Since Measure T was overturned by an El Dorado judge primarily due to the QVHR clause (which could be removed) the City Council issued guidelines towards restarting modified VHR operations within residential communities outside of the tourist core area.  In recent days a number of opinions have been published that focused on the preceived impact Measure T had on businesses in our city.  In my opinion, any business impact in the timespan in question had more to due with the COVID situation and a weaker economy but that discussion can be for another time.  My intent is to express some thoughts about the proposed guidelines from the perspective of a resident. 

By way of background, I have owned my home since 1987 and live in the Bijou area.  Unfortunately, my home has been surrounded by properties that were operated like VHRs before Measure T; i.e., front, back, and both sides.  It is also the case that some of these properties continued to operate like a VHR post-Measure T.  However, Measure T did greatly reduce the times I found it necessary to call the VHR complaint phone line due to noise, spa use after hours, parking, and trash.  In short, while not perfect, it worked!

Given the City Council has decided to move ahead with modifications to Measure T versus removing the QVHR content, which is disappointing but not surprising, I offer the following comments on some of the suggested changes:

  • A buffer area of 150 feet is being proposed.  How is the distance determined?  By property line, location of living structure?  Condos are being considered exempt but what about the mega-houses being built (like the one on Herbert Avenue which was considered a VHR but you could park up to 20+ cars)?
    • Personally, some limit by block or location to avoid being surrounded by VHR operation would be desired.
  • The term, good standing, is used in determining whether a prior VHR can restart or continue operations.  What is the definition of good standing?  If a violation occurs and a fine is not paid is the VHR in question in good standing?  Some of the data I have seen regarding fines imposed but not collected would indicate a better job needs to be done.  What about a VHR in violation having its permit withdrawn unless fine is paid?  If any appeal is granted, refund the fine.
    •  What are the appeal guidelines? What are the timelines for appeal?
  • The noise monitoring and video of trash/parking areas is fine, but while VHR properties state they have it installed, to be effective, it has to be professionally used by the agent involved. A couple of the properties that surround my home indicate they have noise monitoring but clearly it was not being used, resulting in complains being made.
  • Some documented and signed proof that the rules regarding noise, parking, spa usage, and trash have been communicated and understood by VHR guests must be evident prior to check-in.  Also, the rules need to be visually displayed within the VHR property.
  • While the cap number for VHRs is being lowered, I would like it to be better coordinated with the number in a residential neighborhood.
  • Enforcement must be measured in actions, not words!

I freely admit that my opinions may seem to not favor modifying Measure T but rather continuing with its spirit of not having VHRs in residential communities but as a resident, I do not want the issues of noise, spa usage, parking and trash to once again be problems for residents who only want to enjoy their neighborhood.

Bob Lewin,  Resident