HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/09/2001, 1 - PROGRESS REPORT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES AND CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMScouncil ".',
j ac En oa REpont �N° ;• -
C I T Y O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: James M. Gardiner, Chief of Police
Prepared By: Rob Bryn, Neighborhood Services Manage
Tom Baasch, Chief Building Official
Don Wright, Code Enforcement Coordinator
SUBJECT: Progress Report on the Neighborhood Services and Code Enforcement Programs
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Receive a report from the Police and Community Development Departments regarding the
activities and accomplishments of the Neighborhood Services and Code Enforcement Programs
over the last twelve months.
DISCUSSION
Introduction
As a part of the 1999 -01 Goal Setting and Financial Plan processes, enhancements to the City's
code enforcement and neighborhood services programs were identified as Major City Goals. To
implement these enhancements, the Council allocated added resources to establish a full -time
Code Enforcement Coordinator position in the Community Development Department, and
agreed to a transfer of the Office of Neighborhood Services to the Police Department. The
purpose of this study session is to provide the Council with status reports on progress within
these programs. In addition, staff will outline future efforts currently planned and discuss an
approach to further reviewing suggestions for Municipal Code amendments made earlier by the
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN).
Backl;round and Overview
In January of 2000, the Office of Neighborhood Services was transferred from the Building &
Safety Division of the Community Development Department to the Operations Division of the
Police Department. The transfer was initiated in order to better supplement the City's long -term
community oriented policing strategy. In addition, the transfer was designed to:
1. Foster better coordination of total education and enforcement efforts on a citywide basis.
2. Rebuild the discontinued Crime Prevention Program that directly affects neighborhoods
and quality of life issues.
3. Provide the Neighborhood Services Manager with more direct support in administering
the program via Student Neighborhood Assistance Program (SNAP) Teams, Police
Officers, Field Service Technicians, etc.
4. Raise the service level of the entire program by locating it closest to the department
responsible for addressing our neighborhoods strongest concerns.
1 -1
Council Agenda Report— Progress Report on Transfer of the Neighborhood Services Programe
Pacie 2
The Office of Neighborhood Services was formed in 1995 in order to better address issues
surrounding neighborhood groups, "blight" prevention strategies, public education and
awareness programs and continued enforcement of various Uniform Housing Code, Building
Code and municipal ordinances, including the new Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance
(NEO). The Zoning Investigations Coordinator was reclassified to Neighborhood Services
Manager and assigned some direct clerical assistance. No other staff additions were made,
however a budget allocation was assigned to begin the successful Working to Improve
Neighborhoods (WEST) public education and prevention program. The Neighborhood Services
Manager continued to have an active caseload of 600 -700 cases to process, work with
complainants, notify violators, neighborhood representatives, coordinate with other departments
and agencies, prepare for court, etc.
When the Office of Neighborhood Services was assigned to the Police Department, Operations
Division, additional duties and resources were added, including: Student Neighborhood
Assistance Program (SNAP) which includes 8 part-time employees, Crime Prevention, PD
Newsletter, Ride -a -long, Event Permits, Noise Abatement, etc. The Neighborhood Enhancement
Ordinance enforcement was also transferred to police, which at the time (1999) represented
slightly under 200 cases per year.
Concurrent with transfer of the Neighborhood Services Manager to the Police Department, a new
job classification entitled Code Enforcement Coordinator was established in the Building &
Safety Division of the Community Development Department. This classification was created
and staffed to handle enforcement of the remaining violations of the Uniform Housing Code,
Building Code, Sub - Standard Buildings, Sign & Zoning Ordinance, and miscellaneous municipal
codes. Staff time for the Code Enforcement Coordinator and two Building Inspectors was
allocated to this program to provide the equivalent of one full -time position, allowing the
remaining 400 -500 cases annually to be processed in a more efficient manner, reducing
complaints of long turn around times, and eliminating cases backlogged for prosecution.
Program Evaluation
Has the program fostered better coordination of total enforcement efforts and education programs
on a citywide basis?
The splitting of the code enforcement tasks between Community Development and Police seem
to be yielding encouraging results. The Neighborhood Services Manager and Code Enforcement
Coordinator discuss and exchange cases on a weekly basis. It appears the code enforcement cases
in Community Development have actually declined while the NEO cases now handled by Police
have increased. The increase is credited to changes made in the SNAP program discussed in a
separate portion of this report.
At the beginning of the transition there was some concern from neighborhood groups that access
to the Neighborhood Services Manager at the Police Department would be difficult due to the
security at the police facility. In addition, people would be confused on whom to call for various
problems within their neighborhood. In order to mitigate these concerns, a series of meetings was
1 -2
Council Agenda Report— Progress Report on Transfer of the Neighborhood Services Programe
Page 3
held between staff and three members of RQN, Cyd Holcomb, Naoma Wright, and Mendi
Stubson. Former CAO John Dunn, current CAO Ken Hampian, Police Chief Jim Gardiner, and
Neighborhood Services Manager Rob Bryn represented staff. Over the course of a series of
meetings, a "game plan" was developed for addressing these and other concerns expressed by
RQN members, including:
• Creating a greater sense of access and feeling of openness (to the new office)
• Advocacy
• Coordination of Neighborhood Services Program with other City departments
• Implementation issues
• Communication/Education/Outreach
In addition, a 200+ piece mailing was done to RQN members and organized neighborhood
groups that provided appropriate information on who to call, and the two phone numbers needed.
The Chief of Police and the Neighborhood Services Manager attended the February general
meeting of RQN to discuss the program and welcome persons to call or visit the police
department. In order to follow -up, the Police Department hosted the November RQN general
meeting, providing an advance briefing on the new WIN/Crime Prevention program and a
progress report on the transition. Positive feedback was received from both meetings.
Has the Neighborhood Services Manager been provided with more direct support in
administering the program?
One of the most positive aspects of the transition has been the transfer of the Student
Neighborhood Assistance Program personnel to Neighborhood Services. This provided the
opportunity to review the program, hire additional personnel and double the deployment of
SNAP Teams on Friday and Saturday evenings. Although there are more refinements pending,
the resulting benefits were immediate. The average response time to noise calls in the month of
September 1999 was 41 minutes. After the transfer and improvements in the program,
September 2000 response times were reduced to 27 minutes. October 1999 vs. 2000 were even
better, improving from 43 minutes to 24 minutes. This reduction took place in spite of the fact
that the number of noise calls year -to -date had increased from 1861 as of September 1999 to
2312 as of September 2000.
A volunteer supplied by the Police Department had handled the enforcement of the
Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance (NEO) since 1995. The volunteer worked on the 72 -hour
"notices -to- correct" until midway through the transition, when the program was assigned to paid
SNAP staff. SNAP now handles NEO cases 8 hours a week on day shift. In 1999, a total of 187
notices for NEO violations were issued. The year 2000 will end with over 600 notices issued. An
additional benefit of the transfer is that over two thirds of the notices were issued as a result of
self initiated field activity. SNAP found these violations prior to any citizen complaint.
Attachment 1 lists the types of NEO cases processed and details the increasing activity trend
during the preceding year.
1 -3
Council Agenda Report— Progress Report on Transfer of the Neighborhood Services Programe
Page 4
Has the transfer raised the level of the entire program?
Preliminary results are encouraging. The Neighborhood Services Manager has stated that the true
test would be the 18 month cycle concluding June 30, 2001, which would allow for the initial
transition to be complete, new programs launched and at least one budget request, review, and
approval event to take place.
The transfer of the Noise Ordinance enforcement to Neighborhood Services took place January
1, 2001. It is too early to tell at this point what effect it will have on the program. A complete
review of the noise program, staff assignments, enforcement criteria, etc. has yet to be done. A
SNAP person has been assigned for the past five months to do the extensive clerical tasks
associated with notifying property owners of noise violations, tracking of Disturbance Advisory
Cards, input into appropriate data basis, etc.
Has the Crime Prevention Program that directly affects neighborhoods and quality of life issues
been rebuilt?
The emphasis was to design a cutting edge program that custom fit challenges facing San Luis
Obispo, addressing various age groups and issues, while remaining within the existing (99 -00)
budget allocations. A four point multi -media approach consisting of targeted print, radio,
television and Internet applications were developed, based on an analysis of the demographics
and crime trends in the community.
San Luis Obispo's unique demographics reveal over 57.8% of our population is under 29 years
of age, coupled with the city housing stock being 52% rental, encourages this innovative
approach to reaching a constantly changing population base.
Print
Print advertising in local publications aides the department in reaching the largest sector of the
City's population. Both local college newspapers, Cal Poly's Mustang Daily and Cuesta
College's Cuestonian cant' professionally developed print ads designed to stimulate discussion,
raise awareness and modify risky behaviors. Crime prevention ads run twice a month, along with
the existing monthly neighborhood WIN ad in the Daily, while the Cuestonian carries one crime
prevention ad per monthly issue.
Radio -The Prevention Minute
Heard twice daily during the morning and evening commute time on KVEC, this 60- second
commercial provides crime and safety information to the general public. Aimed at the 35+ age
group, the focus of the message is to provide information in order to reduce the risk while
emphasizing personal responsibility.
1 -4
Council Agenda Report— Progress Report on Transfer of the Neighborhood Services Programe
Page 5
Television
Using a combination of paid commercials and Public Service Announcements, these 30- second
spots air on the local NBC affiliate KSBY, CBS KCOY 12 and FOX 11. Additional spots appear
on local cable channels including CNN, MTV, Lifetime, Comedy, VHI and ESPN. The current
four spot rotations consist of a new alcohol abuse campaign aimed at Minor in Possession, False
ID, Drunk in Public and Furnishing Alcohol to Minors.
Internet
The Police Department web page was extensively modified in a phased upgrade that will
continue to provide more helpful information to the public. The Phase I upgrade consisted of
adding the Office of Neighborhood Services to the PD web site. Prior to the transition, no
Neighborhood Services page(s) were available. All neighborhood pamphlets and brochures are
also now accessible on line, reducing the need to call, write or drive to the PD to obtain them. In
addition, the entire Crime Prevention print campaign is available to download for school reports,
neighborhood and local newsletter inserts, etc. Also available is crime trends and highway
conditions information on our new Links page, featuring FBI, DOJ and CHP sites, as well as, a
kid's link to the popular "McGruff the Crime Dog" site at the National Crime Prevention
Council.
Has the Building & Safety Division successfully managed the code enforcement caseload that
remained following the transfer of the Neighborhood Services Manager?
The code enforcement program is operating effectively. Violations are investigated within 1 -3 days
of the date received. Procedures have been upgraded to reduce the turn- around time needed for
resolving an average case. With reorganization of the Building and Safety Division using the same
number of staff as existed prior to January 1, 2000, code enforcement, permit processing, plan
review, and construction inspection has met all established performance criteria. The Code
Enforcement Coordinator expects to end the year 2000 with a caseload of 440, which is within the
original projection of 400 to 500. The average number of days from receipt of an enforcement case
to resolution and closure was 161.88 from the 1992 through 12- 31 -99. From 1 -1 -2000 to 12 -11-
2000, the average number of days was 136.70. However, from 05 -01 -2000 to 12 -11 -2000, the
average was only 104.80 days, suggesting that initiatives to improve case management in the first
quarter of 2000 have been successful. Because the Code Enforcement Coordinator brings a more
detailed understanding of the technical codes to case management, there is a more cohesive link
between enforcement and the Planning and Building permit processes, which is essential to
resolution of a majority of the cases
During the past few years, sign code enforcement was conducted proactively with help by a
volunteer provided by the Police Department. Due to the loss of an available volunteer, a
significant increase in construction activity, and the corresponding demand for inspection
services, staff has not be able to conduct periodic sweeps to control sign proliferation as had been
anticipated. Similarly, staff intended to initiate a program of periodic inspection of all
fraternities and sororities to monitor life safety and land use issues. With the refinement of the
1 -5
Council Agenda Report— Progress Report on Transfer of the Neighborhood Services Programe
Page 6
new Division organization and the anticipated moderation of construction activity, these
programs will have top priority for implementation.
Attachment 2 lists the types of code enforcement cases processed and details the annual activity
since January 1, 1995. Attachment 3 outlines the resources available to the Code Enforcement
Coordinator when processing a complaint alleging violation of municipal code provisions. This
attachment also illustrates the number of City departments and resources that are involved in our
code enforcement and neighborhood services efforts.
Future Efforts/RQN Legislative Suggestions
The new internal Neighborhood Services Team is meeting in January to review the legislative
changes recently submitted by RQN. The team will consist of persons from the City Attorney,
Public Works, Fire, Police, Utilities and Community Development departments that have a direct
relationship to services provided to neighborhoods. In addition, RQN has agreed to supply three
persons to serve on the team. The initial meetings will take place on a monthly basis and perhaps
revert to quarterly depending on demands. The objective is to address issues of neighborhood
interest and raise the level of awareness within city goverment.
Staff will continue to work with RQN and others to enhance our Neighborhood Services and
Code Enforcement programs. Any major "step up" in our current efforts, however, would
require added resources. For example, staff could better use the "VIOLTRAC" case
management system to identify properties within neighborhoods that consistently require
expensive city response to noise, parking in yard, neighborhood enhancement ordinance
violations, converted garages, overcrowding, sub - standard housing, etc. More proactive
programs could be implemented to address such properties and "action plans" could be
developed for larger areas shown to be suffering from deterioration, including blighted
conditions, code violations, etc.
With regard to the suggested legislative amendments by RQN, some of the amendments might be
accommodated fairly easily and others are much more complex, both in terms of resources and
community acceptance. Suggestions, for example, are made relative to solid waste container
screening, parking and parking districts, high occupancy residential use regulations, and garage
conversion standards. Among the most complex and controversial suggestions are those which
relate to yard maintenance. Prior to bringing recommendations to Council, the Neighborhood
Services Team (which, as noted above, includes RQN members) will review these suggestions in
detail and explore various alternatives, beginning in January 2001.
FISCAL IMPACTS
None. All program improvements were done within the current budget.
1 -6
Council Agenda Report— Progress Report on Transfer of the Neighborhood Services Programe
Page 7
SUMMARY
The transfer of Neighborhood Services from Community Development to the Police Department
has achieved desired results. Crime Prevention has been renewed by integration into the
successful Working to Improve Neighborhoods (WIN) public education and prevention effort.
The use of paid SNAP staff to replace volunteers has netted significant results in reduction of
response time to noise calls, increase in the level of proactive enforcement of NEO violations and
provided much needed clerical support to the understaffed noise enforcement program. The
beginning of a standing working team comprised of city staff and RQN members is a promising
way to improve communication and service levels. The successful test of the entire program
however rests in the appropriate balance of time to determine long -term results, coordination of
individual programs, continue a more pro- active vision and sufficient resources to achieve
desired results.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement Case Summary
2. Building & Safety Division Code Enforcement Case Summary
3. Code Enforcement Resources
1 -7
Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo
Neighborhood Services
Code Enforcement Case Summary
19951 19961 19971 19981 19991 2000
Camper Shells, Boats, Trailers
2
12
25
8
12
28
Fence
3
0
3
1
10
3
Trash Receptacle
0
0
0
0
0
75
Failure to Screen
6
1
5
7
0
80
Furniture & Equipment
25
116
113
77
117
317
Furniture on Roof
0
0
0
1
1
10
Materials or Debris
32
59
110
70
58
194
Parkin in Yard
0
0
0
3
4
87
Property Maintenance/improper Storage
0
01
0
01
11
23
TOTAL Incidents 1 681 1881 2561 1671 2031 817
TOTAL NEO Notices Issued 1 591 1871 2511 1591 1871 663
1 -8
Attachment 2
City of San Luis Obispo
Building Safety Division
Code Enforcement Case Summary
19951 1996T19971 19981 19991 2000
Abandoned Building
2
1
2
01
1
2
All Other Land Use Violations
36
38
21
21
28
28
Animals
6
8
7
1
5
4
Building Codes Violation
86
88
119
135
116
48
Converted dwelling-Fratemity/Sorority
0
1
3
0
0
6
Converted dwelling-Garage
26
28
37
102
28
21
Converted Dwelling-Other Structure
71
5
ill
6
51
7
Converted Dwelling-Rooms
6
6
7
5
9
3
Debris in Yard
27
6
0
2
1
3
Encroachment in Public Way
0
0
7
3
7
3
Fence Height Violation
1
2
7
7
14
12
Grading Ordinance Violation
0
0
0
0
0
6
High Occupancy Residential Use
12
10
12
9
5
6
Home Occupation Permit Condition
1
2
6
7
5
7
Inoperative Vehicle
7
2
2
5
9
3
No Building Permit
17
14
12
19
28
67
No Home Occupation Permit
5
3
6
9
4
4
No Use Permit
1
3
5
3
9
5
Noise Violation
6
10
12
8
4
1
Other
0
0
1
4
0
0
Paving Front Yard
01
0
1
0
1
3
Second Dwelling Unit -No Permit
0
1
2
2
2
5
Sin Ordinance Violation
117
145
102
81
93
67
Structure in Street Yard
2
4
1
9
0
1
Substandard Building
1
3
71
2
8
17
Substandard Building/Earthquake Damage
0
0
0
0
0
0
Substandard Building/Fire Damage
12
15
6
12
6
4
Substandard Building/Flood Damage
42
1
2
0
0
0
Trailer as Dwelling
3
4
10
5
5
1
Fire Code Violation -All other
3
2
4
0
2
1
Fire Code Violation -Weeds
2
4
1
2
7
0
Housing Code Violation
91
41
101
14.1
14
1
Use in Wrong Zone
71
61
51
3
5
0
Use Permit Violation
31
71
281
7
3
2
TOTAL Cases ---F4471 4231 4561 4831 424 338
1 -9
Cl ,#
HHO,2H 0 �k
5
e )
e k
k2
16E
CL
�°
kk
Co
< �
e
L��
-
�
-
E
/
.
�a�
�
*£
LLJ
�#
■
kE
k§
Ca
-
m3
��
&
2G
=
«0
°3
`
2
=
\
2
\D
j
�/
/
ES
QED
ea
%§
2f
B g�
#G
C-)
CL -
2
-
-
LU
CL
LLI
�
°
■
»
E.2
�
e
¥ 2
CL
32
a
- ix
-i
\
\
�
k
�
c §
7 7
-
\<
-
Q
§
Cn
.
0
CL
LU
�
2
k
/\�
cc
k
kk
2«
33®
Cl ,#
HHO,2H 0 �k
Attachment a
1-10
5
e )
e k
k2
16E
CL
M
Co
< �
e
L��
-
-
E
/
)
�a�
�
*£
�#
■
a
Attachment a
1-10