According to County planning data the large majority of “Short Term Rentals” (loosely referred to as AirBnB or vacation rentals) in Mendocino County are on the Coast (including Anderson Valley): 616 out of 650 of the known commercial rentals, or 95% of them. But, ,of course, the County only counts the rentals they know about, the ones paying bed taxes.
On Feb. 3 the Supervisors casually rejected nearly all proposed limits on short term rentals. This effectively clears the way for continued expansion of short-term rentals including those in residential neighborhoods and on private roads.
“I think something we need to recognize is that the incentives for property owners to convert from long-term rentals to short-term rentals are extremely high,” said Patrick Hickey, a local representative of the County’s largest employee union. “You can make a lot more money renting a place through short-term rentals in most jurisdictions than you can with long-term rentals.” And that means the occupants of these rentals are visitors not county residents.
County Planning staff conducted a series of high-profile stakeholder meetings seeking community input before they brought some proposed modest restrictions to the Board of Supervisors, only to have most of them ignored.
Based on that “community input,” planning staff proposed a series of potential limits, including restrictions on corporate ownership, caps in areas with high concentrations of short-term rentals, protections for workforce housing near major employers, prohibitions on private roads which locals have to maintain, and limits in neighborhoods with smaller parcel sizes. These were rejected.
Additional recommendations such as permit terms and enforcement, including 10-year permit lengths, renewals based on complaint and violation history, discretionary reviews for unhosted rentals or properties on private roads, graduated fines, safety requirements, and the creation of a housing offset fund supported by short-term rental revenue were also rejected.
Instead, the Board approved minimal requirements: a “readily accessible” property owner or manager, slightly more “oversight” of rentals on private roads, and a permit withdrawal in the highly unlikely event of three verified code violations in a calendar year.
Supervisor Madeline Cline rejected all proposed limits on short-term rentals and opposed conditioning permit renewals on complaint or violation history. She did support discretionary review of permits for rentals on private roads.
The Supervisors formally rejected limits on the number or location of short-term rentals, a housing offset fund, and any owner-occupancy requirement.
Sonoma County, by the way, prohibits short-term rental ownership by corporations or limited liability companies (LLCs). They also cap the number of vacation rentals in their coastal zones where the pressure for more conversions is greatest.
During public comment local resident Dee Pallesen pointed out that Mendo’s proposed approach would disproportionately benefit a small group. “This is another instance where it benefits a few instead of the many,” she said.
The Supervisors also went ahead with minimal restrictions on “hipcamps,” i.e., small rented campsites, separate from commercial campgrounds, approving a proposal that could legalize up to 900 individual commercial camping areas on up to 100 properties countywide.
Despite significant public input, the Supervisors did not discuss whether the placement of campsites could be optimized to reduce infrastructure costs, minimize wear and tear on county roads, or ensure adequate access to emergency services. Nor did they debate restrictions to reduce wildfire risk, increased insurance premiums for neighbors, potential groundwater contamination, impacts to sensitive habitats, and late-night noise and traffic on rural roads.
Public comment highlighted additional concerns. Ms. Pallesen warned that allowing campsites on private roads with multiple owners and easements could create “a mess of problems.”
Jenny Shattuck of Fort Bragg raised safety concerns, citing limited cell service in rural areas and the possibility that emergency responders might be unable to reach campsites. She also objected to allowing commercial campgrounds outside commercial zones. “If we wanted to live next to a campground or a commercial area, we would have bought or rented there,” Shattuck said. “This is a disservice to residents.”
After some discussion, the board voted to forward the hipcamp proposal — amended to allow up to nine campsites per permit and incorporating minimal state standards — to the Planning Commission for review, bypassing additional board hearings. Supervisors said the goal was to expedite implementation and begin collecting the approximately $75,000 in transient occupancy taxes as soon as possible.
An interested reader pointed out how crazy the short-term rental decision was with data the Supervisors could have easily assembled but ignored:
So far, more than 800 homes have been removed from Mendocino County’s housing stock of around 35,000 detached houses and turned into short term rentals.
Fort Bragg has lost 226 homes. Mendocino: 131. Little River: 69. Caspar: 42. Albion: 100. Elk: 27. Point Arena: 40. Gualala: 109. Ukiah: 69. Willits: 25. Hopland: 25. Westport: 9. Laytonville: 16. Philo: 38. And Boonville: 31.
There are at present 957 active AirBnB listings in Mendocino County. Of those 823 (86%) are entire homes. While only 134 (14%) are private rooms. That means that 823 entire homes have been removed from residential use and sit vacant when not rented. This amounts to profit-driven resource extraction making 823 homes unavailable for teachers, firefighters, nurses, service workers, and washed up hippies on limited incomes. It makes a mockery of Mendocino County’s mantra of “We need more (‘affordable’) housing.”
In addition, an unknown of these rental businesses operate with no permits and pay $0 in bed tax, in a county too lax or understaffed to enforce all their bed taxes. Revenues are thus lost despite the alleged purpose opening the floodgates for more vacation rentals.
Do the math: 957 listings at conservative 50% weekend occupancy translates to about 1,400 additional unfamiliar visitors every weekend, the majority on the Coast with an accompanying increased demand on emergency services. That’s 1,400 people driving roads they don’t know, in properties they’re unfamiliar with, calling emergency services for situations local residents handle themselves. Fire departments and paramedics thus get hit with surge in demand every Friday and Saturday night.
Basically, the County is endorsing a wild west rental economy hoping that minimally regulated commercial rentals will help replace the loss of outlaw marijuana grows.
Rather than responding to the vast majority of County residents, our alleged “leadership” is simply throwing up their hands and giving up on “affordable housing” simply so they can collect the revenue.
Approving a (non-)policy that yanks more than 800 homes from residential use while claiming to “care about the community” or “affordable housing” is an insult to the teachers, nurses, and workers who make this community function.
Mark Scaramella is the Managing Editor of the Anderson Valley Advertiser and a long-time Observer of County operations.
Hence then, the article about another voice supervisors sanction the conversion of hundreds of houses into vacation rentals and open the door for more was published today ( ) and is available on Ukiah Daily Journal ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Another Voice: Supervisors sanction the conversion of hundreds of houses into vacation rentals. And open the door for more )
Also on site :