My family’s Boyes Hot Springs home is now sandwiched between two vacation rentals. We’ve had one across the street for a few years, and we recently received a letter from the owners of a house behind us that they have received a permit to rent their “vacation home.”
Who among us living in single-family neighborhoods in the Springs doesn’t now have a vacation rental or two nearby? What is happening in my neighborhood is playing out in neighborhoods throughout the area. It’s troubling, as vacation rentals cannibalize our middle-class housing stock and change the character of neighborhoods.
When we first moved into this neighborhood in 2000, an elderly woman lived in the house across the street, which her husband built. I frequently saw her in her front yard and would wave and say hello as I left my home. Now, my husband and I continually see different groups of strangers coming and going. We have no idea who these people are, and feel we have lost some of the fabric of our neighborhood because of it. We have met the couple that now own the house. They tell us they eventually plan to make it their permanent home. Because they may someday be our neighbors, we don’t complain.
I attended the Board of Supervisors meetings in 2010 when it debated and adopted the county’s vacation rental ordinance. I was a member of the City of Sonoma’s planning commission in 1999 that drafted the city’s vacation rental ordinance. The focus and attitude in the debates during the creation of these two ordinances were starkly different, and explains what is happening in the Springs today.
When drafting the city’s ordinance, there was unanimous agreement that the city needed to protect its housing stock from being converted to vacation rentals. Therefore, the city’s ordinance prohibits vacation rentals in residential zones, with the exception of adaptive reuses of historic structures. Vacation rentals can only legally exist in Sonoma’s mixed use and commercial zones. Vacation rentals that were already operating when the city council adopted the ordinance, where allowed to continue.
When the Board of Supervisors addressed the vacation rental issue, minimal consideration was given to what would happen to single family neighborhoods if unlimited vacation rentals were allowed. The debate instead, focused on how to control vacation home renters’ bad behavior, and whether vacation homes should be allowed in the Land Intensive Agriculture (LIA) zone.
The supervisors adopted rules vacation home renters are supposed to follow, and the owner is supposed to post inside making sure the renters are aware. Among the rules are quiet hours between 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., and no outdoor amplified sound. The owner is required to notify all neighbors within a 100-foot radius that the home is now a vacation rental and is to provide them with a phone number to call if there’s any trouble. The contact is supposed to be someone located no more than 60 minutes away.
The supervisors did decide to prohibit vacation rentals in the LIA zoning, and they also prohibited vacation rentals in higher density residential zones.
The situation we have today is that Sonoma Valley has become a very popular tourist destination. There are a lot of Bay Area residents who want to own vacation homes in our valley and rent them out when they’re not using them. A potential vacation home buyer, working with an honest realtor, will learn that he can’t do that in the City of Sonoma. So guess where that buyer looks instead?
Meanwhile, both the city and the county are now grappling with the fact there are numerous unpermitted, meaning illegal, vacation rentals in the area. The county’s main interest is to get these rentals permitted in order to collect the transient occupancy taxes. The county has hired a new code enforcement officer to deal with the issue.
The Board of Supervisors also last week gave direction to staff to make a few minor changes to the county’s vacation rental ordinance. For example, the notification to neighbors will be sent by the Permit and Resource Management Department instead of by the vacation homeowner, and the contact person will need to be located within 60 miles instead of 60 minutes of the vacation home. The Board also agreed much more discussion about vacation rentals is needed and will conduct a stakeholder engagement process.
Gina Cuclis has been a resident and community activist in Boyes Hot Springs since 1990. She also represents Sonoma Valley on the Sonoma County Board of Education. Reach her at ginacuclis@gmail.com.
I read “Springs Eternal” and I’m awed by the selfishness. Gina Cuclis thinks that because she isn’t fond of strangers, the rest of us should outlaw vacation rentals for her.
Built as a vacation home for the Spreckles family, I occasionally use my primary residence in Boyes as a vacation rental. I am a single mom who depends on this income.
I supply my guests with menus of local restaurants because I want them to eat in Boyes Hot Springs. And they do. My efforts generate business. I’m proud of what my rental brings to our community.
I love this thriving community with bright colors, flying pigs, and visitors from around the world, and don’t want Gina’s short-sightedness to change it. Her experience is her own, but please don’t vote her into office where she can make these self-motivated choices for everyone. We need a supervisor who views all aspects, not just her own side.
VRs bring dollars to Boyes Hot Springs that wouldn’t be here otherwise. I’ve happily paid thousands in TOT taxes because it helps make things better for EVERYONE. Let’s think big picture when we think about what (or who) is best for Sonoma County.
Alyssa Conder- Boyes Hot Springs resident since 2003.