Sonoma County Board of Supervisors to weigh vacation rentals, timeshare regulations

“This really provides those rules of the road and tools for Permit Sonoma to enforce to make sure that we don’t have bad apples that are ruining situations,” said Bradley Dunn, a Permit Sonoma policy manager.

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors next week is set to consider a slew of policy changes regulating vacation rentals and timeshares.

On Monday, the board will consider policy revisions that set standards for vacation rental operations, including property management requirements, noise and light restrictions, defensible space standards and outline fines for violations of county rules.

The regulations apply to rentals within the county’s unincorporated areas, where there were about 1,500 rental properties recorded in 2021.

Sonoma County overall has an average of between 2,300 and 2,400 such properties — a number that “is continuously varying,” according to a staff report prepared by Permit Sonoma, the county’s planning and permitting department.

Also on Monday, the board will consider a change to the county’s zoning code, which sets standards for timeshares, or fractional-use ownership properties.

Vacation rentals and timeshares have long been a point of contention.

Residents and neighbors of rental properties have repeatedly called for more restrictions on short-term rentals, citing concerns about noise, safety and arguing that they exacerbate the county’s housing crisis.

Those in the industry, however, have opposed restrictive measures, arguing they would strain property owners and their businesses.

Here’s a closer look at what’s on the table:

Implementing vacation

The board approved a sweeping set of changes in August 2022 that widened areas where rentals are prohibited, established caps on rentals in other areas and introduced a new vacation rental license program to standardize requirements for all vacation rental permit holders outside cities.

At that time, the board also requested additional changes for staff to analyze, leading to Monday’s discussion.

The proposed updates returning before the board include:

• The ability to block a property owner from obtaining a rental license for up to five years — an increase over two years — after it’s been revoked.

• The addition of escalating fines for violations that start at $1,500 for the first violation and increases to $5,000 for a third violation within one year.

• No longer including a requirement that property managers live within a certain distance of a rental property.

• Requiring vacation rentals maintain defensible space.

• Blocking licenses for single-dwelling households with a junior accessory dwelling unit, which are located within an existing single-family home, according to Permit Sonoma.

“This really provides those rules of the road and tools for Permit Sonoma to enforce to make sure that we don’t have bad apples that are ruining situations,” said Bradley Dunn, a policy manager with Permit Sonoma.

The changes would also apply to vacation rentals in the coastal zone, pending approval from the California Coastal Commission, Dunn said.

The board will also be asked Monday to approve zoning amendments that either limit or block vacation rentals in specific neighborhoods within the county’s 1st, 4th and 5th districts.

Regulating timeshares

On April 6, the county’s Planning Commission voted to recommend updates to the zoning code regulating short-term property uses, including agricultural farm stays, bed and breakfasts, resorts, hosted rentals, vacation rentals, and timeshares.

The update will define short-term use of fractionally owned residential property as a timeshare use, and will restrict where those properties can be located within county-governed areas.

It is now coming before the board.

During the commission’s April meeting, many residents spoke in support of the changes.

“I think your vote would have a precedential effect for our problems in Healdsburg,” Janice Watkins, a Healdsburg resident, told the commission April 6. “We like tourism but it has to be a balance and it’s reaching a tipping point.”

Several residents who spoke in support of the update referenced a company called Pacaso — a “fractional homeownership” startup that has riled some local neighborhoods — as an example of why the regulations are needed.

Their concerns echoed those raised by neighbors of vacation rentals, as they described noise and safety issues, as well as concerns about the impact on available housing stock for those looking for a full-time home.

Founded in October 2020, Pacaso purchases single-family homes under limited liability companies and allows up to eight buyers to take partial ownership in the properties to use as shared vacation homes.

Several Pacaso employees also attended the meeting to voice their experiences and share letters from clients. They said the company does not sell timeshares but makes second-home ownership more accessible. The client letters also stressed that Pacaso allows them to contribute to the economy by supporting local businesses when they are in town.

“Owning a Pacaso home allows us to support the community in ways we could not do (otherwise),” said Nicholas Best, a Pacaso home manager, while reading a letter from a client.

You can reach Staff Writer Emma Murphy at 707-521-5228 or emma.murphy@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @MurphReports.