Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/1978L! 1 M.I N U T E S ADJOURNED MEETING OF.THE.CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OB.ISPO THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1978 - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Roll Call COUNCILMEN Present: Ron Dunin, Jeff Jorgensen, Allen Settle and Mayor Kenneth E. Schwartz Absent: Steve Petterson CITY STAFF: Present: J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer; Dale Mitchell, City Attorney;.Don Englert,,Police Captain 1. _ The City.Council..held a public hearing.to.discuss_ density limitations and.unrelated persons provisions of.,the- Municipal.Code. Mayor Schwartz announced that.Councilman,Petterson would not take,part in the discussion due to a conflict of interest. Mayor Schwartz explained that the purpose of the meeting was to clarify defini- tions dealing with.density.and the number_of..unrelated:.persons who could live in residential.structures and further the..city.'s proposal for enforcement of this type of regulation. He..then read the definition as placed on the screen of "Definition of Family" in Section:9200.1 of the Municipal Code: "Family - An individual or two (2)_or.more.persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, plus not more than two (2) persons, excluding full time servants, who are not related.by blood, marriage or adoption, living together-as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit ". He then read for the public's information, also placed on the screen, the defini- tion the City Council had.placed in: proposed Ordinance No. 746: "Section 9200.16 -I - Dwelling Unit Occupancy Limit. A dwelling unit in family and two (2) three (3) unrelate, live -in servants. blood, marriage or any zone shall not be occupied by more than one persons unrelated.-to the family..or, -.by more than i persons.. These limits do not apply to full time, A family.is defined here as persons.related by adopt -ion. The owners of the dwelling unit shall.be responsible for ensuring that this occupancy limit is not exceeded and that occupant be held liable.only.if a rental agreement..or contract -has been entered into acknowledging the occupancy.limit." Mayor Schwartz then concluded that Ordinance No. 746 was never finally passed by the Council in favor of appointing a study committee to look into the entire housing matters and.definitions -of related and unrelated persons, etc. Mayor Schwartz declared. the public hearing open..... Mr. J.G.-Arsenio,-Chairman of .the Ad Hoc.City- Cal..Poly Housing.Committee, ' submitted the following report-to-the City Council: "On February 7, 1978 the City Council appointed the "Ad -Hoc City -Cal Poly Housing Committee" and charged it as follows: "The purpose of the Committee will be.to investigate, analyze and make recommendations to the City.Council and.Cal Poly Administration on measures which.can be.taken to alleviate the.current housing crisis as it affects the provision -of adequate student housing in.the community." City Council Minutes May 4, 1978 Page 2 The first thing our Committee learned as we began our investigation was that this issue had already been thoroughly studied, and that there was little, either meaningful or current, we could add. As you know, other studies and reports by City Council appointed Committees have been made on housing, including student housing. We believe these studies and reports, as well as the testimony given by property owners and students at Council hearings, together with volunteered comments from citizens -at -large made at Council meetings, have given the Council I as much information as possible on the following: 1. The need for student housing 2. The availability, or lack of it, of student housing 3. The cost of student housing 4. The conduct of students in places where they live with special emphasis on R -1 neighborhoods. Our Committee availed itself of all the existing information on the student housing situation in San Luis Obispo, including the fact that the present housing ordinances permit only 3 unrelated persons per unit in all residential zones (R -1, R -2, R -3, R -4 and R -H); brought the data up to date as nearly as possible; then using this information and our own research and knowledge of the subject, arrived at the con- clusions which prompt the following recommendations: 1. A unit with two or more bedrooms in the R -2, R -3, R -4 and R -H zones may be occupied by four unrelated persons. 2. Use Permits be issued in all residential zones to allow more than 3 unrelated persons to occupy a dwelling where it can be justified. 3. An advertisement outlining the provisions of the ordinance be published, stating that it is possible to obtain Use ' Permits through already established procedures if an exception to the general occupancy rule can be justified. The ad should be placed in the Telegram- Tribune and the Mustang Daily at the beginning of each Cal Poly quarter, and also published at the beginning of each Cuesta College semester in the Cuestonian. 4. Enforcement shall be on a complaint basis. a. Landlords shall be responsible for violations of the ordinance which specifies the number of unrelated individuals per dwelling. b. Landlords shall be responsible for maintaining the property in compliance with the existing Codes. c. Tenants shall be responsible for violations such as "disturbing the peace" or other nuisance ordinances. 5. Police be given the power to issue citations to the head(s) of households for violating noise or other nuisance ordinances. The fine for the citations to be $25.00. 6. All single - family rented housing in the City shall pass a fire safety inspection. The City Fire Department be charged with ' carrying out this inspection and its cost be paid by the property owner. 7. The City Council support Cal Poly's efforts to move ahead as quickly as possible to develop married student housing. 8. The City Council support and encourage the ASl at Cal Poly to follow through in setting up the proposed Student Mediation Board that would act as a mediator and consulting group in any City Council Minutes May 4, 1978 Page 3 .reported.problem between.students and non - students. The com- plaining party should report the matter..to the-Student Mediation Board first,. .unless immediate action is.,required which then becomes- a_case for the..police.. - The above.recommendations were approved -by riine.members of the Committee who were present_at theJast Committee meeting on,April 25,.1978. The two members who were - absent.were subsequently contacted.by. phone and also approved these -recommendations, .thereby making the decision.unanimous. The Committee differed on the recommended occupancy in R -1 single.family residences. Eight members recommended.'that the maximum of.three.unrelated people as stated.in.the• existing R -1 ordinance be maintained unless a Use Permit allows more..(See No. 2 above). Three members of the Committee dissented and have written a minority..report.which.is attached hereto. This Comm ittee'respectfully requests.-that this report be given your.serious consideration, and wish to.inform you that they stand ready to.answer any questions or explain any recommendation which.is..not clearly stated." Larry Robinson, member of the Ad Hoc_City -Cal Poly Housing Committee, sub- mitted the following minority report.to the majority report.on behalf of himself, Nate Levin and Walt Lambert: "The..San Luis Obispo City Council asked the Ad Hoc Housing Task Force to make.a.recommendation to the Council regarding.residential density within the city limits.. The Task Force agreed on -many points, but we couldn.'t.agree on a maximum number of residents that could legally live within.an R -1 zone dwelling. Task Force.members Nate Levin,.Walt Lambert, and Larry Robinson believe that delineating -the maximum number of individuals, either related or unrelated, will not automatically so.lve.the community noise and parking problems, . We also.feel that there is a more direct way to achieve a solution to these problems.. One way would be to create -an ordinance which would ive. olice officers the g p power to cite occupants violating the noise or nuisance ordinances. A recommendation was made to create a student mediation board to deal with student - non - student housing conflicts. Both of these. recommendations were unanimously approved by the entire Task Force. It is the opinion of this segment of the Task. Force that there should, by definition, be a specific upper..limit to.the maximum number of unrelated occupants in residential dwellings within the city limits. It is our feeling, however, that an arbitrary number of three (in the above context) for R -1 zoned areas is arbitrary.,•unrealistic, infeasible, and unenforceable. The realities of being able to enforce a decision of this type would be an expensive, laborious, and burdensome.process.for the city to attempt. Conceptually, we don't take exception to the need for control or enforce- ment of problem situations, but.an approval of.this -type would affect many people, both.student and non-student that live in harmony with their neigh- bors. Quite frankly, it seems unfair .to-attack the majority of good occupants because of the problems created by a..few. ". Nate Levin, member'of the Ad -Hoc Housing Committee, stated that there was a mis- understanding in recommendation 6 of the-majority report in that the wording should be multi - family residents, not single family housing. Councilman Settle asked who would cover the cost of the use permits if the Council accepted the.recommendations of the Ad -Hoc Committee. Chairman Arsenio stated he.felt that the city's normal use permit fee structure would apply as the same for any other use permits in the city. City Council Minutes May 4, 1978 Page 4 Councilman Settle then asked how would these permits be enforced? Chairman Arsenio stated that the enforcement should be the duty of the city administrative staff. If they can't enforce the regulations, then they won't be enforced which is the situation at the present time. Harry Busselin felt that the Ad -Hoc Committee's recommendations would adopt the present use permit system of the city including fees and would apply to all these housing problems. H. Engen, Community Development Director, explained the existing use permit procedures and fees which had been developed by ordinance in the city. Councilman Jorgensen asked the Minority Report Sucomittee what was meant by their statement "specific upper limit to the maximum number of unrelated occupants in residential dwellings within the city limits." Walt Lambert, committee member, stated that the minority report did not wish to place a special number on these things as it depended on the size of the building, the off - street parking available, etc. He felt one of the major problems had been the so- called "magic numbers." Mayor Schwartz asked the Ad -Hoc Committee members for clarification of their recommendations Nos. 1 and 2, as they seemed inconsistent, one with the other. Steve Nelson, committee member, stated that buildings in the R -2, R -3 and higher density zones had it understood that if they had two bedrooms then four people would live therein, but that the use permit be required in the R -1 zones for any tenancies over three. The City Council then discussed with various members of the Ad -Hoc Committee clarification of wording in their basic recommendations. Nate Levin stated that the Ad -Hoc Committee recommendation for use permit was to be a simple use permit proeedure, not the existing long, drawn out city use permit procedures. Brian Kohls, Political Action Club of Cal Poly, felt that the existing city housing law was unenforceable and should be deleted or amended in something that could be made workable both for the tenants and for the city. Sue Nash, representing the Political Action Club of Cal Poly,-presented the following proposal "on behalf of the club: "The Cal Poly Political Action Club submits the following three -part proposal: A. The definition of "family" in Section 9200.1 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: Family - An individual or two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, plus not more than four (4) persons who need not be related by blood, Marriage, or adoption, excluding full -time servants, living as a single housekeeping unit. B. Noise citations with a possible fine of $25.00 will be given to those persons who exceed the legal noise level. C. The recommendation by the Housing Task Force that a Community - Student Mediation Board be formed to informally resolve student - community housing issues should be adopted. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Political Action Club believed that this proposal was the most feasible compromise and would best serve the interests of the community and the 1 1 City Council Minutes May 4, 1978 Page 5 students. The inconsiderate acts of a few students should not be used as a justification to penalize the great majority of conscientious students who needed housing at a fair price while pursuing their education." She then reviewed for the City Council, provisions in various city ordinances dealing with tenants and unrelated persons living within a residential structure. She read from the ordinances of the City of Davis, the City of Stockton, the City ' of Mill Valley; the City of Hayward and the County of San Luis Obispo. She stated that she - presented the other cities' ordinances to show that this problem was not unique to the City of San Luis Obispo, but that other cities had the same problems and had solved them without thehassle that was going on here. She felt that the Council should not try and pioneer new ground, but accept what other cities had accomplished. She urged that the maximum number of unrelated persons living together in a household be five persons and then urge the tenants to obey the law and be good citizens. She agreed upon questioning that she only presented ordinances that favored.her group's position. Pat Morris, Student's Rental Tenants Association, felt that all the limited tenant ordinances were not enforceable and the Council should look to the real problem which was not occupancy, but parking, high rent and heartless landlords. He urged the-Council to be aware::_ofm'Cal Poly students who lived in the city and would be voting in future elections. Paul F. Curtis, A.S.I. President, Cal Poly, submitted the following letter and resolution on behalf of the Associated Studants, Inc. of Cal Poly: "As you are aware, the students of Cal Poly have a great stake yn the outcome of tonight's hearing and any decisions you make in regards to housing in this community. Understandably so, many of -the students are upset about the actions and the proposed actions which you have dealt with and are continuing to deal with. In response to the expressions and the desires of the students, the Student ' Senate of the ASI has passed a resolution addressing the issue of the housing ordinance and the problems of - parking,`noise and safety. The resolution calls for a rejection of the present definition of family as it pertains to the R -1 through R -4 zones in the City of San Luis Obispo and a request that the City Council enforce ordinances which currently deal with parking, noise and safety. Inherent in these requests is the.belief that community members should have the right to live wherever and with whomever they desire and enforcement of the three unrelated person language is contrary to,that right. Also inherent in the requests is the belief that enforcement of'the three unrelated person language is overaddressing the problems which the City Council is attempting to solve, those of parking, noise and safety. I now offer, for your consideration, this resolution and request that you con- sider it in making your decision on.this important issue.. Associated Students, Inc. California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo RESOLUTION WHEREAS: Over sixty pereent of the 15,000 Cal Poly students live in the City of San Luis Obispo and may be directly or ' indirectly affected by the city housing ordiaances, AND WHEREAS: We recognize that we have a responsibility to preserve and protect the rights.of all community members as well as7the -right ' to - pursue a chosen life style, AND WHEREAS: Delineating the maximum number of individuals within a household, either related or unrelated, violates the essential human right to live wherever and with whomever one chooses, AND City Council Minutes May 4, 1978 Page 6 WHEREAS:. The Associated Students, Incorporated, believes that such delineation is over - addressing the real problems of parking, noise and safety. THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED: T RESOLVED: That the_Assoicated Students,.Incorporated, take a.position calling for a rejection of the present definition of "family" as it pertains to the R -1, R -2, R -3 and R -4 zones in the Citv of San Luis Obispo, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Associated Students, Incorporated, request that the City Council strictly enforce noise, parking and safety ordinances and regulations to alleviate the problems that are being attributed to more than three unrelated persons.. 5/1/78" Paul Curtis concluded his comments by stating he felt the real problem was not how many people lived together, but how much parking was available, and how much noise was initiated by these tenants. He felt that a major problem in.this community was that the City Council's attitude and support of a no- growth posture over the last ten years had stopped any adequate housing develop- ment for people who wished to live in San Luis Obispo and.particularly the students who recognizably were transient but were citizens for four years. Bill Edwards, Laguna Lake, representing 43 residential property owners, urged that the City Council keep the three unrelated persons in the R -1 zones and further they were not worried about the R -2, R -3 and R -4 and higher densities, but he felt that the City Council should protect those few people who wished to live in single family areas. Lloyd D. Fuller, rural San Luis Obispo, stated he was in support of allowing more densities in order to allow decent housing for the young people of the community. He felt that the city should not put down the tenant, but enforce the violations that cause the problems, such as the lack of parking, excessive noise, safety, etc. He urged that the minimum should be raised to at least four individuals. Tom Rorabak, contractor, felt that the entire problem presented this evening was economics and the property owners wished to protect their investments to live in San Luis Obispo. Also, the speculators were renting to groups rather than families because of the higher income that could be derived.from this source of rental so that the investors looking to groups who could pay $125 /head for up to.seven people in a house, where no family could really pay over $300. He felt that the city's no- growth policy in the past ten years was keeping the cost up for land and for development. He was opposed to the present limit of three individuals and felt it should be increased at least to four in order to take advantage of the two - bedroom houses, apartments, etc. He also felt that tha city's regulations were killing development within the city. He felt it took too long to get processed through the city agencies. He gave as an example, a project that took two years to get permits for his own development and the cost in that period increased over 30 percent. Steve Nelson, 1868. Corralitos Street, felt that-the city should protect.the integrity of the R -1 zone for families in order to protect and encourage family life styles and not students life styles. He urged the Council to support the Ad -Hoc Committee's recommendation of the use permit procedure. Larry Robinson, 572 Foothill Blvd.., questioned where did.students have a different life style from so- called families? 9:05 p.m. Mayor Schwartz declared a recess. 9:20 p.m. the meeting reconvened, all Councilmen present, Councilman Petterson.absent. City Council Minutes May 4, 1978 Page 7 Herbert L. Pardoe, 1441 Slack Street, stated the petition from his neighbors was to protect the integrity of the R -1 zones add the single family life style and riot to encourage further depredation of the residential areas by allowing multiple family use with their attendant cars, noise,-etc. John Griffin, 336 Tolosa Way, felt that the R -1 zone was illegal as the Fair Housing Act meant that anyone could live anywhere they pleased. ' John Russell, 1807 Abbot Street, felt that using numbers to control the problem was wrong. He felt that numbers were arbitrary and capricious and that if a tenant caused problems, they should be tried under those laws that existed, such as parking, noise, etc., and if the city had an ordinance it should be enforced and not just ignored. Sylvia Drucker, Cavalier Court; stated that she was in support of the Ad -Hoc Committee's report. She felt that all violations to any laws in the city should be prosecuted, whether it be zoning, parking, noise, etc. She urged that the City Council enforce the zoning ordinance in the single family zoned areas and keep it to families. She also felt that only three unrelated people should be allowed to live in.-single family residential zones. Karen Renze, 742 Boysent Avenue, stated.that as of June 1, 1978, her landlord raised the rent from $130 /month to $150 /month or $310 for her and her roommate. The apartment was unfurnished, no rugs, etc. She stated that the landlord told her when.she moved out, they were putting in additional tenants and doubling the rent. She Concluded that only one parking space was allocated to each apartment. She felt that this was where the Council should get on top of the matter and not hassle the students. Phil Dunn, 324 N. Chorro Street, felt the Council should be aware of.what was happening in housing in San Luis Obispo and he hoped that the City Council would take some action and not continue this matter forever as had been the history. Mark Smith, 99 Mustang Drive, felt the City Council should look into all the possible violations of parking laws, not only of students-, but all'residents of the city. John Jenkins, 2020 Hope Street, submitted the following petition signed by seven individuals stating: "The undersigned residents of the Pacheco School neighborhood hereby petition the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo to adopt an ordinance regulating the number of unrelated persons who may reside-in a single dwelling unit as follows: 1) R -1 Zones: Not more than three (3) unrelated " persons shall reside in a single dwelling unit. 2)' All residential Not more than four (4) unrelated zones other persons shall reside in a single than R -l:- dwelling unit. q ' Enforcement of the said ordinance should-be directed primarily at the owners of rental properties rather than the tenants." He stated that he would continue to support the restrictions of three unrelated persons living in any residential dwelling -in the city. Gail Moyes, Fixlini Street, stated that he was opposed to any students living in a family neighborhood. He felt they-had no respect for the people living in the neighborhood, they did-not--cooperate with the neighbors and he felt•that he was very unhappy in that he had'a residence converted across from his house with 8 or 9 vans, apparently abandoned on the street, and the city staff did nothing to enforce the law. City Council Minutes May 4, 1978 Page 8 Henry Alberts,_ Madonna Road, felt that in order to make the law work, it. must:be neforced_ equally to all.citizens, students and other citizens of the city. He felt the matter was not .student housing but.violators of city laws such as overcrowding, lack-of-parking, noise,. etc. He felt the City Council was not having these laws enforced. If they were fairly enforced to everyone, then the quality of life .would be improved for all the citizens whether they be students or not. He continued that the City Council had allowed unlimited number of persons to live in residential neighborhoods and now was attempting to correct an error made by them over the years. He concluded that the City should enforce all .laws equal, equitably and fairly to all its citizens regardless. He supported the three_.unrelated persons law in effect and asked that it be.enforced. He would oppose the appointment of a mediation board to solve housing matters. Laws should be enforced, not ignored. He did not feel that the city should bail out Cal Poly for allowing too many students to enroll without adequate housing for their shelter. Ken Rogers,.Ramona Drive,.felt the problem was not numbers of tenants but lack of parking, noise violations without control, etc. He felt that parking vio- lations and noise violations should be enforced by the city. Gerry Holland, Realtor, supported the rule.of no more than three unrelated persons in the R -1 zone. He would not agree to this limit in multiple zoned housing if the city would enforce the parking rules in their zoning ordinance. Violations to parking laws would,be eliminated if the city enforced their own laws. Finally, he felt that the City Council and Planning Department should accept much of.the responsibility for the high price of land,and buildings as they made it very difficult to complete a development within the city at any reasonable cost. Pam Jarvis, Murray Street, supported the Political Action Club's proposal for density limitations. She felt that most students tried to cooperate with their neighbors and if• anyone violated the law.then they.should be prosecuted. L. Young; Cal Poly student, supported the Political Action Committee's proposal , and she felt that students.werIe people whether they were here for one year or ten. David Sosner, 390 Chorro Street, supported the amendment to allow four unrelated people living in apartments, but he agreed that they should enforce the three person limit in single family zones. Doug Hawkins, High Street, felt that citizens should accept each other as people and.not breakdown as locals, students, etc. Steve Hall, Carmel Street, agreed with the regulation to control only three unrelated people in single family zones, but that some other limits should be allowed in the multiple use zones in order to make use of the facilities available. Matt Arnett, 669 Chorro Street, stated that in order to live in San Luis Obispo he must have three roommates to pay the rent and if he got rid of one of them he would not be able to make it.. He hoped the Council would.be aware of these problems, be fair and not pick on students who were trying to work, live in the city and also get an education. Burt Williams supported.the students as people, but also felt that all laws should be enforced for all the people and not just students. Tom Mayer, California Blvd.,.felt'the problem was one.of. economics. He hoped that the.citizans and students could get together and-come up with a just solution :that was as fair as possible to all.the citizens. .He too also felt that laws should be enforced. Carol Waggonner, Bond Street., urged the Council to allow at.least four unrelated people in dwellings in order to let young people live in apartments: She agreed that in single family residence areas, no more than three should be allowed. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed at 10:35 p.m. and also called a recess. At 10:50 p.m. the meeting reconvened with Councilman Petterson absent. City Council Minutes May 4, 19.78 Page 9 Harry Busselin, Ad -Hoc Committee, stated.:he felt the committee had heard all the comments presented to the Council.this evening. He agreed and the committee agreed that.the.three or more-unrelated ordinance.should.be.enforced only in the R -1 zones and that four unrelated.people.should be allowed in the R -2, R -3, R -4, etc. areas. He still supported.vigorous enforcement.of three unrelated persons in the.R- l:zones. He stated he did not see how the Council would.expect people to obey.the law.if they only enforced it on a.selective basis. Finally; he.did not feel.that it was the city government's respon- sibility to provide housing for any of its citizens regardless of their standing. Steve Nelson,.Ad -Hoc Committee, stated he would support the use permit concept in the R =l and R -2 zones, but.hopefully under logical conditions, not too complicated. Elizabeth Zevely,- Ad -Hoc Committee, stated she would support.enforcement of the three unrelated.persons in the R_1 zoned areas. Joe Arsenio, Ad -Hoc .Committee, urged. the City Council to support the Ad -Hoc Committee's recommendations for three unrelated.persons in the R -1 zones, but that four persons could.be.allowed in'other multiple zoned uses with.a use permit allowed if more occupancy were justified in any zone, including R -1 which would not infringe on single family areas. The conditions might be extra parking, large houses, etc. Walt Lambert -felt that in all these meetings on occupancy problems, in reality were not the-.students but parking, noise, etc. If this were true, why did the Council not enforce the parking requirements, parking violations and noise violations. He urged that the recommendation for use permit concept be adopted. Larry.Robinson, Ad- Hoc:Committee,.felt the students and citizens could and should live well together..- He supported the Ad -Hoc Committee's recommendation ' except as to numbers.. he would,.support the Political Action Club's recommenda- tion of five unrelated.persons living together as a housekeeping.unit., I 1 . 'Mayor "Schwartz stated he felt this.was a difficult matter before the Council, as it was a no win, solution whichever way the Council decided. He felt some of the options open to the Council were: 1) No action, but support the existing ordinance. 2) Enforce the existing ordinance, but in a different direction than was being done at this time. 3) Continue deliberations of this.matter:for a future time. 4) Modify.the existing ordinance. 5) Rescind the existing ordinance. He felt that he could agree with the Ad -Hoc Committee's recommendations as he felt it.was a reasonable way to- bridge the differences, such as protecting the family life style versus-,unrelated persons,in the,R- l'zones;•although he felt that any-buildings in the R -1 zones which size would allow more higher density under.specific.conditions of a use permit would be approved. He also supported the use permit for the.R -1, R -2, R -3 uses,.etc...He felt the:use permit would allow public input as the property would be posted and hearings would be held. He further stated he did not agree with allowing all apartments to continue operation without a use permit and specific conditions.being established for ' each complex.. He also.supported the public notice recommendations of the committee as he felt that.the ordinance could be enforced if everyone knew what was going on. He also felt that.the enforcement should be on a complaint basis only and not build a large bureaucracy. He also agreed with the -fire inspection recommendations and would also support the Cal Poly Students Mediation Board for housing. He felt that he could support.the majority recommendation of the Ad -Hoc Housing Committee. Councilman Settle thanked the Ad -Hoc Committee for their work'and agreed that the situation before the Council was a no win issue for them. .He would con- tinue to support retention of the three unrelated persons in the R -1 zones in order to protect-the quality of life for families. He also agreed that all the City Council Minutes May 4, 1978 Page 10 city's laws should be enforced,_:and..he agr.eed..that.many. had. not-been enforced in the city which allowed this.problem_.to.develop.... He-stated-that he would agree with the Ad -Hoc Committee's recommendation #1, he disagreed:with #2 and the use permit for all residential zones-for more -than three unrelated students. although he would support-the-use permit for R -2, R- 3,•etc. but not for R -1. He could support recommendations #3 and #4 when selective enforcement was a reality. He would support recommendation #5 but we should look into the types of fines involved. He would support.#6-but.wondered what-the expense would be for the city but nevertheless -felt this should be'done in the multiple zones. He could support recommendation #7 and he would support recommendation #8 reluctantly as he did not know how this would work and what effect it would have on the citizens in the community. Therefore, he felt he..could support the Ad -Hoc Committee in .principle except for the.ones:he has mentioned as being reluctant. . Councilman Dunin thanked.the participants in the public hearing and also the Ad -Hoc Committee. He felt the problem was one of economics and the inability to provide adequate, reasonable housing for the citizens of the city. Not only students,.but all citizens. He felt much of:the housing.problem:..had been caused by the City Council in not.demanding that the city staff enforce adopted city laws.. He hoped that the future.policy of:the city..would.recognize the existence of Cal Poly and that.acommodations must be.made between the.students. -and resi- dents of the city. He could support the Student Mediation Board to solve their own problems among their own peers. He would support the.use permit concept for zones other than the R -1, but hoped that the conditions would be understand- able and enforceable and..not so long-and complicated_to.acquire as is .the present policy as far as use permits are:codcerned.. He felt he could support the recommendations of the Ad -Hoc Committee. Councilman Jorgensen also thanked the Ad -Hoc Committee for a job well -done and he agreed with the Ad -Hoc Committee's.recommendations except for the R -1 zones having a maximum of.four unrelated persons without permits and exempt condo- miniums. He agreed with the use permit fo'r more than four persons in other than the R -1 zones. He felt that the city should be looking very carefully at its parking requirements for apartments,.knowing that the tenants would be primarily students who were unrelated to each other and each would be having a motor vehicle. He also felt conditions of the use permit should look to the required parking in the R -1 and the condominium zones, but allow more than three if certain criteria were met. He felt that a simplified use permit pro - ceduresshould be adopted and go before the Board of Adjustments with appeals to the Planning Commission but not'a.long, involved.advertising period to make a decision. He continued by stating that he felt the noise regulations in the city should be enforced or-dropped-from the ordinance. He felt .that -he could agree with all the recommendations of the Ad -Hoc Committee except #8 which was alright with him except he felt this was a student matter and could)not'.be implemented.by the City Council. On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded.by Councilman Dunin, that the City Council accept in principle the recommendation of the Ad- Hoc_.City =Cal Poly Housing Committee. The.staff`.was.directed'to prepare the- necessary documents to implement the recommendations.. Staff to present a recommendation.of standards -for use .permit program, legality of infraction enforcement, cost of use permit, enforcement program (including the estimate of time, etc.). This report to be submitted to the City Council at the June 6, "1978 Council meeting. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Mayor Schwartz, Councilmen Dunin, Jorgensen.and Settle NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Petterson 2. There being no further business to come.before..the.City Council, Mayor Schwartz adjourned the meeting at 12:30 a.m., May 5, 1978 to 12:10 p.m., Monday May 8, 1978. APPROVED: June 7, 1978 Yitzpatrick, City Clerk