SLO rental inspections face renewed scrutiny with new council

San Luis Obispo’s rental housing inspection ordinance is facing new scrutiny from the newly elected City Council, which will reassess the program in early February in a special meeting.

Meanwhile, a petition that calls for a special election or for the council to repeal and replace the law continues to gather signatures.

At Tuesday’s City Council meeting, Mayor Heidi Harmon asked for a special meeting to be scheduled to discuss the fate of the ordinance. Harmon campaigned in the Nov. 8 election against the ordinance and called for its repeal.

“I can attribute my being here tonight, and maybe other council members, too, who ran in this election, to showing an interest in this issue,” Harmon said at the meeting. “I think it’s really important to stand by campaign promises and follow through on those and address this issue with the urgency that it deserves. I feel like we have a mandate from the public to move on this.”

Under the ordinance, adopted by the council in May 2015 in a 3-2 vote, rental homes are subject to routine city inspections on a three-year cycle to ensure they conform to health and safety codes. The policy was created because of concerns about dilapidated rentals, particularly in neighborhoods with a high concentration of student tenants, though the ordinance applies citywide.

Councilman Dan Rivoire voted against the ordinance along with Dan Carpenter, who is no longer on the council and is leading the petition drive.

New council members Aaron Gomez and Andy Pease campaigned in favor of changes to the existing program. But in a “yes” or “no” question format at one campaign forum, they both said “no” when asked whether they’d repeal the ordinance. The two council members have qualified that answer by saying they’d like to see changes, however.

Gomez said Friday he wants more information about the effectiveness and impacts of the program — which city staff is expected to provide in February — to best determine whether to keep the policy or replace it. Pease also cited the February meeting as the appropriate forum to revisit the topic.

“I guess the question is: ‘What’s the cleanest way to approach this?’ ” Gomez said. “Can we rehab what exists? Nobody can say that safety is not an issue, because I think that has been shown. But I also can’t say I’m in full support of the ordinance.

“And we’ve heard from a lot of people who aren’t happy with it. What are repercussions? We don’t want to set the city up for future lawsuits. I think we need to hear feedback from the city’s legal staff on this.”

Pease said she wants to hear more from the public.

“The council is moving forward as quickly as we can to revisit the program,” she said. “The petition is running on an independent course. A lot of folks on both sides are interested in coming to the table and sharing their thoughts.”

The petition to hold a special election to repeal the ordinance has collected about two-thirds of the required 4,000 signatures so far, said Stew Jenkins, a local attorney who initiated the petition drive with Carpenter and construction law attorney Dan Knight in August.

The group would like to complete the collection of signatures before the new year, Jenkins said, but he added that if that doesn’t happen, the goal is to complete the petition by the end of January. The signatures must be turned in by March 14.

Jenkins said the council could avoid a special election by repealing the ordinance and adopting his group’s recommended “nondiscrimination in housing ordinance.” That proposal would prohibit city housing inspections based on criteria such as age, race, income, ethnicity and dwelling status as an owner or renter.

“There is certainly enough evidence that the residents of the city have felt the original ordinance was unconstitutional and invasive,” Jenkins said. “More and more people continue to sign. Whether it’s ultimately 8,000 signatures or 4,000 or somewhere in between, the public input will have an effect.”

The existing program was designed to hold landlords accountable and protect renters from unsafe conditions such as faulty wiring, blocked entry doors, leaky roofs and malfunctioning smoke detectors.

But opponents call it an invasion of privacy and say it discriminates against renters because it doesn’t apply to people who live in owner-occupied homes.

Under the past council, which included former Mayor Jan Marx, who advocated for the program, the council had intended to re-evaluate the issue at a March meeting.

But Harmon said Tuesday that she wants to address the issue sooner. City Manager Katie Lichtig said a special meeting in early February would allow city staff time to prepare an updated evaluation of the program and address questions.

Thus far, 831 rental units have been inspected by the city; tenants in another 130 rental units registered in the program have refused to allow inspectors in, said Community Development Director Michael Codron. The city works with property owners to inspect those units when tenants move out, Codron said.

This story was originally published December 18, 2016 at 3:36 PM with the headline "SLO rental inspections face renewed scrutiny with new council."