Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Vacation Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and owners press council to revise VHR ordinance after rollout blocks many prior permit holders
Summary
Council directed staff to prepare amendments to the June VHR ordinance after months of permitting produced about 148 permits and hundreds of complaints. Council asked staff to draft options that include removing the 150‑ft buffer in favor of a 1,200‑unit cap or an adjacent‑parcel rule, consider a 25‑year minimum renter age (legal risk noted), add occupancy reporting, and refund some fees for buffered‑out applicants.
The City Council directed staff Sept. 9 to return with proposed revisions to the June VHR ordinance after an extended public comment period and staff presentations highlighted operational problems during the permitting rollout.
Since the ordinance went into effect, City Manager Joseph Irvin reported that about 1,670 applications were submitted and 813 had been reviewed; roughly 148 permits had been issued and staff said 93 properties were buffered by the 150‑foot separation rule. Council members and many public commenters said the buffer rule has left longtime, compliant property owners unable to secure permits after paying inspection fees and investing in required safety measures.
City Attorney Heather Straud told the council the city can treat non‑residentially zoned commercial and recreation areas like the Tourist Core Area Plan (TCAP) to remove the 150‑ft buffer for those zones; she cautioned that a flat renters’ age minimum (25) carries legal risk under state law but that property managers or platforms can implement age policies locally. Straud recommended keeping the 150‑ft buffer for the moment because the ordinance had only been in effect a short time and staff wanted more data on nuisance impacts and housing‑stock implications.
After more than two hours of public testimony — including complaints that staff asked for deeds late in the process, that inspections and permit issuance occurred out of order, and that some applicants who passed inspection were later denied because a nearby application finished sooner — council members moved to take a different direction. Council instructed staff to prepare ordinance amendments that included replacing the 150‑ft buffer with a citywide cap (1,200 units) or, as an option, a narrower adjacent‑parcel buffer; to analyze a possible 25‑year minimum age rule and its legal risk; to add reporting requirements (room‑nights/occupancy) so the city can track impacts; and to identify a process for refunding fees for applicants buffered out after paying inspection costs. Council also asked staff to return with options to change permit appeal handling (hearing officer vs. planning commission) to reduce political uncertainty.
What this means: Staff will draft ordinance language and legal analysis on the age standard, buffer alternatives and appeal routing, and return to the council with options. The council’s decision directs staff to pursue the changes and to present A/B options when the amendments are returned for first reading.
Speakers: City Manager Joseph Irvin, City Attorney Heather Straud, many public commenters (longtime homeowners, property managers, business representatives).
Provenance: topicintro SEG 809; topfinish SEG 3715.
