Marin’s short-term rental caps approved by Coastal Commission

The county came up with a new, 11th-hour plan for regulating Stinson Beach and the Seadrift enclave.

The California Coastal Commission signed off on stricter regulations governing short-term rentals in Marin County, but not before a last-minute change affecting Stinson Beach.

Marin needed the commission’s approval because the stricter regulations include caps on the total number of short-term rentals that will be allowed in nine coastal communities: Bolinas, Inverness, Marshall, Muir Beach, Olema, Point Reyes Station, Tomales, Dillon Beach and Stinson Beach.

Implementation of the caps requires the county to amend its local coastal program land use plan, which is overseen by the commission.

Under the proposal initially presented to the commission, Dillon Beach and Seadrift, a gated subdivision consisting of about 300 pricey homes in Stinson Beach, were to be treated slightly differently because they have historically been havens for vacation homes.

While the total number of short-term rentals allowed in the other areas would have decreased by more than 50, or 14%, the number allowed in Dillon Beach and Seadrift would have been allowed to increase by 155.

At the request of some Stinson Beach residents who live outside Seadrift, however, the county came up with a new, 11th-hour plan for Seadrift and Stinson Beach. Under the plan approved by the commission on Thursday, the combined number of short-term rentals allowed for both will be capped at 192, which is the number that is currently licensed in Seadrift and Stinson Beach.

Several Stinson Beach residents who spoke at the hearing called for treating Seadrift and Stinson Beach equally.

The person whose voice might have carried the most weight on the issue, however, belonged to someone who lives outside the community.

Steve Kinsey, a former member of both the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the Coastal Commission, said: “Stinson Beach is one town with one history, yet this ordinance divides it unfairly, creating haves and have-nots.”

“Seadrift’s STRs could more than double while the town’s more affordable units would shrink by 22%,” he said. “Limiting all future STRs to the most expensive neighborhood is highly inequitable.”

Supervisor Katie Rice, who is Marin County’s representative on the commission, said she shared Kinsey’s concerns.

“I don’t like the bifurcation of Seadrift and Stinson Beach,” Rice said.

The meeting began with commissioners disclosing “ex parte” communications they had on the item. Commissioners are required to report any oral or written communications they’ve had on issues facing the commission outside of regular meetings.

Rice said that she had had an ex parte communication with Kinsey.

In 2018, Kinsey and four other members of the commission were ordered to pay more than $959,000 in court costs and attorney fees stemming from a lawsuit accusing the commissioners of failing to properly disclose “ex parte” meetings with developers, lobbyists and others.

Rice asked Sarah Jones, the director of the Marin County Community Development Agency, if she had any ideas for resolving the Seadrift-Stinson Beach dilemma. Jones suggested adopting the 192 maximum.

The proposal submitted to the commission was then spontaneously amended, and the new version was approved unanimously without further input from the public.

Before the new ordinance takes effect, Marin County supervisors will have to vote on it one last time on May 7. Marin supervisors have been rushing to approve the new program before the county’s moratorium on new short-term rentals sunsets on May 23.

In addition to imposing a cap on individual coastal communities, the county’s ordinance would impose an overall cap of 1,200 units for unincorporated Marin County. Since the coastal communities will now be allowed 622 units, that will leave 578 units for the remainder of the unincorporated area.

The ordinance has a number of other provisions in addition to the cap. It will limit people to operating a single short-term rental. It will also require operators to get a license issued by the Marin County Community Development Agency and meet a number of other county requirements, such as having a county-approved septic system and adequate parking.

Jones highlighted the septic requirement when Rice asked how the number of short-term rentals would decrease over time to conform with the new caps.

“We are requiring that short-term rentals have septic inspections,” Jones said. “There will be some number of owners who will need to make the choice of upgrading their septic systems to continue this use.”

“We know that there is going to be attrition,” she said. “But we just don’t know how quickly the numbers are going to come down to the caps.”

Leila Monroe, who spoke on behalf of West Marin Residents for Housing, said, “Reaching those caps will take years to achieve.”

Monroe urged the commission to adopt an earlier recommendation made by Marin County’s planning commission to exempt Dillon Beach and Seadrift and limit the total number of short-term rentals in the remaining coastal communities to 217, the number in operation when the county began regulating short-term rentals in August 2018.

An opposing viewpoint was presented by Sean Callagy, a member of the West Marin Access Coalition.

“You need reliable data and you don’t have it,” Callagy told the commission. “Because Marin County hasn’t submitted data, it cannot overcome the Coastal Act’s presumption in favor of visitor servicing uses over private residential uses.”

Both the commission’s staff and commissioners complimented Marin County for working hard to develop a compromise between residents trying to preserve affordable housing in their communities and residents who rely on short-term rental income to make ends meet.

Commissioner Ann Notthoff said, “I think the county has done a very tough balancing act.”