Vacation rentals – saint or sinner?
Sonoma Valley residents crowded Booker Hall at La Luz Center Monday, sticking colored dots on maps of their neighborhoods – a noise issue here, parking problems there.
Residents delineated their concerns associated with the area’s growing vacation rental market as part of the county’s Permitting and Resource Management Department (PRMD) meeting to review vacation rental ordinances and consider updates. Last fall, at the urging of 1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin, the Board of Supervisors initiated a review of the county’s Vacation Rental Ordinance to examine the effectiveness of the ordinance and its regulations, including neighborhood compatibility, rental management and how to enforce existing provisions.
In the county, vacation rentals are defined as homes and guest homes intended for “permanent occupancy” but rented out for less than 30 days. A vacation rental cannot be an uninhabitable structure, like a barn or garage, and does not include bed and breakfasts or occasional home exchanges that are not subject to the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). Vacation rentals are allowed in most residential and agricultural zoning districts with a permit. They are not allowed on any property under a Williamson Act agricultural preservation contract or on properties zoned for high-density housing. In the City of Sonoma, vacation rentals of less than 30 days have been banned in residential zones since last year. TOT in the county is a 9 percent tax on the rental rate, compared to a 10 percent tax for city TOT. In the city, an additional 2 percent tax is levied for the Tourism Improvement District (TID) that is shared with the Sonoma Valley Visitors Bureau for marketing and promotion.
The meeting focused on vacation rentals in the 1st District – not including the City of Sonoma – and drew concerns from the scores of audience members, some worried about the impact of vacation rentals on the community and others pushing for vacation rentals as a way to make living affordable and exciting.
Pam Mullen, who has lived off of Winter Creek Lane near Carriger Road for nearly 30 years, said, “I’m concerned about the changing character of my neighborhood and I worry about the changing character of Sonoma, which was once marked by slow growth and managed growth, but (is) now out of control.”
Residents opposed to rentals voiced concerns over added traffic, decreased housing stock, loud parties, underage drinking and diminished community investment. Residents in favor of rentals cited affordability, high demand, increased county funding and ensuring their own livelihoods as reasons to keep renting an option.
Farrel Beddome, who also attended the meeting and used to rent a room in her house near Sonoma Cinemas before realizing it violated the rules of her neighborhood’s homeowners association, explained that in this shared economy, the flexibility of and extra income from vacation rentals are “what it takes to live.” She continued, “People are attached to the status quo, but the world has changed a lot, especially with the 2008 recession. Hanging on to the status quo is really hanging on to yesterday’s success and that is not a solution for a viable community.”
Now Beddome rents out her space for periods longer than 30 days to meet her HOA requirements, but says she doesn’t understand how this is much different than shorter periods. “There is more risk associated with (renting the whole house out for 30 days or more) because now the homeowner is not there.”
Beddome said she met “fascinating, wonderful” people while renting and understands concerns about safety and bringing strangers to the neighborhood, but agencies like Airbnb that vet customers and homeowners alike in a careful screening process make her feel more comfortable. Beddome doesn’t want experiences with one vacation rental or one group to create a fear of all vacation rentals or even renting out one room of a house. “There are good and bad people. There are those people who behave badly. It has nothing to do with people who pay a lot for these rentals.”
Joan Geary, who lives down the street from Mullen on Winter Creek Lane, hopes the county bans vacation rentals in the first district – or, at the very least, limits the areas where homeowners can rent. Geary, who has lived in her home for 11 years and enjoys its remote location, said the two rentals on her one-lane street cause disruption to the once tight-knit neighborhood. Winter Creek Lane, she said, is so narrow that cars cannot pass each other, the road floods in the winter, mudslides occur every so often and trees have been known to fall. The steep uphill climb, sharp curves and cliff drop-off make the area especially dangerous to naïve vacationers. “When you have strangers complicating the situation, it is just really dangerous.”