HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD RBR Update' SAN RAFAE L
THE CITY WITH A MISSION
Agenda Item No: 3.c
Meeting Date: November 7, 2016
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Prepared by: Paul Jensen, Director City Manager Approval:
Thomas Ahrens, Chief Building Official
TOPIC: Residential Building Resale Report (RBR) Program
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING RESALE REPORT (RBR) PROGRAM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On April 4, 2016, the City Council directed staff to study options for either modifying or completely
eliminating the City's Residential Building Resale Report (RBR) Program which has been in place for
over 40 years. In consultation with the Marin Association of Realtors (MAR) and the City Attorney's
office, staff generated a list of five options which are summarized below and in the attached table
(Attachment 1). The five program options were presented to the City Council at two study sessions
held on August 1 and September 6, 2016. While there are members of MAR and local real estate
professionals that support the elimination of the program (Option 1), MAR supports that the program be
modified so that it provides a report of the permit record only (Option 4, no property inspection). As part
of the review of the five options, staff consulted with the other program stakeholders including: the
Marin County Assessor's Office; the Marin Builder's Association; the Golden Gate Association of Home
Inspectors; the Contractor's State License Board, local architects and contractors; and staff of local
jurisdictions that administer similar programs. Several of these stakeholders acknowledged the value
and support for continuation of the program with the City inspection component (Option 2).
Following careful review of the advantages and disadvantages of the five options, staff recommends a
new option that would improve the program and respond to the issues that have been problematic in
the past. The new option would retain the inspection component of the program, but make substantive
changes to address issues and challenges such as: City report redundancy with privately -
commissioned Contractor's Inspection Reports; inconsistencies in City inspections; unpermitted
construction; and report process. The recommended improvements and changes to the program are
outlined in the Analysis section of this report. Recommended program improvements include, among
others: eliminating City inspection and reporting of basic health and life safety covered by the privately -
commissioned Contractor's Inspection Reports, broadening/expanding the list of unpermitted work that
would be "grandfathered," allowing significantly more time for improvements to occur, and establishing
and implementing an amnesty program. Should the City Council accept this staff recommendation, the
next step would be to prepare and adopt: a) revisions to the City code (SRMC Chapter 12.36); b) a
resolution setting forth and formalizing the policies and practices for the program; and c) an adjustment
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
File No.: 286
Council Meeting: 11/07/2016
Disposition: Accepted report
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
to the RBR Program fees. Further, staff recommends that six months following the effective date of the
ordinance, a progress report be prepared and presented to the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and direct staff to prepare and return to the City Council with: a) the necessary code
amendments to SRMC Chapter 12.36 to modify the RBR program with the recommended
improvements outlined in this report; b) a resolution formalizing the RBR Program scope, policies and
practices; and c) the necessary amendments to the RBR Program fees.
BACKGROUND:
History of RBR Program:
In 1973, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1128, which established the City's RBR Program. The
provisions and requirements of the RBR Program are presented in San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter
12.36 (Report of Residential Building Record). SRMC Section 12.36.010 requires that prior to the sale
or exchange of any residential building, the property owner is required to obtain a "report of residential
building record" (resale report). The program includes a City inspection for which the findings are
incorporated in the resale report. While the RBR Program is not a common service and practice in
most California cities, this program is in place in all local jurisdictions in Marin County, except for the
County of Marin.
On average, annually, the City prepares and issues between 600-700 resale reports. The average is
based on the level of activity in the real estate market. In 2015, which was an active year for real
estate, 689 resale reports were issued. The greatest value of the RBR Program is that it provides the
City with access to our residential inventory to: a) address basic health and life safety issues; and b)
correct unpermitted work and code violations. Of the total resale reports issued in 2015, approximately
55% resulted in required follow-up with the seller/buyer to correct violations and unpermitted work.
The administration and scope of the RBR Program has evolved over the last 40+ years. For many
years, the RBR inspections were conducted by the City building inspectors (permanent staff). However,
within the last 10 years, this task was shifted to temporary, seasonal employees. This shift in staffing
was necessary as the building inspection needs for construction projects continued to increase with no
increase in permanent staffing levels for field inspections in over 25 years. However, many of today's
complaints about inconsistencies in reporting and inspection can be linked back to changes in how the
program has been administered through the years (e.g., in the earlier years inspections were very
focused and limited), as well as the use of temporary employees who might have had approaches that
were not uniform. Over the last several years, the Building Division has made great strides to revamp
its record keeping practices, laboriously reviewing all permit records; and organizing and digitizing
thousands of documents.
Like all Marin jurisdictions that offer an RBR Program, a standard resale report form is used to report
permit history and, when conducted, inspection findings. The current resale form that is used is posted
on the City website and can be accessed at the following link:
httr)://docs.citvofsanrafael.orq/CommDev/buildinq/rbr-docs/rbr-sample-rer)ort.iDdf
In 2013-2014, the City worked closely with MAR to mutually develop the "San Rafael RBR Program
Policies and Practices." The policies and practices, which are posted on the RBR Program webpage,
include, among others: waiver of permits for certain unpermitted work that is over 30 years old; waiver
of fees and penalties for unpermitted work or improvements that were completed prior to the current
property owner's (seller) purchase of the property and was not noted in a prior resale report (referred to
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
as "double jeopardy"); and a commitment for the real estate agents to request the resale report early in
the property listing process. The San Rafael RBR Program Policies and Practices are posted on the
City website and can be accessed at the following link:
htti):Hdocs.citvofsanrafael.orq/CommDev/buildinq/rbr-docs/rbr-policies-and-i)ractices.i)df
State Audit Performance Audit Report- 2015-2016:
In August 2015, the California State Assembly Joint Committee on Legislative Audit (Joint Committee)
voted to approve and directed the California State Auditor's Office (State Auditor) to complete a
performance audit of the City of San Rafael's RBR Program. The Joint Committee also directed that
the State Auditor select and complete a performance audit on the residential resale report programs of
two other cities in the State. The State Auditor selected the City of Pasadena and the City of Novato to
be included in the audit.
On March 24, 2016, the State Auditor's performance audit was completed and published. The
performance audit report focuses on five topic areas for evaluation: a) the qualifications of City staff
(inspectors) completing the inspections for the resale reports; b) an analysis of fees charged for the
resale reports; c) an assessment of the consistency in reports issued to the same property overtime; d)
the timeliness of the inspections and reports; and e) the value of the resale report to all parties involved
in the property sale. The performance audit report can be accessed at the following link:
httr)s://www.bsa.ca.qov/rer)orts/2015-134/resr)onses.html.
The Performance Audit Report did not suggest the RBR Program be eliminated or that the inspection
component of the Program be eliminated. Instead, the audit recommended that the City add additional
process and procedures to improve and formalize the RBR Program. For example, the audit
recommends that the City implement procedures that will help monitor the sale or exchange of
properties that require resale inspections and reports. To date, staff has either implemented or initiated
implementation of the audit report recommendations. Policies and procedures have been developed
for staff administration of the RBR program to achieve consistent inspection practices. It should also be
noted that the audit found that the City is "likely undercharging for inspections of single-family and
condominium dwellings."
City Council Direction to Prepare Options
On April 4, 2016, the performance audit report was presented to the City Council. Staff reported on the
recommendations on the performance audit report and requested that the City Council provide direction
on moving forward. Following public comment and deliberation, the Council directed staff to study
options to the RBR program, including the continuation, modification, or elimination of the program.
The City Council report and streaming video of the meeting can be accessed at:
htti):Hcitvofsanrafael.qranicus.com/GeneratedAciendaViewer.i)hi)?view id=2&clip id=911
In consultation with the Marin Association of Realtors (MAR) and the City Attorney's office, staff has
prepared the following five (5) options:
1. Option 1- Eliminate the RBR program;
2. Option 2- Continue the current RBR program (status quo) incorporating the recommendations
of the State performance audit report;
3. Option 3- Continue the current RBR program (same as Option 2), except make the program
voluntarv;
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
4. Option 4- Modify the RBR program so that it provides a permit record search only (no building
inspection); and
5. Option 5- Continue the current RBR program but limit enforcement to significant life/safety
violations only. Require that minor violations be "flagged" and required to be corrected when
future permits are requested by the property owner.
As mentioned, these options were presented at two City Council study sessions held on August 1 and
September 6, 2016. Public comments during the study sessions varied including: recommending
elimination of the program (Option 1); scaling the program back to a permit records search and report
only (Option 4); and maintaining the current program (Option 2). What was apparent in the comments
is that change in the program is overdue and warranted. Issues expressed of primary concern are the
situation of "double jeopardy" and overlap or redundancy with the "Contractor's Inspection Reports" that
are privately -commissioned by the sellers/buyers.
Consultation with Marin Association of Realtors (MAR)
On April 15, 2016, staff met with representatives of MAR to discuss program options. The above
options were presented and as noted, the representatives present expressed support of Option 1 and
4. However, MAR has formally taken a position to support Option 4, which is to limit the program to a
reporting of the permit records only (see attached correspondence). At this meeting, MAR reported to
staff that the state laws protecting the buyer provide a high level of disclosure. Further, MAR reported
that their own "Professional Standard of Care" is required of their members, which includes an
extensive disclosure package. Every buyer is required to complete and sign a disclosure statement.
The MAR representatives noted that nearly 100% of their clients commission a "Contractor's Inspection
Report," which provides a comprehensive inspection of the property and cites potential health,
life/safety conditions of the property. Samples of these inspection reports were provided to staff. City
staff recognizes that most buyers employ the services of a home inspection service to complete a
detailed examination of the appliances, systems, foundations, roofing and so on. These inspection
reports cost between $500 and $1,000. MAR representatives noted that there is redundancy in the City
resale report and the privately -commissioned report. In our review of the sample reports that were
provided, there is some redundancy; however, these inspection reports do not disclose permit history
on the property, which would be critical in providing the buyer with knowledge of unpermitted work. The
City inspection redundancy is in Section A of the resale report form (see Attachment 3). As discussed
below, staff is recommending that Section A be eliminated to address this redundancy issue.
Unlike the detailed "Contractor's Inspection Report,' the scope of the City's resale report is designed to
be limited in nature, and states so in the report document. Different from the private contractor's
inspection, the City inspector is simply doing a visual inspection of the home and comparing the state of
the home with the current permit records on file with the City. In addition, the City resale report notes
safety violations, which are mandated in state law such as water heater strapping, smoke alarms and
lack of spark arresters. Staff reached out to a board member of the Golden Gate chapter of ASHI
(Association of Home Inspectors) who was asked to clarify the scope of their inspection and if these
reports review permit records for the home. The ASHI board member indicated that they do not review
City permit records as part of their report process. Therefore, the buyer is left to research the permit
history. In summary, the current RBR program research and inspection results provide a unique set of
information for the buyer.
Lastly, in our meeting (and during the subsequent City Council study sessions), MAR representatives
clearly noted that the primary concern with the current RBR Program is with the inconsistencies in
current and past building inspection practices, which can result in situations of "double jeopardy." This
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
situation occurs when the current seller/buyer is required to correct a cited violation that existed prior to
the current seller's purchase of the property but the condition had not been disclosed by the City
inspector in the previous resale report. When this situation occurs, the current practice is to require that
the violation be corrected and retroactive permits be secured and that fees and penalties be waived.
The MAR representatives suggested that if the current program were to continue, the violation be
dismissed (that the condition be "grandfathered") or that there be a provision for amnesty.
ANALYSIS:
Review of RBR Program Options:
A summary of the five program options discussed in the recent City Council Study Sessions is
presented in the attached table (Attachment 1). A more detailed text discussion and analysis of each
option is presented in Attachment 2. Staff supports modifying the current program. As discussed below,
there is significant value to the program given the history and pattern of unpermitted work. However,
there are improvements to the program that are recommended to: a) reduce/eliminate redundancy with
the privately -commissioned Contractor's Inspection Report; b) establish clear, formalized policies and
practices so that the public is fully aware of what the inspection will entail; c) improve the process for
the customer; and d) develop an education component to aid the public.
The incidence of unpermitted work is much greater than would be expected. For the calendar years
2014, 2015, and 2016 for which we have fairly detailed records, we have the following raw statistics:
Year I Total RBRs issued
2014 670
2015 689
2016 (YTD) 291
No Violations
Identified
354(53%)
211 (45%)
119(40%)
Minor Violations
Identified
135(25%)
159(23%)
54(19%)
Major Violations
Identified
181 (27%)
219(32%)
116(40%)
As indicated in the table above, over 50% of the residences inspected through the RBR process over
the last 2'/2 years have had some sort of unpermitted work, and more than half of those instances were
major violations which often required Planning Division review and approval, architectural plans and
permits. If the information obtained during the inspection varies from the information provided to us by
the County Assessor's office, staff routinely notifies the Assessor of the disparity via email, which allows
the County to update its records.
After the resale report is issued, if any unpermitted work is identified, a Notice and Order is sent to the
property owner listing the specific violations and directing them to the Community Development
Department to obtain the necessary (retroactive) planning and building permits. In most cases, the
permit process is completed in a fairly routine fashion in that the retroactive permit is issued, and the
property owner then calls for an inspection. The Building Inspector will complete a detailed inspection
necessary to ensure code compliance and life safety issues are fully addressed. In the large majority of
cases, the City is able to work with the property owner to legalize the elements. However, in some
cases structures or improvements must be removed because they are so poorly constructed (to the
degree of being unsafe), or they are in violation of zoning or building code regulations and are
inherently substandard.
Considering the high volume of unpermitted work, and the relative severity of the violations, staff cannot
in good faith recommend discontinuing the City inspection component of the RBR Program as the City
could be viewed as shirking its responsibility to regulate, authorize and ensure the safety of the built
community. However, as presented below, in order to reduce process and improve customer service,
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
staff is recommending expanding the list of certain unpermitted improvements that would not require a
retroactive permit.
General Value of the Current RBR Program
The key factors in consideration of the RBR Program are summarized as follows:
➢ The current program has been administered for over 40 years, and is a program that is common
among all jurisdictions in Marin (except the County of Marin, unincorporated areas).
➢ The recent State Audit implicitly supported the program in all three cities that were selected for
the audit, and simply recommended administrative and process changes or augmentations.
Most of these recommendations have been or are recommended to be implemented by staff.
➢ The current program provides a unique consumer informational service to home buyers that is
not being provided by either the real estate professionals or the private inspection firms, which
are typically employed by the buyer at the time of sale.
➢ As currently administered, the physical inspection of the properties allows the City to maintain a
more accurate level of conditions with our housing stock inventory (which continues to age) and
identify additional dwelling units currently not in the inventory. Further, the program provides the
City with necessary information to update its database, as well as notify the County Assessor's
Office as to discrepancies that are identified during inspection.
➢ The program identifies a large number of non-compliant properties, and through separate code
enforcement actions brings those properties back into conformance, which helps to preserve the
quality of our neighborhoods and to be consistent with General Plan 2020 Policy H-8 (Housing
Conditions and Maintenance).
➢ Through the identification of non -permitted work and the subsequent removal or legalization of
those alterations, the City is helping to maintain the health and life/safety conditions of its
residential housing stock.
➢ The presence of an effective program along with the code enforcement actions and potential
penalties related to such unpermitted work, provide a strong disincentive to contractors and
homeowners to perform such work without required permits and inspection.
➢ In addition to the aforementioned safety issues, work done without permits reduces permit
activity and associated fee recovery which would adversely affect the ability of the department
to continue to provide our current level of customer service, and could potentially compromise
the health and safety of our citizens.
➢ The greatest value of the RBR Program is that it provides the City with what is often our only
access to much of our residential building inventory to: a) address basic health and safety
issues; and b) identify unpermitted construction and zoning code violations.
An effective program provides a real disincentive to performing work without permits:
➢ Contractors who do not obtain permits often undercut pricing from legitimate contractors who do
obtain permits, thus hurting their trade. What is more concerning is that the contractor (or
homeowner) who does not obtain permits (and City inspection) often is not technically proficient
and will perform the work in a hazardous or unsafe manner. Much like contractors, design
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
professionals who will not participate in unpermitted activity, often lose contracts to others who
will provide this service.
➢ From a home buyer's perspective, the report findings are a welcome addition to the other
information provided to them in order to help them make an informed decision, and we often
hear those sorts of comments at our counter.
By capturing all the unpermitted work identified by the City at the point of sale, a "level playing
field" is maintained where the same standard applies to the general law abiding citizens and
those who did not get proper permits.
r The County Assessor's Office assessment of permitted work will adjust property taxes and
provide much needed services. Having accurate housing data and property assessment helps
maintain that each homeowner is assessed fairly based on what actually exists on their
property. Avoidance of building permits for additions and major alterations results in avoidance
of taxes on those improvements. See letter from Rich Benson, Marin County Assessor
(Attachment 5).
r The State Performance Audit Report states that the purpose of an RBR program "is to provide
consumer protection to home purchasers and to enhance the enforcement of zoning and health
and safety regulations before the property's ownership is transferred." This statement implicitly
affirms the importance of the RBR program in advancing these goals. As discussed above, the
performance audit report makes specific recommendations for process improvements that the
State Auditor believes would make the program even more effective and transparent to the
City's property owners.
Staff -Recommended Improvements and Changes to the RBR Program
It is recognized that there is need for change and improvement, as well as formalization of policies and
practices so as to reduce the potential future inconsistencies in the program implementation and
administration. Should the current program continue with the City inspection component, staff
recommends the following changes to improve the program:
1. Update the Scope and Purpose of Program
Revise scope and purpose of the program inspection component to eliminate the redundancy with
privately -commissioned inspection reports and focus on property permit record, citing, and
correcting unpermitted construction.
2. Revise the Report and Inspection Practices and Policies
a. To eliminate redundancy, defer to privately -commissioned Contractor's Inspection Reports for
property compliance with basic health and life -safety conditions and corrections. Eliminate
report items currently listed in Section A of the City RBR form (see Attachment 3 for revisions to
the resale report template).
b. Focus the City report and inspection on confirming the permit record and identifying unpermitted
construction (City resale report form Sections B, C and D).
c. As recommended by the State Auditor's performance audit report, the inspectors will take
photographs of the property for the RBR file record. However, to protect the privacy of the
property owner, the photographs will be stored in an area of the file that is not accessible to the
public.
d. Broaden/expand the list of unpermitted work that would be "grandfathered" (no retroactive
permit required) by the City: 1) kitchen and bathroom remodels over 25 year old; 2) decks under
30" in height over 15 years old; 3) replacement of kitchen countertops (over original cabinets);
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8
4) bathroom vanities and shower enclosures with no other upgrades; 5) roof replacements and
new exterior siding replacement; 6) expired building permits where there was no final inspection
and no plans to confirm work; and 7) expired permits for water heaters and furnaces provided
that the RBR inspector determines that they were installed correctly and to -code.
e. Regarding "double jeopardy" policy, the City already waives permit fees and penalties for
violations not cited by the City in a previous RBR report. Add to this policy that the violation
must be corrected over a period not to exceed 365 days, as opposed to the current 60 days.
Seller must provide proof that improvement existed prior to or at the time of property purchase.
f. Revise report form to include Code Enforcement case history for property.
g. Revise Section C of the resale report form (violations requiring correction) to include the follow-
up steps to pursue remedy/correction (e.g., identifying the contact on City staff to provide
assistance; time frame/process for correction; buyers ability to inform the City in -writing if they
plan on remodeling, which may negate corrections or retroactive permits).
3. Recommended Process Changes
a. As recommended by the State Auditor's performance audit report, establish an appeal process
to the ordinance. For challenges to the resale report findings, allow for appeals in writing to the
Community Development Director within five days of the issuance of the report. Director must
review and render a determination in writing within 10 days.
b. For unpermitted work that is identified, require 180 -days to correct, permit or abate (as opposed
to the current 60 days); after 180 days, the City will issue a Notice & Order. For "double
jeopardy" situations, require 365 -days to correct, permit or abate. This change is advantageous
to the buyer if the unpermitted work is intended to be abated or replaced (e.g., if buyer intends
on remodeling the kitchen for which the former remodel was unpermitted, they can inform the
City in -writing to avoid having to obtain a retroactive permit).
c. Streamline the process by having one contact in the Building Division to work with seller/buyer
on addressing and resolving violations and unpermitted work (Permit Services Coordinator).
The resale report should be revised to direct the seller/buyer to that individual.
d. Establish and implement an amnesty program (bi-annually or periodic), which allows property
owners to obtain permits for unpermitted improvements. Waive the penalty fee for retroactive
permits.
e. Discontinue use of temporary/seasonal employees to conduct inspections and instead use
regular or fixed term city employees.
4. Recommended Fee Adjustments
a. Adjust RBR fee application to $270.00 for a single-family residence resale report.
b. Establish an Appeal fee: $100.00.
c. One suggestion is to provide a 100% refund on the RBR fee for properties that are not cited for
violations or corrections. This option would have a fiscal impact to the City as approximately
50% of the resale reports that are issued have no violations (estimated loss = $60,000
annually), but it would also acknowledge and reward homeowners that follow the permit process
and have no violations.
5. Incorporate an Education Component
a. Prepare an informational handout and video (for posting on the City website) — "How to Prepare
for an RBR Inspection," outlining the purpose and scope of the RBR report, what the City
inspectors will be/will not be looking for during inspection (the "checklist"), suggestions on
resources for researching property permit history, and what to look for in a privately -
commissioned inspection report (basic health and life -safety). See Attachment 6 for checklist.
b. Update and expand the list of "Frequently -Asked Questions" which are posted on the RBR
webpage.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 9
c. Host an annual "Coffee & Codes" for the real estate professionals and public on RBR process
and updates.
Suggestions Considered But Not Recommended
The following suggestions for improving the current RBR Program were considered but are not
recommended:
• Ignore "double jeopardy" issues. This action would aid and abet continuation of unpermitted
work, which is unfair to the customer that lawfully secures a permit for improvements. More
importantly, it could also leave in place a health or life safety issue with the potential to cause
harm or injury.
• Focus inspection for corrections of violations only on the most significant health and life -safety
issues that have the potential to cause harm or injury. This action would require developing a list
on what is considered major versus minor, which is near impossible to do as all provisions of the
building/fire codes are intended to address health and life -safety.
• Grandfather unpermitted older room additions that pose no health or life -safety risk.
Acknowledge older unpermitted work; take photos for file and grandfather. Require retroactive
permits for newer, unpermitted improvements only. This action is not recommended as there
may be elements to the improvements that are not apparent or visible to determine code -
compliant for basic life -safety. As discussed above, an expanded list of older unpermitted work
that would be grandfathered is recommended.
• Issue Certificate of Compliance after violations are corrected. This step is not necessary. The
current process acknowledges corrections and they are noted in the property file. As
recommended, the Code Enforcement file used to track and remedy violations will be made
available in e -permits.
• As an alternative to City inspection, allow privately -commissioned inspection to cover City
inspection scope of code compliance and basic health and life safety; require inspector to
complete form noting how violations are to be or have been corrected. This action is not
recommended as not all privately -commissioned inspectors are knowledgeable of all provisions
or licensed to administer the building and fire codes.
• Consider a hybrid of Options 2 and 4, which is to require and report permit search but offer
inspection as an option (voluntary). According to MAR, most buyers will not opt to request an
inspection.
• Consider a "waiver" of the inspection by the buyer, if request is submitted in writing by the
buyer. This action would not provide full protection to the buyer as they would have no
knowledge of unpermitted work or if it has been completed to meet code requirements.
Next Steps
Should the City Council concur with the staff recommendation, the next steps would require the
preparation of: a) an ordinance to amend SRMC Chapter 12.36; b) a resolution formalizing revised
program scope, policies, practices and process; and c) ordinance resolution revising the RBR fees.
Staff is prepared to return to the City Council in early December with these follow-up actions.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
As discussed above, there was outreach on the development and assessment of the five RBR program
options. In addition to meeting with MAR representatives to obtain feedback and on the options, staff
also consulted with the Marin County Assessor's Office, the Marin Builder's Association, the Golden
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 10
Gate Association of Home Inspectors, local architects and staff of local (Marin) jurisdictions that
administer RBR programs.
The correspondence received to date is provided as a report attachment (Attachment 5). The
correspondence includes letters, emails and a survey conducted by a local real estate professional.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The amount of permit activity that is generated from the RBR program is fairly substantial due to a
prevalence of unpermitted work. The fees generated from this permit recovery are detailed in the table
below, but in summary, represent roughly 18% of the annual cost recovery for the Building Division.
Year I RBR fees collected
2014 $117,550
2015 $117,400
2016 (YTD) $55,340
Estimated permit
fees resulting from
resale report
$220,000
$235,000
$104,000
Investigation fees
Total fees
charged for cited
collected
violations
$72,000
$409,550
$112,000
$464,400
$48,000
$207,340
(as of 6/16)
The cost for the part-time seasonal RBR inspector is approximately $35,000 per year.
The total annual revenue for the Building Division for FY14-15 was $2.4 million, and for FY 15-16 was
$2.5 million. The revenue from the RBR program makes up around 18% of that total annual revenue.
The current Building Division expenditures are approximately equal to the revenues.
Should the City Council choose to completely suspend the RBR program, and we experience that
revenue loss, this would cause a major review of and adjustment to the Building Division budget. For
the last several years, the Building Division has balanced its revenue and expenditures by adjusting fee
schedule accordingly. If we were to experience a roughly $430,000 reduction in revenue, we would be
faced with either reducing staff, reducing work hours, reducing services or increasing fees to make up
for the loss. Most of the services we provide are mandated by State Law, and would be problematic to
curtail. We have analyzed our ability to reduce staff and find that, at present, the Building Division is
minimally staffed, and that any reduction in staff would result in noticeable reductions in service, as
would a reduction in work hours.
In order to be sustainable in its current configuration, fees charged for the resale inspection would have
to be raised. Our current fee structure is the lowest of any jurisdiction in the county that does a
comparable program. This is primarily due to the fact that the department has neglected to do an audit
for many years now, and the fee structure has fallen way behind actual costs. This was indeed one of
the recommendations from the State Auditor; that we increase our fee appropriately to recover our
costs. If the program is continued status quo, the appropriate fee for a single family inspection and
report would be in the neighborhood of $270. At that amount, the fee would still be one of the lowest
charged in any of the other jurisdictions doing a comparable program.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options to consider regarding this matter:
1. Direct that the RBR program be discontinued (Option 1) and direct staff to return to the City
Council with the necessary code amendments to repeal SRMC Chapter 12.36;
2. Direct staff to continue the current RBR program (Option 2) and practice, and return to the City
Council with the necessary code amendments to SRMC Chapter 12.36;
3. Direct that the RBR program be modified to be voluntary only (Option 3), and return to the City
Council with the necessary code amendments to SRMC Chapter 12.36;
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 11
4. Direct that the RBR program be modified so that the service is limited to a City permit record
search only (Option 4) and direct staff to return to the City Council with the necessary code
amendments to SRMC Chapter 12.36;
5. Direct that the current RBR program be continued but limit enforcement of violations to
significant life/safety violations (Option 5), and return to the City Council with the necessary
code amendments to SRMC Chapter 12.36:
6. Direct staff to return with more information.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the report and direct staff to:
1. Prepare amendments to SRMC Chapter 12.36 (Report of Residential Building Record) updating
the text and referencing revised program policies and practices adopted by separate resolution;
2. Prepare a City Council resolution adopting RBR Program policies and practices for reporting
and inspections;
3. Prepare amendments to the RBR application fee and incorporate an appeal fee (City Master
Fee Schedule amendment); and
4. Return to the City Council six months following the effective date of the ordinance to report on
the status of the RBR Program.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. RBR Program Options (table)
2. RBR Program Options Discussion & Analysis
3. City RBR template form with checklist — recommended revisions
4. Cost Study for RBR Reports
5. Correspondence received to date (includes survey conducted by local real estate
professional)
6. Resale Inspection Checklist
ATTACHMENT 1
OPTIONS TO RESIDENTIAL RESALE INPSECTION AND REPORT PROGRAM
July 25, 2016
OPTIONS
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGE
FEE (COST TO ADMINISTER
PROGRAM EMPLOYED
GENERAL
PROGRAM)
BY OTHER MARIN
COMMENTS
FISCAL IMPACT
AGENCIES
(FEE FOR SFD REPORT)
OPTION 1
Free -up staff
No access to housing stock;
Fee eliminated.
County of Marin ($0)
MAR does not support this
Eliminate residential resale
resources.
no enforcement of
Reduction in cost recovery due
option.
inspection program
Consistent with 90%
prevalent violations;
to lack of capture of
of local jurisdictions
subsequent health/safety
unpermitted work. Staffing or
in California.
risks.
level of service implications.
OPTION 2
Continued access to
Per recommendation of
Current fee = $165 for SFD,
Novato ($274)
MAR does not support this
Continue current program
housing inventory to
State Performance Audit,
would have to be increased to
Belvedere ($300)
option.
and practices (status quo)
capture unpermitted
increase cost to customer
$270. Continued cost recovery
Mill Valley ($310)
County Assessor supports
with measures
work; health/safety;
to cover cost of City staff
for enforcement, permitting &
Ross ($375-$975)
continuation of current
recommended by State
resources.
inspection of unpermitted work
Tiburon ($250)
program to track/update
Auditor
& other building division
property data/assessments.
services. Life/safety benefit.
Marin Builder's Association
supports retaining program.
OPTION 3
Same as Option 2.
Same as Option 2.
Same as Option 2, except
NA
Continue current program-
Except, provides
As a voluntary program, the
departmental cost recovery for
same as Option 2, except
seller and buyer the
extent of RBR requests is
permitting and inspection of
make the program voluntary
option to request
unknown, making it difficult
unpermitted work would likely
report.
to estimate staffing needs.
be less (unknown at this time).
OPTION 4
Limited staff required
No access to housing
Reduce current fee of $165 for
Corte Madera
MAR supports this option
Report on Permit Record
to administer;
inventory and no
SFD report to $130. Reduction in
($130.00)
only (no inspections)
shorter process for
enforcement of violations.
departmental cost recovery for
Sausalito ($113)
customer
Questionable value as
capturing unpermitted work
permit history available on-
line.
OPTION 5
Continued access to
Unpermitted work would
Current fee = $165 for SFD
Larkspur ($175)
Continue current program
housing inventory to
continue to be in violation;
would have to be increased to
Fairfax ($350)
but limit enforcement to
flag violations.
property owner would
$270 (for cost recovery)
San Anselmo ($220)
correcting significant life &
Enforcement and
control timing of
Continued capture of
safety violations only. Other
correction of major
corrections.
unpermitted work but limited to
violations are "flagged' and
health & safety
Could discourage owner
correcting major health & safety
required to be corrected
violations.
from securing permits for
violations. Defining "major"
when future permits are
future work, thus
may be problematic.
requested by owner. Offer a
promoting continued,
Fiscal impact on revenue
reduction or waiver of fees
unpermitted
unknown.
immediate correction of
improvements.
violations.
ATTACHMENT 2
RBR PROGRAM OPTIONS
Discussion & Analysis
The following is an analysis of the five program options, which are presented in Attachment 1
(table):
Option 1- This option proposes to eliminate the current RBR program. The
advantage to this option is that it would free up staff resources so that work can be
shifted to other important Building Division tasks. This option would also streamline
property sales transactions as it would be one less task that would be required by the
seller and their real estate professional. The disadvantage to this option is that the City
would lose access to the housing stock during a most optimum time to remediate
violations and unpermitted work. Further, substantial cost recovery/revenue to the City
would be lost due to the lack of uncaptured, non -permitted work. The estimated
reduction in cost recovery/revenue would have staffing implications.
Approximately 90% of the local jurisdictions in California do not administer a residential
resale report or inspection program (including the County of Marin). Therefore, this
approach would be in-line with most of what is being done/not done throughout the state.
However, it is important to note that many local jurisdictions in California that do not
administer this type of program take a more proactive approach at enforcing unpermitted
construction work. Many such jurisdictions employ code enforcement and building
inspection staff that are specifically tasked to seek -out, investigate and pursue
unpermitted construction work in these communities. Our limited code enforcement staff
is tasked to administer our hotel and apartment inspection program (HIP) and
enforcement of building and zoning violations is reactive and complaint -based.
While this option is not supported by MAR, a number of the local real estate
professionals support eliminating the program. Staff does not recommend this option.
2. Option 2- This option proposes to maintain the current RBR program practices and
incorporate the administrative measures recommended by the State performance audit
report. The advantage to this option is that it would allow continued access to the
housing stock and the City's ability to pursue corrections to violations and unpermitted
work. The disadvantage to this option is that the cost for a resale report would need to
increase to cover staff costs/expenditures. The resale report fee for a single-family
residence would have to increase from the current $165.00 to $270.00. This option with
the current practices is similar to the programs administered by Novato, Belvedere, Mill
Valley, Ross and Tiburon. The fee range for these jurisdictions range from $250.00
(Tiburon) to $975.00.
Staff met with the Town of Tiburon Building Division staff to discuss how their program is
administered. This meeting was initiated as representatives from MAR indicated to us
that the Tiburon program was working successfully. In our meeting with Tiburon staff,
we found that their administration and practices are no different than the administration
and practices of our program. Tiburon will correct a resale report if it is in error and not
supported by the building code, and staff acknowledges some level of amnesty. Like
San Rafael, Tiburon follows -up with the seller or buyer with enforcement measures to
seek correction of violations. Further, like San Rafael, Tiburon staff reported that on
occasion, they encounter the "double jeopardy" situation where a previous resale report
missed or overlooked unpermitted improvements. Tiburon staff reported that when this
2-1
ATTACHMENT 2
RBR PROGRAM OPTIONS
Discussion & Analysis
situation occurs, there is typically no real evidence or proof as to when the unpermitted
construction occurred and enforcement (correction or abatement) is pursued. Our take-
away from this meeting is that there are substantial differences between the two
communities: a) the housing stock in Tiburon is younger where there are fewer instances
of unpermitted work and code violations; b) the community complaints for unpermitted
work are higher, c) there is a difference in the market conditions (more affluent); and d)
customer service experience is better.
MAR does not support this option. However, this option is supported by the Marin
County Assessor and the Marin Builders Association (MBA). As discussed in the City
Council report, staff recommends a modified RBR Program that starts with maintaining
the inspection component of Option 2.
3. Option 3- This option proposes to maintain the current RBR program but make it
voluntary rather than mandatory. The advantage to this option is that it would continue
to allow access to the housing stock to flag violations and unpermitted work. However,
as the program would be voluntary, this access and correction to violations and
unpermitted work would be limited to those that seek a resale report. While the fee
would be no different than under Option 2, the uncertainty as to the number or resale
report requests makes it impossible to estimate the cost recovery/revenue implications
for the City.
This option raises several interesting questions. Properties with the more egregious
violations would likely not chose to order a resale report, which defeats one of main
assets of the current process. Also, at first blush, one would assume that buyers would
push to request a resale report at the seller's expense in order to obtain the information
provided by the report. However, in a "sellers' market" buyers might be pressured to
forgo the inspection in order to not jeopardize the acceptance of their offer. The
voluntary option may create pressure on buyers to "not rock the boat," whereas with the
current RBR program, the resale report would always be available to them.
MAR staff has indicated that a voluntary program will not likely generate any customers
that would request a resale report. A voluntary inspection is offered by the City and
County of San Francisco, but their staff was unable to provide us with any quantitative
information on the percent of customers that request an inspection. Given the level of
disclosure required at the time of property sale that would identify major health and
life/safety matters, there is no incentive for the customer to request a resale report.
However, City staff has heard from a number of real estate professionals who represent
buyers that appreciate the City report disclosure of violations and unpermitted work as it
provides some leverage for the buyer. While there is some merit to a voluntary program,
staff does not recommend this option.
4. Option 4- This option proposes to modify the RBR program so that it provides a
report of the permit record only. The advantages to this option are that it would: a)
require limited staff resources to complete the resale report; b) reduce the process for
the customer; and c) reduce the cost to the customer (resale report fee estimated to be
reduced to $130.00 for a single-family residence). The disadvantage to this option is the
2-2
ATTACHMENT 2
RBR PROGRAM OPTIONS
Discussion & Analysis
same as Option 1; it would eliminate access to the City's housing stock pursue violations
and unpermitted work.
This option is similar to the programs administered by Corte Madera and Sausalito.
However, unlike San Rafael, neither Corte Madera nor Sausalito provide on-line access
to City permit records. Therefore, this option provides a good and valuable service to
these other jurisdictions. San Rafael has made all current and historic building permits
available on-line, so there is question as to whether this option has any advantages
except for providing a written confirmation from the City.
This option is supported by MAR. MAR believes that this approach, in combination with
the stringent residential property sale disclosure requirements that are required by the
state and their own association practices, provides adequate disclosure to the buyer.
Staff does not recommend this option as the permit records in San Rafael are available
on-line. However, should the City Council choose to support this option, staff would
recommended that we be directed to: a) work with MAR to require that private inspection
include basic life and health safety that would typically be covered in City inspection; and
b) prepare an informational handout that is attached to the RBR report that provides the
seller/buyer with a list of what to look for ("What to Look For"), which can include a list of
basic health and life safety measures, examples of common unpermitted work and non -
code complying improvements, resources to check such as County Assessor's records.
5. Option 5- This option proposes to continue the current RBR program but limit
enforcement to correcting significant health and life/safety violations. Other, less
significant violations would be "flagged" and required to be corrected when future
permits are requested by the property owner. The advantage to this option is that it
would allow continued access to the housing stock and would document violations and
unpermitted work. However, the disadvantages to this option are: a) the property owner
would control the timing of corrections, which may never occur; and b) it would
discourage the property owner from securing permits for future work, thus promoting
continued unpermitted improvements. The fee for the resale report would be the same
as that proposed under Option 2; however, cost recovery/revenues for correcting
violations and unpermitted work would be substantially less.
This option is similar to the programs administered by San Anselmo, Larkspur and
Fairfax. Staff does not recommend this option because it is difficult to distinguish
between significant/major versus minor health and life/safety violations. Further, there is
little incentive for a property owner to correct the violations and could aid or abet
continued unpermitted work.
2-3
ATTACHMENT 3
Recommended Revisions to
City of San Rafael Residential Building Record Report Form
Section A under current form (Violations Not Requiring Permits or Re-
inspection) has been eliminated as it is redundant to the privately -
commissioned "Contractor's Inspection Reports." The section of the report that
confirms the number of dwelling units on the property has been re -titled as
Section A.
Text has been added to Section C (Violations Requiring Plans, Permits,
Inspection and Approval) to reference and informational handout and contact
person for assistance.
CITY OF
Nuadon City
or Marin
LIFOR11� .
BUILDING DIVISION
Report of Residential Building Record (RBR)
In the preparation of this Report, city staff reviews all permit records on file at the City and performs a visual
inspection of the property. The focus of this City report is to confirm that the property is in conformance
with the permit record and to identifying any unpermitted construction or alterations. Property owners will
be required to address any identified illegal construction or alterations by obtaining retroactive permits and
inspections.
This inspection does not include an evaluation of the operating systems, structural or seismic safety of the
structure, and does not constitute a full disclosure of all material facts affecting the property. The City
recommends that buyers obtain the services of a private home inspection firm to do those detailed types of
inspections.
Street Address:
Assessor Parcel Number(s):
Residential Building Report No.
Zoning District:
Issued By:
Date of Report Issuance: Report Expiration Date:
Record of ConstructionP.
Date
Issued Permit # Description of Work;,
Permit
Expired
W/out Final
Note: The above represents the record of permits that are on file with the City of San Rafael. The City encourages and
recommends that the property owner compare the City permit records with their personal records to reconcile any discrepancies
in this report. The property owner is encouraged to produce any plans, missing permits, and documentation to correct and/or
dismiss any potential violations identified in this report.
Report is valid for 6 months from date of issuance unless extended by endorsement below:
(Maximum extension is 3 months, and request for extension must be in writing)
Extended from: to: by:
City of San Rafael - Building Inspection Division
Report of Residential Building Record
10/2016 Revision
I
Record of Planning Projects & Code Enforcement Cases (Can be Review at City Hall):
Project No. Approval Date: For:
Case No. Date Issued: For:
Accessory Structures Located on Property at Time of Inspection:
❑
Detached Garage(s)
❑
Accessory Building(s)
❑
Storage Shed(s)
❑
Deck(s)
❑
Other
Section A: Residential Dwelling Units at Time of Inspection
Status:
Authorized Dwelling Units: ❑ Single Family Dwelling ❑ Single Family Dwelling with 2nd Unit
❑ Duplex ❑ Condominium/Townhouse ❑ Apartments
Number of dwelling units observed at the time of inspection:
❑ No undocumented dwelling units observed.
❑ A second kitchen as defined by the San Rafael Municipal Code has been observed during this inspection.
While a second kitchen is not a violation of San Rafael Municipal Zoning regulations, it may not be used
by a separate household or in conjunction with an unpermitted additional dwelling unit and will require
permits to legalize. The second kitchen is described as follows:
Description:
❑ An undocumented and possibly illegal additional dwelling unit has been identified during this
inspection. Information must be submitted to document this unit's legality, a permit for this unit must be
obtained to legalize it, or the unit must be abated. This issue has been referred to the Code Enforcement
Division for follow-up. The undocumented unit is described as follows:
Description:
City of San Rafael - Building Inspection Division 2
Report of Residential Building Record
10/2016 Revision
Section B: Violations Requiring Routine Permits, Inspection and Approval
Permits for these items may be obtained at the Building Division Public counter in City Hall anytime during regular business
hours. If these permits are obtained and the inspection approval granted within 15 days after the issuance of this report, no
enforcement action will be taken by the City. Failure to do so will result in the issuance of a Notice & Order.
❑
Replace Electric Service
❑ Exterior Siding
❑
Other:
❑
Reroofing
❑ Window Replacement
❑
Other:
❑
Wood Stoves and Inserts
❑
❑
Other:
❑
Water Heater
❑ Furnace and/or Duct
❑
Permits previously issued
❑
Replacement
Replacement
Other:
that have expired (see page 1)
Section C: Violations Requiring Plans, Permits, Inspection and Approval
The following unpermitted work requires plans for review and the appropriate City permits. The Code Enforcement Division
will be mailing the owner of record a "Notice and Order" regarding these violations. This notice will provide a more detailed
explanation of the violations and required remediation, as well as establish timelines for which you shall: submit plans, obtain a
permit, perform the required remedial construction work (if needed), receive City inspections, and finalize the permit.
See the informational handout located at: htti)://www.citvofsantafael.oru/commdev-building-resale/ for additional information
and next steps. For other questions and assistance, please contact our Permit Services Coordinator at 415-485-3096.
❑
Electrical Circuits
❑
Retaining Walls
❑
Basement Conversion
❑
Deck/Stair
❑
Remodel Laundry Room
❑
Garage Conversions
❑
Accessory Structures
❑
Remodel Bathroom(s)
❑
2nd Unit
❑
Structural Modification
❑
Remodel Kitchen
❑
Other:
❑
Self -Contained Spa
❑
Attic Conversion
❑
Other:
❑
Additions
❑
Permits previously issued
that have expired (see page 1)
Detailed Description
Section D: Advisory Notations Only (No Action Required)
City of San Rafael - Building Inspection Division
Report of Residential Building Record
10/2016 Revision
RETURN RECEIPT AND BUYER'S CERTIFICATION
Report No.
Date:
Address:
As Owner/Seller, I certify that I have received the report and a copy of this report has been given to the buyer
along with this form.
Seller's Signature Date
Print Name
Please note: It is mandatory that the Buyer return this certification to the City prior to
close of escrow in order to comply with the San Rafael Municipal Code Section 12.36.050.
In conformance with the requirements of the San Rafael Municipal Code, I certify that I am the BUYER of the
residential building(s) noted above, and that I have received and read the RESIDENTIAL BUILDING RECORD
prior to the consummation of the Sale or Exchange of said residential building(s).
Buyer's Signature
Print Name
COMPLETE THIS FORM AND MAIL TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
Building Inspection — RBR
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
City of San Rafael - Building Inspection Division 4
Report of Residential Building Record
10/2016 Revision
ATTACHMENT 4
Cost Study for RBR reports
Staff member Function Time (hours) FBHR Cost
Permit Tech Process the application 0.25 $90 $22.50
Permit history search &
rough out report. Call
applicant and schedule
Admin Assistant inspection 0.65 $87 $56.55
Perform field inspection &
RBR Inspector
enter information into report 1.25
$115
$143.75
Proof report, convert to PDF,
attach electronic copy to
Admin Assistant
CRW 0.3
$87
$26.10
Permit Services Coordinator/
Meet with seller/agent when
Building Official/ Comm Dev
issues are in dispute
Director
0.065217391
$160
$10.43
N/A
Vehicle, gas, office supplies
$11.00
TOTAL:
$270.33
ATTACHMENT 5
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED TO DATE
Correspondence includes letters, emails,
and the results of a survey prepared by a local real estate professional
From: Rebecca Woodbury
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 2:25 PM
Cc: Jim Schutz; Paul Jensen
Subject: Information from Assessors office re RBRs
Hi Mayor & City Council,
We received the following message from the Richard Benson of the County Assessor's office:
Council Member McCullough recently requested the number of prior year assessments as a result of presale
inspections to pre-existing real property improvements in San Rafael. Initial review for the calendar year 2015
indicates appraisal review of approx. 1100 permits; approx. 215 assessments not a result of pre -sale
inspections; and only 2 prior year assessments based on a pre -sale inspection. Remember initial review, not
every data element verified. This nominal scale suggests the most significant benefit of the program is to
ensure correct physical property characteristics in the Assessor's records and public data files of same and not
revenue generation.
Rebecca Woodbury
Senior Management Analyst
City of San Rafael, City Manager's Office
From: Jim Schutz
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 8:01 AM
To: Paul Jensen; Thomas Ahrens
Subject: FW: Data and Comments from City Resale Inspection Survey - 580 Responses
Attachments: Comments as of 9_5_16.docx; Screen Shots as of 9_5_16.docx; All Resale Inspection
Survey Data 9_5_16.xls
From: Andy Falk[
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: httr)://www.trulia.com/profile/andv-
falk-aqent-san-rafael-ca-280180/overview
Answer Choices
Yes
No
Total
Answer Choices
Yes
No
Total
FACE 1 o 000 0f o0 0000 � no, pacUar
Are you a resident of San Rafael?
o Answered- 680
ski pped: 6
Responses
Are you a real estate professional?
A°- Plls@t'J'und- 550
0 Shipped- 36
Responses
84.66%
491
15.34%
89
580
22.00%
121
78.00%
429
550
What direction should the resale inspection take?
O Answeved:580
o SNpped- 0
Answer Choices Responses
52.24%
Eliminate residential resaleinspection program - 90% of CA doesn't require local government resale 303
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 28
increase from $165 to $270.County Assessor supportscontinuation of current program totrack/update
propertydata/assessments.Marin 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 3
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 programbut limit enforcement tocorrecting significant life &safety violations only. 76
Otherviolations are "flagged' andrequired to be correctedwhen future permits arerequested by owner.
Inspection fee increases to $270. Offer areduction or waiver of feesimmediate correction
ofviolations.Larkspur ($175), Fairfax ($350), and San Anselmo ($220) use this model.
Total 580
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 8/22/1.6
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 contractor's 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 AM
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 PM
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 PM
- 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.
8/12/2016 8:56 AM
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: P
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 12:14 AM
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 1 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 90% 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
MARIN
association cif
REALTORS 0
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 cavy 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 imrnediately'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 commissioned 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 44: Permit Record Only.
In closing, we believe the following excerpt from 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
Andy Fegley, MPA
Chief Executive Officer
Marin Association of REALTORS®
In support of Resale Inspections:
4
My name is Jeff Greenberg. I'm a real estate investor and builder. My pr' fo , j
and bulk of my holdings are in Marin County. �ZO <901
6
Currently I own one 4 unit building and one duplex in San Rafael. I have also sol
couple of single family homes_ that I remodeled in San Rafael in the past few years.
With over $50,000,000 in real estate transactions as the buyer or seller (not a real
estate agent) in the past decade, I think I have a pretty good understanding of local
real estate.
There are 3 main reasons that I support Resale inspections
1. Health and. Safety - it's important to have a comprehensive resale.inspection
which makes sure that any work that has been done to a property is safe and
up to current codes. Simple things like GFIs in the bathroom and kitchen,
bracing of the water heater and obvious unsafe conditions can easily be
identified with a resale inspection. And quite often there is no third party
inspection performed, so without a resale inspection these safety issues go
unnoticed and uncorrected.
2. Equal playing field - resale inspections uncover work that has been done
without permits. Without resale inspections there is no way the building
department knows that works has been done without permits. And when
there is no way to uncover this work and there is no penalty, then
unpermitted work becomes more common. The County is the only
jurisdiction in Marin that doesn't do resale inspections (Tiburon, Mill Valley,
Corte Madera, Larkspur, San Rafael and Novato all do them) and the amount
of unpermitted work is staggering - I see it ever day even in $5M+ homes. In
my opinion this is blatantly unfair for professionals like myself who routinely
pay for architects and engineers and then go through the difficult planning
and building permit process prior to paying enormous permit fees and
getting all of the required inspections.
As an example, I'm trying to add a unit to my duplex on Woodland Avenue.
I've paid thousands of dollars in planning and architectural fees while my
neighbor has added a unit without permits. He's generated rent and saved
on fees and if he went to sell without a resale inspection no one would be the
wiser unless I chose to turn him in (which I don't like to do). I doubt that his
additional unit is built to code and had no planning or building review - the
only way to catch these flagrant violations is a resale inspection.
Or how about when I put in tempered windows to comply with the new WUI
standards and pay for the permits and another neighbor replaces their
windows without perimits, they pay 10% less for the windows and save the
large permit fee and this would not show up with a third party inspection -
only with a comprehensive resale inspection. There is a reason that
tempered windows are required in a neighbor with high fire risk and there is
a reason that planning and building and inspections are required. If you do
away with the resale inspection, code enforcement just becomes complaint
based.
3. Legality - In my opinion, the most important reasons for a resale inspection
is to check permit history - specifically for the legality of units in multi unit
buildings and permitted bathrooms and bedrooms in residential.
Unfortunately there are many people that have done work without permits
in the past and don't disclose that when they are selling. I looked at a
multiunit building the other day. It was a house that had been converted,
without permits into 3 units. If I purchased the house and it burned down, I
would NOT be allowed to rebuild 3 units because of the residential zoning.
Fortunately for me, I know how to do this research, but a well done resale
inspection would uncover this and then all of the potential buyers could be
informed and thus protected. I also have looked at dozens of properties that
have bathrooms or bedrooms that have been added without permits and
never disclosed The realtors don't care about this nor do they have liability
for an occurrence like this.
a. 'It's understandable that many realtors don't want a resale inspection.
It requires them to think in advance to schedule the inspection (it
shouldn't be that difficult but I've seen so many realtors wait until the
week before the transaction is supposed to close to schedule the
resale and then they are upset that it will take two weeks for to get the
report). Poor planning on their part shouldn't be a reason to do away
with resale inspections.
b. The other reason realtors don't like resale inspections is that
sometimes it complicates the sale. Unpermitted work, has to be
addressed and brought to code. And while that's the right thing to do,
it might delay or even kill a transaction which could cost the realtor
commission - again not a valid reason to do away with the resale
inspection
c. And then there is the misinformed or flawed logic that a third party
property inspection accomplishes the same as a resale inspection, so
there is no need for a resale inspection. I've heard many realtors
argue this over the years. I completely disagree with this erroneous
logic though. First, a professional property inspection isn't required
for a transaction to close - a resale inspection by San Rafael is. Not all
of the property inspectors do a good job, there is a wide variation
between the companies that do these inspections. And most
importantly, the third party inspectors don't lookup permithistory,-
which
history, which is the most important reason for the resale inspection, so they
can miss unpermitted work even if it is done correctly.
To conclude, the resale inspection is very important. I think that if you want to
expend energy discussing the resale inspection, it should be around how to make
the inspections more comprehensive and consistent. Comprehensive would look at
what the original house contained and any subsequent work done to the house and
check the permit history to confirm that any new work had been done with a permit.
As unpermitted work is identified, it must be brought to code and the appropriate
fees collected. At some point the majority of local residents will realize that it is
necessary to get permits and do work to code - which is safe and fair for everyone
and protects the future buyer. Consistent would be each resale inspection and each
inspector goes through the same process and checklist.
Sincer
Jeff Gr'enbe g
Presid�nt, Greenberg I vestments
Avg
40W
1W
August 10, 2016
Members of the San Rafael City Council & Building Department,
I attended the City Council Study Session held on August 1, 2016 at which the Building Department
made a slide show presentation to the council & the attendees about the Residential Building Resale
Inspection Program. The presentation by the Building Department took up most of the time allotted
for the study program, and The Marin County Assessor and the San Rafael fire chief were also asked
to speak, leaving very little time for public input.
The assessor talked about increased assessed value of properties when permits are obtained for
remodel /upgrade/expansion permits. However, this session was addressing resale inspections, and
as we all know, properties are automatically reassessed upon sale with the new assessed value
being the sales price. Unpermitted work that is found in the resale inspection and subsequent
permits & fines that are paid for by the buyer or seller do not affect the assessed value if the
property is sold because it is already reassessed at the sales price. In addition, San Rafael receives
$2.00/thousand of the sales price as a city transfer tax for every property that is sold. San Rafael is
the only city/town in Marin County that receives a transfer tax when a property within the city limits
is sold and transferred to new owners.
The resale inspection process has been challenging, and over many years, there has been much
inconsistency with guidelines & inspectors. Items that didn't come up on a previous resale
inspection when the owner purchased a property suddenly appear when the owner decides to
sell the property, creating confusion, stress & additional negotiation & cost to the owner. If the
owner didn't make any changes to the property, and any items that were mentioned as needing to
be corrected were taken care of when they previously purchased the property, they shouldn't be
subjected to or required to deal with additional demands/requirements by the City of San Rafael
when they sell the property.
The City of San Rafael and the City Council members should understand that the standard
documents used in a real estate transaction already address safety issues and ask about any
work that has been done on the property as well as asking if permits were obtained. Proper water
heater strapping, smoke detectors, and carbon monoxide detectors are required by state law, and
buyers & sellers sign forms regarding those items. The required transfer disclosure statement that is
completed by the sellers asks about any changes/alterations to the property as well as whether the
RE/MAX of central marlin
1099 D street, suite 201, san rafael, california 94901
office: (415) 258-1500 fax: (415) 258-1510
Each RE/MAX® Office Independently Owned and Operated
work was done with permits, and buyers are encouraged to go to the city or county that has
jurisdiction over the property to check the property record.
Also, buyers and/or sellers typically spend hundreds of dollars on property inspections by various
licensed professionals such as contractors, pest control inspectors, roofers, plumbers, pool
inspectors, chimney/fireplace inspectors, engineers, air quality specialists, etc. etc. during a
resale transaction. These inspections are much more thorough than the city resale inspection as
far as listing safety issues or potential code issues.
I would encourage the City Council to consider making a change to the policy of doing onsite resale
inspections by moving to a policy of issuing a report on the permit record only.
�•
d
Mary K. Yamamoto
VV00 A: Rebecca Woodbury
SeMc: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 3:09 PM
Cc: Paul Jensen; Thomas Ahrens
Subject: RBR program - additional correspondence
Mayor & City Council - here is some additional correspondence from Eric Burris from Bradley Real Estate
(
Message
Hi Rebecca,
I wanted to follow up on my email of July 29, in favor of option #4, which I hope gets adopted by the city
council. I thought it might be helpful for the City Council to see a recent "Report of Residential Building Record
(3R)" from a San Francisco transaction we closed recently at Bradley Real Estate. I have also included the
"Notice Concerning Information in 3R Report" by the San Francisco Association of Realtors which gets
provided to the buyers and sellers.
If anyone has questions, I would be glad to assist in whatever way I can.
SF Report of Residential Building Record (3R).pdf (30.49 KB)
Aug 3, 2016, 12:51 PM
SF Notice Concerning Information in 3R Report .pdf (182.41 KB)
Aug 3, 2016, 12:51 PM
1
SAN FRANClsco NOTICE CONCERNING INFORMATION
ASSOCIATION of REALTORS` IN 3R REPORT
SAN FRANCISCO ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® STANDARD FORM
This form is intended for use in San Francisco
PROPERTY ADDRESS: I� , (, i—
&/
1. Reports of Residential Building Record (3R Report) are prepared by the San Francisco Department of Building
Inspection (DBI) from its historical records and may not be accurate or complete for various reasons. For example,
while most of the City's records are now computerized, many were originally handwritten and can be difficult to read
or are incomplete. Errors could have occurred when the information was transferred from the original documents and
then been repeated in subsequent updates. Some permit records were simply misplaced or filed against the wrong
property, or perhaps even lost in the fire that followed the April 1906 earthquake. In any event, 3R Reports do not
include information on any plumbing or electrical permits, nor do they include cancelled or withdrawn permit
applications or permits taken out for work to a commercial portion of a mixed-use building. Such records must be
sought separately from DBI.
2. For the foregoing reasons, Buyers of residential real property in San Francisco should never rely on
information contained in 3R Reports. They should be aware that, among other things, properties may have rooms,
additions or decks where there is no record of a permit ever having been issued for their construction. Such
improvements may or may not have been constructed with a permit. If an improvement was constructed without a
permit, or not in accordance with building codes, the City and County may require the owner to legalize it at a
substantial cost or remove it. If there are 2 or more structures with residential units on the same lot, separate 3R
Reports for each structure should be reviewed. Paragraph LA on 3R Reports identifies "Present authorized occupancy
or use" of a property. An "Unknown" reference should be investigated and buyers are referred to the DBI publication,
Notice.for Unknown Use for further information in that regard.
3. It should be understood that Brokers/Agents are not legally obligated to confirm or verify the accuracy or
completeness of information contained in public records such as 3R Reports. (Cal. Civil Code §2079.3)
Accordingly, buyers are advised that it is their responsibility to independently investigate the completeness and
accuracy of 3R Reports and make informed decisions based on their own investigations.
4. DBI codes regarding any permits include without limitation: C—the work was Completed; I—permit has been Issued;
N—No record was found; X --the permit Expired (work was not started or not completed). Buyers should not rely
upon these codes being accurate for the reasons stated above and should always independently verify all
information in a 3R Report before removing any applicable contingencies.
5. Buyers seeking assistance in reviewing the permit history of a property should engage the services of a qualified
contractor, architect or other construction professional to verify the information in a 3R Report before removing any
inspection conditions. Buyers may also contact the DBI Records Management Division, which is responsible for
maintaining historical records and producing 3R Reports, for information regarding a permit history. They may be
reached at:
DBI Records Management Division
1660 Mission Street, 4th Floor
San Francisco, California 94103
(415) 558-6080
The un rsigned ackno ledge that they have read and understand the above.
DocuSlgnsd by:
Buy r �CN Date � Buyer 1_4&r Date 7/8/2016 1 1:46 PM F
01AC66E6r636427.,.
BROKERS/AGENTS CAN ADVISE ON REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS ONLY. FOR LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE,
CONSULT A QUALIFIED ATTORNEY OR CPA.
Page 1 of 1 12i
(Rev. 12/15) Copyright d 2015 San Francisco Association of REALTOR@
Phone: Fax:
Produced with ripFormg by vpLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser, Michigan 0026 www.zipLogix.crm
P�,v couNr�o
City and County of San Francisco Edwin M. Lee, Mayor
Department of Building Inspection —� Tom C. Hui, S.E., C.B.O., Director
N
O'b3S
0`�5�,
Report of Residential Building Record (3R)
(Housing Code Section 351(a))
BEWARE: This report describes the current legal use of this property as compiled from records of City Departments. There has
been no physical examination of the property itself. This record contains no history of any plumbing or electrical permits. The
report makes no representation that the property is in compliance with the law. Any occupancy or use of the property other than
that listed as authorized in this report may be illegal and subject to removal or abatement, and should be reviewed with the
Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection. Errors or omissions in this report shall not bind or stop the
City from enforcing any and all building and zoning codes against the seller, buyer and any subsequent owner. The preparation
or delivery of this report shall not impose any liability on the City for any errors or omissions contained in said report, nor shall
the City bear any liability not otherwise imposed by law.
Address of Building l WATTSON PL 4
Other Addresses 49 OCEAN AV
Block 6955 Lot 055
1. A. Present authorized Occupancy or use: 11 FAMILY DWELLING & COMMERCIAL
B. Is this building classified as a residential condominium? Yes ✓ No
C. Does this building contain any Residential Hotel Guest Rooms as defined in Chap. 41, S.F. Admin. Code? Yes No ✓
2. Zoning district in which located: NC -3 3. Building Code Occupancy Classification: R -2/B
4. Do Records of the Planning Department reveal an expiration date for any non -conforming use of this property? Yes No ✓
If Yes, what date? The zoning for this property may have changed. Call Planning Department, (415) 558-6377, for the current status.
5. Building Construction Date (Completed Date): 2004
6. Original Occupancy or Use: 11 FAMILY DWELLING & COMMERCIAL
7. Construction, conversion or alteration permits issued, if any:
Application #
Permit #
Issue Date
Type of Work Done
Status
200006122468
967432
May 24, 2002
NEW CONSTRUCTION - CFC 11FD
C
20207161523
976231
Sep 11, 2002
INSTALL THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM THROUGHT OUT PER NFPA-13
C
200306167215
997167
Jun 16, 2003
REVISION TO APPLICATION #200207161523 AS -BUILT SPRINKLER
C
200305305916
998749
Jun 26, 2003
INSTALL OF NEW FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM. ALL INSTALLATION TO COMPLY
C
WITH NFPA 72 & ADA 310-10 (26)
200303280958
999891
Jul 11, 2003
MECHANICAL PLAN CHECK COMMENTS. REFER APPLICAITON
C
#200006122468
200307018466
1001376
Ju129, 2003
JOB UNDER CONSTRUCTION APPLICATION #200006122468 AS BUILT
C
REVISIONS: CHANGED BEDROOM FLOOR (4TH FLOOR) LAYOUT, (NO
ADDITIONAL ROOMS) RELOCATE PG&E IN (N) METERROOM ON OCEAN
AVENUE
200410086370
1038483
Oct 08, 2004
PER DISTRICT INSPECTOR - SUBMIT AS BUILT FOR RECORD KEEPING
C
PURPOSED ONLY. REFER APPLICATION #200312222816
8. A. Is there an active Franchise Tax Board Referral on file? Yes No ✓
B. Is this property currently under abatement proceedings for code violations? Yes No ✓
9. Number of residential structures on property? 1
10. A. Has an energy inspection been completed? Yes ✓ No B. If yes, has a proof of compliance been issued? Yes ✓ No
11. A. Is the building in the Mandatory Earthquake Retrofit of Wood -Frame Building Program? Yes No ✓
B. If yes, has the required upgrade work been completed? Yes No
Records Management Division
1660 Mission Street - San Francisco CA 94103
Office (415) 558-6080 - FAX (415) 558-6402 - www.sfdbi.org
Department of Building Inspection
1660 Mission Street - San Francisco CA 94103 - (415) 558-6080
Report of Residential Record (311)
Page 2
Address of Building I WATTSON PL 4
Other Addresses 49. OCEAN AV
Date of Issuance: 14 JUN 2016
Date of Expiration: 14 JUN 2017
BY: GARLAND SIMPSON
Report No: 201606098432
Block 6955
Patty Herrera, Manager
Records Management Division
THIS REPORT IS VALID FOR ONE YEAR ONLY. The law requires that, prior to the consummation of the sale or exchange of
this property, the seller must deliver this report to the buyer and the buyer
must sign it..
(For Explanation of terminology, see attached)
Records Management Division
1660 Mission Street - San Francisco CA 94103
Office (415) 558-6080 - FAX (415) 558-6402 - www.sfdbi.org
Lot 055
To: Lorenzo Ersland; Thomas.Aherns@cityofsanrafael.org
Subject: RE: comment on Residential Building Resale Inspection Program
From: Lorenzo Ersland
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 7:57 PM
To: Thomas.Aherns(dcitvofsanrafael.orq
Cc: Paul Jensen
Subject: comment on Residential Building Resale Inspection Program
I had gotten incorrect information about the time of the Special Study Session this evening, and therefore
unfortunately missed it. I wanted to provide some comments on the topic. Can you please incorporate these
comments.
I moved to San Rafael in 1988, and bought a house on Union Street in 1993 where I currently live. I've
upgraded the house since then, sometimes with permits, sometimes without. I was surprised to read in the City
Manager's recent summary report that such work as replacing windows, water heaters, furnaces, etc. require
permits. I've had plumbers do work, and have no idea whether they secured permits or not. I don't recall the
vendors discussing that. When I had all my windows replaced about ten years ago, I don't recall ever
discussing permits and have no idea whether the contractor got permits or not.
Additionally, I'd like to relay two short stories. My partner sold his house in Sausalito several years ago. The
house is a mid-century modern with great views. The house sold immediately upon listing for approximately
$1.75m. All permits and lack of permits were fully disclosed. My partner had remodeled his kitchen and one
of the bathrooms on his own, something for which he has the skills. The house was certainly not a
fixer. Although the kitchen and bathrooms were very nice, the buyer immediately gutted them all and had
them fully rebuilt with upgrades. Had my partner been required to retroactively get permits and engage
contractors for any corrective action that would have been a complete waste of time and money, given that
everything was ripped out immediately after purchase.
My neighbors across the street on Union Street listed their bungalow house almost two years ago. They had
bought their house in the early 90s. Their initial offer fell through as they tried to comply with the costly and
time-consuming task of ripping out un -permitted work and/or tried to get the improvements through the permit
process. They told me, for example, about an awning that they had put over their back patio. Although I
obviously don't know all the details, apparently the city wanted architectural drawings. They ultimately
decided to rip the awning out rather than going through the cost of compliance. Their house languished unsold
while they tried to comply with the city's requirements. Meanwhile, the house sat empty for many
months. The house eventually was put on the market again, although it was listed and sold below market,
having languished on the market for so long. Their point -of -view was that the process was simply a way for the
city to make money. Again, I fully admit to not having complete knowledge of their situation. I do know that
they lost considerable time and money in the process.
It seems to me that there should be full disclosure, then it should be between the buyer and seller to work out
how to deal with the situation. I agree with the Marin realtors that Option 4 is best for those directly involved in
the resale of a house.
Lorenzo Ersland
899 Northgate Drive, Suite 100
San Rafael, CA 94903
415.456.3000
July 26, 2016
Thomas Ahrens
Chief Building Official
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Ave,
San Rafael, CA 94901
Dear Mr. Ahrens:
As per our talk today, you asked my opinion about the RBR system that's now in place in San
Rafael and most of the county, because it was being challenged by a group of other
Realtors, who want to see some changes.
To be honest, even though the system sometimes makes my job harder, in truth I think it helps
to keep the playing field level, and also really benefits and helps to protect the buyer. It
probably helps to reduce law suits as well. (We get far too many of those already). As a result,
I support the program, and would like to see it continue in its present form.
It's been my experience that the San Rafael Building department has been typically been
reasonable in its administration of the program, in my many years of experience, from time to
time, even a little flexible in certain unusual situations. I would hope that policy would continue.
Sincerely,
Tom Benoit, Broker
Coldwell Banker
Owned by a Subsidiary of NRT LLC. Real estate agents affiliated with Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage are independent contractor sales associates and are not employees of Coldwell Banker Real Estate
Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage or NRT LLC. CalBRE License #01908304
�ERs
a
Bztilding Ozr.r• Coininztni.ty
July 25, 2016
Thomas Ahrens
City of San Rafael
14005 th Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Dear Thomas:
For more than 50 years the Marin Builders Association has served the construction industry by promoting high
ethical and professional standards and providing quality services to our members. We work responsibly with the
community for the enhancement of the building industry and our environment.
Our responsibility to the safety of community and the promotion of our industry guides us to voice our support for
the Residential Resale Report program.
As experts in the construction industry we believe that by requiring sellers to obtain the proper permits for illegal
construction allows for future owners to have confidence that the home that they are purchasing is safe for
occupancy.
We also find that the incidence of unpermitted work is much greater when municipalities do not have a program
like this one. Unlicensed contractors and who do work without permits seriously undermine the efforts of
responsible contractors who do obtain the proper permits and threatens our industry and the safety of our
community.
Thank you, and if you have any questions please contact our office at 415-462-1220.
Sincerely,
0?4 VA46
Rick Wells
Chief Executive Officer
660 Las Gallinas Avenue I San Rafael, California 94903 1 415.462.1220 1 NAnAnmmarinbuilders.org
OFFICE OF RICHARD N. BENSON
.-................... .A...5.5.E-55.O.R.... ... R ECOR.D.E R...-....cou.NTY....C..L..E.R.K...
Richard N. Benson
July 12, 2016
ASSESSOR - RECORDER -
to write or speak before Boards and Councils but in this case the matter
COUNTY CLERK
weighs significantly on our shared interests, most notably the effectiveness
415,473 6542 F
San Rafael City Council
Mailing Address:
PO Box 151560
Po sox C
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
Son Rafael, CA 94913
well documented as are the limitations, frustrations and criticisms. Of all
Suite 232
Re: San Rafael Residential Resale Program
Administrative Office
City Council Meeting, July, 18, 2016
3501 Civic Center Drive
system. Indeed, abandoning the program will diminish some property tax
Suite 208
revenue and what the City's budget report identifies as the City's second
San Rafael, CA 94903
largest tax generator. That is consistent with the County of Marin's Budget
415 473 7215 T
Dear Honorable Council Members:
415 473 6542 F
tax revenue is considered a discretionary local revenue source." 1
assessor@marincounty.org I am writing to you because your Council is considering the matter of San
I "Comprehensive Tax Reform in California: A Contextual Frameworl<," California State
Controller Betty T. Yee, June 2016.
Rafael's Residential Resale Inspection Report Program. It is unusual for me
Assessor
to write or speak before Boards and Councils but in this case the matter
Suite
415 47733 7215 T
weighs significantly on our shared interests, most notably the effectiveness
415,473 6542 F
and efficiency of the property tax system.
assessor@marincounty.org
The purpose and goal of the City's residential building record program are
Recorder
well documented as are the limitations, frustrations and criticisms. Of all
Suite 232
those, I have read none that recognize the impact of the City's residential
415 473 6092 T
415 473 7893 F
building record program and its importance to the integrity of the property tax
recorder@marincounty.org
recorder@marlncounty.org
system. Indeed, abandoning the program will diminish some property tax
revenue and what the City's budget report identifies as the City's second
County Clerk
largest tax generator. That is consistent with the County of Marin's Budget
Suite 234
Reports and a recent State Controller's Report that recognizes how "property
415 473 6152 T
tax revenue is considered a discretionary local revenue source." 1
415 473 7184 F
countyclerk@marincounty.org
The Assessor regularly utilizes the City's program results to discover
Business/Personal Property
important property information that the Assessor normally cannot acquire
Suite 208
without right of private property access. The value of the City's residential
415,473 7208 T
building record program is that it provides information to.update our property
415 473 2730 F
records and provide accurate appraisals and assessments. These records are
assrpersprop@marincounty.org
relied on by staff, as well as outside appraisers, real estate professionals, title
companies, insurance companies, lenders, statisticians, bonding agents, tax
CRS Dial 711
and assessment districts, and regulatory agencies to make accurate
www.marincounty.org/arcc
comparisons with other properties in and outside of our county. This same
data is relied upon by individuals to validate .that their own property is
appropriately assessed and taxed. And, from time to time, the program does
I "Comprehensive Tax Reform in California: A Contextual Frameworl<," California State
Controller Betty T. Yee, June 2016.
PG. 2 OF 2 identify instances when properties should have been assessed and escaped
taxation. While that may be a source of frustration to some, it gives
confidence to others to adhere to regulations and to ensure fairness in taxation.
Despite the realities of the Assessor's role, the more offensive elements of
taxation include lack of uniformity and public policies that either reward, or
fail to deter, exploitation.
Both the County of Marin and the City of San Rafael emphasize the
importance and value of collaborative opportunities to support the
sustainability and functionality of our communities. In that regard, I hope my
comments may be of some assistance in your deliberations.
Sincerely,
Richard N. Benson
Assessor -Recorder -County Clerk
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
COUNTY OF MARIN OFFICE OF THE ASSESOR • RECORDER - COUNTY CLERK PO Box C - San Rafael, CA 94913
ARCHITECTS
July 6, 2016
City of San Rafael Community Development
14005 th Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Attention: Mr. Paul Jensen, Community Development Director
Mr. Thomas Ahrens, Building Official
Re: San Rafael RBR Program
Dear Paul and Thomas,
It has come to my attention that the City of San Rafael is considering modification
or elimination of the RBR Program currently in effect.
I understand the frustration of property owners and realtors when they're
surprised at the time of sale that unpermitted work was done to their homes that
require retroactive permits and legalization. It has been my experience that
these items are uncovered at a time when people are trying to complete a
transaction thus there is a sense of urgency on their part. The RBR program
shouldn't come as a surprise for the homeowners and realtors. It has been in
place for a very long time as it has been in most of the other Cities and Towns in
Marin County. Some outreach to homeowners and realtors to address these
items early in the process or before the property comes to market would help
tremendously.
While I can fully understand the frustration on the part of property owners and
realtors, the fact that is that there an abundance of unpermitted work throughout
the housing stock in San Rafael. My profession places me in people's homes on
a regular basis. I have seen a great deal of unsafe and non -code compliant
items more times than I can count. I have frankly seen life threatening conditions
many times. I feel it our responsibility as building professionals to ensure the
safety of the public. Further, it's the responsibility of the City of San Rafael to
identify these items when feasible in order to correct them for the sake of public
safety, not only for the homeowners in question, but for their neighbors. I don't
see an alternative opportunity for the city to find these areas if illegal construction
other than the current RBR program.
415 382 1656 1, 1534 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4, San Rafael CA 94901 sksarch.com
ARCHITECTS
I can sympathize with property owners have inherited these items from a former
homeowner, however the buyers should also take some responsibility and
perform their own due diligence for what they are purchasing. That doesn't
excuse the fact that some of this construction is unsafe. I would think that the
owners/realtors wouldn't argue that they want the structures to be safe. In my
opinion, to simply ignore the unpermitted work would be negligent. We need to
consider the purpose of the building code which is for life safety. If we have the
opportunity to save lives or prevent injury by ensuring code compliance, we need
to do so.
If we eliminate the program, It will encourage homeowners and contractors to
perform illegal work as they know there will be no checks and balances.
Unlicensed contractors or contractors performing work without inspection (which
is illegal), will harm the honest and qualified contractors who are doing everything
above board. How can a legitimate contractor compete with substandard and
unpermitted work? This is amplified by the number of homes that are being
"flipped" in this current real estate climate. I've seen contractors from out of town
come in, do a bunch of illegal work that doesn't get inspected, and then sell. I
fear for the new homeowners.
I'm not sure what modifications are being proposed to the program. I do know
that modifications were made a few years ago to offer relief to homeowners if
they could demonstrate that the illegal/unpermitted work was inherited by them
and constructed prior to a certain number of years. I have had several clients
where this relief has applied. It reduces the permit fees and reduces the burden
of the city to document what exists and perform a few inspections. I don't know
of any other local City or Town that has offered this relief and find it quite fair.
In closing, I feel that elimination of the program would be a huge mistake. Once
again, the overarching theme is life safety. If one person is hurt or killed when
we had the opportunity make some simple corrections, then we've failed as a
community.
Sincerely,
/tewa�rt K. Summers. Architect
From. Jennifer Harris -Marks
Subject. Re: City inspections- please send me a narrative of your experiences
Date. May 10, 2016 at 2:11 PM
To. NizRealty € :
................................... ._............................................................................. ............ ..........................................................._..............
..................................................................................................................................................................
My clients bought a house in 2014 and had a clean city re -sale inspection. Any improvements
they did from that point on were permitted and finalized.
They went to sell the home less than 2 years later and the city stated that there were un -
permitted additions (they added nothing ---all was done at least 2 owners before) and that a
carport conversion into a Master bedroom (done circa 1978 with a permit) may have to be
removed.
The City of San Rafael took THREE months to rectify the situation and required my clients to
purchase expensive drawings and extend an escrow period, as well as lose at least one offer
that would have been significantly more than what they eventually sold for. Items that were
approved just 18 months before with a clean re -sale inspection were now unacceptable to
the city and caused my clients and myself much grief in racing around trying to satisfy these
"new" requirements.
When all was said and done and the planning department approved everything and
money/fees/fines were paid, the inspector came back out and told the NEW owner that
there were un -permitted additions (they added nothing) and that a carport conversion (done
circa 1978 with a permit) may have to be removed.
Insanity.
Sorry if that was more than 100 words.
Hope it helps -
Jennifer
Jennifer Harris -Marks, Realtor
International President's Circle 2015
Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
511 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
Greenbrae, CA 94904
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:18 PM, NizRealty < wrote:
when you are back, try to simplify and send me 100 words. meeting is at 5
NIZ
kill YI
Niz,
I had a bad situation last year when I was selling a house in Glenwood —
I was selling the house for the daughters of the owner who had died unexpectedly — a very sad situation
for the daughters.
Anyway, the city resale inspector came out and said the kitchen had been remodeled at some point and
there was no record of permit, so the space needed to be permitted retroactively — I asked the daughters
and they said that all their mother did was replace a few cosmetic items (countertops, a sink and flooring)
—the actual construction remodel, which had involved opening the kitchen to the family room, adding
lights, electrical etc, had been done prior to when their mother purchased the house —
So I dug up the old MLS listing and it stated clearly that the house was newly remodeled. Then I reviewed
the city resale inspection dating back to the time when she bought the house, and there was no mention
of any kitchen remodel requiring retroactive permits.
So, long story short, even though the city of SR had provided a resale report back in 1999 (1 think) which
made no mention of any kitchen work done without permits, the city of SR held my sellers "hostage" over
this issue years later (2015) and made them jump through all kinds of hoops to get the space retroactively
permitted (ie- getting drawings done, moving an electrical outlet, and paying a fee with penalty for the
retroactive permit).
I felt the city should have taken some responsibility for their past omission of not calling this out to the
prior seller (who did the remodeling work) at the time of their sale -- instead the city penalized those who
were dealing with a heartbreaking sale years later and who had no knowledge of any needed permits for
work done before their mother bought the house.
The whole thing felt like a "money grab" on the part of the City of San Rafael and was a lot of work,
expense and stress for all of us to resolve.
Ms. Lubamersky,
I know that Assemblyman Levine has a keen interest in city Resale Inspection
procedures and practices. I am experiencing a particularly difficult situation
with the City of Mill Valley.
I helped my clients purchase a home in 2004 and the City of MV signed off on
a room conversion. Fast forward to 2016 and the City is now denying the
"legality" of the exact same space. We are in escrow and lieading toward a
close.
Can You call me at your earliest convenience to discuss? Time is of the
essence and I need sage advice.
Thanks and all the best,
Kathee Shatter
Hi - glad you are doing this. My experience was in 2009 in Novato. I had the
prior inspection in the property which did not call out the outbuilding in the
back of the property as an issue. When the next inspector came she flagged it
and ordered it removed. When I pointed out that the prior inspection had no
problem she just shrugged and said' too bad'. Her supervisor gave the same
answer. When I asked if the original inspector was still on staff they said he
was. I suggested maybe some kind of discipline for flagrantly me doing it
but the supervisor got angry and told he wasn't going to do anything. No
accountability - except for homeowners even when they didn't cause the
problem in the first place. And complete lack of sympathy if you get stuck
because of their mistake. Seems they should be liable for paying for the
corrections since they failed to "disclose" during their earlier inspection,
which was specifically done so that the new buyer knows what they are
getting. Certainly that's what the court would award someone who failed to
disclose a defect in the process of an inspection meant specifically to warn
buyers what they were getting. If not, you can't argue it is some kind of
"consumer protection" if the consumer relies on their representations and
they don't make good on their mistakes.
Thanks
Just recently had an inspection done on a home in San
Rafael. Inspector found all these un permitted, along with
permitted projects that had been done on the home. Home
was purchased in 2008 an some of his findings go way
back to when the home was built. Client is frustrated and
confused. So why when they were not required in 2008, do
these things needs to be accomplished, retroactively. In one
instance the home built in 1946 had these structural
additions as part of the original plan. We feel singled out
and intimidated.
Thanks - howard
I have not had any problems with Novato, Fairfax, San Anselmo, or
Tiburon. The only problem I had with San Rafael was when David
called problems that had been listed on a previous report and since
corrected He obviously got back to the office and read the old report
but did not realize these problems had been corrected.
I had 2 situations that I personally feel exposed the city of San Rafael to a potential
lawsuit. My client bought a fixer in San Rafael although it was a fixer, it had a new
kitchen. Nothing was called out in the city resale inspection about the kitchen when he
bought it. My client fixed up the house and put it on the market several months later.
When he got his rbr, they called out the kitchen as being Unpermitted and required him to
get a retroactive permit, create drawings and correct the work that was not done to code.
The city took no responsibility for the earlier rbr that did not call out the kitchen. No
protection for my client when he bought the house.
Same buyer bought another house in San Rafael. Nothing noted on the rbr when he
bought it. When he went to sell it the city said the entire lower floor was not permitted
and he had to pay to permit the lower floor even though it was a house built in the 50s
with a working fireplace in lower floor it so it was clearly living space for decades,
probably from when the house was originally built as the fireplace was built directly
under the main floor fireplace and shared a dual flue chimney so not something that
would have been added after the fact.
Emails as of 11:45 a.m. on 8/1/16, regarding the Residential Resale Inspection Program
Name: Benjamin Faber
Submitted: 2016-07-27 22:05:58 UTC
Message: Option #4
Name: Carolyn Svenson
Submitted: 2016-07-27 22:09:33 UTC
Message: PLEASE eliminate your draconian resale inspections as they are currently conducted. The
method that Corte Madera(and other cities across the Bay Area)uses is your Choice #4: provide a record
of permits and charge the seller some substantial fee. No one objects to the fees; they object to the
huge hurdles that the City of San Rafael has created.
Name: Torn Benoit
Submitted: 2016-07-27 22:12:58 UTC
Message: I am favoring keeping the program the way it is. I think it helps the buyer to get a home with
fewer problems, that might surface later. Probably prevents some lawsuits too.
Name: Brent Thomson
Submitted: 2016-07-27 22:14:23 UTC
Message: I feel strongly the resale inspection process should be limited to a desk review only of permits
on record.
Name: Allison Salzer
Submitted: 2016-07-27 22:16:19 UTC
Message: I'd vote for reporting on permit record
Name: Julie Leitzell
Submitted: 2016-07-27 22:28:44 UTC
Message: My experience and the stories are showing that the process in San Rafael is needlessly
confusing, punitive and expensive for both buyers and sellers in your town. Please adopt a resale policy
that informs buyers of permits that were not taken out, or not finaled so buyers are aware and they can
choose to take action, or demand compliance by sellers, or choose to take the property 'as is'. It makes
much more sense, and it would relieve us all of burdensome and expensive regulation and oversight of
minutiae Having to retroactively permit items that were legal at the time is too much.
Name: Rocky Vannucci
Submitted: 2016-07-27 22:35:15 UTC
Message: Encouraging council to change resale process to Report on Permit Record only (no inspection)
Name: Gary Newman
Submitted: 2016-07-27 22:58:32 UTC
Message: I am in favor of Option #4 in the list of five options only he table. Reports on Permit Records
Only.
Name: Jim King
Submitted: 2016-07-27 23:16:12 UTC
Message: Hi,
I can't make the study session for the resale inspection process, but want to with in with my preference
of reporting on the permit record only. The current process is very onerous on sellers, buyers and real
estate professionals.
Name: Lee Riney
Submitted: 2016-07-27 23:24:18 UTC
Message: I have worked as a realtor in Marin for over 30 years. Resale inspections are an asset. Permits
that are never finaled are important to know about, as are add ons without permits. Health and safety
issues are also important. I've seen many inspectors arrive, check the straps on the water heater, and
leave. I recently had an inspection done in another Marin city and there were two long exterior
stairways with no handrails. No mention of that in their report - just the usual add another strap to the
water heater. I think inspectors should be much more thorough than they are.
Name: Eric Burris
Submitted: 2016-07-28 00:14:15 UTC
Message: I hope this email makes it through. I am the attorney for Bradley Real Estate. I request that
the city of San Rafael implement a resale process like that of San Francisco, namely just a Report of
Residential Building Record (aka a 311 report). I believe it is also being referred to as a "Report on Permit
Record Only." Thus, no physical inspections by the building inspector. The procedure in San Francisco
works very smoothly and effectively. Thank you.
Name: Scott Pinsky
Submitted: 2016-07-28 01:55:28 UTC
Message: I encourage the Council to modify the program by implementing the 4th option that will be
presented at the upcoming hearing on this issue, i.e. a Report on Permit Records for any home subject
to the resale inspection ordinance. Buyers are entitled to the City's current information on permit
status, an issue that private inspectors rarely address. By contrast, since most buyers (and many sellers)
hire their own inspectors before or during escrow, a physical inspection by the City is largely duplicative
and redundant, incurring needless cost to both the City and the parties. Any significant issues noted
during these private inspections are typically addressed by the parties prior to close.
Name: Jeannie Rorvik
Submitted: 2016-07-28 13:54:30 UTC
Message: Please consider option #4 as it makes sense and simplifies a complicated system
Name: Wes Mayne
Submitted: 2016-07-28 16:24:32 UTC
Message: If a qualified inspector can come out for option 5 and can thoroughly identify health and
safety problems, then I think option 5 would be a good one. Other wise option 4 seems to make the
most sense.
Name: Cam Ashurst
Submitted: 2016-07-28 18:55:30 UTC
Message: vote for no resale inspections #1
Name: Jennifer Boesel
Submitted: 2016-07-28 21:36:21 UTC
Message: Option 4, report on permit records only, no inspection
Name: Charlotte Boesel
Submitted: 2016-07-28 21:53:36 UTC
Message: Hello, I am a new Realtor in Marin County and I would like to vote for option #4: Report on
permit record only (no inspections).
Thank you,
Name: Andy Falk
Submitted: 2016-07-29 22:38:46 UTC
Message: Please switch to a report of existing permits only like Corte Madera and Sausalito from the
current onsite inspection ASAP.
Name: Cathe&ie Cook MacRae
Submitted: 2016-07-3120:41:46 UTC
Message: I vote for a desk review only of permits on record for buyers purchasing property within the
City of San Rafael.
Name: Justine Fairey
Submitted: 2016-08-0103:42:32 UTC
Message: I recommend option #4
Name: Fred Angeli
Submitted: 2016-08-0113:37:42 UTC
Message: I favor option # 4 - Report on permit record only in lieu of full resale inspections
ATTACHMENT 6
Resale Inspections / Staff Checklist for Inspections
Utilize the resale inspection as an opportunity to identify work without permits. Document each violation with a notation and
photographs.
❑ Kitchen Cabinets Refaced (Open cabinets to determine if refaced or replaced, countertops can be replaced without a
permit)
❑ Kitchen Remodeled (New cabinetry constitutes remodeling)
❑ Bathroom Remodeled (Tub, Shower, Vanity — Vanity only typically not enforced)
❑ Windows Replaced (if the manufacture date is 2006 or earlier, no permit required however tempered and egress
requirements still apply — check manufacture date in between panes of glass - photograph).
❑ Water Heater Replaced / relocated (check manufacture plate)
❑ Furnace / Heat Pump / AC / Wall Heater Replaced / relocated (check manufacture plate)
❑ Exterior Stairways / Deck(s) attached to the dwelling or 30" above grade requires a permit — Zoning requirements may
still apply. Measure.)
❑ Carports / Patio Covers/Trellis'/Arbors/Accessory Structures (Photograph and document location. Will need to meet
zoning requirements. Note any electrical or plumbing.
❑ Recessed Lighting / Outlets Added / Circuits for Appliances Added (all electrical work requires a permit)
❑ Plumbing (approved materials for drain lines, dishwasher airgap, fire -wall penetrations)
❑ Basement Conversions (conversion of storage to habitable space). If improvements are made advise the
improvements will be researched to confirm if permits issued or not may require legalizing the space. Measure
ceiling height).
❑ Wood Stoves/Fireplace Inserts (if no permit, needs to be permitted) New gas line? New electrical?
❑ Portable Spas (permit required for electrical only if on grade; make sure no glazing adjacent to which triggers
tempered requirements. Spas on elevated decks need structural review.)
❑ Garage Conversions (the minimum size of a garage cannot be diminished by any improvements per the zoning
ordinance — 2 car garage minimum 20 x 20; 1 car garage minimum 10 x 20; 2 car carport 18 x 19; 1 car carport 9 x 19)
❑ Attic Conversion (storage to habitable space — measure ceiling height; permit required and zoning requirements must
be met for floor area ratio)
❑ Porch enclosure / Courtyard Enclosure (happens occasionally on Eichler homes)
❑ Addition(s) (If additional square footage has been added, measure, specify use, location and photograph)
❑ 2nd Dwelling Unit (additional kitchen, physical separation).
ROUTING SLIP / APPROVAL FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: Use this cover sheet with each submittal of a staff report before approval
by the City Council. Save staff report (including this cover sheet) along
with all related attachments in the Team Drive (T:) --> CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEMS 4 AGENDA ITEM APPROVAL PROCESS 4 [DEPT -
AGENDA TOPIC]
Agenda Item #
Date of Meeting: 11/7/2016
From: Paul Jensen/Thomas Ahrens
Department: Community Development
Date: 10/26/2016
Topic: Residential Building Resale Report (RBR) Program
Subject: Review of options and recommendations to the Residential Building Resale Report
(RBR) Program
Type: ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance
❑ Professional Services Agreement ❑ Other: Staff Report
APPROVALS
® Finance Director
Remarks: MM - approved 10/31/16 - but please take a look at my question in Fiscal Impact
section.
® City Attorney
Remarks: LG -Approved 10/31/16.
® Author, review and accept City Attorney / Finance changes
Remarks: PJ- revisions/edits made per Mark's comments (corrected budget year reference and
revenues + correct incomplete sentence) and Lisa's comments (reference to Option 2).
® City Manager
Remarks:
Name: Cyd Gardner
Submitted: 2016-11-04 23:09:04 UTC
Message: I support desk/file reviews in San Rafael and OPPOSE increasing the cost to Marin residents!
Name: Cathy Youngling
Submitted: 2016-11-04 23:13:21 UTC
Message: It is time the City listens to its citizens. There is a transfer tax that no other city imposes that is
too high. The city inspectors calling out things that existed 60 years ago as needing correction or
permits. As property owners we just got word we were undercharged for property tax and have an
opportunity to pay in one or three payments for the mistake SR made. One would think, with the
transfer tax alone, you have burdened the sellers of property in this city more than their share. NO NOT
raise the cost of a city inspection. If it were up to me, I would do away with resale inspections. Its wrong.
Name: Michael Baranowski
Submitted: 2016-11-04 23:13:46 UTC
Message: This is a flawed program and must be reconfigured. The current direction of this program
promises failure. Kindly
Name: Erin Howard
Submitted: 2016-11-04 23:29:00 UTC
Message: Please scale back the program by doing a permit review only- Thank you,
Neighbor & realtor
Name: Deborah H.
Submitted: 2016-11-04 23:30:48 UTC
Message: Give us a break- as a Realtor I just bought a house at 75 Arguello- pls look it up. The poor
homeowner bought it more than 16 yrs ago and the windows at the time were not egress compliant.
Should have been caught when he bought it. Now, he has to pay thousands of dollars to put in new $$$
windows AND what if he was now is WUI?? Get it together, you have done a POOR job for many many
years. You are not consistent, you lose people all the time, and you want to continue to do the same
thing you are doing but raise the fees?? So you can continue the poor job you are doing but make more
money. NO- you have lost control, it is subjective. DO NOT make pre-existing conditions be repaired
unless health urgent but then, waive the permit cost because YOUR employee made a mistake, offer a
grant for your mistake. Or, report the permits on file and allow the buyer and inspector and agent to
figure out what may be outstanding. You have not shown the ability to do this well for the 25 years I
have been selling in Marin. You have not earned any trust at all - incompetent, inconsistent, difficult to
deal with.... we should NOT pay more for the same bad job. Oh, is this government? Not held to the
same standards the rest of us are held to? POOR representation, you cannot charge more - prove you
can do the job better for the next 12 months THEN we can talk fees....
Name: Jennifer Boesel
Submitted: 2016-11-04 23:52:24 UTC
Message: DO NOT increase the fees, they already are too high. You're pushing homeowners to have no
faith in you.
Name: Karen Neustadt
Submitted: 2016-11-05 00:19:44 UTC
Message: No increase in the inspection please
Name: Jack Wilkinson
Submitted: 2016-11-05 03:03:43 UTC
Message: This is a non value added cost to the home seller. Almost all homes sold in the county and in
San Rafael in particular undergo extremely competent full safety/contractor inspections prior to COE.
These inspections provide the buyer with important information. The city inspection is only an added
cost with no useful inforatn and can be handled at the disk as to permits issued. Please stop this and
conform to the rest of the county and the state as to inspections. Stop playing an ego sop to the
inspector.
Name: Niz Brown
Submitted: 2016-11-05 05:24:20 UTC
Message: they are onerous, create problems for the public,
they are Unfair, inconsistent - they are bad PR for the city.
I will send a letter
Name: Liz Mccarthy
Submitted: 2016-11-05 20:32:50 UTC
Message: Hello, I STRONGLY encourage you to scale down the City recluried RBR to reveiw of permits
only. As buyers purchse homes in SR, the purchase price is usually much more than the current Prop 13
tax base, meaning you increase your tax income for the city. Why are you making it HARDER for homes
to resell? so many homes are owned by seniors (Marin has the eldest age in the state of CA) and these
homes are VERY outdated. Bueyrs come in and remodel the house after they purchase and your RBR
process slows it down. By increasing the price of the RBR as well is crazy! It comes down to what you
see as an additional revenue source. Don't penalize home buyers and sellers! the City of SR is the ONLY
town/city in Marin that already gets transfer tax? why charge for any more!
Signed, Liz McCarty, top 1% Marin Real Estate Broker, Paragon Real estate. Liz@MarinRealty.net
Name: Niz Brown
Submitted: 2016-11-07 05:28:10 UTC
Message: Please eliminate this unfair and outdated process... it represents a gotcha of its citizens.
Name: Wes Mayne
Submitted: 2016-11-07 16:42:28 UTC
Message: Please reconsider the proposed decision to continue the resale inspection as it is now.
Name: Fred Angeli
Submitted: 2016-11-07 19:42:13 UTC
Message: Please listen to MAR'S position. The Corte Madera and Sausaltio models make more sense.
Private inspectors provide a much more comprehensive inspection.
Name: Beverly Shwert
Submitted: 2016-11-07 19:44:28 UTC
Message: Please scale back these inspections to a permit review process to help alleviate the undue
stress on homeowners when they sell their homes. As a Realtor, I believe it is time for the city of San
Rafael to make changes to these inspections.
Name: Barry Adelmann
Submitted: 2016-11-07 19:57:28 UTC
Message: The city resale inspection process is totally broken in San Rafael. It's time to listen to
homeowners, home buyers and the real estate community and implement a system that works for the
people, not for the pocketbooks of the city and those that want to preserve the dated and archaic status
quo.
Listen to your constituents and implement a permit report only system (similar to what has successfully
been implemented in Corte Madera and Sausalito) and most other towns across the Bay Area and
California.
Name: Yoko Kasai
Submitted: 2016-11-07 21:38:43 UTC
Message: I read the staff report and I'm disappointed with what I saw. It's particularly interesting to
note that the input from the public and the REALTOR community wasn't taken into account. More
disturbing is the feign of cooperation with MAR when clearly it doesn't matter what our opinions around
it are.
It's appalling that the City doesn't take into account past oversights and/or mistakes that you've made in
NOT noting code violations and/or unpermitted work upon previous transfers. The responsibility that
now lies with the current owner who purchased the home based upon information that the City was
supposed to provide but did not, is completely unfair and punitive.
Name: Bill Johnson
Submitted: 2016-11-07 21:56:03 UTC
Message: PLEASE listen to the dozens of REALTORS and homeowners who have urged the scaling back of
the program to a permit review only a€" like Corte Madera and Sausalito.
Name: Denise Montalvo
Submitted: 2016-11-07 22:48:07 UTC
Message: I'm attaching a letter to address the City Council on the topic of Resale Inspections.
To the San Rafael City Council;
I'm a Realtor with Bradley Real Estate who has had two frustrating experiences with city resale
inspections that affected the timeline and sale of the properties. I represented sellers who used your
resale inspection when they purchased their home. When they went to sell, the resale inspector
discounted the entire lower level and said it could not be counted as square footage. The city demanded
that the sellers provide records from the 1930s proving the lower level was part of the original space.
When we asked how the city could approve square footage upon purchase and deny it upon resale we
were told that the previous inspector no longer works there and the city would not stand by their
original report. This caused buyers to offer substantially lower than the asking price. My sellers took it
up with the city who finally agreed to honor the original report but it took an entire year to sell the
home.
The second incident was one where I represented a buyer and the seller had remodeled without
permits. The resale inspector failed to notice the modifications. My buyers would have been responsible
for back permit fees upon resale or if they applied for subsequent permits. It was an issue between
Realtors and clients, but it was remedied before the close of escrow.
I don't have a problem with the concept of a resale inspection but they should be consistent and
accurate. I have also had experiences in other towns where the scheduling for inspections is so
backlogged that it delays the closing of escrow.
Sincerely,
Denise Montalvo
Realtor
Name: Rocki (Ragna) Melanephy
Submitted: 2016-11-07 22:55:48 UTC
Message: I have been a real estate broker for over 40 years in Marin County. City inspections are
redundant and a waste of money and time of Buyers, Sellers and Agents. They should no longer be a
part of a real estate transaction.
