Marina City Council declined to open the issue of short-term rentals for further public comment in last week’s meeting, voting 3-1-0 to amend definitions of ownership in their short-term rental ordinance and lock in a provision prohibiting houses with accessory dwelling units built after Jan. 1, 2020, from obtaining permits.

The decision may be a final blow in a debate that has gone back and forth between members of the public and City Council and a handful of homeowners who say short-term rentals, known as STRs, make up a key part of their income.

The primary decision made by the council was in response to an ongoing lawsuit between Monterey County Vacation Rental Alliance and the county of Monterey, regarding the legality of two provisions in their “Vacation Rental Law.” The suit alleges that two of the provisions that treat nonresident and non-individual owners differently from property owners and “natural owners” are unconstitutional. The provisions in question have been suspended by the county of Monterey until the suit has concluded.

As such, staff recommends Marina City Council amend two definitions in Marina’s STR laws to allow the residence-based eligibility for a permit to be satisfied by a long-term leaseholder or titleholder, as well as allowing a lease or rental agreement to serve as an acceptable form of residency documentation.

The change is “consistent with the City’s original intent that STRs remain occupied by a person with a genuine, ongoing connection to the property and the surrounding neighborhood, regardless of how that person’s interest in the property is held,” said the staff report.

But the question of what “protecting neighborhood connection” means is what led to vigorous debate on the second item, a prohibition preventing houses with accessory dwelling units obtained after Jan. 1, 2020, from obtaining permits to use their property for STRs.

It’s one of the last items in question regarding the heavy restrictions the council placed on short-term rentals earlier this summer. STRs are properties rented on a short-term basis for less than 29 days, typically through vacation rental platforms such as Airbnb or Vrbo.

The changes are intended to protect neighborhood integrity across Marina by reducing the number of homes that are being used year-round as vacation rentals and increasing available housing in Marina for those who need it. Important changes included a city-wide permit cap of 50, a maximum rental period of 180 nights a year and a 55-foot mandatory separation between units.

“Residential neighborhoods are effectively being commercialized into informal hotel districts, undermining zoning laws and burdening long-term neighbors,” said the original report recommending the changes.

The ADU restriction is to prevent cases where a resident lives permanently in an accessory unit and rents out the main residence on their property full time. But some say that exact description is how they’re able to make rent. Marina says they received letters and feedback in July asking them to consider changing the policy as a whole.

Now the pushback is more focused. One member of the public said that building an ADU in 2022 was a major financial decision for his family, and that changing the rules would affect him negatively.

Mayor Bruce Delgado says he is aware of around 10 families who relied on Airbnb or similar platforms for their income. “I have met in person with several of these families to learn more and hear their circumstances,” said Delgado, “if you indebt yourself due to a financial plan that includes short-term rentals because they’re legal and allowed and the city says ‘sorry you can’t do that business anymore,’ their financial plan is ruined through no fault of their own.”

One of the people who spoke up was mayoral candidate Ana Luz Acevedo. “I also participated during public comment for the STR agenda item because I felt the need to advocate for homeowners in our town who have high mortgages to pay and their ADU investments have been impacted by requested changes to the STR policy in Marina,” said Acevedo on Facebook after the fact, “Yes we do need more long-term rental housing stock, but before we can be hard on homeowners that have high bills to pay and use part of their property for short-term renting to offset those costs,”

But members of the city council pushed back against many of these claims, including that the changes would make it impossible for renters to pay their bills. “The intent of California ADU law is to create additional permanent housing for residents, not for tourists. We have over-the-counter plans for ADUs, and it’s not for hotels; it’s for homes. Rent it out to a student, rent it out to traveling nurses,” said Jenny McAdams after the public comment phase had ended.

Delgado voted no on the amendment, and said he hoped that the council could “at least have their stories on paper” before the ordinance finally took effect.