HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - August 28, 1991SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
CARNEGIE FORUM
305 WEST PINE STREET
LODI, CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1991
7:30 P.M.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor
Hinchman.
Roll was recorded by the City Clerk as follows:
Present: Council Members - Pennino, Pinkerton, Sieglock,
Snider and Hinchman (Mayor)
Absent: Council Members - None
Also Present: City Manager Peterson, Assistant City
Manager Glenn, City Attorney McNatt, City
Clerk Reimche
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE/PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE PROPOSALS
CC -24(b) The matter was introduced by City Attorney McNatt who
CC -25 advised the Council that it recall, the newly adopted
General Plan calls for adoption of a "property maintenance"
ordinance to promote the general quality of life and to
help protect property values in the City. The Council has
also recently inquired as to the possibility of a "property
management" ordinance to deal with deteriorating housing
and its associated problems of drugs and crime.
Since the topics appear related, it seems practical to
handle both in one comprehensive ordinance rather then to
approach the problems piecemeal.
Before starting to draft the ordinance, the assistance of
the Police, Community Development, and Public Works
Departments was obtained, as well as input from the
business community. Numerous problems were discussed,
along with possible ways of handling them. Ordinances from
several other cities were examined and Mr. McNatt spoke
personally with a number of staff members from other
jurisdictions who had the responsibility of enforcing such
ordinances.
City Attorney McNatt discovered there are many possible
ways to approach the problems. Because of the number of
available options, no attempt has been made to put together
a draft ordinance at this time. Instead, below are
described various elements or components of an ordinance
1
✓ Continued August 28, 1991
from which the Council may choose those that are deemed
appropriate for Lodi's situation.
RESIDENT MANAGER ORDINANCE
It has been proposed for purposes of discussion that the
City require a resident manager for all multi -family
housing units having (for example) more than four units.
The purpose would be to avoid deterioration of housing by
having someone present to perform maintenance and to
discourage use of certain housing for drug dealing or usage.
This proposal has generated comment by both members of the
public and the real estate industry. Comments received at
previous Council meetings indicate that some residents
strongly believe such regulations would be desirable and
effective, while the real estate industry generally feels
they would have an adverse effect on rentals and may not be
financially practical.
In preparing this report, a rather obscure regulation
adopted by the State Department of Housing (apparently in
1989) came to light. Title 25, Section 42 of the
California Code of Regulations requires a resident manager
for apartment complexes with sixteen or more apartments and
for hotels with twelve or more rooms if the owner does not
reside on site. For apartments with more than four but
less than sixteen units, a sign with the owner's or agent's
name and address must be conspicuously posted. Mr. McNatt
didn't know how widely this ordinance's requirements are
observed or even what percentage of apartment owners know
of its existence. The regulation was called to the City
Attorney's attention by members of the California
Association of Realtors, so he suspects that a significant
number of owners are aware of it.
Mr. McNatt does not believe this State regulation preempts
the field, so as to prevent cities from adopting more
stringent ordinances if desired. Cities are only
prohibited from adopting further regulations on a given
topic if the State Legislature has acted "by a
comprehensive plan" to occupy the entire field. As such,
if the Council chose to impose resident manager
requirements for apartment buildings having fewer units
than sixteen, I believe it could legitimately do so.
NUISANCES ORDINANCES
This seems to be the most common type of ordinance used
elsewhere to protect health, safety and property values.
At present, Lodi has no ,actual "nuisance" ordinance in
place although the weed abatement program is of that
general nature, and parts of the Uniform Codes which the
City has adopted by reference arguably cover some types of
2
Continued August 28, 1991 .361
nuisances. It may be in the City's best interest to
consolidate and clarify these provisions.
Usually, a nuisance ordinance prohibits such things as (for
example):
Accumulations of dirt, debris or litter;
Clothes lines or clothes hanging in front
yards;
Boxes, lumber, firewood, trash, salvageable
materials, etc. allowed to accumulate in
yards;
Abandoned, broken or neglected equipment,
machinery, refrigerators, stoves, or vehicle
parts;
Open excavations;
Broken or discarded furniture or household
goods;
Accumulations of weeds, dead, decayed or
diseased vegetation constituting an
unsightly appearance or health and safety
hazard;
Some ordinances go so far as to define
visibly deteriorated or peeling paint as a
nuisance.
These ordinances provide for cleanup orders to be issued by
a designated city official, and a summary hearing before
(usually) the city manager or the manager's designee.
Appeal is to the city council in most cases. Orders may
include cleanup, abatement, or in extraordinary cases,
demolition. Costs of enforcement are imposed on the
property owner. This type of ordinance has been used by
the City of Dublin with good results according to the City
Attorney's conversation with Dublin staff.
This type of ordinance wou d require less staff time to
administer than most of the other options discussed.
RENTAL INSPECTION ORDINANCES
The idea of requiring inspection of rental residential
property each time the occupants change has been
discussed. It is possible to do so, but this would require
extensive time and effort and the probable addition of
staff. Two types of inspection ordinances were located.
They are discussed below.
3
3;69ntinued August 28, 1991
11
A.
A
Change of Occupancy Inspection.
The City of Azusa uses such a program and
the conversation with them indicates there
are two employees who handle the rental
registration/inspection program full time.
The City Attorney was informed that the
program is funded with approximately
$200,000 per year in Community Development
Block Grant Funds. Azusa staff acknowledged
there are some problems with the program,
since not all rental owners register their
properties voluntarily.
This ordinance has three parts; first, a
registration requirement which gathers
certain information for a file administered
by the City; second, an inspection provision
which calls for inspection or rental
property every time the home is vacated and
reoccupied. The inspection is triggered by
an application for municipal utility
services. The third element is a nuisance
abatement component similar to the Dublin
ordinance discussed above.
Yearly Inspection/Inspection Upon Sale.
A second and less time consuming type of
program might involve an "inspection on
sale" requirement. This is the approach
used by the City of Davis. It requires that
a certificate of occupancy be issued either
yearly or when property is sold or
transferred with a lease/purchase agreement,
whichever occurs more frequently.
This approach would not require the
registration of all rental properties, since
it applies only to sales or lease/purchase
options. It would still require a certain
amount of citizen cooperation since the City
would have no way of knowing about all
lease/option agreements unless the
information is volunteered.
Both the "change of occupancy" and "change of ownership"
inspection plans would probably have to be funded by an
inspection fee charged to the party requesting the
inspection.
Continued August 28, 1991
REGISTRATION OF RENTALS
363
It may also be desirable to require registration of rental
property, even if no inspection program is involved. The
reasons for this are twofold: first, having access
immediately to the address and phone number of the rental
owners would help staff if there is a problem such as a
sewer line break. Second, it may also be possible to treat
rental units as a business, so as to be subject to the
City's business license provisions.
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE PROVISIONS
It also appears possible to use provisions of State law
(Health and Safety Code Section 11570 et seq.) to abate
premises where drugs are being sold. This approach has
never been used in Lodi before, probably because of the
time and effort required. This program is used in
Stockton, and is administered by the Police Department and
City Attorney's office. It could be used here as a "last
resort action", but time constraints would prohibit
frequent use without additional staff.
City Attorney McNatt then reviewed sample ordinances
regarding this subject from Dublin and Azusa.
The City Attorney then responded to questions regarding the
matter as were posed by members of the Lodi City Council.
Mayor Hinchman indicated that he feels non-residential
property should be included in any ordinance of this type
the City Council might adopt.
Addressing the City Council regarding the matter were:
1. Mrs. Virginia Lahr, 311 East Elm Street,
Lodi;
2. Lisa Hill, 23 North Central Avenue, Lodi;
3. Roxanne May, 437 East Eden Street, Lodi;
4. John May, 437 East Eden Street, Lodi;
5. David Gibbons, 336 East Elm Street, Lodi;
6. Craig Aberman, 313 East Elm Street, Lodi;
7. Rose Helwig, 705 West Turner Road, Lodi;
8. Tony Canton, 1029 South Church Street, Lodi;
9. Jim Jacobson, 641 South Ham Lane, Lodi;
R
361
V Continued August 28, 1991
10. Dee Nietschke, 1806 West Kettleman Lane,
Lodi;
11. Gerald Vanderlans, Turner Road, Lodi;
12. Jim Sturman, 641 North Ham Lane, Lodi;
13. Rose Marie Mendonca, President, Lodi Board
of Realtors, Lodi;
14. Kevin Suess, 727 South Lee Avenue, Lodi;
15. Jeff Kirst, 120 North Pleasant, Lodi; and
16. Gary Brandt, 314 West Lockeford Street, Lodi.
A lengthy discussion followed with questions regarding the
matter being directed to staff and to those who had given
testimony.
On motion of Council Member Snider, Pennino second, the
City Council determined that a committee should be formed
which will be composed of three or four members to be
selected by the Board of Realtors, three or four concerned
citizens and the City Attorney. The Committee will be
chaired by Mayor Pro Tempore Pinkerton. The charge of the
committee will be to review the concerns that have been
expressed and to recommend to the City Council what the
City can do to help property owners and property managers
regarding these concerns.
It was requested that the Committee report back to the City
Council at its meeting of October 16, 1991.
Citizens interested in serving on this Committee were asked
to notify the City Clerk of their interest in serving.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Attest:
Alice M. eimche�"
City Clerk
C$I