We support the Appeal. We oppose the adoption of Resolution PC 2002-18
April 25, 2023

To the Honorable Board of Supervisors of Mendocino County
Dan Gjerde; John Haschak; Glenn McGourty; Maureen Mulheren; Ted Williams
We urge you to reverse course on Planning Commission Resolution PC-2022-018. Please uphold the Appeal, and send the issue of affordable and sustainable housing back to the drawing board.
The resolution offered by the non-elected Planning Commission (at the tail end of a devastating global pandemic when many of us were struggling to survive) is an inadequate and haphazard attempt to solve part of the housing problems in the County.
The Resolution is a very rough, very partial, first stab.
We thank the Planning Department for efforts to analyze the Resolution; but there are many deeper issues and elements that merit more deliberate and long-range study.

This Resolution would stretch already-limited county staff with burdensome layers of enforcement and licensing, and negatively impact the county business economy on many levels—as discussed by other, detailed letters supporting this Appeal.

I am unable to attend in person today; am prepping our little vacation rental for visitors. Over 9 years, we have paid thousands of dollars in TOT taxes, and engaged dozens of local trades-people and local suppliers. Our accessory vacation rental supplements our retirement income, and is a small, but vital, contribution to the County economy.

Please reverse the Planning Commission Resolution and send the issue back to the drawing board.

Thank you for your service to the community, and to the future of Mendocino County.

Sincerely,
Karen and Will Lewis, PO Box 790, Albion, 95410

Honorable Supervisors:

My name is Laura Quatrochi, my husband Don Shanley and I purchased our property in 1990 near the town of Navarro. We have lived on this property for about 30 years and we adamantly reject the Appeal of Resolution No. PC_2022-0018.

On November 21, 2019 the Mendocino County Planning Commissioners voted 5-0 refusing Use permit U_2017-0032 for an inland vacation rental (Airbnb) at the end of our 2 mile private road. We appreciate that the Commissioners understood the extraordinary burden a vacation rental exposes all neighboring landowners to and in our case, on a private road. A Major Use Permit must be required for all vacation rentals and especially for those that do not have frontage on a publicly maintained road. The Major Use Permit fee is thoughtfully reduced for vacation rentals and is a reasonable cost for a commercial business. It also provides an essential examination of the property and rental structure to help insure the use and safety of the rental unit. Additionally and critically, it notifies and alerts all neighboring property owners and allows them to voice their concerns.

Don Shanley and I spent over $5,000.00 in legal fees and devoted months of time to oppose the Use Permit for the vacation rental. At that time, the County did not perform a thorough evaluation of the property which would have uncovered that the owner built an illegal rental structure on the property. Every neighboring property owner should have the right to voice their concerns prior to a residential property becoming a commercial rental. For us, a commercial rental would have been a nuisance, decreasing the value of all neighboring properties and threatening our privacy, security, safety and peace of mind.

I respectfully ask the Supervisors to reject the Appeal and adopt Resolution No. PC-2022-0018 for the health and safety of our County.

Thank you,
Laura Quatrochi

Honorable Supervisors:

My name is Don Shanley and I have been a Mendocino County resident for 55+ years. My wife, Laura Quatrochi and I write to oppose the appeal of Resolution No. PC 2022-0018. On November 21, 2019 Laura and I presented a 25 page document at the PCHearing in opposition to a Use Permit for a STR on the private road passing through our property off Highway 128 near Navarro. We along with our neighbors devoted hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars to oppose a Use Permit application that never should have been considered if County Planning had completed basic due diligence.

In the words of former County council, Terry Gross, a Major Use Permit for a STR application allows those individuals most affected, the neighbors, to voice their concerns. Fire safety, invasion of privacy, liability, disruption of the quality of life (nuisance) and not meeting the requirements of Mendocino County Code 20.196.020 (C) were all specific reasons the Planning Commissioners voted unanimously 5-0 to deny the permit.

We urge you to watch the November 21, 2019 Hearing video to understand the details of our opposition. We are not suggesting STR never be approved but only that those neighbors be informed of a commercial business that may be approved in a residential neighborhood. We submit that individuals do not move to a rural zip code to wake up to a commercial motel operation next door where perhaps there isn't even a manager on site to attend to transient renters’ needs and safety.
One need only look at the real estate ads posted in office windows to understand that the proliferation of STR’s on private rural roads is a sales pitch to wannabe absentee owners who needn’t even be present to “manage” the renters paying their mortgages. We appreciate local residents need to supplement their incomes but not at the expense of their neighbors.
Thank you for your consideration.
Don Shanley

Honorable Supervisors,
(Document Reference: 23-0475 - Att. A - PC_2022-0018 Resolution # PC_2022-0018)
Comment: On a technical note, this document does not include a stated or signed date on the day the Planning Commission Resolution was passed. In addition to the missing date of the carried resolution, there is no verbiage or reference as to which Planning Commissioner introduced the resolution, which Planning Commissioner seconded the resolution, and the Ayes/No/Absent/Abstain voting record on the resolution document which is customary.

(Document Reference: 23-0475 “Att. C - Planning Commission Documents” (@ page 14) >
“December 2, 2021 Planning Commission” packet > “Attachment E” Message to Wendy with a handwritten memo from Mendocino Planning Department dated 10/7/2010.)
Comment: The above Mendocino Planning Department 10/7/2010 memo is a contradiction of the actions of how business was actually being conducted by the Planning Department before and after 10/7/2010. Business Licenses for Inland Vacation Home Rentals / Short Term Rentals / Room and Board were randomly and inconsistently approved before and following 10/7/2010 without requiring any type of Use Permit or Administrative Permit for properties on Inland Private Roads. This was not a singular event or error as it was repeated by different planners indicating a standard practice.
One example is the approved and implemented Project # BL_2013-0170 on Mendocino County Records
Description: MENDOCINO, RR-5 INLAND, VHR
Type: Zoning SubType: Business License
Planner: Fred Tarr
Address: (Redacted for privacy. Location is a confirmed Private Road in the Inland Zone)
City/State/Zip: MENDOCINO AREA, CA 95460 Property Type: COUNTY Coastal Zone: NO

Requiring Use Permits or Administrative Permits for Vacation Home Rentals/ Short Term Rentals / or Room and Board are overreaching. Properties on County Records, located on Private or Public Roads at the time of development required lengthy inspections and authorizations and are compatible for human occupancy no matter if for a night or long term. Protect Inland Zone private property rights.

I support the Appeal submitted by Colin W. Morrow, Esq and support appealing the actions of the Mendocino Planning Commission per November 17, 2022 Resolution No. PC_2022-0018.

To Supervisors,

I am urging you to deny the appeal by the Friends of Coastal Access and Paul Clark. I have attended some of the Planning Commission meetings about this issue via zoom. I provided many written and verbal comments about a Short Term Rental (STR) application in Albion that prompted the creation of an ad hoc Commission.

The publication by Jenkins and King titled “Unequal Access, Protecting Affordable Accommodations Along the California Coast” submitted to the Planning Commission by Colin W. Morrow on 11-1-2022 does state that “The recent popularity of STRs has also led to concerns in local communities about the character of neighborhoods that have traditionally been composed of single family dwellings occupied by one family. Coastal communities up and down California have struggled with how to regulate STRs.”

I believe that transient guests create a greater VMT impact than locals do.

We all know that the current housing situation locally is out of sync.
We have a big problem:
when doctors, nurses, lawyers, dentists, teachers can not find housing;
when many businesses can not operate full time as they can not find help, or have to close down;
when properties are being bought up in auctions or from realtors by foreign investors who turn around and rent out whole houses including unpermitted structures to transient guests as an STR in the middle of residential neighborhoods without living on site;
when owners of STRs denude whole properties without needing logging permits;
when owners of STRs install fire pits in the middle of residential neighborhoods next to a narrow, curvy dead end road;
when realtors appeal a resolution by the Planning Commission to limit the renting to 2 rooms for occupancy by transient guests, require a Major Use Permit for new STRs and those without proper licensure, and without frontage on a publicly maintained road governed by the Inland Zoning Code;

At the 5-5-2022 Planning Commission meeting a petition requesting limitation of short term rentals was submitted by Elizabeth Swenson in the name of the North Coast Mendocino County Housing Action Team www.hatmendocoast.org asking the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to create a short term rental ordinance by limiting the # of commercial STRs when there are more than 2% of the area housing. Currently there are 500 STRs in the County –4% of the Coastal housing. Elizabeth Swenson in her communication with the Planning Commission also mentioned that other counties across California have implemented STR ordinances that limit them. The Housing Action Team was hoping that the Board of Supervisors would approve this Ordinance by 2022. Has that happened? When will it happen?

I appreciate what the Mendocino Town and Fort Bragg have done as far as STRs are concerned. Also allowing ADUs is helping along with the newly instated ADU and Jr. ADU ordinances in the coastal zone. All this is not enough.

The decision by the Planning Commission to craft the Resolution # PC 2022-0018 is crucial for the well being of our county and could not wait until the adoption of updated zoning regulations forcasted to occur later this summer. Please deny the appeal by the Friends of Coastal Access and Paul Clark.

Sincerely, Annemarie Weibel