A divided Santa Barbara Planning Commission voted to advance a controversial short-term vacation rental ordinance to the City Council without resolving several key provisions.
Even commissioners supporting moving the proposed law forward in the 4-2 vote expressed regret that it departs unfinished after hearing a raft of concerns from short-term rental supporters. But city staff laid out a schedule that means the measure—about a decade in the making—will have to land before the City Council for approval by May.
Sticking to that schedule instead of working out some of the rough spots in the measure irked some of those who attended the three-hour hearing.
“It was obvious during deliberations that none of the commissioners were comfortable with the ordinance as presented,” said Jarrett Gorin of consulting firm Vanguard Planning in an interview afterward. “They forwarded it after being pressured by the city attorney.”
The proposed ordinance is aimed at regulating homes and units rented to vacationers and others for less than 30 days, such as those offered through Airbnb. The issue has surfaced in many cities with tourism appeal.
The new rules would specify what areas that short-term rentals are allowed. They impose requirements aimed at minimizing the impact on neighborhoods.
The new rules would also cover “home shares” in which homeowners rent rooms to paying guests.
The discussion Thursday lasted about three hours and it didn’t take long the for the commission to uncover trouble when it came to specifics. Commissioners wrestled with proposed solutions, but ultimately decided to let staff to try to iron out the remaining issues as the measure goes to its next stop, the Ordinance Committee.
In the end, Chair Lucille Boss proposed moving the proposal forward with a list of issues still left up in the air. They include whether to allow waivers for the number of type of required on-site parking spaces at a property, impact on city revenue from transient occupancy taxes, how to make sure landlords pay those fees, various enforcement details, what method would be used to make sure rentals don’t oversaturate any particular area and how to bring unpermitted short-term rentals into compliance.
Further complicating the issue is that it had to be dealt with on two levels—one for inland areas and the other in the so-called coastal zone where the California Coastal Commission will have to sign off the city’s plan.
Boss was joined by commissioners Donald DeLuccio, Devon Wardlow and Leslie Wiscomb in supporting moving the proposal to the Ordinance Committee. Benjamin Peterson and John Baucke voted against, saying it should stay with the commission until agreement can be found on remaining issues.
Before the vote, trepidation and misgivings abounded on various aspects even among those who eventually supported it.
“We need more work done,” Wiscomb said.
“I’m a little uneasy in the direction that we’re going,” Wardlow said, later adding, “I want to ensure that if we’re doing this and we’ve taken 10 years to do this, let’s do it right.”
Their comments came after hearing from many landlords, property managers and others wary of the proposed new rules and a few residents who wanted it to pass.
Opponents worried the ordinance is written with such tough restrictions that ith could amount to de facto prohibition on short-term rentals. Gorin, for instance, told the commission that the measure continues to classify short-term rentals as commercial properties, which in in turn makes them subject to commercial, not residential, development standards. As such, “it’s effectively going to function as a ban.”
Other foes said short-term rentals would be put at a disadvantage compared to hotels.
Tiffany Haller, who runs a property management firm, displayed a photo of a hotel sign suggesting guests park their cars on the street if there aren’t enough spaces on hotel property. Yet the new short-term stay rules would require two parking spaces for every unit with three bedrooms or fewer.
She warned that many of the short-term rentals currently operating legally and paying taxes wouldn’t be able to meet provisions of the new law as currently written.
But the same time, a few residents pointed out why they believe the ordinance is needed. They said some short-term rental guests drive too fast through neighborhoods and party late into the night. Craig Leeds said he used to allow his 9-year-old granddaughter to walk to a friend’s house in his neighborhood, but now he escorts her “because it’s not safe with the short-term rentals there.”
He said guests hold karaoke parties until 2 a.m.—”it blasts through the windows”—and short-term have made his Yankee Farm/Braemar neighborhood “miserable.”
“I’ve lived here 50 years and I really don’t want to have to move just because of short-term rentals ruining my life,” Leeds said.
