If you rent out a home for a short-term stay in Coronado, chances are the city is keeping tabs.

For the past three years, the coastal city kept an eye on a triplex on Fourth Street and a house on Olive Avenue. The homes were listed online as short-term rentals even though the city for years has had an ordinance in place that bans renting a home for less than 26 days.

After the owner of the two properties disregarded violations notices, the city took the property owner to court last month.

Now, the owner, Kimberly Dudley, has tentatively agreed — as part of a stipulated agreement filed in court Wednesday — to pay the city $10,000 in legal fees and transit occupancy tax the city said she’s on the hook for. The stipulated agreement is pending approval from the court.


The case marks the fifth time the city has gone to court over short-term rentals since 2011 and the second in which the defendant agreed to pay fees. In all previous cases, the court granted the city permanent injunctions that required compliance.

City Manager Blair King said the city wants to send a clear message that it’ll continue to prosecute violations of the ordinance.

“We’re hoping that people get the message that we’re serious about our short-term rental enforcement,” he said.

The city contracts with Host Compliance, which monitors rental listings and sends out notices of any violations. It also takes complaints from residents.


In the latest case, the city even hired a private investigator.

The city first came across the properties in 2016 on Vrbo.com, a popular vacation rental website. The homes were listed for rent for a period less than 26 days, according to court documents. The city later found the homes on HomeAway.com, too.

Following an initial notice that requested compliance with the city’s ordinance, a neighbor complained in June 2017 about broken bottles outside the triplex on Fourth Street, loud noise at night and access to parking spaces, according to court documents.

When Dudley, the owner, ignored additional violation notices and continued to list the properties as short-term rentals, the city hired a private investigator.


In July, the investigator booked a unit at the triplex on Fourth Street for a weeklong stay in August. He paid a $1,032.49 deposit toward the total amount of $1,973.49.

In addition to the fees Dudley agreed to pay, an injunction requires that she not continue to rent or advertise the homes in violation of the city’s ordinance. She did not admit to wrongdoing as part of the stipulated agreement, King said.

Attempts to contact Dudley were unsuccessful.

The city doesn’t always sue over violations. Typically, the city first issues multiple violation notices because, in the end, the goal is for property owners to comply, King said.


When property owners are made aware of the ordinance, sometimes they don’t interpret the regulations accurately, King said. He added that other times they come up with what amounts to an excuse, saying they can’t control whether renters stay for a shorter period than the stay they booked.

And simply advertising a home as a short-term rental is not a violation.

King said the city has its eyes on how other cities enforce ordinances against short-term rentals.

“We’re not just looking at the San Diego area,” he said. “We want to look up and down the California area.”