FIrst phase of El Dorado County VHR ordinance closer to approval

Weather has not be the best friend of those wanting to get a revised vacation home rental (VHR) ordinance for El Dorado County. Snow and unsafe travel conditions for staff driving to South Lake Tahoe from Placerville for the meetings lead to the cancellation of the March 3 and March 24 meetings, and the original February 1 meeting had to be stopped due to overcrowding. The next Board of Supervisors meeting on VHRs will be in South Lake Tahoe on May 2 at 6:00 p.m. in the South Tahoe Middle School multi-purpose room.

In the meantime the county's VHR ad hoc committee has been holding meetings and held one of those in Meyers on Thursday, April 12. The committee is led by Supervisors Mike Ranalli and Sue Novasel.

About 40 people showed up to share their opinions, not only vocally but in writing. They were asked to post their pros and cons on several enforcement and policy issues. This information will be used along with those who fill out a "survey monkey" poll and presented at a later date. Residents, home owners and property managers can still complete the survey: surveymonkey.com/r/JNYZ5B3

Since November, the number of permitted VHRs in the county has gone from 727, with 29 in process, to the current 822 permitted homes with 18 requests in process.

"We have been let down," said resident Lydia Rogers over the fact that the Supervisors wouldn't put in a moratorium on permits as the ordinance was figured out.

Staff did a comparison of the county with 17 other counties and cities with VHRs including Palm Springs, Napa, Marin County, San Luis Obispo, Placer and South Lake Tahoe. What was obvious to staff is there is no "one size fits all" answer to an ordinance. Some of those areas prohibit VHRs, some have no rules, while the rest are at different points in between.

Of the 17, 12 didn't regulate vacation rentals, two banned them and three had a permit process. For quiet hours, 10 had no regulations, six had quiet hours and one didn't allow amplified sound. Concerning the occupancy levels, seven had no limit, nine had some limits based on size and parking spaces, and one had maximum occupancy levels.

The eight points developed through public guidance and input for the first phase of the ordinance will be presented to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) on May 2. They can then approve the concepts and direct staff to develop an ordinance that could come back before them for a first reading vote as early as May 22.

There will be no ordinance that can satisfy all residents, but the goal of the ad hoc committee is to get one that can work for everyone.

"Our County has to retrofit the way we handle enforcement," said Ranalli.

Novasel agreed, "Enforcement is moving from tax collector to code enforcement (through the CAO's office." This is one portion of the conceptual direction already agreed upon by the BOS.

The other points for conceptual approval during the May 2 meeting in SLT:

Permitting process - Pre-permit inspections for safety and compliance with permit requirements. Analysis of permitting process to determine appropriate County
department to house the function. The committee is still studying notification of neighbors during the permit process, cost recovery for permits and permit fee structure and amounts.

Violations and penalties - Eliminate the first violation being a warning. Increase penalties to $500, $1,000, $1,500 for first, second, third violation, possible revocation upon 3rd incident resulting in a violation within 18-month period. The committee is studying permanent permit revocation after specified number of violations/incidents, an assessment of penalties against owner and occupant, the penalty structure and amounts, and a possible neighbor approval for permit
reinstatement after suspension or revocation.

Occupancy - Cap on occupants at total allowed by permit between hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. Committee's future tasks are a discussion on a cap on occupants at any time of day, and change the method for determining maximum occupancy.

Signage - Require exterior signage that includes 24-hour local contact information, VHR permit number, County contact information. The committee will look at additional information to be required on signage: occupancy, number of cars allowed, etc., and downloadable templates for signage for owner use.

Trash - Refer to County Health and Safety ordinance for all requirements. Size of bear boxes on homes that aren't new construction will be evaluated.

Noise - Maximum occupancy between 10 p.m and 8 a.m. The committee will look at a requirement for installation of noise monitoring devices, further limit occupancy at other times of day and extending “quiet hours.”

Ken Curtzwiler of Meyers read to the committee and staff his ideas for an ordinance during the meeting Thursday: Raise Tourist Occupancy Tax (TOT) by three percent and dedicate it to law enforcement, limit occupants to two per bedroom, one car per four occupants, no outside noise from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m., new construction can only be a VHR after two years to prevent "McMansions," local managed homes only, trash in bear boxes only. He said we need to change the culture of guests - we treat them like guests and they will act like guests.

A few residents at the meeting told the committee that they have had people staying in the VHRs with too much trash walk over to their homes and put that trash into their bear boxes.

Another resident suggested a Vacation Home Rental Association that those with homes must join, and where they police themselves.

Besides the May 2 BOS meeting there are four more schedules ad hoc committee meetings - April 23 at 5:30 p.m. in the BOS chambers in Placerville that will address West Slope concerns; May 9 at 5:30 p.m. on the East Slope (location to be determined) that will address parking and traffic from VHRs; June 11 at the BOS chambers and July 26 on the East Slope.