Avalon will not issue new licenses for 45 days (as of Aug. 1)
The Avalon City Council on Aug. 1 unanimously approved a moratorium on issuing new vacation rental licenses. This was an urgency ordinance, which means in went into effect immediately.
Property owners who have already put in applications will be allowed to continue with the process for getting licenses for their proposed vacation rentals.
In California, an urgency ordinance requires a minimum of four votes to pass. This ordinance recieved five votes.
During the meeting, Mayor Anni Marshall asked for a show of hands from oppoents of the proposed moratorium.
The camera was focused on the council members, but apparently no one in the audience raised their hands. Two residents spoke out in favor of the moratorium.
According to City Attorney Scott Campbell, staff will have to come back to the council in 45 days (as of this past Tuesday) with a report.
Campbell said the staff report would indicate what had been done and a recomendation to extend the moratorium.
“You can’t just pass a moratorium and do nothing for 45 days and then extend it for 10-andf-a half months,” Campbell said.
He was referring to the time period set by law for extending an urgency ordinance.
According to Cambell, the moratirum could be extended for up to two years.
Background
The city has been wrestling with issues surrounding short term rentals, also known as vacation and transient rentals, for years. Avalon used to issue conditional use permits that allowed property onwers to offer vacation rentals. The city switched licensing vacatioin rentals.
“The City of Avalon Municipal Code AMC”) allows for the issuance of a Transient Rental License (“TRL”) for transient rental uses (AMC § 3-1309),” wrote Campbell in the staff report.
According to his report, Avalon is trying to balance the need of property owners to make money and the strain on the supply of housing in town.
According to Campbell’s report, Avalon has recieved complaints about noise, traffic, and public safety issues from vacation rentals.
“The proposed moratorium will not prevent those who have already been issued a TRL or CUP from continuing to operate transient rentals under those entitlements,” Campbell wrote.
Councilmember Mary Schickling said three transient rental licenses were already pending. She said staff recommended allowing the applications to go ahead. Schickling said she didn’t want them to go ahead.
Councilmember Michael Ponce said they would still hae to go through the Planning Commission.
“Not, not to say anything bad about the commissioners, but they tend to vote yes a lot,” Schickling said.
“And I put that in there just as protection for the city for people that have relied upon the existing regulations,” said Campbell.
Campbell said that was to pretect the city form a legal challenge. He said an applicant could argue that it is not fair to change the rules in mid-proccess.
Schickling said the timing sucked.
According to Ponce, not allowing the three applications to go through the process would open the city to a lawsuit they might win.
“I would rather put a hold on everything coming after those three,” Ponce said.
City Manager David Maistros said in talking with council, it did not seem worth the risk of inviting litigation of three possible approvals versus what the city was trying to accomplish with the moratorium.
“In the long run, we want to preserve as much of hour housing stock as we can,” Ponce said.
“I get ya,” Schickling said.
She said she just want to voice her concern.
“The Planning Commission could ask more questins, right?” she asked.
According to Maistros, planners can ask questions but they cannot prohibit someone with one vacation rental license from getting another vacation rental license because that is not a current restriction.
(This issue is not unique to Avalon. Seal Beach, in response to recent court rulings that say cities cannot ban vacation rentals, has has imposed a limit on new vacation rental permits.)
“There’s no ordinance yet that says that’s the case,” said Councilmember Lisa Lavelle.
Schickling said there was a lot in the city code that gives the Planning Commission a lot of power to deny applicaitons.
Councilmember Yesenia De La Rosa asked if the council could ask the Planning Commission to come to the council like a department.
City Attorney Campbell said it would have to be a joint meeting.
“It’s not like a paid staff person,” Marshall said.
Maistros said staff anticipated asking the Planning Commission to make some recomendations to the council.
Schickling asked if members of the public could comment remotely at the Planning Commission meeting.
Maistros said that option was not extended last year.
Campbell said it would be legal if the Planning Commisison wanted to accept comment by phone or email.
Resident Kathleen Carlisle said she agreed that it would be good to step back and form a committee. She said there needed to be a balance between property owners’ rights and the impact of vacation rentals on the community.
Another member of the public raised the question of how “saturation” of vacation rentals was defined.
Marshall said saturation was not on the agenda. She said that issue and other issues would be looked at.
City Attorney Campbell confirmed that there is no definition of “saturation” in the Municipal Code.
“It starts with this,” Ponce said.
Schickling asked if the moratorium passed, what would be next. Schickling said she would like to see a steering committee formed made up of a council member, a planning commissioner, possibly a law enforcement representative, a resident, a property owner and a business owner.
Ponce said that was something the council could set up after they passsed the moratorium.
Campbell said to create a committee, you wold need an agenda item and discuss it att a council meeting.
Ponce said the council had to be careful about how they select the committee.
The council members voted one by one. The ordinance passed.
