It’s back to the drawing board for the Short-Term Vacation Rental ordinance.
More than a year after Madera County planners began drafting a Short Term Vacation Rental ordinance, the board of supervisors declined to advance the proposal. Instead, the board directed county staff to make additional revisions before bringing the regulations back for further consideration.
The vast majority of the county’s roughly 1,600 short-term vacation rentals (STVRs) are located in Eastern Madera County. The ordinance would be applicable to the entire county.
“The debate has been particularly significant in Eastern Madera County, where tourism, traditional residential neighborhoods, second homes and vacation rentals increasingly intersect,” said District 5 Supervisor Robert “Bobby” Macaulay.
Macaulay was the only member of the board who supported advancing the ordinance rather than sending it back for additional revisions.
The issues
At issue is the ongoing attempt to strike a balance between property owners’ rights to use their homes as they wish and the well-being of neighborhoods sometimes overwhelmed by the influx of STVRs in the southern gateway to Yosemite National Park.
A public hearing at the Madera County Government Center on Aug. 18 was held as the Planning Division presented their Short Term Vacation Rental ordinance proposal, amending Title 18 of the Madera County Municipal Code by adding Chapter 18.119 – Short Term Vacation Rentals.
All five supervisors were present including board chair Macaulay, Jordan Wamhoff, David Rogers, Robert Poythress and Leticia Gonzalez.
In addition to the board and members of the public, county Chief of Development Services Jamie Bax, Senior Planner Trevor Stearns and public works staff were on hand to facilitate.
Bax outlined some history behind the proposed ordinance.
“A few years ago we did get a grant from the state of California to update our Zoning Ordinance in its entirety,” Bax shared. “With that we brought it forward to workshops and public hearings and to a planning commission hearing. That’s what initiated this process.”
In 2025 and 2026 workshops were held in Madera and Oakhurst with attendance by the general public, interested stakeholders and property owners.
In May of 2025 the county released its first draft of the proposed ordinance, followed by revisions published in July of 2025 and January and April of 2026.
What had been considered the “final draft” of the proposed ordinance prior to Aug. 18 is at: www.maderacounty.com/home/showpublisheddocument/48927/639213636675470000.
“As directed, staff has undergone the process of drafting an ordinance that seeks to promote public health (and) public safety and preserve the neighborhood character,” according to the presentation before the board.
“The resulting ordinance will create standards for STVRs through permit requirements and enforceable operational rules.”
The presentation summarized common themes brought up throughout the process of drafting the proposal.
Planners looked at concerns including utilities (water/sewer and whether to notify or gain approval from utility providers), the proposed per parcel maximum, ownership cap, ownership type (LLC, Corp., etc.), occupancy limits, general liability insurance, violations/enforcement, trash service, photo identification requirement and grandfathering.
Planning Commission revisions
Prior to the final draft presented Aug. 18, the Planning Commission made recommendations to approve the STVR Ordinance with specific revisions to three topics: increasing the occupancy threshold per room for more flexibility; possibly increasing or removing the annual renewal policy; and revising language in the ordinance for clarity and reducing redundant language.
“Throughout that process, several provisions contained in earlier versions have been removed or modified,” Macaulay said. “During the latest board discussion, one member of the public said those changes had ‘watered down the ordinance.’”
Bax told the board a per-parcel maximum on previous drafts was eliminated along with the ownership cap and ownership type.
One of the primary points of disagreement before the board was occupancy standards. Bax said occupancy limits were increased from two to three per bedroom.
“Several supervisors expressed concern about imposing occupancy caps that would limit the number of people permitted to stay in a short-term rental,” said Macaulay, the only board member who supported maintaining occupancy standards.
“Those concerns ultimately became a significant obstacle to advancing the ordinance in its current form.”
Macaulay argued that reasonable occupancy limits are an important tool for addressing impacts on residential neighborhoods, particularly in the mountain communities where large groups staying at vacation rentals can create problems involving noise, parking, trash and neighborhood compatibility.
The ordinance continued to face heavy opposition from the Madera County Short Term Rental Alliance, which represents short-term rental owners and operators, the supervisor said.
“The Alliance has pushed for the county to incorporate nine specific points into the ordinance. However, much of what the Alliance was requesting had already been incorporated into the newest version presented to the board,” said Macaulay.
Bax said her staff also eliminated the general liability insurance requirements and changed and clarified the violations and enforcement section to be consistent with normal code enforcement procedures.
Additionally included in the presented draft were trash service requirements. The photo identification requirement was removed and Bax said they “clarified some of the grandfathering, as well.”
The planning commission on their final draft removed the renewal policy and “any redundancy throughout,” Bax said.
Bax confirmed the planning commission recommended approval of the ordinance itself.
She further commented on licensing, permits, transfer process and the potential to streamline applications. She and other county staff answered questions asked by the board. Supervisors expressed appreciation to the staff for their ongoing efforts around the proposed ordinance.
Back at it
After a lengthy meeting which included discussion of the issue by the supervisors as well as supporters and detractors of the ordinance both in person and via electronic attendance, officials concluded the proposal needed more work and would be returned to staff.
“I think that they have heard a lot today,” said Supervisor Robert Poythress. “And I think this requires a lot more work and they received the input so I don’t think it needs a motion or a vote to take it back. I think they get the drift.”
Macaulay responds
Macaulay was letdown by the results of Tuesday’s public meeting.
“I am disappointed that my colleagues have only heard from a select group of realtors and operators, they need to hear from community members that are impacted by irresponsible operators. They need to better understand the impacts on residents in the mountain area.”
He said supporters of regulation have emphasized that the issue is not whether short-term rentals should be allowed, but what reasonable operating standards should apply when commercial vacation rentals are located alongside permanent residents.
“Over more than a year of discussion, the county has already modified the proposal in response to concerns raised by the short-term rental industry and property owners. The latest decision means staff will now make another round of revisions rather than allowing the board to vote on the ordinance that had emerged from that process,” Macaulay explained.
“The disagreement over occupancy standards illustrates the challenge facing the county. While several supervisors were reluctant to establish limits on how many guests can occupy a short-term rental, residents concerned about problem properties have argued that occupancy is directly connected to many of the impacts the ordinance is intended to address including excessive noise, crowded parking and trash.”
Macaulay maintained the county could establish reasonable rules without preventing responsible property owners from operating short-term rentals. His position remained that standards should focus on preventing irresponsible operations and protecting neighboring residents rather than prohibiting the industry.
“With the ordinance headed back to staff, the debate will continue. The additional review also provides another opportunity for residents who live near short-term rentals to participate in the process and describe their experiences directly to the board.”
The proposed ordinance will undergo another round of changes before it can be considered for adoption by the board of supervisors.
Those interested may provide comment to COTB@MaderaCounty.com.
Visit www.maderacounty.com/government/community-economic-development department/divisions/planning-division/short-term-vacation-rental-ordinance for details.
Responses (0)