Planning Commission Workshop Summary
By Dick Matthews
Here is a summary of the May 10, 2017 Planning Commission workshop on short-term rentals (STRs). We were very pleased to have 50-60supporters in attendance including MCVRA directors, property owners, and property managers. About 20 of these addressed the Commission in support of a fair ordinance. We far outnumbered about 10 people opposed to short-term rentals whowere almost exclusively from Big Sur.
MCVRA directors came out of the hearing feeling more optimistic than any prior County meeting.
The meeting went very well except for Big Sur STRs. We had feared that the Commission would approve an option to separate the development of the inland version of an ordinance from the development of the coastal version. That would have significantly delayed the coastal version. Big Sur opponents argued that the Big Sur area be dealt with separately but they had no objection that an ordinance be developed for the remainder of the coast. Supervisor Mary Adams had also made such a request to the Planning Commission. The Commission agreed to treat the Big Sur area separately as part of a review process of a revised land use plan (LUP).
This is good news for STRs throughout the County except for Big Sur. County will work on inland and coastal versions of the ordinance simultaneously so there will be no delay in the coastal version. This was one of our primary objectives of the meeting. Also, we don’t expect to have the strong opposition from Big Sur at public hearings.
Big Sur will be more difficult and probably take longer. The revised LUP and STRs will be reviewed together, a more complex subject. That LUP was submitted to the County in the fall of 2016 but has not been acted upon by County staff. The opposition to STRs is intense in Big Sur. However, the bright spot is the fact that a revised LUP will ultimately have to get Coastal Commission approval. The Coastal Commission has regularly rejected any LUP or ordinance that bans STRs.
Following this, the preliminary draft ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission. You have all seen this ordinance so this summary will not describe it in detail but it defines 6 categories of STRs depending upon owner present during the rental, sewer versus septic tank, whole house or room only, and rental frequency.
Sixty percent (60%) of all STRs in the local area are non-owner present and rent for unlimited number of nights per year. This is Type 3(c) in the draft ordinance. The draft proposes to require a land use permit costing about $6,000 and would be granted on a discretionary basis. MCVRA strongly pointed out that these terms are exactly what caused the 20 year old inland ordinance to fail. We strongly requested a simple licensing system as Pacific Grove has done. Comments made by the Commissioners appeared to confirm that they understood. We think we convinced the Commissioners that the new ordinance needs to avoid the pitfalls of 1997 inland ordinance
Two of the owner not present categories, Type 3 (a) and 3 (b), proposed to allow just two bookings per year. One of the Commissioners stated he would not bother getting such a permit to rent his home. These two categories will probably be eliminated.
Our next big issue was the health department’s septic tank requirements. The draft ordinance specifies that septic systems would have to be inspected and possibly upgraded, a potential costly situation. MCVRA pointed out that the same dwelling can be rented as a long term rental with no permit, inspection, or possible upgrade. We also pointed out that STRs create less waste water than full time residences so why this new requirement? We explained that owners with septic systems will continue to rent without a permit. We hope the Resource Management Agency can work out a compromise with the Health Department on this requirement.
We believe the draft ordinance is quite reasonable for owners who are present during each rental except for the possible septic tank and private road issues.
The hearing did not get into the sticky problem of private road access. The draft ordinance does not yet define STR density limits, operating rules, permit revocation, or grandfathering. These will alll be difficult issues as the ordinance development continues.
At this point the hearing was nearing the end of the day. Some of the Commissions voiced that they had no idea what directions to give County staff.We were pleased to hear the chair of the Commission suggest that a simpler ordinance would be better. It was decided that more discussion was needed. This will be done at a Planning Commission hearing on May 31, 2017. Put this date on your calendars!