Thursday, December 23, 2010

Santa Cruz County Considers Limits on Vacation Rentals

Santa Cruz County Considers Limits on Vacation Rentals

Santa Cruz County Considers Limits on Vacation Rentals

Posted: 24 Nov 2010 12:48 PM PST

Last week the Planning Commission began sifting through the increasingly complicated and contentious issue of regulating vacation rental homes in the unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County. While the outcome is still uncertain — they will discuss the issue again November 29 — it appears the Planning Commission favors imposing limits on the number of vacation homes only in Live Oak.

Vacation homes in Aptos, Rio del Mar, La Selva Beach, and the rest of the unincorporated parts of the county would face some, but fewer, restrictions. Capitola already has such an ordinance in place for vacation rentals within the city's borders.

The county's planning department estimates that there are 570 vacation rentals in the unincorporated areas of the county, most of which are located within a few blocks of the beach.

Residents who maintain that vacation homes are essentially unmanaged mini-motels with groups of 10 to 20 people in party mode.

Neighbors have asked the Board of Supervisors to regulate the proliferation of vacation rentals.
At the same time, the board recognized the concerns of the vacation home owners who said that not only do they rely on income from the rentals, but that the vacationers contribute heavily to the county's economy.

Last June the Board of Supervisors directed the planning department to draft an ordinance, and also directed that any proposal be sent to the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) for its recommendation.

The HAC, which is an advisory commission to the Board of Supervisors, held several well attended public meetings and then recommended a very slimmed down and simplified version of the ordinance drafted by the planning department.

Three Version Go to Commission

This is where it starts to get more complicated. The HAC proposal, the Planning Department's original draft ordinance, and a third version drafted by the Planning Department were all advanced and considered by the Planning Commission last week.

Here's a short description of the three alternatives.

Alternative 1: This is the HAC proposal. It would require registration of vacation rentals with the Planning Department, require in-county management, require a dispute resolution process, signage with contact information, and full reimbursement of costs to the Sheriff's Office for responding to complaints.

Alternative 2: This version includes all of the concepts requested by the Board of Supervisors and includes limitations in length or frequency of rentals, restricts the number of renters allowed, addresses parking, and restricts advertising for weddings and corporate retreats. It also "grandfathers" in existing rentals and limits new vacation rentals. Among its features were areas of "special consideration," which would have to adhere to some, but not all, of the new requirements. The areas of special consideration include Pajaro Dunes, the oceanfront section of Oceanview Drive in La Selva Beach, Beach Drive, parts of Rio del Mar Boulevard and Las Olas Drive in Aptos.

Alternative 3: Drafted by the planning department, this is a beefed up alternative to the HAC proposal. Instead of simply registering a vacation rental, owners would be required to get a permit.

Several Big Issues Remain after Debate

All three versions, and most people on both sides of the vacation rental issue, agree on several points. First, all vacation rentals should pay the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and those already paying should be grandfathered into any new vacation rental ordinance.

Second, all vacation rentals should also abide by the existing noise ordinance, be required to have a contact person available 24 hours a day, and in the case of repeated problem(s), either have their permit revoked or participate in dispute resolution.

While the Planning Commission did not craft a final recommendation, commissioners said they favored a permit process that would allow public notice to neighbors and revocation of permits for repeated violations.

They generally agreed that there should not be a required minimum stay and that permit review would be triggered by complaints instead of being subject to a two or five year renewal process.
Rather than set a maximum number of occupants, they suggested that the number of cars be limited and based on the amount of parking available.
Commissioners also said they didn't think restrictions on advertising, prohibiting weddings, for instance, was necessary if other rules were in place.

Several big issues remain to be resolved when the issue returns to the Planning Commission.
While the Planning Commissioners agreed there should be some sort of limit on the number of vacation homes in an area, they didn't settle on how that should be determined.

By a percent of overall housing on a block? By requiring a 200 foot buffer between them? By setting an overall number for an area?
The second big question is whether there should be areas that are excluded from some or all of the ordinance provisions.

The planning department proposal recognized certain neighborhoods that already have such a concentration of vacation rentals and proposed that those areas should be treated differently as "special consideration areas." As such, they would not be subject to new parking requirements or limits on the number of vacation homes in an area.

The majority of Planning Commissioners, however, favored limiting the number of vacation homes only in Live Oak. Vacation homes in other areas of the unincorporated county would be subject to other provisions of the ordinance, but not limits on the number of them in a particular area.

What I Think�

I believe it is time for Santa Cruz County to have an ordinance that regulates vacation rentals just as Monterey County, San Luis Obispo County, and many other counties have already done.

A minimal county permitting process that ensures that the TOT is paid and that blatant disregard for the well-being of the neighborhood is not tolerated is essential.

A local 24/7 contact person is also important as well as a means to substantiate complaints.
I believe that the Board of Supervisors will adopt an ordinance that allows the community to get a handle on vacation rental homes in residential neighborhoods without harming either property owners or tourist dependent businesses.

New Green Building Codes

New green building standards were approved last week by the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, which will require all new buildings, additions and remodels to be more energy efficient.

The new CALGreen standards were adopted by the State as part of its three year update.
The new codes are then adopted by counties and cities, which can also adopt local amendments. The CALGreen Code is the first in the nation mandatory green building code.

It requires that new buildings reduce water consumption by 20 percent, divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills, and use low pollutant-emitting materials among many other provisions.

California Air Resource Board estimates that CALGreen will help reduce greenhouse gas emission by 3 million metric tons equivalent by 2020. In addition to CALGreen standards that apply to new buildings, the county codes will go further to require that the standards apply to additions and remodeling projects, as well.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured site: So, Why is Wikileaks a Good Thing Again?.
Posted by at

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)