Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-01 - AGENDA REPORTS - BUILDING SAFETY CODE SECTION (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Boyer and City Councilmembers FROM: George Caravalho, City Manager DATE: October 1, 1996 SUBJECT: AN OVERVIEW OF BUILDING AND SAFETY S CODE ENFORCEMENT SECTION The purpose of this report is to provide Santa Clarita City Councilmembers with an overview of Building and Safety's Code Enforcement Section. The information which follows has been compiled, in part, as a response to City Council inquiries regarding the policies, practices, and procedures of this section. The content has been divided into several subsections which provide details on these and other related issues. GENERAL INFORMATION Customers Commonly Serviced Requests for Code Enforcement service generally originate from the following variety of sources (with the approximate percentage each comprises): Residential -Neighbors 50% -Community Activists -The Community/Senior Center Internal Government 20% -City Councilmembers -City Management -City Office Staff -City Field Staff Primary Services Provided Commercial 20% -Business Owners -Civic Leaders -The Chamber of Commerce External Government 10% -Sheriffs Department -Fire Department -Health Department -Animal Control Department The primary activity of the Code Enforcement Section is to respond to requests regarding matters of public health, safety, and general welfare. In providing this response, staff commonly enforces sections of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (including the Unified Development Code), the Uniform Building Code (Administrative and Substandard provisions), the Los Angeles County Code (limited chapters), and the California Vehicle Code (limited chapters). 0_> AN OVERVIEW OF BUILDING AND SAFETY'S CODE ENFORCEMENT SECTION October 1, 1996 - Page 2 Typical requests for service cover the following array of topics (with the approximate percentage each comprises): Substandard Conditions 25% -Abandoned Structures -Dilapidated Fencing -Graffiti Removal -Overgrown Vegetation -Property Maintenance -Substandard Buildings Miscellaneous Issues 20% -Curb Address Painters -Debris Collection -General Noise Disturbances -Handbill Distribution -Illegal Dumping -Mediation Services -Rail Station Monitoring -Recycling Materials Theft -Street Encroachment Construction Matters 15% -Dust Control -Garage Conversions -Illegal Grading -Improper Drainage -Unauthorized Noise -Unpermitted Work Land Uses 15% -Bond Releases -Firearms Licenses -Home Occupations -Maintaining Animals -Oak Tree Preservation -Outdoor Storage -Planning Finals -Setback Encroachment -Unlicensed Vendors -Zoning Permit Compliance Health/Safety Concerns 10% -Chemical Discharge -Occupancy Violations -Pool Enclosures -Public Safety Hazards -Smoking Control -Trash Disposal Vehicle Concerns 10% -Inoperable Vehicles -Parking Complaints Sign Regulations 5% -Prohibited Signs In addition to the `External Government' sources listed above, compliance efforts often involve the coordination of other agencies, such as: Department of Fish and Game, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control, Southeast Mosquito Abatement District, Department of Public Works/Flood Control, Vector Control Program, Sanitation District, Business Licensing Division, Southern Pacific Railroad/Metrolink, and Agricultural Commission. Procedures for Primary Services Although the exact nature of each service request may require a deviation from common procedures, many are processed as follows: 1. A customer's service request is received by telephone, electronic mail, letter, or in person. 2. Computer and paper files are generated for the request, categorized by address and type/nature. AN OVERVIEW OF BUILDING AND SAFETY'S CODE ENFORCEMENT SECTION October 1, 1996 - Page 3 3. An inspection of the property is conducted (within three days) to determine if code violations. exist. 4. If violations exist, field contact may be made with the resident, owner, and/or other persons. 5. Expeditious compliance with the applicable codes is requested, either verbally or in writing. 6. Assessor's computerized records are researched to determine the current property owner. 7. A reinspection is performed in order to ensure correction or abatement of the subject condition. 8. If necessary, formal violation notices are mailed to the property owner requesting compliance. 9. Additional telephone/personal contacts are made in order to encourage correction/abatement. 10. Follow-up inspections are performed as needed until compliance is ultimately obtained. 11. If compliance is not obtained, the owner is advised of the City's intent to pursue criminal charges through the District Attorney and a substandard property condition filing with the Recorder. 12. If necessary, a District Attorney's Office conference is scheduled with the property owner. 13. The property owner is given one last period in which to comply before charges/recordings are filed. 14. Final inspections are performed in order to ensure correction or abatement of the condition. 15. If necessary, a declaration of substandard property conditions is filed with the Recorder. 16. The District Attorney's Office is consulted on the legal requirements for filing criminal charges. 17. If necessary, criminal charges are filed against the property owner by the District Attorney. 18. A trial is subsequently held in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the property owner. 19. The owner, if found guilty, is usually required to correct/abate the condition as part of his/her sentence, which may include a year in jail and/or a fine of a thousand dollars per day in violation. 20. If the owner is found not guilty, the City may opt to consider other legal remedies (e.g., civil action). The amount of staff time spent on each service request varies greatly depending on the number and type of procedures necessary in order to obtain compliance. Approximately seventy-five percent of all requests require completion of at least steps one through ten, but only 5 percent of these requests require action beyond step fifteen. Requests may also require other, unlisted, actions that are specific to the issue in question. Secondary Services Provided Code Enforcement staff also performs a number of other duties, such as: • Preparing and distributing correspondence for the City Manager and City Council; • Preparing and reviewing agenda items for the Planning Commission and City Council; • Preparing and analyzing proposed ordinances and amendments of the municipal code; • Evaluating enforcement procedures to ensure efficiency/effectiveness of operation; • Reviewing applicable changes in local, state, and federal law and effects of judicial decisions; • Conducting studies and surveys, collecting and analyzing data, and preparing final reports; • Coordinating section activities with other City divisions/departments and enforcement agencies; • Assisting in preparing and monitoring the section budget to ensure fiscal responsibility; • Participating on numerous long-term departmental and citywide strategic planning committees; • Representing the City in various community and professional meetings as deemed necessary; • Maintaining knowledge of extensive databases on property files (owners/permits/enforcement); • Developing and distributing monthly and quarterly statistical reports on section activity; • Completing special projects and complex assignments as designated by management staff. AN OVERVIEW OF BUILDING AND SAFETY'S CODE ENFORCEMENT SECTION October 1, 1996 - Page 4 Procedures for Secondary Services The procedures for secondary services vary greatly depending on the specific assignment and management direction. Many of the assignments require immediate and extensive action, which may subsequently affect response times for the primary services provided. Some assignments require more lengthy and detailed involvement, which may subsequently affect work loads/compliance efforts of the officers. Illegal Sims As of December 1995, Code Enforcement staff has been conducting sign `sweeps' of the City's right-of-ways. This action was initiated as the result of repeated citizen and City Councilmember complaints regarding the illegal placement of portable business signs within the public sidewalks and the unpermitted posting of temporary business/personal/development signs on utility poles, light standards, and traffic markers. Each month, staff removes hundreds of such signs from right-of-ways throughout the City. Any portable signs deemed to be of substantial value are retained for a period of thirty days before being discarded. All other signs are discarded immediately. When appropriate, the responsible persons are informed of the violations created by the placement or posting of their signs and are directed to comply with all applicable regulations. As part of the "primary services provided," staff also continues to conduct reactive investigations of existing illegal business, real estate, et al., signs on private property. The common procedures for addressing these requests were previously described in this report. Although these procedures may vary slightly depending on the exact nature of the sign, they have thus far allowed staff to maintain a 98 percent compliance rate within this arena. Finally, staff is currently involved in a standing committee (formed by the Planning Division of the Community Development Department) which will establish and implement an action plan for the removal of pre-existing legal, non -conforming signs. Pursuant to Section 17.05.050.B.3. of the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code - "Elimination of Pre -Existing Legal Uses and Structures," such signs will become illegal after November 13, 1999. The Planning Division has already successfully eliminated a small percentage of these signs by simply utilizing the tenant improvement/development review process since adoption of the ordinance in 1990. It will be the goal of the committee to thoroughly involve the Chamber of Commerce in further reducing the number of these signs prior to the specified expiration date. Code Enforcement staff will play an instrumental role in this effort over the next several months. East Newhall Requests for service within the `East Newhall' area have risen considerably (approximately 33%) in the past two years. This increase can be partially accredited to the additional presence of Code Enforcement staff within the area over the same period. Staff has focused a significant amount of AN OVERVIEW OF BUILDING AND SAFETY'S CODE ENFORCEMENT SECTION October 1, 1996 - Page 5 effort on such issues as inoperable vehicles, substandard property conditions, unpermitted construction/conversions, illegal occupancy, trash/debris, and graffiti. The improvement within this area on these issues has been clear and dramatic. The installation of curbs and gutters within the past two years has also had a noticeable difference, not only in the obvious aesthetic improvement, but also in a renewed sense of community pride. There has been a marked decrease in the amount of abandoned vehicles and unauthorized encroachments on these public streets and alleys as a direct result of the capital improvements. As an indirect result, many residents also seem to be taking more pride in the appearance of their yards. Several property owners have installed additional landscaping and masonry near the sidewalk to further enhance the improvements. In addition, staff is continuing to work with representatives from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in addressing service requests related to outdoor storage, property maintenance, and unpermitted uses within the railroad right of ways. Finally, staff remains in close contact with the Sheriffs Newhall Substation, Los Angeles County's Community Services Center, United Mothers, and other relevant organizations in ensuring that the enforcement needs of this community are met. These activities require the use of an average of thirty staff hours per week. Melody Ranch Since August 1995, Code Enforcement staff has been involved in the attempted resolution of a multi- faceted dispute between the owners of the Melody Ranch Movie Studios and selected Placerita Canyon residents. Most of the issues centered around the studio's delivery, construction, and filming noise that affected certain nearby residents. Although there were no confirmed noise ordinance violations, staff played an integral part of the main resolution efforts. When it was initially determined that the studio's operations were not in violation of the City's noise ordinance, the respective parties were referred to Los Angeles County Voluntary Mediation Services. The referral was intended to allow the parties to reach a civil agreement, which was fair to both sides, without making any significant expenditures. To this end, staff attended the first two mediation sessions as an observer/resource. Unfortunately, the sessions were suspended at that point for lack of progress in reaching an agreement. After the suspension of the sessions, the residents requested that the City Council amend the noise ordinance so that it would be more restrictive to the studio's operations. Staff subsequently developed and presented a proposed amendment to the City Council on April 16, 1996. The amendment was thoroughly reviewed over the course of two meetings, but it was not adopted as part of the municipal code. Instead, the City Council directed the parties to return to mediation for resolution of their dispute. After several additional sessions, a written (albeit non -legally binding) resolution was ultimately agreed upon on September 18, 1996. Staff is not at liberty to further describe the details of this resolution. AN OVERVIEW OF BUILDING AND SAFETY'S CODE ENFORCEMENT SECTION October 1, 1996 - Page 6 LEGAL ISSUES Enforcement Options Per continuing City Council direction, Code Enforcement staff generally makes cooperative attempts with property owners to obtain voluntary compliance on municipal code violations. Although this approach absorbs a significant amount of staff time, it is extremely effective in resolving most requests for service. There are always a small percentage of property owners, however, who do not express the same desire to cooperate. The requests involving these owners may require more stringent action through the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. Many violations of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code are considered misdemeanors, which make the property owners (or other responsible parties) subject to criminal prosecution. Use of the existing code sections is generally sufficient in obtaining compliance from most property owners. In those instances where voluntary compliance cannot be obtained, staff may refer the request to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office for prosecutorial review. Should their office determine that the violations constitute a pursuable case, they have the option to either immediately file the case in the court system or arrange for a pre-trial conference with staff and the property owners. In most cases, they opt for a pre-trial conference, where the owners are explicitly advised of the ongoing violations and informed of the possible consequences for noncompliance. They are then given a final time period to make corrections and schedule an inspection by staff. Ninety-nine percent of all requests are resolved at or before this point in the enforcement process. Based on this percentage, staff is very satisfied with the contractual services provided by the District Attorney's Office. The services are also offered at a rate that appears to be reasonable for quality legal counsel. An alternative to consider, however, is contracting with a private law firm for these services. Santa Clarita currently contracts with the firm of Burke, Williams, and Sorensen for non -prosecutorial services. Staff has also been informed of the firm's ability to extend its services within the enforcement arena. In addition, the firm of Dapeer and Rosenblit, which specializes in municipal code enforcement cases, has made a similar proposal to the City. Although it is necessary to maintain the resources to pursue a variety of enforcement options, prosecution through the District Attorney's Office is considered to be the preferred course of action. Other punitive measures utilized by staff in the resolution of requests include declaring (via the Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder's Office) buildings or property conditions to be "Substandard," requiring double permit fees and investigation fees to be paid by persons performing unapproved construction, and issuing citations or towing vehicles which are illegally parked on City facilities. Several thousand dollars in City revenue is generated each year as a direct result of the fines associated with each of the above actions. Non -punitive measures, such as conducting Planning Final Inspections prior to occupancy of new/renovated buildings, and requiring that Temporary Use Permits be obtained for the designated use of City facilities also account for significant City revenues each year. Mode of Action Code Enforcement staffs current policy is to exercise a predominantly reactive mode in its daily operations. This mode of action is characterized by staff responding to formal complaints received from AN OVERVIEW OF BUILDING AND SAFETY'S CODE ENFORCEMENT SECTION October 1, 1996 - Page 7 any one of a number of customers described earlier in this report. Staffs response is predicated by the receipt of complete and accurate information from these customers. As a rule, staff does not accept "anonymous" requests (except in cases of extreme safety concern). The need for the above rule is based on the explicit direction of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. It is their opinion that staff cannot accept anonymous complaints in a reactive mode of operation. This is due to the fact that, presuming the appropriate protocol is followed, the alleged violator has a legal right to know the identity of his/her accuser. If staff is unable to provide the true identity of the customer, their efforts may be viewed as selective or biased in nature. In order to have a proactive enforcement mode which does not appear selective or discriminatory in nature, the program should be administered in a uniform and organized manner throughout the City. This type of full-scale program would entail the continual inspection and monitoring of every house, of every block, of every neighborhood within the City limits. Complete and comprehensive proactive enforcement of this nature would demonstrate to the community that the City has a vested interest in the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents in ALL neighborhoods. This interest could be further reinforced through the enhancement of working relationships with neighborhood associations and community assistance groups. This mode of action would surely produce significant results in addressing properties which are in need of improvement, but it would also be an extremely costly endeavor. The program would not only include multiplying the current staffing level several fold, but also procuring additional funds for the services of District Attorney's Office, new vehicles, personal computers, communication devices, office furniture, and other equipment/supplies. Should the City Council decide to pursue this option, an appropriate budgetary decision package (detailing the above referenced items) can be prepared for review. Initiating less than the above measures on a proactive basis will likely provoke clear and public sentiment (from select members of the media and legal professions) relating to the possible violation of an individual's civil rights. This sentiment was extremely evident in the summer of 1991, when staff was directed by the City Council to initiate, and later cease, nighttime proactive enforcement of substandard housing/property conditions within the targeted areas of East Newhall, Atwood Addition, North Oaks, and Shadow Pines. During this period, the City received a very strong reaction from both the local media and the American Civil Liberties Union. If the City Council is prepared to accept and address this form of public scrutiny, a moderate form of proactivity could be implemented. Such a program would rely on the observations of staff to determine which properties were in the most severe need of enforcement action. For example, if while en route to a field meeting an officer noted a property with an extreme amount of junk and debris in the front yard, he/she could initiate enforcement action based on the belief that this property would eventually become the subject of a formal complaint filed by a nearby neighbor. As with full-scale proactivity, this modified/reduced form of proactivity would produce some notable results, but would not be without definite costs. The program would still include multiplying the current staffing level, procuring additional funds for the services of the District Attorney's Office, new vehicles, personal computers, communication devices, office furniture, and other equipment/supplies. AN OVERVIEW OF BUILDING AND SAFETY'S CODE ENFORCEMENT SECTION October 1, 1996 - Page 8 Should the City Council decide to pursue this second option, a separate budgetary decision package can be prepared for review. Until either of these packages is approved by the City Council, staff does not anticipate an extensive increase in its degree of proactive enforcement. The Code Enforcement Section will essentially be limited to its current mode of action until a sufficient amount of resources can be acquired to administer one of the programs described. Additional information regarding the current `State of the Section' (Organizational Make-up, Recent Statistics, and Staffing Level) can be found within the attached "Addendum." Review this report (including the attached Addendum) and comment on the policies, practices, and procedures of Building and Safety's Code Enforcement Section. ATTACHMENTS Interoffice Memorandum - Addendum Interoffice Memorandum - Outline GAC:KLL:twb codeecS\96reptr2.k11 cc: Anthony Nisich, Director of Building and Engineering Services CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM - ADDENDUM STATE OF THE SECTION Organizational Make-up The Code Enforcement Section was transferred to the City's Building and Safety Division in November 1993. At that time, it consisted of one vacancy for a senior officer, two field officers, and one part-time receptionist clerk. In June 1994, the senior officer vacancy was underfilled with a third field officer. Since that time, the three officers have reported to the Building Official and have been responsible for responding to service requests from an assigned field area of more than fourteen square miles each (based on the City's current size of 42.75 square miles). The part-time clerk has reported to the Department's executive secretary and has been responsible for all receptionist and clerical duties of all three officers. A senior officer position, which was approved in July 1996, has not yet been filled. The duties of this position are described in the `Staffing Level' sub -category which follows. Recent Statistics Since 1993, the Code Enforcement Section has processed an average of 1,350 formal service requests each year. In addition, staff approximates that the section has processed another 450 informal service requests each year. As a direct result of these responses, staff has conducted more than 4,000 field inspections, issued more than 1,200 violation notices, and made more than 800 referrals each year. It is anticipated that these figures will rise significantly with the completed annexations of North Valencia, Northbridge, Lockheed, Hunter's Green, and Seco Canyon. As the City continues to grow (48.82 square miles -including 6.07 from the above), so too will the number of requests for service. These annexations alone will increase the size of the City by approximately six square miles, or eight percent. It is therefore necessary to assume that the above number of requests for service, field inspections, violation notices, and referrals will also increase by five to ten percent. Those numbers have also risen as a result of the transfer of all outstanding earthquake damaged/substandard properties from Willdan Associates. A number of residential and commercial properties remain in substandard condition as a result of damage and/or abandonment from the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. As the services of Willdan Associates has gradually been reduced (commencing in July 1996), the Code Enforcement Section has absorbed the responsibility of ensuring that these properties are brought into compliance with the applicable standards. This responsibility will require a significant amount of time and effort in that some of the properties are now in the foreclosure process. Lenders, especially those located out of state, are often not very responsive to notices regarding their `Real Estate Owned' properties. Staffing Level The existing workload (not including annexations) for the section necessitates a weekly staff accrual of twelve to fifteen hours of overtime. This rate of accrual will require an expenditure of almost two AN OVERVIEW OF BUILDING AND SAFETYS CODE ENFORCEMENT SECTION - ADDENDUM October 1, 1996 - Page 2 and a half times the funds currently budgeted for this purpose. Officer response times for primary services currently take up to three working days, with secondary services being provided as the individual officer's schedule allows. As previously indicated, a senior officer position was approved in July 1996, but has yet to be filled. It is important to note that the recruitment for this position was established through the General Fund, via an agreement that the Stormwater Utility Division would absorb 50 percent of the salary of one of the three field officers. The Stormwater Utility Division has offered this funding with the understanding that approximately half of a field officer's time will be used for utility related duties (e.g., unauthorized discharge of contaminants into storm drains, unpermitted storage of debris within gutter flow areas, and illegal dumping of hazardous material in/near waterways). The addition of these Utility duties will consequently require the senior officer to assume the other half of the field officer's normal duties. The remaining half of this senior officer's time will ideally be divided into (a) assuming certain administrative duties currently performed by field officers, (b) responding to added service requests received from the new annexations, (c) diminishing the current level of overtime accrued by staff, and (d) reducing the initial response times of officers on primary services from three to two working days. Although the increased staffing will provide key assistance in the above areas, it is unlikely that a net gain of half of an officer will significantly affect the other policies, practices, and procedures of the Code Enforcement Section. GAC:KLL:twb codeenfA96rep42111 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM - OUTLINE AN OVERVIEW OF BUILDING AND SAFETY'S CODE ENFORCEMENT SECTION I. INTRODUCTION A. BACKGROUND II. BODY A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Customers Commonly Serviced 2. Primary Services Provided 3. Procedures for Primary Services 4. Secondary Services Provided 5. Procedures for Secondary Services B. SPECIFIC UPDATES 1. Illegal Signs 2. East Newhall 3. Melody Ranch C. LEGAL ISSUES 1. Enforcement Options 2. Mode of Action III. CONCLUSION A. RECOMMENDATION B. QUESTION AND ANSWER c.d.enf\96rcpt2b.k11