Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-08-2014 PC MinutesSAN 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 Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 2014 Page 2 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 Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 2014 Page 3 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 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 Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 2014 Page 4 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. 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 Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 2014 Page 5 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. 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 with owner - supervised management and oversight. Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 2014 Page 6 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 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. Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 2014 Page 7 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. 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) require 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. Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 2014 Page 8 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 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 Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 2014 Page 9 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: • 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 Approved by the Planning Commission on November 12, 2014. Laupie Thomas Administrative Assistant III