Many, many households in Malibu participate in the short-term rental market—enough to net the city approximately $1.5 million in taxes in the city’s 2017-18 budget.
The popularity of short-term rentals—properties listed on sites like Airbnb, VRBO and Home Away, among others—has made the topic of how to regulate the industry a pressing issue in many communities like Malibu, where once-secluded residential neighborhoods are now welcoming thousands of visitors each year.
Often, many neighbors complain, those visitors eat up available parking and leave behind piles of trash—and those are the ones who don’t keep neighborhoods awake with loud parties.
On the other hand, there are long term residents who use the supplementary income to help make mortgage payments and pay other bills—the use of short-term rentals is necessary for them to be able to afford to stay in town.
So, what’s the city to do?
According to the planning commission, ideas presented by city staff in a proposed ordinance do not lay out a plan that would tackle some of the biggest issues short-term rentals pose and provide no clear pathway for enforcement.
On Monday, the commission—which met without Chair Mikke Pierson—took a look at the proposed ordinance prepared by city staff and promptly sent staff back to the drawing board in a 4-0 vote.
That ordinance, which had been over a year in the making (council requested such an ordinance in October of last year), was based off suggestions made by ZORACES (Zoning Ordinance Revisions And Code Enforcement Subcommittee) in May 2017, and included the following stipulations:
- A prohibition of short-term rentals and home-sharing in the multifamily residential zone for complexes with three or more units
- A requirement for signage indicating 24 hours per day, seven days per week contact information for a designated manager, visible to the public at all times
- A requirement for compliance terms to be met or revocation of rental privileges be imposed for six months, to be increased upon lack of further compliance, which could lead to criminal penalties if ultimately not met
- A requirement for homeowners to attest when they register that their homes have smoke detectors, with an inspection provision
- No imposition of black-out dates
- No requirement that the property be the owner’s primary residence
Among the approximately two dozen members of the public who spoke to comment on the proposed ordinance were several who urged the commission to allow rentals in complexes with more than three units. That appeared to be the least popular proposed stipulation.
There were also speakers who urged commissioners to shut down short-term rentals altogether.
Longtime commissioner John Mazza presented a laundry list of suggestions, including mandatory onsite parking, the idea rentals should be owners’ primary residences (so investors couldn’t buy up several properties to use as short-term rentals), a lottery system to allow only a certain number of rentals within a given area, a required response time for property managers or owners upon complaints and more.
Other ideas included a system of decibel meters connected to code enforcement officers or sheriff’s deputies, who could be alerted when noise levels went over the legally permitted limit.
Commissioner Jeff Jennings suggested only allowing residents to host short-term renters with a license—“ban short-term rentals … unless you come in and get a permit. That way, you could prove enforceable standards that have to be met upon pain of losing your license.”
Commissioners seemed to agree that finding a method of consistent enforcement of rules was key—with Commissioner Steve Uhring going so far as to say he would support an all-out ban on short-term rentals if the ordinance isn’t comprehensive.
“I want to know the details of how we’re going to do it,” Uhring said. “Who’s going to do what? What’s it going to cost us to make this thing work?
“If we can’t enforce this thing, then let’s not do it … If it doesn’t look like we’ve got the enforcement, I’m voting against it.”