HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/10/1978M I N U T E S
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1978 - 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
990 PALM STREET
Roll Call
I Councilmen
PRESENT: Councilmen Dunin, Jorgensen, Petterson, Settle and Mayor Schwartz
ABSENT: None
City Staff
PRESENT: J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; Allen Grimes, City Attorney; R.D.
Miller, City Administrator; Henry Engen, Director of Community
Development; Dan Smith, Senior Planner; Richard Minor, Fire Chief;
Mikel Park, Fire Marshal; Jim Petroni, Arson.Investigator; Jim
Stockton, Director of Parks & Recreation; Roger Neuman, Police
Chief
Mayor Schwartz stated that, due.to the interest of the people attending, the
Council would start with Item 2, which was a continued discussion by the
Council on the matter of three or more unrelated persons living in a single -
family dwelling in R -1 Zones.
Dan Smith, Senior Planner, stated that the City was being called upon to settle
conflicts between neighbors. A number of people in various single - family neigh-
borhoods complained that a few of the residents of the neighborhoods were
conducting themselves in a manner which violated the neighborhood standard of
peace, order and quiet. They felt that this.standard was expected by almost all
of the residents of the various neighborhoods and that they were also entitled to
similar conditions. They contended that a few individuals violated the peace,
order, and quiet in the following manner:
1. By allowing excess noise by playing music too loud, by having
too many parties late at night, creating excessive traffic noise
with their vehicles, and sometimes drunk and disorderly.
2. By overcrowding themselves into single - family dwellings and by
having too many automobiles which tend to violate the neighbor's
sense of space.
3. By allowing their yard to run down to the point of detracting from
the overall beauty of the neighborhood and depreciating the value
of other homes in the neighborhood.
4. By occupying single - family houses with unrelated adults who generally
pursue lifestyles which conflict with the lifestyles of the traditional
family occupants of this housing type.
He continued that the complainants were demanding the City enforce Municipal
Laws which they felt would eliminate or substantially lessen the nuisances
created by their neighbors. They felt that these laws were adopted to preserve
the peace, order and quiet of residential neighborhoods and should be enforced.
The laws most frequently mentioned were:
1. The City Noise Ordinance which establishes a quantified standard
for noise traveling beyond the property lines of its source.
2. The City Zoning Ordinances which prohibits the occupancy of any
dwelling unit by more than one - family which by definition is not
more than three unrelated individuals.
City Council Minutes
January 10, 1978
Page 2
The City had traditionally been very weak in enforcing these laws because:
1. The Noise Ordinance is difficult and time consuming to enforce. The
Courts have been very cautious about violating individual freedoms
and have thereby required substantial evidence for prosecution. This
evidence is usually in the form of several sworn complaints by
separate neighbors which are difficult for Policemen-to obtain or it
is in the form of noise readings which show that the noise in question I
was excessive and sustained over a reasonably long period. This is also
difficult to obtain.
2. Housing in the City has been expensive and in short supply. There
was a.large student population requiring low to moderate income
housing and satisfy this need by grouping together in single - dwelling
unit. The City has tried to accommodate students sharing a dwelling
unit in excessive numbers because of the scarcity of housing. Most
of the students have proven to be good neighbors and have integrated
with permanent residents of the community. They have added a dimension
of spirit and vitality to the community and the City has been sensitive
to their needs along with other community members.
The City Staff had questioned the enforcibility of the one - family per dwelling
occupancy limitation because, like the noise ordinance it required difficult to
obtain evidence to enforce. It was a time consuming, enormous task to obtain
conclusive proof that a dwelling was inhabited by more than three unrelated
individuals without violating people's civil rights. Policemen-have other
important duties of life and safety to which to attend. The Zoning Code
Enforcement Officer (assigned to spend one -half his time on Code Enforcement)
was overburdened with other enforcement items and was not on duty at night when
residents were home. The occupancy violations were fairly widespread. Attention
devoted to one or two households might be interpreted as selective enforcement
and thereby discrimination.
On the other hand, everyone seemed reluctant to suggest the repeal of the law '
because in most cases it seemed to represent a reasonable occupancy standard,
especially in the R -1 Zone and should be retained as a standard, although its
enforcement appears impractical.
Dan Smith continued that some Councilmen had indicated that they were willing to
enforce the ordinance. Others supported the ordinance but were reluctant to
enforce it until overall community housing needs were addressed. One Councilman
had addressed the feasibility of a license.to rent houses which would provide a
method for systematic enforcement with the primary burden of conformity on the
landlords. All of the Councilmen were interested in enforcing the noise ordinance
with reasonable discretion in its application.
Staff in recent meetings had arrived at a consensus that enforcement of the
dwelling unit - occupancy limit alone would not solve complaints submitted by the
neighbors. In fact it might be the most difficult to enforce and at the same
time yield the least results. Three unrelated individuals who were rowdy,
careless, and insensitive, could be much more of a nuisance than four or five
individuals of the opposite character. It was agreed that enforcement of the
specific nuisance complaint would be the most effective route to pursue.
Staff felt that the City should obtain the most sophisticated noise meter within
a reasonable.price range and step up enforcement of this ordinance. The City
Attorney felt that a noise meter that screened out other than the intended..noise
to be measured and recorded.noise measurements might be more acceptable in
Court. The Planning Staff felt that calls to property owners warning of complaints'
of violations of the noise ordinance and dwelling unit occupancy limit had been
effective in making better neighbors of certain people who were the subject
of complaints. Staff agreed that a coordinated effort between Planning and
Police on both ordinances could thereby be effective. Staff agreed that no
additional modifications to the noise ordinance were necessary.
Although the problem appeared to have been given a cursory analysis,.there was
a constant concerted effort to understand the problems with all of its dimensions
and implications to various citizens involved. The basic premise of the recom-
mendation that follows was to recognize the seriousness of the problem, but not
City Council.Minutes
January 10, 1978
Page 3
to over- compensate with recommendations for new laws or sophisticated
mechanisms to achieve.what might otherwise be achievable through a consistent
and rational application of existing provisions through acceptable, time -
consuming procedures.
Therefore, after assessing the problem and giving due consideration to the
rights and needs of all the citizens involved in the problem, the City Staff
submitted the following recommendation understanding that the effectiveness of
the provisions were to be evaluated after a specific period of time:
A. Retain the dwelling unit occupancy maximum.of three unrelated
people, but revise the zoning ordinance to make the provision more
explicit and identify the property owner as the responsible party
for compliance.
B. Publicize through the City's Newsletter and through the City's real estate
organizations the provisions of the ordinance in regard to unrelated indi-
viduals.
C. Instruct Staff to give highest priority over other zoning violations,
to the enforcement of the above provisions wherever its violation is
noted by neighborhood complaints as a general nuisance. Zoning Enforce-
ment Staff would coordinate its efforts with the Police Department.
D. Instruct.the Police Department to continue with increased enforcement
of violations of the noise ordinance.
E. Purchase for the Police Department, the recommended described meter which
will help insure conviction of noise ordinance violators.
F. Encourage the Police Department to solicit cooperation of neighbors in
' obtaining sworn complaints of noise violations. Request complainants
who--have signed petitions to cooperate with the Police Department if
asked.
G. Instruct the City Attorney to give high - priority to the enforcement
of these ordinances.
H. Instruct the City Staff to report quarterly on enforcement activities
in general and the effectiveness of the above program in particular and
provide estimates of the budgetary impact of any recommended ordinance
aimed at resolving enforcement issues (e.g. use permits for rental
occupancies).
City Attorney Allen Grimes stated that he disagreed with the analysis of the
Planning Staff's statement that the matter of three unrelated persons living
in a residence could not be controlled. He read for the Council's information,
several recent court decisions that upheld the right of the City to protect
single - family residential neighborhoods. He also felt that an area of enforce-
ment would be for the Fire Department to inspect multiple dwellings for occupancy
standards based on the City's Fire Code.
Police Chief Roger Neuman stated that he was in support of strict enforcement
of the Zoning Ordinance and noise Ordinance and all other ordinances adopted
by the City. He stated that in almost every instance of a noise complaint it
was from a violation of a zoning regulation, including the matter of vehicle
violations in areas where zoning and occupancy regulations were violated. He
felt that, without a great increase in City Personnel, that the City.should
begin a program of handling each complaint until the entire problem had been
corrected.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
Joe Arsenio, 2053.Hays Street, felt that, based on the prior discussion of
the City Council with City Employees, showed that the City Council was aware of
the nuisances being perpetrated on the residents of single - family neighborhoods
by group living arrangements, with the attendant noise, traffic, lack of
parking, etc. He felt the Council being aware of the problem, why didn't they
City Council Minutes
January 10, 1978
Page 4
demand enforcement of the City Laws by the paid employees of the City. He
stated on behalf of himself and his neighbors, they would support the strict
enforcement of.all laws already on the books and agree that the property owners
should be responsible for whomever he rented.:to.
Sylvia Drucker, 1317 Cavalier Way_: (Laguna Lake), stated that the first five
homes were rentals and three were rented to more than three students each with
a great number of vehicles that constantly went up and down Cavalier Way in '
addition to the lack of parking to support these multiple dwelling uses. She
felt that something should be done to allow only families in R -1 Zones and
not for group living arrangements.
Joe Johnson, 1301 Cavalier, agreed and stated that he ..lived with four other
students who each owned a motor vehicle. He stated that he felt they tried
to be good neighbors to Mrs. Drucker and that the City should be very careful in
enforcing the ordinance so that the students were allowed to live in a better
environment.
Henry Alberts, 1248 Madonna Road, gave examples of nuisances imposed on him by
group living in R -1 homes. He felt that a number of people living in a
dwelling made a difference to the neighborhood as did their lifestyles compared
to those of families. He felt that the first step was strict enforcement of
the -noise ordinance which was the chief ordinance caused by group dwellings.
He felt that any ordinances adopted by the City should be enforced by City
employees or get new City employees to enforce the City's laws. He felt
that the City should get tough on the violator and not on the victim.
Howard Brown, 276 Graves Street, felt that the City should protect those
citizens who had established family dwellings in the R -1 Zones and not
ignore the group dwellings. He felt the ordinance should be enforced.
Cathy Meyer, San Luis Obispo, felt that with new noise restrictions at
10:00 P.M., that would help reduce some of the nuisance. She felt that it
did not matter how many people live in the residence, its how it operated
and how they felt about their neighbors. She felt the City should not get after
everyone with three or more people living in the house, but only those upon
which complaints have been levied.
Walt Crawford, 297 Chorro Street, suggested that the City should adopt a use
permit procedure for all rentals within the City.
Fred Schott, San Luis Obispo, urged enforcement of.the ordinance by putting
responsibilities on the landlords to comply. He made a study and stated that
every student housing complex in the City had many vacancies. He also stated
that single - family homes were riot being sold to families, but were being sold
to those who wished to rent to groups for the higher revenues.
Bonnie Petersen, 2003 Chorro Street, supported the abilities of students to share
housing due to the saving in costs and the better lifestyles for the people
involved.
Mario Rizzoli, 2077 Slack Street, stated that all new sales in his area
had been sold to individuals who planned on developing group living quarters
as this seemed to bring in the most revenue for single - family homes. This
resulted in local families not being able to buy due to the high inflated
values caused by people who were on student housing rental business.
Gail Moyes, 1831 Fixlini, complained that at 1862 Fixlini Street,.it had
been developed from a single - family dwelling into a multiple group dwelling. He
felt that the City should enforce the R -1 Zone. He listed parking violations,
noise, loose animals, etc.
Brian Houser, 560 Hathway Street, supported noise ordinance but objected to
the City enforcing the number of persons who.lived together which he felt was
unfair and only should be enforced on complaint.
City Council Minutes
January 10, 1978
Page 5
Chris Gatley, 1456 Slack Street, student, who was also
felt that the violation to the zoning ordinance should
those who caused.parking, noise and other problems and
be in violation. He stated he had five students in hi
college property with permits and they attempted to be
annoy anyone.
a landlord, stated he
only be enforced on
not everyone who might
s house, they parked on
good neighbors and not
Herb Pardoe, 1441 Slack Street, stated that all the citizens in the City were
asking for was that the existing ordinances should be enforced when three or
more individuals were living in a single - family home and not against students
per se, just anyone who is in violation.
Doug Hawkins, 327 High Street, supporting fair enforcement of all the City's
laws, not only against students but anyone in the City who was in. violation.
Herb Rasmussen, 1456.Slack Street, wondered what the cost would be to the
City to enforce this portion of the zoning ordinance dealing with three or more
residents in R -1 Zones. He felt that the only way to beat the
high cost of living was for groups to join together in group.living styles
and he would support a program of selective enforcement and not mass enforcement.
Mrs. Fennema, 1475 Slack Street, felt that the R -1 Zone should be protected
for family zoning and not for group living quarters. She urged use permit for
all zones including.R -1 with limits to families only.
H. Busselen,.807 Skyline Drive., felt that the zoning ordinance should be
enforced, including the provisions governing three or more residents. He felt
that he purchased in an R -1 Zone for family protection, but now he found that
his neighbors had developed R -3 uses in his neighborhood. He felt that this
was wrong and that the ordinance should be enforced and the City should protect
those living in R -1 Zones.
' Henry Alberts, 1248 Madonna Road, asked why the zoning definition allowed.
unrelated individuals.
Sylvia Drucker, 1317 Cavalier-Way, again spoke in support of enforcing of the
provisions of the City Ordinance. She supported strict enforcement - she could
not understand how this ordinance could be on the books for so many years with-
out being enforced by the City employees. She stated her question was not whether
the law was right or wrong, but who would enforce the law.
Joe Arsenio, 2053 Hays.Street, felt that, due to the City not enforcing the
ordinance, his R -1 neighborhood was slowly being converted to R -3 uses due to the
laxity-of City Enforcement Officials..
Officer Ed Martin, Police Department Teamleader (Laguna Lake Area), stated that
he had made a study at the request of the City Police Department using the regis-
trations at Cal Poly,.reviewing the Lakewood Tract, the Laguna Lake Tract and
west of Los Osos Road and found that in the Lakewood Tract, over 100 Poly students
enrolled at the present time lived on Lima and Vicente Streets with lack of
parking, noise and other conditions. In the new Laguna Lake Tract, out of 63
homes, 23 were occupied by students in group quarters. He then stated that
west of Los Osos Road in the E1 Tigre Court Area, over 250 students registered
at Poly lived in the area. He continued that most complaints received by the
Police Department were:
1. Noise
2. Lack of parking
3. Lack of control over .animals
Finally, he stated that reviewing the registrations at Cal Poly, over 800
students at Cal Poly lived in the Laguna Lake Area.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
9:10 P.M., Mayor Schwartz declared a recess.
9:25 P.M., the meeting was reconvened with all Councilmen present.
City Council Minutes
January 10, 1978
Page 6
Fire Chief Dick Minor stated that the Fire Department responsibility regarding
occupancy did not apply in residential properties or to three or more unrelated
persons in the R -1 Zones and he was not sure in what way his Department could be
of help in the enforcement of this ordinance.
Councilman Settle stated that what the Council had heard tonight was a litany
of long- standing violations and lack of enforcement by the City of its zoning
laws. He felt that the R -1 zone should be protected from becoming- multiple '
use districts with its higher assessments in taxes. He felt the City had the
responsibility to control uses under the various zoning laws and he felt
that the City should enforce its ordinances, if that was what this community
desired. He felt that property owners should be held responsible for the use of
his property and see that his property complied with all City laws. He felt
that the Staff's solution was an attempt to arrive at a fair result, and he
supported them in an attempt to solve this perplexing problem.
Councilman Dunin stated he felt this was a long- standing problem and could
not and would not be solved immediately. He felt the Staff should develop a
definite program of enforcement and inform the Council of their plans. He
also felt that the property owner should be held responsible. He urged that
the City develop some type of use permit procedure for multiple uses in the
R -1 Zones. He also felt that anyone renting property in the City should
register with the City so that some control could be exercised. He felt that
one of the causes of inflation in real estate costs in the City was that specula-
tors were buying R -1 homes and placing them into multiple use with the attendant
increase in revenue.
Councilman Petterson.stated that he felt the City Staff and employees should
be directed to enforce the City laws and ordinances. He felt that the R -1
zones should be protected for family living. He felt all City Department's
should work to clear up the long- standing violation of the zoning laws. He
felt that if City Police and Fire Departments would enforce their area of ,
responsibilities, this problem could be reduced. Finally, he stated that he
did not know what another study and report by the Staff would prove. He felt
there were enough reports and studies now and he would like to see some action by
the employees in the enforcement of the ordinances adopted by the City Council.
Councilman Jorgensen reviewed some of the reasons why the matter of group
dwellings in single - family homes had increased over the years. He felt, because
of the changing lifestyles of people, they preferred to join together for group
living and sharing of living costs. He would support the enforcement of the
ordinance as it applied to the R -1 Zone and would also support a use permit
system for all rentals in R -1 Zones,.although he admitted that there would be
administrative headaches. He would support a full -time zoning enforcement
officer due to the magnitude of the problem. He felt that there were many
avenues of information available to the City Staff to enforce the ordinances
such as the University Registration, water service records, etc. He also
felt that the enforcement should be against the property owner and not the
tenants. He would support vigorous enforcement of the ordinance, recognizing
the high administrative costs involved. He would support the elimination of
noise violations to be treated as infractions. He also thought the real
estate industry should be asked to comply with City laws by informing their
clients and making full disclosure of City laws. He also felt that possibly
the City Staff should look into the issuance of parking permits to park in
residential areas. Finally he felt that it was shocking to him that Cal Poly
University had taken no responsibility for housing problems caused by the
people attending that institution. He would hope that the City and University '
could get some dialogue going on this and other student oriented problems.
He suggested a committee of students, University Administration and City
Council look into these and other problems to the mutual benefit of all concerned.
Mayor Schwartz stated that he felt that the ordinance definition of family
was good. He felt that the problem had been.a lack of continuous enforcement
of this and other provisions of the zoning laws except upon complaint; and
as soon as the complaints stopped the enforcement stopped. He felt the City
should continue to enforce the zoning ordinances on an ongoing basis.
City Council Minutes
January 10, 1978
Page.7
He felt the zoning plan was viable and should be enforced. He felt most people
supported the zoning laws and hoped that the City would enforce their own laws.
He urged strict enforcement of the ordinances that would hurt some people, but he
felt a great number of people would benefit from this enforcement while a great
number of people had been hurt because of lack of enforcement. He felt the
City should protect the R -1 regulations and enforce the ordinance. He felt the
Staff recommendation was reasonable and should proceed with enforcement. He
agreed with Councilman Petterson that the Administration should start an
enforcement program as outlined by the Planning Department and he felt that they
should start in the R -1 Zone immediately.
On motion of Councilman Settle, seconded by Councilman Dunin, that the City
Council accept the eight recommendations of the staff report with enforcement
in the R -1 Zone only and Staff should look into other mitigating circumstances
such as use permit requirement for multiple uses, Fire Department recommended
densities, etc. Motion carried, all ayes.
1. At this time the City Council received a report on activities of
Standing Council Subcommittees:
A) Area Council of Governments - Councilman Settle
B) CCJC - Councilman Petterson
C) Water Advisory Board - .Mayor Schwartz
D) Whale Rock Commission - Mayor Schwartz
E). Zone 9 Advisory Committee - Councilman Dunin
F) League Committee on Revenue and 'Taxation - Mayor Schwartz
Mayor Schwartz-reviewed for the Council the information he received at a
recent League Committee on Revenue and Taxation dealing with the League's
position on the Jarvis Amendment on Mobile Home Taxation and on Tax Relief
in general.
3. The matter of handling or limiting repetitive repeals on the same item
was continued for future discussion.
4. 10:45 P.M., the City Council adjourned to Executive Session.
The City Council reconvened at 10:55 P.M., all Councilmen present.
There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor-Schwartz
adjourned the meeting to 12:10 P.M., Monday, January 16, 1978.
APPROVED: March 7, 19781.��
J . Fi patrick, City Clerk
------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
M I N U T E.S
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 1978 - 12:10 P.M.
COUNCIL HEARING ROOM, CITY HALL
Roll Call
Councilmen
PRESENT: Ron Dunin, Jeff Jorgensen, Steve Petterson, Allen Settle
and Mayor Kenneth E. Schwartz
ABSENT: None
City Staff
PRESENT: J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; Allen Grimes, City Attorney;
R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer; Henry Engen, Director
of Community Development; Dan Smith, Senior Planner