HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/23/1988, 1 - FOLLOW-UP STUDY SESSION ON ""DENSITY AND UNIT SIZE"" INCLUDING ""GROUP HOUSING"" CONT"ATTACHMENT "C" Comments recorded at small group discussions and follow —ups
SUMMARY OF GROUP DISCUSSION ON DENSITY AND UNIT SIZE
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP HELD MARCH 19, 1988
GROUPS 1, 4, 5
Below is a summary of ideas raised by goup members. The listings do not necessarily
indicate a "consensus ".
OBSERVATIONS /ISSUES
1. Parkins.
On the one hand, many developments suffer from inadequate parking; on the other,
paved parking areas contribute to a sense of "overbuilding ",. and crowd out
landscaping. The amount of parking needed is determined by the number of people who
actually live in the development, not by the number of bedrooms.
2. Cost of services.
Higher numbers of persons per acre lead to higher costs of public services (Police,
Fire, Public Works) and infrastructure.
3. Downtown relationships.
The land uses of the areas surrounding downtown are important to the vitality of
downtown. Deterioration of the quality of life in the surrounding residential areas
can have a negative effect on the quality of the downtown itself.
4. Coverage, setbacks.
Larger dwelling units usually mean greater lot coverage and limited yards between
beilding on adjacent lots.
5. "Virgin" development versus infill development.
Development of large vacant lots is different from additional development of small or
large lots that are already partially developed. Usually, infill development is more
difficult and less cost - effective.
6. Small. high- density proiects.
Development of small lots in high- density areas is usually very difficult, and tends
to lead to compromises in usable outdoor space and landscaping.
7. Renters versus buyers.
Students sharing the rent in apartments and single - family homes leads to higher
resale value and higher rents, which in turn displaces young families.
Summary: Groups 1, 4, 5
Page 2
8. Noise.
Greater mumbers of persons per dwelling unit usually means higher noise levels - from
parties, traffic, visitors.
SOLUTIONS /ALTERNATIVES
Additional restrictions g-n_ and enforcement gf on- street narking.
On- street parking regulations can be more strictly enforced. Additional restrictions
can be placed on cars parking on the street (limiting to daytime hours, for example).
2. Place limits on size of units.
The proposed density regulations that led to this workshop could ultimately lower
property value, thereby assisting first -time buyers.
3. Commissions can = subjective iudgcment.
Specifically, the Architectural Review Commission can determine that a project is
"too large ", "too bulky ", or could require removal of "cheater" bedrooms.
4. Change parking reauirements.
Base multi- family residential parking requirements on square footage, similar to
commercial devleopments.
5. 5et or increase standards in B-1 an R =4 zones.
Because the higher- density zones are for higher - intensity development, developers
must be especially sensitive to the need for private open space, landscaping, and
privacy. The designs also need to be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Set
specific standards, such as minimum landscaping requirements and maximum percentage
of paving.
6. License rentals.
Require a license for all rentals, with requirements set in municipal code governing
parking requirements and other relevant issues.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
A Lh_1 public involved.
Have more workshops, in different locations.
2. Solicit Input from renters.
Find out what they really want, and what they can pay.
V
Summary: Groups 1, 4, 5
Page 3
3. (211 good oress.
Send out press releases, produce display ads.
4. A000int & committee.
Council could appoint an ad hoc committee that represents the entire community.
Could be a large committee.
5. Investigate other cities,
See if others have grappled successfully with the same problems.
6. Study on- street narking.
See if changes to current parking regulations are justified.
JL2:den1
SUMMARY OF GROUP DISCUSSION ON DENSITY AND UNIT SIZE
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP HELD MARCH 19, 1988
GROUPS 2 AND 3
Below is a summary of ideas raised by group members. The listings do not necessarily
indicate a "consensus ".
OBSERVATIONS /ISSUES:
1. There are different concerns with projects in various areas of the city (importance
of project setting /context) and in terms of whether they are primarily owner- occupied
or rentals (condos vs. apartments).
2. Larger project sites allow for inclusion of more amenities and project facilities and
are generally the more successful high density residential projects.
3. Cal Poly should provide more on- campus housing especially if enrollments increase
further.
4. There should be more R -4 zoning near Cal Poly to provide additional high density
housing.
5. There is a wide variety in the quality of space provided in projects. Some
contributing factors to this are quality of workmanship and materials and the amount
and maintenance of landscaping.
6. Locational factors are important in the marketing of projects and the selected unit
design.
7. How is the Old Town neighborhood different from other areas of the city?
8. Parking required in apartment projects does not serve the actual number of residents
with cars that live there.
9. Some condominiums operate as apartments in terms of tenancy.
10. Some infill sites, for example in Old Town, might not be appropriately zoned R -3 and
R -4. This may be especially true of smaller lots.
11. The density expectations of the city /developer do not always match.
12. The purchase of a condo is often the precursor to the purchase of detached single
family house (issue of affordability of entry level housing).
13. Demands for senior citizen housing is increasing.
14. The city cannot control lifestyle preferences of individuals in choosing housing.
Summary; Groups 2,3
Page 2
SOLUTIONC /Ai TT:ow1•�..I�
I. Different development standards should apply in different neighborhoods. The idea is
that there are different market forces that come to play in different geographic
areas of the city and different neighborhood concerns with new and /or expanded
development.
2. The land- carrying capacity of sites need to be evaluated when reviewing devlopment
projects.
3. The city's existing development standards need to be reviewed for possible update to
address some of the concerns with apparent overbuilding of sites. Some ideas are
standards for minimum amounts of open space and stricter lot coverage standards.
4. Review the zoning regulations of other cities for possible innovative ideas that San
Luis Obispo might use.
5. Conduct a survey of residents to see how they feel about where they live and what the
need and want in terms of suitable housing.
6. The proposed square footage limitations on various types of residential units (based
on number of bedrooms) will not necessarily solve concerns with project affordability
and compatibility. The corollary is that good design is the most important factor in
a project's success.
7. More planning and brainstorming needs to take place in determining where increased
residential density is appropriate.
RECEIVED
EVALUATION APR 12YJM
®smursadwoo
Density and Unit Size Workshop
Summary
Please comment below on the summary of issues and alternatives /solutions contained in the
attached sheets..Also, if you didn't get a chance to provide input on the workshop
itself, please feel free to do so.
1. Are there any additions or clarifications you would like to note re arding the
summaries
PZ
2. Which of the issues /problem areas identified do you feel are the most critical?
(Feel free to include issues that were not identified or discussed which you feel are
importan)
.49
3. Which of the alternatives /possible solutions dentif led do you feel hold the most
promise?
�j[ /�C_� l
D'00� s /'
u�the pac e below to comment or offer suggestions on any aspects of the
workshop or summary.
/
(OVER)
Q _ Sz Iii
0, Gt!/ Q �J
5. Name and Address (optionalr
You can use the enclosed, stamped, addressed envelope to return your comments, or just
drop them off at the Community Development Department in City Hall.
Please return no later than April 15, 1988.
V, AM /
ILk A�7
W4 ew
jeo
riv vpi
wiz v'401� /.,
EVALUATION
Density and Unit Size Workshop
Summary
Please comment below on the summary of issues and alternatives /solutions contained in the
attached sheets. Also, if you didn't get a chance to provide input on the workshop
itself, please feel free to do so.
1. Are there any additions or clarifications you would like to note regarding the
summaries ll 11
ada�i -iptl \ Wcx� Yom'(- �DW-
y�cz1'UI0C�5\^ 1 bJ� Utz l��ll ��bb
a,��cUS��ofl d� v� 1�F� �v � Sc9M�- Co^n'N�'QnTJ `
U" M \a
Ct-
� Pv v-
2. Which of the ' issnes /problem areas identified do you feel are the most ritical?
(Feel free to include issues that were of identified or djscu f
s which ou eel a
important.) � �l �v�� a (1 C.4
► Ana � ���
0c�(� C) t C;
Ciro
3. Which of the alternatives /possible solutions identified do y u feel bold tjtq,,�t
promise ?iyC� �c �iQU
.� sue` 'E0 1, �'c' .Q 1` C
acivs t,S afro �. \� o CA
4. Please use the below t comment or offer suggestions on any aspects o t6
workshop or summary. CQ C) aC
�j
A-0
L P
A, oo ���-
S. Name and Address � on \_
t 1 \- aCk c�c� c , CD
You can use the enclosed, stamped, addressed envelope to return your comments, or just
drop them off at the Community Development Department in City Hall.
Please return no later than April 15, 1988.
�►cj2- °".
��-- ask C�
cCO a��
� � 0L,1,
Zec
A `� ` vvlcx rlet
�Qn�a Q-- ,Maria
� as
l ac acQ .
COMrr�
c a -
J()O ulna
.AA oc� -�� ti ' 'h '.� comb I n o� or\ a� �n a
•� o�� b`Q� cfl �
r
EVALUATION
Density and Unit Size Workshop
Summary
Please comment below on the summary of issues and alternatives /solutions contained in the
attached sheets. Also, if you didn't get a chance to provide input on the workshop
itself, please feel free to do so.
1. Are there any additions or clarifications you would like to note regarding the
summaries
LU a Mrs
2. Which of the issues /problem areas identified do you feel are the most critical?
(Feel free to include issues that were not identified or discussed which you feel are
important.)
3. Which of the alternatives /possible solutions identified do you feel hold the most
promise?
w CCCCCCYYYYYY- ������
LA- Q �aAtQ
4. Please use the spat below to comment or offer suggestions on any aspects of the
workshop or summary.
(OVER)
S. Name and Address (optional):
You can use the enclosed, stamped, addressed envelope to return your comments, or just
drop them off at the Community Development Department in City Hall.
Please return no later than April 15, 1988.
`C tJ�a n, �wY% Cum •�. �r� :.,
�I'1,� =-, .1C�.�
C7 a �- �t..st �(
b JC�rn .
s
,
Attachment °D"
DENSITY WORKSHOP PROGRAM
COMPARISONS WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
DISCUSSION
As a part of the density workshop follow -up, staff contacted other jurisdictions to
see what they were doing to address similar problems. We found some who did share
common problems such as home ownership neighborhoods changing to renter occupied
districts, "cheater unit" conversion, mass bulk and site crowding of higher density
development on small lots and overflow parking. Regulatory measures which adequately
address San Luis Obispo's situation might include examples taken from other cities
(However, we should not rule out other possibly innovative ways to address the
"density" issue).
The cities of Monterey, Santa Cruz, Davis, Chico and Palo Alto were contacted. Palo
Alto has been studying regulatory measures to address multiple - family
(apartment /condominum) development (excerpts from the zoning ordinance study have
been attached). The following is a brief summary of our research and discussions
with various jurisdictions.
COMMUNITY PROFILES
CHARACTERISTICS
JURISDICTION: City of Monterey
POPULATION: 30,377
INFLUENCE: Several small colleges throughout the area
CORRESPONDENCE: March 24, 1988
BACKGROUND:
Monterey shares some similarities with San Luis Obispo. Some of its older
neighborhoods, for example, are changing from ownership to rental housing. Typical
problems related to this transition are increased number of occupants per household,
increased housing prices which displace the affordable ownership market, and the
development of apartments and second dwelling units in lower density settings.
During the 1960's, several large older single - family neighborhoods were re -zoned to
densities exceeding 30 units per acre. As a result, many of the more significant
historic houses were demolished with lots developed with apartment complexes. The
city is now studying this problem and has concluded so far that current zoning is in
excess of general plan provisions. The city is concerned that, if continued, the
majority of the city's housing composition would result in primarily undesirable
high density rental housing.
The city is now in the process of down - zoning many of these areas to 15 units per
acre to preserve owner occupied housing in the older districts but allowing small
rentals as add -ons to the rear. Staff is suggesting that added rental housing in
these areas be restricted in size not to exceed 600 square feet or 50 percent of the
floor area of the main house.
CURRENT REGULATORY MEASURES
Floor area allowances and coverage requirements for apartment development.
'(b) Maximum Permitted Urea. Site Mix.
1. Floor Area.
The permitted total floor area, measured to exterior
dimensions, of all dwellings on a parcel of Land shall not exceed
351 of total lot area.
For purposes of this section, floor area excludes all
parking, decks, uncovered patio and landscaping areas.
2. Ito worm than 35A of the dwelling units on any parcel may
consist of apartments less than cc equal to 500 square feet in area.'
CHARACTERISTICS
JURISDICTION: City of Santa Cruz
POPULATION: 46,000
INFLUENCE: University of California, Santa Cruz
CORRESPONDENCE: March 24, 1988
BACKGROUND:
The City of Santa Cruz is undertaking a major enforcement effort to identify and
prohibit illegal room conversions such as "cheater units ". Staff's opinion is that a
combination of strict code enforcement and architectural review minimized the
density problem.
The staff contact said there did not seem to be a problem with neighborhoods
changing from single - family to multiple family development or low density areas
becoming rental oriented. Design review assures compatibility with single - family
neighborhoods. Several unwritten policies for design compatibility are being
implemented by staff and the Architectural Review Board including:
Rear units must be of a lower scale than the primary unity both in floor
size and mass /bulk.
Floor area ratios arc provided and reviewed to assure smaller scale.
Review incorporates a study of open space and impermeable surface ratios to
assure there is adequate usable and visual open space.
r'
CURRENT REGULATORY MEASURES
Required findings for project approval:
2 The exterior design and appearance of buildings and
structures and the design of the site plan shall be
compatible with design and appearance of other
existing buildings and structures In neighborhoods
which have established architectural character worthy
of preservation.
3. Design of the site plan shall respect design principles In
terms of maintaining a balance of scale, form and
proportion, using design Components which are har-
monious, materials and colors which blend with elements
of the site plan and surrounding areas. Location of
structures should take Into account maintenance of
view; rooftop mechanical equipment shall be Incorpo=
rated Into roof design or screened from adjaeexv
properties. Utility installations such as trash enclosltres,
storage units,-.traffic control devices, transformer vaults
and electrka) meters &W be accessible and screened.
4. Where a site plan abuts, or Is In close proximity to, uses
other than that proposed, the plan shall take Into
account Its effect on other land uses. Where a nonresi-
dential use abuts or is In close proximity to a residential
use, the effect of the site plan should maintain the
residential quality of adjacent or nearby areas.
6. The orientation and location of buildings, structures,
open spaces and other featured of the site plan shall be
such as to maintain natural resources Including signifi-
cant trees and shrubs to the extent feasible, maintain a
compatible relationship to and preserve solar access of
adjacent properties, and minimize alteration of natural
land forms. Building profiles, location, and orientation
must relate to natural land forms.
6. The site plan shall be situated and designed to protect
views along the ocean and of scenic coastal areas.
Where appropriate and feasible, the site plan shall
restore and enhance visual quality of visually degraded
areas
7. The site plan shall minimize the effect of traffic
conditions on abutting streets through careful layout of
the site with respect to location, dimensions of vehicular
and pedestrian entrances, exit drives and walkways;
through the adequate provision of ofratreet parking
and loading facilities; through an adequate circulation
pattern within the boundaries of the development; and
through the surfacing and lighting of off-street parking
facilities.
y
8. The site plan shall encourage alternatives to travel by
automobile where appropriate, through the provision of
facWties for pedestrians and bicyclists Including covered
Parking for bicycles and motorcycles where appropriate.
Public transit stops and facilities shall be accommodated
as appropriate and other incentive provisions considered
which encourage non -auto travel.
9. The site shall provide open space and landscaping
which complement building and structures. Open spice
should be useful to residenty employees, or`i5tliaf
visitors to the site. Landscaping shall be used : to
separate and/or screen service and storagearess;
separate and/or screen parking arm from othiW ideal;
break up expanses of paved atear dente open space for
unab ft and privacy.
Findings required for substandard residential lot development:
1. The maximum afiowble lot coverage for structures shall
be forty -five (46x) percent.
2 The floor area for second stories shall not exceed My
(60x) percent of the- first floor area, except In eases
where the first floor constitutes thirty (30X) percent or
less lot�coverage.
3. New kructures shall be consistent with the scale -of
structures on adjacent lots and generally be compiil,"`
with existing surrounding structures.
d. New structures shall be sited In ways which avoid
causing substantial change In the pattern or existing
building projections along streets Continuous long,
parallel abutting walls on narrow sideyards shall be
avoided.
6. Spacing of buildings and overall siting of structures
shall maximize the potential for solar access to each lot
6. Siting of second -story elements adjacent to single-story
structures shall be avoided.
7. Landscaping shall be required at least for front yard
areas and shall be used to screen parking from street
8. Structures shall incorporate methods to lessen the
Impact of garages on a street facade.
;0
CHARACTERISTICS
JURISDICTION: City of Davis
POPULATION: 40,543
INFLUENCE: University of California, Davis
CORRESPONDENCE: March 24, 1988
BACKGROUND:
There arc no specific policies which deal with neighborhoods in transition.
According to our contact, Davis does not share a similar transitional problem and
multiple- family housing is reviewed on a case by case basis.
The recently revised general plan sets new density limits and generally addresses
multiple- family vs. single- family design standards. The zoning is currently being
revised to implement new general plan density standards.
CURRENT REGULATORY MEASURES
The following are relevant open space regulations for garden apartment development:
(b) Usable opens space_,_
(1) Zone R.? -L. Each efficiency apartment, six hundred square feet.
Each one - bedroom.. apartment. six, hundred square feet. Each. two bedroom
apartment. six hundredfifty square feet: Each additional bedroom,, fifty- square
feet.: Twenty -five percent of the lot area shell be devoted to open space in the
case of rooming and boarding houses and dwellings occupied by living groups
(2) Zone R- . K i . Eacli- -. fficiency apartment'. three hundred :.square:
feet. Each one- bedrt ao� dpartment :=ee hundrediifty square feet: Each tsar
bedroom apartment. - foia:-hundred . square feet is Each addi
square feet.• 'Twenty -five percent' of the lot area shall be devoted to •open space
in the case of rooming and boarding houses and dwellings occupied by living
groups.
(c) Lot coveraa;e.
Forty percent.
CHARACTERISTICS
JURISDICTION:
POPULATION:
INFLUENCE:
CORRESPONDENCE:
BACKGROUND:
City of Chico
32,726
Chico State University
March 24, 1988
Student population seems to be focused around the campus and does not appear to
cause problems in other areas of town. Our contact noted that there is actually a
"glut" of student rental housing.
Due to tenant characteristics of student housing, specific parking regulations have
been adopted in a special overlay zone surrounding the campus, requiring one space
per bedroom.
No other relevant standards on density were found.
CHARACTERISTICS
JURISDICTION:
POPULATION:
INFLUENCE;
CORRESPONDENCE:
BACKGROUND:
City of Palo Alto
56,800
Stanford University
March 24, 1988
The city has recently completed a comprehensive study of multiple - family development
standards and has adopted new regulations which cover many levels of the density
question. Special treatment is given to transition zones (areas between
single - family and multiple - family zoning districts). Many of their issues are
similar to San Luis Obispo's.
The city is large enough to easily provide student housing beyond what the
university provides. However, the city works very closely with Stanford and Santa
Clara County on master planning the future development of the university. The city
exerts pressure on the university to provide all housing on campus. A master plan
use permit is currently under environmental review to address university growth over
the next 20 years. The county, city and school have developed an agreement for
continuous development monitoring of university projects. There are monthly meetings
between the respective officials to discuss school activities.
Attached are excerpts from the multiple - family study and the proposed zoning
ordinance.
Ask
BACKGROUND
C The Multiple - Family Zoning Ordinance Study was,undertaken by the Planning
staff in April 1987. One of the purposes of. the study was to respond to
directives by the City Council to:
A. Review the usable open space requirements (12/19/83);
B. Consider establishing floor area ratios for all residential zone
. (6/10/85);
C.
Consider limiting the length of driveways in multiple - family zon��
(.6/10/85); and
D.. Evaluate the appropriateness of the RM -5 zone within the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (6/16/86).
The Planning Commission, in its analysis of land use in the Citywide Land Use
and Transportation Study, also experienced a great deal of concern regarding
multiple - family housing from local residents. New multiple - family projects in
areas like Middlefield Road and E1 Camino Way are highly visible to the
residents of Palo Alto and are perceived to be a major cause of traffic and
community change. Loss of privacy, imposing building mass, parking problems,
high densities, and change in neighborhood character are all issues that
impact the acceptance of multiple- family housing in the community.
A joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council on May 6, 1987
reviewed the housing policies in the Comprehensive Plan and determined that
those policies, to' protect existing neighborhoods and increase the housing
supply and diversity, were still valid. The meeting focused on some of the
problems raised by the community. There was concern for the loss of
commercial neighborhood- serving uses in exchange for high- density housing that
caused traffic problems. Market problems in the sale of condominiums.was
resulting in vacant mixed -use projects and the temporary conversion of condos
to rentals. Higher densities were not necessarily resulting in affordable
units nor were they addressing the need for family housing. Overall the
problems related more to the execution of the development standards in the
zoning ordinance rather than the application of the Comprehensive Plan
policies.
It was staff's conclusion that a major study of the multiple - family zoning
ordinances was necessary in order to address both the Council directives and
the many problems and issues expressed by the community.
EXISTING REGULATIONS
The existing set of multiple - family zones was adopted in 1978. It is
comprised of five zones with overlapping density ranges and standard•setbacks,
height restrictions and daylight plan provisions.
Zone Density Range
RM -1
RN-2
RM -3
6 -12
10 -20
15 -30
units
units
units
per acre
per acre
per acre
.O
'RM4.— -., 20 -35 units per.acre
RM-5 35 -45 units per.acre
I RM41= through,%RM- 3,vary'iredensity from 6 to 30 units to*-th're :"but -t"he
basic setbacks and height limits (35 feet) are the same. RN -4 and RM =5 also
have the same restrictions for setbacks,, building coverage and height (50.
feet). In fact, rear and side setbacks are the same for all districts in the
City (see Table 5). Problems occur from the neighborhood perspective because
while the lower density gives an expectation of a low - profile development, the
development standards are the same for projects 'ranging 'in density from 6 to
I 30 units per acre. The product type (townhouse, garden apartment, four- and
five - story), which usually relates to density, does not relate to the City's
existing multiple - family zones or their respective development standards. A
I major objective of the proposed ordinance revisions was to tailor the
development standards to the product type and appropriate density anticipated
by the community in general and surrounding residents in particular.
SUBCOMMITTEE ANALYSIS
The Multiple - Family Subcommittee that analyzed the regulations was comprised
of three members of the Planning Commission, Pat Cullen, Ellen Christensen and
Helene Wheeler; two members of the Architectural Review Board, Linn.
Winterbotham and Aino Da Rosa; and two members of the Palo Alto Housing
Corporation, Sylvia Seman and Lou Goldsmith. The Subcommittee has met.ten
times since April 20, 1987. Information gathered included research on other
cities' ordinances, a tour of multiple - family housing projects in Palo Alto
and in areas outside of the City as far north as San Francisco and Tiburon,
and an analysis of proposed zoning parameters in relation to existing
projects.
Major themes that developed from the analysis and site visits pointed to the
need to address the following issues:
1. Protection of existing single - family homes from the intrusion of
Multiple-family housing projects through more effective setbacks and
reduced building height.
2. Protection of privacy of adjacent single - family homes and for
residents within the project by better separation between buildings,
.landscape screening, placement of balconies and more appropriate
setbacks.
3. Evaluation of usable open space as a standard since it dia not
necessarily mean that each unit had private open space or.that the
space was properly landscaped so that it could be used for
recreation. .It was felt that private open space in:.the form-of a
balcony or patio was important to-the residents and the livability
of the project.
4. Imposition of floor area ratio restrictions to aid in
bulk and mass of the building in addition to density*
S.
PCMFS
control of the
considerations.
Recognition that low and medium density projects were more
attractive to families with children because of the larger unit size
and the availability of.plaly.area, and that higher - density projects::
3/3/88
-3=
• t
had few children and!were more often occupied by-dual career
households;or^ empty- nesters:
6. Appropriateness` of the high, density zone (RM- 5)• ...in. the- Downtown area
and possibly oocl arger-parcels outside•of the Downtown around•El
Camino ReaVor Page MITI'; Road,, recognizing that- the development
standards for Downtown (i.e.; minimal-street setback) were not
necessarily compatible with the living environment alow a•major f
thoroughfare.' Protection from noise intrusion and traffic and
adequate parking are factors that may vary to accommodate high
density outside the Downtown. I
7. Reconfirmation-that the existing parking standards are still valid
with the exception that guest parking in projects with two assigned
resident spaces result in inadequate guest parking under the current
standards.
COMMENTS FROM DESIGN COMMUNITY
In developing the proposed regulations, the staff sought the advice of local
architects familiar with Palo Alto's ordinances. Efforts were made to
identify the problem areas, inconsistencies and factors that contributed to
poor design and to review the proposed regulations as they were being
developed. One- on- one.meetings were held with John Boyd (Brooks /Boyd), Rob
Steinberg (Steinberg Group), Bill Bocook, Joe Martignetti (Prometheus), Mike
Lyzwa (Archon) and Casper Mole (MacDonald Architects).
Most of the comments on the new ordinance were very positive. The analysis of
the development regulations indicated that they were consistent and that the
combination of setbacks, coverage, FAR and daylight plane would work together
from a design viewpoint and would create more privacy for adjoining residents.
As the Commission made modifications in the requirements for balcony
dimensions, daylight plane and FAR, staff was able to test out the proposals
with the architects.
Mike Lyzwa, who designed the Mayfield Apartments at 345 Sheridan, was very
helpful in our analysis of high- density housing both in terms of design issues
and costs associated with reducing density and FARs. He pointed to a problem
with landscaping resulting from subterranean parking garages, which was
incorporated into the Multiple - Family Residential Guidelines.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS
The proposed regulations would consolidate the five zones into three zones of
low, medium and high density. The organization and structure of the
ordinances have remained consistent with the current zoning regulation format.
The permitted and conditional uses were not identified as.problem areas and,
therefore, have not been changed in the proposed ordinances. The major.
changes proposed are in the site development regulations relating to density,
setbacks, height, floor area ratio, and open space for each new zoning
category.
Density
The overlapping - density ranges in the existing ordtnancest have been replaced.
with more finite ranges that fit with the type of development that is
PCMFS 3%3/88
. _4L:.
compatible within the zone. Furthermore, the minimum lot ..ea has increased,
so that lots under 8,500 square feet will develop at the lower end of the;
range. It was the Subcommittee's opinion that attempts to accommodate the. .
necessary parking, setbacks and'open* space requirements for multiple- family
use on small lots 1s difficult from both an overall design standpoint-and a
privacy viewpoint to and from.adjoining residents. The increased minimum lot
size.would encourage the consolidation of parcels in order.to obtain the.
higher end of the density range should that be the applicant's desire.
The following is a summary of the minimum lot area and per -unit square footage
achievable under the proposed multiple - family regulations:
RN-40 ZONE
The Planning Commission spent considerable time on the issue of the
appropriateness of a high- density zone in Palo Alto. The high- density zoning
district, under the provisions of the RM -5 or proposed RM -40 regulations,
poses a major policy decision for the Planning Commission and City Council.
The Subcommittee analyzed the issues related to high density and concluded
that the zoning category was still appropriate in Palo Alto in select areas
and that the new provisions would address many of the concerns related to
setbacks and bulk that have been associated with RM -5 projects in the past.
Staff further found that there were very few. RM -5 properties left to develop,
most of which are in the Park Boulevard /Page Mill Road area. The Subcommittee
recommended a high- density zone of 45 units to the acre, a maximum FAR of 1:1
and a height of 50 feet (similar to the existing regulations). When the
Planning Commission considered the recommendation, they had concerns with
projects at that density due to traffic impacts, lack of provisions for family
housing at that density and in general the overall appropriateness of a very
high density zone in Palo Alto. Some architects expressed concern with the
1:1 FAR which might make project design at that density infeasible or force
small units unsuitable for families.
The Planning Commission reached a compromise and recommends the RM -40 zone, an
alternative high- density zone which would allow 40 units to the acre and a
40 -foot height limit while still maintaining the 1:1 FAR. Attached Figure 3
illustrates the potential build -out under the proposed scenario. A load
factor (i.e., common non - habitable areas such as corridors) of 20 percent (a
PCMFS 3/3/88
Proposed
Existing Zone
Zone
Oensit
Lot Area /unit
R14-1 and RM -2
RM -15
6 to 15 units
< 59999 1 unit
Low
per acre
69000 -71499 2 units
> 89500 3 units
plus
1 unit each additional
2850 sf
RM -3 and RM -4
RM -30
16 to 30 units
< 59999 1 unit
Medium
per acre
61000 -79499 2 units
>89500 3 units
plus
1 unit each additional
1350 sf
RM -5
RM -40
31 to 40 units
< 8,500 6 units
High
> 81500 6 units
plus
1 unit each additional
1030 sf
RN-40 ZONE
The Planning Commission spent considerable time on the issue of the
appropriateness of a high- density zone in Palo Alto. The high- density zoning
district, under the provisions of the RM -5 or proposed RM -40 regulations,
poses a major policy decision for the Planning Commission and City Council.
The Subcommittee analyzed the issues related to high density and concluded
that the zoning category was still appropriate in Palo Alto in select areas
and that the new provisions would address many of the concerns related to
setbacks and bulk that have been associated with RM -5 projects in the past.
Staff further found that there were very few. RM -5 properties left to develop,
most of which are in the Park Boulevard /Page Mill Road area. The Subcommittee
recommended a high- density zone of 45 units to the acre, a maximum FAR of 1:1
and a height of 50 feet (similar to the existing regulations). When the
Planning Commission considered the recommendation, they had concerns with
projects at that density due to traffic impacts, lack of provisions for family
housing at that density and in general the overall appropriateness of a very
high density zone in Palo Alto. Some architects expressed concern with the
1:1 FAR which might make project design at that density infeasible or force
small units unsuitable for families.
The Planning Commission reached a compromise and recommends the RM -40 zone, an
alternative high- density zone which would allow 40 units to the acre and a
40 -foot height limit while still maintaining the 1:1 FAR. Attached Figure 3
illustrates the potential build -out under the proposed scenario. A load
factor (i.e., common non - habitable areas such as corridors) of 20 percent (a
PCMFS 3/3/88
typical standard for an average high - density buil.ding)' was -used in the
analysis, which was not used in the calculation, under the original RN-45
proposal. The remaining livable. area would;then' average 940 square feet per
unit, which meets the.criteria discussed'.:by" the Commission. A 40 -foot height
limit would allow 'four -story buil.dings.with a.flat -roof design or three
stories with a pitched roof. The daylight plane under RM -5 is 20 feet but was
reduced to 15 feet and would not impact normal building design. The 40-foot
height is comparable to small scale "walk -up" residential projects in San
Francisco.
Setbacks
The major objective of the proposed setbacks is to relate the side and rear
setback to the height of the actual structure and the proximity of the
building to the adjoining residential property, particularly single - family
homes. Regulations for interior -side and rear setback were combined to avoid
the problems of interpretation that occur under the current definition of
front yard (the narrowest portion of the lot facing a street), which may not
coincide with the actual front yard of the project.
The front yard setback for RM -15 and RM -30 would remain at 20 feet. The side
and rear yard setbacks would be as follows and are illustrated on attached
Figures 1 and 2:
I. A minimum of 10 feet for interior yard for single -story buildings;
2. A minimum of one -half (1/2) the actual height of the structure for
all buildings over one story;
3. A minimum of 16 feet for side and rear yards adjacent to the street;
4. A minimum of 20 feet for the portion of the structure over one story
adjacent to single - family zones (including R -1, R -2, and RM -D
Zones); and
5. A minimum of 25 feet for a building on property adjacent to an
arterial street.
The setbacks for the RM -40 zone are primarily tailored to development in the
Downtown area. The variety of building types, land uses, and a more urban
living environment allows reduced setback requirements. There are some
parcels outside of the Downtown which are RM -5 now and would be rezoned to
RM -40 and, therefore, provisions were written to accommodate development on
those parcels. The setbacks would be as follows and are illustrated on Figure
3:
I. Street frontage:
a. Property adjacent to collector streets shall have an average',',
setback of adjoining residential structures or no setback if
adjacent to a commercial or office structures.
b. A structure adjacent to an arterial street (outside"of the
Downtown) shall be setback 25 feet from the property line,�1�����
PCMFS
3/3/88 :`-..-= sv =_-.. -�•�.
IN
a
a
w
■
■
N
0
is-
1
I
2. Side and rear yard;
a. A minimum of l0 feet for interior side yard; and
b• A minimum of one -half the height of the actual.structure if
adjacent to a lower- density residential zone.
Hem_
The building height limits have been changed to more closely reflect
neighborhood concerns for privacy and the housing type .desired in each zone.
In particular, the zone is limited
and low - profile garden den a to two stories to encourage townhouse
apartment design which provides a transition to
Properties adjacent to single - family zones.
New Hea heft Stories
RM -15 30 ft height 2 story
RM -30 35 ft height Number of stories not specified.
RM -40 40 ft height with a limit of 35 ft within 150 ft of a more
restrictive residential zone. Number of stories is not
specified.
The Planning Commission discussed the height limits at len th
the 30 -foot height in the RN -15 zone. Staff investigated theqimpactsuofrlY
reducing the maximum height to 27 feet and /or measuring height from the peak
of the roof rather than the average of a sloped roof (comparable to the method
used in measuring height in the single - family zone).
The issue was discussed with several architects and the ARB, and the
overwhelming conclusion was that reducing the height to 27 feet and changing
the measurement method would result in severe design constraints. A 27 -foot
height measured to the peak of the roof would most likely result in flat,
box -like structures or mansard roofs, which are contrary to the preferred
design direction of the community. One developer was concerned that the
restrictions would impact the ability to provide townhouses with garages. If
given the choice of the two, they would prefer to change the method of
determining height rather than reducing the maximum height limit.
The Planning Commission concurred with the Subcommittee recommendation, that
the maximum height stay at 30 feet in the RM 1
mea
sured to the average of the slope of a pitchedoroofnastcurrent ytdefined in
the zoning ordinance and building code.
However, the Commission also recommends that height be measured from the
lowest grade. Existing regulations measure it from an average grade. This
will make a significant difference in projects with tuck -under or
semi - depressed parking, like the Rosewalk development on San Antonio Road.
The new definition for measuring height would be applicable to all three
districts.
PCMFS
3/3/88
-7-
C
Da light Plane
The daylight plane measurement for all residential zones in the City is
intended to give protection for light and air to adjoining properties. The
daylight plane works in addition to the setback requirements. With the more
restrictive setbacks proposed in the new regulations, the daylight plane does:
not play as major a role in controlling the height and bulk of the building as::;
present regulations (or community expectations) might allow.
The Commission directed staff to investigate reducing the daylight plane
measurement in the RM -15 zone from 10 feet and 45 degrees to 5 feet and 45
degrees. This would effectively force a hypothetical flat-roofed building 30
feet in height to a setback of 25 feet rather than 20 feet, as shown on the
figure below. The current daylight plane is not a restricting factor to
design and, therefore, imposing more restrictions will make it more effective
in limiting height and bulk in relation to adjoining properties. The
regulations "propose that the 45 degree daylight plane in the RN-15 be measured
at 5 feet, the RM -30 be measured at 10 feet and the RM -40 be measured at 15
feet.
a
w
w
Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio
The introduction of a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) will act as a major limiting..:.. ;f V14
.r
factor in controlling the overall mass of the building. Lot coverage alone-
does does not control building mass, in that it enables a building to reach - full'.;: ar;
height within the ground floor, sometimes resulting in very boxy, bulky.
structures. The FAR cap will help to reduce that effect. Attached Table 3 I
illustrates the difference between the building area permitted under the lot
coverage provision and the FAR provision. For example, in RN-30 zone, lot.;;;N�.t
coverage has a build -out ratio of 1.20 40 percent coverage times three
r.
PCMFS 3/3/88' r �:"
t r.
stories) but the FAR cap. will limit the building to ..60:.1 (not including,
garage).
The FARs in the RM -15 and RM -40 zones are based •on gross floor area,.which is
defined in the zoning code as not including the garage space,. The RN- 30..zone,
posed a special problem* due to the potential for tuck- under. parkiog.,or.'
attached garages in the design that could add considerable bulk to the
project. The RM -30 FAR is recommended to be 0.6:1 .(not including parking) for
projects with detached and /or underground. parking and .75:1 (including
parking) for projects with attached parking.
An analysis of the FARs in existing developments was used as a basis for
establishing the actual number proposed (refer to Table 6). Consideration was
also given to a reasonable unit size that could be expected in any development
at a given density.
Open Space and Landscaping
Existing regulations require "usable open space" based on a certain amount of
square footage per unit. The proposal would replace that with a provision for
overall landscaping and open space based on a percentage of site area. The
definition of "usable open space" has been changed to include all landscaping
on the ground floor including pathways, setbacks, recreation areas, private
patios, etc. As the density increases, the amount of open space required
decreases due to the change in type of unit and resident expectation of usable
open space on site.
Zone Open Space Per Lot
RM -15
3k
RM -30
30%
RM -40
20%
A new concept introduced in the proposed ordinances is the provision of
private usable open space for each residence that would be contiguous to the
unit. All units would be required to have a patio or a balcony, which would
be of an adequate size suitable for actual use rather than ornamentation. The
private usable open space can be pooled for additional common open space in
order to allow for design flexibility and individual problems resulting from
potential privacy intrusion. The pooling of open space would require the
approval of the ARB and the Planning Director. The following minimum private
open space requirements would apply:
Balcony
Patio
Parking
RM -15 and RM -30
50 square feet
100 square feet,
8 feet minimum
dimension
RM -40
50 square feet
80 square feet,
6 feet minimum
dimension
The basic provisions for parking in the existing ordinance were determined to
adequate. The only change recommended is the requirement for guest
.rking. Recent projects, like the Rosewalk, pointed out a problem that could
PCMFS 3/3/88
-9-
•ft
occur when the two required resident spaces were placed'in a garage that was
C inaccessible to the general public or guests. In this example, the ten
percent guest parking would have resulted in only six guest spaces. for 48.
units. Inadequate on -street parking and minimal interior roadway..widths. did.
not afford guest parking overflow. The proposed RM- 15 .and AN-30 regulations
would require:the' following:
Guest parking shall be provided in multiple - family developments exceeding
three units in accordance with the following requirements:
A. One plus ten percent of total number of units but; .
B. If more than one space per dwelling is assigned or secured so that
it is inaccessible to the public then guest spaces equivalent to 33
percent of the units must be provided; and
C. Guest parking spaces shall be clearly marked as reserved for guests
and shall be in an area providing guests with unrestricted access to
the guest parking spaces.
Provision (B) for guest parking was not put in the RM -40 zone because most of
the RM -40 is near transit or high intensity commercial uses. Households are
smaller and parking demand is less.
Below Market Rate (BMR)
The provisions for the Below Market Rate (BMR) units have been separated into
a new heading. The section includes the regular 10 percent requirement and
reference to the Comprehensive Plan and the 15 percent density bonus. The
wording has been modified slightly to clarify that the 15 percent density
increase includes the requirement that for each additional market unit another
BMR unit must be included, in addition to the 10 percent already provided.
This is consistent with recent project approvals allowing FAR density bonus
increases.
MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL GUIDELINES
In addition to the new provisions in the zoning regulations, the Subcommittee
felt that Multiple - Family Residential Guidelines were needed to help give
further direction to architects and developers in designing multiple - family
projects. The Guidelines are intended to further protect single - family homes
adjoining the development and improve the living environment for the residents
in the project. Many of the guidelines are taken from the recommendations for
a Transition Zone developed by another Planning Commission subcommittee and
still under review by the Commission. The Guidelines are "should" statements
which allow flexibility for individual design situations. They are intended
to be used by the Architectural Review Board, Planning'Commission and City.
Council to aid in evaluating project proposals and would be incorporated, as a..
new chapter in the zoning ordinance.
RESIDENTIAL IN COMMERCIAL ZONES
Presently, the.CN, CS, CC, CD, GM, LN and OR districts have special
regulations for exclusive residential.or mixed uses on a site. .Regulations;;; �.
for residential or miibd; use in a commercial zone allow modified.open,-,spate. Vii'
requirements, FAR'limlts "for each Yoee;'aed the setback requirements
4 '2�
PCMFS 3/3/S8 .
µ ' y
..d •r�fV •t �'y `�
established for the coe"-- rcial..,zone...The development rt,.Iations. place ..:.
varying restrictions on hei.ghf.and - setbacks based on the sitef. proximity to
RE, R -1, R -2, and RM zones.. While... allowing residential in commercial, zones
promotes housing, the lack of adequate regulations has resulted in problems
with neighbors and poorly designed projects.
For the purposes of simplicity,.,consistency, and applicability, the
development of exclusive residential uses in commercial zones should be
required to follow all of the,regulations'appropriate to the RM zone
corresponding to that density. All setbacks, height restrictions, FARs, and
parking would be determined by the RM zone and not the regulations presently
contained in the commercial zone. The applicable residential densities in
the various commercial districts are as follows:
Zone
Applicable Residential Zone
Existing Proposed
CN
RM -3
RM -30
CC
RM -5
RM -30
CS
RM -5
RM -30
CD -S
RM -3
RM -30
CD- S(1)(2)
RM -2
RM -15
CD -N
RM -3
RM -30
CO- N(1)(2)
RM -2
RM -15
CD -C
RM -5
RM -40
OR
RM -4
RM -30
GM
RM -4
RM -30
LM
RM -4
RM -30
Mixed -use projects would be required to comply with all applicable provisions
of the commercial zone, and the residential portion of the project would
comply with the new multiple - family regulations. The Citywide Land Use and
Transportation Study may result in a number of changes to the commercial
zones, and it is recommended that any additional special regulations for
mixed -use development be considered at that time.
The Commission was particularly concerned about applying the high- density
RM -40 designation on the CS and CC zones at this time. Instead, they
recommended that the RM -30 density apply and that individual properties be
looked at separately for potentially higher underlying density.
SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW (D) DESIGNATION
Chapter 18.82 states that 'The site and design review (D) combining district
is intended to provide a process for review and approval of development in
environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, in order to assure that use
and development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity,
will be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives, and will be
In accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan." The (D) designation has
primarily been used for properties in the baylands and the hillsides and for
service stations in the flat land. The process requires site and design
review by the Planning Commission, ARB and the City Council. It does not
require the findings of public benefit nor is it a legislative action (and
therefore referendable) as is the case with the Planned Community Zone. -The
intent of the Site and Design process is not to usurp the design review
PCMFS 3/3j88
-11-
function of the ARB but to provide eehanced evaluation of projects with
significant community impact located in sensitive areas.
The Planning Commission has recommended that the (D) designation can be
applied to other property in the city as a way of obtaining a more complete
i f 1 h d rojects such as the Stanford West site. The use
rev ew o comp ex or p Use p
of the (D) designation for Stanford West is appropriate because it allows a
thorough public review of environmentally sensitive residential projects
within an easier process for the developer and the public to follow.
INVENTORY OF VACANT AND UNDERDEVELOPED PROPERTY
In preparation for the rezoning to the new Multiple - Family Zoning Regulations.,
staff reviewed parcels that were vacant or underdeveloped. Underdeveloped
refers to property that is occupied by a nonconforming use, a single - family
home, or a lesser number of units than would be possible if the property were
built -out under the existing or proposed zoning. Parcels were also chosen
because of their proximity to each other and grouped together to provide a
comparison of the potential units if they were developed as individual parcels
or aggregated into one development site. Often times, the aggregate will
yield many more units than possible on individual parcels. This is especially
the case under the new regulations.
A listing of all the parcels in the inventory is on Table 4A, Vacant and
Underdeveloped Sites for Multiple - Family Housing. For example, in Area 3
there are three small parcels under the RM -4 zone (which becomes RM -30 under
the proposed ordinance). The unit yield per parcel, under the existing
regulation, would be a total of 15 units, and in the aggregate it would yield
19 units. The new regulations would result in 8 units on individual parcels
and 15 units total if parcels were combined. This example demonstrates one of
the major impacts of the new ordinance, which is to limit the number of units
on small parcels and to encourage the consolidation of parcels to obtain more
density and better design flexibility for higher density projects.
The total units on Table 4A indicate that overall, the new ordinances will not
have a significant impact in reducing the number of potential units, citywide.
If parcels were to develop in the aggregate, the net multiple housing Unit
increase under the current zoning would theoretically allow 1,846 units, and
under the proposed regulations 1,762 units; a difference of only 84 units
citywide. If the parcels developed individually, the difference in the
theoretical number of units would be a loss of 143 units under the proposed
versus existing regulations.
Table 46, .housing units to be evaluated in the Citywide Study, shows the
properties with potential housing under review in the Citywide Study. An
additional 1,611 units are possible based on the maximum units that are being
considered. These properties are outside of the Inventory on Table 4A.
DRIVEWAYS VERSUS PUBLIC STREETS
One of the original work assignments from the Council, that did not result in
a change in the ordinance, was the issue regarding length of driveways and
public versus private streets in multiple - family developments. Members of
C Council were concerned that exceedingly lengthy driveways (300 feet or
greater) were a problem in large projects because they function as a street
but are not required to meet the City construction standards for parking or
PCMFS
3/3/88
-12-
long -term maintenance. Private driveways are the responsibility of the
homeowner's association unless they -are dedicated as a public street, in which
case the City is responsible for maintenance.
The Subcommittee discussed the issue and determined that there were very few
sites in the City that would be large enough to require private streets that
could be considered appropriate as public streets. Medium -size projects like
the Rosewalk, Traynor or California/Park have or will use a private street or
driveway system. Parking and access off the internal circulation network
varies depending on the design and density of the project. Public street
standards for width or construction would require an excessive amount of area
for right -of -way and increased setbacks relative to the smaller size of Palo
Alto housing projects. Public Works is particularly concerned about adding
more streets to its maintenance load, especially streets that are outside of
the public road system and are used by a very small portion of the population.
A large -scale project like the new Stanford West is a project that may require
a combination of private and public streets, depending on the development
proposal. The private streets could be built to public street standards but
would not have to be dedicated as public streets or maintained by the City.
The decision should be made at the time of project approval. If the (D)
designation is applied, then such decisions shall be made by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
The Subcommittee did not see the need to create a new standard for private
streets at this time. It seemed more appropriate to analyze the issue on a.
case -by -case basis where the individual design of the project could be taken
into account.
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES
The Planning Commission recommends that the existing provisions for
nonconforming uses be incorporated in the new regulations. Under the
regulations, multiple - family uses that were conforming, permitted uses that
existed prior to the date of enactment of the ordinance are deemed conforming
and are allowed to be remodeled, improved, or replaced providing that the
improvements will not result in more square footage, an increase in the number
of units, or an increase in height, length or size of the improvement. This
Provision would allow property owners to remodel and completely replace the
units even though the new regulations are more restrictive in the density
allowed on the property. However, it would not allow owners to increase the
size of the units, if the building were demolished, in order to meet the
current market demand for larger housing units.
CONCLUSIONS
It is the Planning Commission's opinion that the proposed regulations and
guidelines will substantially achieve the objectives of the multiple - family
study to reduce building mass, increase privacy and separation to abutting
neighborhoods (particularly single - family uses), and enhance on -site amenities
of projects relating to usable and private open space. While overall
densities may not be-substantially impacted, reduced unit size and density
reductions may occur, particularly on small parcels. By enacting improved
development regulations for multiple - family development the Planning
Commission hopes to make new housing projects more acceptable to the community
and thereby encourage the provision of housing in Palo Alto.
PCMFS
3/3/88
m
a
\
N
N
OBI
1�
aC
+i YI
I
q « }
7
L d
0°d
°olvei
Y
L
..1 L
017 4
•.1
Y Y
V
W
O
O v
V pw
v B 1S V
w
O1
r
N
b;�'
v
. J dY 0
� N 10 1F
^1
�Cj
Yqq
r1
C
O
0 6
�� O N
L
P
C
>
0
a
^
01
M s
a
c_
V^
N
O
v_
V
_44
10.1
M
« q C
+M
I
! 2
CIE
O_
L
F
L
r
N C T
6
01
v O �'
T
q
O
e
1- ~0Y
L
w mm
a
4
116V
r�L
UA
CK
I=
« O •r-
V 7 d v
C O
O v I v d 7 L d
..1
O q K q L
q ^
Y LN OC 10 q 0 L
1
. - M
d 7 CL?
p�1
iL 0. O-
q
NY
DYV �
O V a N
�
N S
7O q
N
V N
L L C O
E
J
N
d►1
IMIC
Ye Y
r
N M
q
N
q L
N O Y
O
_.
dd o
r
C
O
d 1r d L C70
q
7
uj
Lq °
W
L
4A cc
YC
L
J
>10.1
jCN
J
p K
e
c
c —�L
M�
qN
O «O NE
O7l
e
Y C
7
C1r
N O B
y „•
�O �+CD
n L c r
N
mY>
O
^
1
1 d 6
O
860
9N L•-•m
a O
Y
p(
N
d
A.
%C
v o L
° v
S6
Ir
e
° o C1
O
16
O O<
C q
N M
�
O
L d d q
J
1r
�
«
r gtTG
'
M
M
V q
n
d d C
d'
OCN
.JL --•1
O
OC
Y
LufgY
c
G
w
N y
1011
G
« L
4
N 10
m d
O 7 01 t
O Y
m. d
t
+
L O0r L
J O
q
M 0 7 N
N
y6q�0
Y
N
■d
_
►C
rC
L`
M
d rr
N O
« O
L> 1
t
« 7
O 10
q 4w, N
M
OO 1'1
CD
O
O
17 O
_
>C• O
N L
N L
N v d L
= J
N L
O
O
V d 9 T
w
I
O
a.
m r
LN C
T 7
T 1 N O
yN
ry C m
>A
\
\
0
6
L C N
r d
\
O
d
d
1 L
d 0 C
'
M C
N y
ti
_
•� V
1p V
V
7 M •.1 7
Ip q
t
N > 01'
dllr
I<aueW
(4) The mitaimum side and rear yards for the portion of a
structure over one story adjacent to any single - family
zone (including R -1, R -2 and RMD zones) shall be 20
feet.
(f) Arterial Street Setback. A building on property adjacent
to an arterial street, as designated in the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan,L(pther than an arterial street in the --
CD district),shall be set back a minimum of 25 feet from
the propert line.
(g) Height and Daylight Plane. The maximum height shall be 2
stories, not to exceed 30 feet. For the purposes of this
chapter, height means the vertical distance above grade to
the highest point of the coping of a flat roof, or to the
deck line of a mansard roof, or to the average height of
the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The
measurement shall be taken from the lowest adjoining
sidewalk or ground surface within a 5 foot horizontal
distance from the exterior wall of the building. However,
no structure, except television and radio antennas,
chimneys and flues, shall extend above or beyond a daylight
plane having a height of 5 feet at each side or rear site
line and an angle of 45.degrees.
(h) Lot Coverage. The following lot coverage regulations shall
apply:
(1) The maximum lot coverage shall be thirty -five percent
(358) of the site area.
(2) Covered patios and overhangs otherwise in compliance
with all applicable laws may cover five percent (58)
of the site area in addition to the maximum lot
coverage set forth above.
(i) Floor Area Ration (FAR). The maximum FAR shall be 0.5:1.
(j) usable Open Space. The following usable open space
regulations shall apply:
(1) Each lot shall have not less than thirty -five percent
(358) of the lot area developed into permanently
maintained common usable open space, as measured in
the
ground floor area only.
(2) Each dwelling unit shall have at least 1 private
i
usable open space area contiguous to the unit which
allows the occupants of the unit the personal use of
the outdoor space. The minimum size of such areas
shall be as follows and shall not be calculated in the
FAR:
A. Balconies (above ground level) shall be 50 square
feet.
4.
3/01/88
J
B. Patios or yards (at ground level) shall be 100
square feet, the least dimension of which is 8
feet.
(3) Part or all of the required private usable open space
areas may be added to the required common usable open
space in a development, for purposes of improved
design, privacy, protection and increased play area
for children, upon a recommendation by the
architectural review board and approval of the
director of planning and community environment. .
(k) Accessory Facilities and Uses. Regulations governing
accessory facilities and uses, and governing the
application of site development regulations in specific
instances, are established by Chapter 18.88.
18.22.060 Residential density. The following table
establishes the permitted density of a lot, based on the lot area.
When calculating the number of units, if insufficient area exists
to provide the minimum lot area for an additional unit, the total
number of units shall be rounded down to the smaller number.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the permitted density of any lot
shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre.
Permitted Densities RM -15
�( Lot Size No. of Dwelling Units/
Lot Area Square Feet of Lot Area
Up to - 5,999 1 unit
6,000 - 80499 2 units
8,500 and over 3 units plus 1 unit /each
additional 2,850 square
feet
18.22.070 Parking and loading.
(a) Off street parking and loading facilities shall be required
for all permitted and conditional uses in accord with
Chapter 18.83. All parking and loading facilities on any
site, whether required or optionally provided in addition
to minimum requirements, shall comply with the regulations
and design standards established by Chapter 18.83.
(b) Minimum parking requirements for selected uses permitted in
the RM -15 low density multiple- family residence district
shall be as set forth below. A minimum of 1 parking space
per dwelling unit shall be covered (see also Chapter
18.83).
(1) Single - family Use. The minimum parking requirement
for a site with 1 dwelling unit shall be 2 spaces.
Q S.
3/01/88
(2) Two- family Use. The minimum parking requirement for a
site with 2 dwelling units shall be 1.5 spaces per
dwelling unit.
(3) multiple- family Use. The minimum parking requirement
for a site with 3 or more dwelling units shall be as
follows:
1.25 spaces per studio unit
1.50 spaces per one - bedroom unit
2.00 spaces per two or.more bedrooms
(4) Lodging Use. The minimum parking requirement for a
site with a lodging use shall be 1 space per lodging
unit, in addition to any applicable requirement based
on single - family use, two - family use or multiple -
family use on the same site.
(c) Guest Parking. Guest parking shall be provided in
multiple- family developments exceeding 3 units, in
accordance with the following requirements:
(1) The number
shall be 1
Of units in
of guest parking
plus ten percent
the development.
spaces in a development
(108) of the total number
(2) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if more than 1 parking
space per dwelling unit in a development is assigned
or secured so that it is inaccessible to the public,
then guest parking spaces equivalent to thirty -three
percent (338) of the total number of units in the
development shall be provided.
(3) Guest parking spaces shall be clearly marked as
reserved for guests and shall be in an area providing
guests with unrestricted access to the guest parking
spaces.
(d) Location of Parking Spaces. No required parking space
shall be located in a required front yard, nor in the first
10 feet adjoining the street property line of a required
street side yard.
18.22.080 Below market Rate (BMR) units.
(a) In developments of 10 or more units, not less than ten
percent (108) of the units shall be provided at
below - market rates to low and moderate income households in
accordance with Program 12 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan.
(b) Density Bonus. In developments of 10 or more units where
BmR housing units are provided, a density increase of no
6.
2 In 1 io e
facilities, or corporation yards.
18.24.050 Site development regulations. The following site
development regulations shall apply in the RM -30 medium density
multiple - family residence district, provided that more restrictive
regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board
and approved by the director of planning and community
environment, pursuant to the regulations set forth in Chapter
16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the multiple - family
residential guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.28 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code:
(a) Site Area. The minimum site area s
feet for 3 units or more.
(b) Site Width. The minimum site width
(c) Site Depth. The minimum site depth
(d) Front Yard: The minimum front yard
(e) Side and Rear Yards: The following
regulations shall apply:
hall be 8,500 square
shall be 70 feet.
shall be 100 feet.
shall be 20 feet.
side and rear yard
(1) The minimum interior side and rear yards for a
single -story structure shall be 10 feet.
(2) The minimum interior side and rear yards for a
structure over 1 story shall be one -half (1/2) of the
actual height of the structure, but not less than 10
feet.
(3) The minimum side and rear yards which are adjacent to
a street shall be 16 feet.
(4) The minimum side and rear yards for the portion of a
structure over 1 story adjacent to any single - family
zone (including R -1, R -2 and RMD zones) shall be 20
feet.
(f) Arterial Street Setback. A building on property adjacent
to an arterial street, as designated in the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan,i(other than an arterial street in the —
CD district) shall be set back a minimum of 25 feet from --- --
the property line.
(g) Height and Daylight Plane. The maximum height shall not
exceed 35 feet. For the purposes of this chapter, height
means the vertical distance above grade to the highest
point of the coping of a flat roof, or to the deck line of
a mansard roof, or to the average height of the highest
gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The measurement shall
be taken from the lowest adjoining sidewalk or ground
surface within a 5 foot horizontal distance from the
exterior wall of the building. However, no structure,
10.
3/01/88
except television and radio antennas, chimneys and flues,
shall extend above or beyond a daylight plane having a
height of 10 feet at each side or rear site line and an
angle of 45 degrees.
(h) Lot Coverage. The following lot coverage regulations shall
apply:
(1) The maximum lot coverage shall be forty percent (408)
of the site area.
(2) Covered patios and overhangs otherwise in compliance
with all applicable laws may cover five percent (58)
' of the site area in addition to the maximum lot
coverage set forth above.
(i) Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
1 (1) The maximum FAR for projects with detached or
underground parking shall be 0.6:1, which shall be
' calculated by the gross floor area of the building as
defined in Section 18.04.030(65) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
(2) The maximum FAR for projects with attached garages or
tuck under or semi - depressed parking contiguous to the
building shall be 0.75:1, which shall include such
parking area in the calculation of gross floor area as
defined in Section 18.04.030(65).
' (j) Usable Open Space. The following usable open space
regulations shall apply:
(1) Each lot shall have not less than thirty percent (308)
of the lot area developed into permanently maintained
common usable open space, as measured in the ground
floor area only.
(2) Each dwelling unit shall have at lea
usable open space area contiguous to
allows the occupants of the unit the
the outdoor space. The minimum size
shall be as follows and shall not be
FAR:
st 1 private
the unit which
personal use of
of such areas
calculated in the
(a) Balconies (above ground level) shall be 50 square
feet.
(b) Patios or yards (at ground level) shall be 100
square feet, the least dimension of which is 8
feet.
(3) Part or all of the required private usable open space
areas may be added to the required common usable open
11.
3/01/88
space in a development, for purposes of improved
design, privacy, protection and increased play area
for children, upon a recommendation of the
architectural review board and approval of the
director of planning and community environment.
(k) Accessory Facilities and Uses. Regulations governing
accessory facilities and uses, and governing the
application of site development regulations in specific
instances, are established by Chapter 18.88.
18.24.060 Residential density. The following table
establishes the permitted density of a lot, based on the lot area.
When calculating the number of units, if insufficient area exists
to provide the minimum lot area for an additional unit, the total
number of units shall be rounded down to the smaller number.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the permitted density of any lot
shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre.
Permitted Densities RM -30
Lot Size No. of Dwelling Units/
Lot Area _ Square Feet of Lot Area
Up to - 50999 1 unit
6,000 - 8,499 2 units
8,500 and over 3.units plus 1 unit /each
additional 1,350 square
feet.
18.24.070 Parking and loading.
(a) Off street parking and loading facilities shall be required
for all permitted and conditional uses in accord with
Chapter 18.83. All parking and loading facilities on any
site, whether required or optionally provided in addition
to minimum requirements, shall comply with the regulations
and design standards established by Chapter 18.83.
(b) Minimum parking requirements for selected uses permitted in
the RM -30 medium density multiple - family residence district
shall be as set forth below. A minimum of 1 parking space
per dwelling unit shall be covered (see also Chapter
18.83).
(1) Single - family Use: The minimum parking requirement
for a site with 1 dwelling unit shall be 2 spaces.
(2) Two - family Use: The minimum parking requirement for a
site with 2 dwelling units shall be 1.5 spaces-per
dwelling unit.
(3) Multiple - family
for a site with
follows:
Use: The minimum parking requirement
3 or more dwelling units shall be as
12.
1.25 spaces per studio unit
1.50 spaces per one - bedroom unit
2.00 spaces per two or more bedrooms
(4) Lodging Use: The minimum parking requirement for a site
with a lodging use shall be 1 space per lodging unit, in
addition to any applicable requirement based on
single - family use, two- family use or multiple - family use
on the same site.
(c) Guest Parking. Guest parking shall be provided in
multiple - family developments exceeding 3 units, in
accordance with the following requirements:
(1) The number of guest parking spaces in a development
shall be 1 plus ten percent (108) of the total number
of units in the development.
(2) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if more than 1 parking
space per dwelling unit in a development is assigned
or secured so that it is inaccessible to the public,
then guest parking spaces equivalent to thirty -three
percent (338) of the total number of units in the
development shall be provided.
(3) Guest parking spaces shall be clearly marked as
reserved for guests and shall be in an area providing
guests with unrestricted access to the guest parking
spaces.
(e) Location of Parking Spaces. No required parking space
shall be located in a required front yard, nor in the first
10 feet adjoining the street property line of a required
street side yard.
18.24.080 Below Market Rate (BMR) units.
(a) In developments of 10 or more units, not less than ten
percent (108) of the units shall be provided at
below- market rates to low and moderate income households in
accordance with Program 12 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan.
(b) Density Bonus. In developments of 10 or more units, where
BMR housing units are provided, a density increase of no
more than fifteen percent (158) over the otherwise
prescribed number of units may be permitted, provided that
for each additional market unit an additional BMR unit is
included. All other site development regulations shall
apply.
18.24.090 Special requirements. The following special
13.
3/01/88
C
requirements shall apply in the RM -30 medium density
multiple - family residence district:
(a) The site development regulations set forth in Sections
18.12.050 through 18.12.080 of Chapter 18.12 (the R -1
Single - Family Residence District Regulations) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code shall apply to sites in single - family
use.
(b) Professional and medical office uses existing on the
effective date of this section and which, prior to that
date, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional
uses operating subject to a conditional use permit, or
which uses were, prior to the effective date of this
section, located in an RM -3 or RM -4 district, which was
imposed by reason of annexation of the property to the city
without benefit of prezoning and which, prior to the date
of annexation, were lawful conforming permitted uses or '
conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use
permit, shall be deemed to be conforming uses.
(1) Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve or '
replace site improvements for continual use and
occupancy by the same use, provided that any such '
remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not
result in increased floor area, number of offices,
height, length, or increase in size for the
improvement. lei
(2) Any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement of
any building designed and constructed for residential '
use shall be subject to the issuance of a conditional
use permit in accord with Chapter 18.90.
(3) in the event of redevelopment of all or a portion of '
the site for permitted residential uses, such
professional and medical office uses may not be
incorporated in the redevelopment, except that this '
provision shall not apply to permanent conversion to
residential use of space within an existing structure
now used for professional and medical office uses. '
(c) Two - family uses and multiple - family uses existing on the
effective date of this section and which, prior to that '
date, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional
uses operating pursuant to a conditional use permit, or
which uses were, prior to the effective date of this
section, located in an RM -3 or RM -4 district, which was '
imposed by reason of annexation of the property to the city
without benefit of prezoning and which, prior to the.date
of annexation, were lawful conforming permitted uses or
conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use
permit, shall be deemed to be conforming uses. Such uses
shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site '
14. '
Z in ie o
W
improvements on the same site, without necessity to comply
with site development regulations for continual use and
occupancy by the same use; provided that any such
remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall not result in
increased floor area, number of dwelling units, height,
length, or any other increase in the size of the
improvement.
(d) Motel uses existing on July 20, 1978, and which, prior to
that date, were lawful conforming permitted uses or
conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use
permit, shall be dee.med to be conforming uses. Such uses
shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site
improvements on the same site, without necessity to comply
with site development regulations for continual use and
occupancy by the same use provided that any such
remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall not result in
increased floor area, number of rooms, height, length, or
any other increase in size of the improvement.
SECTION 4. Chapter 18.26 is hereby added to the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to read:
Sections:
18.26.010
18.26.020
18.26.030
18.26.040
18. 25.050
18.26.060
18.26.070
18.26.080
18.26.090
CHAPTER 18.26
RM -40 HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE- FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Specific purposes.
Applicability of regulations.
Permitted uses.
Conditional uses.
Site development regulations.
Residential density.
Parking and loading.
Below Market Rate units.
Special requirements.
18.26.010 Specific purposes. The RM -40 high density
multiple - family residence district is intended to create, preserve
and enhance locations for apartment living at the highest density
deemed appropriate for Palo Alto. The most suitable locations for
this district are in the downtown area, in select sites in the
California Avenue area and along major transportation corridors
which are close to mass transportation facilities and major
employment and service centers. Permitted densities in the RM -40
residence district range from 31 to 40 dwelling units per acre.
18.26.020 Applicability of regulations. The specific
regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and
procedures established by Chapters 18.83 to 18.99, inclusive,
shall apply to all RM -40 high density multiple - family residence
15.
3/01/88
districts.
18.26.030 Permitted uses. The following uses shall be
permitted in the RM -40 high density multiple - family residence
district:
(a) Single- family, two- family and multiple - family uses;
(b) Mobile homes on permanent foundations and other
manufactured housing. See Section 18.88.140;
(c) Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to
permitted uses;
(d) Home occupations, when accessory to permitted residential
uses;
(e) Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products for
consumption by occupants of a site;
(f) Residential care homes;
(g) Day care centers;
(h) Day care homes;
(i) Lodging.
18.26.040 Conditional uses. The following uses may be
conditionally allowed in the RM -40 high density multiple - family
residence district, subject to issuance of a conditional use
permit in accord with Chapter 18.90:
(a) Churches and religious institutions;
(b) Community centers;
(c) Convalescent facilities;
(d) Neighborhood recreational centers;
(e) Private educational facilities;
(f) Temporary uses, subject to regulations established by
Chapter 18.90;
(g) Utility facilities essential to provision of utility
services to the neighborhood, but excluding business
offices, construction or storage yards, maintenance
facilities, or corporation yards;
(h) Private clubs, lodges, or fraternal organizations,
excluding any such facility operated as a business for
profit;
16.
i
11
I
(i) within a single residential development containing not less
than two hundred dwelling units, personal services and
retail services solely of a convenience nature to residents
of the development may be allowed, subject to the following
limitations and to such additional conditions as may be
established by a conditional use permit:
(1) Total gross floor area of all such uses shall not
exceed 2,500 square feet or one -half of one percent
(19) of the gross residential floor area within the
development, whichever is smaller.
(2) Permitted signs shall be restricted to wall signs not
visible outside the development. Such signs shall
include only the name and type of business being
conducted. No other promotional activity or
advertising to the public is permitted.
(3) Such uses shall be screened from view from adjacent
property.
(4) Off- street parking facilities, in addition to
facilities required for residential uses, shall be
1 provided as may be specified by the conditional use
permit. However, there shall not be less than 1
parking space for each employee working or expected to
be working at the same time.
18.26.050 Site development regulations. The following site
development regulations shall apply in the RM -40 high density
multiple - family residence district, provided that more restrictive
regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board
and approved by the director of planning and community
' environment, pursuant to the regulations set forth in Chapter
16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the multiple- family
residential guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.28 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code:
(a) Site Area. The minimum site area shall be 8,500 square
feet for 6 units or more.
1 (b) Site width. The minimum site width shall be 70 feet.
1 (c) Site Depth. The minimum site depth shall be 100 feet.
(d) Street Frontage. The following street frontage regulations
' shall apply:
(1) A structure on property adjacent to a collector
street, as designated in the Palo Alto Comprehensive
' Plan, shall be setback based on the average setback of
adjoining residential structures. There shall be no
setback requirement for a structure adjacent to
' commercial or office structures.
17.
3/01/88
I
(2) A structure on property adjacent to an arterial
street, as designated in the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan, (,(fit er than an arterial street in the CD ---
district) shall be set back a minimum of 25 feet from
the line.
property
(e)
Side and Rear Yards. The following side and rear yard
regulations shall apply:
(1) The minimum interior side and rear yards shall be 10
feet.
(2) The minimum interior side and rear yards for a
structure adjacent to a lower density residential zone
shall be one -half (1/2) of the actual height of the
structure, but not less than 10 feet.
(f)
Height and Daylight Plane. The maximum height shall not
exceed 40 feet. For the purposes of this chapter, height
means the vertical distance above grade to the highest
point of the coping of a flat roof, or to the deck line of
a mansard roof, or to the average height of the highest
gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The measurement shall
be taken from the lowest adjoining sidewalk or ground
surface within a 5 foot horizontal distance from the
exterior wall of the building. In areas outside of the
downtown area, any portion of the site within 150 feet of a
more restrictive residential district shall have a maximum
height of 35 feet on that specific portion of the site.
However, no structure, except television and radio
antennas, chimneys and flues, shall extend above or beyond
a daylight plane having a height of 15 feet at each side
or rear site line and an angle of 45 degrees.
(g)
Lot Coverage. The following lot coverage regulations shall
apply:
(1) The maximum lot coverage shall be forty -five percent.
(458) of the site area.
(2) Covered patios and overhangs otherwise in compliance
with all applicable laws may cover five percent (58)
of the site area in addition to the maximum lot
coverage set forth above.
(h)
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The maximum FAR shall be 1:1.
(i)
Usable Open Space. The following usable open space
regulations shall apply:
(1) Each lot shall have not less than twenty percent (208)
of the lot area developed into permanently maintained
common usable open space, as measured in the ground
floor area only.
18.
3/01/88
(2) Each dwelling unit shall have at least 1 private
usable open space area contiguous to the unit which
allows the occupants of the unit the personal use of
the outdoor space. The minimum size of such areas
shall be as follows and shall not be calculated in the
FAR:
' a: Balconies (above ground level) shall be 50 square
feet.
' b. Patios or yards (at ground level) shall be 80
square feet, the least dimension of which is 6
feet.
' (3) Part or all of the required private usable open space
areas may be added to the required common usable open
space in a development, for purposes of improved
' design, privacy, protection and increased play area
for children, upon a recommendation by the architec-
tural review board and approval of the director of
' planning and community environment.
(j) Accessory Facilities and 'Uses. Regulations governing
' accessory facilities and uses, and governing the
application of site development regulations in specific
instances, are established by Chapter 18.88.
18.26.060 Residential density. The following table
establishes the permitted density of a lot, based on the lot area.
When calculating the number of units, if insufficient area exists
' to provide the minimum lot area for an additional unit, the total
number of units shall be rounded down to the smaller number.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the permitted density of any lot
shall not exceed 40 dwelling units per acre.
Permitted Densities RM -45
' Lot Size No. of Dwelling Units/
Lot Area Square Feet of Lot Area
' Up to - 8,500 6 units maximum
8,500 and over 1 unit /each additional
900 square feet
' 18.26.070 Parking and loading.
(a) Off street parking and loading facilities shall be required
' for all permitted and conditional uses in accord with
Chapter 18.83. All parking and loading facilities on any
site, whether required or optionally provided in addition
to minimum requirements, shall comply with the regulations
' and design standards established by Chapter 18.83.
' (b) Minimum parking requirements for selected uses permitted in
19.
' 3/01/88
20.
I /nI /aa
the RM -40 high density multiple - family residence district
shall be as set forth below. A minimum of 1 parking space
per dwelling unit shall be covered (see also Chapter
18.83).
(1) Single - family Use. The minimum parking requirement
for a site with 1 dwelling unit shall be 2 spaces.
(2) Two- family Use. The minimum parking requirement for a
site with 2 dwelling units shall be 1.5 spaces per
dwelling unit.
(3) Multiple- family Use. The minimum parking requirement
for a site with 3 or more dwelling units shall be as
follows:
1.25 spaces per studio unit
1.50 spaces per one - bedroom unit
2.00 spaces per two or more bedrooms
(4) Lodging Use. The minimum parking requirement for a
site with a lodging use shall be 1 space per lodging
unit, in addition to any applicable requirement based
on single - family use, two - family use or multiple -
family use on the same site.
(c)
Guest Parking. The number of guest parking spaces to be
provided in a multiple - family development exceeding 3 units
shall be 1 plus ten percent (10%) of the total number of
units in the development. Guest parking spaces shall be
clearly marked as reserved for guests and shall be in an
area providing guests with unrestricted access to the guest
parking spaces.
(d)
Location of Parking Spaces. No required parking space
shall be located in a required front yard, nor in the first
10 feet adjoining the street property line of a required
street side yard.
18.26.080
Below Market Rate (BMR) units.
(a)
In developments of 10. or more units, not less than ten
percent (108) of the units shall be provided at
below- market rates to low and moderate income households in
accordance with Program 12 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan.
(b)
Density Bonus. In developments of 10 or more units where
BMR housing units are provided, a density increase of no
more than fifteen percent (15 %) over the otherwise
prescribed number of units may be permitted, provided that
for each additional market unit an additional BMR unit is
included. All other site development regulations shall
apply.
_
20.
I /nI /aa
18.26.090 Special requirements. The following special
,r requirements shall apply in the RM -40 high density multiple- family
residence district:
r(a) The site development regulations set forth in Sections
18.12.050 through 18.12.080 of Chapter 18.12 (the R -1
Single- Family Residence District Regulations) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code shall apply to sites in single - family
use.
(b) Professional and medical office uses existing on the
effective date of this section and which, prior to that
date, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional
uses operating subject to a conditional use permit, or
which uses were, prior to the effective date of this
section, located in an RM -5 district, which was imposed by
reason of annexation of the property to the city without
benefit of prezoning and which, prior to the date of
annexation, were lawful conforming permitted uses or
conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use
permit, shall be deemed to be conforming uses.
(1) Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve or
replace site improvements for continual use and
occupancy by the same use, provided that any such
remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not
result in increased floor area, number of offices,
height, length, or increase in size for the
improvement.
(2) Any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement of
any building designed and constructed for residential
use shall be subject to the issuance of a conditional
use permit in accord with Chapter 18.90.
(3) In the event of redevelopment of all or a portion of
the site for permitted residential uses, such
professional and medical office uses may not be
incorporated in the redevelopment, except that this
provision shall not apply to permanent conversion to
residential use of space within an existing structure
now used for professional and medical office uses.
(c) Two - family and multiple- family uses existing on the
effective date of this section and which, prior to that
date, were lawful conforming -permitted uses or conditional
uses operating pursuant to a conditional use permit, or
which uses were, prior to the effective date of this
section, located in an RM -5 district, which was imposed by
reason of annexation of the property to the city without
benefit of prezoning and which, prior to the date of
annexation, were lawful conforming permitted uses or
conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use
permit, shall be deemed to be conforming uses. Such uses
21.
i /nl /aa
shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site
improvements on the same site, without necessity to comply
with site development regulations for continual use and
occupancy by the same use; provided that any such
remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall not result in
increased floor area, number of dwelling units, height,
length, or any other increase in the size of the
improvement.
(d) Motel uses existing on July 20, 1978, and which, prior to
that date, were lawful conforming permitted uses or
conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use
permit, shall be deemed to be conforming uses. Such uses
shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site
improvements on the same site, without necessity to comply
with site development regulations for continual use and
occupancy by the same use provided that any such
remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall not result in
increased floor area, number of rooms, height, length, or
any other increase in size of the improvement.
SECTION 5. Chapter 18.28 is hereby added to the Palo Alto
municipal Code to read:
CHAPTER 18.28
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT GUIDELINES
Sections:
18.28.010 Specific purpose.
18.28.020 Applicability of regulations.
18.28.030 Site development guidelines.
18.28.010 Specific purpose. The multiple - family residence
district guidelines are intended to provide additional standards
to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the
RM -15, RM -30 and RM -40 multiple - family residence districts. The
guidelines are intended to protect existing single - family homes
from the intrusion of multi - family housing projects, make new
developments compatible with existing neighborhoods and enhance
the desirability of living conditions in the proposed
developments.
18.28.020 Applicability of regulations. The guidelines of
this chapter shall be applicable to all RM -150 RM -30 and RM -40
multiple - family residence districts.
18.28.030 Site development guidelines. On any site where the
multiple - family zoning regulations apply, the following .guidelines
shall apply as a supplement to those regulations:
(a) Privacy between buildings.
(1) Windows, balconies or similar openings above the first
29.
N. 46
1
1
1
1
1
story should be oriented so as not to have a direct
line -of -sight into adjacent units within the project.
(2) Units above the first story should be designed so that
they do not look directly onto private patios or
backyards of adjoining residential property.
(3) Landscaping should be used to aid in privacy
screening.
(b) Trash disposal areas.
(1) Trash disposal areas should be accessible to all
residents but screened from public view.
(2) Trash disposal areas should be screened from public
view by a minimum 6 foot enclosure with gates. The
structure should incorporate the architectural
features of the project.
(c) Lighting.
(1) Lighting in parking areas and common open space should
provide the minimum illumination necessary to achieve
security while not causing a visual intrusion to
adjoining living areas.
(2) Exterior light sources should be shielded in such a
manner as to eliminate glare and light spillover
' beyond the perimeter of the development.
' (3) Low level lighting fixtures should be weather and
vandal resistant.
' (d) Paving treatment. Textured paving material should be used
in driveway and parking areas to break up the expanse of
paving in the project.
' (e) Noise impacts.
(1) Units within the project should be adequately
I insulated to protect residents from noise intrusion
from adjoining units. In addition to insulation
between common walls, vertical insulation on exterior
walls and from floor to floor should be provided.
(2) Loading docks, service entries, mechanical equipment
' and recreational play areas should be sited as far
away from adjoining single - family properties as is
reasonably possible.
I (3) Projects adjacent to major arterials or railroad
tracks should incorporate additional noise mitigation
measures to protect residents. Measures should
I
23.
3/01/88
include but not be limited to the following:
(A) Double glazed windows.
(B) Sound walls.
(C) Earth berms.
(f) visual impacts.
(1) Roof vents, flues and other protrusions through the
roof of any building or structure should be clustered
and screened from public view.
(2) All exposed mechanical and other types of equipment
which exceed 16 inches in any horizontal dimension,
whether installed on the ground or attached to a
building roof or walls, should be screened from public
and overhead view.
(g) Carports.
(1) Carport structures should be architecturally
compatible with the main structures in the project and
should utilize substantial support posts.
(2) Landscaping material associated with the carport
should have adequate room to grow and be protected
from abuse by cars.
(h) Underground Garages.
(1) Required residential parking spaces in the RM -40
zoning district should be underground or
semi - depressed for projects of six units or more.
(2) Proximity of underground parking garages to property
lines should take into consideration the need for
landscaping along the perimeter of the site. In
instances where substantial planting is necessary,
the placement of parking garages should be adequately
setback from the property line to provide for the
landscaping.
(i) Landscaping.
(1) Landscaping should be used to integrate a project
design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to
provide privacy screening between properties where
appropriate.
(2) Usable outdoor recreation areas, both passive and
active, should be incorporated into the project..
(3) Size and density of plant materials should be in
proportion to the size of planting areas and the mass
24.
3/01/88
of the structure.
(4) Plant material selection should take
consideration solar orientation, dro
maintenance requirements and privacy
(5) Plant material species and container
allow for a mature appearance within
amount of time.
into
ught tolerence,
screening.
sizes should
a reasonable
SECTION 6. Section 18.37.070(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code [OR District - Special Requirements) is hereby amended to
read:
(a) Permitted residential uses shall be governed by the
following additional regulations:
(1) Exclusive Residential Use.
residential use on any site, the
guidelines set forth in Chapters
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
apply. Subsections (b) through
shall not apply to such use.
For exclusive
regulations and
18.24 (RM -30) and 18.28
respectively, shall
(d) of this section
(2) Mixed Residential and Nonresidential Use. For
mixed residential and nonresidential use on any site,
the regulations and guidelines set forth in Chapters
18.24 (RM -30) and 18.28 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
respectively, shall apply to that portion of the site
area in residential use. In computing residential
densities for mixed residential and nonresidential uses,
there shall be no deduction for that portion of the site
area in nonresidential use. The regulations set forth
in this chapter, including subsections (b) through (d)
of this section, shall apply to that portion of the site
area in nonresidential use.
SECTION 7. Section 18.41.070(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code CN District - Special Requirements] is hereby amended to
read:
(a) Permitted residential uses shall be governed by the
following additional regulations:
(1) Exclusive Residential Use.
residential use on any site, the
guidelines set forth in Chapters
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
apply. Subsections (b) through
shall not apply to such use.
For exclusive
regulations and
18.24 (RM -30) and 18.28
respectively, shall
(f) of this section
(2) Mixed Residential and Nonresidential Use. For
mixed residential and nonresidential use on any site,
the regulations and guidelines set forth in Chapters
25.
C18.24 (RM -30) and 18.28 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, I
respectively, shall apply to that portion of the site
area in residential use. In computing residential
densities for mixed residential and nonresidential uses, '
there shall be no deduction for that portion of the site
area in nonresidential use. The regulations set forth
in this chapter, including subsections (b) through (f) I
of this section, shall apply to that portion of the site
area in nonresidential use.
SECTION 8. Section 18.43.070(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal '
Code CCDistrict - Special Requirements] is hereby amended to
read:
(a) Permitted residential uses shall be governed by the '
following additional regulations:
(1) Exclusive Residential Use. For exclusive '
residential use on any site, the regulations and guide-
lines set forth in Chapters 18.24 (RM -30) and 18.28 of '
the Palo Alto Municipal Code, respectively, shall apply.
Subsections (b) through (e) of this section shall not
apply to such use.
(2) Mixed Residential and Nonresidential Use. For '
mixed residential and nonresidential use on any site,
the regulations and guidelines set forth in Chapters
18.24 (RM -30) and 18.28 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
respectively, shall apply to that portion of the site
area in residential use. In computing residential '
densities for mixed residential and nonresidential uses,
there shall be no deduction for that portion of the site
area in nonresidential use. The regulations set forth
in this chapter, including subsections (b) through (e)
of this section, shall apply to that portion of the site
area in nonresidential use.
SECTION 9. Section 18.45.0,70(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code TCS District - Special Requirements] is hereby amended to
read:
(a) Permitted residential uses shall be governed by the
following additional regulations:
(1) Exclusive Residential Use. For exclusive residen-
tial use on any site, the regulations and guidelines set
forth in Chapters 18.24 (RM -30) and 18.28 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, respectively, shall apply. Subsec-
tions (b) through (f) of this section shall not apply to
such use.
(2) Mixed Residential and Nonresidential Use. For
mixed residential and nonresidential use on any site,
the regulations and guidelines set forth in Chapters
18.24 (RM -30) and 18.28 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
respectively, shall apply to that portion of the site
area in residential use. In computing residential
densities for mixed residential and nonresidential uses,
there shall be no deduction for that portion of the site
area in nonresidential use. The regulations set forth
in this chapter, including subsections (b) through (f)
of this section, shall apply to that portion of the site
area in nonresidential use.
SECTION 10. Section 18.49.060(b)(5) of the Palo Alto
Municippal CCo ecT[CD District - Site Development Regulations] is
hereby amended to read:
5. In the CD -S and CD -N subdistricts, (i) for exclusive
residential use on any site, the regulations and
guidelines set forth in Chapters 18.24 (RM -30) and
18.28, or Chapters 18.22 (RM -15) and 18.28, respec-
tively, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall apply,
and (ii) for mixed residential and nonresidential
use on any site, the regulations and guidelines set
forth in Chapters 18.24 (RM -30) and 18.280 or
Chapters 18.22 (RM -15) and 18.28, respectively, of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall apply to that
portion of the site area in residential use. In no
case shall the floor area ratio of the nonresiden-
tial uses. exceed the base FAR set forth above.
CD -S
(See Map 2)
RM -30 regulations,
except RM -15 regu-
lations in Areas 1
and 2
CD -N
(See Map 3)
RM -30 regulations,
except RM -15 regu-
lations in Areas 1
and 2
SECTION 11. Section 18.49.070(d) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code CD-C Subdistrict - Additional Regulations] is hereby
repealed and Section 18.49.070(b) is hereby amended to read:
(b) Permitted residential uses shall be governed by the
following additional regulations:
( 1 ) Exclusive Residential Use. For exclusive residen-
tial use on any site, the regulations and guidelines set
forth in Chapters 18.26 (RM -40) and 18.28 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, respectively, shall apply.
(2) Mixed Residential and Nonresidential Use. For
mixed residential and nonresidential use on any site,
the regulations and guidelines set forth in Chapters"
18.26 (RM -40) and 18.28 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
respectively, shall apply to that portion of the site
area in residential use. In computing residential
27.
3/01/88
Arlrf7k( � ffEn
������►�i►►►►����II IIIIIif1111111I������� ��� ►I II
city
of tuis sAn OBISPO
o 990 Palm Street /Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obis CA 93403 -8100
P
May 17, 1988
TO: City Council
FROM: Roger Picquet, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Group Housing
I. BACKGROUND
"Group Housing" is best defined as the collective neighborhood concerns and complaints
stemming from some groups of unrelated adults (typically students, but has also included
workers from large construction projects in past years) sharing houses in traditionally
single - family neighborhoods. These concerns include, but are not necessarily limited to:
1. Parking (on -site and on- street) and traffic circulation;
2. Noise (particularly those associated with social gatherings and parties);
3. Yard and exterior maintenance;
4. Formal groups (fraternity /sorority; boarding houses, etc.).
The City has adopted regulations from time to time on these various matters. For
example, fraternities and sororities are allowed in R -3/R -4 zones with a use permit.
Boarding /rooming houses are similarly treated. Municipal authority to regulate these
institutional uses is clear and will be upheld.
Until City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson was decided in 1981 by the California Supreme
Court, the City relied on its "3 +" regulation. It precluded more than three unrelated
adults from sharing a dwelling in a single - family neighborhood. Adamson basically held
that requiring housemates to be related was an impermissible overreaching into a
protected area of privacy and that municipal regulations should address the
characteristics of the use in question (e.g., parking, density, etc.) and not the class
or status of the user. Currently, in accordance with this principle, city ordinances tie
regulations to the use itself and not to the class or status of the user.
The City noise regulations were amended several years ago to add technical criteria and
to provide for use of decibel -meter to assist in enforcement. Currently, the Police
Department is reviewing the regulations to see if any adjustments to the technical
criteria are warranted. Noise regulations are quite useful in resolving conflicts
between static or "fixed" uses. They are less effective when dealing with temporary
noise sources. Enforcement can often be problematic.
Group Housing
Page 2
Parking requirements generally established at the time of initial development or
subsequent change in use. With the exception of several residential parking areas under
SLOMC Chapter 10.36 (designed to eliminate commuters taking up neighborhood street spaces
near Cal Poly), no specific street parking measures are in place. Our on -site
regulations do not address the actual number of vehicle owners /users or clearly prohibit
parking on lawn /landscape areas.
With respect to yard /exterior maintenance, existing regulations do not establish specific
or definitive standards. They are based on the more traditional health and safety
concerns such as litter, trash, fire hazards and existence of dangerous building
conditions (e.g., unsafe roof, plumbing, etc.)
II. PRIOR REVIEW
Staff has studied and analyzed various parts of the group housing issue for years. In
Fall, 1986, a staff UCSB graduate intern prepared a report addressing the overall item
(Norton Report). Staff has used the Norton'Report as a point of departure for review by
Council and Commissions.
A Planning Commission subcommittee was appointed in 1986 to review the issue and make
appropriate recommendations. The subcommittee met with several community groups (e.g.,
Chamber, Board of Realtors). The Planning Commission decided on May 13, 1987, to
recommend to Council the following:
I. Strengthen existing ordinances to address the most obvious and often
complained -of areas (noise, parking, property);
2. Initiate a better way to gather data to better understand the problems;.
3. Pursue neighborhood mediation using various City resources (including possible
additional staff);
4. Try to involve Cal Poly and Cuesta administration in handling problems
associated with students.
Council has discussed this issue from time to time in a number of different contexts and
in conjunction with related issues. For example, Council has authorized litigation to
remove an illegal fraternity and has held specific study sessions on circulation and
parking, noise regulations, and density. The general direction given by Council is for
staff to bring back options which address Planning Commission and staff recommendations
as well as others.
III.OPTIONS
A. Traditional Authority.
The Planning Commission and staff have recommended that Council "fine tune" existing
ordinances adopted under traditional authority. This could include:
I. Noise. Review ordinance and revise where appropriate.
2. Parking. Consider parking regulations which would clear vehicles from impacted
streets at various times or days enhanced enforcement of required parking on
private property in designated areas; limit parking on yards or other landscaped
areas.
Group Housing
Page 3
3. Yard and exterior maintenance. Stricter enforcement of litter and fire hazards;
adoption of specific private property maintenance regulations with definitive
criteria and standards.
4. Formal Groups. Amortization or phaseout of illegal /non- conforming fraternities;
expansion of fraternity use into new zones such as office or commercial; revise
definitions of rooming and boarding houses.
B. Non- Traditional Authority.
Commercial /residential use permit or license. This, in effect, would impose a
regulatory scheme on the rental of property for residential purposes. Theoretically,
this would allow for greater control over the characteristics associated with the use
such as parking, litter, etc. On the other hand, as with any regulatory framework,
significant staff and administrative costs could be necessary in order to effectively
and efficiently implement this approach. Further, staff does not believe a permit
process will result in the necessary enforcement powers to really change the source
of most of the complaints, which is the lifestyle or behavior of the residents in
question.
C. Additional Staff for Mediation.
Pursuant to the Planning Commission recommendation, this staff would coordinate the
various resources in the private and public sectors to mediate problems between
neighbors. The HRC may be a resource in this regard, too.
D. Other .
There are virtually innumerable alternative or additional courses of action. If the
problem is perceived to be limited to certain locations or residences that may change
from year to year (as opposed to one which is endemic to all parts of the city at all
times) then perhaps assistance from Cal Poly and Cuesta would be appropriate.
Although the schools cannot act as "loco parentis ", it would not be unreasonable to
participate in mediation efforts or as a community ombudsman service. Also, the
schools can continue to expand their student education and community orientation
programs, student organizations, such as the ASI and the IFC, could be requested to
participate in the mediation process.
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
As can be seen from the brief comments above, the subject of Group Housing can be at
times difficult to fairly define. Describing specific solutions which do not carry with
them significant offsets or costs can be equally difficult: Nonetheless, staff feels
many of the issues associated with group housing are really conflicts in differing
lifestyles which are not highly responsive to traditional enforcement methods. To the
degree that increased /enhanced enforcement of existing regulations, and in areas of
traditional authority that may be exercised, reduces or minimizes the overall problem,
staff recommends Council taken such an overall approach. Because of the difficulties and
costs inherently associated with a commercial /residential permit program, staff does not
recommend such an approach. Staff does recommend that Cal Poly and Cuesta students and
administration, be solicited for participation in identifying and implementing additional
avenues for neighborhood problem resolution.
01►11111111111llllllllli�1►►►►111 (III city o sAn hues oBispo
IM 990 Palm Street /Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
June 4, 1987
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
City Council
John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
Planning Commission
PREPARED BY: Michael Multari, Community Development Director t
SUBJECT: Group Housing in Residential Areas
BACKGROUND:
Situation
Members of the council, city committees and commissions, and city staff frequently
receive complaints from residents (usually more traditional family groups) regarding
groups of students or other groups of unrelated adults sharing houses in single - family
neighborhoods. Typical complaints received related to group housing situations are:
I. Too many vehicles parked on the site and on the adjacent street;
2. Noise from day -to -day living and particularly gatherings and parties; and
3. Yards and exteriors of the homes not being properly maintained.
The city previously had an ordinance which limited the number of unrelated adults sharing
a dwelling in single- family neighborhoods to three. With the Supreme Court's decision on
the City of Santa Barbara vs. Adamson which declared a similar type of city regulation
unconstitutional, the San Luis Obispo ordinance was repealed.
Previous Review
A subcommittee of the Planning Commission was formed about a year ago to research the
group housing issue and explore alternatives to address typical complaints. On April 8,
1987, the commission initially reviewed the subcommittee's report on the issue. After
some discussion of the report, the commission directed staff to schedule the item for a
meeting in May to allow a representative of the Police Department to be present to field
enforcement - related questions and to allow other interested parties to be present to
provide input on the issue in general. Notice of the meeting held May 13, 1987, was sent
to several city organizations, committees, and commissions.
RECOMMENDATION. (
Based on its discussion of the issue at two regularly - scheduled meetings and the
information and data supplied by the subcommittee and staff on the subject, the Planning
Commission recommends to the City Council the following:
1. Direct the City Attorney to outline possible changes to strengthen existing city
ordinances to deal with the most commonly received complaints regarding group
housing situations (noise, parking, and property maintenance).
2. Institute a better way of gathering data to monitor these problems. The commission
acknowledges that since January of 1987 the Police Department can more easily
access complaint records because of a new computer system.
3. Practice neighborhood mediation. This would involve getting representatives from
various city departments including the Human Relations Commission, the Police
Department and the Community Development Department together with aggrieved
neighbors. The commission also suggests that the city consider creating a new
position of a neighborhood mediator to deal with particular complaint situations.
4. There should be better coordination with the two colleges, Cal Poly and Cuesta. A
contact person at each of these colleges should be appointed to receive complaints,
give direction, and answer questions.
PR:bee
FIVY-17.1 _4 1601z�1
TO: PAUL LANSPERY, CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
FROM: NOELLE NORTON, GRADUATE INTERN
SUBJECT: GROUP RENTER/ NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 31, 1986
In June. City Council directed staff to search for creative solutions
to the group- renter problem in San Luis Obispo. Because group renters
tend to disrupt the single family neighborhood lifestyles, the council
would like to find a feasible way to protect city neighborhoods. This
report is a detailed analysis of the issues and alternatives available
to the city. Covered in the report are the following areas of concern:
** The definition and cause of the problem, both in San Luis Obispo
and nation -wide.
** The consititutional limitations to implementing certain kinds of
solutions.
** Current San Luis Obispo efforts to rectify the problem
** Ten alternative solutions, which are currently either under study
or in practice in other municipalities.
** A summary analysis of the ten alternatives
** Policy recommendations
Although this report is fairly lengthy. it is essentially a summary
report. Ten alternatives are analyzed, but not in great detail. After
policy direction is given detailed analysis on desired alternatives
would be mandatory.
Because of the scope of the problem and the constitutional, fiscal and
political limitations of certain alternatives, I recommend that the
city either enforce current ordinances or seek a fresh new approach to
the problem approach. Defending questionable legislation is an
expensive and timely process. while considering alternatives, I
recommend that a complete statistical analysis of the actual nature and
magnitude of the problem be completed - the city may find that most
groups live harmoniously with their neighbors and only a few groups are
disruptive.
I. THE GROUP RENTER/ NEIGHBORHOOD LIVEABILITY PROBLEM
A. Introduction
The low density residential zone has always been perceived as the family
neighborhood portion of the community - a place with white picket fences,
two cars in the garage, where children grow up, families prosper, and
grandparents retire in serenity. Perhaps visions of the 1950's T.V. shows
best describe the image of the low density neighborhood: "Leave it To
Beaver ", "Ozzie and Harriet ", or "Father Knows Best ". By the mid 19701s,
however, the dream of a single dwelling for every family was shattered
with the rapid rate of housing price inflation. Not every family could
afford a house. Subsequently, people with money began to find the single
family dwelling unit a good investment and began renting their second and
third houses to those who could not buy. Additionally, in this decade the
odds that a renter will move into the house next door are also increasing
as the traditional nuclear family is being reshaped and gives way to other
living arrangements, including groups of unrelated people.
Not surprisingly, a conflict developed between middle -class homeowners
holding on to the image of a single family neighborhood and the renters
who do not necessarily hold that same image. For homeowners, their house
is a major financial investment which needs special care and upkeep; and
for renters their rental is only a place to live until they move or buy
their own house. `
This clash between homeowners and renters has been most acute in cities
with college or university campuses. The rental property now low density/
R -1 neighborhoods is often rented by a houseful of university students who
as a group can afford to rent the single - family dwellings available. The
problem arises because it appears that these students are more concerned
with a "university lifestyle" than with keeping the neighborhood
atmosphere intact as strongly desired by the homeowners.
Generally the nation -wide stereotype of the student rental household is of
a noisy three bedroom tract house filled with six to twelve college
juniors. Each of those students have a frequently visiting boyfriend or
girlfriend. They tend to possess a hundred megawatt stereo. The typical
bedtime is at 2:00 a.m. At least five of the students appear to own a
decaying V.W., which they park on the lawn. They all-tend to have an
antipathy for yard work. And, the entire household holds numerous
margarita parties on alternate Saturdays nights.
In October of 1984, the City of Newark. Delaware published a nationwide
study of 139 university cities, titled "Town and / Versus Gown: A Survey
of University Communities." The study results indicate.that a substantial
percentage of these cities perceive that student group renters in R -1
neighborhoods can cause serious community disruptions. Four specific
kinds of problems were noted as most serious. I have highlighted the
percentage of cities responding with populations similar to that of San
Luis Obispo (between 25,000 and 49,000):
-1-
Perceived Problem
Parking /traffic
Impact of Alcohol Abuse
Overcrowding
Impact of Drug Abuse
% of City Respondents
93.7%
93.7%
85.7%
62.5%
B. The Group Renter Problem in San Luis Obispo
The situation in San Luis Obispo appears to be identical to other
university towns throughout the nation. And, according to the Town /Gown
report, San Luis Obispo fits into a category of cities which can be more
severely impacted by the university's presence in the community. Smaller
cities consistently report problems with overcrowded housing, while larger
cities feel a less significant impact on their larger housing market.
As in other communities, a significant percentage of our single family
housing stock has been converted into rental property. In 1985, there were
8,021 single family dwellings in the city. Approximately 2,165 of those
dwellings were rentals. Thus, over one - quarter of the single - family
housing stock in San Luis Obispo is used as rental housing. (These 1985
estimates are the most current statistics the city has on the number of
single fjLmily dwellings.) However, we do not know exactly how many of
those houses are held by groups of students. Approximately 23.1% of all
the city's households do contain two or more people who are unrelated.
But still, we simply do not know how many of those households are held
specifically by students or are even considered rentals: We can only
estimate by the neighborhood sentiment that the numbers are not
Insignificant.
Regardless of ambiguous statistics, a number of neighborhood complaints
have been registered with the City about loud and overcrowded student
households. According to a survey I conducted with city officials, the
kinds of problems associated with student renters cover a wide range. I
have listed both general and specific problems in order of the perceived
magnitude of the problem:
General.
Neighborhood privacy
Student rudeness
Incompatible Schedules
Overall incompatible
lifestyles
Specific
Parking
Noise after 10:
Traffic
Alcohol impact
Trash /abandoned
-2-
00 p.m.
vehicles
C. Limitations to a Solution
Although it is generally understood that university towns share a common
problem with the student renter population, there are strict limitations
on the action a city can take to "protect" the serene atmosphere of the
low density neighborhood. The most crucial limitations are discussed
here:
1. Supreme Court Decision - in 1980 the landmark California case, City
of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, struck down municipal legislation which set a
cap on the number of unrelated adults who could live in a single
residential dwelling unit. By allowing no more than five unrelated adults
in one house, the Santa Barbara ordinance went beyond protecting the
health, safety, or general welfare of a community. Instead, it determined
who could live with who and what constituted a family. The California
Supreme Court held that the state can not determine the shape of a family
by imposing traditional notions of domestic life. Nor can the state
abridge the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed to all
Californians. A household can be a huge extended family, or a group of
unrelated students with " a close social, economic and psychological
commitment to each other."
The key paragraph in the Adamson case states that there are other ways to
regulate "residential character" without imposing restrictive social
legislation.
"[C]ould not each of the city's stated goals be enhanced by means that
are less restrictive of freedom than is the rule -of -five? To
Illustrate, "residential character" can be and is preserved by
restriction on transient and institutional uses (hotels, motels,
boarding houses, clubs, etc.). Population density can be regulated by
reference to floor space and facilities. Noise and morality can be
dealt with by enforcement of police power ordinances and criminal
statues. Traffic and parking can be handled by limitation on the
number of cars (applied evenly to all households) and by off - street
parking requirements. In general, zoning ordinance are much less
suspect when they focus on the use, then when they command inquiry
into who are the users."
From the above paragraph we can see that the court limited inquiry into
the general type of user, while still allowing restrictions on
institutional uses. The court stated that fraternities, sororities.
boardinghouses and other kinds of institutional living arrangements could
be regulated in the interest of "residential character ". These
institutions are not considered "family" in any sense of the word.
2. Reasonable Regulation and Discrimination - The last sentence in the
Adamson decision quoted above, highlights a second legal limitation -
regulation of a specific user will not be allowed unless the regulation is
considered "reasonable ". Not only is limiting the family user and
abridging the constitutional right of privacy considered illegal, but
limiting the "student" user may be considered an unreasonable regulation
of one specific group of people. All laws that "discriminate" against
someone must ask if it is a reasonable discrimination. Is it reasonable
to allow a family of six to rent a household and then limit a group of six
-3-
students? The family may have four noisy teenagers, while the students
may be studious. How do we know if it is reasonable to limit all
students? We must ask if this is a fair discrimination. Cities interested
in limiting group renting will face discrimination charges by focusing on
"students" if the regulation can be proved unreasonable in any way.
Instead, the city may be able to find certain general lifestyle patterns,
shared by a variety of people, which are detrimental to health, safety,
general welfare goals, and neighborhood livability which will prove to be
more reasonable.
3. California Occupancy Law - The typical housing code implemented by
cities, as adopted from the states Uniform Housing Code (section 503 (b)),
states that a unit is considered overcrowded if any bedroom has an area of
less than 70 square feet for one or two occupants, plus 50 additional
square feet for each additional occupant. Although this places some
limitation on overcrowding, households can become crowded under current
occupancy law. When you think about it, this code allows bedrooms to be
fairly crowded (ie. three people in a 10 x 12 bedroom).
As noted, the Adamson case, the "reasonable regulation" rule, and the
typical uniform housing code all add up to strict limitations on a
municipality's regulation options. Since 1980 cities have been grappling
with the issue with no clear solution in sight. The City of Santa Cruz
for example, has had a Housing Advisory Committee working on the problem
for over six years. Santa Cruz houses a University of California which
does not provide enough student on- campus housing. And, although the
committee has researched numerous options, they have not implemented any
effective solutions. Their simple conclusion is that no easy answer
exits, although their Housing Advisory Commission continues to look.
D. San Luis Obispo's Efforts to Resolve the Problem
The City is involved in a variety of efforts to resolve the problem:
implementing standard nuisance ordinances, designing a business license
tax for landlords, researching altt.rnative solutions and networking with
other cities. Described below are those efforts. It is important to know
where the city currently stands with this issue.
Nuisance Ordinances - San Luis Obispo has the typical "nuisance
ordinances" which are designed to protect the "health, safety, and general
welfare" of city neighborhoods. According to the Adamson case this is the
only justifiable way to control "excessive" lifestyles and protect single
family neighborhood privacy and character in a reasonable and fair
manner. Summarized below are the basic nuisance ordinances which help
control the "student renter syndrome". These regulations help the city
control the student who parks in the wrong area or for an excessive time
period; makes excessive noise; drinks in the street in front of his /her
street; who lets his /her weeds grow; and who throws mounds of beer bottles .
in the front yard. Note that these regulations never use the word
student. They control a lifestyle pattern which could be held by anybody.
-4-
Parking (Includes parking requirements in certain zones:
I. In R -1 Zone, 2 off - street parking spaces are required per
dwelling unit (Municipal Code section 17.16.060).
2. In Boarding /Rooming Houses one space per 1.5 occupants or 1.5
spaces per bedroom are required, whichever is greater
(Municipal Code section 17.16.060).
3. In Residential Parking Permit Areas only area residents may
park on the streets. This limits the parking to vehicles
registered or controlled and exclusively used by persons
residing in the area, in order to preserve the quality of
life in the neighborhood. Currently, the area directly
adjacent to Cal Poly is designated as a Residential Parking
Permit Area (Slack, Fredricks, Hathaway, and Grand streets)
(Municipal Code section 10.36.170)
Storage of Vehicles and Inoperative Vehicles:
I. Storage of any vehicle is prohibited upon any street or alley
for more than a consecutive period of seventy -two hours
(Municipal Code section 10.36.050).
2. Accumulation and storage of abandoned wrecked dismantled or
inoperative vehicles on private or public property is
considered a public nuisance which may be abated. These
vehicles tend to reduce private property value and to promote
blight. (Municipal Code section 10.68)Noise:
Public Consumption of Alcohol:
I. It is unlawful to consume anv alcoholic beverage on an city
street, sidewalk, alley, roadway, parking lot, publicly
maintained place or any place open to the public (Municipal
Code Chapter 9.04)
Noise Control:
I. Unnecessarv, excessive and annoying noise and vibration in
the city is prohibited. It is the policy of the city to
maintain quiet in those areas which currently exhibit low
noise levels, such as in R -1 neighborhoods. Between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. noises from radios.
television sets, musical instruments, and loudspeakers are
limited to a level outlined in Section 9.12.060 of the
municipal code. (Municipal Code section 9.12.050).
Hazardous Weeds and Debris:
I. Accumulation of weeds and debris on private property or
streets in the city and all debris on private property or
streets is considered a public nuisance. It is the duty of
every property owner to remove or destroy such weeds and /or
debris. (Municipal Code Chapter 8.08)
Business Tax Ordinance - The Finance Department plans to update the
business tax ordinance as part of their goals and objectives for the two
year financial plan. This ordinance may require landlords with four or
more rental units to pay a business tax. This effort,
-5-
however, is primarily revenue enhancing and is not designed to regulate
group rentals or strengthen neighborhood liveability. Only in an indirect
way does this effort provide San Luis Obispo with a first step towards
regulating rental property. The business tax in itself will not control
landlord rental practices or the group rental problem; it will simply give
us a list of landlords, hold landlords responsible for their rentals and
provide city revenue.
Research Efforts - Currently, the City is involved in three efforts to
specifically fight the group renter problem. First, the City Council
requested that staff research the problem and seek out creative
solutions. This summary report fulfills that request by outlining for the
City Council the status of the problem, alternatives, and recommendations
for future research. Second, the Planning Commission has a subcommittee
on Group Housing in Residential Areas. The subcommittee has been charged
with both analyzing the specific student group renter problems which exist
In San Luis Obispo and seeking a workable solution. Finally, a city -wide
Neighborhood Improvement Committee, staffed by Community Development, is
charged with determining any kind of public nuisance or code violation in
residential neighborhoods. The committee makes recommendations which are
geared to maintain the residential character.
Although the three research efforts appear to overlap, each does serve a
somewhat different purpose. The Group Housing in Residential Areas
subcommittee was designed to clearly identify the specific group renter
problems in San Luis Obispo. The Neighborhood Improvement Committee simply
deals with code violation and enforcement issues. And, this paper is
designed to tie all efforts and alternatives into one solid document.
Networking - At the October 1986 League of California Cities conference,
our City Attorney met with a number of city attorneys from "university
towns" in California. The group has agreed to share information regarding
the group- renter problem through an informal network.
II. POLICY PROBLEM
How is the City going to tackle this problem? The nuisance ordinances and
research efforts may not be new or complete approaches; the constitutional
limitations can not go ignored, and the business tax ordinance not a
direct solution. The renter /homeowner conflict appears to be a mounting
pressure on city officials. At least some kind of policy direction should
be focused upon.
There are two basic ways to resolve the problem and select a policy
direction: first, decide not to tackle the issue until further research
is complete, regardless of any political pressure; second, tackle the
issue with some level of activity and change in mind. The remainder of
this report details a number of policy alternatives designed to "tackle°
the problem. Before highlighting them, however, the two most basic policy
directions and the consequences must be stressed - retention of the
status -quo and taking action.
-6-
A. Retain Status -quo: For a number of reasons. the city may decide to
continue on the same course and wait to tackle the issue later. Two key
reasons to retain the status -quo stand out. First, the facts in the
Adamson case are undisputed. Governments can not regulate the composition
of a "family ", the lifestyles of one group of people, and infringe on the
right of privacy. The city may decide quite cautiously and reasonably to
avoid taking direct and immediate action and possibly avoid a new Adamson
case in a San Luis Obispo Courtroom.
Second, as of'August 1986 the precise nature of the group renter problem
has not been officially documented. The problem is still a "perceived"
problem. City officials, planning commissioners, community development
staff, and the police department all sense from the number of complaints
that the group renter problem is serious. But, how serious is it?
According to the Housing Element (1985), only one percent of all
households had more than 1.5 people per room - not an indicator of
overcrowding. Also, as noted previously, one - quarter of the housing stock
is used for rentals, but we do not know how many hold students or even
large groups of students.
Before the city takes action it might need to consider completing a
fine -tuned problem analysis. With the problem exactly defined, a policy
alternative could be designed which would clearly tackle the actual
problem at hand. The following general kinds of questions should be asked
in a "fine- tuned" policy analysis:
1. How many students rent single family dwellings?
2. How many single - family dwellings house large groups of
students?
3. How many parking, noise, alcohol, debris, and general
incompatibility complaints are filed with the city,
per year and per location?
4. What are the locations of the complaints?
5. What is the frequency of the complaints?
B. Take Action: For another number of reasons, the city could decide to
immediately go forward and select a definitive policy alternative. First,
the political fever of the issue may be hard to ignore, regardless of
ambiguities. If enough people are upset, the council may want to take
action. Second, the city may not have time to wait for a detailed problem
analysis on the actual magnitude of the problem. Third, the Adamson case
and a similar case, City of Chula Vista v. Pagard (1981), both suggest
that the city can draft ordinances which will regulate the use and not the
user. Maybe we can find a road around Adamson by stressing the "use
factor ". Finally, a small number of California university cities are
beginning to take alternative action. San Luis Obispo may decide to join
those cities as a leading force aimed at eradicating the group renter
problem.
-7-
III. POLICY ALTERNATIVES
A. Methodology
As noted, the remainder of this report explores the policy alternatives
available. The alternatives were found by researching the following
sources: the League of California Cities library; Public Technology
Incorporated (PTI) computer network; city administration professional
magazines (MIS Report, Public Management); and, "university town"
ordinances in California and three other states. The towns contacted are
listed below.
California
Arcata
Berkeley
Fresno
FulXerton
Hayward
Palo Alto
Ronhert Park
San Jose
Santa Cruz
Bakersfield
Davis
Irvine
Riverside
San Bernadino
Santa Barbara
Turlock
Michigan
Huntington Woods
Minnesota
Northfield
Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh
In addition to searching for alternatives in other communities, I
interviewed both city staff and city council members for further
information and direction. The interviews provided general guidance on
the kinds of alternatives which would be most desirable and feasible in
San Luis Obispo. In the interviews with City Council, however, I saw that
the council as a whole is interested in looking at the entire range of
alternatives. Some councilmembers expressed a desire to look at far
reaching use regulation ordinances, while some councilmembers expressed a
desire to steer clear of an issue which appears to tread on a thin
constitutional line.
B. The Alternatives
The limitations discussed earlier naturally confine the scope of the
alternatives available. And, of the cities contacted most said that they
were seeking various solutions to the problem, but only one has developed
regulations aimed specifically at controlling dwelling unit occupancy.
Most cities instead offered a variety of suggestions and incremental
solutions.
As noted above, the Council as a whole is interested in looking at the
entire spectrum of alternatives available. Listed below is a variety of
ten alternatives which have been considered throughout the state. They
are listed in the order they will be discussed and according to the scope
of the alternative. the most far reaching option first, and the most
limited option last.
1.
Rental Licensing
6.
New Nuisance Ordinances
2.
Conditional Use Permits
7.
HRC Neighborhood Mediation
3.
University Overlay District
8.
Coordinating with University
4.
Regulate 5+ bedroom construction
9.
Enforce Current Ordinances
5.
Rental Inspections
10.
Any combination
-8-
These alternatives will be analyzed below according to four clear
criteria:
1. General Pros and Cons of implementation
2. Fiscal Impact
3. Political Feasibility
4. Solution Potential
Each alternative is first measured individually. Then, all ten are ranked
according to which is most feasible. In the final analysis. I have
Included a graph which summarizes the value of each option as compared to
the other options. It summarizes according to 1) ease of implementation
and 2) potential ability to resolve the problem.
1. Rental Licensin¢
Description: A rental licensing program would be a similar to the
business license tax ordinance the city is currently working on. But, it
would be regulatory and not merely revenue enhancing. The rental
licensing program would go much further than a business license tax by
requiring both the tax and a rental license outlining the conditions of
operating a rental. In short, rental licensing would require landlords to
obtain a license from the city and pay a business tax to rent a piece of
property. The rental would be considered a commercial investment
requiring a business license and a business tax just like any other city
business. Before a license would be granted the landlord would have to
meet a number of criteria, which might regulate health, safety, or other
areas considered to meet a test of reasonableness.
In Huntington Woods, Michigan an annual rental licensing and inspection
program has been implemented. The landlord applies for a rental license
($5) and pays a fee for an inspection of the property ($20). Huntington
Woods, however, primarily inspects the property for suitable residential
maintenance. They are concerned with maintaining their housing stock, not
In controlling a social group. A number of other out -of state cities
involved in rental licensing, are also only concerned with residential
maintenance.
Pros: There are a number of reasons why this option is appealing:
Cons:
• First, the program would bring additional revenue into the
city.
Second, rentals would be considered profitable
commercial /business ventures, which may be a more accurate
description for this money making enterprise.
s Third, the city could control the use in a neutral fashion. We
might be able to set up criteria which would target the unwanted
elements in a rental situation.
' Fourth, landlords would finally hold ultimate responsibility
for the property they control.
Rental licensing would be a massive administrative undertaking.
And, there are a number of reasons to be cautious:
-9-
s First, Huntington Woods has implemented this program to ensure
residential maintenance, as have a number of other cities outside
of California. I have not found one city which Was primarily
Interested in simply limiting the number of renters. To attempt a
rental licensing program in order to control group renters in the
same State which decided the Adamson case might be dangerous,
especially if the "user" remains the prime target.
' Second, there are some enforcement problems to consider.
Urbana, Illinois experienced a number of illegal conversions of
single family to multi - family homes after implementing a licensing
program. Rather than hassle with regulations, fees, and limited
renting capabilities landlords simply avoided city licensing
regulations.
Third, implementation and enforcement of the program would mean
significant changes for the city. Both the Finance and Community
Development Departments would be required to take on an extensive
job by both taxing and licensing the rentals.
Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact of the program might be mitigated by
the rental tax /license revenue. However, the Council should still
consider that set -up and maintenance of the program would require
additional staff and equipment. The Finance Department would
initially have to set up records and learn new procedures; while,
Community Development would have to step up their enforcement
efforts. Exact figures for San Luis Obispo have not been
calculated at this point. For example, the City of East Lansing,
Michigan requires a rental housing license. This city of 55,000
now has four full -time housing complaint officers to enforce this
program.
If this alternative were selected, the ultimate fiscal impact
should be thoroughly researched. For now, Council could spend
some time considering the additional staff, training, and
equipment which would be necessary.
Political Feasibilitv: Many of the low- density residential residents
would be pleased with
this alternative. All those interested in maintaining a pleasant
neighborhood environment would be supportive. However, landlords,
students, and those generally opposing government regulation
would be adamantly opposed. It would not be an easy fight to
finish. The additional licensing requirement would have to be
carefully justified to those opposed. And, there is a chance that
the ordinance could end up in court. Litigating questionable
ordinances also become very expensive. This does not imply that
it is impossible, simply that it would not be popular.
Solution Potential: If the ordinance stood up in court, it might do some
good. Landlords would not "stuff" houses full of students unless they
planned to consciously break the law and not obtain a license. However,
we know the constitutionality of this has not been tested. Additionally,
this alternative does not guarantee compliance. The enforcement task
could prove to be a massive task for the city. The alternative does not
provide a clear
-10-
cut resolution to the problem; it presents a calculated risk.
2. Conditional Use Permits (For Commercial- Residential uses):
Description: In February 1986, the City of Davis passed an ordinance
which defines a new use category - commercial residential use. Any
residential use in which a lessor receives payment in any form of exchange
for the use of any residential dwelling, hotel, motel, boarding house,
apartment house, or lodging is considered a commercial use. For all
practical purposes, a commercial- residential use is a rental dwelling or a
rental of a single room in an owner- occupied dwelling. If a
commercial- residential use has five or more adult residents, a conditional
use permit is required.
Use permits for commercial- residential uses are reviewed on an
administrative basis using the following criteria:
- Requirements imposed by Chapters 5, 10, and 12, of the Uniform
Housing Code;
- Three hundred square feet of usable floor space shall be
provided for each resident adult;
- One off- street parking space shall be provided for each resident
adult, less one, with a minimum of two spaces;
- One bathroom must be provided for each three (3) resident
adults. (See Attached Ordinance - Attachment A.)
Pros: The Adamson case points out the need for cities to be more neutral
and precise by targeting their regulations to meet the specific
problems crowding causes. A conditional use permit for commercial
residential uses is both neutral and precise. Landlords could
rent to more than 5 people if all the user - neutral conditions were
met. The residential character of the neighborhood would be
preserved without levying a business tax, rental licensing, rent
control, or distinguishing between "family" members.
Cons: Although application for a use permit may not impose upon
landlords and the city in exactly the same manner as the previous
two alternatives, it will still be a difficult program to
implement. The Davis city staff were opposed to implementation of
this program for all of the reasons listed below.
• First, actual enforcement of the program will be difficult.
The Davis ordinance remained untested as of July 1986, but the
staff anticipates many violations of the law. Landlords simply
may not apply for the use permit.
For example, over the past seven years the City of Santa Barbara
has had a similar ordinance on the books. It states that the
renting of rooms to not more than 5 persons shall not be permitted
without obtaining a use permit (Santa Barbara Municipal Code .
Section 28.94.030). However, the Zoning Officer in Santa Barbara,
argues that landlords do not comply with the law. He has only
seen one conditional use permit application since the ordinance
was passed.
-11-
t Second, the Community Development and Planning Commission
workload mould increase. (See fiscal impact below.) As with all
alternatives mentioned thus far, the additional work load would
either shift city staff priorities or additional staff would have
to be hired.
' Third, and most important, there is no guarantee that the
California Supreme Court would find this ordinance acceptable.
The alternative would still regulate a number of individuals who
consider themselves a family. What if a extended family could not
find a home because of this ordinance? The Davis Planning
Department staff is also wary, for this reason.
Fiscal Impact: As noted above, the city would have to change staff
priorities or hire additional staff support. Implementation and
enforcement would be both a timely and costly undertaking. The
City of Davis estimated that they processed approximately 30 use
permits per year before the ordinance was passed. And, the city
expects between 100 and 200 more use permit applications per year.
Political Feasibility: The City of Davis is similar to San Luis Obispo
in size and community composition. And, Davis was also facing
political pressure from the low - density residential /R -1 residents
and they were able to pass a conditional -use permit ordinance for
rentals without adverse political backlash. Nevertheless, the
ordinance requires drastic changes and San Luis Obispo residents
may not necessarily accept the program. The property owners and
anti - regulation advocates will most likely disagree with this
measure.
Solution Potential: Same as alternative 2 above. The constitutionality
and the enforcement questions remain unanswered.
3. University Impact Overlay District:
Description: In January 1986, the Santa Cruz city Planning Commission
prepared a report outlining an ordinance which would limit parking and
occupancy in areas impacted by university students. The ordinance did not
pass, but still remains interesting and untested. Occupancy and parking
permits would have been required of every single - family homeowner who
rented to two or more adult residents. Santa Cruz planned to charge
between $50 and $100 dollars to all "commercial- residential" property.
owners within the overlay district.
Essentially, this alternative is a combination of a rental licensing
program, conditional- use - permit program, and a strong parking ordinance in
a small area of town.
Pros: Because this program is very similar to alternatives 2 and 3 above,
the "pros" do not need to be reviewed in detail. Basically, this
kind of ordinance attempts to neutrally regulate the number of
occupants without regulating the kind of user.
Cons: The "cons" are also similar to those discussed above.
Enforcement, constitutionality, and ease of implementation are
still
-12-
questionable. Additionally, landlords living in the "overlay" district
may feel that they are being discriminated against.
Fiscal Impact See alternatives 2 and 3 above. Enforcement and general
planning staff would have to reprioritize to implement the
program. However, with only the university overlay area covered,
the scale of implementation and enforcement would be minimized.
Political Feasibility: The Santa Cruz city council did not find this
alternative to be politically feasible. The council has asked
staff to continue searching for other alternatives.
Solution Potential: See number 2 above. The constitutionality and
enforcement questions remain unanswered. Additionally, the "overlay" may
only resolve the problem in one select portion of town.
4. Regulation of 5+ Bedroom Construction:
Description: A number of cities in California try to regulate group
living by regulating the number of bedrooms allowed in a dwelling. For
example the city of Arcata (Humboldt State University) strictly regulates
the construction of single - family dwellings with more than 5 bedrooms. The
city hopes absolutely no more than 10 individuals will want to live in
residential houses. The City of Davis has also attempted this kind of
regulation by periodically restricting building permits for increases in
the number of bedrooms beyond a maximum of six. (See attachment B)
Pros: By limiting bedrooms, these cities hope to limit the potential for
group living. By taking this approach a city might stop the "group
potential" without ever putting a restriction on the number of
allowed in a house. The construction is limited, not the living
arrangements.
Cons: The cities attempting this kind of regulation, feel it does
not adequately resolve the group renter issue.
' First, if fifteen- twenty "family" members feel like living in a
house with 5 or 6 bedrooms they still could.
• Second, regulating new construction does not resolve problems
with the old multi- bedroom housing stock, and in the older R -1
neighborhoods. THe issue specifically with five or ten students
In a home.
Fiscal Impact: none
Political Feasibility: This alternative would not create the same kind of
outcry as the other four alternatives. Still, the construction
industry would not be favorable. And, the low- density
residential/ R -1 neighborhoods looking for a feasible solution
might be disappointed.
Solution Potential: The potential for resolving the problem is poor.
Other cities have attempted this kind of ordinance with little
luck.
-13-
S. Rental Inspection
Description: Both the cities of Northfield, Minnesota and Hayward,
California have rental inspection programs. Northfield requires all
landlords to register for annual rental inspections. The city inspects
both occupancy levels and building /fire code compliance. Again, however,
the emphasis of the Northfield ordinance is to sustain residential
maintenance, not residential occupancy levels. The City of Hayward has a
voluntary rental inspection program. If a citizen calls to complain about
the condition or occupasty in a rental dwelling the city inspection team
will complete the inspection and recommend changes.
Pros: There are three key reasons why this moderate kind of program
might prove helpful.
* Fist, a rental inspection ordinance would give enforcement
staff a tool to inspect the occupancy levels in single - family
dwellings. The inspection program could enforce current law, or
new occupancy levels if San Luis Obispo changed the regulations.
* Second, enforcement staff could use the inspection to look for
Illegal additions. Many illegal additions house extra bodies on a
single - family lot.
* Third, a thorough inspection program might help rectify other
nuisances caused by group renters, especially if occupancy laws
cannot be specifically limited.
Cons: There are two reasons why a rental inspection program may not
prove thorough enough:
* First, rental inspections are usually not designed for
regulating the excess of group living. They are primarily designed
to ensure buildings are up to code for renters.
* Second, the issue of occupancy is not directly addressed.
Constitutionally this may be safe; but, will it result in an
effective program for resolution of this issue?
Fiscal Impact: See alternatives 2 and 3. Implementation and upkeep of an
inspection program would require additional staff time and work.
Political Feasibility: This alternative is less controversial than
alternatives 1 through 4, especially if the inspections are only
made as requested. However, there are many citizens who would feel
required inspections impact the constitutional right to privacy in
ones own home. Also, the low- density residential/ R -1
neighborhoods may be dissatisfied with only a.moderate effort at
controlling overcrowding.
Solution Potential: If the inspections were not required and if they did
not specifically check for overcrowding, this alternative might prove to
be a worthless effort considering the problem at hand. It would most
likely prove to be a stepping stone to a future solution at best, and not
a "solve -all" for the group renter issue.
-14-
6. New Nuisance Ordinances:
Description: Earlier in this analysis San Luis Obispo nuisance ordinances
designed to control specific undesirable lifestyle characteristics were
described. Today, those ordinances appear to be the only safe means of
controlling group renters constitutionally. If the city does not want to
attempt regulation of rents, conditional use permits, or rental
inspections, perhaps strengthening and redesigning the current nuisance
ordinances would prove worthwhile.
In the city survey conducted for this report, however, only a few cities
indicated that they had stronger nuisance ordinances than we do. In fact,
all the noise, trash /debris, alcohol, and abandoned vehicle ordinances are
all similar to ours. Only the parking ordinances show some variety. Noted
below are a variety of parking requirements, aimed at limiting the number
of cars (and hopefully people) at a single - family dwelling.
Anaheim: requires four per residence
Bell Gardens: requires one per rented room
Santa Ana: requires four per residence
South San Francisco: requires three for houses with S+ bedrooms
Davis: requires one "off- street" parking space for each resident
adult, minus one.
The majority of California cities: two parking spaces per
residence
Pros: Although other California cities provided limited information
about strong nuisance ordinances, San Luis Obispo could spend time
designing something new. As noted repeatedly, nuisance ordinances
are the only clear -cut way to regulate lifestyles without
regulating a special group of people and treading in "hot"
political water.
Cons: • First, designing new and more creative nuisance ordinances may
be impossible. I was unable to find any more creative than the
sprinkling of parking ordinances listed above.
• Second, the true value of nuisance ordinances are
questionable. For example, San Luis Obispo has nuisance
ordinances and does not have control of the group renter problem.
Fiscal Impact: There would be very little fiscal impact on the city for
designing and researching new nuisance ordinances.
Political Feasibility: Nuisance ordinances are usually politically
feasible. They do not evoke overly negative reactions. Perhaps a
more stringent noise and parking ordinances would stir negative
sentiment; but it would not compare to sentiment against
rent - control, for example.
Solution Potential: As noted, nuisance ordinances control the problem
It a limited way. Stronger ordinances may come closer to resolving the
entire issue, but further research needs to be completed on the options
available.
-15-
7. HRC- Neighborhood Mediation
Description: After interviewing the City Council and staff, I noted that
one alternative was suggested by all - neighborhood mediation. If the
city faces constitutional restrictions and nuisance ordinances of limited
value, this alternative might prove useful. The HRC is currently set up
to mediate conflicts between landlord and tenant; neighborhood mediation
would simply be one more step. For example, an R -1 home owner would call
the HRC to complain about a loud group of students. The HRC would then
call the students and work out a time and place tqpmediate the dispute.
Hopefully, home owners would start to use the HRC when neighborhood
problems arose and group renters would begin to realize they are being
watched.
Pros: * First, this alternative is non - regulatory, unlike the other
seven options discussed above..
* Second, neighborhood mediation would promote communication,
rather than confrontation, between two opposing groups of
residents.
* Third, many have commented that group renters simply need to
learn better manners. Neighborhood mediation would give the City
a chance to enforce "good manners" through discussion and example.
* Fourth, this alternatives does not impose questionable
constitutional problems for the city.
Cons: * First, this alternative would not be binding. The City would
not be fining students who decided not to attend a mediation
session.
* Second, this alternative would only solve the problem in
certain areas of the city. Only those residents who either know
about the service, assert themselves, and follow - through will ever
benefit.
Fiscal Impact: At this point, the HRC could not take on another mediation
board without additional staff support or funding. Just as in
alternative l above (rent control), a mediation board would need
staff support. Funding for initial advertising of the service
would also be necessary.
Political Feasibility: Because this alternative appears positive and
compromising, rather than strictly regulatory and unbending,
political support would not be hard to find. Those who do not
support an expanded human services commitment may be opposed,
however.
Solution Potential: As noted in the "cons ", it would be difficult to
prove that this alternative would resolve the entire issue. Group renters
would not have mandatory mediation, and only a few brave souls might push
the issue through. However, this alternative could prove useful if
combined with one or two of the other alternatives discussed.
The concluding three alternatives will only be briefly summarized.
Alternatives 8 and 9 are not comprehensive measures. Both would impose a
-16-
minimal fiscal impact on the city; the potential to provide a
comprehensive solution is minimal; and implementation and enforcement
would be relatively easy. Alternative 10 is simply a recommendation for
the City Council to consider combining two or three of the alternatives
discussed in this report.
8. Coordinate with the University:
Description: All of the cities.I contacted, recommended that our city
concentrate on coordinating with Cal Poly. We should begin a dialogue
with university officials in order to alleviate the stress caused by
student group renters. Cal Poly could work on providing more on- campus
housing; their housing office could provide more information and support
to student renters and neighborhoods; and, both the city and the
university could try to design creative solutions to the problem
together. This alternative would not solve the problem, but it would be
a positive step towards resolution.
9. Enforce Current Ordinances:
Description: Essentially, this alternative recommends that the city do
nothing until the California courts have tested some of the alternatives
suggested above. It does not even suggest that the city try to design new
nuisance ordinances. The only possible action suggested in this
alternative would be to step up enforcement of the current nuisance
ordinances. This would obviously not resolve the problem, but risk of
Court battles, political "unrest ", and fiscal impacts would be set aside
for a latter date.
10. Any Combination of the Above:
Description: There is no reason why the city could not implement more
than one alternative to resolve this issue. In fact, when the City of
Santa Cruz proposed the university overlay impact district they
recommended both the overlay district and a neighborhood mediation board.
IV. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
Although the alternatives all present a different approach, the impacts
they would cause and questions they would raise fall into two categories.
First, alternatives 1 - 6 all require some form of regulation.
Implementation and enforcement of the program would require diligent city
staff time, money, and effort to succeed. Resolution of the problem with
these alternatives might prove successful, if they were considered
constitutionally sound and landlords complied.
On the other hand, alternatives 7 - 10 do not require regulation.
Instead, they essentially require communication and /or mediation. Staff
support would only be necessary for the HRC Neighborhood mediation
program. However, because the final three alternatives do not present
comprehensive solutions, resolution of the entire problem would be
tenuous.
Despite the similarities, the city will need to make a choice between
action and inaction and then between alternatives if we want to tackle the
issue at some point. Thus, in order to put the alternatives in perspective
and make a recomendation. I have summarized and ranked the analysis by
combining the
-17-
following categories into one graph (See attached graph - attachment C).
Graph
Ease of Implementation -
(y axis; 1 easy - 10 hard)
Solution Potential -
(x axis; 1 poor - 10 good)
From_Analysis_Above
Program Design, Fiscal Impact
and Political Feasibility
Solution Potential
The alternative found on the graph below five on the y axis and above five
on the x axis would be the easiest to implement and the most likely to
provide a solution. Thus, only alternatives 6 and 7 come close to being .
an ideal alternative. Both the mediation and new nuisance ordinances
would provide the city with an alternative approach to the problem without
posing a constitutional risk. And, although not easy, the implementation
processes would be feasible.
The rental licensing, conditional use permits, rental inspections,
university overlay districts and rent control alternatives would be very
difficult to implement and their "solution potential" is questionable.
The key question for the council now is - how willing is the city to take
a risk? Do we want to tackle this problem with action right now? Or, do
we want to wait and see what happens at the state and national level?
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
After reviewing the problem, limitations to a solution, current city
efforts, and the ten alternative solutions. It is blaringly obvious that
no simple solution exists. Thus, before San Luis Obispo decides to defeat
a dragon I recommend that the following steps be taken:
1. Thoroughly analyze the problem. Gather statistics. See how
serious the student group renter problem actually is.
2. With the statistical analysis results in hand, review the
alternatives presented in this report. Carefully select those
which look feasible for this city. This is the first step in
selecting a policy direction.
3. Ask the appropriate city departments to thoroughly review the
alternatives selected. Detailed staff reports which include
actual fiscal impact and complete legal analysis are necessary.
4. Complete a thorough legal review of the final alternatives
selected.
Additionally, the City should not underestimate the potential strength our
current efforts and ordinances may have. We should seriously consider
—18—
developing what already exists. As noted earlier questionable ordinances
are both difficult and expensive to defend in court. In conclusion,
rather than attack the dragon, my ultimate recommendation would be to
enforce current ordiances, conduct the research listed above, and continue
to seek a fresh approach, while assessing the statewide issue. The
conditional- use - permit ordinance implemented by Davis may be tested in
court fairly soon. And, perhaps the networking of the "university towns"
city attorneys will prove to be informative and profitable in the future.
-19-
ORDINANCE NO. 1357
r
IXHIBR "A"
ry
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 29 -1, 29 -28, 29 -30, 29 -158 AND 29 -159
OF CHAPTER 29 OF THE DAVIS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE USE
OVERCROWDING OF SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES
AND DECLARING ITS URGENCY, TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DAVIS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The council hereby finds as follows:
A. An increase in intensity of occupancy, and conversion of garages and other
accessory structures into living space in single family zones has caused, and is
likely to cause, serious problems with overcrowding, excess traffic, automobile
parking, and nuisances associated with such increased use;
B. The unique rental housing market in Davis encourages the conversion of
single - family dwellings to high - occupancy rental dwellings, which are frequently
rented to groups of individuals occupying such dwellings as legal families, but
imposing greater burdens on neighborhoods, municipal services, and infrastructure
than is typical with family occupancies;
C. Based upon the City's Finance Department records, there are approximately
2,000 single - family rentals.
D. The burdens associated with such intensive "family" occupancies are an
increase in traffic, on- and off - street parking, overcrowding of dwellings,
unreasonable conflicts with neighbors' uses and expectations, and other burdens and
risks to public health, safety and welfare; and
E: The following ordinance amendments are necessary for the preservation of
the public health. safety, and welfare because of the consequence outlined above.
SECTION 2. The definition of "Boarding or lodging house" contained in Section
29 -1 of Chapter 29 of the Davis Municipal Code is hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. The definition of "Boarding house," " Ccmmercial residential use,"
and "Lodging house" are added to Section 29 -1 of Chapter 29 of the Davis Municipal
Code to hereby read as follows:
Boarding house. A commercial residential use of a dwelling unit
based on an agreed payment of a fixed amount of money, or money's worth, in exchange
for residential use for a fixed period of time.
Commercial residential as*.. Any residential use in which a lessor or
proprietor receives payment in any term of axchange for the use of any residential
drtutag;:tnclnding•nay 9inglrlamiely sesidaace, or part thereof. any hotel, motel,
boarding house, apartment house, or-lodging house.
Lodging house. Any commercial residential use with more than five
(5) adult residents.
-1-
SECTION 4. The definition of "Family" contained in Section 29 -1 of Chapter 29
of the Davis Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Family. An individual or group of two (2) or more persons occupying
a dwelling and living together as a single housekeeping unit in which each resident
has access to all parts of the dwelling and where the adult residents share'expenses
for food or rent.
SECTION 5. Section 29 -28 of Chapter 29 of the Davis Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 29 -28. Permitted uses. The principal uses of land in an R -1 district are
as follows:
(a) Single - family dwellings.
(b) Agriculture, except the raising of animals or fowl for commercial
purposes, or the sale of any products at retail on the premises.
(c) Family and group day care homes as defined in Section 29 -181.
SECTION 6. Section 29 -29 of Chapter 29 of the Davis Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 29 -29. Accessory uses. The following accessory uses are permitted in an
R- I'diatrict:
(a) Commercial residential use with four (4) or fewer adult residents .
(b) Hone occupations subject to the provisions of Sections 29 -1 and 29 -176.
(c) Swimming pools, subject to the provisions of Section 29 -190.
(d). Signs, subject to the regulations of Section 29 -164.
(e) Other accessory uses and accessory buildings customarily appurtenant to a
permitted use, subject to requirements of Section 29 -163.
SECTION 7. Section 29 -30 of Chapter 29 of the Davis Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Sea-. 29-M Conditional uses. The foilowing:4anditional uses may be permited
in an E-1 district:
,(a) Public and quasi - public buildings and uses of the recreational,
educational, religious, cultural, or public service type, including public utility,
but not including corporation yards, storage or repair yards, warehouses and similar
uses.
(b) Hospitals, churches or other religious or eleemosynary institutions,
subject to the provisions of Section 29 -177.
(c) Temporary tract offices, subject to the provisions of Section 29 -191.
-2-
(d) Nursery schools and day care centers, subject to the provisions of Section
29 -181.
(e) A separate dwelling unit. The floor area of the added unit shall not
exceed six hundred forty square feet. A minor conditional use permit shall be
required when the added unit is attached to the principal gelling and all standards
of the R -1 -6 zoning district are met. A major conditional use permit shall be
required when the added unit is detached and /or a variance from the R -1 -6 zoning
district standards is requested. In all cases one additional on -site parking space
shall be added to the otherwise required parking on the site.
The general conditions of approval.for a conditional use permit issued
pursuant to Sections 29 -30(e) and 29 -146 of the Davis Municipal Code shall be:
(1) Exterior alterations shall be-reviewed by the Toning administrator.
The applicant should matte every reasonable effort to maintain -the single - family
character -and appearance of the principal duelling.
(2) The alterationa.vhich must be made and the - facilities which must be
removed upon termination of the conditional use permit to eliminate the added unit
shall be specified as a condition of approval and the applicant shall agree-in
writing to make such alterations upon termination of the permit.
(3) The permit shall be issued subject to inspection annually or upon
complaint.
(4) The unit created shall be for the purpose of owner occupancy or
rental only' and no separate.un3it shall be.created for sale or financing pursuant to
any condominium plan, 6= =�jty -spar-
partment plan. housing cooperative or subdivision
map. If created or used for rental', the owner shall occupy the principal residence
or the separate dwelling unit.
Special conditions of approval added by the zoning administrator shall
pertain to specifics of general conditions (2) and (3). only and to any additional
off-street parking spaces required or voluntarily provided by the applicant. The
planning commission may add whatever special conditions it deems appropriate, but no
residential housing allocation shall be required for issuance of the permit.
(f) Commercial residential uses which do not qualify as permitted or
accessory uses.
SECTION 8. Section 29 -36 of Chapter 29 of the Davis Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 29 -36. Accessory uses. The following accessory uses are permitted in an
R -2 district:
(a) Commercial residential use with four (4) or fever adult residents.
(b) Home occupations subject to the provision of Sections 29 -1 and 29 -116.
(c) Swimming pools, subject to the provisions of Section 29 -190.
(d) Signs, subject to the regulations of Section 29 -164.
d
-3-
(e) Other accessory uses and accessory buildings customarily appurtenant to a
permitted'use, subject to requirements of Section 29 -163.
SECTION 9. Section 29 -37 of Chapter 29 of the Davis Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 29 -37. Conditional uses. The following conditional uses may be permitted
in an R -2 district:
(a) Public and quasi - public buildings and uses of a recreational, educational,
cultural or public service type, including public utility, but not including
corporation yards, storage or repair yards, warehouses and similar uses.
(b) Hospitals, churches, and other religious and eleemosynary institutions,
subject to the provisions of Section 29 -177.
(c) Temporary tract offices, subject to the provisions of Section 29 -191.
(d) Nursery schools and day care centers, subject to the provisions of Section
29 -181.
(e) Multiple dwellings meeting the area, Lot width, open space, yard, parking,
special conditions and height limitations applicable within the R -3 -L district.
(f) Commercial residential uses which do not qualify as permitted or accessory
uses.
SECTION 10. Section 29 -54 of Chapter 29 of the Davis Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 29 -54. Accessory uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted
in an R -3 district:
(a) Commercial residential use with four or fewer adult residents.
(b) Home occupations subject to the provisions of Sections 29 -1 and 29 -176.
(c) Swimming pools, subject to the provisions of Section 29 -190.
(d) Signs, subject to the regulations of Section 29 -164.
(e) Other accessory uses and accessory buildings customarily appurtenant to a
permitted use, subject to requirements of Section 29 -163.
SECTION 11. Section 29 -55 of Chapter 29 of the Davis Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 29 -55. Conditional uses. The following conditional uses may be permitted
in an R -3 district.
(a) Rooming and boarding houses for any number of guests.
(b) Nursery schools and day care centers, subject to the provisions of Section
29 -181.
-4-
(c) Public and quasi - public buildings and uses of a recreational, educational,
religioust cultural or public service type, including public utility, but not
including corporation yards, storage or repair yards, warehouses and similar uses.
(d) Medical clinics in the R -3 -M district.
4F
(e) Professional and administrative offices in the R -3 -M district.
(f) Hospitals, churches and other religious or eleemosynary institutions,
subject to the provisions of Section 29 -177.
(g) Social halls, lodges, fraternal organizations and clubs, except those
operated for a profit.
(h) Commercial residential uses which do not qualify as permitted or accessory
uses.
SECTION 12. Section 29 -151 of Chapter 29 of the Davis Municipal Code is hereby
added to read as follows:
Sec. 29- 151.1. Commercial residential uses. Commercial residential uses in
single- family and two - family dwellings or duplexes must mast the following
performance standards:
(a) Requirements imposed by Chapters 5, 10, and 12 of the Uniform Housing
Code;
(b) .Three hundred square feet of usable floor space shall be provided for each
resident adult;
(c) One off - street parking space shall be provided for each resident adult,
less one, with a minimum of two spaces.
(d) One bathroom must be provided for each three (3) resident adults.
SECTION 13. Section 29 -158 of Chapter 29 of the Davis Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 29 -158. Location of off - street parking. Off- street parking spaces,
including required aisles, shall be located behind the front and street side yard
setback line in all residential districts when the principal use is other than a
single - family or duplex dwelling. For single - family and duplex dwellings, tandem
parking, or one car parked behind one other car, shall be allowed.
SECTION 14. Section 29- 159(f) of Chapter 29 of the Davis Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(f) Dwellings, single - family, duplex, two spaces for each family or dwelling
unit. Additional spaces may be required as a part of the approval of a conditional
use permit or final planned development.
SECTION 15. URGENCY ORDINANCE. This ordinance is an urgency ordinance and
shall become effective immediately upon passage by a four- fifths vote of the members
of the City Council: The reason for the urgency is that overcrowding of residential
-5-
dwellings can have sudden and severe impacts on traffic, parking, and other health
and safety conditions in adjacent neighborhoods making it necessary for the public
welfare for this ordinance to be effective immediately.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Davis on this 19th
day of February, 1986, by the following vote:
AYES: Nichols - Poulos, Rosenberg, Tomasi, Evans
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Adler
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:.
ROGER A. STOREY
City Clerk
ANN M. EVANS
Mayor
-6-
r r
RESOLUTION NO. 5478 , SERIES 1986
RESOLUTION REGARDING OFF- STREET PARKING SPACES
FOR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL USES OF SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES 08 DWELLINGS
AND OF TWO- FAMILY DWELLINGS 09 DUPLEIDrS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Davis that
off - street parking spaces for commercial residential uses of single -
family residences or dwellings and of tvo- family dwellings or duplexes.
required to meet the provisions of Section 29- 151.1.(e). shall each be a
permanently surfaced area of not less than 190 square feet and shall
conform to the following requirements:
1. Tandem parking (one behind the other) shall only be allowed
within or behind an existing or converted garage or carport or
behind an unenclosed parking space which is completely behind
the building setback line;
2. When tandem parking is utilized for fulfilling parking
requirements, there may be no more than one car parked behind
another and there may be no more than three such tandem
parking arrangements;
3. There may be no more than three required parking spaces within
the required front and street side yard setbacks; and
6. No required parking may be located within the rear setback.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Davis this
28th day of May. 1986, by the following vote:
AYES: ADLER, HICHOLS- POULOS, ROSENSERG, TOMASI, EVANS.
NOES: NONE.
ASSENT: NONE. V1wI'1fi► rri o
ATTEST:
4'��'
OGER A. STOREY
City Manager /City Clerk
-7-
ANN M. EVANS
Mayor
rVilm
DVTERLY ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO. 1341
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO SEC. 65858
OF THE GOVERNMMTT CODE TO PROHIBIT EXPANSION
OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES PENDING CONSIDERATION
OF REVISED ZONING REGULATIONS REGARDING INTENSITY
OF USE AND OVERCROWDING OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DAVIS as
follows:
SECTION 1. The text of Ordinance No. 1338 is hereby amended
toffs follows:
'SECTION 1. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to
Government Code Section 65858.
SECTION 2. The council hereby finds as follows:
A. An increase in intensity of occupancy, and conver-
sion of garages and other accessory structures into living
space in single family zones has caused, and is likely to
cause, serious problems with overcrowding, excess traffic,
automobile parking and nuisance associated with such in-
creased use;
B. The unique rental housing market in Davis encour-
ages the conversion of single family dwellings to
high- occupancy rental dwellings, which are frequently rented
to groups of individuals occupying such dwellings as legal
families, but imposing greater burdens on neighbors, munici-
pal services, and infrastructure than is typical with family
occupancies.
C. The burdens associated with such intensive 'family"
occupancies are an increase in traffic, on and off - street
parking, over crowding of dwellings, unreasonable conflicts
with neighbors uses and expectations, and other burdens and
risks to public health, safety and welfare;
D. This ordinance is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public health, safety and welfare,
because of the foregoing, and because the continued conver-
sion of single family dwellings to high density occupancy
poses an immediate threat to public health, safety, and
welfare, because of the consequences outlined above.
SECTION 3. In reliance upon the foregoing findings, the
following interim restrictions are hereby imposed upon the
conversion, expansion, or remodeling of any residence
located in any single family zone or areas any planned
development zone restricted to single family use:
-1-
No building permits shall be issued for an increase in
the number of bedrooms in the existing structure beyond a
maximum of six bedrooms.
SECTION 4. Notwithstanding Section 3, building permits
shall be allowed for minor remodeling consistent with
guidelines, attached hereto, marked exhibit At and
incorporated by reference.
sECTION.S. The Community Development staff is hereby
directed to prepare as soon as possible for Planning
Commission and Council consideration, a staff report and
proposed revisions to the City Zoning Ordinance addressing
the problems associated with overcrowding of residential
dwellings.
SECTION S. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to government
Code section 65858, and shall be effective for a period of
45 days upon adoption by a 4/5 vote of the City Council."
SECTION 2. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to Government
Code Section 65858, and shall be effective until January 25,
1986.
PASSED AND ADOPTS on December 19, 1985 by the following
vote:
AYE'S: Evans, Nichols - Poulos, Rosenberg, Tomasi
NOES: None
ABSTAIY: Adler
ATTEST:
�.
ROGr'R A. STOREY JJW
City Clerk
-2-
� iftIV,9:aJ'/ �
JL-M M. Z-VANs
MAYOR
10
5
0
Alternatives:
(DO
0
EXHIBIT "C"
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
0
0
0
0
O(D
5
SOLUTION POTENTIAL
1. Rental licensing S. Nuisance ordinances (new)
2. Conditio0al use permits 7. HRC- neighborhood mediation
3. University overlay district 8. Coordinating with university
4. Regulate 5+ bedroom const. 9. Enforce current ordinances
5. Rental inspections
-1-
10