1

Vernice Hankins

From: Richard Thaler <richardtthaler@gmail.com>Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 7:41 AMTo: councilmtgitemsSubject: August 27 Agenda Item

To Mayor and City Council: I  urge Council members to approve Councilmember Winterer’s request at the August 27th Council meeting that the Council direct staff to propose revisions to strengthen our home sharing ordinance. A home on Adelaide Place was recently bought and turned into a 36 bed ‘hotel’ by using loopholes in the current home sharing laws to create a business in a residential area.This was not the intent of the home sharing ordinance. If these loopholes aren’t closed we will see more of these springing up in our neighborhoods and damaging the quality of life for residents.   Sincerely, Richard Thaler     

Item 13-B 08/27/19

1 of 8 Item 13-B 08/27/19

1

Vernice Hankins

From: Rhona Wacht <rhonawacht@me.com>Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 5:51 PMTo: councilmtgitemsSubject: Home sharing ordinances

Please support revisions to strengthen home‐sharing ordinances in residential areas. Thank you Rhona Wacht 310 18th St. 

Item 13-B 08/27/19

2 of 8 Item 13-B 08/27/19

1

Vernice Hankins

From: Katie Woods <ozekate@hotmail.com>Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 1:59 PMTo: councilmtgitemsSubject: Airbnb

To Mayor and Councilmembers: I urge you to consider Councilmember Winterer's proposal to Council to strengthen the City's current ordinance on home sharing.The City of Los Angeles adopted a  much stricter ordinance after 3 years of study which allows only one rental at a time something that Santa Monica should be doing‐this would eliminate the problem that the residents on Adelaide Place are experiencing with the Airbnb "hostel/hotel"  allowing up to 16 guests (authorised by the City) but really having up to 32 guests per night (per hosts Airbnb listing) Thank you for your consideration  Katie Woods (resident of Adelaide Place)  Get Outlook for Android 

Item 13-B 08/27/19

3 of 8 Item 13-B 08/27/19

1

Vernice Hankins

From: George Preonas <gpreonas@gmail.com>Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 5:57 PMTo: councilmtgitemsSubject: Item 13-B. Motion to strengthen home sharing ordinance

Dear Council Members,  I whole heartedly support the motion of Council Member Winterer to have the city staff prepare amendments to the home sharing ordinance.     As I have previously written to you, the single family residence next door to me has been converted into a hostel.   The “host” has listed the availability of up to 35 beds in three or four modestly sized shared bedrooms.  To accomplish this he has installed 16 double (two persons per mattress) bunk beds.  The photos posted on Airbnb show this travesty.  I first learned of this about two months ago and downloaded the City’s ordinance.  I was surprised to see that there was no limit on the number of transient guests.   The ordinance would not prohibit even 100 guests per night.  Coincidentally, there were articles about the Los Angeles ordinance which went into effect on July 1 and I read that ordinance.  It has many features that are superior to the Santa Monica Ordinance.   I applaud the City for enacting the current ordinance, which was a pioneering effort to preserve housing for our residents and the character of our neighborhoods.  But as Council Member Winterer explains in his motion, regulating these internet companies which are intent on disrupting and ignoring local concerns has a “whack a mole” reality.  Nothing will stop them (nor characters such as the “host” next door who brags on his advertisement that he operates a home sharing business with several other properties, including at least one other in Santa Monica) from exploiting weak regulations or weak enforcement.   As with the scooter companies and their customers, if the law is easy to be ignored it will be.  Features of the Los Angeles City ordinance that should be considered include these restrictions on the “hosts":     “No Host shall engage in Home‐Sharing for more than 120 days . . .”   “Accessory Dwelling Units . . . may not be used for Home‐Sharing”   “A Host may not rent all or a portion of his Residence for the purposes of Home‐Sharing to more than one group of guests or under more than one booking at any given time.”   “No more than 2 overnight guests (not including children) are allowed per habitable room . . .”  The Los Angeles Ordinance includes additional responsibilities on the “Hosting Platforms” which will assist in curtailing cheating:    “Hosting Platforms shall not process or complete any Booking Service transaction to any Person [who does not have] a valid license.   “Hosting Platforms shall not process or complete any Booking Service transaction for any Host listing that has exceeded the authorized 120‐day limit . . . "   “a Hosting Platform shall provide . . .monthly . . . [detailed information about all listings in the city] . . . and for each booking that occurs the number of days booked.”  The Los Angeles ordinance has significantly larger penalties on both the Host and the Booking Platforms:    For the Hosting Platform, a fine of $1,000 per day when the booking limitations are exceeded   For the Host, “a daily fine of $2,000 for each day of Home‐Sharing activity beyond the 120 day limit.              

Item 13-B 08/27/19

4 of 8 Item 13-B 08/27/19

2

The Los Angeles ordinance clearly requires that the host be the “Primary Resident” i.e., “the sole residence from which the Host conducts Home‐Sharing and in which the Host resides for more than 6 months of the calendar year.”  The Santa Monica ordinance has no similar requirement.   Indeed, the Santa Monica “host” need not even be a natural person.  A review of the published Home Share Registry includes the following licensees:  “North of Montana Investments,” “KB Investment Properties,” “Santa Monica Beach Bungalow,” “Private Luxury Guest House,” “Roman Entertainment & Management Group,”  “Gourmet Lush, LLC,” “Last Hurrah LLC,” "AirBnB‐Real Santa Monica” and many more similar licenses.   Needless to say, an LLC cannot be the “primary resident” seeking a little help to pay his or her rent.  Finally, it appears to me that neither the Santa Monica ordinance nor the LA ordinance adequately clarifies the requirement for obtaining a license.   Whether or not the ordinance includes this (or the additional regulations), it seems plain to me that the process in Santa Monica has been woefully inadequate in several respects:  There appears to be no independent verification of the representation on the application.  For the home next door to me the applicant claims five bedrooms, which may be untrue.   Red flags appear to be ignored.  Here, there were at least two separate applications, one stating up to 10 guests, the next up to 16 guests.  the applicants list themselves as “manager” and “managing agent.”   How can one “manager" with 16 guests be a legitimate home‐share?    Even more troubling is that the license that was granted was granted while an investigation was underway and after the City was on notice that the applicant was advertising that he was operating an Airbnb business with several other properties.  And that he was soliciting up to 35 guests per night (not 10 or 15).    These should have been red flags that prevented the issuance of a license.       I’ve lived in Santa Monica for 45 years and raised my family here.  Let’s not turn this City into nothing more than a playground for tourists.  Let’s preserve and strengthen our neighborhoods.  Please give every consideration to these suggestions.         

Item 13-B 08/27/19

5 of 8 Item 13-B 08/27/19

1

Vernice Hankins

From: Clerk MailboxSent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 9:15 AMTo: councilmtgitemsSubject: FW: Proposal to limit home sharing

  

From: anitar930@gmail.com <anitar930@gmail.com>  Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 4:03 PM To: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Proposal to limit home sharing  I support Councilman Winterer’s proposal to limit home sharing to one owner/building who is on site at all times.  Anita Sobol 1115 19th St #9 SM90403 

Item 13-B 08/27/19

6 of 8 Item 13-B 08/27/19

1

Vernice Hankins

From: Gerry Schwartz <gschwartz@theteamcompanies.com>Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 9:43 AMTo: councilmtgitemsCc: Bella Demery; john demery; Paula Kayton; monique debose; Richard Thaler; Salim; JOhn shelly

Demery; Brenda Schwartz; Gerry Schwartz; Karen Cove; Patricia Daugherty; Katie Woods; gpreonas@gmail.com

Subject: Item 13-B. Motion to strengthen home sharing ordinance

Dear Council Members: My wife and I are also adding our voice of dissatisfaction to the granting of a business license to 710 Adelaide Place. While there are many issues involved and to be considered, I am astounded that a license was even originally approved. The absurdity of a “home” being marketed with the potential of 32 nightly guests is beyond question, but I also beg the question how was 16 beds approved in the first place? What kind of inspector reviewed this license and agreed that 16 beds is not a boutique hotel in a residentially zoned area? This whole situation could have been avoided if the City had done its job in the first place. Now we are mired in the “investigation” role. Our once quiet and serene street already has a parking problem. Years ago when Adelaide Drive was granted Permit Parking, Adelaide Place should have been granted the same right. Instead, the runners and other workout people that use the stairs park on Adelaide Place due to no restrictions. Now we also have the transient crowd of Airbnb adding to the already overcrowding. Add the garbage, cigarette butts and the scooters/bikes strewn all over, the City has created a very unsettling problem. Our neighbor. George Preonas has written several letters to both the City and Council outlining all of the perceived laws and ordinances that have been broken and still the feet dragging goes on. Does not a street full of voting constituents have as much rights as one absentee owner? What rights do we have as tax paying citizens of Santa Monica? The City is hiding behind the response of that they are investigating the situation. How long does that take, this should be a slam dunk?  

Brenda & Gerry Schwartz 726 Adelaide Place Santa Monica CA 90402 310.704.6151 cell  

Item 13-B 08/27/19

7 of 8 Item 13-B 08/27/19

1

Vernice Hankins

From: Karen Cove <kjcove@gmail.com>Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 11:03 AMTo: councilmtgitemsSubject: Item 13-B. Motion to strengthen home sharing ordinance.

 Dear Council Members,  I am writing in support of the motion of councilmember Winter to have the city staff prepare amendments to the home sharing ordinance.   I am unable to attend tonight‘s council meeting, but I feel  very strongly about this motion. I have lived on Adelaide place since the early 70s and enjoyed the serene and clean neighborhood.    The opening of this commercial hostel has now changed the  environment of our quiet residential street.  Trash, traffic, scooters and  bikes tossed around on the sidewalk,  ride sharing pick ups and drop offs all day long, and less parking, have all been documented.  Please fix all of the loopholes of the law and return our neighborhood  to what R1 zoning is actually meant to achieve.    Thank you very much, Karen Cove 739 Adelaide Pl., Santa Monica 90402  

Item 13-B 08/27/19

8 of 8 Item 13-B 08/27/19

1

Vernice Hankins

From: Paula Kayton <pekayton@gmail.com>Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 4:03 PMTo: councilmtgitemsSubject: Item 13-B. Motion to strengthen home sharing ordinance

Dear Council Members:  Please strengthen the home sharing ordinance.  I am adding my objection to 710 Adelaide Place being run as a hostel/hotel to the other complaints by my neighbors on the street.  Why was this property given a license?  Why is a hostel/hotel being permitted in an R1 neighborhood?  Does the city allow rooms to be rented to 16 people sharing one room?  The city of Los Angeles has enacted rules for this kind of facility and Santa Monica needs to do the same.  Permits need to have restrictions and be enforced.  Please do not permit hostel/hotels in a residential neighborhood.  This is a commercial business and needs to be in an area zoned for that purpose.  We, on Adelaide Place, look forward to having this property restored to the requirements of  its original R1 zoning restrictions.  Paula Kayton 722 Adelaide Place Santa Monica, CA 90402                

1

Vernice Hankins

From: Salim Adaya <salim@adayagroup.com>Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 4:46 PMTo: Gerry Schwartz; councilmtgitemsCc: Bella Demery; john demery; Paula Kayton; monique debose; Richard Thaler; JOhn shelly Demery;

Brenda Schwartz; Karen Cove; Patricia Daugherty; Katie Woods; gpreonas@gmail.comSubject: Re: Item 13-B. Motion to strengthen home sharing ordinance

I commend George for his ongoing efforts to get the lodging/hotel closed.  I believe we should all petition the city to also give us the same parking privileges/restrictions as Adelaide Drive.  Yasmin & Salim Adaya 808 Adelaide Place  From: Gerry Schwartz <gschwartz@theteamcompanies.com> Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 09:43 To: "councilmtgitems@smgov.net" <councilmtgitems@smgov.net> Cc: Bella Demery <bellademery@gmail.com>, john demery <jademery@gmail.com>, Paula Kayton <pekayton@gmail.com>, monique debose <monique.deBose@gmail.com>, Richard Thaler <richardtthaler@gmail.com>, "Salim Adaya, Karachi" <salim@adayagroup.com>, JOhn shelly Demery <sdemery@danskig.com>, Brenda Schwartz <brenschwartz@earthlink.com>, Gerry Schwartz <gschwartz@theteamcompanies.com>, Karen Cove <kjcove@gmail.com>, Patricia Daugherty <patricia@sdrinfosystems.com>, Katie Woods <ozekate@hotmail.com>, "gpreonas@gmail.com" <gpreonas@gmail.com> Subject: Item 13‐B. Motion to strengthen home sharing ordinance  

Dear Council Members:   My wife and I are also adding our voice of dissatisfaction to the granting of a business license to 710 Adelaide Place. While there are many issues involved and to be considered, I am astounded that a

2

license was even originally approved. The absurdity of a “home” being marketed with the potential of 32 nightly guests is beyond question, but I also beg the question how was 16 beds approved in the first place? What kind of inspector reviewed this license and agreed that 16 beds is not a boutique hotel in a residentially zoned area? This whole situation could have been avoided if the City had done its job in the first place. Now we are mired in the “investigation” role.   Our once quiet and serene street already has a parking problem. Years ago when Adelaide Drive was granted Permit Parking, Adelaide Place should have been granted the same right. Instead, the runners and other workout people that use the stairs park on Adelaide Place due to no restrictions. Now we also have the transient crowd of Airbnb adding to the already overcrowding. Add the garbage, cigarette butts and the scooters/bikes strewn all over, the City has created a very unsettling problem.   Our neighbor. George Preonas has written several letters to both the City and Council outlining all of the perceived laws and ordinances that have been broken and still the feet dragging goes on. Does not a street full of voting constituents have as much rights as one absentee owner? What rights do we have as tax paying citizens of Santa Monica?   The City is hiding behind the response of that they are investigating the situation. How long does that take, this should be a slam dunk?      

Brenda & Gerry Schwartz 726 Adelaide Place Santa Monica CA 90402   310.704.6151 cell