HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06-2015 PH1 Owner-Occupied Homestay Rentals
Jan. 6, 2015
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Greg Hermann, Special Projects Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ALLOWING OWNER-OCCUPIED
HOMESTAY RENTALS
RECOMMENDATION:
1. As recommended by the Planning Commission, approve the proposed Ordinance to add
Chapter 17.08.140 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code allowing owner-occupied
homestay rentals and approve a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
2. Approve the proposed Resolution to reinstate enforcement of the vacation rental prohibition
and establish an amnesty period of ninety days for unpaid Transient Occupancy Tax for
homestay rentals.
REPORT IN BRIEF
Currently, the City’s Municipal Code does not allow for vacation rentals defined as rental of a
residence or part of a dwelling for fewer than 30 consecutive days.
In March 2013, City staff began receiving complaints regarding short term rental activity and
initiated enforcement of the prohibition of these types of uses. Concurrently, the City Council also
received communication requesting that the Municipal Code be changed to allow for short term
rentals of owner-occupied homes in the City.
In November 2013, the City Council held a study session to review the current regulations and
provided direction to amend those regulations. After considerable public testimony, the City
Council directed staff to suspend enforcement of the current regulations and draft a new ordinance
to allow for short term rentals in owner-occupied homes, known as homestays, in the City.
Staff worked with community and business groups to establish key elements for a successful
homestay program which included establishing owner occupancy, permit requirements, maximum
number of guests, parking standards, responsible party requirements, inspections and rules related to
accessory structures. Each element is represented in the ordinance with specific program standards.
The ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission in October 2014 and was recommended
to be approved by the City Council with the modification that either the property owner or a
responsible party be onsite during evening hours when the property is being rented.
DISCUSSION
Background
Prior to 2006, the City’s Zoning Ordinance did not specify vacation rentals as a land use, which
meant that the use was not permitted. To clarify this intent, in 2006, the City Council amended the
PH1-1
Owner-occupied Homestay Rentals Page 2
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.
In March 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.
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 the
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. 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 manner, explore options related to creating 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.
Project Analysis
In order to develop the draft ordinance, staff sought guidance from public input, reviewed existing
General Plan policies, researched approaches from other jurisdictions and examined current
statistics for short-term rentals in the City. Each of these steps is discussed below.
1. Public Outreach
Staff identified key audiences for generating input in drafting the ordinance. As part of the outreach,
staff sought to:
a. Actively engage the diverse populations of the City in the discussions about a Homestay
Ordinance and gather input regarding how homestay rentals should be operated, located and
managed; and
b. 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 short-term rentals with SLO Hosts, the
San Luis Obispo Realtors Association, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, the Neighborhood
Wellness Group, the Tourism Business Improvement District Board and the Chamber of Commerce
Issues Evaluation Committee. Staff also had several meetings with members of the general public
on the issue.
2. Outreach Results
PH1-2
Owner-occupied Homestay Rentals Page 3
The following is staff’s summary of feedback and comments regarding issues to be addressed as
part of the ordinance.
Support of homestay rentals:
• Regulations should be limited, fees low and equivalent for all zones to encourage
participation and limit the need for enforcement
• Regulations should be similar to the requirements placed on long-term rentals
• Maximum occupancy should allow for at least two adults per bedroom as well as additional
guests for other rooms or bedrooms with multiple beds
• Homestays should be allowed in guest quarters and second-dwelling units
• A responsible party requirement should be revisited and required only if complaints occur
• Inspection requirements should be revisited and required only if complaints occur
• Parking requirements should be revisited and required only if complaints occur
Concern with homestay rentals:
• Owner occupancy should be verified through the Homeowner’s Property Tax Exemption
• An administrative use permit or equivalent process should be required for homestays in all
zones
• Notification should go beyond adjacent property owners to 300 ft.
• There should be a limit placed on the maximum number of guests and number of bedrooms
allowed for rentals
• Limits on concentration and distance between homestay rentals should be considered
• The property owner should be required to be the responsible party during rentals
• The property owner should have hours of presence required around times of check in and
check out
• The permit should be subject to an annual review
3. 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):
“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:
PH1-3
Owner-occupied Homestay Rentals Page 4
“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.
4. Approaches from Other Jurisdictions
The concept of homestay rentals is relatively new and consequently there are very few cities with
ordinances to address this specific type of use. Typically, when addressed, the regulations for
homestay type uses are included with those for vacation rentals or bed and breakfast inns. Staff was
unable to locate a standalone ordinance for owner-occupied homestay rentals. Recently, the City of
Arroyo Grande approved an ordinance to allow for both homestay and vacation rentals (Attachment
5). Also, the City of Sebastopol has recently developed guidelines for the operation of homestays
(Attachment 6), although they have not yet enacted any legislation. Staff contacted representatives
from both of these cities as well as several cities who are in the process of developing ordinances 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 City
Council study session, staff identified several key elements to successful regulations of short-term
rentals. These elements are described later including how they are represented in the draft
ordinance.
5. Current Statistics
As of December 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, 36 hosts have signed up and the City has collected a total of $30,988.
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.
PH1-4
Owner-occupied Homestay Rentals Page 5
Planning Commission Recommendation
On October 8th, 2014, staff presented the draft homestay ordinance to the Planning Commission for
review and to gather Commission and additional public input and recommendations for City
Council consideration. The Planning Commission made several minor, typographical changes to
further the intent of the ordinance. In addition, the Commission had a lengthy discussion and
ultimately voted to include a requirement that the owner or a responsible party be present at the
rental site during homestays from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. The original draft ordinance did not have
a “presence” requirement, but rather required that the property owner or a responsible party be
available at all times by phone and able to be at the site within 15 minutes should any issues arise.
There was also significant discussion regarding a limit on the duration and total amount of
homestays allowed at a given residence, but no motion was passed. The minutes from the Planning
Commission are included as Attachment 4.
Proposed Ordinance
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).
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:
1. Owner occupancy
2. Permit level required
3. Maximum number of guests
4. Parking
5. Responsible party
6. Inspections
7. Accessory structures
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 means that the residence used for the homestay rental is the primary residence of
the property owner. 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. It is also meant to not exacerbate the owner/renter imbalance in neighborhoods and to
preclude the wholesale conversion of owner-occupied homes into short-term, vacation rental type
PH1-5
Owner-occupied Homestay Rentals Page 6
uses. 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 this requirement stating
that the dwelling must be owner occupied. The draft ordinance also 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.
The Planning Commission expanded on this requirement by including a provision for owner or
responsible party presence during nighttime hours during rentals, discussed in more detail under
“responsible party”.
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:
1. A business license
2. Evidence of enrollment to pay TOT and TBID taxes
3. 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.)
4. 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 and 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, Planning
Commission supported the Homestay Permit and administrative approval process be used in all
zones. It is a reasonable fee for a permit process to address neighborhood issues and concerns.
Maximum Number of Guests
The City has existing regulations regarding maximum occupancy for adults, 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 (without limit to number of
accompanying children under the age of 18). This number is based in part on the single parking
space requirement for homestay rentals (described below) and existing City standards for residential
occupancy including the High Occupancy Permit criteria of six or more adults per residence in R-1
and R-2 zones.
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 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
PH1-6
Owner-occupied Homestay Rentals Page 7
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, the owner or responsible party must be onsite between the hours of 11:00
p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Contact information for the property owner and designated 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. On December 16th, 2014 the City Council directed staff to develop an
ordinance for a rental housing inspection program. At that meeting the City Council was presented
with a number of options for rental housing inspection programs which could include inspections
for homestay rentals. Should the City Council approve an ordinance for a rental housing inspection
program, staff would recommend that homestay rentals be included as part of the program.
Accessory Structures
1. Secondary Dwelling Units
The draft ordinance specifies that homestay rentals 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.
2. Guest Quarters and Guest Houses
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.
3. 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 apply.
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.
PH1-7
Owner-occupied Homestay Rentals Page 8
CONCURRENCES
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.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An initial study completed for the project concludes that it can be seen with certainty that proposed
amendments to Municipal Code in Section 17.08.140 could not have a significant effect on the
environment. The proposed negative declaration of environmental impact is provided in
Attachment 7.
FISCAL IMPACT
Due to the relatively small number of owner-occupied homestay rentals currently in the City the
additional impacts of implementing and enforcing the ordinance on a complaint basis can be
absorbed into existing resources. Additional staffing may be necessary if the number of homestay
rentals increases considerably or if requirements are added to the ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Amend the proposed ordinance. The City Council may modify the proposed amendments
to the Municipal Code. Specific direction should be given to staff regarding any
modifications.
2. Continue the proposed ordinance. The City Council may continue action, if more
information in needed. Direction should be given to staff regarding additional information
needed to make a decision.
3. Reject the proposed ordinance. The City Council may reject the proposed ordinance
although public testimony and current research demonstrate that an ordinance is needed.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Homestay Ordinance
2. City Council Resolution to reinstate enforcement of vacation rentals and establish an
amnesty period for unpaid TOT
3. Planning Commission Resolution 5610-14
4. October 8th, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
5. City of Arroyo Grande Vacation Rental and Homestay Ordinance
6. City of Sebastopol Homestay Guidelines
7. Initial Study and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2015\2015-01-06\Homestay Ordinance (Johnson-Hermann)\ECAR- Owner-occupied Homestay Rentals.docx
PH1-8
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO. #### (2015 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING
REGULATIONS) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
HOMESTAY RENTALS AND APPROVING THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(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 Council 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 January 6, 2015, 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 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, it is the purpose of this Ordinance to protect the public health,
safety, and welfare within the City by establishing rules and requirements for homestay
rental; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
PH1-9
Ordinance No. #### (2015 Series) Attachment 1
CODE 0058-2014
Page 2
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated
herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The project has been found to
have a negative declaration of environmental impact through the completion of an
initial study environmental review per CEQA Guidelines. Municipal Code amendments
included in Section 17.08.140 of this ordinance are summarized below which conclude
that it can be seen with certainty that proposed amendments to the Municipal Code
could not have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 3. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the
following findings:
1. The increasing popularity of homestay rentals in the City require the
implementation of appropriate regulations to 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. The project has been found to have a negative declaration of environmental
impact through the completion of an initial study environmental review per
CEQA Guidelines as detailed in Section 2 above.
SECTION 4. Chapter 17.08.140 “Homestay Rentals” of the City of San Luis
Obispo’s Municipal Code is added to read as follows:
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 compensation for fewer than thirty consecutive days with a
PH1-10
Ordinance No. #### (2015 Series) Attachment 1
CODE 0058-2014
Page 3
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 property owner. 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 of the homestay must annually provide verification of
primary residence through the Homeowner’s Property Tax
Exemption or other appropriate documentation.
4. The operator of the homestay 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 the owner or
responsible party must be onsite between the hours of 11:00 p.m.
and 6:00 a.m. Contact information for the owner or responsible party
must be provided to adjacent property owners.
PH1-11
Ordinance No. #### (2015 Series) Attachment 1
CODE 0058-2014
Page 4
5. The homestay shall be limited to only the owner occupied dwelling
unit on the property.
6. Homestays are not permitted 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).
SECTION 5. The definition of “Vacation rental” as set forth in Chapter
17.100.220 is hereby amended as follows:
“Vacation rental” means a dwelling or part of a dwelling where lodging is
furnished for compensation for fewer than thirty consecutive days. Does not
include fraternities, sororities, convents, monasteries, hostels, bed and breakfast
inns, homestays, hotels, motels, or boarding/rooming houses, which are
separately defined.
SECTION 6. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a
court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the
validity or enforcement of the remaining portions of this ordinance, or any other
provisions of the City’s rules and regulations. It is the City’s express intent that each
remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that any one or
more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or
unenforceable.
PH1-12
Ordinance No. #### (2015 Series) Attachment 1
CODE 0058-2014
Page 5
SECTION 7. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its
final passage, in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This
ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the_______ day of _____, 2015, AND FINALLY
ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the______ day
of______, 2015, on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Mejia, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
PH1-13
Attachment 2
1
RESOLUTION NO.___________ (2015 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL REINSTATING
ENFORCEMENT OF THE VACATION RENTAL PROHIBITION AND
ESTABLISHING AN AMNESTY PERIOD FOR UNPAID TRANSIENT
OCCUPANCY TAX FOR HOMESTAY RENTALS
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 City Council 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 January 6, 2015, 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") separately defines and
regulates homestay rentals in Section 17.08.140 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to reinstate its existing prohibition on vacation
rentals in Section 17.22.010(G); and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to provide amnesty for unpaid Transient Occupancy
Tax (TOT) to existing operators of homestay rentals with issuance of a homestay permit
so that all existing eligible homestay operators prior to the effective date of the Ordinance
to allow homestays that are have not paid TOT will apply for the necessary permits
without having to pay any unpaid TOT; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the
public testimony, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
1. Vacation rentals are prohibited in the City and enforcement of this prohibition
shall be reinstated.
PH1-14
Attachment 2
2
2. Amnesty for unpaid TOT should be provided to existing operators of homestay
rentals for a period of 90 days after the effective date of the homestay ordinance
with issuance of a homestay permit.
Section 2. Action. The City Council hereby city reinstates enforcement of the
existing vacation rental prohibition and establishes a 90 day amnesty period for existing
operators of homestay rentals for unpaid TOT with the issuance of a homestay permit.
Upon motion of Council Member ________________, seconded by Council Member
___________________, and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________ 2015.
______________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony J. Mejia, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
PH1-15
Attachment 3
PH1-16
Attachment 3
PH1-17
Attachment 4
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 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 Deputy Directors Doug Davidson and Kim
Murry, Special Projects Manager Greg Hermann, Assistant City
Attorney Jon Ansolabehere and Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
Minutes of September 17, 2014, were approved as amended.
Minutes of September 18, 2014, were approved as amended.
Minutes of September 24, 2014, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
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)
Special Projects Manager Hermann presented the staff report, recommending that the
City Council approve a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and adopt the
proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Michelle Tasseff, SLO, stated that as a code enforcement officer for Santa Maria, she
sees problems with this proposed ordinance. She noted that despite the public
outreach effort, there are probably people who object but will not publicly say what they
think because they are intimidated. She added that the ordinance and fees will not limit
the enforcement that will be necessary. She expressed concern about the number of
days a month hosts will be allowed to rent to guests and about the host being allowed to
create the required parking space by moving their car out of the driveway. She also
PH1-18
Attachment 4
cautioned against listening to homeowners who claim they would lose their home if they
cannot host guests.
Linda White, SLO, stated she has attended many meetings about this issue and the
problem is always the difficulty of enforcement. She stated that this draft ordinance
suffers from vague language and that most opposition to it could be eliminated by
requiring that the owner be present which would make enforcement simple—if there is a
complaint, and the owner is found not to be present, the permit is pulled. She stated
she wants a strong, tight ordinance.
Jeff Eidelman, SLO, stated that he feels that, as a host, he is a mini-ambassador for
San Luis Obispo and he is always available to his guests, in person or by phone. He
supported treating homestays the same as all other rental situations with the same fees
and regulations. In response to a question from Commr. Multari, he stated that having a
designated responsible party is adequate in case the owner has to leave town.
Jim Culver, SLO, stated he supported the proposed ordinance. He noted that Airbnb
requires the two rooms he rents in his home to be listed as separate rentals on the
website and that using Airbnb has been a 100% positive experience for him. He added
three points: 1) the new ordinance should rely on existing ordinances where possible;
2) all control should be on par with long-term rentals; and 3) short-term stays have a
lower impact than long-term rentals and are consistent with land use policy.
Rosh Wright, SLO, noted that in England bed-and-breakfasts are common and loosely
regulated, and in Germany it is the norm to share a spare room in this way. She stated
that the need here is enormous and SLO Hosts are filling a housing need in a flexible
way. She supported applying the same rules and regulations to homestays and long-
term rentals, including the same fees and same maximum of five guests.
Todd Dolezal, SLO, stated that the only issue he has is the maximum of four adult
guests which he thinks is restrictive. He supported using the same maximum of five
that is required for long-term rentals.
Barbara Radovich, SLO, supported parity with long-term rentals.
Jacquoline Williams, SLO, stated she is happy to pay for the license and to collect the
Transient Occupancy Tax but the annual fee is a hardship as her net profit is quite slim.
She stated that she would be in complete support of the ordinance if that could be
eliminated and the same rules applied to short and long-term rentals.
Carolyn Smith, SLO, supported requiring the owner to be present during homestays.
She stated that a 29-day rental without the owner present is really a long-term rental
and accountability is lost.
Kurt Friedmann, SLO, noted the difficulty in drafting a simple ordinance like this one
which, if approved, will be the first of its kind in the nation. He stated that homestays are
a lesser use than long-term rentals and should not have any additional burden. He
noted that there have been very few complaints, only two for noise, and one of those
was about a guest house which is not permitted under this proposed ordinance. He
stated that the best defense is the self-regulating SLO Host group. In response to a
PH1-19
Attachment 4
question from Commr. Malak, he stated that it makes sense to have a responsible party
for times when it may not be physically possible for the owner to be present.
Pete Evans, SLO, noted that although the staff report said there are about 90 listings for
homestays in the city, there could be as few as 45, or even fewer, individual properties
because each bedroom requires a separate ad. He stated that homestay guests are
different than long-term renters and asked how many complaints there are for long-term
rentals per year in comparison to two complaints in a little less than a year for
homestays. He stated that the requirement the owner be no more than 15 minutes
away is not reasonable. He supported using the same regulations for homestays and
long-term rentals.
John Semon, SLO, stated that the owner will be careful about choosing guests because
this involves sharing a home, pets and other things the owner treasures. He added that
he has never had a problem in the year he has been doing homestays, even though he
is often not home, because he carefully screens his guests. He stated that this inherent
control is something the city controls cannot come close to matching and owner
presence should not be required.
Sky Bergman, SLO, stated that she has been gone during rentals and has never had a
problem or a complaint. She noted that at a hearing last November, her neighbors
spoke in support of her homestay guests. She supported approval of the ordinance.
Sandra Rowley, SLO, representing Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, stated that
operating a home-based business is a privilege, not a right, and a Home Occupation
Permit is required for all home businesses. Homestays are a business and the biggest
difference from other home businesses is that clients will be allowed to come and go at
any time so there is a need to establish standards to limit noise. She supported limiting
homestays to R-1 and R-2 zones, owner presence during evening hours and overnight,
and a limit on the number of homestays per year to give the neighborhood some
respite. She noted that only one-third of the homes in the city are now owner-occupied
because permanent residents have been leaving, and adding another use needs to be
carefully crafted to protect the residents’ enjoyment of their own homes.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Riggs stated that it will be interesting to keep track of what happens as a result
of this ordinance which he sees as an incremental step.
Commr. Draze stated that the goal is that the owner be home. He added that he has no
problem with the four-person maximum because, with the owner, it makes five in the
home. He noted that the reason for allowing secondary units was to increase the
amount of rental housing so he does not want secondary units to be used for
homestays. He added that, while the owner can move his car to the street during
homestays, it is important to make sure during the initial investigation that the garage is
available for parking so the home has all three required spaces.
PH1-20
Attachment 4
Commr. Larson stated he does not understand what potential problem this ordinance
solves. He noted that, while complaints were mentioned at several places in the reports
presented to the City Council and the Planning Commission, only two were specific, and
those appeared to be related to vacation rentals, not homestays, although the record
may not be clear on that. He added that there is a presumption that a transient stay
may have an impact different than that of a long-term stay but he did not see anything
that rose to the level of a significant impact. He noted that there are no regulations for
him as the owner of a rental in San Diego and this ordinance is an additional regulation
just for homestays, and, for all intents and purposes, there are no regulations that affect
long-term rentals—no permitting, just an annual business license.
In response to a question from Commr. Multari, Special Projects Manager Hermann
stated that the City Council did not give any direction for limiting homestays to R-1 and
R-2 but staff did consider different requirements for different zones such as an over-the-
counter permit for multifamily zones.
Commr. Multari stated that staff did a good job and respected direction from the City
Council. He stated there is a big difference between vacation rentals and homestays—
having a property where there is no resident present and people are coming and going
all the time does impact a neighborhood so this ordinance is the right approach. He
added that the first obligation is to preserve and protect the quality of life in
neighborhoods, and enforcement of rules helps with that as a vehicle for action by the
city and providing comfort to residents. He noted there is a difference in purpose
between the two types of rentals, and since it is the stated policy of the city to try to
provide long-term rentals, it is fair to have different fees and regulations. He stated he
is a little concerned about parking in multifamily zones. He asked if a legal non-
conforming structure would be allowed to host homestays.
Special Projects Manager Hermann responded that the intent is, if the homestay
requirements are met, they can host; but if there is a question, then it can be referred to
an administrative use permit process with a public hearing.
Commr. Multari stated he is puzzled by the issue of the number of guests and thinks the
number is what can impact a neighborhood. He added that four adults could have four
cars so some limitation on the number of people would be better, but he is inclined to
support the staff recommendation. He noted that, in his experience, if the owner is
present, the behavior of the guests is better. He stated he also sees the dilemma about
the need for owner presence and the owner wanting to go to a movie or spend a night
elsewhere. He noted that the 15-minute requirement is clever but might be impractical
and might not get the desired result.
Commr. Malak stated that the following are his concerns: 1) the lack of a proximity
distance requirement for homestays that might result in having multiple properties
hosting homestays on one block; 2) since not everyone is who they say they are, he
would like to see a proximity distance from schools and parks; 3) he would like to verify
there is enough liability insurance in case of an incident so the homeowner is not
financially ruined; 4) he is not sure what he is agreeing to with the 15-minute
requirement; 5) he supports using the same limit of 14 days with a seven-day period
between stays that Arroyo Grande has in their performance standards and conditions;
and 6) he supports an initial inspection of fire and carbon dioxide alarm systems.
PH1-21
Attachment 4
Special Projects Manager Hermann stated that the City Council will deal with the issue
of inspections in December.
Commr. Larson stated that the city may not have the legal ability to regulate proximity of
homestays and he is not sure how it would be implemented. He added that the city is
not in the business of determining whether property owners have enough liability
insurance.
Commr. Malak responded that the Arroyo Grande ordinance does not permit homestays
within 300 feet of each other on the same street.
Commr. Riggs stated he is ready to approve the draft resolution and he takes exception
to changing the language about four adults. He added that he does not support the
level of regulation mentioned by Commr. Malak and prefers to keep it simple and get it
done.
Commr. Draze stated that he does not have a problem with four adults plus their
children in a homestay. He agreed with Commr. Riggs about limiting location because it
creates a problem when a second neighbor wants to list a homestay. He added that he
does not want to deal with the liability insurance issue. He stated that he would like to
see the owner or responsible party present on the property during homestays and
suggests changing the definition in V on page PC 1-15 to remove “operator” so that it
reads “...without concurrently being occupied by the owner.” He added that he does not
think the proximity to schools is important.
Commr. Dandekar stated that she is supportive of the ordinance and that the definitive
thing is it is a homestay, palpably different than an entire unit for rent. She supported
tightening the requirements so it is not just a responsible person who is operating this,
but it is the property owner who is somehow directly connected to oversight. She added
that the distinction between long-term rental and homestay gets blurry if that is not
clarified. She stated that 29 days seems a lot for a home stay and she would not like
her neighbor to have a constant stream of guests because it would not feel neighborly.
She added that she supports some of what Sandra Rowley said and she is not sure the
limitations that are put on this really protect that neighborly quality.
Commr. Larson asked Commr. Dandekar if she is suggesting that the requirements
listed in Performance Standard 4 are not acceptable.
Commr. Dandekar responded that the intent is to prevent this becoming a property
manager managing a thousand properties and that “homestay” means a connection to
an owner and with owner supervised management.
Commr. Malak supported Commr. Dandekar’s position as it relates to his point 4 about
the 15-minute requirement.
Commr. Multari stated he shares Commr. Dandekar's concern and added that the city
could require the owner to be on-site between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. and, if the owner
wants to be out of town, then he must get a responsible party to be there. He noted that
this does not sound particularly onerous. He stated he is not sure R-1 should be open
PH1-22
Attachment 4
to having six people come into a neighborhood but he could be convinced to support
this, and he is more concerned about on-site oversight. He added that he wonders if
there is sentiment to require stays to be shorter than 29 days.
Commr. Riggs stated he does not agree because changing the language would be
onerous to families, which is an important demographic that we need more of here. He
added that he is concerned more about the discussion of paid agents, and noted that
the Airbnb market does not support paying of agents, so he does not see the logic.
Commr. Dandekar stated she has stayed in Airbnb rentals where no one is there, it was
a sterile environment, and she was handed a key by someone with no interest in the
rental. She expressed concern about what this does to a neighborhood.
Commr. Riggs stated that creating unique scenarios and speculating is dangerous when
developing policy.
Commr. Larson noted that there is an idea of what will happen and there is a record of
two complaints which were probably aimed at vacation rentals.
Commr. Dandekar stated that she is delighted there have been no concerns or
problems to date, but the policy is about what the Commission wants to enable in the
city and there is not much in the way of precedents for homestay rentals. She added
that this is about addressing what could happen in the future and what the Commission
wants to happen. She stated that it is legitimate to say we do not want people
occupying homes 29 days at a time throughout the year. If someone wants to do that, it
is acceptable, but she questioned if that constituted a homestay situation.
Deputy Director Davidson stated that the Commission could recommend a review in
one year if the Commission is in favor of putting that in the ordinance. He noted that the
city has used this effectively twice recently.
Commr. Draze stated that he appreciates the offer but thinks it is not a good idea. He
noted that permits can be revoked if abused and staff can bring any issues back to the
Commission in the future.
At this point, Commr. Draze made a motion, seconded by Commr. Multari, to
recommend the City Council approve a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
and adopt the proposed amendments to Title 17 with some changes (see the motion
below). Discussion ensued.
Commr. Larson stated that he wanted to add a minor revision to the language of Finding
#1: change “require” to “requires” and replace “...ensure that impacts are addressed
and the character of existing neighborhoods is maintained,...” with “...maintain the
character of existing neighborhoods,...” This was accepted by Commrs. Draze and
Multari.
Commr. Dandekar stated that she wanted to add an amendment to put a limitation on
the number of days.
PH1-23
Attachment 4
Commr. Larson responded that Commr. Dandekar's suggestion would be an additional
performance standard.
Commr. Dandekar stated that this would be open to discussion.
Commr. Riggs noted it might be more appropriate in the definition of a homestay.
Commr. Larson stated that maybe suggesting this as a performance standard is not in
conflict. Special Projects Manager Hermann agreed.
Commr. Draze stated he is not sure he agrees with limiting the number of days per
month until he sees it is becoming a problem so he would rather deal with that as a
separate motion. Commr. Larson agreed. Commr. Dandekar withdrew the amendment
and decided to make a separate motion (see below).
Commr. Malak stated that he remembers a Commission hearing where people thought
a 300-foot notification zone was not enough so there should be consideration of moving
notification out further to maybe three neighbors for homestays.
Commr. Draze stated that the 300-feet is about hearing notification and he is not
interested in expanding the notice for homestays.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Draze, seconded by Commr. Multari, recommending that the City
Council approve a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and adopt the
proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code with the following changes:
1) Change Section 17.08.140 – Homestay Rentals, E. Performance Standards
#4 to:
a) requires the owner or responsible party to be on-site between the hours of
11 p.m. and 6 a.m.
b) add “owner” to the last sentence so it reads “Contact information for the
owner and responsible party must be provided to adjacent property
owners.”
2) Delete “operator” from Chapter 17.22: Use Regulation, Section 17.22.010,
V. Definitions.
3) Correction in Section 1. Findings, #1, first sentence, first line, to add an “s” to
“require” so it reads “requires” to agree with the subject “popularity.”
4) Revise Section 1. Findings, #1 to replace “...ensure that impacts are
addressed and the character of existing neighborhoods is maintained,...” with
“...maintain the character of existing neighborhoods,...”5) Revise Section 17.08.140
B. 2. and Section 17.22.010 H. Definitions to add “compensation for fewer than thirty
consecutive days” to read “an owner-occupied dwelling unit where bedrooms are
provided for compensation for fewer than thirty consecutive days with a maximum of
four adult overnight guests.”
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Larson, Malak, and Multari
NOES: Commr. Riggs
PH1-24
Attachment 4
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Fowler
The motion passed on a 5:1 vote.
At this point Commr. Dandekar made a motion limiting guest stays (see below) and
discussion ensued.
Commrs. Larson and Draze stated they were not supportive of the motion because they
did not see the problem.
Commr. Malak stated he thinks that the difference between homestays and long-term
rentals is a gray area and, theoretically, one could rent a house under homestay almost
like a long-term rental.
In response to Assistant Attorney Ansolabehere's statement that doing this would mean
the owner was in violation of the homeowner's exemption, Commr. Dandekar stated
that, if the owner is living there during these homestays, then it is a primary residence.
She added that the resolution as written would have transient, short-term people in a
neighborhood almost all year.
Commr. Malak stated he is also concerned with this and thinks it is a good idea to do
this now rather than in a year.
Commr. Riggs stated he does not share the concern and does not see the difference
between having non-paying guests every weekend and homestay guests.
There were no further comments made from the public.
On motion by Commr. Dandekar, seconded by Commr. Multari, to amend Chapter
17.08.140 – Homestay Rentals, E, by adding Performance Standard #8 limiting
individual guest stays to fourteen days with a seven-day period between stays, and a
maximum of 240 days of homestay rentals per calendar year.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Malak, and Multari
NOES: Commrs. Larson, Draze, and Riggs
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Fowler
The motion resulted in no action on a 3:3 vote.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast by Deputy Director Davidson:
PH1-25
Attachment 4
• October 22, 2014—safe parking pilot program for Prado Road, general plan
conformity report for a right of way in the South Broad Street area, a budget
goals review, and the water supply presentation.
• November 12, 2014—Housing Element Update, two use permits, appeal of
a Director’s decision in an enforcement case (tentative)
• Only one meeting in November and December.
• Deputy Director Murry gave a report on the progress of the LUCE Update
and noted that adjustments to the Airport Overlay Zone and Airport policies
were made at the Council level in response to Caltrans and ALUC
comments so the resulting sections will look slightly different than what was
presented to the Commission. Deputy Director Murry stated her
appreciation for Chair Larson’s attendance at the hearing and
representation of the Planning Commission’s recommendations.
3. Commission
a. Chair Larson stated that the City Council struggled with the same policies in the
Land Use Element with which the Commission had trouble. He added that the
Council was aware of Commission recommendations and several Council
Members spent time reading the Commission minutes and tracking
Commission voting and differences of opinion. He stated that it is clear to him
that they considered gave great deference to the Commission input and it will
probably be the same with the homestay issue. He thanked the
Commissioners for their time and effort.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
PH1-26
ORDINANCE NO. 663
AN ORDINANCE OFTHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING VACATION RENTALS AND
HOMESTAYS
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande ("City") currentlydoes not regulatevacation
rentalsor homestays; and
WHEREAS, theCity does regulate similar transient uses with similar impacts such as
bedand breakfast inns; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that, unless properlyregulated, vacation rentals and
homestays can result in adverse impacts to adjacent properties; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of these regulations is to ensure that vacation rentals and
homestays conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in which they are
locatedanddo not create an adverse impact on adjacentproperties; and
WHEREAS, theincreasingpopularity of vacation rentals and homestays in the City the
implementation of appropriate regulations to ensure that impacts are addressed and the
characterof existing neighborhoods is maintained, while providing an expanded typeof
lodging facilityavailablewithin the City; and
WHEREAS, it is the purposeof this Ordinance to protectthepublic health, safety, and
welfare within the Cityby establishing rules and requirements for vacation rentals and
homestays; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of all testimony and all relevant evidence, the City
Council has determined that the following Development Code Amendment findings can
be made in an affirmative manner:
A. The proposedrevisions to Title 16 are required to ensure consistency with the
objectives, policies and implementation measures of the General Plan,
particularly the Land Use Element, and is thereforedesirable to implement the
provisions of theGeneral Plan.
B. Theproposedrevisions to Title 16 willnot adverselyaffect the publichealth,
safety, and welfare orresult in an illogical land use pattern.
C. Theproposed revisions are consistent with the purpose and intent of Title 16 and
satisfytheintent of Chapter 16.08 of the Municipal Code and provide for internal
consistency.
D. The proposedrevisions to Title 16 are exemptunderper Sections 15061(b)(3) and
15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
Attachment 5
PH1-27
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct and incorporated
herein by thisreference.
SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.230 is hereby added as
follows:
SECTION 16.52.230 —VACATIONRENTALS
A. Purpose and intent. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that vacation
rentals located in the cityconform to the existing character of the neighborhood
in which they arelocated and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent
properties.
B. Applicability. Vacation rentalsmay be permitted onlywith approvalof a minor use
permit. Vacation rentalsshall comply with theproperty development standards
of theunderlying district and the performance standards and specialconditions
listed in Section 16.52.230.C.
C. Performance standards and conditions forvacation rentals.
1. Operators of vacation rentals are required to obtain a minor use permit-
plot plan review (Section 16.16.080) and a businesslicense.
2. Any proposedvacation rentalshall be compatible with the neighborhood in
which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural
character. The use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing
uses with the neighborhood
3. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements for the level of occupancy
of the vacation rental shall be met.
4. All environmental health regulations shall be met.
5. The operator of the vacation rental shall, at all times whilethe property is
beingused as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity within a
fifteen (15) minute drive of the property. The contact personorentity must
be available via telephone twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a
week, to respond to complaints regarding the use ofthe vacationrental.
The contact personor entity shall respond, -either in person or by return
telephone call, with a proposed resolution to the complaint within three (3)
hours between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm, and within thirty (30) minutes
between 9:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Attachment 5
PH1-28
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE 3
6. Theoperator of the vacation rental shall annually, at the time of renewal of
thebusiness license, notifythe Community Development Department of
the name, address and telephone numberof the contact person required
in subsection 16.52.230.C.6.
7. A written notice shall be conspicuously posted inside each vacation rental
unit setting forththename, address and telephonenumberof the contact
person required in subsection 16.52.230.C.6. The notice shall also set
forth the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of
occupants permitted to stayovernight in the unit, themaximum number of
vehicles allowed to be parked on-site, and the day(s) established for
garbage collection. The notice shallalso providethe non-emergency
number of the Arroyo Grande Police Department.
8. On-siteadvertising of thevacation rental is prohibited.
9. The number of overnight occupants shall be limited to two persons per
bedroom and two additional persons. A bedroom shall meet the minimum
size requirements as defined in theBuildingCode.
10. All refuse shall be stored in appropriatecontainers and placed at the curb
for collection every week.
11. The operator of the vacation rentalshallpay Transient Occupancy Tax as
required by Arroyo GrandeMunicipal Code Section 3.24.030.
12. Establishment of a vacation rental within 300 feetof an existing vacation
rental on the same street shall not be permitted.
13. Violations — violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for
revocationof theminor use permitpursuant to Section 16.16.220.
SECTION 3: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.240 is hereby added as
follows:
SECTION 16.52.240 — HOMESTAYS
A. Purpose and intent. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that
homestays located in the city conform to the existing character of the
neighborhood in which they arelocated and donot create an adverse impact on
adjacentproperties.
B. Applicability. Homestaysmay be permittedonlywith approval of a minor use
permit. Homestays shall comply with the property development standards of the
Attachment 5
PH1-29
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE 4
underlying district and the performancestandards and special conditions listed in
Section 16.52.240.0.
C. Performance standards and conditions for homestays.
1. Operators of homestays are required to obtain a minor use permit-plot
plan review (Section 16.16.080) and a business license.
2. Any proposedhomestay shall be compatiblewiththeneighborhood in
which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural
character. The useshall be harmonious and compatible withthe existing
uses with the neighborhood
3. All Building Code and Fire Coderequirements far the level of occupancy
of the homestay shall be met.
4. All environmental health regulations shall be met.
5. The operator shall reside on thepremises.
6. Individual guest stays shall be limited to fourteen (14) days, with a seven-
day period between stays.
7. On-site advertising of the homestay is prohibited.
8. A bedroom shallmeetthe minimumsize requirements as defined in the
L Building Code.
9. The operatorof the homestay shall pay Transient Occupancy Tax as
required by Arroyo GrandeMunicipal Code Section 3.24.030.
10. Establishment of a homestaywithin 300 feet of an existing homestay on
the same street shall not be permitted.
11. Violations — violation of theserequirements shall constitutegrounds for
revocation of theminor use permitpursuant to Section 16.16.220.
SECTION 4: The followingdefinitions in ArroyoGrande Municipal Code Subsection
16.04.070.C. are hereby amended oradded as follows:
16.04.070.C. Definitions
Bed and breakfast inn" means an owner-occupied dwellingunit where three (3) or more
short-term lodging rooms and meals are provided for compensationor onsite signage is
desired.
r
Attachment 5
PH1-30
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE 5
Homestay" means an owner-occupieddwelling unit where a maximumof two (2) short-
term lodging rooms are provided for compensation.
Vacationrental" means a structure beingrented for less than thirty (30) days without
concurrently being occupied by the owner/operatorwhere the short-term lodging is
provided for compensation.
SECTION 5: Arroyo Grande Municipal CodeSection 16.16.080 is hereby amended to
add Subsection B.10 and Subsection C.6 as follows:
16.16.080.B.10. Establishment of vacationrentals or homestays in applicable zoning
districtsidentified in Table 16.32.040-A and Table 16.36.030(A).
16.16.080.C.6. Forplot plan reviews establishing theuse ofproperty for vacation rental
purposes, the decision of the communitydevelopment director shall also be mailed to all
propertyowners of parcelswithin three hundred (300) feetof the property for whichthe
plot plan review has been requested, in addition to the requirements of Section
16.16.080.C.5. The noticeshall indicate the appealprovisions of Section 16.12.150.
SECTION 6: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Table 16.32.040-A, entitled "Uses
Permitted Within Residential Districts", Section A. Residential Uses is hereby amended
to add Subsection A.17. as follows:
USE RE RH RR RS SF VR D-2.4 MF MFA MFVH MHP
A. Residential Uses
17.Vacation Rentals MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP NP NP
and Homestays
SECTION 7: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Table 16.36.030(A), entitled "Uses
Permitted Within Mixed Use and Commercial Districts", Section B. Services -General is
hereby amended toadd the following use:
USE VCD VMU
HCO D-2.11
OMU1
TMU D- HCO D=Specific
IMU D-2.11 2.4 D-2.4 GMU FOMU HMU 2.20 RC2 Use Stds
B.Services -General
Vacation Rentals and NP MUP MUP MUP MUPMUP MUP MUP NP 16.52.230
Homestays 16.52.240
SECTION 8: If anysection, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clauseof
thisOrdinance or anypart thereof is for any reason'heldto be unlawful, such decision
shall not affect the validity of theremaining portion of this Ordinance orany part thereof.
TheCity Councilherebydeclares that it would have passedeach section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, orclause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one
or moresection, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared
unconstitutional.
Attachment 5
PH1-31
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE 6
SECTION 9: Upon adoption of this Ordinance, theCity Clerk shall file a Noticeof
Exemption pursuant to 14 CCR § 15062.
SECTION 10: A summaryof this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper
published and circulated in theCity of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the
City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified
copy of thefull text of the proposedOrdinance shall be posted in the office of the City
Clerk. Withinfifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary withthe
names of those CityCouncil Members voting for and against theOrdinance shall be
publishedagain, and the CityClerk shall post a certified copyof thefull text of such
adopted Ordinance.
SECTION 11: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) daysfrom the date of
adoption.
On motion of Council Member Barneich, seconded by Council Member Brown, and on
thefollowing roll call vote to wit:
AYES: Council Members Barneich, Brown, Costello, Guthrie, and Mayor Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this 10th day of June, 2014.
Attachment 5
PH1-32
ORDINANCE NO. (0493
PAGE 7
TONY F MAYOR
ATTEST:
Wgkitet'L--
KELLY ET j RE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
S E ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
7n/V-
TIMVIO111Y J. CARME"C, CITY ATTORNEY
1
Attachment 5
PH1-33
OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of ArroyoGrande, County of San
Luis Obispo, State of California, do herebycertify underpenalty of perjury, that
the attached is a true, full, and correct copy ofOrdinance No. 663 which was
introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on May 27, 2014; waspassed
and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 10th day of June
2014; and wasdulypublished in accordance with State law (G.C. 40806).
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 12th
day of June 2014.
i 1 I
KELL WE/ ORE, CITY CLERK
Attachment 5
PH1-34
Attachment 6
PH1-35
Attachment 6
PH1-36
Attachment 6
PH1-37
City 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
Attachment 7
PH1-38
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # CODE 0058-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2
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 Exemption 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
Attachment 7
PH1-39
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # CODE 0058-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3
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 sha ll not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
Attachment 7
PH1-40
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # CODE 0058-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
4
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
Attachment 7
PH1-41
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # CODE 0058-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
5
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.
Attachment 7
PH1-42
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # CODE 0058-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
Attachment 7
PH1-43
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # CODE 0058-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
7
a)b)c)d)e) The project would not impact air quality as it does not involve any amendments to City p olicy 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?
1 X
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:
Attachment 7
PH1-44
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # CODE 0058-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
3 X
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
Attachment 7
PH1-45
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # CODE 0058-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9
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
Attachment 7
PH1-46
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # CODE 0058-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
10
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 polici es 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?
1 X
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?
7 X
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
Attachment 7
PH1-47
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # CODE 0058-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11
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 ar ea 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.
Conclusion: No Impact.
Attachment 7
PH1-48
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # CODE 0058-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12
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?
8 X
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?
4 X
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
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
X
Attachment 7
PH1-49
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # CODE 0058-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13
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
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier anal ysis.
Attachment 7
PH1-50
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # CODE 0058-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14
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 databas e
12. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, August 2012
Attachments:
Draft Homestay Ordinance
Attachment 7
PH1-51
..IAN -,
THENewspaper of the Central Coast
MBUNE
3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406 -0112 • (805) 781 -7800
In The Superior Court of The State of California
In and for the County of San Luis Obispo
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
AD # 1505417
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss.
County of San Luis Obispo
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not
interested in the above entitled matter; I am now, and at
all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned
was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of
THE TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general Circulation,
printed and published daily at the City of San Luis
Obispo In the above named county and state; that notice
at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was
published in the above -named newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit;
JANUARY 14, 2015 that said newspaper was duly and
regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of
general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior
Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on
June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code
of the State of California.
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
. —O
(Signatt - of Principal Clerk)
DATED: JANUARY 14, 2015
AD COST: $144.16
�Ci 'Y CfP
ORDINANCE NO. 1611 (2015 aortas)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 17
(ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE MU-
NICIPAL CODE REGARDING
HOMESTAY RENTALS AND APPROV-
ING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (CODE 0050-
2014)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, Call -
famla, at its Regular Meeting of January 6,
2015, Introduced the above tilled ordinance
upon a motion by Vice Mayor Ashbaugh,
second by Council Member Christianson,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Christianson and
Rivotre and Vice Mayor Ashbaugh and
Mayor Marx
NOrmS: Council Member Carpenter
gaql_n@,nca. No. 1,611 (2Q1 5 Serle - This Is
a City Ordinance amending Municipal
Code Title 17 (Zonlitig Regulations) to allow
owner occupied homestay rentals in the
City with- reasonable standards to preserve
neighborhood character and quality of life.
A full and complete copy of the aforemen-
tioned Ordinance is available for inspeclion
and copy In the City Clerk's Office, located
at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, Call -
fomia, or you may call (805) 781 -7100 for
more information.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN
that the City Council of the City of San LUIS
Obispo will consider adopting the afore-
mentioned Ordinance at its Regular Meet -
Ing of January 20, 2015 at 6:00 p.m., whlCh
will, be held in the Council chamber. locat-
ed at 980 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
Anthony J. Mello
City Clerk
January 14,2015 1505417