SR - - STUDENT HOUSING CHAPMAN UNIVERSITYOF OR
c �UNTY OP
AGENDA ITEM
February 9, 2016
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
THRU: Rick Otto
City Manager
FROM: Wayne Winthers, City Attorn
William Crouch
Community Development Direct r
ReviewedNerified By:
City Manager
�
Finance Director
To Be Presented By:
Rick Otto
Cons Calendar
City Mgr
Rpts
Council Reports
_ Legal Affairs
Boards /Cmtes
X Public Hrgs
Admin Reports
Plan /Environ
1. SUBJECT
Strategies for addressing student housing and neighborhood engagement concerns.
2. SUMMARY
In October 2015, the City Council directed the staff from the City Attorney and Community Development
Department to identify options for addressing student impacts on Orange neighborhoods. Key issues of
concern include large parties, nuisance behavior, high levels of household occupancy, neighborhood
parking, and property maintenance. Staff has identified a number of options for introducing new
regulations and/or refining existing Code regulations to address these concerns.
3. RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the report, and provide.staff with direction regarding desired actions.
4. FISCAL IMPACT
To be determined based on City Council direction.
5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL(S)
1. Provide for a safe community.
1 d. Assure the development of the City occurs in a fashion that maximizes public safety.
3. Enhance and promote quality of life in the community.
3a. Support and enhance attractive, diverse living environments.
ITEM] 1 2/9/16
3e. Develop and strengthen collaborative partnerships to enhance and promote quality of life programs,
projects, and services.
6. GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Land Use Element
Goal 6.0: Advance development activity that is mutually beneficial to both the environment and the
community.
7. DISCUSSION and BACKGROUND
In recent years there has been an escalating student housing presence in Orange neighborhoods due to
expanding academic programs and growth in student enrollment at Chapman University. On- campus
housing opportunities are limited. Therefore, students are taking up residency in single - family
neighborhoods within reasonable proximity to the University campus. Frequently, these living situations
involve multiple students sharing a house.
As student - occupied houses have become more prevalent in the community, there has been growing
feedback from the community about unruly parties, neighborhood parking impacts, high concentrations
of student occupancy, un- permitted construction for purposes of creating additional bedrooms, and
property maintenance concerns. These factors, taken together, have generated increased calls for City
services from the Police, Fire, and Community Development Departments. There has been a significant
use of City resources in response to these emergency services and Code Compliance calls. The student
presence has also created a sense of deteriorating quality of life in many Orange neighborhoods.
In response to public feedback and first -hand experiences by members of the City Council, staff from the
City Attorney, Community Development, and Police Departments have researched how other cities with
a significant university and college presence are addressing issues similar to those confronting Orange.
PARTIES
A. Party Ordinance
Currently, the loud and unruly party ordinance makes it a criminal violation for someone to host a loud or
unruly party. Violation can result in a criminal citation being issued requiring a court appearance.
Additionally, a police officer can give a warning notice and should officers have to respond out to the
same house within 10 days, police services costs can be recovered in addition to a criminal citation.
The City Attorney's office, at the direction of the City Council, has reviewed the City's current loud and
unruly party ordinance to determine its effectiveness. The Police Department was consulted to determine
what deficiencies may be present and what difficulties they encounter in trying to enforce the current
ordinance. Additionally, ordinances from numerous other jurisdictions were reviewed. Some ordinance
amendments the City Council may consider are as follows:
2
Al. Currently the city's unruly party ordinance makes it a violation for a host to allow an unruly
gathering to occur. PD has reported that it is sometimes difficult to determine who the host of
the party is. A possible amendment to consider, would be to also make it a violation for anyone
to attend an unruly gathering. Therefore, this would make everyone at the party eligible for a
misdemeanor citation. It may also assist in identifying the party host(s).
A2. Provide a private right of abatement to individuals pursuant to the Civil Code to allow private
individuals to take property owners where unruly parties are held to civil court for abatement.
They will also have the right to recover their own attorney fees. This proposed amendment
would serve to make the landlords more accountable for their tenants' actions.
A3. Consider additional fines and requirements of the owner of properties where unruly parties occur.
Property owners could be liable for police response costs and receive civil fines for continued
violations. This would require additional noticing and hearings which is staff intensive.
A4. Make properties where unruly parties have occurred, ineligible to receive zoning or building
permits intended to provide additional living space in the residence.
The effectiveness of any ordinance changes will be determined by the staff involved, both from the Police
Department and the City Attorney's office. Presently, the City Attorney's office does not have the staffing
level necessary to keep up with the noticing requirements to enable us to fine property owners.
Additionally, there will have to be some type of tracking program developed so that the City Attorney's
office will know what properties the police department has responded to and for the police department to
know what properties the city attorney's office has put on notice. This is a time consuming task as each
property must be researched to determine the correct current property owner information.
Staff recommends that initially, the city council consider adding a section to make all attendees of unruly
parties eligible for citation and add the private right of abatement. These changes are not likely to require
additional staff immediately.
STUDENT HOUSING
In response to the City Council's desire to better manage the student housing impacts on Orange
neighborhoods, staff has identified a menu of zoning strategies for addressing the following key problem
areas associated with the widespread neighborhood infiltration by students:
• Conversion of single - family residences to student housing through floor plan modification
• Single - family residences being occupied by large concentrations of adults
• Insufficient off - street parking
• Property and neighborhood degradation
• Zoning Ordinance limitations
The strategies that have been identified are based on methods employed by other university towns in
California, as well as heavily impacted communities across the country. Many cities lack codified
approaches for addressing student housing issues, and instead utilize intensive university outreach to
students in off - campus housing, and leverage the resources of campus security and student organizations
to address problems. However, there are communities facing circumstances similar to Orange that have
put policies and procedures in place. Staff found the approaches of the following cities most relevant to
Orange and Chapman University:
• City of Berkeley
• City of Davis
• City of Riverside
• City of San Diego
• City of Santa Cruz
• City of San Luis Obispo
• City of Eugene, OR
• City of Ft. Collins, CO
• City of Minneapolis, MN
• City of Bloomington, IN
• City of College Park, MD
B. Conversion of Single - Family Residences to Student Housing
Many traditional single - family residences in Orange neighborhoods have experienced floor plan
modifications creating additional bedrooms to maximize the number of students the home can be
rented to. The addition of bedrooms generally occurs through a building addition, or within an existing
building footprint through division of common living space such as a living room or dining room, or
conversion of attic or basement space. Both scenarios are common in Orange, and are allowable
subject to a Building Permit and Code compliance. The scenario of greatest concern is the division of
space within the existing building footprint due to the fact that it fundamentally changes the manner
in which the house is likely to be occupied in the future. The floor plan changes have the potential to
make the house less appealing and functional for occupancy by a traditional family household, and
more conducive to groups of students or other adults living together in a mini -dorm or boarding house
format.
Mechanisms that other cities have put in place to address this issue include the following:
City of Riverside (September 2015):
• Regulates the proportional use of interior space of single- family residences.
• Limits total area of all bedrooms to no more than 50% of the total dwelling area of the
structure.
• Requires total common living area to be equal to or greater than the total combined
area of all bedrooms.
• Requires an additional open parking space for each bedroom including and exceeding
5 (i.e., 1 -4 bedrooms per the single- family residence parking requirement, then
additional spaces for bedroom #5 and beyond).
4
City of Davis (February 2007):
• Requires a Conditional Use Permit for single- family residences on lots 15,000 sq.
ft. or smaller that result in 5 or more bedrooms per unit. Lots greater than 15,000
sq. ft. are exempt.
• Floor plan must demonstrate that functional living area is retained and demonstrates
a traditional single family dwelling floor plan.
• One additional covered parking space is required for dwellings with 5 or more
bedrooms.
City of Berkeley (September 2013):
• Requires an Administrative Use Permit to add a 5"' bedroom to a single- family
residence, and a Conditional Use Permit to add a 6"' bedroom and beyond.
Applicability to Orange
Criteria that establish general standards for the interior space of single - family residences would be
useful in Orange. Of the approaches identified above, the City of Riverside criteria for the
proportional distribution of space within a single- family residence is a tool for ensuring that
modifications made to a home protect its fundamental single- family residential floor plan
characteristics, so that even if the house was occupied by a group of students, it would continue to
be functional for a more traditional household at some point in the future. Alternately, a house
with a floor plan of highly divided space that modifies common living space to a point that it is
unrecognizable or no longer functions as common area can be a deterrent for occupancy by anyone
other than students or a larger group of individuals.
Discretionary review of residences with large bedroom counts also enables a City to have greater
influence over the character of high bedroom count residences. This type of review is not
dissimilar to the conditional use permit requirements for large group homes and certain large
accessory structures currently in place in Orange. If this approach were selected for Orange, a
review by the Zoning Administrator rather than the Planning Commission, would offer the
property owner a more streamline review process and still afford the City with the opportunity to
assert more control over the residences.
Pros:
• Floor plan regulation would enable the City to provide property owners with clear
expectations for creating bedroom additions and protecting the fundamental character of a
single- family residence, and neighborhood.
• Floor plan review similar to the City of Riverside approach could be done administratively
and would not involve the additional cost, time, and public notification associated with
conditional use permit review.
• Establishment of floor plan criteria in order to issue a building permit for interior alterations
would not create additional steps, time, or costs for City approval.
5
• The conditional use permit requirement not only enables the City to review floor plan and
parking conditions, but also includes the notification of surrounding property owners and
residents, and a public hearing. This approach enables the City to impose conditions of
approval as necessary, and also establishes a higher threshold based on findings for
approval of the requested living conditions.
Cons:
• Regulation of floor plans would be applicable to all residential units in Orange, regardless
of tenancy or ownership.
• Regulation of floor plans for residential units reduces the property owner's flexibility for
interior modifications to a residence and could be viewed by the public and property
owners as overregulation of private living space.
• With the regulation of floor plans based on common versus bedroom space, there may be
unintended, secondary costs for property owners in the preparation of building plans,
whereby floor plan modifications beyond what is desired may be required in order to
achieve the required distribution of common and bedroom space. This may also trigger
further building modifications that result in an overall larger floor area residence that
originally proposed.
• The conditional use permit requirement, whether conducted at the Zoning Administrator
or Planning Commission level, adds additional time, cost for property owners. It also
exposes the property owner to neighborhood objections that could potentially alter or
interfere with the property improvements.
Options for Consideration:
Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on the following options:
Bl. Establish floor plan standards for single - family residences, similar to the Riverside
approach, to ensure that the fundamental characteristics of a "traditional" single- family
residence are present. This would provide some level of flexibility to property owners
interested in creating more bedrooms, but also provide the City with a mechanism for
protecting the long -term livability of the house as a single - family residence upon the sale
of the property.
B2. Establish floor plan standards for multi - family residential development designed to avoid
unit floor plans that represent dormitory living conditions (multiple bedrooms and
bathrooms arranged around a kitchenette and small common living room).
B3. Review the City's single- family residential floor area ratio (FAR) standards, and amend
as needed bring maximum allowable FAR into alignment with prevailing neighborhood
character and scale of development. Adjustments to FAR, in combination with the
establishment of floor plan standards and the existing residential design review process,
could be a more effective means of ensuring that expansion of a residence to
M
accommodate students or other large households is compatible with established
neighborhood character.
Staff has not identified the conditional use permit approach as an option given the fact that new
floor plan and parking requirements for residences would address the issues that would otherwise
be the focus of the conditional use permit.
C. Single - family Residences Being Occupied by Large Concentrations of Adults
The occupancy of a traditional single - family residence by a group of students is a departure from
that of a "traditional" family household. There is generally a significant difference in the level and
type of activity associated with a group - oriented young adult household and a household
comprised of working adults with or without children. While single- family residences occupied
by students are not group homes, an argument can be made that the types of behaviors that City
and state Code provisions are intended to guard against are similar. These include nuisance
behavior, property maintenance, public safety, overcrowding, and potentially unsafe living
conditions.
The Zoning Ordinance contains special provisions related to group homes that limit the number of
individuals served to 6, with a conditional use permit requirement for group homes with 7 or more
individuals. These Code provisions, in conjunction with state law, recognize the fact that
occupancy of a single - family residence by more than 6 persons has the potential to diminish
neighborhood character. While group homes are designed to serve individuals with particular
personal issues, under certain circumstances there are separation requirements of 300' between
similar facilities.
In the case of some out -of -state university towns, cities have set limits on the number of unrelated
adults living together. Based on case law, and the manner in which the State of California defines
the term "family," these types of limitations are not an option for California cities. Instead,
attempts to address the neighborhood impacts of single- family residence tenancy by college
students include the following:
City of Berkeley:
• Defines a "mini- dorm" as any building in a residential zone that contains a dwelling
unit occupied by 6 or more unrelated persons 18 years of age or older.
• Establishes performance standards for "mini- dorms" including:
o Minimum floor area for individual bedrooms.
o Property owner designation of a resident manager responsible for:
■ Proper handling of trash.
■ Responding to property complaints within 24 hours.
o Notification of residents within 300' by the property owner of the existence
and location of the mini -dorm and contact information for the resident
manager.
o Provisions for unruly gatherings involving 10 or more persons.
7
City of San Diego (February 2008):
• Requires property owner to obtain a Residential High Occupancy Permit for single
family dwellings occupied by 6 or more persons 18 years of age or older for a period
of 30 consecutive days or longer. Housing for seniors, residential care facilities
and transitional housing facilities are exempt.
o Residential High Occupancy Permits is issued by the City Manager
• Requires annual renewal ($1,000 fee) and inspection of units.
Applicability to Orange
There are a number of living scenarios in Orange that would fall under the classification of a "mini -
dorm" or "high occupancy residence" in the context of both single - family and multi - family
dwellings. These are commonly single- family residences which are rented by groups of students
or members of fraternities or sororities. Establishing criteria and operating standards would Codify
City expectations for these types of residences.
Pros:
• The recognition of these types of living arrangements as a defined land use type would then
enable the City to identify specific operating criteria and appropriate zoning districts for
their location.
• The issuance of an administrative permit for a "mini- dorm" or "high occupancy residence"
allows a City to track the location of these properties and recover costs associated with
potential Code Enforcement and public safety calls for service to the property.
• Annual permit renewal and property inspections provide some level of monitoring of legal
and safe living conditions, property maintenance, and property owner contact.
Cons:
Permit requirements for the operation of either a "mini- dorm" or "high occupancy
residence" creates an additional layer of regulation for property owners and additional costs
related to annual permit renewal.
Review and issuance of permits, and annual unit inspections generates increased demands
on City staff, and would generate the need for additional staff given the significant number
of rental units in the City that would fall under the "mini- dorm" or "high occupancy
residence" criteria. In addition to inspection activities, staff time would be needed for
tracking the permits and annual permit renewal process.
• Enforcement and tracking of tenancy would be difficult.
Options for Consideration:
Staff is seeking direction from the Council on the following options:
C 1. Establish a residential rental permit program that would apply to single- family residential
rental units citywide. This would enable the City to create a database of rental properties,
and use this database to ensure that rental housing in Orange provides safe and decent
living conditions.
C2. Establish a rental permit fee that covers the cost of increased staffing dedicated to
managing the rental permit program, inspecting units, and following up on code
compliance issues as needed.
D. Insufficient Off - Street Parking
The suburban setting of the City of Orange and Chapman University, along with the general
demographics of the Chapman student population, create the need for students to rely on personal
vehicles and also the likelihood that individual students will have their own cars. The high level
of student vehicles serves as part of the basis for the City's dormitory parking requirements, and
the overall parking needs for Chapman University. While many students who live off - campus
may walk or bike to class, it is probable that their personal vehicle is parked at their residence.
The City's parking requirements for single - family residences and apartments are based on traffic
industry standards for typical household size and composition. In response to residential parking
demand concerns, in 2008 the Orange City Council adopted changes to the City's parking
standards. Specifically, for homes with 5 or more bedrooms or the addition of bedrooms to existing
homes undertaken after adoption of the Code changes, one additional enclosed parking space
became required. Adjustments were also made to the apartment parking requirements to provide
0.2 guest spaces per unit in addition to the base parking required for the individual unit types.
These Code changes were generated, in part, as a reaction to household conditions with driving
age children adding to the number of vehicles associated with a single - family residence, as well as
scenarios were multiple unrelated adults live together. These Code changes, however, did not take
into consideration student- oriented households, as the student housing impact on Orange
neighborhoods had not risen to the level the community currently experiences. Therefore, the
Code amendment did not capture the living arrangements and number of vehicles present at many
single- and multi - family residences that exist today.
Representative cities have adopted the following strategies for addressing the parking needs of
dwelling units with high bedroom counts:
City of Riverside:
• Requires an additional open parking space for each bedroom including and
exceeding 5 (i.e., 1 -4 bedrooms per the single- family residence parking
requirement, then additional spaces for bedroom #5 and beyond).
9
City of Davis:
Requires one additional covered parking space for dwellings with 5 or more
bedrooms.
City of San Diego:
• Requires one off - street parking space per occupant 18 years or older, less one. A
further reduction can be granted for occupants who demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the City Manager that they do not have a driver's license.
Applicability to Orange
In Orange, among the most visible and bothersome aspects of a student house located in a single -
family neighborhood is the high concentration of cars associated with the property, and the
ongoing presence of cars parked on the street not only in front of the subject property, but also in
front of neighboring properties. In some instances cars are commonly parked across the sidewalk
and street corners, obstructing the path of travel for neighborhood pedestrians. These parking
conditions stem from the fact that parking standards for single- family dwellings and apartments
are based on what a "typical" household composition might be for that particular type of unit.
Therefore, the parking required for any given dwelling unit in Orange does not anticipate a high
concentration of adults with individual vehicles occupying the unit, and forces residents to park
on the street. It is not unusual for garage space and driveway space to also have limited capacity
for accommodating a number of vehicles. Over - parking at a given property and reliance on
curbside parking results in a perceived change in the quality and character of neighborhoods. Poor
parking behavior also fosters feelings of ill will among neighborhood residents.
Amending the City's parking standards to require additional off - street parking would address
newly created high bedroom count residences.
Pros:
• The amount of parking required for a unit would be more representative of the potential
parking demand for the residence.
A requirement for additional off - street parking could function to limit the bedroom count
in an individual residence.
Cons:
• The parking requirement for residences with high bedroom counts would be applicable on
a citywide basis, regardless of whether or not the residence was a student household, or
rental property.
• Parking requirements based on the age of the resident and vehicle ownership would be
difficult to track and enforce:
H
Options for Consideration:
Staff is seeking direction from the Council on the following options:
Dl. Amend the City's residential parking standards to require additional parking beyond the
current cap of one additional space for a single- family residence with 5 or more
bedrooms. A new approach could require additional covered or open parking on a sliding
scale after a residence for residences with more than 5 bedrooms. The new standards
would be applicable to existing houses where additional bedrooms are being created
through either an interior remodel or house addition, or a brand new residence.
D2. Amend the City's multi - family residential parking standards to require additional parking
on a sliding scale for units with more than 3 bedrooms. Presently, the City's multi - family
parking requirement does not specify higher parking requirements for units with more
than 3 bedrooms.
E. Property and Neighborhood Degradation
The presence of one or more student - occupied houses in single- family neighborhoods has proven
to result in property and neighborhood degradation. Problems result from a combination of
absentee landlords, the transient nature of student tenants and lower levels of neighborhood
stewardship associated with this transiency, routine move -in /move -out activity and related
disposal of household items, and the lifestyle commonly associated with college life. It is not
uncommon to find unwanted furniture, beverage containers, and other items in the front yards and
parkways of residences occupied by students. Similarly, it is not uncommon to find deferred
building and landscape maintenance at student properties due to the fact that students living on a
short -term basis at a house or apartment may be less likely to pursue property maintenance issues
with their landlords or the City's Code Compliance staff.
As noted in Issue 2 above, strategies adopted by the City of San Diego and Bloomington, IN
include the annual inspection of High Occupancy Residences. This inspection serves to confirm
the living conditions at the property, and also provides the City the opportunity to observe and
address any other property maintenance issues. Other jurisdictions with high student populations
have instituted residential rental registration and inspection programs for all rental units in their
cities with the objective of protecting neighborhood stability and character, and address
neighborhood and property maintenance.
As an alternative or supplement to City regulations, there are a number of universities that have
significant student outreach programs related to property maintenance issues. Representative
strategies include:
• Freshman orientation efforts including student and their parents requiring attendance at a
"Community Session" that emphasizes expectations for student behavior in
neighborhoods, and accountability for on- and off - campus behavior.
• University - affiliated neighborhood patrols (university staff, students groups, or
fraternities /sororities) with concentrations of student housing to proactively remove trash
or furniture from the front yard of property.
• Outreach information for students about how to avoid bad landlords, and how to address
property maintenance issues with their landlords.
• Presence of a university -based community liaison to address student /neighborhood issues
and landlord issues.
Applicability to Orange
Student and landlord awareness and accountability are at the root of the property and neighborhood
degradation issue in Orange. Mechanisms for student education, university participation in
cleanup activities, and open lines of communication between neighborhood residents and the
university may all benefit the quality and stabilization of neighborhood character, as well as town -
gown relations.
Pros:
• Registration of rental units and annual unit inspections provide the City with the
opportunity to observe unit occupancy and building conditions, and identify potential life
and safety issues, illegal conversion of interior space or accessory structures to bedrooms,
and potential violation of the Boarding House Ordinance.
• Student outreach efforts could be initiated or refined at Chapman University, placing a
greater emphasis on good neighbor relations in the form of student education and
neighborhood patrols at no direct cost to the City of Orange.
Cons:
• Residential registration and inspection programs would place significant additional
demand on Building and Code Compliance staff, due to the significant number of rental
units in the City. This type of program would involve the need to increase staffing levels
and creation of a new function with dedicated staff.
Options for Consideration:
While no City Council direction is necessary. Chapman University already has a student education
and community relations program. However, City and University representatives have discussed
enhancing the program that includes many of the items identified above.
CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY EFFORTS
In response to neighborhood concerns, Chapman University has implemented a number of
measures to increase the accountability of student behavior while they are off - campus. Attached
to this report is a communication from Harold Hewitt, Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer that provides a summary of the measures that have been implemented since the
start of the 2015 fall semester. In summary, Chapman has been fining students for off - campus
behavior and established a progressive discipline program, established the Neighborhood
Advisory Committee, and established a new position of Vice President of Community Relations.
12
CONCLUSION
The effects of the student presence in Orange neighborhoods is complex, and will therefore require
a multifaceted, and collaborative approach on the part of the City and Chapman University. As
such, staff continues to work closely with the University and is actively participating on the
Chapman Neighborhood Advisory Committee to identify strategies for addressing neighborhood
concerns. Staff is seeking direction from the City Council as to the preferred approach to Code
amendments and /or development of new ordinances for Council consideration based on the
options presented in this report.
It should also be noted that in conjunction with potential refinements to the Orange Municipal
Code, Chapman University recognizes that one of the solutions to student housing impacts is the
creation of additional on- campus housing opportunities so that there is less reliance on the City's
private housing stock. Staff is actively engaged with the University on efforts to bring forward
additional dormitory beds on Chapman -owned infill sites in the months ahead.
8. ATTACHMENTS
1. Communication from Chapman University
2. Chapman University Code of Conduct — Article III: Jurisdiction of the University & Conduct
Regulations
N. ^CDDTLNG \Ordinance Amendments Student FIousing \CC_Rpt_2_9_16_ REV ISED.docx
13