Editor’s note: Spoiler alert: The first paragraph in this story about last week’s Riverside County Planning Commission hearing on the latest draft of Ordinance 927, “Regulating Short Term Rentals,” reveals the commission’s decision at the end of the hearing. If you wish to read about the public comments and commission deliberation chronologically, start with the Introduction of issues.

Commission decision

Wednesday last week, after a nearly six-and-a-half-hour meeting, almost all of which was about short-term rentals (STRs) and revising the current county ordinance, the Riverside County Planning Commission unanimously voted to continue the hearing until, at least, its May 18 meeting.

The commission tasked Planning Director John Hildebrand to address each item discussed at the April 20 meeting and allow the public and the commission another opportunity to review it before sending it to the board of supervisors.

At the end of the discussion, commission Chair David Leonard (2nd District) opined, “We’ve had comments from the commission and people’s comments; I’d like to see what we’re voting on through another draft of the ordinance incorporating all these parts before voting on it.”

County Counsel Sarah Moore advised that more time might be needed to adequately address the issue of caps or limits on STRs in certain neighborhoods, Leonard stressed, “I don’t have a problem bringing it back.”

So, the May 18 planning commission session may be the earliest that a revised Ordinance 927 will be available again for public review and comment.

Introduction of issues

Hildebrand began the discussion of the draft ordinance by thanking the public for numerous written comments, “… not just opposing, but providing salient and meaningful input.” He stressed that the ordinance only applies to the unincorporated areas of Riverside County and that the commission must recommend that it go forward to the county supervisors for approval and adoption.

However, he noted that changes to the ordinance were not the only steps the planning department was taking, or had taken, regarding regulation of STRs. He described the intent to establish a 24/7 hotline, manned with a live operator, and code enforcement officers on-duty weekends and evenings to enforce the ordinance’s provisions.

“The county’s [regulation of STRs] is continues to evolve,” he said. They are aware that unintended consequences may occur, but changes can and will be made to ensure it is working and fair.

Main Issues

The first issue Hildebrand identified for the commission’s attention was the content of the signs that are to be seen from the street with information about the STR and numbers to call about problems. He suggested that a template sign for all STRs might be an alternative, as long as it is easily visible from the street.

Many comments pointed to the inclusion of the STR owner’s private phone number. But the availability of the personal number could lead to many nuisances, as well as harassing phone calls.

Whether the noise monitors should be required inside the STR as well as on the outside was another issue Hildebrand identified.

Inspections for STR certificates would obviously identify the presence of the noise monitors, on-site parking, room counts and safety — other issues noted.

How the occupancy limits are calculated was another major issue, Hildebrand noted for the commission. While the number of bedrooms is critical, owners of large parcels with multiple structures wanted more flexibility in the calculation.

Public comments

After Hildebrand’s introduction, Leonard began the introduction of the public comment part of the hearing. With so many people already requesting to speak, he acknowledged, “When the hearing ends today, we don’t know. But we’re making a day of it.”

He also shared that the commission had already received more than 2,300 pages of written comments on the draft ordinance. “There were an overwhelming number of comments from the Pine Cove and Idyllwild areas,” he added. The public comment period during the hearing extended for nearly four hours.

Many of the speakers were Idyllwild residents or Idyllwild STR owners. Jon Brown, Woody Henderson and Peter Szabadi attended or called into the hearing.

Also, former Idyllwild Fire Chief Patrick Reitz addressed the commission in person. He expressed support for the “enhanced ordinance.” But he stressed that when an illegal activity or emergency is identified, greater communication needs to occur between the county and local authorities.

Examples of problems he has encountered include firing guns in residential neighborhoods, beds placed in closets or basements, lack of fire escapes for higher floors and tampering with fire detectors.

Reitz urged increased inspections to help deter STRs without county certificates and added that the first time fine of “… $1,500 is not enough to dissuade these operators.”

Joel Feingold attended and expressed concern about the failure to in the revised ordinance to place caps or limitations on the number of STRs in a neighborhood.

“Our town is on the verge of losing itself to the STR industry,” Feingold began. “Please help us to preserve the integrity of our community and neighborhoods with a quota.”

Commission discussion and recommendations

After the public speakers had finished, the commission began its discussion of the major issues in the draft ordinance. Hildebrand, who took notes throughout the meeting, would identify the issue, describe how it currently is addressed in the draft and ask the commission whether to make any changes affecting the issue.

The first item was that an STR stay be required to be at least two nights. Several owners described situations where the public only wants and needs an overnight stay. While the two-night minimum is intended to reduce the chances that the STR simply becomes a location for a loud and boisterous party, the commission felt one-night stays should be allowed.

The content and requirement for signage was further discussed. None of the commissioners objected to signs being posted and visible from the street. Hildebrand suggested that personal phone numbers should not be on the signs. The code enforcement 24/7 number would be included and the operator receiving the call has the discretion to request sheriff’s deputies to respond and intervene.

One concern Commissioner Gary Thornhill (3rd District) described was how the county can differentiate between owner-occupied STRs and STRs under the responsibility of a management company. “You’re either an STR or you’re not,” he said.

Commissioners Carl Bruce Shaffer (1st District) and Eric Kroencke (5th District), however, were sympathetic to making a distinction between the two different means to operate and manage a STR.

When an owner applies for a STR certificate, the county normally notifies other property owners within a 300-foot radius. Hildebrand recommended this be modified to require that a minimum of 10 to 12 other owners must be notified.

The commission favored requiring noise monitors both outside and inside. When commissioners Guillermo “Bill” Sanchez (4th District) and Thornhill expressed concern about interior monitors possibly recording conversation, his colleague Shaffer replied, “I don’t think noise monitors pick up conversations, just the noise levels; they’re not recording.” Consequently, requiring monitors both inside and outside will be in the next draft.

Next, the commission tackled the issue of what constitutes adequate parking for an STR. Hildebrand stated that it is a function of the occupancy limit and should be on-site. “However, we don’t want people parking on the lawn. And we’re not counting off-site spaces.”

Leonard was worried that to accommodate more parking space, owners in the mountain communities might have to cut down trees, which are an integral part of the ambience that attracts visitors to these locations. And he was concerned whether it should be limited to paved surfaces rather than dirt surfaces.

Shaffer noted that parking becomes a safety issue because people will park wherever there is a place to park.

No change was recommended after Hildebrand said, “Parking was an enforcement issue and eligibility for a STR certificate. If adequate parking is not available, we wouldn’t issue a certificate.”

The occupancy criteria would not change. It remains based on the number of bedrooms, which will be defined as space normally occupied for sleeping purposes.

County Counsel Aaron Gettis recommended that requiring STR owners to have a homeowner’s insurance policy should not be required. The county does not have responsibility for liability, the owner does.

Next, the commission debated whether an STR can be permitted if it’s not on a “paved road.” Hildebrand observed that that is an issue that has frequently been raised by Idyllwild and Pine Cove residents but is not limited to the Hill. The difficulty, he stressed, is how to define “paved.” It could be compaction, decomposed granite, asphalt or even county maintained.

“Access is a big issue for me,” Leonard said. “It should be a county-maintained road and maybe a paved surface.”

Planning official Bob McGee told the commission that the county requires all-weather access for commercial structures. But if the STR was already there, then it had to have already been permitted by the fire agencies.

Kroencke asked about road width that can range from 20 to 26 feet. And if the STR is on a private road, who maintains it? Commissioners also wondered if weekend only use created by visitors to an STR is more or less than daily access to and from a full-time occupied dwelling.

The final issue the commission debated was caps or limits on the number of STRs in an area or neighborhood.

Hildebrand expressed unease with having “different rules for different areas of the county” and felt that the commission had decided not to go with creating subsidiary boundaries for different county areas.

However, Thornhill replied, “I’m not sure we did. I thought I made it pretty clear there were certain areas like Idyllwild, part of the Wine Country, that may warrant a different way to look at it because of septic systems and the uniqueness of the Wine Country … I thought we were going to look at that.”

His colleague Shaffer agreed: “I understand it’s complex and that’s the struggle. But at some point, we’ll have to look at mountain community versus desert communities versus Wine Country. If it is too difficult at this point, I’m willing to go with the consensus, knowing we’ll be back here having this discussion in the future.”

Concluding the discussion over the caps issue, Moore urged the commission not to utilize caps. She argued that “we don’t want people [renting STRs] illegally just because we reached a cap … The idea of an STR is you don’t know it’s an STR. If we’ve done our job right, you shouldn’t need to have a cap.”

That concluded the commission’s discussion on how the planning department should revise its next draft of Ordinance 927. Hildebrand said he would plan to have another revised STR ordinance on the commission’s agenda for its May 18 meeting.