LOCAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: Pacifica Clarifies Implementation/Application of POS Sewer Lateral Inspections
SAMCAR
(as well as the City of Pacifica) has received numerous telephone calls
regarding which properties will be affected as well as when/how
Pacifica’s mandatory Point-of-Sale mandate for sewer lateral inspections
(adopted Nov. 14) will take effect.
According
to Brian K. Martinez Sr., Collection System Manager for the city, “I
have been receiving calls from REALTORS® who believe that it (the ordinance) affects properties that are currently listed. That is not the fact.
“The
ordinance will begin implementation on January 1, 2012 and will only
affect new property listings and new permit applications from that date
forward. There will not be any retroactive enforcement of the ordinance.
We are currently developing the policy and process documents and they
will be available on the City’s website when completed.”
The new ordinance will require property owners to obtain a “Lateral Compliance Certificate” when any of the following occur.
1. Transfer of property ownership
2. When there is remodel or addition that cost $50,000 or greater
3. When adding any plumbing fixtures
4. When a change in water service is requested (change of meter size or adding second meter)
According
to Martinez, the process for obtaining a “Lateral Compliance
Certificate” will be handled by the Waste Water division. When any of
the previously noted conditions occur, the property owner will be
required to submit a video of their existing lateral sewer. If the
lateral shows no apparent defects or leaks the property will receive a
Lateral Compliance Certificate that will be valid for 7 years from the
date of issuance.
If
the lateral sewer shows signs of defects and/or leaks, the city will
require replacement prior to allowing the sale to close/transfer of
title. When the Compliance Certificate is obtained as a result of
complete replacement of the sewer lateral, the Compliance Certificate
shall be valid for 20 years from the date of issuance.
In
conversations with Martinez, he asked that if any SAMCAR members have
any questions regarding this or any other ordinances that involve the
Sanitary Sewer System, to please contact him directly. His contact
information is: Brian K. Martinez Sr./Collection System Manager/City of
Pacifica/(650) 738-4669/Fax-(650) 355-5721/martinezb@ci.pacifica.ca.us
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respectfully, Paul Stewart, Government Affairs Director, San Mateo County Association of REALTORS®
850 Woodside Way / San Mateo, CA 94401, paul@samcar.org. (650) 696-8209 / (650) 342-7509 (fax).
“Pettiness-a need to dimish others in order to to make one feel feel superior.”
Submitted by Jim Wagner
Posted by Kathy Meeh
13 comments:
Is this saying that if you replace a toilet or burst pipe, you're liable for thousands of dollars in lateral replacement costs?
If you really want an answer why don't you ask Brian Martinez? Contact info above.
The ordinance states that plumbing projects that currently require a city permit are the ones requiring Compliance Certificates.
Does replacing a toilet or fixing a burst pipe currently require a city permit? I doubt it, but that's just my opinion and I'd have to hear from a plumber or a contractor to get the final word.
Also there are a variety of ways to obtain a Compliance Certificate: proof of lateral repair/replacement or inspection (these have varying lengths of validity). I see nothing in the ordinance about requiring property owners to submit video compliance.
The ordinance is there for everyone to see, so I'd like to know if I'm completely missing something. (see: A-1 at http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=4619 )
Wait for it...your sewer tax increase notice this coming April. I haven't had time to run the numbers from the staff report connected to this action to figure how large the increase will be.
Has the consultant's report been posted on the Web as it should have been from the beginning?
Is anyone home on city staff to post the full story here?
Lionel,
It seemed to me that staff prepared the report, not an outside agency. At least that was the impression I got from reading the various documents available. Still, it would be nice to see the thing.
The issue here as I understand have been mandated through a settlement requiring the city to replace it's collection system feeder lines. I haven't gotten to the math yet but I do know that the collection system is in need of replacing. While working under contract on the LM beach project I saw with my own eyes the corrosion issues left over from decades past.
Our sewer rates will rise, but we will see real results for these raises which are dedicated to updating the collection system city wide. Over the years larger projects like Cypress Walk and Connemara have been required to replace thousands of feet of collection system piping on Monterey and Oceana as part of the permitting process for those projects. A very proactive requirement of the city and worthy of our praise.
The lateral/point of sale issue is a private property issue not a public one. Thankfully the collection department staff have been working on very creative solutions including low/no interest loans and bunching lateral replacements together to bring down the overall cost of lateral replacement per property.
If the county real estate folks want to alter reality they have every right to try to do so but maintenance and repair is as much a part of property ownership as the deserved commissions real estate folks make at point of sale.
the council shill has spoken!!
shill or no, is there anything incorrect about what he said?
Todd (959), prior to 2003, within so many feet of the main line, my recall is that the city used to replace sewer laterals at city cost. But, considering the cost and conditions have been transferred to the public, my view, the "general welfare" benefit is public.
A much more efficient methodology would be to replace these older sewer laterals section by section, block by block, and assess the public (or property owners) a fee. Those holding a 20 year certificate or proof of replacement would be exempt.
There may be a reason for not systematically replacing these sewer laterals, now in addition to consequent conditions the lawsuit. But, why would the city NOT include such deterioration replacement in their overall WWTP/sewer management plan?
Because they've been taking all the money that was supposed to go to maintaining sewers and using it instead to build trails, hire consultants to do their work, and pay their friends to paint pretty murals.
Who got paid to do murals? And where were they done? Just curious.
"It seemed to me that staff prepared the report, not an outside agency."
Yes Chris, that's right, but a consulting firm was hired to do their (staff's and council's)thinking. That's the doc we want to look at, because we're talking about a proposed $50 million spent over twenty years in a community that's increasingly underwater.
Yes Chris, that's right, but a consulting firm was hired to do their (staff's and council's)thinking. That's the doc we want to look at, because we're talking about a proposed $50 million spent over twenty years in a community that's increasingly underwater.
I see. Thanks for the clarification, Lionel. I obviously didn't pick up on that.
I agree that the city needs to be completely transparent here and provide access to all the docs. There's no reason it shouldn't be made available online.
Post a Comment