Rent Stabilization Board

August 14,2015

Dear Members of the Planning and Housing Advisory Commissions,

The Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board generally supports the recent City Council refenal whichoutlines protections for existing housing while allowing Berkeley residents to rent some or all of theirhomes for limited periods of time.

Please find attached the Rent Board letter of May ll,2015,previously submitted to the City Councilregarding Short-term Rental (STR) policy. In addition to the concems laid out in the attached May lener,we wish to call your attention to a few misconceptions about existing law, Board policy, and the housingmarket as described in the letter from Berkeley Homesharers dated June 23, 2015.

Second Units

Commissioners, including Chair Townley, have talked with vacation rental hosts. We have noticed someconfusion on the part of hosts when discussing "second units." Chair Townley has explained to BerkeleyHomesharers that studio buildings which do not have kitchens would probably be considered part of themain dwelling for STR purposes but that a unit would be deemed a separate residential unit as long as itcontained a separate bath and kitchen facility.

The Board is recommending that whole units with kitchens that are not occupied by the host most of theyear should not be allowed as short-term rentals. To allow entire residential rental units to, in essence, beconverted to hotel rooms would exacerbate the existing housing crisis by decreasing the city's rentalhousing stock.

One misconception that the Board would like to clarify is whether our agency is concerned with unitsthat are not under rent control. While our agency is more concerned with units that fall within the rentceiling restrictions of our ordinance, there are still protections that are provided to tenants in units thatdo not have rent ceiling protections, such as'Just cause" eviction regulations. During conversations withstakeholders such as Berkeley Homesharers, Chair Townley was explaining that many of the situationshomesharers described at recent City Council meetings will be allowed under the laws as outlined in theCouncil referral. These would mostly consist of existing rooms in single- family homes and ADUs thatare not separate units.

The hosts' letter also advocated for the right of landlords who reside in duplexes to be able to legallyoffer the second unit for short-term renting. This is extremely problematic to the Rent Board.

According to the Berkeley Homesharers letter, about 50% of Berkeley's 800 STR listings are in "in-lawsand ADUs." Datafrom the City's Housing Element shows 9% of Berkeley's 48,583 units are in 2-unitproperties (4,372 units). Rent Board records track 3,828 of those units and Board records show that 75%of these duplexes (2,871 units) have at least one owner-occupied unit.

2125 Milv ia Street, Berkeley, Ca I iforn i a 94204TEL: (510) 981-7368 (981-RENT) ¡ TDD: (510) 981-6903 o FAX: (5I0) 9Sl-4940

E-MAIL: rent@citvofberkelev.info r INTERNET: www.cityofberkeley.info/rent

Rent Board letter to Planning Commissioner and H.A.C.Page2

This means that the city would be at risk of losing approximately 3,200 rental units if all owner-occupied duplexes were granted the opportunity to offer the 2nd unit on the STR market.This loss means even more units being unavailable to renters. If larger multi-unit owner- occupiedbuildings are allowed an extra STR unit, our affordable housing crisis would be exponentiallyexacerbated.

We are already seeing multi-unit buildings in Berkeley being illegally converted to all or majority-STRunits. One l2-unit building in the Elmwood district currently has 3 full-time STR units, and is just oneof a growing number of permanently STR Berkeley units visible on various STR sites and reported tothe Rent Stabilization Board by neighboring tenants.

Rent Ceilins and Rent Limitations

At its June lTth meeting, the Planning Commission received a report from Alex Marqusee whichreviewed the impact of AirBnB on San Francisco's housing crisis. As summarizedby PlanningCommission staff, Mr. Marqusee, in part, recommended the removal of restrictions on rent controlledtenants earning more revenue than the rent they are paying to their landlord.

Such a restriction would run counter to the rent ceiling limitations as codified in the rent controlordinance passed by the Berkeley voters. Under the rent control ordinance a tenant is prohibited from"overcharging" another individual who resides in the unit with them, whether that occupant ischaracterized as a roommate or subtenant. It is the Rent Board's position that a tenant would be inviolation of the rent control ordinance should they charge a daily, weekly or even monthly amount thatexceeds a pro-rata share ofthe entire legal rent.

Rents and "rent ceilings" are codified in the rent control ordinance and cannot be changed by the CityCouncil or the Rent Board. Any changes would require approval by Berkeley voters.

Business Licensing and Monitoring

The City Council referral contains a component that calls for the host obtaining a business license.Councilmember Arreguin's proposal expands this concept. V/e strongly support a Business Licensenumber being necessary for legal STR hosts. This requirement will make it easier for the City to enforcethese regulations, collect fees, and discover scofflaws.

Conclusion

We wish to emphasizethat the Rent Board supports thelegalization of STR's, but in away that balancesthe desires of owners and tenants to offer such short-term housing while protecting Berkeley's existingrental housing stock. As short-term rentals continue to be discussed by the City and its variouscommissions, we look forward to continuing our efforts to work hand in hand with you and the Council.

Sincerely,

çlzz( ' lÈo4

Jesse Townley, ChairBerkeley Rent Stabilization Board

Rent Stabiliz¿tion Boa¡dOfñce of the Executive Director

DATE:

TO:

FROM:

May 13,2015

Honorable Mayor Bates and Members of the Berkeley City Council

Jay Kelekian, Executive Director ,4-\By: Matt Brown, StaffAttom ey$Þ/

SUBJECT: Attached Letter from Rent Boæd Commissioners regarding Short-Tenn Rentals

Aftached please find a letter from the Board regarding regulation of short-term rentals inBerkeley. Board Commissioners directed me to send this to you at their regularly-scheduledmeeting on May 11,2015.

Please contact me (Jay Kelekian) should you have any questions or concems.

t - æ _ -t r t r u z t l

¡ - re!

tt ryI I - -II III¡II I - I

Rent Stabilization Board

May 11,2015

Honorable Mayor Bates and Members of the City CouncilCity of Berkeley2180 Milvia St., Fifth FloorBerkeley, .CA.94704

VIA EMAIL AND INTER-DEPARTMENT DELIVERY

Subject: Short-Term Rentals

Dear City Council:

The Rent Board wants to thank Councilperson Droste and Mayor Bates, as well as theirstaff, for moving Berkeley fonvard on regulation of Short-Term Rentals (STRs). Weagree with some of the proposed policies contained in the draft referral item, but want topoint out areas of concern and share what our Committee on STRs has considered.

A summary of our major Rent Board concerns are as follows:

1) Loss of Housing:We hope that any Council policy recommendations to the Housing AdvisoryCommission and Planning Commission will focus on ensuring that whole units withkitchens that are not occupied by the host most of the year will remain available forpermanent residents. Owners of multiple rental units in Berkefey should not be allowedto go into the hotel business.

2) Enforcement:Regulations must provide a workable enforcement mechanism with adequate fundingand staffing. Penalties and remedies should be clear.

3) Tenants Rights:Berkeley's new regulations must preserve rights tenants currently hold, such as the rightto quiet enjoyment of their home as well as the right to sublet if they already hold thatprivilege. Council should include the Rent Board for input in their referral.

Detaíls of these areas of concern as they relate to the draft Short-Term Rentals Referralare presented below.

BACKGROUNDBoard Action to Date:

At our February meeting, the Rent Board requested that our staff provide a legalanalysis of current laws regarding rentals of less than 14 days as well as how state andlocairegulations, including the Rent Ordinance, would interact with possible regulationsof short-term rentals (STRs). The analysis is pending.

At the same meeting, we also created an Ad-Hoc Committee on Short-Term Rentals.That committee has met weekly, and examined many aspects of STRs, including thecurrent situation, specific examples of rent- controlled units advertised as STRs, policiesand laws from other jurisdictions, comments from renters impacted by neighboring unitsbeing marketed to tourists, materials from the Planning Commission, and the draftproposal by Mayor Bates and Councilperson Droste'

At our April 20 meeting, the Rent Board approved a letter to the Planning Commission,which was also sent to the Council, outlining the Board's most basic position on suchrentals:

o Renting units primarily as vacation rentals is contributing to the housing crisis.. Preservation of existing rental housing stock for residents should be paramount.. New policies should consider health and safety concerns.. Regulations should consider the impact of tourist rentals on neighbors and

neighborhoods that may not be zoned for commercial use and/or are notaccustomed to tourist housing in their neighborhood.

MAJOR AREAS OF CONCERN

1) Loss of Housing:The draft Short-Term Rentals Referral as reviewed by our Committee in April containssome ambiguous language, although the íntent appears to be in line with what the RentBoard wants: only residential units occupied by the host for the majority of the yearshould be listed as STRs. To that end, permitted hosts should be defined in anyordinance'as a natural person, not an LLC or corporation'

We are also concerned that the draft uses the term "properties" and not "units" whendiscussing the owner/tenant occupancy guideline. According to the census dataincluded in the table below, one in five units in Berkeley are in a building containing twoto four units. According to Rent Board data, of the 1914 duplexes, only 464 do not havean owner who lives on the property. Thus, Berkeley could see a significant loss ofavailable rental housíng if we imitate Portland's rule that whole units can be rented asSTRs if the owner líves on the parcel. We believe there should be a one-host, one-unitrule; namely that the unit should be the host's primary residence, the place where theyvote, file their taxes, sleep, at least 270 days of the year.

The foltowing chiarf is from the City's Draft 2015-2023 Housing ElemenL

Berkeley's Housing Stock by Number of Units inBui ld ing,2012

20+ Un¡tts%

l U r t i t7%ol0-19 u

9%

5-9 UnÍ ls8%

3-4 Un¡ts72o/o

2 Units9%

2l Enforcement:The Rent Board supports prov¡sions that a host must occupy the unit as their primaryresidence for the majority of the year, but we have read about problems enforcing suchprov¡sions in other jurisdictions. Replicating laws that Portland and San Francisco havedecided they must amend seems impractical. Allowing unlimited rental nights if the hostis present in the unit has caused problems with enforcement and verification. Similarprovisions should be considered carefully. As noted in the draft referral, San Franciscois now considering limiting STRs to 90 days whether the host is present or not.

Creatíng a local ordinance that compels hosting platforms to collect taxes and providerentaldata to the City seems key. The Rent Board is monitoring Senate Bill5g3(McGuire), which would compel data sharing as well as AB 1220 (Harper) whichwould ban cities from requiring that STRs pay a hotel-type localtax.

ln addition, the draft referral calls for a complaint-driven system, but has no provisionsfor a pubtic directory or a permit number in the ads which we believe is crucialforenforcement purposes. How can the public tell if a STR is in compliance without suchinformation?

Additionally, the draft referral calls for neighbor notification but does not considerneighbors above and below the unit. We are also concerned that, after notifìcation,there is no mechanism for neighbors to object and no process identified for complaintsor penalties. Perhaps a number of other Berkeley ordinances would be triggered by themajority of the types of neighbor complaints, but these intersecting laws should at leastbe referenced in STR regulat¡ons and outreach materials.

3) Tenants 'Rights:Tenants have come to the Board and Commissioners voicing their concerns aboutShort-Term Rentals and the serious impacts they have had on their quality of life.

Additionally, the STR Committee has asked staff to include information in the pending

legal analysis regarding whether the draft referral's provision that tenants needpermission from the owner may be in conflict with locaf or state laws'

The Rent Board is also monitoring SB 761 (Hall), which would require hosting platforms

to notify hosts that listing a rental unit can result in eviction in some circumstances. We

are alsô discussing outreach about how existing Berkeley laws impact tenants who renttheir homes as STRs and in particular the provision that master tenants can only chargea proportional share of the rent to subtenants.

CONCLUSION

Because of the complicated nature of landlord-tenant laws at the state, local and federal

level, it is essential that the Rent Board have a voice in local regulatíons on shott- term

rentals. Whíle there may be times when allowing such rentals serves the purposes in

the Rent Ordinance and Hous¡ng Element, allowing unlimited short-term rentals orcreating règulations that lack eniorcement mechanisms will contribute to the housingcrisis in BerkeleY.

Sincerely,,/ // < /

/ ' - ' /t "

Jesse TownleyChair, BerkeleY Rent Board

Communicat ionsPlanning Commission

J u l y 1 , 2 0 1 5

DATE: June 23, 201-5

TO: The Berkeley Planning Comission

FROM: Berkeley Home Sharers

RE: Recommendations on Revisions to Proposed Regulat ions for Short- term Rentals

Dear P lann ing Commiss ion :

l . lntroduct ion

Berkeley Home Sharers (B.H.S.) is grassroots group of Berkeley short term rental hosts organized to

ensure fair and reasonable regulat ions of short term rentals.

As residents of Berkeley who care about our community, we want to see our act iv i t ies benef i t Berkeley

and i ts communit ies, and cont inue to improve the l ives of i ts hosts.

We cal l upon the Berkeley City Counci l and Berkeley Planning Commission to be as vis ionary in your

approach to short term rentals as you have histor ical ly been on so many other issues.

We applaud the Berkeley City Counci l 's general support for this newly emerging economic and cultural

act iv i ty, and we understand and support your desire to prevent problems.

As a general rule, we prescr ibe to the pr inciple that regulat ions should only be passed which are

necessary, appropriate to the dimensions of the act iv i ty, ef fect ive, and enforceable. We recognize that

l imited access to data and knowledge about the day-to-day operat ions, potent ial problems, and

funct ional needs of home sharing may make i t di f f icul t to develop recommendations that Berkeley

leaders and the homesharing community, al ike, can be conf ident about.

Therefore, we are doing our part to educate the City Counci l , Planning Commission, Rent Stabi l izat ion

Board, and other local regulatory bodies to the needs, contr ibut ions, and concerns ofthe 800 short term

rental hosts l iv ing in your distr icts in Berkeley.

To that end, we offer these comments and proposed revisions to your draft recommendations. We

bel ieve our proposed revisions wi l l s imultaneously address the concerns, whi le also protect ing hosts '

l ivel ihood and qual i ty of l i fe, and support ing short term rentals as an important tour ism-based, local

economy ini t iat ive for Berkeley.

The bottom l ine is, i f lef t unchanged, the current BCC recommendations would:

. Cut the number of short term rentals by at least hal f , doing grave injury to the l ivel ihoods of

approximately 400 of your const i tuents, forcing some of them out of their homes.

. Reduce potent ial tax revenues by nearly S1"M/year

. Reduce income to neighborhood businesses by approximately 57M/year

We bel ieve these revenues are too important to sacr i f ice to unnecessari ly burdensome and exclusionary

pol ic ies, especial ly given the many worthy organizat ions and programs impacted by the recent City

budget hearings.

On the impacts side of the equat ion, our act iv i ty is smal l . Based on data our group derived from Airbnb

l ist ings, there are approximately 800 Berkeley l ist ings,50% of which are rooms in homes, and 50% of

which are in- laws and ADUs, with only a smal l f ract ion potent ial ly avai lable as year-round long term

rentals ( l ikely less than L0 percent). The potent ial impacts are just too smal l to just i fy the t ime, expense,

and deep personal harm involved in craft ing and enforcing regulat ions as str¡ct as some of those

included in the current BCC recommendations.

We hope you wi l l don your most vis ionary hats, and ful ly embrace this powerful ly humanizing

contr ibut ion to Berkeley's economy and culture by issuing fair and reasonable regulat ions that wi l l let

homesharing thr ive in Berkeley.

Our Comments On and Revisions To the BCC Recommendations

1,. Owner Occupancy. BCC Recommendation. The dwel l ing unit must be the owner/tenant 's

pr imary residence and be owner/tenant occupied at least 9 months of the year and the unit may not be

rented more than 90 days a year i f the host is not present, with no l imit to the number of days when the

host is present. BHS Proposed Revision. The dwel l ing unit must be the owner/tenant 's pr imary

residence, or an attached, detached, or accessory dwel l ing unit on the same property as the

owner/tenant 's pr imary residence, and be owner/tenant occupied at least 6 months of the year, and the

unit may not be rented more than 1-80 days a year i f the host is not present, with no l imit to the number

of days when the host is present. BHS Response, We object to the requirement that a dwel l ing unit

must be the owner/tenant 's pr imary residence. We think the City should al low the short term rental of

ONE addit ional uni t on the same property where the owner resides (e.g., an attached, detached, or

accessory dwel l ing unit) .

r I regulat ion that disal lows such units as STRs would dramatical ly reduce home sharing in

Berkeley - by as much as 30%.

. The revenue that Berkeley would othen¡¡ ise enjoy fronr short term visi tors wi l l leave Berkeley

and fund the tax coffers and local businesses of neighboring towns - El Cerr i to, Albany, and Oakland.

. Berkeley would lose signi f icant potent ial tax revenue by prohibi t ing STRs from including one

addit ional uni t . Of the approximately 800 l ist ings we ident i f ied in Berkeley, we calculate that hal f of

these are rooms in homes, and the other half is comprised of "ent i re homes" which includes attached or

detached in- laws or ADUs (approximat ely 50% of the "ent ire home" l ist ings are attached/detached in-

laws or ADUs - or 25% of the total l ist ings). The est imated total TOT revenue for one year for 800 l ist ings

is S1.8M (based on 50% occupancy at an average rate of SfOO a night and n%fOT). Thus, a loss of 200

ADU/in- law type units could reduce TOT revenue by 25% or 5.45M. ln addit ion to lost TOT revenue,prohibi t ing STRs from including an addit ional uni t , the City 's businesses would lose revenue. By our

est imates, guests spend at least $fOO a day local ly ( in SF, guests spend $247 a day). Thus, el iminat ion of

these units would result in a loss of S¡.6SIV in annual revenue for local businesses.

. In addit ion to lost TOT revenue, prohibi t ing STRs from including an addit ional uni t , the City 's

businesses would lose revenue. By our est imates, guests spend at least 5100 a day local ly ( in SF, guests

spend 5247 a day). Thus, el iminat ion of these units would result in a loss of Se.3 mi l l ion in annual

revenue for local businesses.

. Many hosts depend heavi ly on the STR income they make from ADUs or simi lar uni ts. They

would incur f inancial di f f icul ty because their own affordable housing depends on that income.

Moreover, most of these units are unsuitable for a long-term tenant (e.g., because they have no ki tchen

or bathroom). Other owners may rely on the unit for family to stay when they come to town, so they

cannot rent i t out to a long-term tenant.

. We are fortunate to have two sources of support on this issue. Jesse Townley, of the Berkeley

Rent Stabi l izat ion Board, has stated he is not averse to ADUs as STRs because the Rent Board has no

stake in protect ing those for long-term tenants. His understanding of such units is that they are part of

the main dwel l ing; they are considered another room of the house. Likewise, he suggests thatthe Rent

Board is not concerned with golden duplexes and in- law units that are not sui table or avai lable as long

term rentals, and not registered with the Rent Board. Addit ional ly, at leastthree members of the

Planning Commission (Shoshana, Harry and Tracey) indicated openness to hosts using one addit ional

unit as a STR on the property where they l ive,

. We would l ike to increase the number of days a host can rent an unhosted rental that is theirpr imary residence from 90 to 180. This length of t ime would not increase the l ikel ihood of removing apotent ial long-term rental f rom the market.

o We would l ike to decrease the amount of t ime from 9 months to 6 months that hosts must l ive

at their pr imary residence during a year to be al lowed to use i t as an unhosted rental . The rat ionale for

this is that many people, especial ly in a universi ty community, take tr ips or go on sabbat ical for morethan 3 months. Requir ing 9 months of residency would removes a viable opt ion for them to supplement

their income, afford their t ravel, and offer a STR to those who need i t , whi le avoiding the potent ialproblems associated with long-term tenants (e.g., the tenant refuses to leave when the owner gets

back, result ing in the cost of a civ i l sui t just to get their home back, which has happened in Berkeley).

. l f the recommendations is passed without our proposed revision, we request a permit system toal low owners or tenants to seek an except ion to the 9 month/ 90 day rule, i f they can provide a good

reason for it.

2. Taxes. BCC Recommendation: Ei ther the host or the rental plat form must pay the transientoccupancy tax (TOT) and an addit ionalenforcement fee. BHS Comments:We do not object to paying

our fair share of taxes and reasonable enforcement fees that are comparable to those paid by long termlandlords. However, we quest ion the appropriateness of enforcement act iv i t ies for STR's burdening theRent Stabi l izat ion Board, which is responsible for regulat ions and enforcement pertaining tolandlord/tenant laws, not to hotels, B&B's, or other short term accommodations. By def ini t ion, short-

term guests are not tenants or subtenants, and hosts are not landlords. Hence, the Rent Stabi l izat ionBoard should not be responsible to enforce STR regulat ions in Berkeley.

3. Business License. BCC Recommendation: The host must have a val id business l icense and becovered by l iabi l i ty insurance of at least SSOOI. BHS Comments: No object ion.

4. Business License Number On List ing. BCC Recommendations: The ci ty wi l l request host ingplatforms l ist the business l icense number in onl ine l ist ings. BHS Comments: For the reasons below,we oppose any requirement that host ing platforms display hosts ' business l icense numbers on theirpubl ic l ist ings, and we request that BCC str ike this i tem from i ts recommendations.

o As homeowners and tenants invi t ing careful ly selected vis i tors into our pr ivate homes,publ ic iz ing a business l icense number is a pr ivacy and securi ty issue for us. Armed with a businessl icense number, anyone who sees a given host 's l ist ing can f ind that person's home address. Usingthisinformation along with the calendar indicat ing when a host may be gone would make i t easy for acr iminal to target that residence for burglar ies. Forthese reasons, Airbnb does not disclose addresses toanyone unt i l they pay for a booking, and the City should fol low suit . l t is cr i t ical for the personal safety ofhosts and their guests that the address remain conf ident ial to al l but paying guests with reservat ions.

. This is also a fairness issue, Those who offer long-term rentals are not required to l ist a businessl icense in their advert isements. Those offer ing STRs should not be required to do so, ei ther. To requirehigher standards, for no good reason, would be unnecessary and punit ive.

5. Not i f icat ion. BCC Recommendation: The host must provide a one t ime not i f icat ion to abutt ingand confront ing neighbors, including units above and below, that he/she wi l l be making short termrentals avai lable, which would include pr imary contact information, secondary contact info, and l inks to

the Berkeley community noise and smoke-free mult i -uni t housing ordinance. BHS Comments: For the

reasons below, we object to this provision, and we ask BCC for real ist ic recognit ion of insuff ic ient need

for i t , and the pi t fal ls associated with i t , and we ask you to str ike this provision.

. The not i f icat ion requirement seems based on an erroneous assumption that STRs cause moreproblems for neighbors than do long-term rentals. l f anything, we bel ieve they cause far fewerproblems, due to a) ident i ty ver i f icat ion and screening of guests, b) hosts ' reviews of guests, c) hosts 'protect ion of their own qual i ty of l i fe, d) host 's house rules, and d) the desire by most guests to respect

the home and neighborhoods of their hosts, Whi le hosts may (or may not) have more guests over the

course of a year than a neighbor does, our guests are arguably more motivated than our neighbors'

v is i t ing family and fr iends to respect neighbors and keep their impact minimal. None of these safeguards

are present with long term rentals or student rentals.

o I special not i f icat ion process is l ikely to cue neighbors to view as problematic a STR that theymight otherwise f ind acceptable.

. Requir ing not i f icat ion of neighbors wi l l unnecessari ly pi t neighbor against neighbor, City Counci l

and City Planning members are aware that neighbors use City regulat ions al l the t ime to bul ly eachother. (e.g., Don't l ike your neighbor 's pol i t ical v iews? Then complain to the City about their STR. Don't

l ike that your neighbor has a hot tub when you can' t af ford one? Cal l the ci ty and complain about

excessive noise at your neighbor 's STR.) ln short , i f you create opportunit ies for people to abuse the law

and bul ly others through ci ty regulat ions, they wi l l certainly do so.

. This recommendation also raises a pari ty issue: property owners and management companies

are not required to not i fy their neighbors about their intent ion to rent out their propert ies to long term

tenants. We see no reason that those offer ing STRs should be required to do so.

6. Local Contact. BCC Recommendation:When the host is not present, he/she must designate alocal contact to handle complaints BHS Comments: No object ion.

7. Noise Ordinance Notice to Guests. BCC Recommendation: The host must provide info on

appl icable sect ions of Berkeley community noise and smoke-free mult i -uni t housing ordinances toguests. BHS Comments: No object ion.

8. Landlord/Management Company Approval BCC Recommendations: Short term rentals in rentalhousing require approvalfrom the bui lding owner or property management company. BHS Comments:No object ion.

9. 3rd Violat ion BCC Recommendations: Short term rentals are subject to the Second Response

Ordinance and upon a 3rd violat ion in 1-80 days, the host would be prohibi ted from operat ing a short

term rental for 1- year. BHS Proposed Revision: Short term rentals are subject to the Second Response

Ord inance. BHS Comments : We s t rong lyob jec t to a po l i cy fo rc ing hos ts to c lose the i r bus iness fo ranent ire year as a result of noise complaints by neighbors.

. Berkeley already has a noise ordinance that appl ies to al l residents, v is i tors, landlords, andhotels al ike, with a schedule of f ines for repeat violat ions. We caut ion the Counci l against making newregulat ions when no evidence suggests the need for such.

. Neither property owners with long-term rentals, nor hotels, norfraterni t ies, nor rooming

houses, nor Bed & Breakfasts are required to close their business for an ent ire year i f they have 3 noise

complaints in 1-80 days. Instead, they are f ined. We urge the Counci l to apply the same rules to STR

hosts as i t does to al l c i t izens and lodging operat ions

. Forcing hosts to stop doing business for a yearwould be unnecessari ly and harshly punit ive;

would ser iously affect hosts ' income and qual i ty of l i fe; and in many cases, would dr ive hosts out of their

homes and onto publ ic assistance (creat ing a tax burden instead of a tax contr ibutor).

o Any neighbor who has a personal vendetta against another neighbor for any reason (a common

dynamic in resident ial neighborhoods), could shut down a host 's STR by making 3 fr ivolous or f ict i t ious

noise complaints. We have heard reports of people making noise complaints, for instance, simply

because a neighbor dropped a chair . We urge the City Counci l not to set up avenues for neighbors to

bul ly neighbors, part icular ly in a manner which could cost us our l ivel ihoods or our homes.

Arreguin Proposal- Not Present ly Included in the BCC Recommendations

1-. Proposed Zoning Def ini t ion of STR's. Establ ishing a new zoning use, "short term resident ial rental ,"

which is def ined as a rental of a single family home or unit in a mult i - family property which is offered by

a permanent resident of the unit who is a natural human being, not owned by a company or

corporat ion. Inclusionary units and other income-restr icted units, as wel l as units prohibi ted by law

from being subleased for less than 1-4 days, are prohibi ted from being used as STR's'

. BHS Comments:

. We support the effort to dist inguish resident ial hosts from corporat ions seeking to prof i t by

removing long term rentals from the market.

. However, some hosts, even those who only host on a part- t ime basis, become incorporated as

an LLC to afford themselves more protect ion from l iabi l i ty (our homes are at stake).

. BHS Proposed Revision. Establ ishing a new zoning use, "short term resident ial rental ," which is

def ined as a rentalof a single family home, unit in a mult i - family property, or an attached, detached, or

accessory dwel l ing unit , which is offered by a permanent resident on the same property who is a natural

human being, not owned by a company or corporat ion. Inclusionary units and other income-restr icted

units, as wel l as units prohibi ted by law from being subleased for less than 1.4 days, are prohibi ted from

being used as STR's.

2. Rent Cei l ing. Rental fees for short term rentals in rental uni ts cannot exceed the lawful rent cei l ing.

BHS Comments: We request that the BCC reject applying the rent cei l ing to STRS.

. This regulat ion would be overly burdensome fortenant hosts in part icular, and in many cases,

would make i t impossible to cont inue their operat ions, and/or force them out of their homes.

. Our analysis of the breakdown of costs associated with offer ing a STR room shows that a tenant

host has to spend around 100% of the cost of proport ional rent for furnishings, household suppl ies,

ut i l i t ies, breakfast, services, repairs-al l above and beyond the proport ionate rentthe landlord col lects

for that room. In other words, i t costs S75O/month (with higher cost furnishings and equipment pro-

rated over a year) to host a guest in a room whose share of rent would be 5750/month. Thus, the host

must charge at least S1,500/month for that room in order to break even, and S2,000/month i f he wants

any compensat ion for his labor. Hence, a tenant host who cannot charge more than the amount al lowed

by the rent cei l ing would be forced to operate at a loss, and quite l ikely a signi f icant loss. Tenants who

have permission from their landlords should be able to make their housing more affordable by offer ing

STRs.

. This provision would result in a loss of half the projected TOT revenue for the City.

. This provision would remove one avenue by which tenant hosts are making their own housing

affordable.

. No other form of short- term housing (e.g., hotels, B&Bs, campgrounds, hostels) is subject to a

rent cei l ing law.

3. Rent Control Units Not El igible as STRs.

We object to rent control uni ts being excluded from rental as STR's when their pr imary residents travel

or otherwise must be away from home for short per iods.

4. Civi l Proceedings.

BHS Comments; We see no reason the Cityshould al low " interested part ies" to inst i tute civ i lproceedings against owners, hosts, businesses, or host ing platforms, overthe issue of STRs.

. The City is studying sett ing up a schedule to f ine hosts who violate the ordinance. There is no

need to both levy f ines AND inst i tute lawsuits against hosts. When the City f ines a host, i t can put a l ien

on their propefty. That should be suff ic ient.

. The premise of the just ice system is that only those injured by another pafty should be able to

sue that party. Neighbors are not in jured by violat ions to STR ordinances (they already have the r ight to

sue over issues, such as noise or harassment, or a wide var iety of other civ i l issues). Nor is the Rent

Board injured by any host 's violat ion of the technical i t ies of any ordinance.

. Nor indeed is anyone injured by a host 's potent ialv iolat ion of an ordinance, a violat ion that

could simply be an oversight or a smal l technical issue. Permit t ing any interested party a r ight of c iv i l

act ion could result in property owners and tenants being bul l ied, extorted, harassed, and subject to

enormous costs, al l over smal l infract ions or technical detai ls in this ordinance. We object to such

unwarranted and unjust i f ied persecut ion being permit ted by law.

. Rights of act ion and civi l proceedings arevery badlyabused, and result in manyfr ivolous

lawsuits. The City of Berkeley should not pave the way for f r ivolous lawsuits.

Conclusion

Berkeley Home Sharers would l ike to thank the Berkeley City Counci l and Berkeley Planning COmmission

for i ts at tent ion to our wri t ten and verbal comments. We hope you wi l l see that by creat ing pol ic ies that

support , rather than suppress, short term rentals that do not reduce long term housing stock, Berkeley

can enjoy the many economic and cultural benef i ts of homesharing, whi le support ing housing

affordabi l i ty for hosts, residents, and visi tors al ike.