Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 - Group Residential Facilities - PA 2006-198CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COO r Cfi� ©A CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT NO Agenda Item No. 17 November 14, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3235 PalfordO -city. newport- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -005 Group Residential Facilities (PA 2006 -198) ISSUE: Should Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amended to revise regulations, relating to Group Residential Facilities? RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing; introduce Ordinance No. 2006 approving Code Amendment No. 2006 -005 and pass to second reading on November 28, 2006. DISCUSSION: Background: The City Council initiated the proposed amendment on September 26, 2006. Analysis: The proposed amendment is intended to address an ongoing code enforcement problem where rooms in single - family dwelling units are being rented as individual units, thus operating as a boarding. house or as multi - family dwelling units in single= family zones. This practice is impacting the character of these neighborhoods and the availability of off- street parking. The proposed amendment would revise the Group Residential' land use classification by adding a new subgroup for boarding and. rooming houses. ' Group Residential facilities are shared living quarters that lack separate kitchen and bathroom facilties for each room or unit or any other shared living quarters occupied by two or more persons not living together. as a.`single housekeeping unit.' This classification does not include group homes, sober living environments, and recovery facilities, which are classified as Residential Care facilities and are covered by State and federal anti- discrimination housing laws. Group Residential Facilities November 14, 2006 Page 2 "Boarding or Rooming Houses" would be defined as any dwelling unit where more than one room is rented under more than one written or oral rental agreement. Therefore, if a dwelling, or any part thereof, is being rented under more than one rental agreement, it would be classified as a Boarding House or a Rooming House, neither of which are permitted in residential districts. Thus, violations can more easily be identified by reviewing the rental agreement(s). The use can then be abated, if necessary. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposed amendment on October 19, 2006. The discussion focused on the issue of subleases. Under the proposed amendment, any sublease of a dwelling unit or any part of a dwelling unit would meet the definition of a boarding house. Thus, a renter could not rent a room or sublease the dwelling unit, which the Planning Commission considered unfair. The Commission voted unanimously (6 -0) to recommend approval of the proposed code amendment provided the number of rental agreements is increased from one (1) to two (2). For purposes of defining a boarding house limitation of two leases would be appropriate. The City Attorney's recommendation was based upon the intent to also address problems with illegal dwelling units. Defining a single housekeeping unit as limited by one lease agreement will serve as additional criteria to define a dwelling unit. The Planning Commission recommendation will not provide the added tool for code enforcement to determine when a property has rented out one or more rooms as an illegal unit. This is because the zoning code defines a family along the legally recognized concept that cities may not regulate residential use to persons who are related, but may require that persons live together as a single housekeeping unit. Over the years the City code enforcement has responded to complaints of illegal dwelling units in single family homes, duplexes or triplexes. Property owners, or renters will divide part of a house into separate units which are rented separately. However, code enforcement is told that all the individuals live together and share common facilities. Recently in Corona del Mar, Code Enforcement discovered a legal duplex that was converted into 5 separate dwelling units. If the City Attorney's recommendation is adopted then there should have only been two leases, one for each of the two dwelling units, instead of five. If the Planning Commission recommendation is adopted, then for purposes of defining a dwelling unit, asking for evidence of a single lease for each dwelling unit will not be effective information as four leases would have been acceptable. Two leases per unit make proof of an illegal unit more difficult if all parties asserted that they were living together as a single housekeeping unit. At least some Planning Commissioners were concerned that with the proposed limitation a renter would no be able to sublet a room. This is accurate and the City Council may agree that this limitation is not acceptable. Group Residential Facilities November 14, 2006 Page 3 However, on the other hand many landlords already do not to allow rented property to be sublet and require that all persons living in the property are on the lease. In this sense the added limitation of one lease per dwelling unit gives property owners who lease their property more information about who is living in the property and will insure that renters do not rent out part of the property to another as a separate dwelling unit. For these reasons, staff continues to recommend that the original ordinance recommended by the City Attorney's Office be adopted. Environmental Review: The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure- making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Patrick J. Alford Senior Planner Attachments: Submitted by: D- id Lepo Planning Director A. Draft ordinance. B. October 19, 2006 Planning Commission Staff Report. C. Planning Commission Resolution. D. Draft October 19, 2006 Planning Commission minutes. ATTACHMENT A Draft Ordinance ORDINANCE 2006- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES [CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -005] WHEREAS, on September 26, 2006, the City Council initiated amendments to Title 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise land use regulations for Group Residential Facilities; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 19, 2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting; and ;WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has an ongoing code ;;enforcement problem vyfiere rooms in dwelling units in single - family zoning. districts are_ = rented as individual dwelling units; and WHEREAS, the rental of single - family dwelling units on a room by room basis to persons not living together as a single housekeeping unit constitutes a land use indicative of multi - family residential or boarding /rooming houses; and WHEREAS, single - family, zoning districts are not designed for situations in which significant numbers of adults live in the same dwelling unit, which results in impacts to the infrastructure, the availability of on- street parking, and noise; and WHEREAS, boarding and rooming houses are not permitted uses in residential zoning districts, but enforcement is difficult because the types of improvements that constitute a separate or independent living facility are difficult to observe off -site and can easily be concealed or removed prior to inspection; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Code needs to be amended to classify any dwelling unit that is being leased separately to more than two persons as a boarding or rooming house; and WHEREAS, the adoption of these new land use regulations is necessary in order to protect the character of the City of Newport Beach's single - family residential neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). 2 of 2 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be amended as provided in Exhibit A. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on November 14, 2006,. and., adopted on the 28th day of lovember, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS (V EXHIBIT A 20.03.030 Single Housekeeping Unit: "Single Housekeeping Unit" means the functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, under no more than one written or oral rental agreement, including the joint use of common areas and sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, and expenses. For purposes of the R -A and R -1 districts, a Single Housekeeping Unit's members shall also be a non - transient group. 20.05.030 (B) Group Residential. "Group Residential" means shared living quarters, occupied by more than one person, which lack separate kitchen and bathroom facilities for each room or unit, as well as shared living" quarters occupied by two or more persons not living together as a Single Housekeeping; Unit. This classification in boarding houses, rooming houses, dormitories, fraternities, sororities, and private residential clubs, but excludes residential hotels (see Single -Room Occupancy (SRO) Residential Hotels, Section 20.05.050(EE)(4)). 1. Boarding or Roominq Houses. A residence or dwellinq unit, or part thereof, wherein two or more rooms are rented under two or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination thereof, whether or not the owner, agent or rental manager resides within the residence. EXHIBIT A CA 2006 -005 I ATTACHMENT B October 19, 2006 Planning Commission Staff Report q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 4 October 19, 2006 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3235 palford(a)city. newport- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -005 Group Residential Facilities (PA 2006 -198) ISSUE: Should Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amended to revise regulations relating to Group Residential Facilities? RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 2006- 005 to the City Council. DISCUSSION: Background: The City Council initiated the proposed amendment on September 26, 2006. Introduction: The City has an ongoing code enforcement problem in neighborhoods zoned for single - family dwelling units. Rooms in single - family dwelling units are being rented as individual units, thus operating as multi - family dwelling units in single - family zones. This practice is impacting the character of these neighborhoods and the availability of off - street parking. Multi family dwelling units are not permitted in single - family residential zones. However, enforcement is difficult because the types of improvements that constitute a separate or independent living facility are difficult to observe off -site and can easily be concealed or removed prior to inspection. Therefore, it is difficult to prove that the occupants are living separately or independently from one another and not as a "single housekeeping unit" (i.e., the functional equivalent of a traditional family). 0 Group Residential Facilities October 19, 2006 Page 2 Analysis Group Residential facilities are shared living quarters that lack separate kitchen and bathroom facilities for each room or unit or any other shared living quarters occupied by two or more persons not living together as a "single housekeeping unit." This land use classification includes boarding houses, dormitories, fraternities, sororities, and private residential clubs.' The intent of the proposed amendment is to classify any dwelling unit that is being leased separately to more than one person as a Group Residential facility. Group Residential facilities are only permitted in the Government, Educational, and Institutional Facilities (GEIF) District and only when associated with an educational or medical institution. Since this use is not permitted in residential districts, violations can more easily be identified by reviewing the rental agreement(s). The use can then be abated, if necessary. The proposed amendment would revise this land use classification by adding a new subgroup for boarding and rooming houses. "Boarding or Rooming Houses" would be defined as any dwelling unit where more than one room is rented under..more than one written or oral rental agreement. Therefore, if a dwelling, or any part thereof, is being rented under more than one rental agreement, it would be classified as a Boarding House or a Rooming House, neither of which are permitted in residential districts. It is also proposed that corresponding language be added to the definition of the term "single house keeping unit" to provide further clarity and internal consistency. It should be noted that under the proposed amendment, any sublease of a dwelling unit or any part of a dwelling unit would meet the definition of a boarding house. Thus, a renter could not rent a room or sublease the dwelling unit. Environmental Review: The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure- making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. This. included an eighth page advertisement. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. ' This classification does not include group homes, sober living environments, and recovery facilities, which are classified as Residential Care facilities and are covered by State and federal anti - discrimination housing laws. 10 Prepared by: Patrick J. Alford Senior Planner Attachments: 1. Draft resolution. Group Residential Facilities October 19, 2006 Page 3 Submitted by: Patricia L. Temple Planning Director 11 ATTACHMENT C Planning Commission Resolution fa RESOLUTION NO. 1700 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -005 (PA 2006 -198) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, on September 26, 2006, the City Council initiated amendments to Title 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise land use regulations for Group Residential Facilities; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 19, 2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting, was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral,..was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting; and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. The City of Newport Beach has an ongoing code enforcement problem where rooms in dwelling units in single - family zoning districts are rented as individual dwelling units. 2. The rental of single - family dwelling units on a room by room basis to persons not living together as a single housekeeping unit constitutes a land use indicative of multi- family residential or boarding /rooming houses. 3. Single- family zoning districts are not designed for situations in which significant numbers of adults live in the same dwelling unit, which results in impacts to the infrastructure, the availability of on- street parking, and noise. 4. Boarding and rooming houses are not permitted uses in residential zoning districts, but enforcement is difficult because the types of improvements that constitute a separate or independent living facility are difficult to observe off - site and can easily be concealed or removed prior to inspection. 5. The Zoning Code needs to be amended to classify any dwelling unit that is being leased separately to more than two persons as a boarding or rooming house. 15 2 of 2 6. The adoption of these new land use regulations is necessary in order to protect the character of the City of Newport Beach's single - family residential neighborhoods. 7. The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopt Code Amendment No. 2006 -005 to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as provided in Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF October 2006. E E AYES: Cole, Hawkins, Peotter, Eaton. McDaniel and Toerae Excused: Henn A ATTACHMENT D October 19, 2006 Planning Commission minutes 0 10/19/2006 Eaton, Peotter, Haw m el Toerge None Henn Page 9 of 27 ITEM NO.4 PA2006 -198 1BJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -005 Group Residential Facilities Recommended could Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amended for Approval revise regulations relating to Group Residential Facilities? Alford, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting: This amendment is intended to address the ongoing code enforceme problem with single - family houses being operated as boarding house or some cases as multi - family residential. This amendment deals with the addition of a new land use classificati under the heading of Group Residential, which covers boarding and roomi houses. "Boarding or Rooming Houses" would be defined as any dwelli unit where more than one room is rented under more than one written or c rental agreement. If it meets this definition, then it is defined as a Boardi House, which is currently under the. Group Residential heading and it is i permitted in our residential zones. Group Residential is currently limited our Government, Educational, and Institutional Facilities (GEIF) District a only when associated with an educational or medical institution. Corresponding amendment to the definition of "single house keeping unit" make sure the land use classification definition and the definition of "sin( house keeping unit' are consistent. mmissioner Eaton said he had sent an email questioning why the limit was or and not two. He received a reply stating that City Attorney had insisted that one. He pointed out that he had read an article in the newspaper addressing War ordinance in the City of Orange and their limit was two. He would like )w why we choose one rather than two. . Harp, Assistant City Attorney, wanted to clarify that City Attorney R auson was very insistent upon this and he had not had the opportunity to disc r reasoning behind this, but pointed out that Mr. Alford had discussed this. Alford said they had discussed 3 or more, but with that many there could be mtial a situation of 3 separate housing keeping units operating under wh uld be a single - family dwelling. The intent is to keep this as tight as possible a are limiting the single - family zones to a residence that is operated as a sing sing keeping unit. issioner Eaton asked if we are talking about the limit on the number of with the constraints of a single housing unit: Alford said the issue is not the number of people living as a single housi ping unit under one single rental agreement. The problem arises when peol renting out rooms to individuals that are not sharing responsibilities of what c nition of a single housing keeping unit is. The effects to the neighborhood n in the parking, noise, etc. l4 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006\ 10 1 92006.htm 11/03/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 sioner Eaton said then a lessee of a home couldn't sublet a i to another tenant even though they where operating as a single unit. Alford answered yes, they met the definition of 2 or more. The only c Id be for them to amend the current rental agreement so both parties er the same lease. ian Cole asked what would be the difference, in the City's perspective, if owner wanted to rent out a room and or a sub - lesser wanted to rent out The impact to the community would be the same as far as parking, nois Alford answered the impact would be the same, but the scenario met iition of 2 or more and would prohibit that type of arrangement in iential zones. rman Cole wanted to know the genesis of this amendment. He knew it Council initiated, but did code enforcement have any input into this. I. Alford said there were a number of discussions with the City Attorney c d Code Enforcement on how.to address the problem of illegal dwelling units forcement. Reviewing the rental agreements would give us the evidence nee take the appropriate Code Enforcement action. mmissioner Toerge said he couldn't support this amendment as written. Felt s unfair and almost discriminatory. He gave a scenario of living in a rente ise and not being able to have a friend stay with him for a few months becaue would be in violation of this code. Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Toerge and had the followi . Was 2 too few; no parking related issues, etc. . 5 or 6 may become a Boarding House, which would be problematic. Where do we set the bar? . 3 or fewer may be better. . How would you inspect verbal agreements for enforcement purposes? nissioner McDaniel spoke of a duplex that was rented out, but throughout various people lived there and was sure they didn't sign a new re ment with each move -in. How would we enforce that scenario? Alford answered if they were all operating under a single .rental agreeme e is an implied shared responsibility for maintaining a single house keepi . The problem is people renting out multiply rooms in a house to a number pie and the owner doesn't live there. If you set the limit at 2 or more you m e 3 rooms or dwelling units operating within a single - family house. comment was opened. Page 10 of 27 �1 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006\10192006.htm 11/03/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 r. George Schroeder, landlord and real estate broker, wanted to state that i as basically in agreement with Staffs recommendations. He pointed out tl iery lease agreement he has drawn up has a clause that the lessee can not st ase. All one would need to do is call up his landlord and add a person's name e existing agreement for the time period that person may be staying. When t ided person leaves, they would revert back to the original lease. He also ask this code amendment would apply to Balboa Island. Alford answered it is City -wide. Harp wanted to know if the intent was not to allow anyone to sub -lease ry owners to rent a room to one person? Alford said it wasn't so much the intent, but the consequence of this it can be a problem to a lessor and not to the owner. comment was closed. Toerge again stated he could not support this amendment mmissioner Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Toerge and asked if this will ng to the City Council. Alford said it would go to the Council, unless it was turned down by t inning Commission it would not automatically go to Council but would have appealed. Harp recommended to move this on to the City Council and then City Attor ison could address any concerns the Planning Commission may have with Hawkins believes this is a numbers problem. n was made by Commissioner Hawkins to recommend adoption of ( dment 2006 -005 to the City Council with the modifications to strike 1 2 under section 20.03.030 and under section 20.05.030 (B) strike 2 3 and make the chances throughout. None Henn ECT: Code Amendment 2006 -007 Day Care Regulations ould Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amende revise the land use regulations to distinguish day care centers for children ar rse for adults and establish spacing, concentration, and operational standards? Alford, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting: . This amendment was initiated to address the concern over the concentration of day care centers in the residential neighborhoods. . There is a State preemption on local land use controls that allow smaller Page 11 of 27 ITEM NO.5 PA2006 -211 Continued to November 16, 2006 {�/ fil e: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006\ 10 192006.htm 11/03/2006 Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A -6214, September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )Ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: December 2, 2006 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 5, 2006 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature ORDNANCE NO. 2006 -23 AN Lk7DINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AP- PROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 20 OF THE NEW PORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES [CODE AMENDMENT NO. 200&0051 Subject ordinance was n. traduced on the 14th day of November. 2006, and was adopted on the 29th day of November, 2006. AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS: SELICH. ROSANSKY. RID - GEWAY. DAIGLE, NICHOLS, MAYOR WEBB NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE ABSENT COUNCIL MEM- BERS CURRY ABSTAIN COUNCIL NEM BER: NONE MAYOR: Don Webb CITY CLERK: LaVonne M. Harkless The entoe text is available for review in the City Clerk's office of the City of Newport Beach. Published Newport Beach/ Costa Mesa Daily Pilot De cember 2, 2006