06/03/21 BoCC Meeting Supplemental Material Cover Sheet

(1)

06/03/21

BoCC Meeting

Supplemental Material

Cover Sheet

Cover Sheet Index

Page 1

Meeting Sign-In Sheet

Page 2

Material provided during or after the meeting

_{Page 3-16}

• Items published to Agenda Center after conclusion of meeting

• Items in order of appearance on published agenda

Material provided to the BoCC by the public before the meeting

Page 17-33

• Items published to Agenda Center before meeting time

(2)

(3)

From: Dan Aynesworth <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 12:35 PM

To: Engels, John <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; Nowosad, Walter

<[email protected]> <[email protected]>; Rice, Wesley <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; Gardner, Mark <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; Tarkanian, Danny <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

Cc: Wood, Natalie <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; Davidson, Jenifer

<[email protected]> <[email protected]>; Dallaire, Tom <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

Subject: BOCC Meeting, June 3, 2021 - Agenda Items 12 & 14

CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments.

Natalie - Please post as Public Comment Dear Commissioners,

As a member of the VHR Task Force and a follower of the proceedings up until today, I'm sure we are all glad that a new VHR Ordinance will be approved at your meeting on June 3.

The Task Force put forth a very comprehensive set of recommendations. Those were enhanced a bit by the Technical Advisory Group and then by County Manager and his staff which then resulted in the Manager's report to the prior Commission on Oct. 5, 2020.

Since that time some provisions have been added that I have commented on along the way - both in writing and in person - that are still included in the permitting rules you will approve. I believe those rules will result in some logical appeals shortly after the ordinance takes effect.

Your next step after Ordinance approval will be to select 5 members of the VHR Advisory Board. There are very some qualified applicants. I have the following suggestions:

1. The Task Force did incredibly detailed work analyzing not only our Tahoe situation but evaluating best practices in other locations. The members, therefore, have much "institutional knowledge" about the facts and the process. It would be a shame not to bring that to the Advisory Board. So, I recommend that you appoint at least one person, if not two, from the Task Force.

2. I recommend that you do not appoint any applicant that is totally against VHRs and that "gaslights" the situation with disinformation about the impact of VHRs in general. We need people on the Advisory Board that think clearly and can properly evaluate a situation at hand. We'll have VHRs, a Code Enforcement team and the ability to make recommendations for changes as things get

implemented. Logical thinking is a must! Thanks for listening -

(4)

I

TEM

5: A

NTI

-H

ARASSMENT

P

OLICY

100.12

COUNTY SHALL NOT REFUSE TO HIRE A PERSON

,

DISCHARGE OR BAR ANY PERSON

FROM EMPLOYMENT OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANY PERSON IN COMPENSATION

OR IN OTHER TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF THE PERSON

’

S

RACE

. . .

SB 327, 2021 L

EGISLATURE

:

• “R

ACE

”

INCLUDES TRAITS ASSOCIATED WITH RACE

,

INCLUDING

,

WITHOUT

LIMITATION

,

HAIR TEXTURE AND PROTECTIVE HAIRSTYLES

.

• “P

ROTECTIVE HAIRSTYLE

”

INCLUDES

,

WITHOUT LIMITATION

,

HAIRSTYLES SUCH AS

NATURAL HAIRSTYLES

,

AFROS

,

BANTU KNOTS

,

CURLS

,

BRAIDS

,

LOCKS AND TWISTS

.

• A

MENDED

NRS 281 & 613

Supplemental Materials Board: BoCC

(5)

I

TEM

5: A

NTI

-H

ARASSMENT

P

OLICY

100.12

•

TWO ADDITIONS BASED ON

SB327:

• 1)

VOICING UNDESIRABLE

,

OBJECTIONABLE OR

UNACCEPTABLE QUALITIES OR CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON

A PERSON

’

S HAIR TEXTURE

,

NATURAL HAIR STYLES

,

AFROS

,

BANTU KNOTS

,

CURLS

,

BRAIDS

,

LOCKS OR TWISTS

.

(IV-

SUBSECTION

C,

PG

. 298)

• 2) R

EFERENCE TO

NRS 281

(6)

ITEM 5: ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY 100.12

• R

ECOMMENDED

M

OTION TO INCL

.

ADDITIONS

:

• M

OVE TO APPROVE THE REVISIONS TO

P

OLICY

100.12

AS PRESENTED AND SUBJECT TO

S

ENATE

B

ILL

327

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)



2005 VHRs permitted in the Tahoe Township



_{With explosion of online advertising platforms,}

2017 BOCC discussed need to amend County Code



Public Input Process:

• Planning Commission (2018 & update in 2021)

• 14 Public Meetings

• 2 public workshops (Lake Tahoe and Valley)

• An online survey with 1,000+ respondents

(11)



Limits total number of permits to 600, one per

owner;



Limits density,15% SFR, 20% MFR



Creates a tiered permit structure; requires a VHR

Special Use Permit for occupancy over 10;



Reduces permitted occupancy to two per

bedroom or four per parking space, whichever is

less;



Clarifies existing enforcement provisions of the

code, addresses fines, violations, and penalties,

revises the appeals appeal process;



Creates a VHR Advisory Board; and



Changes conditions of the permit to address

(12)

In order for the ordinance to be adopted, the following

findings must be made in the affirmative per DCC

20.610.050 as follows:

A. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the

policies embodied in the adopted Master Plan and

the underlying land use designation contained in

the land use plan.

B. That the proposed amendment will not be

inconsistent with the adequate public facilities

policies contained in Douglas County Code, Title 20.

C. That the proposed amendment is compatible with

(13)

(14)



Ordinance effective in 30 days.



Educate Permit Holders and the Public



Revise Fees



Resolution 2021-023

“until such time as the Board amends Chapter 20.622

(Vacation Rentals in the Tahoe Township) to enact the

changes deemed necessary for public health and safety

and to resolve the ongoing problems with public health,

safety and welfare concerns related to the operation of

VHRs, Douglas County staff are instructed to

temporarily suspend the issuance of any new permit for

VHRs retroactively to February 18, 2021.”



Establish process for permit lottery

(15)

(16)

From: [email protected]

To: Inbox - BOCC Public Comment

Subject: Board of County Commissioners Comment Form 2021-06-03 12:03 AM(PST) Submission Notification

Date: Thursday, June 3, 2021 12:04:03 AM

Board of County Commissioners Comment Form 2021-06-03 12:03 AM(PST) was

submitted by Guest on 6/3/2021 3:03:59 AM (GMT-08:00) US/Pacific

Name Value

MeetingDate 2021-06-03 AgendaItem 12

Topic Vacation Home Rental (VHR) ordinance Support

Opposed I am opposed to this item Undecided

Name Gene Lee

Contact Information [email protected]

Comments

I have a one week timeshare in Douglas County usually during the week of Christmas to New Year. When I'm unable to use it, rather than let it go vacant and un-used during this busy time with area

accommodations fully booked, I prefer provide a public service by renting the unit out to guests which helps the local economy and defrays the yearly maintenance dues. We are talking about a few hundred dollars. Are you proposing that without a permit, I would be subject to $1,000 per day per violation and between $10k-$20k civil penalty for operating without a permit?

(17)

The following information was provided

to the Board of County Commissioners

(18)

From: Mike Murphy

Subject: Public Comment Ordinance 2021-1582

Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 5:39:50 PM

CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments.

Douglas County VHR ordinance is a one size fits all ordinance for the Tahoe Township but should include language to address tourist areas, that already have a high density of VHR permits and a low residential neighborhood quality and residences in commercial areas, which should be preferred areas for VHR’s. South Lake Tahoe makes these distinctions and allows all VHR’s in those areas with no caps.

South Lake Tahoe recognized that these areas are different than normal residential neighborhoods, which I agree need to be preserved, but treating all VHR’s the same in Douglas County, regardless of where they are appears unjustified.

If a residence is in a commercial zone, that residence should be the preferred location of a VHR and not subject to caps or density restrictions and shouldn’t even be included in the temporary ban on new permits, which my understanding is to protect residential neighborhoods.

Regards, Mike Murphy

(19)

From: Ellie

Cc: Wood, Natalie <[email protected]>

Subject: Please accept these comments for the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners meeting June 3, 2021

Date: Friday, May 28, 2021 10:44:48 AM

Attachments: BOCC 6-3-2021 VHR Cty Mgr item 12.docx.pdf BOCC 6-3-2021 Clear Creek Item 7a.pdf

Please accept these comments for the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners meeting June 3, 2021

(20)

Douglas County Board of County Commissioners June 3, 2021 Ellie Waller for the Record

Page 1 of 5

Item 7a

Title: For possible action. Discussion to accept the dedication of public water system improvements that were installed by Clear Creek Residential LLC within an easement through land held by the Bureau of Indian Affairs along Jacks Valley Road. PUBLIC COMMENT (Philip Ritger)Recommended Motion: Accept the dedication of public water system improvements by Clear Creek Residential LLC as presented. Financial Impact: This dedication and acceptance agreement doesnot have an associated cost. To the extent that Clear Creek Residential LLC is entitled to any refund for improvements, the refund is defined within the terms of their Development Agreement with the County. Prepared by: Carey Rosser, Deputy District Attorney Meeting Date: June 3, 2021 Time Required: 5 minute presentation (approximate).

Please have staff and/or District Attorney clarify for the record. Assure the public that this dedication and acceptance agreement DOES NOT IMPLY that Clear Creek LLC has adjoined this water right to the yet to be proposed Schneider Ranch 545 acres they own adjacent to Clear Creek Tahoe LLC.

Review my previous objection comment letter provided to the Board of County Commissioners dated March 4, 2021 attached as a separate attachment.

Item 12. On June 3, 2021 agenda

For possible action. Discussion on the possible adoption of Ordinance 2021-1582, an ordinance repealing the existing text of Chapter 20.622 of the Douglas County Code related to Vacation Home Rentals within the Tahoe Township and adopting new text. Second Reading. PUBLIC COMMENT (Jenifer Davidson) 15 minute presentation (approximate).

Comments also related to Item 14

14.For possible action. Discussion on five (5) appointments to the Vacation Home Rental (VHR) Advisory Board and to review the proposed bylaws.(Jenifer Davidson) 75 minute presentation (approximate).

I provided similar comments on May 20, 2021 for consideration at the First reading. The on-line County Managers report dated October 5, 2020 mentions attachments A-G that I cannot find. Please provide.

(21)

Page 2 of 5

I strongly urge the commissioners to require The Douglas County Tahoe Area Plan being drafted, to provide a paragraph and reference to Vacation Home Rental Code/Ordinances.

I applaud staff and the Commissioners for their diligence with this arduous task and grasping the issues surrounding Vacation Home Rental that have escalated over the past several years. Please approve the current recommendations by staff. There will be ample opportunity to revise in the future. Please consider the suggestions included. With drought and voluntary water conservation on this agenda and the increased population utilizing it, should there be some statement in the permitting and ordinances about water conservation?

Page 3 of ordinance

8.Obtaining a VHR permit is not a right. Thus, Douglas County reserves the right to determine which permit locations are appropriate and when the permit may be revoked or denied.

Page 4 of ordinance

F. “Bedroom” means for the purposes of this chapter as a confined space having a floor area of not less than 70 square feet (no less than 7 feet in any horizontal direction) and which is heated and has glazing of 8% of the floor area and natural ventilation through windows at 4% of the room floor area and can provide emergency egress as

determined by Douglas County, with a minimum ceiling height of 7 feet. A bedroom, as defined in this chapter, must be designed to be used as a sleeping room and for no other primary purpose. Every bedroom shall have an emergency escape or rescue exit. This definition is derived from the Internal Residential Code Section R303, R304 and R31

Clarification necessary: Give example that a living room with a convertible couch not an acceptable bedroom in the permit to be completed.

B. No more than 600 VHR permits may be issued within Tahoe Township.

Further clarification is necessary as the 600 cap has been exceeded when counting illegal operations. If an illegal operation is discovered and fined, and operation is halted that is one less than approx. 725 total in operation. The 600 cap should not be

re-considered until all illegal operations are halted and fined and should be restricted to not obtaining a permit for at least one year.

Page 6 of ordinance

(22)

Page 3 of 5

I strongly urge the Fire Protection District to prohibit Outdoor fire pits. It just takes one ember. BBQ location identified by Fire district should be located a safe space and no charcoal BBQ’s allowed for fire safety.

j. A statement signed by the owner confirming the unit is not deed restricted or located in an area governed by a home owner’s association (“HoA”) and is not subject to covenants, conditions and restrictions (“CC&Rs) or bylaws that prohibit or limit the existence of VHRs. Permits shall not be issued in these areas. Permittee is required to notify the HoA of intent to rent a home as a VHR. Douglas County may require the applicant to provide documents in support of the statement as a precondition to approval of the permit.

Suggest the applicant be required to have a letter of approval by HOA Board be submitted with permit application to avoid confusion and extra staff time.

Page 7 of ordinance

F.A VHR special use permit for tier 3 units may be granted by the VHR Advisory Board under the following conditions:1.The unit complies with all tier 1 and tier 2 conditions. 2.The unit is located sufficiently far away from all other residential buildings so as to not create a nuisance.

Clarification of located sufficiently is necessary this is too broad and subjective. Example a one-acre lot next to a ¼ acre lot. How far way is far enough?

Page 8 of ordinance

8. Owner agrees to purchase and install noise monitoring devices at locations and in amounts specified by Douglas County prior to renting the unit.

Who checks for installation?

9. Agreement by homeowner to not allow more than 50 people at all times and that guests of renters, exceeding the occupancy of the permit shall not be allowed during quiet hours.

Clarification required. Is an additional special use permit required for weddings, events in excess of stated occupancy up to 50 people required? Courtesy notification to nearby neighbors by posting the special use permit advisable. Also, trash at the event must be addressed in special use permit.

Page 10 of ordinance

(23)

Page 4 of 5

vacation home rental to the specific number of occupants designated in the permit, with the number of overnight occupants not to exceed two (2) persons per bedroom or four (4) persons per on-site permitted parking space whichever is less. Occupancy may be further limited based on life safety concerns at the discretion of the Director of

Community Development. On-site permitted parking space determination will be done by the Community Development Director or their designee.

Owners/Renters of the VHR must be reminded that this a vacation occupancy and not their home. This is an option to a hotel room that is very limited so identifying

occupancy restrictions is reasonable. Page 12 of ordinance

C. Operating a VHR without a Permit. The owners of any property being advertised and/or operated as an unpermitted vacation home rental located anywhere within Douglas County in violation Douglas County Code and the Nevada Revised Statutes shall be subject to a $20,000 civil penalty.The advertising or operation of an unpermitted vacation home is a deceptive trade practice subject to the penalties found in NRS

Chapter 598.The County may also seek an injunction and/or any other legal cause of action for violation(s) of this code, including, but not limited to, collection of delinquent tax payments and criminal prosecution.

I’m not sure where in this code the following statement should be but strongly urge a statement that an illegally operating VHR that has been identified must pay a fine and not be provided the opportunity to obtain a permit for at a year. Just because they have an on-going operation isn’t a reason to grant a permit after the fact. When identified, the illegal operation must cease and desist and apply for a permit and go to the end of line. Why reward bad behavior.

Page 13/14 of ordinance

Nothing in this chapter creates any right of action against the County or any of its officers, employees, or agents. The sole purpose and intent of this section is to create a right of action between private parties, entities, and interests, which are or may be impacted or affected by various aspects of vacation home rental within the County.

Current and potential VHR owners MUST BE REMINDED THIS IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT. There is no guarantee when a permit will be available as the 600 current cap is exceeded. Purchasing a home for the express purpose of

investment/financial gain is not the responsibility of the constituents/agents of Douglas County.

Page 15 of ordinance

(24)

Page 5 of 5

O. If there is an open building permit or when necessary to protect life, property or safety, the director may immediately suspend a permit for up to ninety (90) days or until such time that the unsafe condition(s) have been corrected, whichever is later. During a suspension period no rentals may occur and in the event this provision is violated, a ten thousand dollar ($10,000) fine may be imposed in the same manner as if the owner was operating an unpermitted rental.

Suggest building permit filed for a vacation rental be submitted to the VHR enforcement staff for review for safety, fire, etc.

2.The VHR Board shall consist of five (5) members who shall be residents of the Lake Tahoe Township, a majority of which shall not be current VHR permit holders

If vacation home rentals are allowed in the future in the valley this Board will need to comprise members from the valley.

With that in mind the 20-25 illegally operating VHRs in the Valley need to cease to operate and be fined.

Next the illegally operating VHRs in Tahoe should be fined and lose their right to apply for a permit for a term no shorter than one year. Why reward bad behavior?

TRPA has a cap on the number of tourist accommodation units for hotels/motels,

casinos. These VHRs are functioning as a hotel room. This results in neighborhoods — zoned as primary residential — being plagued by too many people in houses and

condos; parked cars blocking streets and overflowing lots; and trash-strewn trails, beaches, and parks. It’s a REGIONAL problem, one that TRPA should be monitoring and reporting on not just reviewing that codes and ordinances are being adopted by each jurisdiction.

Hotels and motels have a cadre of staff that include cleaning, maintenance, and security and must abide by health and safety codes. VHRs do not. Talk about unfair business practices.

(25)

Douglas County Board of County Commissioners June 3, 2021 previously submitted for consideration to the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners March 4, 2021

Public Comment: Ellie Waller for the Record

Page 1 of 3

PUBLIC WORKS Agenda Item G OPPOSE as drafted. Modifications required!

For possible action. Discussion to approve an agreement with Clear Creek Residential, LLC, which defines the terms under which Clear Creek will pay a fee in lieu of dedicating water rights for their developments, as required by Douglas County Code Title 20, Section 20.100.040. (Philip Ritger)

Why is the Clear Creek Schneider Ranch project even being mentioned? Full Disclosure and discussion necessary of what is being contemplated/proposed for future development on the

Schneider Ranch property owned by Clear Creek as referenced “2” should be separately noticed and not included in this recital. The recital must be revised.

(26)

Page 2 of 3

Removal of “or Schneider Ranch Development (collectively the “Developments”) a must. In no

way should these developments be adjoined in this agreement for authorization for water will-serve or anything else related to a proposed Clear Creek Schneider Ranch project.

(27)

Page 3 of 3

(28)

The following information was provided

to the Board of County Commissioners

(29)

Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 10:56:40 AM

submitted by Guest on 6/2/2021 1:56:31 PM (GMT-08:00) US/Pacific

Name Value

MeetingDate 2021-06-03 AgendaItem Item 14

Topic VHR Advisory Board Support I am in support of this item Opposed

Undecided

Name Andrew Huckbody Contact Information [email protected]

Comments

I support creating this Board, but ask that the Board Candidates do not have any business conflicts of interest and the focus is on Lake

Residents that served on the VHR Task Force who already have a good understanding of the issues and possible solutions. They should come from those neighborhoods which have larger numbers of VHR's and are active on their GID/HOA Boards.

To view this form submission online, please follow the link below: https://www.douglascountynv.gov/form/one.aspx?

(30)

Name Value

MeetingDate 2021-06-03 AgendaItem Item 12

Topic Revised VHR Ordinances Support I am in support of this item Opposed

Undecided

Name Andrew Huckbody Contact Information [email protected]

Comments

After years of work on the County's VHR Program I support moving forward adopting the new VHR Ordinances to determine if the County is able to enforce them going forward and reduce the negative impacts on the Lakes Residential Zoned neighborhoods. Next will be the new VHR Fee schedule needed so this Program pays for the County and Fire Department cost to offer this Program. Then it will be up to the County to implement and enforce the new Ordinances, starting with the shutting down, fining and collecting from all those unpermitted VHR's operating in the County. I want to thank the County Staff who have worked on this Program and the current BOCC's for their interest and time trying to find a workable solution within the County.

(31)

Subject: Board of County Commissioners Comment Form 2021-06-02 02:03 PM(PST) Submission Notification

Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 2:03:38 PM

Board of County Commissioners Comment Form 2021-06-02 02:03 PM(PST) was

Name Value

MeetingDate 2021-06-03 AgendaItem VHR regulations

Topic 1PM meeting to discuss the changes to VHR regulations in Douglas_County Support

Opposed

Undecided I am undecided on this item Name Gregory Renna

Contact Information [email protected]

Comments

Hello, My name is Greg Renna owner of unit 85 in the Pinewild Community. I apologize for not being able to attend in person. However, these changes affect me a great deal and are of great concern. In an effort to be involved, I’m writing this statement and I will make every effort to be present in future meetings. I wish I was involved earlier, but frankly I just learned of these changes this past week and learned of this meeting on June 2nd. Again, I am an owner that lives in Pinewild, works out of an office in Phoenix, and travels about 60% of the time for work. As you might have gathered, my Pinewild condo is frequently empty, therefore the reason I rent it occasionally. My issue with these changes is not many. In fact, I’m in favor of most of the changes but some I believe are overreaching. My concerns are based on some of the regulatory changes, and some not. Please see my major concerns as follows: 1. I think we (Pinewild) are being excluded by lack of information and lack of representation. I’m not sure if that’s a responsibility of our HOA, the county, or my responsibility to monitor matters concerning my property but in any case, I was unaware these changes. After asking a few others, I believe there are more residents that are unaware of these matters. Aside from lack of notification, Pinewild is not represented on the VHR county task force or advisory board. As a result, we are being heard and “lumped” in with other communities that are having problems and creating these additional regulations. 2. The regulations are

(32)

and one guest parking space on a fist come first serve basis. I have the right to pass that use on to my tenant. Further, classifying these properties as commercial use is not accurate. It didn’t take much online effort to see that there are several court cases about this matter exactly, and from what I’ve read so far. VHR’s are not commercial properties. 3. These regs are being finalized on the heels of a

pandemic. It's unreasonable. The VHR activity over this period of time is not normal and not an accurate representation. Further, owners were locked down, not thinking about new county regulations and

participating in meetings. Which re-states my prior point, we did not know and wasn’t aware this was taking place, and were locked down from doing anything about it. At the very least we need more time to consider what is happening. Thank you for time and consideration, Greg Renna

(33)

submitted by Guest on 6/2/2021 11:39:52 AM (GMT-08:00) US/Pacific

Name Value

MeetingDate 2021-06-03

AgendaItem 12 Community Development Topic Ordinance 2021- 1582 Support

Opposed I am opposed to this item Undecided

Name Susan Van Doren Contact Information [email protected]

Comments

Last year I paid almost $12,000 to Douglas County for Transient Occupancy Tax by renting out my home while I lived primarily at my other home in Alpine County. This year I will be renting out my Alpine County home instead because I can't get my permit (which lapsed during the pandemic) approved due to this cap. I applied and paid for a permit in January but I could not get the fire inspection completed until after Douglas County stopped issuing permits earlier this year. I understand the need to limit vacation home rentals, but I think Douglas County should at least approve the permit applications that were paid for and completed before this policy change. I hope that this issue can be resolved as soon as possible as I was counting on the summer rental income to pay for my son's college tuition in the fall. Thanks for your consideration.

(34)

The following information was provided

to the Board of County Commissioners

(35)

Vacation Home Rental (VHR) Advisory Board Applicants

for June 2021 Vacancy

Revised 5/28/2021

First Name Last Name Permit VHR

Holder Notes:

Jeffrey Mains X

Dreu Murin X

Lauren Romain X

Daphne Abrams * Not a Tahoe Township resident

Gregory Brooks Brian Byer Robert Drabant

Patti Graf * Not a Tahoe Township resident

Andre Gueziec Received 5/28/21, postmarked 5/26/21

(36)

Vacation Home Rental (VHR) Advisory Board Applicants

for June 2021 Vacancy

Revised 5/28/2021

*Additional applications received.

* Applicant does not reside in the Tahoe Township.

First Name Last Name Permit VHR

Holder Notes: Dale Roberts Constance Robertson Patricia Splinter Brian Streck Ralph Tognetti Ed Wheelbarger

Randy Wheeler * Not a Tahoe Township resident

(37)

(38)

(39)

(40)

(41)