Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-08-14
City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm Street, during normal business hours. SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chamber City Hall - 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 October 8, 2014 Wednesday 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL:Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler, Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. MINUTES: Minutes of September 17, 18, and 24, 2014. Approve or amend. PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be appealed since they are not a final action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal documentation. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six minutes. 1.City-Wide.CODE-0058-2014: Review of proposed ordinance to allow and regulate Owner-Occupied Homestays and proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Greg Hermann) Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs, and activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2.Staff a. Agenda Forecast 3.Commission ADJOURNMENT Presenting Planner: Greg Hermann 2222 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of amendments to Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the Municipal Code to add provisions to allow homestays rentals. PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide BY: Greg Hermann, Special Projects Manager Phone Number: 781-7194 E-mail: ghermann@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: CODE 0058-2014 FROM:Kim Murry, Community Development Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION:Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and adopt the proposed amendments to Title 17 (Zoning Regulations –Homestay Ordinance) of the Municipal Code. SITE DATA Applicant City of San Luis Obispo Representative Greg Hermann, Special Projects Manager Zoning Multiple General Plan Multiple Site Area ~13 square miles Application Complete n/a Environmental Status Proposed Negative Declaration 1.0 BACKGROUND Until 2006, the City’s Zoning Ordinance was silent on vacation rentals as a land use, which meant that the use was not allowed. To clarify this intent, in 2006, the City Council amended the Zoning Regulations to include an express prohibition on vacation rentals in all zones in the City. A vacation rental was defined as a residence or part of a dwelling that is furnished and rented for fewer than 30 consecutive days. 2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 222222222222222 2222222 2222222222222 Meeting Date: 10-8-14 Item Number: 1 PC 1-1PC 1-1 KM gh CODE 0058-2014 Draft Homestay Ordinance In 2013, City staff began receiving complaints from neighbors and other interested parties regarding short-term, homestay and vacation rentals and began pro-active enforcement efforts in March 2013. Three Administrative Citations and 11 Notices to Correct were issued to operators of homestay and vacation rentals. At the same time, staff and the City Council received letters and testimony from many supporters and operators of homestay and vacation rentals encouraging amendments to Municipal Code 17.22.010G to allow such uses. On November 12, 2013, the City Council held a study session to review the existing regulations prohibiting vacation rentals in the City. City staff presented information on both complaints and support from the community regarding homestays and vacation rentals, existing policies and regulations, current enforcement efforts, best practices from other cities, legal concerns, and fees. Following discussion and public testimony, the City Council directed staff to temporarily suspend enforcement of the vacation rental prohibition, and to create an ordinance permitting owner occupied homestays. This direction included a robust discussion of the distinction between homestays and vacation rentals. In addition, the City Council directed staff to process the text amendment in a streamlined process, explore options related to implementing a permit process for homestays in the R-1 Zone, implement methods of collecting Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), provide amnesty for unpaid TOT and evaluate the use of secondary dwelling units in relation to the proposed ordinance. 2.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The Planning Commission’s bylaws include responsibility to review zoning regulations and provide recommendations to City Council. City Council directed creation of an ordinance, but relies on Planning Commission review and input prior to making a decision. The purpose of the meeting with the Planning Commission is to provide an opportunity for review of the draft ordinance and to garner Commission input and recommendation for City Council consideration. 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION The City’s Municipal Code currently prohibits short-term dwelling rental (less than 30 days) uses in the City, with the exception of Bed and Breakfast establishments which are allowed in R-3 and R-4 zones subject to a Planning Commission Use Permit. The proposed amendments would create a distinction between owner-occupied short-term rentals, known as homestays, non-owner occupied short-term rentals known as vacation rentals, and more commercial transient lodging in dwellings known as bed and breakfast establishments. This distinction allows for the creation of a separate program to allow for homestay rentals while continuing to prohibit vacation rentals and regulate bed and breakfast uses. The proposed ordinance allows homestay rentals in all zones subject to performance standards and permit requirements (Attachment 1). In order to develop the draft ordinance, staff sought guidance from public input, existing General Plan policies, and regulations from other jurisdictions, as well as reviewed current statistics for context. Each is discussed below. PC 1-2PC 1-2 CODE 0058-2014 Draft Homestay Ordinance Public Outreach Staff identified key audiences for generating input in drafting the ordinance. As part of the outreach, staff sought to: 1) Actively engage the diverse populations of the City in the discussions about a Homestay Ordinance to gather input regarding how homestay rentals should be operated, located and managed; and 2) Ensure that those affected, including those representing homestay operators, businesses, property owners and general members of the public, are actively involved in the process. Over the past several months, staff facilitated meetings on homestay rentals with SLO Hosts, the San Luis Obispo Realtors Association, and Residents for Quality Neighborhoods. Staff also contacted the San Luis Obispo Property and Business Owners Association, but that group elected not to receive a presentation at this time. Staff also had several conversations with representatives of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce and members of the general public on the issue. In total, staff consulted with over 100 community members on homestay rentals. Outreach efforts will continue beyond the Planning Commission hearing. Outreach Results The following overview of feedback and comments points to the diversity of opinions regarding issues to be addressed as part of the draft ordinance. Support of homestay rentals: x Regulations should be limited, fees low and equivalent for all zones to encourage participation and limit the need for enforcement x Regulations should be similar to the requirements placed on long-term rentals x Maximum occupancy should allow for at least 2 adults per bedroom as well as additional guests for other rooms or bedrooms with multiple beds x Homestays should be allowed in guest quarters and second-dwelling units x A responsible party requirement should be revisited and required only if complaints occur x Inspection requirements should be revisited and required only if complaints occur x Parking requirements should be revisited and required only if complaints occur Concern with homestay rentals: x Owner occupancy should be verified through the Homeowner’s Property Tax Exemption x An administrative use permit or equivalent process should be required for homestays in all zones x Notification should go beyond adjacent property owners to 300 ft. x There should be a limit placed on the maximum number of guests and number of bedrooms allowed for rentals x Limits on concentration and distance between homestay rentals should be considered x The property owner should be required to be the responsible party during rentals x The property owner should have hours of presence required around times of check in and check out x The permit should be subject to an annual review PC 1-3PC 1-3 CODE 0058-2014 Draft Homestay Ordinance General Plan Policies The General Plan does not currently contain policies that directly address homestay rentals. However, there are Land Use Element policies that address Tourist Commercial uses (Policy 3.5.1) says: “The City should be an attractive place for short-term stays, as well as an attractive destination for long-term visitors. The City should base its attraction on the character of the community, its natural qualities, and its educational and cultural facilities. The City should emphasize conference and visitor-serving facilities which have a low impact upon the environment and upon existing land forms and landscapes, and which provide low-impact visitor activities and low-impact means of transportation.” This policy recognizes that visitor-serving uses are an important component of the city’s economic profile, but also seeks to minimize the impacts created by those uses. Implementation of this concept is seen in the regulations for Bed & Breakfasts and other transient uses. The Land Use Element also contains policies intended to provide neighborhood protection and enhancement. Specifically, Policy 2.2.13 says: “Residential areas may accommodate limited non-residential activities which generally have been compatible, such as child day care, elementary schools, churches, and home businesses meeting established criteria.” Policy 2.1.3 indicates that neighborhoods should be protected from intrusive traffic. Finally, Housing Element Goal 7, Neighborhood Quality, says: “Maintain, preserve and enhance the quality of neighborhoods, encourage neighborhood stability and owner occupancy, and improve neighborhood appearance, function, and sense of community.” The City Council and staff have received many comments from operators of homestays that the additional income allows them to retain home ownership and occupancy instead of needing to sell or rent their home. Other Jurisdictions The concept of homestay rentals is relatively new and consequently there are very few cities with ordinances to address the specific type of use. Typically, when addressed, the regulations for homestay type uses are included with those for vacation rentals or bed and breakfasts. Staff was unable to locate a standalone ordinance for homestay rentals. Recently, the City of Arroyo Grande approved an ordinance to allow for both homestay and vacation rentals (Attachment 4). Also, the City of Sebastopol has recently developed guidelines for the operation of homestays (Attachment 5), although they have not yet enacted any legislation. Staff contacted both of these cities to solicit input on what to consider in a local ordinance and how to best craft effective regulations. Using these examples, as well as the previous research on vacation rentals presented at the study session, staff identified several key elements to successful regulations of short-term PC 1-4PC 1-4 CODE 0058-2014 Draft Homestay Ordinance rentals. These elements are described below including how they are represented in the draft ordinance. Currents Statistics As of October 1st, 2014, there were approximately 90 short-term rentals listed on Airbnb. On another popular short-term rental website, VRBO, 70 residences were listed. There is likely overlap between these two sites. Short-term rentals can also be found on Craigslist although that site lacks the vetting process for hosts and guests found on Airbnb and VRBO, and is consequently used less for these types of activities. The City has been collecting the required TOT tax for homestay rentals since February 2014. Since then, 33 hosts have signed up and the City has collected a total of $21,284. Since the City Council study session in November 2013 and subsequent direction to temporarily suspend enforcement of the vacation rental prohibition, the Community Development Department has received six complaints from residents. Four were generally related to the legality of operating a short-term rental and two were regarding noise. 4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The draft Ordinance seeks to balance community input with the City Council direction to allow for owner occupied homestay rental while preserving neighborhood character and quality of life. Issues that appeared to influence compatibility with the neighborhood include: Owner occupancy Permit level required Maximum # Guests Parking Responsible Party Inspection Accessory uses for Homestay The ordinance incorporates community input by establishing specific permit requirements, performance standards and use permit considerations to ensure that homestay rentals will be compatible with surrounding uses. Each topic is discussed in further detail below. Owner Occupancy Owner occupancy is one of the key differentiators between a vacation rental and a homestay rental. The intent of requiring owner occupancy is to increase the potential success that a homestay rental will not have an impact to the surrounding neighborhood because a resident owner is invested and engaged in neighborhood relationships and will moderate issues resulting from rentals. The cities of Arroyo Grande and Sebastopol both indicate that homestay rentals must occur at the primary residence of the property owner. The draft ordinance includes a requirement that the dwelling be owner occupied. Owner occupation is a different standard than “owner presence.” While owner presence is encouraged, it is not included in the City’s draft ordinance (or in examples from other cities) due to difficulties in practicality and enforcement. However, there is a key requirement for the owner or a responsible party to be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week during the time the home is used for a homestay rental. This requirement is described in greater detail below. PC 1-5PC 1-5 CODE 0058-2014 Draft Homestay Ordinance The draft ordinance includes methods by which applicants verify owner occupancy, including evidence that the Homeowner’s Property Tax Exemption is taken at the subject property. Evidence of this will need to be presented for a Homestay Permit to be approved. Permit Requirements The draft ordinance includes a Homestay Permit for all homestay rentals. The permit would consist of an administrative approval process and cost $305. The application for the permit would consist of: - A business license - Evidence of enrollment to pay TOT and TBID taxes -Verification of owner occupancy through the Homeowner’s Property Tax Exemption or other appropriate information (e.g. driver’s license, utility billing, auto registration, etc.) - A site plan indicating location of one additional on-site parking space The administrative approval process also includes posting at the property and notification to adjacent property owners (owners with property lines adjoining the subject property or across the street). A public review hearing may be held at the Community Development Director’s discretion, or if protests are received. Any request to waive or modify standards of the draft ordinance will require an administrative use permit. The City Council originally indicated their interest in an administrative use permit for R-1 zones and an over the counter permit for other zones. In further evaluating the standards, staff is recommending the homestay permit and administrative approval process be used in all zones. It provides an affordable permit process with provisions to address neighborhood issues and concerns consistently throughout the city. Maximum Number of Guests The City has existing regulations regarding maximum occupancy for residents, but these limitations do not apply to short-term, transient uses. The intent behind setting a threshold is to limit the potential impact of noise and parking concerns associated with the rental use on neighborhoods. The draft ordinance limits the number of overnight guests to four adults. Parking Parking is a significant concern in the City and homestay rentals should be conducted in such a way as to not have an effect on the availability of parking in residential neighborhoods. To accomplish this, the draft ordinance proposes that the operator provide at least one (1) on-site parking space in addition to their required residential parking. Parking in a driveway that has a minimum depth of 20 feet from the back of sidewalk and is made available during rentals would meet the definition of a parking space. This requirement is identical to that which is required for a Home Occupation Permit. Responsible Party A responsible party requirement is a common requirement of short-term rentals and is intended to provide a point of contact for the homestay rental in the event the property owner is not at the property at all times during the rental. The draft ordinance requires that at all times when a homestay is occurring, a responsible party (which may be the property owner) must be within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property. The responsible party must be available via telephone PC 1-6PC 1-6 CODE 0058-2014 Draft Homestay Ordinance twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, to respond to complaints regarding the homestay. Contact information for the property owner and responsible party must be provided to adjacent property owners as a part of the Homestay Permit process. Inspections Inspections are another common requirement of short-term rentals. Inspections are desirable to ensure housing and building code compliance as well as safety for transient occupancy tenants of homestay rentals. A requirement for an inspection for a Homestay Permit is not currently included in the draft ordinance. The City Council has expressed an interest in a general residential rental inspection program and will be hosting a study session on the topic at the December 2nd, 2014 City Council meeting. At that meeting the City Council will be presented with a number of options for residential rental inspection programs which will include inspections for homestay rentals. Should the City Council provide direction to create a residential inspection program, staff will be recommending that Homestays be included as part of the program. Second-dwelling units, Guest quarters and Multi-family properties Secondary dwellings: The draft ordinance specifies that the homestay rental shall be limited to only the owner occupied dwelling unit on a given property. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that additional dwellings on a property, such as a second dwelling unit, do not become an on-going homestay rental, thereby reducing the stock of rental housing available in the City. Guest quarters (formerly referred to as guesthouses) are not allowed for homestay rentals. Guest houses are not intended to create opportunities for rental housing. This is reflected in the recent City Council action which states that guest quarters permitted on or after August 14th, 2014 may not be rented. Staff proposes that the Homestay Ordinance align and expand on that direction by prohibiting current or future guest quarters from being used as a homestay rental. Multi-family properties: The draft ordinance indicates that homestay rentals are allowed in owner-occupied units of multi-family properties. Standards for parking, contact information and other requirements would be applied. Properties with private restrictions such as Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions may be more restrictive than City ordinances including prohibiting business activities at residences. Individuals with properties with private restrictions should consult with the homeowner’s association for more information. 5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS A staff team consisting of the Community Development Director, Community Development Deputy Director, Chief Building Official, Fire Chief, Economic Development Manager, Assistant City Attorney, Assistant City Manager and Finance staff participated in the development and review of the draft ordinance. 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has completed an initial study to assess the potential environmental effects of the project (Attachment 6). No potentially significant environmental impacts were identified. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. PC 1-7PC 1-7 CODE 0058-2014 Draft Homestay Ordinance 7.0 ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may modify the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code. Specific direction should be given to staff regarding any modifications. 2. The Commission may continue action, if more information in needed. Direction should be given to staff regarding additional information needed to make a decision. 8.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution with Exhibit A, Legislative Draft 2. November 12, 2013, Vacation Rental Study Session Staff Report 3. November 12, 2013, City Council meeting minutes 4. City of Arroyo Grande Vacation Rental and Homestay Ordinance 5. City of Sebastopol Homestay Guidelines 6. Initial Study PC 1-8PC 1-8 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD PROVISIONS TO ALLOW HOMESTAY RENTALS (CODE 0058-2014) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a study session in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 12, 2013, and directed staff to temporarily suspend enforcement of Municipal Code §17.22.010(G) related to the prohibition of vacation rentals, pending adoption of an ordinance which provides for homestay rentals; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 8, 2014, for the purpose of considering the Negative Declaration of environmental impact and amendments to Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the Municipal Code to add provisions to allow homestay rentals; and WHEREAS, the City of “San Luis Obispo” ("City") does not currently regulate homestay rentals; and WHEREAS, the City does regulate similar transient uses with similar impacts such as bed and breakfast establishments; and WHEREAS, the City finds that, unless properly regulated, homestays could result in impacts to adjacent properties; and WHEREAS, the purpose of these regulations is to ensure that homestays conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in which they are located and do not create impacts to adjacent properties; and WHEREAS, staff facilitated meetings with the public and community organizations to gather community input on how homestay rentals should be operated, located and managed; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the program; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. PC 1-9PC 1-9 Attachment 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. The increasing popularity of homestay rentals in the City require the implementation of appropriate regulations to ensure that impacts are addressed and the character of existing neighborhoods is maintained, while providing an expanded type of lodging facility available within the City. 2. The Homestay Ordinance is consistent with General Plan policies, which directs the City to provide for visitor uses and protect neighborhoods through the establishment of requirements and standards for operation and management of homestay rentals. 3. Current zoning regulations do not address homestay rentals. Section 2. Environmental. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Secion 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the Municipal Code to add provisions to allow homestay rentals, included as Exhibit A. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 8th day of October, 2014. ___________________________ Doug Davidson, Secretary Planning Commission by: PC 1-10PC 1-10 Attachment 1 Chapter 17.08: Uses Allowed In Several Zones Sections: 17.08.010 Temporary uses. 17.08.020 Outdoor sales on commercial and residential lots. 17.08.030 Service stations. 17.08.040 Concurrent sales of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages. 17.08.050 Vending machines. 17.08.060 Electronic game amusement centers. 17.08.072 Mixed Use projects. 17.08.080 Public utilities. 17.08.090 Home occupations. 17.08.095 Neighborhood grocery markets. 17.08.100 Child and adult day care. 17.08.110 Homeless shelters. 17.08.120 Location of pools and pool equipment. 17.08.130 Live/work and work/live units 17.08.140 Homestay rentals 17.08.010 Temporary and Intermittent Uses. A. Purpose and Intent.The provisions codified in this chapter provide for certain temporary and intermittent uses. It establishes standards and procedures to assure that such uses are compatible with their surroundings and the intent of these regulations. In approving a temporary or intermittent use, the Director may establish requirements related to, but not limited to, days and hours of operation, parking, temporary structures, and site planning, in addition to performance standards specified below. The Director shall determine the extent to which any permanent on-site parking and other facilities may satisfy the requirements for the proposed use. A temporary use approval is not intended to allow a land use that is not allowed in the primary zoning district, other than in the specific cases listed in Section C. The Director may refer any proposed temporary or intermittent use to an administrative hearing or to the Planning Commission for action. B. Definitions. A temporary use is one which is established at a particular location for less than one year. An intermittent use is one which occurs no more than 90 days in a year, but which may continue from year-to-year. Temporary and intermittent uses for businesses shall consist of activities that represent a variation from the normal business operations, e.g. parking lot sales, benefits, and special events. Temporary and Intermittent Uses are not intended to serve the primary purpose of allowing flexibility from Sign Regulations or other City Codes. PC 1-11PC 1-11 Attachment 1 Exhibit A SECTION 17.08.140 – Homestay Rentals A.Purpose and Intent.The purpose of these regulations is to allow owner occupied homestay rentals in the City with reasonable standards to preserve neighborhood character and quality of life. B.Definitions. 1.Bed and Breakfast Inn. A building or group of buildings providing less than 15 bedrooms or suites that are rented for overnight lodging, with a common eating area for guests. 2.Homestay. An owner-occupied dwelling unit where bedrooms are provided for short term rental use with a maximum of four adult overnight guests. 3.Vacation Rental. A dwelling or part of a dwelling where lodging is furnished for compensation for fewer than thirty consecutive days without concurrently being occupied by the owner/operator. Vacation rentals are not allowed in the City of San Luis Obispo. C.Permit Required. The operation of a homestay requires a homestay permit through an administrative approval by the Community Development Director, who may add, delete, or modify conditions to further the intent of the ordinance. Any request to waive or modify standards of this ordinance shall require an administrative use permit. D.Application Requirements. 1.Operators of homestays in all zones are required to obtain a homestay permit and a business license. 2.The operator of the homestay shall pay Transient Occupancy Tax and Tourism Business Improvement District tax as required by San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. 3.The operator must provide verification of primary residence through the Homeowner’s Property Tax Exemption or other appropriate documentation. 4.The operator must provide a site plan with at least one (1) on-site parking space in addition to their required residential parking. Parking in a driveway that has a minimum depth of 20 feet from the back of sidewalk and is made available during rentals shall meet the definition of a parking space. E. Performance Standards. 1.Homestays shall comply with the property development and performance standards listed in Section 17.18 and 17.19. 2.All Building and Fire Code and regulations shall be met. 3.The number of overnight guests shall be limited to four adults. Bedrooms shall meet the minimum size requirements as defined in the Building Code. 4.At all times when a homestay rental is occurring, a responsible party must be within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property. The responsible party must be available via telephone twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, to respond to complaints regarding the homestay. Contact information for the responsible party must be provided to adjacent property owners. PC 1-12PC 1-12 Attachment 1 Exhibit A 5. The homestay shall be limited to only the owner occupied dwelling unit on the property. 6.Homestays are not allowed in guest houses or guest quarters. 7.Any advertisements for the homestay shall include the Business License number. On-site advertising of the homestay is prohibited. F.Revocation of a Permit. 1.Violation of these requirements and standards shall constitute grounds for revocation of the Homestay Permit. 2.At any time, the permit can be referred to an Administrative Review Hearing if determined by the Community Development Director upon receipt of substantiated written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer, or Police Department Officer, which includes information and/or evidence supporting a conclusion that a violation of the permit, or of City ordinances or regulations applicable to the property or operation of the homestay, has occurred. At the time of the Permit review, to ensure compliance with applicable laws and conditions of permit, conditions of approval may be added, deleted, modified, or the permit may be revoked. G.Appeal. Appeal procedures for this section shall be as provided by Chapter 17.66 (Appeals). PC 1-13PC 1-13 Attachment 1 Exhibit A Chapter 17.22: Use Regulation Section: 17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones. 17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones. A. Status of Uses.Uses within zones shall be as provided in Table 9, subject to parts B through I below. In Table 9,symbols shall have these meanings: A The use is allowed; D If the director approves an administrative use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080, the use may be established; PC If the planning commission approves a use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080, the use may be established; A/D The use is allowed above the ground floor. If the director approves an administrative use permit, it may be established on the ground floor. Special notes affecting the status of uses, indicated by number in Table 9, may be found at the end of the table. B. Interpretation of Use Listing.These regulations are intended to permit similar types of uses within each zone. The director, subject to the appeal procedures of Chapter 17.66, shall determine whether uses which are not listed shall be deemed allowed or allowed subject to use permit approval in a certain zone. This interpretation procedure shall not be used as a substitute for the amendment procedure as a means of adding new types of uses to a zone. C. Principal and Accessory Uses. Listed uses are principal uses. Accessory uses are allowed with principal uses. D. Production and Sales.Where manufacturing is allowed, incidental sale of items made on the premises is allowed. When sale of a particular type of item is allowed, craftsman-type production of such an item for sale on the premises is allowed. E. Public School Uses.See Section 17.36.030 concerning uses which may be established within public schools. F. Prohibition of Drive-through Facilities.Drive-through facilities are not allowed in any zone. G. Prohibition of Vacation Rentals. Vacation rentals are not allowed in any zone. Homestay rentals are separately defined and regulated under Section 17.08.140. H. Prohibition of Mineral Extraction.Commercial mining is prohibited in City limits. (Ord. 1365 (2000 series)(part) I. Specific Plan Consistency.Some land subject to City zoning is also subject to one of several Specific Plans, which are intended to provide additional direction for the development of those areas. Land within Specific Plans, designated by the SP zoning, may be subject to further restrictions. The list of uses and permit requirements in the Specific Plan shall prevail. J. Airport Land Use Plan Consistency.Some land subject to City zoning is also subject to the Airport Land Use Plan, which is adopted and amended from time to time by the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission. The Airport Land Use Plan establishes additional limitations on uses, which do not apply to City-adopted PC 1-14PC 1-14 Attachment 1 Exhibit A H. Definitions, "H." Homestay. An owner-occupied dwelling unit where bedrooms are provided for short term rental use with a maximum of four adult overnight guests. Vacation rentals are defined separately see 17.100 V. V. Definitions, "V." Vacation Rental. A dwelling or part of a dwelling where lodging is furnished for compensation for fewer than thirty consecutive days without concurrently being occupied by the owner/operator. Does not include homestays,fraternities, sororities, convents, monasteries, hostels, bed & breakfast inns, hotels, motels, or boarding/rooming houses, which are separately defined. PC 1-15PC 1-15 Attachment 1 Exhibit A FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Prepared By: Doug Davidson, Deputy Community Development Director SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW EXISTING REGULATIONS PROHIBITING VACATION RENTALS IN THE CITY RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive a presentation and overview about vacation/homestay rentals: existing regulations, the pros/cons, and the impacts on staff workload/priorities if any proposed Ordinance amendments should be initiated to allow vacation rentals in the City. 2. If Council desires to amend existing regulations, review and provide direction to initiate Ordinance amendments and general parameters within which to allow vacation/homestay rentals according to the Council Direction “Yes/No” chart on pages 13-14 of the agenda report and the priority of such an endeavor if desired by Council. Additionally, staff requests clarity on the following : a. Whether to require SLO Hosts to submit an application to cover the costs to prepare Ordinance text amendments to Title 17: Zoning, and b. Whether to direct staff to enforce only complaint-based reports with actual addresses in the interim until Council adopts Ordinance amendments, and c. Whether to re-organize existing workload to accommodate this project or supplement staff. If Council desires to amend existing regulations, staff would return as early as possible with a Resolution of Intent and any necessary budget adjustments necessary to implement Council direction. REPORT-IN-BRIEF A vacation rental is defined “as a dwelling or part thereof where lodging is furnished for compensation for fewer than thirty consecutive days. This does not include fraternities, sororities, convents, monasteries, hostels, bed and breakfast inns, hotels, motels, or boarding/rooming houses, which are separately defined 1.” In 2006, the City Council amended the Zoning Regulations to include an express prohibition on vacation rentals in all zones in the City 2. The prohibition was enacted until such time as an ordinance could be adopted specifically addressing the potential impacts that vacation rentals could 1 Municipal Code Section 17.100 2 Municipal Code Section 17.22.010G Meeting Date Item Number November 12, 2013 PC 1-16PC 1-16 Attachment 2 have on adjacent residential uses 3(Attachment 1). No subsequent Council action has been taken to repeal or modify the prohibition. Prior to 2006, the Municipal Code was “silent” on vacation rentals, in effect, precluding this use. A land use not listed in Land Use Table 9 of the Zoning Regulations is not allowed, unless Ordinance amendments are adopted to explicitly permit such a use 4. City staff received complaints from neighbors and other interested parties regarding vacation rentals and began pro-active enforcement efforts in March 2013. Pro-active enforcement is consistent with the Neighborhood Wellness Major City Goal adopted by the City Council. Three Administrative Citations and 11 Notices to Correct were issued to operators of vacation rentals. Staff and the Council received letters and testimony from many supporters and operators of vacation rentals encouraging amendments to Municipal Code 17.22.010G to allow such uses. On September 3, 2013, after receiving public comments, the Council directed staff to agendize the topic of vacation rentals at a future meeting as a study session. This format provides the Council with the ability to receive information on the issue and consider the pros and cons of any Municipal Code changes and an opportunity for the Council to provide direction to staff for any code amendments, enforcement changes, and to evaluate the public process to seek input on any Municipal Code changes desired by a majority of the Council. Planning Commission Appeal The property owner of 1265 Mill Street received a Notice to Correct on May 15, 2013 and a timely appeal was filed on May 29, 2013. The appeal was denied by the Community Development Director on July 24, 2013. A timely appeal of this action was received on August 1, 2013. On October 9, 2013 the Planning Commission denied the appeal based on findings that the business operation at 1265 Mill Street was a vacation rental, which is not allowed under the adopted Zoning Regulations. The Planning Commission’s decision was not appealed. Vacation Rentals, Homestays, and Other Similar Land Use Terms In addition to vacation rentals, the terms “short-term rentals”, “transient rentals”, and “resort dwelling units” are used to describe this type of land use. All of these terms describe a dwelling unit (or part of) that is rented for a period of less than 30 consecutive days. A distinguishing feature of these types of vacation rentals is that the property owner/operator may or may not reside on the site or occupy a portion of the residential unit concurrently with guests. The term “homestay” is also becoming a commonly used term for vacation rentals. In a homestay dwelling, the owner permanently resides in the residence and rents out portions of the dwelling, either at the same time as the owner occupies the unit or during time periods when the owner may be vacationing or occupying another property. Bed and breakfast inn (B&B) means a building or group of buildings providing fifteen or fewer bedrooms or suites that are rented for overnight lodging, with a common eating area for guests. The definition does not include room rental, which is separately defined (see “boarding/rooming 3 Excerpt from City Council staff report dated December 5, 2006 adopting the 2007 Zoning Regulations Amendments 4 Municipal Code Section 17.22.010B PC 1-17PC 1-17 Attachment 2 house”). Chapter 17.19 (Attachment 2) of the City’s Municipal Code contains the standards for Bed and Breakfast establishments. “Boarding” or “Rooming Houses” differ from vacation rentals by having multiple rooms for rent and a common shared dining facility. Also, rooming or boarding houses typically have longer stays than vacation rentals and are not defined by the 30-day time threshold. Lastly, “hotels” and “motels” are distinguished from vacation rentals by being a stand-alone commercial use with separate room entrances and an on-site manager. General Plan Policies The General Plan does not currently contain policies that directly address vacation rentals. However, there are Land Use Element policies that address Tourist Commercial uses (Policy 3.5.2) says: “Visitor-serving uses should be integrated with other types of uses, including overnight accommodations downtown, near the airport and near the train station; small-scale facilities (such as hostels or bed-and-breakfast places) may be located in Medium-High Density Residential and High-Density Residential Districts, where compatible. Visitor-serving uses are especially appropriate where such uses have already concentrated: along upper Monterey Street; at the Madonna Road area; at certain freeway interchanges; and in the downtown.” Land Use Policy 3.5.4 states that: “Site planning, building design, and types of activities for new tourist-commercial development adjacent to residential areas should be carefully reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, the Planning Commission, or both, to assure compatibility.” These two above policies recognize that visitor-serving uses are an important component of the city’s economic profile, but also reflect that the community has identified places where these uses are typically located: in commercial areas and in higher density residential areas if provided at a smaller scale. These policies do not address the appropriateness of vacation/homestay rentals in lower density residential areas. The Land Use Element also contains policies intended to provide neighborhood protection and enhancement. Specifically, Policy 2.2.13 says: “Residential areas may accommodate limited non-residential activities which generally have been compatible, such as child day care, elementary schools, churches, and home businesses meeting established criteria.” Policy 2.1.3 indicates that neighborhoods should be protected from intrusive traffic. Finally, Housing Element Goal 7, Neighborhood Quality, says: “Maintain, preserve and enhance the quality of neighborhoods, encourage neighborhood stability and owner occupancy, and improve neighborhood appearance, function, and sense of community.” PC 1-18PC 1-18 Attachment 2 Some testimony provided over the last few months to Council indicates that owners who rent out rooms or houses do so to support their financial ability to retain ownership of their houses which might otherwise become student rentals. Since neighborhood wellness was identified as a Major City Goal, the Community Development Department has focused on enforcing standards in neighborhoods to preserve safety, neighborhood character and attractiveness. Allowing vacation/homestay rentals in neighborhoods would require that the City evaluate and determine whether the nature of these uses impact neighborhoods and if so, what those impacts are and what mitigations would be required to address such issues as noise, parking, and traffic. The Council will need to balance the notion of introducing visitor serving uses in residential areas with policies that address neighborhood protection. The Council may also wish to consider whether any measures are necessary or desirable to ensure housing and building code compliance and safety for transient occupancy tenants of residential structures held out for such uses. Enforcement Efforts At the beginning of 2013, the City started receiving complaints regarding vacation rentals operating in residential areas. Complaints received have been both general and specific in nature. Complaints of a general nature have been received from three individuals. These complaints did not identify any specific address, but rather objected that there were many illegal vacation rentals advertised on various websites. One complaint was received from an operator of a local Bed and Breakfast and complained of unfair competition. The two other general complaints were concerned with the potential negative impacts on residential neighborhoods, the lack of enforcement by the City, and the lack of compliance with Business Tax and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) requirements. Complaints of a specific nature have been filed by neighbors in the vicinity of some vacation rentals and the concerns expressed have included excessive noise, parking and increased traffic at the site. Five such complaints were received regarding specific addresses. The issues raised at these addresses included parking, noise, strangers, parties, and RV use for accommodations parked on a public street. As a result of these complaints active enforcement of vacation rentals began in March 2013. Given other code enforcement priorities and limited resources, the Community Development Department allotted four hours per week to devote to enforcement efforts related to vacation rentals. By some accounts, the City’s enforcement efforts have not been adequate as the number of vacation rental listings has actually increased since enforcement efforts started. While some have ceased operations, other vacation rentals have been identified. A more effective effort to enforce the prohibition would likely require devoting additional resources in Community Development, City Attorney’s Office, and the Finance Department. To date 13 properties have received Notices to Correct for operating illegal vacation rentals and three properties also were issued administrative citations. Twelve properties have complied and removed or modified their listings on the various websites to be in compliance with the ordinance (i.e. renting for periods of 30 days or more). One property has a business license specifying the property as a vacation rental. As such the business has been classified as an existing nonconforming use. The business license was issued in 2006; however the business has not paid TOT. PC 1-19PC 1-19 Attachment 2 As of mid-October, there are currently 40 other listings that appear to be within the City, but further investigation is required to positively identify the addresses of the properties. Some of the listings give a general area with exterior photos, while others only have interior photos. Staff has noted that since enforcement efforts began, many listings have removed the owner’s names, addresses and exterior photos of the residences in an attempt to evade enforcement. This makes identification of the property using the listing information difficult and time consuming. Additional enforcement techniques could be pursued, but would require additional resources. Research on Other Cities and County A number of comparable cities were surveyed to evaluate the range of approaches and policies related to vacation rentals and enforcement activity was found to vary significantly. The demand for vacation rentals seems to determine what level and type of enforcement, if any, is utilized. For example, the City of Monterey, where demand is high, prohibits vacation rentals and code enforcement is utilized to enforce regulations. The city utilizes misdemeanor criminal citations to obtain compliance. In contrast, there is very little demand for vacation rentals in the City of Santa Maria so enforcement is not an issue. The City of Davis does not have the demand for vacation rentals and has taken no steps to regulate them. The City of Santa Barbara does not allow vacation rentals by ordinance, but collects the TOT. They utilize an outside consultant to monitor the various rental websites to ensure payment of the TOT. The cities of Paso Robles, Arroyo Grande, and Grover Beach all collect TOT and require business licenses, but do not otherwise regulate vacation rentals. The City of Santa Cruz collects TOT, but does not require a business license if the rental is fewer than three units. The City of Morro Bay allows vacation rentals, collects TOT and requires vacation rental permits to operate. Enforcement action is complaint based. The County of San Luis Obispo allows vacation rentals in Cambria and Cayucos and must comply with certain standards, such as linear distance separation requirements, maximum occupancy allowed, and time limits. Moreover, owners are required to provide notice of contact information to surrounding residents within 200 feet. Zoning clearance and business license are required and TOT is collected. Code enforcement responds to complaints and works in conjunction with the Sheriff’s Department on enforcement cases. The City of Pismo Beach allows vacation rentals in the downtown area by right and prohibits them in residential zones. TOT is collected and enforcement actions are taken when complaints are received. The City of Napa requires a vacation rental permit, business license and collects TOT. Similar to the County of San Luis Obispo, there are a number of requirements, ranging from maximum number of occupants to annual inspections by the Fire Department. Enforcement is based on complaints. Pros and Cons of Vacation Rentals The Council has received correspondence and testimony from the community citing the benefits of vacation rentals, as well as concerns of neighborhood compatibility. Providing an alternative visitor PC 1-20PC 1-20 Attachment 2 experience and adding City tax revenues are potential benefits associated with vacation rentals. Protection of neighborhood character is the most cited concern about vacation rentals. Land use and housing supply issues are also noted as concerns. The pros and cons listed below are not comprehensive. The list developed by staff is a partial list and both advocates and opponents of any ordinance changes may have additional issues. The side- by-side tables below compare the pros and cons of homestays (owner-occupancy required) and vacation rentals (owner-occupancy not required). Homestays have potentially less impacts on a neighborhood since the property owner is typically living in and caring for their home when hosting visitors. Vacation rentals have potential for greater impacts to the surrounding properties because the owner is not living on the premises to manage the property. SLO Hosts has prepared a recommended ordinance for Council consideration (Attachment 3). Although, this is not a complete ordinance it provides some perspective from the operators. Attachment 4 is issue paper prepared by SLO Hosts which contains a pros/cons discussion. Some of the pros and cons of allowing vacation rentals and homestays include: Vacation Rentals Homestays Pros Cons Pros Cons Visitors from other areas can experience SLO neighborhoods Potential noise, parties, trespassing, traffic and other nonresidential activities Visitors from other areas can experience living in SLO neighborhoods Potential noise, parties, trespassing, traffic and increased transient/non- resident presence in residential neighborhoods They provide alternative visitor accommodations Deterioration of neighborhood cohesiveness in terms of keeping housing filled with occupants that have more permanent ties to the community They provide alternative visitor accommodations Unfair competition with traditional transient occupancy uses such as hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast establishments (how is it unfair if they have to get permits, pay taxes , comply with codes, and participate in the TBID in the same manner as hotels?) Rental income helps buoy real estate market and keep owners in their homes Unfair competition with traditional transient occupancy uses such as hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast establishments Rental income helps buoy real estate market and keep owners in their homes Increases commercial uses in residential areas Revenue to the City in the form of Transient Occupancy Tax and Business Licenses Limits ability to maintaining commercial uses in commercial areas Revenue to the City in the form of Transient Occupancy Tax and Business Licenses Renter safety and owner liability issues Some vacation rentals are not owner-occupied and therefore are less likely to be cared for to the same degree as permanent residences The home is a primary residence and the owner will be available to manage the property and address any neighborhood conflicts Impacts to rental housing and impacts to real estate market. Renter safety and owner liability issues Establishing and monitoring primary residence requirements to ensure PC 1-21PC 1-21 Attachment 2 neighborhood compatibility is difficult to monitor and enforce. If vacation rentals proliferate there will be fewer families and owner occupied dwellings in the City. Currently about 62% of all housing units in the City are rentals Impacts to rental housing and impacts to real estate market. Staff will evaluate these pros and cons, as well as other possible benefits and concerns of vacation rentals identified through the public process, if Council directs Ordinance amendments. Staff will recommend incorporation of regulations to mitigate against potential adverse impacts. Examples of Vacation Rental Regulations As stated above, protection of the neighborhood character and segregating this commercial activity into commercial zones is the fundamental basis of vacation rentals regulations. A related concern is the protection and maintenance of physical property as property owners are perceived to be more diligent than short-term renters in property upkeep 5. Many communities authorize the collection of TOT and licensing fees for vacation rentals. Some of the other possible regulations are included in the table below; they could potentially apply to either vacation or homestay rentals: Possible Regulations Examples 1 Geographically based restrictions Allowed in certain zones only 2 Quantitative and operational restrictions Linear separation requirements and numerical caps 3 Max Occupancy Limits Based on number of bedrooms and/or available parking 4 Rental Time Periods Maximum times per year 5 Parking Requirements Require additional off-street parking 6 Postings Require property posting of operational restrictions and owner information 7 Mandatory Designated Representatives Provide 24-hour contact info 8 Trash and Recycling City Ordinance or specific standards (only if identified impacts are different) 9 Property Maintenance Standards City Ordinance or specific standards (only if identified impacts are different) 5 Data collected and reported to the City Council in May 2013 appears to show a greater correlation of property maintenance violations to rental properties. PC 1-22PC 1-22 Attachment 2 Possible Regulations Examples 10 Licensing/Approval Process Business License, Use Permits 11 Inspections Annual or some other time period 12 Tax Revenue Transient Occupancy Tax, Business License Fees, Inspection Permit Fees Should Council initiate zoning amendments, staff would research these and other standards and incorporate, as appropriate, into an ordinance for review. The Council should provide direction on any other regulations than those listed in the table above that it would like to have considered or any identified approaches that should not be included in an ordinance. Some cities require a use permit for vacation rentals, either at the Planning Commission level or at a lower administrative level. Others issue vacation rental permits through the business license process. The adopted City Business license and Business Tax would apply to either vacation or homestay rentals. However, the business license process in the City is revenue focused and does not have a regulatory component directed at addressing operational impacts of businesses. A question has been raised as to whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is applicable to single-family dwellings used as vacation rentals. The ADA regulates places of public accommodation and provides that: A place of public accommodation means a facility operated by a private entity whose operations affect commerce and fall within at least one of the following categories: (1) Place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a facility that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that actually is occupied by the proprietor of the establishment as the residence of the proprietor. For purposes of this part, a facility is a "place of lodging" if it is – (i) An inn, hotel, or motel; or (ii) A facility that – (A) Provides guest rooms for sleeping for stays that primarily are short-term in nature (generally 30 days or less) where the occupant does not have the right to return to a specific room or unit after the conclusion of his or her stay; and (B) Provides guest rooms under conditions and with amenities similar to a hotel, motel, or inn, including the following; (1) On- or off-site management and reservations service; (2) Rooms available on a walk-up or call-in basis; (3) Availability of housekeeping or linen service; and (4) Acceptance of reservations for a guest room type without guaranteeing a particular unit or room until check in, and without a prior lease or security deposit. Based on this definition an owner-occupied homestay would clearly not be considered a place of public accommodation as noted in the definition above and would not be regulated by ADA unless there were more than five rooms for rent. In the case of a non-owner occupied vacation rental, ADA requirements would only be applicable if the residence was operated with all the amenities typical of a hotel and that are identified in section (1)(ii)B above. Most vacation rentals do not PC 1-23PC 1-23 Attachment 2 provide all of these listed amenities typical of a hotel or motel, and thus would not be classified as places of public accommodation and are not subject to the provisions of ADA. Ordinances from Other Jurisdictions - Best Practices Many communities throughout the country have (or are) addressed the issues involved in regulating vacation rentals. There are many good sources and best practice ordinances for staff to use as a starting point in preparing vacation/homestay rental regulations. One informational source is a White Paper, by Robinson & Cole, LLP, published for the National Association of Realtors in 2011 (White Paper, Attachment 5)6. While obviously prepared from the vacation rental landlords perspective, this White Paper presents comprehensive information and was referenced in preparing this study session. It has many examples of Best Practice communities for staff to explore if Council deems such a study a high priority. Staff also contacted numerous jurisdictions as shown in the table below. The table below shows how San Luis Obispo’s comparable cities and other cities in the County address vacation rentals: Vacation Rental Ordinances Comparable Cities Cities Vacation Rental Ordinance Regulations Yes No Davis X No Ordinance, hasn’t become a local issue Monterey X No Ordinance, hasn’t become a local issue Napa X Permit, Annual Fire inspection, House Rules Max occupancy, on-site parking required Paso Robles X No separate ordinance, allowed along with other visitor- serving uses, collects TOT Santa Barbara X No Ordinance, but collects TOT Santa Cruz X No Ordinance, but collects TOT Santa Maria X No Ordinance, hasn’t become a local issue Arroyo Grande X No Ordinance, hasn’t become a local issue Grover Beach X No Ordinance, but collects TOT on 2 existing rentals Pismo Beach X Allowed in visitor serving areas downtown Prohibited in Residential districts On-site parking required, Inspection prior to certificate Morro Bay X Annual permit/license, max occupancy, operational standards SLO County X Zoning Clearance/Minor Use Permit Specific criteria for Cambria and Cayucos, including a 200’ separation from another visitor serving use Max occupancy, no signs, on-site parking required 6 “Short-Term Rental Housing Restrictions” by Robinson & Cole, LLP, ©National Association of Realtors, 2011 PC 1-24PC 1-24 Attachment 2 All of the comparable cities with Ordinances (and two without) collect TOT on vacation rentals. The City’s TOT ordinance would apply to either vacation rentals or homestays as they meet the applicable definitions 7. While not permitted, unpermitted vacation rentals and homestays that have operated in the City are subject to the City’s TOT ordinance. Violations for failing to collect and remit TOT to the City are subject to penalties as specified in Section 3.04.140 8. An amnesty program for overdue and unpaid TOT, business license and taxes from unpermitted vacation rentals and homestays has been used in other jurisdictions as a tool to encourage unpermitted operators to obtain the necessary permits and prospectively pay TOT and any other license and taxes fees. Should Council initiate any amendments, staff will seek direction as whether an amnesty provision should be incorporated into any ordinance and whether any efforts should be directed toward collecting past TOT. Many cities operate in a gray area. Some cities like Davis and Santa Maria are completely silent and don’t address whether vacation/homestay rentals are allowed or not allowed. Others without an ordinance, such as Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara, recognize that such uses are technically not allowed, but have been directed by their Councils to collect TOT. As Santa Barbara City 7 3.04.020 Definitions. Except where the context otherwise requires, the definitions given in this section govern the construction of this chapter: A. “Hotel” means any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, lodginghouse, roominghouse, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, or other similar structure or portion thereof. 3.04.030 Imposed. For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient is subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount of ten percent of the rent charged by the operator. The tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the city which is extinguished only by payment to the operator or to the city. The transient shall pay the tax to the operator of the hotel at the time the rent is paid. If the rent is paid in installments a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment. The unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient’s ceasing to occupy space in the hotel. If for any reason the tax due is not paid to the operator of the hotel, the tax administrator may require that such tax shall be paid directly to the tax administrator. (Ord. 1232 § 1, 1993: Ord. 1184 § 1, 1991: prior code § 2552) 8 3.04.140 Violation—Penalty. A. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punishable therefor by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the city or county jail for a period of not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. B. Any operator or other person who fails or refuses to register as required in this chapter, or to furnish any return required to be made, or fails or refuses to furnish a supplemental return or other data required by the tax administrator, or who renders a false or fraudulent return or claim, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and is punishable as set forth in subsection A of this section. Any person required to make, render, sign or verify any report or claim who makes any false or fraudulent report or claim with intent to defeat or evade the determination of any amount due required by this chapter to be made, is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable as aforesaid. (Prior code § 2563) PC 1-25PC 1-25 Attachment 2 Administrator Jim Armstrong said in a recent news article, “we realize we’re kind of talking out of both sides of our mouth, but at least we’re getting people to pay their share of TOT.”9 None of the cities surveyed that allow vacation rentals by ordinance draw a distinction with homestays. Owner-occupancy of the home being rented was not a requirement in any of the comparable cities. All required a contact person be readily available and either live in the community or within a certain distance (e.g. 25 miles) from the vacation/homestay rentals. Other Best Practice communities include the cities of Encinitas, CA, Palm Desert, CA, Palm Springs, CA, Cannon Beach, OR, and Mendocino County. Further research with these and other jurisdictions would be conducted as part of preparing a vacation/homestay rental ordinance. Enforcement/Administration Costs v. Tax Revenue Based on the recent experience, it is estimated that up to. 25 FTE would be necessary to adequately enforce any changes to allow vacation/homestay rentals. The cost of a .25 FTE Code Enforcement Officer 1 position is approximately $25,000 per year. The City has estimated that the annual tax revenues associated with vacation rentals is $45,000, not including business license fees.10 TOT estimates vary with different factors for the number, occupancy, and rates for vacation rentals. Should Council initiate any code amendments, staff’s recommendation would be to adjust enforcement so that it is complaint based and only for specific locations identified by the reporting party until such time as an ordinance is developed. Legal Issues Regulating vacation rentals falls under the police powers of the City to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The White Paper cites case law upholding zoning regulations for short-term rentals, as well as restrictions and/or prohibitions in single-family neighborhoods. The White Paper also discusses “takings”, “due process”, and “equal protection” challenges to laws relating to vacation rentals. Proponents of modifying the ban on rentals have also provided one case to Council, which they believe raises legal barriers to the current ban related to illegal intrusion upon protected privacy rights (see Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica). Staff has considered that case and has provided the Council with another case, which directly addressed some of the concerns raised and concluded that short term rental prohibitions are valid against challenge based on concerns, including but not limited to privacy, raised in the Santa Monica case (see Ewing v. Carmel). The primary distinction between the cases is that the regulatory approach in Santa Monica sought to regulate based on relationship status of residential residents, which has long been held impermissible. The Carmel case involved regulations, like those currently in place in San Luis Obispo, that are directed at land uses and impacts on residential neighborhoods. If any amendments are directed, Community Development staff will work closely with the City Attorney’s to ensure that any recommended regulations align with legal requirements. 9 Pacific Coast Business Times September 20-26, 2013 10 Number of rentals 75 – Average nights per year (occupancy) 50 – Average daily rate $100 = Total Revenue $375,000 x .10 = $37,500 (TOT) + $37,500 (TBID Assessment) = $45,000 PC 1-26PC 1-26 Attachment 2 Connectivity to Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update The current Land Use and Circulation Elements place a strong focus on neighborhood protection and enhancement. The LUCE update is a focused and intended to address changes in community needs, changes in legislation, Strategic Growth Council grant objectives, and Council-directed efforts. Vacation/homestay rentals was not identified by the community during the “Issues and Opportunities” phase of the work effort and is outside the current scope of the consultant contract and would need to be augmented to address this issue should Council want to integrate the work into the update. Staff does have some concerns that there may not be adequate time to integrate a well-considered proposal into LUCE update within the grant deadline and other complex issues being addressed in that update. If Council is inclined to incorporate this work into the LUCE update, staff will work with the Task Force and Planning Commission to provide input on policy direction for vacation rentals, the contract scope for the consultant would need to be modified and additional resources would need to be allocated to cover this effort. Staff estimates that adding this effort would require the allocation of an additional $25,000. Time Frame and Impacts to Workload The research and public outreach involved to prepare Ordinance amendments allowing vacation/homestay rentals would be a significant undertaking and demand substantial staff time and resources. Staff’s direct experience is that developing policy in this area generates a high degree of charged opinions on both sides of the issue. Given staff’s experience, it is estimated that approximately 1000 hours of staff time would need to be allocated to the effort. This estimate is based on the time to follow the typical policy development process that the City has used for years. This process would include outreach to residents, business groups, TBID, and other community organizations. Additionally, it would include the time to craft an ordinance and prepare the necessary environmental review for any ordinance revisions. Staff’s recent experience in preparing other Ordinance amendments, such as the Mobile Vendor Ordinance were substantial as they involved the intersection of public policy, case law and the input from the public and interest groups. Adopting vacation/homestay rental policies and standards could be more time consuming than this effort and would likely take approximately one year to develop. The Council may recall that the Community Development Department delivered a General Plan Annual Report to the City Council in March 2013. Appendix A of this report indicated that the current planning projects and long range policy initiatives left no available resources to tackle any new policy initiatives. While additional resources were provided to the City Departments in September to address workload related to current permit applications, these resources are not available to tackle new policy initiatives such as vacation rentals, medical marijuana, Cal Poly Master Planning, or revising the Municipal Code to change the City’s street naming process. These four efforts would require a minimum of a 1.0 Planner to adequately address all of these discrete policy issues. Absent new resources, if the Council directs amendments to address vacation/homestay rentals, it would significantly delay existing projects, including the continued update of the Zoning PC 1-27PC 1-27 Attachment 2 Regulations (bedrooms/guesthouses), as well as updates of the Subdivision Regulations and Sign Regulations. Moreover, preparing a vacation/homestay rental ordinance could affect implementation of the Community Development Department’s Organizational Assessment and the Economic Development Strategic Plan. These two projects are components of Major City Goals. Alternatively, if Council is inclined to initiate zone changes and desires that any amendments be processed within a shorter time frame, direction could be provided to develop such amendments and route any amendments straight through the Planning Commission and then straight to the City Council. This process could be completed in six months, but would require an additional 520 staff hours. Again, additional temporary staff resources would need to be allocated or existing work program efforts would be stalled until such time that any ordinance is adopted and implemented. Whether or not Council directs any amendments, direction to increase enforcement of the existing prohibitions will also require the re-direction of resources from current programs and priorities for code enforcement staff, finance staff (if TOT collection is desired) and city attorney staff. This would result in diminished resources directed at other neighborhood wellness and code enforcement efforts or delays to study or implementation of current priorities and identified major City goal work programs, such as residential rental inspection administrative appeal process development (which the City Attorney’s office strongly recommends is a necessary priority action to support increased City wide administrative code enforcement consistent with Council direction). City application fees Per the City’s adopted fee schedule, the application fees for a Zone Text Change and the mandatory environmental review are $11,795 ($9,239 Zoning + $2,556 Environmental). Consistent with Council policy on collection of fees, staff recommends that should the Council initiate amendments that SLO Hosts be the applicant and pay the fees to process any amendments. This recommendation is consistent with Budget and Fiscal Policies adopted with the FY 2013-15 Financial Plan. Specifically the section on User Fee Cost Recovery Goals discusses that fee recovery levels are set based on several factors but the two that apply in this case are as follows: 1. Community-Wide Versus Special Benefit.“…The use of general-purpose revenues is appropriate for community-wide services, while user fees are appropriate for service that are special benefit to easily identified individuals or groups.” 2. Service Recipient Versus Service Drivers. After considering community-wide versus special benefit of the service, the concept of service recipient versus service driver should be considered. For example, it could be argued that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the city’s development review efforts: the community is the primary beneficiary. However the applicant is the driver of the development review costs, and as such, cost recovery from the applicant is appropriate. Because there is a special benefit to be accrued to those who will be allowed to use their residential properties as vacation rentals/homestays there is a special benefit associated with this potential change in the zoning code. Moreover these property owners while not developers in the traditional sense are driving the need to incur this cost. As a result, staff is recommending that the costs of services necessary to prepare and adopt a vacation/homestay rental ordinance be borne by SLO Hosts. Although, SLO Hosts is an informal association of interested parties, requiring them to pay the fee is the only way to equitably apply the Council’s fee policy. Alternatively, if the Council PC 1-28PC 1-28 Attachment 2 determines that the community is the primary beneficiary of this program it would not be appropriate to charge SLO Hosts. Focus Questions for Council Direction In conclusion, staff has provided the following table with focused questions to facilitate Council direction: Questions for Council Direction Yes No Vacation Rentals (Owner occupancy not required) Homestays (Owner occupancy required) Geographically based restrictions (certain zones only) Quantitative and operational restrictions (linear distance separation, numerical cap) Max Occupancy Limits (number of bedrooms or available parking) Rental Time Periods (max times per year or within a certain time frame) Off-Street Parking Requirements Property Postings Mandatory Designated Representatives Trash and Recycling (City Ordinance or specific) Property Maintenance Standards (City Ordinance or specific) Use Permit – Planning Commission or Administrative Annual or Periodic Inspections Collect TOT 11 Amnesty on Unpaid TOT Applicant (SLO Hosts) Pay Application Fees Adjust Enforcement Truncated Process (without public outreach) The staff presentation on November 12, 2013, will include a similar decision matrix to help focus Council direction. FISCAL IMPACT It is estimated that the work to prepare Ordinance amendments using the traditional outreach and public engagement approach would be approximately 1,000 hours or $50,000 in staff costs ($42,000 for staffing + $8,000 in public outreach costs). ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the study session if more information is necessary in order to provide direction to staff on preparing a vacation/homestay rentals ordinance. 11 Exempting vacation rentals or homestays would require an amendment to the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance and is not recommended. PC 1-29PC 1-29 Attachment 2 2. Bring an ordinance back to the Council with a Planning Commission recommendation as soon as possible and limit public outreach efforts. This is not recommended because the City’s public outreach efforts have brought valuable input into the Ordinance preparation process and have become an integral and expected component of any such effort. 3. Direct that the City initiate the Ordinance amendment application and absorb the costs associated with such an effort. This is not recommended because SLO Hosts is the initiator and proponent of the process and should bear the costs of preparing the Amendments. ATTACHMENTS 1. Attachment 1 – Excerpt from City Council Report December 5, 2006 2. Attachment 2 – Chapter 17.91 Bed and Breakfasts 3. Attachment 3 – SLO Hosts Recommended Ordinance 4. Attachment 4 – SLO Hosts Issue Paper 5. Attachment 5 – White Paper “Short-Term Rental Housing Restrictions” \\chstore4\Team\Council Agenda Reports\2013\2013-11-12\VacationRentalStudySession(Johnson-Davidson)\E-CAR-Study Session_VacationRental.docx PC 1-30PC 1-30 Attachment 2 MMINUTES CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 12, 2013 Special Meeting – 6:30 P.M. Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California CALL TO ORDER A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Conference Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Vice Mayor Smith. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Dan Carpenter, Carlyn Christianson, Vice Mayor Kathy Smith Council Member Absent: Mayor Jan Marx City Staff Present: Michael Codron, Acting City Manager, Christine Dietrick, City Attorney, and Anthony Mejia, City Clerk were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council Member Carpenter led the Pledge of Allegiance. MOMENT OF SILENCE Vice Mayor Smith called for a moment of silence for those impacted by the tragedies in the Philippines. PC 1-31PC 1-31 Attachment 3 City Council Meeting Minutes – November 12, 2013 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENT Rebecca Keisler, San Luis Obispo, requested that Council agendize the Cal Poly student housing project; voiced objection to the proposed student housing project, citing impacts to parking, fire and police protection, noise, view shed, and proximity to neighborhoods. Community Development Director Johnson advised that Cal Poly has issued a notice of preparation for a student housing project; noted that the City submitted comprehensive comments on issues to be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR); stated that upon release of the draft EIR or subsequent phases of the project, it would be appropriate for the University to make a presentation to the Council. Karen Hale, San Luis Obispo, voiced concern that the City released a report of alleged rental violations against her; stated that the complainant was false and defamatory; asserted that the City has an obligation to ensure that such claims are substantiated prior to releasing said information. City Attorney Dietrick advised that the Public Records Act requires that the City release such information when requested; noting that the City has an obligation to redact complainant information. Justin Wellner, representing Cal Poly, advised that Cal Poly will be hosting a community forum on the proposed student housing project on December 2, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the University Union; noted that the draft EIR is expected to be released in mid-November; encouraged Council and the community to provide input of the proposed project. Steve Barasch, San Luis Obispo, voiced concern relative to the maintenance of creeks and open space areas, urging that the City take appropriate actions to prevent flooding. ---end of public comments--- STUDY SESSION ITEMS SS1. REVIEW EXISTING REGULATIONS PROHIBITING VACATION RENTALS IN THE CITY Vice Mayor Smith read an email from the Mayor Marx requesting that Council receive testimony from the public, but continue Council deliberations on the matter to a future date, due to her recovering from surgery. Council agreed that it would be appropriate to receive public testimony and to deliberate the matter, understanding that if they become deadlocked it would be necessary to continue the matter to a future meeting. PC 1-32PC 1-32 Attachment 3 City Council Meeting Minutes – November 12, 2013 Page 3 Community Development Director Johnson, Community Development Deputy Director Davidson, and Chief Building Official Lease presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled “Vacation Rentals – Council Study Session” and responded to Council inquiries. John Seman, representing SLO Hosts, suggested that the concepts of homestays and vacation rentals be segregated; urged Council to amend the code to allow homestay operations; stated that homestay hosts are willing to obtain business licenses and pay taxes; expressed support for suspending enforcement of the existing code and granting amnesty for unpaid taxes. Jeff Eidelman, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for amending the code to allow homestays, pointing out that he has operated a homestay for over 30 years. Michael Sheffer, San Luis Obispo, opined that homestays have minimal impacts on long term rental inventory; urged Council approval of allowing homestays. Chris Knauer, San Luis Obispo, spoke on his experiences as a guest of homestays and encouraged Council approval of allowing homestays. Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, stated that his neighbor has a homestay which has not impacted his neighborhood; suggested that new tax revenues be designated for additional police services in the city’s core area; conveyed support for eliminating the ban on short term rentals, citing that it provides supplemental income to retirees. Scott Potter, San Luis Obispo, voiced support of allowing homestays, citing his past experiences as a guest in homestays. David Mena, San Luis Obispo, expressed support for allowing homestays and suspending enforcement of the prohibition; related his experiences as a homestay guest while traveling for work. Peggy Thayer, San Luis Obispo, spoke on the potential tax revenues generated by short term rentals. Catherine Doyle, San Luis Obispo, questioned the rationale that SLO Host should pay the fees associated with text amendments to the Zoning Code. Pat Harris, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for allowing homestays and urged Council to suspend enforcement of the existing Code. Anne Cruikshanks, San Luis Obispo, spoke on the importance of allowing retirees to generate supplemental income through homestays. PC 1-33PC 1-33 Attachment 3 City Council Meeting Minutes – November 12, 2013 Page 4 Jaime Walker, San Luis Obispo, urged Council to pass reasonable regulations to allow short term rentals and submitted a petition entitled SLO Hosts Welcome. A hard copy of the petition is on file with the City Clerk. Barbara Radovich, San Luis Obispo, voiced support of allowing homestays; spoke on the shortage of long term rentals, opining that short term rentals will have minimal impacts. Rosh Wright, San Luis Obispo, opined that the majority of residents support short term rentals and urged Council approval. Odile Ayral, representing Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN), voiced concern that regulations for short term rentals would be unenforceable; opined that commercial enterprises are not appropriate for residential neighborhoods; urged Council to retain the prohibition on vacation rentals. Pete Evans, San Luis Obispo, voiced objection to the existing ban on vacation rentals; asserted that recent complains on homestays are unfounded. Jim Culver, San Luis Obispo, opined that homestays do not impact public safety. Steve Barasch, San Luis Obispo, spoke on the difficulty of enforcing regulations on short term rentals; suggested the implementation of a limit use permit program. Bart Todham, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for allowing homestays, while maintaining a prohibition on vacation rentals. Charlene Rosales, representing the Chamber of Commerce, spoke on the importance of balancing the economic value of homestays and the concerns of residents; noted that the Chamber frequently receives inquiries related to homestays. Carolyn Smith, San Luis Obispo, stated that residents do not expect hotel-like businesses to be located in residential neighborhoods; opined that such activities disturb the quiet enjoyment of private residences; cautioned Council on removing bans on short term rentals. Bob Shanbrom, San Luis Obispo, asserted that allowing short term rentals in residential neighborhoods equates to a taking of property interests; opined that allowing short term rentals would negatively impact neighborhood security and workforce housing. Gordon Mullin, San Luis Obispo, noted that owners and guests of homestays are rated and such information is shared online; pointed out that current regulations allow property owners to rent to up to four university students. PC 1-34PC 1-34 Attachment 3 City Council Meeting Minutes – November 12, 2013 Page 5 John Aspinall, Costa Rica, urged Council to allow vacation rentals; noted that he resides in Costa Rica and owns a home in San Luis Obispo, which he would like to use as a vacation rental. Gordon Edmonds, San Luis Obispo, conveyed support for allowing homestays; opined that bed and breakfasts are overly regulated and encouraged Council to re-examine all types of rentals. Sandra Rowley, representing RQN, opined that homestay guests negatively impact the quality of neighborhoods; asserted that economic benefits to property owners and the City are at the expense of residents; requested that Council continue the matter to allow RQN to further evaluate the matter. MEETING RECESSED AND RECONVENED Council recessed at 8:07 p.m. and reconvened at 8:22 p.m. with all members present, with the exception of Mayor Marx. Following discussion, Council provided direction to staff to temporarily suspend enforcement of the vacation rental prohibition, process the text amendment in a streamlined process, explore options related to implementing a permit process for homestays in the R1 Zone, implement methods of collecting Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), provide amnesty for unpaid TOT, and evaluate secondary dwelling units in relation to the proposed ordinance. Motion by Council Member Ashbaugh, Second by Council Member Carpenter, Carried 4-0, to temporarily suspend enforcement of the entire vacation rental prohibition, pending addition of an ordinance for homestays. Motion by Council Member Ashbaugh, Second by Council Member Christianson, Carried 3-1 (Council Member Carpenter Voting No), to direct staff to return with a draft ordinance to allow owner occupied homestays at the earliest possible time and to address funding for the text amendment at the mid- year budget review. Council Member Carpenter noted for the record that he voted no because the motion does not address allowing non-owner occupied (vacation rentals). City Attorney Dietrick advised that staff may return to Council to address the matter of issuing business licenses and collecting TOT prospectively. PC 1-35PC 1-35 Attachment 3 City Council Meeting Minutes – November 12, 2013 Page 6 B1. CITYWIDE HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT - RESOLUTION Community Development Director Johnson, Senior Planner Dunsmore, Christine Lazzaretto, of Historic Design Group, narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled “Citywide Historic Context Statement” and responded to Council inquiries. Following discussion, Motion by Council Member Carpenter, Second by Council Member Christianson, Carried 4-0, to: 1) adopt Resolution No. 10474 (2013 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the citywide Historic Context Statement”; and 2) find that the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Public Resources Code 15306. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Liaison Reports: None. Communications: None. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There being no further business to come before the City Council, Vice Mayor Smith adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Anthony J. Mejia, CMC City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 12/3/13 PC 1-36PC 1-36 Attachment 3 PC 1-37PC 1-37 Attachment 4 PC 1-38PC 1-38 Attachment 4 PC 1-39PC 1-39 Attachment 4 PC 1-40PC 1-40 Attachment 4 PC 1-41PC 1-41 Attachment 4 PC 1-42PC 1-42 Attachment 4 PC 1-43PC 1-43 Attachment 4 PC 1-44PC 1-44 Attachment 4 PC 1-45PC 1-45 Attachment 5 PC 1-46PC 1-46 Attachment 5 PC 1-47PC 1-47 Attachment 5 CCity of San Luis Obispo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER # CODE 0058-2014 1.Project Title: Homestay Ordinance – addition to Title 17 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations) 2.Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Hermann (805) 781-7194 4.Project Location: Citywide, City of San Luis Obispo 5.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6.General Plan Designation: N/A 7.Zoning: All zones PC 1-48PC 1-48 Attachment 6 8.Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) In recent years, the use of private homes for short-term rental use has gained popularity. This use of an owner-occupied dwelling being used for short-term rental purposes is known as a homestay rental. The City of San Luis Obispo does not currently regulate homestays. The increasing popularity of homestays in the City require the implementation of appropriate regulations to ensure that impacts are addressed and the character of existing neighborhoods is maintained, while providing an expanded type of lodging facility available within the City. The purpose of this Title 17 Amendment is to ensure that homestay rentals conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in which they are located and do not create impacts to adjacent properties. Proposed ordinance provisions include: The operation of a homestay requires a homestay permit/administrative approval by the Community Development Director. The operator of the homestay shall: pay Transient Occupancy Tax and Tourism Business Improvement District tax as required by San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, provide verification of owner occupancy through Homeowner’s Property Tax Emption and provide one additional parking space in addition to their required residential parking. The number of overnight guests shall be limited to four adults. Bedrooms shall meet the minimum size requirements as defined in the Building Code. During time of homestay, a responsible party must be within a fifteen (15) minute drive and be available via telephone at all times. A copy of the ordinance and related text amendments are included as attachment 1. 9.Surrounding Land Uses and Settings (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings): Existing owner-occupied dwelling units Citywide in a variety of zoning categories. 10.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): N/A PC 1-49PC 1-49 Attachment 6 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems Geology / Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND GAME FEES X The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see attached determination). The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Wildlife fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE X This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). PC 1-50PC 1-50 Attachment 6 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Kim Murry Printed Name Deputy Community Development Director PC 1-51PC 1-51 Attachment 6 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. PC 1-52PC 1-52 Attachment 6 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?1 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X Evaluation a)b)c)d) The project would not impact scenic vistas or damage scenic resources as the project would use existing owner- occupied housing units. The project would allow homestay rentals in existing owner-occupied housing units as permitted by the ordinance. The ordinance would require that homestays receive approval of a permit to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and that specific performance standards are adequately met. Any additional required lighting would be subject to the City’s Night Sky Ordinance, which includes operational and development standards that mitigate light or glare impacts to a less than significant level. Conclusion: No impact. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1,2 X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? X c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? X Evaluation a)b)c) No impacts to agricultural resources would occur as no specific site is under consideration. Homestay rentals would be located within existing owner-occupied dwelling units in urban areas. No additional construction is anticipated as a result of this ordinance. Conclusion: No impact. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1,9,10 X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Evaluation PC 1-53PC 1-53 Attachment 6 a)b)c)d)e) The project would not impact air quality as it does not involve any amendments to City policy on air quality, nor would it generate additional sources of air pollution. Homestay rentals would be located within existing owner-occupied dwelling units. No new construction is anticipated as a result of this ordinance. Conclusion: No Impact. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1X b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X Evaluation a)b)c)d)e)f) No biological impacts would occur as no specific site is under consideration. Homestay rentals would be located within existing owner-occupied dwelling units in existing urban areas. Conclusion: No Impact. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in §15064.5. 1,2 X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5) X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X Evaluation a)b)c)d) No cultural resource impacts would occur as no specific site is under consideration. Homestay rentals would be located within existing owner-occupied dwelling units in urban areas. Conclusion: No Impact. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: PC 1-54PC 1-54 Attachment 6 a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 3X I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X II. Strong seismic ground shaking?X III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?X IV. Landslides?X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? X Evaluation a)b)c)d)e) The project would not expose people or structures to geologic hazards as Homestay rentals would be located within existing owner-occupied dwelling units within urban areas of San Luis Obispo. Conclusion: No impact. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 12 X b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X Evaluation: a)b) The State of California passed Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and California Governor Schwarzenegger Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), which require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of California. The Homestay Ordinance involves previously existing owner-occupied housing units and is consistent with the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan. No new construction is anticipated as a result of this ordinance and trip generation by visitors in Homestays is consistent with that associated with the residential use. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 3,10, 11 X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X PC 1-55PC 1-55 Attachment 6 materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? X Evaluation a)b)c)d)e)f)g)h) No hazardous impacts would occur as no specific site is under consideration and Homestay rentals would be located within existing owner-occupied dwelling units in urbanized areas of San Luis Obispo. Conclusion: No Impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1,4 X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X PC 1-56PC 1-56 Attachment 6 j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?X Evaluation a)b)c)d)e)f)j) No impacts to water resources will occur as the project does not involve modifications to the City’s policies on water and drainage and Homestay rentals are located in existing owner-occupied dwelling units. No new construction is anticipated as a result of this ordinance. g)h)i) Owner-occupied dwelling units may exist within flood zones that could be considered for homestays rentals. Homestays in existing dwellings will not change or increase flood risk as no change to the building footprint would occur. Conclusion: No Impact. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?1-7 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X Evaluation a)b)c) No land use and planning impacts would occur as no specific site is under consideration. Homestay rentals would be located within existing owner-occupied dwelling units in existing urbanized areas. No new construction is anticipated as a result of this ordinance. Conclusion: No Impact. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X Evaluation a)b)c) No impacts to mineral resources would occur as the program does not involve modifications to the City’s policies on mineral resources and no specific site is under consideration. Homestay rentals would be located within existing owner- occupied dwelling units in urbanized area of San Luis Obispo. Conclusion:No impact. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 7X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X PC 1-57PC 1-57 Attachment 6 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X X Evaluation a)b)c)d)e)f) Homestay facilities are subject to the City’s Noise Ordinance and must comply with established thresholds. While the Homestay facilities may see increased noise levels during times of short-term rentals, the Homestay ordinance requires the applicant to obtain a homestay permit/administrative approval and a business license to ensure Homestay facilities operate in compliance with City ordinances and are compatible with surrounding uses. Implementation of the Homestay Ordinance would not conflict with the City’s Noise Element or Noise Ordinance as no specific site is under consideration. Homestay rentals would be located within existing owner-occupied dwelling units. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: c) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 2,6 X d) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? e) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X X Evaluation a)b)c) No impacts to population and housing would occur as the Homestay program does not involve modifications to the City’s policies on residential densities. All homestays will occur in existing owner-occupied dwelling units and no construction of housing is anticipated as a result of this ordinance. Conclusion: No Impact. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection?3 X b) Police protection?X c) Schools?X d) Parks?8 X e) Other public facilities?X Evaluation a)(b) Homestay rentals would be located within existing owner-occupied dwelling units and therefore no additional construction will result from this program. During times of short-term rentals, infrequent additional city services may be in need. c)d)e)f) No new construction is anticipated as a result of the Homestay program and travelers staying in approved Homestay residences will not be permanent residents with long term public service needs such as schools. Homestay rentals would be located within existing owner-occupied dwelling units. PC 1-58PC 1-58 Attachment 6 Conclusion: No Impact. 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 8X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X Evaluation a)b) The proposed Homestay ordinance would not include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities as homestay rentals would be located within existing owner-occupied dwelling units in existing urban areas and not change City population. No new construction is anticipated as a result of the ordinance. Conclusion: No Impact. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 2,5 X b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? X e) Result in inadequate emergency access?X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? X Evaluation a)b)c)d)f)e) No impacts to transportation and circulation would occur as homestay rentals would be located within existing owner-occupied dwelling units. No new construction is anticipated as a result of this ordinance. Conclusion: No Impact. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 4X b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water X PC 1-59PC 1-59 Attachment 6 drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed? X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X Evaluation a)b)c)d)e)f)g) No impacts to utilities and service systems will occur as homestay rentals would be located within existing owner-occupied dwellings units and will not create an increase in demand for City utilities. No new construction is anticipated as a result of this ordinance. Conclusion: No Impact. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X Implementation of the Homestay Ordinance would not degrade the quality of the environment. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? X No cumulative impacts are expected to occur from implementation of the Homestay Ordinance. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Implementation of the Homestay Ordinance would not create environmental effects that will have an adverse impact on human beings. 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used.Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed.Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were PC 1-60PC 1-60 Attachment 6 addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions of the project. N/A 20. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, April 2006 2. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, April 2010 3. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, July 2012 4. City of San Luis Obispo Water and Wastewater Management Element, April 2010 5. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element, April 2006 6. City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element, April 2010 7. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element and Noise Guidebook, May 1996 8. City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element, April 2001 9. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, August 2012 10. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, April 2012 11. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Inventory and Geographic Information System, current database 12. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, August 2012 Attachments: Draft Homestay Ordinance PC 1-61PC 1-61 Attachment 6 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 17, 2014 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL:Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson Absent:Commissioner John Fowler Staff:Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Public Works Director Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Deputy Director Tim Bochum, Principal Transportation Manager Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement Consultant: Jim Damkowitch, Kittelson and Associates Commr. Riggs announced that he will be leaving at 8 p.m. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, SLO, suggested that the proposed Marriott hotel be built on the site of the defunct Motel Inn at the bottom of the Cuesta grade and supported not changing the zoning on Calle Joaquin for auto dealerships. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.City-Wide.GPI/ER 15-12: Continued review of the Draft Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) and associated Final Environmental Impact Report; City of San Luis Obispo – Community Development and Public Works Dept., applicant. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Lea Brooks, SLO, stated that she is thrilled with the multi-modal focus but questioned the prioritization of vehicles over bicycles for Los Osos Valley Road as listed in Table 3 Modal Priorities for Level of Service. She asked how priorities are decided for intersections where pathways cross and requested that the impacts on bicyclists be considered if truck traffic is routed down Buckley Road. Eric Meyer, SLO, asked that the City consider how perimeters are determined when setting up Neighborhood Traffic Management Districts because those perimeters can Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 2014 Page 2 affect the voting. He noted that this was discussed by the LUCE Task Force. He stated that the City should consider the effect of not constructing the Bishop Street railroad overpass on the Buchon and Pismo Streets neighborhood and give priority to those neighborhoods operating at or above maximum traffic levels. Myron “Skip” Amerine, SLO, stated that he wants the City to move forward by approving the Circulation Element Update. He supported the mode split but noted that it is a goal and will not happen overnight. Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, SLO, stated she is a smart growth advocate and remains concerned about Prado Road which she recommended be limited to a concept similar to South Street. She noted the need for a supplemental EIR for the Margarita area and supported having developers of the San Luis Ranch pay for a Prado Road overpass. She advocated moving the future Prado Road to the south of the Damon-Garcia Sports Field and giving priority to building Class 1 bicycle paths. Sarah Flickinger, representing 178 homes in Los Verdes Park 1 and 2, stated that she did meet with staff and is now comfortable with the proposed changes presented tonight. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Riggs stated that Chapters 7 and 8 should reference each other. He suggested inserting additional language that after discussion resulted in adding “including navigation routes to direct traffic” to the first sentence and adding a second sentence, “Navigation routing and other smart access technologies should be considered as part of the update to the Access and Parking Management plan.” Commr. Riggs stated that he appreciates Mr. Meyer's comments and noted there is a need for 8.0.5 to include a statement about neighborhood definition. Commr. Multari stated that the Sierra Club, in their suggested policy language, did speak to unbundled parking. He asked Commr. Riggs to give his opinion about a proposed program suggesting that the City evaluate existing regulations to determine whether unbundled parking would benefit land use and circulation in parts of the City. Commr. Larson agreed but stated that the issue is larger than just unbundled parking because that the City's approach to traffic management may be a little out-of-date. He suggested the addition of a sentence to 13.1.1. to show that the desire and impetus is to go beyond traditional parking management. Commr. Draze suggested adding “...consider such things as unbundled parking.” Commr. Riggs proposed the following as a second sentence for 13.1.1: “This shall include consideration for strategies including, but not limited to, unbundled parking.” He suggested listing just a couple of strategies at the end of the sentence. Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 2014 Page 3 Commr. Multari suggested adding a reference to emerging practices which Commr. Riggs supported. Commr. Draze stated that he understands the concern about the bicycle LOS on truck roads but agrees with staff that ranking bicycles second on Los Osos Valley Road is the best that can be done. He supported speed tables over speed bumps on local streets because vehicles can go over them without incurring damage. He suggested deleting 8.1.4 City Vehicle Operation because the volume of City vehicle traffic is low and keeping it in may cause people to question the presence of a City vehicle in their neighborhood. He noted that there is nothing about non-passenger rail transportation in Chapter 12 but that a future increase in freight traffic must be anticipated because the Orcutt railroad overpass is still included in City planning. Deputy Director Bochum stated that this is correct and that there used to be severe issues with trains stopping on Orcutt Road and that there is currently a great deal of focus nationwide on the hauling of fuels and combustibles. He suggested that the Commission develop the language to address this. Commr. Draze noted that bicycles should be included in 13.1.5 Curb Parking Evaluation and that 15.0.6 Designation of Scenic Highways should include everything in the planning area including areas outside the City's sphere of influence. Commr. Multari stated that it is important to leave “voting” in 8.0.5 Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines. He noted that there is a question of how to do the voting and determine the boundaries. He suggested adding “and develop an outreach program on the availability of the program”. He also suggested adding a reference to excessive right of way pavement in the first sentence of 8.1.3 Quality of Life because there are streets that are too wide for their purpose and that reducing the amount of paving would create opportunities for parkways, traffic circles, and street trees. He also suggested adding “The City should give priority to existing streets that exceed thresholds.” He agreed with Commr. Draze's concern about the transport of oil and hydrocarbons through the City and noted that some of the highest density areas are closest to the tracks. Commr. Draze suggested this language for Chapter 12: “The City shall monitor and respond to changes or proposed changes in passenger and freight rail traffic that may impact the safety and well-being of residents of the community including the transport of combustible materials.” Commr. Multari suggested also adding “The City shall discourage the transportation of oil and other combustible hydrocarbons through the City.” Commr. Riggs stated that he supports everything discussed to this point, especially Commr. Multari's suggestion about dealing with excessive right-of-way. He left the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Commr. Multari suggested adding “and consider emerging best practices such as unbundled parking, smart parking technologies and cash out programs” at the end of 13.1.1. Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 2014 Page 4 Commr. Dandekar expressed concern about the availability of traffic data for citizens. Principal Transportation Manager Mandeville suggested putting data in the Neighborhood Traffic Guidelines, which could be current to the date of the document. Deputy Director Bochum stated that the City might be able to produce a map display online as part of the NTM guidelines that could be updated periodically. Commr. Larson stated that he supported Commr. Multari’s idea of developing outreach programs for NTM information. Commr. Multari noted that the City has, in the past, sometimes unilaterally decided that certain areas are impacted and has tried to put in traffic calming which upset neighborhoods. He stated that NTM should be grassroots-generated. He stated that the information should be publicized and made available, and then the City should see what results from that. Commr. Dandekar stated that she likes the web interface with timely updates. In response to a question from Commr. Draze about support for deletion of 8.1.4, Commrs. Malak and Larson indicated they preferred deletion. That is a majority with five Commissioners in attendance. Commr. Multari stated he had no strong feelings about the deletion. Commr. Dandekar supported leaving it in as a statement about City commitment to doing what it is asking citizens to do. Commr. Multari stated that after reading the material and listening to public comments, he still supports four lanes for Prado Road. Commr. Draze agreed and noted that, when development occurs, Prado could end up as a two-lane road but he prefers planning for four lanes. Commr. Multari stated that future technology and behavioral changes may alter the need for four lanes but the Commission is not in a position to make that leap. Commr. Dandekar stated that she supported Commr. Draze’s comment about expanding scenic roadway identification beyond the City boundary. She noted that at the LUCE Task Force, Cal Poly students were very supportive of Highway 1 as a scenic road beyond the City limits. She suggested that the City pursue identification for one or two roads of high value. She asked if there is a mechanism for doing that. Commr. Larson stated that unless the City and the community strongly initiate doing something, nothing will happen, but he is not opposed to being a little more precise in identifying what is wanted. Deputy Director Bochum stated that SLOCOG is responsible for designating local highways as scenic. He suggested adding language to address that. Commr. Larson asked if the language suggested above for 15.0.6 should be in 15.0.5B. Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 2014 Page 5 Commr. Draze supported Commr. Multari's suggested language additions in 8.1.3 Quality of Life about excess paving. Deputy Director Bochum suggested changing the second sentence of 15.0.5 to read “This support should be strongly advocated when:” followed by the four bullet items. Commr. Larson stated that the perceived intent that a lot of people have is that developers should pay for roads, i.e., when Mila Vujovich-LaBarre tonight supported having the San Luis Ranch developers pay for the Prado overpass. He noted that the City is constrained by State law from imposing that and some future road projects would serve more than just adjacent land. He added that all developers should pay their fair share. Deputy Director Bochum stated that the next big effort is to analyze the issue of financing because it cannot all be done by development, and it will take participation by everyone including regional, state, and, possibly, federal levels. The City will have to prioritize expenditures and assign transportation funding to meet multi-modal objectives. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Draze, to recommend the City Council approve updates to Chapters 6-10 and 12-16 of the Circulation Element of the General with the inclusion of the multi-model level of service examples added as an appendix to the Circulation Element, and with the following additions staff presented tonight in Attachment 2 and the following changes made by the Planning Commission: (Staff Presented Additions as Modified by Planning Commission) Madonna & Higuera Realignment.Development of the properties North and South of Madonna Rd. West of Higuera shall incorporate a detailed analysis for Madonna Road west of Higuera and the intersection of Higuera and Madonna and recommend improvements, if any. Chorro, Broad, & Boysen Realignments.Redevelopment of University Square shall incorporate a detailed circulation, safety & access management analysis for the intersections of Boysen & Santa Rosa (potential for grade separation crossing/restrictions), Foothill & Chorro, and Foothill & Broad as well as driveway access points along adjacent roadways. and recommend improvements, if any. Pismo & Higuera Realignment.Redevelopment of properties at the intersection of High & Pismo at Higuera shall incorporate a detailed analysis and recommend improvements, if any. Planned Bishop Street Connection. The City shall conduct a detailed subarea traffic analysis to determine if secondary measures can be made to allow for elimination of the Bishop Street Extension and protection of neighborhood traffic levels and recommend improvements, if any. Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 2014 Page 6 Los Osos Valley Road Bypass .The City shall conduct a detailed subarea traffic analysis to determine final feasibility of the LOVR Bypass. Issues to be studied should include, but are not limited to impacts to: sensitive noise receptors, agriculture operations, open space, Creek, traffic and biological resources. ; and/or As part of LOVR Creekside Special Planning Area, the project shall analyze impacts of a new roadway connection in some form from Los Osos Valley Road to Higuera. (Planning Commission Recommended Policy Changes) 7.1.7 Traffic Access Management The City shall adopt an access management policy to control location, spacing, design and operation of driveways, median openings, crosswalks, interchanges and street connections to a particular roadway including navigation routes to direct traffic in a manner that preserves the safety and efficiency of the transportation system. Navigation routing and other smart access technologies should be considered as part of the update to the Access and Parking Management plan. 8.0.5 Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines The City shall update its Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines to address voting, funding, and implementation procedures and develop an outreach program on the availability of the program. 8.1.3 Quality of Life When requested by neighborhoods, The City shall analyze residential streets shall be analyzed for their livability with regards to multi-modal traffic noise, volumes, speed and potential excess right-of-way pavement. Traffic calming or other intervening measures. may be necessary to maintain the resident's quality of life. The City should give priority to existing streets that exceed thresholds. 8.1.1 City Vehicle Operation OperatorsThe City shall direct operators of City vehicles, excluding police patrols, should not to use Residential Collector or Residential Local streets as shortcut routes for non-emergency City business. 12.1.3 Idling Train Engines Interagency Cooperation.The City shall coordinate railroad facility infrastructure maintenance with the Union Pacific Railroad and the Public Utilities Commission. In addition, the City shall work with the Air Pollution Control District and others to eliminate discourage idling train engines in San Luis Obispo. 12.1.4 Railroad Hazards Reduction.The City shall monitor and respond to changes, or proposed changes in passenger and freight rail traffic that may impact the safety and Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 2014 Page 7 well-being of residents of the community including the transport of combustible materials. 12.1.5 Transport of Combustible Materials. “The City shall discourage the transportation of oil and other combustible hydrocarbons through the City.” 13.1.1 Parking Management Plan The City will shall maintain and periodically regularly update its Access and Parking Management Plan (every 5 years) and consider emerging best practices such as unbundled parking, smart parking technologies and cash out programs. 13.0.615.0.5 Scenic Highways The City will promote the creation of Scenic Highways within San Luis Obispo and adjoining county areas. This support should be strongly advocated when: 1.A. Reviewing draft county general plan elements or major revisions to them. 2.B. Reviewing changes to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as a member agency of the San Luis Obispo Council Regional Transportation Agency. 3.C. Reviewing development projects that are referred to the city that are located along routes shown in the Conservation and Open Space Element. D. Actively participating in the development and periodic updates of the Caltrans US 101 Aesthetic Study in San Luis Obispo County. AYES:Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Malak, Larson, and Multari NOES:None RECUSED:None ABSENT:Commr. Fowler (Commr. Riggs left early) The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2.Staff a. Agenda Forecast by Director Johnson was deferred to tomorrow's meeting. 3.Commission ADJOURNMENT:The meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Diane Clement Recording Secretary DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 18, 2014 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL:Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson Absent:Commissioner John Fowler Staff:Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Associate Planner Brian Leveille, Contract Planner Gary Kaiser, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. City-Wide. GPI/ER 15-12: Continued review of the Draft Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) and associated Final Environmental Impact Report; City of San Luis Obispo – Community Development Dept., applicant. (Gary Kaiser) Contract Planner Kaiser presented the staff report, recommending the City Council take the following actions: (1) Approve policy and program updates for Circulation Element Chapters 6-10 & 12-16; and (2) Approve changes to the Land Use Element diagram and associated Zoning updates. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Eugene Jud, SLO, stated that the South Hills Open Space should be expanded to preserve cultural heritage and archeological resources, and the proposed Prado Road extension should be a two-lane road that connects to Tank Farm Road. He asserted that promises made to the public that the City would come up with solutions to preserve open space, view sheds, and agricultural land have not been kept. He presented alternative ideas in a slide presentation and hand-out that included options for the years 2035 and 2050, and noted the need to consider all factors such as open space, cultural heritage, view sheds and prime agricultural land when planning for land use and circulation. Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2014 Page 2 Stephen Peck, SLO, representing the Avila Ranch Project requested that the Commission determine specific land uses, including the Special Focus overlay, for this property at this meeting to facilitate development. Commr. Draze noted that this is not on the agenda tonight and the Commission cannot make a recommendation on the zoning. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere stated that fulfilling Mr. Peck's request would require going back through the referral process with the Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency. Mr. Peck stated that he disagrees with Attorney Ansolabehere's interpretation that this is something new that has not been analyzed but that he will withdraw his request if it means going back to the ALUC. Commr. Dandekar stated that when suggestions were brought forth at the LUCE Task Force and staff was providing some general ideas for that land, it was generally understood that the Specific Plan process would work out the details. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Multari stated he is concerned that the language in the new Chapter 17.53 will not resolve conflicts between the language in the General Plan and the language for each of the Special Plan Areas where the LUCE Task Force noted the need for additional flexibility. He stated that the idea of the Task Force was that the existing zoning was not the tool for these areas and, if it was, then they would not be special plan areas. Director Johnson stated that the last sentence in 17.53.030 provides the flexibility and discretion needed to deal with each Special Plan Area because each has its own circumstances and factors that will drive that flexibility. He suggested that this sentence be moved to 17.53.020. Commr. Larson explained that Commr. Multari was saying the whole point of the Land Use Update and identification of Special Focus Areas is to recognize that traditional zoning may not capture the desire of the City and community as to what to do in these areas. He stated that the last sentence in 17.53.030 is designed to deal with any conflicts. He agrees with Director Johnson that this sentence should perhaps be in 17.53.020. Commr. Multari agreed that this was his concern. Director Johnson stated that what is needed next is an update of zoning ordinances. Commr. Multari asked if the Commission would be recommending an ordinance change to the City Council. Director Johnson affirmed that this is correct. Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2014 Page 3 Commr. Riggs stated that he does not share Commr. Multari's concern and that staff has done the best job possible of marrying the LUCE intent with zoning. He added that he was comfortable making a recommendation to prioritize revising some of the zoning code as a separate motion. Commr. Draze stated that he agreed with moving the last sentence of 17.53.030 to 17.53.020. Commr. Multari stated he was harping on this because the LUCE Task Force belabored the Special Planning Areas with the idea of getting away from standard zoning districts. Commr. Dandekar stated that the maps surprised her because the Special Plans are clear and she had been confident that the intent of the LUCE would be actualized. She asked about the process for development of a property in a Special Plan Area. Associate Planner Leveille stated that it could vary significantly but would mostly likely involve architectural and subdivision approval with just a few steps in the process, and, if it was just one building at a time, it could just require architectural review. Commr. Multari stated that development in the Special Plan Areas should come to the Planning Commission in every case. He noted that there should be a list of things that must be done for any area with an SF designation. Commr. Dandekar stated that the LUCE Task Force spent a lot of time identifying the Special Plan Areas as crucial locations and is concerned about whether the intent of the Task Force could be achieved through the process described by Associate Planner Leveille. Director Johnson stated that changes could be made to reflect that development in these areas must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He noted that this could be put in a table of the Special Plan Areas. Commr. Larson asked the Commission to think about whether it would be consistent with the intent to have review and interpretation done by the Planning Commission for these areas which are like miniature Specific Plan Areas. Commr. Dandekar stated she has heard tonight that there is potential to piecemeal these projects, which would be against the intent of the Task Force and that each of these areas need to be seen as a whole. Commr. Multari stated that he and Commr. Dandekar are on the same page, having served on the LUCE Task Force, which did not want these areas to have Specific Plans, but did want them to go through a review that is more careful and customized. He added that, if it is clear that flexibility is afforded via the language in 17.53, and there will be review by the Planning Commission, he is inching closer to a comfort level. Commr. Larson stated that the Commission is struggling with the nuts and bolts, the right words and direction for overview, with the recognition that an overhaul of the zoning code is coming soon. Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2014 Page 4 Commr. Draze stated it would be necessary to take out the Community Development Director for review and adjust Table 9 to reflect having the Planning Commission do the reviews. Commr. Riggs asked why the City would want to impede single parcel owners and encourage parcel assembly. He added that this does not make things more flexible. Commr. Multari stated, as an example, that the Task Force had a long discussion about the Foothill/Santa Rosa Area which has taken a long time to redevelop. He explained that the idea was to avoid looking at each parcel apart from some kind of vision or comprehensive view for the entire area. He noted that, because of the special circumstances, in some cases there should be either more restrictions or more flexibility. He added that the LUCE Task Force looked at each area in detail, trying to capture what would be best for the community, and tried to encourage development of a comprehensive view before the individual parcels are developed. Commr. Riggs stated that he sees this as an impediment and asked what the incentives would be for development. Commr. Multari stated that this may be an impediment because it will require landowners to do some long range comprehensive planning involving properties they do not control, take circulation into account, and talk to their neighbors. Commr. Dandekar stated that these areas were seen as catalyst zones requiring action by the City. Commr. Riggs stated that he also sees these areas as catalyst areas that need change, not stagnation. Commr. Dandekar stated that this would help shape a direction for an area that people could collectively buy into. Commr. Malak asked, in reference to 17.53.020 and 17.53.030, if someone comes in with an idea that is not specifically Community Commercial, can the zoning be changed and how would it change. Director Johnson stated that it would be up to the Planning Commission which would look at the competing standards and apply them in a way to achieve the City's goals. Commr. Malak stated that he would like to see the Planning Commission implement the last sentence in 17.53.030. Commr. Larson stated that this would not involve changing the zoning but would be about finding consistency or interpreting uses and development standards, which is the function of the Planning Commission because only the City Council can change zoning. He noted that the zoning code gives some flexibility, and the key is how to use that flexibility in a manner that achieves the development objectives in the new updated General Plan. He noted that Commr. Multari is correct that someone could come in and Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2014 Page 5 fit exactly the development standards in the zoning code and ignore the newer policies and objectives without these coming to the Planning Commission until the zoning code is completely updated. Commr. Dandekar stated that policy determines what you want outcomes to be and the job of the Planning Commission and other commissions is to see if objectives have been met. Commr. Riggs agreed with the catalyst statement and the idea of this being a period of transition before the zoning code update, but stated that, if specific requirements are met, he does not see why projects should have to come to the Commission, and he could see more decisions made by the Director, who could choose whether to refer projects to the Commission. He stated that requiring review by the Commission is adding bureaucracy. He added that policy is pretty clear about expectations and, if projects come to the Commission, the temptation will be to increase standards at the whim of the Commission which would create more vague interpretations of policy. Commr. Larson stated that the difficulty is developing criteria to stop a bad project that fails to embody the vision of a Special Focus Zone. Commr. Malak stated that he does not agree with Commr. Riggs because he would not like to see all that authority placed in one person’s hands, and he wants transparency and public input. Commr. Draze stated he would tend to agree with Commr. Riggs if Chapter 8 were much more defined, but there is not enough detail for developers or even staff without a public hearing to get to where the Task Force was heading. He added that, if the zoning code is changed, 17.53.030 can be changed. Commr. Multari stated that there are really just five of the special plan areas that the Commission should review: Foothill/Santa Rosa, Caltrans Site, Madonna Inn Area, Sunset Drive-In Theater/Prado Road, LOVR Creekside. He proposed the following language for 17.53.020: “Where provisions of the underlying zone and the General Plan …conflict, the Land Use Element shall have priority. Development objectives within the plan area shall be…interpreted by the Community Development Director in order to achieve the development objectives in the special focus areas, …except Foothill Blvd./Santa Rosa Area, Caltrans Site, Madonna Inn Area, Sunset Drive-In Theater/Prado Road Area, and 11-LOVR Creekside Area shall be subject to Planning Use permits that development proposals in the areas above) which would require….” Commr. Riggs supported the proposed language. Commr. Dandekar stated that Commr. Multari’s suggestion addresses the critical parcels that the Task Force was concerned about. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Draze, to recommend approval of the amendments to General Plan Land Use designations and zoning for Special Focus Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2014 Page 6 Areas associated with the Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan; as well as the new Chapter 17.53 Special Focus Overlay zone section recommended by staff with PC recommended modifications. AYES:Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Larson, Malak, Multari, and Riggs NOES:None RECUSED:None ABSENT:Commr. Fowler The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2.Staff a. Agenda Forecast by Director Johnson x Overview of the LUCE update at future City Council meetings x Deputy Director Davidson to send out an update of Commission meetings. 3.Commission –no comments ADJOURNMENT:The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Diane Clement Recording Secretary DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 24, 2014 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL:Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler, Ronald Malak, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson Absent:Commissioner William Riggs Staff:Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner Erik Berg-Johansen, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: Minutes of September 10, 2014, were approved as amended. Minutes of September 11, 2014, were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.1941 Slack Street.AP-PC 95-14: Appeal of the Director’s decision to deny an application for an addition to a nonconforming structure; R-1 zone; SLOCA, LLC, applicant; Stalwork, Inc., appellant Erik Berg-Johansen) Assistant Planner Berg-Johansen presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the Draft Resolution denying the appeal and supporting the Director’s decision to deny the project. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Linda White, SLO, stated she lives less than 1.5 blocks from 1941 Slack Street and, if the Commission approves this mini-dorm, it will be responsible for further erosion of her neighborhood. She added that the City has stressed the need for workforce housing, which this six-bedroom project goes against, and described the single-family home nature of the neighborhood, which she illustrated with photographs she gave to the Commissioners. She noted previous errors in allowing other mini-dorms and gave photographs of examples to the Commissioners. She stated that Policy 7.1 of the Housing Element (under Goal 7 –Neighborhood Quality) has been neglected too often Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 2 and these mini-dorms have spread like a cancer in the neighborhood. She added that Slack Street is a substandard street, narrow with parking on only one side, that has to accommodate two-way traffic, pedestrians, skateboarders, and bicycles. Carolyn Smith, SLO, speaking for Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN), supported denial of the appeal because these neighborhoods of small homes built in the 1940s-50s are overly impacted. She noted that six or more students, each with a vehicle, some likely to be very large, would add to the existing parking and noise problems, and the only recourse would be more enforcement. She added that allowing investors to buy these homes and convert them into mini-dorms would set a dangerous precedent. Paul Allen, SLO, stated he lives in another neighborhood but feels passionate about the problems here. He added that Monterey Heights and Alta Vista have been subjected to increasing pressure from Cal Poly and absentee owners have been buying up the houses and converting them into rentals for as many as 12 students which overwhelms neighborhoods throughout the City. He noted that the nature of the City has changed dramatically and long-time residents are leaving. He stated strong action is needed to stop this, this proposal is insensitive to the neighborhood, and it may be part of the owner's plan to drive more residents away. He added that students bring their own vehicles and create difficulties for emergency response vehicles and that this neighborhood is not zoned for this density. Rebecca Keisler, SLO, long-time resident of this neighborhood, stated this house is currently a two-bedroom, one-bath home in an R-1 neighborhood that could be enlarged to accommodate a family but this is a proposal for six institutional bedrooms. She supported denial of the appeal. John Keisler, SLO, stated he supports staff's findings because the project is too big and will have only two parking spaces and one of those spaces, in the garage, will not actually be used for parking. He stated that you can call that room designated a family room anything, but it can end up being a space for two college students. He added the proposal does not promote compatibility, does not encourage occupancy by a family or an owner; the house would be larger than other residences in the neighborhood and would not have the characteristics of a family home; and this use is inconsistent with the Land Use Element. He noted the potential to make life miserable in the neighborhood because of over-parking on a substandard street with no sidewalk on the north side. He stated that if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it probably is a bedroom for 1-2 students, whether it is called a family room, a garage or a duck. He concluded that approval of the appeal could set a precedent for mini-dorm conversions citywide. Claudia Andersen, SLO, stated the neighborhood has had to bear the consequences of poor planning in the past and added that, since her neighbor died and his house was sold, six students have been living there and parking is a problem. She noted that parking is not just about a space for a car, but involves slamming doors and other noise. She stated she does not understand why these homes are called single-family residences when lies are told about occupancy. She asserted that there are college Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 3 towns that limit the number of student houses per street and asked when does the City step in. Camille Small, SLO, stated she is concerned about this neighborhood, her heart goes out to those who have been “chased” from their neighborhoods, and she knows the City cannot control what Cal Poly does, but she does not think the university has met its goal for new housing. She added she is not talking negatively toward students but noted they do not make for a normal neighborhood. She suggested that the City may need to look for stricter wording for the guidelines. Ben Kulick, SLO, Stalwork, Inc., stated he agrees with every comment made and that his company is trying to work within the guidelines. He added that he was born and raised here and is vested in this community. He noted that people want to do these projects and a lot of these issues have nothing to do with this project. He stated that he blames property managers and that there is an enforcement problem. He added that the City cannot deny projects when people are trying to meet the codes and the only reason for this hearing is that the original house has a non-conforming setback. Commr. Draze asked Mr. Kulick to explain how this helps solves the problem of the parking issue. Mr. Kulick replied that it puts students close to campus within walking distance. Evy Justesen, SLO, stated she lives close to a home Stalwork just did and it does have beautiful landscaping but the building plans showed five bedrooms and a nursery and there is no nursery. She supported denial of the appeal. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Larson noted that the Commission received five letters and some additional late correspondence from three other residents, and all are of the same tenor as the comments tonight. Commr. Draze stated doubling the size of the house is not a minor addition. He noted that he is concerned about parking because the street is extremely narrow with no parking allowed on one side. He added that the driveway could be used for parking but there is not room to park two cars on the street in front of the house. He stated that he is convinced there will be six bedrooms and he has a serious problem with this. He supported the staff position and stated he will have several additions to findings. Commr. Multari agreed that doubling the size is hardly a minor addition and that, quite clearly, this will be occupied by several students and there is only one parking space. He noted it is a little unfair to say that Cal Poly has not provided any new housing since its Master Plan Update. He stated that about 4500 have been added since then, which, he noted, is not enough and more is needed. He supported the staff’s denial. Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 4 Commr. Malak stated that one letter the Commission received talked about ten unrelated occupants living at 2045 Slack Street. He asked staff if codes are being enforced in this area. Deputy Director Davidson stated Code enforcement is an ongoing effort and the City is taking an extra step this month with a meet-and-greet around the neighborhood. He noted that the Neighborhood Wellness program is proactive in nature so there has been increased enforcement activity. He added that 2045 Slack has had seven code violations in recent years. Commr. Malak stated he will support the denial. Commr. Fowler stated this project is in an R-1 zone and nothing about it gives the impression it is an enhancement to an R-1 residence. He added he drove by the house and had trouble negotiating Slack Street. He stated he will support the denial. Commr. Draze stated that he appreciates all the speakers and noted that one woman brought up the issue of limiting the number of students on a street. He stated he does not think that can be done legally. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere confirmed that student residents cannot be legally limited. He suggested eliminating Finding #1 and adding language to Findings #5 and #6. He stated that there is no designation in the High Occupancy use definition for “unrelated adults;” there are only “adults.” Commr. Malak stated that the City limited the number of cars allowed for a sorority and asked if that could be done here. Commr. Draze stated there is a lot more flexibility in dealing with sororities. Deputy Director Davidson stated that the sorority at 1716 Osos Street was applying for a conditional use permit and a sorority is group housing. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere stated trying to impose conditions related to parking is not a good idea and the Commission should look more at compatibility and quality of life. Commr. Multari stated it is important to acknowledge the difficulty of having property next to a major popular State university which creates intense pressure for students to live in these neighborhoods. He noted these older homes are not designed for that so there is an inherent tension. He suggested that an overlay zone be created that sets out the rules more clearly for parking, and for when and how residences can be enlarged in the upcoming zoning ordinance update. He added that the current zoning was written for single-family homes, not for the reality of this. Commr. Dandekar stated that this project is not in conformance with R-1 zoning but this neighborhood is in transition. Without a sixth bedroom, this sort of conforms so, in the future, an overlay zone as an effort to protect quality of life should be strongly recommended. She stated that she is swayed by the quality of life issue. She asked Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 5 the attorney how to justify a denial based on quality of life and stated she supports denial. She noted that the intent has been voiced to create housing for students. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere stated that the City policies which the Commission interprets. Deputy Director Davidson stated that Findings 3, 4, 5, and 7 are about the policies with which the project is inconsistent and that is what staff presented to support the staff recommendation. Commr. Larson stated he has a tendency to support the staff recommendation and that there are aspects of the project he likes and aspects of the presentation that were handled quite well, but staff makes a compelling argument and, if you step back, you can see the difficulties. Commr. Draze made a motion, seconded by Commr. Malak to support the staff position with some added findings. Discussion ensued. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere suggested deleting Finding #1 and putting that language in Finding #5 because the denial is not dealing with the High Occupancy regulations and these concerns relate to compatibility of this project and what it would impose on the surrounding neighborhood. He noted the project does have potential for high occupancy. Commr. Larson stated that he did not want to lose staff’s interpretation that there is a mechanical difficulty in approving this project separate from compatibility with the neighborhood, given the lot geometry and the family room which is really going to be a bedroom triggering high occupancy and the inability to meet the parking regulations. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere suggested adding to the end of the sentence in Finding #5 “it facilitates high occupancy uses not compatible with R-1 neighborhoods and creates a high likelihood of exacerbating neighborhood parking deficiencies.”He also suggested adding to the last sentence in Finding #6: “The property’s existing nonconforming parking layout coupled with the substandard nature of Slack Street and proposed number of bedrooms creates a scenario where adequate parking cannot be provided to accommodate the number of adult drivers the occupancy could support…” He added that the appeal is being denied, not the action. Commrs. Draze and Malak accepted those changes as part of the motion. Commr. Multari stated that he appreciates those language changes but he is not comfortable with the statement in Finding #5 that “it does not encourage owner occupancy” because the City has other policies that say student housing adjacent to Cal Poly is encouraged. He added he wants to take that statement out. Commrs. Draze and Malak supported that removal of language. Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 6 Commr. Fowler stated he is still concerned about calling this a minor addition. He asked if there is an opportunity to do something about clarifying the definition of a minor addition. Deputy Director Davidson stated that this is something to consider for the future and is on the working list. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Draze, seconded by Commr. Malak, to support the staff position by adopting the Draft Resolution denying the appeal and supporting the Director's decision to deny the project with the following changes to Findings: a. Finding #1: Delete b. Finding #4: Add “one-third” after “includes a house that is” and before “larger than others....” c. Finding #5: Remove “it does not encourage owner occupancy.” d. Finding #5: Add to the end of the sentence “it facilitates high-occupancy uses not compatible with R-1 neighborhoods and creates a high likelihood of exacerbating neighborhood parking deficiencies.” e. Finding 6: Add after “parking layout” and before “coupled with” the following: “and the substandard nature of Slack Street” f. Finding 6: Add “to accommodate the number of adult drivers the occupancy could support” after “cannot be provided” and before “and this deficiency…” g. Action: Change “deny the application” to “deny the appeal.” AYES:Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, and Multari NOES:None RECUSED:None ABSENT:Commr. Riggs The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2.Staff a. Agenda Forecast by Davidson x Oct 8—home stay ordinance, water supply presentation x Oct 22—General Plan report, Calle Joaquin property with proposed zone change for a hotel next to Alfano Motors. 3.Commission –no comments Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 7 ADJOURNMENT:The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Diane Clement Recording Secretary