HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.2 CdComplianceSurvey
e
e
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 23, 1994
SUBJECT: UNFINISHED BUSINESS: City Council POlicy Regarding Code
Compliance Surveys
Report by: victor Taugher, Building Official
,
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1)~Draft Resolution Stating City Council
Policy Regarding Code Compliance Survey
2)~Memo from City Attorney dated Kay 12,
1994
RECOMMENDATION: rz, ~
1. Review code compliance survey issue and
take appropriate action.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None.
DESCRIPTION: At the May 9, 1994 meeting of the City
Council, the City Council requested that Staff review and bring before
the Council the issue of whether the City should continue to provide
code compliance surveys. At that meeting there was a concern raised
that such inspections increase the City's liability exposure.
The City Attorney has reviewed the issue regarding additional
liability exposure, in connection with code compliance inspection
surveys, and has rendered an opinion that failure to make an
inspection, or to make an inadequate inspection does not place the
City in a position of liability for damage that might result. (See
attached memorandum) ,
If a majority of the City Council wishes to discontinue the service,
the attached resolution (Exhibit 1) has been prepared for City Council
consideration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO..!J: 2
COPIES TO:
CITY
FILE
e
e
RESOLUTION NO.
- 93
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
CITY COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING CODE COMPLIANCE SURVEYS
WHEREAS, the Building Inspection Department may conduct a
code compliance survey when so requested; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned that such survey is
not an appropriate service for the City to provide.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council
does hereby direct the Building Inspection Department to discontinue
providing code compliance survey services.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of May 1994
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
_1
e
e
~
MA~16~94 MON 10:52
MNRS&W
FAX NO. 5103514481
P. 01/02
.........
'-
-
Michael R. Nave
Steven R Mcyen:
Elizabeth H. Silver
MichacI S. Riback
Kenneth A. Wilson
MEYERS- NA VB. 0 RIBACl<"
SIL VJ
A Prnfessic
OiCCord P. c~pbelt
Michael F. Rodriquq
Kath1c::a1 Faubion
Wendy A. Roberts
David W. Skinner
Steven T. Mauas
Rick W. Jazvi$
Veronica A. Nebb
mr.
San
Telc:p
FIIOIi
0,,-..,,-,
Dept.
Faxfl
PhO~JJ
Fad
Of COllCScI:
Andre:l I. Satn:man
(707) 54S-SOO9
(Jf17) 545-6617 (Fax)
~
MEKORANDWl
'1'0: Richard Ambrose, city Manager DATE: May 12, 1994
City of DUblin
PROK: Elizabeth H. Silver, city Att:orney
by: Clifford F. Campbell
RB: city's "Code Complianae" Inspection service
For a fee, the City's inspectors will qo to a private
residence or o~her building within the ci~y limit:s, ana inspect
it for the purpose of determining whether any condition exists
that is out of compliance withothe Uniform BuildinqCode, or the
City's Municipal Code. Presumably, an evaluation for compliance
with other Uniform COdes (Plumbing Code, Electrical Code, Fire
Code, and so On) is made as well. The Council has asked whether
~he City could incur any liability, either to the property owner
or to third parties, should the inspection be conduoted
negligently, or if it should fail to disclose all hazards that
may exist on the premises. It is our opinion that it could not.
There is a specific provision in thQ California Government
Code that grants i~unity t:o cities for just such activities.
This immunity is found at: section 818.6:
"A public entity is not liable for injury caused by its
failure to make an inspect:ion, or by reason of making
an inadequate or negligent inspection, of any property,
other than its property. . ., for the purpose of
determining whether the property co~plies with or
violates any enaotm~t or contains or constitutes a
hazard to health or safety."
~
4 ______... _
e
..e
..;.,.
MA~16-94 MON 10:53
MNRS&W
FAX NO. 5103514481
P. 02/02
." .~<I
'-
"-
TO:
nOM.
RE:
DATE:
PAGE:
Richard Ambrose, city Manager
Elizabeth H. Silver, by: Clifford F. campbell
city's "Code Compliance" Inspection service
May 12, 1994
2
While this prov~s~on immunizes a pUblic entity for negligent
inspections, a similar provision (Gov't Code S 821) conveys an
identical immunity to the em~loyees of the public entity.
These immunities are virtually absolutQ. At the time
S 818.6 was first enacted, the Leqislative Committee which
assisted in the drafting of the statute made this comment about
the law's scope:
"The illmlunity provided by this section covers negligent
failure to make an inspection and negligence in the
inspection itself. For e~ample, the soction makes the
pUblic entity inunune froln liabilit:y it its employee
negligently fails to detect a defect in the building
being inspected; but the section doGS not provide
immunity where a public ~mp1oyeeinspec:::ting a building
under construction negligently causes a plank to fall
on a workman."
This passage, we believe, succinctly defines the extent of
the immunity oonvoyed t:o public entities and their employees by
Gov't Code sections 818.6 and 821. Both the City and its
inspectors appear to be adequately insulat:ed from civil liability
by these immunities.
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER << WILSON
H. ~ilver, City Attorney
ifford F. Campbell
eFe/dIp
mnrsw\114\memo\may94\inspectn.cfc