R1 Ban & 5% Cap

Position: Oppose

In May, the planning commission passed a recommendation for a 5% cap on Vacation Rentals in specific zones in Sonoma County and a ban on them in all R1 zones. This is unfair to residents who live in these areas and want to engage in this economic activity. What do the Supervisors who oversee these areas have to say about this?

A 5% Cap would devastate many tourist related parts of our local economy, especially the traditionally tourist related Russian River, where just 425 vacation rentals presently make up just 11% of total single family homes or 3,626 units.

Using data from the Eyler report that Sonoma County commissioned, it is estimate this 5% cap would remove 726 units Countywide, impact gross revenue of $21M and TOT tax revenue $2.6M per annum as these units are removed from the market. They would likely sit empty as second homes, generating no visitors or no income for local businesses. According to Sonoma County Tourism, each visitor to Sonoma County generates $165 per trip.

Short-Term Rental Permits Decrease

The Eyler Report states, “In terms of effects on single-family housing units’ prices, data considered in this report show little to NO CONNECTION between a rise in single-family housing units offered as short-term rentals and single-family home prices.” Does the county not believe this conclusion?

While the Eyler report makes a tenuous link between short-term rentals and longer term rental prices, the vacation rental permits in Sonoma County have FALLEN over the last two years, and rents have increased due to other factors.

Short-term rental permits as reported by Permit Sonoma staff has actually decreased over the last two years from 1,932 to 1,873?

See attached screenshots from the Board of Supervisors meeting on 8/18/2020, when the cap was set at 1,932 permits, and a spreadsheet from the Planning Commission meeting on 5/5/2022, with the number of permits at 1,873 (excluding the Coastal Zone)

Moratorium Effects

A moratorium hinders all the small businesses that rely on visitors to support the local economy, jobs, in restaurants, book stores, cafés, and other destinations. As residents of the county work to overcome the harsh effects of the COVID Pandemic shutdowns, the last thing we need is to shut down a driver of our economy.

Placing a moratorium on vacation rentals negatively affects average folks, in their time of need. Will a permit even be available for them? One never knows when some unexpected event in their life (i.e., loss of a job, care of a loved one, divorce or death of a spouse) and they find themselves needing to earn extra income—offering a home short-term could be the only way to make ends meet.

Separating residents who applied for non-hosted rental permits after March 17th, when they have spent money, time and other resources to prepare well-thought-out applications, is arbitrary and unfair. Instead of rewarding tax paying citizens who took the time to follow the rules, you are punishing them for not knowing that you would back date this moratorium to a date they had not heard of when they started. Is this even legal?

Business License vs. Vacation Rental License

Position: Needs more study

Appropriate License Naming – The “license” to operate Vacation Rentals should be called a Vacation Rental  License 

PRMD staff appropriately recommend the term “Vacation Rental License” as the term to use in  the Vacation Rental (vacation rental) Ordinance. Permit Sonoma, through land use zoning provisions,  requires a “permit” in the existing vacation rental program. In granting a permit and/or a vacation rental License, the county planning department is allowing the use of a residence (single family dwelling-SFD) for a limited business use. 

The home is still used as a residence and does not become a commercial business when an  owner rents the home either long-or short-term. This is similar to the “Home Occupational Permit” that allows owners to work out of their SFD. The use of a SFD for limited business purposes does not change the zoning of the home from “residential” to “commercial”.  Commercial enterprises consist of businesses like: gas stations, retail stores, drug stores, etc.  Therefore, the use of “Vacation Rental License” is accurate.

Automated Complaint Reporting Website

Position: Endorse

We as hosts have a vested interest in and always prefer compliant and thoughtful guests. We want our guests to be good neighbors and follow all regulations. 

We know the vast majority of guests are compliant, and as stated in the research only a tiny amount generate complaints, so anyway we can make it easier to minimize complaints and encourage hosts to educate guests would be a positive outcome. 

We would encourage the county to require a complainant to try and resolve the issue with the neighbor first before contacting the county.

Rule Book

Position: Endorse

We would be happy to collaborate with the county to produce and distribute such a handbook, as we have a vested interest in improving the reputation of vacation rental guests as well as encouraging thoughtful and compliant guests.

Limits By Areas of Concentration

Position: Endorse

Each Supervisorial District has unique concentrations of vacation rentals, and Supervisors should have a choice with respect to how short-term rentals are regulated in their area.

Grandfathering of Current Permit Holders

Position: Endorse

This is a fair position because existing permit holders relied upon the existing permitting process and economics when they purchased their home.

Limit of Permits Per Holder

Position: Endorse

We believe a better way to regulate the number of vacation rentals is to limit the number of new permits an owner or entity can be issued. This is recommended over density limits and proximity caps. 

This would be fair to Sonoma County homeowners, and allow private individuals the option to rent a home short-term.

Transference

Position: Endorse

Transference preserves investment of current license holders only but could limit the ability of future homeowners to become vacation rental owners if a cap is present.

If a cap is present, permits are less likely to become available since they will be transferred with the sale of a home. This would maintain the current VR concentration, which could lead to more negative VR ordinance changes in the future. 

This would benefit the seller with a higher resale value, but make it more expensive for the average person to enter the short-term rental market.

The new owner should be able to within 120 days of the closing of the sale, apply for the transfer of the vacation rental license to the new owner, just as every other business, or liquor are permitted today.

Hosted Rentals

Position: Endorse

Hosted rentals allow anyone to use a portion of their home, for additional, flexible income. This extra income helps people make ends meet or meet their goals. Restricting hosted rentals to only 1 room, also limits the supply of affordable accommodations to singles, couples and lower and middle income individuals.

Allow hosted rentals the option to purpose more than 1 room, so affordable short-term rentals can be available to low or moderate income visitors. Food Service, if provided, could be "grab and go" items as in budget hotels/motels, to preserve distinction from B&B's.

Eco-Friendly Forms

Position: Endorse

Allow residents to permit alternative eco-friendly forms of housing for long or short-term use, like tiny homes, RV’s or yurts to help middle and lower-income folks afford an economical living space. 

The County has allowed nationwide companies like Autocamp in our area to do this.  Sonoma Canopy Tours’ Sonoma Treehouse and Safari West has been offering alternative lodging for years.  Guidelines should be created to give the average person a chance.

Permit Number and Complaint Hotline Signage

WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL

Neighbors are already notified and we believe signage would be troublesome. 

We would endorse a yearly notice that a vacation rental exists at a specific location.

We believe signage would create a vandalism risk for owners, violate the privacy and safety of guests.

Limit Occupancy by Number of Days Per Year

WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL

We believe this will have negative, unintended consequences on TOT revenue, as current owners may be forced to sell given negative financial consequences. 

The new owners of these vacation rentals will likely be absent second homeowners that will leave the property vacant and not generate TOT revenue.

Separation Criteria Between Vacation Rental Properties

Position: Oppose

We believe this is an arbitrary, ineffective way to achieve the stated policy goal, and will only encourage more rentals in more affluent areas where homes are far apart, putting smaller hosts at a disadvantage.

(1) Limits on the total number of vacation rentals. This is a blunt instrument, not targeted to any demonstrated problem.
(2) Limits on the proximity of vacation rentals to each other. These mean each rental takes away the rights of many owners to also rent their homes.

3 Strikes Standard

Position: Oppose

Property Manager decertification for failure to maintain standards should not use the “3 strikes” standard.

The current vacation rental Ordinance has a “3 strikes provision”. This means a single home, with a single  owner, may face removal from the vacation rental program after 3 strikes. We would presume some  discretion in the county’s enforcement of this penalty because it would be extremely unfair to  decertify a vacation rental owner or a property manager for a mere garbage infraction, or for parking a car in  the street. 

Many coastal zone vacation rental homes are managed by professional property managers, often a small  business staffed by a handful of people who manage dozens of homes. It would seem unfair to  apply “strikes” from any of those homes, cumulatively, when deciding to decertify a property  manager. It could be that a single vacation rental home in their vacation rental stable of homes is a “bad actor”. The  decertification of a professional property manager will have reverberations across the dozens  of homes they manage and will hurt vacation rental owners, and limit the public’s coastal access.

Please provide clarity when describing the penalty you will propose, and take into consideration  that many homes in the coast are owned by out-of-area owners who cannot suddenly be faced with the decertification of a manager who may need to close down his or her business. Please  allow for vacation rental owners or property managers to be represented in their appeals, and provide  sufficient time for appeals when owners may live elsewhere. Allowing remote appeals (via  Zoom if requested) should be allowed to enable an owner to participate in an appeal.

Non-Resident Owner Restrictions

Position: Oppose

Any prohibition of vacation rental operation for non-residents of the county is  unconstitutional. 

Prohibiting vacation rental owners from participating in the county vacation rental program because they are not  residents of Sonoma County is illegal and unconstitutional as County Counsel Kuteira advised at the 11/18/21 Workshop. She was correct to advise that the U.S. Constitution’s “dormant  commerce clause” bars state protectionism and prohibits state legislation that discriminates  against interstate commerce.

If a state statute is discriminatory, such as a prohibition of out of  county owners to operate vacation rental homes, the state, or in this case the county, has the burden to  justify both the local benefits flowing from the statute and to show the state (or county) has no  other means of advancing the legitimate local purpose.

 Restriction of Day Guests – The maximum occupancy during the day should allow guests. 

Position: Oppose

Overnight maximum occupancy rates are reasonable. But to disallow daytime guests, as was  suggested at the 11/18/21 vacation rental Workshop, is not reasonable.

Non-vacation rental owners can have guests during the day, as can residents and long-term renters. It appears everyone but a vacation rental owner can  have guests visit their home during the day. This appears to be blatantly discriminatory.

The  county has not shown any rationale for such a requirement limiting vacation rental owners only.

We  oppose any day guest limitation that is less than the current “6” (six) allowed in the vacation rental  Ordinance.

10% or Less Cap

Position: Oppose

A cap on short-term rentals, is a cap on all businesses in the surrounding area. 

Service jobs, in restaurants, wineries, pubs, outdoor tourist attractions, house cleaners, gardeners, pool maintenance, etc. in historically tourist areas will be severely effected if a 10% or less cap is enacted.

Staying in Sonoma County has become only for the wealthy. Short-term rentals provide a way for families and others to visit, in a more cost-effective way.  A reduction in short-term rental supply, raises prices for all lodging in the county. 

The impact of this policy is significant both for the local economy and homeowners who rent their homes and this impact must be studied and understood before enacting the policy.

Separately, the 10% figure is arbitrary and not based on any data or study as to what is appropriate and a fair balance between achieving the goals and impact on the community / homeowners. Different figures may be appropriate in different areas.

Exclusion Overlay Zones (X-Zones)

Position: Oppose

We believe this will and has been shown to concentrate vacation rentals in areas surrounding exclusion zones, mitigating and contradicting the stated density goal. 

Limits in Fire Exclusionary Zones

Position: Oppose

Tourist/guest are the FIRST to leave at the sign of fire/floods/hurricanes or any other natural disaster. Their concern is to immediately evacuate their family to safety at the first sign of danger. It's human nature.

If the County is requiring vacation rental guests to evacuate during VOLUNTARY orders, why must they then exclude vacation rentals in these areas, since guests will be the first to leave?

We are opposed to this measure as it seems again arbitrary and unfair. 

Percentage of Parcel Limit Instead of Proximity, Density or Rental Day Limits

 Position: Oppose

There should be no proximity, density or “Rental Day Limit”.

We recommend no limit on the number of rental days per year where tourists have historically visited for the following reasons.

Any vacation rental day limit in the coastal zone will result in a reduction of visitors and public  access to the coast. Similarly, the Russian River area will be impacted. The county has presented no data and no rationale for this limit as applied to coastal zone vacation rental homes, or to inland county vacation rental homes. This limitation would be  catastrophic for the local economy that depends on tourism, and limit the public’s coastal access to hundreds of vacation rental  homes in the coastal zone. It would also severely impact Transient Occupancy Tax revenue the  county currently receives. 

County staff mentioned that there is a 90-day rental limit in San Francisco and Contra Costa  County. Those are very different geographical areas than Sonoma County or the coast area.  San Francisco is densely populated and has many long-term rentals and a housing shortage.  Contra Costa has many residential areas and has no obligations under the Coastal Act. Both of  these areas are unlike Sonoma County or the Russian River area, and should not be used to support a rental day limit in areas where tourists have visited for decades. 

In contrast, Los Angeles and Redwood City allow for 120 rental days. The County of San Mateo  allows up to 180 days. It should be noted that the majority of jurisdictions have no day limit for many reasons, not the least of which it is a difficult prohibition to monitor, e.g., Santa Cruz,  Encinitas, Humboldt, City of Imperial Beach, San Luis Obispo County, Capitola, have no day limit among others.  Many of these areas are in the coastal zone and appropriately have no cap on vacation rental rental days.

In the coastal zone, and many Russian River communities,  the character of the neighborhoods historically includes a significant number of second and vacation homes with transient visitors.  The coastal zone has a large contingent of these homes that the Census considers “vacant” - where no permanent residents reside.  The majority of coastal homes are in The Sea Ranch and Bodega Harbour where over 50% of the homes are vacant.  This has been true for decades. There is little evidence that the number of visitors coming to these communities has changed much over recent decades -  as is clearly shown by comparing Transient Occupancy Tax revenue with the Consumer Price Index. 

Sonoma County vacation rental owners should be allowed to offer their homes without proximity or density limitation.

90 Day Limits

Position: Endorse “Dual Use”

                 Oppose “Countywide”

We understand the 90 day limit may be applied to “dual use” where the owner uses the home as a primary residence and occasionally rents short-term.  This may be a reasonable application of a VR day limit.  However, a 90 day VR rental day limit is excessive if applied to all Sonoma County VR operators.

There should be no land use restriction of a day limit for vacation rental operators in the county’s tourist zones. Many vacation rental owners have indicated the reduced revenue will require them to either increase overnight fees, or to sell their home.  Many vacation rental owners often pay 33% for property management, and have additional costs with utilities, mortgage and insurance; it is misleading to believe that the entire rental amount is the income made by owners.

Creating a 90-day limit countywide would represent an extreme restraint of trade for owners of these small home-based businesses with unknown impact on the long term health and affordability of the profitable overnight visitor segment. This overnight visitor segment generates significant employment and sales tax revenue for other restaurant, retail and entertainment businesses.

No other county hospitality business such as hotels, motels, or resorts have such an annual room night limit. We view this limitation as arbitrary and unfair and strongly oppose its implementation.

Right of Appeal

Position: Oppose

Recommend: A licensee or property manager should be allowed to have a third party represent them in an appeal. This is fair and proper and enhances the due process required when a penalty as severe as a license revocation is possible.

A licensee, property manager, or their representative should be allowed 30 calendar days to appeal.  Some licensees or owners live out of the area. The appeal should be “postmarked” within this time period to allow for due process. A proper appeal will require time and effort to understand the facts alleged and prepare a proper appeal for the county to consider. A 10 day time period, with the mail service, and distances, gives an owner practically no time to effectively represent themselves in such an important situation as an appeal.

An owner should be allowed to be represented by a 3rd party. Virtual hearings (e.g., Zoom) should be allowed upon request, especially if the owner lives in another county or state.

Protect Owners from Harassment

Position: Endorse

Vacation rental owners must be protected from repeat or harassing  complainants. 

Vacation rental owners are concerned that any automated complaint process can be abused by  complainants who can confidentially complain about the operation of a vacation rental home. There  appear to be no consequences for bad actors who falsely accuse, or make repeated false complaints. Harassment of vacation rental guests or vacation rental owners should be prohibited.

Complaints During Unrented Periods

Position: Endorse

The complaints process should exclude complaints when the property is not let.

Many, if not most, Vacation Rental homes are frequently used by their owners, friends and relatives outside of the rental program. Such use is not subject to supervision by property managers and cannot be subject to regulation by the county (other than for regulations that apply to all residences). Complaints that are received during such use should be dealt with in the same way as a complaint against any ordinary residence and not be recorded or routed through the County vacation rental system.

Prevent Cancellation of Coastal Bookings

Position: Endorse

Coastal zone owners should not be required to cancel bookings made before the ordinance takes effect.

Vacation Rental bookings in the coastal zone are often made as much as a year in advance, especially for holidays. Owners should not be required to cancel bookings that were legally made before the ordinance comes into effect. Such cancellation and the necessity to rebook at much shorter notice is expensive for guests and comes with significant risk of poor reviews and consequent loss of future revenue for owners. Such costs are not justified by the desire to introduce the standards marginally faster.

Coastal 180 Day Grace Period

Position: Endorse

A 180-day grace period in the Coastal Zone is recommended. 

Coastal Zone vacation rental operators will be new to the vacation rental regulation process and a grace period will assist in their transition to the new county performance standards and Hotline. It is  recommended there be no de-certifications of vacation rental property managers or owners during the  grace period.

Term and Renewal

Position: Oppose

“A license expires 1 year from the date of issuance and may be renewed annually… A license or renewal will not be issued if there is an open code violation”. 

Recommend: Renewals should happen every two years not one. 

If the County wishes to not renew permits when open code violations exist, then the County must agree to process code abatements in a timely manner. A renewal could be issued conditionally for 3 months, giving time for the VR owner to clear the violation. 

Noise Limits

Position: Oppose

The County is proposing daytime and nighttime noise shall not exceed specific measured decibel limits

Recommend: We oppose any decibel limits in the ordinance as onerous, and difficult to enforce. 

We are supportive of quiet hours from 10PM to 7AM.

It must be specified from where the noise will be measured: noise audible within the property boundary cannot be considered a nuisance to others.

Noise levels should only be considered a violation when exceeding ambient environmental noise levels.

The prohibition on amplified sound is too broad, as it covers listening to music or watching TV within the property. Such activities should be allowed provided they are within the limits.

There should be an exception to daytime noise levels for necessary repairs carried out whilst the property is rented, and to nighttime limits for emergency repairs.

If the limits are to apply when the property is not rented (which we believe they should not), there should be an exception for ordinary maintenance and construction.

License Approval or Renewal Fee

Position: Oppose

“Following license approval or renewal, at the licensee’s expense, the County will mail notice of license issuance to each property and property owner within 300 feet of the vacation rental.”

Recommend: This should surely be part of the license fee, rather than an arbitrary extra fee they can set at whatever they like.

Parking – 500ft Limitation

Position: Oppose

“A vacation rental permit cannot be issued where there is no on-site parking or on-street parking within 500 feet of the parcel.” 

So, a person has to walk to get to the vacation rental. What’s the problem?

The charm of some short-term rentals, and why guest choose them, is their isolation.

Certified Property Manager Required

Position: Oppose

"A certified property manager must be available to the public and the Department at all times while a vacation rental is occupied. Direct contact information for the certified property manager is required. A call center or third party phone service is not allowed."

Recommend: The requirement for a named individual to be available 24/7/365 is unrealistic and likely incompatible with labor laws. What about vacation and illness?

Either, it should be possible for a different individual to act on behalf of the property manager, whilst the property manager remains the responsible party, or, multiple individuals may be registered as property manager, perhaps primary and backup.

This would improve the responsiveness of the system in the inevitable situation that the named property manager is unavoidably unavailable. 

Consider call service or third-party phone service:

Essential services such as airlines, medical professionals, and even the County for the regulation of vacation rentals, and cites 911 service - rely upon call centers as efficient ways to deploy services to citizens and customers.

Future Planning Commission Date for Cap or Exclusion Zone

Position: Recommend

“Direct staff to analyze and identify specific areas of the County for inclusion in cap or exclusion zones, meet with local communities to refine recommendations, and return at a future date with rezoning recommendations for these areas.”

Recommend: The county must create clear standards for the establishment of a cap or Exclusion Zone.  It cannot be initiated by a community request alone. 

There should be a cost assessed to the requestor, as is now required because of the added staff work necessary to create and manage these caps or zones.

Wastewater Treatment Systems

Position: Oppose

Recommend: Clarify that the maximum occupancy under the County's proposed policy uses the same formula as the general occupancy limit. This clause should simply require that the number of bedrooms is at most the design load of the septic system, where documented.

Ideally, when the County's proposed policy imposes a stricter limit than the general occupancy limit, owners should be able to demonstrate that their average occupancy is within the limit imposed by the design load of the septic system.

Pets

Position: Oppose

“A pet, if allowed by licensee, must be secured on the property at all times and cannot be left unattended.”

Recommend: This is untenable and an unnecessary regulation. 

People with pets should be able to leave their pets unattended as long as they are not creating a nuisance.

Property Manager must reside within 30 road miles

Position: Oppose

“A certified property manager must reside within 30 road miles of all vacation rentals they manage.”

Recommend: This seems unnecessary. The primary constraint should be the response time. Within that, it may not be necessary or helpful to further constrain who can work as a property manager. It may not be easy for agencies and owners to recruit property managers anyway.

24/7/365 Requirement: The requirement for a named individual to be available 24/7/365 is unrealistic and likely incompatible with labor laws. What about vacation and illness?

Either, it should be possible for a different individual to act on behalf of the property manager, whilst the property manager remains the responsible party, or, multiple individuals may be registered as property manager, perhaps primary and backup.

This would improve the responsiveness of the system in the inevitable situation that the named property manager is unavoidably unavailable.

License Suspension or Revocation

Position: Oppose

Recommend: License Suspension or Revocation should be for a time period that is appropriate for the violation found.  Depending on the violation (trash, noise, not leashing a dog) the suspension should be balanced against the harm to the public.

To ensure fairness and consistency of application, the ordinance should define the circumstances that warrant revocation and suspension. For example, revocation should be limited to violations that are repeated and either willful or negligent. Neither suspension nor revocation should be allowed for isolated violations in any 6 month period, or some similar standard.

Hosts should be able  to correct any violation within a reasonable amount of time, such as 30-45 days and not be subject to revocation procedures. 

Suspension or revocation of license procedure should only commence after the failure of a host to correct a violation after a reasonable amount of time is given to correct the violation. 

Any notice of suspension or revocation must contain clear, factual information to allow the owner to understand the scope of the reason for the suspension or revocation, including time, dates, ordinance provisions, written or oral evidence, names of witnesses – all of which are necessary to properly defend such an action.

Appeal within 10 Days

Position: Oppose

“An appeal must be made in writing and submitted to the Department within 10 calendar days from the date of the notice.”

Recommend: Recommend: A licensee or property manager should be allowed to have a third party represent them in an appeal.  This is fair and proper and enhances the due process required when a penalty as severe as a license revocation is possible.

A licensee, property manager, or their representative should be allowed 30 calendar days to appeal.  Some licensees or owners live out of the area.  The appeal should be “postmarked” within this time period to allow for due process.  A proper appeal will require time and effort to understand the facts alleged and prepare a proper appeal for the county to consider.  A 10 day time period, with the mail service, and distances, gives an owner practically no time to effectively represent themselves in such an important situation as an appeal.

An owner should be allowed to be represented by a 3d party.  Virtual hearings (e.g. Zoom) should be allowed upon request, especially if the owner lives in another county or state.

Maximum Occupancy

Position: Oppose

“Maximum occupancy for a vacation rental is up to 2 guests per bedroom, plus 2 additional guests per property, up to a maximum of 12 guests, not including children under 3 years old.”

Recommend: Exempt children 16 and under from the 2 per bedroom plus 2 restriction.

Many vacation rentals provide extra sleeping accommodations for kids, such as trundles, bunks,  sleeper sofas etc, enabling extended families to stay together. This may be one of the few affordable ways that larger families can meet and stay together, for example for holidays.

This is an important function uniquely served by vacation rentals.

Establish Exclusion Zones

Position: Oppose

The County is proposing exclusion zones where there is:

1. Inadequate roads/parking.

2. Detrimental to neighborhoods.

3. Protect housing stock.

4. Fire hazard.

5. Preserve/preferred residential character.

6. At Supervisors request.

Recommend:

1. 
   Inadequate road access or off-street parking: Allow the VR host to make arrangements with a neighbor to use one of their parking spaces. Perhaps they could even make a financial agreement benefiting both the host and neighbor. Sounds like a win-win for everyone involved. 
2. 
   Detrimental to the residential character of neighborhoods. As a community of hosts, our experience informs us that our properties must be visually and structurally maintained to a higher degree, often times than most owner occupied or long-term properties. Also, we clean and invest in our properties on a more regular basis because they must be kept in good working order and include amenities that guests find attractive like upgraded landscaping, kitchens, baths, central heat and air conditioning.
   
   Indeed, on the contrary, the presence of vacation rentals in this way could be beneficial to the preservation and character of our housing stock and neighborhoods.
3. 
   Protect housing stock: The Eyler Report concluded – “In terms of effects on single-family housing units’ prices, data considered in this report show little to no connection between a rise in single-family housing units offered as short-term rentals and single-family home prices.”
   
   
4. Fire Hazard: Tourists and VR guests are the FIRST to leave at the sign of fire/floods/hurricanes or any other natural disaster. Their concern is not the contents of the home, their concern is to immediately evacuate their family to safety at the first sign of danger.
   
   If the County is requiring vacation rental guests to evacuate during VOLUNTARY orders, why must they then exclude vacation rentals in these areas, since guests will be the first to leave?
   
   
5. Areas where residential character is to be preserved or preferred: The county must create clear standards for the establishment of a cap or Exclusion Zone.  It cannot be initiated by a community request alone.  There should be a cost assessed to the requestor, as is now required because of the added staff work necessary to create and manage these caps or zones.
6. 
   Where the board of supervisors determines that it is in the public interest to prohibit the establishment and operation of vacation rentals: This is an overreach of public servant power and vague. What is the public interest? Is it the continued generation of revenue from visitors and the jobs they bring, as well as the preservation and maintenance of our housing stock? 

Trash and Recycling Facilities

Position: Oppose

“Recycling and refuse storage bins must not be stored within public view unless in compliance with neighborhood standards. Recycling and trash receptacles must be returned to screened storage areas within 24 hours of trash pick-up.”

Recommend: Sometimes it's not always possible to move trash receptacles because guest checkouts and housekeeping visits do not always correlate with trash collection dates. 

If neighbors have issues with cans on the street, hosts should pay the neighbors to bring them in like some hosts already do without creating additional unnecessary regulations.

Transient Occupancy Tax

Position: Oppose

“A licensee must maintain a transient occupancy tax certificate and remain current on all required reports and payments.”

Recommend: If a permit holder only rents via Airbnb, a TOT certificate should not be required and places additional burden on a host. 

Airbnb automatically remits tax payments to the county and requires the entry of a vacation rental permit number, so this regulation is onerous and unnecessary for those hosts. 

Presently, hosts are not required to acquire a TOT certificate as long as they only rent on Airbnb and have a VR permit. We believe this should still be permitted.

Fees

Position: Oppose

“Fees may be changed from time to time by a resolution of the Board of Supervisors.”

Recommend: Fees should be changed more than once a year by a vote of more than ⅔ votes of the board of supervisors 

License renewal should not include a substantial fee. 

Increases in fees should not exceed 2% per year.

New Title

New Paragraph

Limit, Prohibit, or Require Temporary Use Permit for Events

Position: Needs more study

We look forward wot working with the City to develop standards for temporary or event use but believe more study is needed.

Limit Day Guest Occupancy, and Number of Vehicles

Position: Needs more study

We look forward to working with the City to develop occupancy limits day/night, as we have a vested interest in improving the reputation of vacation rental guests as well as encouraging thoughtful and compliant guests.

Vehicle limits can be according to number of rooms.

The number of vehicles could be determined by:

● By counting the number of vehicles that can fit inside the garage and on premises.

● Include street parking in front of the residence.

 ● Allow host to make arrangements with a neighbor to use one of their parking spaces. Perhaps they could even make a financial agreement benefiting both the host and neighbor. Sounds like a win-win for everyone involved..

Initial and Annual Safety Inspections and Annual Review and Renewal

Position: Support initial inspection by a contractor but oppose annual inspections or reviews for renewal

We would be happy to collaborate with the city to develop initial and annual safety inspections. 

The county of Sonoma requires an initial inspection by a contractor for permit issuance, but we do not believe an annual inspection is a cost effective way to regulate safety, rather a compliant system is a more efficient method.

We believe that all licenses should automatically renew unless a license has been revoked with due process or abandoned.

Escalating Fine Structure for Violations

Position: Needs more study

We are happy to collaborate with the City to develop reasonable and fair guidelines.

Require Landline Phone Service

Position: Oppose

Instead of a landline, we recommend a Noah radio in every shared home. Emergency information can be received via satellite, and it reverts to battery power during electrical failure.

Extend Quiet Hours to Between

9 p.m. and 8 a.m.

Position: Oppose

We suggest keeping in line with the County’s quiet hours from 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Require Screening of

Outdoor Activity Areas

Position: Oppose

Why — What are guests doing that neighbors aren’t?

Distinguish between Hosted and Non-Hosted Short-Term Rentals

Position: Endorse

Vacation Rental owners and hosts come in many configurations, but one thing is for sure: nearly all owners have only one home and they work hard to keep it and share it with others.

For retirees, pensions are becoming a thing of the past and owning a vacation rental home is not only a way to make ends meet, it’s a retirement nest egg.

Hosted rentals allow anyone to use a portion of their home, for additional, flexible income. This extra income helps people make ends meet or meet their goals.

Allow hosted rentals the option to purpose multiple rooms short-term, so affordable accommodations can be available to singles, couples, and low or moderate income visitors. 

Require Business Tax Certificate Long Term

WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS POLICY PROPOSAL

The coalition recommends that the county’s  Transient Occupancy Tax ordinance and scheme are sufficient and the only taxation necessary.

Host - A person or persons who is/are the owner of record of residential real property.

Position: Oppose

The Urgency Ordinance only states the owner must be present during hosted short-term stays.

The only practical problem here is sometimes an owner may need to leave on an emergency, have an impromptu business trip come up etc. that makes it impossible to follow the ordinance without cancelling guests at the last minute.

Why not make it owner or immediate, such as spouse, sibling, or adult child? This gets around the legal issue that could occur.

In unhosted situations, there is no requirement to have someone present, so this minor change makes it easy for all to comply?

Hosted Short-Term Rental - No more than 2 bedrooms

Position: Oppose

Hosted rentals should be allowed to utilize all bedrooms short-term because the owner is present to deal with any issues that may arise.

Why can a non-hosted short-term rental have NO restrictions on purpose of rooms apart from an overnight occupancy limit, but a hosted rental only be allowed to purpose two rooms short-term?

Assuming the good reputation of hosted short-term rentals, please consider this possibility:

Short-Term Rentals prohibited in certain Zoning Districts.

WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS POLICY PROPOSAL

Allow homeowners the option to choose how they wish to purpose their home, and don’t prohibit certain zoning districts and housing types from being used as a vacation rental, as the cost of other properties that are higher value, will ultimately make it too expensive for low to moderate income families to owe a vacation rental or for guests to stay at a vacation rental.

Hosted and Non-Hosted Short-Term rental should be allowed in every zoning district. Such prohibition may drive them “underground,” thereby causing the city to lose revenue.

Many of the VR owners/hosts are “mom & pop” owner/hosts – some even “mom” only - who are doing their best to keep their homes, pay off their mortgages, and remain part of the communities they have enjoyed for years.

Application required for a Short-Term Rental Permit

Position: Endorse

We are happy to collaborate with the City to develop reasonable and fair guidelines.

We as hosts support — Property Certification: because we want our guests to be good neighbors and follow all regulations.

We know the vast majority of guests are good and respectful, and as stated in City research only a tiny number generate complaints. With our combined cooperation, we can make it easier to minimize complaints and encourage hosts to educate guests.

Short-Term Rental Permit valid one year

Position: Oppose

We believe that all licenses should automatically renew unless a license has been revoked with due process or abandoned.

Parking Requirements

WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS POLICY PROPOSAL

Short-term rentals should be allowed to create off-street parking spaces that are accessible to a driveway, similar to what long-term residents often create. Parking could be verified/approved by a photo when applying for a permit.



The number of vehicles allowed could be determined 

• By counting the number of vehicles that can fit inside the garage and on premises.
• By allowing host to make arrangements with a neighbor to use one of their parking spaces. 
• By making a financial agreement with the neighbor to rent a designated space. 

Operational Standards

Position: Endorse/Oppose

Approve: Each owner, agent, and short-term renter or guest of a short-term rental shall comply with all operational requirements and standard conditions established by this section.

Approve:  A. Noise Limits. Short-term renters and daytime guests shall comply with all requirements of Santa Rosa Municipal Code, with the following exception and addition:

Oppose: Quiet hours shall be enforced from 9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. 

Recommend: Align with County quiet hours from 10 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., to preserve continuity.

Approve: Outdoor amplified sound shall not be allowed at any time associated with a short-term rental.

Evacuation Checklist

Position: Endorse

The safety of short-term guests is the utmost concern of hosts, and guests should follow evacuation emergency orders.

We would be happy to collaborate with the City to produce and distribute such a handbook, regarding: Firepits, outdoor fireplaces, and barbecues/grills, as we have a vested interest in improving the reputation of vacation rental guests as well as encouraging thoughtful and compliant guests.

Allow Short-Term Accessory Dwelling Unit

Position: Endorse

Accessory Dwelling Units that are offered short term would allow affordable accommodations to lower and middle income individuals and families, as they are often less expensive than equivalent lodging in a hotel.

• Short-term rental use of ADU/JADU units offer property owners much more flexibility in how their property is being used.

• Units can be used by adult children or other family members who have short-term need of housing (school breaks, job change, visiting family).

• Units can easily be converted to full-time rentals or any other use, as the owner sees fit depending on family needs.

Urgency Ordinance

WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS POLICY PROPOSAL

Government Code Section 36937(b) allows an ordinance to take effect immediately, if it is an ordinance for the immediate preservation of

public peace, health or safety and it contains a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency.

Section 8 of the Santa Rosa City Charter authorizes the City Council to adopt an urgency measure to take effect immediately upon its adoption if necessary to preserve the public peace, health or safety if such ordinance contains the reasons for its urgency.

The majority of vacation rental owners in Santa Rosa have one short-term rental. For many, this earns them needed income. For retirees, pensions are becoming a thing of the past, owning a vacation rental is not only a way to make ends meet, it's their retirement nest egg.

Enacting an urgency ordinance on vacation rentals negatively affects average folks. In their time of need. Will a permit even be available for them? One never knows when some unexpected event in their life (i.e. loss of a job, care of a loved one, divorce or death of a spouse) and they find themselves needing to earn extra income—offering a home shot-term could be the only way to make ends meet.

The city should ask their 197 registered short-term rental owners when they send out their annual TOT remittance forms if they have a hosted or vacation rental.

THERE IS NO URGENCY: If Host Compliance figures are taken at face value, the number of unhosted whole homes amount to 0.4% of available housing units, which means 99.6% of the housing unite in Santa Rosa are long-term.

300’ Radius Between Vacation Rentals

WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS POSITION

This means each rental takes away the rights of many owners around it to also rent their homes.

A 300’ radius is arbitrary and allows one owner to essential control the right to a vacation rental on a given block or street.

It allows someone to obtain a permit and not use it, only to stop others from doing so.

It limits our local economy and revenue to small business such as restaurants, cafés, breweries, wine bars, specialty retail shops, attractions, an others by stifling tourism.

It rewards wealthier homeowners with larger lots to benefit from this rule.



This will create a planning department management nightmare and drain on staff any time a homeowner inquires about obtaining a permit, or a home is sold and the homeowners and potential buyers want to know whether they are eligible for a vacation rental permit or not. What is the potential staff and resource cost to this?

We believe this is an arbitrary, ineffective way to achieve the stated policy goal, and will only encourage more rentals in more affluent areas where homes are far apart, putting smaller hosts at a disadvantage.

Downtown Concentration Requirement

Position: Endorse

Allowing Short-Term Vacation Rentals would bring vibrancy back to the downtown area as tourist are more apt to visit restaurants, coffee shops, retail stores, wine tasting rooms, breweries, entertainment venues and other local attractions.

This overnight visitor segment would also generate significant employment and sales tax revenue.

During the 2008 economic downturn, many specialty retail businesses in the west side downtown area went out-of-business, and several prime properties were bought-up by investors, and turned into “office type” establishments. 

Having a mix of guests and residents in the downtown area would encourage more “neighborhood friendly” businesses back to the area, benefiting both long-term and short-term folks.

We support performance standards, monitoring, and notification of vacation rentals in the downtown area, so any nuisance can be dealt with, so short-term rentals can maintain their current high standing.

182 Day Vacation Rental Limit

WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS POSITION

A 182 day limit on vacation rentals only limits the number of visitors going to our restaurants, cafes, farmers markets, wine bars, specialty retail shops and other small businesses, and it restricts supply thereby raising prices and favoring the wealthy.

Whole house vacation rentals make it affordable and possible for whole families to visit, and stay in our town. Hotels are often too expensive and not family friendly.

In addition, limiting rental nights could also have the unintended consequence of compacting tourism into only the summer months when revenue and demand are highest and limiting benefits to local businesses, who will see demand compacted into one or two seasons rather than spread throughout the year.

Limiting the rental to 182 days will significantly reduce revenue paid to these service providers such as: House Cleaning services, Groundskeepers, Property Manager Services, Plumbers, Electricians, Contractors, Pool and spa cleaners, HVAC companies, Retail Suppliers.

Many vacation rental owners have indicated the reduced revenue will require them to either increase overnight fees, or to sell their home.  Many vacation rental owners often pay 33% for property management, and have additional costs with utilities, mortgage and insurance; it is misleading to believe that the entire rental amount is the income made by owners.

A 182 limit in vacation rental rental days is excessive for all Windsor vacation rental operators. The majority of vacation rental owners in Windsor have one short-term rental. For many, this earns them needed income. For retirees, pensions are becoming a thing of the past, owning a vacation rental is not only a way to make ends meet, it's their retirement nest egg. 

No other city hospitality business such as hotels, motels, or resorts have such an annual room night limit. This limitation as arbitrary and unfair and strongly oppose its implementation.

Hosted Rental Day Limit

WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS POSITION

Assuming the good reputation of hosted short-term rentals, please consider this possibility:

• Hosted rentals allow any owner to use a portion of their home for additional, flexible income. For people on fixed incomes, this extra income helps make ends meet and cover unforeseen expenses.

• Allow hosted rentals the option to purpose all available rooms, any day of the year, short-term, so affordable accommodations can be available to singles, couples, and low or moderate income visitors.

• Hosted Short-Term Rentals should not be limited by days or number of bedroom because the owner is present to deal with any issues that may arise. Why can a non-hosted short-term vacation rental use ALL rooms, but a hosted rental be allowed to purpose only two room (or 4 people) short-term?

Assuming the good reputation of hosted rentals, hosts should be able to purpose all rooms.

The number of operational days is not limited by the County, Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Sebastopol or Rohnert Park.

Non-Hosted (Vacation Rental) Cap

WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS POSITION

Placing a cap on vacation rentals negatively affects average folks. In their time of need. Will a permit even be available for them? One never knows when some unexpected event in their life (i.e. loss of a job, care of a loved one, divorce or death of a spouse) and they find themselves needing to earn extra income—offering a home shot-term could be the only way to make ends meet.

Hosted & Vacation Rentals provide an economical housing option in many short-term (less than 30 day) housing situations: traveling medical professionals (doctors, nurses, x-ray techs, medical students), students attending continuing education programs, winery interns and others seeking temporary housing.  It’s easier to book a vacation rental than find a temporary apartment.

During troubling times in our County, many vacation rentals converted to year-round housing to help disaster victims as they made important life decisions about rebuilding or “next steps”.

• Non-hosted vacation rentals have served to help members of our community by providing immediate lodging for individuals who lost their homes or sought shelter after the 2017/2018/2020 fires and the 2019 floods

• Non-hosted vacation rentals provided locals who needed to isolate from family or roommates during our current COVID crises. Locals are certainly easier to isolate themselves in non-hosted rentals than in a public hotels or motels, especially vs hotels with common lobbies, stairwells and elevators.

Primary Resident Requirement for Short-Term Vacation Rentals

WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS POSITION

If only owners of a primary residence were eligible for a Short-Term vacation rental permit, …where would they live?

Short-term rental hosts come in many versions, but one thing is certain: nearly all short-term rental owners have only one home. For retirees, pensions are becoming a thing of the past, and owning a vacation rental home is not only a way to make ends meet, it’s a retirement nest egg. They work hard to keep it and share it with others.