HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-2013 ss1 neighborhood wellness updatecounctL
âqenòâ Repopt
Meeting Date
I|l4av 21.2013
Item Number
SS1
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Joseph Lease, Chief Building Official
SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOODTVELLNESSUPDATE
RE,COMMENDATION
Receive and file an update regarding the status of the Neighborhood Wellness Major City Goal.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides an update on the progress made over the past year in regards to the City's
Neighborhood Wellness Program, a Major City Goal, and the implementation of proactive code
enforcement.
The City's proactive code enforcement effort commenced in June 2012 folowing the hiring of
two Neighborhood Services Specialists and a part-time Parking Control Off,tcer, as well as an
extensive community outreach and education effort regarding the City's property maintenance
standards. As a result, the number of code enforcement violations addressed by staff increased by
88% to 1040 in 2012. 'Weekend enforcement of parking regulations in residential districts
resulted in 850 parking citations issued and a declining incidence of parking violations by year's
end. Continued enforcement of the City's noise ordinance by the Police Department and SNAP
has resulted in a 27o/o decline in such complaints since 2010. This report provides a s¡mopsis of
these and other achievements during the past year and the overall progress of the Neighborhood
Wellness Program to date, as well as a review of anticipated program enhancements.
BACKGROUND
At the April 7, 2012, Council Meeting, staff provided the Council with an update regarding the
status of the Neighborhood V/ellness Major City Goal. In addition, the Council adopted a
Resolution amending the Administrative Citation Guidelines to implement proactive code
enforcement and adopted an ordinance to amend Municipal Code Section I.24 relating to
Administrative Citations. At that time Council requested that staff provide an update on the
Neighborhood Wellness Major City Goal in one year. This report provides a summary of code
enforcement activities over the past year, community outreach efforts, and the progress of
implementation of proactive code enforcement and the overall Neighborhood Wellness Program.
Summary of the City's Neighborhood \Mellness Program
The objective of the Neighborhood 'Wellness Program is to "Embrace and implement proactive
code enforcement and Neighborhood Wellness Policies." This goal serves to maintain and
support aesthetically pleasing, safe, and sustainable neighborhoods throughout the City. The
SS1.1
Neighborhood Wellness Update Report Page 2
City Council has reaffirmed its commitment to continue to support and enhance Neighborhood
Wellness, making it a Major City Goal for the 2013-15 Financial Plan.
The City's Neighborhood Wellness Major City Goal is comprised of a number of code
enforcement related programs overseen by several departments. The three primary departments
involved in the program are the Community Development, Police, and Public Works
Departments, with significant support from the Fire Department and the City Attorney's Office.
Program staffing is summarizedinthe following table:
N borhood Wellness Pro StaffTn
Community Development
The Community Development Department is responsible for the largest part of the City's code
enforcement efforts. The Building and Safety Division's staff assigned to Neighborhood
Wellness-related programs includes two Code Enforcement Off,rcers and two Neighborhood
Services Specialists. The Division is responsible for enforcement of most property based
municipal code regulations including:
o Property Maintenance (overgrown weeds/grass, debris, trash receptacles, inadequate
maintenance, etc.)
o Front Yard Parking
o Abandoned Vehicles on private property
¡ Unpermitted Construction or Conversions
. Other Building or Substandard Housing Violations
o Sign Ordinance Violations
o ZoningViolations
The work of the Code Enforcement Officers is primarily complaint driven or reactive, while that
of the Neighborhood Services Specialists is primarily proactive. Of the code violation cases
opened in the past 12 months by CDD Stafl specifically the period from May I,2012 through
April 30,2013,756 or 59% resulted from complaints and520 or 4lYo resulted fromproactive
enforcement.
Two Neighborhood Services Specialists (NSS) were hired in 2012 to focus on proactive code
enforcement in furtherance of the Neighborhood 'Wellness Major City Goal and proactive
enforcement commenced in June 2012. During the first several months of the program the
Neighborhood Service Specialists focused on community outreach and education regarding the
City's Property Maintenance Standards and neighborhood parking problems on private property
and coordinated other neighborhood issues with City departments such as Police, Fire and Public'Works.
The Neighborhood Services Specialists are assigned different areas in the City and identify and
address violations visible in the front yard areas. These violations include overgrown grass or
Community Development 2.0 Code Enforcement Officers
2.0 Neighborhood Services Specialists
Public Works - Parking Services 0.5 FTE Parking Services Officer
Police Department 3.2 FTE SNAP
SS1 .2
Neighborhood Wellness Update Report Page 3
weeds, the accumulation of debris, furniture on roofs or in yards, improper parking in front yard
areas, abandoned or inoperable vehicles, and improper trash receptacle storage. Building and
other more significant Health and Safety violations that are observed are reported to the Code
Enforcement Off,rcers for investigation.
Police Department (Noise Enforcement)
Police officers and SNAP (Student Neighborhood Assistance Program) members work in
residential neighborhoods enforcing the noise ordinance. This past year, the Neighborhood
Outreach Manager position was filled who oversees the SNAP program. The Police Department
utilizes SNAP as first responders to noise complaints in the neighborhoods. Sworn officers
respond to the more hazardous noise complaints involving large gatherings. Since the adoption
of the revised noise ordinance in May 2010, the data shows a30o/o reduction in complaints and a
10olo increase in the number of warnings and citations issued.
Public Works - Parking Services
The Neighborhood 'Wellness Major City Goal provided for the hiring of a half-time Parking
Services Officer that was added to Public 'Works Department and tasked with focusing on
weekend parking enforcement in neighborhoods. This position and other Parking Services
Offîcers have been cross-trained and augment efforts to enforce property maintenance standards
both during the week and on weekends. The half-time Parking Services Officer patrols
residential neighborhoods on Saturdays and Sundays from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and issues
wamings and enforces parking regulations. In addition, neighborhood code violations that are
observed are documented and forwarded to the Neighborhood Services Specialists for follow up.
The officer documents any observed violations from the public righrof-way and notes the date,
time, the violation, and specific location for follow up by Community Development Department.
The officer made 147 of these referrals from June through December, 2012.
In addition to the weekend enforcement, the Parking Services Division has increased its efforts
to enforce parking in residential neighborhoods during the weekdays. This is in addition to
enforcement of the daytime residential permit districts.
PROGRAM PROGRESS, MILESTONES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Neighborhood Services Team (NST)
The Neighborhood Services Team comprised of representatives from Community Development,
Police, Fire, Parking Services, Ranger Services, and Utilities Departments meets quarterly to
discuss issues and develop strategies, provide updates and discuss solutions for current
challenges. Members of this group have met monthly with community groups to solicit input and
feedback on community issues and Neighborhood 'Wellness activities. Neighborhood group
involvement is critical as they provide ongoing feedback about problem areas, issues, and
program effectiveness.
SS1 .3
Neighborhood Wellness Update Report Page 4
Community Outreach
A public outreach and education effort commenced in March 2012 prior to the initiation of
proactive code enforcement on May 31,2012. Proactive enforcement was instituted with a "soft
roll out" for several months following the start date. During this period the Neighborhood
Services Specialists, when finding a violation, staff would attempt to contact the property owner
or tenant and discuss the property maintenance standards and provide them with informational
brochures about how to comply with City standards. 'When contact was unsuccessful, outreach
materials were left at residences which were in violation of City ordinances. "Courtesy
Reminder" door hangers were placed at properties with property maintenance violations, noting
the front yard violations observed. Additionally, the monthly Utility bill provided an overview
of the recent policy shift and efforts to address neighborhood concems.
While Notices to Correct are now issued when violations are observed, staff continues to try to
contact property owners and to distribute information about property maintenance standards.
Information regarding property maintenance standards is also available on the City's website.
.lnformational videos are circulated on public access Channel 20. Staff has enhanced outreach
materials to include topic specific flyers and messaging to be mailed with utility and solid waste
bills to raise awareness about code requirements and the shift to proactive code enforcement.
Informational stickers summarizing the trash receptacle storage requirements are now being
attached to receptacles that are not properly stored as a reminder to owner and tenants and with
new accounts when they are activated. Outreach and education continues to be the thrust of the
City's effort.
Staff continues to work with community groups such as Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
(RQN) and the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) to focus messaging, raise
awareness, and discuss code requirements and neighborhood issues. The City's partnership with
SCLC provides a forum to educate students about neighborhood issues and community
standards. SCLC participation has included progress updates and continuing efforts to prepare
students for the transition into local neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Services Team is
currently meeting with RQN, students, and other members of the community every other month.
Summøry of Public outreøch efforts duríng 2012 include:
o Property Maintenance Standards PowerPoint on Channel20
o Garbage bill inserts through San Luis Garbage Co. explaining waste container
regulations.
. Code Enforcement website enhancements including new webpage: "Code E4forcement
FAOs" This will include a link from the main City web page.
o lndividual property maintenance standard fact sheets.
. Neighborhood'Wellness presentations to the SCLC.
o Staff attendance at Residents for Quality Neighborhoods meeting.
. Neighborhood Wellness booth with SLO Solutions at CaI Poly Housing Fair (February
21,20t3)
. Staff meeting with Cal Poly ASI Leadership Team.
. Staff attendance at Cal Poly Open House (April 14,2012).
. Utility bill inserts- "Are you a Good Neighbor?" brochure.o Informational ads for placement in SLO Tribune, Mustang Daily, Cuestonian (April
2012).
SS1 -4
Neighborhood'Wellness Update Report Page 5
o Annual information booth at Thursday Night Farmers Markets
o Presentation to Cal Poly freshmen as they transition from campus living to residing
within City neighborhoods.
o Waste can labels for placement on waste containers stored improperly and for new
accounts.
o NST Staff collaborating with San Luis Garbage and the Utilities Department
disseminate information to the public in order to minimize and prevent issues during
Cal Poly and Cuesta Move-out/Clean-up week.
F uture Plønned Addítional O ulreøch :
Letters to owners of potentially noncompliant properties regarding the City's prohibition on
short-term vacation rentals in residential districts. Recently the Department has received
complaints regarding property owners advertising their homes as vacation rentals on various
internet sites in violation of Section I7 .22.010G of the City's Zoning Regulations.
Building Construction Board of Appeals
The Building Construction Board of Appeals has a number of responsibilities including
adjudicating appeals of code interpretations, Notices of Violation, and the application of disabled
accessibility requirements, and hearing code abatement cases. This Board has not been active
nor has any matter been brought before it in anyone's recent memory. This changed on March
18,2013, when the Board was convened to hear appeals and to review the summary abatement
action undertaken by the Building Official and Fire Marshall regarding the order to vacate a
number of illegally converted storage lofts in the 36 units.
The fact that all of the 36 condominiums were under separate ownership and all were rental units
added to the complexity of the hearing. The Board considered testimony from staff, an attorney
representing about 20 owners, and numerous owners and managed an agenda packet of more
than 700 pages. The Board considered the evidence and reached a decision in all of the cases
before it. The Board adopted resolutions ordering the abatement of all outstanding violations in
the complex by August 3 1, 2013. This action was not appealed. It is anticipated that the Board
will play a greater role in the abatement process in the coming years.
Prioritization of Complaints
In light of the need to deploy limited resources in the most efficient manner and to address the
more serious complaints as expeditiously as possible, the Community Development Department
has developed priorities for the handling of complaints based on the type of violation involved
and its relative significance. Given that the protection of public health and safety is, and should
always be, the City's first concern, complaints involving violations that potentially pose such
risks should receive the highest priority. Thus the established priorities are weighted with this
concern in mind. The following table provides a ranking of priorities and time frames for
response to complaints alleging violations of State and municipal codes:
SS1 .5
Neighborhood Wellness Update Report Page 6
Code Enforcement Priorities
Priority Violation Type Response Time Frame
1 Immediate Health and Safety Violations Same day
2 Unpermitted Construction in Progress 24 hours
J Substandard Housing, Unpermitted
Construction /Conversions
T2hours
4 Front Yard Parking, Overgrown'Weeds, Debris,
and Abandoned Vehicles, Trash Receptacle
Storage
72 hours
5 Fence Heieht Violations, Signs l week
The standard response time frames are targets and cannot always be met, particularly when staff
resources are temporarily committed to working through complex cases. Recall, staff referenced
the "tough |ïyo", cases like Pine Creek can exhaust staff resources for several weeks and delay
response to other lower priority complaints. As was articulated to Council at the inception of the
program, properties with multiple violations are prioritized with complaints typically taking
priority over proactive cases.
Statistical Analysis
The majority of code
enforcement cases
resulted from complaints
filed by citizens and were
relatively evenly
distributed throughout the
city's neighborhoods with
a few clusters of high
concentration. Proactive
cases also occurred
throughout the city's
neighborhoods, with a
slightly greater degree of
concentration in some
areas. This occurred even
though proactive patrols
have not been focused in any specific area of the City. The Map of Code Violation Cases
(Attachment 1) shows the distribution of both reactive (complaint based) and proactive (self-
initiated) cases throughout the City. The second map (Attachment 2) graphically shows the
density of code violation per acre. The third map (Attachment 3) depicts the concentration of
code violation cases with the City's neighborhoods delineated and overlaid with expected rental
units (the blue dots)r. These maps effectively show the areas of the City having the highest
concentration of reported or observed violations.
Code \¡iolaflons by Type
May 1, 2012 - April 30,2013
885
c" ñouo "-"^""+ +ô\(,'
1000
800
600
400
200
0
o
so
z 119
ård'-
89
-iet-r9
-gY
*uÑ
åoo'
ô$l
È'.e"'
I Expected rental units are those with 2-6 utility turnovers in a two year period.
SS1 -6
The number of violations
for the most recent 12
month period (May 2012
through April 2013) are
represented in the charts
below. The first chart
shows all code violations
by type and the second
chart shows the
distribution of violation
types enforced by
Neighborhood Services
Specialists.
Neighborhood Wellness Update Report PageT
Dlstributlon of Vlolatlon Types
Inoperable
Vehicle
3Vo
lVlay 2 01 2 thru .A.pril 2 0 13
Other
Frontyard
Parking
't 2o/o
3o/¡
inFrontYard
3lo/o
Vegetation
l7o/o
The overall comphance
rate for all cases opened in the past 12 months was '77Yo. Of these, 72Yo were resolved within 30
days of the issuance of the first Notice. Property maintenance violations were by far the most
common violation type identified.
To a large extent this
reflects the work of the
Neighborhood Services
Specialists and their focus
on the conditions that
create visible blight in
neighborhoods (i.e.
overgrown grass/weeds,
parking in yards, fumiture
and debris in yards,
improper storage of waste
containers, etc.). As noted
earlier, about 41% of these
violations were identified
by Neighborhood
Specialists and abourt 59Yo
were the result of complaints received from citizens. The chart below shows the percentage
distribution of property maintenance violations by subtype.
As noted in the chart, the most common property maintenance violation was improper storage of
trash containers followed by debris or storage of furniture in yards or on roofs.
Total Code Enforcement Cares
É
€
o
Þ
E
o
2500
?t0t
I J00
I ft0t
J00
t "f S ,s "s" ""+ "È'^"{' ,.È.'dfl
L{t
s'+-
Nç5 Fr*årtile Eúfü trÉmènt
st¿rt€d Mãy f3, 4¿
hêé*Åuru ? Funded €orje
E tforrelllenl ılÏkêr
SS1 .7
due the soft implementation and extensive community outreach undertaken at the start of
proactive enforcement. In the first 4 months of 2013 the number of cases opened was up sharply
to 743 from the previous entire year cases of over 1,000. If this pace continues the projected
cases in 2013 should exceed 2,200, more than double the number in20I2.
The chart above provides an annual comparison of the number of violations by type. Of note is
the significant increase in property maintenance violations in 2012 and the first four months of
Neighborhood'Wellness Update Report
Year to Year Comparisons
This chart provides an
annual comparison for
the past eight years.
The impact of Measure
Y Funding for a
second Code
Enforcement Officer in
2007 resulted in a
T75% increase in cases
between 2006 and
2007. 1n2012 another
significant increase in
cases resulted from the
addition of two
Neighborhood Services
Specialists; however
the increase of 5l%o
was not as noteworthy
2013. 3,ooo
Police 2'5oo
Department - 2,ooo
Noise Party l,soo
Enforcement
The Police 1'ooo
Department 5oo
continues to utilize oSNAP as first
Page 8
Cotle Violatlons by Type
2006 thru Äprll 2013
ø
o
d
=s
lg
ciz
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
o
.2006
.2007
I 2008
r2009
t2010
.20t1
720t2
r2013
Latrd Ulp@itt€d P¡op€rty
Mahttræe
subtðdüd
Buildings
Oæl¡pilcy
violatioß
orhtr
Usgzodrg Cotrsl¡uctioo
2,A97 2,8L7
2,584
2,238
2,Or4
7,632
t,286 1,,364
7,147
639
tg3 273 307 262 277 213 259
84 732
20t2200720082009201.O 20ttresponders to noise
complaints in the neighborhoods. r Noise Complaints
Since the adoption of the revised I Disturbance Advisory cards
noise ordinance in May-2010, tlt . a",', creared with a citat¡ondata shows both a reduction in - --"-
complaints and an increase in the t Total Citations lssued - Party
number of warnings and citations r Total Citations tssued - Landlord (did not start until 2011)
issued.
SSl .8
Neighborhood Wellness Update Report Page 9
In 2012 the Police Department and SNAP responded to 1632 noise party calls and issued 544
wamings (DAC's) or Citations. ln comparison to calendar year 2010, in which there were 2,238
noise party calls, a reduction in noise party calls of 27Yo has occurred.
Public Works - Parking Control
Similar to Neighborhood Services, weekend parking enforcement began with a significant public
outreach effort. Parking habits had developed over time and it was important that the City
communicate that enforcement of commonly observed violations would also be enforced on the
weekends. After the initial outreach effort, Parking Services began weekend enforcement. The
following is a summary of the number and type of parking violations identif,red during weekends
in residential neighborhoods. The number of parking violations is trending downward as
residents have adjusted parking practices.
Violations Issued - \ileekends
Parking Services often identifies other violations during their weekend enforcement efforts. The
following is a table of the number and type of neighborhood violations identified by Parking
Services during the last year.
N borhood Violations rted
Violation Code # Issued
Prohibited Parking - Red Cwb 10.36.040 SLOMC 108
No Permit Residential 10.36.200 SLOMC 257
Yard Parkins to.36.233 SLOMC 7
Crosswalk 22s00(b) vc 5
Blockine Drivewav 225OO(e)YC 51
Blocking Sidewalk 22sOO(ÐVC 127
Bus Zone 22sOO(i) VC I
'Wheel Chair Access 22s0o(l) vc 23
Fire Lane 22500.r vc 30
Crlrb Parking (18" from curb)225o2(a) YC 57
Opposite Side of Street 22sÙ2(b)VC 157
Hydrant 22514VC 26
Failure to display DP placard 40226l/C 1
Totals 850
Violation Observed # Reported
13Overgrown Weeds
Debris in YardlRoof 40
Parking in Yard 69
Refuse Containers 15
Fence Violations 4
Abandoned Vehicles 5
RV used as Residence t.
Totals 147
SS1 -9
Neighborhood Wellness Update Report Page 10
UPCOMING EVENTS
Planning for Move Out/Clean Up Week
In the weeks following the annual graduations at Cal Poly and Cuesta Community College many
students move out of rental units. During move out, students often leave behind unwanted sofas,
mattresses and other household furniture. Although, there is a means to properly dispose of
these items by contacting the San Luis Garbage Company and paying a nominal fee for their
pickup, these items are often left in the public right-oÊway, where they not only create a blighted
appearance and traffic hazard, but in years past some have become target for arsonists.
ln order to mitigate these hazards associated with Move Out'Week, the Neighborhood Services
Team has collaborated with the Utilities and Public Works Departments, and San Luis Garbage
to developed a plan to proactively address the problem of abandoned fumiture during this period.
The program, coined Project Clean Sweep 2013 by staff, consists of the following strategies
and actions:
An extensive outreach effort targeting properly managers, owners and students will
commence in May to inform them of the proper disposal methods for unwanted furniture.
The San Luis Garbage Company will run a truck to proactively pick up abandoned
furniture Monday-Friday, June 17 -2t.
All items in the public right-of-way will be picked up by the Garbage Company the same
day they are reported between June 1 and July 12 (except Sat/Sun).
During weekday business hours abandoned items can be reported to Judy Buonaguidi
(7 8I -7 2I3, ibuonaeu@,slocitli.org).
San Luis Garbage Co. will have their staff patrol problem neighborhoods from June 24rh
through July l2th and will pick up abandoned items from early a.m. until 1:00 p.m.
The Street Department will pick up items from 1:00-4:00 p.m. Contact Gary Keavney
(7 8l -1 0 43, skeavnev@ slocity. or g) during these hours.
SNAP will pick up abandoned items after 4:00 p.m. as needed and will have access to the
Corp Yard for disposal.
Police Night Patrol will email a daily list of abandoned items needing collection to the
Garbage Company.
Staff will track the costs of this clean-up effort.
Future Code Amendments
Staff will be undertaking a review of existing Municipal Code sections with the intent of
clarifying and streamlining code enforcement procedures and ensuring that they are in harmony
with State Housing Law regulations. One area of concern that has been identified is that of
appeals. There are a number of sections in the Municipal Code that provide potentially
conflicting procedures for the handling of appeals. There should be one standard procedure for
appeals relating to code violation cases to insure that due process is afforded appellants.
Overall Assessment
This report outlines the public outreach that was carried out over the past year and a summary of
code enforcement activity. The pursuit of Neighborhood'Wellness will be an ongoing effort and
Staff will continue to focus on seeking voluntary compliance as an initial means of addressing
any outstanding building and safety violations. Noise violations are trending downward due to a
a
a
o
a
a
a
o
a
a
ss1 - 10
Neighborhood'Wellness Update Report Page 11
concerted enforcement effort and continued public outreach particularly aimed at incoming
students. Although the majority of code enforcement violations are still identified as a result of
citizen complaints, a significant number result from the proactive efforts of the Neighborhood
Services Specialists to address property maintenance violations. Although identified code
violations are projected to more than double in 2013, the number should taper off in future years
due to neighborhood stabilization, greater public arwareness and acceptance of the property
maintenance standards, and the implementation and enhancement of procedures to gain
compliance.
The enhancements include the implementation of a training program for hearing officers, a lien
process for uncollected fines, recordation of Notices of Substandard Conditions for noncompliant
properties, and the establishment of a revolving abatement fund to enable the City to abate
nuisances when all other remedies have failed. A detailed explanation of these enhancements is
contained in the Major City Goal Neighborhood V/ellness document developed as part of the
2013 -l 5 Financial Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Code Violations Map
2. Distribution of Code Violations Map
3. Distribution of Code Violations by Neighborhoods
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2O13U013-05-21\1.{eighborhood Wellness Update CAR May 2l_13
ss1 - 11
*ï rå
*
a
å
a
4
Attachment 1
Code Violation Cases
sLoGts 20130501A00.5 1
Miles
ssl - 12
t
Code Violation Cases
May 2012 - April 2013
Violations Density
per acre
0.5
Miles
sLoGrs 20130s01
0 1A
Attachment 2
ss1 - 13
Attachment 3
Code V¡olation Cases
May 2012 -April 2013
a Utility Turnovers withn 2 Years
Nerghborhoods with number of casesE
l__-__l City Limit
Concentration of cases
- High
Low
.4-.,e
Yø
sLoGts 2013050t
:--r¿28
.l
a
9
\
2
ïank Farm
7
5
0 0.5AmMiles
ss1 - 14
MAY 21 2013
F{
SLO
Goodwi Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Grimes, Maeve
Tuesday, May 21,20L3 4:77 PM
Goodwin, Heather
FW: Neighborhood Wellness SS1
AGENDA
CORRESPON DENCE
Neighborhood
st,aff need
Heather, Please distribute as Agenda Correspondence for Study Session ltem l- on tonight's Agenda.
Thank you,
mÀeve kenneÒy qprmes
City Clerk
cffy oÊ s.ln Lurs or]rspo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
phone; (805)781-71,02
sm¡rL: mgrimes@slocitv.org
From: Max, Jan
Sent: Tuesday, May 21,2013 3:41 PM
To: 'Brett Cross'; Smith, Kathy; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan
Cc: Grimes, Maeve; Goodwin, Heather
Subject: RE: Neighborhood Wellness SS1
Please post this as agenda correspondence
Thanks,
Jan
From : Brett Cross I ma i lto : brettcrosstôya hoo, com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 2t,2013 2:03 PM
To: Max, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan
Subject: Neighborhood Wellness SS1
Just a couple of notes regarding t,he
Wel-l-ness Updat,e that the Council- and
to be cons idering f or f ut.ure act ion .
1. Rental- Inspection and inspecLion upon sale
requirements. The high percentage of rental
propert.ies has proved to be sígnificant source of
illegal const ruct,ion , code violations , and
Conversions. Additionally, the state and
1
condition of the City' s o1der housing st,ock is
unknov/n.
2 . Yard landscaping requirement.s . As water rat,es
cont inue t,o increase there i s a trend to remove
wat,er inten s ive landscaping and inst ead of
replacing wíth l-ow wat,er landscaping, repl-acing
wit.h what I descríbe as frrock gardens f' . This
t,rend is exacerbated by t,he high number rent,al
propert,ies in the Cit.y which reduce upfront cost,s
of plantings and ongoing maintenance to the
owner.
3 . Adoption of an amorLization schedul-e f or
garage conversion carport requiremenLs. Prior to
the adopt.ion of the garage conversion ordinance
t.he code requirement was for one covered space
,and one space outside the f ronL yard setback.
This requirement was easily met by buitding an
approved carport. Unf ortunately t.hese types of
structures have serious negative impacts on t.he
character of propertíes and neighborhoods. A 15
year amort iza?ion schedul-e that requires prope rLy
owners to meet current, standards for garage
conversions would signíf icanLly improve propertrY
values for the community as a whol-e.
4 . Required landscape buffer between adj acent
driveway areas. Many properties have extended
paving adj acent Lo the driveway ouL to the
property l-íne. Where both properties have
driveways that, are along the same properLy l-ine
,and both are paved out. to their respective
propertry lines t.he result is a continuous
2
uninterrupted paved area. This type of pave-ouL.seriously impacts the overall charact,er of the
neighborhoods. The City should adopt, a 3 foot
landscape buf fer Jcet,ween properiuy l-ines along the
f ront yard setback area adj acent t.o the driveway.
Thanks for your consideration.
Bret,t Cross
72]7 Mariners Cove
San Luis Obispo, CA
3
APR 3 0 2013
R ËCEIVE D
LE K
6rimes, Maeve
Erom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Carpenter, Dan
Saturday, April2T,2013 12:43 PM
Grimes, Maeve
FW: Trash Cans and Fairness
Follow up
Completed
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Maeve,
Please include this letter as part of the record and correspondence for the website.
Thanks,
DC
Dan Carpenter
San Luis Obispo City Council
805-431-3174
flom: Fed Up [slocityhypocrite@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April27,2013 10:46 AM
To: Johnson, Derek; Lichtig, Katie; Lease, Joseph; Ashbaugh, John; Max, Jan; Smith, Kathy; C.arpenter, Dan;
cla m bert@thetribu nenews. com
Subject: Trash Cans and Fairness
To those who can do something about this:
I live on Albert Drive in SLO. I received a violation for my trash can being visible from public view. The can
was behind a fence that was about 3 inches lower than the trash can and my correction notice said "Trash cans
must be COMPLETELY hidden from public view". My neighbor, the MAYOR of this city has built a lattice
fence to hide her cans. First ofl I can still see the cans, so if I'm getting a violation, she should get one
too. Secondly the lattice fence she built is in violation of Municipal Code section 17.16.050(b) Fences, walls
and hedges in that it is within the front yard setback and over 6 feet tall. Finally, this fence that the mayor built
blocks her garage and therefor eliminates the parking required by the municipal code table 6 of section
17.16.060 which states the required parking for single family residential is "Two spaces per dwelling. In the R-l
and C/OS zones, one space must be covered". By blocking her garage the mayor has eliminated one of two
required off street parking places and now has no covered parking.
I am fed up with this city council and I am fed up with feeling like I'm living in an HOA.
I will not tell you who I am as I live very close the mayor and I can just see her order code enforcement to drive
by my house daily and I already live in a constant state of fear of the neighbor wellness patrol officials.
1
Page 1 of I
(r z u" t6c>$ 4,?--g.slTcê \ Te ( u, h. tr-t-t ¡ ìt[ Þ . ü t¿-òPà € A]l
I live in The Meadows area - encompassing Mariposa, Praderas and Chuparrosa streets in San Luis Obispo. ln biking in this area
yesterday, out of curiosity, I counted 23 houses where garbage cans were clearly visible from the middle of the street, Does the city have
any plans to enforce this section of the SLO Municipal Code in my neighborhood in the near future?
Thank you.
Thomas Keating
75 Chuparrosa
Mav 10.2013
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
RECEIVED
l'lAY I 4 2û13
SLO CITY CLERK
Maj¿oL,
City Manager-
Community Development Office-
It's been a while since I sent this ernail regarding the non-enforcement of this city oi'dinance,so I hereby submit a 'progress'repoft. i rocJe
thru my neighborhood yesterday afternoon and counted 32 residences w¡th one or more garbage containers visible from the street. One
residence (my immediate neighbor at 73 Chuparrosa) wins the prize with all three garbage containers visible, plus in recent weeks he has
added an old wheel barrow, a childs bike, a gas-powered lawn mower, a metal and plastic Christmastree stand and a crumpled plastictarp
to his collection of debris on the east side of his house, fully visible to me and everyone else in the neighborhood. With this kind of progress,
I can only imagine what I'll be able to include in my subsequent repofts to the city.
Does the city plan on enforcing its ordinance anytime soon? lf the city is unable or unwilling to enforce this ordinance, are there plans to
repeal it?
-Iba¡k You, ..';7;;;"* 4^ / t
Thomas Keating J
thomas.keating@asu.edu
75 Ghuparrosa, SLO
480-77+0342
https:llmaiL google.com lmaillul0lhtml/compose/static_files/blank_quirks.html 5lt0l20t3
Goodwi Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Grimes, Maeve
Monday, May 20,20L3 8:08 AM
Goodwin, Heather
FW:ltem SSL, Neighborhood Wellness Update
SS1 - Neighborhood Wellness Update.doc
R VED
lvlAY 2 0 2013
CT
AGENDAHeather, please distribute as Agenda Correspondence for SSL
Thank you,
mÀeve kenneòy cìprme,s
City Clerk
crty of sÀn lurs oßtspo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340L
phone., (805) 781-7102
emârL, mgrimes@slocitv.org
From : Sandra Rowley Imailto: macsar99@yahoo,com]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:14 AM
To: Max, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan
Cc: Lichtig, Katie; Grimes, Maeve
Subject: Item SS1, Neighborhood Wellness Update
Attached is RQN's letter regarding SS1, Neighborhood Wellness Update.
c
Date
1
Residents for Sualtty Nelghboilroods
P.O. Box 12604 . San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
May 20, 20L3
RE: ltem SSL, Neighborhood Wellness Update
Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the Council,
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods appreciates the dedication, time and energy that have been
applied to improving the overall quality of life in our residential neighborhoods. We thank each
City staff member who has contributed to the effort, singly and as a team, to bring us to where we
are today. Although we are not "there" yet, and some tweaking may be necessary, many RQN
members can see improvements where none existed before.
There are many positive aspects to the past year's code enforcement activities: a. Replacing SNAP
with Neighborhood Services Specialists has resulted in significantly more improvements in
property maintenance, to include properties belonging to out-of-town owners; b. The
adjudication of identified safety violations by Code Enforcement Officers has added a new
dimension to code enforcement's abilities; c. The addition of a weekend Parking Officer
dedicated to residential neighborhoods has provided a much needed presence, especially in
impacted neighborhoods where vehicles park wherever they can fit, regardless of propriety.
Overall, proactive code enforcement has proven beneficial. Prior to the implementation of
proactive enforcement, all enforcement was complaint-driven; in many instances this pitted
neighbor against neighbor as neighbor #L tried to determine who had turned him in. With
proactive enforcement one's neighbors are not to blame. Although Board members have heard
some complaints regarding proactive enforcement, we have, also, heard that it relieves tensions
between neighbors. We think problems associated with proactive enforcement can be resolved,
and this method of enforcement should be retained.
ln the last few years the Police Department has brought forward new ordinances and changes to
existing ordinances in order to improve their ability to respond to and curtail the abundance of
noise violations and improve neighborhood quality of life. On March 5,20L0 (about three months
before the end of the school year), fines for noise violations were more than tripled and landlord
citations were added. On May 20, 2OIO, the Unruly Gathering Ordinance was adopted to address
large parties that affected a substantial part of a neighborhood; fines were higher than for noise
violations and landlords were, again, subject to fines. The Safety Enhancement Zone, adopted for
Mardi Gras, was expanded to include other holidays and, hopefully, will be further expanded to
include Cal Poly's move-in and first weeks of school.
Noise complaints began to decrease in mid-20L0, with noticeable decreases in 20LL (the first full
year of higher fines) and 2012. See chart on page SS1-8. Also, in 2012 the citation rate increased
to L4%o, four percentage points higher than the previous year and twice the citation rate of 2009.
RQN letter,Page2
It seems that our fines are now high enough to make an impact and many landlords are engaged.
Therefore, it is our belief that in order to continue the decrease in noise complaints we must
increase the citation rate, i.e., if the pool of people receiving fines were larger, the number of
noise complaints would be smaller. Additionally, p€rJeffrey Armstrong's letter of May 8, 20L3, Re:
Neighborhood Wellness lnitiative, in "implementing more proactive procedures to respond to off-
campus violations" Cal Poly is "particularly focused on responding to incidents where students
have been formally charged with violations." We understand this to mean 'no citation, no
intervention by Cal Poly.'
Unfortunately, this update on Neighborhood Wellness did not include a discussion of the items
listed in our RQN letter of January 6,20L3, that fall under Public Works. Some of these items
were, also, listed within the Measure Y ballot initiative. They include such things as repair of
potholes and sidewalks in residential neighborhoods on an as-needed basis, cleaning and
maintenance of culverts in residential neighborhoods, and a solution that would allow street
sweepers access to the gutters in those residential neighborhoods heavily impacted by on-street
parking.
We were disappointed that none of these items were addressed duringthe budget review, but at
the time we thought they were probably being covered with in-house resources. However, it now
appears that they were not mentioned because a plan to address them in the 20L3-L5 budget
cycle is not currently in existence. Since Neighborhood Wellness was the #2 Major City Goal, this
seems to be an oversight.
Thank you for your time and attention and the opportunity to provide our comments.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson