Comparison of Consensus Position to Draft Ordinance and Staff Discussion

Comparison of Consensus Position of Carmel Valley Association, Preserve Carmel Highlands, Mal Paso Association and residents of Big Sur to the Draft Ordinance as Interepreted by Staff (July 11, 2018)

Staff Discussion July 11, 2018



A coalition lead by Carmel Valley Association has achieved a Consensus Position on Short-Term Rentals and Home Stays.  The Planning Commission Staff also has an Ordinance which has similarities and differences.  The Consensus Position and the current Planning Commission Staff positions are compared below.

 

 

 

Date: July 10, 2018

 

Our Consensus Position

The Carmel Valley Association and the Coalition strongly recommend that Short Term Rentals (STRs) be limited to “Home Stays.” “Home stays” are defined as short-term rentals that are owner occupied and managed. No absentee owners, property management companies, corporations, or LLC’s would be permitted. The owner would be required to be a permanent year round resident, and the home would be his or her primary residence. The owner would be required to live in, and be present on site, during the STR/Home Stay rental period. Owners would be limited to no more than one STR.

 

The CVA and the aforementioned groups and organizations will support only hosted Home Stays (subject to Visitor Serving Unit Limitations) as defined above with a strong enforcement system, close supervision and accountability. We categorically oppose all non-hosted STR’S.

Specifically, we recommend the following for an STR Ordinance:

1. Owner must be a natural person, or Living Trust for a Natural Person who is a permanent year-round resident, and the home is his or her primary residence.

[The Draft Ordinance is considertably different on this crucial point.  “For reference, in the preliminary draft ordinance a home stay is a rental whereby the STR operator, who must be the principal resident, rents bedrooms in his/her residence while residing at the house. The preliminary draft ordinance proposed permitting home stays through the ministerial permit process. . .  Staff analysis of the issue finds any additional limitations would pose enforcement requirements which are infeasible without additional resources.”  Attachment 1 to Staff Report, July 11, 2018]

2. No absentee owners, property management companies, corporations, LLC’s , or other forms of ownership is permitted.

[The Draft Ordinance is considertably different on this crucial point.  “For reference, in the preliminary draft ordinance a home stay is a rental whereby the STR operator, who must be the principal resident, rents bedrooms in his/her residence while residing at the house. The preliminary draft ordinance proposed permitting home stays through the ministerial permit process. . .  Staff analysis of the issue finds any additional limitations would pose enforcement requirements which are infeasible without additional resources.”  Attachment 1 to Staff Report, July 11, 2018]

3. The owner be required to live in and be present on site during the STR/Home Stay rental period.

[The Draft Ordinance is considertably different on this crucial point.  “For reference, in the preliminary draft ordinance a home stay is a rental whereby the STR operator, who must be the principal resident, rents bedrooms in his/her residence while residing at the house. The preliminary draft ordinance proposed permitting home stays through the ministerial permit process. . .  Staff analysis of the issue finds any additional limitations would pose enforcement requirements which are infeasible without additional resources.”  Attachment 1 to Staff Report, July 11, 2018]

4. The “Home Stay” version of STR must at all times operate as if it were a residence, and not a hotel, party house, special event location, or other use inconsistent with the zoning in which it is located.

5. STR’s (including “Home Stay’s) must, of course, be counted as Visitor Serving Units (VSU’s). Each bedroom of a STR or Home Stay is counted as one VSU (just like for hotels) and must not exceed the remaining limits on the number of new Visitor Serving Units under their Land Use Plans for all areas, including:

[Complete disagreement: “Staff recommends that short term rentals allowed with a ministerial permit (home stays and low-frequency STRs) not count against the visitor serving unit caps.  Also, “one STR is proposed to count as one visitor serving unit.”]

 

⦁ Carmel Area Land Use Plan, Local Coastal Program certified April 14, 1983. This plan allows for only 28 additional VSU’s, all in the Point Lobos area;

[Complete disagreement: “Staff recommends that short term rentals allowed with a ministerial permit (home stays and low-frequency STRs) not count against the visitor serving unit caps.  Also, “one STR is proposed to count as one visitor serving unit.”]

 

⦁ Big Sur Land Use Plan/Big Sur Coast Planning Area. It is the position of the Big Sur LCP Defense Committee that these plans have no room for STRs and/or Home Stays.

[Complete disagreement: “Staff recommends that short term rentals allowed with a ministerial permit (home stays and low-frequency STRs) not count against the visitor serving unit caps.  Also, “one STR is proposed to count as one visitor serving unit.”]

 

⦁ Carmel Valley Master Plan

[Staff would count STRs with Use Permits against the Carmel Valley VSU cap.  However one residence – no matter how many bedrooms – would be just one VSU, whereas for hotels each room is counted as a VSU.  Home Stays and Low-Frequency STRs is still considering whether they should be counted against the VSU cap.  However they do say that if they are counted, that they would count the entire residence as one VSU, not the number of bedrooms. These are points of major disagreement] BS_SC_Special_Meeting_FINAL_REVISED_Agenda_Packet_042418

 

6. Effective and verifiable self-policing.

a. Monterey County must first complete a study on required personnel and resources to enforce the ordinance, and then provide those resources;

b. Owners must provide multiple forms of proof they are year-round residents; and

c. Electronic evidence available over the internet that they physically resided at the STR during the Home Rental.

d. Verification to be done by Monterey County.

e. Licenses for STRs/Home Stays are only valid as long as Monterey County provides the personnel and financial resources to enforce the ordinance.

f. If Monterey County fails to provide adequate enforcement resources, STR/Home Stay licenses will be suspended until Monterey County remedies by providing required enforcement resources.

g. The County must adopt pro-active enforcement, using Host Compliance or similar service to locate violators, rather than relying on complaints from residents.

[Staff states it will analyze Enforcement Requirements when a Draft Ordinance is finalized.  The enforcement discussion thus far fails to incorporate the above requirements] 

7. No advertising of unpermitted rentals, and Host Compliance or equivalent service is required. Permit numbers must be posted in any ads.

 

8. The total number of Home Stay guests cannot exceed 2 per the number of permitted bedrooms, less one bedroom for the in-residence owner. If the owner resides with their family a suitable number of bedrooms must be set aside for their use.

9. Rentals for more than 30 days or more are permitted but subject to TOT, if rented for 30 day periods, or periods less than a standard one year lease.

10. Owners would be limited to one STR/Home Stay regardless of an interest in other properties the owner may have in Monterey County.

11. Parking at STR’s/Home Stays must be provided off-street for both visitors and residents.

12. Fires must be limited to existing barbecue pits and fireplaces.

13. STR’s/Home Stays must be spaced at least 1000 feet from each other, and notice of intent by the Planning Commission to permit an STR/Home Stay must be given to all neighbors within a 1,000 foot radius prior to issuance of the permit. If a neighbor objects, a hearing must be scheduled and the objections considered before a permit is issued.

[Staff recommends that density restrictions would not apply to rentals allowed with a ministerial permit (home stays and low-frequency rentals). ”  We disagree.  The Staff recommendation allows unlimited Home Stays with no density limits whatsoever.]

 

14. As a condition of approving any application for a STR/Home Stay the applicant must provide a letter from the water supplier to that location that there is sufficient water for the maximum possible use of the property; and, the Department responsible for leach field safety states the leach field is adequately sized and properly maintained for the maximum possible use of the property.

[“Once the STR ordinances are drafted, staff will quantitatively analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed ordinances as part of the environmental review (e.g. water, housing, traffic). Depending on the results of the environmental analysis, the draft ordinances may be modified to mitigate impacts.”]

15. STR/Home Stays must be completely subject to the rules and restrictions of private roads, and may be banned along such roads.

[“Staff finds that short term rentals allowed with a Use Permit or Coastal Development Permit would be subject to Monterey County Code Section 21.64.320 (Attachment 7), regulations relating to applications involving use of private roads. These regulations require that all applications for development involving private roads provide proof that there is an agreement between the parties to the road allowing for access and maintenance.”

The following point is one with which we vigorously disagree.  “However, home stays and low-frequency STRs are designed such that they would not intensify the planned residential use; and therefore, could be considered exempt from these regulations under Monterey County Code Section 21.64.320.4.e.”

Home Stays and Low-Frequency STR’s will increase the nunber of visitors/tourists to Monterey.  Home Stays and Low-Frequency STR’s will have the same impacts on the community that any other hotel room or other visitor/tourist serving accommodation has.  The Draft ordinance is not designed to avoid intensification of the residential use – it will certainly allow intensification.  The Staff intent may be different, but the Draft ordinance fails to achieve the stated objective and will result in environmental impacts (within the meaning CEQA) that far exceed the threshold levels on a cumulative basis.  They already do.]

 

 

Violation Penalties, Fines, STR’s are a “Nuisance” etc.

16. The remedies provided by this [ordinance] are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity.

[Incorporated From the Draft Ordinance Issued by the Planning Commission]

17. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision, or to fail to comply with any of the requirements, of this Chapter. Any person violating any of the provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction. No proof of knowledge, intent, or other mental state is required to establish a violation.

[Incorporated From the Draft Ordinance Issued by the Planning Commission]

18. Any condition caused or allowed to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be deemed a public nuisance and shall, at the discretion of County, create a cause of action for penalty pursuant to Chapters 1.22 of this Code, and any other action authorized by law.

[Incorporated From the Draft Ordinance Issued by the Planning Commission]

19. Each and every violation of this Chapter shall constitute a separate violation and shall be subject to all remedies and enforcement measures authorized by the Monterey County Code or otherwise authorized by law. Additionally, as a public nuisance, any violation of this Chapter shall be subject to injunctive relief, disgorgement of any payment to the County of any and all monies unlawfully obtained, costs of abatement, costs of restoration, costs of investigation, attorney fees, and any other relief or remedy available at law or in equity. The County may also pursue any and all remedies and actions available and applicable under state and local laws for any violations committed by the STR/Home Stay rental activity or persons related thereto, or associated with, the STR/Home Stay rental activity.

[Incorporated From the Draft Ordinance Issued by the Planning Commission]

20. For violations of short term/home stay rental codes, an Enforcement Official may issue to a responsible person an administrative citation that imposes:

a. A fine not exceeding four-hundred percent (400%) of the Advertised Rental Rate per day per violation or one thousand dollars ($1000.00) per day per violation for STR/Home Stay rentals without an Advertised Rental Rate for a first violation;

b. A fine not exceeding six-hundred percent (600%) of the Advertised Rental Rate per day per violation or two thousand five hundred dollars ($2500.00) per day per violation for STR/Home Stay rentals without an Advertised Rental Rate for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year; and

 

c. A fine not exceeding eight-hundred percent (800%) of the Advertised Rental Rate per day per violation or five thousand dollars ($5000.00) per day per violation for STR/Home Stay rentals without an Advertised Rental Rate for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.

[Incorporated From the Draft Ordinance Issued by the Planning Commission]

Carmel Valley Association

Pris Walton, President, Rich Fox, Vice- President

Mal Paso Creek Property Association
Michael Emmett
Lynne Boyd

Preserve Carmel Highlands
PreserveMontereyNeighborhoods.Community
Bob Danziger
Lorraine Oshea
Gwyn De Amaral
Michele Alway
Adrienne Berry
Glenn Berry
Katie Coburn

Big Sur
Ken Wright
Kirk Gafill

Draft Summary