COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 0463sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/BDSvData/non_legacy/... ·...

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 0463

PLANNING DEPARTMENT701 OCEAN STREET, 4TH FLOOR, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060

(831) 454-2580 FAX: (831) 454-2131 Too: (831) 454-2123KATHLEEN MOLLOY PREVISICH, PLANNING DIRECTOR

October 21,2010

Agenda Date: November 9, 2010

Board of Supervisors701 Ocean StreetSanta Cruz CA 95060

SUBJECT: SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED VACATION RENTAL ORDINANCE TOCONSIDER THE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO COUNTY CODE 13.10

Members of the Board:

On June 22, 2010, your Board directed the Planning Department to prepare an ordinance regulatingvacation rentals and to return to your Board with a recommended ordinance on today's agenda. YourBoard's direction included reviewing the ordinance with the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC).

There is widespread public interest in the proposed ordinance. Staff has presented the proposedordinance and received comments from the HAC at two public meetings so far. One more publicmeeting of the HAC is scheduled for November 3, at which time staff will present the HAC with a draftordinance in a form requested by the HAC. Subsequently, staff will take the proposed ordinance to thePlanning Commission. We anticipate that the item will be before the Planning Commission for a publichearing on November 10, 2010. Allowance for the Planning Commission needing two meetings tocomplete its recommendation is being made, with a special November 29th meeting being scheduled forthat purpose. Because of these multiple meetings, it is not possible to prepare a report with arecommendation for your Board's consideration on November 16.

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that your Board take the following actions:

1. Defer consideration of this item from November 16, 2010 to December 14, 2010;

2. Set a public hearing on the proposed ordinance on the Board of Supervisors' morning agenda of

December 14, 2010; and

3. Direct the Clerk of the Board to provide the appropriate public notice of the hearing.

Sinc:r"

la ¡J /lftAKATHY M. PREVISICHPlanning Director

~SUSAN A. MAURIELLOCounty Administrative Officer

~35

CBD BOSMAIL

From: [email protected]: Friday, November 05,201010:46 AM

To: CBO BOSMAIL

Subject: Agenda Comments

Meeting Date: 11/9/2010 Item Number: 35

Name: Nick Claiborne Email: Not Supplied

Address: pobox 1288s.c. ca 95061

Phone: Not Supplied

Comments:If you pass the long ordinance and limit guest visits to one per week i WILL lose my job. Please think of usall -we are all barely hanging on. Thanks, Nick

11/812010 oC;

CBD BOSMAIL

From: [email protected]: Friday, November 05, 2010 10:44 AM

To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name: Monica Bowman Email: [email protected]

Address: p.o.box 1288SC CA 95061

Phone : 831-818-2435

Comments:We are all very concerned about some of the details of the vacation rental ordinance. It seems if a hearingis needed a couple of bad neighbors could put several families out of their homes. please seriouslyconsider the shorter HAC version of the ordinance. Thank you.

111812010?J~

CBD BOSMAIL


To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name : Joyce Harrington Email: [email protected]

Address: 4355 Opal Cliff Dr.Santa Cruz, CA 95062

Phone: 775 230-0641

Comments:What you are trying to do is biased, undocumented, unsubstantiated and is at best illegaL.Your proposed CONTROLS of vacation rentals are OUT OF LINE.

11/8/2010 3)

CBD BOSMAIL

From: [email protected]: Friday, November 05, 2010 11 :52 AM

To: CBO BOSMAILSubject: Agenda Comments


Name: Shereen Benson Email: [email protected]

Address: Santa Cruz Phone: Not Supplied

Comments:Dear BOS,i hope you make a decision which is good for everyone involved. Even people who have no choice but torent their homes out to cover their mortgage & property expenses are part of our community & our friends.Please do NOT punish all these good people for a couple of bad apples! Punish the people who break thenoise ordinance, enforce that but don't take away local families livelihoods in a time ofRecession/Depression. We are blessed enough to have tourists who want to spend money supporting ourlocal community! Believe it or not there are neighbors who complain when there is Nothing to complainabout! Thank you.

111812010 ?5

CBD BOSMAIL


To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name: Sue Ginsberg Email: [email protected]

Address: Santa Cruz Phone : Not Supplied

Comments:Please stay away from the damaging 48 page ordinance! It is going to have a negative affect on so many ofour local families- although you mean to do only good and no harm this longer version has too manydamaging issues in it.Although i do not own a rental that I rent for vacationers; I am concerned for home owners who do have torent their homes out that you will put them out of their home if a neighbor has to vote on them getting theirpermit or not! This is not a power you should put in the public's hands as there are too many dynamicsbetween neighbors and people in general.Thank you.

11/8/2010

(~~)

CBD BOSMAIL


To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name: Heather Wilbur Email: [email protected]

Address: Santa Cruz, CA Phone: Not Supplied

Comments:Please consider how limiting property rights really will lower values. we are all struggling- well most of usanyway! we can't afford to lose more equity in our homes. We see so many local families struggle due tonot being able to refinance to lower rates. Born and raised here! Please be good to everyone in our countyincluding families who have to rent their homes out to cover the expenses.

11/8/2010 35

CBD BOSMAIL


To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name : Joseph Scola Email: [email protected]

Address: Not Supplied Phone: Not Supplied

Comments:I am strongly opposed to the proposed vacation rental ordinance. The ordinance is overreaching and willhave negative effects throughout the Santa Cruz County area.

Multiple organizations, business leaders, government bodies and voting citizens have expressed theiropposition to any restrictions placed upon vacation rentals. The Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors andPlanning Department cannot ignore the views of such a dynamic cross section of the community.

Further, there has been no substantiated studies, proof, investigation or surveys performed to justify any ofthe arguments put forth in support of a vacation rental ordinance. In fact, the only information put forth,regarding the ratio of vacation rental homes in the county, defeats the basis for the ordinance entirely.Thus, any ordinance ratified would be a reflection of a minority group's influence and opinion. Before anyadditional government regulation is approved, it would be prudent to perform some studies and provideproof and justification for such changes; especially in the face of sound opposition.

i urge you to reject the proposed vacation rental ordinance(s) before you.

1118/2010 3e5

CBD BOSMAIL


To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name: Warren Claiborne Email: [email protected]

Address: 218 Spreckels Dr.Aptos, CA 95076

Phone: Not Supplied

Comments:If you limit the guest visits to one per week my management services will no longer be needed as theowners will be able to manage the smaller numbers of visits themselves. I am trying to put my self throughcollege so please think of everyone in your county when chooseing which ordinance to choose from.

111812010 Jj

CBD BOSMAIL

From: [email protected]: Friday, November 05,201012:21 PM

To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name: Susan Bagby Email: Not Supplied


Comments:I know 2 families that will lose their homes if they are restricted to only renting their home once a week topeople coming to santa cruz for a vacation.

11181201035

CBD BOSMAIL

From: [email protected]: Friday, November 05, 2010 12:21 PM

To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name : Jessica Hakim Email: Not Supplied

Address: Santa Cruz, CA Phone: Not Supplied

Comments:Dear BOS,If you limit a family's right to rent their home to only one time per week so many people will suffer! If theowner was living there they still come and go every day! This is not right. Thank you for your time.

11/8/2010 )')

CBD BOSMAIL


To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name: Jon Bristol Email: Not Supplied


Comments:restricting property rights always lowers property values! it's orange county all over again!

111812010

~~J

CBD BOSMAIL


To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name: Anna Frazer Email: Not Supplied


Comments:Dear BOS:Limiting families ability to rent their home only once a week will burden so many families I know financially.

111812010 3~

CBD BOSMAIL


To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name: Donald Carroll Email: [email protected]

Address: Soquel CA Phone: Not Supplied

Comments:Dear BOS,I urge you to choose a fair ordinance which does not burden our local community members any more thanthey already are. We all know lots of good people who need to rent their homes out due to this economy tosupport themselves. The families i know who rent their homes are all wonderful, kind & considerate people.Please do not limit their incomes and property rights. This wil negatively affect us and our local businessesand home owners. Thank you for your time. Don Carroll

1118/2010 r;

CBD BOSMAIL

From: [email protected]: Saturday, November 06,20102:48 PM

To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name: Laura Bishop Email: [email protected]

Address: 351 Danube DriveAptos, CA 95003

Phone : 831-331-9964

Comments:Regarding the proposal to regulate vacation rentals in Santa Cruz. This proposal has the potential todestroy the Santa Cruz economy during one of the worst economic times this country has experienced.Santa Cruz is known for its desirable beach locale which attracts tourism supported by vacation rentals.Many families and groups look at this area as a vacation getaway without having to travel great distances.As such, many people choose to visit for weekends or short periods of time. To place a regulation on the"minimum time" allowed to rent a "vacation home" would eliminate a large portion of the public that enjoyvisiting the area for 2-4 days at a time. This will discourage travelers from visiting which will then trickledown to a loss of income for businesses in the area that cater to these vacationers. It wil further result in aloss of demand and appeal for property in the area, hence more losses in values.

I. truly hope the Board of Supervisors has the foresite to realize the negative effects that will arise if thisproposal passes. They need to remember what makes this City and County so appealing. Vacation rentals(short term as well as long term) have a significant affect on our economic base. To place regulations woulddestroy a large source of income for this county. We have already lost some of our largest retailers duringthese hard economic times. If we loose tourism, all that is left is agriculture.

11/8/2010 !§

CBD BOSMAIL


To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name: Tammy McBride Email: Not Supplied

Address: Capitola,CA Phone : Not Supplied

Comments:Limiting and/or restricting the use of a property impacts the type of buyer for that property. Limiting use,equates to limiting potential buyers. Limiting buyers, means longer time on market and the longer time onmarket historically equates to reducing list prices and declining markets.Tammy McBride, Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser

1118/2010 1°

CBD BOSMAIL


To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name: Sara S Email: Not Supplied

Address: Los Angeles, CA Phone: Not Supplied

Comments:My children and grandchildren live in Santa Cruz. They are born and raised there. I believe they havehence been there substantially lager than Mr. John Leopold who moved there from out of state. Ironic andsad how he gets to damage their income source in a Tourist town from all things isn't it! Will you beresponsible for the shortage they will now have to face due to once per week rental policy? Have youlooked deeply into other counties with such limitations. I have and I suggest you please do the same beforeyou make the same mistake they do. Several counties are now un-doing some of their restrictions toincreas tourism and funds to their communities. More government does not improve human behavior andnever has

11/8/2010 ?J5

CBD BOSMAIL


To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name: KB Email: Not Supplied

Address: Live Oak, CA Phone: Not Supplied

Comments:I had to move out of my home to rent it out so we could cover our expenses in such a bad economy. If youforce us to only rent our home one time per week you will hurt us financially. Please know we are veryconsiderate to our neighbors and neighborhood and we choose our wonderful guests very very carefully.We do not want trouble for us or for our neighbors. Limiting a rental to once per week does NOT guaranteea good tenant! It only guarantees more vacancy!

1118/2010 ?;~

CBD BOSMAIL


To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name: Martin Sallestra Email: Not Supplied

Address: Watsonville, CA Phone: Not Supplied

Comments:I have many homes that I do maintenance for which will not have the funds to hire me and my workers ifyou take away their right to rent their homes out as often as necessary. When a person lives in a home allthe time they are there all the time! So why should these homes have more empty days than another homewould? You can not act as if only local residents are good people and all others have lower standards!Please know you will negatively affect my income and my workers incomes.

11/812010

/?-G-

CBD BOSMAIL


To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name : Maria Hernandez Email: Not Supplied

Address: Live Oak, CA Phone: Not Supplied

Comments:Please keep in mind me and my staff of 6 wonderful ladies wil lose most of our income if you limit vacationrental home owners to only one rental per week. Most of the people we know both owners and guests aretruly considerate kind families. Please do not hurt us all financially. Several of us are single mothers andour income is the ONLY source of income for our families. Thank you.

111812010 ?/s

CBD BOSMAIL


To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name : Rachell Carroll Email: Not Supplied

Address: Soquel, CA Phone: Not Supplied

Comments:If you force families to only having one rental per week; I personally know people who will lose their homesbecause they can not come up with the funds to cover the mortgage taxes and insurance and upkeep ontheir homes. Vacation homes are also kept in much better condition than other hams as people have tokeep them in excellent condition to attract tourists. Thank you.Rachell

111812010 ?/5

CBD BOSMAIL


To: CBO BOSMAIL



Name: Giselle Burman Email: Not Supplied

Address: Aptos CA Phone: Not Supplied

Comments:If you actually limit families to only being able to rent their homes out once per week several of my lovelyneighbors will suffer financially. They are all good solid people in our community. Please think of what youare doing and it's repercussions. Thank you.

111812010 1:C;

B. Dennis HickeyP. O. Box 757

Boulder Creek, CA95006-0757

Sunday, September 26, 2010

The Honorable Tony Campo, Head SupervisorSanta Cruz County Board of Supervisors701 Ocean Street, Rm. 500Santa Cruz, CA95060

Re: Opposition to the Proposed Vacation Rental Control Ordinance

Dear Honorable Supervisor Campo:

Sir, I have reviewed the proposed legislation and I am appalled at the proposaL. It seems toexude the attitude of an il-conceived solution in search of an applicable problem. Please allowme to site a couple of examples.

PARKING: The proposed ordinance asserts that there is a parking problem, particularly on 14thStreet. Then it asserts that the appropriate solution is to institute a draconian, countyideparking code that precludes vacation rental guests from parking on the streets. First, andforemost, a solution should be appropriate to the problem it claims to solve. This aspect of

theordinance would mean that the vacation rental guest in Boulder Creek would not be able to usestreet parking so the vociferous few on 14th street can 'solve' their parking problem. A poorsolution!Further, is there such a problem? It seems apparent that the most common solution to aresidential parking problem is a Parking Permitting Program. Guess what? There is anoperational parking-permitting program in the Live Oak area that includes 14th Street. Thatprogram does not seem to recognize this drastic parking problem.The parking permitting program requires permitting only during the peak tourist season, andthen, only on weekends, and then only during mid-day hours. Further, there are kiosks providedto allow otherwise un-permitted car owners to buy day permits. If there is indeed a parkingproblem, tightening the permitting program seems a rational and focused solution. Vacationrental guests account for a rather small proportion (..20%) of the street parking. This 'problem,'and it's asserted solution, do not excuse this ordinance.

NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY: I am a retired engineer, Supervisor Campo, so I tend to bepragmatic. Again the issues are: 1) is there a significant problem; and, 2) is this an appropriatesolution? I have had a vacation rental in Santa Cruz County for about four (4) years. All myneighbors have my phone numbers and are frequently reminded by me that they should nothesitate to call should an issue arise. To a person, they say yes they would but there has neverbeen a problem. Most vacation rentals operate in such an intentionally created relationship withtheir neighbors. Why? Well many of us, if not most of us, are intending to retire into these samehomes and neighborhoods. (That is contingent, of course, on our being able to supplement the

3cS

B. Dennis HickeyP. O. Box 757

Boulder Creek, CA

95006-0757

Sunday, September 26, 2010

cost of ownership with rental income.) Believe me, Supervisor Compo, our neighborhoodinterests include but far exceed simple monetary interests.So, is there a problem? HERE'S A TYPICAL NEIGHBORHOOD OCCURANCES: Last weekend, myfamily was here, about 10 strong, for the Alzheimer's Memory Walk in APTOS. About 2AMSaturday morning, my adult daughter was awakened to barking dogs and a pungent odor. About5 AM she, et ai, were awakened again. This time they hear one neighbor dog-owner apologizeover the dim of two barking dogs, to another neighbor dog-owner explaining that he couldn'tbring his dog in because it had been skunk-sprayed. Neither neighbor dog-owner was abesmirched Vacation Rental Guests; they were permanent or second-home neighbors. Ifwe hadbeen significantly disturbed instead of being mildly am used, we'd have felt very confident intalking to them at the time or the next morning. We would not have sought legislative redress.Would you?

It is also noteworthy that, generally, those permanent residents may cause temporary orpermanent problems; vacation rental guests may cause temporary problems. Further, vacationrental guests are normally vetted; permanent residents are not.

I don't want to belabor the point, Supervisor Campo. I hope you wil find these two examples tobe appropriately demonstrative. This legislation, if enacted, wil go down as an example; andthat example wil reappear at the polls when that time comes. It is poorly conceived,disrespectful, heartlessly inconsiderate, and unworthy of your august body. Please simply dropthis legislation or assign staff to define valid issues and suggest appropriate remedies.

Thank you for your consideration, Sir.

Sincerely,

::~¿~408-887 -0483

?JS

of 1

Terry Dorsey

From: Susan Greene on behalf of John Leopold

Sent: Monday, September 27,20102:35 PM

To: Terry Dorsey

Subject: FW: Vacation Rental Nightmare on 20th

From: Michael & Deborah Simms (mailto:[email protected])

Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8: 13 AMTo: John Leopold

Cc: Steven Guiney

Subject: Vacation Rental Nightmare on 20th

Dear John and Steven,I was horrified by last night's meeting about vacation rental ordinance at Green Acres SchooL. The caliberof folks who spoke was scary. It appeared to be mob rule. Unfortunately, my husband had to beelsewhere, so i attended the meeting alone. The vacation rental owners and real estate agents wereallowed to clap long and loud for those opposed to the ordinance, but they booed and "ran off' the womanwho spoke for "my side" saying that it is a business, so let's regulate it as that. In my estimation, thecrowd was well over 98% opposed to the ordinance. One woman in the back of the room told me when Iwalked in that her side of the room was all vacation rental owners. How did she know that? Were theyindividually contacted and told to pack the room?

My observation was that no one wanted to compromise and talk about the individual points in theordinance. They were vicious, spiteful, and clearly untruthfuL. For example, Bob Bailey said "he has neverhad police or neighbor complaint about his (multiple) vacation rentals." Then he went on to say when they"do have a problem tenant" that tenant is not asked back. Uh? Say what? How does he know the tenantis a problem if he has NEVER had a complaint?

All we "normal" homeowners want is some regulation on this fast growing trend in our neighborhoods.Let's call it what it is: a for-profit business. If i want to open up a massage parlor next door to your home,wouldn't you want some oversight?

And as for why we don't call the police when the vacation rentals we are surrounded by make noise andcause parking issues? We don't want our stretched police force to have to respond to non-emergencieseither. So we keep our mouths shut and either leave ourselves for the summer (leave our home of 25years) OR spend our weekends running next door to tell vacationers to move their cars so emergencyvehicles can pass down our street. Oh, and "Hey, your toddler is hanging off the second story railing," I'dsuggest you get him down.

Please don't be swayed by a group motivated by easy money and self-interest. We aren't asking for thevacation rentals to go away, we are asking for reasonable regulation in line with Capitola and othermunicipalities who face the same problem. I would think the rational people would agree and welcomethis for their businesses.Deborah Simms

/3~

9/27/2010

of 1

Terry Dorsey

From: Susan Greene

Sent: Monday, September 27,20101 :50 PM

To: Terry Dorsey

Subject: FW: Vacation rental meeting

-----Original Message-----From: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 1:39 PMTo: Susan Greene

Subject: Vacation rental meeting

I am writing in support of all the working people with families in Santa Cruz County that were not represented at theTuesday night meeting. These are the people that are raising families and going off to work early every morning. Theyrepresent many more tax payers and voters than the property managers and real estate investors that flooded themeeting with their mainly financial concerns opposing the proposaL. If these working families had the time andorganizing opportunities to attend the meeting I am sure there would have been overwhelming support in favor of theproposals. I own two permanent rentals in Pleasure Point that are right next to a nightly rental property. My renters getup early to go to work every day and have to come home to different neighbors all the time. These people are there tovacation and may not worr about bothering the working people next door. Dogs are allowed and they are unfamiliarwith their new space and prone to barking at anyone who walks into my renter's back yard. The hot tub right next tothe property line is a serious source of noise that keeps my renters awake. The new proposals do not incur theexaggerated hardships that the property managers and real estate investors expressed at the meeting. People will stillcome to Santa Cruz and rent vacation homes. The local businesses wil not have to close down from lack ofvacationers. Children wil still be playing in the streets. It is reasonable to provide off street parking,to control thenumber of people per bedroom, to limit the turnover rate to one renter per week. These proposals will help outpermanent residents a lot more that they will harm the vacation rental business. Please continue to support them..........Gary Titchenal

3~

9/27/2010

of2

Terry Dorsey

From: Susan Greene

Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 1 :51 PM

To: Terry Dorsey

Subject: FW: Vacation Rental Ordinance

-----Original Message-----From: Ron Brost (mailto:[email protected])Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:14 PM

To: Susan Greene

Subject: Re: Vacation Rental Ordinance

The realtors controlled the meeting tonight. The commisioners did not have a clue how toconduct a productive meeting. There should have been an even balance of both sides of thediscussion for everyone to voice their concerns. It appears that Coonerty is not going to takea stand for the third district which many of the Harbor area residents attending tonight are in.Vacation rentals are dividing the neighborhoods. If the absentee owners can't afford to keeptheir second homes without making them motels then let them loose their properties toforeclosure. They are not part of our community. Other citys Carmel,Pacific Grove don't allowshort term rentals, yet they still survive,grocery stores, restaurants etc still stay in business. Ihope that tonight will not discourage those of us who go to work in the morning and comehome to the tourists who party all day and night without any thought to those of us who liveand work here everyday. Check out Judith Buck and her speech tonight. She rents out a 1bedroom in Pleasure Point that sleeps 10 she says with no complaints. Check with herimmediate neighbors about the loud partys,hot tubs noise late at night,cars parked inneighbors yards. Try to talk to her about the problems. She won't return calls, she hasemployees that try to turn the complaints back on the permanent residents. Her company "AGreat Place To Stay" is a scam. At 360 5th Ave last year she had an Amtrack Bus with 30students delivered. The bus was so big it could not negotiate the street and had to backdown from Murray at the harbor to get access to the Vacation rental. Then all the supportcars, motorcycles started to arrive for the 3 day stay. Car alarms, cell phone conversations inthe street by 30 unrelated people. This problem is being perpetuated by people without anyconcious. The realtors have a lot to loose. They have organized and shown tonight thatthey can overwhelm the comissioners. I hope there will be some support from John andEllen to save us from what looks like a useless battle.

Ron Brost, 20yr resident of 5th ave.

3~9/27/2010

of2

From: Susan Greene [email protected]::Cc: Susan Greene [email protected]::Sent: Fri, September 17, 20102:57:26 PMSubject: Vacation Rental Ordinance

You have asked to be kept informed about the development of the vacation rental ordinance. Following are upcoming dates ofscheduled public hearings:

September 21 - 6:30 pm Housing Advisory Commission - Green Acres Elementary School, 966 Bostwick Lane (can be accessed from7th Avenue between Soquel Avenue and Rodriguez Street)

October 27 - 9:00 am Planning Commission - Board Chambers, 701 Ocean Street, 5th Floor, Santa Cruz

November 16 - 9:00 am Board of Supervisors - Board Chambers, 701 Ocean Street, 5th Floor, Santa Cruz

It is expected a draft ordinance will be available on line by the end of today at:

http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz. ca. us/plan n i ng/plnmeeti ngs/ AS P /Display /ASPX/DisplayAgenda. aspx?MeetingDate=9/21/2010&MeetingType=6

We encourage you to get involved!

Susan Greene, AnalystSupervisor John Leopold701 Ocean St., Room 500Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) [email protected]çruz.ça.us

l9/27/2010

Terry Dorsey

From: Susan Greene

Sent: Monday, September 27,20101 :54 PM

To: Terry Dorsey

Subject: FW: development of a vacation rental ordinance

-----Original Message-----From: Ellen Wood (mailto:[email protected])Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 10:50 PM

To: Steven Guiney; Susan Greene; John Leopold

Cc:Subject: development of a vacation rental ordinance

To: Steven Guiney, Susan Greene and John Leopold, County of Santa Cruz

Pm: Ellen M. Wood, 357 - 13th Avenue, Santa Cruz, CA 95062

I am unable to attend the meeting on Tuesday, September 21,2010, at Green Acres School, but I'd like my concerns tobe addressed in my absence.

The ordinance to be discussed addresses concerns with the proliferation of vacation rentals in our neighborhoods. I'vebeen a property owner on 13th Avenuesince 1974. Since that time, I've seen many changes in our neighborhood(s) - not all beneficial to those of us who livein this great beach community.

Some kind of regulation is needed to preserve our neighborhoods. This is about BALANCE - if we don't haveregulation, all homes on a single street can convert to vacationrentals with no lirÌ1It to the amount of guests and cars allowed.

As you are aware, many of the older homes were built without garages. As vacation rentals took over what had beenprivate dwellngs, traffic, undue noise andparking problems ensued. I've noticed that MANY vacation renters in my neighborhood invite others to join them -either on a daily or weekend basis - thereby increasingthe need for parking and espeçially the noise levels.

We need off-street parking, a limit on the number of guests, a business license for owners of rental properties and amaximum number of vacation homes to be allowed in anyoneneighborhood. We also need someone - in eachl1~ighborhood- to whom we caii report (other than the sheriffs office,which is already overworked) about noise levelabatement when the situation gets out of hand. And we need a solution to our parking problems - especiallyduring "high season(s)."

My hope is that you will arrive at a good, workable solution to the problems as listed above.

Many thanks for your cooperation,

Sincerely,

3~Ellen M. Wood

9/27/2010

7" E: cHousing Advisory Commissionc/o Kathleen PrevisichPlanning DirectorPlannng DeparmentCounty of Santa Cruz701 Ocean Street, 4th FloorSanta Cruz, CA 95060

September 24, 2010

SUBJECT: Vacation Rental Ordinance

Dear Housing Advisory Commission:

I attended your September 21,2010 meeting at the Green Acres Elementary School toparicipate in the workshop on the Vacation Rental Ordinance. Quite franly I wasintimidated by the hostile and aggressive behavior of the "anti ordinance" members in theaudience toward anyone speaking in support of the ordinance and chose not to subjectmyself to their abuse by speaking at the meeting. I have never attended a publicworkshop where there was such lack of common couiiesy by the audience that wasallowed to continue by the Committee running the meeting. Therefore I am providing mycomments in writing for the public record on this issue.

The vacation rental industry was extremely effective in assembling a large turn out tooppose this draft ordinance, and in orchestrating a coordinated and united message. Theirmessage was based on scare tactics that the proposed ordinance would result in theelimination of the vacation rental industry, the widespread loss of propert because ofthe loss of the vacation rental income stream, plunm1eting housing prices, loss of countyrevenue and other cataclysmic consequencès. Unfortnately their assumed consequenceswere not based on the actual language of the draft ordinance, but on exaggeratedpredictions of misrepresented resultant consequences.

Of the many speakers who expressed their opposition to the ordinance, EVERY ONEclaimed the ordinance would eliminate their ability to use their property as a vacationrental. However, the draft ordinance grandfathers in every property that is cun'ently usedas a legitimate vacation rental and allows them to continue to be used as a vacation rental.Thus, the doomsday predictions that the ordinance would eliminate the vacation rentalindustry were unfounded and a misrepresentation of the contents of the draft ordinance.One speaker attempted to make this point during his presentation but was interruptedwith taunts from the audience that he had not read the draft ordinance correctly andactually shouted down by the audience before he could continue his comments. It wasnot clear to me why Kathy Previsich or Steven Guiney did not provide clarification onthis basic element at this rather ugly point on the public presentation of the workshop.This would have helped put in perspective the actuallanguage in the draft ordinance andthe misrepresentation that continued during most of the presentations.

r~~

Together with this claimed elimination of existing vacation rentals, was the claim ofsubstantial loss of the TOT revenue currently received. In fact if all existing vacationrental properties are grandfathered to continue, the TOT revenues may actually increase,since the staff report indicates that not all existing vacation rental properties may bepaying the required TOT. Thus, the proposed vacation rental ordinance might actuallyhelp wIth the County's current budget problems.

Nearly everyone of the speakers who expressed opposition to the ordinance claimed tohave never had a problem with their vacation renters or the vacation rentals in theirneighborhoods. It does seem that those vacation rentals that are locally managed, withcontact phone numbers available in the event of problems are following most of therequirements contained in the draft ordinance. Unfortunately, the problem vacationrental in our area does not follow these idyllic examples that were presented at theworkshop. This vacation rental has solicited corporate events, weddings and other megagroups (sleeps 17) thru on-line advertising, there is no local contact, they have notresponded to loud partying after the 10pm ordinance, and have shown no respect orconcern for the neighboring residents who have complained. The ShelTiff has had torespond on numerous occasions to loud noise after lOam and to a late night drunkendomestic argument in the middle of the street.

When the concerned residents raised the issues of this recently converted problematicvacation rental we were told that there was no County ordinance, restriction, orrequirements that could be used to stop or COlTect the problems. We were told the bestand only way to address the concerns was to pursue a vacation rental ordinance. Theclaim made by speakers at the workshop that all the necessary ordinances and restrictionalready existed and the County needs merely to enforce them, is apparently not true.

Everyone of the speakers who expressed opposition to the ordinance, claimed propeityrights that include the conversion of residential property into vacatIon rentals. I continueto lack the understanding of this right? How is it that a person can buy a residentialpropeity, and conveit its use to a commercial vacation rental that competes directly withthe highly regulated bed and breakfast and hotel/motel industry and not be subject to anyreview, code compliance, or limitations? Further, where is the property right of

the

property owner who is a resident, and who expects that his residence in an area zoned asresidential wil continue as a neighborhood community and not as a mixed usecommercial district.

One speaker expressed the concern that as the residential based is eroded by theconversion to vacation rentals it directly contributes to the loss of school em-ollment,community involvement, and quality of life. This apparently is not an issue of concern tomany vacation rental propert owners because they live elsewhere, presumably inresidential neighborhoods, and income stream is the utmost important issue.

Finally, as to the particular focus of the Housing Advisory Commission. Vacation rentalscommand rental rates of $3000 to $5000 per week, which far exceed the monthly rentalrates of longer term rentals. Thus, the growth of the vacation rental industry is removing

3~

longer term rental propert from the market. The vacation rental industry is targeting outof town tourist short term housing which does not serve the community's longer termresidential rentals needs.

I urge the Housing Advisory Commission to see thru the misrepresentations made by thevacation rental industry, and consider the actual language of the draft ordinance.

The Planng Deparment has been provided with the documentation of widespreadadoption of vacation rental ordinances in areas throughout California which are touristdestinations and not just in coastal areas. The components addressed by the draftordinance are similar to ordinances in Monterey County, San Luis Obispo County,Capitola, and many other Californa tourist communities. They include reasonablemeasures and reasonable limits that allow responsible property managers to continuetheir vacation rental business without the need for significant changes. These measureswill bring into line the irresponsible property owners and managers with guidelines andcompliance with existing codes and standards of common sense residential area behavior,and insure equal collection of the TOT revenue from the entire vacation rental industry.

We therefore request that you take action to move the proposed vacation rental ordinanceforward for further action by the Plannng Commission and Board of Supervisors.

Sincerely,

~Fred ThoitsLive Oak

cc: Board of SupervisorsJohn LeopoldEllen PirieNeal Coonerty

Mark Stone_Tony Campos

?JS

October 4,2010

Board of SupervisorsCounty of Santa Cruz701 Ocean StreetSanta Cruz, CA 95060

Re : Short term rentals

Board of Supervisors:

We purchased a rental duplex in Santa Cruz five (5) years ago. We have shortterm rentals during the summer season. We have paid a substantial amount inhotel taxes over the past five (5) years. In addition, each of our renterscontribute to the local economy in the form of dining out, entertainment andoverall tourist dollars.

In the event you pass a limitation on short term rentals we wil need to sell ourproperty.

Please consider the signifcant impact it would have on the local economy.

With appreciation,.~~S;~Bob Shepherd

Owner408-282-3855

ô?

October 12, 2010

Bruce and Claudia Keith1610 20th StreetBakersfield, CA 93301

""hairperson Campos, County of Santa Cruz

Third District Supervisor Coonerty, County of Santa Cruz

Dear Mr. Campos, Mr. Coonerty and fellow Supervisors:

We own a recently remodeled propert at 350 Lake Avenue owned by our family since 1943.io4.íthough histor~c2!!YI ~ve have not rented cur property~ '-l!8 nc'..' riL:st rent during the 3ummer andholiday seasons in order to finance the mortgage we assumed to improve a property that wasbecoming a neighborhood eyesore. We have reviewed the Draft Proposed Vacation RentalOrdinance. We understand that this proposal has been returned to staff for revision, but at thistime, we would like to express our major concerns.

Let me begin by saying that for the most part, we agree with the proposed ordinance andunderstand the necessity of regulating rental properties that co-exist with single owner properties.We find the regulations regarding occupancy rates per bedroom, parking requirements, signagerequirements, and rental to large groups reasonable. We do find, however, two aspects of theproposed document onerous and discriminatory to us as propert owners.

First and foremost, we object to the proposed limit of one individual tenancy within sevenconsecutive calendar days. This proposal severely limits our ability to rent our propert. Infact, such an ordinance could reduce our rental income by up to fift percent. We would beunable to rent our propert for two consecutive weekends. Ideally, we would prefer to rent ourhouse by the week, but in this economy, people are reducing their tenancy to weekends becausethat is what they can afford. In addition, it would be denying rentals before or following holidayssuch as July 4th or Labor Day.

Secondly, we object to the limitation of one vacation rental within 200 feet of any othervacation rentals. Our frontage faces the Santa Cruz Yacht Harbor and houses in our

neighborhood typically have 50-foot lot width. In addition, I estimate that 40 to 50% of the housesin the neighborhood are utilized as vacation rentals. Control of thirt-day rentals in thisneighborhood is not likely to affect availability of affordable housing since property value is largelydetermined by location. Reduction of thirty days rentals could adversely affect the tourist influxinto Santa Cruz County.

Finally, we have a concern regarding the potential cost of an Administrative Use Permit.Before we comment on such a permit, we have a right to know how much such a permit wouldcost. We also suggest that the permitting be every five years, rather than two. If there areproblems associated with a property, then the cycle could change to every two years.

Cc: Kathleen Molloy Previsich, Planning Director, County of Santa CruzSteven Guiney, Planner, County of Santa Cruz

3')

Terry Dorsey

From: Irma Marquez on behalf of Tony Campos

Sent: Monday, October 25,20109:50 AM

To: Terry Dorsey


-----Original Message-----From: Kevin Finn (mailto:[email protected])Sent: Friday, October 22,20104:19 PMTo: John Leopold; Ellen Pirie; Tony Campos; Mark Stone; Neal CoonertSubject: Re: Vacation Rental Ordinance

Hello,

i am writing to voice my opinion and let it be known that i am opposed to any type of a vacation rentalordinance in Santa Cruz County.

Thank you.

Regards,Kevin Finn

10/25/2010

Page 1 of 1

?/J

of2

Terry Dorsey



To: Terry Dorsey

Subject: FW: Vacation Rental Ordinance -- I'm Against It

-----Original Message-----From: joan colonna (mailto:[email protected])

Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 12:34 AMTo: John Leopold; Ellen Pirie; Neal Coonert; Tony Campos; Mark StoneSubject: Vacation Rental Ordinance -- I'm Against It

Hello,

I have lived in Santa Cruz since 1980, and have owned homes here since 1984. Ipresently own a home which I rent out during the summer months to supplement myincome. I have been reading and hearing about the proposed Vacation RentalOrdinance. I do not agree with the ordinance for many reasons; I'd like to cite a few:

1) There is no easy, cost-effective way to monitor each home, how frequentlyvacationers come and go, and whether someone decides to skirt the law and rentanyway, despite the ordinance.

2) I have close friends who have lived across the street from the worst party housein Santa Cruz (on Archer Way, cited in the Sentinel in May of this year, and at thetop of the list on the police database). It took years and many, many meetings byneighbors with attorneys and the City Council to try to halt this sort of behavior.There are laws on the books to protect tax-paying citizens, and still the activitycontinues. The resources used to enforce the laws just dwindle away, and the partiesgo on. What makes you think your ordinance will have a more positive effect?

3) Restricting how a homeowner may use their property is governentalinterference of the worst kind. Attempting to enact an ordinance that requireshomeowners to limit the rental periods to weekly only shows how little is known bySupervisor Leopold and others about the vacation market in Santa Cruz, in 2010.This past summer, most of my rental periods were for 2-5 days.

4) Letting the Planning Director of Santa Cruz County make the decision aboutwhether they wil grant or revoke a permit to a homeowner for vacation rental isfoolish and short-sighted. Allowing some homes in the area to rent on a short-termbasis, but not others, is just a poorly developed proposition.

5) Limited resources would be better spent on enforcing laws already on thebooks...police response, fines issued under the noise ordinance, and penalties forhomeowners who continually allow their rentals to be occupied by people whocannot live in a neighborhood in peace and harmony.

6) The loss of revenue via the TOT would be substantial and negative. At a timelike this, we need every tax dollar we can get.

I screen my renters: I do not rent to anyone under 30 years of age (I require a copyof their drivers' license), I will not rent to more than 6 people, I stay in town while 36

10/25/2010

of2

the home is being rented and do 'drive-by's' frequently. I am fortunate enough to have wonderful familieswho have enjoyed their stay in a peaceful manner. On more than one occasion, I heard from vacationerscomplaining about the noise from the students next door.. who were full time renters.

I do feel very sorry for the neighbors in the areas where the misbehavior has been so prevalent andfrequent. But passing an all-encompassing, poorly drafted ordinance in response to it is not the solution.Penalizing some neighborhoods and leaving others alone makes no sense at all and is undemocratic.

Please reconsider this ordinance, and draft a new one using laws already on the books. Thank you for yourtime.

Sincerely,

Joan Colonna

** * *** ** ** *** * * * ** * ** *** **** *** * **** * *** **********

Joan Colonna

* ** * * * * ***** * * * * * ** * * * * * ** ***** * *** * * *** * ** ** *** **

3510/25/2010

of 1

Terry Dorsey



To: Terry Dorsey

Subject: FW: 12th Ave.Accurate Vacation Rental Count

-----Original Message-----From: Brendan Finn (mailto:[email protected])

Sent: Thursday, October 21,2010 10:10 PM

To: John Leopold

Cc: Tony Campos; Ellen Pirie; Mark Stone; Neal CoonertSubject: 12th Ave.Accurate Vacation Rental Count

Dear Supervisor,

I am the 12th Ave. Neighborhood watch captain and have volunteered for thisposition since the advent in November 2007 which followed a meeting chaired bythe previous First District Supervisor.

I perceive as part of my responsibility to the neighbors is to get to know theneighbors. I recently had the opportunity to take an inventory of the housing on thestreet to assist in keeping my e-mail alerting system data base current and accurate.

I also have now had the opportunity to listen to the radio broadcast of last Saturdayattended by you Supervisor Leopold.

Supervisor Leopold you made a very strong and inaccurate statement regarding

12th Ave. to which I must respond. Your comment was "over one half of thedwellngs on 12th Ave. are vacation rentals". THIS IS NOT CORRECTINFORMATION!!!

Total dwellings on 12th Ave. 53

Owner Occupied full time 11Rental units in xs or 30 days 12Vacation Homes not rentedlvacant 18Vacation Rentals 12I find it most important to speak with the facts especially as our representative.

Regards,

Brendan M. Finnowner 334 12th Ave & 260 12th Ave.

3°10/25/2010

Terry Dorsey

From:Sent:To:Subject:

Irma Marquez on behalf of Tony CamposMonday, October 25,20109:51 AMTerry DorseyFW: Vacation Rental Ordinance

-----Original Message-----From: Shannon Demma (mailto:[email protected])Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:36 PMTo: John Leopold; Ellen Pirie; Neal Coonerty; Tony Campos; Mark StoneSubject: Vacation Rental Ordinance

Dear Board of Supervisors,

i am writing to express my opposition to the Vacation Rental Ordinance. i own a home (technicallyreferred to as a duplex) on East Cliff Drive in the Live Oak area (2-2021 East Cliff Drive). Over thelast 10 years, we have lived in this home and then used this home as a vacation rental. My mothercurrently resides in a cottage behind the main house. i currently live in Live Oak at 1105 RodriguezStreet. As I write this letter, i am actually staying at our vacation rental property with my family forthe next month.

i understand the desire to create neighborhoods where people enjoy living. i have lived in SantaCruz for 21 years and i have had wonderful neighbors and "not so great" neighbors. Terribleneighbors can make life challenging and destroy one's sense of community. With this in mind, I donot understand the desire to address this issue. It seems to affect a small percentage of areas and ithas the potential to affect a healthy revenue stream for the county. I also do not clearly understandhow targeting vacation rentals will solve the problems addressed in the proposaL. As I am sureothers have pointed out, we already have regulations to address noise, trash, etc. If the existingregulations are not solving the problems, why would another regulation solve the problem? Also, weare all required to sign up for a Transient Occupancy Permit and pay taxes accordingly. Regarding abusiness license, there is a no "business license" available to business owners residing in the LIveOak area, only the City of Capitola and Santa Cruz. So this seems odd to require a "BusinessLicense" for a vacation rental and not other "businesses". I am not opposed to a business license, Ijust want to point out the discrepancy.

In regards to loud noise, occupancy and parking, I have rarely seen a problem coming from avacation rental in my neighborhood. The majority of guests at our home and surrounding homes arefamilies who come to spend their dollars in our community and treasure our beaches. These arepeople who find staying in a hotel inconvenient and challenging, not to mention loud andoverwhelming to their family. I have two children and when I go on vacation, we always rent avacation home. Staying in a hotel room with children is challenging - they have little to do there, it isloud as there are large numbers of people coming and going at all hours, and feeding children atrestaurants can be exacerbating and expensive. I am sure anyone with children understands this. Ifa community does not offer vacation rental homes, we do not go there. In my own personalexperience living in Live Oak, the long term renters have been the "not so great" or downright"terrible" neighbors. They have been the homes with excessive occupancy, parties, loud noise, andparking issues. I currently live two homes away from a long term renter who has loud parties

1 35

regularly, regularly screams outside of their home using foul language, and who takes up two blocksworth of parking. Additionally, if someone does have a loud vacation renter, they leave in a shortperiod versus a long term renter, who may never leave. i believe there are wonderful long termrenters as well, I just want to point out the larger problem is not exclusive to vacation renters. Lastly,as a vacation rental owner, I have a very strict policy and do not allow parties of any kind in ourhome. Other people that i know who own vacation rentals have a similar policy. i have never had aproblem with anyone partying in my home, excess cars, trash or any of the items listed. The familiesthat have rented our home have been courteous, thoughtful and wonderful neighbors. My mother willattest to this. During the Summer months, parking and trash on the beach are a problem at times,however these are from "day" users - people who drive from other places to use our beaches. Thevacation renters are not the problem.

In terms of revenue to the County, this proposal has the potential to impact a large revenue stream tothe County. I paid $6,286 in Transient Occupancy Tax in 2009 and I am on track this year with asimilar number. II believe I heard someone state that Vacation Rentals bring in $1,500,000 in TOT -that is a lot of revenue! I find it hard to believe that our County would turn away revenue in such acritical time in our history.

On a personal note, our vacation rental has allowed us the flexibility to "stay afloat" through difficulteconomic times. My husband is a General Contractor in Santa Cruz and I was a designer (I now stayhome to take care of our two children). We were both unemployed for an extended period of timeand our home provided us with desperately needed income. If we are restricted by an ordinance, wecould be forced to sell our home. This would leave my mother without a home as welL. We haveinvested a great deal of money into property - we love our neighborhood and our home and plan toretire in this home. I urge you to consider the economic and emotional impact that such anordinance might have. I believe there are better ways to address "bad" neighbors. Also, I believethere are much more important issues that we could all be addressing right now.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Shannon Demma(831) 588-9582

2 35

of 1

Terry Dorsey



To: Terry Dorsey


-----Original Message-----From: Brendan Finn (mailto:[email protected])

Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 6:48 PM

To: John Leopold; Ellen Pirie; Tony Campos; Mark Stone; Neal CoonertSubject: Vacation Rental Ordinance

This is being sent to voice my opinion that I am opposed to any type of a vacationrental ordinance in Santa Cruz County.

Brendan Finn

¿/

?:10/25/2010

Opposition to proposed vacation rental ordinance

Terry Dorsey


Sent: Wednesday, October 27,201010:29 AM

To: Terry Dorsey

Subject: FW: Opposition to proposed vacation rental ordinance

-----Original Message-----From: Jennifer Granath (mailto:[email protected])Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 20109:41 PMTo: Neal Coonert; Tony Campos; Mark Stone; John Leopold; Ellen PirieSubject: Opposition to proposed vacation rental ordinance

Dear County Board of Supervisors,

i am a homeowner and part time vacation rental owner in the Santa Cruz County and am writing toexpress my opposition to the vacation rental ordinance. It is a poorly proposed ordinance on so manyfronts. I do not see any facts behind the conjectures. There is no data supporting number of complaints,calls to police, extra trash due specifically to vacation renters, etc.

-It is excluding areas that are "believed to be dominated by beachfront vacation rentals", but in other partsof the ordinance it is stated that you really don't know all the vacation rental properties that exist, so howcan only exclude those you know about unless you perhaps have a vested interest in them?-The noise and parking are a problem. I can tell you first hand that owners and day use visitors are someof the biggest offenders in this area, not vacation renters. As stated in Randy Watson's letter dated9/16/2010, if he was to have a party with his 15 family friends, would you issue a citation to him? This iscomplete discrimination to have one set of rules for an owner and another set for a vacation rental.Property owners have ultimate responsibility whether they rent or not, it should make no difference inenforcing noise, parking, trash, blight and nuisance laws.-The statement that property owners of vacation rentals would be liable for sheriff expenses incurredwhen going to a house is completely absurd unless these same expenses would be incurred by an ownerof a non-vacation rental should they be having a party or perhaps a wedding reception. You cannotimpose different sets of rules. In my mind, we already have resources in place to deal with blight, noise,and nuisance. We do not need a duplicate set of rules specifically for vacation rental properties. If theseissues are occurring, they should be dealt with in the same way no matter what kind of property it is.

This proposal is written in a very discriminatory way and based on the many letters I have read, is notsupported by the majority. There are no facts behind any of the conjectures and it really sets up an "us"vs. "them" attitude. This is very counter productive to what a neighborhood is supposed to be, so I urgeyou to treat everyone the same and if there is a problem with a home and its occupants, the owner shouldbe contacted to remedy the situation and perhaps instill a fine if the situation is not remedied.

Regards,Jennifer

10/27/2010

Page 1 of 1

3S

Terry Dorsey


Sent: Wednesday, October 27,201010:30 AM

To: Terry Dorsey

Subject: FW: VACATION RENTALS PROPOSED ORDINANCE

-----Original Message-----From: Ronni Maestas (mailto:[email protected])

Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:53 PM

To: John Leopold; Ellen Pirie; Neal Coonert; Tony Campos; Mark StoneSubject: VACATION RENTALS PROPOSED ORDINANCE

Hello,

We are Santa Cruz homeowners(Seabright) and also own a vacation rental(Twin Lakes).We write to you today to voice serious concerns about the proposed vacation rentalordinanance.

A few points to consider...Santa Cruz County is a travel destination. This is not new. The tourism industry is veryimportant to the local economy as well as area homeowners. The county received over$1,000,000 is occupancy taxes from vacation rentals.Should this pass, this would cripple the housing market even further, forcing owners toshort sell or face foreclosure in large numbers. Business owners lose business, and thedomino effect continues.One angry neighbor and/or one administrative opinion can essentially take away avacation homeowner's right to participate in the local economy. Is the same beingdone with regular full-time homeowners? Of course not.Please consider that vacation rentals are no different than regular homes in the area.This is an important part of our local economy and the proposed ordinance is shortsighted and vindictive.

We could go on and on about the negative and destructive nature of the ordinanceitself and its effect on homeowners and the county alike. Please do the right thing andvote against the ordinance.

Mike and Theresa Carey

10/27/2010

Page 1 of 1

?JS

BEACH ROSE COTTAGE

October 20,2010 SENT VIA E-MAIL

Santa Cruz CountyHousing Advisory Commission

RE: Vacation Rental OrdinanceVacation Rental: 260 iih Ave. Santa Cruz CA

Dear Members of the Commission,

I am the owner of the above noted vacation rental and reside at 334 12th Ave. 6 months ofthe year.

I am not in fàvor of the ordinance as previously proposed and I applaud you for suggestingthe Planning Commission return to the drawing board as a result of your most recent publichearing directing them to come up with a less restrictive proposed ordinance.

You may recall, I spoke during the 9/21110 meeting and addressed the void in the oldproposed ordinance specifically being Aricle D. 4." A vacation rental shall only be used

for the purpose of occupancy as a vacation rental or as aful! time occupied unit"

My vacation rental hosts 4-5 summer weekly vacation rentals.. An summer vacation rentersare repeat clients. ifthe clients were a problem (which they are not) in the summer theywould not be solicited to return the next summer. The remainder of the year fromSeptember until June for the past 5 years, the same senior citizen returns for his winter stay.My winter tenant does not want to own what he terms "stuff' other than his tèw personalbelongings. He travels for his business during the summer months so he and i have what weterm a win win situation. A single senior citizen tenant is quieter than the mouse in yourbasement and leaves a much lighter foot print on a house than other potential tenants.

The above suggested term and condition under the old drafted ordinance D.4. eliminateswhat I wil term "hybrid" rental situations. My senior citizen tenant will no longer be ableto reside in the house he has come to call home for the past 5 years. I wil be forced to havethe house become a 12 month vacation rental should this situation note be properlyremedied. This senior citizen will be eliminated from being able to rent based upon thePlanning deparments old proposed term and condition. The long term rental stock of SantaCruz County wil be forced to be reduced by one.

~s334 iib Ave. Santa Cruz CA. 95062

415-454-9592BCHROSECOTT AGE(i).GMAIL.COM

BEACHROSEC

n of the "hybrid" rental

ine,

334 12th Ave. Santa C A. 95062415-454-9592

BCHROSECOTTAGE(tij.GMAIL.COM

October 20,2010

Steven GuineySanta Cruz County Planning Departmentsteven. guiney@co . santa_cruz. ca. us

Re: Proposed Vacation Rental Ordinance.

Vacation Rental Property Management Agencies have provided a service to the localcommunity for many decades by providing professional management, maintenance,visitor education, and screening for vacation rental property owners, and for the generalcommunity by responding to issues for visitors and their neighbors.

With the advent of the internet, it has become increasingly easy for vacation rentalowners to lease their properties without the use of a local management company orcontact thereby avoiding direct involvement with their property, their customers, theirneighbors or the payment of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT).

We would like to provide some background information on the Vacation Rental Industryin Santa Cruz County and make specific comments and recommendations regarding theproposed Vacation Rental Ordinance.

The tourism industry needs a fair regulation and license process in order to controlproblems caused by poorly managed establishments and to preserve the character ofneighborhoods as well as provide for the well being of the industry.

Tourism is one of the top two industries in Santa Cruz County. Vacation rentals play animportant role in a healthy, diversified tourism economy. Vacation rentals areacknowledged the world over as an alternative to resort and hotel accommodations.Vacation home rentals provide a community benefit by providing the owner revenuewhich may be used for maintenance upgrades and deferred costs.

. The 570 registered vacation rentals account for only 1.2% of the total dwellingunits in the unincorporated county.

· Each uìiit pays an average of $2000 in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) each yearaccounting for $1,140,000 in TOT, almost 30% of the total TOT received by thecounty.

. 93% of the TOT goes to the county general fund to offset the impacts of tourismwhile 7% is given to the Conference and Visitors Council for tourism promotion.This is a significant income stream for the county.

. The average occupancy rate for vacation rental properties is 27%.· The activities conducted by most guests in vacation rentals are largely equivalent

to the nature and scale of activities conducted by families who own or rent single-family dwellings.

â~

. Most vacation rentals, as a rule, have a track record of operating quietly, even"transparently" in neighborhoods. Exceptions are uncommon and should not beconfused with the general rule.

The Housing Advisory Committee's suggestions:

The Housing Advisory Committee's suggestion to simplify the proposed ordinance hasmerit. The committee suggested inclusion of the following elements:

1. All vacation rentals must be registered in some fashion

2. All vacation rentals must have a contact person inside county of Santa Cruz

3. All vacation rentals must have visible signage with contact numbers

4. There must be a dispute resolution process in place5. No exemption areas

6. Cost recovery for sheriff calls are to be charged to the property owner

With the exception of #6, these are standard elements of most vacation rental ordinancesthroughout the western states. They are logical, fair and enforceable.

Vacation rentals infuse more than $1 million dollars a year into the county general fund.This tax has always been justified as compensation for the effect that tourists impose onour community. Unless a particular property becomes a major nuisance for the Sheriffsoffce, their response should be as routine as if it were for a long term rental or a homeowner.

Other issues that were proposed in the Draft Ordinance, with comments:

1. Purpose. ... residential vacation rentals have the potential to diminish the stock ofhousing available to long term residential households and to be incompatible withsurrounding residential uses.

On page 6 of the September 21 notice to the Housing Advisory Commission, thePlanning Director states, "Because there is no indication that future conversion of homeswould occur on a scale that could create shortages of housing, impacts on housing supplyare not expected," therefore, this issue should not be used as a reason for enacting thisordinance. The 570 registered vacation rentals account for only 1.2% of the total dwellingunits in the unincorporated county. At any time, the average number of dwelling units forsale in the county is 1,138 or 2.4 % of the housing stock, twice the number of vacationrentals.

Most vacation rentals, though not all, have a track record of operating quietly andcompatibly in neighborhoods. Exceptions are uncommon, (far less than 5 %,) and shouldnot be confused with the general rule. It is important to understand that much of thehousing stock within a mile of the ocean was built as vacation homes, not primaryresidences. Development for over 100 years has been primarily for vacationers and

?f

second homes. That is why many of the lots are small and many do not allow for offstreet parking. Vacation rentals have always been part of the residential community.

Long term rentals, on the other hand, may often pose long term problems for residentialneighborhoods and they are not rectified within a week by the moving out of the problemtenant as vacation rentals are. And yet no ordinance is being proposed to limit long termrentals.

What is the purpose of this ordinance? We believe the benefit of this ordinance is toprovide fair regulations, a licensing process, and a dispute resolution process in order tocontrol problems caused by poorly managed establishments and to preserve the characterof neighborhoods as well as provide for the well being of the industry.

2. Permit renewal every two years.

Once all vacation rentals are required to register, it is possible that the number of actualvacation rentals will increase to include units that are not currently registered. Even thecurrent number of 570 wil impose a significant burden on the planning staff to registerand review. The larger the burden, the higher the costs will be to administer the program.It is suggested that permits be renewed every five years with renewals initially beingstaggered so that 100+ are renewed every year. Units with verified complaints should bedealt with as problems arise.

3. No new vacation rentals within 200 fèet oran existing vacation rental.

In many areas of the county there is a preponderance of vacation rentals next to eachother and the neighborhood is fine. In other areas it is not acceptable, primarily becausethe units are not well managed and the visitors are not properly screened and educated.Choosing arbitrary limits unfairly limits the rights of property owners. Problem unitsshould be eliminated through the use of a dispute resolution process.

4. Maximum orone individual tenancy with seven consecutive calendar days.

This proposal would destroy the vacation rental industry. It would be impossible for ahotel, or any other business, to operate under these restrictions. The vacation rentaloccupancy rate is currently at an all time high of 27%. Most activity occurs during thesummer with peak occupancy in August. Most vacation rentals are empty most of thetime. Problem units should be eliminated through the use of a dispute resolution process.

5. Number orpeople allowed.

This section makes no allowance for the size of the dwelling's main living areas or thesize and location of the parceL.

6. New vacation rentals must have all required parking on site.

1JS

Much of the housing stock within a mile of the ocean was built as vacation homes, notprimary residences. Many of the lots are small and many do not allow for off streetparking. A substantial number of existing vacation rentals could never meet thisrequirement. In these same neighborhoods homeowners and long term renters are notsubject to these same requirements. The only way to comply for houses with front yardswould be to pave over the yard so cars could park. This would not benefit theneighborhoods, it would cause a blight. Limiting the number of parking passes for eachunit would solve the problem. Problem units should be eliminated through the use of adispute resolution process.

7. Grandfathering.

Grandfathering would essentially eliminate the chance for new owners to participate inthe vacation rental industry. Please recognize that problems created by irresponsibleowners should not penalize the much larger number of responsible citizens. Problemunits should be eliminated through the use of a dispute resolution process.

8. Dispute Resolution Process.

It is essential to this ordinance that a dispute resolution process exists that is fair toneighborhood residents and vacation rental owners alike. Complaints should have to beverified, (probably by the Sheriff) and a method devised for logging complaints andresolutions. Unverified complaints could be used by neighbors as a tool against vacationrental owners. A penalty process should be devised for eliminating problem units with aprocess available for possible reinstatement of a unit after a reasonable penalty is exacted.

9. Credible issues in the Live Oak Parking District.

It is not our intent to minimize that there are credible issues in the Live Oak ParkingDistrict. Specific solutions to those problems may be required. Since this ordinance is tobe administered throughout the county, it is important that countywide solutions shouldfit all neighborhoods, not just Live Oak.

Conclusion:

Although some vacation rentals are rented for celebrations, most vacation rental guestsare some of our best visitors. They have visited before and are seeking quieter, moreprivate lodging, and wish to stay in residences. They support local businesses, culturalevents and spend a great deal more than short term visitors.

Vacation rentals create a demand for, and employment in, direct services to the dwellingsthemselves, such as: building, landscaping, pool maintenance, housekeeping, pestcontrol, property management, and reservation services. Vacation rentals must be wellmaintained in order to be attractive in a competitive market.

/'/3'J

The permit process should not be highly-burdensome but should be effective at removingproperties with continuing problems for the neighborhood balancing the needs and rightsof vacation rental property owners with the legitimate interests of local neighborhoods.

It is important to remember that tourism brings more money into our county than anyother industry. It provides the cash flow that drives many other businesses, which createjobs for those of us who live and work here.

Sincerely,

John & Karen Hibble

Executive DirectorsAptos Chamber of Commerce

Cc:Kathlee M. Previsich, Planning Director,Housing Advisory Commission,Planning Commission,Board of Supervisors,

?ß

Copy To Eacrì Supervisor c/

October 27,2010

Mr. Owen LawlorHousing Advisory Commission701 Ocean Street, 4th FloorSanta Cruz, CA 95060

Dear Mr. Lawlor:

The Vacation Rental Management Companies in Santa Cruz County would like to speakwith one voice regarding the current process to establish an ordinance pertaining tovacation rentals. This letter outlines our position on this issue.

It is absolutely understood that there is a need to consider some level of regulation forvacation rentals to address neighborhood integrity in our community. While we are notagainst reasonable and effective regulation, we are against the vacation rental ordinanceas it was originally proposed to the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC).

Subsequent to the original presentation of the ordinance, it is our opinion that yourCommission has done an excellent job on helping to simplify and focus the ordinance ina way that can effectively alleviate problems related to the offending rental properties.

Although we cannot support all of the current proposed regulations, we would like tovoice our enthusiastic support of the following HAC recommendations:

1. All vacation rentals must register in some way, to have a vacation rental in Santa

Cruz County. It is believed that this wil not only identify property owners thatneed to be held accountable, but will also help capture currently uncollectedTransient Occupancy Tax.

2. All vacation rentals must have an in-county management contact to respond to

neighbor complaints or other emergencies related to properties 24/7.

3. All vacation rentals must have signage displayed identifying the contact companyor person and a telephone number.

4. The ordinance should provide for dispute resolution for neighborhoods dealingwith properties that present chronic and ongoing neighborhood disruptions.

Additionally, there are three locations with vacation rentals in the County that are eitherparticu larIy isolated and/or self contained facil ¡ties with private security. and shou Itlbe exeniptedfrom the ordinance altogether. Those locations are P;;\jaro Dunes, Seascape Resoit, BoülderCreek Golfand Country Club and any other facilities that fall under the same configuration. /

?J~

We would like to thank the HAC and the leadership of the Planning Commission forproviding a process that has allowed us to voice our concerns. We appreciate thesignificant amount of work and time that has been put into this process. It is our hope thatthe final document will present a plan that is both manageable and enforceable.

We would also like to voice our great appreciation for all that the County does as a wholeon behalf of our local citizens. It is our hope that the final outcome related to thevacation rental ordinance allow us all to move forward and work together to make ourcommunity an even better place to live and to visit.

~~ndaii & pott~ge:&!ù/"d frIIO

Cheshir - io Property Management

Robert Bailey, Bailey Properties --- ~2f~

.ri"'~ /'t..Jf4AO DvAies ÚJW'tfl?.tl?e$~Ær ,"'

B~~~'" Hoii ~t- Re.n +~ \ s fì~ft-j~ ~4~.

Cc: Kathlee M. Previsich, Planning Department DirectorPlaning Commission Chair

Susan Mauriello, CAOSanta Cru County Board of Supervisors

Mark Stone, Ellen Pirie, Tony Campos, John Leopold, Neal Coonery

3S

October 31,2010

Santa Cruz County Board of SupervisorsCounty Governent Center701 Ocean Street #500Santa Cruz, CA 95060

RE: Proposed Ordinance to Limit Vacation Rentals

Dear Members of the Board:

We are residents of Santa Cruz County. We recently purchased property in the Live Oakneighborhood within walking distance of Suny Cove. We purchased the rental propertyto bring in income for our retirement and to one day leave a legacy to our children.

Although we do not currently have any intentions of having short term vacation rentals,we are dismayed to hear that you are considering restrictions for the future since it willimit our options. We urge you to reject the proposed regulations. Certainly there mustbe less restrictive incentives for property owners to insure that their rental guests complywith noise and other good neighbor rules.

It seems like a few bad apples are causing you to consider regulations. Perhaps putting arestriction or fine on properties that have caused a police call would be a suffcient andmore appropriate deterrent.

Sincerely yours,

~~~~~v..~Ron and Linda Weaver726 Paradise ParkSanta Cruz, CA. 95060

CC: Housing Commission and Planing Commission

'6S

Terry Dorsey

From:Sent:To:Subject:

Susan Greene on behalf of John Leop.oldTuesday, November 02, 2010 12:04 PMTerry DorseyFW: Proposed Vacation Rental Ordinance

-----Original Message-----From: Gary Ransone (mailto:[email protected])Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 6:02 PMTo: John Leopold; Steve KennedySubject: Proposed Vacation Rental Ordinance

Good Afternoon,

In the "...for what it's worth" category, I just wanted to voice myopinion about the hotly debated Vacation Rental Ordinance. i know youguys have heard plenty about this and the Planning department iscrafting a revised DRAFT ordinance. I don't have any vacation rentalsand I don't handle any vacation rentals so you should know that too.However, it seems that if an ordinance is to be passed, one that has thefollowing conditions generally along the lines outlined below makessense to me:

1) All vacation rental property owners must have a permit or register insome fashion to have a vacation rental in Santa Cruz County (thiscondition already exists per the County Code in order to pay the TOTtax, but why not repeat it here).

2) All vacation rental property owners must have a "local" contactperson (who could be either the owner who must reside in Santa CruzCounty or, if the owner resides outside of Santa Cruz County, aprofessional local property manager that conducts business in the CountySanta Cruz).

3) All vacation rentals must have visible signage posted at the front ofthe property with contact person information as per item #2 above.

4) Dispute resolution in Santa Cruz County Courts for neighborhoods withthe "bad apples" (see #5 below).

5) Standard Cost recovery for sheriff and possible civil fines (thatwould increase in a reasonable amount with repeated convictedviolations) in an amount to be determined via a local Court Hearingwherein the property owner may be ordered to pay cost recovery for thesheriffs visit to the property and a fine if the court determines that

,/tJ~J

1

a local ordinance was violated by a vacation rental guest or theproperty owner. However, if the Court determines that no ordinance wasviolated by the vacation rental guest or the property owner, the personcalling in the complaint against the property owner's vacation rentalmay be assessed the sheriffs fee and a fine that would increase in areasonable amount with repeated unsubstantiated complaints if the Courtdetermines that the complaint to the sheriff was retaliatory against theproperty owner (or vacation rental guest) or not reasonable for someother reason as determined by the Court. The logic of this is reciprocaland appropriately burdens and benefits those making complaints in amanner that should ensure increased compliance with existing noiseordinances while discouraging frivolous complaints.

Please feel free to call me if you have any questions at (831) 476-8784and best of luck with this ordinance.

Thanks very much.

Gary Ransone

2?ß

~ u .J 3ò ) V

~~LIj~ú-~~~'701 lJ~. 5/ . ìtl) ~CJO

.Jt'"Æet t~. &. t6 ¿) b 0

~~, '-. wu't tL ~ ~ 7'-- ;/ ~~

J: ~ ,~~d i 'l ¡;o /I~ ~~U ~ ~ a,~ ~ -t,...ir ~ Af~~J ¡,~~~~'~.A~ t9-u ~~~ 1 vW'~ ~~. :J ~ J. ~)'. h/¿ ~.~ ¿; ¿f~ ~ ~~ it~M ~ '; ~~ J7~~~. ~~Ji ~.a~ "-~ ~ J--l ~~--L ~ ~ ~ -M.L¿ ~.4.'d

/! kltr.~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ (f~ tt~"~..~ ftU-~~ ~'~J~A?4~ ~ J4 id~ ~. ~~ AJ~ ..~ J. ~ --lAoL~ ~h/ !£ /Y~"

'~~~Ltp¿ ßrx !"9 97

~ lf~""LU &4 . 9533~S~l)9 ~ 911-519,, 'J

of35

Terry Dorsey


Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 11 :54 AM

To: Terry Dorsey

Subject: FW: A petition from Santa Cruz residents opposed to restricting and eliminating vacation rentals (Leopold's Law)

-----Original Message-----From: Tom Jenson (mailto:[email protected])Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 9:08 AMTo: Robert Seelig; Steven Guiney; Ellen Pirie; Neal Coonert; John Leopold; Tony Campos;Mark Stone

Subject: A petition from santa Cruz residents opposed to restricting and eliminatingvacation rentals (Leopold's Law)

Dear HAC, Planning department and Board of Supervisors members,

Along with 386 others listed below, I oppose the il-timed and unreasonablerestrictions that Supervisor Leopold is trying to put onto a vibrant par of ourcommunity - tourism.

Vacation rentals have been part of Santa Cruz for probably as long as Santa Cruzhas been around itself. Despite Supervisor Leopold's instance that vacation rentalsare a major problem, neither he, the HAC ,nor the Planning Deparentrepresentatives at the HAC meetings were able to show even one compliant made tothe Sherriff that was directly related to a vacation rental. Do you think that theSherrifls department can pinpoint specific long-term rentals with UCSC studentsthat have complaints against them? Yes, so do i.

In fact, there is a database maintained by the city or county that shows this on afriendly website.

Why is Supervisor Leopold rushing these restrictive new laws into place absent anyevidence of a need?

Below you wil find the petition that has been on the website of Good Neighbors ofSanta Cruz and the 386 people that also oppose this needless new law that wilprobably only serve to grow the staff of the planning department (which I read islarger than the planning department in Los Angeles - could this be true?). I urge

all of you to oppose Leopold's Law and save Santa Cruz from destroying its besteconomic recourse - tourism.

Without tourism, many business wil fail, many people that work in these businesseswil lose their jobs and probably because of this, their homes. This wil in turn willcreate more foreclosures with wil only prolong the amount of time Santa Cruzsuffers economically, damaging our people and our city.

Turning away tourists and driving out our residents does not seem like a good courseof action for the Board of Supervisors to take. Please oppose this restrictive anddamaging law.

I am sending this to you for your information and it enter it into the public record.

~Thank you for your time and consideration.

111412010

of35

Tom Jenson

Petition from The Good Neighbors of Santa Cruz

The Board of Supervisors is proposing severe restrictions on vacation rentals in Santa Cruz County. Alsoproposed is the forced shutdown of all vacation rentals on multi-unit lots, including second units andaccessory structures. Tourism is the lifeblood of Santa Cruz County and all residents depend upon servicespaid for by people visiting our beautiful County.

Fact: Tourism ranks, alongside agrculture, as one ofthe top employers and revenue-producing industriesin Santa Cruz County, generating over $500 millon in direct travel expenditures anually.

Fact: Visitor dollars help to support Santa Cruz County by providing business and tax revenues whichcontribute to local employment, vast expanses of open space, beaches and parks, and small businesseswhich are largely locally owned.

Fact: Tourism generates over $14 milion in taxes for local governent, which helps to pay for police andfire protection, road repairs, park maintenance and social services.

Fact: In addition to the above tax revenue (and property taxes), vacation home owners pay a 10% transientoccupancy tax. The TOT brings in nearly $ 2 MILLION a year into the County General fund.

Fact: The Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors, under the influence of a small minority of homeowners wholive near the beach, is getting ready to pass legislation that wil threaten home owners in the County andpotentially violate the use of private property.

Fact: If passed, this legislation wil lead to a decrease in tourism dollars and a decrease in TOT revenue.

Fact: The County currently has a 12.9 MILLION DOLLAR deficit

Fact: This legislation wil benefit a small group of homeowners to the detriment ofthe rest of the county.

Fact: There are already laws in Santa Cruz County that protect fellow citizens from nuisance and noise.

Fact: There is no objective data (police citations etc) pointing to a problem with short term rentals orvacation homes.

Given the current economic crisis and the huge budget deficit in the County should we really beconsidering legislation that benefits so few and hurts so many.

The proposed legislation can be found here: http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.uslbds/GovstreamIBDSvDatainon _legacy/agendas/201 0/201 00622/PDF 1081.pdf and herehttp://sccountyOl.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/planninglplnmeetingsIPLNSupMaterialiHousingiagendas12010120100921/007 .pdf r~\

.../

,;-ìV1114/2010

of35

Many homeowners have stated that if this ordinance is passed by the Board of Supervisors, they wil haveto sell their home or go into foreclosure.

This wil directly affect property values and property tax revenue in the County.

The current proposal allows only one tenancy within a seven day period. This will force vacation rentalowners to turnaway those looking to rent a home for 2-3 nights only. Two major studies by the Santa CruzCounty Tourist Board show that the vast majority of overnight stays are less than 3 days. A 7 nightminimum wil turn thousands oftourists (and their money) away.

The current proposal wil affect beach access, especially for families. We need to stand up for the right ofpeople to access the coast.

By signing this petition you are telling the Board of Supervisors that you are a voter in Santa Cruz Countyandlor that you are against the current legislation as it is proposed.

By signing this petition you are reminding your representative that they represent the ENTIREdistrict/county and not just a small group who live near the beaches.

By signing this petition you are telling your representative that you want them to consider the needs of therest of the county and that you do not want to lose a single dollar of transient occupancy tax or tourismmoney.

If you are a business owner, especially one that serves the tourist population, you are expressing yourconcern over the potential loss of business.

Please feel free to add comments, including your zip code or district you vote in.

Thank you,

www.goodneighborsofsantacruz.org

Signed: 386 people have signed and commented below

Name: Adam Sah on Sep 26,2010Comments: I completely agree-- it's incredibly dangerous to discourage visitors now, or frankly ever. SantaCruz has been a middle class beach town destination for 100 years and it's risky to think we can changethis.2Name: Chrstine Shepard on Sep 26, 2010Comments: I vote in district 1 and I am 100% opposed to this ordinance. There are existing laws to ensureour neighbors peaceful enjoyment of their properties. We don't need a new law that targets Santa Cruzhomeowners who chose to share their homes with the thousands of visitors that support our local economy.3

Name: Doretta Goudge on Sep 26, 2010Comments:4Name: Anthony Gairnese on Sep 26,2010Comments: PLEASE STOP THIS FOOLISH, DESTRUCTIVE LAW!!5Name: Anonymous on Sep 26, 2010 3S'

1114/2010

of 35

Comments: I am the co-owner of two homes in Santa Cruz and I do not support the proposed vacationrental ordinance.6Name: Shannon Demma on Sep 26, 2010Comments: We live in Live Oak, vote in Live Oak and own a vacation rental in Live Oak where mymother lives (it would be considered multi-family as it has a house and cottage). Please consider the impactthis will have on homeowners, businesses, and visitors. We are small business owners in Live Oak and ourvacation rental helped us survive during diffcult economic times. We have also hosted wonderful familiesat our home-my mother has thoroughly enjoyed sharing her neighborhood with our guests. They not onlypay a hefty Transient Occupancy Tax, they spend an enormous amount in our communities eating,shopping and enjoying our beautiful area.7

Name: Tony Demma on Sep 26, 2010Comments: I am strongly opposed to this ordinance - I live in Live Oak and own a vacation rental in LiveOak. I feel this ordinance benefits very few people and wil have a negative impact on homeowners, localbusinesses, tourism, and general neighborhood vitality.8Name: Monica Bowman on Sep 26, 2010Comments: How well everying is stated in this petition. I hope everyone realizes the gravity of thismatter and lets their supervisors know how damaging this ordinance wil be to our entire county's income.Unemployment wil increase& business income, TOT & TMD tax wil decrease.9Name: John Shepard on Sep 26, 2010Comments: Voter in district 1 and 100% opposed to the vacation rental ordinance. This law is not neededand will have tremendous economic implications for my family and this county.10Name: Joyce Guan on Sep 26,2010Comments: Santa Cruz is heavily supported by tourists spending money in the county; discouraging themfrom visiting will severely impact the already fragile economy.11

Name: William Buck Hoelscher on Sep 26, 2010Comments: This Ordinance is revolting, discriminatory, and an insult to American democracy. It'sunconstitutional, and a violation of home owner property rights. This tye of governent bullying and

abuse must be stopped. Supervisors should be advised they wil never be re-elected again, anywhere, ifthey push this ordinance down our throats. They need to understand this is extremely politically unpopular,and will hurt our local economy, and the majority of our fellow citizens.12Name: Lorraine Heng on Sep 26, 2010Comments: It is an unreasonable burden placed upon selected property owners, specifically those who own"multi family units" to try and ameliorate the county's perceived need to provide affordable housing forthe many residents of diverse income by imposing the current proposed vacation rental ordinance. Thisproposed ordinance seems to constitute a governental "take" of personal property, without

compensation, to fix a growing socio-economic problem in the community. The Bil of Rights prohibitsgovernent from depriving any person oflife, liberty, or propert, without due process oflaw. I think ourproperty rights are being trampled!13Name: Jeffrey Randolph on Sep 26, 2010Comments: I am an Owner of a home in Live Oak. I am vehemently opposed to this flawed ordinance. Wehave been successfully renting our home off an on over the last two years and all of our neighbors are verysupportive.14Name: Tina Koch on Sep 26, 2010Comments: There is already laws to address the problem of nuisance and noise for both residents and 2rvacation rental guests. This ordinance doesn't explain how the enforcement of the current laws wil :,

11/4/2010

of35

improve and the problem solved. I don't see how this ordinance does anything except create morecomplicated and likely more violations due to the extreme micro-mandated controls. Worst case scenario isthat our area wil lose tax dollars that we need and tourism will decline.15

Name: L Van on Sep 26, 2010Comments: I am strongly opposed to restricting multi-unit housing from being "grandfathered into thepermit process". And I would much prefer a licensing regulation and enforcement of already existing lawsto new rules that wil bring so many unintended consequences to many people in our community. Is itcapricious and arbitrary to restrict the use of your propert and not that your neighbor. Is this anunreasonable burden placed upon selected property owners to sooth the woes of the counties failure toencourage the development of affordable housing for the many residents of diverse income. Does thisproposed ordinance constitute a governental "take" of your property without compensation. If you take alook at the constitution how many more signers put protection of individual property rights a ahead ofliberty. We don't want our rural property to be excluded from being "grand fathered" into the permitprocess. The size and and environmental setting of our Quail Hollow property make us appropriate for forthe occasional family retreat in between our more common longer corporate rentals. The proposedordinance would deprive our past guest families of their brief country experience. Located near the park,the lake, and the redwoods we offer a great alternative to the beach. As proposed the ordnance wouldsuppresses local business activities and job opportunities; it reduces the income to the County through theTOT by one third ofe the lodging revenue collected; and it negatively impacts owners who purchased andimproved property based upon long standing public policy and current laws. As a long time, local propert

owner that has already been penalized by changes in zoning, inclusion of endangered species habitat area,and environnental niche regulations, I request the proposed restrctions should be looked at in terms offederal environmental justice regulations under section 104 of the EPA regulations. The need to take awaymy current legal use of propert that I have owned since the late 1970 can not possibly be justified as apublic benefit. Please help us keep Santa Cruz great.16Name: Jim Goudge - Live Oak 95062 on Sep 26, 2010Comments: The SC Board of Supervisors have been asked to provide evidence or data of "nuisancevacation rentals" - they have yet to do so. The Board of Supervisors have an obligation and a duty to basetheir decisions and new laws on facts before passing any ordinance that would adversely affect so many ofthe residents and tourism $$'s here. Some basic questions and verifiable data are needed before proceeding.At the very least the BOS should be asking the following: 1. What is the percentage of complaintsfor vacation rentals vs. other rental properties? 2. Is there a particular street or area that isperceived by neighbors to be a problem? 3. What specific data andlor percentage of residents are

driving this ordinance forward? 4. What data suggests that any of these controls will have the desiredeffect, or if indeed any of these new rules are enforceable, warranted or even necessary SIMPLEQUESTIONS! Which SPECIFIC rentals are causing problems? Which streets have the most complaints?Are there any truly verifiable problem rentals? Where is the evidence? How many vacation rentals have adocumented and substantiated history of being a nuisance rental (actual sheriff documentation)? Theanswer is ZERO according to the Sheriff. So, urn, where is this fuss coming from? If people are"SCARED" that the houses around them are turning into vacation rentals, it is worse to have themforeclosed or falling apart, it is a recession folks! Many of the rentals wil only be temporary in the longrun. Relax, all you complaining NIMBYs! Go live in a gated community if you want privacy, Santa Cruzis, and always will be, a tourist town, DEAL WITH IT!17Name: Michelle Schwartz on Sep 26, 2010Comments:18Name: Monica Bowman on Sep 26, 2010Comments: So many people & businesses in our community wil experience less income and moredepreciation of their properties. When properties come wi only half their rights they depreciate. When oneproperty in a neighborhood depreciates most like properties within a 1 mile radius depreciate. L.. Jr19 \~~

111412010

of35

Name: Lindley Van on Sep 27, 2010Comments:20Name: Cathy Pieratt on Sep 27, 2010Comments:21Name: B Dennis Hickey on Sep 27, 2010Comments:22Name: Anthony Abene on Sep 27, 2010Comments: I am against the proposed ordinance in its entirety. The reasoning for this law is flawed and theproposed solutions not only fail to address the supposed problems, but overstep the governent's role inthe lives of its citizens and violate property rights, freedom of choice, and freedom of speech. I amespecially concerned with the County trying to define, through law, the character of a neighborhood. Therole of the governent in terms of zoning residential is to produce an area with specific type of structures.Residential zoning creates areas concentrated with single family homes. These structures are characterizedby bedrooms and a single kitchen. Single family zoning prevents commercial type structures from beingbuilt. What homeowners do with a SFR after they purchase should not be the business of governent.Surely we are not talking about ilegal uses (a brothel or drug dealing) or an obvious commercial use suchas a restaurant. These are, and should be, prohibited from residential areas. But there is a myriad of usesthat an owner can consider with their home. They can chose to live in it on a full time basis. They canchoose to live in it on a par time basis. They can choose to not live in it at all. They can long term rent itone year and choose not to do so the following year. They can lend it to friends and family. The point is,what they choose to do with their home is their business, not the governent's. Consider this example of"residential" use. It is legal for a contractor to buy a SFR in Santa Cruz County with the sole goal ofknocking that home down, building a new home, and selling that home for profit. Did this contractor everreside or intend to reside in the home? No. In addition, their primary motive for owning this home wasprofit. Would the County begrdge this owner his right to use the property in this manner? Could not oneargue that this is purely a commercial enterprise? By the logic applied by the County, why should theneighborhood deal with a myriad of contractors, trcks, and porta-potties that come this endeavor? Surely,this would creates noise, dust, and nuisance. The Supervisors also take about preserving the "character" ofthe neighborhoods. On its surface this sounds admirable. But in practice this would by definition restrictfreedom of choice and speech. The composition and character of a neighborhood is defined by the choicesof individuals not the governent. The County has every right to set the "foundation" of a neighborhoodby regulating the type of structures, but after that it should allow individual freedom and individualdecisions to define the character. If owners choose to purchase a home and raise their family, it is theirchoice. If people purchase a home as an investment and rent it long term, it is their choice. If they chooseto keep the house empty and not raise children, it is their choice. It is interesting that it is against the lawfor a Real Estate agent to "define" the character of the neighborhood. For example, they can not place anadvertisement describing a neighborhood as "kid frendly" or "perfect for families". Why then would it beOK for the governent to do exactly this? Are we really suggesting that the County define the characterof the neighborhood? What is next? Wil the County decide a neighborhood is too Hispanic? Would theCounty prevent a Mosque from being built because it does not fit in with the 'Catholic character" of aspecific neighborhood? Would the County target second homeowners and tell them they must raisechildren in the home or face fines? Perhaps the County should create an incentive program that wouldencourage single families to purchase homes and raise their children. A program could reduce propertytaxes by 25% for owners who raise their family for five years in a SFR. This would be a positive way toachieve the same goal. But, it would stil be discriminatory. I would imagine that if the County createdsuch a program you would see lawsuits from unmared people or people without children. They wouldstate that the governent has violated their rights and discriminated against them.23Name: Devin Guluzzo on Sep 27,2010Comments:24

1114/2010

~....,rY'

'3~

of35

Name: Lorre Gafford on Sep 28, 2010Comments:25Name: Marylou Forrest on Sep 28, 2010Comments: We have never had an issue with our vacation rental. We pay our TOT and we live on theproperty. Please stop the nonsense and leave us alone.26Name: Robert Kadesh on Sep 28,2010Comments:27Name: Joseph L. Scola on Sep 28,2010Comments:28Name: Nancy Sweatt on Sep 28, 2010Comments: Reg. Voter Live Oak Dist. Every coastal community has been carved out now by Pirie, and therest of the coastal access areas are controlled by City ofSC or Capitola, also cared out. Leopold's Districthas been indiscriminately and unreasonably left to bear almost the entire burden of his proposedrestrictions, a heavily accessed beach area. This is a VR area and has been for many generations.29Name: Bob Correa Correa on Sep 28,2010Comments:30Name: Edward Bachand on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I own a vacation rental in Santa Cruz. My guests and I are respectful of my neighbors and I donot rent out to large groups. In fact, I interview each guest before sending them a contract. I pay thetransient occupancy tax on all rental income. In addition, I employ local businesses to continually upgrademy property, make repairs and clean after each guest. My guests, who are mostly families, contribute to theSanta Cruz economy by shopping and dining out. The proposed ordinance is redundant with current law,and discriminates against vacation rental owners. I hope the County wil redirect its efforts to morepressing issues, and avoid spending further time and money on this issue.31Name: Dianne Swank on Sep 28, 2010Comments:32Name: D. Carroll on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I have owned property and liven in Santa Cruz since 1993. Many vacation rentals are locatedin my neighborhood and we have enjoyed tose visitors in our neighborhood. The only noise problems wehave had were from long term rental UCSC students. Even so none of our neighborhoods signed a petitionto reduce the number of student long term rentals.33Name: Dan Strker on Sep 28, 2010Comments: The timing for restricting vacation rentals is completely off base. The region definitely needsthe extra tourism income right now and the last thing the local home owners need is to have their propertyvalues depressed.34Name: Anonymous on Sep 28, 2010Comments:35Name: Candace R. Rogers on Sep 28,2010Comments:36Name: Paul Waters on Sep 28, 2010Comments: There are already ways to track houses that bother neighbors, no need for another costlyprogram.

111412010

of35

37Name: Linda Waters on Sep 28, 2010Comments: Please don't drive tourists out oftown, we need them to keep spending during these tougheconomic times.38Name: Joyce Harrngton on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I have owned and managed my vacation rental in Santa Cruz for 10 years. I also have othervacation rentals in Del Mar, Santa Barbara, Tahoe and British Columbia. I am very sensitive to theneighbors privacy and peace and manage my homes responsibly. I am opposed to this regulation aswritten. I am in favor of responsible home management.39Name: Shyamal Chaudhury on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I don't see any benefits from the proposed ordinance, instead, it wil have terrble effect on thehousing and economic market. I vote in the District 1, Live Oak (Zip 95062)40Name: Anonymous on Sep 28, 2010Comments:41Name: Joanna Davidson on Sep 28, 2010Comments: Why Santa Cruz County is spending money and time on an activity that provides NOeconomic benefit to its citizens? Please act sensibly!!! Aptos CA 9500342Name: Brian Harrs on Sep 28,2010Comments:43Name: Michael M. McMahon on Sep 28, 2010Comments:44Name: Michael M. McMahon on Sep 28, 2010Comments:45Name: Marie Medvednik on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I am happy to support saving Santa Cruz vacation rentals.46Name: Allen Jebian on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I am a home owner in santa cruz since 1985. Banning vacation rentals sounds like just anothereffort to make Santa Cruz boring.47Name: Ella Morales on Sep 28, 2010Comments: ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. Ella Aptos48Name: Jessica Strckland on Sep 28, 2010Comments: Fuck this law! People in SC need to worr about bigger issues.49Name: Judy MacDonald on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I have read and I am opposed to the Proposed Vacation Rental Legislation. This legislationseverely restricts the rights of Santa Cruz County property owners. I am a registered voter and long timeresident of Santa Cruz County. I have lived in the county for over 50 years, pay taxes and vote in everylocal election. I am now aware of the misguided use of power that our board of Supervisosrs intend toinflict on Property Owners and wil do all in my power as a citizen to watch over the actions of ourSupervisors and defend against their draconian behavior.50Name: Michael Whelpley on Sep 28,2010 ,.Comments: I have thoroughly enjoyed visiting Santa Cruz over the years, and it would be a shame if there ?;/!).

111412010

of35

was no longer any place I could stay during my visits - quite frankly, I would plan to visit other localesduring my free time instead.Name: Julie Schuler on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I live near Natural Bridges and oppose this 100%. There are far more problems with studentsfrom UCSC than tourists. Let's not forget, these tourists are the lifeblood of this city. Neal Coonerty I voteand wil vote against you next election if you approve this.52Name: Bill Mahoney on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I am shocked that John Leopold is trying to ram this through when there is no need for it. Mr.Leopold, the Santa Cruz already had a method for tracking houses that are noisy or otherwise bother theirneighbors. Looking through this list, one sees student housing, not vacation rentals as the problem. I live inLive Oak and have never experienced any troubles with the vacation rentals that are in my neighborhood.Rather, instead of being empty and inviting someone to break into them, they are full of wonderful visitorsthat are not only deterrng crime, they are spending their hard earned money in my neighborhood -probably keeping several restaurants and stores in business.53Name: Rhonda Simmons on Sep 28, 2010Comments: All the trouble that I've experienced on the beaches in Live Oak is from teenagers from out oftown that think they can do whatever they want. From drinking on the beach and leaving behind the bottlesto blocking driveways while they are on the beach, these are the people we should be concerned about. Weshould encourage the people staying in vacation rentals, not chase them out of town, otherwise we'll onlybe left with these hoodlums that don't bring any value or money to our neighborhood.54Name: Ted Burke on Sep 28, 2010Comments:55Name: Steve West on Sep 28, 2010Comments: Several years ago we had a problem with crime on our street. We had several houses on thestreet that were 2nd houses and consequently, empty most of the time. Since they were empty, a badelement thought they could hang out, drink, smoke, make noise, litter and get away with it because therethere was nobody around to call the cops on them. I'm guessing due to the economy these 2nd homesturned over and several of them are now vacation rentals. You know what? No more problems with the badguys hanging out on the street. Instead, we've got families that are staying in these houses and also servingas another set of eyes to help the rest of us keep our street safe. Wanna know something else? These samerenters are spending money in our city and paying taxes. As for noise or other problems these vacationrentals have created? None. Rather, these vacation rentals have been a tremendous asset to ourneighborhood and I would hate to lose them. If this regulation goes into affect, the street wil once againbecome dark and inviting to those bad guys and our neighborhood wil become less safe. Worse, due to thelost taxes these visitors pay, we'll have less police protection as well. This ordinance is a lose-lose foreveryone.56Name: Judy Gelwicks on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I frequest the Santa Cruz area for business and stay in vacation homes at those times. It wouldbe a great inconvenience and hardship if I was not allowed at use those homes for my stays. A hotel wouldnot provide the right conveniences. Besides I love the feeling of staying in a home while I am there.57Name: Kate Hudson on Sep 28, 2010Comments:58Name: Elaine & Roland Maitland on Sep 28, 2010Comments:59Name: Anonymous on Sep 28, 2010Comments: We have visited Santa Cruz and stayed in.one of the vacation rentals that would be affected bY_;iC'11/412010 j-)

of35

this proposal. It was a peaceful and comfortable weekend stay and I am shocked and saddened that thisrash and unnecessar idea is even under consideration as it would make me much less likely to visit SantaCruz again.60Name: Tara Sweatt on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I handle a handful of VR's, I have not had a problem with noise, etc, but I have had toreimburse tenants because of noise from permanent residents next door.61Name: Anonymous on Sep 28, 2010Comments:62Name: Jim Munro on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I am against this complete waste oftax payers money. The beach neighborhoods are inevitablybusier and noisier than normal 'residential' areas. People are here in the summer to have fun and enjoy thebeach. These so called nuisances are just as likely to be caused by a permanent resident or second homeowner as a vacation renter. This ordinance will not change a thing except cause people to lose criticalincome and possibly their home. The beach has always been this way and will continue to be this way. Theprovision to make vacation renters park off street is especially ludicrous and shows the lack of criticalthinking behind this ordinance It wil not be possible to prevent vacation renters from parking on the streetsince it is PUBLIC parking and absolutely anyone can park here regardless of their rental status. Who willhand out the parking tickets? Certainly not the Highway Patrol or Sheriff. This whole thing is an exampleof blatant discrimination against beach goers. Next it will be day visitors!63Name: Dale Davis on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I strongly oppose this ordinance as i wil never support an ordinance that limits people'sproperty rights! That is not the function of a Democratic governent! This will lower property values andwe already have enough damage with property values. Many people wil be negatively affected!64Name: Dale Davis on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I strongly oppose this ordinance as i will never support an ordinance that limits people'sproperty rights! That is not the function of a Democratic governent! This wil lower property values andwe already have enough damage with property values. Many people wil be negatively affected!65Name: Heather Wilbur on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I oppose this ordinance as I am yet to see a need for it! I can not be in favor of moregovernent and less property rights! Turning away Tourism in a Tourist destination town is financialsuicide.66Name: Rachel Carroll on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I oppose this ordinance fully! Why is it we are not put these limitaitons on long term rentals orowner occupied homes! Fair is fair is it not? Or maybe it's not! Limiting Tourism is not the most intelligentthing I've heard oft67Name: William Buck Hoelscher on Sep 28, 2010Comments: Stop the vacation rental ordinance - NOW!68Name: Danny Whiting on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I oppose this ordinance in it's entirety! Limiting tourism in a tourist destination lacks commonsense and business sense!

69N arne: Anonymous on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I wil lose my job if this ordinance passes and bans vacation rentals in Santa Cruz. I have livedhere my whole life and make all ~y .income working for vacation rental owners doing their bookkeeping, ""marketing, and arrange for cleaning in between guests. I know that most people come to Santa Cruz to stay '2 ~11/4/2010 ~.)

of35

in vacation rentals instead of hotels due to the SAFE locations and for the feeling of "home away fromhome".70Name: Doug Urbanus on Sep 28, 2010Comments: Discouraging tourism by the shackling power of the proposed rules is bad for the County as awhole. The County has enough problem raising funds for services without this additional and unnecessarmeddling.71Name: Kalika Bowman on Sep 28,2010Comments: I oppose this ordinance as I do not see any benefit from limiting our county's income and Icertainly see much damage resulting from limiting tourism dollars in our county. Please take this seriouslyenough as you wil be affecting many people's lives.72Name: Warren Claiborne on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I oppose this ordinance as lowering the need for my services means less income for me. I amworking very hard to put myself through college. What benefit do you get from creating less income forus?73Name: Nick Claiborne on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I oppose this ordinance as my family already struggles due to the lowered housing prices. Youwill only be magnifying this problem. Thank you.74Name: Susan Bagby on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I have considered many times to turn my home into a vacation rental during the summer sinceit is expensive living here as it is all year round. If this ordinance to ban vacation rentals passes then therewil be no way for me to make extra income in order for me to keep my home. It does not make sense forme to turn my home into a rental for UCSC students since that will lower the value on my home when Icould be living in it part time and staying with my daughters when I have vacationers.75Name: Carre Walton on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I can not believe that Supervisor Leopold is trying push an ordinance through that would hurttourism and take away tax revenue from Santa Cruz. That fact that this is even being considered during theworst economic time since the Great Depression is unfathomable. Noise, disturbances, parking, etc. can allbe resolved with existing ordinances. Supervisor Leopold is trying to appease a few beach front homeowners at the expense of the rest of Santa Cruz county and its neighbors, why?76Name: Travis Wilbur on Sep 28, 2010Comments: I oppose this ordinance as housing values have already declined radically. Limiting people'sproperty rights and limiting tourism only creates more financial hardships in an already difficult economicclimate.77Name: John Frazer on Sep 28, 2010Comments: This is not a good idea to restrict the rights of vacation rental owners in this town during thiseconomic depression, we are in dire need of increasing tourism. Santa Cruz needs better enforcement andregulation of the rules and ordinances already in place. We wouldn't have this problem if the City andCounty were more organized with residents in their efforts of keeping this town functional and runningsmoothly.78Name: Don Loeb on Sep 28,2010Comments: love renting in santa cruz. it's a great place for a parents with a young family.79Name: Anonymous on Sep 29,2010Comments: .80 3S'

111412010

of35

Name: Debbie Craven on Sep 29, 2010Comments: I want my grandson to stay in his home!81Name: Bill Craven on Sep 29, 2010Comments:82Name: Denise And Dan Hall on Sep 29, 2010Comments: We have a home in Aptos that we specifically purchased to rent part time to off set the cost.We wouldn't have bought it if we couldn't. We are responsible renters, charge and pay our taxes, screen ourguests and try to make it as transparent to our neighbors out of respect. This new legislature wil hurtpeople like me, but also cut down on tourism because it would cut off a new growing market of peoplewanting to have an alternative to traditional hotels. Especially nice quiet family renters! They wouldotherwise just go somewhere else for their beach vacation where they could be more comfortable to relaxwith their kids. Bad idea for many reasons!!!!83Name: Charlene Ureta on Sep 29, 2010Comments:84Name: Kathleen Fouquier on Sep 29, 2010Comments: Are these supervisors out of their ever lovin minds? Are they even property ownersthemselves? Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite yourselfl I oppose this completely!!!. I feel like this

is George Orwells "Animal Far" in the making. This opens the floodgates for other unsoundedrestrictions. The California Coastal Commission repealed a similar ordinance for a coastal San Diegocommunity. What a waste oftime that these supervisors have chosen when there are so many more issuesthat affect our community. Shame on them and the few Nimbys. They should have gotten all the factsbefore pushing this one through. And, what about the back door meetings? I think the City of Bell is atestament to covert meetings. I don't complain about the maxed out property rentals around my home thatare overloaded with students living in one house. Give me a break supervisors. I wil be happy to sign anypetitions for recall should this go through.85Name: Anonymous on Sep 29, 2010Comments:86Name: John Hjelmstad on Sep 29, 2010Comments:87Name: Michael Costa on Sep 29, 2010Comments: A 7 night minimum stay requirement wil guarantee that I take my family and my tourismdollars elsewhere.88Name: Anonymous on Sep 29,2010Comments:89Name: Phyllis Lanini on Sep 29, 2010Comments:90Name: Jewlia Sparks on Sep 29, 2010Comments:91Name: Jonathan Degeneres on Sep 29, 2010Comments: It wil hurt So bad the local than help!92Name: Scott Correa-Mickel on Sep 29,2010Comments: My wife and I have worked all our lives to get a lovely home near the beach. I want to leave

11/412010'3'~. (/'

J

of35

this as a beach home for my children when we pass away. They could only keep it if they can share it as afamily and also as a vacation rental. This would be a good thing for my family, for the neighborhood andfor the county. The ordinance by its very structure would mean that my family would not be able to do this(other homes in my neighborhood do so now ). You would force us out of our home. Also how can youexpect people to not have the same uses for their property (i.e. weddings, parties, guests for one night etc.)as others based on the occupancy (owner, rental, vacation)? This seems so discriminatory. This is a BADidea. Please take this off the table. Scotty Correa-Mickel 119 32nd Ave. Santa Cruz 9506293Name: Lilian Howard on Sep 29, 2010Comments:94Name: RICHARD ALVES on Sep 29, 2010Comments:95Name: Anonymous on Sep 29, 2010Comments: The beaches are OUR public land (and water). They are part of our COMMONwealth. Thesewild I natural places are for EVERYone. We all share this EARTH - and the air and the water!96Name: Richard Dawson on Sep 29, 2010Comments: I disagree with restrctions on vacation rentals. Before passing this legislation, ensure that theproponents want to collectively make up the county's deficit out of their own pockets.97Name: Melissa Fritchle on Sep 29, 2010Comments:98Name: Jeanell Martin on Sep 29, 2010Comments:99Name: John Wilkins on Sep 29, 2010Comments:100Name: Jim Wasko on Sep 29, 2010Comments: Is Santa Cruz county going communists??? It sounds like something Joseph Stahlin woulddo.......... "Tourists stay out and stay off my beaches". This is alarming to think that our rights are bedetermined by a small group of small thinkers. JWName: Linda Swope on Sep 29, 2010Comments: We use to spend many summers in Sanat Cruz but between murders, crime and now thisrestrictions on vacation rentals in Santa Cruz County. Well Montery here we come............102Name: Daniel Pham on Sep 29, 2010Comments: Santa Cruz needs to worr more about their deficit than a few local tax payers.103Name: Ros Munro on Sep 29, 2010Comments:104Name: Anne Fox on Sep 29, 2010Comments: It would be a terrble shame ifthis passed and would furter devastate many in Santa CruzCounty. How possibly could the Board see that empty homes due to foreclosure is a better solution thantourists enjoying time in Santa Cruz county? .105Name: Eileen Goudge on Sep 29, 2010Comments:106Name: SHIRLEY RISHER on Sep 29, 2010 3~"

11/412010

of35

Comments: Beaches should be open to the public.107Name: Pamela Denner on Sep 29, 2010Comments:108Name: Scott Randles on Sep 29,2010Comments: I often come over to Santa Cruz to enjoy the scenery of the coast, forests, food, wine andespecially the beaches. Not sure what you folks are thinking about in these economic times. I enjoy 2 to 3night stays. This wil restrict me and my family from coming to Santa Cruz. Although if you do not wantmy business I can always got to else ware. Scott Randles109Name: Suzi Sutherland on Sep 29, 2010Comments: Stop punishing the tax paying citizens of your city. Your proposal is out of touch with realityand business. Wake up and realize that tourism is what paves the roads in Santa Cruz and funds the firefighters and police officers. Use your head for crissake.110Name: Marcie Kirby on Sep 29, 2010Comments: I am a homeowner and am interested in buying a second home at some point in the not sodistant future. I strongly disagree with the restrctions in this proposal!111Name: Paula Sweatt on Sep 29, 2010Comments:112Name: Marcie Kirby on Sep 29, 2010Comments: I am a homeowner and am interested in buying a second home at some point in the not sodistant future. I strongly disagree with the restrictions in this proposal!113Name: Greg Sweatt on Sep 29, 2010Comments:114Name: Caryn Owen on Sep 29,2010Comments:115Name: Meadow And Corey Davis on Sep 29, 2010Comments: We live in one of the heaviest areas of vacation home rentals and have honestly never had anyproblem with these rentals. Most owners are extremely careful about who they rent to and extremelycareful about being respectful to neighbors and community. This is a very diffcult area to be able to affordto buy a home and I support those who have been creative enough to figure out a way to rent part of theirproperty in order to be able to afford to live here!116Name: Sherie Gallo on Sep 29, 2010Comments: I am against the vacation rental restrictions. It is short-sighted and there already exists othernoise nuisances, etc. to help support the quality of life.117Name: Quinton Jay on Sep 29,2010Comments: A ban on rentals in Santa Cruz would hurt the local economies and businesses that benefitfrom the tourism dollars ranging from pizza shops to fine dining.118Name: Thomas J. Owens on Sep 29, 2010Comments: Must be realy nice to have so much time and money to be so triviaL. How will I be able toenjoy Santa Cruz beaches?119 ~Name: Robert Weaver on Sep 29, 2010 '2':Comments: U

1114/2010

of35

120Name: David Cook on Sep 29, 2010Comments:121Name: Terri Morgan on Sep 29, 2010Comments: Rather than restrict vacation rentals, it makes much more sense to just enforce noise codes, etc.on the handful of incidents that occur within the county.122Name: Jan McGirk on Sep 29, 2010Comments:123Name: Sally Munro on Sep 29, 2010Comments:124Name: Haley Clegg on Sep 29, 2010Comments:125Name: Peter Michael Higgins on Sep 29, 2010Comments:126Name: Judith Buck on Sep 29, 2010Comments: One Supervisor in Santa Cruz County has made up arbitrar rules that he thinks wil solve allthe problem of Noise, Excess Trash, and Lack of Parking in all Neigh-borhoods with Vacation Rentals. Ifhe persuades two more Supervisors to vote with him, his rules will be made law on Tuesday, Nov 16,2010and be enforced from Jan 1,2011 on. These rules will make it impossible for Owners of Vacation Rentalsto offer their homes at their current prices as they are going to NOT going to be allowed to offer more thanone rental per week. Most Guests prefer shorter than 7 -day rentals, so we Owners have split our weeks upinto 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 night stays, where 2 or 3 sets of Guests share a different part of a week. We cannot pàyour mortgages and property taxes on just one short rental per week & so wil be forced out of existence. Ifyou care about staying in a comfortable and safe home environment with your frends, children & pets,please sign and send our petition located at: http://www.ipetitions.comlpetitionlsantacruztourisml to yourfrends!127Name: Rob Munro on Sep 29, 2010Comments: This is crazy. People and residents who have lived in Santa Cruz for many years and call ithome are looking at an attack on the abilities to earn income. If there are unrly rental persons, then deal

with them on an individual basis. Santa Cruz is a holiday destination and to attack traditional routes ofaccommodation for many is just plain stupid. There are already too many laws in SC and this reduces therights of the many as opposed to good policing the few.128Name: Kari Cosentino on Sep 29, 2010Comments:129Name: Corbin Bennett on Sep 29, 2010Comments: California beaches are for everyone. Simple, and true.130Name: Sabrina Ritchie on Sep 29, 2010Comments:131Name: Gina Earle on Sep 29,2010Comments: as above132Name: Anonymous on Sep 29, 2010Comments:

/'''

3~111412010

of35

133Name: Brian Chapman on Sep 29, 2010Comments: Although I am not involved in vacation rentals myself, I support this petition. I am ahomeowner in Aptos. BNC134Name: MRs. Gary Morrs (Joy Morris) on Sep 29,2010Comments: This new proposal does not make any sense. A person should be able to rent his own personalproperty.135Name: Anonymous on Sep 29, 2010Comments:136Name: Carolyn Alyanakian-Smith on Sep 29, 2010Comments: Everyone else's comments have covered it!137Name: Carolyn Alyanakian-Smith on Sep 29,2010Comments: Everyone else's comments have covered it!138Name: Heidi Breuner on Sep 29, 2010Comments:139Name: Audra Reiswig on Sep 29, 2010Comments: Loved the vacation rental in Santa Cruz County.140Name: Robin Cross on Sep 29, 2010Comments:141Name: Jenni Deeter on Sep 29, 2010Comments: My zip code is 95062142Name: Michael Carlton on Sep 29, 2010Comments:143Name: David Love on Sep 29, 2010Comments: we should all have a viable concern to maximize tourism and maintain property values, whichwill both be jeapordized with this new ordinance144Name: Michael Carlton on Sep 29,2010Comments:145Name: Nancy Wolosyn on Sep 29,2010Comments: Don't we have more pressing matters to attend to? This town and county started as a vacationdestination. This is how we came into existance!146Name: George Medved, Natalie Medved on Sep 29, 2010Comments: Stayed three unforgettable days in Adams house, Thank you.147Name: Betsy Ayres on Sep 29,2010Comments: If there is going to be regulation of short term rentals, then all existing rentals should begrandfathered in. There are local families who would be unfairly treated if the rules of the game changeafter they've owned their homes/property. Thank you148Name: Susann J Kahan on Sep 29, 2010Comments:

/3~

1114/2010

of35

149Name: Glen Horsfield on Sep 29,2010Comments:150Name: Gloria C. Kollmann on Sep 29, 2010Comments: Not fair to people who love Santa Cruz but can't afford to buy. If there are misbehavers call thepolice.Name: Karina Lehmer on Sep 29, 2010Comments:152Name: Marjorie Way on Sep 29, 2010Comments: I agree wholeheartedly. There are not enough hotels in this area to house the number ofvacationers who come here yearly as it is and vacation rentals provide a wonderful way for people to visitour community. I am a voter in Santa Cruz City and do not support this legislation for vacation rentals.153Name: Doris Massa on Sep 29, 2010Comments:154Name: Walt Ader on Sep 29, 2010Comments:155Name: Aislinn Emirzian on Sep 29, 2010Comments:156Name: Alice Sweatt on Sep 29, 2010Comments:157Name: Boyd Hingle on Sep 29, 2010Comments: It would be a travisty of unfairness to keep the beauty of those beaches and access closed topeople.158Name: Maya Crelan on Sep 29, 2010Comments:159Name: Catherine Clark on Sep 29, 2010Comments: It's a shame that a few wealthy landowners can be so greedy as to not want to share "their"beach. The reality oflife in 2010 is that people should be allowed to make a fair living any legal way thatthey can. If renting a few rooms pays for a child's college education, or helps to pay a mortgage, or takescare of an il parent, then what is the harm? Oh of course, I forgot that the few greedy landowners don'twant anybody on THEIR beach. Good luck in your quest for reasonable legislation.160Name: Lee Broughton on Sep 29,2010Comments: I oppose this ordinance as it makes zero business sense and you wil damage our community ina huge financial way.161Name: Karen Linthicum on Sep 29, 2010Comments: I am disappointed that the city of San Jose is looking to implement this law. It's very elitist ofthe city. I love to visit Santa Cruz, but can't afford a home. We have to rent a house when we visit and arevery respectful of the neighbors. We visit not only the beaches, but frequent the shops and restaurants,bringing revenue into the city. I hope the city of Santa Cruz reconsiders!162Name: Anonymous on Sep 29,2010Comments:163

11/412010

.'..ß"'"

/'

3~

of35

Name: Rosana Davidson-McMahon on Sep 29, 2010Comments:164Name: Erika Schuman-Fitch on Sep 29, 2010Comments: Why in the world would anyone in Santa Cruz want this to pass? Tourism has to be a mainsource of income for this city. Implement some other rules to mitigate the annoyance of renters, don't bitethe hand that feeds you.165Name: Anonymous on Sep 29, 2010Comments:166Name: Judy Vroege on Sep 30, 2010Comments:167Name: Josephine Thomas on Sep 30, 2010Comments: This wil not be good for business nor is it fair for anyone who lives in a city because of workand wants to be able to enjoy the shore on the weekends!168Name: Wendi Thomas on Sep 30,2010Comments:169Name: Tammy Ostrowski on Sep 30, 2010Comments: Horrible idea. All of the homeowners and local business that rely on this income would bedevastated and those of us who have respectfully enjoyed the use of these rental homes and your lovelybeaches and communities would be extremely saddened. Tourism brings so much money to yourcommunity. It would be cutting your nose offto spite your face as the saying goes. Hope you make theright decision and vote against this craziness. My zip code is 95973170Name: Mark Gianousopoulos on Sep 30, 2010Comments: The beach should be for everyone.171Name: Mary Benham on Sep 30, 2010Comments: We live and work in the bay area. We like to spend weekends in Santa Cruz, where ourchildren surf. It is nice to be able to rent a house for 2-3 days over a weekend, so we don't have to driveback and forth each day. If we could only rent for a 7 day period, our children would just drive over for theday to surf, and we would then use our weeks vacation to head south to surf (where we are from) where itis warmer. I think if you hold people to a one week minimum, people wil chose other cities to visit. I can'tbelieve you would concider losing revenue for your city and your home owners by restricting visitors. Weare not all fortunate enough to be able to live at the beach, but if Santa Cruz wants to make their beachexclusive, then I think people will go to other beach towns, we have miles of them here in California. Andthe last time I checked, not one can own the beach here in California. I hope you reconsider.172Name: Gail Thomas on Sep 30, 2010Comments:173Name: Janey Lyon Sep 30, 2010Comments:174Name: Jonathan Greenblatt on Sep 30, 2010Comments: hey there - I want to bring me and my family up to Santa Cruz so I hope that these restrctionsfail and that all of us can enjoy the community in a respectful manner175Name: Roy Burman on Sep 30,2010Comments: A~J'

1114/2010

of35

176Name: Agota Jonas on Sep 30, 2010Comments: I am a voter in area 95003.177Name: Steve Carter on Sep 30, 2010Comments: This prposed ordinance sounds like a bad idea to me.178Name: Melissa Herceg on Sep 30, 2010Comments: I hope this Does not pass!179Name: Alayna Nathe on Sep 30, 2010Comments:180Name: Katherine Upshur on Sep 30, 2010Comments:181Name: Murielle Antoku on Sep 30, 2010Comments:182Name: Marjorie Miler on Sep 30, 2010Comments:183Name: Carol Sun on Sep 30, 2010Comments:184Name: Sandra Gresham on Sep 30, 2010Comments:185Name: Alan Mosley on Sep 30, 2010Comments:186Name: Anonymous on Sep 30, 2010Comments: are you guys kidding?!187Name: Rima Dunton on Sep 30, 2010Comments:188Name: Laura Archer on Sep 30, 2010Comments: There is a serious lack of hotels in the city. Tourists rely on the vacation rentals to visit SantaCruz. Us owners rely on the income to pay our mortgages. Banning vacation rentals will hurt everyone.189Name: Patricia Boe on Sep 30, 2010Comments:190Name: Jeane Lance on Sep 30, 2010Comments:191Name: Jerr Thomas on Sep 30, 2010Comments:192Name: Juniper Nichols on Sep 30, 2010Comments: I live in Live Oak and have enjoyed visiting the 100-year old house of a family frend, locatedon 3rd St near S~abright. It h~s. been in the fam~ly since ~hey cons~cted it all that time ago, a real vintage C"

gem peppered with memorobilia of the generations coming and going over the last century. Theyeven 2$..

11/412010

of35

have growth charts cut in the door jam. I doubt they would be able to keep the house iftheir vacation rentalrights were restricted in the manner proposed. It would be a great shame to sell for this reason, it's morethan just a "property" for them. Vacation rentals aren't just about money-making opportunism. This is theonly way some families have of holding on to their own treasured vacation homes.193Name: Eric Lamascus on Sep 30, 2010Comments:194Name: Amanda Bermudes on Sep 30, 2010Comments:195Name: Nathan York on Sep 30, 2010Comments: As a resident and homeowner in Santa Cruz County, even though I do not own a vacationrental, I'm strongly opposed to this proposed ordinance. Please stop this nonsense and focus on bringingeconomic growth to SCC instead of driving it away!196Name: Dr Jay And Annette Pennock on Sep 30, 2010Comments: This is the most ridiculous proposal I have ever heard of. Please, Board of Supervisors, cometo your senses! This wil kil our economy!197Name: Mardi Brown on Sep 30,2010 .Comments: Our tourist dollars and interest in Santa Cruz is vital for our economy.198Name: Dustin Macdonald on Sep 30, 2010Comments: Please don't injure the already limping housing market.199Name: Ann Ostermann on Sep 30, 2010Comments:200Name: Judy M. Brose on Sep 30,2010Comments: Please don't destroy our S.C. economy....Name: John Griffith on Sep 30, 2010Comments:202Name: Laura Bishop on Sep 30, 2010Comments: I am a voter in Santa Cruz County and am strongly against this current legislation as it isproposed. The ENTIRE County of Santa Cruz benefits from tourism and vacationers. This proposal wouldbe devastating to our county's economic base during a time when the national economy is already in crisis.As our representative, you need to remember that you represent the ENTIRE district/county and not just asmall group who live near the beaches. Please consider the needs of the rest of the county.203Name: Deb Hiner on Sep 30, 2010Comments:204Name: Anonymous on Sep 30, 2010Comments:205Name: Watonka Addison on Sep 30, 2010Comments: There could not be a worse time to consider this il-advised proposal! The economy in thiscounty is already in a tailspin, and we need to focus our efforts on improving profitability of the touristindustry in Santa Cruz county. Please consider carefully--my families' jobs depend on it!206Name: George Gigarian on Sep 30, 2010Comments:

ø"é'-

"2 L,~.:; .p)

111412010

of35

207Name: Scott Shaffer I North Bay PT on Sep 30, 2010Comments:208Name: Eric Schneider on Sep 30, 2010Comments: This law would hurt Santa Cruz and many of The wonderful people i know and love. Anyonewho votes for this wil lose my support and vote. Thanks for your consideration.209Name: Jaisan on Sep 30, 2010Comments:210Name: Anonymous on Sep 30, 2010Comments:211Name: Julie Morgan on Sep 30, 2010Comments: Our family loves to rent a beach houselcondo for short vacations throughout the year. Pleasedon't make that an impossibility in the future. Beaches are not private propert to be controlled by a fewwealthy homeowners... how arrogant ofthem to think so.212Name: Jeane Mackenzie on Sep 30, 2010Comments:213Name: Kathy Fischer on Sep 30, 2010Comments: I can't beleive someone is trying to take more of our rights away. Wake up people! Every daywe Americans are losing our rights!214Name: Anonymous on Sep 30, 2010Comments:215Name: Gino Rinaldi Jr on Oct 1,2010Comments:216Name: Bil Hees on Oct 1,2010Comments: Live Oak/Opal Cliffs 95062217Name: Joscelyn Grote on Oct 1, 2010Comments:218Name: Peter Kampp on Oct 1,2010Comments:219Name: Joan Ellis on Oct 1,2010Comments: Please DO NOT approve this legislation. My zip code isw 95003.220Name: Bill Wiseman on Oct 1, 2010Comments: Don't shoot yourself in the foot. It hurts!221Name: James Thomas on Oct 1,2010Comments: Stop the maddness. All citizens are entilted to the beach areas. My family has enjoyed many oftheir best times together at over 25 different beach rentals the last 40 years.222Name: Raoul Ortiz on Oct 1, 2010Comments: Get out of my house. Who stays at my house, for how long and for what amount should never "'2be the Governents concern. Private residences stay private. Lets agree to vote out Supervisor Leopold. Q

111412010

of35

223Name: Anonymous on Oct 1,2010Comments:224Name: Kevin Delaney on Oct 1,2010Comments:225Name: Diana And Robert Marshall on Oct 1,2010Comments:226Name: Mary Love on Oct 1, 2010Comments:227Name: Tana Brinnand on Oct 1,2010Comments: NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! Are you insane? In this economy,income from vacation rentals are the only thing keeping many of us in our homes. Without tourism thiscounty is dead in the water. Do you want to completely sink Santa Cruz? Everyone is scrambling just tomake ends meet, and you are actually considering banning vacation rentals. What are you thinking?! Ordid you have some other great idea about job creation? oh... I thought not. Felton, CA 95018 - AND IVOTE!228Name: Anonymous on Oct 1, 2010Comments:229Name: Walter Antoku on Oct 1,2010Comments:230Name: Mike Attolico on Oct 1,2010Comments: The county has no right to restrict the people's ability to rent out their property. This is crazy.Who does this benefit, a few people living next to a couple vacation rentals?231Name: Michael Croghan on Oct 1,2010Comments:232Name: Suzanne Pfeil on Oct 1,2010Comments:233Name: Tara Forrest on Oct 1,2010Comments: Please work with the comunity and hear what they are needing!234Name: Anonymous on Oct 1, 2010Comments: I absolutely vote for rejecting this potition235Name: Vivian Gunnerengen on Oct 1,2010Comments: I am concerned about the proposed regulation on vacation properties in Live Oak. Why onlyLive Oak? All vacation home properties in Santa Cruz County should be treated equal. How aboutenforcing the current laws before the Board waste more time finding new ideas on more control andrestrictions.236Name: Janae Kirby on Oct 1,2010Comments:237Name: Dan Regan on Oct 1, 2010Comments: 95062

,øj:7

~)1114/2010

of35

238Name: Frederick Bensusan on Oct 1, 2010Comments: 95060

239Name: Katrina Kocher on Oct 1,2010Comments:240Name: Greg Stein on Oct 1,2010Comments:241Name: Ken Pollastrini on Oct 1,2010Comments:242Name: Chrstina Wiseman on Oct 1,2010Comments: Give Santa Cruz a fighting chance to be a thrving beach town.243Name: Anonymous on Oct 1,2010Comments:244Name: Thomas Quattlebaum on Oct 1, 2010Comments:245Name: Beth Weber-Guarino on Oct 2,2010Comments: When there are noise and trash complaints, there are methods in place today to deal with theseissues. To implement an ordinance that then has to be monitored to be effective wil be a HUGE cost to thecounty and is a violation of property rights for 2nd homelvacation homeowners.246Name: Mohita Tandon on Oct 2,2010Comments:247Name: Anonymous on Oct 2,2010Comments:248Name: Lisa Boyer on Oct 2,2010Comments:249Name: Janet Perr on Oct 2,2010

Comments: It is so sad that our ability to manage our own property is being taken from us. This is only oneexample.250Name: Anonymous on Oct 2,2010Comments:Name: Alfred C. Brinnand on Oct 2,2010Comments: Tourism is the lifeblood of Santa Cruz County and all residents depend upon services paid forby people visiting our beautiful County.252Name: Darlene Olivo on Oct 2, 2010Comments:253Name: Mike Guarino on Oct 2,2010Comments: This proposed ordinance violates my property rights as an owner of a 2nd home which I alsouse as a vacation rental. To the BOS, focus your energy elsewhere.254Name: NICK IULIANO on Oct 3, 2010

11/412010

of35

Comments: I don't think it is necessary to impose an ordinance every time there is a disagreement betweenproperty owners or for that matter anything else in our neighborhood. I think if there is a problem it shouldbe worked out among the people rather than have the governent get involved. Are we afraid ofconfronting our neighbors ourselves. The governent is involved enough in our day to day lives, we donot need more regulations but less. Lets have a block get together and work out the problems our selves.255Name: Akemi Chee on Oct 3,2010Comments: This ordinance wil do more harm to Santa Cruz. Look at what is happening to Big Bear whenthey passed a similiar ordinance a couple of years ago. Half the town is for sell or in foreclosure. Therestrictions of the ordinance discourages new buyers. Now oversea businessmen are starting to come innegotiating purchases below value to desperate sellers. Has anyone done any studies on how this ordinancewil affect Santa Cruz? It wil affect everyone. Once this ball gets rollng it'll be harder to take it back.256Name: Anonymous on Oct 3, 2010Comments:257Name: Charles Barr on Oct 3, 2010Comments: I own a home in Santa Cruz and although I do not rent it, nor do I plan on renting it out, I amagainst the notion that the County is limited what I can and can't do with respect to renting my home. Thisappears to be a plan by hotels and motels, whose business is suffering, to artificially reduce supply so thatthey can maintain occupancy and rental levels. Let them compete fairly. Charles Bar, Santa Cruz 95062258Name: Marilyn Kuksht on Oct 3, 2010Comments:259Name: Stephanie Parodi on Oct 4,2010Comments:260Name: Joyce Carroll on Oct 4,2010Comments: I oppose this ordinance as Tourism is the only industry we have left and stopping or slowingdown the flow of money from outside counties wil not help our un-employment rate or all of our propertyvalues! Than you.261Name: Alfred C. Brinnand on Oct 4,2010Comments: Santa Cruz needs all the help they can get. Leave well enough alone262Name: Dorothy M Thomas on Oct 4,2010Comments: Our family with 9 children have rented beach houses in Aptos, Rio Del Mar for over 40 years.Our children and grand children have continued this tradition spending thousands of dollars on meals, golfand entertainment twice a year for summer and winter vacations. This legislation is absurd and a disserviceto the people of Santa Cruz County. Because of the recent restrictions enacted, our most recent vacationrentals have been in Monterey. The beaches are for all economic levels of our community and not only forthe rich. Property owners have the right to rent their homes as they wish and we wil not support SantaCruz County if you pass this legislation. Mrs. Eli Thomas.263Name: Jeffrey Westman on Oct 4,2010Comments: This is crazy, keep Santa Cruz as it is!!!264Name: Dan Whisenhunt on Oct 4, 2010Comments: Thank you! Dan265~;?~,:~y Barker on Oct 4, 2010 ?:C;

1114/2010

of35

Name: Alma D. Donato on Oct 4,2010Comments: We live in a Community that has prospered by bringing in tourism from around the world, thispotential new legislation would have an extremely negative affect on every business owner in the Countyof Santa Cruz especially the businesses that thrive on tourism. With the state of our economy we should beworking towards bringing in more Tourism. Not only wil it affect business, it will also trickle down to ourSchools, parks, recreation, etc. People forget that when our local businesses are thrving, they are the oneswho donate money towards, scholarships, sports, schools, the arts, cancer you name it. Let's support ourCommunity and remember that we do live in one ofthe most sought after tourist destinations in the world.So lets keep it frendly for the hardworking business owners that depend on tourism.267Name: Anonymous on Oct 4,2010Comments:268Name: Julie Barbin on Oct 5, 2010Comments:269Name: Gregg Camp on Oct 5, 2010Comments: Government needs to be reigned in and taking property rights in an expensive area is foolish.Let's not start rent control either.270Name: Anonymous on Oct 5, 2010Comments:271Name: Mike Bigler on Oct 5,2010Comments:272Name: Bob Henkel on Oct 5,2010Comments: I strongly oppose this ordinance273Name: Mark E. Scranton, Esq. on Oct 5,2010Comments:274Name: Joey Baker on Oct 5, 2010Comments:275Name: Charean Marshall on Oct 5, 2010Comments:276Name: Dejan Skvorc on Oct 5, 2010Comments:277Name: Bruce Leban on Oct 5, 2010Comments: .278Name: Margaret Trawick on Oct 5,2010Comments: I love Santa Cruz and hope to visit as often as possible. I can't afford a home there. Why wouldyou ban me from coming to visit?279Name: Tim Wheeler on Oct 5, 2010Comments: I oppose this measure. I live in Scotts Valley and I vote.280Name: Uwe Wessbecher on Oct 5,2010Comments:281

11/4/2010

.ir;)\'...J

of35

Name: Peter Melon Oct 5, 2010Comments: I do not support the proposed ordinance. It limits vacation rentals and wil eventuallynegatively affect property values. This will certainly negatively affect local shops and businesses saleshence increasing lay offs. We need to increase the flow of cash to our local businesses not decrease it!282Name: Tara Melon Oct 5,2010Comments: I do not support the proposed ordinance. Taking away people's property rights is not exactlywhat our country was built on! Limiting tourism by making it impossible or difficult to rent one's home outon a short term basis vs. long term is discrimination. Where is the fairness? Than you.283Name: Allyn Johnson on Oct 5,2010Comments: Rio Del Mar was built as a vacation area, as were many other beach communities. Does theMotel have a restriction to one stay per week? No. Does it have more than one unit? I think so. No one iscomplaining about that, and it has plenty of neighbors. It contibutes to the local economy, just like thevacation rentals do. Another problem with this proposal is you could have a neighbor who doesn't like youand unjustifiably complain and have your permit revoked. There are too many problems with this proposaland it should be scrapped.284Name: Hugh Forrest on Oct 5, 2010Comments: I've lived in the county since 1973, and in Live Oak since 1981. There is no vacation rentalproblem worthy of this draconian ordinance, and it would significantly reduce the county's tax income. Itwould be a huge mistake for the board of supervisors to pass this.285Name: Carol Shwery on Oct 5, 2010Comments: This is absurd. You wil highly damage our community. Last i checked this waslis abeach/tourist town! Where have you been!286Name: Chuck Borsos on Oct 5, 2010Comments: Are you purposely trying to ruin our community and businesses? think about this before youact and it's too late! This sounds like a bunch of rich people who don't care about anyone but themselves.287Name: Tommy James Munro on Oct 5, 2010Comments: My grandparents have lived on 12th avenue for over 25 years, since before I was born. Nowthey are retired. If you ban vacation rentals they wil not be able to afford to keep our home. Don't get topushy with 10callegislation, and don't tell S.c. 10c's what to do.288Name: Tara Melon Oct 6,2010Comments: lawn a home in the zone affected by this proposal. We vacation rent our home to pay ourmortgage. Long term rentals would not off set the payments so vacation renting is the only way we are ableto keep it. My husband and I grew up in Santa Cruz and bought our home to retire in. We use a legitimaterental agency to screen our clients and pride themselves keeping a peaceful family atmosphere in ourhome. In addition, my family owns a local Surf Shop established over 40 years ago in the area of thisproposed ordinance. It wil be negatively affected by the direct loss of tourism if this ordinance isapproved. I am highly against this proposed ordinance.289Name: Bruce Keiser on Oct 6,2010Comments:290Name: Laurie Chase-Babula on Oct 6,2010Comments: As a vacation rental owner and real estate broker who sells these VR properties, I find this tobe yet another "cause-du-jour" for the BOS. As said by others, you can not fully understand the financialramifications to the SC economy this ridiculous ordinance wil create. If implemented, you wil surely find Î.out the hard way with an even more distressed micro-economy. The next outcry will then be from local 'À')

businesses who wil be adversely affected by this ordinance in a way that will take some businesses down. U

111412010

of35

If you think VR owners and supporters are vocal, wait until you start messing with the businesses andpeople we support. Santa Cruz is a proud destination spot for people all over the world and our intentionsshould be to keep it that way. Don't bite the hands that feed your local economy.291Name: Vera Nedeau on Oct 6,2010Comments:292Name: Lita Ruble on Oct 6,2010Comments:293Name: Brian Hoffman on Oct 6, 2010Comments: Don't be short sighted. Calif needs the tourist dollars. Brian294Name: Loetta Vann on Oct 6, 2010Comments: I do not own property near the beach but come to Santa Cruz every year to visit family,frends, the ocean and I bring people with me every year for their first visit. We spend lots of money inlocal area resturaunts and produce stands. We never stay for a for a whole week near the beach or anywhere else for rand r because it is diffcult to take that much time. Some of the proposals I am readingwould stop me and my frends from coming to Santa Cruz. We would instead take our money and spend itin a different community. I photos of my great grandmother and her sister in their rented beach home circa1900. Why in the world would you pick this paricular time to stop such an established tradition. This planwil hurt the propert owners the visitors and the county budget. It seems like it wil reduce taxes collectedand raised fixed costs for enforcement and processing.295Name: Loetta Van on Oct 6,2010Comments: I do not own property near the beach but come to Santa Cruz every year to visit family,friends, the ocean and I bring people with me every year for their first visit. We spend lots of money inlocal area restuaunts and produce stands. We never stay for a for a whole week near the beach or anywhere else for rand r because it is difficult to take that much time. Some of the proposals I am readingwould stop me and my frends from coming to Santa Cruz. We would instead take our money and spend itin a different community. I photos of my great grandmother and her sister in their rented beach home circa1900. Why in the world would you pick this paricular time to stop such an established tradition. This planwil hurt the propert owners the visitors and the county budget. It seems like it wil reduce taxes collectedand raised fixed costs for enforcement and processing.296Name: Sacha Arts on Oct 6, 2010Comments:297Name: Darrel Saperstein on Oct 6,2010Comments: Why cut off the hand that feeds you?298Name: Debbie Follmar on Oct 6, 2010Comments:299Name: Erin Graham on Oct 6, 2010Comments: My family has visited Santa Cruz during the summer for the past five years, staying in severaldifferent homes by the beach for a week each year. Durng the past four years, my parents have joined us,bringing the total to four adults and three children. This year, my Brother and his family also joined us,requiring that we work with our rental agent to find two houses within a few doors of each other. With theaddition of my Brother and his family, we now have six adults and five children in our group. During ourweek in Santa Cruz we've enjoyed the beach, the Boardwalk and walking in Capitola. We've shoppeddowntown and enjoyed many ofthe restaurants, especially Gilda's on the wharf. Something new we did ."this year was a sunset cruise on the Chardonnay, which was magicaL. I was informed of this pending ~~regulation by the rental agent we have worked with to find these houses and my family is shocked and L)

1114/2010

of35

saddened by this proposaL. Shocked, that Santa Cruz would want to make it more difficult for our family tovisit. Saddened, because it will reduce the number of rentals available for us and increase the price, twofactors that wil probably cause us to look elsewhere to vacation. Even if we could afford the priceincrease, this limitation about houses being separated by 200 feet wil destroy my family's ability tovacation together as we did this past year. If this passes, my family wil probably look for a more invitingcity to visit. Being from Sacramento, there are many choices for us that are roughly the same distanceaway, such as Lake Tahoe, Lake Shasta Lake or Mendocino. We enjoy vacationing in Santa Cruz andwould like to continue this family tradition, please do not pass this restrictive measure.300Name: Claudia Coto on Oct 6,2010Comments:Name: Sharon Adams on Oct 6,2010Comments:302Name: Philip King on Oct 6, 2010Comments:303Name: Diana DuPre on Oct 7,2010Comments:304Name: Craig Springbett on Oct 7,2010Comments: This a classic example of a very vocal minority trying to push an unpopular ordinance through.This wil help erode property values in our county and further add to the poor economic climate we areexperiencing. If you want your property values to go down, support this ordinance.305Name: Karen Bezerra on Oct 7, 2010Comments: This action wil cost jobs and ruin our county.306Name: Jeff Whiting on Oct 7,2010Comments: What would Santa Cruz be with out Tourism. The tourism industry has existed here since the1870's. This ordinance is highly flawed!307Name: Summer Doty on Oct 7, 2010Comments:308Name: Hiram Chee on Oct 7,2010Comments:309Name: Kimberly Perez on Oct 7, 2010Comments: I am a local with a large family. We enjoy spending our money locally, but we would not beable to rent for seven days nor do we want to leave anyone out. Renting two houses is out of the question.Please consider how many people would be left out.310Name: Jean Farasat on Oct 7,2010Comments: Santa Cruz is and always has been a tourist destination. It makes no sense at all to makecomments such as " trying not to change the town" by limiting tourism! This town would be a ghost townwith no out oftowners visiting! THINK!311Name: Julie Sizelove on Oct 7, 2010Comments:312 ~Name: Noushin Farasat on Oct 7, 2010 b~Comments: So are you saying we are not welcome to come visit Santa Cruz where we have friends andspend lots of money on each visit? Are you going to make it hard for us to come? Then we can not and wil

1114/2010

of35

not visit under those circumstances. We wil spend our money elsewhere where we are welcome!313Name: R. D. De La Rosa on Oct 8, 2010Comments: I am the owner of an 85 acre ranch in Santa Cruz and I do not support the proposed vacationrental ordinance. The basic rules in building a guest house requires that it be within a very short distance tothe main house so in essence this law would eliminate everyone except the very rich with large parcelsproperly zoned from having a rental. This is a law obviously written by some very selfish power hungrpeople. I also wish to reduce the power of the planning commission and not increase it. There is alreadytoo much flagrant misuse of power in this county.314Name: Erin Thompson on Oct 8, 2010Comments: I grew up in a neighborhood that was full of vacation rentals and we never had any problemswith the people in the rentals. Most of the time they were families with small children and they wanted tospend sometime by the shore.315Name: Stephanie on Oct 8, 2010Comments:316Name: Tiffany Zachmeier on Oct 8, 2010Comments: I cannot believe that such ideas would be proposed in this area. You have my support to NOTsupport these unreasonable restrictions.317Name: Anonymous on Oct 8, 2010Comments:318Name: Chrstopher Jones on Oct 8, 2010Comments:319Name: Craig Veteran on Oct 8, 2010Comments:320Name: Todd Graham on Oct 8, 2010Comments: lawn a vacation rental as well, it's a legal ADU that was built in 2008 within close proximityto the beach. We market to families that want to come to Santa Cruz and enjoy all that it has to offer, beingon the property pretty much negates the possibility of loud parties that would disturb my neighbors. All ofthe revenue generated from this vacation rental goes directly to property taxes, take that away and wewould be forced to sell at a loss.321Name: Constantin Gerhiger on Oct 8, 2010Comments: I have been living in Santa Cruz since 1988 and I am totally opposed to this ban.322Name: Anonymous on Oct 8, 2010Comments:323Name: Climbing Sun on Oct 8, 2010Comments:324Name: Kelly Dale on Oct 8,2010Comments:325Name: Anonymous on Oct 8, 2010Comments:326Name: Lori Price on Oct 8,2010 ~

1114/2010

of35

Comments: I have lots of frends and famiiy that come to santa cruz to visit. I think its a bonus to be able torent a vacation rental. It for one is nice that these home owners open there homes to rent. It helps homeowners pay down there morgages and it is much easier to rent a home when you have small children. Youdo not have the room next to you compaining about the noise your children are making or the room next toyou banging on the wall letting you know they don't appreciate the noise. Most vacation rentals have aplace for your children to play weather it be a extra room or a yard.327Name: Peggy Humphres on Oct 8, 2010Comments:328Name: Jack Western on Oct 8, 2010Comments: This proposal is completely arbitrary as well as very short sighted. Aside from the tremendousloss of revenue, the power of the head of the planing departent would be very destrctive tohomeowners. He would be the "Czar" of vacation rentals. The whole idea is a violation of the rights ofproperty owners to utilize their properties as they see fit. It truly smacks of communism, where we wouldhave neighbors spying on neighbors. Callng the Czar to report violations. Imagine if you have a wackoneighbor! ! ! !329Name: Kelsey Schwind on Oct 8, 2010Comments: This is exactly the wrong time to be reducing funds for public safety.330Name: Jennifer Graham on Oct 8,2010Comments: We own a legal ADU situated on our home's property which we use for visits by family andfriends and also offer it for vacation rentals. Our presence on the property ensures responsible behavior byboth paying and non-paying guests. The revenue we receive helps pay our property taxes, and, withoutsuch would necessitate our moving. The value of our property wil be negatively impacted if this proposedordinance passes. In addition the city and county wil lose valuable income in both TOT and income taxand there will be an appreciable loss of income to local businesses. Lastly, we purchased this propertknowing that a vacation rental was allowed and to change the rules now violates not only our rights asproperty owners, but could be considered a taking requiring compensation.331Name: Candi Jackson Moise on Oct 8, 2010Comments:332Name: Anonymous on Oct 8, 2010Comments: You'll keep more tax dollars in Santa Cruz as people wil have more to spend on other goodsand services. Also - think about where the money goes - to citizens of SC that should be encouraged tospend locally.333Name: Alison Grace Maupin on Oct 9, 2010Comments: Vacation Rentals are good for Santa Cruz. Let's keep them around!!334Name: Anonymous on Oct 9,2010Comments:335Name: Zpqejrfon Oct 9, 2010Comments: hNGBlh -:a href=''http://igeqlokrsxv.com/''::igeqlokrsxv-:/a::,( ur1=http://ycfrkcxggwu.coml)ycfrikcxggwu(lurl ), (link=http://kuhndzi vtb.

coml)knuhndzivtb (Ilink ),http://rtblwhnfìlg.coml336Name: Anonymous on Oct 11,2010Comments: /'~a:ie: Anonymous on Oct 11,2010 3')

11141201 0

of35

Comments:338Name: Michele Wright on Oct 12,2010Comments:339Name: Teresa Vu on Oct 13,2010Comments:340Name: Krstan M. Fischer-Hanlock on Oct 13, 2010Comments:341Name: Anonymous on Oct 13,2010Comments:342Name: Gary Benito on Oct 13, 2010Comments:343Name: GARY LARSON on Oct 14,2010Comments:344Name: Jennell Shaw on Oct 15,2010Comments: I live in the 95062 zip code and work directly with vacation rentals cleaning them. Mylivelyhood would be hindered and those that I work with as well if this passes. Please do not pass this.Thank you345Name: Meaghan Campbell on Oct 15, 2010Comments:346Name: Sharon And Mike Hadley on Oct 16,2010Comments: Please get rid ofthe keep Santa Cruz Weird signs, that just what this amounts too. Help protectus small business and individuals from legislation like this!!! We do make up the good part of what our

country is all about!!347Name: John Herbig on Oct 17, 2010Comments: Guests love staying at Santa Cruz County vacation homes. Do not make it more difficult forlocal tourism to prosper - all residents will indirectly. -95062-348Name: Jeff Kilitz on Oct 17,2010Comments: stop this ordinance now. It has no business sense. Thank you.349Name: Lynn Kilitz on Oct 17, 2010Comments: Please reconsider the negative impact of this ordinance. This is a dangerous measure. Thankyou.350Name: Adja Reid on Oct 18,2010Comments: I really hope this ordinance is not passed because my livelihood (as a member of thehospitality industry) and the livelihood ofthis entire town wil be negatively affected if it is. Santa CruzNEEDS vacation rentals to bring in tourists and boost this town's economy. I hope Leopold realizes this.Name: Patrick Crowe on Oct 18,2010Comments:352Name: Carol Nakamoto on Oct 18,2010 ,/Comments: I strongly disagree with this proposedordinance. It is the damaging to the local economy as '2~well as it be would be detrimental to our ability to afford our home. ¿)

1114/2010

of35

353Name: Chuck Coleman on Oct 18,2010Comments: I oppose this ordinance. This wil affect my ability to be able to pay our property tax and themortgage payment. Please do not lower our property values by taking our property rights away.354Name: Rosemary Coleman on Oct 18,2010Comments: I oppose this ordinance. This wil affect my ability to be able to pay our property tax and themortgage payment. Please do not lower our property values by taking our property rights away.355Name: Ronni Maestas on Oct 19,2010Comments:356Name: Anonymous on Oct 20, 2010Comments:357Name: Lily Porlars Kephar on Oct 26,2010Comments:358Name: HUAN KEPHART on Oct 26, 2010Comments:359Name: Lisa Caliouette on Oct 26,2010Comments: I work for a vacation rental company in Santa Cruz and I've seen it from ALL sides, as avacation reservationist and as a neighbor. I have also spoken to and met countless guests. The bottom lineis: The out oftown guests are VERY respectful and responsible. I live behind one of the largest vacationrental homes in Aptos that hosts numerous corporate and family events. In the six years we have lived hereI have never heard excessive noise beyond 10:00 pm or seen trash in the streets or anything untowardhappening. We enjoy hearing the laughter and people have fun! That's why we moved here from the"valley" and chose to live in a neighborhood where we have neighbors in close proximity because we arein a real community that cares about it's neighbors. We look forward to possibly renting our home to helpus with finances especially since we've lost our retirement funds. Let's be reasonable about this proposedordinance, surely we can meet in the middle so everyone can be happy. Thank you.360Name: Andrew MacBride on Oct 27, 2010Comments: My family has been renting vacation homes in Santa Cru County continuously since 1956. Ithink this is a short-sighted measure, and makes no sense economically.361Name: Denise Hickey on Oct 27,2010Comments: My parents own a vacation home in Santa Cruz County that I am fortnate enough to get toenjoy now and then, often only for short periods of time - a weekend, for example. When I visit, I treat theproperty and neighborhood as if they were my own - with respect, and I have never experienced anythingbut the same sort of behavior from other "transient occupants." My parents are likewise very conscientiousof their neighbors - making sure that each knows how to reach them should there ever be a concern about arenter and ensuring that their renters, whether renting for a weekend or a week, understand what theirresponsiblities are while visiting the neighborhood. It is sily and short-sighted to punish an entirecommunity for the misdeeds of a few. There is no evidence that this ordinance is necessary or would evencontrbute to the solution of the perceived problem. There is ample evidence that the ordinace would costthe County and its residents a significant amount of money. I urge each of the Board members to voteagainst this proposal.362Name: Betty Cintas on Oct 27,2010Comments:363Name: Cindi Hernandez on Oct 28, 2010

?JS

11/4/2010

of35

Comments:364Name: B. Kevin Hickey on Oct 28,2010Comments: This is unnecessary. Your proposal unfairly punishes homeowners and WILL damage thetourism industry we rely upon. We already have laws concerning nuisance and noise. Ifthere is a need toamend those regulations, that can be done without focusing on tourists. One example, according to thisproposal, my family cannot rent our house to a frend to celebrate their wedding unless their celebration islimited to no more than twice the max. capacity of the rental. But if I have them over to my house, where Ilive, the number of visitors is not limited in this way. How do you really expect to enforce that? Much ofthis proposed legislation cannot be enforced. If this passes, you are going to be tossed out in the nextelection. THAT you can count on.365Name: Tammy Schultz on Oct 29,2010Comments: Please don't restrct me from renting a vacation home for less than a week. I am a teacher andusually cannot afford long stays in a beach house, but a few nights is just right for me and my family. Ahotel is not the same. I fear this restriction benefits only the well off and not the common woman likemyself. I feel I should have the freedom to responsibly rent property for a duration of my choosing.366Name: Heidi Jensen on Oct 30, 2010Comments:367Name: Chrstine Portney on Oct 30, 2010Comments: I am one ofthose people who enjoys visiting Santa Cruz, and I would be negatively affectedby the ordinance.368Name: Paul Butler on Oct 31,2010Comments:369Name: Nancy Owens on Oct 31,2010Comments:370Name: Janel Garvin on Oct 31, 2010Comments:371Name: Kathrn James on Oct 31, 2010Comments: Please stop the erosion of private property rights. Don't regulate all because of theirresponsibility of a few. Use the energy to get funding for a bigger police force and call them when theproblems happen....Better yet, if there is a continual problem with a particular property, gather theneighbors and take those owners to small claims court or file a class action suit against the problemowners. ...........and leave the rest of us alone.

372Name: Denise Shaffer on Nov 1, 2010Comments:373Name: Anonymous on Nov 1,2010Comments:374Name: Anonymous on Nov 1,2010Comments:375Name: Douglas & Margaret Dilfer on Nov 1,2010 3'/Comments: J376Name: Sand Dollar Beach Owner on Nov 1,2010

1114/2010

of35

Comments: This is a travesty. You create rules for the 'special' areas and then don't even apply them fairlyand equally to all areas. How can you be trusted to apply this very lopsided ordinance fairly? I'm glad it isgoing back to the drawing board for reconsideration. Keep tring and please - tr to be fair.377Name: Patricia Shipley on Nov 1,2010Comments:378Name: NANCY B SHEPARD on Nov 2,2010Comments:379Name: Dale C Shepard on Nov 2,2010Comments:380Name: Loetta Vann on Nov 2,2010Comments: Noise and problems from group homes and student homes that are reported in the policerecords should not be confused with vacation and short term corporate housing. In fact law enforcementofficials report they are not aware of problem vacation rental properties. Existing code enforcement andnoise laws are already suffcient to control bad behavior - should the county be wiling to enforce them.The creation of yet new even more difficult to enforce regulations wil not only be costly to propertyowners and the county governent but it wil drive away the opportunity for middle class families to makeshort getaways to Santa Cruz County. Day visitors to Santa Cruz, often arrve with gas already in their carand lunches in their coolers. Vacation renters, not only rent homes, but they buy groceries, eat out, buycollectables, and they prop up the local construction economy. Vacation rental properties tend to be betterimproved and better maintained than long-term rental property. This proposed regulation is a bad idea thatis especially bad during these tough economic times.381Name: Dean Dubbe on Nov 2,2010Comments: I oppose this type of blanket regulation that sets up arbitrary limitations on use of property. Itwould negatively affect tourism in the area and property values. Address the real issues of noise andnuisance through education, cooperative efforts, and enforcement of existing ordinances. Make surelodging/property taxes are collected on rentals to help fund education and enforcement and improvementsto tourist areas.382Name: Jim Vaudagna on Nov 2,2010Comments: I canot think of a worse time to punish those who provide lodging for people that come toSanta Cruz County to vacation and spend money here.383Name: CYNTHIA SAMMET on Nov 3, 2010Comments: I strongly reject the unfair limitations on the use of my propert with the imposition ofarbitrary constraints on the renting of my property as a vacation rental. There is no proven reason to limitonly vacation properties as a response to conduct, crowding, and noise issues. Long term renters andprivate owners can be as noisy and messy (if not more so - since you can not rent a poorly maintainedproperty). This effort is unfair and wil damage the health of our local economy in a time of record higheconomic challenges.384Name: Candace R Rogers on Nov 3,2010Comments: I vehemently oppose this ordinance. Please refer to our letter to Board of Supervisors dated8/5110.385Name: Cliff Sammet on Nov 3, 2010Comments:386Name: Nancy Rideout on Nov 3, 2010Comments:

ja:-11/412010

Henry and Anne Greiner

800 The Shoreline

La Silva Beach, CA 95076

November 6, 2010

Supervisor Tony Campos

701 Ocean Street

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Dear Supervisor Campos,

We are writing to express our concern about the proposed vacation rental ordinance. First of all, we do

not understand why there is the need for such an ordinance. The number of complaints certainly does

not justify such dramatic action. In the fifteen years we have owned our home, we have had nocomplaints about people who have rented our home. In the hundreds of days we ourselves have beenat our beach home, we have NEVER witnessed what we would consider a reportable event by renters inour entire complex.

I understand that if the ordinance is passed, the County will have to add three new positions. Do you

not get the message from last Tuesday's elections? No new taxes, no new expansion of local, state, and

federal government! More bureaucracy is NOT going to solve whatever the perceived problem is. Thelocal homeowners' associations and their existent security systems should be the lead agent inaddressing any future problems regarding rentals.

We believe passing this ordinance wil result in an economic disaster for the County. This ordinance will

mean fewer rentals, thus, less taxes from rentals. More importantly, fewer rentals means less spendingin the county by visitors. The people we bring into the county spend at the local restaurants, buy gas,groceries, go shopping, play golf, take their kids to the Boardwalk, rent kayaks, wet suits, surf boards,etc., I could go on and on.

Even more important is the fact that imposing these new restrictions will have a dramatic impact onhome values. We could not have purchased our home fifteen years ago without the opportunity to rentit. We believe there are a lot of other people who would be shut out of the opportunity to buy a secondhome if they did not have or lost the option to rent. Realtors in the area agree that this ordinance willhave an adverse effect on home sales and home prices. We have talked to a number of people who areconcerned about whether or not they can sell their home if this ordinance is passed. We know of at

4l3S:

least one couple whose home could go into foreclosure if they do not have rental income to help maketheir payments.

We believe this ordinance is being pushed by a small group of home owners who want to achieve anexclusive kind of living situation at the beach. Some of these people spend only a few days a month at

their home. The fewer people around, the more special and exclusive they feeL. If you pass thisordinance, they wil use it to achieve their ultimate goal: To limit or do away completely with rentals in

their secure little world. They will merely escalate complaints until people lose their rental permits. Weurge you NOT to pander to this minority. People who live near the beach should realize that the ocean

is a magnet that draws people who are in a relaxed and recreational mood. People who are looking for

exclusivity and quiet should look for this NOT in a beach community but in a 55 and older retirement

village. We remind you, the beach belongs to everyone and any attempt to limit access or to create anexclusive community in beach areas is wrong and misguided.

Therefore, we urge you to reject this il-conceived ordinance.

Sincerely,

i I,"',"" '4-1,. '..

~ 'J H"'Q..v.,~..Henry and Anne Greiner

~"" ;1~L0L

CBD BOSMAIL

From: [email protected]

Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 6:58 AM

To: CBD BOSMAIL



Name: Betty Sakai Email: [email protected]

Address: 1741 Wilcox WaySan Jose, CA 95125

Phone : 408-803-1741

Comments:It is my understanding that the HAC that considered the proposed vacation rental ordinance does not backLeopold or the Planning Department's recommendations. An ordinance singling out one type of rental takesfrom the community their right to make decisions over their own property. Why not direct the PlanningDepartment to examine existing codes and ordinances? Direct the Planning Department to report on theexistence and enforcement of occupancy codes, parking and noise abatement ordinances as concerns allhousing fairly and universally.

11/9/2010 35

CBO BOSMAIL

From: [email protected]: Monday, November 08, 2010 7:53 PM

To: CBD BOSMAIL



Name : Elaine Maitland Email: [email protected]

Address: 321 12th AveSanta Cruz, CA 95062

Phone: 831.818.8783

Comments:To Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors:

Re: VACATION RENTAL ORDINANCE

You have been provided with information regarding the make up 52 homes on 12th Avenue from East CliffDrive to the beach: vacation rental homes - 12, vacation (2nd) homes - 18; long term rentals - 12. Of the 11owner-occupied homes, about 80% are occupied by senior or retired people, some of which are also usedas short term rentals because we have accessory units.

For the most part, we are working class individuals who have tried to set ourselves up for a safe retirement.We consider ourselves fortunate to be able to enjoy living (and able to afford to live) in this greatneighborhood.

When families come to spend time together in their second homes, holidays like Mother's Day, Father'sDay, Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc. are indeed holidays, and our streets fill up. It is always apleasure to meet up with our neighbors walking to and from the beach, and being on the beach with them.

It is expensive to keep a home at the beach, whether it is owner occupied, a rental, or a second home, andwe are proud to keep our homes aesthetically appealing and well maintained. This area was sub-divided100+ years ago, and like traditional beach lots, they are smalL. Restrictions on the right of property ownersto short-term rental their homes (with the 200ft rule); the "special consideration area" in Supervisor EllenPierie's district, is patently unjust: all property owners/real estate tax payers deserve to enjoy equal rights.There is absolutely no justification for "carving out" certain sections for dispensation from this proposedordinance "because they were built as vacation rentals," and the claim is untrue. When they were built,most people bought them to occupy. The Live Oak area was deemed to be a vacation home area 100years ago.

Restricting homeowners from renting to College students for the school year and vacation rent for thesummer is also wrong. Students make up a goodly part of the community and requiring them to pay rent for12 months whilst they are home with their families during the summer is not right, and not economicallyfeasible for the students and their families.

One thing that has not been addressed so far: what are the consequences of changing title when ourchildren inherit our homes, or ¡fwe are forced to sell? Will the home still be able to be rented short-.t~erm.C?11/9/2010 y

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 0463sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/BDSvData/non_legacy/... ·...

Documents

Transcript of COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 0463sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/BDSvData/non_legacy/... ·...