Pacific Grove, California, Measure M, Limitations on Short-Term Rentals (November 2018)
| Measure M: Pacific Grove Limitations on Short-Term Rentals |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 6, 2018 |
| Status: |
 Approved
|
| Topic: |
| Local housing |
| Related articles |
| Local housing on the ballot November 6, 2018 ballot measures in California Monterey County, California ballot measures Local business regulation on the ballot |
| See also |
| Pacific Grove, California |
A measure designed to limit short-term rentals was on the ballot for Pacific Grove voters in Monterey County, California, on November 6, 2018. It was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of prohibiting short-term rentals (defined as rentals of less than 30 days) in residential districts outside of the coastal zone and phasing out existing short-term rentals within 18 months. |
| A no vote was a vote against prohibiting short-term rentals in residential districts outside of the coastal zone and phasing out existing short-term rentals within 18 months. |
Election results
|
Pacific Grove, California, Measure M, Limitations on Short-Term Rentals (November 2018) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
4,452 | 57.48% | ||
| No | 3,293 | 42.52% | ||
Aftermath
In December 2018, the Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit on the behalf of property owners in Pacific Grove with the Superior Court of Monterey County arguing that the initiative's provision phasing out existing permitted short-term rentals in residential districts, except in the Coastal Zone, deprives the petitioners of their right to due process. The superior court rejected the lawsuit's claims. The Goldwater Institute appealed the decision to California's Sixth District Court of Appeals. In November 2022, the court of appeals upheld the lower court's ruling finding that Measure M did not violate the petitioners' right to due process.[1][2]
Text of measure
Ballot question
The ballot question was as follows:[3]
| “ |
Shall the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 23.64.350 be amended to prohibit short-term rentals in residential districts outside the Coastal Zone, provide an 18-month phase-out period for existing permitted short-term rentals that become nonconforming uses under the measure, and require voter approval of any changes to the measure except with regard to the Coastal Zone or enforcement?[4] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Pacific Grove City Attorney:[5]
| “ |
Measure M proposes to amend the Pacific Grove General Plan and Pacific Grove Municipal Code (Municipal Code) Section 23.64 governing short-term rental units (STRS). It would prohibit STRs in residential districts outside the Coastal Zone. The Measure would not limit City authority to license or regulate short-term rentals in the Coastal Zone or in non-residential zoning districts. This measure was placed on the ballot by Citizen's Initiative. Presently, a license is required to operate any STR. Use Fees apply to each STR license and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is collected on units rented as a percentage of the amount charged by each operator. Existing regulations limit the number of STR licenses allowed on each block, and limit STRs to a maximum of 250 within the City. The Measure amends the City General Plan to 1) prohibit STRs on residential properties outside the Coastal Zone; 2) allow STRs on properties within the Coastal Zone; and 3) require voter approval to further amend the General Plan relating to STRs. The Measure amends Municipal Code Section 23.64 to 1) prohibit STRs on residential properties outside the Coastal Zone; 2) sunset prohibited STR licenses after an 18-month phase out period, ending on or about May 2020; 3) allow home sharing, house swaps, house sitting, pet sitting, work trade, or similar non-commercial arrangements; 4) re-adopt existing definitions, liability and enforcement provisions related to STRs; and 5) require voter approval to amend Municipal Code section 23.64.350. Future voter approval is not required for amendments that apply solely to STRs within the Coastal Zone, or that address liability or enforcement relating to STRs. At its June 20, 2018 meeting, the City Council received the independent analysis of Matrix Consulting Group to examine potential revenue impacts if Measure M is adopted. The analysis reported annual City TOT revenue would decline by $1,129,731 and annual fee revenue would decline by $122,323. The consultant found a significant likelihood the City would also experience declines in sales tax revenue and increased enforcement costs but did not quantify these later effects. A majority of voters of the City casting ballots in favor of this Measure is required to modify the Municipal Code and General Plan. This Measure has no sunset date. A “YES” vote on Measure M amends Pacific Grove's General Plan and Municipal Code Section 23.64 to prohibit Short-Term Rentals on residential properties outside the Coastal Zone. A “NO” vote on Measure M does not change the Pacific Grove General Plan or Municipal Code Section 23.64. [4] |
” |
| —Pacific Grove City Attorney | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
Campaign
Pacific Grove Neighbors United led the campaign in support of Measure M.[6]
The group stated on its website:[6]
| “ |
The City Council has refused to restore the fundamental protections that zoning is meant to provide, most importantly, separating commercial and residential uses. This has compromised Pacific Grove’s residential character and now compels Pacific Grove residents to take back control. [4] |
” |
| —Pacific Grove Neighbors United | ||
Proponents
The following individuals signed the official argument in support of Measure M:[5]
- Joan Hyler, resident
- Kim Akeman, resident
- Teresa Stasio, resident
- Ted Hollister, resident
- Luke Coletti, resident
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in support of Measure M:[5]
| “ |
For over 100 years Pacific Grove has been known as a "City of Homes." The Pacific Grove City Charter, General Plan, and Municipal Code recognize that Pacific Grove is "primarily a city of homes" and that "business and industry shall be compatible with its residential character." Measure M affirms Pacific Grove as a City of Homes by limiting Short-Term Vacation Rentals, which are not compatible with Pacific Grove's residential character. Short-Term Vacation Rentals (STRs) are simply not compatible with residential uses. Our neighbors – Monterey and Carmel – wisely prohibit STRs in residential areas and actively pursue violators to protect their neighborhoods. The city's zoning code historically prohibited STRs in residential zoning districts, but in 2010 the city abandoned its longstanding commitment to its neighborhoods to instead extract hotel tax from residential neighborhoods. A city should never become dependent on hotel tax revenue from residential neighborhoods, but that's exactly what's happened in Pacific Grove. Since then residents have been evicted to make room for STRs, outside investors have swooped in to take advantage of the new commerce, neighborhoods have been negatively changed, and the inns and motels important to our local economy for years say they have been hurt. The city's lottery in May was intended to reduce the density of STRs in some areas, with 51 of the licenses being retired next April. However, 45 of the 51 licenses will become available for new locations. If you don't have one next door yet, you may soon. Measure M is a zoning measure. VOTE YES to restore zoning rules that protect residential neighborhoods. VOTE YES to limit Short-Term Vacation Rentals. Visit www.pgneighbors.com for further details. [4] |
” |
| —Official Support Argument | ||
Opposition
Campaign
STRONGpg led the campaign in opposition to Measure M.[7]
The group stated on its website:[7]
| “ |
It’s no surprise that hotels/inns/B&Bs in PG are funding Measure M to ban STRs in town--they haven't yet realized that traveler preferences have changed, and they're determined to take visitor choice away from them in the hopes that their own coffers will be full. Even as their own revenues continue to increase year after year![4] |
” |
| —STRONGpg | ||
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument in opposition to Measure M:[5]
- Cynthia Garfield
- William Fredrickson
- Daniel R. Reed
- John S. Rousett
- Kenneth E. Cuneo
Argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to Measure M:[5]
| “ |
Measure M will damage Pacific Grove's ability to provide fundamental services; it will permanently deprive the City of $1.3 million per year, paid by visitors, at a time when pension payments are predicted to jump from $2.2 to $4.1 million per year. Measure M will eliminate critical revenues by slashing Short-Term Rentals (STRs) by 70% and restricting them to a few neighborhoods along the Coast. Measure M treats some neighbors differently than others, but we are one community and need to work together to support our city. Some claim eliminating STRs would add affordable housing. Surveys within our City indicate that banned STRs would likely become vacant second homes or rented at market rates. The City's STR Program is strictly regulated and balances the needs of the community and the financial realities of the City. STRs are capped at 250 out of more than 8,300 housing units in Pacific Grove. Parking access, noise, occupancy and density are regulated. The program mandates responsible, responsive management. Complaints are investigated and addressed with appropriate penalties, which include fines and loss of a license. All responses and adjustments to regulations are based on validated data. STRs play a positive role in both the quality of life and financial health of Pacific Grove. Visitors from around the world have always been drawn to our quaint charm and extraordinary scenery. Visitors add to the vibrancy of our city, support our shops and restaurants, boost local employment and increase tax revenue. STR visitors' Transient Occupancy Taxes paid for 7% of our budget, supporting the Library, recreation facilities, Police and Fire, road and sidewalk repairs, parks and programs for youth and seniors. Measure M will damage our city for years to come. Give Pacific Grove a viable future. Vote No on Measure M. [4] |
” |
| —Official Opposition Argument | ||
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a successful initiative petition campaign led by Pacific Grove Neighbors United. The group needed to gather 968 valid signatures—equal to 10 percent of registered voters in the city—in order to place the initiative on the ballot. On May 22, 2018, the Monterey County Registrar of Voters verified that the group had gathered 1,646 valid signatures.[8]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Goldwater Institute, Hobbs v. Pacific Grove et al., accessed March 30, 2023
- ↑ Monterey Herald, "Appeals court rules in favor of Pacific Grove short-term rental law," accessed March 30, 2023
- ↑ Monterey County Elections, "Notice Of Local Measures," accessed September 16, 2018
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Luke Coletti, "Email Correspondence," September 11, 2018
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Pacific Grove Neighbors United, "Press Release," January 15, 2018
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 STRONGpg, "Home," accessed September 25, 2018
- ↑ Monterey Herald, "Pacific Grove initiative to end short-term rentals in residential zone gets certified," May 24, 2018
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
