HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-2015 PH1 Rental Housing Inspection ProgramCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Rafael Cornejo, Building and Safety Supervisor
SUBJECT: RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt an Ordinance (Attachment 1) amending Titles 15 of the Municipal Code by adding
Chapter 15.10 establishing a Rental Housing Inspection Program and determining that the
project program is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
15061 (b)(3), 15308, 15309 and 15321; and
2. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 2) establishing fees to implement the Rental Housing
Inspection Program; and
3. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 3) establishing an amnesty program for one year for
properties subject to the proposed Rental Housing Inspection Program who voluntarily
report and abate health and safety violations.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
This Council Agenda Report provides information related to the proposed Ordinance and related
resolutions to implement a Rental Housing Inspection Program (RHIP). The proposed Ordinance
is based on Council direction received at the December 16, 2014 meeting and will establish a
RHIP t o systematically inspect all single and duplex family rental units. Council action is also
being requested on two resolutions. The first Resolution establishes fees for the proposed
program consistent with budget policies for fee recovery as shown in Attachment 5. The City’s
budget policies regarding User Fee Cost Recovery Goals provide that the proposed program
should be paid for by service fees and State law requires that such fees cannot exceed reasonable
program costs. The second Resolution establishes a one year amnesty period for property owners
who voluntarily obtain permits for unpermitted construction prior to any rental inspections or
code enforcement activity.
DISCUSSION
Program Overview
A significant element of the Council’s 2013-15 Neighborhood Wellness Major City Goal was to
pursue the development of a RHIP. Staff began this task by conducting extensive research into
similar programs in other cities throughout California. City staff was able to identify and survey
twenty-five (25) California cities and counties with existing rental housing inspection programs.
In addition, several rental inspection programs were identified in major college towns outside of
California. Each program was reviewed to identify common “best practices” as well as unique or
innovative approaches to implementing and managing a RHIP . Most cities and counties like San
Luis Obispo maintain code enforcement programs to ensure the safety and welfare of their
citizens. Typically, these programs are complaint-based but can be proactive as well. In either
May 5, 2015
PH1
PH1 - 1
Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 2
case, a code enforcement officer will conduct an inspection and, if the code violations are
substantiated, the officer will work with property owners and residents to obtain code
compliance.
Proactive RHIP ’s are different. Under a RHIP program, rental units are required to participate in
a regular, periodic inspection program conducted by trained code compliance staff to ensure that
rental units are safe and habitable and general property maintenance standards are met.
Typically, inspections take place at designated intervals. While the hallmark of proactive rental
inspection programs is that inspections are not complaint-based, localities with proactive rental
inspection programs generally conduct complaint-based inspections too.
As noted, extensive research was conducted to identify common “best practices” as well as
unique approaches to implementing and managing a RHIP in San Luis Obispo. City Staff’s focus
was the scope of inspections, program costs and outcomes. Staff also considered the
comparability of cities with RHIP programs to San Luis Obispo. Results show that, out of the
twenty-five cities and counties surveyed in California, the City of San Luis Obispo and the City
of Los Angeles had the highest rates of rental units, at about 62 percent of available units, as
reported by the 2010 Census. The statewide average rental rate is 43 percent. That means that
there are an estimated 12,700 total rentals. There are estimated to be 8,041 (64%) multifamily
rental units and 4,659 (36%) single-family and/or duplex rental units.
Among those cities with RHIP programs, there is no standard RHIP implementation protocol.
The Council Agenda Report prepared for the December 16, 2014, meeting provides a
comprehensive overview of RHIP programs and the local factors that may influence the
operation of a program in the City. That report is available in the Council reading file and online.
Programs vary according to the types of rental housing in a locality, the needs of the particular
locality, the availability of resources, and (to an extent) State and Federal law.
Despite local variation, however, most programs share a basic program structure, outlined below:
1. Registration. The locality requires property owners to register their rental properties or to
obtain a certificate or license in order to rent housing units.
2. Periodic Inspections. The locality requires periodic inspections of all covered rental
properties. Inspections occur on a periodic basis, usually every few years, to ensure that
the housing is adequately maintained.
3. Compliance. If a property fails inspection, the locality initiates compliance measures.
Local Conditions and Prior Council Direction
The City’s own code enforcement activity shows that the rate of actual code enforcement cases
in R1 and R2 zones was 139 cases per 1,000 units compared to 20 cases per 1,000 in the R3 and
R4 zone districts. R1 and R2 zones accounted for approximately 80% of the total number of code
enforcement cases for residential zones. Therefore, it was recommended to begin with a focused
program to systematically inspect and correct substandard rental housing for single and duplex
family units.
PH1 - 2
Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 3
On December 16, 2014 Council received a presentation from City staff covering RHIP policy
options and, following significant public testimony, provided direction to City staff to return to
the City Council with a draft ordinance to enact a RHIP. Specifically, Council directed staff to
return with a program to implement a systematic inspection of single and duplex rental units that
included both interior and exterior inspections based on a three year inspection cycle, and to
establish fees at full cost recovery level consistent with the City’s adopted policies regarding fee
recovery. Council additionally wanted to provide incentives such as a self-certification program
and provide exemptions for owner occupied rental units, mobile homes, and publicly owned
housing, and to prioritize initial inspections to focus on properties with prior code violations. The
minutes from the December 16, 2014 meeting are included as Attachment 6.
Another key component of the proposed program development was community outreach and
presentations to various resident, neighborhood and stakeholder groups throughout the City, such
as, Alta Vista Neighborhood, Old Town Neighborhood, San Luis Obispo Property and Business
Owners’ Association, the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations. Attachment 9
provides a list of organizations and neighborhood groups consulted prior and since the December
16, 2014 study session. These presentations and discussions provided insight into areas of
concern and staff was able to respond to questions and provide a basis for how components of
other programs were integrated into the proposed Ordinance. For example, developing fees and
incentives for self-certification was a recurring theme in terms of feedback. Lastly, the City used
its new evolving open government portal (i.e. Open City Hall) located at the City’s website to
obtain additional feedback about the proposed program. This feedback is included as Attachment
7.
Overview of Proposed Program
The proposed Ordinance and other program components were drafted based on Council direction
on December 16, 2014. The Ordinance is generally modeled after the program implemented in
the City of Santa Cruz. Staff used the Santa Cruz model because Santa Cruz also houses a large
number of students and the Santa Cruz program included components in which the Council
expressed interest including incentive based provisions for compliant properties without a history
of code violations. Additionally, the Santa Cruz ordinance was recently adopted and
implemented and it was successfully defended in litigation involving multiple bases for
challenge against the City of Santa Cruz (Griffith v. City of Santa Cruz, (2012) 207 Cal. App. 4th
982).
The proposed Ordinance is not a verbatim version of the Santa Cruz ordinance; rather it was
drafted to incorporate those components that withstood challenge in Santa Cruz, while
incorporating Council direction, addressing local needs and resources, and reflecting operational
issues that came up during its implementation in Santa Cruz. The proposed Ordinance was
reviewed by the City Attorney’s office and outside legal counsel that represents the City of Santa
Cruz, as well as by a consultant firm that specializes in developing and implementing rental
housing inspection programs throughout the United States.
The substance of the Ordinance focuses on five main areas. These include 1) Inspection;
Compliance with Applicable Codes and Standards; 2) Registration Application and
PH1 - 3
Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 4
Implementation; 3) Notification and Inspection Procedures; 4) Inspection and Re-inspection; and
5) Self-Certification Program.
1. Inspections
The Inspections; “Compliance with Applicable Codes and Standards” section provides that the
Chief Building Official is authorized to routinely inspect properties for compliance with codes
and standards. The applicable codes and standards are those in effect at the time the rental unit
was constructed, altered, remodeled, or otherwise converted pursuant to a valid permit.
Unpermitted work that is discovered during an inspection will be required to be brought up to
current codes and standards, consistent with otherwise applicable enforcement protocols. If the
unpermitted work cannot be brought up to code, then these unpermitted improvements will need
to be removed.
2. Registration, Application and Implementation
The “Registration, Application and Implementation” section requires owners of single family
and duplex rental units covered in the ordinance to register with the City within 60 days of
January 1, 2016. After that date, all covered units have to register within 30 days of being
acquired, constructed or converted into a residential rental property. Failure to register or
reregister residential rental units is a violation of the Ordinance. Once registered, an invoice for
an annual registration fee will be mailed out with the notice to renew the business license. Initial
implementation of program will occur over a three year cycle with priority given to units that
have a history of code violations in the last five years. Following this initial inspection period,
units will be inspected on a three year cycle from the initial inspection date, unless a unit is part
of the self-certification program.
3. Notification of Inspection and Inspection Procedures
The “Notification of Inspection and Inspection Procedures” section covers the requirements for
notice and process for conducting inspections. A Notice of Inspection will be mailed to the
property owner 15 days prior to the time and date of the scheduled inspection. The Ordinance
places the responsibility on the property owner to provide notice to tenants and to facilitate
access to the units for inspection. Appointments for inspections can be rescheduled once without
penalty and the Ordinance places the responsibility on the owners to reschedule any
appointments. Owners or their agents are required to be present during the inspection and a
consent form will be signed prior to the City physically entering the interior of the premises.
4. Inspection and Re-inspection
The “Inspection and Re-inspection” section provides that the owner shall pay inspection fees in
addition to a registration fee. Inspection fees are due prior to the date of inspection and late
payments will be subject to penalty. Inspection fees cover an initial inspection and one follow-up
inspection. The section also authorizes a re-inspection fee for properties that do not pass an
initial/ follow-up inspection or fail to provide access to a property owner at a noticed time.
PH1 - 4
Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 5
5. Self-Certification
The “Self-Certification Program” section provides an incentive for those owners that have
maintained their rental properties. It is available to property owners whose properties are found
to be in compliance upon initial inspection and have not been subject to prior code enforcement
activity within the last three years. Once the first inspection is made and the property is found
compliant, then the owner is allowed to apply to be in the program and if accepted, then self-
certify for the next three years. If within that three year time a code violation is determined to
exist on the property, the property owner is no longer eligible to participate in the Self-
Certification Program and the property will become subject to the regular inspection cycle and
additional fees and fines may be due.
6. Annual Reporting
Lastly, the Ordinance provides annual reporting. Following the first year of implementation, the
Director shall provide a report to the City Council regarding the administration and efficacy of
the program. Following that time period, the Director will provide annual reports to the City
Council for the next four years. Fees shall be reviewed annually.
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Recommendations.
As the Council considers action on the RHIP, it is important to note the recommended action in
the context of other forthcoming initiatives which will be recommended by Cal Poly, Cuesta, and
City as part of the Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Group (“Civility Group”).
The Civility Group is made up of representatives from student organizations, residents, City, Cal
Poly, and Cuesta College and has been meeting for over one-year to assess issues surrounding
the town/gown relationship (Attachment 8). The mission of the Group is to “Research, identify,
and implement Cal Poly, Council and Cuesta strategies to enhance the quality of life for all
residents with an emphasis on building positive relations between residential and student-aged
neighbors through a cultural shift in social behaviors.” The final work product will include a
series of recommendations and will be produced and released prior to the May 19, 2015 City
Council meeting.
The RHIP is one of dozen actions needed to comprehensively concentrate on Neighborhood
Wellness. The Civility Group’s recommendations will include specific one-time and ongoing
actions to improve enforcement, education, and engagement on many Neighborhood Wellness
related issues.
Implementation and Fees
1. Implementation
Should the RHIP be approved by the City Council, staff would immediately begin the
implementation process. As this is a new program for the City the implementation will be phased
PH1 - 5
Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 6
to allow for the necessary time to hire and train staff as well as develop business processes and
procedures. The approximate timeline for implementation is below:
• July-August, 2015: Hire Code Enforcement Supervisor and Administrative Assistant
positions
• Sept.-Dec., 2015: Develop Rental Inspector job descriptions, inspection checklist,
standard operating procedures, notification and billing system and community outreach
plan
• Jan. 2016: Begin notification, billing and community outreach
• Feb. 2016: Hire and begin training 1st inspector
• Apr. 2016: Begin initial inspections
• July 2016: Hire 2nd inspector
The first cycle is anticipated to take four years to complete given that all units will require an
initial inspection and that the program will begin part way through the first fiscal year.
Subsequent cycles will be three years.
Staff has prepared a series of flow charts to assist both the Council and the public to clearly
understand the sequence of registration, inspection, re-inspection (if required) self-certification
and the projected rate of inspections and revenue generated during the first and second inspection
cycles. The flow charts (Attachment 4) breaks down the sequence or steps to implement the
proposed Ordinance.
2. Fees
Fees have been developed based on the cost of providing the service as well as various
operational assumptions. Moreover, fees were developed in relationship to the cost for service
which incentivizes compliance and acceptance into the self-certification program. Fees will be
revisited on an annual basis to ensure their compliance with cost recovery policies and State
statutes and to address any changes to the operational assumptions. The following tables
represent the proposed fees for the first year of the program and are reflected in the Fee
Resolution included as Attachment 2.
Fee Type Fee Frequency Recommended Fee
Annual Registration Annual $65
Inspection Fee (covers 1st inspection and
one re-inspection)
Once per cycle $185
Self-Certification Fee (if qualified on prior
cycle)
Once per cycle $65
Re-inspection Fee – charged per inspection
for any unit requiring more than
two inspections
As needed $65
PH1 - 6
Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 7
In a typical, three-year cycle with self-certification available the total fees per cycle are
represented in the table below. The figures are based on the proposed first year fees.
Total 3- year
cycle costs
Average annual
cost
Total fees per cycle with self-certification $260 $87
Total fees per cycle without self-
certification
$380 $127
Amnesty
As part of an incentive for those owners who realize that their rental housing property currently
has code violations, an amnesty period of one year will be provided whereby owners can come in
to the Building Division to start the process to obtain the permits (if required) to bring properties
into code compliance without having to pay the additional penalties and additional fees that
would otherwise apply to correcting unpermitted work or substandard conditions. Once this
amnesty period is over, any unpermitted construction and/or code violations will be treated as a
regular code enforcement case and additional penalties and fees will be attached at the time of
permit issuance.
FISCAL IMPACT
The development of an effective Rental Housing Inspection Program for the City will require a
substantial investment of time and resources. Given the City’s budgetary limitations and need for
fiscal prudency, the program will be designed to be fee supported and minimize any significant
financial impacts on the General Fund. However, some initial investment is required and it will
take a minimum of two fiscal years for all expenses to be fully funded by fees.
The following table represents the program costs, projected revenue and net costs for the first
two years of operations.
2015-16 2016-17
Units Inspected 380 860
Staffing costs
(including benefits)
$200,842 $414,874
Other operating
Expenses (fuel,
training, supplies, etc.)
$55,979 $68,679
Total Costs $256,821 $483,553
Projected Revenue $163,185 $388,829
Net Costs ($93,633) ($94,724)
The operating deficit of $188,357 for the first two years was accounted for and included in the
budget documents presented to the City Council at the April 21, 2015 Strategic Budget Direction
City Council meeting.
PH1 - 7
Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 8
On an on-going basis, the program is designed to be fee supported based on assumptions on the
number of units participating in the program and the outcome of inspections. The table below
represents a five year projection after the 2015-17 Financial Plan of the number of units
inspected, expenditures and revenues based on those assumptions and a 3.5% per year increase in
fees to account for projected increases in staffing and program costs.
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Units
Inspected
1240 1240 1116 1116 1116
Expenditures $498,484 $513,870 $529,724 $546,062 $562,895
Revenues $512,560 $530,499 $527,815 $546,288 $565,408
The decrease in units inspected in fiscal year 2019-20 reflects the shift into the second cycle of
the program, an increased number of units passing the initial inspection and the beginning of
units from the first cycle participating in self-certification. Fees and/or operations may require
adjusting at this point to address any changes to the operational assumptions.
There is also an initial capital investment of $203,750 for office conversion, vehicles and
technology which is amortized and included as a part of the on-going program budget. This
capital investment is included as a part of the Capital Improvement Program budget.
CONCURRENCES
The Police, Fire, City Attorney Departments concur with the recommendations in this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Section two of the Ordinance contains findings which declare that it is exempt from review per
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), 15061 (b)(3),
15308, 15309 and 15321.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Amend the proposed ordinance. The City Council may modify the proposed
amendments to the Municipal Code. Specific direction should be given to staff regarding
any modifications.
2. Continue the proposed ordinance. The City Council may continue action, if more
information in needed. Direction should be given to staff regarding additional
information needed to make a decision.
3. Reject the proposed ordinance. The City Council may reject the proposed ordinance.
This is not recommended, as research and best practices for managing rental properties in
a Town/Gown environment suggests that an ordinance is an effective tool for supporting
neighborhood wellness initiatives.
PH1 - 8
Rental Housing Inspection Program Page 9
ATTACHMENTS
1. Rental Housing Inspection Ordinance
2. Proposed Rental Housing Inspection Program Fee Resolution
3. Proposed Amnesty Resolution
4. Program Implementation Flow Charts
5. User Fee Recover Goals
6. December 16, 2014 City Council Minutes
7. Open City Hall Feedback
8. Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort
9. Public Outreach Summary
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
1. December 16, 2015 Staff Report
2. April 8, 2015 - Memo with ChangeLab Solutions report “A Guide to Proactive Rental
Inspection Programs
t:\council agenda reports\2015\2015-05-05\rental housing inspection program\car rental housing inspection program.docx
PH1 - 9
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PH1 - 10
Attachment 1
Page 1
ORDINANCE NO. (2015 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING TITLE 15 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 15.10 AND ESTABLISHING A
RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code sections 17910-17998.3 establish
minimum standards for the maintenance of housing units, authorizes local enforcement of state
housing laws and adopted building codes, and specifically authorizes the adoption of proactive
programs for housing inspections; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has expressed its desire
and intent to ensure the preservation of the city’s neighborhoods as embodied in its adoption of
the Major City Goal of Neighborhood Wellness; and
WHEREAS, the proportion of the housing stock within the City of San Luis Obispo
(“City”) that is comprised of rental dwelling units has grown significantly over the past 30 years
and is well above the statewide average; and
WHEREAS, over the past several years, the City has experienced an increased level of
complaints regarding the existence of substandard rental housing within the R-1 and R-2 zones;
and
WHEREAS, City Code Enforcement records indicate that a majority of health and safety
related violations within the City are attributable to single family and duplex rental dwelling
units. Specifically, in 2013, 79% of all code enforcement violations within residential zones were
attributable to rental units, 80% of which involve substandard, overcrowded and unsanitary
conditions of single family and duplex units in the R1 and R2 zone districts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that certain transient uses (hotels, motels
and bed and breakfast establishments) and multifamily units in the R-3 and R-4 zone districts are
currently subject to annual inspections by the City Fire Marshall, which, among other things,
contributes to better awareness and maintenance of such units; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that rental dwelling units within the R1 and R2 zone
districts often lack proactive property management and other similar devices typically found in
multi-family developments within the R-3 and R-4 zones such as CC&Rs, common areas or
homeowners associations which help maintain property maintenance standards and mitigate the
potential for substandard housing; and
WHEREAS, deficient and substandard housing has many detrimental effects on the
stability of the city’s neighborhoods, is environmentally undesirable, creates unsafe living
conditions for tenants and neighbors, contributes to blight, negatively affects property values,
PH1 - 11
Attachment 1
Page 2
and is otherwise detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community and its citizens;
and
WHEREAS, based on previous code enforcement activities and extensive community
outreach, the City Council finds that tenants within the City are reluctant to report Building Code
violations or other dangerous conditions to the City in fear of retaliation by their landlord despite
state laws that make it unlawful for any retaliation to occur; and
WHEREAS, the City’s code enforcement program typically only inspects the interior of
dwelling units upon the request of tenants and or complaints by neighbors that provide adequate
information to initiate a complaint or to obtain an inspection warrant pursuant to California Code
of Civil Procedure Sections 1822.50 through 1822.57; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there is a need for a proactive and systematic
program to inspect rental housing units within the R1 and R2 zone districts in order to better
identify, address and correct substandard living conditions within this part of the City’s rental
community; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo desires to provide for safe,
livable and attractive neighborhoods and finds that the adoption and implementation of a rental
housing inspection program will promote public health and safety of the community by the
elimination of substandard housing conditions, and will promote community standards for the
maintenance of properties and will otherwise further the City’s goal of Neighborhood Wellness.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein
by this reference as the findings of the City Council.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The proposed ordinance is exempt from
environmental review per California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines section
15061(b)(3) because the ordinance strengthens current provisions of the Municipal Code relating
to code enforcement and housing and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that
the activity may have a significant effect on the environment. The ordinance consists of the
inspection of existing residential dwelling units, including single-family dwellings, duplexes, and
second dwelling units, which are rented or leased and used for residential purposes. The
ordinance does not involve any physical modifications to the environment. Additionally, the
proposed ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines sections 15308 (Protection of the Environment), 15309 (Inspections) as the proposed
rental inspection program consists of regulatory action by the city authorized under state and
local ordinance to assure that the maintenance of rental properties which are rented or leased and
used for rental residential purposes are in compliance with local and state laws. Lastly, the
program is exempt pursuant to 15321 of the CEQA guidelines as it consists of enforcement and
PH1 - 12
Attachment 1
Page 3
inspection actions by the City of San Luis Obispo to enforce building and zoning codes and
standards and other applicable housing codes (Enforcement Actions). The project involves
updates and revisions to existing regulations. The proposed code amendments are consistent
with California law, specifically the California Health & Safety Code Sections 17920 -17998.
The proposed ordinance consist of regulatory enforcement actions and inspections that are
intended to protect the health and safety of neighborhoods and it can be seen with certainty that
the proposed ordinance will have no significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 3. Action. Chapter 15.10 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code establishing
a rental housing inspection program is hereby added to read as follows:
Chapter 15.10 - RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION
15.10.010 - Purpose and intent.
The purpose and intent of this chapter is to safeguard the public and preserve the city’s
neighborhoods and housing stock by insuring that rental housing units are maintained in a safe
and sanitary condition in accordance with the State Housing Law, State Building Standards, and
local property maintenance and zoning provisions. The further purpose and intent of this chapter
is to proactively identify substandard and unsafe residential rental units and to ensure their
rehabilitation or elimination. This chapter is further intended to enhance the quality of life for all
residents of the city, whether living in rental or owner-occupied dwelling units.
15.10.020 - Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
“Building, housing, and sanitation codes or ordinances” shall refer to: the current adopted
codes specified in Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, as modified. The phrase
“building, housing and sanitation codes or ordinances” shall also refer to the City of San Luis
Obispo Zoning Ordinance as codified in Title 17 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, City of
San Luis Obispo Subdivision Ordinance as codified in Title 16 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code, and all provisions of California statutory law and the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
pertaining to property-related sanitation, maintenance, health, safety and nuisance, as well as
regulations promulgated pursuant to California statute, for which the city has enforcement
authority.
“Building Official” means the person designated as the Chief Building Official by the City
Manager, or his or her designee.
“Community Development Department” means the San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department.
“Director” means the Community Development Director.
“Inspection Fee” means the amount charged for the inspection of each unit and includes an
initial inspection and one subsequent inspection if required.
PH1 - 13
Attachment 1
Page 4
“Nuisance” shall have the same meaning as set forth in California Civil Code Section 3479,
or any condition as defined in chapter 8.24 et seq. of this Code, or any condition declared and
deemed by the City Council to constitute a nuisance, or any violation of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code.
“Owner” or “Owners” means the person, persons or entity identified and listed as having
title to one or more Residential Rental Dwelling Unit(s) by the latest property tax assessment roll
maintained by the San Luis Obispo County Tax Assessor.
“Person” means an individual, corporation, partnership, association or other legal entity.
“Registration Delinquency Fee” means a fee established by resolution of the City Council
and imposed to Owners who fail to register each Residential Rental Dwelling Unit with the city
and submit a completed Rental Registration Form and Rental Registration Fee pursuant to the
requirements of this chapter. The Registration Delinquency Fee shall be in addition to the Rental
Registration Fee(s) computed from the first date when the person engaged in the residential
rental business in the city after the effective date of this chapter. The Registration Delinquency
Fee shall add a penalty of twenty (20) percent of the Rental Registration Fee on the first day of
the month following the due date and ten (10) percent for each month thereafter while the fee
remains unpaid, provided that the amount of the penalty shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the
amount of the fee due.
“Re-inspection Fee” means a fee established by resolution of the City Council and, except as
provided in this chapter, is imposed on Owners who (1) fail to pass an initial inspection and one
follow-up inspection for a Residential Rental Dwelling Unit, (2) fail to provide access for any
scheduled inspection, or (3) re-inspection cannot be made to a Residential Rental Dwelling Unit
by the Inspector due to a failure to provide access.
“Rental Registration Fee” means the annual fee established by resolution of the City Council
charged to the Owner(s) of each Residential Rental Dwelling Unit within the scope of this
chapter, and intended to cover a portion the administrative costs of the rental inspection program.
This fee is payable each and every year.
“Residential Rental Dwelling Unit” means single-family dwellings, duplexes, and second
dwelling units, which are rented, leased, or held out for rent or lease, or otherwise used for
residential rental purposes, including any curtilage, structures or buildings on the property on
which the Residential Rental Dwelling Unit is located within the San Luis Obispo City limits,
except as otherwise exempted in this chapter. This definition excludes multifamily dwellings
having three or more dwelling units within a structure and transient type occupancies (hotels,
motels and bed-and-breakfasts).
“Self-Certification Checklist” means a list developed by the Building Official to be used by
an Owner enrolled in the self-certification program to evaluate a Residential Rental Dwelling
Unit for compliance with applicable local and state laws.
“Self-Certification Fee” means the fee established by resolution of the City Council an
Owner shall pay if he or she wishes to apply for the self-certification program. This fee is
payable upon application into the self-certification program once for each three (3) year cycle
and is a flat fee for each Property with a Residential Rental Dwelling Unit.
“Substandard Dwelling” means a Residential Rental Dwelling Unit that is in violation of any
building, housing, and sanitation codes or ordinances or any condition which is defined as
PH1 - 14
Attachment 1
Page 5
constituting a substandard building or dwelling as defined by California Health and Safety Code
Section 17920.3.
15.10.030 – Scope and Applicability.
A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all Residential Rental Dwelling Units and any
curtilage, structures or buildings on the property on which the Residential Rental Dwelling
Unit is located within the San Luis Obispo City limits, except as otherwise exempted in this
chapter.
B. Provisions of this chapter shall be supplementary and complementary to all of the provisions
of this code, State law, and any law cognizable at common law or equity, and nothing herein
shall be construed, read, or interpreted in any manner so as to limit any existing right or
power of the city to abate and prosecute any and all nuisances or to enforce any other
conditions in violation of State or local codes, including, but not limited to, any building,
housing, property maintenance and public nuisance violations.
15.10.040 - Inspections; Compliance with Applicable Codes and Standards.
A. Inspections. The Building Official, or his or her designee, hereinafter referred to as the
“Inspector,” is authorized to periodically inspect all Residential Rental Dwelling Units to
determine whether such Residential Rental Dwelling Units comply with applicable
provisions of all building, housing and sanitation codes or ordinances.
B. Compliance with Codes and Standards. When inspections are made under this chapter,
Residential Rental Dwelling Units shall be required to be constructed in accordance with the
code standard that was in effect at the time the Residential Rental Dwelling Unit was
constructed, altered, remodeled, erected or converted pursuant to a validly issued permit.
Unpermitted construction, additions and/or alterations must comply with current all
building, housing and sanitation codes or ordinances adopted by the City, unless otherwise
provided by law.
C. If an inspection is scheduled and entry is thereafter refused or cannot be obtained, the
inspector shall have recourse to every remedy provided by law to secure lawful entry and
inspect the premises, including, but not limited to, securing an inspection warrant pursuant
to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1822.50 through 1822.57. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, if the Inspector has reasonable cause to believe that the Residential Rental
Dwelling Unit is so hazardous, unsafe or dangerous as to require immediate inspection to
safeguard the public health or safety, the Inspector shall have the right to immediately enter
and inspect the premises and may use any reasonable means required to effect the entry and
make an inspection.
15.10.050 - Registration, Application and Implementation.
A. Beginning on January 1, 2016, it shall be the responsibility of the Owner of each Residential
Rental Dwelling Unit within the city to register each unit with the Community Development
Department on a form provided by the Community Development Department and pay the
Rental Registration Fee. For Residential Rental Dwelling Units acquired, constructed or
converted into residential rental property on or after January 1, 2016, registration shall take
PH1 - 15
Attachment 1
Page 6
place within sixty (60) days of the date the Residential Rental Dwelling Unit is acquired,
constructed or converted into residential rental property; or within thirty (30) days of the
date on which written notification is mailed to the Owner of Residential Rental Dwelling
Units by the Community Development Department, whichever event occurs first. All
registrations shall be subject to verification by the Inspector. All information on said
registrations shall be submitted under penalty of perjury. Any person who makes a false
statement in the registration or submits false information in connection with a registration
shall be in violation of this chapter.
B. If the Owner of a Residential Rental Dwelling Unit fails to register or reregister such units in
compliance with this chapter, the Owner shall be subject to a Registration Delinquency Fee
and the Building Official may register or reregister said units in the name of the Owner and
set a date and time for initial inspection of said units, and shall send written notification to
the Owner that the property has been so registered and advising of the date and time set for
inspection.
C. Initial implementation of inspections may be completed over a four (4) year period and
priority shall be given to the inspection of Residential Rental Dwelling Units which have
been found in violation of the any building, housing and sanitation codes or ordinances in
the last five (5) years. Priority shall also be given to Owners that request an inspection.
Following the initial inspection of a Residential Rental Dwelling Unit, it may be re-
inspected upon proper notice if a complaint is received or if the Inspector has reasonable
cause to believe that unit is in violation of any Building, housing and sanitation codes or
ordinances.
D. Thereafter, the inspection of each Residential Rental Dwelling Unit shall be scheduled on a
three year cycle, unless a unit has been accepted into the self-certification program.
15.10.060 - Notification of Inspection and Inspection Procedures.
A. The Building Official shall mail a notice of a scheduled inspection to the Owner of each
Residential Rental Dwelling Unit to the address provided on the registration form. The
Owner, or any authorized agent or legal representative thereof, shall permit an inspection of
each Residential Rental Dwelling Unit by the Inspector upon fifteen (15) business days’
notice of the time and date of the scheduled inspection. An extension to a scheduled
inspection may be granted by the Inspector.
B. It shall be the responsibility of the Owner to provide actual notice to the individual tenants
of the Residential Rental Dwelling Unit and to facilitate access to the units to be inspected.
C. If an inspection is rescheduled by the Inspector, a notice shall be mailed to the Owner and
tenant at least three (3) business days prior to the scheduled inspection date.
D. An inspection may be rescheduled one time by the Owner without penalty or Re-inspection
Fee upon written request three (3) business days prior to the date of inspection. Within ten
(10) business days of the initial inspection date the Owner shall schedule a new inspection.
E. An Owner shall be charged a Re-inspection Fee for failure to provide access to a Residential
Rental Dwelling Unit for inspection.
F. The Owner or an authorized agent or legal representative of the Owner shall be present
during the inspection.
PH1 - 16
Attachment 1
Page 7
G. The Owner shall not be in violation of this section if the tenant or occupant refuses to allow
the inspection by the City. The Owner shall provide proof, under penalty of perjury, that a
request to inspect the Residential Rental Dwelling Unit was served by the Owner and
inspection was not permitted by the tenant.
15.10.070 - Annual Rental Registration Fee.
The Owner shall pay an annual non-refundable Rental Registration Fee. The fee is intended
to cover a portion of the cost of administration of the rental housing inspection program for a
fiscal year, exclusive of the costs covered by the Inspection, Re-inspection or Self-Certification
Fees, and shall be billed and payable annually with the Business License Fee. Payment of a
Business License Fee without payment of a Rental Registration Fee shall be deemed a violation
of this chapter.
15.10.080 – Inspection and Re-inspection Fee.
A. Upon notice to the Owner of a scheduled inspection, an Inspection Fee for the initial
inspection shall be due prior to the date of that inspection. The Inspection Fee shall be
established by resolution of the City Council and if not paid by the day of inspection shall be
delinquent and shall add a penalty of twenty (20) percent of the Inspection Fee on the first day of
the month following the due date and ten (10) percent for each month thereafter while the fee
remains unpaid, provided that the amount of the penalty shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the
amount of the fee due.
B. The Inspection Fee includes the cost of the inspection and one compliance re-inspection,
if necessary. If the Owner fails to correct any violations by the first compliance re-inspection,
the Owner shall pay a Re-inspection Fee for the second and subsequent compliance re-
inspections.
15.10.090 - Exemptions.
The following are specifically exempted from the provisions of this chapter:
A. Mobile home units within mobile home parks regulated by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development.
B. HUD Section 8 Housing Units.
C. Dwelling units owned or managed by a government agency.
D. Residential Rental Dwelling Units that are occupied by the registered Owner or Owners as
recorded with the County of San Luis Obispo’s Clerk-Recorder’s Office. Additional
information may be required by the Community Development Department to determine that
the property is occupied by the registered Owner or Owners.
15.10.100 - Self-Certification Program.
A. Residential Rental Dwelling Units found to be in compliance with all applicable building,
housing, and sanitation codes or ordinances, pass an initial inspection, do not have a record
of other code violations within the past three (3) years, and have no outstanding unpaid code
violation fines or pending code enforcement actions, are eligible for the self-certification
PH1 - 17
Attachment 1
Page 8
program during the next three (3) year inspection cycle. Upon receipt of the request to
participate in the self-certification program, the Director shall determine if the Residential
Rental Dwelling Unit(s) qualifies for the self-certification program and shall notify the
Owner of such determination in writing. If the Residential Rental Dwelling Unit(s) qualifies
for the self-certification program the Owner shall pay the Self-Certification Fee. If the
Director determines that a Residential Rental Dwelling Unit does not qualify, the Owner
will be assessed the Inspection Fee and the Residential Rental Dwelling Unit will be
inspected.
B. If eligible, the Building Official shall mail the Self-Certification Checklist to the Owner
sixty (60) days prior to a due date. The Owner shall perform a physical inspection of the
interior and exterior of the Residential Rental Dwelling Unit, any accessory buildings or
structures, complete the checklist, certify that it is complete and accurate, and return it and
to the Community Development Department within forty-five (45) days of receipt of a
request by the city to complete a Self-certification checklist. The failure of an Owner to
submit a Self-Certification Checklist within forty five (45) days shall be a violation of this
chapter and shall be grounds for the removal of the Residential Dwelling Unit from the self-
certification program. The Owner shall correct any violations of any building, housing, and
sanitation codes or ordinances and obtain any planning and building permits if required that
are identified on the Self-Certification Checklist within thirty (30) days of the inspection or
make a request in writing to the Inspector for additional time to make corrections if needed.
The Owner shall correct any and all deficiencies by the due date determined by the
Inspector. A final checklist shall be submitted by the Owner within ten (10) days of
correcting any such violations.
C. The Building Official may cause up to ten (10) percent of Residential Rental Dwelling Units
that are enrolled in the self-certification program to be randomly inspected in a given year.
The Owner shall not be charged an Inspection Fee for the inspection if violations of any
building, housing, and sanitation codes or ordinances are not discovered as a result of the
inspection, however, an Inspection Fee shall be charged if violations are discovered as a
result of the inspection.
D. Any Residential Rental Dwelling Unit that participates in the self-certification program may
be removed from the program for a period of three (3) years, if at any time the Residential
Rental Dwelling Unit is determined to be in violation of any applicable building, housing,
and sanitation codes or ordinances. If a Residential Rental Dwelling Unit is removed from
the self-certification program, the difference between the Self-Certification Fee and the
Inspection Fee shall be immediately due and payable.
E. The Self-Certification Checklist shall be submitted under penalty of perjury. Any person
who makes a false statement in the Self-Certification Checklist or submits false information
in connection with a Self-Certification Checklist shall be in violation of this chapter.
F. The Owner shall not be in violation of this section if the tenant or occupant refuses to allow
the Self-Certification inspection by the Owner. The Owner shall provide proof, under
penalty of perjury, that a request to inspect the Residential Rental Dwelling Unit was served
by the Owner and inspection was not permitted by the tenant. 15.10.100 - Violations.
A. Any violation of the provisions of this chapter by any person is a misdemeanor and is
punishable as provided in Chapter 1.12, of this code. Any violation of the provisions of this
PH1 - 18
Attachment 1
Page 9
chapter by any person is also subject to administrative fines as provided in Chapter 1.24 of
this code, which may be appealed pursuant to the procedures in that Chapter 1.24..
B. Violations of this chapter are hereby declared to be public nuisances.
C. In addition to other remedies provided by this chapter or by other law, any violation of this
chapter may be remedied by a civil action brought by the city attorney, including but not
limited to administrative or judicial nuisance abatement proceedings, civil or criminal code
enforcement proceedings, and suits for injunctive relief. The remedies provided by this
chapter are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity.
SECTION 4. Review by City Council. After the implementation of this chapter has been in
effect for (1) year, the Director shall provide a report to the City Council regarding the
administration and efficacy of the program. Thereafter, the Director shall provide annual reports
to the City Council for the next four (4) years. Fees shall be reviewed one (1) year after
implementation and periodically thereafter and adjusted to insure compliance with California
Government Code section 66014 and to insure that the program is self-supporting and revenue
neutral.
SECTION 5. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the
remaining portions of this ordinance, or any other provisions of the city’s rules and regulations.
It is the city’s express intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of
the fact that any one or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared
invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 6. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting
for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The Tribune,
a newspaper published and circulated in this city. This ordinance shall go into effect at the
expiration of thirty (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.
SECTION 7. Effective Dates. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage,
in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the _____ day of _____________ 2015, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by
the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the _____ day of ____________ 2015, on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PH1 - 19
Attachment 1
Page 10
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH1 - 20
Attachment 2
1
RESOLUTION NO.___________ (2015 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING
THE CITY’S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO ADD RENTAL HOUSING
INSPECTION PROGRAM FEES
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to establish fees based
on the reasonable regulatory costs to provide the service and to achieve adopted cost
recovery goals in compliance with California Government Code Section 66014; and
WHEREAS, fees shall be reviewed one (1) year after implementation and
periodically thereafter and adjusted to insure that the program is self-supporting and
revenue neutral; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with this policy, the City Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo has adopted a Master Fee Schedule in order to cover the City’s cost of
providing certain services; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2015, the City Council introduced an ordinance to
establish a Rental Housing Inspection Program (“RHIP”), wherein the City would
periodically inspect single family and duplex residential rental dwelling units for
compliance with the State and local building and housing codes; and
WHEREAS, the RHIP Ordinance is scheduled for adoption on May 19, 2015 and
if adopted, would become effective 30 days thereafter; and
WHEREAS, the RHIP Ordinance authorizes the City Council to establish various
fees for implementation of the rental housing inspection program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the fees set forth below do not
exceed the reasonable cost of providing the services under the RHIP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo hereby establishes the following fees for the Rental Inspection program.
Rental Registration Fee $65
Inspection Fee $185
Self-Certification Fee $65
Re-inspection Fee $65
Upon motion of Council Member ________________, seconded by Council Member
___________________, and on the following vote, this resolution becomes effective on
the date that the Rental Housing Inspection Program ordinance becomes effective.
AYES:
NOES:
PH1 - 21
Attachment 2
2
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________ 2015.
______________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony J. Mejia, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
PH1 - 22
Attachment 3
1
RESOLUTION NO.___________ (2015 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
ESTABLISHING AN AMNESTY PERIOD FOR PROPERTY OWNERS THAT
VOLUNTARILY SEEK PERMITS FOR UNPERMITTED CONSTRUCTION
FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX DWELLING UNITS
SUBJECT TO THE CITY’S ADOPTED RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) has
expressed its desire and intent to ensure the preservation of the city’s neighborhoods as
embodied in its adoption of the Major City Goal of Neighborhood Wellness; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of this goal, on May 5, 2015, the City Council
introduced an ordinance to establish a Rental Housing Inspection Program (“RHIP”),
wherein the City would periodically inspect single family and duplex residential rental
dwelling units for compliance with the State and local building and housing codes; and
WHEREAS, the RHIP Ordinance is scheduled for adoption on May 19, 2015 and
if adopted, would become effective 30 days thereafter; and
WHEREAS, periodic inspections under the RHIP would commence sometime
after January 1, 2016, and it is anticipated that the program will identify residential rental
properties which are substandard, have unpermitted construction or are otherwise in
violation of State and local building and housing codes; and
WHEREAS, San Luis Obispo Municipal Code section 15.04.020.H, amending
section 109.4 of the California Building Code, establishes and authorizes the Building
Official to impose a “special investigation fee” in connection with unpermitted
construction which is in the amount of 100% of the normally established permit fee (the
“Special Investigation Fee”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that some property owners are unware
of all of the requirements for obtaining building or other permits for improvements; and
WHEREAS, by this Resolution, the City Council wishes to provide an “amnesty
period” and temporarily waive the Special Investigation Fee for those property owners
subject to the RHIP that voluntarily obtain permits to correct improvements related to
unpermitted construction on their respective property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
1. For the period of July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016, the City Council hereby suspends
the imposition of the Special Investigation Fee on any property owner who
voluntarily obtains a building permit to either correct or otherwise permit
PH1 - 23
Attachment 3
2
unpermitted work for a Residential Rental Dwelling Unit as defined in San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code 15.10.010 and is subject to the Rental Housing Inspection
Program. The Special Investigation Fee shall continue to apply to any property
owner whose property is currently the subject of a code enforcement action or a
Notice of Violation or Notice to Correct has been or is otherwise issued to the
property owner or does not obtain a permit prior to a scheduled inspection under
the Rental Housing Inspection Program; and
2. The City Council hereby directs staff to publicize this amnesty program as soon
as practically feasible; and
3. This Resolution becomes effective on the effective date of the Rental Housing
Inspection Program Ordinance.
Upon motion of Council Member ________________, seconded by Council Member
___________________, and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________ 2015.
______________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony J. Mejia, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
PH1 - 24
Step 1: Registration Application and Implementation
Step 2: Notification and Inspection Procedures
Step 3: Inspection and Re-Inspection for Code Compliance
Step 4: Self-Certification Program
General Guidelines of Rental Housing Inspection Program
· Owners of residential dwelling units used as rental properties must register
their unit(s) within 60 days from the date the unit is acquired, constructed or
converted into residential rental property; or within 30 days of the date on
which written notification is mailed to the owner of covered dwelling unit(s)
by the Building & Safety Division.
· Once registered, an invoice for an annual registration fee will be mailed with
notice to renew business license.
· Owner pays annual registration fee (payment may be combined with
inspection fee if unit is subject to inspection during calendar year)
· The Building Official mails notice of a scheduled inspection to the owner.
· Upon initial notification of inspection, the Inspection Fee shall be due prior to
inspection.
· Written request must be received 3 days prior to scheduled inspection should
owner need to reschedule. A reschedule fee will occur after first reschedule.
· Within 10 business days of payment receipt, inspection appointment notice
conformation mailed to owner.
· Owner shall provide notice to tenants regarding time of inspection.
· Owner or agent must be present at time of inspection, or inspection cannot
occur.
· If code violation exists, Inspector will issue Rental Housing Inspection Report.
· Inspection shall provide time frame to complete needed actions to bring unit
into compliance.
· Should unit(s) still not be in compliance, a reinspection fee shall be issued for a
3rd reinspection if violations are not corrected, also subject to additional fees.
· If unit(s) are eligible, owner requests participation in program pending Director
approval.
· Owner pays Self-Certification Program fee once per 3 year cycle.
· Building official provides owner with checklist to be completed within 60 days.
· Owner must submit checklist to Building & Safety Division, failure to do so can
include removal from program.
· 10% of Self-Certification units are subject to random inspection.
· Should owners find the property out of compliance, owners have 30 days to
bring unit into compliance and an official inspection shall be required with
inspection fee until compliance is found.
Please see Ordinance #_______ for complete program details and requirements.PH1 - 25
1
Owner of Residential
Dwelling Unit
registers each rental
unit with Community
Development Dept.
and pays annual
Rental Registration
fee
2
Owner Registers
rental unit(s)
A
Owner fails to
register own
rental unit(s)
B
Building
Official
registers units
and notifies
owner, owner
pays
Delinquency
Fee
3
Building Official
notifies owner
of scheduled
inspection and
inspection fee
6
Inspection Performed
by City Inspector
(Owner or Agent
Present)
C
Owner wants to
reschedule
inspection time
D
First reschedule
request
E
Second or more
reschedule
request
i
Exemptions
ii
-Mobile homes
within mobile
home parks
regulated by HCD.
-HUD Section 8
Units.
-Dwellings owned
or managed by
government
agency.
-Owner occupied
dwellings occupied
by registered
owner as recorded
with SLO County.
7a
Units pass
inspection
7b
Units do not pass
inspection
6c
Warrant obtained
or entry permitted.
Rescheduled fee
charged.
8
Property has not had
other code
enforcement issues or
past due fines in past
3 years and passed
initial inspection
7c
Inspector to
provide written
Rental Housing
Inspection Report
to owner of what
violations occur
7d
Time is provided to
complete needed
actions to bring
unit into
compliance.
7f
Re-inspection fee
charged for 3rd
inspection.
Inspection
completed to
verify corrections
have been
completed
7e
One-time
extension of time
to abate violations
may be granted
after written
request by owner
7g
Violations
Corrected
7h
Violations continue
to not be corrected
9
Property eligible for
participation in self-
certification
program subject to
owner request and
Director approval.
See Self-Certification
Flowchart
8b
Rental Units stay on
regular 3 year City
required inspection cycle
with annual fee.
7i
City will proceed
with all remedies
under Municipal
Code to compel
compliance
including citations,
abatement
proceedings, civil
injunction, and/or
criminal
prosecution.
4
Owner pays
Inspection Fee prior
to date of inspection
RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM
INITIAL PROCESS
6b
Inspector shall
have recourse to
every remedy to
secure lawful entry
and inspect
premises including
rescheduling an
inspection and
eventually
securing an
inspection warrant
6a
Owner/agent not
present OR failure
to provide access
Color Guide
Action by City
Action by Owner
Possible Non-Compliance
Compliance
START END
5
Inspection
verification and
inspection overview
checklist mailed to
owner upon receipt
of payment
8a
Property has
had code
enforcement
cases and/or
past due fines in
past 3 years or
failed to pass
initial inspection.
Property not
eligible for self-
certification
F
Owner must
provides written
notice to
reschedule 3
business days
prior to inspection
G
Owner does not
provide written
notice 3 business
days prior to
inspection
H
Reschedule
Inspection fee
charged
Current code
enforcement units given
inspection priority
NOTE:
If complaint
received at any
time, property
shall be re-
inspected.
PH1 - 26
RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM
SELF CERTIFICATION PROCESS
Color Guide
Action by City
Action by Owner
Possible Non-Compliance
Compliance
1a
Property has had no
code violations or
unpaid code
violations fines
within last 3 years
1b
Property passes
initial rental housing
inspection without
any code violations
2
Property eligible for
self-certification
program
3
Property owner
request participation
in self-certification
program
4
Director approval
and notification to
owner in writing
5
Owner pays self-
certification fee
ONCE for every 3
year cycle
6
Building official sends
owner self-
certification checklist
60 days prior to due
date
7
Owner performs
physical inspection of
interior and exterior
of rental dwelling
unit(s)
9a
Owner finds
property to be in
compliance
9b
Owner finds property
to be out of
compliance
9c
Owner corrects
any deficiencies
and obtain needed
permits within 30
days of inspection.
Resubmits
checklist.
8
Owner returns
checklist within 45
days of receiving
checklist
8a
Owner does not
submit checklist on
time
10
Checklist is
submitted under
penalty of perjury.
False statements
or information shall
be in violation of
chapter and
subject to removal
from self-
certification
program
7a
10% of units in
self-certification
program shall be
subject to random
inspection without
fee
7b
If City finds violation
during random
inspection, inspection
fee shall be charged
Violation of
chapter and
property shall be
removed from
self-certification
program for
period of 3 years
11
Property stays in self-
certification program
on 3 year schedule.
Annual fee due.
ST
A
R
T
Property has had
code enforcement
violations and/or
unpaid code
enforcement fines
within past 3 years OR
did not pass initial
inspection
9f
Owner fails to
correct violations
9e
Owner corrects
violations
9g
Reinspection fees
will be charged for
each reinspection
until compliant
(subject to
additional fines)
END
Property NOT
eligible for self-
certification
program and
remains in
traditional City
inspection
program until
compliance is met
9d
Inspector conducts
inspection to verify
compliance,
inspection fee
charged.
See Initial Process
Flowchart
NOTE:
If complaint
received at any
time, property shall
be inspected by
City Inspector.
PH1 - 27
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PH1 - 28
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
C.Current Revenues for CurrentUses.The City will make all current expenditures with current revenues,
avoiding procedures that balance current budgets by postponing needed expenditures, accruing future
revenues, or rolling over short-term debt.
D.Interfund Transfers and Loans.In order to achieve important public policy goals, the City has established
various special revenue, capital project, debt service and enterprise funds to account for revenues whose use
should be restricted to certain activities. Accordingly, each fund exists as a separate financing entity from
other funds, with its own revenue sources, expenditures and fund equity.
Any transfers between funds for operating purposes are clearly set forth in the Financial Plan, and can only
be made by the Director of Finance & Information Technology in accordance with the adopted budget.
These operating transfers, under which financial resources are transferred from one fund to another, are
distinctly different from interfund borrowings, which are usually made for temporary cashflow reasons, and
are not intended to result in a transfer of financial resources by the end of the fiscal year.
In summary, interfund transfers result in a change in fund equity; interfund borrowings do not, as the intent is
to repay the loan in the near term.
From time-to-time, interfund borrowings may be appropriate; however, these are subject to the following
criteria in ensuring that the fiduciary purpose of the fund is met:
1.The Director of Finance & Information Technology is authorized to approve temporary interfund
borrowings for cash flow purposes whenever the cash shortfall is expected to be resolved within 45 days.
The most common use of interfund borrowing under this circumstance is for grant programs like the
Community Development Block Grant, where costs are incurred before drawdowns are initiated and
received. However, receipt of funds is typically received shortly after the request for funds has been
made.
2.Any other interfund borrowings for cash flow or other purposes require case-by-case approval by the
Council.
3.Any transfers between funds where reimbursement is not expected within one fiscal year shall not be
recorded as interfund borrowings; they shall be recorded as interfund operating transfers that affect
equity by moving financial resources from one fund to another.
USER FEE COST RECOVERY GOALS
A.Ongoing Review
Fees will be reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis to ensure that they keep pace with changes in the
cost-of-living as well as changes in methods or levels of service delivery.
In implementing this goal, a comprehensive analysis of City costs and fees should be made at least every five
years. In the interim, fees will be adjusted by annual changes in the Consumer Price Index. Fees may be
adjusted during this interim period based on supplemental analysis whenever there have been significant
changes in the method, level or cost of service delivery.
B.User Fee Cost Recovery Levels
In setting user fees and cost recovery levels, the following factors will be considered:
+H-6
Attachment 5
PH1 - 29
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
1.Community-Wide Versus Special Benefit. The level of user fee cost recovery should consider the
community-wide versus special service nature of the program or activity. The use of general-purpose
revenues is appropriate for community-wide services, while userfees are appropriate for services that are
of special benefit to easily identified individuals or groups.
2.Service Recipient Versus Service Driver. After considering community-wide versus special benefit of
the service, the concept of service recipient versus service driver should also be considered. For
example, it could be argued that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the City's development review
efforts: the community is the primary beneficiary. However, the applicant is the driver of development
review costs, and as such, cost recovery from the applicant is appropriate.
3.Effect of Pricing on the Demand for Services. The level of cost recovery and related pricing of services
can significantly affect the demand and subsequent level of servicesprovided. At full cost recovery, this
has the specific advantage of ensuring that the City is providing services for which there is genuinely a
market that is not overly-stimulated by artificially low prices.
Conversely, high levels of cost recovery will negatively impact the delivery of services to lower income
groups. This negative feature is especially pronounced, and works against public policy, if the services
are specifically targeted to low income groups.
4.Feasibility of Collection and Recovery.Although it may be determined that a high level of cost recovery
may be appropriate for specific services, it may be impractical or too costly to establish a system to
identify and charge the user. Accordingly, the feasibility of assessing and collecting charges should also
be considered in developing user fees, especially if significant program costs are intended to be financed
from that source.
C.Factors Favoring Low Cost Recovery Levels
Very low cost recovery levels are appropriate under the following circumstances:
1.There is no intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit received. Almost all "social
service" programs fall into this category as it is expected that one group will subsidize another.
2.Collecting fees is not cost-effective or will significantly impact the efficient delivery of the service.
3.There is no intent to limit the use of (or entitlement to) the service. Again, most "social service"
programs fit into this category as well as many public safety (police and fire) emergency response
services. Historically, access to neighborhood and community parks would also fit into this category.
4.The service is non-recurring, generally delivered on a "peak demand" or emergency basis, cannot
reasonably be planned for on an individual basis, and is not readily available from a private sector source.
Many public safety services also fall into this category.
5.Collecting fees would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements and adherence is primarily
self-identified, and as such, failure to comply would not be readily detected by the City. Many small-
scale licenses and permits might fall into this category.
+H-7
Attachment 5
PH1 - 30
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
D.Factors Favoring High Cost Recovery Levels
The use of service charges as a major source of funding service levels isespecially appropriate under the
following circumstances:
1.The service is similar to services provided through the private sector.
2.Other private or public sector alternatives could or do exist for the delivery of the service.
3.For equity or demand management purposes, it is intended that there be a direct relationship between the
amount paid and the level and cost of the service received.
4.The use of the service is specifically discouraged. Police responses to disturbances or false alarms might
fall into this category.
5.The service is regulatory in nature and voluntary compliance is not expected to be the primary method of
detecting failure to meet regulatory requirements. Building permit, plan checks, and subdivision review
fees for large projects would fall into this category.
E.General Concepts Regarding the Use of Service Charges
The following general concepts will be used in developing and implementing service charges:
1.Revenues should not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service.
2.Cost recovery goals should be based on the total cost of delivering the service, including direct costs,
departmental administration costs and organization-wide support costs such as accounting, personnel,
information technology, legal services, fleet maintenance and insurance.
3.The method of assessing and collecting fees should be as simple as possible in order to reduce the
administrative cost of collection.
4.Rate structures should be sensitive to the "market" for similar services as well as to smaller, infrequent
users of the service.
5.A unified approach should be used in determining cost recovery levels for various programs based on the
factors discussed above.
F.Low Cost-Recovery Services
Based on the criteria discussed above, the following types of services should have very low cost recovery
goals. In selected circumstances, there may be specific activities within the broad scope of services provided
that should have user charges associated with them. However, the primary source of funding for the
operation as a whole should be general-purpose revenues, not user fees.
1.Delivering public safety emergency response services such as police patrol services and fire suppression.
2.Maintaining and developing public facilities that are provided on a uniform, community-wide basis such
as streets, parks and general-purpose buildings.
3.Providing social service programs and economic development activities.
+H-8
Attachment 5
PH1 - 31
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
G.Recreation Programs
The following cost recovery policies apply to the City's recreation programs:
1.Cost recovery for activities directed to adults should be relatively high.
2.Cost recovery for activities directed to youth and seniors should be relatively low. In those
circumstances where services are similar to those provided in the private sector, cost recovery levels
should be higher.
Although ability to pay may not be a concern for all youth and senior participants, these are desired
program activities, and the cost of determining need may be greater than the cost of providing a uniform
service fee structure to all participants. Further, there is a community-wide benefit in encouraging high-
levels of participation in youth and senior recreation activities regardless of financial status.
3.Cost recovery goals for recreation activities are set as follows:
High-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (60% to 100%)
a.Adult athletics
b.Banner permit applications
c.Child care services (except Youth STAR)
d.Facility rentals (indoor and outdoor; excludes use of facilities for internal City uses)
e.Triathlon
f.Golf
Mid-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (30% to 60%)
g.Classes
h.Holiday in the Plaza
i.Major commercial film permit applications
Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities- (0 to 30%)
j.Aquatics
k.Batting cages
l.Community gardens
m.Junior Ranger camp
n.Minor commercial film permit applications
o.Skate park
p.Special events (except for Triathlon and Holiday in the Plaza)
q.Youth sports
r.Youth STAR
s.Teen services
t.Senior/boomer services
4.For cost recovery activities of less than 100%, there should be a differential in rates between residents
and non-residents. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to reduce or eliminate
non-resident fee differentials when it can be demonstrated that:
+ H-9
Attachment 5
PH1 - 32
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
a.The fee is reducing attendance.
b.And there are no appreciable expenditure savings from the reduced attendance.
5.Charges will be assessed for use of rooms, pools, gymnasiums, ball fields, special-use areas, and
recreation equipment for activities not sponsored or co-sponsored by the City. Such charges will
generally conform to the fee guidelines described above. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation
is authorized to charge fees that are closer to full cost recovery for facilities that are heavily used at peak
times and include a majority of non-resident users.
6.A vendor charge of at least 10 percent of gross income will be assessed from individuals or organizations
using City facilities for moneymaking activities.
7.Director of Parks and Recreation is authorizedto offer reduced fees such as introductory rates, family
discounts and coupon discounts on a pilot basis (not to exceed 18 months) to promote new recreation
programs or resurrect existing ones.
8.The Parks and Recreation Department will consider waiving fees only when the City Manager
determines in writing that an undue hardship exists.
H.Development Review Programs
The following cost recovery policies apply to the development review programs:
1.Services provided under this category include:
a.Planning (planned development permits, tentative tract and parcel maps, rezonings, general plan
amendments, variances, use permits).
b.Building and safety (building permits, structural plan checks, inspections).
c.Engineering (public improvement plan checks, inspections, subdivision requirements,
encroachments).
d.Fire plan check.
2.Cost recovery for these services should generally be very high. In most instances, the City's cost
recovery goal should be 100%.
3.However, in charging high cost recovery levels, the City needs to clearly establish and articulate
standards for its performance in reviewing developer applications to ensure that there is “value for cost.”
I.Comparability With Other Communities
In setting user fees, the City will consider fees charged by other agencies in accordance with the following
criteria:
1.Surveying the comparability of the City's fees to other communities provides useful background
information in setting fees for several reasons:
+H-10
Attachment 5
PH1 - 33
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
a.They reflect the "market" for these fees and can assist in assessing the reasonableness of San Luis
Obispo’s fees.
b.If prudently analyzed, they can serve as a benchmark for how cost-effectively San Luis Obispo
provides its services.
2.However, fee surveys should never be the sole or primary criteria in setting City fees as there are many
factors that affect how and why other communities have set their fees at theirlevels. For example:
a.What level of cost recovery is their fee intended to achieve compared with our cost recovery
objectives?
b.What costs have been considered in computing the fees?
c.When was the last time that their fees were comprehensively evaluated?
d.What level of service do they provide compared with our service or performance standards?
e.Is their rate structure significantly different than ours and what is it intended to achieve?
3.These can be very difficult questions to address in fairly evaluating fees among different communities.
As such, the comparability of our fees to other communities should be one factor among many that is
considered in setting City fees.
ENTERPRISE FUND FEES AND RATES
A.Water, Sewer and Parking. The City will set fees and rates at levels which fully cover the total direct and
indirect costs—including operations, capital outlay, and debt service—of the following enterprise programs:
water, sewer and parking.
B.Transit. Based on targets set under the Transportation Development Act, the City will strive to cover at least
twenty percent of transit operating costs with fare revenues.
C.Ongoing Rate Review.The City will review and adjust enterprise fees and rate structures as required to
ensure that they remain appropriate and equitable.
D.Franchise Fees.In accordance with long-standing practices, the City will treat the water and sewer funds in
the same manner as if they were privately owned and operated. This means assessing reasonable franchise
fees in fully recovering service costs.
At 3.5%, water and sewer franchise fees are based on the mid-point of the statewide standard for public
utilities like electricity and gas (2% of gross revenues from operations) and cable television (5% of gross
revenues).
As with other utilities, the purpose of the franchise fee is reasonable cost recovery for the use of the City’s
street right-of-way. The appropriateness of charging the water and sewer funds a reasonable franchise fee for
the use of City streets is further supported by the results of studies in Arizona, California, Ohio and Vermont
which concluded that the leading cause for street resurfacing and reconstruction is street cuts and trenching
for utilities.
+H-11
Attachment 5
PH1 - 34
m1nutes
City or san lUIS OBISpO
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CALL TO ORDER
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Special Meeting -4:00 p.m .
Regular Meeting -6:00 p.m.
Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday,
December 16, 2014 at 4:00p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California , by Mayor Marx.
ROLLCALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Dan Carpenter, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire , Vice
Mayor John Ashbaugh , and Mayor Jan Marx
Council Member
Absent: None
C ity Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig , City Manager, Christine Dietrick , City Attorney, Michael
Codron, Assistant City Manager, and Anthony Mejia, City Clerk, were
present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded
to questions as indicated in the minutes.
STUDY SESSION
SS1. REVIEW OF RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM OPTIONS
Community Development Director Johnson and Chief Building Official Lease
narrated a presentation entitled "Rental Housing Inspection Program Options"
and responded to Council inquiries.
Sharon Whitney. San Luis Obispo, voiced support for the creation of a rental
housing inspection program; pointed out that an inspection program will identify
issues not visible from the exterior.
Grace Dempsey, San Luis Obispo, voiced concern that property managers are
sometime unresponsive to resident maintenance request; noted that notification
of inspection will prompt residents to clean-up prior to inspection.
Attachment 6
PH1 - 35
City Council Meeting Minutes-December 16, 2014 Page 2
Genevieve Czech, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for a rental housing
inspection program; advised that rental housing has dramatically increased in her
neighborhood , opining that these changes have negatively impacted public
safety.
Camille Small , San Luis Obispo , stated that a rental housing inspection program
will provide options for tenants that are reluctant to report maintenance issues to
landlords; urged Council to adopt the proposed ordinance .
Pat Dempsey, San Luis Obispo, opined that a rental housing inspection program
would be poorly enforced and is intended only to generate revenue for the City.
Charlene Rosales . representing the Chamber of Commerce, questioned whether
the volume of complaints warrant the creation of a rental housing inspection
program and whether it will result in an improved housing stock ; conveyed
support for a self-certification program, expanded tenant/landlord education, and
weatherization assistance.
Pete Peterson, property manager and owner, voiced objection to a rental housing
inspection program , asserting such a program is punitive to property owners ;
opined that the City should continue with a complaint-based program and allow
for self-certification .
Jeannette Watson , Arroyo Grande, opined that a rental housing inspection
program should be limited to addressing matters of health and safety;
recommended that the program 's intent should be better defined .
Linda Sh inn , San Luis Obispo, voiced objection to the proposed inspection
program , noting that it singles-out a single type of property use; recommended
that the City focus on education and outreach related to tenant/landlord rights.
Steven Ferrario , San Luis Obispo, voiced concern that a rental housing
inspection program would be overly intrusive on citizens ; opined that focus
should be given to education and outreach.
Sandra Rowley, representing Residents for Quality Neighborhood (RQN}, voiced
support for a rental housing inspect ion program , noting that other cities have
successfully implemented similar programs; opined that such a program would
benefit the overall health of the community.
Nikki Anderson, Realtors Association , voiced con cern that a rental housing
inspection program gives an anti-investor sentiment; pointed out there are
residents that prefers rental-living and there is no difference between an owner-
occupied or rental unit in disrepair.
Annette Shanks , San Luis Obispo, expressed opposition to a rental housing
inspection program, noting that the majority of property owners are good
operators and tenants are knowledgeable of their rights ; suggested that
education and outreach efforts be focused on rentals in the Cal Poly area .
Attachment 6
PH1 - 36
City Council Meeting Minutes-December 16, 2014 Page 3
Michael Sheffer, San Luis Obispo, opined that a housing inspection program
should be expanded to include owner-occupied homes and enforced equally
throughout the community.
Dane Senser, Oceano, asserted that the proposed program is intended to
generate revenue for the City; stated that the City should enforce existing
regulations and urge Cal Poly to work towards rehabilitating dilapidated student
rental housing.
Eric Meyer, San Luis Obispo, spoke on his experience as a student living in
dilapidated rentals ; advised that there are problem rentals in his neighborhood.
Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo, stated that there is a need for a rental
housing inspection program , but there should be an emphasis on educating
landlords and tenants on property maintenance.
Susie Brans, San Luis Obispo, opined that young professionals are not
interested in purchasing homes and that has caused a surge in rental demand;
opined that the proposed program would be over-bearing and make investors
question purchasing property in San Luis Obispo.
Carol Winger, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for the rental home inspection
program, opining that the associated fees and fines are appropriate.
Jacob Rogers, representing Associated Students, Inc. (AS I), suggested that the
ordinance be modified to ensure fees will not be passed-through to renters.
Stephanie Teaford , representing Cal Poly President's Office, advised that Cal
Poly President Armstrong supports the rental housing inspection program.
Elsa Dawson, San Luis Obispo, voiced concern that the proposed program will
negatively impact renters and landlords; suggested that inspections only be
pursued if complaints are reported.
Tom Dawson , San Luis Obispo, expressed concern that government is
overreaching and intrusive.
Laura Mordaun, San Luis Obispo , suggested that the City focus on problem
rental properties rather than inspecting all rental housing.
lan Farmer, San Luis Obispo, voiced concern that the proposed program could
displace at-risk individuals due to an increase in rents or reduction of available
rental units.
Steve Caminiti, San Luis Obispo, opined that proposed ordinance is too extreme
and the City should take an incremental approach to the issue.
Attachment 6
PH1 - 37
City Council Meeting Minutes-December 16, 2014 Page4
Victor Montgomery, Avila Beach, expressed concern that the proposed program
allows for interior inspections, asserting that such an approach is too intrusive
and is discriminatory towards particular residential zones.
Ruth Holden , San Luis Obispo, conveyed concern that the City is enacting an
unenforceable ordinance; suggested that Cal Poly should take a role in
monitoring student housing for health and safety issues.
Odile Ayral, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for the proposed ordinance, stating
that many individuals would rather move from dilapidated residences than file a
complaint.
Graham Updegrove , Board Member of SLO Association of Realtors , expressed
opposition to a rental housing inspection program , suggesting that focus be on
education of tenants rather than regulation.
Steve Barasch , San Luis Obispo, conveyed opposition to the proposed rental
housing inspection program; suggested that an authority be created for the
purpose of fire inspection, neighborhood wellness, and addressing emergency
conditions.
Vanessa Rizzo , San Luis Obispo , expressed support for the proposed rental
housing inspection program; stated that tenants are intimidated from complaining
with threats of eviction.
Linda White , San Luis Obispo , spoke in support of the proposed inspection
program ; stated that rental properties are businesses and should be subject to
health and safety inspection .
David Singer, property manager, stressed that if an inspection program is
created that it be funded adequately and enforced .
Steve Delmartini , Association of Realtors , pointed out that a majority of speakers
tonight do not support the creation of an inspection program ; voiced opposition to
a rental housing inspection program.
Chris Knauer , San Luis Ob ispo , opined that the program is an inappropriate
solution to address the underlying concerns related to noise and poor tenant
behavior.
RECESS
Council recessed at 6:01 p.m. and reconvened at 6:20 p.m ., with all Council Members
present.
Stew Jenkins, San Luis Obispo, pointed out that the proposed program charges
property owners a fee whether or not a property is found to have any violations;
voiced concern that the inspection program violates citizen rights.
Attachment 6
PH1 - 38
J
City Council Meeting Minutes -December 16, 2014 Page 5
Theodore de 'Mout, Morro Bay, asserted that an inspection program is equivalent
to a tax on rental owners and tenants ; voiced opposition to the establishment of
an inspection program.
Katheryn Caldwell, Morro Bay, conveyed opposition to a rental housing
inspection program ; noted that rentals are businesses and that tenants are
encouraged to reports maintenance issues.
Kevin Rice , San Luis Obispo , voiced concern that City employees will be at
greater risk attempting to gain entry into private residences; opined that the City
is attempting to assert aggression against residents.
Paul Rys, San Luis Obispo , stated that students are willing to rent substandard
housing and that an inspection program would be ineffective in addressing
resident concerns ; suggested that focus be given to increasing the number of on-
campus student housing units.
Julie Tower, San Luis Obispo , advised that the Laguna Lake neighborhood is
deteriorating and that the proposed program will help alleviate and address
resident concerns .
Kathie Walker, San Luis Obispo , voiced support for a rental housing inspection
program; spoke on her experience purchasing a substandard house and the
repercussions of poor property maintenance.
In response to public comment, Community Development Director Johnson
spoke on the average time for voluntary compliance to code enforcement
violations ; noted that the City does not have an agreement with Cal Poly for
enforcement of a rental housing inspection program ; advised that the proposed
inspection program is only a component of the neighborhood wellness strategy.
Fire Chief Olson advised that the multi-family housing inspection program
administered by the Fire Department only inspects complexes with three-or
more-units and is an exterior inspection only.
Following discussion, MOTION BY VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH , SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 3-2 (COUNCIL MEMBERS
CARPENTER AND RIVOIRE VOTING NO), to support the creation of a Rental
Housing Inspection Program for single-family and duplex rental units, and
continue the Fire Department's Multi-family Inspection Program .
(Council action continued on next page)
Attachment 6
PH1 - 39
City Council Meeting Minutes-December 16, 2014 Page 6
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON , SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
ASHBAUGH, CARRIED 3-2 (COUNCIL MEMBER CARPENTER AND RIVOIRE
VOTING NO), to support a Rental Housing Inspection Program based on the
following perimeters:
1. Scope of Inspection: Both exterior and interior inspections.
2. Frequency of Inspection: 3 years.
3. Incentives :
a . Self-certification after passing initial inspection.
b. System and standards to authorize self-certification period.
4. Disincentives: High fines or re-inspection fees.
5. Potential Exemptions :
a. Owner-occupied units (or occupancy by an immediate family member
without other renters).
b. Units in mobile home parks.
c . Publicly owned or managed housing.
d. Units governed by homeowner associations.
6 . !=:At fpp~ ::It f111f ~n~t rA~f'lVAn/ --· ·-----··--------------J·
Council Member Ashbaugh noted for the record that he desires for the rental
housing inspection program to provide early notification of pending inspections to
property owners and tenants and to allow for self-certification to extend
inspection cycles or provide fee credits.
Attachment 6
PH1 - 40
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM
As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily
representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
PH1 - 41
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM, this forum had:
Attendees:122
All Statements:53
Hours of Public Comment:2.7
This topic started on April 6, 2015, 3:22 PM.
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 2 of 20
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
PH1 - 42
Name not available (unclaimed)April 19, 2015, 5:05 PM
"Neighborhood Wellness" - what a wonderful touchy-feely concept. Problems in neighborhoods can be
addressed by municipal laws and regulations that are currently in existence. Politicians are like hammers--
they don't know how to do anything but pound nails. More legislation is not the answer-- we are over-regulated
and overburdened with city and county fees as it is. As others have mentioned, if this poorly conceived
program is put into effect, it will never go away, no matter how inefficient, costly or ineffective. Why not inspect
everyone's dwelling? There are homeowners who live in unkempt, unsafe environs as well; why should only
renters benefit from government inspection?
Name not available (unclaimed)April 19, 2015, 3:10 PM
Please do not vote on this ordinance on May 5th. Take time to evaluate the public comments. The way the
system generally works is the ordinance will be in print only six or seven days prior to the council meeting. In
my opinion this gives very little time to look at it and react with ideas that could make it better, or point out flaws
that make it difficult to enforce. I hope the City Council members would appreciate all the work that has gone
into this on the public side and listen to what is being said on the 5th and let the staff evaluate the comments
made instead of the usual, that is, having staff respond to remarks on the spot and then discuss, and proceed
to vote. I'm assuming there will a great deal of public testimony and this should be given the necessary time to
consider what is trying to be conveyed in a bunch of three minute sound bites. I'm sure there will be items
brought up that may not have been thought of and should be evaluated, and maybe incorporated into the
ordinance. This is a very important issue. Please don't rubber stamp this just because there is a staff report in
front of you. Thank you for your consideration.
Name not shown outside Neighborhoods (on forum)April 19, 2015, 11:28 AM
Regarding the proposed Rental Inspection Program…
In my opinion, the way that this is proposed is absolutely discriminatory against a certain group of people;
Tenants and Landlords.
This program discriminates against rental properties. There are many owner occupied homes that are blighted.
Why is the City not proposing treating that issue in the same manner?
The City gives lip service to affordable housing. This ordinance is anti-affordable housing. How is the landlord
going to pay for the annual fee and proposed business license and any other increased costs? By raising the
rents, of course.
A code compliance program is already in place. People who have an axe to grind should work their issues
through that program.
These inspections should be done on a legitimate complaint basis only, not tar and feather everyone because
the city has found a handful of rental houses with a problem.
From the Tenant standpoint, it is a complete invasion of privacy.
My vote is to NOT enact this new discriminatory program and rather enforce the rules on the books as they are,
on a complaint basis only.
**Some of these are ideas excerpted from other posts that I felt exactly expressed my own thoughts.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 (on forum)April 18, 2015, 3:15 PM
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 3 of 20
PH1 - 43
Regarding the proposed Rental Inspection Program…
In my opinion, the way that this is proposed is absolutely discriminatory against a certain group of people;
Tenants and Landlords who happen to have a certain property type.
If the intent is to keep the neighborhood with a certain standard of quality, these inspections should apply to
ALL property types (including condos and multi- unit). It should also apply to owner occupants, who may or may
not rent out a portion of their property.
If you recall, the most recent and obvious infraction had to do with the Pine Creek condos, both owner occupied
and tenant occupied, and the illegal loft as a Bedroom. Why would condos be exempt for this inspection
program?
From the Tenant standpoint, it is a complete invasion of privacy and most likely not needed in most cases. It
also could lead to an increase in rent, and risk of losing their home.
Example: What if this is a long term tenant stores items in the garage vs. using it for their car. Will they have to
remove the items or be forced to move?
Are homes that are in good condition but not up to 2015 building codes going to be forced to upgrade?
Is there going to be a reasonable checklist of expectation? Or will it be based on the mood of the inspector at
the moment?
Also, how is it going to be determined that a home is tenant occupied vs a 2nd home where the primary
address shows another location?
These inspections should be done on a legitimate complaint basis only. Or if there is a legitimate complaint that
has not been addressed through the normal correspondence between Tenant and Landlord and the Tenant
complains.
I recognize the desire to create jobs. This automatic expense doled out to this select group of people is unfair
and discriminatory.
My vote is to NOT enact this new discriminatory program and rather enforce the rules on the books as they are,
on a complaint basis only.
If the complaints are coming from chronic complainers and they are deemed unreasonable that complainer
should be the one fined and held responsible for the time and expense wasted!!!
Steve Francis outside Neighborhoods (on forum)April 18, 2015, 10:47 AM
Once a program is created, it never goes away. The City will incur staffing and pension costs forever, even after
housing non-compliance is zero.
This program discriminates against rental properties. There are many owner occupied homes that are blighted.
The fact the City is not addressing that issue smack of NIMBY-ism.
A code compliance program is already in place. People who have an axe to grind should work their issues
through that program.
The City gives lip service to affordable housing. This ordinance is anti-affordable housing.
Why are we emulating what was done in San Bernardino?
Name not available (unclaimed)April 18, 2015, 10:45 AM
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 4 of 20
PH1 - 44
Once a program is created, it never goes away. The City will incur staffing and pension costs forever, even after
housing non-compliance is zero.
This program discriminates against rental properties. There are many owner occupied homes that are blighted.
The fact the City is not addressing that issue smack of NIMBY-ism.
A code compliance program is already in place. People who have an axe to grind should work their issues
through that program.
The City gives lip service to affordable housing. This ordinance is anti-affordable housing.
Why are we emulating what was done in San Bernardino?
Jeanne Kohlbush inside Neighborhood 8 (on forum)April 18, 2015, 7:40 AM
This program will result in higher cost of rentals and just one more government layer of inefficiency. San Luis
Obispo already charges double the price for water, sewer and trash. There is already a yearly fire check
inspection that landlords have to pay for. The city cries affordable housing, yet they do not allow new building of
multi-family except for Cal Poly. Or, I should say, good luck getting any permit unless you have deep pockets.
This “mandatory inspection” penalizes hardworking landlords that try to keep the cost down for their renters. I
have fully renovated my 4-plex so that 4 families have quality places to live at a resemble price. I am hands on
weekly at my property and often ask my tenants if anything needs to be repaired. I, a 50 year old woman, did
the renovation myself to save costs. My tenants have my cell phone number and they can call me directly at any
time. I know I can raise the rents around $200 to $250 more per month, but I feel that is not fair to my local
renters just because Cal Poly is accepting too many students. But now after I have been working hard, SLO
City wants to come inspect my property and charge me $450. In the real world, that would purchase a
professional inspection of 3 plus hours which is routinely order when you purchase a property. This would be a
detailed report of 50 plus pages to know every detail about the property. In reality the owners of the property
will not receive a real inspection! Therefore this fee is just another source of revenue for the city to tax their
citizen. The city of San Luis Obispo wants to add more government jobs and charge me for that service when I
have done nothing wrong and everything right to provide affordable housing for hard working fellow American
citizens. What the city planners don't understand is they are at the root cause for the unaffordable housing
problem in SLO and the sorry state of the condition of rentals in our county. They have shut down the housing
supply and demand for housing continues to grow. If SLO government would allow new building there would be
enough housing and renters could complain or simple move out of poor quality housing. Instead we have
government workers that sit behind a desk enforcing rules that limit our freedom as property owners. It also
would be interesting to know who is making the no-grow restrictions. Most locals want jobs and affordable
housing for their children. This housing shortage is a result of the government's no growth policies; this is
changing our community for the worst. Landlords have to cover their costs of capital investment, operating cost
to be in business. Our community is full of college renters and fewer and fewer home owners. The middle class
and low income workers are being forced out of San Luis Obispo City. It is all supply and demand and the
government is controlling the supply.
I want to clearly state that I am neither a builder nor developer. I sell real estate and am tired of seeing families
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 5 of 20
PH1 - 45
pushed out of San Luis Obispo due to high cost of living.
A better solution then the city’s proposed plan is to fine slum landlords directly. Follow up on complaints and
enforce the hundreds of laws that already exist. If this is such a large problem then the city will have enough
money to fund your projects. You could also have Cal Poly educate their students on the laws that protect them
as renters. As well they could educate the best and brightest on being respectful renter and good community
citizens. ie, roof parties. We do not need more government intervention, we need less. The city needs to allow
their citizens the rights to have affordable housing not by government mandate, but by allowing a free market to
exist. Cut your red tape and the slum landlords will be out of business because renters will have a choice of
where to live. Jeanne Kohlbush
PS, I grew up here, attended Cal Poly and have chosen to raise my family on the Central Coast.
4 Attachments
https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/133ev31fhio0.6g3/IMG_5006_1_1.JPG (105 KB)
https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/133ev3uxmodc.3fa/PA310279_1.JPG (38.4 KB)
https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/133ev4zk9ojk.q1/PA310241_1.JPG (31.9 KB)
https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/133ev5wsq9s0.1lu/PA310269_1.JPG (30 KB)
Name not available (unclaimed)April 17, 2015, 5:15 PM
This is a ridiculous waste of City money which ultimately comes from SLO City Citizens. The buck will be
passed to the Tenants so they too will lose out. Bad idea that ultimately solves nothing.
Name not shown outside Neighborhoods (unverified)April 17, 2015, 4:47 PM
As a rental property owner in the City of SLO I believe this is a bad idea and I am dead set against this
infringement by the City of SLO. The city has laws on the books now that have been used in the past and can
be used in the future when the need arises. There is little new under the sun except those that want more
power. Just because another city has made like a like law does not mean it is right. Every law you make that
takes time and effort by the many to make it easier to punish the few, takes away for our rights and way of life.
Just because you can do something does not make it right. I am proud of my properties and do my best to
make a good value and living environment for my tenants. This law will take from me, will increase my costs and
will put local government in my business. Once in place, we will have someone in government who wants to
expand their powers over the many to protect the few (we have laws now that can be used). I ask again, do not
take from me my time, dollars and privacy because you can. Use your rights to protect all, but not at the
expense of the many. I love that our city is beautiful and slowly the homes close in to the city are being
improved by the many owners. This does not need government involvement. Signed: A local property owner
and rental property landlord.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 6 (on forum)April 17, 2015, 12:00 AM
This is a great idea and long overdue. SLO has a higher percentage of renters then the vast majority of cities in
California. Many rentals are dilapidated and an eyesore. The problem is getting worse, not better.
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 6 of 20
PH1 - 46
One of the biggest specific problems is that the number of renters in a home greatly exceed the number of
persons the property can reasonably support. Downtown, renters are packed into small homes like sardines.
The renters take up all the parking spots in front of their own properties (which is fine) and also in front of their
neighbors properties (which is not a good thing and which is causing increasing tension, especially downtown).
Another problem is that many rental properties have unsafe conditions on the inside, or illegal garage-to-
bedroom conversions, posing a danger to the renters as well as their neighbors.
Those of us who are owner-occupants, and take wonderful care of our homes, are feeling more and more like
a dying breed.
My wife and I could make a ton of money renting our large, historic home downtown. But we choose not to so
that a beautiful property does not get ruined, as have so many others that have been converted to rentals.
The posters who say the City should not become involved until the Renter files a formal complaint about the
condition of the property fail to understand a subtle pressure that all renters feel in this town. The renters know
that if they complain there are 10 Cal Poly students, waiting in the wings, who would love to take over their
lease.
Someone may reply "Well an ousted renter can always sue if they feel they have been wrongfully evicted."
Actually, that's not feasible in most cases because attorneys fees and court costs are too high.
BOTTOM LINE: THOSE LANDLORDS WHO MAINTAIN THEIR PROPERTIES IN GOOD CONDITION HAVE
NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. THEY SHOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE HEALTH AND SAFETY
INSPECTIONS OF THEIR PROPERTIES BY QUALIFIED CITY EMPLOYEES. INDEED, THEY CAN USE A
POSITIVE INSPECTION AS A MARKETING TOOL TO ATTRACT TENANTS AND SECURE HIGHER RENTS.
AS TO THOSE LANDLORDS WHO DO NOT WANT INSPECTIONS, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT MAINTAIN
THEIR PROPERTIES IN A GOOD, SAFE AND HABITABLE CONDITION, THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY
IS SICK OF YOU.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 16, 2015, 11:43 PM
This is a great idea and long overdue. SLO has a higher percentage of renters then the vast majority of cities in
California. Many rentals are dilapidated and an eyesore. The problem is getting worse, not better.
One of the biggest specific problems is that the number of renters in a home greatly exceed the number of
persons the property can reasonably support. Downtown, renters are packed into small homes like sardines.
The renters take up all the parking spots in front of their own properties (which is fine) and also in front of their
neighbors properties (which is not a good thing and which is causing increasing tension, especially downtown).
Another problem is that many rental properties have unsafe conditions on the inside, or illegal garage-to-
bedroom conversions, posing a danger to the renters as well as their neighbors.
Those of us who are owner-occupants, and take wonderful care of our homes, are feeling more and more like
a dying breed.
My wife and I could make a ton of money renting our large, historic home downtown. But we choose not to so
that a beautiful property does not get ruined, as have so many others that have been converted to rentals.
The posters who say the City should not become involved until the Renter files a formal complaint about the
condition of the property fail to understand a subtle pressure that all renters feel in this town. The renters know
that if they complain there are 10 Cal Poly students, waiting in the wings, who would love to take over their
lease.
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 7 of 20
PH1 - 47
Someone may reply "Well an ousted renter can always sue if they feel they have been wrongfully evicted."
Actually, that's not feasible in most cases because attorneys fees and court costs are too high.
BOTTOM LINE: THOSE LANDLORDS WHO MAINTAIN THEIR PROPERTIES IN GOOD CONDITION HAVE
NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. THEY SHOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE HEALTH AND SAFETY
INSPECTIONS OF THEIR PROPERTIES BY QUALIFIED CITY EMPLOYEES. INDEED, THEY CAN USE A
POSITIVE INSPECTION AS A MARKETING TOOL TO ATTRACT TENANTS AND SECURE HIGHER RENTS.
AS TO THOSE LANDLORDS WHO DO NOT WANT INSPECTIONS, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT MAINTAIN
THEIR PROPERTIES IN A GOOD, SAFE AND HABITABLE CONDITION, THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY
IS SICK OF YOU.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 16, 2015, 11:38 PM
This is a great idea and long overdue. SLO has a higher percentage of renters then the vast majority of cities in
California. Many rentals are dilapidated and an eyesore. The problem is getting worse, not better.
One of the biggest specific problems is that the number of renters in a home greatly exceed the number of
persons the property can reasonably support. Downtown, renters are packed into small homes like sardines.
The renters take up all the parking spots in front of their own properties (which is fine) and also in front of their
neighbors properties (which is not a good thing and which is causing increasing tension, especially downtown).
Another problem is that many rental properties have unsafe conditions on the inside, or illegal garage-to-
bedroom conversions, posing a danger to the renters as well as their neighbors.
Those of us who are owner-occupants, and take wonderful care of our homes, are feeling more and more like
a dying breed.
My wife and I could make a ton of money renting our large, historic home downtown. But we choose not to so
that a beautiful property does not get ruined, as have so many others that have been converted to rentals.
The posters who say the City should not become involved until the Renter files a formal complaint about the
condition of the property fail to understand a subtle pressure that all renters feel in this town. The renters know
that if they complain there are 10 Cal Poly students, waiting in the wings, who would love to take over their
lease.
Someone may reply "Well an ousted renter can always sue if they feel they have been wrongfully evicted."
Actually, that's not feasible in most cases because attorneys fees and court costs are too high.
BOTTOM LINE: THOSE LANDLORDS WHO MAINTAIN THEIR PROPERTIES IN GOOD CONDITION HAVE
NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. THEY SHOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE HEALTH AND SAFETY
INSPECTIONS OF THEIR PROPERTIES BY QUALIFIED CITY EMPLOYEES. INDEED, THEY CAN USE A
POSITIVE INSPECTION AS A MARKETING TOOL TO ATTRACT TENANTS AND SECURE HIGHER RENTS.
AS TO THOSE LANDLORDS WHO DO NOT WANT INSPECTIONS, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT MAINTAIN
THEIR PROPERTIES IN A GOOD, SAFE AND HABITABLE CONDITION, THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY
IS SICK OF YOU.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 16, 2015, 11:36 PM
This is a great idea and long overdue. SLO has a higher percentage of renters then the vast majority of cities in
California. Many rentals are dilapidated and an eyesore. The problem is getting worse, not better.
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 8 of 20
PH1 - 48
One of the biggest specific problems is that the number of renters in a home greatly exceed the number of
persons the property can reasonably support. Downtown, renters are packed into small homes like sardines.
The renters take up all the parking spots in front of their own properties (which is fine) and also in front of their
neighbors properties (which is not a good thing and which is causing increasing tension, especially downtown).
Another problem is that many rental properties have unsafe conditions on the inside, or illegal garage-to-
bedroom conversions, posing a danger to the renters as well as their neighbors.
Those of us who are owner-occupants, and take wonderful care of our homes, are feeling more and more like
a dying breed.
My wife and I could make a ton of money renting our large, historic home downtown. But we choose not to so
that a beautiful property does not get ruined, as have so many others that have been converted to rentals.
The posters who say the City should not become involved until the Renter files a formal complaint about the
condition of the property fail to understand a subtle pressure that all renters feel in this town. The renters know
that if they complain there are 10 Cal Poly students, waiting in the wings, who would love to take over their
lease.
Someone may reply "Well an ousted renter can always sue if they feel they have been wrongfully evicted."
Actually, that's not feasible in most cases because attorneys fees and court costs are too high.
BOTTOM LINE: THOSE LANDLORDS WHO MAINTAIN THEIR PROPERTIES IN GOOD CONDITION HAVE
NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. THEY SHOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE HEALTH AND SAFETY
INSPECTIONS OF THEIR PROPERTIES BY QUALIFIED CITY EMPLOYEES. INDEED, THEY CAN USE A
POSITIVE INSPECTION AS A MARKETING TOOL TO ATTRACT TENANTS AND SECURE HIGHER RENTS.
AS TO THOSE LANDLORDS WHO DO NOT WANT INSPECTIONS, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT MAINTAIN
THEIR PROPERTIES IN A GOOD, SAFE AND HABITABLE CONDITION, THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY
IS SICK OF YOU.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 5 (on forum)April 16, 2015, 7:46 PM
If this program is implemented, the City needs to first figure out how to identify all rental properties and maintain
a database taking into account rollover in housing stock. There should be a low fee for self-certification (i.e.
$20) and inspection fees should be assessed at the time of City inspection only, not annually.
The estimated cost of the Program based on a 3 year inspection cycle is ~$467,000 per year. If there is any
type of reduced self-certification fee or reduction for "good actors", there is no way this Program can be full cost
recovery. The inspection fee will either need to be increased substantially or the City will be operating at an
increasing loss each year (due to increased salaries, pension and benefits). It is unrealistic to think that 100%
of landlords will pay the annual fee.
The City should promote tenant education of their rights in conjunction with Cal Poly. It is purported that many
tenants fear retaliation or eviction by their landlord if they request repairs and/or repair the property themselves
and withhold the cost of that repair from rent. Promotion of the CA Department of Consumer Affairs Landlord-
Tenant Guidebook and creating a low cost or free hotline for tenants who are experiencing issues would be a
good start.
The City and inspectors are opening themselves up to liability if personal or real property is damaged or lost
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 9 of 20
PH1 - 49
during an inspection, especially if no one is present at the time of inspection.
City Council should allow for at least a few weeks after the first reading of the ordinance on May 5th to allow for
community stakeholders to provide input thereby crafting an effective and efficient Program.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 16, 2015, 6:48 PM
SO GLAD I SOLD MY RENTAL PROPERTY IN SAN LUIS OBISPO! The Noise Ordinance fines are crazy for a
College Town and now the City wants to tap in deeper to Landlords pockets which will increase rents even
more. I believe there should only be an Inspection with a legit complaint as long as the Landlord is able to know
who made the complaint (public record) and then the city should issue a written clearance to landlord after such
an inspection, if all is found to be ok or is corrected.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 16, 2015, 3:31 PM
Agreed that there is a problem with overcrowded and unsafe rentals; mostly by students in absentee landlord
converted homes. But the current laws and ordinances should be enforced before another bureaucracy is
formed. Additional and specific outreach and education to tenants / students as to their rights and a dedicated
phone number / email address for them to call to report unsafe conditions or concerns. Additional contact with
absentee land lords to keep their property up. Calpoly should take some responsibility for educating their
students as to legal housing.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 16, 2015, 3:25 PM
Agreed that there is a problem with overcrowded and unsafe rentals; mostly by students in absentee landlord
converted homes. But the current laws and ordinances should be enforced before another bureaucracy is
formed. Additional and specific outreach and education to tenants / students as to their rights and a dedicated
phone number / email address for them to call to report unsafe conditions or concerns. Additional contact with
absentee landlords to keep their property up. Calpoly should take some responsibility for educating their
students as to legal housing.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 16, 2015, 3:20 PM
Agreed that there is a problem with overcrowded and unsafe rentals; mostly by students in absentee landlord
rentals / converted homes. But the current laws and ordinances should be enforced before another
bureaucracy is formed. Additional and specific outreach and education to tenants / students as to their rights
and a dedicated phone number / email address for them to call to report unsafe conditions or concerns.
Additional contact with absentee land lords to keep their property up. Calpoly should take some responsibility
for educating their students as to legal housing.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 (on forum)April 15, 2015, 9:50 PM
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 10 of 20
PH1 - 50
Sadly, after years of neglect, many of our neighbohoods need this program and need it now.
As both a SLO homeowner and a SLO rental property owner, I am sensitive to what has been happening with
too many rental properties -- especially those owned by out-of-town landlords whose sole focus is maximum
income and minimum expense. They do not seem to have the long-term vested interest in the health of San
Luis Obispo that many of us do.
I do not have any reservation about having my rental property inspected, nor does my tenant. We have both
been through inspections every few years by my insurance company and have both been present for the
inspections. My tenant and I both keep the property up, and I will admit that it was a good feeling to have the
insurance inspector validate that the property was in good shape. My tenant had the knowledge that the
property was safe and in good shape and was glad to watch what was inspected.
Obviously, there is no way of knowing exactly how the program will be administered and how qualified and
conscientious the inspectors will be (and some past city employees effectiveness and abilities give me pause),
but I would like to see the program implemented.
My single suggestion is that the program initially face a sunset of one cycle through the entire city, and that we
then evaluate the results and determine if they are what we sought when the program started. If not, we need
to rethink and/or modify or cancel the program. We must also be cautious of building yet another bureaucracy
staffed with people we will find difficult to release when the program ends.
Name not available (unverified)April 15, 2015, 9:44 PM
I am opposed to this proposed ordinance. For the following reasons;
1. I find the interior inspection provisions to be extremely intrusive of personal privacy and inconsistent the
notion of constitutional rights to privacy and protection from unwarranted government searches.
2. I believe inspecting all R-1 and R-2 lots in the entire City to be overkill.
3. Inspecting +/-4,000 units seems way, way out of proportion to the extent of the problem
4. I believe the interior inspections will lead to unforeseen consequences due to the complexity of the codes
being enforced and lack of clarity regarding which standards will be enforced - current codes applied to older
buildings? Disabled access requirements applied to older buildings and sites that cannot comply? Fire sprinkler
upgrades required? Etc.
5. How will the information observed during interior inspections be protected from disclosure? Will inspectors
report observations to police if they see something they think is illegal? Distasteful? Will inspectors be allowed
to take pictures inside of people's homes? How will photos be protected from being "leaked" in the event the
inspector finds something objectionable?
6. What happens if a resident/tenant refuses access?
7. I believe interior inspections (if not completely removed from the ordinance) should only be conducted based
upon complaints and or specific observations that find specific evidence of probable interior violations during an
exterior inspection.
Karen Corda Adler inside Neighborhood 2 (on forum)April 15, 2015, 9:08 PM
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 11 of 20
PH1 - 51
This will be a valuable addition as a tool to protect the health & safety of all renters. Most local landlords are
cognizant of living conditions in their rental units. But out-of-town landlords have a tendency to collect the rent
& don't visibly inspect their properties as often as they should. Property managers are expected to report if
there are problems. Many students pay exorbitant rents for run down conditions. This Rental Inspection
Program should benefit all renters & protect them from degraded conditions & living in garages! This program
is long over-due, especially in a college town!
Name not shown outside Neighborhoods (on forum)April 15, 2015, 8:25 PM
I am concerned that this discriminates against a single class of citizen. A person who rents should be free from
harassment from the government. As a woman I would not want to be forced to allow a stranger into my home.
What is the guarantee the City employee is not going to be a thief or predator. Is the City ready to defend itself
against harassment claims. As a mother I do not want a stranger in my home or the home of my child. If this is
about the safety of structures in the City all homes should be assessed the fee and be under the same rules.
Why are tenants denied the same right to privacy a homeowner enjoys? Landlords are already paying a gross
receipts tax where is that money spent?
Name not available (unclaimed)April 15, 2015, 8:46 AM
I have a property manager who is paid to ensure that my rental properties are well maintained inside and
outside which obviously results in a high monthly rent to my benefit. I do not believe that the ordinance /
inspections should be for all rental properties across the board. This ordinance would penalize good landlords.
There should be a reason for an inspection i.e. someone complained about the outside of the property such as
a neighbor or complained about the inside of the property such as a tenant. Instead of charging additional fees
use the Annual Business License Fees on an as-needed basis to pay for any inspections necessary that
resulted from a complaint.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 15, 2015, 8:45 AM
I have a property manager who is paid to ensure that my rental properties are well maintained inside and
outside which obviously results in a high monthly rent to my benefit. I do not believe that the ordinance /
inspections should be for all rental properties across the board. This ordinance would penalize good landlords.
There should be a reason for an inspection i.e. someone complained about the outside of the property such as
a neighbor or complained about the inside of the property such as a tenant. Instead of charging additional fees
use the Annual Business License Fees on an as-needed basis to pay for any inspections necessary that
resulted from a complaint.
Ray Potts outside Neighborhoods (unverified)April 14, 2015, 11:11 AM
I think this is so unfair to persons who have rental homes in San Luis Obispo. I have never heard of this type of
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 12 of 20
PH1 - 52
thing in any other city. This is just a why for the city to make more money. This city is so unfair already to collage
students. Let the rental home persons vote on this new tax. STOP this new tax now.
Jesse Bilsten inside Neighborhood 6 (on forum)April 14, 2015, 10:21 AM
Problem:
This solution will result in higher rent, higher home prices and expand student renters further into the
surrounding neighborhoods. It will add unnecessary administration costs and potentially infringe on privacy
rights on current resident renters.
Solution:
Raise awareness that students and/or renters alike can report slumlords via existing municipal inspection and
violation infrastructure. This could be communicated by phone, mailers, email campaign, fliers around
neighborhoods, door to door, community outreach, etc. All would be more effective than this program and would
cost a LOT less.
The benefit of community outreach would start to put faces to neighbors and students alike which should
reduce the friction within neighborhoods as well.
Example:
Let's run through an example to see how this proposed program would play out, shall we?
Background:
"Pop" is a property owner and rents to students. Pops house is a 2 bedroom 1 bathroom home near campus.
Pop rents the house for $2000/mo. Students are trying to save money so they convert the kitchen into a
bedroom and fit 4 students into the 2 bedroom 1 bathroom home. They pay their rent on time and do not
complain or report the home as it's in their best interest to do what they're doing.
Program starts:
Pop raises the rent to $2020/mo to cover the new fees and so do all other property owners as now the market
rent has increased across the board. An inspection happens and the room is cited as unpermitted and 2 of the
students end up moving out. Pop pays to have the room converted back to a kitchen and raises rent again to
recoup costs.
Rent is now $2150/mo.
The market adjusts again to match the higher rents in the area. The 2 now homeless students (and all the
others who will likely enter the renting market) now increase the demand in the area further and rent rises again
as Supply has decreased and Demand has increased.
Rent is now $2300/mo.
Home prices go up as demand for housing has increased. Parents are willing to buy houses for their children in
order to have housing near campus.
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 13 of 20
PH1 - 53
Students know that inspections occur once every 3 years and since this is likely much longer than they need to
switch houses, impacted housing still occurs as costs have now increased more than 10% (minimum) and
density will likely increase as well since demand has increased. The problem is not solved and slumlords have
a reason to raise rent as well as pass on the costs to their renters.
History:
I have rented up to 4 houses near campus for over a decade, attended Cal Poly both in the dorms and have
lived on or around campus for 17 years, and am a resident of SLO for 36 years.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 14, 2015, 10:18 AM
Problem:
This solution will result in higher rent, higher home prices and expand student renters further into the
surrounding neighborhoods. It will add unnecessary administration costs and potentially infringe on privacy
rights on current resident renters.
Solution:
Raise awareness that students and/or renters alike can report slumlords via existing municipal inspection and
violation infrastructure. This could be communicated by phone, mailers, email campaign, fliers around
neighborhoods, door to door, community outreach, etc. All would be more effective than this program and would
cost a LOT less.
The benefit of community outreach would start to put faces to neighbors and students alike which should
reduce the friction within neighborhoods as well.
Example:
Let's run through an example to see how this proposed program would play out, shall we?
Background:
"Pop" is a property owner and rents to students. Pops house is a 2 bedroom 1 bathroom home near campus.
Pop rents the house for $2000/mo. Students are trying to save money so they convert the kitchen into a
bedroom and fit 4 students into the 2 bedroom 1 bathroom home. They pay their rent on time and do not
complain or report the home as it's in their best interest to do what they're doing.
Program starts:
Pop raises the rent to $2020/mo to cover the new fees and so do all other property owners as now the market
rent has increased across the board. An inspection happens and the room is cited as unpermitted and 2 of the
students end up moving out. Pop pays to have the room converted back to a kitchen and raises rent again to
recoup costs.
Rent is now $2150/mo.
The market adjusts again to match the higher rents in the area. The 2 now homeless students (and all the
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 14 of 20
PH1 - 54
others who will likely enter the renting market) now increase the demand in the area further and rent rises again
as Supply has decreased and Demand has increased.
Rent is now $2300/mo.
Home prices go up as demand for housing has increased. Parents are willing to buy houses for their children in
order to have housing near campus.
Students know that inspections occur once every 3 years and since this is likely much longer than they need to
switch houses, impacted housing still occurs as costs have now increased more than 10% (minimum) and
density will likely increase as well since demand has increased. The problem is not solved and slumlords have
a reason to raise rent as well as pass on the costs to their renters.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 13, 2015, 9:27 PM
y
Name not available (unclaimed)April 13, 2015, 9:17 PM
How are you determining which rentals to inspect? So many rentals in SLO are illegal additions to homes or
have too many people living in them, no off street parking and other codes that could be addressed at this time
without a new ordinance. I have owned rentals in SLO for many years and have a business license for them. I
feel the city is once again trying to make new ordinances for problems that can already be addressed.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 13, 2015, 9:38 AM
I am apposed to the city rental housing inspection program. While I can see some utility in using this process in
blighted urban communities such as Detroit; I am adamantly opposed to such an imposition upon the central
coast landowners. I think if passed, the rental housing inspection program will be a type private property
censorship that diminishes ownership rights and may lead to a burdensome city government pack of
inefficiencies.
Thank you,
Heidi Goetz, Real Estate Broker
Name not available (unclaimed)April 12, 2015, 4:31 PM
We are strongly in favor of the proposed rental inspection program.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 12, 2015, 4:28 PM
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 15 of 20
PH1 - 55
Will number of residents living in the rental property be part of the inspection?
Karen Bren inside Neighborhood 6 (on forum)April 11, 2015, 5:20 PM
I believe this is a worthwhile proposal. I am however concerned that the City collaborate with landlords to pull
together a fair ordinance. We have a number of absentee landlords with property in town; their involvement in
the drafting/creation of this ordinance will be very important.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 11, 2015, 2:34 PM
My wife and I have been renting single family homes in SLO for over 20 years. We see no basis for now having
to pay the City $100 per month per rental property. This ordnance should have been put to a vote before
approval.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 11, 2015, 1:16 PM
I have zero faith in the ability of our City to fairly enforce any of these ordinances. Just like the trash can
ordinance allows trash cans out in front of some council members houses but those who live next to a nosy
neighbor must move theirs in immediately. College Kids drinking, get to smoke all night long outside in
downtown area yet a homeless person cannot. I'm sure medical pot smells will get jumped on right away but I
doubt the Vegans will get to prevent the BBQ smells from downtown Farmers Market. Just one more hurdle
that I'm sure the wealthy landlords won't have much of a problem with but will be another way to squeeze the
smaller landlords. Please show me you can fairly enforce the rules you already have in place before you ask for
more.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 11, 2015, 10:25 AM
Fees shouldn't be passed onto tenants. Units that are determined to be in violation should be fined heavily and
the budget should come from there.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 11, 2015, 9:48 AM
As long as the aim is not to displace people due to over-occupancy the program is a great idea. I doubt anyone
would want to cram as many people as they can into a rental, but it must be done due to the housing shortage
and high prices. Having all units inspected would penalize those landlords who do keep properties up, having it
be a service where tenant must go through the process themselves on top of having landlords be unresponsive
to maintenance requests is a worse avenue.
Michael Shandroff inside Neighborhood 6 (on forum)April 11, 2015, 8:48 AM
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 16 of 20
PH1 - 56
I've been a landlord in slo for 13 years. I've always maintained my units to a high standard. I'd be happy living in
them. I feel this ordinance would penalize good landlords. It should be complaint driven, so only slumlords are
affected. A whistleblower program would be better.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 11, 2015, 8:30 AM
It seems like this should be an important aspect of monitoring rental housing in our college community. I
believe that there are many properties that lack health and safety standard review. I do not agree that most of
the rentals are for college attending students. There are many that are professionals that cannot afford to
purchase on the central coast, but prefer SLO over another city. These individuals are afraid to say anything to
their landlords in fear of retaliation in the form of raising rent and/or eviction. An oversight by the city may assist
out of the area owners who totally rely on property managers who are only providing what the owners want to
hear, that everything is fine and there are no upgrades or corrections needed. I would recommend reviewing
the property near Gus's Grocery (1630 something OSOS St.) as I have first hand knowledge how unsafe this
property is. Please start there. Susanne Link
Name not available (unclaimed)April 11, 2015, 8:02 AM
I think the interior inspection portion of the proposed ordinance is a bad and illegal idea. The issue of privacy
rights was not resolved in the Santa Crus Ordinance. It not evaluated and resolved because the person filing
the lawsuit was determined not to have standing.
Proposing to inspect over 4000 single family and duplex residences in reaction to a problem know to be
concentrated primarily in a limited area(s) of the City is over kill. The process could and should be complaint
based. Educate tenants about their rights, educate landlords about their obligations and then inspect and
enforce in reaction to complaints. Will inspected units be required to be brought up to current code? Or code at
the time of construction? Will ADA requirements accessibility requirements be imposed? What happens if
accessibility requirements cannot be achieved? Staff has indicated that the inspection are limited to R-1 and R-
2 properties and ADA accessibility requirements will not apply because single family residences and duplexes
are exempt. What if there are 3 units on an R-2 lot? Exempt or not? This and many, many other examples will
arise where there may be unintended consequences and the inspection will get into issues other than "simply
trying to assure safe housing conditions" because inspectors cannot turn a blind eye to any issue covered
under the codes referenced in the inspection ordinance.
janice wang inside Neighborhood 6 (on forum)April 11, 2015, 7:11 AM
I think the inspections should occur only if there are complaints, either by neighbors or by tenants, as occurs in
other towns in the area.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 6 (on forum)April 10, 2015, 3:49 PM
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 17 of 20
PH1 - 57
Seems like a waste of resources. Inspections should only be done inside of homes that are reported for
violations by the renters themselves.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 10, 2015, 9:32 AM
I am concerned that this will just be another attempt to garner funds for the city without accomplishing much.
No one is forced to live anywhere. It should have a sunset clause of four years. It is a great excuse for tenants
to threaten landlords to get out of their last month's rent. I believe correlating complaints and move-out dates
will verify this. Our housing stock is generally in good shape. It is tenants not landlords who bring in extra
people and trash places. Perhaps a voluntary inspection at the beginning of the school year would be more
cost-effective and minimize retribution. Personally I think the entire idea is stupid. I live in the Laguna Lake area
Name not available (unclaimed)April 9, 2015, 8:31 PM
This program is needed because single family homes have been turned into rentals for 4-5 (and more) people--
typically students. Permanent residents in many of our neighborhoods are negatively affected because it is
unpleasant to have nearby houses look shabby; it reflects on their property as well! Student renters complain
about the condition of properties offered as rentals. When Cal Poly does due diligence and houses 75% of
their enrollment, we can look forward to young professionals, couples and families returning to this city many
would like to live in. If inspected our housing stock will be better maintained!
Name not available (unclaimed)April 9, 2015, 2:47 PM
This well overdue program is desperately needed. Other university cities such as Santa Cruz have these types
of programs to ensure fair and safe rental housing. These programs also promote more landlord responsibility
and accountability. These types of rental businesses by absentee landlords are especially prone to taking
advantage of renters and should be regulated.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 9, 2015, 11:44 AM
I believe the RHIP is one of the very effective enforcement tool the City has ever considered. It should help
renters living in substandard conditions and improve and preserve our housing stock which has greatly
deteriorated because of greedy investors maximizing their profits without doing any repairs or maintenance to
their rental properties. This neglectful attitude has grossly deteriorated our housing and this program will
certainly be a help. Please pass this ordinance as Staff has recommended. Also, please realize that many of
those who are most vocally opposed to this ordinance are those who own significant numbers of rental
properties and do not want to be held accountable for their condition. Thank you.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 9, 2015, 11:40 AM
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 18 of 20
PH1 - 58
It will be extremely difficult for City of SLO personnel to inspect the inside of a rental unit located within the city
without a court issued warrant and/or the consent of the subject property owner.
Therefore, requests for entry inside any individual rental units should be done on a very limited basis as a result
of repeated code and/or exterior property related problems ONLY !
Name not available (unclaimed)April 9, 2015, 11:37 AM
I live in the Cal Poly zone, and believe that the vast majority of the student rentals follow current rules. The
ones that don't are the ones the city should go after. It's easy to tell the offenders, if you would like, my
neighbors and I could give you a list of property's that are likely code violators.
Please don't punish everyone for a few peoples mistakes.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 6 (on forum)April 9, 2015, 10:18 AM
1. I would like the ordinance to contain a five year forecast of the annual cost. If you are adding employees to
staff for this, and this is cost recovery, my assumption is that the cost will go up each year thus increasing the
annual cost to rental property owners. Money should not come from the General Fund to support this. People
that don't have rental property should not have to pay. If this is successful, and say in five years you don't need
the same amount of staff to run it, will the staff hired for this be let go or retained within some other area, and
stay employed with the City ?
2. I would like to see a one and three year City Council review of this ordinance if passed, to see if it is working.
I believe performance standards should be met. Year one to see if this is generating the amount of inspections
and cooperation from property owners that is anticipated, especially those that don't follow the rules today such
as getting a business license. The goal, as I understand it, is to get through all the rentals one time in a three
year cycle. I think its reasonable know if this is working or not.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 9, 2015, 8:44 AM
I am opposed to the rental inspection ordinance. Costs to City and Staff time do not justify "random"
inspections. In the past, code violations have occurred in multi-unit complexes covered by Fire Department
inspections.
Behavior is the problem, not code violations which cover only the basic Uniform Housing Code.
If the City passes this ordinance, I would ask that staff not re-invent the wheel; California Department of
Consumer Affairs publishes a California Tenant Handbook free of charge. This is complete guide to Tenants
and Landlord Rights which the city will violate with interior inspections by the way unless an addendum is
supplied to owner and tenant by the City.
How much will that cost City Staff and Legal Staff?
Thank you for your consideration,
Mary Lou Johnson
Sharon Whitney inside Neighborhood 2 (on forum)April 9, 2015, 8:37 AM
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 19 of 20
PH1 - 59
I support the proposed program. My main interest is in the health and safety of the renters in my
neighborhood--Alta Vista. These renters are mostly students who attend Cal Poly. While the exterior rental
properties appear mostly compliant with City codes, it is a known fact that interior non-compliance is a problem
in some rentals. In particular, I suspect that there are non-permitted constructions, conversions of spaces into
bedrooms that are not really compliant with what a bedroom should be.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 6 (on forum)April 8, 2015, 4:21 PM
We have lived in our home almost 30 years. Once surrounded by well maintained owner occupied homes, we
are now completely engulfed in rentals in varying stages of disrepair and blight. This proactive plan is an
excellent solution for rescuing our neighborhoods, protecting renters and neighbors alike and even pays for
itself. Bravo! Gini Griffin, 1436 Johnson Avenue
Name not available (unclaimed)April 8, 2015, 12:44 PM
It's about time! SLO needs this program to ensure safety and neighborhood wellness. CC should support this
program if truly interested in the improvement of neighborhoods and residential safety
Rental Housing Inspection Program
What do you think of the proposed elements of the rental housing inspection program?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 22, 2015, 2:42 PM http://peakdemocracy.com/2621 Page 20 of 20
PH1 - 60
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
T
e
a
m
Ca
l
P
o
l
y
-
C
i
t
y
-
C
u
e
s
t
a
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
G
r
o
u
p
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
W
e
l
l
n
e
s
s
/
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
i
v
i
l
i
t
y
E
f
f
o
r
t
Pu
b
l
i
c
I
n
p
u
t
Recommend
7/
2
3
/
2
0
1
3
Pu
b
l
i
c
Mi
s
s
i
o
n
:
Re
s
e
a
r
c
h
,
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
an
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
C
a
l
Po
l
y
,
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
,
a
n
d
Cu
e
s
t
a
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
t
o
en
h
a
n
c
e
t
h
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
of
l
i
f
e
f
o
r
a
l
l
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
w
i
t
h
a
n
em
p
h
a
s
i
s
o
n
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
re
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
st
u
d
e
n
t
-
a
g
e
d
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
a
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
s
h
i
f
t
i
n
so
c
i
a
l
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
Mission:Exchange information and ideas to implement neighborhood wellness goals.
Po
l
i
c
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Pu
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
Fi
r
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Ci
t
y
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Ca
l
P
o
l
y
Pr
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
’
s
Of
f
i
c
e
Ca
l
P
o
l
y
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
Af
f
a
i
r
s
Ca
l
P
o
l
y
P
o
l
i
c
e
AS
I
C
a
P
o
l
y
Pr
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
RQ
N
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Gr
o
u
p
s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Cu
e
s
t
a
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
Ca
l
P
o
l
y
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
Ca
l
P
o
l
y
A
S
I
Cal Poly Housing
Cu
e
s
t
a
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
Pr
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
Ca
l
P
o
l
y
Pr
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Cuesta College Student Life & LeadershipAssociated Students President
Cu
e
s
t
a
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
Vi
c
e
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
St
u
d
e
n
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
City Staff
Co
n
s
u
l
t
an
d
Ad
v
i
s
e
Monterrey Heights NeighborhoodAlta Vista NeighborhoodLaguna NeighborhoodAttachment 8 PH1 - 61
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PH1 - 62
Attachment 9
Rental Housing Inspection Program Outreach Efforts
The following is a summary of outreach efforts as of May 5, 2015.
Meetings Previous to City Council Study Session 12/16/14:
Group/Individual Date Notes
1. RQN Meeting Discussed the Project Plan
2. Chamber of Commerce 3/04/14 Discussion of RHIP concept
3. SLO Assoc. of Realtors Meeting 3/11/14 Presentation and Discussion
4. Linda White Meeting 3/18/14 Discussion re: RHIP Meeting
5. The Civility Group Meeting 3/20/14 Presentation and Discussion
6. Neighborhood Wellness Meeting 4/03/14 Presentation and Discussion
7. Chamber of Commerce 4/10/14 Presentation and Discussion
8. Article in SLOWHAT 4/16/14 Article on the development of RHIP
9. Student-Community Liaison Comm. 4/17/14 Presentation and Disc. To SCLC
10. SLO Property Managers Assoc. Mtg. 5/05/14 Presentation and Discussion
11. RQN Meeting 9/15/14 RHIP Discussion
12. CalPoly Transitional Housing Prog.Com. 10/24/14 Presentation and Discussion
13. Monterey Heights/Alta Vista Neigh. 11/05/14 Presentation and Discussion
14. CalPoly ASI Subcommittee Meeting 10/03/14 Presentation and Discussion
15. Public Notice in newspaper 11/25/14 Public Notice of Council Study Session
16. SLO Property & Bus. Owners Assoc. 12/10/14 Presentation and Discussion
17. City Council Study Session 12/16/14 Display Ads, email-interested parties
Meetings Previous to City Council Hearing Date 5/5/15:
Group/Individual Date Notes
1. Neighborhood Wellness Group 2/5/15 Presentation and Discussion
2. Chamber of Commerce Issues Eval Committee 2/12/15 Presentation and Discussion
3. Alta Vista Neighborhood Association 2/20/15 Presentation and Discussion
4. SLOPBOA 2/26/15 Presentation and Discussion
5. San Luis Obispo Realtors Association 3/3/15 Presentation and Discussion
6. Cal Poly ASI Board of Directors 3/9/15 Presentation and Discussion
7. San Luis Obispo Realtors Association 3/17/15 Presentation and Discussion
8. Old Town Neighborhood Association 3/25/15 Presentation and Discussion
9. Cuesta College Student Leadership 3/26/15 Presentation and Discussion
10. Monterey Heights Neighborhood Association 4/7/15 Presentation and Discussion
11. Residents for Quality Neighborhoods 4/15/15 Presentation and Discussion
12. Rotary de Tolosa 4/22/15 Presentation and Discussion
13. Open City Hall April Online
14. City Council 5/05/15 Display Ads, email-interested parties
PH1 - 63
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PH1 - 64
Rental Housing Inspection
Program
City Council – May 5, 2015
Recommendation
1.Adopt an Ordinance (Attachment 1) amending Titles 15 of
the Municipal Code by adding Chapter 15.10 establishing a
Rental Housing Inspection Program and determining that the
project program is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
15061 (b)(3), 15308, 15309 and 15321; and
2.Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 2) establishing fees to
implement the Rental Housing Inspection Program; and
3.Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 3) establishing an amnesty
program for one year for properties subject to the proposed
Rental Housing Inspection Program who voluntarily report
and abate health and safety violations.
2
Neighborhood Wellness Initiatives
2013-15 Financial Plan Major City Goal
“Continue and Enhance Neighborhood Wellness
Initiatives”
Continue to support proactive code enforcement,
pursue a residential rental inspection program,
improve street cleanliness, increase public safety
enforcement, and support neighborhood led
initiatives.
2015-17 Other Important Objective
Neighborhood Wellness
Improve neighborhood wellness, work with residents,
Cuesta, and Cal Poly; increase public safety, code
compliance, and collaborative solutions.
3
Neighborhood Wellness
4
Policy Background for Rental
Housing Inspection Program
2010 & 2015 Housing Element Program
2013-15 Financial Plan Major City Goal
Neighborhood Wellness work plan objective
December 2014 City Council Study Session
Direction
2015-17 Other Important Objective
Neighborhood Wellness
5
Housing Violations (2013)
Violation Types
Number of
Residential
Violations
Substandard Housing 281
Unpermitted Construction 126
Land Use/Zoning 88
Occupancy Violations/Illegal Conversions 73
Property Maintenance 850
Misc. 31
Total 1,449
Percent of violations in R1/R2 zones 80%
6
Health and Safety Concerns
7
Existing Code Enforcement
Proactive Code Enforcement primarily allows for
exterior building inspection only
Interior building inspections rely primarily on
receiving complaints
Not all substandard housing conditions generate
complaints because tenants:
May be unaware that conditions are substandard
Are unaware of their legal protections
Do not know how to make a complaint
May fear increased rent or eviction
Have language barriers or disabilities
8
Why a Rental Housing Inspection
Program?
1.Allows for both interior and exterior building
inspections related to public health and
safety
2.Preserve and maintain housing stock
3.Provide for livable and attractive
neighborhoods
9
Research
10
Outreach Presentations Prior to Dec. 2014 January -May 2015
Chamber of Commerce
Civility Group
SLO Association of Realtors
Neighborhood Wellness
SLO Property Managers Association
RQN
Monterey Heights
Alta Vista
Old Town
Cal Poly ASI Board of Directors
Cuesta College
Rotary de Tolosa
SLOPBOA
Student Community Liaison Comm.
Cal Poly Transitional Housing Program
11
Council Direction
1.Program focus: health and safety items
2.Single family dwellings and duplexes
3.Frequency of Inspection: 3 year cycle
4.Scope of Inspection: Interior/exterior
5.Set fees at full cost recovery
6.Disincentives for non-compliance
7.Incentives for compliance
12
13
Proposed Ordinance
1. Inspection Overview
a)Chief Building Official authorized to routinely inspect
properties for compliance with codes and standards
b)Applicable codes and standards are those in effect
when unit was constructed, altered, or remodeled
with valid permit
c)Unpermitted work discovered will be required to be
brought up to current code and standards; if not,
shall be removed
d)3 year inspection cycle
14
Proposed Ordinance
2.Registration, Applications and Implementation
a)Owners of residential dwelling units used as rental
properties register units
within 60 days from Jan. 1, 2016
OR within 30 days from which unit is acquired
Penalties or fines for failing to register
b)Annual Registration Fee is billed and payable
concurrently with Business License Fee
c)Nonpayment of fees will follow an administrative
citation process
15
Proposed Ordinance
3. Notification of Inspection and Inspection
Procedures
a)Building Official mails Notice of Inspection and
invoice for Inspection Fee
b)Upon receipt of payment, final inspection notice
issued
c)Appointments for inspections can be rescheduled
once without penalty
With owner’s written request
16
Proposed Ordinance
4. Inspection and Re-Inspection
a)Owner/agent must be present at time of inspection
Access must be granted by tenants
b)If violation found, Inspector issues Inspection
Report with timeframe to fix violations
Re-inspection done to verify violations corrected
c)Re-inspection fee issued for 2rd re-inspection if
violations are not corrected
Also subject to additional fees
17
Failure to Provide Access
Owner fails to provide access
Charged a Re-inspection Fee for failure to provide
access to a Residential Rental Dwelling Unit for
inspection.
Access denied or refused by tenant
Inspector shall have recourse to every remedy
provided by law to secure lawful entry and inspect
the premises, including, but not limited to, securing
an inspection warrant.
Owner not charged a re-inspection fee.
18
Proposed Ordinance
5. Self-Certification
a)Available to property owners whose properties are
found to be:
In compliance with initial City inspection
No prior code enforcement activity within last 3
years
No unpaid code enforcement fines
b)Owner applies for program. Property enters Self-
Certification Program for 3 year period if accepted
c)Property can be removed from program for 3 year
cycle should violations occur.
19
Proposed Ordinance
5. Self Certification Continued..
a)Building Official mails owner an inspection checklist
60 days prior to due date
b)Owner performs inspection and returns checklist
within 45 days of receiving the checklist
c)Should owner find deficiencies, needed permits
shall be obtained to correct within 30 days
Final checklist submitted within 10 days of corrections
d)10% of units subject to random inspection
20
Exemptions
a)Mobile home units within mobile home parks
regulated by the California Department of Housing
and Community Development.
b)HUD Section 8 Housing Units.
c)Dwelling units owned or managed by a government
agency.
d)Residential Rental Dwelling Units that are occupied
by the registered Owner or Owners as recorded
with the County of San Luis Obispo’s Clerk-
Recorder’s Office. Additional information may be
required by the Community Development
Department to determine that the property is
occupied by the registered Owner.
21
Program Costs
2015-16 2016-17
Units Inspected 380 860
Staffing costs
(including benefits) $200,842 $414,874
Other operating
Expenses (fuel,
training, supplies,
etc.)
$55,979 $68,679
Total Costs $256,821 $483,553
Projected Revenue $163,185 $388,829
Net Costs ($93,633) ($94,724)
22
Cost Projections
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Units
Inspected 1,240 1,240 1,116 1,116 1,116
Number of
Inspections &
Re-
inspections
2,468 2,468 1,742 1,742 1,742
Expenditures $498,484 $513,870 $529,724 $546,062 $562,895
Revenues $512,560 $530,499 $527,815 $546,288 $565,408
23
Fees
Fee Type Fee Frequency Recommended
Fee
Annual Registration Annual $65
Inspection Fee Once per cycle $185
Self-Certification Fee Once per cycle $65
Re-inspection Fee As needed $65
24
Typical Cycle Cost
Total 3-Year Cycle
Cost
Average Annual
Cost
Total fees per
cycle with
self-certification*
$260 $87
Total fees per
cycle without
self-certification* $380 $127
*In 2015 dollars. Does not include annual CPI increases
25
Amnesty
Amnesty period of one year
July 1, 2015 - June 30, 2016
Suspends penalty fees on any rental property owner who
voluntarily obtains a building permit to either correct or
otherwise permit unpermitted work prior to a scheduled
inspection or June 30, 2016, whichever occurs first.
Once amnesty period ends, unpermitted work will be
treated as a code enforcement case with associated
penalties or fines.
26
Next Steps
Timeframe Task to be Completed
June 2015 Amnesty Notification Sent
July – August 2015 Begin hiring staff
September – December
2015
Develop program materials and
community outreach plan
January 2016 Begin registration and inspection
notification, billing and community
outreach
April 2016 Begin initial inspections
27
Recommendation
1.Adopt an Ordinance (Attachment 1) amending Titles 15 of
the Municipal Code by adding Chapter 15.10 establishing a
Rental Housing Inspection Program and determining that the
project program is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
15061 (b)(3), 15308, 15309 and 15321; and
2.Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 2) establishing fees to
implement the Rental Housing Inspection Program; and
3.Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 3) establishing an amnesty
program for one year for properties subject to the proposed
Rental Housing Inspection Program who voluntarily report
and abate health and safety violations.
28
Council Directions and Related Outcomes
12/16 Council
Direction Ordinance Related Fees Amnesty
Single family dwellings
and duplexes
Program will cover SFRs and
duplexes used as rental housing
only
$65 Registration
Fee
One year will be
provided for
owners to obtain
permits for
unpermitted work,
without additional
fees or additional
penalties, if not;
unpermitted work
will need to be
removed.
Frequency of
Inspection: 3 years
Initial inspection cycle 4 years,
then 3 year cycle.
$185 Inspection Fee
Scope of Inspection:
Interior/exterior
Inspectors will inspect both
interiors and exteriors
$185 Inspection Fee
Set fees at full cost
recovery
Yes, See Fee Table See Fee Table
Disincentives
High fines or re-
inspection fees
Higher fines for failure to
register, third or more
inspections required
$65 Re-Inspection
Fee
Registration
Delinquency Fee up
to 50% of
Registration Fee
Incentives
Self- certification
Program has self-certification
option after initial inspection
$65 Self-
Certification Fee
29
Inspections
Fiscal Year Units Inspected
Number of
Inspections &
Re-inspections
2015-2016 380 756
2016-2017 860 1,711
2017-2018 1,240 2,468
2018-2019 1,240 2,468
2019-2020 1,116 1,742
2020-2021 1,116 1,742
2021-2022 1,116 1,742
30
Code Enforcement Priorities and
Response Times
Priority Violation Type Response Time
Frame
1 Immediate Health and Safety Violations Same Day
2 Unpermitted Construction In Progress Next Day
3 Substandard Housing, Unpermitted
Construction/Conversions
3 days
3 Front Yard Parking, Overgrown Weeds,
Debris, Abandoned Vehicles, Trash
Receptacle Storage, etc.
3 days
4 Zoning Violations, Signs, Fence Height
Violations, Vacation Rentals, etc.
7 days
These priorities are established as a guide to facilitate the assignment of complaints for
investigation and to provide reporting parties some expectation of when complaints will be
responded to given the available resources of the Department. In some cases the response
time will be shorter or longer due to current workload demands. Time frames are given in
“working days”.
31
Community Outreach
34
Economics
Neighborhood Stabilization
HotHouse
35
Engagement
Existing engagement with Cal Poly
Cal Poly SOAR, WOW, PanHellenic
Cal Poly Campus Planning Committee
Student Community Liaison Committee
“Mustang Way”
Off Campus Coordinator
Community Outreach
Civility Group
Neighborhood Wellness
Neighborhood Hub Newsletter
36
Enforcement
Items handled by the City
Proactive and complaint based
Unsound fences, Overgrown vegetation, Yard
parking, Abandoned furniture, Debris,
Unscreened waste containers, Noise, Unruly
gatherings and other public nuisances
Items handled by Cal Poly
Student Code of Conduct
Student noise violations
Student alcohol related infractions
37
Code Enforcement Cases vs. Cases Resolved
38
Rental Properties in San Luis Obispo
(1980- 2010)
53%
38%
47%
62%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
1980 1990 2000 2010
Owner
Occupied
Rental
Trend
12,743 Total
Rental Units
4,660 to be
included in RHIP
7,810 Owner
Occupied Units
39
40
“Draft” Performance Measures
Measure Description Reporting
Period
Complaint Based
Cases Resolved
Percentage of complaint based
cases resolved within 30 days of
notice
Monthly
Proactive
Enforcement Cases
Percentage of complaint based
cases resolved within 30 days of
notice
Monthly
Number of Cases
Per Inspector (day)
How many inspections per day Monthly
Number of code
enforcement
complaints received
Analyze trends of complaints Monthly
Code Enforcement
Citations
Analyze trends of citations Monthly