HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2006 0517 CC REG ITEM 09AITEM ct• A.
CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
CRY Council Meeting
ot- _ -/7 aoo fo
ACTION:
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director
Prepared By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Manag r
DATE: May 3, 2006 (CC Meeting of 5/17/2006)
SUBJECT: Consider Ordinance to Add Chapter 15.34 to the Municipal Code to
Require Safety Inspections of Residential Rental Housing
BACKGROUND
On October 19, 2005, in response to safety and property maintenance concerns with
some rental properties, staff presented the Affordable Housing /Community
Development Committee (Mayor Hunter, Mayor Pro Tern Mikos) with a report (attached)
on how other cities ensure that rental housing units are maintained in a safe manner
and in compliance with the municipal code. The problem often occurs in the rental of
single - family homes and duplexes, where maintenance and improvements are not
overseen by a professional management company. One option presented to the
Committee was a program to regularly inspect rental units. The Committee requested
staff to proceed with the preparation of an ordinance for City Council consideration.
DISCUSSION
The ordinance prepared by Community Development staff focuses on safety issues with
respect to rental housing, with an inspection program to cover applicable municipal
code requirements specifically related to building, housing, zoning, and property
maintenance. It has been designed to apply to both single - family and multi - family units
that are rented. Housing specifically exempted from the program includes owner -
occupied units not operated as boarding houses or bed - and - breakfast inns (units may
not involve the renting of more than one (1) room as a residence or any overnight
rooms), second dwellings that are not rented for money or other consideration, hospital
rooms, residential care facilities, hospices, community care facilities, mobile homes
within mobile home parks, and on- campus dormitories.
In order to rent a housing unit, the landlord would need to obtain a rental authorization
permit and business registration. This permit would be issued after an inspection
reveals that the unit meets the municipal code requirements for building, housing,
zoning, and property maintenance. The initial inspection would include both an exterior
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS\Z 0 A\2005 \Rental Inspection \060517 Rental Inspection Report.doc 0 < 013 8
Honorable City Council
May 17, 2006
Page 2
and interior inspection. Annual renewals would only require an exterior inspection,
unless the exterior inspection reveals potential concerns that would require an interior
inspection. One new requirement of this ordinance is for the rental units to have
operating smoke detectors in each bedroom and in the common area outside the
bedrooms (i.e. hallway). Community Development staff discussed this provision with
Fire Protection District staff, who are supportive of such a requirement, since smoke
detectors are not currently required in single - family homes in Ventura County.
Staff proposes to fully support the costs associated with this program through the
collection of inspection fees. As noted in the attached materials, inspection fees
charged by other cities range from $50 to $150 per inspection. Staff estimates that the
inspection fee for this program would be somewhere in the middle of this range, based
on actual time needed to complete an inspection and issue a permit. If the City Council
introduces this ordinance, staff will prepare a fee resolution for consideration at a future
Council meeting. In accordance with Government Code Sections 6062a and 66016, a
public notice would be provided of this future City Council public hearing through
publishing and mailers, and the draft agenda report would be made available to the
public through the Community Development Department.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City's environmental review procedures adopted by resolution,
the Community Development Director determines the level of review necessary for a
project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some projects
may be exempt from review based upon a specific category listed in CEQA. Other
projects may be exempt under a general rule that environmental review is not
necessary where it can be determined that there would be no possibility of significant
effect upon the environment. A project which does not qualify for an exemption requires
the preparation of an Initial Study to assess the level of potential environmental impacts.
The Director has reviewed this project and found it to qualify for a Categorical
Exemption in accordance with Section 15309 (Inspections) of California Code of
Regulations (CEQA Guidelines). No further environmental documentation is required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Introduce Ordinance No. for first reading, approving the Addition of
Chapter 15.34 to the Municipal Code.
2. Schedule second reading and adoption for June 7, 2006.
3. Direct staff to prepare a fee resolution to implement the new Chapter 15.34 and
schedule for July 19, 2006.
Attachments:
1. October 19, 2005 report to Affordable Housing /Community Development
Committee
2. Draft Ordinance
000139
MOORPARK
AFFORDABLE HOUSING /COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Affordable Housing /Community Development Committee
(Mayor Hunter and Councilmember Mikos)
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo
DATE: October 6, 2005 (Meeting of 10/19/05)
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for the Creation of a Rental
Inspection Ordinance for Single - Family and Multiple
Family Housing
BACKGROUND
This matter was originally scheduled for consideration by the
Affordable Housing /Community Development Committee on July 20,
2005, but was continued to a future meeting due to other lengthy
matters on the July agenda.
DISCUSSION
In many cities a rental housing ordinance has been adopted to
ensure compliance with the municipal code regarding substandard
buildings and property maintenance issues. The issues are
usually overcrowding, illegal room additions, unsanitary
conditions and general deterioration of the units. For Moorpark,
we deal with these issues through the code compliance process
seeking compliance with our property maintenance ordinance and
the building code. Recently Simi Valley considered the issue of
overcrowding in single - family homes. The report is attached for
your information.
Staff requested a list -serve survey response from those cities
that have a rental inspection ordinance. We have copies of a
number of ordinances from cities throughout the state. The
California Association of Realtors provided us with a copy of
its Local Inspection Ordinance Matrix which indicates that 22
S: \Community DevelopmentVOMIN \, CC ATTACHMENT 1 000140
Affordable Housing Community Development Committee
October 19, 2005
Page 2
cities have an inspection ordinance. A copy of the Matrix is
attached.
The adoption of a rental inspection ordinance is just another
tool that the City may want to consider adopting to assist in
minimizing problems associated with overcrowding, illegal room
additions, unsanitary conditions and property maintenance
issues.
RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff as appropriate.
Attachments:
1) Simi Valley Overcrowding Staff Report, dated February 28,
2005
2) Local Inspection Ordinance Matrix
3) Simi Valley City Council Staff Report, dated September 26,
2005
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMITTEE AH -CD \Staff Rpts \051019 Rental Ord.doc 0 0 0 141
Affordable Housing Community Development Committee
October 19, 2005
Page 3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
MEMORANDUM
February 28, 2005
TO: City Council
FROM: City Attorney /Department of Community Services
SUBJECT: OPTIONS FOR REGULATING OVERCROWDING IN RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
Direct staff to return to the City Council with amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to
clarify the City's boarding house and lodging house regulations in residential zones
within 60 days;
2. Direct staff to implement an aggressive approach in addressing building and housing
code violations related to overcrowding when responding to complaints; and
3. Direct staff to conduct a full review of program alternatives and the financial impacts
associated with implementing a rental property inspection program and report back to
the City Council within 180 days.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
At the recent City Council meetings, the City Council discussed the issue of large numbers
of persons living in single - family dwelling units, and requested that information be brought
back regarding options for regulating overcrowding. In early January 2005, a fire
occurred at a single- family home at 2367 Cochran Street, resulting in the death of one of
the occupants. It has been reported that more than a dozen people lived in the house. The
house had also been modified, with the garage having been converted into two separate
bedrooms. People were also residing in trailers in the backyard, and illegal wiring had
been added to the home's electrical system.
This memorandum will both review the legal issues associated with regulating overcrowding,
and present policy options for the City Council's consideration to address this problem. It should
be noted that many of the conditions discovered at the residence on Cochran Street where the fire
occurred are already violations of the Simi Valley Municipal Code. In fact, Building and Safety
Division staff have advised that the garage had been illegally converted to living space on two
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMITTEE AH-CD \Staff Rpts \051019 Rental Ord.doc
0001.11w
Affordable Housing Community Development Committee
October 19, 2005
Page 4
separate occasions. Both times when it came to the City's attention, it was required to be
changed back to a garage. Nonetheless, apparently it had been illegally converted a third time.
Legal Issues Related to Regulating Overcrowding
The issue of regulating overcrowding in residential units is a frustrating area for cities throughout
the state. In past years this Office has provided information to the City Council setting forth the
legal issues that make regulation of overcrowding difficult. For example, in 1988, an extensive
staff report was prepared regarding these matters. The following briefly outlines the legal
framework relating to the regulation of overcrowding.
In 1980, the California Supreme Court, in the case City of Santa Barbara vs. Adamson (1980)
164 Cal.Rptr. 539, ruled that a city may not limit the number of unrelated persons living together
in a single housekeeping unit. The ruling was that to do so violated the right to privacy under the
California Constitution. Under this decision cities are precluded from treating unrelated persons
who live together as a "single housekeeping unit" differently from the way traditionally related
families are treated. Because there is no limit on the size of a related family, there can be no
limit on the number of unrelated people living together as a "family ". Prior to this decision
many cities had provisions in their zoning ordinances limiting the number of unrelated persons
that could reside in a dwelling unit.
Since the Supreme Court ruling in Adamson, other cases in California have extended its
reasoning in ways that further limit the ability of cities to regulate the number of persons who
can reside in a dwelling unit. For example, in College Area Renters and Landlord Association
vs. City of San Diego (1996) 50 Ca1.Rptr.2d 515, the court held that an ordinance limiting the
number of adults in rented single- family dwellings violated equal protection rights. In doing so,
the court held that a distinction based upon owner- occupied, as versus non -owner occupied units
was not rationally- related to the cities' legitimate interest in alleviating overcrowding problems
and cited to the Adamson case for the proposition that such ordinances are "less suspect" when
they focus on the use rather than on "who are the users."
An appellate case has also held that cities are preempted by state law from applying local rules
for minimum floor area or maximum occupancy that are stricter than those contained in the
Uniform Building Codes (Briseno vs. City of Santa Ana (1992) 8 Ca1.Rptr.2d, 486). In addition,
the Federal Fair Housing Act, the state Fair Employment and Housing law and the Unruh Civil
Rights Act, further limit the ability of cities to regulate group homes for persons with mental or
physical disabilities and also contain provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of
"familial status" (City of Edmonds vs. Oxford House, Inc., 115 S. Ct. 1776 (1995)). The Fair
Housing Act does contain an exception permitting reasonable local and state occupancy limits,
however, as noted the City is preempted from adopting its own limits as a result of the Briseno
case.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMITTEE AH -CD \Staff Rpts \051019 Rental Ord.doc
Affordable Housing Community Development Committee
October 19, 2005
Page 5
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
Regulation in Light of Legal Issues
While there are significant legal limitations, there are some approaches that cities have taken in
order to regulate the problems created by overcrowding. A relatively recent California Attorney
General's opinion concluded that cities can regulate boarding houses in residential zones (86
Ops. Cal Atty. Gen 30 (2003)). The Attorney General was responding to a request from the City
of Lompoc asking whether boarding houses could be prevented in single - family zones. The
Attorney General found that they could, stating that "We conclude that a city may prohibit the
operation of boarding house businesses in a low - density residential zone in order to preserve the
residential character of the neighborhood."
Simi Valley's Zoning Ordinance currently contains several definitions that already reflect an
intent to regulate boarding house type facilities and limit dwellings that are other than "single
family" dwellings. These definitions include "boarding house" (which is defined to include the
furnishing of meals) and "lodging house." Because of the problem of proving the living
arrangement that exists in a dwelling unit, and uncertainty over legality in light of the case law
described above, the existing Code has not been utilized in recent years to try to address the
overcrowding issue. However, given this more recent Attorney General's opinion, the City
could amend the Zoning Ordinance to more clearly define the prohibition of such uses in certain
residential zones. Lompoc's ordinance, which has been adopted by some other cities since the
issuance of the Attorney General's opinion, defines a boarding or rooming house as:
"...a residence or dwelling, other than a hotel, wherein three or more rooms with
or without individual or group cooking facilities, are rented to individuals under
separate rental agreements or leases, either written or oral, whether or not an
owner, agent or rental manager is in residence."
It should be noted that even with revised definitions there will still be problems proving the
exact living arrangement that exists among unrelated persons that are residing in the dwelling
unit. A group of unrelated persons living together could assert that they are living as a "single
housekeeping unit" and try to take advantage of the previously discussed Santa Barbara vs.
Adamson case. Nonetheless, adopting a definition similar to the one that the Attorney General
found acceptable would provide staff with a valuable tool in dealing with overcrowding
situations, on a case by case basis.
Overcrowding conditions also often involve violations of various City codes, as is
demonstrated by the conditions that existed at the house on Cochran Street where the fire
occurred. In order to address these problems, some cities have adopted ordinances requiring
registration of rental units and regular inspections. Staff has reviewed several of these
programs. Many of the programs are restricted in that they are specifically focused on rental
property exteriors, point of sale inspections, multi - family housing, or targeted redevelopment
areas. Those programs that involve a pro- active, inspection of both the exterior and interior of
the property require a significant investment in administrative, inspection and enforcement
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMITTEE AH -CD \Staff Rpts \051019 Rental Ord.doc 0 0014 4
Affordable Housing Community Development Committee
October 19, 2005
Page 6
staffing to provide the required notifications, inspections, billing, legal support in obtaining
inspection warrants where property owners fail to comply, and follow -up enforcement
activities. In Simi Valley it is estimated that up to 4,600 rental properties, or 15% of the City's
single - family residential housing stock, could fall under such a program (based on tenure of
residents in single- family homes from the 2000 Census).
Staff reviewed two municipal programs in the State that are attempting to proactively address
this issue within the confines of various legal and fiscal restraints. Of most interest was the City
of Sacramento, which is actively investigating the ability to privately contract for rental
property inspection and enforcement services and in turn establishing a fee structure that could
support the service. If this approach proves feasible, it could serve as an effective model for
Simi Valley. Another option presently utilized by the City of Berkeley is a program that
requires property owners to self - certify that their rental units meet housing safety standards on
a checklist prepared by the City. The owner is then required to provide a copy of the self -
certification list to their tenants. While this approach would reduce some of the high costs and
infrastructure required of other programs, it may be less effective in addressing specific issues
related to overcrowding, as it relies on the tenants to monitor the status of the units. Based on
this initial research, it is recommended that staff fully review these and other options and
the financial impacts associated with each and report back to the City Council within 180
days.
As to other options, as noted under the Briseno vs. Santa Ana case, the City is preempted from
adopting its own residential occupancy limits. Accordingly, an additional option is for the City
Council to seek changes from the state legislature that would provide the City with more
regulatory authority. Finally, the City's Building and Safety and Code Enforcement programs
have historically been reactive /complaint based. Another option would be for the City Council
to direct staff to undertake a more aggressive approach related to building, health and safety
code violations regarding overcrowding issues.
It is recommended that the City Council review the foregoing, and provide staff with direction
regarding the alternatives discussed in this memorandum. The following alternatives are
available to the City Council:
Provide staff direction to take the following actions:
a) Direct staff to return to the City Council with amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance to clarify the City's boarding house and lodging house regulations in
residential zones within 60 days;
b) Direct staff to implement an aggressive approach in addressing building and
housing code violations related to overcrowding when responding to complaints;
and
S: \Communit; Development \ADMIN \COMMITTEE AH -CD \Staff Rpts \051019 Rental Ord.doc
0OV1415
Affordable Housing Community Development Committee
October 19, 2005
Page 7
c) Direct staff to conduct a full review of program alternatives and the financial
impacts associated with implementing a rental property inspection program and
report back to the City Council within 180 days;
2. Give staff direction regarding another combination of the foregoing alternatives;
Provide staff with further direction.
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1.
SUMMARY
As a result of case law and state and federal statutes regarding privacy protection and fair
housing rights, regulating residential overcrowding is a difficult undertaking. There are,
however, approaches some cities have taken that staff is presenting to the City Council for its
consideration. These include prohibiting boarding houses in low- density residential zones,
implementing a rental housing inspection program, and aggressive enforcement of building and
housing code violations. In addition, since cities in California are preempted by state law from
having their own maximum occupancy limits, the City could work with its legislative
representatives to seek amendments to provide more regulatory authority. At this time staff
recommends that the City Council direct staff to return to the City Council with amendments to
the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the City's boarding house and lodging house regulations in
residential zones within 60 days, direct staff to implement an aggressive approach in addressing
building and housing code violations related to overcrowding when responding to complaints,
and direct staff to conduct a full review of program alternatives and the financial impacts
associated with implementing a rental property inspection program and report back to the City
Council within 180 days.
David H. Hirsch, City Attorney
Office of The City Attorney
Debbie Solomon, Director
Department of Community Services
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMITTEE AH -CD \Staff Rpts \051019 Rental Ord.doc 000)146
Local Inspection Ordinance Matrix
Published by the Local Governmental Relations Division California Association of
REALTORS@
The following is a chart of various local point-of-sale inspection ordinances and programs.
City
Type of
Properties
!Fees -Single
Comments
Inspection
Affected
':Family(SF)
Mandatory
Condo (C)
or Voluntary
Multifamily(W)
Mandatory
!All
Belvedere
Transfer of
I Residential
1$150/ Inspection
'None
'Title
I Property
Mandatory
All
Carson
Transfer of
Residential
1$100/ Inspection
None
Title
Property
—J
Mandatory
All
Compton
Transfer of
Residential
$60/ Inspection
None
Title
Property
Mandatory
All
iCudahy
'Transfer of
Residential
;$175/ lot
None
'Title
Property
Corte
Mandatory
' All
$120 SF
'Madera
Transfer of
Residential
'Property
$120+$50/unit
None
title
Mandatory
All
$125 SF
Fairfax
Transfer of
Residential
!$125+$35/unit
None
i
Title
Property
Mandatory
'Upon
All
�$72 /visit for
Fresno
Residential
enforcement
:None
Complaint
Property
Hawaiian
Mandatory
All
Not being enforced
Gardens
Transfer of
Residential
$85/ Inspection
consistently.
Title
Pro perty
Mandatory
Poorly run
Hayward
Every 5
Multi-Family
$ 100 /unit
years
program
Mandatory
All
SF
Larkspur
'Transfer of
Residential
$80 +$40/ unit
None
Title
'Property
Maywood
Mandatory
'All
$ 1 00SF
Difficult Program
00(114S
Transfer of
Residential
$100+$50/unit
to work with
'Title
Property
iMill Valley
'Mandatory
Multifamily
$100+$25/unit
tNone
Mandatory
All
$118SF
Novato
Transfer of
Residential
i$90+$37/unit
None
Title
Property
;Pasadena
Mandatory
!Single Family $93.73 SF
Multi-Family
Change of
Condo
$82.40 C
every 4
Occupants
years
Mandatory
All
Ross
:Transfer of
Residential
1$90/ inspection
None
Title
Property
'San
Mandatory
All
$161 SF
I Anselmo
Transfer of
Residential
$161+$18/unit
None
Title
Property
iSan
Mandatory
All Rental
$60 annually
Inconsistently
Bernardino
Intervals
Property
inspected
'Mandatory
,San Mateo
'Every 4
Multi- Family
!$59 /unit
'None
years
Mandatory
'All
$115 SF
San Rafael
Transfer of
Residential
'$80
None
'Title
Property
$115+$12/unit
Mandatory
All
'Sausalito
Transfer of
Residential
$90/ Inspection
;None
Title
Property
---- --------
Mandatory
All
:Very difficult and
South Gate
Transfer of
Residential
150 Inspection
costly inspection
Title
Property
program
Mandatory
All
Tiburon
Transfer of
Residential
:$150/ Inspection
None
Title
Property
00(114S
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
MEMORANDUM
September 26, 2005
TO: City Council
FROM: Department of Community Services
Department of Environmental Services
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE RELATED TO BOARDING AND LODGING HOUSE
REGULATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND EFFORTS TO ADDRESS
SUBSTANDARD HOUSING CONDITIONS
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
Direct staff to forward the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance related to the
definition of lodging house as presented in this report to the Planning Commission for review
and recommendation;
2. Review the models /approaches used by other cities as presented in this report, select one or
more as the preferred model(s) and direct staff to develop a program recommendation to
include the funding impacts of the preferred model(s) and return to the City Council with a
report within 120 days.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
In early January 2005, a fire occurred at a single - family home at 2367 Cochran Street,
resulting in the death of one of the occupants. It was reported that more than a dozen people
lived in the house. The house had also been modified, with the garage having been converted
into two separate bedrooms. People were also residing in trailers in the backyard, and illegal
wiring had been added to the home's electrical system. On February 28, 2005, the City
Council directed staff to prepare zoning ordinance amendments to clarify the City's definition
and regulations pertaining to boarding and lodging houses in residential zones. The City
Council also directed staff to initiate efforts to implement an aggressive approach in responding
to reported building and safety housing code violations related to overcrowding and
substandard housing conditions and to conduct a review of program alternatives and options.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
Staff from Community Services, Environmental Services and the City Attorney's Office have been
actively reviewing ways to effectively address substandard housing violations within the various legal
and financial constraints. This report recommends proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance,
provides the City Council with a status report on the ongoing efforts and research, and seeks City
Council direction regarding future approaches that may be considered to address substandard housing
conditions.
12W9 -as(=s) 0 ®C I A19
2
Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Related to Boarding and Lodging House
Regulations
The City Attorney's Office had previously recommended that the definition of "lodging house" be
modeled after an ordinance approved by the Office of the California Attorney General in opinion
No. 01402 issued on March 19, 2003. The modified ordinance would be as follows:
Section 9- 1.213(8) of the Municipal Code is modified to read as follows:
(g) Lodging House shall mean a residence or dwelling, other than a hotel, motel, bed and
breakfast, or organizational house, wherein three (3) or more rooms are rented to
individuals under separate oral or written rental agreements or leases, whether or not an
owner, agent or property manager is in residence.
Section 9- 1.203(e) of the Municipal Code is modified to read as follows:
(e) Boardinghouse shall mean a lodging house that provides meals for compensation.
The current ordinance defines a lodging house as a residence where lodging is provided for
compensation for five or more persons and requires a Special Use Permit. With the revised
definition, a maximum of two rooms could be rented; otherwise a Special Use Permit would be
required. To update the current ordinance, it is recommended that the City Council direct staff to
forward the proposed ordinance change to the Planning Commission for their review and
recommendation prior to City Council action.
Staff Efforts To Address Substandard Housing Conditions
In response to City Council direction, the Environmental Services and Community Services
Departments have been working to develop and implement a reporting program and tracking system
to jointly identify, monitor and expedite complaints of substandard and egregious housing cases
involving unsafe living conditions. These cases often arise from illegal garage conversions,
unapproved room additions, detached structures not approved for habitation, closed exits, and the
use of recreational vehicles with illegal wiring attached to a dwelling unit_ Many of these conditions
existed and/or contributed to the Cochran Street incident and are a result of substandard housing
conditions related to overcrowding situations. The new tracking system will assist Building 8t
Safety, Planning and Code Enforcement staff in expediting the inspections, notifications, reports and
legal documentation required for the City to take action when substandard housing or unsafe living
conditions place residents at risk. It will also assist in streamlining dangerous and egregious cases
and enable staff to track, obtain and share information with other City Departments including the
Police Department and City Attorney. The program will assist in monitoring cases that have the
potential for repeat violations (i.e., garage conversions that are corrected then converted back to
habitable space). As a result of these joint efforts, staff has been able to increase their effectiveness
in expediting City action related to egregious cases. Building & Safety, Planning and Code
Enforcement staff will continue to work closely to further develop and expand the use of this system.
120W9 -0(m) 0 0 e l s O
Municipal Program Model Options For Addressing Substandard Housing Conditions
City Council members have indicated an interest in obtaining more information on the various
models and approaches being used by municipalities to address single and multi- family residential
properties as it relates to enforcing unsafe building and housing code violations. Staff has identified
four key models /approaches being used by communities in the state of California. The following
provides a brief summary of the various approaches and their potential impacts to residents /property
owners.
1. "Point of Sale" Residential Property Inspections
A few cities have enacted ordinances requiring mandatory inspections of single- family residences,
duplexes and condominiums at the time a house is sold. The cities of Azusa and Pasadena require
that residential properties be inspected by City staff . prior to the close of escrow. City fees for the
program are paid by the seller and range from $55 to $120 per home for the inspection, plus any
private inspection fees and fines for violations. A copy of the report is provided to the seller, the
City and the buyer so that any violations are disclosed prior to the sale of the home. In most cases
violations are cured prior to the close of escrow. Municipalities that have implemented mandatory
point of sale inspection requirements depend on the real estate community to inform the seller and
buyer of the requirement. They have also noted that the early participation and support of the real
estate community are critical components to the success and effectiveness of these programs.
Thousand Oaks eliminated their mandatory inspection program several years ago due to concerns
expressed by the real estate community. Currently their staff simply reviews the building file to
make sure no violations are on file. Thousand Oaks does provide the ability for interested
individuals to pay for an inspection upon the sale of a home at a cost of $210. However these
inspections are rarely requested. A summary of these programs is included in the chart below. The
Simi Valley Board of realtors reported that 1,977 residential properties were sold in Simi Valley last
Year, representing approximately 6% of the City's housing stock.
POINT OF SALE INSPECTION PROGRAMS
ry !n Yw'.'n "
1, . ,
R.+!F, . „�i•..r..
''' G
�tl .,,7•I' I
� r ' n
i II!ul
..r ,
• '� ,�ip1�li'a�'�
,9
•� t Q' ,h �fl
"N,
11.1Nq��'1M�A. • '' :
e�
I�If ya i1pow
C . 4 pp
, •
,�,��,��►��aw��Y w�J
k .:in . i LnrL,q:uh9w1 .
�w,,.Y.,.. �������•
+9
�la��• �'�1Iy�µ�j;,�r+���N�?�h Y.p
d:I EMI I' 9IJI�IxiMnwMiw
,W, � g jg�,II1d,Y-
94A PrI"!P? ...ii ' hYN11rJ M: w
City's utility company
Azusa
Exterior inspections
of single family
$120 inspection fee.
notifies when there is a
Population: 47,000
residences, duplexes,
change of occupancy.
and condominiums.
Pasadena
Interior and exterior
$115 /single family.
City utilizes DataQuik
inspections of single
$100 /condominiums
system and Chicago Title
Population: 138,000
family residences and
inspection fee.
to track changes of
condominiums.
ownership. Realtors also
advise sellers/buyers of
re uirenaents_
Thousand Oaks
Not applicable
$55 mandatory
Realtors advise
review of building
sellers/buyers of
Population: 126,000
file and inspection
requirements.
report only.
120W9- as(as) 011 -111 e 15 1
4
2. Rental Property Inspection Programs For Multi -Unit Housing
Staff identified approximately a dozen California communities that have mandatory inspection
programs for "multi- unit" rental housing. These programs typically cover rental properties with
three or more units, including apartments and in some cases hotels. Many of the programs are in
older or college communities with an unusually high number of multi-unit rental projects. Three
examples of programs in the cities of Pasadena, San Rafael and San Jose are summarized in the chart
below. In these three programs an annual "per unit" fee is collected for a Certificate of Occupancy
or Certificate of Compliance. Mandatory interior /exterior inspections are conducted once every 4-6
years by City Housing and/or Building & Safety inspectors-
MULTI-UNIT RENTAL PROPERTY INSPECTION PROGRAMS
3. Single - Family Residential Rental Property Inspection Programs
Staff Iocated two rental inspection programs in the State that address mandatory inspections of
single - family residential properties. Many cities have not included residential single - family
properties due to the extensive and expensive staffing infrastructure required to identify, track and
annually invoice residential rental property owners. In addition, residential rental property
inspections require noticing both the owner and occupant and coordination of scheduling with the
120br9 -W(C") 0 0 C 15- 2
.f
•
' " F
• •� � • •
i.i I
IYg111
• LM •1 h M'6'hd
$17.25 /per unit for
1 .
Pasadena
Rental properties with
Annual renewal fee.
three or more units.
Certificate of
Inspections conducted
Population:
Occupancy.
once every four years.
138,000
# of units unavailable.
San Jose
Rental properties with
$31.45 /per unit for
Annual renewal fee.
three or more units.
Certificate of
Inspections conducted
Population:
Occupancy, includes
once every six years.
990,000
# of units unavailable.
fire inspection fee.
$150 a year for business
license.
San Rafael
Apartments and hotels
$207 + $4.30 /per unit
Annual renewal fee.
with three or more
over 10 units for
Inspections conducted
Population:
units.
Certificate of
once every five years.
57,000
Compliance /inspections.
Over what period of
7,700 units.
time is per /year, every
five years, since
program inception.
3. Single - Family Residential Rental Property Inspection Programs
Staff Iocated two rental inspection programs in the State that address mandatory inspections of
single - family residential properties. Many cities have not included residential single - family
properties due to the extensive and expensive staffing infrastructure required to identify, track and
annually invoice residential rental property owners. In addition, residential rental property
inspections require noticing both the owner and occupant and coordination of scheduling with the
120br9 -W(C") 0 0 C 15- 2
5
occupant. The City of Azusa's program requires mandatory exterior inspections only, with interior
inspections conducted at the invitation of the occupant or with an inspection warrant. The City of
Hayward's program requires mandatory interior and exterior inspections and is operated by a staff of
six full -time employees (five housing inspectors and one administrative support position). The City
of Sacramento is currently investigating development of a similar program and is expected to
consider it before the end of the year. The process of identifying and developing a database of the
rental properties in Simi Valley in itself, would require a considerable investment of time. Staff
roughly estimates that approximately 15 % of the City's residential housing stock or 4,600 homes are
rental properties.
SINGLE -FA HL Y RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM
••.fM �•� rI! • 1
Y
.J
• 1
•..i.7CY 0.`Nx�F.
Y'C�'MF1' /
•:1
� '.a .ed 4a 1
I
J
.re,irf�u
Annual renewal fee.
Azusa
Residential units and
$46 - single family.
apartments.
$46 + $8 /unit -
Inspections conducted
Population:
apartments.
once every 5 years.
47,000
Mandated exterior
inspections only.
Interior inspections are
conducted with occupant
1,398 properties
approval or inspection
# of units unavailable).
warrant.
Hayward
Interior and exterior
$20 + $5 /unit.
Annual renewal fee.
inspections of all rental
$150 /parcel +
Inspections with
Population:
units including
$60 /unit if violations
property owner or
120,000
residential, apartments,
are found.
representative conducted
and hotels.
$150 /parcel +
once every 5 years.
$60 /unit for progress
Over what period of
21,000 units
inspection.
time?
$220 - $1,000
penalty fees
subsequent
inspections.
4. Proactive Property Maintenance Programs
A few cities utilize proactive property maintenance programs to assist in identifying substandard
housing situations. For example, Beverly Hills annually conducts two sweeps of the City. San .lose
focuses their efforts on blighted areas and Pasadena employs a task force to gather inspection
information, legal documentation and inspection warrants. Staff involved in proactive enforcement
are trained to identify and document substandard housing conditions and health and safety concerns.
Where justified, inspection warrants are pursued by Building and Safety.
120ei9.05(=) () ;) V 15 3
6
The City of Simi Valley's Property Maintenance Program began in 1998 as a reactive program and
later developed into a proactive program and has successfully addressed over 2,017 cases of
dilapidated and poorly maintained resideriml and commercial properties in the City. The program is
designed to address egregious cases of poor, exterior property maintenance which includes overgrown
or dead vegetation in front yards;: strugures with significant surface cracks, missing housing
materials, broken windows, peeling or clacking paint; and, roofs, driveways, gates and fences in
disrepair. Failure to comply subjects the property owner to administrative enforcement of civil
fines_ However, in extreme cases, court+ action has been employed to achieve compliance. The
interior of buildings is not included in the Property Maintenance Program since compliance of
interior uniform building, plumbing, ana electrical codes can only be enforced pursuant to an
inspection authorized by a warrant_ In order to secure such a warrant there needs to be supporting
declarations showing that there is reasonable cause and belief that violations exist and indicating that
entry was not allowed by the person in control of the subject property.
PROACTIVE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
0 1))1 4
1
ni,N74•W.6'. P.:d �.
d` 1pathR+'p�&Fd 'ca9
Exteriorlonly.
. i:G LII:iA~
Conduct two sweeps of the City a
Beverly WdIs
year.
Population: 50,000
Proactive and Reactive -
address all code violations.
Indian Wells
EXteriorlbnly.
Population. 4,025
Proactive and Reactive -
address all code violations.
Pasadena
Exterior'only.
Task force, led by City Prosecutor,
includes Fire Department, Health
Population: 138,000
Proactive and Reactive -
Department, Police Department, and
address 14H code violations.
Code Enforcement_ Egregious code
violations referred to appropriate
Division.
San Jose
Exterior :)nly_
Concentrate on blight areas.
Population: 990,000
Proaetivp and Reactive -
address all code violations.
0 1))1 4
7
It is recommended that the City Council review the information contained in the staff report and
provide staff with direction regarding the proposed zoning ordinance amendments, the staff research
and efforts discussed in the staff report, and the models) /approaches that may be preferred by the
City Council. The following alternatives are available for the City Council's consideration:
1. Direct staff to forward the proposed amendments to , the zoning ordinance related to the
definition of lodging house as presented in this report to the Planning Commission for review
and recommendation;
2. Review the models /approaches used by other cities as presented in this report, telect one or
more as the preferred model(s) and direct staff to develop a program recommendation to
include the funding impacts of the preferred model(s) and return to the City Council with a
report within 120 days;
3. Take no further action;
4. Provide other direction to staff.
Staff recommends Alternative Nos. 1 and i
�11_ U) I) MI' m
The City Council directed staff to prepare amendments to the Toning ordinance to clarify the City's
regulations pertaining to boarding and lodging houses in residential zones and directed staff to
conduct research and to initiate efforts to implement an aggressive approach in responding to
reported building and safety housing code violations related to overcrowding and substandard
housing conditions. It is recommended that the City Council review the information contained in the
staff report and provide staff with direction.
17e ie Solomon, Director
Department of Community Services
120b/9-05(eu)
ces
t3 W � 5
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE MOORPARK
MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 15.34 (RENTAL
HOUSING INSPECTION) TO TITLE 15 (BUILDINGS AND
CONSTRUCTION)
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to safeguard the inventory of decent, safe, and
sanitary rental housing units within the City and to protect persons entering or residing in
them by providing for annual inspection of rental housing units and associated common
buildings and areas to ensure compliance with the provisions of Title 15 (Building and
Construction) and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Moorpark Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of May 17, 2006, the City Council conducted a hearing on
this ordinance to add Chapter 15.34 to the Moorpark Municipal Code related to the
inspection of rental housing, received public testimony, and after receiving oral and written
public testimony reached a decision; and
WHEREAS, the City Council concurs with the Community Development Director's
determination that this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act by the general rule that CEQA only applies to projects that may
have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 15.34 of the Moorpark Municipal Code is hereby added, in
its entirety, as shown in Exhibit A.
SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion
of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and
each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of
the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or
portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its
passage and adoption.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make a
minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City
Council at which the same is passed and adopted; and shall, within fifteen (15) days after
the passage and adoption thereof, cause the same to be published once in the Moorpark
CC ATTACHMENT 2
GoCi. *
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Star a newspaper of general circulation, as defined in Section 6008 of the Government
Code, for the City of Moorpark, and which is hereby designated for that purpose.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2006.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk
Exhibit A: Chapter 15.34 of the Moorpark Municipal Code
000157
Ordinance No.
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION
CHAPTER 15.34
Sections:
15.34.010
Purpose.
15.34.020
Scope.
15.34.030
Rental authorization permit.
15.34.040
Inspections.
15.34.050
Smoke detectors required.
15.34.060
Revocation.
15.34.070
Appeals.
Section 15.34.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to safeguard the inventory of decent, safe, and
sanitary rental housing units within the City and to protect persons entering or residing in
them by providing for annual inspection of rental housing units and associated common
buildings and areas to ensure compliance with the provisions of Title 15 (Building and
Construction) and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Moorpark Municipal Code.
Section 15.34.020 Scope.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to single - family dwellings, two - family
dwellings, multiple family dwellings, second dwellings, boardinghouses, bed - and - breakfast
inns, hotels, and motels as defined in Title 17. The following uses are specifically exempt
from this chapter:
a. Owner - occupied housing units not operated as boardinghouses or bed - and - breakfast
inns.
b. Second dwellings not occupied by person(s) paying rent or providing other goods or
services in -lieu of a rent payment.
c. Accommodations in any hospital, extended care facility, residential care facility,
convalescent home, hospice, or state - licensed community care facility.
d. Mobile homes within mobile home parks.
e. On- campus dormitories operated by secondary schools, colleges, or universities.
Section 15.34.030 Rental authorization permit.
No person shall rent or lease a housing unit unless a valid rental authorization
permit has been obtained. The application for a rental authorization permit shall be made
on a form provided by the community development director with payment of a fee as
019(1 8
Ordinance No.
Page 4
.n
established by resolution of �Ay council. The permit shall be valid for a period of one (1)
year, unless revoked for cr"se. Renewal is the responsibility of the property owner, with
an application for renewal required to be filed at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to
expiration if the housing unit is to continue to be rented. A valid city business registration
permit is also required for any person engaged in the rental of housing units.
Section 15.34.040 Inspections.
a Prior to issuance of the initial rental authorization permit as well as each annual
renewal, the community development director shall cause the subject rental housing
units(s) to be inspected for compliance with applicable municipal code sections
relating to building, housing, zoning and property maintenance.
b. Inspections shall be made by appointment with the property owner. The property
owner shall be responsible for making the rental housing unit(s) available for
inspection. If the owner or tenant denies the city inspector access to the rental
housing unit, an authorization to rent permit shall not be issued. If the rental housing
unit is occupied, the city may pursue any remedy available to the city under the laws
of the State of California, including but not limited to, obtaining an inspection warrant.
c. The initial inspection shall include an inspection of both the exterior and interior of the
rental housing unit. Annual permit renewal inspections shall be made of the exterior
of the rental housing unit, unless the exterior inspection gives evidence of possible
interior violations, in which case the interior of the rental housing unit may be
inspected.
d. Where inspection reveals a violation, the property owner shall be provided with a
written notice describing the violation, location and a reasonable time for compliance.
A rental authorization permit shall not be issued until all violations have been
corrected and re- inspected by the city. A re- inspection fee as established by
resolution of City Council shall apply.
Section 15.34.050 Smoke detectors required.
At the time of the application for a rental authorization permit, the property owner
shall certify that each rental housing unit has at least one (1) working smoke detector in
each bedroom and one (1) working smoke detector in the area outside of the bedroom (i.e.
hallway). Where required by the building code, smoke detectors shall be hard -wired with
battery back -ups. All smoke detectors shall be tested by city inspectors as part of the
interior inspection, when interior inspections are required.
Section 15.34.060 Revocation
A rental authorization permit may be revoked by the community development
director at any time if municipal code violations are discovered on the property that make
the rental housing unit unsafe or unfit for occupancy.
Ordinance No.
Page 5
Section 15.34.070 Appeals.
Any person aggrieved by the determination of the community development director
under this chapter may appeal to the planning commission in accordance with the appeal
procedures in Chapter 17.44.
(j `�.'' V ICI O