The Board of Supervisors reaffirmed Napa County's ban on vacation rentals last week, citing a local law designed to limit growth in Napa County.
A Measure J vote would be required in order to allow private property owners in unincorporated Napa County to offer short-term rentals to vacationers, Supervisors announced June 29.
Measure J — passed in 1990 and extended by Measure P two years ago — calls for any proposed change in zoning in the county's agricultural preserve to go before the voters.
Previous Measure J votes include the approved expansion of Bistro Don Giovanni north of Napa and the Stanly Lane pumpkin patch in Carneros. Napa County voters also have rejected the expansion of a restaurant site on Oakville Grade, a market in Pope Valley and the creation of cabins near the Napa River in Carneros.
Throngs of people spoke both for and against the county's ban on vacation rentals at the supervisors meeting June 29, after a months-long effort by some to overturn the prohibition.
Technically, vacation rentals — rentals for 30 days or less — have been illegal in unincorporated Napa County since at least the late 1980s, but property owners routinely advertise and rent properties to visitors nonetheless.
An estimated 300 vacation rentals are operating illegally in the unincorporated county, generating $45 million to $57 million in spending throughout the county annually.
Supervisors voted in December to make the prohibition explicit, but a large group of property owners fought back, arguing that vacation rentals bolster the local economy and provide a practical alternative for some visitors.
The board agreed to hold off on implementing the new ordinance, and critics of the ban unveiled a proposal to allow up to 300 vacation rentals to operate in the county for up to 20 weeks a year.
The group predicted that these vacation rentals could boost the county's hotel tax revenue by up to $1.45 million annually.
An attorney for the group assured supervisors that existing law gives the board the discretion to allow the proposal to move forward by deeming vacation rentals an "accessory use" — not the primary use of the residence.
County officials promised to study the proposal, and last week they came back to the board with concerns.
In order to define vacation rentals as an accessory residential use, the county likely would not be able to limit the number of vacation rentals to only 300, Napa County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman said. It also could be difficult to collect hotel taxes from the vacation rentals, since they'd be considered residential and not commercial uses.
In addition, lawyers for the county argue that because vacation rentals might be inconsistent with portions of the county's general plan, which can be changed only by a vote of the people, "submitting the vacation rental proposal … to the voters for approval would seem to be the most appropriate approach."
Supervisors — even those who have expressed an interest in allowing vacation rentals in the past — agreed.
Acknowledging the arguments both for and against vacation rentals in the county, Supervisor Mark Luce said, "I think I'll leave that up to the voters."
Liza Graves, one vocal proponent of vacation rentals, remained noncommittal about sending the idea to voters.
"I don't know what the next steps will be," Graves said.
0 comments:
Post a Comment