Supervisors take another gander at STR ordinance

Tuesday, Nov. 28, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors reviewed another revision of Ordinance 927.2, “Regulating Short Term Rentals” (STRs). The board held a hearing on the initial proposed changes Nov. 7. After the hearing and discussion among the supervisors, they asked staff to consider several more changes and bring the new revision back to the board.

Many of the new changes would affect either Idyllwild (including Pine Cove) or the Wine Country or both.

This draft makes no changes in the language for caps or density of STRs in Idyllwild. The cap would remain 14% of the current 3,567 residential units. When approved, Ordinance 927.2 will allow up to 500 STRs in Idyllwild and Pine Cove.

And the density restrictions remain 150 feet between STRs.

When the proposed changes are approved, certified STRs within 150 feet of another properly certified STR may continue to renew their certificate. The county will use the attrition of existing certified STRs to enforce the density limit. So STRs that may be adjacent to each other can continue to operate according to the revised ordinance.

Changes in ownership of existing STRs certificates and the eligibility of STRs without a certificate, but which may have been paying the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), are discussed below.

Ownership and transfer of certificates

The limitation of only two STR certificates per person was the first issue that evoked questions and concerns from board members. Also, the transfer of ownership and the accompanying county certificate within a family raised more concerns. Currently, there are no limitations on the number of STRs a person may own.

Board Chair Kevin Jeffries (1st District) and Supervisor Karen Spiegel (2nd District) were concerned about this limitation and, in particular, how a family with more than two STRs could shift the ownership among family members.

The previous draft of 927.2 limited ownership to no more than two certificates in Idyllwild and no more than two in the Wine Country. If the ordinance were passed with this language, existing owners with three or more STRs in either area would have been exempt for three years. After that time, any request for renewal of an STR certificate must comply with this limitation.

However, Jeffries was concerned about how it would affect families with multiple STRs and local businesses, especially if a family wanted to transfer ownership to another family member. The reason is that the STR certificate does not transfer with property ownership. For example, if a couple owned STRs, one died and the estate passed the property to their child or children, the new owners would have to apply for a new STR certificate.

“I’m not interested in penalizing these owners if they’ve been in compliance and been a good neighbor,” Jeffries said during the discussion earlier this month. “What does it matter if they own four or five?”

The revised STR ordinance allows the transfer of an STR certificate among family members if two conditions are met. Once a property is transferred, a request to transfer the STR certificate must be made within 180 days. Secondly, the new owner will have to “demonstrate” their family relationship.

The tentatively approved relations are “spouse, domestic partner, child, stepchild, grandchild, parent, stepparent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, grandparent, great grandparent, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, stepsibling, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or first cousin (child of aunt or uncle),” according to Section 4f of the proposed revision.

Regarding the total number of STR ownerships, the county will now permit STR operators with more than two STR certificates to keep them without relinquishing any.

However, no new STR certificates will be issued to this owner and future new STR owners in Idyllwild or the Wine Country will be limited to two certificates.

In its recommendations to the board, the county identified the number of multiple STR owners in Idyllwild and the Wine County. Locally, 80 people have two STR certificates, 10 have three certificates, and two people have four and two others have five certificates.

Transient Occupancy Tax

Two different situations came to the attention of the board and planning staff. Some STR owners who have rented out STRs did not have a STR certificate; but they did register with the county’s treasurer-tax collector and paid the TOT for a minimum of one year. The initial changes to 927.2 addressed this issue, how the owners could be recognized and how these properties would affect the proposed cap.

The second situation was a group of STR owners who rented their property through Airbnb, which paid the TOT. However, Airbnb made a single tax payment for all of these STRs. And its privacy rules prevent identifying individual owners.

The new revision would give these owners a period to submit a request for eligibility to the county with information such as account details, payment receipts and operating timeframes. These would be reviewed, and the eligibility of these properties determined.

However, the planning staff advised that the number of potential eligible units is unknown and therefore, its effect on the cap limits is unknown. Consequently, they recommended limiting the number of potential new STR units from this group to 10, until more specific data is known.

Unpaved roads

The approval of an STR on an unpaved road has been of particular concern to many Idyllwild residents. The board did hear this distress and asked the staff to reassess its occurrence.

However, staff did not recommend a change. Their reason was “we collectively concluded that due to all various roadway conditions from County vs. privately owned, maintenance responsibilities, and road types, such as concrete, asphalt, decomposed granite, or compacted dirt, it was problematic implementing a specific restriction and applying it consistently and equitably. Furthermore, we are characterizing STRs as a residential use and therefore they should be allowed wherever a residence has been permitted.”

STR czar

At the last meeting, Supervisor V. Manuel Perez (4th District) recommended that there be an STR czar for the county. This person would be the focal point for all STR issues, whether from certificate applicants, owners or neighbors.

In their report, the planning staff indicated that it already has a dedicated employee for these issues. Further, there is a toll-free 24/7 Code Enforcement call center, which can be reached at 951-955-2004.

The STR owner will be notified and a Code Enforcement officer will visit the site and evaluate the request. The officer has the authority to issue either an administrative citation or a Notice of Violation.

Changes continued in the current draft

Planning staff identified several changes from the current STR ordinance, but which were already included in the initial 927.2 draft. One is that the signage for an STR must be posted in a place that is readily visible from the public view.

Responsible guests must acknowledge that they have read the “Good Neighbor” brochure and seen the video.

Fines for STR violations may also be imposed on the “Responsible Operator” or “Responsible Guest” as well as the STR owner, pursuant to section 14.e.

Wine Country

Supervisor Chuck Washington (3rd District) expressed concern for the residents of an area generally located north of Calle Contento and east of Temecula. This neighborhood includes 120 parcels located within the unincorporated area of Riverside County, but not within the Wine Country Community Plan.

They felt that approval of the revised ordinance would result in more STRs in their neighborhood. According to the county, this area includes 120 parcels, of which 35 are vacant and 85 have a residential structure. Currently, there are already 16 permitted STRs, which is 19%.

Since the area is not within the Wine Country Community Plan, the planning staff recommended that the revised ordinance specifically list the parcel number of these properties. That is now section 4.gg. They also recommended increasing the cap for the Wine Countryvresidential area by 16 to accommodate existing certificates in this area.

And they also agreed to increasing the cap for the Wine Country winery area from 114, 15%, to 129 certificates, or 17%.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

At the conclusion of the report, the staff explained why CEQA does not apply to Ordinance No. 927.2 and Ordinance No. 927.2 is exempt from CEQA.

The principal reason is that no new construction is proposed in the ordinance. It is merely the procedure for regulating STRs. There are no new buildings, or county improvements authorized in the ordinance.

Similar Posts