In a decision that pitted year-round residents against absentee owners of North Coast vacation rentals, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday sided with the year-round folks.
After a hearing during which both sides strongly highlighted their differing points of view, supervisors turned down an attempt to create one more vacation rental house near the beach in Cayucos. The community already has 250 such rentals — roughly one seventh of the housing stock, Supervisor Bruce Gibson said.
The decision came one week after the board sent its five-year-old vacation rental ordinance back to its planning staff with directions to strengthen some of its weaknesses, especially in regards to enforcement.
Ruth B. Sullivan of Templeton sought the right to use a home at 3234 Studio Drive as a vacation rental, even though it violates the ordinance’s rule that vacation rentals must be 200 feet apart. The house next door to Sullivan’s is a rental.
Sullivan acquired the house in 2006. It came to county code enforcement’s attention last June. Code enforcement officer Art Trinidade wrote to Sullivan that she was using the home as a vacation rental without acquiring the proper license and permits.
The house is now for sale for $2.9 million.
Sullivan and her attorney, her daughter Shaunna Sullivan of Los Osos, argued that the neighborhood has relatively few year-round residents, many of the homes are empty and the county needs the tax revenue from the rentals.
One of Sullivan’s supporters, Dave Duggan, called the area a “ghost town.”
In a series of remarks that shows how personal this issue has become, Shaunna Sullivan said the permanent residents, whom she called “NIMBYs” — Not In My Back Yard — were preventing others from enjoying that stretch of beach.
She said the neighbors had been “watching us … checking up on us,” and added that one of those who argued against her mother’s vacation rental had a large boat in front of his house.
Year-round residents Lance Carney and David and Silvia Lauretti-Goldhamer disputed the Sullivans’ characterizations of the area, calling it a family neighborhood.
Carney said he and his wife are raising two children there. He added that there are several points of beach access, and the beach gets lots of use.
Carney said some people who rent the houses cause problems through drinking, fireworks and other ways.
Goldhamer added that Sullivan bought the house in 2006, and knew what she was getting into. He said if she can’t afford it as a vacation rental, she should move in.
Supervisors unanimously rejected Ruth Sullivan’s request, which was an appeal of a Planning Commission refusal to let Sullivan have a vacation rental at that location.
Supervisor Adam Hill said “people don’t have an absolute right to use their property for commercial purposes,” and added that Sullivan took possession of the house after the vacation rental ordinance went into effect.
Supervisor Frank Mecham said “my fundamental concern is for the people who live in this area.” Other supervisors agreed.
