24/08/2024
Another post regarding Short Term Rental in Big Sur. Very well worth reading.
Below is a letter from The Big Sur LCP Defense Committee:
>>>>>>
Dear Chair Church and Members of the Board of Supervisors:
On behalf of this firm’s client, the Big Sur Local Coastal Program Defense Committee (“BSDC”), I write to provide comments on Item Number 13 on the Board of Supervisors Agenda, related to consideration of Monterey County’s Vacation Rental (aka Short-Term Rental) Ordinances (“STR Ordinances”). The BSDC is a group of residents and business owners concerned for the preservation of the cultural and natural values of Big Sur and the land use plan that protects them for the public to enjoy. As you may know, the BSDC has been carefully tracking the County’s consideration of the STR Ordinances, especially in the Big Sur Land Use Planning Area.
The BSDC appreciates the effort made by County Staff to respond to the unique conditions in Big Sur in the development of the STR Ordinances and the FEIR. For instance, the EIR rightfully concludes that “Big Sur has unique housing, transportation, and environmental constraints,” which support the proposal to “prohibit commercial vacation rentals in Big Sur.” (DEIR at 4.7-9). The DEIR also correctly recognizes the severe impact of “seasonal, recreational, or occasional-use housing units” on residential vacancy rates and housing prices in areas like Big Sur. (DEIR at 3-9). The California Coastal Commission received an Informational Briefing on Housing, where expert witnesses provided concrete data echoing these concerns.
We note that the Coastal Commission staff has previously provided comments noting the “higher residential vacancy rates compared to other planning areas” in Big Sur, and questioning whether these higher vacancy rates suggest that Commercial Vacation Rentals should be permitted. FEIR at 3-13. We appreciate the County’s thoughtful response on this issue (FEIR at 3-7). We additionally note that the current vacancy rates have been greatly influenced by the County’s current lack of enforcement against short-term rentals and other special uses, with significant impacts on housing availability (especially for workers in Big Sur’s tourism industry) and other resources. Rather than supporting an expansion of Commercial Vacation Rentals in the Big Sur Land Use Plan Area, these vacancy rates help explain the need for a strong STR Ordinance and County enforcement. The BSDC greatly appreciates the continued recommendation to limit vacation rentals in the Big Sur Land Use Planning Area.
As such, the BSDC is generally supportive of the concept of Limited Vacation Rentals (“LVRs”) proposed for Big Sur in the draft ordinance. We appreciate the County’s thoughtful response to the Coastal Commission’s request for additional information, and agree that the County has found an appropriate balance between “reasonable interests in serving visitors and the desire to address the sensitivities upon which vacation rental ordinance was developed: preserving neighborhoods, addressing potential nuisances, ensuring reasonable long-term housing opportunities, and other important community values.” FEIR at 3-14. The Coastal Commission has recently recognized the importance of addressing these concerns in the consideration of short-term rental ordinances, particularly with respect to housing affordability.
The BSDC’s general support, however, is conditioned on the County being able to implement thorough and effective enforcement mechanisms to ensure that these standards are actually complied with. The DEIR assumes that adoption of the STR Ordinances will result in a decrease of 37 residential units available for commercial vacation rentals in the Big Sur area. DEIR at 2-9. But this reduction—which is warranted for the housing, transportation, and environmental constraints cited by the County in the EIR—will only occur if the County develops and funds appropriate enforcement mechanisms.
The BSDC appreciates the additional enforcement recommendations provided by staff to both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The hiring of additional staff, the stricter fines and enforcement options, the use of hosting platform regulations, and the use of a required permit system for all operations all should significantly improve the enforceability of the proposed ordinance. We urge the Board of Supervisors to fully adopt the staff recommendations, especially when it comes to the hiring of County enforcement staff. The hard work put into the Ordinance will be of limited import if the County continues its lax enforcement efforts.
We know that many jurisdiction are concerned about the cost of enforcement activities. However, as the staff materials carefully outline, the cost of enforcement is far below the projected revenue expected from vacation rentals. The City of Santa Barbara serves as a helpful example. There, a carefully crafted enforcement effort has resulted in the removal of 40 unpermitted rentals and the collection of nearly $600,000, at a cost below $100,000. We urge County staff to outreach to the City of Santa Barbara to learn from their success.
As we noted in previous correspondence, the BSDC has been concerned about the significant lag time that could result from the implementation plan discussed in the vacation rental ordinance and staff report. As previously proposed, it could have been almost four years until the County would be actively ensuring that current commercial operators in Big Sur cease operations. The BSDC appreciates the Planning Commission’s direction to shorten the time for enforcement, and urges the Board of Directors to adopt the proposed language requiring compliance within two months of the ordinance’s effective date.
Nevertheless, the BSDC continues to request two modifications to ensure that the 37 units currently operating illegally in Big Sur are brought into swift compliance. While the BSDC appreciate the intent of the proposed redlines to reduce the amortization program found in proposed Section 20.64.290(F), this program should not apply at all in in Big Sur. The phase-out language only contemplates the scenario where an owner or operator needs time to bring an existing operation through the discretionary permitting process. Because Commercial Vacation Rentals will not be allowed in Big Sur, no time is necessary for them to come “into compliance” with such regulations. Commercial Vacation Rental use should immediately cease once the Coastal Commission acts.
Second, the Code Compliance implementation described in the Staff Report should include immediate action to shut down Commercial Vacation Rentals in Big Sur in Phase 1. Because Commercial Vacation rentals will not be permitted, and because of the long lead time associated with this ordinance, the County should immediately pursue enforcement actions against the operators of Commercial Vacation Rentals in Big Sur, rather than giving additional time for “education and outreach.”
Finally, the County has now concluded that LVRs need not comply with the Visitor Serving Unit caps found in the Big Sur Land Use Plan. FEIR at 3-82. Specifically, the County concludes that “Limited vacation rentals do not need to comply with the visitor serving unit caps found in the Big Sur Land Use Plan [because they] are defined in a manner to be similar in character, density, and intensity to residential uses and are not anticipated to remove long-term housing from the market and therefore are allowed uses.” However, under the Land Use Plan, the VSU caps are mandatory for all overnight visitor serving uses. See Big Sur LUP, Table 1; see also Big Sur Coastal Implementation Plan § 20.145.140(B)(1)(c)(5). They are intended to prevent strain on limited infrastructure, including Highway One and other public access areas. LVRs will likely be used most frequently at peak periods, such as holidays, when such infrastructure is already overburdened. Consequently, application of the VSU caps is necessary to ensure that LVRs do not contribute to this issue.
Thank you for your time and attention on this important matter.
