The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCD RBR Inspection ProgramSPECIAL STUDY SESSION SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2016 AT 5:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, California AGENDA Members of the public may speak on Agenda item. 1. Discussion re: Residential Building Resale Inspection Program (CD) ADJOURNMENT: American Sign Language interpreters and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3198 (TDD) or (415) 485-3064 (voice) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Paratransit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain fiom wearing scented products. MARIN c`r_SSOC1c1tion of R EA LTO RS° September 2, 2016 Honorable Gary Phillips Mayor City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue PO Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Dear Mayor Phillips: On behalf of the more than 1,400 members of the Marin Association of REALTORS® (MAR), I am writing to you in support of Option #4: Permit Record Only, as presented by staff at the August 1, 2016 study session, regarding the current Report of Residential Building Record (resale inspection) process. We strongly encourage the council to direct staff to move forward with making the necessary changes to Chapter 12.36 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. This latest series of conversations confirms that the process is broken. The current state of the program is, without a doubt, directly attributable to decades of inconsistencies brought on by the cast of characters employed by the City to carry out the inspections. Keeping the program status quo, as recommended by staff, is untenable. The damage has been done. Public trust eroded. The resale process in San Rafael will be forever broken if action is not taken immediately to dramatically change course. San Rafael must also consider the true purpose of being involved in the sale of a home. We heard the Chief Building Official place an emphasis on the revenue San Rafael receives from the RBR. We heard the same emphasis on revenue come from the Marin County Assessor. If revenue is the true purpose for being involved in the sale of a home, then we once again must point out that San Rafael already reaps massive rewards for someone selling their home. Marin County does as well. Every home sold in San Rafael is taxed $3.10/$1,000 of the sale price. With the Transfer Tax in place, we find it difficult to substantiate the emphasis placed on revenue. MAR believes the people who wish to call San Rafael home do not deserve to be the victims of a broken system only looking to capture more revenue from their decision to do so. If health and safety are the true purpose of being involved in the sale of a home, then we would argue that the State of California's current disclosure requirements accomplish much more than the "visual, non-technical" inspections being conducted by San Rafael. Moreover, the depth and breadth of conmrnissioned home inspection reports do more to protect health and safety than a mere walkthrough done by the non -licensed personnel of San Rafael. The resale inspection is an unnecessary hurdle placed in the way of the number one economic driver for the community. The fact that more than 90% of the municipalities in California do not have a resale inspection is proof positive that health and safety are being protected in other ways. We believe San Rafael will accomplish the same level of protection, while removing barriers from the sale of a home, by implementing Option #4: Permit Record Only. In closing, we believe the following excerpt fiorn the preamble of the Report of Residential Resale Report makes the case for abandoning the inspection: This inspection does not include an evaluation of the structural or seismic safety of the structure. The issuance of this report does not constitute a representation by the City that the property or its present use, is or is not in compliance with the law and the report does not constitute a full disclosure of all material facts affecting the property. If the City is unwilling to put any skin in the game, then the inspections must end. We look forward to discussing how best to implement Option #4: Permit Record Only at the September 6, 2016 study session. Sincere f Andy Fegley, MPA Chief Executive Officer Marna Association of REALTORS® From: Andy Falk rmailto:andvfalk2112C6vahoo.comI Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 4:17 PM To: Kate Colin; Andrew McCullough; Gary Phillips; John Gamblin; Maribeth Bushey Cc: Chief Executive Officer Andy Fegley; Thomas Dreyer; Rebecca Woodbury; Jim Schutz Subject: Data and Comments from City Resale Inspection Survey - 580 Responses Happy Labor Day, The resale survey has pretty much run it's course, just in time for tomorrow's study session. Please find attached the following: 1) All data from survey to date 2) All comments from survey to date 3) Snapshot of results The first data sheet has all the results and I've broken out three other sheets into the following: 1) Real Estate Professionals Only 2) All San Rafael Residents 3) San Rafael Residents excluding Real Estate Professionals I believe the results speak for themselves, and they have been pretty consistent throughout the survey. The majority of all responses favor option 1. Real estate professionals favor option 4. Real estate professionals are bias towards option 4. For all responses only 13 out of every 100 people favor option 5. For real estate professionals it's even worse, only 8 out of 121 favor option 5. That's likely because health and safety issues are thoroughly dealt with by licensed inspectors who spend hours on properties examining and advising buyers on everything from the foundation to the roof. Pretty much across the board only 5 people out of every 100 want to maintain the status quo option 2, except real estate professionals. Only 3 out of the 121 responses favor option 2. Real estate professionals see value in the desk permit review, but clearly not the property inspections. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks, Andy Falk 2015 Inductee, Bradley Real Estate Hall of Fame Marin Association of Realtors 2015 Community Service Volunteer of the Year Award Realtor, MBA - Marketing License # 01459954 Cell/Text (415) 250-8025 See what people have said about my real estate skills on Trulia: httiD://www.trulia.com/profile/andv-falk-agent-san-rafael-ca-280180/overview Comments as of 9/5/16 Government intrusion is becoming excessive. we, the people need to be responsible for our actions and not delegate this to government agencies. Therefore, less is good... 9/2/2016 5:42 PM OPTION 1 Inspections seem very arbitrary, are money -grabbing opportunities, punitive and are not routinely focused on safety. I do not want to have surprises about new permits or reconstruction or correcting to code at resale time. Presenting hard copies of original permits and records seem fairest but is not an option! Thank you. 8/29/2016 12:02 PM OPTION 1 Have Buyer demand that Seller has a licensed building inspector inspect the property. Safety violations need to be corrected by the Seller. All other deficiencies are to be negotiated between Buyer and Seller. The independent building inspector need then to confirm that all safety violations are corrected prior to the COE. City fees should be kept at a minimum. 8/28/2016 2:57 PM OPTION 1 I want the City of San Rafael to honor their own inspections and to have correct inspections. My last sale almost fell apart due to some major remodels that an inspection failed to note. 8/24/2016 12:14 PM OPTION 5 By providing a record of existing permits on file the City has disclosed information to private parties that can be used to make an informed decision. 8/23/2016 1:56 PM OPTION 4 I was asked to complete this survey but no nothing about what a Resale Inspection or what the issue so don't feel equipped how best to anser #3. 8/23/2016 10:09 AM NO OPTION CHOSEN I really appreciate your reaching out seeking feedback, kudos to you. If a property needs something, the buyer and real estate professional are already "in the loop". Government is too intrusive as it is, and have plenty of money to maintain it's core services. 8/22/2016 12:10 PM OPTION 1 Comments as of 8/22/16 The fee is too high and government should not look at priviate people's home when they wanted to sell their house. 8/20/2016 9:09 PM OPTION 1 Protect home owners from gross taxation 8/19/2016 3:49 PM OPTION 2 The city should consider an amnesty program so homeowners can determine if they have issues and get an opportunity to get up to date with permitting requirements. They should not have to find out when in the resale process. After all, people have unknowingly purchased property that didn't meet all permit requirements before this program began. 8/18/2016 7:57 AM OPTION 5 I believe this is just another way of city governments putting their hand in the taxpayers pocket 8/17/2016 4:26 PM OPTION 1 Get rid of it! We already have enough hidden taxes in this town, state and country! 8/17/2016 2:47 PM OPTION 1 I am assuming that "Offer a reduction or waiver of fees immediate correction" should have read "Offer a reduction or waiver of fees FOR immediate correction" 8/17/2016 2:43 PM OPTION 5 In 1990, when my wife and I purchased this house, we had a professional inspect the house. Everything worked out fine. I feel that is the proper way, not to rely on the city, but get it done professionally by the buyer or seller. 8/17/2016 1:43 PM OPTION 1 Realtors should always recommend an inspection - by private, not goverment inspectors. 8/16/2016 1:38 PM OPTION 1 Needs to include some kind of "as -is" option, meaning one can sell the property "as -is" with seller disclosures and buyer due diligence. City does inspection but onus rests on buyer for corrections. 8/16/2016 1:06 PM OPTION 5 This is an unnecessary government intrusion when all properties are inspected for safety and maintenance anyway in most all sales. 8/16/2016 9:53 AM OPTION 1 Rather than impede real estate sales through a lengthy inspection process, just increase real estate sales tax to make up the difference if the inspection program is dropped. 8/15/2016 10:37 PM OPTION 1 What you are doing at this time is very intimidating to the residents of San Rafael. --- WHY is this being done? 8/15/2016 6:37 PM OPTION 1 I THINK THE RESIDENTIAL RESALE PROGRAM IS USELESS AND A WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY AND TIME. GET RID OF IT. 8/15/2016 5:18 PM OPTION 4 every sale usually requires a professional inspection anyway which are more thorough. City unnecessarily duplicates the inspection. Needless city task, unnecessary expense. Also, eliminates/insulates city from liability for inaccurate inspection. Get out of the private enterprise arena period. Save wages, ins, retirement etc. 8/15/2016 4:45 PM OPTION 1 In selling a SR property in 2013, 1 encountered issues with work done without permits. I also was told that improvements that were in the house when we purchased it had to be removed --because building dept had no record of it. Only by searching assessor's records did I prove that the bathroom was put in before we bought. The city needs to clean up its records to make them accurate. 8/15/2016 3:16 PM OPTION 4 The inspections are enough - termite, contractor, etc. 8/15/2016 3:08 PM OPTION 1 As someone who has bought a house in the last years and will be selling as well, this program provided neither help nor protection for me as a buyer or soon to be seller. Thanks! 8/15/2016 12:28 PM OPTION 1 °A man has to know his limitations." Dirty Harry. So does government. 8/15/2016 7:02 AM OPTION 1 COMMENTS as of Sunday Evening 8/14/16 24) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 1 Comment: The resale inspection is a waste of time and expense. It's redundant since most real estate transactions include a contractors inspection which is far more comprehensive in scope. Our experience with the resale inspection when we bought our house was negative. The inspector spent less than 10 minutes in the house and did not catch unpermitted work which was included on the contractor's inspection report. Also. the seller's disclosure report would indicate what work was done without permits. 8/14/2016 11:36 AN 23) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 2 Comment: Potential buyers ought to know whether residences are up to code and that any modifications were done appropriately and safely. Owners ought not to make changes without getting the proper permits and inspections. We all have too much invested in our homes to be cheap when it comes to ensuring their safety. Another $100 for this fee is a minor expense in the scheme of things! 8/13/2016 9:40 PM Andy's Note: State licensed home inspectors indicate when modifications are made that are not up to code. A real estate professional would never suggest a home is safe because it's had one of our City Resale Inspections. After a privately hired home inspector has been through they would able to have that assurance. 22) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # SKIPPED THIS QUESTION Comment: Do not add another financial burden on home- owners! 8/13/2016 5:17 PN, 21) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 1 Comment: It is not clear if the inspection is before a sale is completed or is after the sale to a new owner. It should be voluntary by the seller or the prospective buyer. Unless a violation of the law is found the beneficiary should pay the costs, I found out about a balcony not passing inspection after I purchased the property. I could not get the builder to pay for a correction. This was found by a city inspector AFTER my purchase. I guess the city feels someone who borrows on a mortgage can easily pay for a needed correction. Not fair. No one enforced the needed correction on the balcony after the discovery of such a need. Not fair! 8/13/2016:3:09 PM 20) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 1 Comment: I find that the residential resale program is a burden to the Seller and unfair and possibility in violation of my rights. Sellers and Buyers should be free to negotiate without government interference. Anyone who purchased a home prior to any resale program should not now be required to meet the demands, which are often unreasonable, of the city. It is unfair and a financial burden, especially to those who purchased older homes "as is". Often the existing resale program makes the current owner responsible for what the prior owner did or did not due .... and that is unfair. 8/13/2016 11:39 AM 19) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 5 Comment: Inspect to find and correct health, life, and safety problems only. I do not favor a "witch hunt" to find and non -permitted work that was done in the past. That could cause big problems for the seller/buyer and serve no real purpose. 8/12/2016 5:39 PM 18) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 1 Comment: seems like a duplicate service to me! 8/12/2016 3:31 Pi,. - Andy's Note: The duplication of service is that private home inspectors spend hours in the homes investigating everything about it including health and safety, however they don't investigate whether permits were taken out. The only way the Building Department adds value is for itself by requiring permits and fining people 3 times the permit amount. As pointed out previously, there is a duplication in revenue collections for these permits and fees and on all sales with the City of San Rafael collecting $2 per every $1000 on transactions, or $2,000 on every million sale. No other city in Marin charges this tax. 17) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 4 Comment: Current program duplicates home buyers inspection and is unnecessary. 8/12/2016 3:24 PM Andy's Note: this comment and comment #18 likely came from the same home (likely a couple), two different devices as they both came from the same IP Address. People can't take the survey twice on the same device. 16) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: Yes Option # 4 Comment: As an architect working in San Rafael My clients have been frustrated in relying on resale reports as they are currently performed. When they bought their house. 'No non- confirmity' 8/12/2016 1:51 PM 15) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 1 Comment: Buyers will always have their own inspection done, and they have a strong interest in requiring sellers to correct any real problems that are identified. To have the government duplicate this is adding an unnecessary complication to an already -overcomplicated process for selling a residential property. 8/12/2016 10:04 AM 14) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 1 Comment: This is a ridiculous boondoggle. The City Council should quit kicking this can down the road. No more delays, and no more unnecessary bureaucratic hassles for San Rafael residents. Irritates me. 8/12/2016 9:59 AM 13) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 2 Comment: We bought our home in 2009 and the program identified an unpermitted improvement. Thanks to the program we were able to have the improvement permitted before we closed on the sale and moved in. We support the program and feel that it should continue in the current format. 8/12/20168 - Andy's Note: Respondent doesn't mention anything about any changes that were made to the improvement, or that it was unsafe. Only that the seller had to pay off the City for a permit (and possible fine) and he was glad he didn't need to do so. 12) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 1 Comment: The residential inspection program is not needed and duplicates private inspections that are made at the choice of parties to the sale/purchase transaction. They delay transactions introducing an unneeded layer of governmental oversight and impair individual responsibility. Additionally they reduce the city's housing stock by eliminating functioning though not permitted second units some of which have been in use since the housing shortage of WWII. 8/12/2016 8:39 AM 11) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 1 Comment: F F Like many orhers, I have had terrible experiences with city building dept, including resale program. It causes much harm, does no good that I see, inconsistent, full of errors, just a way to charge fees but provide no useful service 8/12/2016 12 , 10) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 4 Comment: The current method is the most unfriendly welcome to San Rafael possible, particularly if permit issues are found from previous owners that are passed on to new owners. There should be a degree of forgiveness, especially if the issues have been through previous sales that the city missed. 8/11/2016 9:32 PM 9) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # SKIPPED THIS QUESTION Comment: I live in a co-op. Does this resale pertain to this group? 8/11/2016 9:30 PM 8) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 5 Comment: I was in this position when previous owners did unpermitted work and the City allowed me to correct the violations with no penalties. Make it easy and encourage compliance for new owners. 8/11/2016 7:48 PM - Andy's Note: this has been the exception 7) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 1 Comment: Excessive interference into these matters from those who may be barely qualified , makes no sense and only furthers or induces confusion. Forget the inspections. 8/11/2016 7:29 PM 6) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 1 Comment: I sold 2 homes in the past few years. Both times I was penalized by San Rafael Building Dept for the previous owner not getting permitted work. When I advised the city employees that they had signed off on the resale inspection when I bought the houses and now they want me to fix the issues, I was told "you bought the problem." I am all for having safe homes in San Rafael but this system is not the answer. Make the seller sign something that all work is permitted and have the realtors look it up in the City database. If there are discrepancies, it can be resolved during contract negotiations between buyer and seller. 8/11/2016 7:16 PM 5) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 4 Comment: I prefer to pay an independent inspector if I choose. I do not believe this is a city function. 8/11/2016 7:09 PM 4) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 1 Comment: Elimination of the program is my first choice option. My second choice is to only furnish a report on permit records. Thank you. 8/11/2016 3:39 PM 3) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 1 Comment: Please comply with the other 90% of California law and remove these unnecessary obstacles. 8/11/2016 7:20 AM 2) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 1 Comment: The less government inspection requirements the better. Let he buyer and his real estate agent determine what inspections they want. 8/10/2016 3:54 PM 1) Are you a resident: Yes Are you a real estate professional: No Option # 1 Comment: when 9010 of CA local government does not have resale inspection, why do we have one? It cost money and time for resident and potential buyer for nothing. It also slow down the resell process that generate more income for city. With all these horrible inspection story, many potential buyer would not consider buy house in our city. That is shame! 8/10/2016 2:00 PM Answer Choices Yes No I Answer Choices Yes No Toia IMAGE 1: Date of the Resale Inspection Are you a resident of San Rafael? C Answered: 580 • Skipped.6 Responses Are you a real estate professional? • Answered: 550 • Skipped: 36 Responses 84.667 491 1534% 89 580 22.00% 121 78.00% 420 550 What direction should the resale inspection take? Answered: 580 • Skipped:6 Answer Choices Responses 52.24% Eliminate residential resaleinspection program - 90% of CA doesn't require local government resale 101 inspections. Properties on Marin County (not in city jurisdiction) land do not require a resale inspection 4.83 << Continue current programand practices (status quo)with measuresrecommended by StateAuditor: fees increase from $165 to $270.County Assessor supportscontinuation of current program totrack/update propertydata/assessments.Mari n Builder's Association supportsretaining program. Novato ($274), Belvedere ($300), Mill Valley ($310), Ross ($375-$975), and Tiburon ($250) use this model. 0.52% Continue current program sameas Option 2, exceptmake the program voluntary - Nothing like this in existence in local Marin governments Answer Choices Responses 29.31% Report on Permit Recordonly (no inspections) only provide a desk report on existing permits like Corte 170 Madera ($130) and Sausalito ($113): fee decreases from $165 to $130. Marin Association of Realtors support this option. 13.10% Continue current programbul limit enforcement tocorrecting significant life &safety violations only. 76 Otherviolations are "flagged' andrequired to be correctedw lien future permits arerequested by owner. Inspection fee increases to $270. Offer areduction or waiver of feesimmediate correction ofviolations.I.arkspur ($175), Fairfax ($350), and San Anselmo ($220) use this model. Total 550