7 -
0
Yea:
Nay:
Councilmember Brendmoen, Councilmember Tolbert, Councilmember
Noecker, Councilmember Prince, Councilmember Jalali, Councilmember
Yang and Councilmember Balenger
LEGISLATIVE HEARING DISCUSSION ITEM
Appeal of Christina Harding on behalf of Lynn Huynh to a Revocation of Fire
31
Certificate of Occupancy and Order to Vacate at 1146 EDGERTON STREET.
(public hearing closed and laid over from May 17, 2023)
Laid over for 3 weeks to then consider a June 30 deadline.
Also in attendance: Christina Harding, appellant
Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer: This revocation is for long-term
noncompliance with orders. Originally, there was a complaint in December, presumably
by the tenants because it was interior conditions being complained about. The orders
were written and there was some follow-up. Because it had been 6 years since the
property had gone through a full certificate of occupancy inspection, an inspection was
triggered by this process. It was a "Class A", the complaint came in and orders were
written, then a full inspection was done and a full set of orders were written. The orders
from the December complaint were mostly carried forward into the full set of orders,
which is part of why the FCO is being revoked for long-term noncompliance. In the
hearing, the property manager indicated that there were problems with the tenants, and
that the problems were tenant-generated. When reviewing the orders, some seem
tenant related while others appear to be deferred maintenance issues. I asked for a
work plan to address the items. The manager said she needed 60 days to do the work,
and I asked what her plan was to get there. That was on April 25. She then said she
could have it done in 2 weeks. I said no, and that I didn't want to set her up for failure.
I just wanted a work plan. We had a hearing the following week where a bid was mailed
in at the exact time of the hearing. The bid didn't include the dates for doing the work
and didn't address all of the items in the orders. It was specifically for the back of the
building. It was not a work plan. My recommendation is that the work be completed by
June 1. The appellant asked to have that extended to June 30. There still isn't a plan
associated with that. There is also a statement in the written appeal that there had
been an application for a permit to do the work. The biggest part for what needs the
permit is the extension on the back of the building with the porch on the bottom and
the room on the top. It has separated from the main structure and is unsound. The
orders said that a structural engineer needed to look at it. That would be required to
come into code compliance through fixing it. The appellant suggested removing that
part of the building, which is also an option. That second option was what the bid was
related to. I don't have any dates that go with that to say that will happen by June 30,
which is my concern. One unit was described as occupied and the other had the
tenants evicted after being a long-term problem. The landlord in California and the
property manager have been struggling with this building, and are both looking forward
to moving on. The property manager, Christina Harding, is on the line.
Council President Brendmoen: So the owner is in California, and the property manager
is local?
Moermond: Correct.
Harding: Everything Moermond said is correct. The tenants were an ongoing problem,
and in retaliation for the eviction they destroyed the unit and then called the City to
complain. Once I got them out, that was when we were first ordered to comply with the