Coast Commission staff lean to deny Malibu lodged short-term rental order • The Malibu Times

Malibu’s Short-Term Rental Unit Hosting Ordinance, which was passed by the city on November 23, 2020, requires an on-site host during short-term rentals (STR), among a list of others elements. The city then amended its Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Land Use Plan (LUP) accordingly and submitted those changes to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for approval before the “hosted” ordinance could officially enter into force.

The reason for the “housed” order in the first place was due to residents’ concerns about the number of DOS in Malibu. At the point where residents felt neighborhoods were changing, housing for current residents and newcomers was becoming increasingly scarce and expensive, and even schooling was declining. On top of that, the fact that STRs weren’t required to be supervised led to a number of parties amidst quiet neighborhoods with noise, litter, and parking issues.

Coastal Commission staff recently informed the City of Malibu that they were inclined to decline the city’s proposed LCP amendment for accommodations. However, they explained that they were willing to work on a mutually agreeable amendment before putting it to a vote in committee.

In fiscal year 2020-21, CCC certified STR-related LCP modifications for Carmel-by-the-Sea, Oxnard and Laguna Beach as well as Santa Cruz County. So why not Malibu?

The main issue seems to be that CCC staff believe a “guesthouse only” rule for single family properties would reduce the number of STRs, thereby reducing access to the coast. And, unlike Santa Monica, Malibu has fewer hotel rooms and guesthouses to compensate for the loss of those STRs.

Coastal Commission staff advised that while each city/county has its own unique set of issues based on local circumstances, the key is to strike a balance that would not overly restrict STRs while minimizing impacts on neighborhoods. residential. While there have been a range of approaches taken by other cities, given the hearing schedule for the Malibu LCP, the city writes that it would be difficult for staff to perform the necessary in-depth analysis. for some of the approaches taken by other cities, such as limiting the number of permits per neighborhood.

CCC staff informed the city that other cities/counties allow hosted and non-hosted STRs, and advised that Malibu may consider allowing non-hosted STRs during specific times of higher demand each year.

One of the draft ordinances considered by the city council previously (August 10, 2020) actually established an STR permit system with three types of permits: 1) principal resident, 2) non-primary resident, and 3) multi-family with different permit requirements. and authorizations for each type of permit. For example, non-primary residents might only be able to operate STRs from April 1 to September 30 each year. City of Malibu staff write that the council may ask them to work with CCC staff to consider a similar approach allowing non-stay STRs for primary residents during certain times.

CCC staff also said they thought “a lot of people wouldn’t want to rent an STR if the owner was living in the house at the same time.” They were also of the opinion that single-family properties with existing guest houses or secondary units would be more likely to use the lodging-only layout. City staff are currently developing a list of these properties as well as a list of properties with existing legal accessory structures.

Over the next several months, City of Malibu staff plan to work with the CCC to address the suggested changes to ensure an amendment is presented at a hearing. Once the hearing date is set, a Notice of Public Hearing will be published and a CAC staff report will be available on the CAC website.

The CCC must respond to the modification request by the beginning of November; the last time they might hear the article in a public meeting would be at the October meeting in San Diego. The next scheduled meeting in the Malibu area is in August.

City of Malibu staff are now turning to the city council for advice on how to proceed — either work with the CCC to find a mutually agreeable alternative ordinance, or propose changes that they believe would satisfy the CCC.

TMT will continue to follow this story with updates from the City Council meeting held on Monday, June 13 and a follow-up with City staff.

Previous Meaning. Rubio, Warner Praise Senate Advancement of Loan Consolidation Measure
Next FDA cuts nicotine in cigarettes for a long time | Editorials