HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/1989, 1 - REZONING R1458, RESIDENTIAL RENTAL REGULATIONS u� pipt� r
I��iuI��I�I�II III��IuUlll Cl rW O� SM LUIS OBISPO MEETING DATE89
9-19—
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Imo"NUMBER:
Randy Rossi, Interim Community Development Director; By: David Moran Associate
Planner
SUBJECT: Rezoning R1458, Residential Rental Regulations
CAO RECOMMENDATION
The council should:
1. Concur with the negative declaration on environmental impact, and
2. Introduce an ordinance adding section 17.93 and amending section 17.22 of the Zoning
Code as recommended by the Planning Commission.
INTRODUCTION
At its April 18, 1989 meeting, the city council received a letter (attached) from John
Cotton and GlennaDeane Dovey, who are residents of 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 patterned after the city of Davis, California, Commercial Residential
Business Ordinance which sets minimum performance standards for rentals in the R-1 zone
whose primary purpose is to mitigate potential parking, noise and property maintenance
problems.
At its August 1 meeting, the city council considered pursuing this ordinance concept and,
after receiving public testimony, directed staff to draft an ordinance to return to them
on September 19th, 1989. On September 6th, the Planning Commission considered the draft
regulations prepared by staff which are similar to the concept suggested by the neighbors
and recommended the council approve a revised ordinance (draft ordinance No. 1,
attached).
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The initial environmental study (attached) identified a number of potential adverse
impacts relating to the displacement of renters, the possible increase in rents and
decreased availability of rental housing in the city which could result from the proposed
regulations. Mitigation is included.
FISCAL IMPACTS
The council has authorized $40,000.00 per year for a two-year contract enforcement
position to administer the new regulations, as well as other nuisance abatement
regulations.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
The council may adopt the ordinance patterned on the recommendation of the Planning
Commission or another of your own design. You may choose not to adopt new regulations and
make changes to existing regulations. If new regulations are not adopted, the city will
continue to enforce existing regulations relating to neighborhood compatibility.
city 0� SM WIS osispo
=WHIZ@ COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
R 1458
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: Citywide
Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo
Environmental Status: On August 23, 1989, the Director adopted a negative declaration on
environmental impact.
Evaluation
1. Background and Problem Description — 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 overcrowding,
increased noise, inadequate offstreet parking, and the lack of property maintenance.
In response to these concerns, the Community Development Department sponsored a
workshop in March of 1988 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. In addition, the issue of
neighborhood compatibility has been identified as a council work program for the
upcoming year.
2. Planning Commission Action/Public Participation -- As outlined above, staff was
directed to draft an ordinance based on the concept suggested by the neighbors on
Albert Drive. On September 6th, the Planning Commission considered the proposed
ordinance concept drafted by staff, as well as other alternatives, and voted 4-2 to
recommend that the council adopt an ordinance which incorporates changes suggested by
staff and the neighborhood group. The proposed ordinance (draft ordinance No. 1,
attached) would require an administrative use permit when either of the following two
conditions occur:
1. A dwelling in the R-1 or R-2 zone is occupied by 6 or more adults. OR,
2. The occupants of the dwelling own, possess or use 5 or more vehicles and the
vehicles are parked on a regular basis on the dwelling premises or within the
proximate area (within 500 feet).
The purpose of the use permit is to insure compliance with the following performance
standards:
I
i
1. The parking requirement shall be the greater of: 1) The number of spaces
required for dwellings as described in Section 17.16.060. OR one off-street
parking space per adult occupant, less one.
�������H►�uill{Ipllpn�u�q��U city of San suis OBISpo
= COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
R 1458
Page 3
2. The parking of vehicles within a required yard or setback is prohibited.
3. Upon approval of the Community Development Director, parking may be
provided in tandem, but not within a required yard.
4. A maximum 40% of the area of a site not devoted to buildings may be
occupied by parking.
5. There shall be a minimum of one bathroom provided for every three adult
occupants.
To summarize, the ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission and staff would
attempt to solve the nuisance impacts resulting from adult households by regulating
the amount and location of parking and by establishing a discretionary review process
to insure compatibility of large adult households in particular locations (the
complete text of the ordinance is included in draft ordinance No. 1, attached). The
Commission also felt that the regulations could lead to the establishment of parking
lots in the rear yards of residences, taking up usable outdoor space. For this
reason, the maximum coverage requirement (item 4; above) was included. It should also
be noted that the design of a new parking lot for a dwelling in the R-2 zone would be
subject to architectural review.
The main differences between the regulations recommended by the Planning Commission
and those suggested by the neighbors on Albert Drive Are:
1. The PC recommendation applies to all dwellings in the R-I and R-2 zones. The i
regulations suggested by the neighbors would have applied only in the R-I zone
and only to rentals.
2. The PC recommendation contains no minimum floor area requirement per adult. The
neighbors had suggested a minimum floor area requirement of 300 square feet per
adult when the residence is to be occupied by 6 or more adults.
3. The PC recommendation contains an additional threshold for the use permit
requirement based on the number of vehicles associated with a particular
dwelling.
4. The PC recommendation contains a maximum coverage allowed for parking.
5. No business license requirement is contained in the PC recommendation. However,
in a subsequent motion, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 (one abstention) to
recommend the council change the municipal code to require a business license
for any commercial venture within the city, including the rental of individual
dwellings and rooms. Currently, the code requires a busi;,ess license for the
rental of four or more dwellings on a single parcel.
The Commission seemed divided over whether a new, separate ordinance was needed or
whether better enforcement of existing regulations would be a more equitable
approach. There was a consensus that, regardless of whether the approach involves a
new ordinance or changes to existing ordinances, more aggressive enforcement is
essential. �_�
����nai�►i►wNlll����ni����ll city of san rats osispo -
Oftini COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
R 1458
Page 4
Many people testified regarding the ordinance concept suggested by the neighbors and
the issue of neighborhood compatibility. The Albert Drive neighbors were most
concerned with the deterioration of the quality of life in single family
neighborhoods resulting from the influx of adult rental households. They also made it
clear that they were most concerned with a solution to the problems resulting from
this housing and household choice and that they were open and receptive to
alternative regulations which would help accomplish this goal.
Most of the public testimony was in support of new regulations to solve this problem
so long as they had "teeth" and were equitable to long time residents of these
neighborhoods. There was also concern expressed that, because of the timing of the
hearing process, there was a serious lack of opportunity for student input and
participation because Cal Poly was not yet in session.
3. Suggested Ordinance Concept/Constitutionality Issues -- The ordinance drafted by
staff was based on the suggestion of the Albert Drive neighbors and was patterned
after the Commercial Residential Business Ordinance from the City of Davis. The Davis
ordinance, enacted in 1987, sets minimum performance standards for floor area,
parking and bathrooms for rental dwellings only in the R-1 zone as a function of
the number adult occupants, and requires a use permit when the dwelling is to be
occupied by more than 5 adults. (For a more complete summary of the Davis ordinance,
please refer to the attached letter from the Davis Planning Department). The
ordinance drafted by staff for Planning Commission review included similar
applicability (to rentals only) as well as performance standards. Staff had
recommended caution in using the Davis ordinance as a model for San Luis Obispo i
because of a different rental ownership pattern in Davis and because the ordinance
may not be constitutional.
The main premise of the Davis ordinance and the one which was suggested by the Albert
Drive neighbors is that they make a distinction between rentals and non-rentals by
saying that the business of renting property is in fact a commercial use that should
be regulated in a residential zone. The legality of making this distinction and using
it as a basis for requiring different performance standards for rentals may be
challenged in court. The reason is that, even though the housing is being made
available to the renter through a commercial transaction, the land use is still
residential.
Recent case law (see memo from City Attorneys office, attached) 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. In the case of the ordinance
concept suggested by the Albert Drive neighbors, a particular class of user was
targeted for the application of the performance standards which is, namely,
households of adult renters. Tieing the application and enforcement of the ordinance
to a specific class of user (ie, five or more adults in a rental dwelling) may be
considered discriminatory and could be challenged in court.
Conversely, performance criteria 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 and applied uniformly. The ordinance recommended by the Planning
Commission and staff avoids the discrimination problem because it would be applied
/`
������► i�VIIIII�11�i ��lll city of San LUIS OBISpo
MoGe COUNCIL AGENDA IEP®RT
R 1458
Page 5
to all dwellings in the R-1 and R-2 zones regardless of whether it is renter or
owner occupied. For this reason it would be less vulnerable to a court challenge.
4. Administration and Enforcement -- Based on the proposed wording of the
regulations recommended by the Planning Commission, administration and enforcement
would work like this:
Step 1. A nuisance complaint is received regarding a particular property in the R-1
or R-2 zone, and a Request For Field Investigation form is filed with
the Community Development Department.
Step 2. A field investigation is made to determine the nature and extent of any
violations.
Step 3. If the dwelling is occupied by more than five adults and/or they have more
than four cars, the property owner is notified that a• use permit is
required as well as the other performance standards from the new
regulations, and that failure to obtain the permit would constitute a
zoning violation. _
Step 4. Ongoing:compliance is monitored through the complaint process and by annual
review of use permits
The administration requirements of this ordinance could be significant, especially if
during the first years of its application there is a-high.degree`of voluntary
compliance. For this reason, the council's draft workprogram summary includes
$40,000 per year for two years to hire a contract enforcement.:person to help
administer this ordinance and the Property Maintenance Ordinance which is currently
being drafted. It should be noted that this department will nof':be:.actively looking
for violations, but will be enforcing this ordinance on a compliini': basis.
5. Impacts On The Availability And Cost Of Rental_.Housing -- The city's overall
strategy for addressing the community's rentalhousing needs is to add to the supply
of housing by promoting additional multi-family dwelling construction and to better
manage demand by regulating the creation of new jobs in the city. The application of
the performance criteria contained in the proposed ordinance could have beneficial
impacts on rental housing such as helping to alleviate neighborhood compatibility
problems, moderation of the size of adult households and a reduction of the upward
pressure on rents caused by overoccupancy. However, the more restrictive parking and
floor area standards could render a significant number of dwellings ineligible for
rental use and force adult renters to seek housing elsewhere.
The initial environmental study (attached) suggests:that the potential impacts
resulting from the displacement of rents, households,could be significant. Using Cal
Poly student household data from spring, 1989,. the study indicates that the city
would have to continue to produce about 300 dwellings per year to accommodate the
displaced Cal Poly students from the R-1 zone alone. The 300 dwellings per year
translates into a growth rate of approximately 1.76%, which exceeds the 1% growth
rate target contained in the draft update of the general plan Land Use element. When
all other-adult households are factored in from the R-1 and R-2 zones, the number
would be significantly higher. (NOTE: The data used for this analysis may overstate
the actual number of students at a particular address because it counts everyone who
ii18�1►�►►II�IIIIIII�Io � 111 MY O� San IS OBISPO
A0094 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
R 1458
Page 6
listed a particular address for spring quarter, regardless of whether they moved out
or not.) Furthermore, Cal Poly plans to add another 400 students in the 1990/91
school year and another 400 in 1991/92 for a total student enrollment (full and part
time) of about 17,000. If the proportion of Cal Poly students living in the city
remains constant, an additional 800 students (296 households at 2.7
students/household) from Cal Poly alone will be seeking housing during the next two
years.
The displaced renters resulting from the regulations will also make it more difficult
for families to find affordable rental housing. This results from the disparity in
the income earning power between a family with one or two incomes versus an adult
household with three or more income sources. Competition will be greatest for the
housing preferred by both types of households, which has been predominantly detached,
single family dwellings. As long as the demand for single family rentals exceeds the
supply, we would expect rents to increase, further aggravating the problem of
affordability.
At this time, based on the limited data available, we can say that the regulations
could result in a range of impacts which are difficult to estimate given the local
and regional economic factors involved. However, they could be tempered somewhat by
the enforcement posture assumed by the city. If all rental properties in the R-1 and
R-2 zones were to comply with the new regulations immediately after adoption, which
is assumed in the worse-case scenario outlined above, it would likely mean a sudden -�
flood of displaced renters. However, if the pace of conformity is equal to or less
than the additional housing constructed each year, the impact would be lessened. In
addition, the initial study recommends mitigation measures to help lessen the impacts
of the application of the ordinance which includes:
-- Promoting the construction of additional housing within the city.
-- Applying the regulations on a complaint basis.
-- Enforcing the regulations only when the city's residential vacancy rate is 3% or
greater.
-- Allowing a grace period for compliance when displacement occurs.
6. Alternative Ordinances — The most readily available alternative would be better
enforcement of the regulations already in effect which deal with noise, parking and
property maintenance. This alternative would have certain advantages because it's
legally defensible, it would not require any new regulations and would minimize the
displacement of rental households. On the other hand, this approach would not have a
use permit requirement or provide a public hearing as a forum to resolve neighborhood
complaints, nor would it regglate; parking or overcrowding. In addition, staffing
requirements could be high.
Another alternative would be to.adopt an ordinance similar to the one suggested by
the neighbors of Albert Drive. The:main difference between that ordinance and the one
recommended by the Planning Commission is outlined in part 2 of this report.
i��illll�llpacity Of San Luis OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
R 1458
Page 7
ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1. The council may introduce draft ordinance No. 1 (Planning Commission recommendation)
as written or with revisions as you deem appropriate.
2. If the council wants to explore other ordinance alternatives, then a continuance
would be appropriate with direction to staff regarding the revised draft ordinance.
3. The council may also decide not to adopt new regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt draft ordinance No. 1 to:
1. Concur with the negative declaration on environmental impact, and
2. Introduce an ordinance adding section 17.93 to the Zoning Code as recommended by the
Planning Commission, and amending section 17.22 of the Zoning Code.
Attachments: draft ordinance
Letter from neighbors on Albert Drive
Letter describing the Davis ordinance
Memo from city attorney
Initial study
I
Draft Ordinance No. 1
ORDINANCE NO. (1989 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADDING SECTION 17.93 TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AND AMENDING VARIOUS OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
DEALING WITH NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY IN THE R-1 AND R-2 ZONES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings to
consider amending the zoning regulations in accordance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the
Government Code, and Chapter 17.62 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance
are consistent With the general plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance promote the public health,
safety, and general welfare; and
WHEREAS, the negative declaration on environmental impact is affirmed; and
U NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. That Section 17.93 is hereby added to the zoning ordinance as follows:
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
IN THE R-1 AND R-2 ZONES
Sections:
17.93.010 Purpose
17.93.020 Definition
17.93.030 General Requirements
17.93.040 Procedure Requirements
17:93.050 Periodic Review, Enforcement and Violations
17.93.010 Purpose
A. This chapter is intended to promote the quality of life in low density and medium
density residential neighborhoods by ensuring that rental housing provides adequate
support facilities.
Ordinance No. (1989 Series)
R 1458
Page 2
17.93.020 Definitions
A. "Adult" means a person 18 years of age and older..
B. "Tandem parking" means the arrangement of parking where no more than two cars are
arranged in tandem, one in front of the other, and not located within a required yard.
C. "Proximate area" shall mean that area within 500 feet of a residence.
17.93.030 General requirements
A. Applicability. An administrative use permit as defined in section 17.58 shall be
required when either of the following two conditions occur:
1. A dwelling in the R-1 or R-2 zone is occupied by 6 or more adults. OR,
2. The occupants of a dwelling in the R=1 or R-2 zone own, possess or use 5 or
more vehicles and the vehicles are parked on a regular basis on the dwelling
premises or within the proximate area (within 560 feet).
B. Performance standards. The purpose of the use permit is to insure compliance with the
following performance standards: \
1. The parking requirement shall be the greater of: 1) The number of spaces
required for dwellings as described in Section 17.16.060. OR one
off-street parking space per adult occupant, less one.
2. The parking of vehicles within a required yard or setback is prohibited.
3. Upon approval of the Community Development Director, parking may be
provided in tandem, but not within a required yard.
4. A maximum 40% of the area of a site not devoted to buildings may be
occupied by parking.
5. There shall be a minimum of one bathroom provided for every three adult
occupants.
C. Relation to zone standards. Where this chapter does not contain a particular type of
standard or procedure, conventional zoning standards and procedures shall apply.
D. Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances
from the strict interpretation of zoning. regulations to .the extent allowed by said
regulations for any use.
i
v Ordinance No. (1989 Series)
R 1458
Page 3
17.93.040 Administration
A. Use permit application requirements. When an administrative use permit is required by
this section, the application shall include the following:
1. Address of dwelling.
2. A site plan which shows:
the entire boundary of the site as well as adjacent structures within 20 feet.
the number and location of off-street parking spaces,
the gross floor area of the dwelling in square feet.
the floor plan for the dwelling with the rooms clearly labeled.
3. The number of proposed adult occupants.
4. Owner's signature.
5. Any other information deemed necessary by the Community Development Director.
17.93.050 Periodic review and enforcement -
A. Periodic Review. When a use permit is required by this section, the use permit shall
be reviewed annually for compliance with this chapter. It shall be the responsibility of
the property owner to initiate the review and pay applicable fees.
C. Violations. Violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be basis for
enforcement action by the city which may include revocation of the use permit.
SECTION 2. Section 17.22 is amended as follows:
Footnote 16. A dwelling in the R-1 or R-2 zone which will be occupied by six or more
adults requires approval of an administrative use permit. The purpose of the use permit
is to ensure the requirements of Section 17.93.040 are satisfied.
SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together
With the ayes and noes, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final
passage in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said city, and
the same shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its said final
passage. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the office of the.
City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and passage to print and shall be
available to any interested member of the public.
l -/v
Ordinance No. (1989 Series) `
R 1458
Page 4
INTRODUCED by the Council of the City of San. Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on
the day of 1989, on motion of
seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
QC7ityjmiiniist:rative Officer
City Attorn y
Community Development Director
•.�' :. :. ..'lt- ...:�-_ - �•::�Y.;; _ _ - '-�`.i._ is�:�x1M.`-'N!:�.M �; ,f
LIU
February 28, 1989 - :
Mayor Tt=Dunin
City of:: San`-Luis: Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis .Obispo, California
Dear Mayor Amin:
We are residenta. of- the many R-1 neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo who
bought our homes.-.often many years ago, with the expectation that these
areas would be family oriented as well asstable 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 will 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.
C_ Michael Multari, Community Development Director, has met with us and
made suggestions which we found most helpful in our efforts to Came 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 GT7mme*.
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,
oGl/
John Cotton GlennaDeane W. Davey
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
216 Albert Drive
San Luis Obispo
RECEIVED
CC: Counci l n+A+hers Pinard, Rappa, Reiss, and Settle APR 5'9ffi
John Dunn, City Administrative Officer arrCLERK
� Michael Multari, Community Development Director sew uU509LCn CA
Jnr Ga,�'1raY, �/iG� Gli>c°�
1
Proposed Concept
1. Establish a use classification COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL USE..
2. Definition: Any residential use in which a lessor or proprietor receives any form of
exchange for the use of any residential dwelling for any period of time.
3. A use permit for Commercial Residential Use in the R-1 zone or in condominiums is
required when the residential dwelling is occupied by five or more adults.
4. Minimum use permit conditions for Commercial Residential Use shall include:
a. Three hundred square feet of usable floor space shall be provided for each
resident adult.
b. One off-street parking space shall be provided on-site for each residential
adult, less one, with a minimum of two spaces.
C. Required offstreet parking spaces, including .required aisles, shall be located
behind the front and street side yard setback line in all residential districts-
when this use is a Commercial Residential use.
5. Enforcement will be based primarily on citizen. complaints.
1 �
• DEPARTMENTS:
❑ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 916-756-3748
y r 'lam• ❑ FISCAL AND INFORMATION SERVICES 756-3742
� ��. j..!-�s�:e;,...- -• Q FIRE 756-3743
❑ LEGAL SERVICES 756-37u
N. C MANAGEMENT SERVICES 75&3745
❑ PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES 756-3747
r - ❑ POLICE 756-3744
❑ PUBLIC WORKS 756-3749
j y s
CITY OF DAVIS 23 Russell Blvd. Davis, CA 95016
October 7, 1987
T0: com mERCIAL RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS LICENSE HOLDERS
On `larch 4, 1987, the Davis City Council approve4 sa ordinance aaendine the
Davis Municipal Code relating to commercial residential use within the Cicy of
Davis_
Commercial residential uses are chose in which a lessor or proprietor recei•7es
payment in any form of exchange for the use of any residential dwelling.
(Tris 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
regard4-g the number of adults in the residence.
-f�ective _�pri1 3, 1mm
.987, commercial residential use arrangements, where five
o fever adults are involved, is considered an accesso" use in Residential
Residential One and Two Family, (R-2) , Residential Garden anartWe^.t
(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 ;door space shall be provided
for each resident adult
One off-street parking space shall be provided for sac: resident
adult, less one, with a minimum of two spaces
One. bathroam must be provided for each three resideht adults
Should a commercial. residential use arrangement involve six or more adults, in
addition co the business license requirement , a condicionai use permit uust be
approved by the City. The condinional use permit process is as :A11ows:
` -� L. An appiicacion is made by the property owner (or certified agent) to the
City. The avolication :ora is available at the Community Develooment
Decartme^.c, CiC7 'all, ?3 3usse?l 3oulevard.
Commercial Residential Business License
October 7 , L987
Page 2
2. She current application fee is $525, plus an environmental assessr:enc fee
of $50.00.
ust include
and
3 demonstrateethe appropriateuconditions and chat the uperfonnecessary
The Copletd application 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. Fallowing 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'.
Lf the Planning Commission denies the conditional use permit. the
applicant may appeal the decision by filing as appeal application and fee
within 15 days of the P1aaniMg.Cammission decision. The appeal hearing
Is then scheduled at the City Council, usually within 4 weeks_
7. *Then 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.
as information packet which includes the Zoning Ordinance, applications,
fee schedule, an perfortiance scandards is available from the Community
Development Department.
?.ay 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 Cici of Davis requires a
business license and tieetina spedifid berformance standards. A conditional
use permit is also required for_sii or more adult renters.
Should lou have any questions regarding• the Zoning Ordinance amendment and how
it affects the use of your property, please feel free to contact the Community
Development Department at (916) 756-3746.
Sincerely,
THO*!AS I. LUYBRAZO
Community Development Director
TJ'L:CJ:j 1
C2BL3/JT.1 /_/�
�city sAn tuis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dave Moran
FROM: Bob Illman. Law SpecialisttO /J
VIA: Vicki J. Finucane, Acting City Attorney .
SUBJ: Regulation of Residential Rentals
You asked for review and analysis of a proposal submitted to the city by
Ms. Dovey and Mr. Cotton. Basically, their suggestion is to adopt a
modification of the City of Davis ordinance which regulates residential
rentals by establishing a Commercial Residential Business Ordinance. The
ordinance regulates rentals by-
(1) limiting the number of adults in a residential rental
dwelling;
(2) requiring certain square footage per adult;
(3) requiring certain minimum off street parking requirements.
In California, the regulation of residential rental housing has been
limited by the Supreme Court. In City of Santa. Barbara v. Adamson, 164
Cal.Rptr. 539 (S.Ct. 1980) , the court held unconstitutional an ordinance
which distinguished between "blood-related. " traditonal families and
households of over 5 unrelated persons. Specifically, the decision
focused on two factors. First, the court held that unrelated persons'
right to privacy, guaranteed under Art. 1 , Sec. 1 of the California
Constitution prevents local regulation of their right to live in a
particular zone in a manner different from the regulation of related
persons (at p. 545) . Second, the numerical limit of five persons per
dwelling, absent any relationship between that number and dwelling size,
parking requirements, etc. , was suspect as too restrictive (at p. 544) .
The proposed ordinance suffers from the second defect described above. As -
further amplified in City of Chula Vista v. Pagard, 171 Cal .Rptr. 738 (4
Div. 1981) , regulations which limit the number of persons in a. particular
zone (e.g. , R-1 ) must be tied to the problem of overcrowding in general .
If we are to regulate rental housing, I recommend that we delete a
specific numerical limit from the requirements. Adequate regulation can
come through square footage per. adult, bathrooms per person, etc.
Dave Moran
July 18. 1989
Page 2
In terms of parking requirements, unless we can show a valid basis for
regulating rented housing within the R-1 zone in a different fashion from
owned housing, we will violate Adamson and be subject to litigation. For
example, if I own my home. I am allowed to live within the R-1 zone with
my wife and four adult (over 16) children. If I and my wife and all of my
children drive and have cars, I will have a total of six automobiles. and
a requirement to have only 2 parking spaces (one of which must be
covered) . If I rent the same dwelling, 'assuming we do away with the
"rule-of-five" limitation. I must have 5 off street parking spaces . This
disparity makes it difficult to justify the ordinance on the basis of land
use (this is particularly true when our zoning ordinance states that
residential care facilities in R-1 zone with six or fewer residents (plus
staff) . only need comply with the R-1 dwelling standards of two spaces) .
In short. whatever regulating we do of residential rentals, absent a clear
showing that they are different from owned residences, must be consistent
with owned residence regulation.
The Davis ordinance attempts to regulate the business of housing rental .
In so far as the ordinance requires business licensing, it does just
that.. It is then presumed that because business "use" is regulated, the
ordinance falls in line with the language of Adamson:
In general . zoning ordinances are much less suspect when
they focus on the use than when they command inquiry into
who are the users. Adamson, at 545.
What this .logic misses is that the "use" spoken of in Adamson is the "use
to which the dwelling is put. " City of Chula Vista, at p.744. Here the
term "use refers to the land use - residence. In other words, if the
land use was other than as a residence there would be a focus on the
"use" . as the term is used in Adamson. Whether or not. the residential use
is through a commercial arrangement or not is irrelevant..
What this means is that our assertion that the "use" is commercial will
not satisfy the courts. In Ahwahnee Hills School 'v. County of Madera, 204
Cal .Rptr. 628 (5 Div. 1984) , this very point was made.. The court allowed
a business running a group home for minors to challenge a use permit
requirement. The challenge to a limit of six children, brought by the
business, was based on the minors ' Adamson rights. Thus, a landlord,
under Ahwahnee. could challenge our ordinance asserting his or her
tenants' rights.
If we are to regulate "use. " it must be land use, i .e. , residential . Any
ordinance we pass dealing with rental properties, absent a clear showing
that rentals per, se affect a neighborhood differently than owned_
properties, must use essentially the same regulatory scheme as other
residential properties in the same zone. (For example, would unrelated
Dave Moran
J July 18, 1989
Page 3
Cal Poly students whorented be treated the same as unrelated Cal Poly
students who bought the same house?)
An alternative to passing additional legislation may be to utilize present
parking. noise and use requirements to establish the fact of a public
nuisance in those cases where persons, owner or renters. related or
unrelated: interfere with the quiet enjoyment of one's residence.
RSI/sw
�J _
crty o� san lues oBispo
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION APPLICATION NO.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPLICANT C i t, CT San J i s GD i s0
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION T MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED _.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED.
,avid `'loran, Associate =fanner =/_17
PREPARED BY DATE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION;,, / DATEZ-2�
/'V 77. „c �Ll GC :�_l cZ22e,,
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
II.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS .... . . . .... . ....... . ..... ... .... .. . .... .... ...... .. ayDe.j
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.. ... . ... . ..... Yes
C. LAND USE . . ..... ........... .... ._ ...... ... .. ....... . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . .... . .....
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION . . . ..... ... . . ., , ',:one.
E. PUBLIC SERVICES . ........ ......... . . . ... . ... "one.
F. UTILITIES..... . ...... .. .... None.
G. NOISE LEVELS ...... ............ .. ...... ..... None,
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS . . ... . ... ... . .. ... . . >lcne.
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS. . . ..... ... . . . . . .. . . . . . ., lone.
J. SURFACEWATER FLOW AND QUALITY .. . . . ... . . .. .... . . .... . ... . . ... . ..... . ... . .. .. "one.
K. PLANT LIFE . . ........... .... . ........... . . ... ... ... . .. .... ... . ... .. ....... ... . ... . . `!one.
L ANIMALLIFE........... ... .......... . . . :gone.
M. ARCHAEOLOGICAUHISTORICAL .. .. . ... .. . .. . . ....... . .. . . . I.. .. . . . .... ..... ... ... -- `lore.
N. AESTHETIC ................ .... ..... . . .... .. . . . . . ... . . . ... . ... . `lone.
O. ENERGY/RESOURCE USE . ... ._. . .. . ._ . ..... .. . .. . .... . .. .... . ... . .. . ... .. . .. . ..
`.ore.
P. OTHER ... . ;ous i;no.. ....... ... . . ... .. . . .. . �s
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
'!ecative cecIaraTion, :,ith itic_aTion.
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT _
U Initial Study ER 52-89
Page 2
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of San Luis Obispo wants to promote the quality of life in residential
neighborhoods by ensuring that rental housing provides adequate living space and support
facilities such as on-site parking. To further this goal; the City wants to amend the
zoning regulations and other sections of the municipal code to ser minimum performance
standards for rental housing in the R-I and R=2 zones. The ordinance would establish the
following requirements and standards:
I. A business license would be required in order to engage in the leasing of dwellings
in the R-1 and R-2 zones.
2. To qualify for a business license for a residential rental with fewer than 5 adult
occupants, the dwelling would have to satisfy the following performance standards:
-- The dwelling must contain minimum floor area consistent with the following
schedule:
Minimum Gross Floor Area
Dwelling Size. Per Adult Occupant
< 3000 sq.fL 300 sq.ft.
> 3000 sq.f t. 200 sq.f t.
-- A minimum of two offstreet parking spaces must be provided per dwelling OR
one off-street parking space per adult occupant, less one, whichever is
greater.
3. When a residential rental is to be occupied by six or more adult occupants, an
administrative use permit is required. The use permit is to ensure the above
performance standards are satisfied as well as to ensure compatibility of residential
rentals at particular locations.
I. POTENTIAL IMPACT OVERVIEW
A. Communitv Plans and Goals
Housing Element
The housing element contains.programs and policies which are intended to promote the
diversity and affordability of housing opportunities, and points out the need for
additional affordable housing. In that the proposed ordinance would establish new,
more restrictive performance standards for rental housing in the R-1 and R-2 zones
which may not be attainable by all of the available rental housing stock, the result
could be the displacement of renters as rental opportunities decrease. For this
reason, the proposed ordinance may not be consistent with housing element policies
which favor actions to help alleviate the lack of affordable rental housing because
the supply of rental opportunities in the R-1 and R-2 Zones may be reduced.
ER 52-89 J
Page 3
Conversely, the application of the ordinance could moderate adult household size in.
the R-1 and R-2 zones and reduce the upward pressure on rents caused by overoccupancy
of dwellings. In this broad context, rental units may be more affordable to family
households in that the ability of property owners to achieve high income levels from
large adult households would be reduced.
Evaluation: May Be Significant
C. Land Use
The proposed ordinance could have beneficial impacts on the quality of rental housing
environments by ensuring minimum floor space and parking for tenants, thus
alleviating existing and potential neighborhood compatibility impacts.
Evaluation: Not Significant
Housing
As outlined above, the regulations could result in less rental housing available in
the R-1 and R-2 zones by reducing the rental capacity of these areas. The ordinance
would apply to all types of households in these zones. The standards are designed to
relate adult occupancy levels to the need for on-site parking and living area within
dwellings.
Given the population composition of San Luis Obispo, however, the regulations would
most likely impact college student rental households in the R-1 and R-2 zones.
Student household data is instructive because student households are often composed
of adult renters and the proposed ordinance could reduce rental housing opportunities
as a function of the number of adults per dwelling. However, other non-student
households would also be regulated by the proposed ordinance and subject to the same
performance standards.
Based on enrollment data for spring, 1989, for Cal Poly, about 8,862 full and part
time students listed San Luis Obispo as their principal address. (The actual number
of students living in town will be slightly larger because some students use PO
boxes). Of the 8,862 Cal Poly students who lived in the City during the spring
quarter, 2279. lived in the R-1 zone in about 882 households for an average household
size of 2.7 students. For a dwelling to accommodate 2.7 adult tenants under the new
regulations, it would have to have a minimum 810 square feet of gross floor area and
provide 2 offstreet parking spaces. Although an actual housing inventory by dwelling
size and number of parking spaces is unavailable, very few single family residences
in the city are smaller than 810 square feet. In the Old Town, which is predominantly
R-2 zoning and where the dw,;llings are generally smaller, there could be more
non-conforming dwellings. Nevertheless, it appears that most single family dwellings
could accommodate the average student household size of 2.7.
To estimate the impacts of the more restrictive regulations, an estimate must be made
of the number of rental dwellings which could not accommodate the average student
household size, and determine the amount of "overflow" renters from each dwelling.
However, not all student households consist of 2.7 students. For reasons of economy,
among others, many student households consist of two students per bedroom.
AJ
I
ER 52-89
Page 4
If we assume a worse case in which,all students in the R-1 zone in excess of 2.7 per
dwelling are displaced immediately after adoption of the new regulations, the number
could be significant. For example, the Cal Poly data for spring, 1989, suggests that,
of the 882 Cal Poly student households in the R-1 zone, 197 contained 4 or more
students. The "excess renters" (household size - 2.7) would amount to about 380
students, which is about 140 households at 2.7 students per household.
The relative impact of the displaced student households on the availability of rental
housing can be obtained by estimating the number of dwellings that would have to be
built in order to satisfy the city's growth management and housing objectives once
the Cal Poly student households in the. R=1 zone are displaced by the new regulations.
City growth regulations adopted in 1982 established a schedule for maximum
residential construction rates through the. year 1999. Under those regulations during
the past 5 years, the city has:
— added 2,215 dwellings, or 443 per year (new construction minus demolitions)
-- added 729 people per year, for a growth rate of about 2.4% per year, and a
household size of about 2.4 persons/dwelling. .
-- maintained an average vacancy rate of about 5%, acknowledged by the city's
Housing Element as a desirable level to maintain a variety of choice and
affordability (Source: San Luis Obispo Housing Element, 1987, p. 34, B-11.)
The target number of dwellings to meet the city's housing needs during this same
period, as estimated by the state Department of Housing and Community Development was
1630 dwellings, or about 326 dwellings per year. (Source: California Housing Needs
Plan. California Department of Housing and Community Development, Sacrament,
California; 1985.) Thus, the city has produced more housing during this period than
the state estimated for our needs, while maintaining a desirable vacancy rate of
about 5%. In order to maintain the desirable vacancy rate of about 5% in addition to
absorbing the displaced Cal Poly student households from the R-1 zone, the city will
have to continue to produce an average of 300 dwellings per year, which would
accommodate a growth rate of about 1.76%. NOTE: This dwelling production rate would
be able to accommodate the displaced renters who are Cal Poly students living in the
R-1 zone, only.
When all other adult households are factored in from the R-1 and R-2 zones, the
number would be significantly higher. Furthermore, the university plans to add
another 400 students in the 1990/91 school year and another 400 in 1991/92 for a
total student enrollment (full and part time) of about 17,000. If the proportion of
Cal Poly students living in the city remains constant, an additional 800 students
(296 households at 2.7 students/household) will be seeking housing during the next
two years.
Evaluation: Significant
The displaced renters resulting from the regulations will make it more difficult for
families to find affordable rental housing. This results from the disparity in the
income earning power between a family with one or two incomes versus an adult
household with three or more income sources. Competition will be greatest for the
ER 52-89 '���
Page 3
housing preferred by both types of households, which has been predominantly detached,
single family dwellings. As long as the demand for single family rentals exceeds the
supply, we would expect rents to increase, further aggravating the problem of
affordability.
Evaluation: May Be Significant
D. Impact Mitigation
Through the displacement of adult tenants, the ordinance could reduce rental housing
opportunities in the R-1 and R-2 zone and increase demand for rental housing. The.
city's overall strategy for addressing the community's rental housing needs is to add
to the supply of housing by promoting additional multi-family dwelling construction
and to better manage demand by regulating the creation of new jobs in the city.
The actual impact of the new regulations will also be a function of the enforcement
posture assumed by the city. If all rental properties in the R-1 and R-2 zones were
to comply with the new regulations immediately after adoption, which is assumed in
the worse-case scenario outlined above, it would likely mean a sudden flood of
displaced renters. However, if the pace of.conformity is equal to or less than the
additional housing constructed each year, the impact would be lessened. The
following mitigation measures would address either the housing supply issue or level
of impacts caused by displacement. l
1. Mitieation Measures that May Be Enacted by the City
(a) Promote the construction of additional housing within the city.
This would include continued implementation of housing element and land use
element policies and programs. (Note: the discussion draft of new city Land Use
Element proposes that the land use designation of some commercial/industrial
areas in the city be changed to residential to enable additional housing inside
the urban reserve.)
(b) Apply the regulations to the R-1 zone only.
This would reduce the number of displaced renters.
(c) Apply the regulations primarily on a complaint basis.
This would significantly reduce the number of displaced renters, and would
likely distribute the displacement over a longer period of time.
(d) Enforce the regulations only when the city's residential vacancy rate was
3% or greater.
In this way, choice and opportunity for housing for displaced renters could be
better maintained, as well as minimizing the impact of renter displacement on —1
family households. (Note: the State Department of Finance estimates residential
vacancy rates each year.. The last time the city's vacancy rate was at 3% or
below was in the mid 1970's when Cal Poly enrollment outpaced city housing
production.)
OER 52-89
Page 6
(e) Allow a grace period for compliance when displacement occurs.
In this way the transition from one housing situation to another would be phased
and the impact on the displaced household would be lessened.. The grace period
(eg. 60-90 days) could be part of the city's action on use permit applications
or enforcement proceedings.
(f) Provide relocation assistance.
The city could contract with a local real estate firm specializing in rental
housing and/or work directly with the Cal Poly housing office to help displaced
renters find replacement housing.
2. Mitigation Measures that Would Require the Action of Other Agencies
(a) Have the state university system provide more housing on campus.
Cal Poly already provides more on-campus housing than any other state
university. Nevertheless, this option would help reduce the demand for housing
by adult households.
U (b) Establish enrollment ceilings for Cal Poly and Cuesta college based on the
city's capacity to absorb the additional residents while maintaining growth
management and housing objectives.
If enrollment increases at the two local colleges can be tied to the city's
capacity to provide new housing, the overall impacts from the adult households
generated by the two schools would be diminished.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Negative declaration with the following mitigation (reference paragraph D above for
description):
1.(a) Promote the construction of additional housing within the city.
1.(c) Apply the regulations primarily on a complaint basis:
1.(d) Enforce the regulations only when the city's residential vacancy rate was 3% or
greater as determined by the California Department of Finance.
1.(e) Allow a grace period for compliance when displacement occurs.
P -TING AGENDA
DATE -�l-S ITEM #
�illill II I 1111111111 II��������I�h111 II 111 III
city of sAn luis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
September 12, 1989
MEMORANDUM
T0: City Coun it
FROM: am V City Clerk
SUBJ: mental ALrenda Material for 9-19-89 -_ Item #1
The attached proposed zoning ordinance change entitled "Commercial
Residential Use Regulations" was prepared by Residents for Quality
Neighborhoods.
GlennaDeane Dovey, one of the group's founders, called this morning and
requested that this be delivered to the Council along with the agenda
packets for the September 19 Regular meeting. Therefore, it was not a
part of the original staff report and is not listed as an attachment.
.>%notes action by Lead Person
PV:k 1 c `1+iscorw by:
c: J. Dunn voundl
►'C O
nR. Rossi I•-
�J 5�ry am
_/Clerk-orig.
DA �LT b!
[.J
1
L _ ITEM #
Commercial Residential Use Regulations
-1-
Chapter 17.93
COMMERCIAL. RESIDENIIAL USEREGULATIONS
Sections:
17.93.010 Purpose
17.93.020 Definition
17.93.030 General Requirements
17.93.040 Performance Standards
17.93.050 Procedure Requirements
17.93.060 Periodic Review, Enforcement and Violations
17.93.010 Purpose
A. This chapter is intended to promote quality of life in low density and medium density residential
neighborhoods by ensuring that rental housing provides adequate support facilities.
17.93.020 Definitions
A. "Commercial residential uses"are those in which a lessor or proprietor receives payment in any
form of exchanse for the use of any residential dwelling or part thereof, for any period of time in
R-1 and R-2 zones: excepting a residential care facility as defined in Section 17.04:340 of this code
B. For 12=oses of this chapter,adult means any individual 18 years of age or older.
17.93.030 General Requirements
A. Application. Commercial residential uses shall be allowed in the R-1 and R-2 zones subject to
the performance standards set forth in section 17:93.040, below_
B. Relation to zone standards. Where this chapter does not contain a particular type of standard or
procedure,conventional zoning standards and procedures shall apply.
C For pu=ses of this chapter tandem parking apaces means at most two parking apaces one
behind the other.
C' RECEIVED
/:ooASAl.
SFP 1. 2 1989
(CITY CLERK
PM WA osisp%lel
Commercial Residential Use Regulations
-2-
17.93.040 Performance standards
A. A commercial residential use with five or fewer adult occupants may be established upon
meeting the following standards:
1. A business license is obtained pursuant to Chapter 5.040 of the Municipal Code.
2.The dwelling must contain minimum gross floor area of 300 square feet per adult.
3. The parking requirement shall be the greater of:
a. The number of spaces required for dwellings, OR,
b. One off-street parking space per adult occupant,less one..
4. For p=oses of this chapter parkingspaces must meet the following standards:
a Each parldngspace shall be a permanently surfaced area.of not less than 190 square feet
b. At most one parking space may be entirely or in hart within the front street,yard A
parldng space within the front street yard must be directly behind a parking that is
entirely behind the front street yard Le, tandem parking
c. A total of at most three parking spaces may be placed entirely or in part within the front.
side, or rear street yards.
5 One bathroom must be provided for each three for fraction thereof)resident adults
6. The dwelling must meet all current fine,health and safety codes.
B. Upon approval of an administrative use permit, as defined by Chapter 17.58,a commercial
residential use may be established for occupancy by six or more adults. The purpose of the use
permit is to ensure compliance with the performance standards described above, and to ensure the
compatibility of the commercial residential use at particular locations.
17.93.050 Administration
A. Business license required. A business license is required for all commercial residential uses.
Prior to issuance of a business license for a commercial residential use,the applicant shall submit
and certify such information as city officials deem necessary for administration of and compliance
with these regulations.
B. Permit requirement. For commercial residential uses with six or more adult occupants, the
applicant shall apply for and obtain an administrative use permit,as defined by zoning regulations,
in addition to those requirements fora business license as described above.
17.93.060 Periodic review and enforcement
A. Periodic Review. Commercial residential uses shall be reviewed annually for compliance with
this chapter. It shall be the responsibility of the onpM owner,upon notification by the city to
pay applicable fees and 5,Wly required information
C.JaigI Violations. Violations of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be the basis for
revocation of the business license or use permit,whichever is applicable,in accordance with this
code.
Commercial Residential Use Regulations
3
COther applicable changes to the zoning ordinance.
17.04.325 Commercial Residential Uses
Commercial residential uses" are those in which a lessor or proprietor receives payment in any
form of exchanee for the use of the residential dwelling or part thereof, for any period of time in
R-1 and R-2zones excepunt=_a residential care facility as defined in Section 17.04.340 of this
code.
17.16.060 is amended as follows:
Commercial residential use•••The parking requirement shall be the greater of: l..The number
of spaces required for dwellings, OR, 2. One off-street parking space per adult occupant, less one.
Two off-street parking spaces per dwelling, one of which must be covered;OR one off-street
parking space per adult occupant, less one, whichever is greater.
17.22.010 is amended as follows:
Insert between Residential care facilities - more than 6 residents, and Restaurants, sandwich shops,
takeout food,etc,insert Igo:
Residential uses.commercial
16.A commercial residential use which will be occupied by six or more adults requires approval of
an administrative use permit. The purpose of the use permit is to ensure the requirements of
section 17.93:040 are satisfied, and to ensure the compatibility of commercial residential use at
particular locations.
C
MEMic �GEND ►
636 .__.esta Drive
DATE EM # — San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
San Luis Obispo City Council 19 September 1989
SSU1J� : Proposed Use Permit far nigh
i Density Households
I strongly urge adoption of the Planning Commission proposal ,
but have reservations about forcibly oustin;-: low income students
or other young low-salaried workers who are desperately trying to
"make it go financially" and are needed to support local businesses.
I have personal experience that I told the Planning Commission
about, that .-there are some landlords who, besides abusing reasonable
density standards (new proposal, above) by actions and contract take
advantage of t,ese younger people . :hese are :costly landlords NOT
engaged in PROFESSICNAL renting ( i.e. -those renting as a sideline) .
a. They don' t provide a RECCRDEED joint walk-through inspection
for cleanliness and defects before signing a rental agreement and
upon termination of the lease make false accusations or claims to
avoid refunding deposit..
b. Some provide contracts with "cleaning deposit, or 1/2 of
cleaning deposit is non-refundable". That certainly doesn' t
encourage minimum cleanliness standards or any cleaning at the
end of the lease to get part of a refund.
c. When there are repairs, sometimes EMERGENCY, to be made,
there is no answer at the landlords telephone or he is "out .of town",
and no alternate number provided. PROFESSIOITAL landlords provide a
contract repair telephone number or that of a local handyman for
expedited service.AP+D, sometimes when a tenant then purchases a
replacement repair part and has it installed, he/she cannot collect
costs since contract states "Renter needs written permission prior
any alterations" . At times a landlord will 'never respead to a
written request and will never give more than a telephone approval
(too busy) , so he believes he is not abligated to repay costs
involved. I ALSO HAVE A GUT FEEL2 G THAT, FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES,
that all of above normally show as DEDUCTICNS or OPERATING EXPENSE
rather than INCONL:.
There is no RENT CONTROL proposal and no low cost housing for
these young people who we are now imposing with additional pressure.
They are already here, NOW, and there will be more next year. THE
LEAST WE CA ' TO is to require and enforce PRCr SSICIA'AL IAUDLCRI)
renting/contract and m=:intenacg standards by LICENSING, spot
inspections, and assuring that renters have a current city number
where they can call for disputes.
I expect to present the above at tonights City Council Meeting.
Sincerely,
x Denotes action by Load Person
RECEIVE Respond by:
/council Har chardt
1 91989 /sag
SEP . iciry atry. Cy to City Attorney
• JS Acle
CIN CLERK SS
SAN LUIS OBISPO-CA V f.
IV F/L4r
LUciio;es action by Lead Persue'
Rosalind Ging g ae . nd by AETING AGENDA
:325 Cecelia 2ourt71Dt�TE ITEM #
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 AO
September 19, 1959C rk-ong.
ale,
I think it is very important that you realize the views of the
residents of Sar. Luis Obispo. I have been a resident of SLO for the
past 27 Years. When I married and we started to raise our family, we
moved from an apartment to our present home in a nice quiet
neighborhood.
Over the Years we have, had one home on our blockthat was occupied by
gtr , _ going to Cal Poly .
:•re now have at home or, our block that just sold and supposidly 5 Cal
Poly students. were to occupy it according to the information I have
ne :.rd. `testerday when I left for work at 7:00 a.m. there were 4
cars/trucks parked on Cecelia Court , 1 on Augusta and 2 in the
cr , oewa.v for a total of 7 vehicles parked around this home .
Why is it that when you want to a.dd an extra
bedroom/livingroom/kitchen to your home , you must provide off-street
parking in order to get .your SLO city building permit . The case I am
referring to happened to my neighbor whose mother-in-law was coming to
live with them. The mother-in-law doesn' t even drive . Yet they had
t.• provide off-street parking. Why don ' t these homeowners/managers
have to abide by these same rules.
The students (Poly and Cuesta) use the excuse that a home is cheaper
to live in than an apartment . I want you to know the type of
vehicles parked around the home on my block . They were nice , new
shinny trucks and sporty cars: The real reason they want to live in a
home is so that they can do as they please , without following any
rules, and PARTY, PARTY, PARTY.
I think that a. miximum of four students or unrelated adults is more
than enough for one home .
One other point to ponder . How many of the parents who have enough
money to buy these homes for their students to live in , declare the
money collected from the other students living in the house as income .
I am quite sure they all claim the deductions. With parents having to
get a permit , wouldn' t it put it more on a business basis.
Unfortunately, all the income my husband and I make is taxed to the
fullest . I am not able to have a home and receive income from it and
no declare it on ?y taxes.
P
Rosalind Gingg RECEIVED
1 91989
CITY t�.LERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
I
#V;EET1NG AGENDA
DATE /9- ITEM #
OL 'POLY
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93407
September 19, 1989 OFFICE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS
(805) 756.1521
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers
The City of San Luis Obispo City Council is scheduled to discuss
residential regulations at its September 19, 1989 meeting. This
ordinance, if adopted, will have a significant impact on rental
housing in the city. Because students residing in the city
comprise the largest rental population, this ordinance will have
a major impact on them.
Although this issue has existed. for some time, the City Council
began its most recent public discussions in April, 1989, continuing
to August, 1989. This time period has been most inopportune for
students, because it occurred when most students were away from
campus. The result has been a lack of student involvement during
public hearings.
Lack of student input is again of concern tonight as Cal Poly
students are just arriving. Fall Quarter classes did not begin
until yesterday. Those students just back are the ones most
impacted by the proposed ordinance since they are the students
residing off campus.
The student community and city officials have worked over the past
few years to build an honest, open, and constructive relationship.
Students, recognizing that they are a part of the San Luis Obispo
community, want and deserve to be participants in the
deliberations.
To this and I again request that the City Council delay action on
this agenda item for 30 days to allow students an opportunity to
be full participants in the process of enacting a city ordinance
which impacts them directly.
Thank you for consideration of this request. Please have this
letter read into the record of public comments.
Sincerely, RECEIVED
Denotes acum by Lead Perw
`► � 1 a 107
R��°nid by:
CITY CLERK G�
Hazel Sco on WA
vice President for Student Affairs Ct
cc: Warren J. Baker e(4
O
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSIT)'
ALO CIT`: COUIiCIL _ � CO[1.f/UL.
K
Say, Luis Gbispo , Ca. J DATE 9 AG�ENDk
,P. APSs i S'
---_ iTEM # 1
Council iiembers : tee : �ir:.�la Pamily :esider.ces
attended the Sept. meeting and am glad to see that action will be
taken to reZ,-ulate overcrowding and the abuses accompanying it.
I wish the new re,ulatiors could cover the small 2-bedroom, 1-bath,
sinjle-,SaraGe houses, but trust we will continue. to have the protec-
tion of present rules re garabe conversions, nei ht of shrubs, etc.
Lawns in this block were shabby ii..ell before the drouth and rationing.
Here are some suggestions which might help to reduce infractions of
present and any new regulations:
1. Periodically publish in the local paper and in your City
3ulletin a condensed versior of the rules. (edit or proofread
what you release to the paper, to avoid unnecessary, time=
corsu-ring phone calls to the Planning; Department! ) Inform
landlords of their: responsibilities and iimitatians, so that
they cannot plead ignorance Inform neighbors that they do
have a right to complain promptly to the Plan ing Department,
that complaints should be made immediately, before conversion
is complete. Often the chanes take place over week ends or
when neighbors are away. (Additional furniture was quietly
moved into a nearby garage during the eclipse. )
2. The landlords have a stable of repairmen, plumbers, electri-
cia.ns, carpenters, etc. , who arrive in professional-lookinj,
but u_�arked vehicles. Trades people need to be reminded
to Assure themselves that necessary permits have been obtained.
3. Some houses are rented to one person who in turn rents to two
or more others. I hope your regulation will consider this
and avoid loopholes.
Of possible interest:
At least one affluent local owner of a small house rented to several
adults is taking a x.600+ loss per month on his investment. This does
not include repairs, utilities of any kind, or depreciation, oroly
:mortga-;e interest, taxes, and insurance vs. the hefty rent he receives.
To him it is probably a tax write-off.. It seems unfair that such a
strategy should contribute to the decline of a neighborhood.
An absentee owner, when making a rare visit, takes ca.re. to park in
front of a neighboring house, thus keeping clear the space in front
of the rental which, of course , does not have room for the occupants'
5 to 6 vehicles.
Sincerely,
cc: Planning .Commission
TYr.Dave Moran, Planning D
Aeen)l Vex^a/n_�der
a�j gad St. , SLO 93401
tt
CITY.CLERK
i
*REVISED - 91"1/89 - at .the nequeaz o6
Dottie onna•__ob Citi.zen'a boh Quati.ty - DATE "I9" 9 fTEM #
Neighborhood, Commercial Residential Use Regulations
-2-
17.93.040 Performance standards
A. A commercial residential use with five or fewer adult occupants may be established upon
meeting the following standards:
1. A business license is obtained pursuant to Chapter 5.040 of the Municipal Code.
2.The dwelling must contain minimum gross floor area of 300 square feet per adult.
3.The parking requirement shall be the greater of:
a. The number of spaces required for dwellings, OR,
b. One off-street parking space per adult occupant, less one.
4. For p=oses of this chapter parldng spaces must meet the following standards:
a Each12arldne race shall be a permanently surfaced area of not less than 190 square feet
b. At most one parking space may be entirelypart within the front street yard A
parking space within the front street yard must be directly behind a parking space that is
entirely behind the front street yard i.e. tandem parking-
*
5 One bathroom must be provided for each three (or fraction thereof)resident adults
L. The dwelling must meet all current fire,health and safety codes.
B. Upon approval of an administrative use permit, as defined by Chapter 17.58, a commercial
residential use may be established for occupancy by six or more adults. The purpose of the use
permit is to ensure compliance with the performance standards described above, and to ensure the
compatibility of the commercial residential use at particular locations.
C 17.93.050 Administration
A. Business license required. A business license is required for all commercial residential uses.
Prior to issuance of a business license for a commercial residential use, the applicant shall submit
and certify such information as city officials deem necessary for administration of and compliance
with these regulations.
B. Permit requirement. For commercial residential uses with six or more adult occupants, the
applicant shall apply for and obtain an administrative use permit as defined by zoning regulations,
in addition to those requirements for a business license as described above.
17.93.060 Periodic review and enforcement
A. Periodic Review. Commercial residential uses shall be reviewed annually for compliance with
this chapter. It shall be the responsibility of the prop=owner.upon notification by the city, to
pay applicable fees and suppler y required information.
C. jQ Violations. Violations of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be the basis for
revocation of the business license or use permit, whichever is applicable,in accordance with this
code.
r :.•tno: :a_ticq by Lead Person
,.: d by:
^ho
1N Atry.
j Geek-orig.
7lvsbl
�!tif AIaF�VDA ��r
►��������►►��iill�iillilllllll�Il �� � ��I II city of
sAn suis oBispo
1 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
September 14, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Pam og City Clerk
SUBJ: Re •ident for Quality Neighborhoods Ordinance Revision
On Tuesday, September 12, the Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
submitted their version of the residential regulations ordinance.
On Wednesday, September 13, they requested Page 2, Section 17.93.040
entitled Performance Standards 4. (c. ) be deleted. A copy of their
ordinance went out with the Council agenda packets although there is no
comment by staff because it came in after agenda close. The Page 2
amendment of their ordinance is attached.
If you have any questions, please give me a call on Ext. 104.
PV:klc
c: J. Dunn
R. Rossi
Agenda Packet Distribution
MEf1NG `� AGENDA
RECEIVE ® DATE 9112 M #
SEP 1 P ,4^�
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO.,CA
*Denotes acbm by Lead Penm
Mayor and City Council Re by 5 September 1989
City Hall 9<off 01
P.O. Boz 8100 aCA6
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 a Uy AVy-
oaWrk-o y. ;
9� Fi1�
Dear Mayor and City Council, ❑
I have been tracking the "rental regulations" happenings in San Luis Obispo
with great interest. We have the same problems and concerns in Santa
Barbara County, especially the Goleta area.
I have enclosed for your kind attention and consideration.a copy of a letter I
have sent to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors expressing my
feelings and concerns about the matter. .I hope that.you will find it to be
meaningful and helpful.
I think it important that this matter not be confused with rent control. I am
not supportive of rent control or any other price, or wage, control devices. I
am supportive of regulations as to where, when, and how different kinds of
business activities may be conducted. Rental income is a profitable business.
It needs to be regulated.
Truly Yours,
ohn B. Watson
231 Santa Barbara Shores Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
P. S. A sixth copy is enclosed for your file.
Board of Supervisors 14 September 1989
Santa Barbara County
Dear Members of the Board,
I am very much concerned about absentee landlords who rent single-family
homes to tenants other than traditional parent-child families, especially
in R1 single-family housing zones. Absentee-landlordism has always been
one of the most serious problems that any community may have to deal
with. In an area where affordable housing is not being developed it can
become a socioeconomic disaster.
Of course it is more profitable to rent to several different tenants who can
and will share a higher total rent than a single family may be able to pay.
Pity the poor landlord! Of course, by the sharing of that higher rent and the
occupancy of the premises with other tenants some kind of at least
affordable if not all that desirable housing is provided. Pity the poor tenant!
But are the interests of the landlord and the rental tenants the only interests
at stake? What of the environmental impact? What of the quality of life for
the remainder of those in the neighborhood who have invested their all in
home ownership? Pity the poor homeowner!
Conversion of an R1 home from a private single-family-owner residence to a
communal-type, multiple-tenant, absentee-landlord, rental residence has a
most detrimental and unmitigated environmental impact on a predominately
owner-occupied single-family residential area. It results in the conversion
of garages to additional bedrooms. The streets become congested with
parked cars even if the garages are not converted. Lack of pride in home
ownership results in lack of property maintenance. The property becomes a
slum. The landlord becomes a slumlord. What was and should be a family
home becomes a flop house for any number of transients. It is fun time
anytime with noisy parties and any number of cars coming and going all
hours of the day and night. Is selling their homes to other absentee
landlords or becoming absentee landlord themselves the only remedy for
the homeowner neighbors? Ultimately, more and more homes will become
communal-type, absentee-landlord rental housing units. An entire
community can eventually become a communal-type rental community.
Look no further than Isla Vista for the ultimate environmental impact, the
consequent public service demands, and the totally negative impacts on
quality of life.
Ci Indeed isn't unbridled absentee landlordism the coot cause of all ghettos and
other slums?
Why is it that a housing developer must fund an environmental impact
study and the mitigation of all environmental impacts of his project, while
any person or persons who can muster up the resources to finance the
mortgage can purchase an R1 home and convert it into rental income.
property (rental-for-profit-only real estate deal like the man on TV said )
without funding any kind of a permit, environmental impact study, or
mitigations of any land whatsoever?
It well may be that more vigorous zoning and other measures need to be
enacted and enforced county wide.
It is my understanding that the City of San Luis Obispo is being petitioned by
a citizens group to at least require permits for single-family-owner type
residences to be rented as communaNype, multiple-tenant residences. I
certainly wish them success in their efforts.
What can be done in Santa Barbara County? What can you do?
�i
Why shouldn't this type of activity be prohibited by county ordnance?
Isn't "rental-income" a sort of profit-making business? Shouldn't there be
some kind of regulation as for other businesses?
Your most serious consideration of this matter.is respectfully requested.
I would appreciate a reply from each of you.
Truly Yours,
John B. Watson
231 Santa Barbara Shores Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
P.S. Drive out and take a look at 239 Santa Barbara Shores Drive sometime.
', *oewtesaamby LeadPerm _MEETING AGENDA
RgWmd by. DATE 2)_L�-- ITEM #
p Cay anr.
September 14, 1989 �F11 � ECEIVED
219 Albert Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SEP 1 8141
Ron Dunin, Mayor
P .O. Box 8100 CIN CLERK
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
Dear Ron Dunin :
Re : Commercial Residential Use Regulation for R-1 and R-2 Zone
Recall the fable , The Emperor' s New Clothes, in which a child
stated what was obvious to all , "The king is na.ked ! "? Similarly ,
the argument that we cannot legally discriminate between
residences used for rental purposes and residences occupied by
owners warrants refutation . Discrimination between residences
used for rentals and owner-occupied residence is reasonable ,
legitimate , and with vigorous defense should withstand any
potential legal challenge .
Rental or leasing residences is a commercial activity . The City
presently regulates commercial activities, including leasing .
I own Pierce Capital, Inc . an equipment leasing business . For
� . the past decade , the City has annually issued a City Business
License to this leasing firm. This business also collects quite
substantial amounts of personal property taxes for the benefit of
various governmental entities . The businesss is clearly subject
to regulation . Such regulation is not disputed .
There exists no legitimate reason why the City should exempt
rental of residences , unambiguously a commercial activity, from
regulation. The claim that the City cannot discriminate between
residences occupied by renters and owners . is unwarranted .
Phrasing the argument in terms of discriminating between renters
and owners is convenience - for defeating the movement to
preserve the character of R-1 zones. Accepting that argument
would legitimize the city 's continuing to ignore the destruction
of the character of R-1 zones .
There exists no reason for applying the proposed regulation to
residences occupied by owners - other than an illegitimate agenda
of defeating the movement by drafting the ordinance in a manner
designed to be politically unacceptable to the Community.
I strongly recommend adoption of "Commercial Residual Use
Regulations ," essentially as proposed by "Residents for Quality
Neighborhoods . "
Sincerely,
Do a Pierce
cc: Jeffe ey Jorgensen, City Attorney.
oar X1.2_ ITEM! # .
RECEIVED
C *Denotes action by lead Person
September 15, 1989 SEP 1 8 N7 Respond by.
p.Ecl=c I
219 Albert Drive CITY CLERK 0.6AO
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 0City ALI.
�.Olerk-orifi.
e'1z .�Zc �
Dr . Hazel J . Scott !7
Vice President for Student Affairs
California Polytechnic State University , San Luis Obispo
Sap Luis Obispo, California 93407
Dear Dr . Scott :
"Residents for Quality Neighborhoods" is keen.ly interested in
participation in the Task Force which you described at the August
1 , 1989 San Luis Obispo City Council Meeting . Cal Poly ' s Task
Force ' s effectiveness will benefit from input from residents
of the Community in which it exists , and in which reside many of
its administrators , faculty , staff and students . Thorough
examination of Cal Poly-Community relations , particularly
relationships involving the housing of persons associated with
Cal Poly , warrants community participation .
We nominate the -following members of "Residents for Quality
Neighborhoods , " recommending that two of these
persons be
selected and invited to participate in Cal Poly ' s Task Force :
NAME_ ADDRESS_ TELEPHONE
Linda Lalum 3452 Sequoia 543-0537
Rodney Lee 1552 Oceanaire 544-1296
Marianne Michaels 1546 Oceanaire 544-6523
Douglas Pierce 219 Albert Drive 544-7804
Shirley Thomas 864 Venable 543-4550
Arlene. Zanchuck 26 Chorro 543-8264
Sincerely ,
Cs P
Douglas R . fierce
for "Resid is for Quality Neighborhoods"
,/Cc : Ron u in , Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo
C
i
MEEtiTgG AGENDA
DATE 9 -?-8 ITEM #
ASSOCIATED STUDENTS, INC.
=� IFJULIAN A. McPHEE UNIVERSITY UNION
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93407
EXECUTIVE OFFICE(805)756-1291
To: Mayor- Ron Dunin, Council Members: Peg Pinard, Penny
Rappa, Jerry Reiss, Allen Settle
From: Ricardo Echeverria
Chair, Student/Community Liason Committee
RE: Rental Residential Regulations
The Student/Community Liason Committee met on September 14
whereby the topic of Rental Residential Regulations consumed
the majority of our discussion. During the meeting, a
motion was unanimously passed to request the Council to
postpone any decision (including decisions of passing the
proposed ordinance to print) , until at least four weeks from
the September 19 Council meeting. The general consensus of
the committee was that the parties that could ultimately be.
affected by the passage of such an ordinance, need to be
allowed greater time to thoroughly review its implications.
Moreover, the City Community Development representative had.
alluded that they would also like more time in order to
continue further investigation on the issue.. Due to the fact
that this topic is of grave importance to the committee and
students, we ask that you take heed of our concerns. I
appreciate your time on this matter.
Thank You.
cc: Members, Student/Community Liason Committee
%Denotes action by Lead Person
R�;Pond by:
2I council
city,ony. RECEIVED
a clerk-prig.
CrrY� O�p51!I I�JS CLERK9�.�p9