---

Supports “X” zones prohibiting new vacation rentals

Dear Editor,
The following letter has been sent to the Sonoma County Planning Commission:

16 April 2016

Sonoma County Planning Commission
c/o Jane Riley, AICP
Permit and Resource Management Department
2550 Ventura Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

RE: Input on the Proposed Vacation Rental Exclusion (X) Combining Zone

Dear Sonoma County Planning Commissioners:

As I said in my testimony (4/14/16), I fully support Supervisor Susan Gorin’s request to take the only step remaining for the protection of our remaining housing stock by adding the “Vacation Rental Exclusion (X) Combining Zone to certain communities and areas (expecting these areas to include all of Glen Ellen, Kenwood, the Springs, and any other unincorporated community neighborhood developed and intended for residential, not commercial, use).

With enactment of the Sonoma County Vacation Rental Program, life in Sonoma County has changed dramatically. Gone are the once-peaceful, small, rural communities, compromising the well-being, health, and safety of area residents for less than noble reasons. Lobbyists and their members/clients have mobilized in this effort, filling hearing rooms, greasing political wheels, and have thus far succeeded in their drive to displace residents for profit. One realtor, in her testimony this week, told residents present in the hearing room to get real because change is here and white, 60-year old women weren’t going to live here for much longer! And this is going on in the midst of a significant, nationwide housing crisis!

In contrast, last night I received word from my counterpart in Los Angeles. Their city Planning Department has released a proposed Home-Sharing Ordinance (see attached), which, if enacted, will restore properties now in use as vacation rental commercial enterprises to their intended use – as homes built for residential occupancy. Their neighborhoods will no longer be subjected to the disruptive chaos Sonoma County residents will endure, seemingly, for many years to come.

And please take note: Rather than using the profits to attract more tourists to “wine country,” as is done with a portion of our TOT revenue, Los Angeles is proposing to direct “Transient Occupancy Taxes derived from Home-Sharing to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.” That is one inspiring idea! This is an example of public policy derived when local leadership listens to all stakeholders, not just those with a commercial interest such as the Northbay Association of Realtors (NAR).

Specific to Glen Ellen and my neighborhood (Gibson subdivision), please include in this “Combining Zone”:

1. All of Mound Avenue. This is a private, single-lane, unpaved road off of Gibson. Our home, 13491, is the last R1 residence (also the last home in the Urban Service Boundary). The homes east of ours are on larger lots and may be zoned for agriculture. But these properties have been used as single-family homes since at least 1960. They also have aging septic systems and lack other services such as natural gas. They are not appropriate for the kind of high volume use vacation rentals experience.

2. All of Glen Ellen falling within the Census-Designated Place as defined by the United States Census Bureau. Our little town became overrun with disorderly tourists and our homes morphed into ersatz hotels, a perfect storm of a housing collapse and enactment of the County’s Vacation Rental Ordinance in 2011! Life in Glen Ellen is now pure misery.

I want to add my concern that Supervisor Carrillo, unlike Supervisor Gorin (and of late Supervisor Gore), is NOT inclined to protect his Russian River constituents, many of whom live in “communities along the lower Russian River, among the poorest in the county” (Press Democrat, 4/2/16. Field set in pivotal 5th District race for Sonoma County Board of Supervisors). Unlikely though it might be, I still wish to state the obvious: the housing and residents in the Russian River area and other nearby regions deserve the same protections we in the Sonoma Valley are now seeking.

As to the matter of what constitutes a residence, I will defer to the experts, rather than local predilections. My dictionary affords the following definitions:

“Residential”: designed for people to live in: private residential and nursing homes.

• providing accommodations in addition to other services: a residential college.
• occupied by private houses: quieter traffic in residential areas.

“Commercial”: 1 concerned with or engaged in commerce: a commercial agreement.

2 making or intended to make a profit: commercial products.

• having profit, rather than artistic or other value, as a primary aim: their work is too commercial.

What could possibly make one think these two designations might be compatible? I wonder!

In Sonoma County, “R1 Low Density Residential and RR Rural Residential” were zoned for residential use until 2011, when they were rezoned via simply re-defining their use in conformance with adoption of the newly enacted Vacation Rental Ordinance. Neighbors were shocked to find nearby houses were suddenly transformed into commercial, tourist-serving businesses, virtually overnight, and with no onsite management to quell the fun.

These operations have transformed neighborhoods and whole communities, in sharp contrast to the County’s promise to NOT alter the character of towns. As I have said many times (and will continue to repeat as needed), Glen Ellen has seen its population decline by nearly 50% since 2000. Surrounding my home, where I once had 8 actual neighbors (until 2011), I now have 2. The other 6 houses are no longer homes occupied by actual residents. Four are now owned by investors, in use as vacation rental party venues. The other two are second homes. Homes continue to be built in Glen Ellen, but residents are disappearing. Where are we to go? I hear no answers to these questions.

These changes amount to a fundamental corruption of the meaning of “residential” for the purpose of supporting a tourist-serving industry that is exploiting an opportunity at the expense of communities.

I also share the view with many others that this program, designed to TAKE housing, rather than preserve it, violates the letter of state law pertaining to Sonoma County’s Housing Element. PRMD staff memoranda and reports, outside experts, housing advocates – all have cautioned the Board of Supervisors of this.

Sadly, the Board is focused on goals other than the welfare of the constituents. As a result, we see the following negative impacts:

1. Population: decline (Glen Ellen = 784 [2010]; 594 [2013] = -190, -25%),
2. Quality of life: gone (excessive noise, abusive investor/managers, trash, traffic (including limousines blocking private roads and driveways),
3. Health and Safety: frighteningly dangerous (fire, theft, drunk driving, physical assaults),
4. Community vibrancy and integrity: vastly eroded (loss of community volunteers, resident-serving businesses, and workforce, and a decline in turnout for community fundraising events such as the Glen Ellen Village Fair),
5. Over-concentration: a promise broken by the county,
6. Loss of valuable housing stock.

Unincorporated Sonoma County does NOT have the protection available to those living in incorporated cities:

1. We do NOT have a noise ordinance (contrary to the beliefs of some).
2. We do have a Disturbance of the Peace Ordinance (Sonoma County Code of Ordinances, Article VII. – Disturbing the Peace. Sec. 4-101 – 105), but law enforcement denies it exists or demands that residents sign a complaint. The statute does exist. It does not require that the complainant sign anything. In fact, to do so could put that person at risk of a lawsuit for false arrest.

So, we have next to no law enforcement, a program turning our towns and roads into fun houses for drunks, and, as yet, no finalized enforcement plan tied to this failed program! We do, however have the promise of an enforcement plan, one, as I last heard, to be developed by the same lobbyists who handed the county its original Vacation Rental Ordinance language, NAR!

Further, effective last Thursday, we will now be bombarded with tourist noise starting at 7 am, instead of 9 am, thanks to the BOS decision to “enhance” (3/30/16 Efren Carrillo, KQED: Forum) the vacationers’ experience. Our law enforcement protection is down to two sheriff’s deputies covering the entire Sonoma Valley. They are sick of dealing with the drunks acting out at vacation properties. Many are leaving the department for this reason, among others.

We do not have adequate protection. And now we are concerned about the possible loss of our volunteer fire department and elementary school due to population decline.

Enough! Return to us what we have the right to expect: our homes, our neighborhoods, and our communities! An overlay is a step in the right direction. Eliminating this failed program is the only true solution.

With sincere appreciation for your consideration,

Deborah C. Nitasaka
Glen Ellen, CA

P.S.  As I write this, I am listening to the drunks climbing into the single-person therapeutic spa at the vacation rental business behind my home – talking and laughing loudly enough to be heard through closed windows, and running water outside at 11 p.m. And it’s only mid-April!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enclosures:

1. Glen Ellen Demographics (2000-2013)
2. Notice of Public Hearing: Home Sharing Ordinance
3. Home Sharing Ordinance Quick Guide
4. STROrdinance, Public Draft

---

---