HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/01/1989, 4 - RENTAL RESIDENTIAL REGULATIONS MEETING DATE:
city of San lues OBISpo 8-1-89
J,
WMA, COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 11 NUMBER:
FROM: Randy Rossi, Interim Community Development Director; By: Da id Moran,
Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Rental Residential Regulations
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Discuss this Council work program item and continue discussion until Fall, 1989.
BACKGROUND
The attached memo was sent to the Council on June 29, 1989 in response to a suggestion
made by residents of Albert Drive that the city investigate the feasibility of regulating
rental housing in the city as a means of mitigating neighborhood compatibility problems.
After reviewing the memo, the council decided to agendize this item to allow the public
an opportunity to provide input on this Council work program item. The purpose of
tonight's meeting is to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this approach and provide
direction to staff on possible further investigation. If the Council wishes to pursue
this approach, we will begin working with affected parties to draft policy statements,
regulations and complete environmental review for public hearings in the fall when Cal
Poly is back in session.
If there are any questions, please call Randy Rossi, Interim Community Development
Director at 549-7172.
Attachments
June 29 Memo to Council
Letter from John Cotton and GlennaDeane Dovey
City of Davis Commercial Residential Business License Ordinance
� � �N��I�I►► city osAn luis oBispoAl
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
June 29, 1989
TO: City Council
VIA: John Dunn, CAO
FROM: Terryy S�anville, Acting Community Development Director
PREPARED BY-Dani Moran, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Rental Residential Regulations: Introduction and Issues
• I. Introduction
At its April 18, 1989 meeting, the Council received a letter (see attached) from John
Cotton and GlennaDeane Dovey, 216 Albert Drive, requesting that the city investigate the
feasibility of regulating rental housing in the city as a means of maintaining
neighborhood compatibility. The ordinance concept suggested by Ms. Dovey and Mr. Cotton
_ is to treat the rental of residential properties as a commercial use in the R-1 zone and
set minimum performance standards whose primary purpose is to mitigate potential parking,
noise and property maintenance problems.
After receiving public testimony, the Council directed staff to draft a policy statement
that would help direct the development of an ordinance. Most recently, the City Council
reviewed and supported a proposal to include the preparation of rental residential
regulations as a part of its work program. The summary page for this proposal (B-4)
includes the following objective:
The city wants to promote the quality of life in residential neighborhoods by
ensuring that rental housing is regulated and provides adequate support
facilities such as on-site parking.
The council's action to include this objective and project description as part of its
work program eliminates the need for the policy statement previously requested.
What follows is a brief background on the problem and the identification of some of the
key issues that will need to be addressed.
I1. Background and Proposed Ordinance Concept
There has been a growing perception of an increase in compatibility and nuisance problems
in several of the.city's single family and some multifamily neighborhoods. The number,
frequency and location of neighborhood complaints suggests that the problem is at least
partly attributable to a shift in the housing preferences of rental households consisting
of unrelated adults from multifamily apartment settings; to detached single family
residences. The by-product of this housing and household choice has been, in some cases,
an increase in nuisances to surrounding dwellings which are primarily (but not always)
owner-occupied..Among the areas of concern most frequently cited are increased noise,
inadequatc'offstreet parking, and the lack of property maintenance.
Page 2
In response to these concerns, the Community Development Department sponsored a workshop
in March of last year to help identify the source of the problems and to suggest
corrective action. Out of this effort came a number of alternatives which staff was
directed to investigate, including a suggestion that the city re-evaluate the way
allowable density and required parking for new projects is determined. These and many
other alternatives are being evaluated as part of an ongoing work program related to
housing, density and neighborhood compatibility.
While the adoption of new development standards could improve the compatibility of new
projects, they would not directly mitigate problems in existing neighborhoods which are
typically composed of both owner-occupied as well as rental households. One approach
toward solving this problem is to treat the rental of residences as a commercial use
subject to minimum performance standards in a manner similar to the Commercial
Residential Business Ordinance enacted in 1987 by the City of Davis.
The key aspects of the Davis ordinance are:
' The rental of any house, or room in a house, is considered a business and must
obtain a business license.
' Although the ordinance is worded so that it applies to all rentals (see
attached) it is enforced and administered on a complaint basis only.
To obtain approval for a commercial residential business license with jive or
fewer adult occupaytts, the dwelling must satisfy the following 5 ordinance
criteria:
1. No more than 5 adults may occupy a rental dwelling.
2. The dwelling must meet all building, fire and health codes (ie, it must.
meet minimum habitability requirements)
3. The dwelling must contain a minimum 300 square feet of usable floor area
per adult.
4. A minimum of two offstreet parking spaces must be provided per dwelling OR
I offstreet space per adult, less one space, whichever is greater. (For
example, a household with 5 adults would need to provide 5-1=4 offstreet
parking spaces.)
5. The dwelling must provide I bathroom for every three adults.
• If the dwelling were to be occupied by more than five adult occupants, a use
permit is required. The purpose of the permit..is to ensure compliance with the
above performance criteria, provide for public review and to enable discretion
to approve, conditionally approve or deny a proposal.
Attached is an ordinance concept suggested by Ms. Dovey and Mr. Cotton. It differs
slightly from the Davis ordinance in its performance standards and application, in that:
` 1
1. It applies only to the R-1 zone.
�f-3
Page 3
2. Use permit approval and adherence to the minimum floor area and parking criteria
would be required only when a dwelling is to be occupied by 5 or more adults. A
dwelling with five or fewer resident adults would be exempt from the performance
criteria.
3. There would be no minimum requirement for bathrooms per adult, as in Davis.
4. The required parking would have to be provided beyond the required street yard
(rather than in tandem in the driveway, for example).
The proponents also suggest that the ordinance and performance criteria be applied only
on a complaint basis.
III. Implementation Issues
An ordinance concept such as this raises a number of questions related to implementation,
in the areas of constitutionality, administration and enforcement and effectiveness in
solving the problems identified.
Constitutionality — Recent case law would suggest that regulating the number of
persons residing in a dwelling can be done legally by establishing performance criteria`
for the particular land use. Regulations which prohibit certain household types are
considered discriminatory because they attempt to regulate the user rather than the
use itself. For this reason, tieing the application and enforcement of an ordinance to a
specific class of user (ie, five or more adults in arental dwelling) may be considered
discriminatory. If the courts determine that the ordinance must be applied to all rentals
regardless of the number of occupants and type of household, it would become a major
administrative commitment on the part of the city (see below).
Conversely, the performance criteria outlined above relating to health, safety and
welfare issues such as parking, noise and property maintenance are on relatively firm
ground so long as they are reasonable. Collectively and indirectly they may limit the
number of persons residing in a given residence, but more importantly they are intended
to mitigate the most frequently cited nuisance problems.
Administration and Enforcement -- The administration of this ordinance will be
significant, especially during the first years of its application. For this reason, the
council's draft work program summary includes$40,000 per year for two years to hire a
contract enforcement person to administer this ordinance and the property maintenance
ordinance. At the end of the contract period, the city can better assess the ongoing need.
for staff and include budget recommendations as pant of the 1991-1993 Financial Plan.
If the ordinance were applied to all rentals, there remains the problem of determining
which households are renters and how many "adults" lixe there. The business license
process provides one avenue of identifying property owners in the rental business. At
present, a business license is not required for the rental of dwellings. However, the
city is currently working on a revision to the municipal code which would require a
business license for all rentals.
Page 4
Assuming we could identify the rental properties, it is unknown how many of them could
comply with new standards for parking and minimum floor area. By adopting more
restrictive parking and floor area requirements for all R-1 rentals, the city could be
rendering a significant number of dwellings ineligible for rental use. if rentals could
not be occupied by as many tenants as in the past, the impact of this displacement would
be a key element in the environmental review of any proposed ordinance.
Would It Solve The Problem And/Or Create Others? -- Finally is the question of
whether this approach would solve compatibility problems. Clearly, if the city could
devise and enforce a legal ordinance, we would be in a better position to mitigate the
potential nuisance problems. However, we would recommend caution in using the Davis
ordinance as a model for San Luis Obispo. While the City of Davis Planning Department
maintains that their ordinance has mitigated the noise, parking and other nuisance
problems in the cases where it has been applied, it may be because:
-- The ordinance was enacted as a response to a handfull of problem properties who
were made to conform. Since the ordinance is enforced on a complaint basis, the
vast majority of rental properties in the city do not comply and are not
regulated unless the city receives a complaint.
-- In Davis, the majority of rental properties are managed by only two local rental
management companies. Since their livelihood depends on their rental business, _
they have been willing participants in the program. In San Luis Obispo, rentals
are owned and operated by individuals and companies alike with no one group
claiming a controlling interest.
-- Because the ordinance is enforced on a complaint basis and the rentals are
controlled by two local companies, it has not been challenged in court.
IV. Next Steps
During the next four to six months, the staff will be evaluating these and other issues
and working with affected parties to draft policy statements, regulations, and complete
environmental review. We anticipate that there will be significant public participation
in the development of this ordinance and that both positive and negative impacts of an
ordinance will be of significant community concern.
If a council person has additional comments, concerns or ideas, please contact John Dunn
or the Community Development Department.
Attachments: letter dated 2/28/89
proposed ordinance concept
City of Davis Commercial Residential Business Ordinance
City of san Luis OBisp0 1W
_ z COUNCIL AGENDA REPORTfT9N NUMBER
FROM:
and Councilwoman Rappa
SUBJECT:
PRESERVATION OF R-1 NEIGHBORHOODS
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Direct staff to review and draft a policy statement and statutory
requirements to provide safeguards to residential neighborhoods, possibly
through additional parking controls..
BACKGROUND:
The attached letter from John Cotton and GlennaDeane Dovey was received by
Council and staff on February 28. 1989. It raises concerns by residents in
• R-1 neighborhoods and requests the review and adoption of a city policy
dealing with population density in R-1 and condominium housing.
Staff has met with some of the resid is and provided some suggestions. At
this time, it is requested that sta be directed to review and draft
language based upon the attached p oposal for early Council review (no later
than June 1 . 1989) .
Attachments: Letter from John Cotton and GlennaDeane Dovey dated 2/28/89
Discussion Draft —Housing Ordinance - Neighborhood Liability
' .-+ic%:i '' 'rt+•y •W^- vi( Mme•..'.•. y. .��^:e.; -,� '. -'LiL. =.'MJ.i" ii.�•,yy..:ara�..A.
' %?�y ,• -_ ;..;�:6.��':-;•�ir�� ', .', fGl4:.�1t.�.�• ;: .. .�•�.:;y;�'.y.7•}.,�1'�';v• r....• `�'�,,/��yf a:
•,: : :1 ;�..�.:-::?ia '`�^,,.��!/5' f'y•:', ry!a:;X.7.?:::rt.f...•'^_ .•;,. .ts;.�::71R..:'�` tet'' :.:F4 '.i�••^A�� `
.. -• \S.S t t-.,��1` J..'+q• �♦ . •%�1:�`. a �'F ..•'•�_♦ a.T ..�...• .p..rte•
February 28,..ag8g ' W'
yS'. . .•. carpi•', — f,•.,-.y.' �-.,:{,.�.•• ,
4.
c, Mayor �DaniII
City of ._Lui&-Obispo
P.O..'Boa['8100
San Luis _Obispo, California
Dear Mayor Dunin:
We are resideuts.of the many R-1 neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo who
bought our..hcmesr.aften .mny-years ago, with the 'expectation that these
areas would be family oriented as veil as stable and quiet ones'for
older citizens. Because' the trend in recent years has been toward the
use of many of these homes as domiciles for large numbers of non-family
groups, we have serious concerns about the traffic, parking and noise
problems which have resulted.
We have, therefore, met together to discuss these concerns and develop a
proposal for dealing with this city-wide problem. We are submitting a
concept which we hope the City Council rill find worthy of study and
discussion. Our ultimate desire is for the adoption of a city policy
along the lines of this concept which will deal with population density
in R-1 and condominium housing.
Michael Multari, Community Development Director, has met with us and
made suggestions which we found most helpful in our efforts to cue up
with a fair and reasonable proposal. We would very much appreciate
seeing this issue on the earliest possible Council agenda in order to
have public hearings before people leave for the summer.
Members of our group would be happy to meet with you and staff members
to answer questions or clarify our proposal. Please call Dorothy Conner
at 543-8182.
Sincerely,
Y
n Cotton GlennaDeane W. Dovey
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
216 Albert Drive
San Luis Obispo
RECEIVED
CC: CouncilmPukip + Pinard, Rappai Reiss, and Settle APR 61QW
John Dunne City Administrative Officer orraEAK
Michael Maltari, Ca®mity Develapmeilt Director SAftUpSo9S `G
dim 6�rrhB-y, �O/iG p, Glioma
����'V 004
i''RGi-USCIL L:Gk4t:EP-o
1 - EstdGllsn a use Clasi71cat1un LUrIiIEFi;li,� r..c:llrEvilr,L �:,c..
v wetlllitiOn: Any residential use lir wn:._f, a LvSSJr' Gr• G.r•i7N r`i@',;r r'
receives any forth v7 exchanyF r.ar• is i1E u�:r yr y,l•:
residential dw
BLllily T��r' ai . NI-. r•1Gu r_•7 Stln._.
-- .-+ Use pFr•rlil t rCt' COuuhE•r'C1�
3L r'►_lrlr..11 i. :d1 �_I'�� 1„ 011e
,-on1J am in 1u1A= lu r'e•!Ulr'eo will-fr i�f1!= r`:=j 1!1!�fIL 1 • L - '�'rr= r-1 r' :.I.
LIN IJ r 1TOr'e dAul Cb. -
1 1 1 Il 1111"/ Ul'ie petr`r.l l CJilS ir•
_.. i 1 irot• Rurii.l r•B,T Sc{llar'e Tec L u r
L qc-
pr'O`:lded rpr' «_•..ch t'iv51•jr",lt -.i]LILi;;
v . Une 07'r—s L r,ecjt t+;iir'r:.111.71
-- _1- r•.- r u.-i. .err—= 1 . _ -. _:r
1.7•:•:rt !.11.11 r t: Li Cif,r_. •41 • :i i.�
• r.C'-'re l r -z-!J Ci r—v L rl to - -
�Qr 1 11'.•-1 ot:-11._C-¢• ll. L !IlJ
cl_il= =hall br- ii:1•=� LC_r.� 1-i='Il ll'u., Cf�� r, --r
- =•r••] 'y•=%11 y._r: 1 Lfl•_ 111 nl l
L , 1
rem
'r tl,q'. )I•..i•nnr.trr wt 11 f,r- -
;�-._.nil �:.t' lnr�r 11 !IF y, •ri .. . �
r
DEPARTMENTS:
O COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 216-7563748
f O FISCAL AND INFORMATION SERVICES 756-3742
+I"rT....... O FIRE 758-3743
O LEGAL SERVICES 756$744 --�
O MANAGEMENT SERVICES 758-3745
O PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES 756.3747
O POLICE 7563740
- a O PUBLIC WORKS 758-9746
CITY OF DAVIS 23 Russell Blvd. Davls, CA 85616
October 7, 1987
TO: COMIERciAL RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS LICENSE HOLDERS
On March 4, 1987, the Davis City Council approves as cr%di:.aace amending the
Davis Municipal Code relating to commercial residential use within the City of
Davis.
Commercial residential uses are those in which a lessor or proprietor receives
payment in any fora of exchange for the use of any residential dwelling.
(This includes any single-family residence, or part thereof, any boarding
house, or lodging house.)
Commercial residential use is currently regulated by the City, through the
business licensing process. The ordinance as approved affects commercial
residential use of single-family dwellings and duplexes , specifically
regarding the number of adults in the residence.
Effecti-7e Aoril 3, 1987, co=ereial residential use arrangements, where five
or fewer adults are involved, is considered an accessory use in Residential
One (R-1) , Residential One and Two Family (R-2) , Residential Garden apartment
(R-3) , and Planned Development (PD) districts. In this situation, the lessor
or proprietor is responsible for meeting the City's business license _
requirements and the following performance standards:
- Requirements imposed by Chapters 5, 10, and 12 of the Uniform
Housing Code
- Three hundred square feet of useable floor space shall be provided
for each resident adult
- One off-street parking space shall be provided for each resident
adult, less one, with a minimum of two spaces
- One bathroom must be provided for each three resident adults
Should a commercial residential use arrangement involve six or more adults, in
addition to the business license.requirement, a conditional use permit must be
approved by the City. The conditzional use permit process is as ffllows:
1. An application is made by the property owner (or certified agent) to tha
City. The application form is available at the Comitunity Development
Department, City Hall, 23 Russell Boulevard.
Commercial Residential Business License
October 7. 1987
Page 2
2. The current application fee is $5251 plus an environmental assessment fee
of $50.00.
3. The completed application must include maps and drawings necessary to
demonstrate the appropriate conditions and chat the performance standards
(referenced above) have been met.
4. A public hearing of the application will be scheduled for the Planning
Commission no more than forty-five days from the date of the completed
application (usually within 30 days) .
5. Notice of the hearing will be given to all property owners within 300
feet of the applicant's property.
6. Following the public hearing, a conditional use permit may be issued, if
the Planning Commission is satisfied that any additional conditions and
requirements stipulated as necessary in the public interest have or will
be met, and that such use will not under the circumstances constitute a
nuisance, or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community.
t
If the Planning Commission denies the conditional use ermit, theion and fee
applicant may appeal the decision by filing a: appeal pPP
within 15 days of the Planniag.Commission decision. The appeal hearing
is then scheduled at the City Council, usually within 4 weeks.
7. When appropriate (based upon Planning Commission policy guidelines and
standards) Community Development Department staff can approve or deny a
conditional use permit without referring it to the Planning Commission.
8. An information packet which includes the Zoning Ordinance, applications,
fee schedule, and performance standards is available from the Community
Development Department.
Any increase in the number of people allowed by the conditional use permit
will require a new conditional use permit. when an approved conditional use
permit is not used for six months or longer, a new permit is required to
conduct that activity-
in summary, any commercial residential use within the Citv of Davis requires a
business license and meetin s ecific erformaace standards. A conditional
use- permit is also re uired for six or more adult renters.
Should you have any questions regarding
thZoningfeeOrdinanceee to amenct dmenthe and how
it affects the use of your property, please
ty
Development Department ac (916) 756-3746.
S rarely,
THOMAS 1.-LDHB&AZ0
Community Development. Director
1- r. f "" 'h�,kk+a.!-l.. t s's-i- S' 1 "xY'J•' C -v � V't �v. 'g'^ 5+�. . .'�iY fir,
nCC¢U[ 4 �'<y iI'�,� i S '2`iy$� W`S°}[ P[,^y. -•i T". x i-y' i'i �. aT, ',^^' 1
•+ � i'rei) -�"s'3A7^
aw
RECEIVED MEETING AGENDA
AUG i9�t� CAL POLY _. ITEM #
CITY CLERK CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN LJIS OBISPO CA SAN Luis OBISPO, CA 93407
OFFICE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS
(805) 756-1521
August 1, 1989
Dorives actim,by Lead Person
(Respond by:
1 ouncil
:WCAO
VJ ity Atty.
W(Clerk•orig.
Mayor Ron Dunin �T r
City of San Luis Obispo i FiL1=
P. O. Box 8100 it
San Luis Obispo, California
Dear Mayor Dunin:
I have had an opportunity to review the City Council Agenda Report on Item No. 4,
Rental Residential Regulations. Cal Poly is interested in community concerns with
the student population and is interested in cooperating with the City in addressing
these concerns.
O To this end the university is working with city officials to obtain and analyze
accurate data on residential patterns of our students and I am forming a task force
to review and recommend short-term and long-range activities and policies which the
university might adopt to alleviate some of the expressed concerns. In addition, the
Student Community Liaison Committee has a task force to address these issues.
The issues are complex and require the attention of the city, the university, and the
students. I request that you and the City Council delay action on this agenda item
pending action from these task forces and any other appropriate body reviewing this
issue. Cal Poly is willing to work with the city to respond proactively and
reasonably.
Thank you for consideration of this request.
Sincerely
azel J Cott
Dean of Student ffairs
cc: Warren J. Baker
C�
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
MEET ING AGENDA
DATE 8 ITEM #
July- 21, 1939
RECEIVED
Hon. Aon Dunin, Mayor JUL 2 4 1W!!:j
City of San Luis Obispo
P. 0. Box 8100 CITY CLERK
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
Dear Mr. Mayor:
My quiet street of single-family homes is changing rapidly.
Several of the homes in the immediate neighborhood are now
being used as residence halls or rooming houses for numerous
individuals notin any way connected as a family unit. The
number of persons occupying such a residence is apparently
limited only by the number of sleeping units available on the
premises-. As these , "rooming house" uses proliferate the
character of the neighborhood changes to one of much higher
density, increased traffic , many cars parked on the street,
and greater noise potential. Clearly such uses violate the
spirit and intent of A-1 zoning.
I trust that you will apply your leadership as Mayor and lend
your support toward the enactment of reasonable ordinances to
protect our A-1 neighborhoods from this environmentally damaging
incursion of commercial uses .
Sincerely,
Odra. P. Mc'.Jhinnev
150 Serrano Heights
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
*06notes action by Lead Person
�Gu
R nCil
nd by:
JCAO
J ,Pdy Atty-
U
� r.r
_ MNG AGENDA
DATE 1/1? ITEM #
® ASSOCIATED STUDENTS, INC.
JULIAN A. McPHEE UNIVERSITY UNION
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY
ot or SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93407
EXECUTIVE OFFICE(805)756-1291
4#0001
TO: San Luis Obispo City Councilmembers: DATE: July 24, 1989
Mayor Ron Dunin, Peg Pinard, Penny
Rappa, Jerry Reiss, Allen Settle
FROM: Ricardo Echever 'a RECEIVED
ASI President
Chair, Student/Community son Committee 'JUL 2 6 ','Pq
RE: City Council Agenda Item - Rental CITY CLERK
Residential Regulations SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
Upon becoming aware that the issue regarding Rental Residential Regulations
has been placed as an agenda item for the August 1st meeting of the City
Council , I would like to propose an alternate course of action to best deal
with this topic.
Mayor Dunin had spoken with many concerned community members regarding this
issue and quickly responded by relaying their thoughts at the June meeting
of the Student/Community Liaison Committee. He had promptly requested that
the committee investigate the matter thoroughly and compile a report
containing their results and recommendations.
Due to the fact that the majority of students have left for the summer break
in June, we have been unable to address this issue appropriately. Addition-
ally, we are in the process of appointing new student members to the committee
who will be anxious to begin working on matters such as this in September, as
the academic year commences . The committee has been well alerted to this
issue by the Mayor and we have not undermined its importance.
As chair of the committee, my intention is to invite community members to
express their concerns at the September meeting and consequently allow the
Student/Neighbor Relations sub-committee to work on the matter. In a timely
fashion, I would expect the sub-committee to present us with progressive
recommendations.
Thus, I ask the City Council to refer this issue to the Student/Community
Liaison Committee. This will be an effective way of both resolving this
issue while at the same time, serving to achieve our mutual goal of ever-
improving relations. I would like to request some time to speak at the
August 1st meeting of the Council to discuss this matter furth - enotesacwnbyLeadPerson
Thank you. R ndby:._�_
�I
C
r FiL