By Frank Gormlie / OB Rag
Besides the Chargers stadium, there is no other hotter issue these days in San Diego than that of the issue of vacation rentals. And this is particularly true in the beach and coastal communities of San Diego, like OB, Pacific Beach, Mission Bay.
It is an issue that hits close to home and is a personal one for many San Diegans. A good friend of mine just got married up in the Bay Area. He and his wedding party of 5 found a nice, roomy house in Berkeley with such a nice backyard that they held their ceremony there. They had found the place on Airbnb after another real bed and breakfast had cancelled on them at the last moment.
Another buddy of mine – a former OBcean – flew out here last spring from the East Coast and rented a 2 and 1/2 bedroom house on Muir Street via a site like Airbnb. There is no way he, his wife, 2 kids, mother-in-law and aunt could have afforded a hotel for that many of them.
I have some good friends who have a 2-bedroom house in OB a block from the beach. They’re both retired and when they leave town, they occasionally rent out their house to vacationers through an online website. The money received helps them maintain the house and with other living expenses.
My young daughter and her hubby recently drove out to Joshua Tree with friends for a break and found a inexpensive house to stay in, close to the Park with Airbnb. They couldn’t afford a hotel with their limited income.
Yet at the beaches, the complaints have been coming in. Local residents are pounding their verbal fists at community meetings, city council committee hearings, in letters to the editor. They cite the noise, the traffic, the trash, the late-night parties, the rowdiness, the disruption of their peaceful neighborhood, the “pop-up” hotels that have turned their residential communities into revolving doors of strangers.
Housing advocates cite the loss of affordable housing, as hundreds of rental units are taken off the market when landlords eye the more pricy charges they can demand to short-term vacationers for those units. This squeezes the rental market and forces up prices. People who want more controls on home-shares say landlords are taking hundreds of rentals off the market, exacerbating the an already tight housing stock and sky-high prices. They say landlords are motivated to rent units to tourists rather than long-term tenants.
There is even a loss of real community when vacation rentals and short-term rentals begin to take over entire blocks of once vibrant neighborhoods.
On the other side, proponents of vacation rentals claim that they bring much-needed money to pensioners, grand-mothers, and others who lease out rooms or entire houses to supplement their limited incomes. The rules are too strict, they say, and violate property rights and the right to their livelihoods. They cite that the problem short-term tenants are a minority and most are well-behaved.
And plus, sites like Airbnb allow people to take affordable vacations in a trending “sharing-economy”.
The issue’s complexities are reflected in that it turns out that vacation businesses are major players in who places ads on Airbnb – that it’s not all grand-ma’s.
One study was done recently on Airbnb in LA recently, using publicly available data on Airbnb rentals from one day last October. The study –
found that a third of Airbnb revenue in the city comes from leasing companies and big vacation rental agencies: businesses with lots of listings, often for apartments that are only used for vacation rentals. npr
And in fact many houses that are leased out for short-terms are homes and will never be part of the rental market – thus, they’re NOT removing potential rental units.
It is such a heated and contentious issue that when a San Diego City Council committee held a hearing on the issue in April, so many people turned out, a second one had to be scheduled later on May 29th. San Diego has found itself as just one of the latest battleground over the issue of “house-sharing”.
It’s especially an issue in many of the cities and towns that hug the California coastline – as the success of such online room/house rental agencies as Airbnb – a multi-billion dollar business – forces government to play catch-up to new technology and lifestyles.
The issue is in the news just about every other day. Just Tuesday, June 9th, the San Francisco Supervisors voted to table a proposal for an ordinance to limit short-term vacation rentals to 60 days a year. An Airbnb spokesman stated that the vote postponement made it clear, “…the supervisors listened to the thousands of home-sharers across San Francisco who galvanized around this issue.”
San Diego City Council Inaction
Ever since Councilwoman Lorie Zapf and her staff were met with an avalanche of complaints about short-term rentals at a Pacific Beach community meeting, the issue has been on the San Diego City Council’s radar. In April, the Pacific Beach planning group voted to prohibit vacation rentals in single-family residential areas that are for less than 30 days.
Zapf, of course, represents much of the coastal areas of the city which are in District 2, and some of the most impacted neighborhoods – and it’s probably her office that has received the most noise about the issue. Both pro and con.
So, what is city government doing about the issue?
In a March 30 memo Councilwoman Zapf called on the mayor and council to update the municipal code to something akin to what the cities of Encinitas and Solana Beach have for restrictions on their vacation rentals. Zapf chairs the City Council’s Smart Growth and Land Use Committee and it was her committee that had to stretch into two sessions, including 6 hours of public testimony.
Some of the passionate public speakers proposed restrictions on vacation rentals such as minimum stays of 30 days, restrictions on occupancy, calls for a permit process, improved city monitoring and enforcement of compliance, and higher fines for noise and nuisance issues. Some spoke for an outright ban in certain communities.
Zapf is an advocate of a minimum rental period of 21 days in residential neighborhoods, otherwise the property owner needs to obtain a permit. During the hearing, she stated:
“I’m a mom, I’m raising my kids in what is a single-family residential neighborhood. I can tell you I would not want in my neighborhood a pop-up hotel. I have two young daughters and worry about their safety.”
Other members of the council committee made their views somewhat known. Republican Scott Sherman had his own concerns on restrictions on housing. He said:
“I want to make sure we’re not overly restricting people’s property rights.”
Councilman David Alvarez was contrite and apologized for the council not having taken on the issue earlier. He said:
“On both sides of this issue we really have failed.”
In the end, the 4-member committee punted. They unanimously voted to request that the city use more resources and step-up the enforcement of noise and nuisance regulations – which may begin this summer – and they asked city staff to report back on alternatives after doing more research and community outreach.
Alex Bell, Zapf’s PR staffperson, updated me this morning during a phone call to her office. City staff will take their proposals to the Committee of Planning Committees, to the Technical Advisory committee – which is a long-standing committee of residents who give advice on landuse issues – , and back to Zapf’s committee in September or October. Then it goes to the Planning Commission.
Zapf is most concerned, Bell said, with protecting single-family residential zones. She wants to place a requirement that if the houseowner is not on site, they cannot rent for less than 21 days without obtaining a permit. The councilwoman is also concerned about enforcement issues around these limitations. What may happen is that staff comes forward with a proposal that has stricter limits on short-term rentals depending on the landuse zone. Single-family zones would have more than mixed-use zones, for instance.
Her constituents in District 2, Bell said, tend to support more restrictions on these types of rentals.
But what is clear, the City is not moving on this hot issue quickly, and it will simmer at least until next Fall. In fact, an Arizona travel magazine blog has reassured its readers in that San Diego is not about to enact anything restrictive in the near future. It advised:
[San Diego] is in the early stages of addressing the issue. No changes are imminent. Visitors are unlikely to see any immediate impact except perhaps stronger enforcement of noise and other nuisance violations.
The significance of the impact of vacation-rentals on Arizona vacationers in San Diego was highlighted:
An estimated 6 percent of overnight visitors from Arizona stay in vacation rentals instead of hotels or with family or friends, according to 2013 research from the San Diego Tourism Authority. One in five overnight vacationers to San Diego come from Arizona, more than any state besides California. azcentral.com
So, as city staff do their research and plan community outreach on the issue, what are other cities doing? One of the options for San Diego staff is to craft something similar to other cities in the County. Based on media reports (San Diego U-T), we find:
Solana Beach: One of the first cities in San Diego County to set limits on short-term rentals, in 2003, it adopted an ordinance that prohibits rentals of less than 7 days in residential zones, requires owners to get a permit for a one-time fee of $110 with a small yearly renewal fee, and requires the exterior posting of contact information in public view, and a response within 24 hours to any complaints. Its success is seen in that over the past 5 years there has not been a single complaint.
Encinitas: Like Solana Beach, Encinitas adopted its ordinance early on, and passed it in 2005. It requires a permit with an annual fee of $150, it limits the number of occupants in rentals to 2 people per bedroom, plus one additional person per home, and it requires property owners to post their contact information on the outside of building and to respond within 24 hours if problems are reported.
Oceanside: Owners are required to have a business license and to pay Oceanside’s 10 percent hotel room tax and a 1.5 percent fee to the tourism marketing district. Any stay over 30 days is not considered a vacation rental and does not pay the room tax or marketing district fee.
Carlsbad: The City Council adopted regulations in April similar to those of Encinitas and Solana Beach, which just took effect on June 4. However, Carlsbad decided to allow them only in its coastal zone, an area entirely west of El Camino Real and excluding much of the downtown “village” area.
What about other major California cities?
San Francisco: supervisors tabled further attempts to regulate home-shares just this week despite calls from some members to vote on a plan to limit short-term vacation rentals to 60 days a year. The vote by the Board of Supervisors to move the discussion to next month was approved 7-4. Current city law, in effect since February, calls for a 90-day cap on entire-home rentals via companies such as Airbnb. Hosted rentals are not capped. San Diego U-T
Santa Monica: Last May, the city council unanimously voted to ban vacation-home rentals of fewer than 30 days, although it will allow Airbnb-style stays in a portion of an occupied house or condo, but owners must get a permit and collect lodging taxes. The new regulations go into effect June 15. Santa Monica officials estimated about 1,700 housing units in the city were regularly rented out as vacation rentals.
Sacramento: The City Council wants to be flexible and has a proposed ordinance that would allow property owners to rent out units for a maximum of 30 days in a calendar year without being considered a bed and breakfast. Owners who rented their units out for more than 30 days in a year would have to obtain a city permit, which would include an evaluation for traffic impacts and noise. Sacramento Bee
Berkeley: The City Council in this trendy university city with a huge lack of affordable housing, is considering guidelines for legalizing and regulating short-term rentals – defined here as rentals lasting fewer than 14 days, and vacation rentals – short-term rentals during which the host is not present. The Daily Californian
However San Diego goes, it’s clear that this issue will not be going away, even if more regulation is on its way. But hopefully, the following scenario will never occur:
Imagine someday, you wake up and take a leisurely stroll through the community and you find the entire village is filled with vacationers, – every house, every condo, every apartment, every little shack and cottage have been rented out for the weekend or week.
The sidewalks, cafes and bars are filled completely with strangers. You walk around and don’t see anyone you know. Small clusters stand on corners, looking at maps or their ipods, trying to figure where to go.
There’s long lines, not just at Hodad’s but at just about every restaurant. Even some of the bars have lines to get in. So, the businesses are raking it, though, for these vacationers are spending more money this weekend than the residents spend in a year.
Yet you look around and you no longer recognize the place. Time for a vacation.
As one woman resident of the beaches complained at the May 29th San Diego council committee hearing:
“Everyone wants to stay in a vacation-rental. But no one wants to live next to one.”
News sources for this article: San Diego U-T , azcentral.com, npr , Sacramento Bee
Latest posts by Frank Gormlie (see all)
- Mayor’s Office Confirms Sale of Liberty Station Leases by McMillin – But Questions Remain - December 5, 2018
- Why Would Anyone Want to Flee Beautiful Honduras? - November 29, 2018
- A Progressive Looks at the San Diego Mid-Terms – OB Rag Interview With Doug Porter - November 21, 2018
America’s Finest Tourist Plantation, comes to mind. Lots of San Diegans are sorta whorin’ around. Like the lady you quote said, “Everyone wants to stay in a vacation-rental. But no one wants to live next to one.” Substitute “bordello” for vacation-rental and you can see what’s around the corner here, just next door.
I am stunned at how much this article leaves out of the San Diego picture. The most important missing information is this: The City of San Diego’s CURRENT position is that renting a room in your home or your whole home in a single family zone for less than 30 days is ILLEGAL unless you first obtain a $5-10,000 Neighborhood Use or Conditional Use Permit. Your friends who rent out their home on occasion when on vacation? According to Development Services they are breaking the law. Family from Arizona coming to stay in a few spare bedrooms at a local Airbnb in OB or North Park? Likely the host is – according to the City of San Diego – breaking the law. I do not know why the Union Tribune, Voice of San Diego, City Beat, here, etc. have elected not to publish this piece of information.
I don’t know whether any of the Councilmembers will provide you that information, but if you go to Development Services on any single family zone in the City now and try to rent out a room OR your whole primary residence, they will tell you that you are a commercial bed and breakfast and that it is only allowed with the permits mentioned.
On another note, this has been on the Council’s radar much longer than April of this year. Through a public records act request obtained by a journalist, I learned that at least one office had assigned a senior staff to address the issue. And in fact one woman (who happens to be my client) had Todd Gloria’s office actually initiate the Code Enforcement Department’s actions. Not for noisy parties or raucous behavior – but merely for using Airbnb to host visitors in her home. Further, I know that at least one other Council office has been actively working on these issues since their own constituent got a huge tax bill back in December of last year.
The point – the really critical point that every journalist owes to its readers on this – is that you can be the subject of a code enforcement action without knowing there is a problem. Neither Code Enforcement nor the Council office has any obligation to talk to a homeowner who has been complained about – the existence of a complaint (or a call from a Council office) is enough to start the ball rolling.
One last thing. The City will collect your Transient Occupancy Tax regardless of whether Development Services says the use is allowed or not. There is a “zoning auto-clearance” in the tax office that enables them to set up the tax without inquiring whether the use is allowed. I know this to be true because I know at least one person who paid the TOT and still got burned by Development Services.
It’s nice to provide some information, but really you ought to include a more full picture so that your readers really understand what they can and can’t do now. That travel magazine has it exactly wrong.
Thanks Omar for your contribution. I will look into this latest info that you have provided. Funny, that no one from the City council or D2 office has mentioned this. I think most of my info was from other cities – which I think is very helpful and informative for us, enabling us to do comparisons with the smidgen of info I did provide.
We need a fair common sense ordinance that protects homeowners and our valuable tourist industry. There is no reason why we can’t use some of the fees/taxes collected for a fund for enforcement of noise violations.
What are they going to do next? Forbid tax paying citizens to have room mates because they make too much noise? Or exchange students because they are not the people neighbors recognize in the supermarket? Open your eyes and your minds this country was made by people from other places and if you don’t want to live in a country were you have no rights you better start defending home owners property rights and privacy.
Don’t tell me who I can have in my own house I been paying it for the last 30 years after working very hard and I will open it up to whomever I want it’s my right!
I’m with you, Violet!
The only time government or law enforcement should become involved is when others are effected — noise, or litter, or parking on the neighbor’s lawn. Otherwise, it’s nobody’s damn business!