Written by the reviewer from the ASR + docket; [verbatim-ASR] = quoted machine transcript; [paraphrase] = reviewer's wording, not a quote.
0:00 All right. Good evening, everybody. I will call to order the meeting of the July 13th,
0:05 2026 meeting of the Housing Planning and Development Committee. First order of business. I'll make
0:12 a motion to approve the minutes of the July 6th, 2026 HPMD meeting. Second. Maiden seconded.
0:18 All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Two items in the agenda. Communication
0:25 from Council Member Bullock. Short-term rentals in Lakewood and then a proposed ordinance.
0:31 I'm just going to have a quick couple opening remarks and I'll turn it over to my colleague.
0:39 This is something that we've been hearing from Council. I mean, I'll speak for myself
0:45 specifically have been hearing quite a bit about this. We know it's an issue. People
0:49 are just very I know justifiably frustrated with some of these circumstances of short
0:56 term rentals in the city and we don't currently have the means to regulate that. So that's
1:03 what we're here to talk about this evening. I'll thank Councilman Bullock in advance
1:07 for his work on this to this point in putting together the ordinance to debate and
1:15 I will say as well for the record, this is something we've been working on as a group
1:21 for quite a while talking to other communities and working with other departments within
1:26 the city. So that said, I will turn this over to Councilman Bullock to talk through
1:32 his thoughts on this issue. Councilman Bullock. Thanks, Mr. Chair. And I'm interested also
1:38 in the response and reactions of my colleagues in the administration to agree that we can
1:43 get into that tonight. I did notify a couple of members of the public who have been talking
1:49 with me about these issues and let them know that tonight a beginning, not the only
1:55 discussion here. So where to begin? First, Mr. Chair, you were a co-sponsor last year
2:06 in a proposal that began the discussion. I charged ahead with the current draft really
2:13 just because time was short. So apologies if I didn't include you in that. It's
2:20 just getting started is in my view. And I'll repeat what I said at the council
2:26 meeting that to my colleagues and to the administration, first, sincerely I'm looking
2:31 for collaboration and feedback and dialogue on this one. Second, there's a number of
2:37 choice points, kind of small, medium, and large, available to the city in my view.
2:44 What's before you is a starting point that makes some of those choices but not
2:47 all. A major component not currently in this draft that I do want to get to is
2:54 the consideration of fees and taxation. Because right now the way that rental properties are
3:03 taxed is through property tax and through tenant income tax. There is no tenant income
3:09 tax for short-term rentals by definition. And, you know, short-term rental properties
3:16 currently do contribute property taxes, that's true. But you've got a commercial
3:20 activity that's most like hotel operations. And hotel operations have a whole series of
3:27 fees and taxes that they pay through the county government if they're properly
3:32 registered and operating in a hotel. Hotels also have a higher threshold of fire code,
3:39 health and safety standards, health and safety postings, parking requirements, a
3:44 lot of those apply here automatically. So what we essentially have is either a new
3:57 definition of a new commercial activity or a commercial activity that should fit under
4:06 an existing city definition. But because of its new features, it hasn't heretofore
4:13 been clear to the city government that it does fall within certain definitions.
4:20 So what that means is there's a bunch of operational impacts on the surrounding community
4:27 that aren't currently being captured or fully factored into our planning, into our cost
4:33 structure, into our safety oversight and into our housing and building quality oversight
4:41 Some of our housing and building applies here like anywhere else, largely on the exterior,
4:49 but perhaps on the interior side there's a question.
4:53 So that's a preamble to say the research I've done, including conversations with
5:01 peer local governments, is in support of our enhanced oversight here because there
5:10 are many impacts that are not currently being captured by city regulation, city oversight,
5:18 city health and safety engagement and city cost reimbursement, which we might also call
5:26 So I'll pause there because that was already quite a lot.
5:30 And then there's more to talk about when it comes to city enforcement and staffing
5:37 and then design of the legal schema, which this proposal takes one view of and we certainly
5:44 should discuss whether this or something different is called for.
5:48 Thanks, Councilman Bullock.
5:51 And I think in a moment we'll ask you to kind of walk through your thought process
5:57 when you're putting together the proposed ordinance.
6:01 Just for the record, I do want to say that before we and before I forget that
6:05 we have already gotten quite a bit of online feedback for tonight's meeting and people
6:12 having concerns about this issue.
6:14 So it is, and I'll say anecdotally myself, I'm certainly getting quite a bit of resident
6:20 feedback about this as well, concerns.
6:24 And also thank you for, I do agree the entire fee side of this is something that's
6:33 entirely appropriate for us to be looking at because we're just basically allowing
6:37 businesses to run without any kind of obstruction for that.
6:42 So yeah, unless anybody else have any questions at this point or do you want to let Councilman
6:55 Yeah, thank you, Chair.
6:57 And I'll say that this is, I do think, and we had some discussions with the law
7:03 director before the meeting.
7:05 I do think that we kind of have to decide, because I've gotten a lot of feedback from
7:10 my constituents as well, probably more they want to see some regulatory framework, some
7:17 want to see it banned, some like, or strictly regulated, some would like to see,
7:25 like that it's here in Lakewood, but understand that some regulatory framework
7:30 is necessary if we continue to allow it in Lakewood.
7:34 What I will say is that, so I think we have to decide kind of as a committee and then
7:41 work with the administration to figure out where we want to fall on the kind of regulatory
7:48 And to Councilman Bullock's point, if you do want to have, allow it, but have
7:53 a pretty detailed regulatory framework, that requires a lot of coordination with
7:58 the administration because that's essentially a full-time employee to kind of administer
8:06 Different communities have done it differently.
8:09 So I recently pulled the City of Cleveland's short-term rental legislation
8:15 that they passed a month ago yesterday, and it became effective on July 1st.
8:21 And the way that they seek to regulate it is high level.
8:28 No more than 10% of a city block can be an STR, that's the short-term rental,
8:33 that's the way the City of Cleveland has outlined it.
8:36 No more than 10% of a building can be a short-term rental.
8:39 So think of a multi-family apartment building or something like that.
8:46 If you go over the 10% cap, you have to get a variance from BZA.
8:51 So let's say you're the next license and you put it to 11%, you'd have to go
8:54 to BZA to get that approved.
8:56 And there's kind of like a building code framework where each room has to have
9:00 a bathroom, you know, in the structure.
9:02 You have to leave the structure, some health and sanitary code issues.
9:07 There's a $150 kind of licensure fee.
9:10 That licensure requires a lot of things like having a local agent that can be
9:15 at the property within an hour of being called at any time.
9:19 It has a nuisance component to it that if there's more
9:22 than three nuisance violations in a given year, then your license is pulled.
9:29 And then it also has a grandfathering in that the 10% cap
9:33 in a neighborhood doesn't apply to currently existing STRs as long
9:37 as they get a license and they don't have any nuisance violations in the last year.
9:44 Interestingly enough, the City of Cleveland already has essentially a bed tax
9:48 for any hotel rooms and it adds short-term rentals to that bed tax.
9:52 And it says that basically 3% of your fee becomes a tax to the city.
9:59 And I believe that's how they will seek to then fund the position that will manage that.
10:03 We have hotels in Lakewood.
10:04 We don't have a bed tax.
10:06 I'm interested as to why we don't.
10:08 It'd be a good discussion to have, I think, because from a perspective
10:13 of regulating this, I think it's a nice amenity to have
10:16 in Lakewood potentially if done right.
10:18 The challenges when we talked about this is that let's say 100 houses are short-term rentals
10:24 and there's no residents in them, that's 100 houses that don't have income.
10:30 Like all of us on this dais and, you know, many of our neighbors,
10:34 we pay income taxes to the City of Lakewood, we contribute to our trash pickup,
10:38 to our snow plowing, to our city streets, to our police force.
10:44 If you come in as a guest to an STR to stay,
10:48 you are not contributing to Lakewood's upkeep.
10:52 So we have to think about that, how we want to do that.
10:55 So I think from a regulatory framework, this is, we have some decisions to make.
11:00 I do think there are models we can use and I'm excited to work with all of you
11:04 and the administration to try to find the right one.
11:07 Thank you, Councilman Bigger.
11:08 And I really do appreciate the time you've taken to investigate, you know,
11:13 some of our neighbors and go through that and stress that here
11:17 in Lakewood, any legislation we adopt, we want it to be absolutely enforceable
11:23 and for it to work.
11:25 We're not just going to make laws for the sake of making it.
11:29 And I would be interested to see how Cleveland is doing with their regulation
11:33 and actual enforcement because I've heard a lot about that too in the community.
11:37 Well, they've passed, you know, this city has done this
11:39 and this city has done this, but it's like, well, how's it going actually?
11:45 So that's an important point.
11:46 Councilman Vixenstein, do you have anything here?
11:50 So I'll turn it over to Councilman Bullock again.
11:52 So just please kind of just start, you know,
11:55 how you got to this point with the proposed ordinance.
11:57 Thanks and I'm looking forward to the part of the meeting
11:59 where Director Vargo says this is great and we're moving
12:04 for full steam ahead or whatever you're going to say.
12:06 I'm tongue in cheek there.
12:08 We do want, of course, the law department's view which is going
12:14 to be multilayered.
12:16 So the legal approach that is proposed and what I proposed is
12:23 in some ways the simplest approach that I as a non-attorney could make
12:28 which is to edit existing liquid codified ordinances.
12:34 We have a preexisting law providing
12:38 for conditional use permits for bed and breakfasts.
12:43 And it's been on the book since 2006.
12:45 I'm uninformed although I'm looking at the planning department,
12:48 Ian Andrews, as to how many times that's actually been used historically.
12:53 I think maybe, I remember Sloan Subway, there used to be not a single one
13:02 in your time and there was an Irish cottage at the top
13:06 of Sloan Subway for quite some years.
13:08 I don't know if that was ever registered as a bed
13:10 and breakfast under our laws.
13:12 It was a florist, wasn't it?
13:19 I never went in so that was on the books before I arrived
13:26 and according to the research I've done,
13:29 2008 was the first time an air bed
13:32 and breakfast ever was created at all in San Francisco.
13:38 So I don't understand why air bed
13:40 and breakfast wouldn't be bed and breakfast, okay.
13:43 And so the simplest way to look at what I proposed is to clarify
13:49 in Lakewood Codified Ordinances that the term that we use
13:53 in Lakewood Codified Ordinances
13:55 for bed and breakfast also incorporates air bed
13:58 and breakfast, short-term rentals, okay.
14:03 And if we follow that logic, let me call up the text, what you would do
14:16 if council were to adopt this proposal would be
14:22 to capture air bed and breakfast short-term rentals in all
14:27 of the preexisting requirements or rules that have been on the books
14:32 in Lakewood's laws for 20 years.
14:36 So bed and breakfast establishment, so if you look at Section 2
14:41 of what I proposed, you know, new LCO 1161.03C is hereby established
14:46 as follows, bed and breakfast establishment including short-term
14:52 rental, quote, short-term rental is the term of our hereby defined
14:55 as any rental unit that is not classified as a motel or hotel,
14:58 used and is rented for a period of 30 days or less, okay.
15:02 And then I also propose adding provided that it is not located
15:06 within 1,500 feet of a school which would be a new addition whether we want
15:13 to include that or not and whether 1,500 is the right distance or not,
15:18 but that's a new proposal,
15:22 may be conditionally permitted subject to all the following.
15:26 And then all of these conditions are preexisting that the bed
15:30 and breakfast establishment is located in a single-family
15:32 or two-family dwelling which serves
15:34 as the principal residence of the applicant.
15:36 That right there requires owner occupancy.
15:40 That's not something I propose, it's been on the books.
15:43 The owner of the bed and breakfast shalltalk full time, et cetera.
15:45 The architectural integrity of the structure must be maintained.
15:48 That is already not in the actual practice in Lakewood we know
15:52 of at least one property that has undergone significant architectural change
15:58 for the purpose of renting it as a high-cost weekend resort type breakfast.
16:06 There shall be no more than three guest rooms, et cetera.
16:11 I mean these, so subsection five, those are things
16:15 that the previous city council defined.
16:16 I haven't proposed a change.
16:18 We could certainly consider all of these things.
16:21 Bedroom shall be part of the primary residential structure, each paying guest.
16:26 They stay not for more than three nights.
16:28 That predates, that's in the existing ordinance.
16:30 Not a total of 14 nights in any given calendar year.
16:33 Parking for all vehicles, I think this is a good one, including vehicles
16:37 by the owner-operator, shall be in a garage or rear yard on approved surface.
16:41 There shall be one off-street parking space for at least each guest room.
16:46 Let me as a side note interrupt myself.
16:51 Parking and character impacts have been cited by neighbors concerned
16:56 about bed and breakfast operations.
16:57 That's in a different category than the acute chronic nuisance problems
17:02 or outright crime that we've heard some occasional but meaningful instances of.
17:09 I'd like to make the argument it does because same as in a commercial corridor.
17:14 All the parking considerations, all the refuse,
17:17 I mean Councilman Baker's point is a good one.
17:19 City residential refuse services serving these businesses, if you have a hotel,
17:25 you're not getting city refuse services.
17:29 Why the difference, okay?
17:31 But back to the parking impacts, are those a big deal?
17:34 Is that worth our consideration?
17:35 I would argue yes, because even though traditional residential long-term tenant
17:41 or property owner doesn't have the entitled right to use the street parking.
17:45 Nevertheless, it's part of the character of the street.
17:48 And so if somebody's making active money generation,
17:53 if they're using that as an input to their business practice, then it's valid for the city
18:01 to consider how we balance the use of that public space, that public parking space,
18:09 and the domino effect on other neighbors as part of our calculus.
18:13 So I think parking consideration is valid.
18:17 Only one, okay, I'm continuing on in the existing law.
18:20 Only one meal shall be served.
18:22 That meal shall be breakfast.
18:23 This is a little bit micromanagey, if you ask me, but this is what the law says currently.
18:30 Only one kitchen facility.
18:32 They're basically, the previous council went through to ensure that a bed
18:35 and breakfast was a light intensity use and didn't become essentially a backdoor way
18:42 to get a restaurant in the middle of a residential neighborhood
18:45 or a wedding reception facility in a residential neighborhood.
18:49 Because if you keep reading on subsection 13 rental, bed and breakfast establishment
18:53 for special gatherings such as wedding receptions and parties shall be prohibited.
18:57 Again, not my proposal, that's on the books right now.
19:01 Wedding receptions, I don't have a problem with.
19:03 Parties are the, probably the primary source of problems
19:07 that our neighbors have been experiencing today under short-term rentals is the party use.
19:12 Wedding receptions and parties could be the same.
19:17 I've gone to the boring, polite ones apparently.
19:21 So, okay, and then they have signage, et cetera, right?
19:24 So they go through all these details, but perhaps the biggest one remaining,
19:29 they require compliance with health and fire and building codes.
19:34 I don't know if that's happening right now with our short-term rentals.
19:37 The conditional use permit shall expire 36 months after the date of issuance and then,
19:43 but the commissioner can renew it administratively within certain good use conditions.
19:50 Somewhere there's a zoning provision which I wanted to mention.
19:55 I've lost it in front of me, but it says it's in multi-family
19:59 or commercial areas I believe, okay?
20:01 So again, the previous city council was not agnostic about where on the zoning map
20:07 to allow conditional use bed and breakfast.
20:09 They have a clear answer to that.
20:11 Right now, the actual practice of short-term rentals is everywhere, not in compliance.
20:18 So the question I have before is, one of the questions is,
20:21 how is any short-term rental use currently legal unless they've gone
20:25 through this conditional use set of rules?
20:32 And we don't have to answer that, but I'm posing it as a hypothetical
20:35 because that may be a law department question which I'm not going to ask you
20:43 So for Councilman Baker's point, and I'll be quiet after this, if an Airbnb,
20:50 if a short-term rental is not this definition, then what definition is it?
20:54 It probably does not exist in the code and therefore we would need
20:57 to create a new definition and attach all these regulatory considerations
21:03 to that new definition if that's the route we want to go.
21:08 We could also just use this definition and change the conditional use permit.
21:11 I actually kind of favor that because then what you would do,
21:14 even though you would slam architectural board of review with a ton of work
21:19 at the outset, you have a long-established process for considering such matters,
21:28 granting permits, overseeing the permits, resolving problems, leading to renewals,
21:34 that has worked well in a bunch of other categories.
21:37 So I welcome feedback on all of that.
21:43 Thanks, Councilman Bullock.
21:44 I mean, I certainly see the merits of trying to use things around the books
21:53 to regulate what we have.
21:54 So I think there's some, you know, some good stuff there.
22:00 And I agree, I think the entire part about fees for which is essentially a business
22:09 and a bed tax are huge points that, yeah, I agree with Councilman Baker.
22:14 I'm not sure why we don't have those things in the books regardless.
22:17 And I think those are good tools in starting to find that balance between kind
22:22 of, you know, carrot stick for how to regulate these things.
22:27 I'm interested to see what my other colleagues, what their initial first feedback is
22:36 to this idea of trying to just either use existing ordinance or to kind
22:46 of slightly modify it to push this forward.
22:55 Thank you, Councilperson Evans.
22:56 Thank you for bringing this to the floor this evening.
23:00 I'm amenable to either way to proceed.
23:03 You know, I think to me having some sort of annual operating license does make a lot
23:10 of sense and, you know, and with that having a local manager who must be able
23:15 to respond in a reasonable time, you know, like an hour as Councilperson Baker indicated.
23:23 I think we're, you know, and I too have fielded responses from residents on both sides of this.
23:33 So, you know, and I happen to live on a street that has a short-term rental property
23:40 that doesn't currently cause problems and that I know some neighbors have gotten,
23:47 have found to be convenient.
23:48 So, well, I certainly empathize with those who are struggling
23:54 with a problematic short-term rental property.
23:57 You know, I have heard from people on both sides of that aisle.
24:02 I also certainly agree with this notion, let's level the playing field
24:05 from an occupancy tax standpoint and do that regardless of how we land on this issue.
24:16 So, I certainly support that.
24:18 You know, I think this idea of a three-strikes rule of sorts also makes sense
24:25 as does limiting the density on any given block as far
24:31 as how many short-term rental properties could exist on a given block.
24:37 You know, I know, you know, a more drastic measure of course would be,
24:42 you know, owner-occupied versus non-owner-occupied and, you know,
24:47 considering the ramifications of that.
24:51 And I realize that might not even be where we're currently looking.
24:55 But in so far as the other measures that we've talked about and particularly the ones
25:00 that Vice President Baker brought up, those do seem
25:03 like they're certainly worth exploring.
25:08 Thanks, Councilman.
25:13 Yes, and so I think, and thank you, Councilman Bullock.
25:16 I do think that if we, I think we need to do something.
25:21 So, I think the current way we're operating, and Councilman Bullock,
25:28 I think that the, you know, you asked why no one has applied for bed and breakfast
25:34 because most of these Airbnb's don't have a live-in person
25:37 so they don't meet the regulatory definition of bed and breakfast in our code.
25:43 And so they're simply rental units as we define them in our code, I think.
25:48 Now, I'm certainly in favor of some regulatory regime.
25:53 The argument in favor of outright disallowing them is
25:59 that right now the city is forgoing hundreds of thousands of dollars
26:04 of income taxes because our homes are now hotels.
26:10 So that's certainly one argument in favor of regulation and that's certainly,
26:15 I think, Shaker Heights' policy perspective when they instituted their regime.
26:23 I think the other way is to heavily regulate and impose fees
26:33 because the fees would be necessary to allow for the heavy regulation.
26:38 And I'm reminded Commissioner Parnelly sent me kind of some bullet points
26:42 that I forwarded along to some of you on departments that need
26:48 to be coordinated with and tax is one of them.
26:50 So, I think we talked about police, we talked about fire,
26:52 we talked about planning, housing, law, tax needs to be implied too
26:58 because, you know, we have a whole regulatory regime for income tax collections.
27:02 We don't have a regulatory regime.
27:04 Typically, most of our permit fees are paid to the department,
27:07 building department, to public works or whatever.
27:11 So there'd have to be some way to give the tax department the ability to collect that.
27:19 So I certainly am interested in what others think.
27:25 I'm having a really internal struggle about whether we allow it or not.
27:32 I'm just being candid with you as my colleagues in the administration,
27:35 whoever's listening at home, but I do think that we need to regulate it heavily
27:43 if we're not going to ban it or at least make it, you know, send a message
27:49 that Lakewood's paying attention and we're going to make sure that the fabric
27:54 of our communities, you know, are retained and not torn apart.
28:00 So, that's where I'm leaning now.
28:03 I do think it's going to take time and it's interesting you look
28:06 at, you know, City Cleveland, you know, there are not everything I agree
28:13 with in their regulations, but, you know, talks about, you know,
28:21 only two guests per bedroom, you know, they must apply with our parking plans.
28:28 They must have interior access to a bathroom so that such transient guests has the ability
28:34 to access the bathroom without exiting the dwelling.
28:37 They have to have smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, Class A, B, and C fire extinguishers.
28:43 They're subject to nose ordinances.
28:45 They have to have proper trash.
28:47 They have to provide the name and contact information of that local representative.
28:52 They have to have insurance.
28:55 So there are really reasonable regulations that we can put in place
28:59 to get our hands around this.
29:01 I think we have to.
29:03 We owe it to ourselves and the community to do so.
29:06 Thank you, Councilman Baker.
29:08 And I can't agree more.
29:10 I'm also happy to say that I lean towards heavily regulating this out of respect
29:17 for our residents and our neighborhoods.
29:19 And this is not just a personal opinion.
29:22 This is what I'm hearing every day from folks.
29:25 I mean, that may also be my personal opinion, but like we're a city of neighborhoods
29:29 and people choose here to move here for that spirit.
29:32 And this is, there are lots of parts of the city that are, for lack of a better word,
29:38 they're really suffering from situations that they can't control.
29:42 And it's frustrating.
29:43 And I totally get that.
29:45 We'll take a, did you have a comment?
29:47 I would like to take a pause to see if there was anybody, if either Lada Retrovargo
29:53 or Ian from planning had anything to say, any comments?
29:58 And you don't have to, just seeing.
30:12 No comment from law.
30:14 Of course, we'll work on any version that council agrees on.
30:19 I mean, you're talking very discreet policy issues and seems like there's a lot
30:25 of work to be done on just understanding the policy flow before law rolls
30:30 up its sleeves and drafts.
30:37 I appreciate the opportunity to be here representing both the building,
30:41 the housing and building department and the planning department.
30:43 As you know, leadership is out of town and they really are the experts.
30:46 So I'm here just to hear what you have to say and to be able to take that back
30:49 and discuss with them.
30:51 But I certainly, as you know, would encourage you to spend significant time
30:54 with Director Parmelee who has a lot of thoughts on this and I think a lot
30:59 of really good constructive thoughts about ways to perhaps try to make this work.
31:02 So I know he looks forward to those future conversations.
31:07 Thank you, Mr. Andrews.
31:08 I'll turn it over to Councilman Bullock for some kind
31:13 of last thoughts before I wrap things up.
31:16 So before I forget, Mr. Anderson, which sounds a little 1990s,
31:23 could we get the number of owner-occupied, well not one,
31:30 two families in Lakewood?
31:32 Do we know that number?
31:33 And I don't know it off the top of my head.
31:38 Yeah, we can get that for you.
31:40 So and then to my colleagues, if you look at the communication on the Granicus agenda
31:49 on page two of my letter and then page three is the attachment
31:53 from a Lakewood resident who I thought did a really nice job of laying
32:00 out different parameters and variables.
32:02 So starting with the arguments pro and con.
32:09 So pro would be amenity to residents.
32:12 Pro is tourism, perhaps facilitates tourism.
32:18 Con or, you know, regulation would be zoning concerns.
32:22 Con would be alter the character of the neighborhood.
32:24 Con would be enforcement challenges.
32:26 Con would be impact on housing affordability.
32:30 If we've got 300 housing units give or take in any given moment
32:36 in the short-term rental market, that's a non-trivial amount of homes
32:43 or potential housing units on the marketplace.
32:46 Now we've got more coming online from the Westline, et cetera.
32:49 So that's fluid, but that matters in my mind too.
32:54 So fundamental question, zoning, which district should be allowed?
32:59 Are they appropriate zoning districts?
33:01 How does this mesh with the city's forthcoming new zoning refresh
33:06 and our master plan and allowing accessory dwelling units?
33:10 Right? I mean, so these are fundamental and strategic questions.
33:15 Should they be taxed?
33:16 I think we're hearing a consensus
33:18 that there should be some economic contribution.
33:20 I agree with that by the way.
33:22 Enforcement is absolutely key.
33:24 Registration, local agent, criminal nuisance ordinance,
33:28 which is a long, that's a separate but parallel
33:31 and critically important track.
33:32 And I continue to say we need our criminal nuisance ordinance
33:36 to function robustly.
33:40 And I think that's true for e-bikes and e-motorbikes and it's true
33:48 for a bunch of things and it's also true for this.
33:52 So that criminal nuisance ordinance may not need
33:57 to be directly amended by the Airbnb discussion
34:00 but we sure shouldn't need it to be functioning
34:04 if Airbnb's are ever going to be successfully
34:08 and appropriately operated.
34:10 Okay? There's a whole bunch of inspections, considerations
34:15 and that gets you into, quite frankly, if we're going to properly
34:19 and robustly inspect all the Airbnb units,
34:22 maybe more than one FTE, because we've got probably 20%
34:33 of the actual Airbnbs that you can find
34:35 in commercial listings registered
34:39 with the city, it's not even 20%.
34:46 Right now there's 78 units or 78 homes registered
34:49 into the short-term rentals.
34:50 Okay. So out of 300 it might be, you know,
34:53 but the point is that now going back to my letter, what I intended to do
35:00 on page two was list a series of factors and I read this
35:05 at the council meeting, to allow for operation in a manner
35:09 that achieves quality, safety and operator accountability.
35:12 If we could do that, that might be what some colleagues are saying here,
35:17 easier said than done, right?
35:19 So that's the whole game right there is can we allow
35:22 for operation in a manner that achieves quality, safety
35:25 and operator accountability.
35:26 And then the next bullet,
35:27 to protect against chronic nuisance behavior, just address that.
35:30 Number three, to protect against crime and the risk of crime,
35:34 because safety is outright crime but it's also the perception
35:39 of safety which is impacted.
35:41 That's something we talk about in our parks as well which is why the city
35:44 for years now has invested heavily in the Parks Ambassador Program
35:48 and I think that's a valid and appropriate program that I continue to support.
35:55 The perception of safety is also something that matters.
35:59 And when you're a parent with little kids that you've been allowing to go
36:03 to their next door neighbors in the front yard
36:05 but now you've got short-term rental, that's a robust business
36:09 and you have a rotating cast of characters there
36:11 and they have occasional parties whether that's parties
36:14 with prom night teenagers or 20-somethings or 30-somethings.
36:19 All of that is now changing my ability for my family to function
36:27 like we have been in a home I'm paying a lot of money for
36:30 and a lot of property taxes for.
36:33 So I guess what I'm saying is to me the benefit of the doubt needs to go
36:37 with the neighbors who are impacted, not with the proposed business use,
36:42 especially if we're talking about a business use in the middle
36:45 of a residential property, all right?
36:47 And then the critical one is to design a set of oversight enforcement rules
36:52 that are time-efficient and practicable for city personnel to implement
36:56 without significant strain costs for time.
36:59 I think Councilman Baker is referring to that like, okay,
37:02 here's City of Cleveland's thoughtful architecture of rules and requirements.
37:07 How's it working, right?
37:09 And so with a mind towards accomplishing that critical thing,
37:15 to me owner occupancy would be one heck of a way to achieve that
37:21 because an owner occupant is going to have more self-interest
37:27 than anybody else in making sure that their neighbor upstairs
37:31 or downstairs is safe, appropriate and a good neighbor
37:35 to themselves and their neighbors.
37:37 And so why I ask the Planning Department how many owner occupant,
37:41 two family structures we have in Lakewood is we've probably got a lot
37:44 in all four corners of the city.
37:47 And even if we were to take a pretty strong step of restricting it
37:51 to owner occupancy, there'd still be plenty of units available
37:56 to the community if our priority is to provide an amenity
38:01 to residents and tourism and so forth.
38:04 Now that might inconvene as people currently
38:08 with an Airbnb business upstairs and downstairs,
38:14 but that's a different question, you know.
38:18 So what we're doing right now is we're creating work
38:22 for the city government to chase all of it.
38:27 Registration, inspection, postings, taxes, local agent,
38:33 actual behavior by the tenants, actual parking practices,
38:38 that's a lot of work.
38:40 We've got a lot of work to do to track e-bikes, you know,
38:44 and that's not easy.
38:45 So I guess what I'm saying is I recommend that the city
38:51 at City Hall start with a high threshold,
38:55 a very high threshold of accountability
38:58 and if it goes well, back down from there,
39:03 Thank you, Councilman Bullock and Councilman Baker.
39:06 I saw you had some additional comments.
39:08 Yes, and I, that's certainly one way to do it.
39:11 In fact, Chicago, I think recently did their requirements
39:16 that at least as it relates to non,
39:20 like big apartment buildings can have up to 25%,
39:24 I think, can be Airbnbs and I think the,
39:28 I had to demise the legislative policy intent
39:31 behind that is that if you're a,
39:34 most apartments are investor owned
39:37 so you'd want to make sure that people stay in there,
39:40 you have an incentive to make sure
39:41 that they act appropriately.
39:43 And then if you, you have to live in,
39:46 so if you, you know, you have to live in a,
39:47 if it's a quadplex or whatever,
39:48 you have to live there in order for it to be an Airbnb
39:50 or if it's a multi-family, you have to live in it.
39:54 That's certainly one regulatory regime.
39:57 The thing is, is I think making those decisions
40:01 without really good data inputs, I think is difficult
40:05 because you don't have what it would do to the market
40:08 if I don't know enough of, you know,
40:10 how many quadplexes do we have in town,
40:14 What I do and I think about this
40:16 and I'd be remiss if I didn't say this
40:18 because I think it does belong
40:21 as part of the affordable housing discussion
40:23 in the sense that, you know,
40:26 we now have 200 housing units
40:27 that aren't being productively used
40:31 as they were intended to be used as either rental,
40:34 long-term rental for families
40:36 or homes for families that they buy.
40:42 So that's something.
40:43 And as we've learned in our discussions
40:46 about affordable housing, there's no one thing we can do,
40:50 I don't think as much as I think
40:52 some people may think we can,
40:54 but there are a lot of little things
40:55 that we can do to make steps.
40:58 And I think one of them is not having hotels
41:04 in our communities essentially.
41:05 Now, but, and I don't wanna be glib
41:07 because I think there are benefits to Airbnbs
41:09 and short-term rentals that can provide a vibrancy,
41:13 provide a convenience.
41:14 And so it's all about finding that.
41:16 So that's just where the data input
41:18 and collaboration with housing
41:20 and planning and development department
41:22 is gonna be really important
41:23 because you can't just make these rules
41:26 without having that information
41:28 about how it's gonna affect the fabric of the community.
41:30 But there's, in my eyes,
41:32 there's a lot of very compelling reasons
41:34 to regulate this heavily.
41:39 And so I'm committed to working with administration
41:42 and all of you to do that.
41:43 Thanks, Councilman.
41:44 Councilman Dixon's time.
41:47 Thank you, Councilperson Evans.
41:48 And I agree there certainly is a compelling case here
41:51 to regulate heavily.
41:53 And I think one thing that I'm trying to,
41:56 as you try to strike the right balance,
41:59 as far as the regulation,
42:05 clearly we need to restrict nuisance behavior.
42:10 I guess I'm also trying to figure out,
42:11 are we also trying to restrict corporate investors?
42:15 Is it a two-prong approach here?
42:18 I know a lot of the feedback we've gotten
42:19 has been more so on the former,
42:21 but are both in our wheelhouse here
42:24 as we try to look at heavy regulation.
42:29 Thanks, Councilman Dixon's time.
42:32 It's a good segue to start to wrap this up.
42:36 Councilman Baker, I think the point
42:38 about affordable housing I think is a critical input
42:40 to this conversation,
42:41 because you're absolutely right.
42:43 This is taking living units away from folks
42:47 who want to make this their home and their community.
42:51 And that's, it's something we're struggling with,
42:55 finding enough place to put people
42:57 who want to live here in Lakewood.
42:59 So that's absolutely something we need to keep in mind
43:02 while we're going over these issues.
43:05 Obviously, we're gonna take no action on this evening.
43:08 We're not there yet, but I am committed.
43:11 And Councilman Bullock,
43:13 you've kind of been carrying a lot of the weight,
43:15 but I'm happy to join you in hopefully
43:20 very near-term conversations
43:22 with the appropriate departments,
43:23 starting with I think building and Commissioner Parmoley,
43:28 to make some thoughtful edits
43:32 to the ordinance you've put before us,
43:35 so that as the law director Vargo said,
43:38 so we can get it to the law department
43:39 so they can roll up their sleeves
43:41 and start to craft something that we know
43:45 we're gonna be able to put in place
43:47 and enforce properly.
43:49 So I appreciate the conversation this evening.
43:52 And to folks at home,
43:55 I understand the frustration on this,
43:59 and we're hearing from folks who are very upset,
44:02 and we're all hearing you.
44:08 But to make this work, we have to make sure we've,
44:13 this needs to be just a very solid piece
44:16 of legislation that we know we can enforce,
44:18 and we have the resources to do so.
44:20 So one last comment from Councilman Boyk.
44:24 One is I did receive a letter,
44:27 I think other councilmembers may have too,
44:28 from a resident of a Lakewood multifamily,
44:32 larger multifamily property
44:34 where there's an Airbnb operating inside.
44:37 That person was concerned about the safety
44:39 because now the Airbnb is providing security access
44:46 And so basically, we don't know who
44:49 all of a sudden can be in the common areas
44:51 in residential hallways.
44:53 So that was an argument actually in favor
44:56 of stronger prohibitions for multifamilies
45:01 because of that security and safety issue.
45:03 I tend to agree with that.
45:04 The current proposal would,
45:07 as we were saying, restricted to one and two family.
45:10 You could also amend it to allow three sweeters
45:15 or four sweeters to,
45:17 I didn't try to get that detailed
45:19 in what we have before us today.
45:22 The other thing is, I just wanna let you know,
45:24 I did spend significant time on the phone
45:26 with Commissioner Parmarly and also the police chief.
45:29 I have extensive notes.
45:31 I didn't try to summarize those
45:33 or share those with others,
45:34 but there's a lot of thoughtfulness there.
45:40 One point that Commissioner Parmarly was making
45:43 is that the building code really isn't your tool
45:46 for penalties and accountabilities.
45:52 It's to find property owners into compliance
45:54 with building code.
45:56 So the building code is a tool,
45:58 I'm paraphrasing him,
46:00 for getting the buildings right,
46:05 but not addressing the people inside the building.
46:08 So as we think of how we address a mix of issues here,
46:13 certainly the building department's a key component,
46:16 but not the only component.
46:17 Fire department would be one.
46:19 Chief would be one.
46:23 The chief acknowledges that parking
46:25 will be difficult to track and enforce.
46:29 We do have the chronic nuisance behavior.
46:34 So I've already gotten a running start
46:37 on all of these matters,
46:39 but those are not fully reported out, okay,
46:43 but done the due diligence
46:45 and we've also begun to hear
46:47 from other communities as well.
46:50 Whose view is that the acute nature
46:53 of how badly things go when they go wrong
46:57 is sufficiently high of a problem threshold
47:02 that they've taken a strong stand
47:05 right out of the gate on regulation.
47:08 It may be true that eight out of 10 are just fine,
47:11 but those two that aren't make huge problems
47:15 and then you're chasing problems
47:16 rather than getting ahead of them.
47:18 So to me, that's what I've got in mind, thanks.
47:23 Thanks, Councilman, appreciate that.
47:25 And yeah, and thanks for your work on that.
47:28 And again, let's make sure we,
47:32 with all due haste, further those conversations
47:35 so we can button this up and make something happen.
47:40 We did have one person from the public.
47:46 Okay, just wanted to make sure.
47:50 So with no other comments,
47:53 no further business before this board,
47:56 I will, we're through for the evening
48:00 and thank you all for being here
48:01 and appreciate the input
48:02 and looking forward to working with you guys on this.