HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - March 1, 2005 SSCITY OF LODI
INFORMAL INFORMATIONAL MEETING
"SHIRTSLEEVE" SESSION
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2005
An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday,
March 1, 2005, commencing at 7:03 a.m.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Council Members — Hansen, Hitchcock, Johnson, Mounce, and Mayor Beckman
Absent: Council Members — None
Also Present: City Manager King, City Attorney Schwabauer, and City Clerk Blackston
B. TOPIC(S)
B-1 "Review of State Housing Code definition regarding overcrowding"
Joseph Wood, Community Improvement Manager, explained that regulations regarding
housing occupancy and limitations on dwelling units are established in the State Housing
Code. Through the Health and Safety Code, each city adopts its Housing Code. In order
for a city to be more restrictive than the State Housing Code, it must establish criteria, e.g.
topographical, climatic, etc., that would necessitate more stringent requirements.
Mr. Wood noted that cities have been overturned when they have tried to establish more
restrictive regulations. According to State regulations, a dwelling is required to have at
least one room with 120 square feet. Every habitable room beyond that has to have no less
than 70 square feet. A 70 -square -foot room is adequate for two occupants, and for every
occupant beyond that, there must be an additional 50 square feet. According to the
formula in the State Housing Code, 17 people could occupy a 1,222 -square -foot home. Mr.
Wood reported that a common problem is the use of uninhabitable space, such as garages,
closets, storage space, backyards, basements, and attics. Associated problems include
parking, sanitation, and electrical extensions to outbuildings. Mr. Wood noted that these
are issues that Code Enforcement can address. He stated that Code Enforcement has a
case load of approximately 650, of which 40% are related to substandard housing and
dangerous building issues.
Council Member Hansen suggested that an informational flier be prepared as an
educational tool to assist citizens in understanding the regulations.
Council Member Mounce pointed out that the law does not define what the 17 people
consist of and noted that a family would not have the same impact on a dwelling unit as 17
adults.
City Attorney Schwabauer reported that there have been efforts to limit housing to families
in the context of second residential units built in backyards. In these cases, cities have
attempted to restrict the inhabitants to a family member or caregiver and the courts have
held that it is unconstitutional.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
00 Eileen St. Yves recalled that in 1993 former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros
changed the occupancy standards, which primarily impacted rental housing.
Unsuccessful attempts have been made by the state and national apartment
associations to get the law changed back to the way it was previously, i.e. a certain
number of people per bedroom plus one additional person. Ms. St. Yves commented
that she had asked Senator Machado why a tenant who pays taxes, etc. is given fewer
square feet than a prisoner. She believed that as the cost of housing continues to rise,
more families will join together to buy and rent houses.
Continued March 1, 2005
In answer to Council Member Johnson, Mr. Wood explained that illegal occupancy of
dwelling violations are misdemeanors if pursued criminally. In these types of cases, Code
Enforcement would issue a notice to vacate, and if it is adhered to, the process ends. Non-
compliance fees are assessed on reoccurring problems. If a repeat violation is found within
six months of the last contact, the case picks up where it left off.
In response to Mayor Beckman, Mr. Bartlam agreed that these conditions are found when
housing cost is generating the occupancy load. The last apartment complex in Lodi was
built in 1988. He stated that fie problems being discussed today are caused by mostly
unrelated individuals living together because they have no other opportunity.
City Manager King reported that some cities have an annual inspection program that
primarily applies to multi -family units, which is paid for through an inspection fee. In this
program, apartments are systematically checked for Health and Safety Code and Building
Code violations. In the absence of an inspection program, many cities have found that the
most cost-effective way to address the same issues are to focus on what is found on the
exterior, e.g. illegal construction, property maintenance, and parking issues.
Mr. Bartlam reported that the City's participation with the County in the Abandoned Vehicle
Authority resulted in a $30,000 reimbursement for having towed 150 cars off properties last
year. In addition, 150 cars were removed voluntarily by notice.
Council Member Mounce expressed concern about the quality of available apartments.
Mayor Pro Tempore Hitchcock voiced support for sending a letter to State representatives
asking that the occupancy standards be changed back to a formula that provides at least a
minimum quality of life, to which Council Member Mounce agreed.
Mayor Beckman was opposed to asking the State to change the law unless there was
something in place to take care of the people that would be displaced if the occupancy
numbers were lowered.
Council Member Hansen was also opposed to sending communication to the State about
this matter, as he felt the cause was related to broader issues such as immigration and
homelessness in general.
In reply to Mayor Beckman, Mr. Bartlam acknowledged that the City's impact fee program
disincentives the building of apartments. Historically, Lodi has allowed new developers to
build the type of product they want. In two pending annexations, the City has been clear
that developers' projects must adhere to medium- and high-density zoning. He noted that
there have been problems in the past with infill neighborhoods not wanting to accept higher
densities.
Ms. St. Yves noted that funds have been cut for the Housing Authority, which is
exacerbating the housing problem for low income residents. In reference to the city of
Stockton's recent actions, Ms. St. Yves warned that cities cannot supercede the right of
privacy and enter homes without due cause and a warrant. Stockton expects to get $1.5
million a year from rental owners for inspection lbes; however, that will result in the cost
getting passed off to renters or building maintenance will suffer.
C. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
None.
W
Continued March I, 2005
D. ADJOURNMENT
No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 a.m.
ATTEST:
Susan J. Blackston
City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM 501
CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TM
AGENDA TITLE: Review of State Housing Code Definition Regarding Overcrowding
MEETING DATE: March 1, 2005
PREPARED BY: Community Improvement Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive a report on current State Housing Code definition regarding
overcrowding.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Occupancy requirements and limitations for dwelling units is a
matter addressed through the state's housing laws, adopted
pursuant to the Health and Safety Code and recognized as the
Uniform Housing Code.
Under Section 503 of the Uniform Housing Code, every dwelling unit is required to have at least one
room with a minimum of 120 square feet in floor space. Other habitable rooms are required to have an
area no less than 70 square feet. For any room used for sleeping purposes, that 70 square feet of floor
area can accommodate two people. Furthermore, the minimum required floor area for a room must be
increased by 50 square feet for every additional occupant in excess of the first two. (See Table A)
This formula is the basis for establishing occupancy limits for residential dwellings units. Before applying
the formula to calculate an occupancy limit, you must be sure that it is applied to habitable space only.
Habitabte space, as defined by the Housing Code is:
A space in a building for living, sleeping, eating, or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms,
closets, halls, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not considered habitable
spaces.
While a dwelling unit may officially have only 3 bedrooms, the living room, den, dining room and other
"habitable" rooms throughout the dwelling must be included in the calculations of the allowed occupancy
level of the dwelling, providing that each additional room used as a "sleeping room" meets the other
applicable code requirements for sleeping rooms.
APPROVED: /� �J _.
Blair King, City Manager
TABLE
A
Number of Occupants
In Habitable Room
Minimum Required
Floor Area Per Room
2
70 square feet
3
120 square feet
4
170 square feet
5
220 square feet
6
270 square feet
To understand these guidelines better, we provide the following example, taken from a home that is
currently under plan review.
A 1222 square -foot single-family residence, with the following habitable room dimensions:
Room Size # Occupants
Bedroom 1:
11' x 12' =
132 sq. ft. 3
Bedroom 2:
11' x 12' =
132 sq. ft. 3
Mstr Bedrm:
11' x 13' =
143 sq. ft. 3
Dining Room:
10' x 11' =
110 sq. ft 2
Living Room:
15' x 18' =
270 sq. ft. 6
Total Allowed Occupants: 17
This Example considers that each habitable room meets the requirements applied to sleeping rooms,
namely a required emergency egress window or door, smoke detectors and no prohibited appliances,
fixtures or conditions.
However, what is encountered in most older homes does not always meet those ideal conditions. For
example, having a gas-fired appliance such as a wall heater, which is common in older homes,
eliminates that room for consideration or use as a sleeping room. Likewise, if there is not a window or
door that meets egress requirements, those rooms cannot be considered legal sleeping rooms, and are
not calculated within the occupant load.
Even deducting those rooms from the calculation, the formula is still considered to be very liberal in
establishing housing occupancy limits. Considering the actual size of homes throughout Lodi, it is not
inconceivable to encounter dwelling units which have a calculated occupant limit of up to 18-20 persons.
Jurisdictions have tried to be more restrictive than what is established through the Uniform Housing Code
by either adopting a more conservative formula for calculating the occupancy limit or by re -interpreting
the definition of habitable rooms to mean only bedrooms when applied to setting this limit.
The Courts however, have re-established the State's intent to occupy the field of occupancy standards
and thereby preempt local regulation in that field unless those local agencies are able to establish an
express finding that there exists a local climactic, geological, or topographical condition, which warrants a
more restrictive requirement. (Briseno v. City of Santa Ana 6 Cal.AppAth 1378)
Conclusion
What this means for the City of Lodi is, while we do not have a more reasonable means of calculating an
occupancy limit, we do have the ability to make sure that there are not illegal occupancies of garages,
sheds, backyards and other accessory structures. We also have an ability to address certain behavioral
issues that are a nuisance to surrounding properties and present health and safety hazards, such as
inadequate and improper sanitation, unsafe and improper electrical wiring, vehicles parked on yards and
excessive garbage, junk and debris. All of which tend to be by-products of high -occupancy housing.
This issue also means the overcapacity of our oldest sewer and water infrastructure. Consider that what
were once parcels with single-family dwellings are now divided into two or more units. Now consider the
impact that 15-30 people have on water and sewer systems that were designed to handle only 5-10
people.
In the Court's ruling in the previously cited case of Briseno v. City of Santa Ana, Presiding Justice Sills
summed up this issue rather well in his conclusion.
"The City may be disheartened that we have invalidated its ordinance, but doing so saves us
from having a curbside seat at the parade of horrors which would otherwise ensue. Had the
ordinance survived our scrutiny, it would criminalize a level of occupant density which the
state has determined is safe. This would force larger families out of their dwellings and into
communities which do follow the Uniform Housing Code. This could only result in increased
homelessness and exacerbate housing shortages statewide.
Overcrowding is a serious problem. But a piecemeal solution like that proposed by Santa Ana
is not the answer. We are not unmindful of the demand high urban densities place on
community services. Nevertheless, we must presume the Legislature balanced the benefits of
the statewide standard it adopted against the burdens it might impose on cities such as Santa
Ana. Here, state law clearly preempts local regulation." (Briseno v City of Santa Ana, p.4)
FUNDING: None
J99eph Obod, Manage
Community Improvement ivision