HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/03/1989, A - APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY MEnNG AGENDA
��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII��I �IIIIIIIIIIII _
ATE 10/03/89 REM
IIIIIIIIII II
CItYOf SAn IwS OBISPO
Him
990 Palm Street/Post Office Bax 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
September 21, 1989
I�AUID�S
TO: City Cotmcil
FRCS: Ran Duma, Mayor
SOw: AAmointment to the Housing Authority
As e""red by State law (State of California Health and Safety Caode,
Sections 34200 et seq.) the Mayor is required to re000amd appointments to
the Housing Authority.
Effective September 1, 1989, tenant Commissioner William Moldt resigned
from the Housing Authority. As of that date, he was no longer renting
from the Housing Authority and, therefore, ineligible to serve as a tenant
cozissicner.
Afterdiscusrity and review of-um W3.th d he Moylan,, Fmcative Director of the Housing
applications on file, I an pleased to
recommend the appointment of Jamie Daniel to fill the tenant =Mdssioner
te= eVirsng 3-31-91. M. Daniel has been renting from the Housing
Authority for the past year and a half and was recently asked to sit in on
attached.
'8. Authority grievance hearing. A copy of her application is
If you have any questions, please call.
M%klc
Attacbnent
A-i
Q APPOINTMENT
REAPPOINTMENT
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT TO A CITY ADVISORY BODY
JAW/-L� LA/V /E I Advisory Body Applied For:
Name of Applicant
/ 96 Ccf Sf. S�wl���sOb��ca I . ga.61;v6 crfX02;+>' t
Residence Street Address & City 2.
50/1 - 1935 (If a second choice is indicated, a
S/+� second interview will be required. )
Day Phone Evening Phone
1. Are you a registered voter of the city? La NO
2. How long have you lived in the city? -P/UC- l,AYE6r7S
3. Present occupation and employer: ADM4F MAkei .
4. Education: -4LAX) YE:.lts Cvl)Lc,E
S. Membership in organizations: .voroF
6. Please specify the reasons why you feel you should be appointed to this
advisory body (use reverse side for additional information) :
�S�E U�t�2 srQc l
7. #Previous service on any SLO advisory bodies (names and dates) :
n/OA/E
PLEASE NOTE: If you are appointed to the Planning Commission, Architectural
Review Commission, or the City Housing Authority, you are required by State
law to file a Statement of Economic Interest disclosing all reportable interests
held by you at the time. of appointment. A copy of this form is available from
the City Clerk. .
Applications are accepted year round, however, if you are applying for a current
vacancy, your application must be returned to the City Clerk by,
in order to be considered for the current round of interviews.
***TO BE FILLED OUT BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE***
Interview Date: _ Screening Committee R E C Ei V
MM
***TO BE FILLED OUT BY SCREENING COMMITTEE CHAIR , 91989
Recommend for. Appointment:. YES 0 NO CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA.
Recommendation is for:
Q Unexpired term Full term
Additional comments: A—
c
T '11AVE L�eN A 41ENAnl7 cit � oUSiNG riJfhok�ry rcQ :� �c/�,2
,Afvd N hkif. SA+n A, s-ON6/e- AV#eYe o cwCr a�VJ .a44;✓i6e I:V✓olVSrd :.v
MARY 4AWAWI issvMs, ,S� is nay i.vfetif -Ad br?i'V6, fn fLiis
CWvlM,�J, Jl a n„�ch Nerd �iu6iG�.f aNd Sur d%NEd �E,vati�
iiv CcX AC Prov.
Most �'Ecerv�(,� Shad aha �,o�vort o1' b��.�cas asked b�
44 f&nhv6 A o�kck �y �o si;� oN U,z je vAAlw
),V C-.,
Pmc-/ geu- OS Avf'I„ore44r
ecw►„�rss;ppd ,,,�„bis. Tie y hoe boo ✓�¢y peessed
MY PEQccP1;eN off' �Enra�rm coac�►2w5 mud �
cf ec4lVLNe55 35 a PRNE� rYie/��aL ,
!AAvk ya, fo2 ywe cays�alaxa��ow
Iw J�
lq" 3
M �JING AGENDA
DATE ZR.:.I- ITEM #
�- �IIInBN�uIIIIb�IIIIIIII�IIII�hlllll{1111 III
city ® si� �,l1 oBispo
� s
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 118Mtes action by lead Person
Respond by
1.tlOuncil
Atty
`.�C erk-orifi i
September 26, 1989
TO: Honorable Mayor Dunin and Council Members ;
fr
FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorn SEP 2 6
RE: Residential Rental Regulations 1989
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
INTRODUCTION :_��i✓ "A
At the September 19, 1989 City Council meeting, several
questions were raised regarding the proposed residential
rental regulations, including the following:
1. What is the process and legality of "enforcement by
complaint"?
2 . Who is liable for violations that do occur, and can a
landlord be held liable for relocation costs in the event
of a violation?
3 . Can the City Council require a minimum separation between
units requiring an administrative use permit (200 feet
was suggested) ?
EVALUATION
Enforcement. Upon the effective date of the proposed
residential rental regulations, if adopted, all regulated
rental units will have an affirmative legal duty to apply for
a business license, and under certain circumstances an
administrative use permit. to the extent that the City has
knowledge .of a violation of either requirement, it will have a
responsibility to take reasonable steps to enforce the
regulations. At this point, the City does not have sufficient
procedures or personnel to actively investigate every rental
unit in the City for compliance. Therefore, it is most likely
that enforcement will be initiated at such time as the City
has received a complaint.:.. City staff would then investigate,
and if a violation is found, a citation could be issued.
C
Honorable Mayor Dunin and Council Members
September 26, 1989
Page 4
Corp. v. Municipal Court, 200 Cal'.Rptr. 47, 49 (4th Dist.
1983) . ) The rationale is that in an attempt to preserve
neighborhoods, dispersal or the prevention of a concentration
of certain types of businesses is a valid use of the police
power. Dispersal is allowed even if there is an adverse
impact on the business being regulated, provided that the real
reason behind the regulation is to promote proper land use and
planning, and not to restrict the particular business
regulated. (Ensign Bickford Realty v. City Council, 137
Cal .Rptr. 304 (3rd Dist. 1977) .
Traditionally, locational zoning requirements have only been
applied to special situations involving problem uses, such as
adult entertainment establishments (Renton _ v. Playtime
Theaters, Inc. (1985) 106 S.Ct, 925) and gasoline service
stations (Van Sicklen v. Browne, 92 Cal .Rptr. 786 (1st Dist.
1971) . ) The rationale is that certain uses, by their very
nature, create problems which justify dispersal or separation
from residential uses (i.e. , crime, loitering, fire hazard,
toxic chemicals, etc. ) .
I have been unable to identify any instances where separation
requirements have been applied to residential uses, and
therefore I cannot give a conclusive opinion concerning
whether such regulations would be upheld or invalidated.
However, it is my opinion that an attempt to apply separation
requirements to the proposed residential rental regulations
would raise several significant difficulties. In addition to
the administrative problems discussed in the staff report,
such regulations may result in additional displacement, which
would require further environmental review and reevaluation of
the negative declaration. It would also be extremely
difficult for the City to support a determination that rental
uses which otherwise meet the standards of the proposed
regulations and comply with other city regulations such as
noise are inherently problem uses. Further, it would raise
equal protection arguments as to why similarly situated
residences, both of which can meet the proposed standards, are
treated differently, and why rental occupancies are treated
differently from owner occupancies which may have the same
impacts with respect to density and parking.
Therefore, it is my strong recommendation that the Council
defer consideration of separation requirements as a part of
the proposed residential rental regulations. Once we have had
Ci some experience with the implementation and enforcement of the
Honorable Mayor Dunin and Council Members
September 26, 1989
Page 2
Citations could result in criminal fines for violation of the
use permit requirements, doing business without a business
license, and other action including revocation of the use
permit or nuisance abatement. Such "enforcement by complaint"
is not unconstitutional unless it is done by deliberate or
intentional discriminatory enforcement. (Town of Atherton v.
Templeton (1961) 17 Cal.Rptr. 680, 685. )
With respect to who would be liable for either doing business
without a business license or violation of the use permit
requirements, it is clear that such regulations apply to the
owner/landlord and not the tenant. In a situation where a
tenant is forced to relocate as a result of enforcement
action, the City may be able to require the owner/landlord to
provide tenant relocation costs under- certain circumstances.
The City of Los Angeles has been contacted regarding a new
city ordinance which requires owners of illegal substandard
dwellings to pay the relocation costs for those tenants who
are evicted. The focus and rationale for the ordinance are
health, safety, and welfare issues revolving around
substandard units which may have housing and building code
violations. The power to impose such relocation costs on
property owners stems from the municipality's police power to
promote the public welfare. (See Briarwood Properties v. City
of Los Angeles (1985) 217 Cal.Rptr. 849, and Kalavdjian v.
City of Los Angeles (1983) 197 Cal.Rptr. 159. )
It should be noted that the City of Los Angeles regulations,
and similar regulations in other cities, have only been
applied to serious housing and building code violations where
the densities involved are far in excess of the standards (300
square feet per occupant) contemplated by the City of San Luis
Obispo. For example, Uniform Housing Code Section 503 (b)
requires not less than 70 square feet for a bedroom with one
or two occupants, with an additional 50 square feet for each
occupant in excess of two. Obviously, these standards apply
primarily to serious "slumlord" conditions which probably will
not be frequently encountered in the City.
Therefore, if the City wishes to develop additional ordinances
providing for relocation costs for evicted tenants, care
should be taken in establishing standards which can be
justified on a health and safety basis in relation to the
Uniform Housing and Building Codes. Another area which would
justify examination would be where tenants are displaced as a
result of illegal conversions.
Honorable Mayor Dunin and Council Members
September 26, 1989
Page 3
Other types of problems, such as unkempt yards, are more
properly addressed by a blight ordinance, which will be coming
before the Council at a later date. Liability can be
addressed at that time by the specific language of the
ordinance. Likewise, on the issue of noise, which is a common
neighborhood concern, our current ordinance makes the
perpetrator of the noise liable and not the owner/landlord of
the property.
Finally, there may be other enforcement mechanisms which the
City should, explore. For example, cities are authorized to
notify the State Franchise Tax Board that a particular rental
housing unit is "substandard" and thereby prevent the building
owner from receiving interest, depreciation, or amortization
deductions for state income tax purposes. Substandard housing
is broadly defined, and it appears to cover not only building
code violations, but also zoning violations (such as the
proposed residential rental regulations) . (Revenue and
Taxation Code Sections 17299, 24436.5.,) Also, a city, by
ordinance, may provide that prior to the sale or exchange of
any residential building, the owner shall obtain from the city
a report relative to the residential building showing the
regularly authorized use, occupancy, and zoning classification
of such property. (Government Code Section 38780. ) The
report is required to be delivered by the owner to the buyer
of the residential building prior to consummation of the sale.
If a zoning violation exists on property subject to such
residential building record report, the report itself would
designate the violation. Such report will frequently result
in correction of the violation since it may have an inhibiting
effect on consummation of the sale. In addition, it would
provide the City with an opportunity to make prospective
buyers of residential units aware of the City's residential
rental regulations.
Once the proposed residential rental regulations are in place,
and the City has had some experience with enforcement, it
would be my recommendation to review additional enforcement
mechanisms such as those discussed above for possible
amendment to the ordinance.
Locational Zoning Regulations. with respect to requiring a
200 foot separation between all residential rental uses
requiring an administrative use permit, the courts have
allowed cities to disperse or deconcentrate certain uses
�, within their boundaries by such regulations. (Strand Property
I
Honorable Mayor Dunin and Council Members
September 26, 1989
Page 5
regulations, further consideration of separation standards may
be warranted if. such a need is clearly identified, thoroughly
documented, and carefully analyzed for legal validity.
Respectfully submitted,
/J RE OR NSEN,
City tto ey
JGJ: fr
A:MMSL0345