PC 08.b. Appeal 15-003 Newport AvenueTO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
PLANNING COMMISSION
TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
MATTHEW DOWNING~SSOCIATE PLANNER
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE
NO. 15-003; PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 15-007; LOCATION -
1305 NEWPORT AVENUE; APPELLANT-JULIE BURKHART
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying Appeal
Case No. 15-003 and approving Plot Plan Review 15-007.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
In accordance with Chapter 3.24 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC),
vacation rentals are required to pay the City transient occupancy tax (TOT) in the
amount of ten percent (10%) of the rent charged by the operator. Based on an
estimated nightly rent of $400 for the subject vacation rental, transient occupancy tax
..received by the City would total $40.00 per night.
BACKGROUND:
Location
..
Subject Propert
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE N0.15-003
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
PAGE2
On June 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 663, establishing vacation
rentals and homestays as permitted land uses in the City's residential zoning districts,
subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review (Attachment 1 ). Under
the requirements of the Ordinance, the new uses were conditioned to meet performance
standards to minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties, ensure appropriate
conditions are implemented, and prohibit overconcentration of these uses in residential
districts. The Ordinance went into full force and effect on July 10, 2014 and since that
time, the City has permitted four (4) vacation rentals and six (6) homestays, not
including this application. Including this application, staff is currently processing
applications for two (2) additional vacation rentals.
On August 18, 2015, the Community Development Director approved Plot Plan Review
Case No. 15-007 for the establishment of a vacation rental at 1305 Newport Avenue
(Attachment 2). At the time of approval, notice of the Director's approval was sent to all
property owners within 300'. On August 28, 2015, the appellant submitted an appeal of
this determination to the Planning Commission (Attachment 3).
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Vacation Rental Performance Standards
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code ("AGMC") Section 16.52.230 outlines performance
standards and conditions required for the operation of vacation rentals within the City.
These performance standards and conditions are intended to ensure vacation rentals
conform to the existing character of the neighborhood and do not create an adverse
impact on adjacent properties. Applicable performance standards are included as
conditions of approval to allow upfront understanding by the applicant of what the City
requires for the continued operation of the rental. Conditions include items such as
having a structure consistent with the neighborhood, meeting applicable Codes,
maintaining a local contact person, and limiting the number of guests allowed to occupy
the rental.
Occupancy Limitations
Condition of approval no. 11 limits overnight occupants of vacation rentals to two (2)
persons per bedroom, with an additional two (2) persons. This is to ensure rentals are
not over occupied and detrimental to surrounding residences. The subject residence
has four (4) bedrooms and, consequently, the permit was conditioned to have no more
than ten (10) overnight occupants given the requirements of the Ordinance.
Local Contact Person
Condition of approval no. 6 requires the vacation rental operator to maintain a local
contact person or entity, within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property, to be available
to resolve any issues resulting from the use of the residence as a vacation rental. The
intent of this requirement is to give neighboring property owners a primary means of
addressing issues with the rental instead of relying solely on City services, such as
Police, Neighborhood Services, and Community Development. The applicant for the
vacation rental originally designated himself as the local contact for this purpose. The
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO. 15-003
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
PAGE 3
appellant has indicated that due to the applicant's primary residence being located in
Orcutt, he is not in compliance with this requirement. The Ordinance does not specify
whether the distance is limited to where the local contact resides or is limited to some
other location, such as a property management office. However, for issues that need to
be dealt with in the middle of the night, a nighttime address such as a residence makes
functional sense. In response to this, the operator has provided the Community
Development Department with a secondary contact who resides in Nipomo. If the
Planning Commission upholds the approval of the vacation rental permit, this secondary
point of contact will be sent to property owners within the 300' noticing. Additionally, if in
the future circumstances change, the applicant is required to notify the City of the
updated local contact.
Concentration Limitations
During the Council's consideration of Ordinance No. 663, concerns were raised
regarding the possibility that an overconcentration of vacation rentals and homestays
could negatively impact the residential character of neighborhoods. In order to address
this issue, separation requirements were included in the regulations that prohibit the
establishment of a vacation rental within 300' of an existing vacation rental on the same
street. The location of vacation rentals is being tracked using the City's Geographic
Information System (GIS) and is updated annually at the time of business license
renewal.
Parking
Regulations for vacation rentals and homestays do not have specific requirements for
onsite parking. The subject property contains an enclosed, two (2) car garage as well
as space in the driveway for additional vehicle parking. The subject property is located
on the southern portion of Newport Avenue and street parking is available on one side
of the public roadway. If the Planning Commission determines it necessary, a condition
of approval may be added that requires the garage be kept clear and available for
parking to alleviate neighborhood concerns regarding crowded street parking.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for the Planning Commission's consideration:
• Adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 15-003 and approving
Plot Plan Review Case No. 15-007;
• Modify and adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 15-003 and
approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 15-007
• Do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to approve Appeal
Case No. 15-003, and provide direction for staff to return with an appropriate
resolution including findings for denial of Plot Plan Review Case No. 15-007; or
• Provide direction to staff.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO. 15-003
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
PAGE4
ADVANTAGES:
Denial of the appeal and approval of the requested Plot Plan Review would allow the
applicants to establish a vacation rental in accordance with City regulations, and provide
the applicants flexibility to use the home to generate income. Dependent upon the
number of days the property is rented and the price per night of the rental, TOT would
be collected to help maintain City services, including those impacted by increased
transient activity such as streets.
DISADVANTAGES:
Previous occupants of the vacation rental prior to permit issuance have not been
respectful of the existing neighborhood in which the rental exists. While there is the
potential for any occupant of a residence to behave in this manner, whether it is the
home owner, long-term renter, or short-term renter, the hope is that the property owner
will better screen potential renters and respond to neighbor concerns quickly since the
permit has been issued and the City has oversight of the rental.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and determined that it is categorically exempt per Section 15301 of the
CEQA Guidelines regarding existing facilities.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
A notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300' of the project
site, published in the Tribune, and posted on the City's website and at City Hall on
Friday, September 4, 2015. The Agenda and staff report were posted on the City's
website and at City Hall on Friday, September 11, 2015. Several comments have been
submitted regarding this project; however, those comments were submitted to the City
Council during their review of the Ordinance after the first year of implementation. The
staff report, minutes, and comments from that Council meeting have been included for
the Planning Commission's information (Attachment 4). A letter supporting the appeal
has additionally been submitted.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance No. 663
2. Floor plan of proposed vacation rental
3. Appeal form
4. Staff report, minutes, and correspondence from the August 25, 2015 Council
meeting
5. Correspondence from Kevin and Stephanie Watkins
..
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPEAL
CASE NO. 15-003 AND APPROVING PLOT PLAN REVIEW
CASE NO. 15-007; LOCATED AT 1305 NEWPORT
AVENUE; APPLIED FOR BY JEFF GUILTINAN;
APPEALLED BY JULIE BURKHART
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 663, establishing
vacation rentals and homestays as permitted land uses in the City's residential zoning
districts, subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review in order to ensure
conformance with performance standards developed to protect the adjacent residential
neighborhoods in which these uses would be located.; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2015, the applicants submitted an application for Plot Plan
Review No. 15-007 for the establishment of a vacation rental in an existing, four-bedroom
residence located at 1305 Newport Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2015, the Community Development Director approved Plot
Plan Review No. 15-007 based upon the findings for approval of the permit; and
WHEREAS, notice of the Community Development Director's determination were mailed
to all property owners within 300' of the project site to alert them of the approved request
to establish the vacation rental; and
WHEREAS, on August 28, 2015, an appeal of the approval was filed with the Community
Development Secretary by Julie Burkhart; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo
Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has determined that the
project is exempt per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines regarding existing facilities;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the
project at a duly noticed public hearing on September 15, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, that the following circumstances exist and findings can be made:
Plot Plan Review Findings:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and
programs of the Arroyo Grande General Plan;
Vacation rentals are allowed in the City's residential zoning districts with approval
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review. Approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot
Plan Review certifies that the land use or development will satisfy all applicable
provisions of the Municipal Code and allows the approving body to develop
reasonable conditions to ensure compliance. Approval of a Minor Use Permit-
Plot Plan Review enables issuance of a business license for use of the property
as a commercial business.
2. The proposed project conforms to applicable performance standards and will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare;
The Municipal Code mandates performance standards to ensure the public
health, safety or general welfare. The existing residence meets the requirements
of the Municipal Code and conditions of approval developed for this project
ensure compliance with the Municipal Code and the protection of public health,
safety or general welfare.
The proposed vacation rental is compatible with the neighborhood in which it is
located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character. The use is
harmonious and compatible with the existing uses with the neighborhood.
3. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
The subject property is located within an established residential neighborhood in
the SF zoning district and the vacation rental will be located in an existing
residence that is of sufficient size to accommodate the intended use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande hereby denies Appeal Case No. 15-003 and approves Plot Plan Review
Case No. 15-007 based on the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in
Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion by Commissioner
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
, seconded by Commissioner
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of September 2015.
, and by the
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
LAN GEORGE, CHAIR
ATTEST:
DEBBIE WEICHINGER,
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
TERESA McCLISH,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE4
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 15-007
1305 NEWPORT AVENUE
This approval authorizes the establishment of a four-bedroom vacation rental on property
located at 1305 Newport Avenue.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The project shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans
on file in the Community Development Department.
3. This permit shall automatically expire on September 15, 2017 unless a business
license is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the
applicant may apply to the Community Development Director for an extension of
one (1) year from the original date of expiration.
4. The applicant shall apply and be approved for a business license prior to
conducting any business transactions on the premises.
5. The applicant shall agree to indemnify and defend at his/her sole expense any
action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the
issuance of said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The
applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any
court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees
may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its
sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action
but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his/her obligations under
this condition.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
6. The operator shall maintain a contact person/entity within a fifteen ( 15) minute drive
of the property to be responsible for responding to complaints regarding the use of
the vacation rental in accordance with Municipal Code Subsection 16.52.230.C.5.
7. The operator shall annually notify the Community Development Department of the
name, address, and phone number of the contact person, at time of business
license renewal.
8. The entire home shall be advertised and rented as one-unit. The operator shall
not rent out the ground floor and top floor as two separate living spaces.
9. The operator shall conspicuously post a written notice inside the vacation rental
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 5
with the name, address, and telephone number of the required contact person.
The notice shall also include the address of the vacation rental, the maximum
number of occupants permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum
number of vehicles allowed to park on-site, the day(s) established for garbage
collection, and the non-emergency number of the Arroyo Grande Police
Department.
10. All refuse shall be stored in appropriate containers and placed at the curb for
collection every week.
11. Based upon the size of the four (4) bedrooms in the vacation rental, a maximum
of ten (10) guests may stay in the vacation rental at any one time (2/bedroom
and 2 additional).
12. No on-site advertising is permitted in conjunction with the vacation rental.
13. Payment of Transient Occupancy Tax is required per Municipal Code Section
3.24.030. Payment of Tourism Business Improvement District assessments is
required per Municipal Code Chapter 3.46.
BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY DIVISION CONDITIONS:
14. The applicant shall comply with the current California Codes including
the specifically adopted City of Arroyo Grande provisions.
15. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements for the level of occupancy of the
vacation rental shall be met.
16. All environmental health regulations shall be met.
17. Bedrooms shall meet the minimum size requirements as defined in the Building
Code.
18. A safety inspection was completed on August 14, 2015.
I-
[
I
l
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. 663
AN ORDINANCE OF THE 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'") currently does not regulate vacation
rentals or homestays; and
WHEREAS, the City does regulate similar transient uses with similar impacts such as
bed and breakfast inns; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that, unless properly regulated, 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
located and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties; and
WHEREAS, the increasing popularity of vacation rentals and homestays in the City 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; 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 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 proposed revisions 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 therefore desirable to implement the
provisions of the General Plan.
B. The proposed revisions to Title 16 will not adversely affect the public health,
safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern.
C. The proposed revisions are consistent wlth the purpose and intent of Title 16 and
satisfy the intent of Chapter 16.08 of the Municipal Code and provide for internal
consistency.
D. The proposed revisions to Title 16 are exempt under per Sections 15061 (b )(3) and
15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE2
lllOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo r
Grande as follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct and incorporated
herein by this reference.
SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.230 is hereby added as
follows:
SECTION 16.52.230 -VACATION RENTALS
A Purpose and intent. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that vacation
rentals located in the city conform to the existing character of the neighborhood
in which they ·are located and do not· create an · adverse impact on adjacent
properties. .
B. Applicability. Vacation rentals may be permitted only with approval of a minor use
permit. Vacation rentals shall comply with the property development standards
of the underlying district and the performance standards and special conditions
listed in Section 16.52.230.C.
C. Performance standards and conditions for vacation rentals.
1. Operators of vacation rentals are required to obtain a minor use permit-
plot plan review (Section 16.16.080) and a business license.
2. Any proposed vacation rental shall 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 while the property is
being used as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity within a
fifteen ( 15) minute drive of the property. The contact person or entity must
be available via telephone twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a
week, to respond to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental.
The contact person or 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.
I
l
I
L
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE3
6. The operator of the vacation rental shall annually, at the time of renewal of
the business license, notify the Community Development Department of
the name, address and telephone number of the contact person required
in subsection 16.52.230.C.6.
7. A written notice shall be conspicuously posted inside each vacation rentaf
unit setting forth the name, address and telephone number of the contact
person required in subsection 16.52.230;C.6. The notice sha!l also set
forth the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of
occupants permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum number of
vehicles allowed to be parked on-site, and the day(s) established for
garbage collection. The notice shall also provide the non-emergency
number of the Arroyo Grande Police Department.
8. On-site advertising of the vacation 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 the Building Code.
10. All refuse shall be stored in appropriate containers and placed at the curb
for collection every week.
11. The operator of the vacation rental shall pay Transient Occupancy Tax as
required by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030.
12. Establishment of a vacation rental within 300 feet of an existing vacation
rental on the same street shall not be permitted.
13. Violations -violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for
revocation of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220.
SECTION 3: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.240 is hereby added as
follows:
SECTION 16.52.240 -HOllllEST A YS
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 are located and do not create an adverse impact on
adjacent properties.
B. Applicability. Homestays may be permitted only with approval of a minor use
permit. Homestays shall comply with the property development standards of the
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE4
underlying district and the performance standards and special conditions listed in
Section 16.52.240.C.
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 proposed homestay shall 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 homestay shall be met.
4. All environmental health regulations shall be met.
5. The operator shall reside on the premises.
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 shall meet the minimum size requirements as defined in the
Building Code ..
9. The operator of the homestay shall pay Transient Occupancy Tax as
required by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030.
10. Establishment of a homes!ay within 300 feet of an existing homestay on
the same street shall not be permitted.
11. Violations -violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for
revocation of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220.
SECTION 4: The following definitions in Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection
16.04.070.C. are hereby amended or added as follows:
16.04.070.C. Definitions
"Bed arid breakfast inn" means an owner-occupied dwelling unit where three (3) or more
short-term lodging rooms and meals are provided for compensation or onsite signage is
desired.
I
I
[
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE5
"Homestay" means an owner-occupied dwelling unit where a maximum of two (2) short-
term lodging rooms are provided for compensation.
"Vacation rental" means a structure being rented for less than thirty (30} days without
concurrently being occupied by the owner/operator where the short-term lodging is
provided for compensation.
SECTION 5: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.16.080 is hereby amended to
add Subsection B.10 and Subsection C.6 as follows:
16.16.080.B.10. Establishment of vacation rentals or homestays in applicable zoning
districts identified in Table 16.32.040-A and Table 16.36.030(A).
16.16.080.C.6. For plot plan reviews establishing the use of properly for vacation rental
purposes, the decision of the community development director shall also be mailed to all
property owners of parcels within three hundred (300) feet of the property for which the
plot plan review has been requested, in addition to the requirements of Section
16. 16.080.C.5. The notice shall indicate the appeal provisions 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:
I USE RE I RH RR RS SF I VR D-2.4 MF MFA MFVH MHP
i A. Residential Uses I I
j i 7. Vacation Rentals MUP I MUP I MUP MUP MUP I MUP MUP i MUP NP NP
and Homestavs I
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 to add the following use:
USE vco VMU I I HCO 0·2.11 I OMU 1
TMU D-HCO 0' Specific
!MU D-2.11 2.4 0·2.4 I GMU 1 FOMU HMU 2.20 RC' Use Stds
B. Services -General
Vacation Rentals and NP MUP l MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP NP 16.52.230
Homestavs I 16.52.240
SECTION 8: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of
this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason ·held to be unlawful, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one
or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared
unconstitutional. ·
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGES
SECTION 9: Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall file a Notice of r~
Exemption pursuant to 14 CCR § 15062. ·
SECTION 10: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper
published and circulated in the City 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 the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City
Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the
names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be
published again, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such
adopted Ordinance.
SECTION 11: This Ordinance· shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of
adoption.
On motion of Council Member Barneich, seconded by Council Member Brown, and on
the following roll call vote to wit:
A YES: Council Members Barneich, Brown, Costello, Guthrie, and Mayor Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this 10th day of June, 2014.
l .
I
I
r
l
I. .
ORDINANCE NO. {p/p.3
PAGE7
ATTEST:.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San
Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that
the attached is a true, full, and correct copy of Ordinance No. 663 which was
introduced at a regular meeting oft.he City Council on May 27, 2014; was passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 10th day of June
2014; and was duly published in accordance with State law (G.C. 40806).
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 12t11
day of June 2014.
r
ATTACHMENT 2
r-9·6112" -r---16' 11" "---·· 5' 1 314"
LIVING ROOM
-.c--"~'~sqtt (17' 4 3/4" ~ 16''11")
l!ll KITCHEN
187 sq /I
l1!5"·x·17'_41i2"
MASTEH'BEDROOM
194 r,q ti
J 7' 4·314". '"·13•_.:1,1. 114r
RECEIVED
JUN 1 0 2015
CIJY OF ARROYO GRAND!i
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
~
I
-11'5"---.! 16'11" __ _,,l----13'111/4" _J
O' 8' 16' 24'
1:146
1305 Newport Ave.
1300-1450 Carmelina Or, Arroyo Grande, CA, Urnted States 9'.3420
2015-05-12
2'J~J sq ft
2 Floors
f-, Rooms
4 Bedrooms
3 Bathrooms
Kitchen
Width:
AreB:
Perimeter:
Cei\!ng
·17' 4 1/2"
187 sq ft
57' 7 1/4"
7'
Living Room
VVidth
Length.
/\rea:
Perimeter:
Ceiling Height:
16' 11"
17 1 4 '.3/4 11
294 sq ft
68' 7 1/4"
7'
1305 Newport Ave.
2015-05-12
<·
<) < ;;:::
0 u
' .. \::
0
<
q
IJ)
c
<(
Master Bedroom
Width:
Area:
Perimeter:
Ceiling Height:
13 1 111/4"
17' 4 3/41'
194 sq ft
631 1/2\l
7'
5' 1 3/4"
-----13' 111/4" _____ __,,
Bathroom
Width:
Length:
/\rea:
Perimeter:
Ceiling Height:
O' 2' 4'
5! 1 i/4FI
8' 5 1/4"
43 sq ft
27' 3/4"
7'
1305 Newport Ave.
i r
"!
~
8' 5 1/4"
0
• :;.: ,,
\ "' 4J
4' 6 3/4"
8' 5 1/4"
2015-05-12
({)
~
"' \I) z
VJ e
3
" (}
" u
" " a '" " x
0
"
;;'
6
" 'x: c
~
" ~ SQ
" "' (fj
0 z
Q
;.. " ~ ~
" ~ ;..:
?-:
,_,s
z
Q
0
" " z
" " ~ s
" z
" U) e <
u
VJ
6
" ?)
" z
:LI
'])
0 z
2
" z
" C,
()
" t
" " " <(
:.?:
~ ,_
~
0
" '2 > 0
" " ~2
;.:._
" " " " 9
" '" :.')
I
1 r
BEDROOM
e-------21'2" -----·.-,
BALCONY
129sq1t (21' 2", 6' 1 1/4")
L,IVlNGROOM
262sq1t
15'Tl·3/4"x 16'43/4"
210 sq ft ( 12' 4 ·112" x 16' 11")
BEDROOM
153sqH
12' 7 3/4"' 12' 1''
BEDROOM
188 sq.fl (11' 8 3/4'' x 16'-114")
KITCHEN
275 sq ft
12'63/4" x 2'1' 10.1/2"
J-·-·.1.11--------JATHR'QO!W\UNDRY ROO ~
I'----16· 114" --
4' 5 114"
GARAGE
449 sq lt (20' 9·.1i4" x.21' 7 :';\14'-')
'-·---20'9114" ··---·-'
O' 8' 16' 24'
1:146
1305 Newport Ave.
1300-1450 Carmelina Dr, Arroyo Grande, CA, United States 93420
2015-05-12
2J1IJ sqft
f Floors
14 Rooms
4 Bedrooms
3 Bathrooms
Garage
\iVldth:
Ares:
Perimeter:
Ce:!ing
20' 9 1(4"
449 sq ft
84 1 9 '.3/4''
8' 2 3/4"
D
Laundry Room
Width:
Length:
Area:
Perimeter:
Ceiling
6' gn
11' 8 1/4"
76 sq f/
36' 1/4"
8 1 2 3/4"
I
"' I
" I
w ~
''
1305 Newport Ave.
20'9"~
< .3
"' " '' "' ";
I
I
I
... ·.
1
,•,
'•
' .l
20' 9 1/4"
!""---6' 9" ___ _,,
~-~6'9"
2015-05-12
I
f I I
I
I
r
I !
I
Bathroom
W:dth:
Area
Perirneter:
Ceiling
5·· 5"
11' 2 3/4"
61 sq ft
33' 3 3/4"
8' 2 3/4"
Kitchen
Width
Length:
Area:
Perimeter:
c:eiling Height:
12' 6 3/4"
2i' 10 1/2 11
275 sq ft
68' 10"
8' 2 3/4"
J] 0!
:::'
;;;
I ;:
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
1305 Newport Ave.
·;,i
::;;,
v)
2
"" :#
w.
()
f:i
'?S
>-< ;q;
rz
Co
e ~
m
" ~
0
" tf,
u < "
1 ~
~ I "' ~ N
~ ~
~
',(
" .,,, " " Q
< i r
" ~
'"
~ -;:
6 z c
2
'" u
" z
~ z ,z a:
" 5
~
::{
U)
~ ;:;:
;j
3
1
G.
()
r.0 z
Ll
C/J
2 z
2
~
~ 'L
C)
m ~: z ;;; " " "' c(
];
g
?i
Cl
JJ.J
9
[\
" ,z
!!?
jo c s::
\_,-s
lL
g'.
2015-05-12
I l
I
!
f
Bedroom
VV!dth:
Asea:
Pe:irnete1-:
Height:
LJ
11' 8 3/4"
16' 114"
188 sq ft
55' 6 1
'
8' 2 3/4"
Living Room
VVidth:
i\rea.·
Perimeter:
Ceiiing
15' 11 :J/4"
16' 4 3/4"
262 sq ft
64' 9"
8' 2 3/4"
7
/
1--
_/
;,,:
"' "' ~ ;._
~ ~
N
"'
I
'
1305 Newport Ave.
16' 1/4"
16'1/4"
2015-05-12
'
~
. .. .
:~11•.1111·.1 ... 111111:111;
1·•.· .. ,·.·.···I····· ~ ; ... ·'.1 ....•. ·1· .. ,
•----e,. •• ·;---.' :r-:~
'"' --,---'
,_ -----'""''"'""'"'------,------.. "
.
,,
I 1 I
I
i
I
i
!
I
I
I ~
"' "' I ;._
~ ~
N
" !
l
' I
l
Bedroom
VVidth:
A1·e2: ·153 sq ft
Perirne·rer: 49' 5 1/4"
Ceiling He1q!11!
Bathroom
Width:
Aren:
Perirneter·
D
O' 2'
9' 1 3/411
12' j"
110 sq ft
42' 5 \/2."
8 1 2 3/4''
-·""'-"
i ' 12' 1"
,-
(
~
~ .
--J
VJ
~ ~ .
12' 1"
,..._----------12' 1" ------
( ·)
2015-05-12
1305 Newport Ave.
T
i\J
~
~
(D
M
;;.
~
C')
0
~
Co
;;.
!
' I
ro
i\J
;;.
~
C')
r---
i\J
~
;;.
~
C')
~
in
r.c
•J
Bedroom
V\!\dth:
/\rea:
Per!rneter:
D
12' 4 '\/2"
16' 11"
210 sq ft
581 7 1/2"
8' 2 3/4"
Balcony
Area:
Perimeter:
6' 1 \/4"
129 sq ft
54' 6 1/4"
8' 2 3/4"
"' ,.
~
1
1305 Newport Ave.
U)
_;;:
'"' V; z
U!
16' 11" = ,3
6
<
D < i.f.
<
\.)
< c n
'" ~
~
~
3
< a::
0 v 0
0J < < ~ V;
2 <
2 ;;
< t:
~
e
5
~
16' 11" :;:
c
2
9
0
?;
< 1-.-z < ~
3
< z <
U)
~~ <
~ <
<
ii:
('!
(/)
< GJ ><
u
< z
I <
I < z <
~ 5
> ~ <
2
<
"' < D::
I Cf ::;
' < i
' 6
I
3':
D
ill
~ > c
rt <
~?
z <
< ~;
'.)
c'.
~
2015-05-12
I I
Hall
VVk:!th:
Area
Perin1eter:
IL
~rL
4' 5 1/4"
15' 8 !/4"
70 sq ft
40' 3 1/2"
8' 2 3/4"
8'
1:62
4'51/4"
~--/~""
: /
2015-05-12
1305 Newport Ave.
"'" I
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DECISION
TO PLANNING COMMISSION
(Name) ' (Date)
1 ?ti 3 AJ~ (-± ~k-IH'V!P fa ~cb ,
(Address) (City)
Y:it_;yJ
Project Appeal Name and Case Number Pl D f Pf (}_.VJ HetJ1 eMJ I r:J -()(J '1
Project Approved/Denied by Community Development Director on & /1q /; 2
' (Date)
Pr~ject Location ·I ~ .5 f) w>po r i Av { &6_~9~3~t-f~J-~O ______ _
Receipt Number O'l} \ ·-()\J"i L( ') ~t'l G(
C~;;munity Development S~etary
Appeal of COD Director to PC 1
RECEIVED
AUG ~ 8 2015
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Rev, 10/19!01
Julie Burkhart
1303 Newport Avenue
Arroyo Grande, CA 94320
Robert McFall, Interim City Manager
Dianne Thomson, New appointed City Manager
Jonathan Hurst, City Building Inspector
Matthew, Assistant in Building Department
Re: 1305 Newport
AirBnB
I am writing in regards to the AirBnB which has been advertised and operating at 1305
Newport Avenue, Arroyo Grande, CA, since March 2015. The owners, Jeff & Donella
Guiltinan, who reside in Orcutt, CA, have listed this on the AirBnB.com website, as Pismo
Family Getaway w/Ocean Views, as well as Vrba.com, as a separate two unit rental each
with its own stove. The house has been a rental for years before being an AirBnB and is
currently in need of many repairs.
I have spoken to Jonathan Hurst and Matthew, an assistant, at the Building Department,
City of Arroyo Grande, on numerous occasions. They informed me that there have been no
permits/licenses issued for the legal operation of an AirBnB at this address. They also
informed me that the owners have been made aware that they are required to file for a
permit/license which would include a safety inspection. Since the owners own and operate
other AirBnB's, they should be aware of what is required for them to operate legally in the
City of AG.
According to the Building Department, the owners were notified of what is required and as
of the end of May, the application for permit/license is pending. Once the application is
filed, the residents on Newport Avenue would become aware and would have the option to
voice their concerns regarding all that an AirBnB entails on our street, including
insufficient parking on our one lane/not a thru street.
Would you be willing to take the time to check into this matter for me and the other
residents on Newport Avenue? Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly
appreciated.
The following residents have concerns about the operation of an
Avenue, Arroyo Grande, CA.
AirBnB on Newport
RECEIVED
AUG 2 8 2015
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Julie Burkhart (myself, 6 years)
1303 Newport Avenue
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Kathleen & Richard Randolph (30 Years)
1235 Newport Avenue
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Carolyn Johnson & Rick Friedman (8 years)
1371 Newport Avenue
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
---/ Jw~ ate
iJ; 0/19/16
'/JW4 ~.S -Y'/;r/1:5 I \)
Connie & Brent Mooney (25 years)
227 Fairview Drive
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Joe & Sandy Gong (20 years)
1251 Newport Avenue
Arroyo Grande, CA 94320
Ernest & Kathleen Salazar (31 years)
1237 Newport Avenue
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
J
lunH. ~ W.~
~ ti~ ~~~·
(~ ~~!,~
ti
City of Arroyo Grande
215 Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420
Plot Plan Review -15-007
A vacation rental has been operating at 1305 Newport Avenue since March of 2015 without any
permits. While the applicant seeks to legitimize the vacation rental now, there is a poor track
record for the use of the home as a vacation rental. Loud and obnoxious behavior and
excessive numbers of cars due to the vacation rental have impacted the lower Newport
neighborhood and vacationer noise also impacts the adjacent Fairview area. These types of
issues with a transient population are typically found in hotels and motels where visitor
occupancy can be accommodated and regulated.
The Plot Plan Review approval for this vacation rental includes a maximum of ten persons that
may stay at 1305 Newport. How will this requirement be regulated? Unlike the home stay
regulations the owner is not on site to monitor numbers of guests. (They are 45 minutes away
I live at 1303 & have only seen the Owner, never have I seen a manager/contact person)
The city's municipal code limits the number of dogs than any one home may have, yet there is
no mention of limitations on dogs, how will this be regulated?
The maximum number of vehicles permitted is not included in the approval, nor are
requirements for compliance with the City's noise regulations. How will this matter be
regulated? Unlike a hotel setting no one is on site to make sure cars are correctly parked and.
the noise is limited
Lower Newport Avenue is comprised of single family dwelling units on one side of the street.
Lower Newport is quite unique, there is room for parking only on one side with a single lane for
travel. There is not space for two-way access on this street; but Newport Avenue residents are
generally respectful and understanding of the "rules of the road". The same cannot be said of
prior visitors to 1305 Newport.
Lower Newport is a residential neighborhood with challenging parking and passing on the
street. On-street parking is dear; and while lower Newport is a public street for anyone to
park, neighbors generally have consideration for one another and try to have any extra cars for
guests and family members park in front of their own homes. The use of the property as a
vacation rental simply compounds the parking and passing problem
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission revoke the approval
of Plot Plan Review 15-007 RECEIVED
AUG 2 8 2015
CITY Of ARROYO GRANDE
COMMIJNITY DEVELOPMENT
Julie Burkhart
1303 Newport Avenue
Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420
Cell:
Johnathan Hurst
City of Arroyo Grande
Building Inspection & Permits
300 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Irresponsible Landlords
1305 Newport Ave
April 15, 2015
I have lived next to Jeff & Donelle Guiltinan's rental property at 1305 Newport Ave for almost 6 years;
it has been a never ending adventure. Since they do not seem to care whom they rent to, or how it
impacts the neighbors, at first there was a cage with two big dogs in the front yard covered with a blue
tarp for shade. The dogs were always in there, no one seemed to show up to take them for a walk, or let
them out. One day they did get out, so I let them come into my yard until the owners came home.
Both of them attacked my dog. Later I found out that representatives from the animal shelter came &
took them, because due to neglect. The owner brought leftover flea treatment for me. When the
people moved, it was apparent they had had many reptiles living in the house with them. I don't think
Jeff & Donelle were aware or never bothered to investigate.
The next neighbor moved in & she was a hoarder, she stacked the back yard with all kinds of things, as
well as her (illegal) downstairs apartment I finally called Jeff when she started keeping a full trailer
w/tall bookcases parked in her space, moved it around to any available (space on the street) as well. I
called him three times, his response was "I'll talk to her" he never did. She moved her boyfriend in, a
parolee, they had frequent fights, one in which he went around the neighborhood complaining she had
thrown her car keys into the bushes & now the car was stuck in the middle of the road (this is a one lane
road). Both of them were very drunk. Oh, and there was one time when he jumped the back fence, &
ran into a neighbor's yard trying to avoid the police. Both of them went around to neighbors trying to
explain themselves. Jeff finally got the City involved when he couldn't handle it, they condemned the
apt, she could only be there until 10 pm at night, with City's help, he finally was able to evict her. (and
boyfriend)
Keely moved in downstairs, she was great! But upstairs saw about 3 different families move in & out in
a 6 week period. It was very chaotic! Did the owners bother with any background checks? Or was it
whoever could pay the deposit could move in?
Then we had the drug dealers. They were at 1305 about 6 months(?) & left with a bang! They had
people sleeping wherever in the house & at all hours, there were children, I never really knew who was
renting, except for a very large dog that got out all time, & that was how I got to know the owners,
because I always returned him. Police came on several occasions looking for parolees who had violated
parole. There was always activity at the house, by foot, by bicycle, by car, at any time of the night.
RECEIVED
AUG 2 ll 2015
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN'f
Somehow Jeff evicted them, after they had fiooded the house & ruined some things down stairs, this
happened twice, because Keely lived downstairs & told me.
Finally Jeff & Donnelle rented to some nice quiet people John & Monique, who tried to improve the
landscaping. They were always working on the yard. So a year past & everything was nice & calm.
After John & Monique left they rented to someone I didn't know, I went to Palo Alto for a few months.
When I returned home Kimberly & Mike had moved into the 1305. They lived at 1305 from November
2014 to February 2015. I was fortunate to be invited over to their house, Mike had helped me move
some furniture, & I took them cookies. The house was well maintained, neatly kept, & I did not detect
any odors. We became friendly, & I visited several more times, each time was the same, neat, orderly,
no smells. Kimberly was very attentive to her dogs, keeping them quite when necessary. Kimberley,
Mike, & their children, were a great addition to the neighborhood, joining in local groups, Mike worked
in SLO, Kimberly a substitute teacher, their children went to Arroyo Grande High. Finally a stable
neighbor!!!! And they even mowed the lawn.
But not for long, in December Jeff & Oonnelle evicted Keely, because it was an illegal rental(?) They
then tried to rent the entire house, to Kimberly & Mike. However, for reasons only Jeff & Donnelle know
they were evicted because the parties couldn't agree on the rental of downstairs. Kimberly & Mike had
agreed to pay rent, but by that time, Jeff & Donnelle said they wanted to turn 1305 into an AirBnB! &
VRBO! And whatever else you can list your house for, on a nightly basis!
I talked to Donnelle about this AirBnB & said I wasn't happy. I also found out it is illegal to run an AirBnB
in a residential neighborhood without an inspection by the City & a Permit. I asked her if she had one,
she hung up on me. We haven't spoken since.
Since March it has been rented several times, \have continued to ask the City to take steps to stop this
while the proper forms are filled out. (At that time, hopefully I can object strenuously) Only one incident
happened, that was a boy from 1305 came over & rang my bell & ran away. I did tell his parents about it
at the time.
I am a 67 year old woman who lives alone & really do not care for all of the excitement & parolees
caused by this rental next door. Perhaps if Jeff & Donne lie took more care in who they rented to, this
would not be such a problem. I bought my house here because it was a beautiful house & a safe
neighborhood. In six years there have been nothing but problems .... when good, stable people move to
1305, Jeff & Donnelle move them out! Now anyone can rent next door nightly!
I have several rentals myself, & have not had this kind of problem. I really do think Jeff & Donnelle are
irresponsible landlords. Currently their house is listed for sale, at $799,000. They live in their own
world & do not listen to other people. Please enforce the City rules for permits for this AirBnB.
Copies to:
Honorable Judge
Mr. & Mrs. Michael Strope
Thank you,
Julie Burkhart
ATTACHMENT 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
BY:
TERESA McCUSH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
MATTHEW DOWNING!fssoclATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF STATUS REPORT
DATE:
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 14-002
VACATION RENTALS AND HOMESTAYS
AUGUST 25, 2015
RECOMMENDATION:
REGARDING
REGULATING
It is recommended the City Council receive and file information on the status of
Development Code Amendment 14-002, which implemented regulations for the
establishment and operation of vacation rentals and homestays within the City.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
There is no impact on financial and personnel resources to receive and file the
status of Development Code Amendment.
BACKGROUND:
On June 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 663 (the "Ordinance")
to identify vacation rentals and homestays as permitted uses within residential
and commercial zoning districts of the City and establishing regulations and
permitting requirements to establish the uses (Attachments 1 and 2). The
Ordinance went into effect on July 10, 2014 As part of the approval of the
Development Code Amendment, the Council requested a status report after one
year.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
At the time of Ordinance adoption, six (6) applications for vacation rentals and
homestays were pending. One (1) of those applications was withdrawn following
adoption of the Ordinance. Since the adoption of the Ordinance, staff has
approved a total of ten (10) permits. This includes five (5) vacation rentals and
five (5) homestays (Attachment 3). Staff is currently processing one (1) additional
application for a vacation rental.
Inquiries regarding the establishment of new rentals has subsided since the initial
influx anticipated from adoption of the regulations; however, staff continues to
item 11.b. • Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF STATUS REPORT REGARDING DEVELOPMENT
CODE AMENDMENT 14-002 REGULATING VACATION RENTALS AND
HOMESTAYS
AUGUST 25, 2015
PAGE2
receive about two (2) inquiries per month. The inquiries are mostly from
individuals in the very early stages of considering the use of their property as a
vacation rental or homestay. Staff has also received inquiries from other
communities in the state who are determining how to address the uses.
During the Council's review of the Ordinance, concerns were raised regarding
the proliferation of vacation rental and homestay uses and neighborhood impacts
associated with them. According to City records, no complaints have been
received against the permitted operations. Complaints associated with vacation
rentals and homestays have typically focused on individuals operating without
proper permits. Staff from Planning and Neighborhood Services have been
working together to educate operators about permit requirements and take
enforcement action as necessary.
A recent approval of a vacation rental on Old Ranch Road was appealed to the
Planning Commission by the neighboring property owners. The appellants had
concerns about safety, security, noise, traffic, and neighborhood property values.
The Planning Commission considered the appeal on July 7, 2015. At that time,
the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution denying the appeal and
approving the vacation rental, due partly to the Ordinance having been
constructed in such a way as to reduce these impacts on surrounding
neighborhoods.
At the time of Ordinance introduction, the Council added concentration limitations
in the form of a 300 foot linear separation between the same uses on the same
block face. Under these concentration limits, a vacation rental or homestay could
not be established within 300 feet of an established vacation rental or homestay
on the same street. However, the two uses could back up to one another so long
as they were not part of the same block face. The effectiveness of these
limitations has yet to be tested due to the limited number of permits approved for
the uses.
ALTERNATIVES:
No alternatives are provided; the report is informational in nature.
ADVANTAGES:
The status report responds to Council's desire to remain informed on the
implementation of the Ordinance since its adoption.
DISADVANTAGES:
None identified by staff.
Item 11.b. ·Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF STATUS REPORT REGARDING DEVELOPMENT
CODE AMENDMENT 14-002 REGULATING VACATION RENTALS AND
HOMESTAYS
AUGUST 25, 2015
PAGE3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT:
The agenda was posted at City Hall on Thursday, August 20, 2015 and the
agenda and staff report were posted on the City's website on Friday, August 21,
2015. No public comments were received.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance No. 663
2. Minutes of the May 27, 2014 City Council meeting (introduction of the
Ordinance)
3. Map showing distribution of vacation rentals and homestays
Item 11.b. • Page 3
Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday,August25,2015
Kress, Arroyo Grande, opposed a ban on fireworks; Aaron Henkel, Arroyo Grande, o
ban on fireworks; Beatrice Spencer, Arroyo Grande, opposed a ban on firew
further comments, Mayor Hill closed the public comment period.
Page5
Brief Council comments ensued concerning publ' cation, the social host program referred
to by Mr. Linney of TNT Fireworks, and ial interest in reviewing the ordinance relating to
citations and the use of firew ayor Hill suggested the League of California Cities may
jiJ:rawOlr'Ks, and the importation and disposal of illegal fireworks in particular.
11.b. Consideration of Status Report Regarding Development Code Amendment 14-002
Regulating Vacation Rentals and Homestays.
Associate Planner Downing presented the staff report and recommended that the Council
receive and file information on the status of Development Code Amendment 14-002, which
implemented regulations for the establishment and operation of vacation rentals and homestays
within the City.
Council questions ensued regarding complaints, enforcement of violations, community
education as it relates to complaint contacts, local contact person requirement, and notification
as it relates to alerting neighbors of a new application.
Mayor Hill invited public comment. Speaking from the public were Patty Welsh, Arroyo Grande,
expressed concern that noticing should be done prior to approval; Beatrice Spencer, Arroyo
Grande, expressed concern about notifications after approval; Tom Wooldridge, Arroyo Grande,
expressed concern with commercial uses entering into residential areas, notification after
approval, and requested consideration of complaint based revocation of permits; Ed Fichtner,
Arroyo Grande, expressed concern and referred to his letter sent to Council; Carolyn Johnson
Friedman, Arroyo Grande, expressed concern regarding notification being sent after approval;
Connie Mooney, Arroyo Grande, expressed concern regarding notification; Jeff Guiltnan, Arroyo
Grande, spoke as an owner of a vacation rental and commented on his efforts to comply with
regulations. Hearing no further comments, Mayor Hill closed the public comment period.
Council comments ensued regarding the complaint process as it relates to revocation of
permits, the appeal process, and reviewing the topic again in one year.
No formal action was taken. The status report was received and filed.
12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
The Mayor and Council Members provided brief reports from the following mmittee,
commission, board, or other subcommittee meetings that they attended as th 1 y's appointed
representative.
(a) MAYOR HILL:
(1) South San Luis Obispo County S · ation District (SSLOCSD)
(2) Brisco/Halcyon lnterchan committee
(3) Oversight Board e Successor Agency to the Dissolved Arroyo
Grande opment Agency ---{4~-~r!t·rcolrrnria Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA)
Matt Downing
To: Carolyn Johnson
Subject: RE: Vacation Rental regulation status report Council agenda Item 118 -August 25, 2015
Council meeting
From: carolyn Johnson
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2015 6:17 PM To:••••••·· Subject: Vacation Rental regulation status report Council agenda Item 118 -August 25, 2015 Council meeting
Hello Kelly,
As this agenda item is not a public hearing, please share these comments with
the City Council and include in the public record at the Tuesday, August 25
Council meeting.
I request the Council consider a modillcation to the Vacation Rental
application and approval process to require neighborhood notification and
opporturuty for comment BEFORE a decision is reached on Vacation Rental
applications. An example is provided -this particular Vacation rental is not
the subject of the Council's deliberations but may help the Council to walk
through the Vacation Rental approval process from a resident perspective.
A recent Plot Plan Review application for a Vacation Rental was approved at
1305 Newport Ave. Residents within 300 feet of 1305 Newport received a
notification postcard of the approval with the notation that the approval of the
Vacation Rental could be reviewed at City Hall and that the decision to
approve the Vacation Rental could be appealed at a cost of $250+. The
operation of the vacation rental at this location has been ongoing without
benefit of a permit by the applicant since March of 2015; an adequate amount
of time for the neighborhood to see if/how this vacation rental will work in the
neighborhood. Things have not been going well. The neighborhood voice early
in the decision ma.king process could have helped to determine whether this
vacation rental is compatible with the neighborhood. Which it is not. Now
that the Vacation Rental has been approved, the onus is on the neighborhood
to pay the required appeal fee and go through the appeal process of a public
hearing (notification, staff report etc) in front of the Planning Commission.
I respectfully request the Council consider modillcation of the regulations to
require neighborhood notification and opportunity for comment before
decisions are reached on Plot Plan Reviews for Vacation Rentals.
Thank you for your consideration.
1
Carolyn Johnson Friedman
Newport avenue resident
2
Connie Mooney August 21, 2015
227 Fair View Drive
Arroyo Grande, CA
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing concerning the vacation rental in our neighborhood, located at
1305 Newport Ave. It has been operating for about the past five months. During
that time there have been numerous people in and out and several disruptive
groups. The description on the website states that this is a family neighborhood and
asks for the occupants to respect this. This has not always happened. There was a
group of 12 that were very loud, drinking, and smoking more than cigarettes. It
was obvious they came to party. Another group was loud until midnight. The most
disruptive was a bachelor party. They used every swear word known to man from
the moment they arrived. I called the landlord, he called them and they were quiet
until midnight and began again. The new neighbors below us were awakened by
them at 3:30 AM. This should not be happening in a residential neighborhood. I
hesitated to call the police because I don't know how the occupants would react.
They would obviously know one of the close neighbors had called.
We did not buy our home to have a hotel move in next door. I finnly
believe that this type of business does not belong in ANY neighborhood. I feel the
City Council should reconsider their position and put an end to this before more
than just a handful of them exist. If someone wants to run a hotel, they should buy
one and have at it.
After reading l lB on your agenda, it basically says no complaints had been
received about the permitted operations. This may be because it takes time for the
neighborhood to realize what is happening and respond. It seems that the
neighborhood should be notified about an impending vacation rental before it is
permitted and not afterword.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Connie Mooney
Melissa Davis
2015
217 Fair View Drive
Arroyo Grande, CA
Dear City Council Members,
August 24,
I am writing concerning the vacation rental in our neighborhood, located at 1305
Newport Ave. We are new tenants on Fair View Dr. beginning on August 1, 2015. Since
our brief time at our home we have seen and heard various types of people stay at the
vacation rental home. Most of them have been loud and disruptive to this very quiet
neighborhood. The most recent occupants were several loud men that used very foul
language. I was awoken by their very loud talking at 3:30 a.m. one night. I have three
young children and this behavior concerns me. I do not want my children to hear this
language.
I strongly feel that this type of business should not be located in any neighborhood. It
can be disruptive to the people that reside in the neighborhood. Thank you so much for
your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Melissa Davis
August 10, 2015
Robert McFail
Interim City Manager
City of Arroyo Grande
Re: 1305 Newport -AirBnB Vacation Rental
Dear Mr. McFail:
We are property owners with a lot contiguous to the subject property. Our backyards meet to the
north.
I have read 16.52.250 Vacation Rentals and what leaps out is the description under (A)"Purpose
and Intent". The use of the subject as a rental for a revolving door of unsupervised short term
renters does not "conform to the existing character of the neighborhood". The neighborhood is
comprised of single family residences within a few blocks of an elementary school.
The second part of that description, that the vacation rentals "do not create an adverse impact on
the adjacent properties" is debatable. It lies on a narrow street with no outlet. The subject
property is large enough to accommodate many short term tenants at a time but the street on
which it is located has limited parking because you can only park on one side of the street. It's
obvious that parking for other property owners is going to be adversely impacted.
Although we no longer live in the neighborhood we raised two daughters there. When we opted
to downsize we retained the home and were careful to rent it to families with children. Ocean
View Elementary is an excellent school and the ability to walk to school is a blessing.
Perhaps that is what surprises me most about the City considering this property as an AirBnB
rental possibility. To put children at risk with transient strangers staying within walking distance
to classrooms and playgrounds is foolhardy. Also "upper" Newport is the drop off and pick up
point for many parents whose children then walk the rest of the way to school. Maybe those
parents and even the school itself (ie, the County) should be brought into the discussion of the
viability of this AirBnB location.
Sincerely,
Deborah Sidenberg
Property Owner
217 Fair View Drive, Arroyo Grande
First off I would like to thank everyone here for their time, the commission for hearing our
appeal and my neighbors for taking the time to come together on a unified concern ... I realize
everyone has busy schedules and it takes a Jot to rearrange their lives in an effort to support
others in their community.
While I stand here with my concerns this is not just about me, every person here should have a
concern as to the deterioration of our tight-knit families we have established within our
neighborhoods.
By allowing Nina Reinacher and Katherine Neie the ability to tum a residential home into a
turnstile mini motel we have set into motion the very actions that will tear our community apart.
My wife Tricia and I have recently moved to Arroyo Grande where we purchased a home on Old
Ranch Road. We took a considerable amount of time in researching the entire central coast for a
place we felt was safe, quiet, and gave us a sense of community. We went to great links to
include everyone in our neighborhood during the holidays so that we might establish a
welcoming environment with an open line of communication.
Recently there have been a few issues in the neighborhood that have made my wife and I feel
extremely uncomfortable. A Neighbor two houses down has had several items from their front
yard stolen, both at night and in the middle of the day. We have also had other suspicious
activity in the neighborhood including but not excluded to Strange vehicles driving slowly
through the streets photographing our homes at times that we feel would have been
unsolicited. These have been documented with local authorities.
IN MY OPINION many factors may have contributed to these uncomfortable situations, but if
we may exclude the factors we can control we are one step closer to a safer community.
By allowing this residence to be turned into a daily rental you will have demonstrably altered our
~ neighborhood from a once comfortable place people could describe as their home.
To the Jetter written by Nina and Kathy ... Their letter while heartwarming and sentimental is
misleading and insulting there can be no connection to the neighborhood while the entire
neighborhood disapproves of their establishment of a vacation rental, as well I believe it to be
disingenuous to say they are protecting their mothers memories and belongings by renting to
perfect strangers. This has become nothing more than business to them.
I had met Mary briefly before she passed and unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to.
engage in many conversations with her but in the few that I did, I gained an understanding of her
personal commitment to the neighborhood and her idealistic value of organization and respect
she retained of the entire neighborhood.
I'm told by others that Mary was a responsible neighbor and very active in the fabric that is this
community. She was opposed to changes in her neighborhood and attended many meetings
about the number of dwellings to be built on Grace Lane and others regarding the recreational
center that was to be built on old Ranch Road fearing this would greatly affect her local
community.
In my occupation I work with both Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Ag commissions and
although there are rules, ordinances, and stipulations set forth by these governing bodies; we
work on a (site by site) or site specific demographic. In other words guidelines are established
but don't fit every situation. These guidelines must be amendable in each of their applications.
It is in my opinion that when an entire neighborhood is allowed an opportunity to appeal a
recommendation made by this commission, and that neighborhood comes together in J 00%
opposition to this commission's recommendation; this commission should take that under serious
consideration regardless of the ordinance that maybe in place and used as a general rule.
Therefore .. .I with the support of everyone in these appeals wish the planning commission to
reconsider and deny the establishment of a summer rental at 320 Old Ranch Rd.
Edwin & Patricia Fichtner
332 Old Ranch Road
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
ATTACHMENT 5
Ccp 1' j dl .. , _,
September 9, 2015
To: Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
Subject: Appeal Case No. 15-007; 1305 Newport Avenue
Hello:
We are writing in support of the appeal filed by Julie Burkhart concerning the community
development director's decision to approve a vacation rental in our neighborhood.
We Jive across the street from the 1305 Newport, and we have heard unacceptable noise coming
from vacation renters there on many nights. It is important to note that on our stretch of Newport
"across the street" actually means across one street, down a substantial embankment, and across
another street. If we can hear the vacationers' reveling from that distance, we can only imagine the
disturbances the immediate neighbors on that side of the street must be enduring.
Ours is a neighborhood of single family homes and is far from the beach communities where one
might expect to find a vacation rental. We urge you to recognize this and reverse your decision.