Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Memo 11-02-18 PCWS 11-14-18 w-Attach-No C LU 18-0034-R
TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: ACTION Planning Commission Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner Short -Term Rentals — Work Session 4 (LU 18-0034) November 2, 2018 MEMORANDUM MEETING DATE: November 14, 2018 Review survey results and research on other jurisdictions' Short -Term Rental (STR) regulations, and provide input to staff on drafting amendments to the Lake Oswego Code (LOC) concerning STRs. DISCUSSION This is the fourth in a series of Planning Commission (Commission) work sessions focusing on STRs. Prior work sessions were held in June, July and August of 2018. At the August work session, the Commission accepted staff's recommendation to create an on-line community survey addressing attitudes and concerns about STRs. The Commission also recommended that staff research STR regulations in other communities that are similar to Lake Oswego. STR Regulations in Other Cities Staff contacted 36 cities throughout the nation to review STR regulations or lack thereof. Staff primarily focused on communities with the following characteristics: • Relatively affluent suburbs • Populations under 80,000 Non -resort Staff included a number of Portland -area suburbs for direct context comparison. Attachment A is a summary of the cities that were surveyed, and Attachment B identifies the STR regulations for each city that specifically regulates the use. The following general statements can be made from the research: 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 7 communities prohibit STRs specifically 11 communities allow STRs but do not regulate them 17 communities regulate STRs by various means Of the communities that regulate STRs, the following generalities can be made from the research: • Most codify a license of some type: Business, Home Occupation or Other • Most STR permits are granted administratively upon showing that certain clear and objective criteria are met. Conditional Use Permits are rare; when required, it is most often for more intensive short-term rentals (i.e., those that allow commercial events or weddings; Bed & Breakfast Inns). Seven communities require proof that the dwelling is the operator's primary residence. Evidence includes Driver's License, tax statements, etc. • Eight regulate parking and require STR parking to be provided on -site. • Three communities limit the number of un-hosted nights per year to 90-120. • Eight communities codify payment of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). • Other regulations that occur multiple times include signage (signs prohibited or limited to very small signs); limits on STRs in temporary units such as RVs or tents; limits on commercial activities such as retreats, weddings, etc.; and sharing/posting contact information. Community Survey Results Response Rate: After the July work session, two Neighborhood Association representatives asked about the possibility of conducting a survey of their residents about STR issues and attitudes. Staff's recommendation was to work with the Neighborhood Associations and STR representatives to create a survey that could be offered to all Lake Oswego residents to gauge interest and identify issues regarding STRs in residential neighborhoods. The resulting STR survey hosted by Survey Monkey was available on-line from September 4 — September 30, 2018. A link to the survey was provided to all Neighborhood Association representatives and was advertised on the City's home page and STR project page. At the close of the survey, there were 857 respondents, which is the highest response rate of all public surveys hosted by the City on the Survey Monkey platform from 2010 to 2018, as shown below: • We Love LO Vision (Comprehensive Plan): 832 • Republic Services Survey: 568 • LO Fiber: 416 • Planning Commission Goals 2018: 116 • Marijuana Regulation: 80 • Tree Code Fees: 23 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 3 Information Technology (IT) Analysis: One of the concerns with an online survey is the potential for multiple responses from the same person. Staff from the IT department analyzed the IP addresses for red flags, and three were found and addressed as follows: • Two entries were duplicated in their entirety, including IP addresses and exact start and end times. This was likely a glitch and one entry from each IP address was removed. • One IP address had three survey entries, on three different days, with almost the exact wording in the open responses; the entries also had suspicious emails. The latest two entries were removed. Staff performed its analysis of the responses after these corrections were made to the raw data. Survey Analysis: The survey results are included in Attachment C. First, it must be noted that the survey results are not statistically valid, as sample size, response rate, confidence level and random sampling were not calculated or included, and the survey included many open-ended responses. After removing identifying data (IP addresses, names, emails), staff distributed the complete survey response data to the survey workgroup for their review and analysis. The following analyses were made by staff: Questions 1-4, Demographics: The respondents were overwhelmingly full-time Lake Oswego residents and homeowners. All Neighborhood Associations were represented, with the biggest turnout from First Addition Neighbors -Forest Hills (FAN-FH), Palisades and Mountain Park. Thirty-one (31) respondents live in unincorporated Clackamas County and are not subject to Lake Oswego regulations until annexation. Questions 5-6, HOA status: HOAs are private associations for the management of residential subdivisions or condominiums. They are not administered by the City, and HOAs can vary widely in what they regulate, and how their regulations are administered and enforced. These questions were included to gauge the extent to which private agreements may already regulate or prohibit short-term rentals. 31% of respondents indicated that they live within an HOA-represented condominium or subdivision. However, judging from the responses to Question 6 (to identify their HOA), many appear to confuse HOA with Neighborhood Associations. 8% of HOA residents reported that their HOA prohibits STRs, while 22% did not know. 41 separate HOAs were identified as prohibiting STRs. The City cannot confirm that all identified HOAs prohibit STRs; additionally, property owners may amend HOA bylaws to add, modify or delete restrictions. Questions 7-9, Familiarity with STRs: Online, short-term homesharing is a relatively new concept in travel; Airbnb, for instance, had its first booking in 2008 but its growth in the last few years has been rapid, as shown in the chart included in Attachment D. These questions were included to gauge the extent to which respondents were familiar with STRs such as Airbnb, 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 4 Homestay, VRBO, etc. 75% of respondents have used an STR, and the main reason was for vacation purposes. Question 10, Effects of STRs: This question asked the extent to which neighborhoods would be affected by STRs, and there were seven possible responses: • 1 don't know • STRS would have no effect on my neighborhood • STRs would have some minor effects, but non that concern me • STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) • STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) • STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) • Please describe potential effects. However, Question 10 had a mistake in Survey Monkey. The survey did not allow the responder to choose both an answer to "what impacts — none, positive, negative, both" and then describe the impacts. To answer the open question, the responder could not have chosen any of the preceding six options. Staff performed the following analyses to get a truer understanding of the Question 10 responses: There were 252 open responses submitted in Question 10. Staff sorted these responses into four categories: Negative effects; positive effects; positive and negative effects; and other. The responses were color -coded and the assignments were shared with the STR survey group on October 18, 2018. These responses were added to the appropriate category and the percentages re -calculated. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 5 QUESTION 10: OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS (853) — Open Answers Not Assigned Raw % I don't know 49 5.74% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 106 12.4% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 127 14.88% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 69 8.08% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 63 7.38% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 188 22% Please describe potential effects 251 29.4 QUESTION 10: OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS (853) — Open Answers Assigned Raw % I don't know 49 5.74% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 106 12.4% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 127 14.88% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 100 11.7% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 100 11.7% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 364 42.6% Unassigned responses 8 .01% The "mostly negative" response increases from 22% to 42% once the open responses are accounted for. However, the responses highlighted in blue should be considered together, since they are all essentially positive. Considering the blue response rates together, positive responses increase from 35% to 38.9%. Staff then sorted the responses based on whether the survey -taker had used an STR. It appears that STR-users have a more positive impression of STRs compared to those that have not used an STR. The tables below show the responses for non-STR users (top) and STR users (bottom) QUESTION 10: RESPONDENT HAS NEVER USED AN STR (210) — Open Answers Assigned Raw % I don't know 12 5.7% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 11 5.2% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 13 6.1% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 6 2.8% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 19 9% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 146 69.5% Open answer did not identify impact 3 1.4% *Note: Four responders did not indicate whether they had used an STR or not. They are not included in these break-out analyses. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 6 RESPONDENT USED AN STR (639) — Open Answers Assigned Raw % I don't know 37 5.7% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 95 14.8% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 113 17.7% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 93 14.5% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 81 12.6% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 216 33.8% Open answer did not identify impact 4 .01% *Note: Four responders did not indicate whether they had used an STR or not. They are not included in these break-out analyses. Additionally, four open responses did not address impacts, so the total number of responses was reduced from 639 to 635. As shown above, 69.5% of non-STR users believe STRs will bring mostly negative impacts to neighborhoods, compared to 33.8% of STR-users. Only 14.1% of non-STR users believe STRs will have little, none or only positive impacts, compared to 47% of STR-users. Staff performed the same analysis on the responses from five of the neighborhoods that had the largest number of responses: First Addition -Forest Hills, Palisades, Mountain Park, Evergreen and Bryant. In all five neighborhoods, the percentage of respondents who had a negative view of STRs dropped from 78.4% to 38.6% if the respondent had used an STR. The FAN-FH analysis is shown below as an example because it had the most respondents; all five neighborhood analyses are illustrated in Attachment E. FAN-FH Responses based on whether respondent used STR previously, with open answers assigned: FAN-FH: ALL RESPONDENTS (101) — Open Answers Assigned Raw % I don't know 7 6.9% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 11 10.8% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 14 13.8% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 15 14.8% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 15 14.8% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 39 38.6% FAN-FH: RESPONDENT HAS NEVER USED AN STR (21) — Open Answers Assigned Raw % I don't know 2 9.5% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 0 0% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 1 4.7% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 1 4.7% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 2 9.5% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 15 71.4% 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 7 FAN-FH: RESPONDENT USED AN STR (80) — Open Answers Assigned Raw % I don't know 5 6.25% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 11 13.75% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 13 16.25% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 14 17.5% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 13 16.25% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 24 30% Staff performed a secondary analysis of the 253 written responses under Question 10 by noting the frequency of certain terms. Note that the raw count does not distinguish between positive and negative references: Parking: 219 Noise: 218 Traffic: 69 Safety: 53 Stranger/Transient: 57 No Effects: 33 Trash/Garbage: 23 Crime: 23 Finally, the survey workgroup reviewed the raw data (with names, emails, or other identifying information removed) and provided their analysis and comments. Mark Rockwell provided comments on October 23 and they are included as Attachment F. Question 11, Housing Types Appropriate for STRs: This question asked what type of dwelling the respondent would be most or least comfortable with for STRs. The dwelling type that had the largest agreement is an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU); this is where the response rate between "Strongly Agree" and "Strongly Disagree" was the largest. This raises a potential policy issue, as the City has recently amended its code to facilitate construction of ADUs and is presently considering financial incentives for ADUs as part of its economical housing strategy. Question 12, Residential Areas appropriate for STRs (open question): Respondents had a choice of three answers: Anywhere, I Don't Know, and Limited (please specify). 49.4% of respondents, chose "anywhere", and 31.9% chose "limited." The open answers in the "limited" option ranged from specific neighborhoods, specific housing types, near freeways or downtown. Staff discerned no clear tendencies from this data. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 8 Question 13, Concerns (open question): This question asked what concerns the respondent might have with STRs, and the responses are similar to those of Question 10. Parking, noise and stranger/crime issues are among the most frequent responses, as follows: Parking: 21 Business (positive) 21 Business (negative) 11 Noise 16 Stranger/Transient 12 Traffic 9 Trash/garbage 6 Safety 5 Question 14, Allow with Re -Authorization: This question could be read as a referendum of the STR issue for those who responded to the survey. 53.24% of respondents indicated that STRs should be allowed in some form, while 42.4% chose "do not allow". The swing voters per se are the 32.15% who would allow STRs on a trial basis. • Allow: 21.08% • Allow with Sunset: 32.16% • Do Not Allow: 42.4% Staff analyzed the response rates separately for people who had used an STR and people who had not. Again, the responses were much more favorable from people who had used an STR: People who have not used an STR (211) Allow 8 3.7% Allow with Sunset 41 19% Do Not Allow 154 72.9% 1 Don't Know 6 2.8% Blank 2 0.1% People who have used an STR (641) Allow 170 26.5% Allow with Sunset 230 35.8% Do Not Allow 202 31.5% 1 Don't Know 31 4.8% Blank 5 0.1% 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 9 Question 15, Length of Time for Sunset Date: This was an open question, and the responses ranged from six months to 10 years; many also answered that there should be no sunset date or that STRs should not be allowed at all. For those that responded with a range (i.e., 1-2 years), staff assigned the average of the range (i.e., 1.5 years) and then calculated the average sunset date, which was 2.06 years. Question 16, Open Comments: Many of the comments received for this open-ended question were similar to Questions 10 and 13. Both positive and negative comments were submitted, as well as neutral comments. Additional Comments: A number of comments were submitted outside of the survey. They are included in Attachment H. Code Enforcement Update a. Summary of Research on Existing STRs in Lake Oswego At the time of the publication of this report, there were 27 confirmed STR listings within the city limits, and another 16 listings requiring verification of being within the City limits. An updated map of advertised STRs is included in Attachment G. Below are some initial observations from the research: 27 confirmed listings within the city limits, as of October 23, 2018. 20 listings are whole -house and 7 are partial house rentals. 11 (41%) of the "hosts" were not the property owner. 4 (15%) of the property owners live outside of the city limits with 2 (7%) living outside of Oregon. Listings are distributed throughout the city though concentrated in FAN-FH. The minimum stay per visit ranged from 1 to 29 nights, with a median stay of 7 nights. The maximum number of guests ranged from 2 to 12 guests with a median of 5 guests. The rent per night ranged from $42 to $500, with a median rent of $120. b. Code Enforcement/Compliance Issues The Police Department pulled all complaints relating to parking, noise, and suspicious persons citywide for the three-month period of July 2018 — September 2018. A total of 439 complaints were made during that time period; of those, only one complaint (noise) was associated with a property identified as hosting an STR; however, it is not possible to determine whether the complaint was attributed to use of the property as a STR. This rate (<1% of all complaints) is similar to the prior reporting period of March 2018 —June 2018. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 10 ATTACHMENTS A. Summary of Cities Surveyed B. Regulations for Cities that Specifically Regulate STRs C. STR Survey Results (not included due to size, use link provided below) D. Airbnb Growth Chart 2009-2017 E. Question 10 Analysis for Five Neighborhoods F. Survey Analysis by Mark Rockwell, 10/23/18 G. Code Enforcement Map of Advertised STRs in Lake Oswego, 10/18 H. Comments Received Outside of the On -Line Survey This staff memo, including attachments, and past meeting materials can be found by visiting the project webpage using this link: https://www.ci.oswego.or. us/al I -projects (Under Search enter LU 18-0034 and press Enter) 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us 11/01/18 Cities Surveyed for STR Regulations ATTACHMENT A LU 18-0034 City Allow STRs in How Notes Contact residential zones? 1 West Linn, OR Yes Home Occupation Darren Wyss [pop 26,859] 2 Tigard, OR No NA Carol Krager [pop 51,902] 3 Oregon City, OR No NA Check B&B regulations Christina Robertson - [pop 36,286] Gardiner 4 Sherwood, OR Yes Does not regulate Keep them posted Julia Hajduk [pop 19,294] specifically 5 Milwaukie, OR Yes Home Occupations (STRs) STRs — incidental, 95 Denny Egner [pop 20,929] and Conditional Uses nights/year, hosted or (vacation rentals) unhosted. 30 in town. VR —commercial lodging 6 Tualatin, OR No NA Tabitha Boschetti [pop 27,545] LU Happy Valley, OR Yes Minimal regulations: Michael Cynkar [pop 19,704] Business License required, and can't be a "Rooming House." 8 Hillsboro, OR Yes As B&B; CUP required Putting together a work Andrew Crampton [pop 105,164] plan to make process less discretionary, costly, and time consuming 9 Gresham, OR Yes As B&B with Type II Carly Rice [pop 111,523] review, 8.0100 10 Wilsonville, OR Yes Home occupation (owner Ordinance 825 Dan Pauly, Sr. Planner [pop 23,768] on -site); CUP/Home Business (owner off -site) 11 Newberg, OR Yes Special Use, Vacation SF Detached, register, two Email [pop 23,306] Rental Homes, parking spaces, posting in 15.445.300 home, revocation hearing. 12 Woodburn, OR Yes Does not regulate No plans to regulate STRs Colin Cortes [pop 25,590] specifically LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 1 OF 4 11/01/18 Cities Surveyed for STIR Regulations City Allow STRs in How Notes Contact residential zones? 13 Hood River, OR Yes 17.04.115 plus definitions Hosted Home Kevin Liburdy [pop 7,702] Share/Vacation Home Rentals defined. Licensing; one on -site parking space per 2 bedrooms; 90 days per year; accessory use. 14 Camas, WA Yes Does not regulate 9/26, no name [pop 22,449] specifically 15 Spokane, WA Yes 17C.316.010-070 Type A: bedroom or entire Heather Trautman [pop 217,300] Type A: Admin Permit home, no commercial Type B: CUP mtngs.; Type B: bedroom or entire home, commercial meetings (parties, weddings, banquets) OK. 16 Bremerton, WA Yes Does not regulate Tracey Wood [pop 40,675] specifically 17 Kirkland, WA Yes KMC 7.02.300, Business Detached dwelling, not to Kaylie Duffy [pop 87,701] Licenses exceed 120 days, owner - occupied 18 Bainbridge Island, WA Yes Does not regulate May look into it in 2019 Jennifer Sutton [pop 24,404] specifically 19 Castle Rock, CO Yes Does not regulate Tammy King [pop 57,666] specifically 20 Grand Lake County, CO Yes CUP hearing if notice Parking, defined trash, Erin O'Rourke [pop 495] results in written snow storage (?), no signs, complaints penalties IDd. 21 Englewood, CO Planning effort on- Owner: titled owner or Erik Sampson [pop 34,050] going re: STR property as found on regulations — draft County Deed of Record. LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 2 OF 4 11/01/18 Cities Surveyed for STIR Regulations City Allow STRs in How Notes Contact residential zones? 22 Redwood City, CA Yes Un-hosted limited to 120 Lindy Chan [84,950] days, no limit on hosted; local contact; on -site parking; register, BL and TOT payment. 23 Huntington Woods, MI Yes Does not regulate Hank Berry [pop 6,328] specifically 24 Saratoga, CA No NA Debbie Pardo [pop 30,767] 25 Winnetka, IL No NA "The zoning ordinance Kathy Scanlan [pop 12,417] does not specifically allow STRs." 26 Sammamish, WA Yes Does not regulate May look into STIR Ryan Harriman [pop 63,7731 specifically regulations in the future 27 Bexley, OH Yes Does not regulate (Pending ordinance Kathy Rose [pop 13,669] specifically tabled) 28 Orinda, CA Yes Ordinance 17-04 License; pay TOT; 2 Drew Taplin [pop 19,470] people per BDR + 3; only one on a property at a time; local contact available 24/7. 29 Zionsville, IN Yes, kind of Regulate occupancy to Owner off -site during Wayne DeLong [pop 26,784] one single family rental OK (because only one family); owner on -site during rental not OK (because two-family) 30 University Park, TX Yes Does not regulate Patrick Baugh [pop 24,905] specifically 31 Cambridge, MA Yes 4.60 Use Regulations Operator -occupied or Cliff Cook; Sisia Daglian [pop 110,651] owner -adjacent; liability insurance; post garbage, emergency exits and permit; register with City. LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 3 OF 4 11/01/18 Cities Surveyed for STR Regulations City Allow STRs in How Notes Contact residential zones? 32 Greenwich, CT Yes Does not regulate Katie DeLuca [pop 62,359] specifically 33 Charleston, SC Yes Sec 54-208 On-line [pop 139,000] 34 Los Gatos, CA No NA Policy committee is Armer [pop 30,545] considering whether to research further (See Oct 2 agenda) 35 Los Altos, CA No NA, 14.30 Yvonne Dupont [pop 30,561] 36 San Luis Obispo, CA Yes Owner -occupied; admin permit, add'I parking, 4 guest max, provide contact, TOT. LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT A/PAGE 4 OF 4 10/31/18 STR Regulations for Surveyed Cities ATTACHMENT B LICENSE: Business License(BL), Home POSTING/NOTICE/ COMPLIANCE/ CITY Occ (HO) or Other ACCESSORY USE CUP PRIMARY RESIDENCE PARKING CONTACT LIMITS ON NIGHTS OWNERONSITE DWELLINGTYPES TRASH SIGNS OCCUPANCYLIMIT INSURANCE INSPECTION RENEWAL TOT* REVOCATION OTHER or NOTES (0) West Linn, OR HO, BL Yes Yes On -site Limited to one, 1.6 Owner -occupied (Pop. 26,859) sq. ft. in area, 6 sq. ft., not illuminated Milwaukee, OR HO Yes Yes - for vacation STR -95 unhosted Approximately 30 in town (Pop. 20,929) rental or B&B nights Happy Valley, OR BL Can't be a'rooming house"; no complaints to date (Pop. 19,704) Hillsboro, OR Yes in residential Yes - by DL or tax forms One on -site space per Yes Regulate as a Bn B. No commercial events - weddings, (Pop. 105,164) zones rented bedroom, on all- meetings, etc. Only one non-resident can be engaged weather surface. in operation. Only 5 vehicle trips per day to site. Evidence of fence or landscaping to buffer headlights, etc. Wilsonville, OR HO - if owner on Yes Yes - if owner off -site Limited to 3 sq. ft. (Pop. 23,768) site; BL (called Home Business) Newburg, OR 2 spaces on site that are Post near front door: Single-family Applicant shall 2+complaints per No occupied RV, trailer, tent ortemporary shelter (Pop. 23,306) available to the renters operator name and dwelling only provide for year = revokation during rental occupancy number; police dept. regular refuse hearing phone H; max service occupancy; garbage day; standards for rental occupancy. Gresham, OR BL Yes Yes One on -site space per each SFD, used for past Limited to one, 6 Yes - smoke detector in Yes Regulations same as for BnBs. (Pop. 111,523) guest sleeping room 5 years as SFD sq. ft., not each room illuminated Hood River, OR O Yes Yes Proof per Chapter 5.10 1 on -site, per 2 BDR. If 90 nights for both HHS Not within RV, 2 persons per BDR Regulate: Hosted Home Share (HHS), Vacation Home (Pop. 7,702) garage is being used to and VHR travel trailer, tent + 2 additional Rental (VHR) meet this requirement, or other persons must provide photo temporary proving availability. Shared structure parking agreement within 250 feet of site OK - must provide proof. Spokane, WA BL Only for TYPE B: BDR Must inform all All Type A: 2 adults Proof Yes - must meet Type A: No non-resident employees. Type B: (Pop. 217,300) or entire home AND neigbors and submit per bedroom. Type required Building Code for employees per CUP. Log book of all renters, rooms, commercial meetings copy of notification with B: per CUP sleeping room (at time license numbers must be available for inspection by application it was staff upon request. STR Permit N must appear in all created/converted) and advertisements. must meet Fire Code Kirkland, WA BL B&B regulations apply: One None if STR is primary SFD Owners and Owner -occupied. No more than 2 rental agreements (Pop. 87,701) per guest room, provided residence of operator; agents jointly on -site at same time; rental agreements must include in garage, driveway or on- 120 days if owner/agent responsible for provisions to avoid conflicts with neighbors street "immediately lives on -site at least 245 compliance adjacent" to site days AND a property manager is available and identified when unhosted. Grand Lake Other: Nightly Administrative permit Yes: tenants must park on Town will send 24-hour Trash area must Prohibited Annual: Admin Yes Penalties Property owners within 100' receive notice and can County, CO (Pop. Rental License. in residential zones, site or in City lot, not in contact info to all be clearly if no identified in code object 495) Option: BL if County except that CUP ROW property owners within defined complaints in taxes NR as a required if notice 100 feet previous 12 commercial use results in complaint months; CUP if 1+complaints Redwood City, CA BL; O - register with Evidence includes: income tax Existing on -site spaces shall Host must ID local No limit if hosted; 120 Hosted: must be All legal dwelling Annual Yes Revocation (1) No weddings, commercial functions, corporate (Pop. 84,950) City statements or DL. be made available to contact, available 24/7 days if unhosted present 10 pm - 6 units hearing process events, etc. (2) Must maintain 3 years of records, renters during unhosted stays, am codified including TOT payment. No approval for dwellings (1) to renters and adjacent that are subject of active compliance order, or (2) properties. where STR has been denied or revoked in prior 24 months Orinda, CA BL; 0 - STR Registry Local contact 24/7 2 people per BDR + Yes Only one rental at a time at the dwelling; must have (Pop. 19,470) 3 STR reg p on all advertisements; no Temporary Events on -site when used as an STR. San Luis Obispo, BL Must show documentation annually Must provide local Limited to 4 guests Yes Owner -occupied. Bus license number must appear in CA (Pop. 47,536) contact if host not on- all advertisements site 24/7; must provide to renters and adjacent neighbors *Transient Occupancy Tax LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT B/Page 1 of 2 10/31/18 STR Regulations for Surveyed Cities ATTACHMENT B LICENSE: Business License(BL), Home POSTING/NOTICE/ COMPLIANCE/ CITY Occ (HO) or Other ACCESSORY USE CUP PRIMARY RESIDENCE PARKING CONTACT LIMITS ON NIGHTS OWNERONSITE DWELLINGTYPES TRASH SIGNS OCCUPANCYLIMIT INSURANCE INSPECTION RENEWAL TOT* REVOCATION OTHER or NOTES (0) Zionsville, IN Owner must be off -site during rental (Pop. 26,784) Cambridge, MA 0 - Register with Yes - must be Owner or primary leaseholder; Post contact info for If owner is off -site Post location Unit/BRD must Liability Yes Every5 years; Remit as No commercial meetings or rentals less than 30 (Pop. 110,651) City owner -occupied or needs written permission of operator or local for more than 7 comply with new inspection required hours. Must keep accurate records for 3 years. owner -adjacent property or condo association, if contact; Post garbage days, the unit building code required to City (MF of 4 or fewer, applicable. Provide prrof of primary instructions, emergency may only be occupancy limits and/or with operator residence: signed affidavit; property exit locations, STR rented as a whole State owning all units) title or tenancy agreement; photo certificate unit to only one ID; govt or utility correspondence party issued in past 3 months Charleston, SC BL Yes, and record owner Yes Prohibited Liability Yearly Yes Maintain guest register.Breakfast is only meal that (Pop. 134,385) can be served. STR Permit # must appear on all advertisements. Applications must be notarized. 15- day posting, 5 day appeal. *Transient Occupancy Tax LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT B/Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT C LU 18-0034 SHORT-TERM RENTAL SURVEY RESULTS (Due to size, this attachment is only available on the project webpage, use link below) https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/all-projects (Under Search enter LU 18-0034 and press Enter) ATTACHMENT D LU 18-0034 i[ric 80 60 40 20 0 Historical GrowthMIL =26 Number ofAirbob Guest Arrivals per Year (in Millions) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 .0 .14 .80 3 6 16 40 80 IN MULLIONS http://www.vizlly.com/blog-airbnb-infographic/ Accessed October 27, 2018 2017 100 [ es ki mate } LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT D/PAGE 1 OF 1 11/01/18 QUESTION 10 ANALYSIS FOR FIVE NEIGHBORHOODS FAN-FH Responses based on whether used STR previously, with open answers assigned ATTACHMENT E LU 18-0034 FAN-FH: ALL RESPONDENTS (101) — Open Responses Categorized and Added Raw % I don't know 7 6.9% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 11 10.8% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 14 13.8% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 15 14.8% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 15 14.8% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 39 38.6% FAN-FH: RESPONDENT HAS NEVER USED AN STR (21) — Open Responses Categorized and Added Raw % I don't know 2 9.5% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 0 0% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 1 4.7% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 1 4.7% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 2 9.5% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 15 71.4% FAN-FH: RESPONDENT USED AN STR (80) — Open Responses Categorized and Added Raw % I don't know 5 6.25% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 11 13.75% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 13 16.25% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 14 17.5% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 13 16.25% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 24 30% LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 1 OF 5 11/01/18 Palisades Responses based on whether used STR previously, with open answers assigned PALISADES: ALL RESPONDENTS (77) — Open Responses Categorized and Added Raw % I don't know 6 9.1% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 14 18.1% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 14 18.1% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 5 6.4% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 10 12.9% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 28 36.3% PALISADES: RESPONDENT HAS NEVER USED AN STR (19) — Open Responses Categorized and Added Raw % I don't know 2 10.5% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 3 15.7% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 1 5.2% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 1 5.2% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 1 5.2% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 11 57.8% PALISADES: RESPONDENT USED AN STR (58) —Open Responses Categorized and Added Raw % I don't know 4 6.8% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 11 18.9% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 13 22.4% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 4 6.8% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 9 15.5% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 17 29.3% LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 2 OF 5 11/01/18 Mountain Park Responses based on whether used STR previously, with open answers assigned MT PARK: ALL RESPONDENTS (76) — Open Responses Categorized and Added Raw % I don't know 4 5.2% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 9 11.8% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 7 9.2% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 16 21% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 13 17% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 27 35.5% MT PARK: RESPONDENT HAS NEVER USED AN STR (16) — Open Responses Categorized and Added Raw % I don't know 1 6.25% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 0 0% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 1 6.25% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 0 0% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 2 12.5% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 12 75% MT PARK: RESPONDENT USED AN STR (60) — Open Responses Categorized and Added Raw % I don't know 3 5% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 9 15% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 6 10% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 16 26.6% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 11 18.3% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 15 25% LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 3 OF 5 11/01/18 Evergreen Responses based on whether used STIR previously, with open answers assigned EVERGREEN: ALL RESPONDENTS (40) — Open Responses Categorized and Added Raw % I don't know 3 7.5% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 7 17.5% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 9 22.5% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 3 7.5% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 4 10% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 14 35% EVERGREEN: RESPONDENT HAS NEVER USED AN STR (9) — Open Responses Categorized and Added Raw % I don't know 1 11% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 0 0% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 0 0% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 0 0% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 1 11% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 7 77.7% EVERGREEN: RESPONDENT USED AN STIR (31) — Open Responses Categorized and Added Raw % I don't know 2 6.4% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 7 22.5% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 9 29% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 3 9.6% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 3 9.6% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 7 22.5% LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 4 OF 5 11/01/18 Bryant Responses based on whether used STR previously, with open answers assigned BRYANT: ALL RESPONDENTS (49) — Open Responses Categorized and Added Raw % I don't know 3 7.5% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 7 17.5% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 9 22.5% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 3 7.5% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 4 10% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 14 35% BRYANT: RESPONDENT HAS NEVER USED AN STR (14) — Open Responses Categorized and Added Raw % I don't know 0 0% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 0 0% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 2 14.2% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 0 0% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 3 21.4% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 9 64.2% BRYANT: RESPONDENT USED AN STR (35) — Open Responses Categorized and Added Raw % I don't know 3 8.5% STRs would have no effect on my neighborhood 4 11.4% STRs would have some minor effects, but none that concern me 3 8.5% STRs would have mostly positive effects (please describe) 7 20% STRs would have both positive and negative effects (please describe) 5 14.2% STRs would have mostly negative effects (please describe) 13 37% LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT E/PAGE 5 OF 5 MEMORANDUM October 23, 2018 To: Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner, City of Lake Oswego From: Mark Rockwell Ref: Short Term Rentals Leslie, I am responding to your invitation to share my "take -sways" from our recent community -wide survey on Short Term Rentals. I will also include recommendations for the draft ordinance that the Planning Commission will be preparing for review and action by the City Council, along with concluding remarks. Community -wide Survey: 1 - Strong community response: The fact that the survey had the largest participation of any similar community -wide questionnaire, speaks to the following: (a) The survey was well publicized. (b) There was participation from neighborhoods throughout the City. (c) The on-line format was easy for a wide number of residents to participate. (d) The thirty -day survey period helped to facilitate a strong response. (e) "Short Term Rentals" is a topic that has significant interest in Lake Oswego. 2 - High percentage of locals have stayed in a short-term rental: (Questions 7 & 8) In May 2016, Pew Research Center conducted a national study regarding Short Term Rentals and Home -sharing services. At that time, 24% of individuals, who had an education and economic profile similar to residents in Lake Oswego, had stayed in a short-term rental. The fact that 75% of survey respondents indicated they regularly stay in a short-term rental (some as many as three to five times per year), is a higher than typical "adoption rate" of STR's, and it suggests that Lake Oswego residents are more accepting of STR's than national norms. 3 - Respondents' view regarding impact of STR's on their neighborhood: (Question 10) The percentage of individuals who felt STR's would have a primarily negative impact on their neighborhood was approximately 42% of respondents. This is almost identical to the negative response to Question 14, where 42.4% of respondents indicated that STR's should not be allowed in Lake Oswego. me LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT F/PAGE 1 OF 4 4 - Types of housing to be permitted for STRs: (Question 11) When asked "If STRs were allowed in residential areas" what type of housing should be approved, the largest "negative" response ("Strongly disagree and Somewhat Disagree") was "Entire single-family homes" for a combined negative of 52.13%. This likely reflects people's concerns that if entire homes could be rented as STR's, this would lead to (a) unsupervised party houses, noise, and parking problems, and (b) it could also have an adverse impact on "affordable housing" by potentially shifting long term "work force" rentals to more lucrative STR's. The housing types that received the most positive responses ("Strongly Agree and Somewhat Agree), and correspondingly the smallest negative scores, were "Portions of any home, but not the entire home" (positive 55.9% / negative 42.08%) and Separate guest house or accessory dwelling unit (ADU) (positive 65.06% / negative 35.89%) 1 read this to indicate that respondents probably anticipate these types of STRs would be better supervised, would have less noise and fewer parking problems, and would not have an adverse impact on affordable housing. 5 - Geographical areas for STR's: (Question 12) When the question was asked "If STR's were allowed in residential areas, in what geographical areas should they be allowed?" roughly half of the respondents indicated they would be okay with STR's "anywhere". A much smaller percentage, 31.97% said STR's should be limited to particular areas. Interestingly, this is lower than the 42% of respondents who said they do not want STR's to be allowed in Lake Oswego. 6 - Concerns with STR's: (Question 13) There were 766 responses to Question 13 that covered a variety of concerns. However, there was a repetitive theme regarding (a) the noise and parking problems respondents anticipated, particularly if unsupervised houses become STR's, and (b) the concern that if entire houses are converted to STR's (instead of remaining as long-term rentals) that would have an adverse impact on affordable housing in our community. A majority of the concerns expressed by respondents were based on what they anticipate might happen if STR's were permitted in Lake Oswego, and for the most part their comments did not reflect a history of actual problems in Lake Oswego. Most of those who took the survey were probably unaware that during the past eight years, there have been approximately 50,000 STIR "guest nights" with almost zero problems. If the draft STIR proposed by the Planning Commission limits STR's to an owner's primary residence, a majority of the concerns expressed in the survey will be alleviated. 7 - Should the City allow STR's on a trial basis: (Question 14) This is the most definitive, and arguably the single most important question in the survey. A clear majority of respondents, 53.24% provided positive responses, with 42.4% opposed to allowing STR's. Of the 53.24% in favor, 21.08% said no sunset date should be imposed, and 32.16% indicated that STR's should be allowed for a trial period but with a defined sunset date. I anticipate that had respondents had been given a scenario under which STR's were to be restricted to an owner's primary residence ("Home -sharing"), the number favoring this type of limited STIR (owner supervised) may have exceeded 60%. we LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT F/PAGE 2 OF 4 "Social Model" vs "Business Model": 1 - STR's can be divided into two types, which have been referred to as the "Social Model" and the "Business Model". I recommend Lake Oswego limit STR's to the "Social Model". 2 - The "Social Model" is "Home -sharing", which is limited to an owner's primary residence. Hosts can only rent the home they primarily occupy, which is to also be their legal address of record. This typically entails renting one or two bedrooms, a granny apartment, an ADU on the property, or potentially the entire house when the owner leaves to go on vacation. Under the "Social Model" the income that a host receives serves to offset a portion of the utilities, maintenance, and property taxes. Nearly all Lake Oswego's hosts operate within the "Social Model". While the income earned is typically modest, nevertheless, in many cases it is a major factor in helping to make the host's home affordable. Because the owners are typically on site (and they are understandably cautious about who they will rent their home to if they go away on vacation) the "Social Model" eliminates most, if not all, of the concerns respondents expressed with regard to noisy parties, parking issues that could result from large groups renting an entire house, and the fear that allowing STR's could adversely affect the availability of affordable housing in Lake Oswego. 3 - The "Business Model" is where an individual or corporation makes a business investment in houses, condominiums, and apartments for the specific purpose of operating a for profit business based on short term rentals. The properties in the "Business Model" are not "owner occupied" and are thus largely unsupervised. By its nature, this model represents a greater potential for noise, parties, and parking problems that can result when a property is rented to a large group. It could also alter the availability of affordable housing if long term rentals were converted to STR's. For these reasons, I do not recommend that Lake Oswego approve the Business Model Recommendations For A Draft STR Ordinance: 1. STR's to be limited to the "Social Model" - Home -sharing in a host's primary residence. 2. Home -sharing to be licensed as an "In Home Business", subject to provisions of the existing Lake Oswego in -home business ordinance. 3. No weddings, parties, or events permitted. 4. The number of guests per rental to be limited to a maximum of 6, or a nuclear family. 5. Applicants to demonstrate during the licensing process (a) the ability to provide on -site guest parking, or (b) the availability of sufficient on -street parking to readily accommodate guest parking without adversely impacting parking in the neighborhood. 6. To include an annual STIR license fee that in aggregate will offset the City's cost to administer the STIR program. 7. The host license number issued by the City to be included on the host's AirBnB, or other online platform web listing. 8. STR's to pay the same percentage lodging tax as hotels. ©e LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT F/PAGE 3 OF 4 Concludina Comments: During the past nearly eight years, guest nights in Lake Oswego have continued to grow, eclipsing nearly 50,000 guest nights with no significant problems, and our local restaurants and shops benefit from almost $3,000,000 in added revenue per year. Guests to Lake Oswego are primarily mature adults -- averaging 42 years of age, 2.5 individuals per group, staying 4.7 nights. Our hosts are responsible citizens, most of whom are longtime residents of Lake Oswego. Many are woman over 60-years of age who are able to retain ownership of their homes by creating additional income through home -sharing. An ordinance that limits short term rentals to home -sharing will minimize community objections, and it will be good for our guests, hosts, local businesses, and our community at large. Page 414 LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT F/PAGE 4 OF 4 Tigard o — Mountain Park Oak Creek 3 3 Holly I rood Westlake Orchard Lake Forest e ° Rosewood 7Le ake Grove Bluff Bryant Heroi 3 0 IWestri 0 dgt �j:(g�ove Childse Tualatin LU 18-0034 Portland Milwauk Forest Highlands Uplands m p North Shore -Cor Country Club Hills tver en Foothills 1 � o 0 f Lakeview- 1 Old Summit Lakewood Town fake Oswego McVey -South Shore Hallinan 0 Glenmorrie Palisades O 1 2 1 } Skylands 0 ATTACHMENT G/PAGE 1 OF 1 City of Lake Oswego Neighborhood Associations Confirmed Short Term Rentals N Within City Limits - Oct. 2018 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles PAGIS Projects\Planning\Short Term Rentals\Short_terrm_rentals_Oct_2018.mxd 11/1/2018 From: Siegel, Scot To: "Tim Hartfield" Cc: Hamilton, Leslie; McCaleb, Iris Subject: RE: STR Date: Monday, August 13, 2018 10:25:41 AM Dear Ms. Hartfield, Thank you for your letter, which I am forwarding to Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner. Leslie is leading this work for the City and will share your comment with the Planning Commission. The Commission presently is only exploring the idea of legalizing and regulating short term rentals. Once a formal proposal is made public hearings will be scheduled and notices sent to interested parties such as yourself. Your comment below is appreciated, though it is important to remain involved through the hearings process and testify during that process, as well. Sincerely, Scot Siegel Planning & Building Services Director City of Lake Oswego PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 tel: 503.699.7474 From: Tim Hartfield [mailto:breadsurf88@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 10:20 AM To: Siegel, Scot <ssiegel@ci.oswego.or.us> Subject: STR Hello, My name is Jane Hartfield. My husband and I have been home owners in First Addition for 32 years. We are recently retired small business owners. Without a pension, we had counted on renting our home as a STR from time to time to suppliment our income so we would be able to keep our home and live near our children and grandchildren. This is our only home and it is very important to us! It seems that there has been alot of discussion about the pros and cons of allowing whole house rentals vs partial. Our home would not work as a partial house rental. Our only option is a whole house one. It seems there is alot of "fear" surrounding allowing this option. Party houses, parking, strangers in the neighborhood, etc. First, we would screen all propective renters carefully to make sure the possibilty of renting to party people woud not happen. Second, there would be strict oversight by ourselves and the property LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT H/PAGE 1 OF 10 manager with concrete rules in place. Airbnb also is a platform that uses reviews that allow owners to research prospective renters. In the past number of years how many complaints have surfaced during a time of no oversight or regulation? There is no way I would rent my only home, that I live in almost all the time, to a renter that I had no confidence that they would follow my rules and respect my property. There are more problems with people who rent long term! When you rent a house or an apartment long term, there are basically no rules! Three house down from us, there is a rental that is basically a party house from time to time. Trash and women's underwear in the alley. Cars everywhere, loud music! There is no way that would happen with almost all STR's. It seems to me that there is alot of "what ifs" fueling the discussions that have no basis in real life. For the most part, you have a group of smart, organized, community minded hosts ( that live in a neighborhood and are mindful of their neighbors) who just want to make some extra income with the property they own and live in. I urge you to look past the fears and negative attitudes and consider those who need to rent their homes as STR's. Thanks, Jane Hartfield LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT H/PAGE 2 OF 10 From: shannon <shannon.a.clark@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 7:29 PM To: Hamilton, Leslie Subject: Short-term rentals Good evening Ms. Hamilton, I came to this page looking for the link for the survey? ... was not able to locate. I just want to add my opinion/thoughts on LO's consideration of Short-term Rentals. I'll be brief. Q This. Is. A. Very. Bad. Idea. My friends & family who live in Un-Incorporated RiverGrove have had nothing but frustrations & troubles. They've even gone to Clackamas County to alleviate some of their nightmares from Short-term rentals. The County amended a few things, but not enough concerning its residents. My sister who lives in Multnomah County(Cedar Hills) can attest to it being a nightmare with an Airbnb across her street. Parties, speeding, transients coming & going. Neighborhood property damage also mysterious dents in cars. Limited parking used by large groups coming/staying(Clackamas County allows up to15 people ... so a neighborhood street can have 15 extra vehicles). Garbage. Unkept yards. Most, like the house across the street from my sister is owned by a property group that is located in an another state. No hearing ear on the other end for complaints. By the time she's filed a complaint about the problem tenant(s), they're long gone & the new ones are on the way. Like I said, no recourse. I don't see The City of LO handling it any better. I've lived in LO since 1993(my husband who is 50, has lived here since moving from Hawaii since he was 6). Why do I say this? We've lived in our current LO home for 15 years, Two years ago the house next door to us was sold to a wonderful family. However, they purchased it to primarily run a daycare. I live in a small court/cul de sac of 10 homes with almost no extra parking. It's been a complete daily frustration of speeding parents who are running late. We have small children who walk to the bus stop on Lakeview who have almost been hit several times since their walk to the bus stop corresponds with parents dropping off babies. I feel like I'm in a live action video game every time I pull out of my driveway for busy, distracted parents pulling out next door. That's only when they aren't parked in front of my driveway blocking my private driveway. I have had to put signs on my garbage cans to politely ask them to not block them because every week they park in front of my garbage cans blocking them. So, when I come home noticing yet again my garbage cans haven't been emptied. I've confronted the parents & they always say, "I'm so sorry! I was just in side for a minute dropping/picking up my child." Allied Waste has told me that they will be having to start charging me a $26.- return trip fee/ per can because they couldn't access my cans because of cars blocking them. So, since there are only vague guidelines for in -home residential businesses I definitely don't see any good for Short-term rentals..... In my abroad travels I've used Short-term rentals, so, I can say not all guests are problematic. However, I grew up in inner city San Francisco, a bustling city. When purchasing where I wanted to live I chose a suburban neighborhood -a neighborhood full of neighbors who actually live in their homes, where friendships grow. Life is sometimes full of frustrations ... why would LO add more of them to its residents. Neighbors make up neighborhoods........... LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT H/PAGE 3 OF 10 Thanks for your time, Shannon Clark Sent from my Wad LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT H/PAGE 4 OF 10 ri rj 4e Az Jlk .Iyf ILI I s k Mister Rogers LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT H/PAGE 5 OF 10 From: Jan Goodwin <janmichele13@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 2, 2018 10:38 AM To: Hamilton, Leslie Subject: Short term rentals Hi Leslie, So glad this is coming up for review. Perhaps an on line opportunity for neighbors to weigh in could contribute to more feedback. My husband and I occupy a home near Millennium Park, and have considered short term rentals now that we are retired. WE HAVE COMPLETELY CHANGED OUR MINDS Our neighbor at 400 Lake Bay Court is advertising on VBRO for nightly rental. Despite admonishment, she advertises lake easement rights, (which is in violation of our membership rules). Several of her guests have been quite noisy, and those that arrive with dogs, leave them in the yard to bark incessantly. On one occasion the police were called by neighbors. This neighbor has been most resistant to the complaints of her neighbors, and we are frustrated by the lack of any enforcement opportunity. Why is she permitted to operate a nightly rental and run this ad when the moratorium speaks of a 30 day term only? Please discuss a viable enforcement policy while considering moving forward. My neighbors and I are concerned that we just have to put up with it until Planning reaches a decision. Thank you for your consideration, Jan Goodwin LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT H/PAGE 6 OF 10 From: Sent: To: Subject: Dillinger, Barbara Monday, September 10, 2018 11:15 AM Hamilton, Leslie FW: Short-term rental survey inadequate From: claudia reed [mailto:claudiamiriamreed@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2018 4:25 PM To: Dillinger, Barbara Subject: Short-term rental survey inadequate Your survey asks repeatedly, in one form or another, whether or not people want short-term rentals in their neighborhoods. I and most people I've spoken with would answer that it all depends on how such rentals are regulated. I have no problem, for example, with home owners in my condo complex (Kingsgate Park) renting out their units while on vacation, even extended vacations, up to four times a year. I also have no problem with someone renting a room within their unit to a friend or family member needing a place to stay for a up to a month. But I would not want a someone to purchase a unit for the sole purpose of securing income from endless short-term rentals. Please consider revising your survey to address the difference in response you would receive if you presented various regulatory options. Thank you for your time, Claudia Reed 58 Galen Street Lake Oswego LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT H/PAGE 7 OF 10 From: Kim Beeler <kim@beelermarketing.com> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 4:26 PM To: Hamilton, Leslie Subject: Comments in regards to short-term rentals Dear Leslie As a long-time resident of the city, I'm completely against the approval of short-term rentals (i.e. AirB&Bs) in Lake Oswego. I think it will lead to unapproved people using the lake, which is likely already happening with the unapproved rentals happening now. I think the city, which apparently needs more money in the budget for affording wonderful attributes like the municipal golf course, should increase the fine and number of fines given to those unlawfully renting their homes and give it to the golf course. We all know that renters don't care about our homes, lake, city, in the same way we residents do. I can look for stats on that fact (renters and how they treat rental property) if you think it would be helpful for the city officials as they discuss and consider this topic. Thank you, Kim Beeler 16400 Westview Dr., Lake Oswego, OR 97034 http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/planning/short-term-rentals Kim Beeler, Owner Mobile: (503) 908-0808 www.beelermarketing.com Leler ■-rxetlng p.I nYds NN1aId 6 en.xnwne�+.0 pYfw LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT H/PAGE 8 OF 10 From: Dillinger, Barbara Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 3:43 PM To: Hamilton, Leslie Subject: FW: LO STR Survey From: Mona Johnson [mailto:monaljohnson@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 3:41 PM To: Dillinger, Barbara Subject: LO STR Survey Hello, I was unable to complete survey before it closed. I would like to share that a neighbor has STR and it really has changed our community climate. Our cut de sac is family oriented but the STR has multiple cars coming and going on a daily basis. They are loud and smoke pot in the driveway and street. Additionally, relations with this neighbor have not been good due to STR issues. I'm also concerned that the City is not collecting related taxes. I have used STR in other cities but don't anymore due to safety issues. For example, in two STRs I had to replace the fire alarm batteries myself. I am not in favor of STRs. Thank you for considering my feedback. Best, Mona LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT H/PAGE 9 OF 10 From: MARK MOCHON <mochon0662@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 4:26 PM To: Hamilton, Leslie Subject: Short Term Rentals Hi Leslie. Looks like I just missed the deadline for the STIR survey. The kind woman at the Planning Dept. desk suggested that I just email you. have a "Mother-in-law" apartment in the home I have lived in for over 20 years. It has its own separate entrance. I am contemplating the prospect of making it a short term rental if the city decides to allow it. I also have a STIR in Manzanita, Oregon which I have owned for about 10 years. With conscientious property management I have never had a bad experience - either to the property or involving the neighbors. I have found that this is a wonderful way for out of town people to visit an appealing area without the rigid stuffiness of staying in a hotel. Obviously, these visitors will be spending money as they visit. Lake Oswego is a beautiful place and this would be a wonderful way to show off our special town. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Mark and Myra LU 18-0034 ATTACHMENT H/PAGE 10 OF 10