HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-17-2016 Item 21, Dietrickis Q
COUNCIL MEETING:_S— 1--Zy `L
ITEM NO.: },
City Attorney's Office
MAY 17 1016
May 16, 2016
Via E -Mail ordonand ordon charter.net) &
U.S. Mail
Kirby K. Gordon
The Gordon Law Firm
760 Mattie Road, Suite Al
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
RE: Ordinance No. 1616 (2015 Series) Rental Housing Inspection Program
Dear Mr. Gordon,
I had the opportunity to carefully review your May 2, 2016 letter regarding your concerns
with staff s application of its Rental Housing Inspection Program ("RHIP") on some of your client's
property. If I understand your letter correctly, you assert that the plain language of Ordinance No.
1616 (2015 Series) provides that only rental properties within the City's R-1 and R-2 zone are
subject to the Ordinance. In support of this argument, you reference recitals which describe some of
the underlying factual circumstances leading to the Council's adoption of the City's legislation.
However, as you so rightly note in your letter, the starting point in statutory interpretation is the
statute itself. Here, the definition of the term "Residential rental dwelling unit" in the statute itself is
entirely unambiguous; in fact, the codified ordinance speaks only to types of dwellings covered and
doesn't even mention zoning designations.
The City's RHIP Ordinance, as codified in its Municipal Code, applies to "Residential rental
dwelling units" which is defined as:
"...single-family dwellings, duplexes, and second dwelling units, which are rented,
leased, or held out for rent or lease, or otherwise used for residential rental
purposes... located within the San Luis Obispo city limits, except as otherwise
exempted in this chapter. This definition excludes multifamily dwellings having
three or more dwelling units within a structure and transient type occupancies
(hotels, motels and bed and breakfasts). " SLOW § 15.10.020
This definition is clear and unambiguous — with some narrow exceptions, all single family dwellings
and duplexes which are rented are subject to the RIIIP. The recitals in the Ordinance mentioned in
your letter are the findings and factual record that support the legislative action. Such findings need
not address every possible application of the ordinance, nor do they limit, change or otherwise
modify the plain definition of covered dwellings included in the ordinance itself. In other words, the
recitals are not the law; the ordinance is. Recitals are mere statements that may illuminate or explain
some of the factual underpinnings or motivations for legislative action. However, they are neither
legally necessary nor dispositive in the legislative context.
You state that "[wJhen you look at both the 2015 ordinance and the 2005 ordinance you can
readily confirm that they are complementary, but mutually exclusive in their subject matter. The
2015 Ordinance only applies to rentals in the R-1 and R-2 zones and the 2005 Ordinance only
applies to the rental properties in the multifamily R-3 and R-4 zones." You are correct that the two
ordinances are, to some extent, complementary to one another, but not in the manner you suggest.
First, like the RHIP Ordinance, the 2005 Multi -Family Dwelling Inspection Ordinance (No. 1472)
doesn't mention zoning and applies by its own terms to certain types of dwellings/structures. That's
because the City's residential inspection programs operate based on state occupancy classification
and construction type, not zoning. RHIP covers R-3 rental structures (a single family and duplex
occupancy designation under state building and safety codes) and the Fire Department's program
covers all R-1 and R-2 structures (a multifamily occupancy designation under the state building and
safety codes). It is true that most, but not all, R-3 occupancy structures in the City are located within
R-1 and R-2 City zoning designation areas. It is also true that many, but not all, of the City's issues
with rental housing code compliance are concentrated in its R-1 and R-2 zoning areas. As a result,
those zoning areas were a particular focus of the Council's findings. You are also correct that, if the
programs were based on City zoning, rather than structure type/occupancy, then a "gap" would exist
when any R-3 structures were located in R-3 or R-4 zones because the Fire Department's Multi -
Dwelling Inspection program does not inspect R-3 structures (single family homes and duplexes) and
the RHIP program does not inspect R-1 and R-2 occupancies (multifamily dwellings). Fortunately,
the City's programs were purposefully crafted to apply based on structural type and occupancy, not
on zoning.
I certainly appreciate that the similar nomenclature with differing meanings used in the state
building and housing codes and City Zoning Code can be a bit confusing and it is for that reason that
the Council included a fairly straightforward definition of covered dwellings within its ordinance.
To reduce the potential for confusion going forward, staff will be asking Council to adopt a
resolution providing similar clarification at its May 17, 2016 Council meeting, where the Council
will hear a program status update. I hope this explanation and the additional clarification the Council
is being asked to provide will be helpful is assisting you and your client to understand the application
of the RHIP to his properties in the City.
Based on the above, the City will continue to apply the plain language of the RHIP
Ordinance to any residential rental dwelling units, as defined in Chapter 15.10 of the Municipal
Code, to any of your client's properties located within the City regardless of the underlying zoning
location of the structures. We appreciate your client's anticipated cooperation and staff is available to
assist with achieving program compliance.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Sin erel4
�.. .
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
Cc: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Ann Schneider, Chief Building Official
Teresa Purrington, Code Enforcement Supervisor