HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06-2015 PH1 RowleySubject:
Attachments:
FW: PH -1 Consideration of Allowing Owner - occupied Homestay Rentals
Homestay CC 1- 6- 2015.doc
COUNCIL MEETING:
ITEM NO.:
From: Sandra Rowley [mailto:macsar99(&yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 5:17 PM JAN 4 6 2019
To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; drevoireO)slocity.org
Cc: Mejia, Anthony
Subject: PH -1 Consideration of Allowing Owner - occupied Homestay Rentals
Please include the attached RQN letter in Council Correspondence for Tuesday, January 6, 2015.
Thank you,
Sandra Rowley
COUNCIL MEETING:
JT,Fk,M NO.: _
W
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 12604 . San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
January 6, 2015 JAN 0 6 2015
Subject: PH -1, Consideration of Allowing Owner- occupied Homestay Rentals
Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the Council,
Prior to the scheduling of a Study Session when the concept of Homestays was first reported, it
was described as a broadening experience that allowed the homeowner to meet and get to know
people from other cultures. This, apparently, is an insignificant part of the experience since you
are being asked to approve a Homestay Ordinance that allows the homeowner to rarely, if ever,
be at home during the scheduled stay(s) of their customers /guests.
On October 16, 2013, a presentation on Homestays was made to the RQN Board by SLO Hosts.
Homestays were described as a periodic use (only a few days a month, and not every month)
that allowed the homeowner to keep up with home maintenance needs they otherwise could
not afford. They, also, provided owners with an incentive to fix up their home so it would be
more appealing to prospective customers /guests. There was no mention of the homeowner
being gone from the premises during the time their customers /guests were present - other than
for necessary errands or emergencies; in fact, we were told that Homestays are different from
vacation rentals because owners are present during the guest's stay.
Beginning with the November 12, 2013, Study Session, the parameters of the proposed
Homestay program have broadened considerably. There is now no requirement for the owner to
be present during a homestay, this being seen as an imposition on the owner; a "responsible
person" is required to be on- premises from only 11:00 pm until 6:00 am; rooms can be rented for
29 days each and every month; and the use is allowed in every residential zone. We find it
difficult to see how the addition of a myriad of unsupervised, short -term transients in our
residential neighborhoods contributes positively to Neighborhood Wellness.
If it is your intent to allow this additional commercial opportunity in residential neighborhoods, it
should conform, to the extent possible, to the requirements placed on a home occupation (MC
17.08.090) and be incidental to and compatible with surrounding residential uses, with the
caveat that the residence must be owner occupied.
1. The peace and quiet of residential areas shall be maintained.
2. No employees other than [responsible, adult] residents of the dwelling shall be allowed to
work on -site.
3. At least one on -site customer parking space in addition to parking required for the
residence.
We strongly recommend this item be returned to staff and that the above restrictions be
included, as well as a more reasonable limit to the maximum number of room - rental days
allowed (maybe six per month), provisions for a maximum number of Homestay operations
within a given proximity and in a given geographical area, and specific language addressing the
reasons and time -frame for revocation of this privilege.
We hope you will consider these recommendations favorably.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson, RQN
2