Galveston STR committee agrees on two-zone parking approach, sets enforcement work plan

The Galveston Short-Term Rental Committee agreed by consensus to recommend a two-zone parking policy for short-term rentals and to produce enforceable ordinance language and an enforcement plan for City Council consideration by June 26.

The committee’s recommendation divides the island into two parking typologies: properties east of 60 First Street would be allowed to use driveway space plus a maximum of two on-street spaces; properties west of 60 First Street would be expected to confine rental parking to on-site driveways or designated on-property spaces (no on-street parking for STRs). The committee asked staff to draft ordinance language, identify the data needed for enforcement and bring those materials back at a follow-up meeting.

Why it matters: residents and committee members described severe congestion, particularly on the West End where narrow streets (committee members cited typical widths of about 18–20 feet) can be blocked when cars park on both sides. Multiple public speakers and HOA leaders said the situation has already created safety and access problems for emergency vehicles and residents’ daily use.

Public commenters and committee members framed the discussion in practical, enforcement-focused terms. “I’ve seen that neighborhood go from 12 short term rentals in the neighborhood to now over 70,” said Craig Dickey, scribe officer, describing parking pressure he has observed while working security in Beachside Village. Bob Matthews, president of the Sea Isle homeowners association, told the committee he had learned that “51% of the rentals were on the West End,” and he urged prompt action.

Committee members and staff discussed several implementation options rather than endorsing a single technical fix. Proposals discussed included: operator registration and annual updates (including vehicle information), parking permits or placards, assignment of allowed parking based on driveway capacity instead of occupancy or bedroom count, temporary no-street-parking windows (for example, 2 a.m.–6 a.m.), and third‑party software that registers license plates (committee members mentioned a product called Parking Boss as an example). Several speakers urged placing responsibility on operators/property managers to respond to complaints quickly; staff described models used in other cities where the operator is fined for non‑response.

The group also discussed constraints and dependencies. Committee members and staff said enforcement capacity is limited: the marshals unit was described as short-staffed (committee members said the marshals currently have three sworn officers on duty for certain functions), and the city has about $1 million available short-term for enforcement that would not be sustainable without a revenue source such as fees. Committee members flagged the need to clarify whether the existing call center and registration system (currently run by the park board) will transfer to city control and whether the software available will support required registration fields and data sharing for enforcement.

The committee heard differing views from residents about whether short-term rentals are the primary cause of parking congestion. An East End resident and Airbnb host, Lauren, said existing rules already limit visitor passes and argued that long-term tenants and household size often drive parking pressure: “Airbnbs are only allowed 2 2 visitor passes per unit,” she said, and cited Section 34-118 (residential parking area permits) as a relevant code reference.

Members debated whether to require floor plans and bedroom counts at registration. Some members said floor plans help with later enforcement and life‑safety analysis; others said bedroom counts can be gamed (closets repurposed as sleeping areas, bunk beds, etc.) and prefer basing allowed parking on measurable on-site parking capacity. The working approach the committee adopted emphasizes on-site parking capacity (driveway/pad) as the limiting factor rather than strictly tying allowed parking to bedroom counts or total occupancy.

Next steps: staff and committee members agreed to draft ordinance language and enforcement details for review at a follow-up meeting. The committee scheduled its next meeting for June 4 to refine the proposal; members also set an internal deadline to deliver final recommendations to City Council by its June 26 meeting.

Quotes above are taken verbatim from the public meeting transcript and attributed to the speakers who spoke on the record.