Council to introduce new rules for licenses and permits at future meeting
By Charles M. Kelly
The City Council on July 15 considered the introduction of an ordinance that replaces the part of the Municipal Code that regulates the trasnient rental licensing system.
However, following discussion among city officials and the public, the council directed staff to come back to a future council meeting to approve the introduction. No formal vote was taken.
Highlights of
discussion
The following is not a transcript but highlights from the meeting.
According to City Manager David Maistros, the transient rental licensing system had only been in place from 2020 to 2023. He said for the last two years a moratorium had been in place. (The moratorium expires July 30.)
Maistros said the biggest drawback has been enforcement.
He said the city has expanded the cost and the servies the city has been receiving from hosts.
He said the city went into contracts with hosts for 24/7 monitoring for short term rental units.
“This is going to give us the ability to put some real time monitoring, accpeting real-time complaints by a live body that will then be able to follow up with the on-site manager,” Maistros said.
“I think that is going to be the biggest change that we’re going to have here, because everything that we have on the books and the new things we’ve added we will now be able to enforce” Maistros said.
According to Maistros, the city had a large number of transient rentals that were either grandfathered in or had recieved a conditional use permit that weren’t on the city’s radar because they weren’t actively renting. He said the city identified 95.
“That is essentially 95 little tickign time bombs,” Maistros said.
According to Maistros, there are in total 331 active short term rentals in Avlaon.
“It’s close to 17, 18% off the availalbe housing stock in th ecity, it’s much better than when we were with well over 400,” Maistros said.
He said there are 20 requests for transient rental licenses waiting for when the moratorium ends.
Councilmember Mary Schickling, expressing concern about owners of properties with conditional use permits for short-term rentals, suggested a minimum 180 days for renting a property in order to keep the CUP.
Maistros didn’t disagree, but he suggested increasing the fee would be more effective.
Maistros described the current fee ($54) for a business license as “very nominal”.
City Attorney Scott Campbell said anything above a fee was a tax that would have to be approved by the voters. “So we’re going to come up with a modern fee that covers all the costs, present that to council, and then if it’s the council’s decision to do anything above that, that would be a tax that would go before the voters,” Campbell said.
A woman who did not identify herself came up the to the podium and said she had been asked to speak on behalf of Debbie Wright because Chuck Wright was in the hospital. The woman read from a prepared statement on Debbie Wright’s behalf. Wright expressed concern about over-saturation of vacation rentals. Wright proposed a cap on neighborhood over-saturation, a cap on total number of transient rentals in Avalon, and a cap on total future transient rentals that one owner can have. “You could cap it for future applicants so that one person doesn’t have six rentals,” Wright wrote.
Wright said the actual owners of the properties should be required to appear before the Planning Commission to apply for a transient rental license.
According to City Attorney Campell, Wright’s comments applied to the next item on the agenda, which was a discussion of legislative measures for short term rentals.
Leslie Warner asked what were the consequences of violating the ordinance. She said she did not see that listed in the ordinance.
“And please explain who is a person who holds an active license or permit by a government agency,” Warner asked. “What does that mean?”
She also raised a concern about a three-strike provision in the code. “I believe it should be three strikes shall, not may. No wish-washy. Three strikes, you’re out,” Warner said.
Warner favored a “meet and greet” requirement, but asked how the city would enforce that with lockboxes.
“Please consider banning lockboxes on vacation rentals,” Warner said.
Campbell said the penalty was $100 for the first violation, $200 for the second, and $500 for the third.
Campbell said revocation was not automatic. “You have to have a hearing before the Planning Commission to revoke any entitlement,” Campbell said.
“There are no such things in California as an automatic revocation,” Campbell said.
Kate Rutton said city staff had made a significant effort to evaluate transient rental issues, the proosed modifications to the ordinance were minimal. Rutton said there were no process for the Planning Commission, with updated guidelines, to be able to follow.
“We’ve promised the Planning Commissioon that they will have better guidlines,” Rutton said.
She agreed with Warner that the owner needs to present their own case. Rutton also wanted to know how the city would enforce the meet and greet requirement.
Rutton expressed concern about the impact of transient rental conditional use permits on housing costs.
Bobby Hire. He thanked the council for putting in the effort to get this right. “But we have been on the waiting list for two years and anything we can do to keep this moving forward would be very appreciated,” Hire said.
Mayor Anni Marshall asked him if he had an opinion about lockboxes.
Hire said he didn’t have an issue with not having lock boxes. He said he would prefer to have the managers who are renting out the house be local people to meet the tenants and make sure they treat the the house and the communtiy nicely.
Maistros said the city looked at lock boxes. “There’s many more thangs than lock boxes. There’s automatic door locks, there’s electronic door locks, there’s remote control door locks that can be relased and you’re not going to see a lock box sitting out there,” he said.
“We felt that the more important issue was that the individuals that are renting the property are meeting in person with the on-site property manager,” Maistros said.
According to Maistros, there is a form that has to be signed.
“I just think it’s a little unfair to say the Planning Commission has no direction and has no tools. They do,” Maistros said.
“They have to determine that it’s not detrimental to neighboring property or the neighborhood,” Maistros said.
“They’re not just handed something and rubber stamping,” he said.
Councilmember Mary Schickling said she had seen the staff reports. “They’re very wording and convoluted and ‘therefore’ and ‘heretofore’ and all that kind of fun stuff,” she said.
She asked if theree could be a map showing the existing trasneint rentals so Planning Commission members could see that.
Campbell said there were more than 30 individual conditions that an applicant has to comply with once they are granted the license. He said a violation of those conditions allows the city to revoke the license.
Campell said that in his experience in more than 15 years is that applications are denied when the neighbors come to the hearing and express their disapproval.
“And when that happens, the Planning Commission—I’d say maybe 50/50—they will deny it,” he said.
Councilmember Yesenia De La Rosa wanted to know the response time for complaints.
Maistros said 30 minutes.
Later, he said the renewals don’t come to the Planning Commission.
Maistros said he was not aware of any revocations for violations of the noise ordinance or the littering ordinance.
According to Maistros, it was the city’s intention on an annual basis to have the documentation, the evidence, when the three strikes take place. “We’ll be able to file with the Planning Commission of revocation, go through the due process, send out the notice,” he said. “The applican will come in. We’ll say on these dates this is what happened.”
Councilmember Lisa Lavelle asked if due process had to include a last and final warning.
“We can revoke for any viol.ation of any term of a transient occupancy licnese. Any term,” Campbell said.
“The due process is that you have to give notice as to why and there has to be a haring for that revocation. But we don’t need to wait until there’s three strikes,” Campbell said.
One of the council members said the city needed to make an effort to education the pu blic on how to make a formal complaint.
Councilmember Michael Ponce said: “When people come to me with concerns of things going on or things they’ve seen, I ask them, ‘Send me an email, write it up.’ I cannot do anything unless you write up what happened. I need to have documentation.”
Capt. Matthew King, commander of the Avalon Sheriff’s Station, said it was difficult to generate a report. According to King, most callers who complain don’t want to provide their names and they don’t have a specific address, so deputies respond to a block. They hear music. They knock. Usually, according to King, that’s it. Nine times out of 10, deputies don’t have to call back.
According to King, deputies don’t always find the address.
A member of the public said there had to be consequences.
Councilmember Mary Schickling asked for a change to the code to say a third strike shall resulrt in revocation.
Maistros said that would not look like due proccess. He suggested changing the code to say a third strike “shall start the revocation process” instead.
Schickling proposed more expensive fines for violations.
Campbell said under the Municipal Code the first offense is $100, the second $200. He also said a violation of the code is a misdemanor subject to a $1,000 fine.
Marshall said it would be better if the city just figured out what the maxiumum fine was and leave it at that.
Schickling said the council wanted language that is violation specific to transient license rentals.
Olivia Gazes said the city had too many loose ends. She suggested taking another month.
According to Campbell, if you put a fee in the ordinance and you change the fee, then you have to amend the ordinance, with is two meetings and it goes into affect 90 days later.
Schickling proposed a lifetime ban on those who have their transient rental licenses revoked.
“I don’t know if we can h ave a lifetime ban, but if you want, we can look to see if that’s permissible,” Campbell said.
Councilmember Michael Ponce if the rules would apply to conditional use permits.
Campbell said yes, because it is defined in the ordinance as a “transient rental,” but not a transient rental license.
As for the renewal process, Campbell was concerned that if the renewal had to come before the Planning Commission, the city would have to perform the due process notice to all the neighbors.