Editor’s note: See the separate and accompanying story with comments from Idyllwild residents or short-term rental (STR) owners during and after the bboard’s meeting.

At its Tuesday, Nov. 28, meeting, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors reviewed another revision of Ordinance 927.2, “Regulating Short Term Rentals” and moved it forward. The board still must vote once again to approve it; this is expected at the Dec. 12 board session. If approved, then it will become effective in 30 days.

Planning staff has been working on this revision since last November, which was when the one-year moratorium on issuing new STR certificates in the Idyllwild area (including Pine Cove) and the Wine Country was approved. The last revision to the STR ordinance was approved in October 2022.

During this period, there have been numerous community meetings — on the Hill and in the Wine Country — about possible changes to the regulation of STRs. The local meetings included Planning Department staff as well as staff from 4th District Supervisor V. Manuel Perez’s office.

At the board meeting, the principal item discussed was how families can pass ownership of a property to their children, spouses and other family members without losing the STR certificate, and where in these two areas this might be limited because of other issues such as density or caps.

Caps and density limits

The board made no changes to the previous proposal on how caps and density would be implemented in the future. In Idyllwild-area neighborhoods, the cap will be 500 STRs available to rent. Since 474 STR certificates have already been approved in Idyllwild and Pine Cove, county staff recommended setting the capacity at 500, which would allow another 26, for 14% of the 3,567 current residential units.

However, some of the new certificates will be granted to current STR owners, who have been paying the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) between September 2021 and September 2022 but who did not have an approved certificate.

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 attrition of existing certified STRs to implement and to enforce the density limit. So STRs adjacent to each other can continue to operate according to the revised ordinance.

Transfer of STR certificates

The primary topic of discussion among the planning staff and the supervisors was the concept of transferring STR certificates among family members without requiring them to apply for a new certificate.

At the Nov. 7 meeting, both 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.

“We created a new provision that does allow transfer to an eligible family member,” said John Hildebrand, planning director, during his presentation of the changes in this draft of 927.2.

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 4 f of the proposed revision.

However, there was some discussion of limiting the approved relations to spouse, children, siblings and stepchildren. This may be reconsidered in the future.

Limits to certificate transfers

Supervisor Chuck Washington (3rd District) proposed exempting the family transfers within the Wine Country Residential District based on his discussions and agreement with residents and STR owners in several community meetings.

Residents wanted significantly fewer STRs in the residential area and owners wanted to limit how that reduction occurred. They agreed to use attrition, the sell or closure of an STR, to reduce capacity in this area.

However, if owners could transfer the properties in this area to other family members, and continue for future generations, attrition would essentially be nil, Washington argued.

“No family member transfer within the residential district [of the Wine Country]; this would eliminate opportunity for attrition,” he stated. “In the Wine Country, be patient. We want to make the neighborhood calm and quiet. We’ll eventually get down to a number that is manageable.”

Jeffries understood his colleague’s position, although he strongly favors the right of families to protect their property.

In the final discussion, the board was willing to grant an exclusion to the transfer of an STR certificate within a family for the Wine Country Residential District.

Just before the board voted on the final changes, Perez spoke up and suggested that this exclusion should also be applied in Idyllwild since there are areas here where multiple STRs exceed the density limit of being at least 150 feet apart. His colleagues agreed.

Multiple STR ownership

On the issue of owning multiple STR units, the planning staff’s redraft allows for current owners with more than two STRs to keep them.

“We will let Code Enforcement do its job,” Hildebrand said about dropping this restriction. “It it’s a bad actor, we’ll let enforcement work.”

Once the ordinance is in effect, in Idyllwild and the Wine Country, STR ownership for those with fewer than two STR certificates will be limited to two per person.

Of the current 476 permits in Idyllwild, 80 people have two STR certificates, 10 have three certificates, two have four and two others have five certificates, according to Hildebrand.

STR rental age

The board also agreed that a “Responsible Guest” must be at least age 21. This is the person who signs the rental agreement and they must acknowledge that they had been given the Good Neighbor brochure. They are responsible for their and their fellow guest’s behavior during a STR stay. If violations occur, they may also be responsible for paying a fine.

In the Wine Country districts, the Responsible Guest must be at least age 25.

Wine Country

The Wine Country districts received significant board attention. Besides the issue of family transfer of permits within the Wine County Residential District, there was discussion of how to treat a community abutting the Wine Country and the Wine Country Winery District cap.

At the Nov. 7 meeting, Washington expressed concern for the residents of an area generally located north of Calle Contento and east of Temecula. During the meeting, board and staff referred to this as the “pocket area.” The neighborhood includes 120 parcels located within the unincorporated area of Riverside County, but not within the Wine Country Community Plan.

The community felt that approval of the revised ordinance would result in many new STRs in its neighborhood. Currently, the moratorium on new STR certificates in Idyllwild and the Wine Country does not apply to the pocket area.

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%.

Speigel agreed that the pocket area should be treated as if it were part of the Wine Country, but its numbers for caps should be independently figured. The approved cap for the pocket area will be 16.

And they also agreed to increasing the cap for the Wine Country Winery District from 114 to 129 certificates, which is the equivalent of 17% of units compared to the original 15%.

TOT

With the decision to impose a cap on the number of STRs within Idyllwild and the Wine Country, two different situations came to the attention of the board and planning staff. Some STR owners who have rented out STRs did not have an 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 and 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, upon being effective, would give these owners 90 days to submit a request for eligibility to the county. They would need to show that they actually had paid the TOT tax through Airbnb and demonstrate that their STR had been rented at least 24 days during the moratorium. These would be reviewed and the eligibility of these properties determined.

Unpaved roads

Approving 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 for possible change in this draft.

“This has been a huge part of the discussion in previous changes,” Hildebrand said. “But it is really complicated. For example, is it a county or private road, the type of pavement, or the length of the road.”

However, planning did not recommend a change for the following reasons: “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.”

Lottery versus Waitlist

When the number of STR permits within an area is less than the cap, then new STR permits may be issued. The county proposes to use a lottery system to award certificates to eligible properties.

Some STR owners expressed a preference for a waitlist system. However, the county noted several potential issues with the use of a waitlist system, such as how is it maintained, when and how new requests are added, and where they are sent.

For these reasons, staff concluded that a lottery system was both easier to maintain and more easily defended in court.

Supervisor Yxstian Gutierrez (5th District) strongly agreed. He mentioned the problems the city of Moreno Valley had with a “waitlist” for cannabis licenses.

“We learned the hard way,” he said. “It’s better to do a lottery.”

County STR staff

During his presentation, Hildebrand introduced two county staff members who will have a major role in STR regulation and enforcement. Cheynne Sanderson is the head of Code Enforcement’s special enforcement team. He will be involved in education, outreach and enforcement.

Katrina Cline be the “STR czar” within the planning department. Her responsibilities include assisting with new registrations, monthly renewal billings and general support. She also will be involved in outreach and future STR orientation workshops, according to Hildebrand.

Other changes countywide

Two other new provisions, which are countywide, address parking restrictions and permit ownership.

The ratio of parking spaces to visitors has been discarded and simply states that parking is limited to the STR site — no off-site parking will be allowed. Also, if an STR certificate is obtained fraudulently, that is grounds for its immediate revocation.

This version of the 927 keep these provisions — signage for an STR must be posted in a place readily visible from the public view and 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.

Vote

Before the vote, Jeffries requested that the planning department return to the bboard in a year with a report on how the revised ordinance has been implemented and worked to address the various constituent concerns.

“I hope [this version] is flexible,” Perez opined. “It will be dynamic and we’ll revisit it. I’m leaning toward supporting what’s in front of us. You might not totally appreciate it, but we’ll agree to disagree and work through it.”

Then with a motion from Washington, the board unanimously (5-0) approved this version of Ordinance 927.2. It will be effective 30 days after final approval, which may be at the Dec. 12 board meeting.