Supervisors placed 45-day moratorium on short-term rentals

At its Sept. 13 meeting, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved a revised Ordinance 927.1, “Regulating Short Term Rentals” (STRs), and a moratorium on new STR certificates for two areas within the county.

The new ordinance will be effective in 30 days.

Effective immediately, however, a 45-day moratorium was placed on new STR certificates in two unincorporated county areas. The moratorium applies in the Idyllwild area, including Pine Cove and Mountain Center, and the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Areas.

The moratorium expires Friday, Oct. 28. Planning Commission staff will provide a progress report to the board at its Oct. 18 meeting.

The moratorium would not prohibit operating STRs that have already obtained a county STR certificate.

Afterward, Idyllwild resident Joel Feingold opined, “It was a win for Idyllwild — more good than bad for Idyllwild.”

Discussion of the proposed ordinance and a possible moratorium took more than four hours. The board heard from several dozen concern citizens, including several from the Idyllwild area.

Jeanine Charles-Stigall, former Idyllwild Fire Protection Department commissioner, told the board, “We have a monster next door to our house. There are five STRs on our block and only one is registered … We’re losing our neighborhood.”

She noted that one time when she visited an STR to express concern about the noise, she encountered “… a guy teaching a child how to shoot squirrels.”

Following her was Feingold who urged the board to “protect our serenity and our rights to the peaceful neighborhood.”

After the public comments, the supervisors discussed the ordinance and its need — protection of property rights.

First District Supervisor Kevin Jeffries stated it directly, “My philosophical beliefs are pretty tough. To accept a lot of what’s proposed — personal responsibility, personal freedom — says hands off, except for going after the bad actors. Our obligation is to protect private property rights on both sides of the fence.”

And 3rd District Supervisor Chuck Washington stressed, “I’m not anti-STR, but STR property rights are subservient to residential property rights. These trump rights of someone running a business.”

And that was the lens through which all were evaluating the ordinance and its consequences. The board wanted to ensure that people had a right to use their homes or properties however they wanted, including as rentals. And the board also was insistent on protecting the rights of neighbors who bought homes in quiet, non-commercial areas.

The issues dominating the board’s discussion were maximum occupancy of a facility, whether to require fire sprinklers and whether accessory dwelling units could be part of an STR.

Maximum occupancy

At the beginning of the session, Planning Director John Hildebrand described the revisions made since the board’s July 26 meeting. Originally, the maximum occupancy criterion was two people per bedroom plus one floater. Then Hildebrand added, “we heard loud and clear from the board that was too restrictive.”

In this version, staff recommended three tiers of occupancy. The first tier would limit occupancy to 10 people. The number of bedrooms would not matter.

Owners could increase occupancy to a maximum of 16 if they complied with a pre-approved list of upgrades. On a separate list independent of the ordinance language were examples of possible improvements such as smoke alarms, carbon monoxide alarms, fire extinguishers, sprinklers, an exit plan and no exposed wiring.

Occupancy could be increased to a maximum of 16 if an application were submitted to the Building and Safety Department who would determine maximum occupancy and any necessary upgrades.

Washington emphasized that maximum occupancy is “… not unlimited over 16, but up to a certain number for safety.”

But Supervisor Manuel Perez, 4th District, was concerned whether the upgrades for STRs to increase occupancy was dependent upon state law requirements or was the county “… putting policy into place.”

Hildebrand explained that occupancy greater than 16 effectively changes the zoning condition from R3, residential, to R1, commercial. That is equivalent to hotel occupancies and certain upgrades would be required.

Beginning the supervisor’s discussion, Perez expressed concern that the three tiers were also too restrictive. “I prefer a case-by-case approach that gives us flexibility. I’m worried about the large estates,” in his district.

“I tend to lean toward no cap or on square footage,” Perez added. Referring to one of the public comments, Perez added, “I tend to lean in that direction of some sort of policy based on square footage rather than free-for all.”

Later agreeing with Perez, Jeffries said, “I like the idea of square footage and acreage. It makes sense. It allows more flexibility and is a more reasonable approach to small home and small occupancy and protects neighbors.”

During his time, Washington cautioned about the idea of no maximum occupancy and stressed some limits were necessary just to protect the visitors.

“[The] more people we put inside a house the more dangerous it becomes in an emergency. How can we ensure when people come to our Wine Country or our Idyllwild and we welcome them with open arms that they have a right to expect if something happens, such as fire, that they can get out of that home without losing kids or without someone dying,” Washington said, expressing his concern.

After more discussion, the supervisors finally came to a consensus that maximum occupancy would be a function of both structure square footage and acreage of the lot.

For lots smaller than 1 acre, the maximum STR occupancy would be one renter per 200 square feet up to 10 people. If the structure is on a lot, whose size is between 1 acre and 2-and-a-half acres, maximum occupancy would be limited to 16 people. If the STR property is larger than 2-and-a-half acres, maximum occupancy will be 20.

Fire sprinklers

The second major issue was whether fire sprinklers would be required to be installed in STR facilities that did not already have them. The question arose from the list of possible upgrades that would permit maximum occupancy to increase from Tier 1 to Tier 2.

Although the tier concept was discarded, several supervisors strongly believed the county should not be requiring fire sprinkler systems.

Chair Jeff Hewitt (5th District) was the first to raise concern. He argued that requiring fire sprinklers could be very expensive.

He acknowledged that state building code now requires fire sprinklers to be part of new home construction, but homes built before 2016 are not required to have these sprinkler systems. He feels that a large number of STR facilities were built before 2016, and it “wouldn’t pay to put sprinklers into these older building.”

While the staff replied that the checklist was not mandatory, Jeffries expressed concern that staff could change that “on a whim” and could not support a mandate for sprinklers.

Again, consensus was reached that fire sprinkler systems would be recommended and not mandated for any STR certification.

Accessory dwelling units

The third major issue was how to treat accessory dwelling units (ADU), such as a separate building in which a person could live. Examples are plenty, such as a casita, cottage, guest house or apartment over the garage —ones that cannot be sold separately from the main lot and structure.

Senate Bill 9 prohibits residential development such as ADUs, built to expand the housing market, from being used for STRs. The county’s General Plan includes ADUs in its count of housing and, according to Deputy County Counsel Sarah Moore, would have to be amended to permit ADUs as part of STRs as well as the county’s Land-use Ordinance (348).

Washington suggested the board approve 927.1 and direct staff to return with new language regarding the provision of ADUs. But Jeffries was adamant, “No, ADU has to be resolved now. I’m not going to adopt 927 that unnecessarily harms property owners for using their guest homes.” And Hewitt agreed.

Hildebrand replied that the staff could return with an amendment to Ordinance 348 and changes to its state housing element.

“Staff was directed by the board to revise the proposed ordinance to include those ADUs that are not specifically restricted by state law … We will need to revise Ord. 348,” Assistant County Executive Officer and Director of the Transportation and Land Management Agency Charissa Leach confirmed in an email to the Town Crier.

Other changes

In the draft presented, changes were made from the early version presented to the board.

For example, the revised ordinance still requires installing noise monitors outside the building, but interior noise monitors will not be required. Also, the length of an STR rental remains two consecutive days and one night. And outdoor fires are only permitted if state or local fire regulations or rules do not prohibit them.

The signage providing the STR certificate number, the name and phone number of the responsible operator, the maximum occupancy, and the phone number for the county’s 24-hour Code Enforcement must still be clearly visible, but specifically from the street.

And inspections as part of the certificate application process will be only of the exterior, not inspections of the STR interior. This would include the exterior sign, the off-street parking and the noise monitor.

And the fine for a first violation of the ordinance is $1,500, not $1,300. The second and third violation fines remained at $3,000 and $5,000, respectively.

Vote

The new Ordinance 927.1 was approved unanimously and replaces the original STR ordinance enacted in January 2016. Efforts to revise the 2016 ordinance began in February 2020 when Washington and Jeffries proposed a review and possible revision.

Moratorium

The board next undertook a public hearing about the proposed moratorium of new STR certificates in Idyllwild and the Wine Country.

This moratorium period will allow time for staff to evaluate the impacts of concentrations of STRs in local areas. These two areas are the location of nearly 62% of all county STR certificates. During this period, staff will evaluate possible mitigating measures for this situation.

An extraordinary concentration of STRs in local neighborhoods can result in negative effects, unnecessary and improper in residential areas. Examples of these impacts include unpermitted, large-scale events, violations of the county noise ordinance, disorderly conduct, traffic congestion, illegal parking, and rubbish and trash left on streets or lawns, according to Hildebrand.

The moratorium expires Oct. 28. But Hildebrand promised that a progress report will be presented at the board’s Oct. 18 meeting. This should include a “… description of the measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to adoption of the Urgency Ordinance,” Hildebrand told the board.

A moratorium extension, adoption of amendments to the new ordinance or other actions might be proposed then.

Speaking to this issue, Feingold told the board, “Idyllwild has approximately 400 registered STRs and, at least, 250 more … I think we’re maxed out.”

The Urgency Ordinance 449 also was approved unanimously.