The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-07-2017 Item 09 Public Hearing - Introduce an Ordinance Repealing Chapter 15.10 Rental Housing Inspection Program Meeting Date: 3/7/2017 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Anne Schneider, PE, Chief Building Official Teresa Purrington, Code Enforcement Supervisor SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 15.10 RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM OF TITLE 15 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RECOMMENDATION Introduce an Ordinance to repeal Chapter 15.10 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code regarding Rental Housing Inspection. DISCUSSION Background For 2013-15 a Major City Goal included a more detailed focus on developing an inspection program on rental properties. In 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1616 establishing the current Rental Housing Inspection Program (RHIP). The City Council conducted a Community Forum on February 16, 2017. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Council provided direction to staff to suspend all initial inspections pursuant to the RHIP. Staff was also directed to return to City Council with an ordinance to repeal the RHIP. An ordinance to repeal Chapter 15.10 is attached for Council’s consideration (Attachment A). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. The project is exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines under the General Rule Section 15061(b)(3). FISCAL IMPACT The RHIP was intended to be revenue neutral for the City after the initial investment to establish the program. As such, a revenue stream was identified to support the program, which included annual registration by all participating properties and a specific fee collected at the time of inspection of the dwelling unit. A general fund subsidy of $308,764 was budgeted for the first year (i.e. these were the expenditures projected to be above program revenues). Expenditures included the Capital Improvement cost of $153,750 for three fleet vehicles and construction cost to add space for four new staff members at 919 Palm. Packet Pg. 109 9 The revenue collected for Year 1 was $242,046, which was greater than projected because of better than expected compliance with the initial registration requirement. This information was used to update assumptions about program revenues and expenditures for the 2015-17 Financial Plan supplement (current fiscal year budget). Based on updated information, the second year budgeted subsidy was projected to be $17,645. General fund subsidies were expected to be returned to the General Fund, or reimbursed, over time. FY 15-16 Budget – Yr 1 FY 16-17 Budget – Yr 2 Revenue $146,150 $445,000 Expenditures $454,914 $462,645 General Fund Subsidy $308,764 $17,645 Invoices for registration for the second program year would normally have been issued in January, however, staff delayed sending these invoices pending City Council review of the program. Actual revenue for the 2016-17 Fiscal Year to date is $148,288, and expenditures are $261,221 through February 24, 2017. The full amount of budgeted revenue for the 2016-17 fiscal year will not be realized and will result in a greater general fund subsidy. The following table consolidates the program budget across the 2015-17 Financial Plan, with revenue and expenditures to date. 2015-17 Budget 2015-17 Actual (through 2/24/17) Variance Revenue $591,150 $390,334 ($200,816) Expenditures $917,559 $599,414 $318,145 General Fund Subsidy $326,409 $209,080 $117,329 The table above shows that program expenditures exceed revenues through February 24, 2017, by $209,080. The total General Fund support for the program has been budgeted at $326,409, leaving about $117,329 available to conclude program operations within the budgeted subsidization from the general fund. Expenditures through the end of the fiscal year toward these activities will be monitored not to exceed this amount. As previously mentioned, this amount was to be returned to the General Fund through program operations over time. With the repeal of the RHIP, there will be no revenue available to reimburse the General Fund for the initial program operating costs. However, there are three new fleet vehicles and four workstations (computers and phones) that may be reallocated to offset future expenditures in other General Fund programs. Attachments: a - Ordinance - Repeal of RHIP Packet Pg. 110 9 O _____ ORDINANCE NO. XXXX (2017 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING CHAPTER 15.10 OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION WHEREAS, on May 19, 2015, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo adopted Ordinance No. 1616 (2015 Series) establishing the Rental Housing Inspection Program (the “Program”) which became effective on June 18, 2015, and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to repeal the Program based on community feedback and changed values of the Council since the original adoption of the Program. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The project is exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). SECTION 2. Chapter 15.10 of Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, entitled Rental Housing Inspection, is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the ayes and noes shall be published at least five days prior to its final passage in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said City, and the same shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and passage to print and shall be available to any member of the public. Packet Pg. 111 9 Ordinance No. ----- (2017 Series) Page 2 O _____ INTRODUCED on the ____ day of ____________ 20__, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of 20__, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ______________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 112 9 Recommendation e Introduce an Ordinance to repeal Chapter 15.10 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code regarding Rental Housing Inspection Community Development Code Enforcement Priorities , City Council Meeting - March 7, 2017 C-9 3/8/2017 1 Recommendation Receive a presentation on the status of code enforcement activities in the Community Development Department. • Provide direction on development of revised code enforcement priorities. Current Enforcement Activity As of March 1, 2017 0 238 open code cases • 186 for substandard housing, building code, and zoning ordinance violations (4 from rental housing inspections) • 48 for violations of property maintenance standards Officers average 78 open cases each • Technicians average 48 open cases each 3/8/2017 2 Code Enforcement Activities Opened/Closed Cases by Year 1136 1113 1026 1017 llxl 865 NrHI 779 793 788 695 704 [HHV 4011 _1H1 d 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ■ Cases Opened Cases Closed # of Violations by Type in FY15-16 602 282 95 83 Y M v 1 5 tp �ml d b°a 1J0 qai� c � v 62 U 5 z �t ►�tx Y 3/8/2017 3 Process for NEO Violations Violation Found and voluntarily Resolved in 10 days EM Violation Found not Resolved in 10 days 10 days Violation Found not Resolved in 20 days 10 days 10 days Process for Building/Zoning Violations Violation Found and Voluntarilv Resolved in 30 days 30 days Violation Found not Resolved but slaking progress 30 days 30 days 30 days 3/8/2017 4 Average per month FY15-16 Requests 11 46 Opened Cases 9 60 Closed Cases 14 60 Active Cases 78 24 "Consult" Level of Public Engagement? ■ Outlined in the Public Engagement and Noticing Manual ■ Staff would meet with community over proposed changes an new initiatives e�cuwM El Meda k�arm � Un1 abo ❑ u�.,ronln+egalHraqu��a� ❑ Sa Wl nKdw M nPPktaw and -NI b.) �oonnN.. ❑ UMIIk Lwwglnseat—sl -Y ❑ xwae:d --y ❑ T.& -ph— —y ❑ SWdysoV n ❑ F -. group ❑ SP -1 events vMh ogpert 11 s lar mlcfa w ❑ A--.,swalk ❑ Opm city Hat Imeb b-4 ❑ HBIpIdalhood—ObW 3/8/2017 5 What Should Staff Focus On To Replace RHIP? ■ Safe housing certificate ■ Education program focused on tenant/landlord rights and responsibilities ■ Amnesty program with reduced permitting cost as an incentive to make corrections ■ Revamp complaint based code enforcement process Cost Recovery To Fund New Programs/Approaches? ■ Focused Code Enforcement Is Prescriptive code enforcement process for properties that require more than one Notice to bring property into compliance a Licensed contractors who do work without permits t Repeat violation within a 12 month period • Increase Administrative Citation fine for Building Code and Zoning Ordinance violations. • Currently 1`r admin Citation $100, 2°d $200, 3rd and subsequent $500 3/8/2017 M Should staff consider making certain fines mandatory? • Unsecured buildings — accessible to transients or unauthorized persons • Substandard housing — no water, heat, living/sleeping in areas not designed for habitation (garage/shed/crawl spaces) • Illegal/unpermitted construction (in progress) ■ Illegal dumping Are there any types of violations that the City Council does not consider a priority? Garage conversions/non-habitable space to residential use • Unpermitted residential in commercial building • Commercial business in a residential zone • Vacation rentals ■ Animals (chickens/roosters) • Fence height • Illegal signage 3/8/2017 7 Recommendation • Receive a presentation on the status of code enforcement activities in the Community Development Department. • Provide direction on development of revised code enforcement priorities. Council. Direction Item #1: Does the City Council support the use of the "Consult" level of public engagement to gain feedback from the public on revised code enforcement priorities and approaches to achieving compliance with standards and regulations? Item #2: Are there specific code enforcement programs /approaches that the Council would like staff to focus on or exclude during the effort to revise priorities, with the baseline being the ideas presented at the February 16, 2017 workshop or that have otherwise emerged? 3/8/2017 III Council Direction Item #3: Does the City Council wish to evaluate modifying existing enforcement tools to promote health and safety objectives. including changing the City's cost recovery objectives for code enforcement? Increased cost recovery associated widkits code enforcement activities could be a way of supporting current or additional proactive approaches, such as renter/property owner education efforts, or to support program staffing. 11 Council Direction Item #4: Should mandatory fuzes be associated with violations rather than using discretion to determine when to issue: a citation and collect a tine? Item #5: The City's experience with respect to the most common types of violations will inform the priorities it proposes to the City Council in the future. Are there any types of violations that the City Council does not consider a priority for enforcement? 3/8/2017 01 Priority One (Initial response 24 hours) • Unsecured buildings — accessible to transients or unauthorized persons • Substandard housing — no water, heat, living/sleeping in areas not designed for habitation (garage/shed/crawl spaces) • Illegal/unpermitted construction (in progress) R Discharge of sewage • Faulty/hazardous electrical It Gas leaks/smell • Hazardous waste/illicit discharge • Attractive nuisances • Hoarding • Illegal dumping (in progress, otherwise P3) Priority Two (Initial response 2 days) ■ Illegal/unpermitted construction (completed) • Garage conversions/non-habitable space to residential use • Unpermitted residential in commercial building • Automotive repair/ commercial business in residential zone • Grading without a permit ■ Interior infestation • Noise 3/8/2017 10 Priority Three (Initial response 3 days) ■ Code Enforcement • Operating a business without a license • Commercial business in a residential zone • Vacation rentals ■ Animals (chickens/roosters) • Animal waste accumulation • Fence height • Exterior infestation • Neighborhood Enhancement • Yard Parking ■ Overgrown vegetation ■ Abandoned/inoperable vehicles (on private property) ■ Waste containers (storage/time on street) • Illegal signage • Visible storage/ furniture on the roof 3/8/2017 11