Vacation rentals are incompatible with residential neighborhoods.•

of our single-family neighborhoods.

The existing Ordinance allows clustering of VRs, which affects the residential character•

Revisions to the Ordinance should take steps to reduce the density of VRs.•

in effect granting existing VRs a monopoly.

The existing Ordinance allows existing VRs to continue as vacation rentals indefinitely,•

Department is totally inadequate. Among other concerns, the Ordinance’s standards

governing noise, overcrowding, parking, and back-to-back rentals are not adequately

enforced.

The attached draft amendments address each of these concerns. The most significant proposed

changes are:

Enforcement of the Ordinance by the County’s Code Enforcement Unit and the Sheriff’s•

operate as VRs for three years, at which time their VR status would expire. However, the

VR could reapply for VR status 90 days later. This would give others in the area the

opportunity to seek VR status and should eventually reduce clustering. (Subd. b(1).)

Consistent with our understanding of County policy, existing VRs would not be subject to

this proposed limitation or the spacing limitation discussed in the next bullet.

Vacation rentals that are approved after the amendments take effect would be able toDraft

•

The distance would be measured from the point on the parcel containing the existing VR

that is closest to the parcel containing the proposed VR. This also would help reduce

clustering and density. (Subd. c(1).)

A new VR could not be located within 200 feet of a parcel that contains an existing VR.•

for which the departing tenant paid rent. This is designed to clarify and strengthen the

D R A F T

existing prohibition against re-renting within seven-days, and prevent back-to-back

rentals. (Subd. d.)

A VR could not be re-rented for a period of seven consecutive days following the last day•

ordinance with specific language adapted from the City of San Luis Municipal Code.

The County’s noise ordinance is quite technical and has been virtually unenforceable.

(Subd. j(1).)

To better address noise issues, the draft would replace reference to the County’s noise•

exterior stating the name and telephone number of the local contact person. The draft

also would strengthen the requirements for notifying neighbors regarding the local

contact person and enforcement authorities, and for the local contact person’s response to

complaints. (Subds. g., k. and n(3).)

The draft would retain the County’s proposal to require an 8×12 sign on each VR’s•

Enforcement Unit to initiate investigations based on citizen complaints submitted under

penalty of perjury, and would require the Planning Department to develop such a form

and post it on the Department’s Web site. It would also create a system under which the

Director of the Department could cite and fine owners and operators of VRs who violate

the Ordinance. This would create a more flexible and streamlined enforcement procedure

than the existing procedures for revoking VR status. (Subds. n(1),(2).) The citation and

fine proposal is adapted from California Business and Profession Code section 125.9,

which is used by many State licensing agencies to address violations that are not serious

enough to warrant revocation of a license.

The draft seeks to improve enforcement in two ways. It would authorize the Code•

The Land Use Committee feels that these proposals are balanced and treat the interests of the

community and vacation rental owners fairly and equitably. We invite the Council’s discussion

and hope that the Council will approve submitting the proposed amendments to the Planning

Department. We also suggest that the proposed amendments be forwarded to the Advisory

Other proposed changes.[2]

Draft

Councils in Cayucos, Los Osos and Avila Beach for their consideration as they review the

County’s

Ordinance.)

Public Review Draft. (These communities have requested to be covered by the revised[3]