Property owners object to changing from permits
to licenses to OK transient rentals
The City Council on Nov. 10 approved the introduction of a new transient rental ordinance that replaces the required conditional use permits with business licenses. If approved at a second reading (in December), the permits to operate short- term rentals would no longer run with the property in the city of Avalon. Instead, owners of short-term rental properties will need to have a license from the city. Current owners would keep their CUPs until the second time the property is sold.
The vote was 3 to 1, with Councilmember Michael Ponce casting the dissenting vote. Councilmember Yesenia De La Rosa was absent.
“We’re trying to fix something that actually works,” Ponce said after the public hearing on the issue.
In a Nov. 11 email, Mayor Anni Marshall wrote, “After two years I am happy to see a compromise with the council and planning commission. As I stated it is usually those who are against that are the most vocal. We have been and will continue to be transparent and take all comments seriously.”
Some owners of transient rental properties have objected to the potential change.
City Manager Denise Radde said the city had received eight messages requesting to delay the matter and to keep the current CUP system.
Marshall rejected a suggestion that the issue be sent back to the Planning Commission.
“We’ve been discussing this for years,” Marshall said.
The Planning Commission has held a series of discussions about changing the city’s rules for transient rental properties for years. According to the staff report—prepared by Administrative Analyst Devin Hart and Assistant City Manager and Acting Planning Director Michael Parmer—Avalon transient rental rules have been authorized by conditional use permits. Under the city’s Zoning Code, CUPs run with the land—that is, once issued for a property, the permits stay with the property no matter who owns it.
During Tuesday’s meeting, Parmer explained that under the new rules the conditional use permit would stay with the property until it is sold twice. The license would have to be renewed annually. The Planning Commission would continue to hold public hearings to approve applications for now. In two years, the commission would review the process.
The proposed new ordinance changes the system from permits to licenses, which would have to be renewed annually, according to the Parmer and Hart report.
“Existing CUPs for transient rentals would remain valid until the second sale of the property to which they are tied (the amortization period),” according to the report.
“Upon the second sale, the buyer would have the ability to apply for a Transient Rental License as outlined in the revised ordinance,” according to the report.
“Transfer of the transient rental license through family trust or through certain direct family members is permitted, and would be treated as the first of two “sales” for the purposes of the amortization period,” according to the report.
During the meeting City Attorney Scott Campbell said that if you grant your property to a child, that would constitute a first “sale” under the new rules. Campbell said licenses could be transferred once to a member of your family.
Public comments
Susan and William Scheding were among the individuals who spoke against the proposed changes in person in the council chambers. The Schedings live off-Island.
William Scheding questioned whether the council could change the fact that the transient rental approval would run with the land.
“If you kill the transient rentals, where are the tourists going to go?” he asked.
William Scheding was concerned about the impact of putting the property in a trust.
Campbell said the ordinance allows a property to be placed in a trust. He later said that if the property remains in a family trust, it is not a sale.
William Scheding was not sure the ordinance was clear. He also said he believed the most recent Planning Commission meeting may have violated the Brown Act (the state’s public meeting law). He described technological problems that interfered with the public’s ability to make public comment during the virtual
Campbell said the purpose of the change was to balance the need to be tourist-friendly and preserving local housing.
Susan Scheding said a lot of the problems with housing and money Avalon was facing were the same problems being faced by cities everywhere. She suggested a non-voting representative of transient rental owners on the council or Planning Commission. She also said Tuesday, Nov. 10, was the first time she saw the proposal in its entirety.
Members of the public also emailed comments to the council prior to the agenda package being posted on the city website. Their written comments, public record, were added to the agenda package.
Susan Anderson objected to the proposal in its current form. She wrote that she and her husband would not have been able to buy their house if they had not been able to rent it on a transient basis.
“I can understand making a possible change going forward but the CUP’s in existence should be grandfathered,” Anderson wrote.
Louis Kridle argued that sales within families should not be counted among the sales of a transient rental property.
Council comments
Cassidy said someone told her that there is a premium that comes with owning transient rental properties.
Marshall said the city was not taking properties away.
Ponce said he believes that conditional use permits work. “But we need to enforce the rules that we’ve got,” he said.
Councilmember Lisa Levelle said that to her mind, everyone who tried to resolve the issue found this proposal to be equitable.
