HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/2007, COMMUNICATION - COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- RENTAL INSPECTIONS RED FILE - . Page 1 of 4
MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED
t DATE ITEM #
Hampian, Ken FEB 2 0 2001
From: Carter, Andrew SLO CITY
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:11 PM IP COUNCIL , p DD DIR
'9 CAO r, FIN DIR
To: Romero, Dave; Settle, Allen; Brown, Paul; Mulholland, Christine .W ACAO IF FIRE CHIEF
Cc: Hampian, Ken ATTORNEY iC PW DIR
CLERK'ORIG Pi POLICE CHF
Subject: Council Communication -- Rental Inspections ❑ DEPT HEADS R REC DIR
4A FLQ 9, UTIL DIR
Fellow council members, pTR/ Mvd p HR DIR
,e 8� G
Attached is the e-mail communication engendered by the questions I raised about the recent Broad Street Fire.
(In that communication, I also brought up the Fredricks Street fire which occured a few years ago in an illegally
converted garage.)
I plan to bring up the subject of code enforcement and rental inspection during council communication this week.
Here are the questions, I plan to raise:
1) Is Council interested in revisiting the issue of pro-actively inspecting onesie-twosie rental properties across the
city? Our current rental inspection ordinance addresses 3+ properties only, yet onesie-twosie rentals are, in my
mind,the greater public safety issue.
This revisiting could take place as part of the budget development behind the recently approved major goal of
Neighborhood Wellness which reads, "Increase building and zoning code enforcement to promote neighborhood
wellness and community appearance." It could also be taken up as a separately agendized topic at a future
council meeting.
2) Is Council interested in reviewing our current non-fine based approach to code enforcement?
Here are the two questions I might raise: A) If there are no fines and few inspections, what is the incentive for
onesie-twosie property owners to take action unless they are caught? Right now, there's no penalty for doing
nothing. B) Even if the general policy is no fines, should fines be levied after a fire or other"life safety event"
caused by a code violation?
In thinking about these questions, I'd ask you to consider if your responses would be different if there had, in fact,
been fatalities in the Broad Street fire.
See you Tuesday.
Andrew Carter
Council Member
2/19/2007 — - -
Page 2 of 4
From: Girvin, Tim
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:11 PM
To: Hampian, Ken; Carter, Andrew
Cc: Mandeville, John; Callahan, John; Wright, Don; Davidson, Doug
Subject: RE: Broad Street Fire
Attached is a summary prepared by Don Wright, Assistant Building Official. It is complete and concise, however, I
would like to expand on a few of the responses. ,
In general, it seems that one question being asked is; Can we fine these violators just for having code violations?
This is typically not the strategy used to gain code compliance. Even in Azusa, one of the more restrictive
communities regarding their rental inspection program and code enforcement efforts,they would first inspect the
property, then write up the code violations, allow a prescribed amount of time to achieve compliance and then
only after re-inspection to verify code compliance was not achieved would they fine the property owner and only
for the items that did not get repaired. This is how code enforcement matters are dealt with throughout most, if
not all, of the communities in the State. Achieving code compliance is different.than regulating the speeding
laws. When you are caught speeding, you get a ticket; when there is non-compliance of the codes you get a
chance to achieve compliance. If you fail to comply,then the Code.Enforcement Officer may issue an
Administrative Citation, or refer the matter to the City Attorney for prosecution. A brochure was created several
years ago entitled Administrative Citations &Other Enforcement Tools. It may be helpful for members of City
Council to review this brochure to gain an understanding of what the City can do to enforce our regulations. I will
make sure copies are available in the council reading file.
There are other fees assessed once an enforcement action is underway however, these are not meant to be
punitive fines,they were enacted by council as a means of cost recovery.
1) Permit fees are doubled for building permits to bring the property into compliance, and
2) When an owner is uncooperative and we send a second notice, they are assessed a code enforcement fee of
$273.00.
Another issue pointed out in the e-mail is possible mandatory inspections of one and two family dwelling units that
are rentals. When our current rental inspection program was prepared, there were provisions in the original staff
report to allow for the option to inspect these types of rentals. It was a very controversial matter, with much
opposition from the Property Owners Association and the local property managers. It was a very costly program
as well. At that time, Council took action to refine our rental inspection ordinance to only provide for inspection
of three or more dwelling units and other group housing occupancies as required by law.
Hopefully this provides a little insight into what we can do (or not do).
Tim Girvin
Chief Building Official
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Ph. 805-781-7159
Fax. 805-781-7182
2/19/2007
MEMO
TO: Tim Girvin
FROM: Don Wright
SUBJECT: 2443 Broad —Structure fire
DATE: 02/13/07
The fire in the early morning hours of Tuesday, Feb. 6 was a tragic event that we all
wish we could have prevented or, now, that we could make an impression on the
property owner to discourage future,' similar problems. Fortunately, no one was injured.
It's true that we have responded, over.the last 10+ years to 4 different complaints.
Three of those were unfounded however— 1 for work without a permit and 2 for high
occupancy use (more than 5 adults). There were no violations verified. One case (in
1996) was for someone living in a storage shed. The property owner was notified, the
shed vacated and the violation cleared.
I learned of the fire when I spoke with John Madden of the Fire Department first thing
Tuesday morning. He told me that the fire had started in a ceiling light fixture where a
wire had been pulled through a punched-out hole in the sheet metal housing. This must
be the "un-permitted work" the newspaper reported. John didn't.mention any other
renovations or additions, but did say1hat there was a couch blocking a door. We
dispatched a building inspector that morning to inspect the premises and post the
property "Unsafe to Enter".
At this point, the condition of the building is such that it will be classified as a
"dangerous building" and we will be issuing a "Notice and Order" to demolish. This is
the actual enforcement history of this property and the fact is that on at least 2
occasions, I was inside the house myself and there were no visible violations. It's
possible that, between the time of the last complaint (April of 2003) and the fire last
week, that illegal work had taken place, but we have no evidence to that effect.
In response to the numbered questions:
1. The Administrative Citation ordinance is intended to be used as a tool to obtain
compliance with the law, in the event that we are not able to achieve "voluntary
compliance". It was not adopted to be imposed like a fine. When violations are
identified they are corrected. If they are not corrected within the prescribed
amount of time, then an admin'istrative citation would be in order. In this case,
the violation that now exists is a dangerous building and that is what we will
pursue.
2. The same manner of enforcing the law applies to the Fredericks Street case.
The building was ordered to be demolished.
3. The Code Enforcement division, Neighborhood Services team and all associated
departments are, and have been, actively involved for a few years now in
generating and reviewing ideas for more proactive programs and procedures for
code enforcement. The idea of regular rental inspections was passed on once
by the City Council. Now several other possibilities are being examined and, with
increased revenue, are expected to be implemented this year.
4. We have no legitimate reason to believe that there was a high occupancy
violation on this property at this time. (2 previous allegations were determined to
be unfounded)
From: Callahan, John
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 20.._ ::22 PM
To: Hampian, Ken
Cc Mandeville, John; Girvin,Tim
Subject: RE: Last Night's Broad Street Fire
Ken,there have been complaints and investigations going back about 10 years.They were all in the purview of
Code Enforcement and the Building Dept. None were for Fire Code violations. It appears from the paperwork that
they were followed upon, but I would defer to Tim Girvin as to what is in the files in each office. Let me know if
you want me to pursue this further.
John C
From: Hampian, Ken
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:01 PM
To: Carter, Andrew
Cc: Council—ALL; Callahan, John; Stanwyck, Shelly; Mandeville, John; Lowell, Jonathan P
Subject: RE: Last Night's Broad Street Fire
By copy of this reply, I am asking the Fire.Chief to respond (in consultation with the City
Attorney), and advising other Council members of these good questions.
From: Carter, Andrew
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:10 PM
To: Hampian, Ken , •
Subject: Last Night's Broad Street Fire
•
Ken, ����
I'm sending this to you although it probably is more appropriately directed to the Fire Chief.
The Tribune article on last night's Broad Street fire reports in part:
'Several unlicensed additions and renovations made the fire difficult to chase and extinguish...."
"The house's front door was blocked shut, and a refrigerator partially blocked the rear exit where the blaze
started. There were no working smoke detectors."
"The owner of the home lives in Arizona."
1) What fines or enforcement action are planned here for the obvious code violations?
2)What fines or enforcement actions were taken with respect to the Fredricks Street fire about two years ago in
an illegal garage conversion?
3) In our discussion last month on code enforcement for 3+dwelling unit facilities, we completely lost track of
the bigger issue of onesie-twosie rentals throughout town, often with absentee owners (like here). What plans do
we have, if any, to tackle this issue?
4) Was there a high occupancy violation here? From the newspaper's descriptions,there were at least five adults
in the house (which is legal without a permit). I can't tell if there were more.
I imagine this topic and the questions I raise might be of interest to the entire Council.
Thanks.
Andrew Carter
Council Member