HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06-2015 PH1 SmithSubject: FW: PH1 Home Stay Proposed Ordinance
COUNCIL MEETING: 1— (Q - j
ITEM NO.:i JAN 0 5 2015
From: Carolyn
Sent: 1/5/2015 3:02 PM
To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan;
Meiia, Anthony; Rivoire, Dan
Subject: PH1 Home Stay Proposed Ordinance
Dear Mayor Marx and Council Members:
Neighborhood Wellness is our City's #2 Major City Goal for the current budget period. If you
pass Staff's proposed ordinance, you will be allowing short -term vacation rentals in our
neighborhoods which I believe is contrary to the goal of protecting and preserving the peace and
safety of our existing neighborhoods.
When this ordinance was first presented to the RQN Board by the SLO Hosts on October 16,
2013, they stated that this type of business operation in a residential neighborhood was
different than a vacation rental because "owners are present during the guests' stay." They
further indicated that the hosts are "ambassadors for the City resulting in the guests spending
money in local restaurants, stores, etc." and that Home Stays "afford the hosts an opportunity to
meet people from all over the world."
Staff is proposing an ordinance in which owners never have to be present during the guests' stay
but allows for a "'responsible person" to be present (only during the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 6:00
a.m.) —not the owner. Not only will this be difficult to enforce (since the CDD does not have
enforcement officers working during those hours), this flies in the face of what was originally
presented by SLO Hosts in an effort to sell this idea to the Council and residents. By not
requiring owners to be present during their guests' stay, the city will be encouraging and
allowing for a variety of strangers to come and go in my neighborhood every weekend, or more
often, pick up a key under a door mat, and let themselves in (with no one present). I will have
no way of knowing who they are, whether or not they're supposed to be there, how long they
should be staying, and /or what they might do in my neighborhood unsupervised by the owner.
There will also be absolutely NO opportunity for owners to interact with their guests and be
"ambassadors" for the city because the owner won't have to be present. This was not what SLO
Hosts presented when this issue was initiated and now sounds to me like a bait and switch
proposition at the expense of our neighborhoods.
I'm also very concerned about the 29 consecutive days allowance in this proposed ordinance.
Owners (who do not have to be present in their home with their Home Stay guests), can take
trips to visit family, friends, and /or tour the world for up to 29 days, come home for a few days
or weeks, and then head out again for another 29 day vacation, using all the money they have
made on their Home Stay business to pay for their trips. Isn't this a vacation rental? Now, you
may say that not many will do this, but there are already some owners who are admittedly doing
this very thing and if you create an ordinance that doesn't require owner presence during the
Home Stay period, there will be more who will take advantage of this very loosely written
ordinance. I'm sure you will agree this would not be good for our neighborhoods and would
provide just another reason for permanent residents to move out of our city, which we cannot
afford to occur.
Furthermore, allowing up to 4 adults to stay in a home has potential parking impacts in our city
neighborhoods that are already severely over - burdened by student rental parking. Some may fly
into SLO but will most likely rent a car to tour the area. Four additional vehicles in a
neighborhood that is already heavily impacted will only exacerbate our parking problems.
Many of our permanent residents are already very concerned about the changes that have
occurred in their neighborhoods over the past several years. Homes that were once occupied by
long -term residents have been replaced by residents who change from year to year. This
transiency has eroded the comfort of knowing who is living next door or across the street, which
historically has provided residents with a sense of community, security, and safety. This Home
Stay Ordinance encourages an even higher frequency of transiency in our residential
neighborhoods than currently exists, which will exacerbate residents' concerns and destroy their
security. How can anyone say this encourages "Neighborhood Wellness ?"
While I do not support this ordinance or any short -term rental business in our neighborhoods, at
least I hope you will require that (1) the owner be present during the entire guests' stay, other
than allowing for short, necessary errands and /or emergencies, only to provide assurance to
neighbors that the owner is being responsible for their guests; (2) reduce the 29 consecutive
day allowance to a more reasonable number of days (such as 10 days) to avoid strangers
coming and going from neighborhoods during much of the month; (3) reduce the number of
adults allowed to stay at any given period to 2 adults in order to avoid further parking impacts
on already over - burdened neighborhoods.
Thank you for your consideration of this very important neighborhood issue.
Carolyn Smith
San Luis Obispo, CA
is Vasil, This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software,
bP, www.avast.com