Ord 927 & Owner Requirements

A 24/7 contact number must be given to each neighbor, within 300′ (per 927.1).
Contact must respond to an issue within 60 minutes. We have all owner/operator contact info for certified STRs as of July 1, 2021. Reach out if you would like the info on the ones next to you.

Ord 927 requires that owners also post in a prominent position in rental:
-Operator name and phone number
-Local contact person name and phone number
-Sheriff’s Dept & Code enforcement phone numbers
-The maximum number of parking spaces onsite
-Trash pick up rules and regulations
-A copy of Rivco’s ordinances, 927 and 847
-A copy of the Good Neighbor Brochure
-Notification that a guest, local contact person, responsible person or owner may be cited or fined by the County, per ord 725.

The proposed Ordinance 927.1 is at the bottom of this page.

The current Ordinance 927 …

Proposed Ordinance 927.1, with changes …

Have your input recorded with the Rivco Planner in charge of the next version of 927 …
Principal Planner Steven Jones 951-955-0341. sjones@rivco.org.


Suggested adjustments for the next 927 version …
-Section 6A; Omitted is the need for inspections for parking and interior for the safety of residents and renters. 

-Section 7 E & F. This flexibility in enforcement is a primary current problem.  927.1 will be more effective if it reads, “Material misstatements in the application will automatically disqualify the application or cause immediate revocation of existing Certificate.  Omissions are grounds for denial.”  And, “A prior revocation can be grounds for denial.”

-Section 8E. The county has admitted that a ticket or fine has never been issued to a Short Term Renter or STR Certificate holder in our community as of September 2021. 
Requested change to 8E, “Any violation of Ordinance 847 regulating noise, will result in a ticket and a fine for the renters.  Everytime.  If there is no fine there will be minimal compliance. Tickets also go in the Certification owner’s file, 3 tickets is an automatic revocation of Certification.”

-Section 8F.  No fine mentioned.  Compliance will continue to be minimal if there is no fine for certification holders that do not give contact info to neighbors or keep it current.  Or keep it current with the county.  We are appreciative of the 300′ mention as sound travels far up here. 

-Section 8H & I.  There should be a maximum guest limit of 6.  16 is grossly irresponsible in a quiet residential neighborhood. 

-Section 8J.  An automatic ticket/fine for street parking or there will continue to be minimal compliance.   

-Section 8K.  An automatic ticket/fine for excessive or unattended pet noise/barking.  Having officers come out for a warning then a theoretical ticket later (one has never been issued to an STR)  is a waste of valuable resources and taxpayer money. 

-Section 8L.  Automatic ticket/fine for not listing Certification number and TOT tax number on any advertisement where the property is in anyway indicated.  Second offense is an automatic revocation of certification. 

-Section 8M.  Missing in posted info to guests is the important no amplified music outside ever item.  And no outside noise at all from 10pm to 7am.  Sound travels far here.

-Section 8N is appreciated.  We have a lost renter drive up to our front door a couple times a month.  Signs will help with that and possibly with the occupancy issues. 

-Section 8O. The rule to respond within 60 minutes has had almost not effect on reducing issues.  Under this rule, a manager, based in another county, can call back within 60 minutes with no requirement to reach out to the guests about the issue.  Much less be around to resolve it. 
As in other towns, it should be a 30 minute response to a complaint.  Upon a second complaint, it should be 30 minutes max before owner/manager shows up to resolve the issue.  A second offense of this rule should be automatic revocation of certification. 

‚Äč-Section 8P.  The new local enforcement agency should check that all of this documentation exists when there is a complaint on a property they manage. 

-Section 8Q.  Remove verbiage about it needing to be the Responsible Person.  It should be anyone on the property causing a disturbance.  Residents should not be trying to sort who the Responsible Person is. 

-Section 8Q has been violated on numerous occasions by Riverside County who has never attempted to collect “administrative, legal and equitable remedies”. This leaves county taxpayers on the hook for law enforcement visits (that have never resulted in a fine). 

-Section 8R.  No fine mentioned so we have minimal compliance. 

-Section 8S.  I have never seen this complied with, cert numbers in ads.  No fine means minimal compliance. 

-Section 10A.  The neighbors and I have never been notified of owner/manager contact info for the STRs near us.  No fine has meant no compliance. 

-Section 10B.  Good to see the suggestion owner/managers reach out to the renter when there are complaints.  But without a fine, we will continue to see minimal compliance and more law enforcement visits.  60 minutes is too long.  Owner/managers should maintain a presence in our community if not onsite (as is required in other towns).  30 minutes is a reasonable timeframe for onsite response.  As it is required in other communities. 
Second documented offense of this should be automatic revocation of certification.  No fine means minimal compliance. 

-Section 10C.  When owner/manager fails to resolve an issue (noise, parking and blocking, trespassing, reckless fire behavior, etc.) the Sheriff’s first visit must result in a ticket with a fine.   This is the only way to cut down on repeat visits from law enforcement which are costly to taxpayers and disruptive to quiet residential areas. 

-Section 10D.  Rivco Planning will automatically issue a fine the second time an issue occurs.  Rivco Planning has never issued a fine for any of the violations or repeat violations brought to it’s attention. 

-Section 11A.  Enforcement agencies including the Riverside County Sheriffs have never issued a fine for any STR offences. Rivco has informed a reporter who wrote a series on STR issues that a fine has never been issued.  A fact which has compounded our issues and encouraged behavior that has endangered our community.  A responsible measure would be to mandate for the Sheriff’s department to issue fines. 

An almost no mention of a very solid remedy to many issues …
-Local, on-hill agency is needed to provide inspection, enforcement and faster onsite responses to issues.  This agency must be based in town.  It is very important that this agency operates 24/7.  Most of our issues are in the middle of the night.  This agency needs to be empowered to issue ticket/fines and be able to greenlight towing.  This agency should have the authority to revoke an STR Certificate after 3 documented violations of anykind or ask the county for revocation for one violation that is more severe.  This agency will save the county money with much less demand for Sheriff and CHP visits.

A win-win suggestion for our community, also not mentioned in 927.1 …
-Non-county roads restriction.  We believe if the county understood the circumstances, that they would not allow STRs on non-county roads.   Residents on these roads pay to grade, pave and plow the road.  Though the county receives TOT and other tax revenue, these residents receive nothing.  We don’t want the money, we want STRs to stop wrecking the road. STRs increase traffic, heavy and otherwise, substantially.  We get more visits from very heavy septic and propane trucks. As well as increased maintenance, cleaner and renter traffic.  The residents all pitch in for road repairs and plowing yet we have trouble collecting money from STR owners and managers trying to maximize profit.  Non-county roads tend to be long, windy, single lane roads that are especially prone to renter and maintenance vehicles getting lost or stuck. These vehicles block in residents and block out emergency services.  And it is worse during snow events when first responders are already challenged. 
Limiting STR certifications in our community is something almost everyone agrees on.  The non-county road restriction is an excellent way to achieve some of that while greatly increasing safety of both our residents and first responders. 

Another rule implemented by towns like ours that has solved many issues …
An owner/manager must be onsite (or on the adjoining property) when renting.  This would also cut down the number of certs while solving most problems.