Good idea to relax the rules.

Are short term rentals really an issue? I'm curious. Does anyone have any anecdotal evidence? I've never heard of a neighbor doing it, and haven't seen any obvious evidence of it nearby.

(As to the other point, there certainly are a lot of granny units around. Garage conversions, separate entrances to the main house, etc.)

Next spring?! In the meantime we have dozens of people living in cars and RVs.

It would be "a time intensive task" for staff to look into guidelines for increasingly popular online housing services such as airbnb? So they're just not going to do it, pretend airbnb does not exist? Not saying it should be regulated, just seems odd to ignore it.

Statements like these seem really out of touch with Mountain View's reputation as ground zero for innovation.

I looked at AirBnB a few days ago, and there were somewhere between 70 and 80 postings in Mountain View for rooms, apartments, and homes for rent. Typically they were for single day lease. This is not affordable housing. The average rent, if looked at on a monthly basis, would be about $3840 per month, which rivals what they charge for a single bedroom apartment (not single room) at the newest apartments in Mountain View, like Madera and the Village at San Antonio.

Mountain View city manager Daniel Rich is quoted in the article that there are dozens and dozens of Airbnb rentals. Just go to Airbnb.com and search. I set the following parameters: 2 people, Sep 21-25 in Mountain View, CA. The site shows 59 rentals; Rich is correct.

There's a big short-term corporate apartment complex called Eaves (formerly Oakwood Apartments) at the corner of Moffett Boulevard and Middlefield Road. The occupancy rate is very high, enough that this is a regular scheduled stop for the Google commuter buses.

There are two Airbnb's in Rex Manor neighborhood. Online pictures show bunk beds stacked in rooms charging about $70 a night for a bunk. One had a family renting there, but the landlord kicked them out and then converted to an Airbnb. The owner may claim to live there, but I've never seen him. But he has a nice picture posted on airbnb site! The other house was sold, and then the new owner converted to airbnb. Lots of Google bikes parked outside though....

I should have said - I'm in favor of making granny units easier to build. There are ways to structure the law to be sure they are not used as short-term rentals. If it bothers the neighbors and there's a law in place against it, someone will say something.

It seems to be OK for huge high density apartment complexes to be built in the city but someone wants to build a second dwelling on there own property the city makes it tough or forbidden. I say to the city get out of the way let us build on our property and forget rent control.

I have longed for change to the in-law units for a LONG time and I am happy they are finally looking into changing this.

Berkeley already has done this.

Web Link

Actually it's not entirely true that in-law or "granny" units aren't legal if the city doesn't have a permit on file for them.

Permits started in 1940, and in 1959 the City Building Dept had a fire and all records from before then were lost.

We looked at a house in old MV that had a completely separate in-law studio build in 1938 when the house was build, and a completely separate garage with a full bath and loft. Essentially three units. When I checked with the city, they knew about the garage and the house and saw the third structure on the map. But they had no idea what anything was and there were no permits as everything was build *before* permits were required.

Frankly, if an in-law was built with a permit prior to 1959 there is probably no record, and the city has no idea whether it's allowed. If its from 1940 or before, it's allowed regardless.

Unintended consequences? You and I know these units will be renting for big dollars now...

Yes, please! Our lot is 11,000 square feet but because we are zoned R1-10, the minimum lot area for a companion unit is 13,500 square feet. We would love to add a companion unit which would be PERFECT for multigenerational living - my father-in-law and my parents would both love to live in such a place, close to us and future grandchildren, as they age. And we would love having them close by, but not under the same roof to have some space for everyone!

Now we can transform the Garage into another unit to sell out.

And setup a tent in the back yard. Woo hoo.

Right on and screw the neighbors if they don't like it.

I'm for lowering restrictions on granny units for two reasons:

1. It will add to available housing and most people won't want to deal with the problems of an Airbnb.

2. Given that many people are already creating these units, legalizing them would let them be regulated for safety, aesthetics, and rental parameters (including Airbnb).