JP Crumrine
Correspondent

Riverside County officials — Board of Supervisors, Planning and Code Enforcement, and the grand jury — have been grappling with revising the current policy for regulating short-term rentals (STRs).

The board formally initiated the effort to revise the STR policy (Ordinance 927) in February 2020 and has been overseeing the progress.

A grand jury report assessed the Planning Department’s proposed revisions to Ordinance 927. Several findings and multiple recommendations in the report were described in the Sept. 2 issue of the Town Crier.

The latest action was the Transportation and Land Management Agency’s (TLMA) response to the June grand jury report about the STR process. (TLMA is the executive agency in the middle. Both the Planning and Code Enforcement departments are components of TLMA.)

The response to the grand jury report that TLMA prepared and presented to the board on Aug. 24, and which the board adopted as part of its consent calendar, “represented the combined efforts of TLMA and the Board of Supervisors, synthesized into a single report,” Brooke Federico, public information officer for the County Executive Office, said in an email.

“Approval of this item completes the response to the grand jury. This is the final report, collectively provided to the grand jury by the Board of Supervisors,” she added.Interestingly, the joint response did not object or dispute any the grand jury’s findings or recommendations. The nearest to a disagreement was the partial concurrence with the grand jury’s finding that the draft ordinance does not provide sufficient protection for the neighborhood, does not determine where an STR may be located, nor does not provide an adequate process for neighbors to register complaints about the local STR.

Not only does TLMA state that the proposed revision to Ordinance 927 “… includes a greater emphasis on enforcement and property owner management obligations,” but the agency informs the grand jury of a recent county Request for Proposal to solicit companies to manage and enforce services for the STR program.

As an example of improved services, TLMA states that one of the requirements for the new vendor will be provision of a “24/7 call center.” Its purpose is to provide neighbors of a registered STR the opportunity to “lodge an immediate complaint.” The county’s management company will then contact either the STR property owner or the designated local contact person who will have 60 minutes to address the neighbor’s complaint.

According to the county’s Purchasing and Fleet Department’s site, the RFP was issued July 22 and has had four subsequent modifications. Bids were due Sept. 2.

See the TLMA response to the 2021 Grand Jury Report available for download:

The grand jury, however, recommended the county develop and use a “Neighbor Complaint Form.” Ventura County uses this procedure. Without explicitly saying “No,” Federico stressed that the form was a suggestion.

The county’s response described the various ways a neighbor could initiate a complaint about an STR. Reporting the situation online through the Code Enforcement website, contacting the STR management company, and in cases where public safety may be of concern, contacting the Sheriff’s Department were prominently stressed.

Also, the county will revise on-site posting requirements to include more ways to file complaints, including direct contact numbers and access to the management team, added Federico.

The TLMA response concurred with most of the other findings and recommendations in the report. For example, the agency agreed that more fiscal resources and personnel will be needed to improve the operation of the STR program.

TLMA also affirmed that its Planning and Code Enforcement staff will hold more joint meetings with the sheriff’s office to “evaluate the program and look for ways to reduce complaints.”

Regarding noise complaints, TLMA described escalating enforcement steps in the future. The first response to a noise complaint will rely on either the property owner or the local contact person to resolve the situation. An unsatisfactory action would result in Code Enforcement’s intervention. If inadequate resolution continues, the sheriff’s office would intercede.

TLMA also suggested that it is reviewing options to assess a Notice of Violation fee. If administrative actions are not producing appropriate resolutions to the initial complaint, then financial actions, such as fees and fines, may be applied.

A commitment was made to assess the options (including a single database) for more closely coordinating the STR certificate data and the county treasurer’s Transient Occupancy Tax data.

In a separate response to the grand jury findings and recommendations regarding the two databases, the county treasurer-tax collector was adamant that a single database was inappropriate. This response indicated that separating the data for fiscal responsibilities, for instance, the TOT, and administration of the certificate issuance, required separate data. However, greater efforts to ensure reconciliation of the two databases would be implemented.

Also, when a revised draft Ordinance 927 is next available, TLMA is planning to have a study available to justify an increase in the initial fee and the annual renewal fee for STR certificates.

Finally, TLMA assured the grand jury that before the Board of Supervisors votes on the revised Ordinance 927, there will be public hearings for more public comment.

County Planning Steven Jones, who is heading this initiative, does not expect a revised ordinance or other changes until late fall. The ordinance will go first to the Planning Commission for its review and approval before being placed on the supervisors’ agenda.