The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-06-2015 PH1 Cross 2Subject: FW: PH 1 Owner "Occupied" Homestay Rentals COUNCIL MEETING:r ITEM NO.: From: Brett Cross [mailto:brettcross(&yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 2:00 PM To: Ashbaugh, John; Marx, Jan; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan JAN 0 6 2015 Cc: Rivoire, Dan; Lichtig, Katie; Mejia, Anthony Subject: Re: PH 1 Owner "Occupied" Homestay Rentals Thanks John. So anyway, while wandering around downtown this morning in between daydreaming about winning the Mega Millions lottery, which reminds me I need to buy some tickets, and winning the Outdoor National Motocross Championship at age 5 1, 1 thought a bit about the Homestay Ordinance and the SLO hosts folks. I should mention I've known Kurt Friedmann for 35 or so years now. He's a great guy we just differ on this issue. It's not personal I just want to make sure people understand that. My conclusion however, was- regarding SLO hosts is that they have done an incredible job of marketing the concept of creating bed and breakfast stays in Single Family neighborhoods. My conclusion about the lottery and the motocross is that probably isn't going to happen. But anyway, back to the marketing of homestays. They created a romantic vision of every guest being the Dos XX's man- The Most Interesting Man in the World when in all reality most of the guests are just ordinary folks who live somewhere in California and are staying in San Luis Obispo for whatever reason. I'm certain that there is the occasional world travel but for the most part just ordinary travelers. They also created a vision where they do more than just offer a room to travelers but the guests become part of their family. It's quaint. That definitely creates a warm fuzzy feeling. They also have made it nicely personal in way to create empathy. I know no one wants to see someone have to sell their home because they don't have the income to afford the mortgage or wouldn't like to see a homeowner be able to maintain their house really nicely. I don't want to see someone have to sell their house either and I would certainly like it if folks kept up their property nicely. It's a strong emotional argument. Now whether or not prohibiting homestays would cause folks who operate homestays to have to sell or defer maintenance isn't clear but it's a strong emotional argument none the less. Lastly, and probably unique to San Luis Obispo is the notion that if you don't allow us to use our homes for guest lodging and we have to sell you know that it is likely that our house will become a student rental and nobody wants that. That threat didn't play to well when the SLO host folks came and sat down with the RQN board awhile back. But it does have a certain effect on one's thinking. However, take the emotion out of it if you can and look at the actual impacts of allowing, pretty much unfettered, bed and breakfast uses in the Single Family neighborhoods has on the neighbors- the other people who live there and who deserve the same consideration for their wellness as all those who will be before you this evening wanting something more than just to use their home as their residence . Folks that bought their homes, most likely the most significant investment they have, with certain expectations that come from living in Single Family neighborhood. Unfortunately those people probably won't be there this evening because they have no idea that the City Council is making decisions that could seriously impact their quality of life. The Tribune didn't write anything about tonight's meeting, the New Times didn't write anything about to tonight's meeting, or has any other local media said anything about this meeting. Consider what it would be like to live next to house where new people are coming and going every day. Parking in front of your house or your neighbors house. You have no idea who they are and if they are even suppose to be at that house. Then what do you do if there is a problem with the guests or friends or whoever is staying next door. Would you really want that ?. You need to carefully consider whether or not allowing Bed and Breakfasts in the neighborhoods are a good idea and if they are what conditions should be required to minimize impacts to existing neighbors. The staff report falls far short of protecting existing residents. Brett Cross San Luis Obispo From: "Ashbaugh, John" <lashbaugh(a)slocity.org> To: Brett Cross <brettcross(a)yahoo.com> Cc: "Rivoire, Dan" <DRivoire(a)slocity.org >; "Lichtig, Katie" <klichtig(aDslocity.org >; "Mejia, Anthony" <amenia(DDslocity.org> Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 3:41 PM Subject: RE: PH 1 Owner "Occupied" Homestay Rentals Hi Brett — I'm taking the liberty of cc'ing this to Dan Rivoire, because I didn't see him on the recipient list. I am also forwarding this to our City Manager and City Clerk; Katie might also send it on to the CDD staff working on the homestay ordinance. You've raised some interesting points in this letter, particularly about parking. Beyond that, I really don't want to go into any more of my deliberative process right now, as I'm not sure whether Dan Rivoire has already spoken with any of my Council colleagues — and if so, it would constitute a Brown Act violation to discuss it further in this email. Thanks, John Ashbaugh Council Member a Office of the City Council 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249 E jashbau slocity.org T 805.781.7122 C 805.550.7713 slocity.org From: Brett Cross [mailto:brettcrossp_yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 2:05 PM To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan Subject: PH I Owner "Occupied" Homestay Rentals Dear Council Members, I don't even know where to begin. You'll notice that the subject line has quotations around Occupied in that the Homestay Rental ordinance doesn't actually require the owner to occupy the house during rental stays. Oh, and the housing exemption requirement is farcical. It's $7000 off the assessed valuation and given current property tax rates is $70. Given the amount of money that can be generated by renting out rooms daily I'd say that doesn't ensure the "owner" lives there. This new use was "sold" to the Council and the community as a way to meet new people, showcase our community to out -of- towners, and provide for a little extra income so folks wouldn't have sell their homes, which would invariably become student rentals, along with better upkeep. That was proverbial BS, it's about money and money has a bad habit of corrupting our thinking, even the most upstanding of us. Not to mention it appears from the staff report that the City isn't beyond the influence of TOT income itself. Additionally, allowing Homestays has the potential to make existing house less affordable to new buyers as potential income from now legally renting out rooms short term is factored into the selling price. The "regulations ", which I've again put into quotations, because there really are not any regulations proposed that are in place to address on site parking, constant guest traffic, or substantial changes in the character of existing neighborhoods. Staff is recommending 1 space be provide off street. That requirement doesn't satisfy on site parking if more than one bedroom is being rented, nor does it require that guests park off street, plus there doesn't seem to be any provision that required off street parking for R 1 properties is available at all. Plus who is suppose to make sure that the required conditions are actually being followed - the neighbors ?. Is the City going to compensate them for doing Community Development's job ?. The "regulations" don't restrict the number of days per month one can use their house as a Bed and Breakfast. It's possible that every day out of the month there will be guests arriving and leaving a homestay rental. Do you not think that will have a detrimental impact on the neighbors whose now live next to a B &B. I'm certain you've noticed that I called this use a Bed and Breakfast because that is exactly what is being proposed albeit without the required parking. Just take out the "manager" requirement of the list of conditions for a B &B and replace with "responsible party" and you've created a Bed and Breakfast in the R1- and R -2 zones. The staff report should have recommended a more restrictive set of conditions which would have allowed the City to review potential impacts to neighbors and neighborhoods. It is very hard to reverse course after establishing use requirements. Heck, the Bed and Breakfast regulations are more restrictive than what is being recommended by staff. The staff recommendation should be rejected and additional conditions for a Homestay Use be added. Including- 1). Owner must be present during Check In and Check Out and during the hours of l OPM to 7 PM (existing noise ordinance). 2.) One parking space is required on site per rented room. 3.) Maximum number of rented days- 10 days per month. 4.) Maximum number of rooms rented- 2 per evening. 5.) Concentration provisions. 6.) Revocation language. Sincerely, Brett Cross