. Of those, 65% - 2,283 rentals
are whole-house, absentee-owner mini-hotels located throughout San Diegos residential neighborhoods.
Hundreds of San Diego residents packed two City Council meetings this spring to complain about the
proliferation of vacation rentals and the negative impacts they create, saying We ARE the neighbors, and
were telling you there is a problem. Save San Diego Neighborhoods was formed in the destructive wake
of short-term rentals. Hundreds of citizens have joined the group via its website
www.savesandiegoneighborhoods.org. Save San Diego Neighborhoods is now conducting an online
petition whose early results show citizens unanimously support enforcing the Citys current municipal code
to ban STVR mini-hotels and taking legal action against the City, if needed.
5
See http://insideairbnb.com/san-francisco/
6
See http://insideairbnb.com/oakland/
7
See http://insideairbnb.com/los-angeles/
8
See http://insideairbnb.com/portland/
9
Big Companies, Not Homeowners, Run Biggest Share of Short-Term Rentals by Zoe Schaver | August 3,
2015 http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/economy/big-companies-not-homeowners-run-biggest-share-of-shortterm-rentals/
The small property owners who utilize sites like Airbnb are not in the majority. The Voice of San
Diego found:
Most of San Diegos short-term rentals are run by property managers who dont live on-site not by
homeowners renting out a room or two.
Twenty of the citys top short-term rental management companies operate about 40 percent of those units,
with each operating between 20 and 109 rental units. Another 22 percent of the registered short-term rentals are
run by small companies and individuals who list at least three units.
That leaves a little more than a third of short-term rentals registered with the city run by individuals who
list just one or two units.
When a property is that big, and when its managed by people that dont live there, it gets a lot of people in, and
the only people that suffer are the neighbors, said Sue Hopkins, who owns a home in Clairemont.
Oct. 6, 2015
-5-
upon one another for security against unknown strangers intruding where they should otherwise
not be.
But what does the Citys current Initial Study (IS/ND) now determine? It claims there will be
"no impact" on displacing existing housing. It however provides no explanation for that
conclusion. That unsupported conclusion violates CEQA by depriving the decisionmakers and
the public of required information to evaluate the consequences posed by this zoning change.
The IS/ND also claims that the short-term rental ordinance could impact affordable housing by
squeezing the supply of housing, pushing up the demand and the cost of housing. But
mysteriously the IS/ND again concludes this potential impact would not displace a substantial
number of people. There is no data, analysis or explanation in the Initial Study to support that
conclusion. Nor is there any "threshold of significance" by which to measure whether or not a
"substantial" number of people may be displaced.
The IS/ND also determines this zoning change will result in no noise impacts to neighbors, again
without evidence or proper analysis. The IS/ND contradicts itself though by first admitting that
permitting short-term rentals in residential areas may result in excessive noise, late-night noisy
parties, and increased traffic noise. Therefore, the possibility of this zoning change leading to
excessive noise is admitted. The IS/ND cannot then negate that possibility of a potentially
significant noise impact by reaching a conclusion of no impact. Accordingly, the checklist for
Noise item XII(a)s no impact determination is incorrect and must be revised and reviewed
now with an Environmental Impact Report. ("EIR")
The IS/ND attempts to skirt or evade CEQA requirements that such noise impacts be studied by
stating these impacts are unknown at this time . If an IS/ND cannot support its no impact
determination with any substantial evidence that is, if the City does not know at this time how
significant such excessive noise may be then CEQA requires that the City not be allowed to
certify this proposed Negative Declaration. Instead, CEQA requires that an EIR be prepared to
include a proper study of such noise impact potentials.
If the City cannot quantify these noise impacts based upon the Citys own history, then it can
study noise problems that have occurred in other California or Oregon cities with short-term
rentals operating in single-family residential areas where those communities have relevant
features that would make such a comparison applicable.
A letter10 from a citizens group's attorney was submitted to the City of San Diego on
September 8, 2015 that contains concerns relevant here too in Mt. Shasta. It claims that the
unregulated operation of short-term rentals in single family zones has resulted in a constant
stream of neighborhood complaints all around San Diego. Noise, traffic, parking and other
nuisance related problems all arise when short-term rental guests are inserted into otherwise
quiet family neighborhoods. Recent home sale activity around the region and in the state has
shown that the economic incentives are strong enough to motivate investors to buy single family
10
http://www.savesandiegoneighborhoods.org/pdf/CEQA.pdf

Oct. 6, 2015
-6-
homes for the purpose of operating them as short-term rental commercial businesses. Individual
homeowners have stopped living in their residences year round and rent them out like a hotel.
With new guests arriving on a regular basis, the residential neighbors are subjected to more car
trips in their neighborhoods, parking impacts, many more parties (with transients) and the
environment is impacted with more vehicle miles traveled.11 Available housing stock is also
impacted.
In a situation where the City of San Diego (or the City of Mt. Shasta) is considering express
authorization for short-term rentals in single family zones, the environmental impacts are at the
very heart of the discretionary decision making. What weight, for example, should be given to
the "rights" of property owners to rent their homes versus the rights of the residential neighbors
to peace and quiet and a safe and comfortable neighborhood street? How exactly does the City
best regulate short-term rentals use when there are multiple negative impacts associated with
tourists and party goers converging with cars and other vehicles on otherwise quiet family
neighborhoods?12
11
Example of comment by Janet Shelton, July 19, 2015:

"I lived in a beach area which over about 20 years transitioned to about 10% year round residents, 15% full
time summer residents, 25% vacation homes (many also rented part time) and 50% vacation rentals. The
change was almost all negative. Strangers were constantly coming and going. From June through
September, it was noisy every evening. Loud parties went on till 1 or 2 a.m. Fireworks were going on at
all hours. People parked on our property, blocked our driveway, ran through our yard. They left a
mountain of trash. It was hard to drive because they used the street as a sidewalk so the whole group could
walk side by side. Law enforcement really isn't about minor complaints, and even if you report these often
enough, you become a "complainer." All that said, it was really bad in July and August, moderately bad in
May, June, September and October. The rest of the year it was mostly just weekend oriented with a lot of
quiet time. A beautiful place to live became undesirable and it was one of the main reasons I left. As Chris
said, it hollows out the community. My street had around 40 houses, only 3 houses were occupied year
round. There really was no community anymore. San Diego has the misfortunate that this can go on year
round, not just in the summer." http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/san-diego-is-still-a-housedivided-on-vacation-rentals/
12
Loss of Community Is Greatest Threat From Airbnb and Short-Term Vacation Rentals by Frank
Gormlie - Sept. 1, 2015 http://obrag.org/?p=97788#.VgsK2PlVhBd
Frank Gormlie says the attractiveness of the San Diego beach lifestyle and the easy money to be made with shortterm rentals could hollow out communities:
The problem occurs when for residents and local small property and home owners develop the motivation
to turn their condo, cottage, second unit, apartment or house over to short-termers who will pay big bucks
instead of keeping the interests of the community over that of the immediacy of cashing-in.
If theres no one left to care about the community or that section of it, then there is no community.
[Take] a walk or bike ride along the boardwalks that run along Mission Beach and Mission Bay. Try to
count the buildings where actual residents live. Its depressing.
This is the same threat, now, aimed at Ocean Beach. If enough little cottages, homes, apartments
are turned into vacation rentals, then this is a larger threat to the culture of Ocean Beach than gentrification.
OBceans need to be vigilante on this issue. It isnt over yet. Along with gentrification, short-term
vacation rentals have the ability to undermine parts of the community, change the character of the
neighborhood for the worse and turn a vibrant village into a beach resort for vacationers.
. . . . many of the complaints about the new wave of rentals having to do with noise, trash, more congestion, more
traffic, the unruliness of vacationers living it up in quiet, residential neighborhoods. Locals are outraged and
frustrated with the threats to their quiet blocks and the slowness of government to respond
Oct. 6, 2015
-7-
Like those San Diego citizens, our Mt. Shasta group Citizens for Quality Growth notes that there
is nothing more fundamental to orderly development than the zoning designations placed on
properties in the community and the authorized uses within those zones. Residents move into a
"neighborhood," not a mixed use commercial and residential party scene. If communities and
their residents cannot count on quiet, safe and efficient neighborhoods, then the planning and
zoning laws of the State of California mean very little. The currently proposed IS/ND is sadly
lacking and must be replaced by a well-considered Environmental Impact Report. We note that
one of the many benefits of going through the EIR process will be an environmental document
which carefully reviews the short-term rentals "Project" in terms of General Plan consistency.
We question whether the City's rezoning project as proposed will withstand that test?
2
(Initial Study, item X, p. 19)
INITIAL STUDY FAILS TO DISCLOSE THAT PERMITTING PROPOSED
SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN R-1 ZONES WOULD CONFLICT WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN'S REGULATIONS TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS
The City has for the last 18 years declared that short-term rentals jeopardize R-1 zoned
residential neighborhoods and according banned them there. With this in mind, the IS/ND must
both evaluate that harm and also evaluate if allowing short-term rentals in single-family
residential neighborhoods will conflict with the City's planning regulations. Unfortunately, the
IS/ND does not reveal this short-term rentals in residential areas rezoning would conflict with the
Citys General Plan affordable housing protections.
In 1997 when the Mt. Shasta City Council prohibited short-term rentals in R-1 residential zones
with Ordinance CCO-97-02, the Council found short-term rentals "constitute a commercial use
of property which jeopardizes the public health, safety, quiet use and enjoyment, and the market
value of nearby residential properties, creates potential parking, noise and law-enforcement
problems. . . . "
The City's Planning Department has similarly acknowledged that:
"A common municipal purpose for regulating short-term rental housing is to protect the
character of existing residential neighborhoods and maintain a permanent resident
community in which one knows their neighbors. Tension between permanent residents
and operators of short-term vacation home rentals arises due to increased traffic, noise,
impacts to available on-street parking and other potentially disruptive activities (i.e. late
night celebrations.) Another concern cited, yet often difficult to measure, is the
perception that too many short-term vacation rentals in a neighborhood could lead to a
decreased sense of "community" and "localness," based on the idea that permanent
residents often hold a greater attachment to local social networks and community
involvement.
While not necessarily the case in Mt. Shasta, some communities cite the need for
restrictions on short-term vacation rentals in order to protect the physical characteristics
Oct. 6, 2015
-8-
of their residential neighborhoods. The underlying rationale is that short-term home

rentals in single-family neighborhoods are not owner-occupied and therefore are less
likely to be cared for to the same degree as permanent residences."
With this evidence being expressed by Mt. Shasta City officials that short-term rentals may be
harmful to local residents and to the physical character of their single-family residential
neighborhoods, the City's IS/ND now must evaluate such impacts. But it entirely fails to do this.
Nowhere does the IS/ND analyze this proposed zoning change's potentially harmful
impacts to the character or physical attributes of these R-1 neighborhoods, not to even
mention the social harm that may less visibly occur.
At best, the IS/ND only addresses a City policy. That is not the equivalent of analyzing the
physical harm or change in neighborhoods' character that has all too often occurred in other
communities with short-term vacation rentals.13
As the number of tourists in an area increases relative to the number of permanent residents, it
stands to reason that objective and subjective measures of neighborhood cohesion would
decrease. A 2012 Urban Institute study pointed to research around residential instability.
According to this study, high residential instability in a neighborhood can result in reduced
social cohesion and disrupt institutions which, in turn, can make a neighborhood more
susceptible to crime. 14 (emphasis added.)
13
See news report from San Diego: Debate on short-term rentals heats up - By Lori Weisberg 9/21/15
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/sep/21/residents-propose-restrictions-short-term-rentals/
The widening debate over the proliferation of short-term vacation rentals intensified Monday as a newly
formed residents group called on the San Diego City Council to significantly tighten restrictions on who can
rent out their property and how often. The latest proposal, offered up by a group calling itself Preserve Our
Communities, comes as the council prepares to take up the increasingly contentious matter later this year.
At issue is the growing number of property owners who are renting out their entire homes or a single
bedroom for short-term stays, thanks to the huge popularity of online platforms like Airbnb and HomeAway.
Residents from Pacific Beach to Mission Hills and Clairemont complain that the frequent turnover in overnight
guests has disrupted their neighborhoods and threatened their safety.
The biggest problem is not knowing what youre going to get day to day: a peaceful family, a
drunk person on the street, a bachelors party, a Marine Corps graduation party, people parking in other
peoples driveways, said Scott Gruby, a resident of the Bay Ho area and spokesman for Preserve Our
Communities. We wouldnt be in this situation if this was just a few bad apples. .
Im sympathetic to the person who needs extra income for renting their back bedroom, but the
investor-owned single-family homes being rented outright is not what we expected in our single family
neighborhoods, said Joe LaCava, who chairs the Community Planners Committee. Its the safety of knowing,
oh, theres Bill, he walks his dog around that time, but with these rentals, you see someone different every
night.
14
Morenoff et al (2001) and Sampson et al (1997) as cited in Urban Institute's article Building Successful
Neighborhoods. April 2012. This article is available online here:
http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/412557-Building-SuccessfulNeighborhoods.PDF
Excerpt: "Finally, the issue of residential mobility is gaining increasing recognition as an
important consideration in understanding how social composition of neighborhoods changes.
Neighborhoods are dynamic and, at times unstable, geographies. Families, particularly low-income renters,
can move often, and the level of residential stability in a community has implications for neighborhood
cohesion, social control and the exchange of social capital (Coulton, Theodos, and Turner 2009). While not
the only determinant of neighborhood change, high residential instability in a neighborhood can result in
Oct. 6, 2015
-9-
The IS/ND, p.19, incorrectly determines that this zone change will have no impact upon or
conflict with any applicable local policy for protecting existing residential neighborhoods. The
IS/ND mentions that physical deterioration of some short-term-rental homes no longer occupied
by their owners is possible.15 But the IS/ND vaguely buries that possible harm under the carpet
without ever analyzing it. It instead points to a future administrative permit process that may or
may not have conditions of approval attached to specific applicants on a case by case basis.
This flawed determination violates CEQA in these ways:
1) CEQA requires the analysis of potentially significant impacts such as the physical
deterioration of residential areas. The IS/ND contains no such analysis though.
2) CEQA prohibits the deferral of such review and mitigation until some uncertain future
time when the public will no longer have any opportunity to review and comment on the
effectiveness or lack of such mitigations.16
At the end of the IS/ND, it briefly mentions in a few sentences that the "purpose for regulating
short-term rentals is to protect the character of existing residential neighborhoods." But merely
acknowledging that risk does not satisfy CEQA. The IS/ND must also analyze and mitigate that
risk, yet if fails to do that.
3
(Initial Study, item X, p. 19)
SHORT-TERM RENTAL CHANGE CONFLICTS WITH GENERAL PLAN
POLICIES TO PROTECT DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL MOTELS
AND BED & BREAKFAST BUSINESSES
The Citys General Plan specifies commercial use location criteria as Commercial Center
designated lands. Existing motels are typically found there. New short-term rentals in residential
areas will also be commercial businesses according to City codes. But the General Plan, p. 330, acknowledges that some kinds of commercial uses may not be compatible if . . . large
enough to generate more traffic than is usually found in or near a residential neighborhood.
Adjoining Uses: The types of land uses adjoining a Commercial Center parcel can have
an impact on the basis of land use compatibility. One type of business, such as a small
medical office, may be able to blend visually with adjoining residences. However, the use
may not be compatible if the office will be large enough to generate more traffic than is
usually found in or near a residential neighborhood. A business that tends to be open late
reduced social cohesion and disrupt institutions, which, in turn can make a neighborhood more susceptible
to crime." (Morenoff et al. 2001; Sampson et al. 1997). "The types of residents that move into and out of a
neighborhood can affect the level of fiscal and business investment in the community." (Galster 1987;
Bruch and Mare 2006).
15
See IS/ND, p. 19, Discussion section X(a)
16
Generally, it is improper to defer the formulation of mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines section
15126.4(a)(1)(B); POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Board (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 735. Moreover,
the City of Mt. Shasta has not committed itself to any specific performance criteria for evaluating the
efficiency of the measures or administrative permit conditions to be imposed in the future.
Oct. 6, 2015
- 10 -
at night or early in the morning may not be compatible in a location near residences, but
might be appropriately sited at a street intersection with fewer houses around.
(General Plan, p. 3-30)
The General Plan has Goal LU-6 to encourage customer-oriented businesses in Commercial
Center areas. Allowing business-oriented, short-term rentals in residential areas which will
essentially suck guests out of existing motels and inns is not consistent with that Goal LU-6.
Also, allowing short-term rentals on residential streets would be inconsistent with
Implementation Measure LU-6.1(a): Commercial Center lands shall typically derive access from
a road classified as an arterial or collector. R-1 streets typically don't have that classification.
Permitting short-term rentals in residential areas would be inconsistent with Goal LU-7 to
Support the economic viability and success of downtown Mt. Shasta. Short-term rentals would
decrease the transient income and viability of our existing hotels and inns. In our downtown17
are motels and bed and breakfast inns: (The Cold Creek Inn, The Dream Inn Bed & Breakfast,
Travel Inn, Best Western Tree House, Mt. Shasta Inn and Suites, Alpine Lodge, the Shasta Inn,
Strawberry Valley Inn, Evergreen Lodge, A-1 Choice Inn, and others.) This short-term rentals
in residential areas rezoning conflicts with General Plan Policy LU-7.1 to keep the downtown
attractive and Policy LU-7.2 to Support economic growth in the downtown area.
While CEQA does not require the City to study the economic viability of its planning decisions,
it does require the City to examine the secondary urban decay, physical deterioration or blight
that may occur as the result of a zoning change or projects approval.18 When guest rental
income is reduced, a motel or inn might not be able to afford to maintain its premises which
could lead to some physical blight, or it might have to go out of business.19
17
Municipal Code section 18.08.320 Downtown.

Downtown means that area of the commercial district which is contained within the boundaries of the
downtown commercial land use designation as shown in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. (Ord.
CCO-09-02, 2009)
18
Under CEQA, a lead agency must address the issue of urban decay in an EIR when a fair argument can be made
that the proposed project will adversely affect the physical environment. "An EIR is to disclose and analyze
the direct and the reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impacts of a proposed project if they are
significant. (Guidelines, 15126.2, 15064, subd. (d)(3).)[[5]] Economic and social impacts of proposed
projects, therefore, are outside CEQA's purview. When there is evidence, however, that economic and
social effects caused by a project, such as a shopping center, could result in a reasonably foreseeable
indirect environmental impact, such as urban decay or deterioration, then the CEQA lead agency is
obligated to assess this indirect environmental impact." (Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson
(2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1182 [30 Cal.Rptr.3d 738] (Anderson First).)
19
As evidence that short-term rentals in R-1 residential zones might harm our local motels and B&Bs, the
comments the City of Mt. Shasta has already received since 2014 likely understate the effect in several
ways. Although data are not available, it is almost certain that AirBnB units do not provide as many jobs as
hotels. Hotels employ workers in many job classifications AirBnB units do notfront desk, valet and
parking, telephone operator, shuttle driver, security, and janitorial to name a few. These classifications
account for two-thirds of the total hotel workforce. Moreover, unlike in a hotel, most AirBnB units are not
cleaned every day, and some may be cleaned by the owner or host rather than by a cleaning company
It is more likely that AirBnB units provide employment for, at most, 20 percent of the number of
workers as a similarly-sized hotel. In other words, even a high estimate finds some 1,500 workers in place
of the 7,400 that would be in a hotel with as many rooms as AirBnB. The wages paid to workers at AirBnB
Oct. 6, 2015
- 11 -
The City of Mt. Shasta previously lost a CEQA lawsuit in 1988 when it failed to consider the
possibility of business closures and physical deterioration of the downtown area. (Citizens for
Quality Growth and Dale La Forest v. City of Mt. Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 446).
(Online: http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/cases/1988/shasta_020888.html)
As the court stated at page 446:
City failed to make findings adopting or rejecting the proposed mitigation measures for
the environmental impacts identified by the EIR. It also failed to evaluate the proposed
alternatives before adopting its statement of overriding considerations, or to consider the
possible physical deterioration of the downtown area resulting from the project.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5715476485187171101
The IS/ND however makes no mention that short-term rentals in residential areas may lead to
loss of motel and inn business, and may lead to physical deterioration in motel areas of the
downtown business district. This failure to note that short-term rental rezoning is inconsistent
with the General Plan and may harm some of our downtown businesses violates CEQA. An EIR
must be prepared with considers this realistic environmental impact.
4
(Initial Study item X, page 19)
INITIAL STUDY FAILS TO DISCLOSE THAT PERMITTING PROPOSED
SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN R-1 ZONES WOULD CONFLICT WITH ZONING
ORDINANCE REGULATIONS FOR HOME OCCUPANCY BUSINESSES
Short-term Vacation Rentals are Not Allowed As Home-Occupancy Businesses
Short-term rentals in R-1 residential areas would technically be businesses to provide income
and would be conducted within a home. As such, they must comply with the Citys Home
Occupancy regulations as found within the Municipal Code.20 But as proposed by the City and
reviewed in the IS/ND, they do not:
In order to protect residential neighborhoods against traffic generation, the Citys

Municipal Code section 18.40.020(B) does not allow a home-based business to be
lodgings may be 13.2 percent of what they would be at a similarly sized hotel, resulting in a difference of
$3.1 million a week in wages. Further, AirBnB may actually costs jobs in hotels. A 2014 Boston University
School of Management study demonstrated that AirBnBs growth has had a statistically significant
negative impact on hotel revenue.44 This effect compounds the downward pressure that AirBnB places on
wages, as hotels are less likely to give part-time employees any more hours or hire new staff.
AirBnB has created a platform that allows landlords to pit tourist dollars against renter dollars.
Landlords can potentially earn significantly more money by converting traditional rental stock into AirBnB
units, as many appear to have done.
It is reasonable to assume that landlords and property owners across the city are making similar costbenefit analyses with respect to their housing stock. One enterprising AirBnB impresario, Jon Wheatley,
even posted a step-by-step guide for buying apartments for the purpose of running a remotely-managed
AirBnB listing. (Wheatley, Jon. I Bought An Apartment To Rent Out On Airbnb. NeedWant. N.p., 28
Oct. 2014. Web. 19 Feb. 2015. http://needwant.com/p/buying-apartment-airbnb/ )
20
City of Mt. Shasta Municipal Code, section 8.08.250 Home occupation. Home occupation means a permitted
business that is performed in the home or residence in a residential zone.
Oct. 6, 2015
- 12 -
conducted in a residential area when its success depends upon customers coming to the
home. By comparison, any short-term rental requires the customers (guests or transients)
to come to the home. The IS/ND is inadequate for failing to identify and mitigate this
proposed zoning changes conflict with the Municipal Code. The Land Use and
Planning section of the IS/ND, item X(b) on page 19, is therefore incorrect in
determining there will be no impact of a conflict with any local land use regulation or
zoning ordinance. This traffic conflict would be blatant for some of the short-term
rentals, especially those with larger number of transients and more vehicles. This conflict
with an existing planning regulation must be addressed in an EIR should the City choose
to move forward to allow short-term rentals in R-1 residential areas.
The City also prohibits home businesses that constitute a potential nuisance due to
complaints about noise and traffic. (Municipal Code Section 18.40.020(C)) Noise
complaints are well known major problems with short-term rentals operating in
residential areas in other communities. Since the City proposes no effective noise or
traffic or parking mitigations and has no noise ordinance, then noise, traffic and parking
problems will likely occur here too, and in violation of the nuisance prohibition
regulation of 18.40.020(C). During the Initial Study process which looks forward in time
to predict whether a public nuisance impact may occur, the City need not be certain these
problems will occur. But if a fair argument is raised by the public that such impacts
may occur, and is backed up with substantial evidence that such impacts occur
elsewhere with these types of short-term rentals in residential areas, then the Initial Study
must analyze this impact and disclose whether or not such an impermissible
inconsistency would be allowed. The City cannot deny home occupancy permits that may
be public nuisances while also approving a City-wide zoning change to allow short-term
rentals in R-1 residential areas where some of these rentals will become public nuisances.
The Citys Municipal Code section 18.40.030 also requires a Conditional Use Permit for
businesses that generate traffic or constitute a potential nuisance. Airbnb and VRBO are
businesses operated within homes for financial gain. Therefore, it would be inconsistent for the
City to approve short-term rentals in residential areas with only an administrative permit as it
now proposes. A Conditional Use Permit hearing before the Planning Commission would instead
be required by our existing laws. The City of Mt. Shasta Planning Commission in 2014 even
considered requiring a conditional use permit for each short-term rental application.21 Yet it
rejected that option. The IS/ND does not mention that conditional use permit requirement. The
IS/ND (item X(b)) on page 19 is therefore incorrect to determine the short-term rental change
would have no regulation conflict. The Zoning Ordinances requirement for a home occupancy
Conditional Use Permit for such a business is such a conflicting land use regulation.
Residents move into a "neighborhood," not a mixed use commercial and residential party scene.
If communities and their residents cannot count on quiet, safe and efficient neighborhoods, then
the planning and zoning laws of the State of California mean very little.
21
For the April 15, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report p. 5, City Planner Tuli Potts recommended the
Commission add a condition to impose a maximum neighborhood density of short-term rentals to, for
example, one rental per City block. The Commission did not add that condition though.

Oct. 6, 2015
- 13 -
The Citys proposed administrative permit circumvents the provisions of CEQA governing the
process of environmental review. The scope and content of a negative declaration is minutely
prescribed under CEQA and its implementing guidelines. (Pub. Resources Code, 21080, subd.
(c), 21100; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, 15071, 15120 et seq.) By merely requiring administrative
approval of a short-term rentals conditions, the administrative permit provides no similar
guarantee of an adequate inquiry into environment effects. A negative declaration, moreover, is
subject to review by the public and interested agencies. (Pub. Resources Code, 21080, subd.
(c), 21092, 21153; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, 15073, 15087.) This requirement of "public and
agency review" has been called "the strongest assurance of the adequacy of the EIR." (Sutter
Sensible Planning, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 122 Cal. App.3d 813, 823 [176 Cal. Rptr.
342].) (5) The final EIR must respond with specificity to the "significant environmental points
raised in the review and consultation process." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, 15132, subd.
(d); People v. County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal. App.3d 830, 841-842 [115 Cal. Rptr. 67].) If any
substantial changes are proposed in a project after review of a draft EIR, it is necessary to
prepare a supplemental EIR subject to the same scrutiny. (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa,
Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 936 [231 Cal. Rptr. 748, 727 P.2d
1029].) (3c) These rules apply to negative declarations too. Here, the additional permit
conditions envisioned by the Citys possible administrative permit would be unlawful because
they would be exempt from this process of public and governmental scrutiny. 22
The City has proposed a condition to limit the occupancy of a Single Family Dwelling being
used as a short-term rental to 10 people. That number of people in one home is considerably
higher than the City's current average of less than four people per house. This means that at times
short-term rentals will be busting from their seams with more people, more noise, more cars and
more trash than established homes typically cause. That traffic generation greatly exceeds what
home occupancy businesses in R-1 residential neighborhoods are allowed to create.
5
(Initial Study item VII, p. 15)
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Initial Study's determination that short-term rental rezoning would not create a
significant impact on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions is without supporting
evidence.
Vacationers occupying short-term rentals in a rural, mountain town during the winter may be
more inclined to use wood-stove fires than other automatic heating systems typically found in
homes. Vacationers attracted to short-term home rentals are looking for features they can't find in
motels. Fires in wood stoves or fireplaces are more cozy and symbolic of getting away from
modern urban settings. Many local homes with wood-burning appliances also have alternative or
backup heating systems so the possibility of increased wood fires from vacation rental use is a
reasonable possibility. People who rent their homes for short-term rentals often proudly
announce that they have fireplaces:
22
See Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) for essentially similar argument as this paragraph expresses.

Oct. 6, 2015
- 14 -
Vacationers using Airbnb to find a short-term rental have the option of searching for
"indoor fireplaces." More than half of the whole home rentals (labeled "entire place") in
the Mt. Shasta area using Airbnb advertise their indoor fireplaces as amenities.
Similarly, vacationers using VRBO (Vacation Rentals by Owner) also have the option to
select rentals by searching for a "fireplace." Many Mt. Shasta homes listed by VBRO
have this fireplace feature.
By comparison, guests staying at local motels will not have access to fireplaces in their motel
rooms. Burning wood in typical, inefficient fireplaces and wood stoves in homes however
releases more greenhouse gases than using automatic oil, kerosene or electric heating systems.
The dramatic local climate change impacts of two winters in a row without enough snow for the
local ski resort to operate is a clear indication that excessive greenhouse gas emissions on a
world-wide basis are harming our local community's economy. Our environment relies upon
such snow pack, including our City's risk of wildfire exposure. While any one community's
impact on worldwide greenhouse gases is small, CEQA requires such analysis anyway.
The City's General Plan Policy OC-15.1 also requires the City to consider potential factors of
climate change in its planning. Such consideration should be included within this IS/ND as well.
It is unlikely that the City even plans in its future administrative permit process to prohibit wood
burning for short-term rentals. Therefore such a permit as so far proposed cannot be considered
to offer any air quality mitigation.
The IS/ND, p. 15, however totally ignores this very real and serious environmental impact of
producing more greenhouse gases. It concludes without any explanation or supporting evidence
that this short-term rental zoning change would not have any impact on greenhouse gas
emissions. Such a conclusory response with no supporting evidence violates CEQA's mandate to
disclose and mitigate such potential risks.
When presented with this fair argument of a potentially significant environmental impact, CEQA
now requires the City to prepare an EIR to evaluate the consequences of this zoning change.
6
(Initial Study item III, p. 10)
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF PARTICULATE POLLUTION
significant impact on Air Quality is without supporting evidence.
For the same reason identified above, vacationers using short-term rentals in residential
neighborhoods are likely to generate more unhealthy air pollution when using more wood fires
than if they stayed in motels. The City of Mt. Shasta's wintertime air quality at night during
times of low speed winds or thermal inversion is at times so bad that it is unhealthy to walk or
exercise outdoors due to existing woodstove smoke.
The amount of particulate pollution (PM10 and PM2.5) from woodstove smoke often exceeds
federal and state limits, but the City has no measurements of such particulate pollution. The
Oct. 6, 2015
- 15 -
IS/ND, p. 10, even admits that Siskiyou County is not "in attainment" for fine particulate matter,
meaning that it such air pollution fails to meet these air quality standards. The City has failed to
provide any baseline air pollution data upon which to support the determination in its IS/ND.
The IS/ND does not provide any data about how bad conditions are with existing wintertime air
pollution levels in the City.
The IS/NDs failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision making by the
City Council and informed participation by the public. The IS/ND is insufficient as an
information document.23 That information is required by law.
Under these conditions where our City's wintertime air pollution exceeds allowable standards,
then any additional increase in fine particulate matter is considered by CEQA to constitute a
significant environmental impact. The IS/ND, p. 10, however totally ignores this significant air
quality impact. It concludes without any explanation or supporting evidence that this short-term
rental zoning change would not have any impact on fine particulate emissions. Such a
conclusory response with no supporting evidence violates CEQA's mandate to disclose and
mitigate such potential risks.
The IS/ND, on page 10, item III(c) claims to evaluate the question of would the project result in
a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Considering the current nonattainment status of Siskiyou County for particulate matter, a
cumulatively significant air quality impact does exist here. By its very nature, air pollution is
largely a cumulative impact. Ambient air quality standards are violated or approach
nonattainment levels due to past development that has formed the urban fabric, and attainment of
standards can be jeopardized by increasing emissions-generating activity in the region. The
nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development within
Siskiyou County. Thus, this regional impact is a cumulative impact, and projects would
contribute to this impact on a cumulative basis. A projects emissions may be individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable when taken in combination with past, present, and future
development projects.
Cumulative impacts refer to the incremental effect of several projects that may have an
individually minor, but collectively significant, impact on air quality. CEQA Guidelines Section
15355(b) defines cumulative impact as:
Two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or
which compound or increase other environmental impacts, and
The change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project
when added to other closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future
projects, and can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, projects
taking place over a period of time.
23
See Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1391. Failure to provide
that information constitutes an abuse of discretion and prejudice, and together form reversible error.
Oct. 6, 2015
- 16 -
Therefore, all new development or even this short-term rental zoning change in Siskiyou County
that results in an increase in air pollutant emissions above those assumed in regional air quality
plans contributes to cumulative air quality impacts.
The IS/ND does not analyze the human health impacts that are likely to result from potentially
hundreds of vacation rentals burning more wood in their fireplaces and woodstoves once these
rentals become legal.
The City has no right to dismiss its obligation to review incremental air quality deterioration. It
cannot jump to an unsupported conclusion that the additional wood-stove smoke would be
insignificant. With no idea of how much additional wood smoke will be emitted by use of these
short-term rentals, and with no data of how bad existing air quality conditions are, the City has
not supported its determination that there will be no air pollution impacts with its proposed
zoning plan to move more vacationers out of motels and into private homes having fireplaces
and woodstoves.
When presented with this fair argument of a potentially significant environmental impact, CEQA
now requires the City to prepare an EIR to evaluate the consequences of this zoning change.
7
ZONING CHANGE IS INCONSISTENT WITH
GENERAL PLAN AIR QUALITY POLICIES
This proposed short-term rental zoning change is also inconsistent with the City's General Plan's
air quality policies OC-11.1 and these related Implementation Measures:
There is no indication that the City complied with Implementation Measure OC-11.1(a)
by sending a copy of this rezoning's IS/ND to the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control
District.
The City has also not worked with the APCD to implement programs to maintain fine
particulate attainment standards. (OC-11.1(b).)
The City has proposed no mitigation requiring that only EPA-certified woodstoves or
wood-burning appliances be used in short-term rentals. (OC-11.1(c).)
Accordingly, the IS/ND's determination on page 19 that the short-term rental rezoning project
will have no impact or conflict with the General Plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect is incorrect. This error violates CEQA.
The short-term rentals in R-1 residential zones change would remove an undisclosed number of
existing houses from the core of the City that are now within walkable distance of public
infrastructure, schools, shopping, etc. This zoning change would force some full-time residents
to live elsewhere and have to rely upon cars which increases local air pollution impacts.24
24
This comment is not without basis because it was made by residents of Bend, OR who have had years now to deal
with the aftermath of allowing short-term rentals in their inner-city residential neighborhoods. For example, see
testimony of Steven Junkins at 1:49:00 at this video-recorded public hearing online here:
http://bend.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=315&meta_id=8651
Oct. 6, 2015
- 17 -
A court decision is currently pending before the California Supreme Court where the appellate
court agreed with project opponents who challenged a determination that a project would not
have air quality impacts. This case is relevant to the situation that Mt. Shasta also faces even
though the air pollution impacts here will be less because less PM10 and PM2.5 particulate
pollution will be emitted. The appellate court agreed with the project opponents in its decision in
Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (5th Dist. 2014) __ Cal.App.4th __, 2014. In that case, a project
would have added significant amounts of PM10 to a county already not in attainment with
California PM10 fine particulate air standards. The court held the EIRs discussion of air quality
impacts failed to analyze and explain in adequate detail how the pollutants emitted by this
project would impact public health. The EIRs discussion of adverse health effects was general
in nature, and short on analysis because [i]t did not correlate the additional tons per year of
emissions that would be generated by the project (i.e., the adverse air quality impacts) to adverse
human health impacts that could be expected to result from those emissions.
To illustrate its point, the court noted that [t]he information provided does not enable a reader to
determine whether the 100-plus tons per year of PM10, ROG and NOx will require people with
respiratory difficulties to wear filtering devices when they go outdoors in the project area or
nonattainment basin or, in contrast, will be no more than a drop in the bucket to those people
breathing the air containing the additional pollutants.
That EIRs lack of information about the potential magnitude of the [projects adverse air
quality impacts] impact on human health was also demonstrated by its failure to indicate
whether, and if so, to what extent, the project would result in additional days during the year
when Fresno area air pollution exceeded federal and state standards. This lack of information
correlating the projects air quality impacts to human health effects rendered the EIRs analysis
legally inadequate under CEQA and also precluded the County decision makers from performing
the required balancing of project benefits against adverse impacts which is necessary to support
an adequate statement of overriding considerations.
Residents of Mt. Shasta similarly deserve to know if this proposed short-term rental zoning
change will increase local PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations when more winter-time wood stove or
fireplace fires are burnt. Will we also have to wear respiratory filtering devices when outdoors in
the winter if numerous short-term rentals operate in our neighborhoods?
8
(Initial Study item, item XIII(c), p. 22)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACTS
City Fails To Evaluate Housing Impacts Of
Proposed Short-Term Rental Zoning Change
The IS/ND acknowledges that allowing short-term rentals in R-1 neighborhoods may have an
impact on affordable housing.25 It further states:
25
See IS/ND, p. 22, item XIII(c).

Oct. 6, 2015
- 18 -
"If property owners elect to rent their homes on a short-term basis rather than renting on a
long term basis [that] could squeeze the supply of housing, pushing the demand up and
subsequently the cost of housing in the community."
But the IS/ND does not take the next logical and CEQA-required step: to analyze if this
acknowledged potential impact might be significant or not. Instead, it merely concludes this
impact would be less-than-significant with no evidence or reasoning. That violates one of
CEQA's main purposes of explaining such determinations to the general public.
There is one sentence in the IS/ND on page 22 that appears to be a reason but it really isn't
adequate justification for the City's failure to deal with the potentially significant impact on
housing. It states:
"This potential impact would not displace a substantial number of people as a result of
the proposed project."
That statement entirely misses the point of protecting affordable housing. People might not be
displaced and have to leave the City, but if they have to live in unaffordable-to-them housing
instead, then they could be forced to forego eating right, having adequate medical care, or
meeting other necessary living expenses. This housing affordability impact applies to people
who want to buy homes as well as those who rent homes.
Furthermore, where is the evidence for that statement about people being displaced? What is the
threshold of significance for "a substantial number of people"? How many people would have to
be displaced and be unable to live in Mt. Shasta for this impact to be significant? Any
environmental study must provide the reader with such background information so that the
public can on its own judge the accuracy of such a conclusion. The IS/ND has not provided even
the City Council with the needed facts about this affordable housing impact.

Oct. 6, 2015
- 19 -
After reading about the problems in other communities with short-term rentals being allowed in
single-family residential neighborhoods leads to housing impacts, one has to ask, "what is so
special about Mt. Shasta that such a potential impact on housing would be less-than-significant?"
Why are we different and immune to having stable housing be lost when converted to short-term
rentals?
This year the amount of affordable housing in Mt. Shasta has been severely limited but the
IS/ND does not mention that. With the Boles Fire destroying about 150 homes in Weed last
September, 2014, many Weed residents moved here since they had nowhere else to live. If this
proposed zoning change to allow short-term rentals in R-1 neighborhoods further removes longterm rental housing from availability, the lack of available housing in the City of Mt. Shasta will
only get worse.
o Even the City's General Plan Housing Element written before September 2014 does not
mention the problem with available housing in our City caused by the Boles Fire in
Weed. Many of those homes have not been rebuilt so most of those affected people
cannot return to Weed.
o The IS/ND's citation on page 27 to the 2000 Census and 2010 Census offers no relevant
information about the current lack of housing now in 2015 or the likely effects of this
short-term rental change. The text in the IS/ND on pages 27-28 about the effects on
housing supply is no longer relevant because it has been copied word-for-word from an
earlier Planning Department staff report written last year. The Census information is over
five years old too.
o The General Plan and its Planning and Environmental Data Base, both of which were
written over 20 years ago, are certainly not current enough to support the IS/ND's
conclusions about affordable housing availability here in the last 12 months.
The City's Planning Department last year in a September 16, 2014 dated Staff Report, on page 4,
written several days before the Boles Fire occurred on September 15th, wrote that this short-term
rental zoning change had the "potential to reduce housing and rental availability for
residents." That observation is still valid, but is more extreme now because of the thenunforeseen Boles Fire. Nothing newly mentioned in the IS/ND nullifies that previous warning.
Last year that 9/16/14 Planning Commission Staff Report mentioned that the City of Mt. Shasta
had contacted other California cities that did not allow short-term rentals in R-1 zones. So why
doesn't the current IS/ND inform the City Council and the public about that research? The Staff
Report states that planners in those communities apparently "expressed caution in any potential
change to our current ordinance in regards to these issues." It also states that the "Staff has not
yet had the opportunity to speak with planning staff from these jurisdictions to evaluate
effectiveness of their current permitting programs, though efforts have been made." Well, a
year has passed by now, so what can the current City staff tell the public about whether
permitting programs are a viable and effective means of preventing the various, well-identified
problems? In the absence of any local experience and any research into other California
communities with such permitting programs, the City and its IS/ND cannot adequately reassure
Oct. 6, 2015
- 20 -
the public that these problems will be "less-than-significant." The City simply has not done its
homework and reported back to the public in this regard that it began over a year ago.
SHORT-TERM RENTAL ZONING CHANGE CONFLICTS WITH
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES TO PROTECT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Citys General Plan specifically sets a policy to protect affordable housing. This proposed
zoning change is not consistent with some policies in the General Plan Housing Element, p. 8-7,
that serve that goal of protecting affordable housing.
Policy HO-2.2
Prior to adoption of any policy or regulation which could significantly
impede the development of housing, the Planning Commission and City
Council will consider the adverse effects of the policy or regulation on
the Citys ability to provide housing, and minimize adverse effects to the
degree feasible.
Policy HO-2.3
Where public health, safety, and welfare is not compromised, the City
shall avoid imposing planning and other permitting decisions that would
result in the conversion of affordable housing to other uses.
(emphasis added)
This zoning change to allow the for-profit business operation of mini-hotels also called
transient occupancies or short-term rentals in residential areas would be unnecessary for
serving vacationers, while leading to a reduction in affordable housing, so it would conflict with
the City of Mt. Shasta General Plan Policy HO-2.5 and its Implementation Measure HO-2.5.1.
This zoning change could also conflict with General Plan Goal HO-4 to preserve, conserve, and
enhance the quality of existing dwelling units and residential neighborhoods . The quality of
an existing residential neighborhood could be noticeably degraded if even several short-term
rentals began operating as described. Yet the IS/ND does not evaluate that potential harm.
The IS/ND does not adhere to these local General Plan requirements nor does it disclose the
zoning changes conflict with them. This is another reason the IS/ND fails to comply with
CEQA.
9
(Initial Study item XVI, p. 25)
PARKING CAPACITY IMPACTS
Initial Study's determination that short-term rental rezoning
would not create a significant impact on Parking Capacity
is without supporting evidence.
City officials in 2014 noted that short-term rentals in residential areas present parking problems.
In 1997 when it banned short-term rentals in residential areas, the City Council also stated in its
Oct. 6, 2015
- 21 -
Ordinance CCO-97-02 that allowing short-term rentals .. creates potential parking

problems. Yet the IS/ND fails to address such potential parking impacts with any clarity and
adequacy.
The IS/ND, item XVI(f), on p. 25, concludes that the impact of inadequate parking capacity will
be less than significant. The IS/ND however never discloses what its measure of significance
is to parking adequacy. It relies solely on the prospect of a here-to-fore undisclosed
administrative permit process that will be negotiated behind closed doors at City Hall for that
less than significant determination. As mentioned above, CEQA prohibits the City from
relying upon unknown or undisclosed mitigations as justification for concluding that
environmental impacts will be "Less Than Significant." The IS/ND provides the City Council
and the public with no means by which to verify the effectiveness of such a future, clandestine
permit process.
No other rational is presented except the claim that parking is required for existing residential
development and would be maintained as such. There is no substance to that claim however.
Existing minimal parking as required by the Citys zoning ordinance cannot handle the
occasional crowds that a vacation rental will attract if up to 10 people can stay in a short-term
rental as City officials have already proposed.
The Citys Zoning Ordinance only requires a single-family home to have two off-street parking
spaces. I have personally designed over 70 homes that were built in the last forty years within the
City of Mt. Shasta, and few have more than two covered or garage spaces and two driveway
parking spaces. Many Mt. Shasta homes have fewer off-site parking spaces than that but they
would be eligible for short-term rentals.
Some vacation rentals here would only be required to have two off-site parking spaces. A
proposed short-term rental requirement would require Parking shall be provided on-site to meet
the occupancy of each transient private home rental at a ratio of not less than one (1) parking
space per bedroom. For the most common size single-family home in Mt. Shasta, one with three
bedrooms, that would only require three off-site parking spaces. That number of spaces would
be clearly inadequate at times for vacation rentals with up to 10 transients during a snowstorm.
Smaller, older homes built prior to 1960 with only one bedroom might only require one off-site
parking space if converted for short-term rental use.
Most homes in the City of Mt. Shasta are not equipped to handle the slew of cars that come with
large groups. Visitors rarely carpool. They can arrive late at night during snow storms, and if
there is not a large garage with a driveway cleared of snow waiting for them, their cars end up in
neighbors driveways and on the streets.
Ten occupants who rent a vacation home for a weekend ski party do not need ten bedrooms, or
even five bedrooms. For short periods with large parties, some vacationers who are youthful
enough to ski in the winter can sleep on couches or on the floor in sleeping bags. The City has
not proposed to limit the number of occupants based upon a homes number of bedrooms as
some other communities have when faced with permitting short-term rentals in residential areas.
Therefore, the IS/ND has not even considered the question, and cannot realistically conclude that
Oct. 6, 2015
- 22 -
allowing up to 10 occupants in a typical 3 bedroom home having only three off-site parking
spaces will not create a significant wintertime parking impact when on-street parking is
prohibited for snow removal purposes.
With 10 people staying in a short-term rental in a residential area, it is entirely foreseeable that
theyd need off-street parking for at least five or more cars. Moreover, just because 10 transients
are renting the home doesnt mean they wont invite others from elsewhere in town to party with
them at their vacation rental. So even more winter parking might sometimes be wanted. There is
no supporting evidence for the IS/ND's conclusion of a less-than-significant impact of
inadequate parking capacity for short-term rentals.
The City does not identify any threshold by which the judge the significance of such parking
impacts. The logical threshold of significance would be whether enough parking is available
onsite so that no onstreet parking would be required during winter snow conditions. (Considering
that onstreet parking problems exist in other communities even in the summer with other
neighbors, the City must limit the number of vacation renters and their allowed vehicles.)
During or after snowstorms, people sometimes shovel or clear an onstreet parking space in front
of their own homes for their own guests to use. When icy snow berms resulting from snow plow
operations can reach heights of several feet, the effort to create such temporary onstreet parking
spaces is not insignificant. But if vacation rental occupants do not have enough parking spaces
for their large gatherings, they may end up parking in a neighbors hard-earned curbside parking
space and cause anger and social conflict.
10
(Initial Study item XIV(b), page 23)
POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES
significant impact on the Citys provision of police services is without supporting
evidence.
Other communities have experienced noise and parking problems with short-term rentals in
residential areas. Police are called upon to a greater extent to deal with such problems.26 If police
26
Anaheim has emerged as ground zero in battles over short-term rentals. This is from a Sept. 15 Orange County
Register story: (online at: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-682856-council-short.html )
ANAHEIM The City Council voted 4-1 Tuesday night to temporarily stop accepting applications from
Anaheim homeowners wanting to join the lucrative business of renting out their properties to tourists bound for
Disneyland, local conventions or Angel Stadium.
Dozens of residents complained about noise and the rapid proliferation of these short-term rentals, prompting
the council to approve the so-called urgency ordinance for the next 45 days, with an option to extend the
moratorium.
City officials said that the permit moratorium will give them time to study how to better regulate the
businesses, which may include an increase of the current $250 registration fee charged annually to homeowners
renting their properties. A report is due back to the City Council on Oct. 20.
Councilwoman Lucille Kring suggested that the citys code enforcement officers crack down on unpermitted
short-term rentals, revise the citys occupancy limits for rentals and place a cap on the number of vacation homes
allowed in each neighborhood. You have got to mesh with the character of the neighborhood, said Kring, who
Oct. 6, 2015
- 23 -
are occupied with such vacation rental noise or other complaints, they will be less available for
the Citys other policing needs.
The IS/ND, on page 23 under Public Services, should have evaluated this foreseeable and
likely impact on our police services.27 Instead, it evades that task by claiming that impact is
unknown at this time. There is no provision in CEQA that allows an agency to ignore an
admittedly significant impact by instead contending that the impact is unknown at this time.
The IS/ND notes that this rental change may lead to noise impacts that may be excessive with
late-night parties and increased traffic. Rather than evaluate that impact however, the IS/ND
lives near Disneyland. Ive heard the noise, Ive seen the trash. Lets sit down and find a really good solution that
we can live with for years to come.
Chuck Robinson told the City Council that he was concerned about the excessive noise and parking problems
that were created shortly after a seven-bedroom house was converted into a short-term rental earlier this year on
Merona Place. We feel like the city has turned its back on the property owners and sold out to a carpet-bagging
developer, said Robinson, who presented the council with a list of alleged violations committed by the property
owner.
Anaheim police have responded to about 300 calls for service at short-term rentals over the past year,
mostly to deal with complaints of loud parties and parking issues.
27
As an example of policing problems in San Diego, Chris Brewster, in comments wrote on July 15, 2015:
"Add to that the hollowing out of neighborhoods. They become hotel districts without residents. Schools die.
The sense of community evaporates. This is all why zoning exists. To separate residential areas from
commercial areas.
"As for your points about your use of your backyard, I disagree and I think you are wanting your image of
how things work to be applied to others. (We haven't heard from your neighbors BTW.) Responsible people
who live in a neighborhood consider impacts on their neighbors from anything they may do, from parking to
partying and everything in between. Ideally relationships are established. I too party on our deck from time to
time, but make a point of limiting the number of occasions this is loud or late. My neighbors do the same. It's
simply how responsible people behave. People on vacation have no investment in the community or relations
with neighbors, other than to avoid worst case outcomes. Each new group coming in has its own nuances and
expectations. Some will be responsible. Some will be irresponsible. Regardless, an endless stream of people on
vacation means an endless stream of people in vacation/party mode that goes well beyond the normal resident.
"This can be addressed, to a degree, with a Palm Springs type approach and with some of the things that you
mention. It cannot be fully addressed, especially when the property owners are offsite. The hollowing out of
neighborhoods cannot be addressed without some limitation on the number of days of rentals permitted per
year.
"As for throwing the book at you (if you were my neighbor and irresponsible), under the current rules and
level of police enforcement available, it's simply not possible. There is no accountability. I am very familiar
with the code enforcement process and have been in discussion with the head of code enforcement for the city.
So far it has done no good even though absentee property owners neighboring me are flagrantly violating
zoning code rules on an ongoing basis. As for calling the police for noise, it is mostly a waste of time in my
neighborhood as it is rightly a low priority for the police. This is why the slogan, neighborhoods are for
neighbors resonates with me. My long-term neighbors may not be ideal, nor may I to them, but there is an
accountability that comes from the do unto others as you would have them do unto you precept. None of us
want to be the bad guys in the neighborhood. Vacation renters simply don't have that investment in the
community and never will.
"It's use of neighborhoods for something they were not intended to accommodate. When I'm on vacation I
party more too. That's the reason zoning exists. What's happened here in the fairly recent past is that technology
has allowed some people to obviate the basic intent of neighborhoods and the intent of neighborhood zoning."
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/san-diego-is-still-a-house-divided-on-vacation-rentals/

Oct. 6, 2015
- 24 -
points to undisclosed, and unreferenced data, that the police have not made a significant number
of responses to current short-term rentals in residential areas. The public has been presented with
no evidence to back that up. The IS/ND provides no threshold of significance for such
complaints. It also fails to explain why future full-house, short-term rentals in residential areas,
once they are made legal, will be as unobtrusive as existing unpermitted Airbnb rentals that,
because they are illegal, are thus flying under the radar to avoid City condemnation.
Full-house short-term rentals in residential areas have no onsite owner to control the renters.
That burden will, when necessary, depend upon the police force.28 In short, the City has not
supported its determination that short-term rentals in residential areas will have either no
impact or Less Than Significant Impact on police services. This impact on police services is
a subject that must be studied in an EIR since this IS/ND has failed to do so adequately.
11
(Initial Study item XII, page 21)
NOISE IMPACTS
Initial Study's determination that short-term rental rezoning would not create
significant noise impacts is without supporting evidence.
The most significant environmental impact that short-term rentals cause in other communities is
noise impacts to their neighboring residents. This environmental noise impact topic is
commented upon in a separate letter because of its technical nature and because of the amount of
information the City needs to consider. However, a few summary observations are included here
to challenge the misleading determinations in the IS/ND that these short-term rentals will not
cause significant noise impacts:
The City of Mt. Shasta has previously acknowledged that short-term rentals may present a
significant risk of noise impacts in R-1 zones. The IS/ND itself again acknowledges the potential
for excessive noise, late night parties and increased traffic noise if short-term rentals operate in
R-1 residential neighborhoods. Yet the IS/ND ignores this evidence and that from other
communities. It instead claims that the City will later create noise conditions specific to
individual short-term rental applications and that the police department will handle noise
complaints using other as-yet-undisclosed "best practices."
28
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/economy/big-companies-not-homeowners-run-biggest-share-of-shortterm-rentals/
He said short-term rental companies, and not aggrieved neighbors, should be responsible for keeping noise down.
Calling the police is a worthless adventure they have way bigger fish to fry than responding to a noise
complaint on a Friday or Saturday night, he said. If anything, there should be a way that everyone
knows who manages what properties some kind of public database where they could go online, type in
the address and call the owner or management company directly.
..
Laurie Miller and her husband own a home near Mission Beach and a remodeled condo downtown. The two have
been in the short-term rental business for a decade, advertising their properties when they travel. A new short-term
rental just cropped up down the street from her Mission Beach property. They dont check anybody in and out,
they allow 18 people to stay there the neighbors are losing their minds, which has caused a lot of negativity
toward me, Miller said. Do I think the city needs to make restrictions? Yes! Ive been saying this for years.
Oct. 6, 2015
- 25 -
The IS/ND accordingly violates CEQA regarding noise impact analysis by failing to provide
relevant information. That precludes informed decision making by the City Council and
informed participation by the public. That also violates CEQA by improperly deferring the
formulation of noise-related mitigation measures without providing any specific performance
standards for allowable noise levels associated with short-term rentals at this time before the
zoning might be changed as is being proposed. The City cannot legally wash its hands of this
CEQA obligation by claiming that the police department will invoke some form of "best
practices" to control noise in the future.29
These next four questions should have been analyzed and adequately mitigated for likely noise
impacts:
1. Will Rental Activities Exceed Applicable Noise Standards?
The IS/ND is required by CEQA to evaluate whether such vacation rental use noise might
exceed any applicable noise standards applicable to R-1 neighborhoods? But it fails to do that. It
never predicts how loud such rental occupancy noise may be, yet that is information that is not
difficult to obtain. It then never provides what the permissible noise standards or limits would be.
Even though the City has never adopted the Noise Ordinance,30 there are relevant and applicable
noise standards in other communities that could be used, or from State or Federal noise
standards. None are even mentioned within the IS/ND. The IS/ND instead jumps to a conclusion
that short-term rental excessive noise impacts will be less-than-significant. Yet no evidence
having merit is provided to support that conclusion. This violates CEQA and keeps the public in
the dark about how loud such noise impacts might be if short-term rentals are approved.
2. Will Rental Activities Create Permanent Increases in Existing Noise Levels?
The IS/ND, for item XII(c), also fails to evaluate whether such rental noise might create
substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels at neighboring homes even if those noise
levels don't exceed local or state standards? The IS/ND fails to disclose what the typical ambient
noise levels currently are in Mt. Shasta's R-1 residential neighborhoods. It next fails to evaluate
how much louder on a permanent basis the continual operation of short-term rentals will make
existing neighborhoods. Without knowing what ambient conditions currently are, and how much
noise might be generated by short-term rentals, it is impossible to estimate how much of an
increase may occur. The IS/ND also fails to provide any standard of "threshold of significance"
for how much of a permanent increase in ambient noise levels might be tolerable. Yet the IS/ND
concludes without any analysis that there will be "no impact" of such substantial permanent
noise level increases occurring. Those increases in noise are the cause of so many complaints in
other communities, so it is likely that similar permanent increases will occur in our City. The
City's failure to answer this question invalidates the noise section of its IS/ND.
29
30
Example of comment about noise impacts: Just enforcing noise complaints doesnt deal with the steady dripdrip-drip of minor annoyances, said Sue Hopkins, a UCSD professor and a member of the group. Its
that constant undermining of your peace and quiet. http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/sandiego-is-still-a-house-divided-on-vacation-rentals/
The City of Mt. Shasta has committed to adopting a noise ordinance more than a decade ago with its General Plan
policy but has never followed through.

Oct. 6, 2015
- 26 -
3. Will Rental Activities Create Temporary Increases in Existing Noise Levels?

The IS/ND, for item XII(d), similarly neglects its obligation to investigate whether such vacation
rental noise might on a temporary or periodic basis significantly increase ambient noise levels?
This is different from the previous question. Temporary noise from a loud party, from excessive
music volume, from barking dogs owned by rental guests,31 from vehicles and from other shortterm rental noise sources can be readily measured and held to easy-to-evaluate noise standards.
Unlike a lengthy measurement of "permanent" noise increases in ambient conditions that may
take days to acquire, a "temporary" increase in noise levels can be measured within a few
minutes. It can be enforced soon afterward by police if noise exceeds a certain threshold of
significance. Or such temporary noise could be easily recorded by an aggrieved neighbor with a
smart-phone's video camera and an inexpensive noise meter, and offered to City officials as
evidence that they should invoke stronger restrictions on an offending neighboring short-term
rental. Yet again the IS/ND fails to reveal if such ambient noise levels will be temporarily or
periodically increased by a substantial amount. The City has even failed to identify what its
threshold of significance would be for that measurement of "substantial" increases. The City has
failed to consider the likely forms and loudness of such vacation rental noise when whole-houseoccupying transients are not restrained by any on-site landlord, by any enforceable City
standards, or by a moral sense of neighborly respect.32 The City's proposed administrative
conditions will also not solve such problems. By the time it takes for a disturbed neighbor to find
the phone number of an off-site rental agent who may be 10 miles away, and for that agent to
31
The City has not proposed prohibiting new short-term rental transients from bringing their dogs. The problem
with allowing dogs is two fold. One is barking. If their dogs bark it can be just as loud or louder than a party. If
the rental's neighbors also have dogs, it tends to multiply the barking by a large factor, as dogs tend to bark at
other dogs and it starts a never ending chain reaction. For short-term whole-house rentals with backyards, this
barking dog noise problem may be serious when guests are away and leave their dogs unattended outside.
Nearly 1/3 of Airbnb and VBRO listings for "entire home" rentals in Mt. Shasta area currently allow dogs.
32
Comment by Bill Bradshaw - Aug 3, 2015:
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/economy/big-companies-not-homeowners-run-biggestshare-of-short-term-rentals/
In Mission Beach where I live, we are used to weekly rentals, which normally turn over on Saturdays. It
causes some problems. For example, trash is a constant hassle as the renter vacating the property often just
piles up trash and it sits, attracting scavengers and flies for several days until trash collection on Tuesday or
Wednesday. Traffic on Saturdays is multiplied by the people coming in on the heels of those vacating. And of
course there are some irresponsible property managers and tenants, so calls to police are frequent, often to no
avail. But we can live with this situation, and if the city can provide twice weekly trash collection as it used to,
we have no serious problems.
When we talk about short term rentals in Mission Beach, were referring to less than a week, often only
a day or two. Now why would anyone rent for this short a period? The usual answer is PARTY TIME. The
owner is renting a day or two at a time to maximize income, usually getting a daily rate thats far in excess of
the weekly rate per day. And its almost always an absentee owner, sometimes working through AirB&B.
He or she also doesnt restrict the number of occupants, so its not unusual to have a dozen people or more
temporarily occupying a small two bedroom unit, using sleeping bags or even sleeping on the beach.
Meanwhile, the party goes 24/7. After all, they are paying an exorbitant rate and they want to get their
moneys worth.
This is the kind of nonsense that must be stopped. A rule preventing this practice unless the owner lives on
the premises would do a lot to counter the problems, but a total ban on rentals less than a full week would be
better. The problem, as always, is enforcement.

Oct. 6, 2015
- 27 -
appear and quiet the noise, such temporary noise impacts may have gone on for a long time.
These failures to evaluate such temporary or periodic noise impacts also violate CEQA.
4. Will Rental Activities Create Significant Sleep-Disturbing Noise Impacts?
The IS/ND also fails to evaluate whether such rental noise might cause sleep-disturbing impacts?
The mention of possible sleep-disturbance impacts does not need to be included in the City's
standard "Environmental Information Form" for the requirement for environmental review to
exist. CEQA court cases have overturned approvals of environmental studies where projects
posed significant sleep-disturbance impacts that were not studied.33 Vacation rental transient
occupants may in some cases pose very serious sleep-disturbance noise impacts to some of their
neighbors. Some neighbors who work every day may need to fall asleep at 9 p.m. in order to
awake refreshed for their jobs. Others may simply choose a sleep schedule that is earlier than
average. If however the City allows an adjacent home to be operated as a "mini-hotel" or shortterm rental, occupied by vacationers who may not have any desire to quiet down so early, or
even the knowledge of the lifestyle of a neighbor who may be sleeping next door less than 10
feet away, then sleep-disturbance impacts are indeed probable. In San Francisco, this concern has
been expressed about short-term rentals.34
CONCLUSION
Problems with Airbnb-type vacation rentals are just now coming to light around the country. Our
City has arrived at this point, experiencing few impacts with short-term room rentals in R-1
zones, probably because they have been illegal. If the City however opens R-1 neighborhoods'
doors to short-term, whole-house rentals owned and operated by economic predators and
absentee investors who care largely about making money and little about nearby residents, our
City will suffer. Motels will lose income as rental money is siphoned off to absentee owners. If
that rental income is diverted to absentee owners' town, Mt. Shasta will lose those tourist dollars.
Neighbors will lose their sense of community, security and peace and quiet.
Thank you for reading these comments. They show that the City's Initial Study's documentation,
analysis, conclusions and mitigation of the proposed short-term rentals in R-1 residential district
impacts are inadequate and fail to comply with CEQA. Please prepare an EIR and provide
additional opportunity for public review afterward. Please notify me and Citizens for Quality
Growth of any additional opportunities there may be to review this proposed zoning change.
/s/
Dale La Forest
Director - Citizens for Quality Growth
Attachments: Complaints about Bend, Oregon short-term rentals in residential areas, and
"The Gorilla in the Vacation Rental A neighborhood battles to regain peace and quiet"
33
34
See the court decision in Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Bd. of Port Comm'rs (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th
1344 for its discussion about sleep-disturbing noise impacts being significant.
"Many of the complaints that the Department receives about short-term rentals have to do with the hours of
activity tourists keep compared to long-term residents with regular nine to five work schedules.SF
Planning

Oct. 6, 2015
- 28 -
Attachment "A"
Page 1
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 6:09 PM,

Lizzie Hedrick wrote:
Mr. Knight
vacation rentals. I appreciate that the city is taking the concerns of the neighbors
seriously.

topic. I live on NW Davenport Ave. between 14th and 15th streets. On our short block,
there are 14 homes; of those homes, three are vacation rentals, 20% of the street!
The core problem with increased numbers of vacation rentals is the very real dissolution
of the neighborhood. The minute an owner or long-term renter turns over a home to
transient renters, that house is no longer a contributing part of the neighborhood. No
longer can the permanent residents count on that house as part of the neighborhood.

At least once a month, we have to ask renters to quiet down after 10. Often the noise
starts much later than 10, interrupting our sleep when we have to be at work early the
next day. In addition to the noise, there is always a parking issue as many of the

transient neighbors.
I strongly feel there needs to be a cap on the number of vacation rentals in our
neighborhoods in order to preserve the quality of life we all moved to Bend to enjoy.
Without legislation from the city, the numbers will continue to increase as there is a very

"
Liz Hedrick
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:30 PM,

Iain Morris wrote:
Though his article in the Bend Bulletin ran several days ago, I would like to commend
Attachment "A"
Page 2
Doug Knight for bringing the issue of vacation rentals to the table. I live on a block with
4 adjacent vacation rentals. Three of these are part of a large fencedWeeks
go by in the shoulder seasons where we feel like we live in a ghost town. The street is
dark when we come home. Winter and summer, our street is crushed with parking
problems, noise, traffic, and everything else that comes with hotel guests looking to have
a good time. Who can blame them? They paid for a vacation hotel stay, and expect to
get it. Only a few neighbors remain who we can say hi to on a daily basis.

The vacation rental issue is an insidious problem, as it quietly robs a community of its
collective voice to speak out about local issues that affect us.
care how good the local schools are, how much work the roads need, speeding issues
through neighborhoods, local land development, pollution, or a host of other issues that
homeowners and long-term renters are concerned about.
But perhaps the most troubling issue is the loss of our self identity that comes with these
changes. Vacation rentals in high concentration cause a deconstruction of a

with new paint and lawns, a facade that suggests a resident is happily living
there. Nothing could be further from the truth. What is the point of block parties,
neighborhood get-togethers, or playing in the streets, when there are no other families,
kids, or anyone else actually living in the neighborhood? Who are we when we are
surrounded by hotels with people from out of town?
Ultimately, we all have to answer the question of who is this city built for. The residents
who live here, or those who want to vacation here (including those who profit from
them)? Frequently it feels like it is tourism at all costs. I would like to see a moratorium
on vacation rentals in our neighborhoods, but I understand we live in a tourist
economy. We have to at least attempt some balance, hopefully by taking a look at what
other tourist destinations have done.
I am tired of losing my neighbors. I'm tired of long-term renters not being able to move
here, or being kicked out. I'm tired of the constant changeover of strangers living on my
street. I want my children to grow up with other families in the neighborhood. I sincerely
hope some of this rings true for you as well.
Thank you for your time,
-Iain Morris
River West Neighborhood
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 6:40 AM,
laurel brauns:
To:
Bend City Council
Dear Bend City Council Members:
I am writing to show my support to a recent movement to re-evaluate the permitting
process for vacation rentals in the City of Bend. I am aware that many close-in Bend
Attachment "A"
Page 3
neighborhoods are now at 20% vacation rental occupation and that the number is
increasing at record speeds. I am totally against the city issuing any more permits until
this issue is seriously evaluated, and I hope that after that evaluation that the City
Council will put a law in place that creates a wait list for any more permits.
I have lived in Bend for eight years and in that time have made three quarters of my
income off the tourism industry. I worked for Visit Bend for a year and a half. I studied
at
tourism marketing at OSUTumalo Creek Kayak & Canoe. I am not against tourism and see it as a vital part of

&
'
What I am against is turning Bend into Sunriver. That town was built primarily as a
transient community, where one of the best qualities of Bend is the sense of a close-knit,
permanent community of like-minded citizens who are lucky enough to call this place
home, but who also have made a lot of financial sacrifices to live in a place where many
can only afford to visit. We make less money because we live here. It is well
documented by EDCO that the same jobs in Portland and California make a third or
double an equitable job in Bend.
I have directly felt the effects of this transition from residential to vacation rental housing
to moving to where I now live, I was looking for a full year for
a single bedroom apartment or a small house that I could afford. Apartments and homes
were taken within hours of being posted. I have heard the rental market has never been
this tight in Bend.

last bit of summer vacation rental income that he can. The apartment I pay $750 a
month to rent gets $200 a night when marketed as a vacation rental.
As one of my final projects when doing some post-bacc work with Kreg Lindberg at
OSU-Cascades, I studied unsustainable growth patterns that occurred in Aspen,
Telluride and Moab when those cities got on the national radar as outdoor meccas. The
situation got out of contro

neighboring towns. Some cities went so far as to build government subsidized housing
within the city limits to cut down on commutes and traffic.
Out of control growth patterns in Bend have gotten both the city and the people who live
permits and follow in the footsteps of other cities around the state that recognize the
value of residential neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Laurel Brauns
Saginaw Avenue
On Jul 27, 2014, at 7:33 AM,
Attachment "A"
Page 4
"Lauren Buccola" wrote:

All,
Much is in the local, and by local, I mean our neighborhood, news about vacation
rentals. While I respect that people need places to stay while vacationing (and spending
their money) in Bend, what needs to be respected in that this influx of vacation rentals is
destroying the tight knit communities that we have built.
I can tell you on the 5 block section between Columbia & Cumberland, there are 3 VR's
(that I know of). There is also one at the end of Cumberland, on Columbia, just north of
the part. The owner of that house, has told the owner of the VR rental company she
uses, she intends to VR out her other two homes on Cumberland.
Another example is SW Allen. There are 5 VR's in the stretch from Columbia Park to
Commerce that's a 50% concentration. And those are only the one's I know of.
Every house for sale in our neighborhood is being marketed as "perfect vacation
rental". Not only do we have another housing market bubble growing, but we are losing
the sense of community.
I have had to call the police a number of times, as many people come to town and do not
respect the noise ordinance. We have illegal fireworks going off daily, dogs barking, kids
screaming. Ugh! I have contemplated selling our house, but we have owned it for
almost 20 years. We should not have to compromise where we love to live, because the
VR market is not being regulated.
Please stop this madness. Put a limit of the VR's in the city. Create real living wage
jobs or attract businesses that do provide them. Develop Juniper Ridge, as we have
been led to believe it would be a high tech center with a 4 year university site (don't get
me started on this one).
Keep Bend a great place to live, not vacation.
Best,
Lauren Buccola & Dean Edleston
Attachment "A"
Page 5
Dear Jim,
3
<
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
explosion. I hope the city leaders will aggressively address this for these reasons:
1. The neighborhoods where there are a number of vacation rentals have deteriorated
due to the noise, parking and constant turnover of people.
2. The explosion in numbers of these properties have uprooted many long-term rental
tenants....folks that generally make for better neighbors.
3. We are not receiving taxes on many of these stays, missing an opportunity for much
needed funds to promote other tourism activities.
Attachment "A"
Page 6
4. Regulations/controls are inadequate. Permits, business licenses and approval all
need to be evaluated. Why do we require other small business owners to have a license
but not those who rent their properties for vacation visits?
This is one bubble that needs reigning in....it needs a conscious.... and more
responsibility to those it is impacting. It has already had a big impact on my
>
>
>
Thank you,
Jerald L. Barnes
Quincy Avenue
Bend, OR 97701
From: Ulla Lundgren

Date: July 27, 2014, 2:28:58 PM PDT
To: dknight@bendoregon.gov, srussell@bendoregon.gov, jclinton@bendoregon.gov,
jbarram@bendoregon.gov, vchudowsky@bendoregon.gov,
cstephens@bendoregon.gov, moberst@bendoregon.gov, aaurand@bendoregon.gov,
citymanager@bendoregon.gov
Subject: We urgently need better VR permitting to protect our Bend homes and
our Bend quality of life.
Dear Bend City/Community Officials
We would like to share with you some of the issues of living right by Columbia Park, a
neighborhood with a large quantity of vacation rentals.
When we moved into our neighborhood six years ago there were zero vacation rentals
on the little triangular corner of Columbia/Allen Road and Albany street. Within the past
couple of years there are now 5, only six homes in our little triangle is occupied by home
owners or long term renters, that is almost 50% vacation rentals! We adore our
neighborhood but it is starting to feel lonely and disconnected.
We are frequently solicited by investors and real estate agents/brokers inquiring if we
want to sell our homes. There are handwritten notes on our gate/front door to buy our
home in cash and personally addressed letters and postcards in the mail. We have zero
interest in selling our home but have no way of stopping these solicitations.
We are concerned that the ease of getting a vacation rental permit in Bend is creating an
"outbought up by investors wanting to turn the home into a vacation rental or builders looking
to scrape an older home and put up a gigantic modern house all the way up to the
easement.

However, two of the vacation rentals near our house are owned by our neighbors who
live practically next door. One of our neighbors is widowed and this is a way for her to
earn an income since her husband died a few years ago. Of course we don't want to
create a situation where someone like our neighbor can't get a vacation rental permit.
Attachment "A"
Page 7
We are concerned with investors from out-of-town and local investors who do not live in
the neighborhood and own multiple vacation rentals all over Bend.
The less than 1% availability of rentals in Bend is also a concern. Will residents who
work in Bend become forced to move out of the Bend city limits in the future?
Please protect our wonderful residential neighborhoods.
Ulla Lundgren & Jeff Huebner NW Columbia Street Bend OR
Please save the quality of life on the westside.

Houses are homes, not hotels. We urgently need better VR permitting to protect our
Bend homes and our Bend quality of life. Bend is a vacation destination and as such need
responsible limits on vacation rentals.
Best,
mm
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM,

Justyn Livingston wrote:
To Whom this may concern:

but I did want to voice my

concerns about it
I live on
our friendly neighborhood! If we decide to allow a few vacation rentals, I think it should
be on a rotating basis, requiring the owners to occupy their house a portion of the time
so that we have people living around us who care about their homes, the community,
and our beautiful town! I really like the idea of an immediate moratorium until we can
figure out the best plan.

Thank you for your thoughtfulness on this subject,

Justyn Livingston
Union Street
Attachment "A"
Page 8
We are on Portland avenue and are literally surrounded by vacation

rentals. My 2 small children are constantly woken up by the noise from late
night parties. Strangers are constantly lingering in front of our house.
There is a duplex being built across the street with the intention to short
term rent. Please help me protect my children.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Soronen, MD
On Wed,
Wed Au
Aug 6, 2014 at 12:26 PM,
Christine Barnes wrote:

Hi Doug,
I would like to weigh in on the vacation rental situation in Bend. I live next-door to
a home that is now TWO vacation rentals. The main house and a small apartment. I also
live across from Hillside B&B. The difference is simple: the owner, Annie Goldner, lives
in the B&B. You could not have a better neighbor. She is always there to oversee her
guests needs, parking, whatever they require. There was a conditional use permit when
the house was converted to a B&B. It is business and functions as such.
Next door, a new management company has helped, but the fact remains that
there are rotating people coming and going with absolutely NO available parking for the
main house (the one-car garage is off limits for renters) and the steep driveway keeps
most of them off and is also off-limits (barricaded) in the winter. Our alley is clogged with
cars. This vacation rental is a business in a residential neighborhood. Was there a
permit process? Absolutely not. Is anyone at the property to meet, greet and look after
the guests? Of course not. Does anyone shovel the snow on the sidewalk or put in the
garage bins on a regular basis? No. Unless it is us.
Beyond my personal experience, we walk through Bend's Westside every
morning. If a house is being fixed up, it will be a vacation rental. Fixed up is nice, but we

How did the city of Bend let vacation rentals take over residential
neighborhoods? It's like everything in Bend, once something works for a few with no
restrictions, the flood gate opens. A cap on these properties is just part of the answer.
Bend needs to look long and hard at what this is doing to the core historic
neighborhoods of Bend. If vacation rental owners were treated like B&B owners, you
might see a change.
Thanks,
Christine
Christine Barnes
Author
NW Quincy Ave.
Bend, OR 97701
Attachment "A"
Page 9
.QTKP*C[FGP
7RPREHUVW#EHQGRUHJRQJRY
-XQ
I went through this whole process before we put our house on the market. Rimrock is included in
the West Hills subdivision and I still have the plot map and the CC&R's. I spoke to everyone who
had anything to do with the CC&R's and the problem is..... they are old (1978 -1982), there are
no HOA fees, no monitoring over the years for violations. Many people have broken the rules
over the years - drive around and take a look: structures are within setbacks (my studio addition okay with the city), RVs parked in front of houses, grafiti wall!! The City of Bend does not oversee
CC&R's, I talked to them when we built the studio, as they have their own rules and it is up to
neighborhoods to deal with these regulations. They laughed at my concern about the West Hills
CC&R's, no kidding, as they are "old" and were setup at a time when property was cheap and
abundant. I spoke with a woman (have her name in a file somewhere) who was head of
something to do with the West Hills subdivision and the CC&R's and her response was the same
as the city - document is "outdated" with no oversight. The CC&R's are based on the
subdivision (two phases) and have nothing to do with these neighborhood
associations (River West or whatever) that have emerged over the past 10 years or so... these
associations have no power except in numbers(?) and a voice to make a change for the future that is your best bet! Make waves with consensus. Don't waste time on the CC&R's.
Good luck!! We moved, essentially, after reviewing this mess and talking until we were
exhausted by the process. If you want control, you must pay HOA fees and have someone
overseeing violations in a timely fashion. That seems to be the bottom line...
Attachment "A"
Page 10
We said that we'd never live in a gated community with HOA fees... LOL... it's quiet here, there is
an RV lot, people must park on their property, they actually plow... did I mention that it is
quiet?!! I really hope that you guys can change things, as it is a great neighborhood!
xo B
Glenda Mackie from West Hills said:

Most newer neighborhoods have a simple clause in their CC&R's stating no rentals for less than
30 days allowed, this takes care of overnight rentals. I haven't read ours recently, but as a
neighborhood, if people really don't want to have vacation rentals in West Hills, it could be done.
It's a neighborhood issue more than the City as some neighborhoods allow them and some don't,
so the City can't really police that but as a neighborhood we can. If we want to have a
neighborhood meeting and read the CC&R's and figure out as a group how to proceed, I'm happy
to help. Glenda
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:32 AM, wrote:

Hi,
My name is Edith McBean and I reside on NW Iowa Ave. We have had a
number of incidents in our neighborhood that have spoken to just this issue. We love
living in the West Hills and would prefer having neighbors that respect our home and
privacy. We moved to this neighborhood because of our lovely home and neighbors that
enjoyed the views and the quiet respect for each other. Ben d is special and it just
seems like it is selling out to vacationers...... which of course I was once..... but with that
said we choose to vacation in the resorts.
Let me know how I can help in some way.
Edith McBean
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Kacey Taylor wrote:

Hello!
Please add me to your email list.
We live on Federal & Kingston, in a multi-generational household. The last year we have
noticed a lot more noise and traffic in the neighborhood ~ a direct result of all of the
vacation and rental housing.
Attachment "A"
Page 11
We stand by you all in wanting to protect our neighborhood!

Please let us know how else we can help.
Thank you for spearheading this necessary awareness!
Kacey & Ryan Taylor

NW Federal Street
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:27 AM, t r wrote:

Here is our input as we are unable to attend this meeting tomorrow night. Let
us know if you need more info.
Let's try to expediate this process, by not dragging it out with months in
between meetings to discus the issues & focus on an expediated solution & not
have an endless process. We need to put a hold on vacation rentals & come up
with a plan to limit them in single family residential neighborhoods.
Gary & Terry Reynolds

Harmon Blvd
On Jul 13, 2014, at 11:21 AM, "Bob Griffin" wrote:
Attachment "A"
Page 12
<
"
>
&
'
:H
YHOLYHGRQ)HGHUDO6WIRU\HDUVDQGZKDWZDVRQFHDVZHHWQHLJKERUO\FRPPXQLW\
QRZIHHOVOLNHDFRPPHUFLDO]RQH
:LWK9DFDWLRQ5HQWDOVRQERWKVLGHVRIXVDQGDFURVVWKHVWUHHWRIRXUEORFNQRZWKH
FLW\KDVFRPSOHWHO\IDLOHGWRSURWHFWRXU565HVLGHQWLDO6LQJOHIDPLO\]RQHG
QHLJKERUKRRG,QHYHULPDJLQHGWKDWWKLVFRXOGKDSSHQWRRXU56]RQHGKRPH:HUHQRW
DORQH7KLVWUHQGLVDIIHFWLQJPDQ\UHVLGHQWV
Attachment "A"
Page 13
0DQ\ORQJWHUPUHQWHUVIHDUWKH\ZLOOEHHYLFWHGDVKRXVHVDUHFRQYHUWHGWR9DFDWLRQ
5HQWDOV/RFDOIDPLOLHVZKRZDQWWROLYHZKHUHWKHLUNLGVFDQZDONWRVFKRROWKHSDUNJURFHU\
VWRUHFDQ
WILQGDYDLODEOHKRPHVWREX\RUUHQW

%HQG
VW\SHUXEEHUVWDPSHGSHUPLWDSSURYDOV\VWHPZLWKQRH[SLUDWLRQGDWHDQGQROLPLW
RQQHLJKERUKRRGGHQVLW\LVLQHSWDQGLUUHVSRQVLEOH

2WKHUFLWLHVKDYHSURWHFWHGUHVLGHQWVIURPWKLVW\SHRILQWUXVLRQ+HUHDUHDUWLFOHVUHYLHZLQJ
]RQLQJFRGHDQGLQSXWIURPRWKHUFLW\OHDGHUVLQ2UHJRQ

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/07/portlanders_can_cash_in_on_air.html

Depoe Bay:
1
Ashland zoning code:

http://www.ashlandlodgingassociation.com/travel-advisory/
http://www.thenewsguard.com/news/article_400827c4-c85d-11e0-95ee-001cc4c002e0.html
Portland zoning code:
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/226140
Cannon Beach:
http://ci.cannon-beach.or.us/docs/Building/Building%20PermitZoningInfo.pdf
Cannon Beach chose to cap VR's at a fixed quota. "There are 92 such permits. You can place
your name on a waiting list should a transient rental permit become available. A vacation home
rental permit allows one rental every two weeks. "
Manzanita:
http://www.ci.manzanita.or.us/_docs/ordinances/ManzanitaZoningOrdinanceIndex030409.pdf,
Page 89, Short Term Rentals, excerpts:
A cap shall be placed on short-term rentals in the R-2, R-3 and the SR-R zones. This cap
shall be 17.5% of the dwelling units within these zones.
A property owner shall have only one short-term rental permit.
The short-term rental permit is issued to the owner and does not transfer with the sale or
conveyance of the property.
Off-street parking for a minimum of 2 vehicles and a maximum of 4 shall be provided. All
vehicles must be parked off the street and on the property of the dwelling being used as a
short-term rental.
The City may determine that an appropriate penalty is the revocation of the short-term rental
permit.
Durango, Colorado:
Durango allows only one Vacation Rental per street segment, with prior neighbor
approval.
2
&
>
&
&
>
Attachment "A"
Page 14
>
>
KWWSZZZGXUDQJRJRYRUJ'RFXPHQW&HQWHU9LHZ

3OHDVHDFWWRSURWHFW%HQG
VQHLJKERUKRRGV
7KDQN\RX
%HWK-DFREL
Attachment "A"
Page 15
Attachment "A"
Page 16
IN REPLY TO "HOTEL, MOTEL, NEIGHBORHOOD INN" (8/6)

Glad to see this issue gaining traction. I share a surprisingly affordable westside house with three other
working young adults all with jobs that directly support the tourism industry and have just been
given 60 days to vacate by our out-of-state landlord. Whether it will it be turned into a vacation rental,
we are not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it on Airbnb.The people who serve the beer and
deliver the food and rent the bikes and work the ski lifts need a place to live for the tourism economy
to work, but unfortunately the property speculators are too short-sighted to see beyond the allure of
easy money with zero responsibility to the neighborhood or community as a whole to grasp that
concept. Furthermore, these same landlords-from-afar often forget that they are responsible for the
basic upkeep of their own rental properties, yet they routinely stick residents with the bills for
plumbing, appliance repair, landscaping, etc. the type of things which rent is supposed to cover. But
I'm not surprised to hear them blame it all on "a bunch of snowboarders". Gotta keep out the riffraff if
we're going to completely gentrify this place, eh?
Nick Adams
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 8:50 PM,

Amanda Knapp wrote:
I would definitely like to include my voice in not allowing any more, or slowing the
process of vacation rentals in Bend. This is causing a huge shortage of homes for those
who need long term homes to rent in the area and is driving the price of our current
rental market WAY up.... With little supply and much demand! Which is also creating a
lot of pressure for those living here since the wages often aren't comparable to rental
rates.
Please include me in your petition to the city.
Thank you,
-Amanda Knapp
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:02 AM,

KATHLEEN M JONES wrote:
please tell me what more can be done in Bend to increase restrictions on homes being
used as rental properties in residential neighborhoods.
Katie Jones
Attachment "A"
Page 17
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 1:00 PM,

Anonymous wrote:
Hi,
I got your email through the announcement you sent to RWNA.
I lived in Old Bend for one year and have lived in River West for the past two years and am
concerned about the takeover in both those areas. On Wall St, next to Pioneer Park. Vacasa has
pretty much taken over our HOA board.
I recently read that "Airbnb, HomeAway, TripAdvisor and FlipKey have created the Short Term
Rental Advocacy Center. The center will advocate for laws and regulations that allow
homeowners to rent out their homes, or rooms in their homes, to travelers short-term." I am
concerned that there is no counter lobby group to represent the everyday residents of Old Bend
and River West.
Thanks,
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:00 AM,

John Stockham wrote:
We strongly support proposed regulation of short-term vacation rentals in RS single
family areas. Every time we see a house in our neighborhood for sale or rent, we are
concerned about the potential for a vacation rental investor purchasing the home for
short-term rentals.
We suggest requiring a Conditional Use Permit (and hearing) for short-term vacation
rentals in the RS Districts.
There may be other ways to address this issue - but the "bottom line" is that something
needs to be done in a timely manner.
Thanks for you consideration on this issue.
-John Stockham and Carol Schunk
NW West Hills Ave.
Bend, OR 97701
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 11:57 AM,

Gayle Larson, Broker wrote:
Thank you for the email. I would attend the meeting but we are in Nepal until the end of
the month. I believe it's my duty to disclose to buyers in the neighborhoods highly
impacted by VRBOs such as yours that there are many vacation rentals.
Attachment "A"
Page 18
Also, I mentioned we have 3 VRBOs: one in NW PDX (mixed zoning), one in Maui(all
vacation area rentals) and one in San Luis area( but that is used for physicians staying a
month or longer). So, I know the VRBO business well.
My position on VRBO/AirBB is this:
In a residential zoning VRBOs should be limited if not excluded. Vacation rental by
definition means: transient accommodation. Therefore does not fit the residential
zoning code requirement(unless I'm missing something about residential zoning). Also,
VRBO is a business, not a home business but a transient accommodation business,
much like a hotel or B and B. If an area in the city is zoned mixed
use/business/commercial that's a different zoning requirement and VRBOs would be
okay in that area.
In Bend, NWX has CCRs that prohibit transient accommodations but do allow 60 days or
longer. That's fair in my opinion.
I agree the city should adopt standards and limitations in neighborhoods like yours.
Summit West Neighborhood Assc will be addressing this issue in the upcoming months.
Thank you for letting me know about the meeting.
Gayle Larson, Broker
Thomas Lotina
NW Federal St.
Bend, OR 97701
Attachment "A"
Page 19
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:22 AM,

Barbara Smiley wrote:
Councilors:
I am writing to voice my concerns about the rampant rise in vacation rentals in the Old
Bend neighborhood, as well as many neighborhoods all over Bend. As a native Bend
resident I have seen many changes to our town, and have worked hard to maintain the
historic properties which were in jeopardy of going away. Luckily, we have historic
districts and designated landmarks that will at least to some extent make sure the soul of
this community remains.
But the recent uncontrolled ability for anyone to buy a property and flip it into a vacation
rental is extremely disturbing. Along a five block stretch of Delaware Ave., where our
family lives, we know of at least six vacation rentals, and I would guess there are more.
Our neighbors to the north on Florida, Georgia and Lava have it much worse, with many
more vacation rentals. The historic districts seem to be especially attractive for these
rental owners, for the quaint feel and accessibility to the downtown cores. Many of my
neighbors and friends are experiencing the downside, with parking problems, loud
parties, traffic and entitled attitudes from the visitors. After all, they probably paid plenty
to rent those places for a couple of nights. Long-time residents are finding they have no
neighbors, and some are surrounded by vacation rentals.
Attachment "A"
Page 20
Please do whatever it takes to find a good solution to this problem. Since Bend has
changed from the sleepy mill town I grew up in, to a vacation/recreation mecca, I
understand that an all out ban would be difficult. I urge you to implement a quota at the
very least, which has been done with success in other cities. The permit process should
be specific and complete, involving neighborhood input and subject to renewal.
Violations must be subject to penalty. Owner occupation for 6-9 months could severely
limit the neighborhood transient chaos. We have been told by VR owners near our
house that they were fixing the place up so they could live there, only to see a sign in the
yard for a VR the minute the work was done. Disappointing, but speaks to the runaway
train this VR mess is becoming.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions you might have, but know that the
livability of our town is at stake, especially for the residents who, like us, have worked
hard to preserve the heart and soul of the neighborhood, for the future.
sincerely,
Barbara Smiley
NW Delaware Ave.
:HPRYHGKHUHVHYHQ\HDUVDJRIURP6DQ'LHJRDQGUHQWDOVZHUHPRUH
DIIRUGDEOHEXWVWLOOTXLWHKLJKEDVHGRQWKHMREPDUNHWDYDLODEOHKHUHLQ%HQG
7KHUHFHVVLRQKLWDQGZHDOONQRZWKHFRQVHTXHQFHVRIWKRVH\HDUV%XWULJKW
QRZWKHJUHHGIURPWKHRXWRIVWDWHDQGRXWRIWRZQODQGORUGVIRUYDFDWLRQ
UHQWDOVLVRXWUDJHRXV,DJUHHZLWKSXWWLQJWKHEUDNHVRQDQGPDNLQJVXUHZH
NHHS%HQGDFRPPXQLW\RIOLNHPLQGHGSHRSOHZKRDUHKHUHIRUWKHORQJ
UXQ1RWMXVWDYDFDWLRQ7KHUHDUHSOHQW\RIKRWHOVDQGPRWHOVIRUWKH
YDFDWLRQHUVWRHQMR\DQGNHHSWKHKRXVLQJIRUWKHSHRSOHZKROLYHDQGZRUN
KHUH
/DXUHO.QLJKW
<HVWKLVLVULGLFXORXV,ORYH%HQGEXW,IHHOOLNHLWVRQDSDWKRI
RYHUFRQVXPSWLRQ%HQGGRHVQRWNQRZPRGHUDWLRQ :HDOOZHDUWKH
Attachment "A"
Page 21
VXVWDLQDELOLW\VWLFNHUEXW%HQGDVDZKROHNQRZVQRVXFKWKLQJ7RRPDQ\
EUHZHULHVWRRPDQ\YDFDWLRQUHQWDOVWRRPXFKWRRPXFK
+DQN+LOO
,W
VXQVHWWOLQJQHYHUNQRZLQJZKR\RXUQHLJKERULVJRLQJWREHHDFKZHHN
<RXKRSHLW
VJRLQJWREHDUHVSRQVLEOHVSRUWVWRXULVWEXWZKHQWKH/HV
6FKZDELVKRVWLQJDFRQFHUW\RX
QHLJKERU
VHHPVWRPDJLFDOO\WXUQLQWRD
)UDWHUQLW\KRXVHRYHUVWXIIHGZLWKREQR[LRXVSDUWLHUVZKRFDUHOLWWOHDERXWWKLV
JUHDWWRZQZHFDOOKRPH
-D\VRQ%RZHUPDQ
2XWKDQGIRUVXUH,WKDVSXWWKHUHQWDOPDUNHWDWVXFKDKLJKGHPDQGQRZ
UHQWDOSULFHVDUHRXWRIKDQG%UHDNRXWWKHKDPPHU
*UHJRU\&*DUUHWVRQ
/DXUHOUHVSRQVHWR\RXUYDFDWLRQUHQWDOV\RXDUHULJKW7KLVLV
ULGLFXORXV,KDGNQRZLGHDLWZDVWKLVEDG1RWRQO\GRHVLWOHDYHIRONV
ZDQWLQJWREHLQWKHUHQWDOPDUNHWRXWRIWKHJDPHEXWLWGULYHVXS
SULFHVIRUHYHU\RQHERWKUHQWDODQGIRUVDOH$QGWKLVPDQ\YDFDWLRQ
UHQWDOVGHVWUR\VQHLJKERUKRRGV7KHLGHDRIHYHQWXDOO\OLYLQJLQDOLWWOH
ZHVWVLGHKLSSLHKRXVHRQFH,
PDQHPSW\QHVWHULVYHU\DSSHDOLQJEXW
WKHSULFHSHUVTXDUHIRRWLVDEVXUG,KDYHDIULHQGZKRKDVD95%2RQ
Attachment "A"
Page 22
8QLRQDQGFOHDUHGLQMXVWRQHPRQWK,WVQRZRQGHUWKH\GRVR
ZHOOEXWLWLVVFUHZLQJWKHORFDOV
-HQQ\0RRQ
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 8:55 PM, EW Ballinger wrote:

Thanks for the communication.
Attachment "A"
Page 23
for the Thursday meeting. If i cannot make it, it is not from a lack of
interest in the topic. I want the advisory board [VR task force] to know that
our house here on the corner of Kingston and Union (1109 NW Kingston
Ave.) has a total of 5 immediate residences that are being utilized as
vacation rentals. Out of the lots that span our triangle block, 7 are
permanent residences owner occupied (one of those is an AirBNB), 4 are
roughly a third of the
immediate residences are being utilized as a vacation
rental! Interesting and sad to break it down. It is enough that we are
considering moving.
residential designation. We have two schools (Kingston and Kenwood)
so close to all of this as well.
latest from our immediate block.
best regards,
Eric Ballinger
Santa Barbara Independent August 30, 2014

http://www.independent.com/news/2014/aug/30/gorilla-vacation-rental/
The Gorilla in the Vacation Rental

A Neighborhood Battles to Regain Peace and Quiet
Saturday, August 30, 2014

BY VIC COX (CONTACT)
How should the people of Goleta define a two-story, four-bedroom fully furnished house packed with
amenities, as its owner advertises, that sleeps 12, has a five-hole putting green, lighted Ping-Pong
table, and basketball court?
The city staff labels such a business a short-term vacation rental. Its owner, Bob Bullemer, has a
business license and pays a transient occupancy tax. However, residents next to 830 Serenidad Place,
which rents to apparently almost anyone with $800 for a night (or $3,000 for a week), call it a hotel
and an ongoing nuisance.
Some think it signals a potential threat to the tranquility of all of Goletas neighborhoods because of
sections in a draft rental ordinance wending through the citys legal process.
North of Cathedral Oaks, the parallel cul-de-sacs of Serenidad and Santa Marguerita places are packed
cheek by jowl with single-family residences. The longtime owners I talked to uniformly describe their
homes as refuges from work and life stresses, and these streets as former bastions of peace, quiet,
and neighborliness.
That changed when Bullemer spent months in 2010 remodeling his property, where he said he had
lived and worked the prior 18 years. He enlarged the house to around 3,900 square feet, placing the
complex of amenities behind a curtain of trees, now 25 feet tall, and rented to large parties looking
for private weekends. Initially described online as a Santa Barbara party house, the phrase was
subsequently dropped, neighbors report.
A series of complaints about trash on peoples lawns, loud parties, booze, basketball at all hours, bad
language, renters cars blocking mail delivery and regular traffic, and more began in late 2010, recalled
Bullemer. Santa Marguerita resident Bob Freeman said that he and two Serenidad neighbors, Kathy
Wolfe and Nadir Dagli, tried in vain to talk with Bullemer before taking their complaints to City Hall in
late 2011.
When the citys response proved unsatisfactory, in 2012 the affected neighbors, who repeatedly called
the Sheriffs Office for violations of their peace and quiet, went to Mayor Ed Easton and the City
Council. The resulting changes strengthened the noise and disturbing the peace section of the
Municipal Code but focused on nighttime amplified noise. In the end, they were ineffective in
controlling some renters rowdy behavior.
It is a multifaceted problem, explains Reverend Brian Cox, a professional mediator (no relation to the
author), a clash of two very different lifestyles. There was disrespect for the neighbors permanently
living around them. Twice, he notes, uninvited, inebriated renters have barged into residents homes.
City staff provided a partial picture last May when 830 Serenidad again topped the councils agenda:
Sheriffs deputies responded to complaints about this rental 23 times between October 26, 2012, and
April 5, 2014. During this period, three misdemeanor citations for disturbing the peace were issued as
well as six reports written. Since April, deputies have visited more times, including the weekend before
this column was written.
The current mayor, Michael Bennett, blamed Bullemer for years of conflict stemming from this one
property. We have hundreds of vacation rentals in the city, and we havent heard complaints about
any of them because they screen their renters, he told Bullemer. Its despicable.
Petitions signed by some 40 residents were also presented to council in May. They suggested banning
all short-term vacation rentals in residential zones.
The council supported mediation between the neighbors and Bullemer, and the city agreed to pay for a
neutral professional mediator. The council, led by Councilmember Jim Farr, also asked staff to again
tackle these rentals in the Municipal Code.
Bullemer disputes the legitimacy of the majority of complaints. Typically, the police get a call, go out
to the property, and dont hear any noise, he said in an interview. They talk to the renters, and the
renters tell me the police were there.
This complaint procedure is flawed, the rental owner contends, because complaints are logged, but no
one judges if they have merit. Its one-sided, he says.
Since 2013 Bullemer has notified renters to keep the outdoor noise down or face forfeiture of their
$500 damage deposit if deputies issue a citation. Other warnings are included inside the house and in
the welcome letter he sends to renters.
These measures have been helpful, he says, adding that there have been no new citations since
instituting them.
An email to Goletas police chief, Sheriff Lt. Butch Arnoldi, to check these assertions went unanswered.
Kathy Wolfe was skeptical of Bullemers claims. He doesnt take responsibility for his renters
actions, she said, adding, He goes out of his way to not be part of this community.
At this point, the mediation seems to have hit an impasse. UCSBEngineering Professor Nadir Dagli and
Brian Cox represent the neighborhood in the closed talks attended by Bullemer, his attorney, and an
outside mediator. Dagli says the citys draft ordinance Short-Term Vacation Rentals is the cause. It
cuts the legs out from under us and seems like the city is taking sides, he asserts.
Cox calls the draft ordinance problematic at least and says it deals with the symptoms [like noise]
and not the problem. The problem is having transient vacation rentals in the middle of R-1
residential [zones].
The draft ordinance Short-Term Vacation Rentals, proposed by the Finance Department and City
Attorneys Office, is the first to address home rentals since Goleta incorporated. It defines a legal shortterm vacation rental as not more than 30 consecutive days in a dwelling unit not part of a hotel. This
draft does not define hotel, which is what Bullemers rental is, the neighbors argue.
The proposed limit of two people per rental, plus two per bedroom, would allow 10 renters to legally
overnight at 830 Serenidad Place, and that can change. The city permit administrator could expand the
number without a public hearing. No appeal process is mentioned.
Other requirements include a bond of $1,500, a nuisance response plan to push owners to persuade
renters to voluntarily observe neighborhood quiet hours, a ban on illegal loud parties, and a time
limit for owners responses to complaints and for corrective action against repeated misconduct.
Sitting alongside the obvious enforcement questions is the gorilla in the rental: Would legalizing all
manner of short-term vacation rentals threaten R-1 residential zones? Nadir Dagli thinks so. He told
the citys Ordinance Committee on August 7, This [proposed] ordinance basically legalizes the current
problems we are having [with 830 Serenidad] [and turns it into] a citywide problem.
Goleta can do better than to undermine R-1 zoning. Other ways must be found to balance short-term
vacation rentals with residential peace and quiet than that in the draft ordinance. The Serenidad
neighbors have some thoughtful suggestions. As Dagli says, We have firsthand experience on how
these things go.
Vic Cox grew up in Santa Barbara and, with his wife, has lived in Goleta for the past 30 years.

CQG - Isnd Short-Term-Rental Comments Attachments 10-6-15

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CQG - Isnd Short-Term-Rental Comments Attachments 10-6-15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Citizens for Quality Growth

A non-profit, public benefit organization

101 E. Alma Street, Suite 100-A

Harm single-family residential neighborhood character ................................2

CQG to Mt. Shasta City Council

Source: Press release from Save San Diego Neighborhoods;

CQG to Mt. Shasta City Council

CQG to Mt. Shasta City Council

Example of comment by Janet Shelton, July 19, 2015:

of their residential neighborhoods. The underlying rationale is that short-term home

Municipal Code section 18.08.320 Downtown.

In order to protect residential neighborhoods against traffic generation, the Citys

CQG to Mt. Shasta City Council

CQG to Mt. Shasta City Council

See IS/ND, p. 22, item XIII(c).

CQG to Mt. Shasta City Council

CQG to Mt. Shasta City Council

Ordinance CCO-97-02 that allowing short-term rentals .. creates potential parking

CQG to Mt. Shasta City Council

CQG to Mt. Shasta City Council

3. Will Rental Activities Create Temporary Increases in Existing Noise Levels?

CQG to Mt. Shasta City Council

CQG to Mt. Shasta City Council

On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 6:09 PM,

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:30 PM,

On Jul 27, 2014, at 7:33 AM,

"Lauren Buccola" wrote:

From: Ulla Lundgren

Please save the quality of life on the westside.

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM,

but I did want to voice my

Thank you for your thoughtfulness on this subject,

We are on Portland avenue and are literally surrounded by vacation

Christine Barnes wrote:

Glenda Mackie from West Hills said:

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:32 AM, wrote:

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Kacey Taylor wrote:

We stand by you all in wanting to protect our neighborhood!

Kacey & Ryan Taylor

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:27 AM, t r wrote:

Gary & Terry Reynolds

On Jul 13, 2014, at 11:21 AM, "Bob Griffin" wrote:

Ashland zoning code:

IN REPLY TO "HOTEL, MOTEL, NEIGHBORHOOD INN" (8/6)

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 8:50 PM,

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:02 AM,

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 1:00 PM,

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:00 AM,

On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 11:57 AM,

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:22 AM,

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 8:55 PM, EW Ballinger wrote:

Santa Barbara Independent August 30, 2014

The Gorilla in the Vacation Rental

Saturday, August 30, 2014

You might also like