I cannot support a Private Home Rental Ordinance that is not fair and reasonable. I have supported the currently proposed ordinance with no better option is sight. Along with the author, I truly expected some elements would be changed by negotiation with the city before the petition was prepared by the city attorney.

That did not happen and I will support the ordinance as it is, unless a fairer and more reasonable compromise is produced and adopted quickly by the city. Since many of the signers of the current petition would prefer NO private home rentals in R-1 AT ALL, this compromise will have to be very fair to produce a withdrawal.

Whereas, The City of Big Bear Lake ;

1. previously defined private home rentals as commercial use of residentially zoned property, and
2. removed that terminology in 2001, (now calling it “accessory commercial”),and
3. entertained hundreds of disgruntled homeowners at a town hall meeting in March of 2004, and
4. held a special meeting to resolve this issue on June 3, 2004 , and voted at that meeting to:

a. Direct staff to check the density of private rental homes to see if one neighborhood is being hit harder than another, and to see if there should be a restriction to future private rental homes in any area.

b. Direct staff to check if the same standards for licensing should be applied to the private home rental homeowners, as are applied to those operating a home office business.

c. Direct staff to be more proactive, especially during busy holiday weekends, in the enforcement and response to complaints from residents within City limits.

d. Direct staff to check the regulations mandated for commercial businesses in an effort to see if the same standards should be applied for both the private home rentals and the lodging industry.

5. has NOT accomplished these things.

I demand that in order to replace the proposed ordinance, the City of Big Bear Lake:

1. once again define Transient Occupancy Rentals in R-1 zones as commercial use, and
2. put Teeth in the ordinance which will require Transient Occupancy Rentals in R-1 zones to comply or loose their right to rent to transient occupants, and
3. require a specially designed (to keep costs minimum) Conditional Use Permit for all NEW Transient Occupancy Rentals in R-1 zones, (all existing Transient Occupancy Rentals in R-1 zones should NOT be required to obtain such a CUP, (although some method of imposing the special conditions should be installed), as long as they are existing and conforming to existing laws at the time the ordinance goes into effect, and they do not receive two or more complains from two or more neighbors), and
4. require all NEW or remodeled, (not existing as in item 2), Transient Occupancy Rentals in R-1 zones to comply with ADA ONLY as the City finds to be necessary under current law, and
5. require Transient Occupancy Rentals in R-1 zones to meet all requirements for Spas, Health and Safety, and fire protection that other Transient Occupancy Rentals are required to meet for the protection of our visitors, and
6. require Transient Occupancy Rentals in R-1 zones to obey specific rules guaranteeing the R-1 resident’s right to peaceful enjoyment of their homes, such as off-street, plowed parking, not trespass, no disturbing of the peace, etc.

I have been maligned as a business that seeks to reduce the effect of a competing business for financial reasons. This is only true in that I demand FAIR treatment by the City of me and my competitors. ALL of the opponents of the proposed ordinance are opposed due to financial reasons. SOME of the proponents are in this financially like I am, but MANY are simply asking for peace and enjoyment of their homes. (Most of those will not publicly argue their position, but they will vote.)

Bob Pool