HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-10-2012 B2 Johnson2RECEIVED
council mcmoizAn U ° 2012 PRK
-- --- — — AGENDA -.,�.-.� --
April 2012 CORRESPONDENCE hard
p cr► cr,;d;,
Date ' 40 Item #��. p COUNCIL pFITP .
p CITY MdR p FIT I'�
TO: City Council
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Dev ,pment Director
C
Via: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
SUBJECT: Code Enforcement Update — Coun Member Questions
p ASST CM
p FIRE.
p ATTORNEY
p FWD;,
p CLERKIORIG
p POLIC.
• P1B
p PARKS a
• TRIBUNE
p UTIL DL
p NEW TIM
p HR DIR
p SLO CITY NEWS
p COUNCIL
p CITYMOR
p CLERK
Councilman Carter had several questions related to the Code Enforcement Update on the April
10, 2012 agenda — Item B2.
1) What are the origins or basis of the following fees -- $261 appeal fee, $314 code
enforcement fee, and $314 cost recovery fee?
a. $261 appeal fee. This is the planning services appeal fee. It was originally
established at $250 during the 2009 -11 budget cycle and has increased by cost of
living adjustments (COLA) since its time of adoption. It is intended to establish a
fee rate that does not act as a deterrent for appealing Director or advisory body'
decisions, yet the amount collected helps recover a portion of the processing
costs.
b. The $314 code enforcement fee is also known as the Code Enforcement Cost
Recovery Fee. This fee was originally established with the 2003 -05 budget cycle
it is intended to recover some costs associated with on -going efforts to resolve
code enforcement cases. Originally established at $264 with annual CPI
increases, this fee was calculated by estimating the staff time to intake, investigate
notify, and follow -up on activities associated with case managing a code violation
Based on Resolution 9558 (2004 Series), staff collects this fee when the Notice of
Violation is sent to a property owner. The Notice of Violation is the second
notice sent to property owners and it is only sent after the owner has been given
reasonable time (i.e. typically 10 days) to resolve code enforcement issue after
receiving a Notice to Correct.
2) Can you provide me with a list of the code violations which will be covered under this
process or direct me to the relevant parts of the Muni Code where I can find those
violations?
Administrative Citations can be assessed for a violation of any Municipal Code Section
or any other codes or standards (i.e. Building, Plumbing, and Fire Codes) that the City
adopts by reference. These include the following:
i. Construction and Fire Safety Codes. Title 15
ii. Zoning Title 17
iii. Engineering Standards. Chapter 10.08
Insert Report Title Page 2
iv.
Business Licenses.
Chapter 5.01 et seq.
v.
Stormwater Regulations
Chapter 12.08 et seq.
vi.
Tree Regulations
Chapter 12.24 et seq.
vii.
Historic Preservation Ordinance
Chapter 14.01 et seq.
viii.
Creeks, Tributaries, and Riparian Corridor Regs.
Chapter 12.23 et seq.
ix.
Safety Enhancement Zones
Chapter 9.22 et seq.
x.
Unruly Gatherings
Chapter 9.13 et seq.
A
Smoking Prohibited and Secondhand Smoke
Chapter 8.16 et seq.
3) Could Council legally decide that certain violations should be proactively enforced, but
other violations reactively enforced? If legal, what would be the operational difficulties
of doing so?
a. While it is possible, it is not advisable to try to list each and every code section to
reactively and proactively enforce. While some minor violations may seem
inconsequential on an individual basis, when concentrated in neighborhoods and
combined with other violations in total, they can negatively impact
neighborhoods.
The legislative effort required to agree upon and then enforce this list would
challenging. The end result is Neighborhood Wellness; enforcement is one of the
tools to arrive at this outcome. Public education and outreach is the primary tool
to achieve this outcome. There is a general rule in code enforcement call the
"Tough 10 % "; meaning that 90% of cases are resolved by a simple Notice to
Correct with no enforcement action required and it is the 10% that require full
enforcement tools to gain compliance.
Managing code enforcement is an administrative act, much of which lies outside
the particular language of the regulations being implemented. Within a code
enforcement operation, many elements of implementation are based on prudent
judgment and discretion.
Staff s recommendation is to provide discretion to staff and continue the practice
of employing prudent judgment in identifying the type of violations that should be
sedulously enforced. While identifying code violations to proactively or
reactively enforce is administratively possible; the exact nature, circumstances of
each case are varied enough for similar violations that field discretion is the
preferred enforcement decision making model. Staffs recommendation is to
afford staff the discretionary enforcement decision making capacity based on the
individual and cumulative significance and circumstances of each case.
File path