pf_03708 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

maintenance offenses — where, if anything, we should be looking for more flexible methods of enforcement to achieve more cooperation and compliance. � Section 106 also appears to iequire creating liens against pioperties �: imilar ic, t 1T]'1<= �7i- �r]' � L1C�2" '-1��1 1}•�i�F:�7��. �ill�]l��i �� ;`��} `_`�� ji-i {�i _'i�il_'_OIt fll� 1�'TOp81T:?� lIl enfoicement actions — which will encumber the owners' ability to sell or transfer ownership of the property if they are unable to maintain or repair it. In fact, Section 107.5 prohibits ti ansfer of ownership as soon as a notice of violation is served and until compliance is achieved. ;��nce tl�e cocle in��e�;t�r has i�sued a c�m liance (fix up) order or � ci rati��i Iias been issued shouldn't that be part of iL� record as pat of the_o;�ner:, di,: closure��rior to �ale as in other issues such as watc:r C�a.I]]a�'P,. ]110��, C�,C. jFil�'t li; 1'� �}:r� j)i1171'•_�� _]IIi:BTPCt, tn 17rt�'8 T�].P 7�-.��_]�' Ll�l=l,i.lj_ i-.�� :117C� r��-�:�1�_�:��3. ?) Again, this seems to go in the wiong direction, by forcibly limiting the owners' options to sell or transfer property to someone else better able to take care of it. ',;'� it:l�iout ilie coui��lia�zE � i=�-u� l�c3i�� Ln��;�: i�. }ic�:T: �_��_th� 1�tt;,-� ��11.�.;. i�� r� �tiate on the appropriate price� Bv not revealin� buildin�faults, isn'i rhis counter productive to ��ractice oi ��aa�t liou-in� �eserva.tion anc]_ buildin� i7laintenance?) I also have a question about a cominent in a previous staff repoit — that the net result of the proposed code is to iequire maintenance of properties "only in compliance with the code in effect when they were built." l;Sec ihe Izr��l:�c�sed clian�e:� -- , in tl�� cit:- c�rdiilana� ad.o�-�tin�r th� TF�lr._�,�_-1�i.ch cl�tz�iii�� : t lYis i�sue.). Again, I can t find anything in the code that limits compliance to pievious code standards. Section '" 101.2 says that the code applies to "all existing iesidential and non-iesidential structures" and provides "minimum requirements and standards" for maintenance. Section 101.3 specifically requires that� Existing structuies and premises that do not comply with these provisions shall be altered or iepaired to provide a minimum level of health and safety as requiied herein. (Emphasis added). There is no reference to measuring compliance by codes in place at the time of construction. If the impact of the proposed maintenance code is to be limited consistent with staff recommendations, then these sections need to be removed or amended. Another solution would be to leave current code enfoicement provisions in our ordinances as is, and consider adopting only some of the maintenance standards (in Chapters 3-7). I will not suppoit the pioposed maintenance code unless the scope and enfoicement powers are limited consistent with our curieilt ordinances. �� �