HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-2014 SS1 QuaglinoCOUNCIL MEETING:
ITEM NO.. S S 1
Christian, Kevin
From: Mejia, Anthony — -
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:58 PM
ECT1�7
To: Christian, Kevin
Subject: FW: Rental husing inspection program ��)�
From: Matt Quaglino [mailto:mq @quaglino.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:52 PM
To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan;
'ksmith @slocity.org'; Mejia, Anthony; Rivoire, Dan
Cc: Lease, Joseph; Johnson, Derek
Subject: Rental husing inspection program
Sorry for the late input however, I was not aware the council and staff was studying this program. I know you are all
busy so I will be brief.
Fire Inspection program:
1. Property owners are required under a federal mandate to perform and pay the cost of quarterly, annual and
five year inspections on all fire systems within the city. These reports are then provided to the city. Any required
repair or maintenance is reported and the necessary work completed and verified by re- inspection. The
inspections are completed by a licensed fire inspection company.
2. We are required by county health to perform annual inspections of all back flow devices including fire double
detector check valves. I assume the city received as copy of the reports.
3. The inspections of sprinklers systems by the fire department is redundant. Property owners have always
been required to perform fire sprinkler system inspections above and beyond the mandated fire department
inspections.
Rental Housing Inspections
1. 1 am in agreement that we need to deal with the issue of unsafe living conditions, unpermitted additions,
building modifications that violate code compliance as well as dilapidated rental housing units. There is a
considerable amount of abuse, mostly in single family residences.
2. 1 believe granting an exemption to newer buildings is necessary however 3 — 5 years is short, I believe it should
be 10 —15 years. As a property owner the last thing I would want to do is destroy a building by modifying it in
some illegal fashion, a reasonable property owner would simply not do it. We own and manage many studio
and one bedroom units in multi- tenant buildings, there is very little a person can do to modify 600 /sf.
3. If it is decided that all multifamily complexes be inspected consider an initial inspection to establish compliance.
If the complex passes consider re- inspection every 7 years + - or annual mail in self- inspection to verify
continued compliance.
4. Consider a self - performed inspection or questionnaire of newer units, hold the property owner responsible for
not reporting gross violations, a large fine would go a long way in keeping property owners honest that are not
returning accurate reports.
5. Allow those that self- report violations amnesty in the form of reasonable time to make necessary corrections,
to be verified by re- inspection by the city.
6. How would the city handle larger multi- tenant properties, as example how do you gain access to 30 units, the
idea of coordinating access to 30 units on the same day is unreasonable and a definite burden on the tenants.
7. If the city performs an exterior inspection only of a 30 unit complex do they charge $98 /unit ($2,940), that
would not be reasonable charge to walk the exterior of a complex?
8. Consider mailing rental houses a tenant questionnaire, a simple check the box form, for example, is there a
garage converted to a bedroom at your rental, do you have a functioning heat source at your rental, How many
unrelated parties live at your rental. It could be a simple form, easily completed and anonymous. could also ask
neighbors to report known violation within their neighborhoods with the same form. I realize there would be
those that would not return a form knowing it may disrupt their living arrangement but I believe many
would. This process would save staff a considerable amount of time by being directed to the known violations
first.
9. Combine the fire department inspections with the building department inspections, it should lower costs and
lessen the burden on tenants and property owners.
10. Consider the fact that most landlords will pass the inspection cost to the tenant, either directly or
indirectly, that is inevitable.
I believe there are many tenants in SLO, mostly students that have no choice but to put up with substandard living
conditions at the hands of those that focus only on the income and do as little as possible to maintain their properties,
that is wrong and should be dealt with. I have heard of landlords illegally converting a two bedroom homes to five
bedrooms and charging up to $800 per bedroom, those are the type of issues that need to be addressed.
I sincerely believe we all want to accomplish the same goal; safer, code compliant rental units, I am on board with the
concept. I only ask that it not be done at the expense of those that are compliant and have no intentions of violating
code compliance or providing unsafe living conditions. Concentrate on the known violators and ask tenants and
neighbors to participate in reporting known violations. A well thought out program can make a difference.
Thank you for your consideration.
Matt Quaglino
0, llaa ilno Matthew Quaglino
'PROPERTIES P' 805.543 -0561 F: 805.543 -0214
www.yugglino.com