City staff presented a draft short‑term rental (STR) ordinance proposing amendments to the municipal code to allow and regulate STRs, add transient‑lodging definitions, require annual permits with renewal, and establish performance standards and nuisance response plans. The draft included options for permit caps, HOA consent provisions, a requirement to mail contact info to neighbors within 200 feet, 24/7 complaint contacts, occupancy limits (proposed two adults per bedroom), off‑street parking requirements, noise monitors, prohibition on events/parties, and administrative fines consistent with state law.

Council members asked detailed questions about enforcement, fine structure, collection of transient occupancy tax (TOT), and whether the tourism marketing district (TMD) would include STRs. Staff said TOT collection could be handled by the city’s existing vendor and that including STRs in the TMD would require amending the management district plan and a vote weighted by contribution to the assessment. Staff estimated about 100 current listings and used a 30% “fallout” estimate to project roughly 70 permitted STRs after implementation.

Key policy choices discussed and clarified: whether fines should be set in ordinance or by subsequent resolution for flexibility; whether to allow condos/townhomes and certain ADUs (state law constraints noted for some ADU types); how to handle HOA approval (several council members said HOAs’ CC&Rs should control private restrictions rather than the city being the middleman); nuisance reporting options to protect reporters and clarify city investigative roles; options for tiered permit fees (hosted vs unhosted or by unit type); and whether to require noise monitors that could be linked to the city (described by one council member as a potential phase‑2 enforcement tool).

Council members proposed practical changes: combine initial neighbor notification mailings where possible, match owner reporting cadence to quarterly TOT reporting, clarify that hosted STRs are explicitly allowed in the ordinance text, ban fireworks in the good‑neighbor rules, and permit the director to manage some administrative functions. Several council members indicated concern about arbitrary citywide caps and suggested density‑based triggers (e.g., block or building concentration) instead of a raw cap.

After extensive questioning and amendments suggested on the record, Councilmember Rhodes moved (seconded) to direct staff to incorporate the discussed amendments, take the revised draft to neighborhood councils and the planning commission for comment, and return to council with recommendations and any necessary fee and budget analyses. The motion passed unanimously.