Neighbors at impasse over vacation rentals

The subject of vacation rentals, and their impact on local neighborhoods, continues to trouble the slumber of Sonoma Valley residents.

The subject came to life three ways recently: in a recent discussion to revise the city’s Developmental Code by the Planning Commission; in an appeal to the county by residents to stop a licensed vacation rental house in the Diamond A district from continuing in business; and, just this week, in a hearing of the Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Commission to endorse a Glen Ellen neighborhood’s request to become a Vacation Rental Exclusion zone.

The SVCAC hearing concerned a neighborhood of just over 30 homes on Morningside Mountain Road, Vigilante Road and Oso Trail just south of the Sonoma Developmental Center, in Eldridge. Fifteen of the property owners signed a petition requesting the zoning change, which would prohibit the county from issuing new vacation rental permits. Their request, brought by Barry and Deborah Swain of Morningside Mountain Road, cited the unsafe conditions of the privately-maintained road, fire danger due to the remote locations and the locked gate at the entrance to the development, and their hope to maintain the rural residential character of the area.

But not all residents were receptive to the idea of a permanent, encoded exclusion zone that would prohibit current – and future – owners from using their property as vacation rentals. “Until there is really a problem, it doesn’t make sense to have all 32 people have their deeds affected, and place a restriction on owners for generations,” said Bill Brinton, a Morningside Mountain resident.

In contrast, as Permit and Resource Management Department Planner Liz Posternak pointed out, vacation rental permits expire with the sale or transfer of a deed, one of the terms of the county’s policy worked out over the past several years, and approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2016.

Those regulations also carved out local exceptions – the X Zone, or vacation rental exclusion zone – for those neighborhoods that don’t want to see additional vacation rental permits issued, such as the Sobre Vista neighborhood immediately south of the Morningside-Vigilante area.

Not all commissioners were entirely convinced that an exclusion zone was necessary in the heavily wooded, hillside “neighborhood” of 10-plus acre homes.

“It’s hard for me to see the residential character of these vast estates on Sonoma Mountain,” said committee vice-chair Sean Bellach.

The issue of fire danger was raised at several points, with some saying the local fire departments were capable of responding to emergencies even up the private Morningside Mountain and Vigilante roads, whatever the conditions.

But Susan Costello of Morningside Mountain cited a July incident where the Eldridge Volunteer Fire Department was unable to get through the locked gate at the entrance to the roads (across from Madrone Road on Arnold Drive) for some 15 minutes to respond to reports of smoke on the mountain, apparently unfamiliar with the keyed lockbox that fire responders use.

Though there is no direct correlation between rural fires and vacation rentals, some residents feared the unfamiliarity of visitors to the sensitive environment could increase fire risk. Betty Sherer of Morningside Mountain cited an Index-Tribune report of a May fire at a vacation rental on View Crest Drive in Diamond A, which erupted while vacation renters were using the property.

That property, owned by Kevin McCarthy and David Bui of San Francisco, had been found in violation of vacation rental policy, but they had reapplied and hoped to be recertified by PRMD this year. Immediately following the fire, they said they would continue with the permit process; but according to PRMD planner Derik Michaelson, as of Sept. 9, the applicants have “officially withdrawn their interest in pursuing the matter.”

“There is no longer a valid permit in place for this property,” reported Michaelson. “Moreover, there is no longer a valid vacation rental permit to appeal. The matter is now closed.”

The View Crest owners had been allowed to continue renting while their permit was in application, a situation that troubled their immediate neighbors. But new SVCAC member Shannon Kiser said she believed that PRMD, the county’s Permit and Resource Management Department, was the stop-gap to prevent runaway vacation rentals.

“It is quite a long process to apply for a vacation rental, and they’re not always approved,” said Kiser.

Her comment was at some variance with Posternak’s surprise announcement that a second vacation rental permit had just been approved for the contested area, at 100 Oso Trail – a 3,450-square-foot residence with a two-bedroom guest house, that sold in July 5 of this year for over $5 million. (Among the signatures on Swain’s petition to create the exclusion zone were Robert Heisterberg and Susan Skinner of that address, who apparently signed about a month before the sale went through.)

The other permitted vacation rental property is at 3380 Vigilante Road, a five-bedroom house of over 3,900 square feet that rents for about $1,400 a night through Booking.com. Though there have been no formal complaints filed about vacation renters at the house, some of the neighbors had complained, at least to one another.

The application of a VR-X zone – a decision that ultimately rests with the Board of Supervisors – would allow permitted vacation rental properties to continue in operation. And, as Posternak said several times, applications would still be accepted for VR permits until and if the exclusion zone was applied.

The vote of the SVCAC was 6-4 in favor of the request for an exclusion zone, a split that showed the differences of opinion on the issue. The opinion of City Councilmember Amy Harrington was cited by several pro voters as persuasive: Harrington, as a councilmember, has an advisory but non-voting ex officio seat on the commission.

“We have all kinds of land use rules,” she said in part, to counter the argument that imposing the rules would hinder property rights and possibly decrease value. “The exclusion could actually improve property values… The availability of vacation rentals is destructive to neighborhoods, and protecting residential areas is really critical.”

The City Council will soon confront the issue of Sonoma’s vacation rental policy – they put a freeze on new in-city permits back in October, pending review. At the Sept. 14 Planning Commission meeting, revisions to the Development Code were evaluated, both in terms of new applications and operational regulations.

Those revisions eliminate vacation rental use permits in mixed-use and commercial zones, set occupancy limits and durations for vacation rentals, require a property manager to be on call 24/7, mandate public listing of a business license or Transient Occupancy Tax certificate number in advertisements, impose noise and activity limits during nighttime hours, and require fire and life safety inspections annually.

The revisions will probably come before the City Council for review and a vote in November, according to Planning Director David Goodison.

Contact Christian at christian.kallen@sonomanews.com.