The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-16-2014 SS1 UpdegroveCOUNCIL MEETING: ITEM NO.: __5P51 . Christian, Kevin From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:50 PM To: Christian, Kevin Subject: FW: Proposed Rental Inspection Ordinance Attachments: Rental Inspection Ordinance Presentation Feb 27 2014 (3).pdf From: Graham Updegrove [mailto:graham @slohomehelp.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:46 PM To: Rivoire, Dan; Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn Cc: Mejia, Anthony Subject: Proposed Rental Inspection Ordinance Council Members, DEC 16 2014 As a real estate broker and resident of San Luis Obispo, I wanted to provide a few thoughts and questions after having reviewed the staff report for the proposed Rental Inspection Ordinance. 1. What is the end goal the City is trying to accomplish by instituting a rental inspection ordinance? I believe much of the impetus in the push for an ordinance is student housing in particular and most of the issues that arise are behavioral issues (i.e. parties, loud noise, high occupancy) that will not be solved by a rental inspection ordinance. 2. If the goal is to improve neighborhood wellness, why would any properties within the City's jurisdiction be exempt? As a real estate broker, I have been in many homes in the City, both owner occupied and renter occupied. Every now and then, I do see properties that would violate state housing law however the notion that owner occupied properties do not have some of the same health and safety concerns as rental properties is unfounded. An ordinance that targets rental properties owners only is unfair, perhaps discriminatory and ill - conceived. As elected leaders, I request that if you direct staff to pursue an inspection ordinance that you would set the precedent and agree to be first on the list of inspections. If you are not willing to allow inspectors into your own home, why make it mandatory upon others? 3. The presentation by Joseph Lease to the SLO Association of Realtors in March 2014 referenced a total of 772 total violations during 2013, only a portion of which were related to property maintenance; 69 in particular related to property maintenance (Presentation attached for your convenience, Page 9 of the Powerpoint). In the staff report, a similar chart shows a total 1,449 violations, of which 850 were related to property maintenance. This is a huge disparity. I would like to know the correct number of violations and what the reason is for such a large difference between the two reports. 4. The staff report states there are approximately 12,700 rental dwelling units in the City. What is the definition of a rental dwelling unit? It appears this figure encompasses all "beds" within the city not specifically owner occupied, a figure which includes all hotel rooms, motel rooms, hostels, bed and breakfasts, senior facilities and more. I contend that a good portion of the 12,700 dwelling units are hospitality related and the 62% percentage of rentals being used is overstated. Can we get a further breakdown of the 12,700 rental units to obtain a more accurate figure? 5. How effective have the neighborhood specialists been since being hired in early 2012? It seems that these individuals, who were hired to be pro - actively walking neighborhoods should have referred many cases of suspected violations to Code Enforcement. Has their performance and /or number of violations corrected as a result of the additional City staff been reviewed? 6. Mandatory rental inspections do not create Neighborhood Wellness. Community outreach and discussion, education and perhaps financial assistance to property owners (whether landlords or owner occupants) who want to repaif'rfeaTt sa fty concerns bUt have a verifled-finandal-fiardsli p 1p improve Neighbor liood Wellness. There are a lot of unanswered questions on this issue and I hope the City Council is open to exploring other options that may resolve the concerns this proposed ordinance is expected to accomplish. Thank you for your time. Regards, Graham Updegrove Broker Associate, BRE #1873454 Wilson and Company Sotheby's International Realty 3590 Broad Street, Suite 130, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 graham @slohomehelp.com I www.slohomehelp.com c: 805 459 1865 1 f: 805 888 2538 Residential Rental Housing Inspection Program Project Plan 1 Survey and review existing rental housing programs in other cities 2 Community outreach with stakeholders to receive input and consider various viewpoints 3. Council Workshop to receive policy direction 4 Development of a proposed Program for presentation to stakeholder groups 5 Council Consideration of proposed program Ordinance Budget Implementation Plan 12/16/2014 2013 -15 Major City Goal — Enhance Neighborhood Wellness • �I t fdi f ( t ■ Pursue a Rental Housing Inspection Program • npiov: .k t n ricrease public f t f -i t ; up pc, i t o e ig n bu i h led I t I (D., 0 • A significant portion of the housing units in the City of San Luis Obispo, are rentals: • Total dwelling units = 20,553 • 62 %, or 12,743, of them are rentals • 38% or 7,810 are owner occupied • Statewide the rental rate is 43 % of the housing stock 1 Trending to Rentals „[ Proportion or Rentals city or San 1 uu obbpu pe MW+J y ^' p ern Inspection Points (Interior) Substandard Plumbing Hot & Cold Running Water Electrical Hazards Heating Facilities Unsafe Mechanical Equipment Unsanitary Conditions • General dilapidation • Inadequate Exits Fire Hazards Infestation Smoke /CO2 Detectors Inadequate Weather Protection Structural Hazards Unpermitted Construction Illegal Dwelling Units /Conversions Zoning Violations High Occupancy 12/16/2014 What is a Residential Rental Inspection Program? Asyslamst c program that Includes the period lc inspection of rental properties to insure compliance with Stale and Loral Housing, Building, Fire amt Zoning Lades Purpose and Goals: Provide for safe, livable and aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods Promote public health and safety by the elimination of substandard conditions Promote community standards for maintenance of properties Inspection Points (Exterior) Roof Stairways Visible address numbers Electrical panels Foundation vent screens Storage of debris in yards Overgrown vegetation Screened trashcans Inoperable vehicles Exits Water Heaters Infestation Fire Hazards 2 12/16/2014 Reactive Code Enforcement SLO's Existing Fire Inspection Program Violations - 2013 • Annual inspections of multi - family rentals woi,it�'r>r. (Ca Health & Sarbk Code; Sec, 13146.2(a) Substandard Housing 194 Purpose: To insure compliance with State Fire Safety requirements. Sims & Encroachment l9 L • Scope of Inspections: Unpermitted Construction 115 Fire alarm systems • Fire sprinkler systems Land Use /Zoning 112 Fire extinguishers Occupancy Violations 79 Inspection of common areas for fire hazards, exiting, and fire access issues Property Maintenance 69 • Fire inspectors do not inspect the interior of all units. Miscellaneous 12 They typically spot check vacant units and conduct interior inspections if Fire Code violations are TOTALVIOLATIONS 772 suspected CITY OF SqD LUIS 1t OBISPO Survey of Rental Housing Inspection Programs Survey Results — Frequency of Inspection Existing programs were surveyed in the Following twelve cities: Inspection Frequency varied: Jurisdiction % Rental Azusa 48% No. Cities Inspection Cycle Berkeley 57% 3 Annual cycle Brentwood 24% County of Contra Costa 31% 1 18 month cycle County of Sacramento 39% 1 Biennial cycle - Hayward 47% 7 3 -7 yr. Cycle - Pittsburg 40% - San Bernardino 49% San Pablo 54% Average: 2,9 years - Santa Cruz 56% - Stockton 48% Rancho Cordova 44% Suggested Best practice: 3 year cycle 3 Survey Results — Scope of Inspections Exterior and Interior Inspections: No. Cities Scope of Inspections 1 Exterior only 6 Interior and Exterior 2 Exterior, but interior if suspected violations 1 Exterior only, except in impacted areas (high crime or blighted areas) 2 No response Suggested Best practice: Interior and Exterior Results — Fees Fees vary widely between jurisdictions, First Inspection: $0 - $272 per Single- family dwelling $0 - $337 + $24 per unit Multi - family Reinspections:_ $0 - $335 per inspection Penalties /Fines (noncompliance): Up to $1000 per violation Suggested Best practice: Initial fees should be low and reinspection fees and fines relatively high so that the financial burden is proportionally borne by owners of poorly maintained properties 12/16/2014 Survey Results — Responsible Department No. Cities Department 9 Community Dev. 2 Police Dept. I City Manager Suggested Best practice: Program in the Community Dev, Dept, Survey Results — Incentives/Disincentives Incentives: • Self- certification after passing initial inspection • Demerit system to determine self - certification period • Low registration fees �. • Training for landlords and tenants • Reduced fines for participation in training Disincentives: • High fines or reinspection fees. • Withhold water, gas, and electric utilities. • Abatement proceedings and legal remedies. Best Practice: A combination of incentives /disincentives. 4 Survey Results — Potential Exemptions 1. Owner - occupied, spouse or immediate family members 2. Units in Mobilehome parks 3. Newly constructed dwellings (3 -5 years) 4. Publicly owned housing 5. Legal second dwelling units. 6. Units governed by HONs rhiff—IT 12/16/2014 Questions, Discussion, Suggestions? ProslCons of a program? Fraqunncy of inspoaVonis? Interior— exterior ? • Exemptions ? Suggested Best Practice: Exemptions 1 -5 above. I I • Seif- Certification? Period? (2,3,6 years) • IncentivesMisincentives