Cloverdale planners discuss expanding non‑hosted vacation rentals; staff to take ideas to subcommittee

On June 3 the Cloverdale Planning Commission opened a discussion about whether to expand where non‑hosted vacation rentals could be allowed in the city and what rules should govern them. Staff said the item arose from a finance subcommittee conversation about lodging options and transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenue.

Staff member Kevin described the item as "a discussion of a possibility of expanding the areas where vacation rentals could be allowed. Non hosted vacation rentals. This came out of 1 of the subcommittee meetings." He emphasized the commission was starting a conversation, not making a decision, and that staff could return with specific recommendations if directed.

Under current city practice, staff said, non‑hosted vacation rentals (whole‑home rentals with no on‑site host) are allowed only in downtown commercial (DTC), general commercial (GC) and office‑residential (OR) zones with a planning approval; hosted rentals (a room in the house with a host present) can be permitted in residential zones through an administrative plot plan review. Staff reviewed potential regulatory tools if the city chose to allow non‑hosted rentals in residential zones: a citywide cap on total permits, a limit of one rental per block face, minimum distances between rentals, strengthened quiet‑hours rules, a 24‑hour on‑call contact available within 30 minutes or 30 miles, mandatory on‑site posting of rules and a revocation process for repeated violations.

Commissioners raised concerns about housing stock and neighborhood impacts. "In general, I tend to be, someone who is thinks that housing stock is really important," Commissioner Daniel said, and asked for data on TOT revenue and the number of units currently affected. Staff estimated there are roughly 4 permitted hosted units and maybe 4 non‑hosted units operating in the city footprint, with perhaps another 2–3 unpermitted non‑hosted units cited in the last three years; staff characterized those figures as approximate.

Commissioners suggested options to limit impacts: confine approvals to R2 zones near downtown, cap the initial number of permits (several suggested adding about four to the existing inventory), allocate permits by area rather than open citywide first‑come/first‑served, or start with a trial cap and reevaluate after a set period. Commissioners also asked staff to produce GIS counts of parcels affected and to quantify likely TOT revenue and enforcement costs before moving forward.

Several commissioners supported requiring an operator phone number posted at the property and an on‑call contact for neighbors. Staff noted inspection requirements by fire and building departments would remain part of the permit process and that TOT collection and code enforcement would be part of ongoing compliance work.

Staff member Rafael said he would take the commission’s feedback to the finance subcommittee at its meeting next week and report back. "I can take what you guys have said and bring this to the subcommittee next Tuesday, and see where they wanna go with it," Rafael said.

The commission did not take formal action on code changes at the June 3 meeting; staff will return with refined options, data on parcel counts and TOT implications if the subcommittee requests.