HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-21-2017 Item 10 - Code Enforcement Priorities
Meeting Date: 11/21/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Anne Schneider, PE, Chief Building Official
SUBJECT: CODE ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation, take public testimony, and provide direction to staff regarding:
1. Overall code enforcement priorities to guide the allocation of staff time and other
resources in the Building and Safety Division of the Community Development
Department (CDD); and
2. Direction regarding the use of enforcement tools - such as recorded notices of violation
and increased and new fees and fines - to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
code enforcement activities; and
3. The scope and priority of a Safe Housing Outreach and Education Program for landlords
and tenants; and
4. Additional program activities and enhancements to pursue as resources permit.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
This report includes a variety of recommendations related to the City’s Code Enforcement
Program. Public input received during previous public forums, and during the outreach process
for this effort, support an ongoing focus on safe housing through educational efforts and a
voluntary Safe Housing Education and Outreach Program. Additional enforcement tools,
including increased fines, are recommended to improve the effectiveness of code enforcement
activities. In addition, staff has identified the costs and resources needed to more adequately
address a range of other code enforcement priorities (e.g. vacation rentals, business license
compliance, plastic straws upon request enforcement) as resources permit.
The specific recommendations included in this report are:
1. Update code enforcement priorities (Attachment A).
2. Increase use of the “special investigation fee,” which doubles the inspection cost of a
building permit when construction is permitted after the fact.
3. Increase fines for Title 8, 15 and 17 violations to achieve better compliance, as follows:
Packet Pg 151
10
Adjustment Potential Impact
Increase the base fine amount $100, $200, $500 to $100, $500, $1,000
Double unpaid fines after 30 days $100 citation is $200 if unpaid at 30 days
Repeat violations by same owner, whether
same or different property
Double base fine amount
4. Increase use of recording notices of violation on a property’s title to support due
diligence efforts of prospective property owners and help ensure that code enforcement
cases are not passed from one property owner to another without notice or resolution.1
5. Direct staff to further evaluate a Safe Housing Education and Outreach Program and
return with a proposal and necessary budget amendments for implementation as part of
the 2018-19 Financial Plan Supplement.
6. Direct staff to allocate appropriate resources to address additional workload associated
with third-party contracts in effect to identify businesses operatin g without a license and
illegal vacation rentals.
7. Direct staff to allocate appropriate resources to enforce new City regulations including
the ban on polystyrene use and sales, plastic straws upon request, and prohibition of
plastic bottles and single-use cups on City property.
The direction provided by the City Council on code enforcement priorities will allow CDD to
assign available resources to the most important issues of concern to the Council and
community. The recommendations in this report are intended to minimize the fiscal impact
associated with new code enforcement activities. As discussed in the report, some initiatives –
such as the Safe Housing Education and Outreach Program – will not be able to be implemented
immediately and will be addressed as part of the budget process for the 2018-19 Financial Plan
Supplement, or the 2019-21 Financial Plan.
DISCUSSION
Background
Following the repeal of the Rental Housing Inspection Program (RHIP), staff was directed to
evaluate opportunities to promote safe housing in the community without the use of mandatory
inspections. In addition, the repeal of the program resulted in changes to the Building and Safety
Division’s organizational structure. This item is intended to provide the City Council with an
opportunity to provide direction for code enforcement in the City, which will give staff the
opportunity to organize the division, assign resources, and prioritize workload to achieve
Council’s objectives.
1 Code enforcement officers will often hear complaints from property owners that they “bought the property” with
the violation and, therefore, they shouldn’t be responsible for the violation. While a person’s level of culpability will
play into how the case is enforced, the fact that a person purchased a property with a violation does not absolve the
new property owner’s responsibility to fix the violation.
Packet Pg 152
10
Currently, there are four full-time staff in the Code Enforcement Program of CDD’s Building
and Safety Division. Two Code Enforcement Officers, and two Code Enforcement Technicians
(also called Neighborhood Services Officers) provide complaint-based and pro-active services,
respectively.
These four employees currently receive supervision directly from the Chief Building Official and
the Community Development Director. Support for code enforcement activities is also provided
by the Building and Safety Supervisor, and the Principal Planner. Depending on the direction of
the City Council regarding priorities for the program, a new organizational structure will be
developed, as resources permit.
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with sufficient background information,
including feedback from the public, to provide policy direction for code enforcement. This is
proposed to be accomplished through the approval of program priorities and new enforcement
tools. Once the priorities are in place, a new organizational structure can be implemented to
effectively accomplish program objectives.
Traditional Code Enforcement Activities
The core services provided by Code Enforcement Officers focus on the resolution of complex
and technically challenging issues. These issues typically require a high degree of technical
expertise and investment of time to find equitable and achievable solutions.
Code Officers investigate a wide variety of potential violations, including:
• construction activity without proper permits,
• unsafe buildings,
• unsafe living conditions,
• hoarding conditions, and
• compliance with use permit conditions and property development and
maintenance standards.
Officers also perform inspections in conjunction with Fire Prevention staff for annual Sorority
and Fraternity housing inspections, and downtown bar occupancy safety checks.
In their day to day activity, officers investigate and work to resolve complex issues such as a
change of occupancy effected by a new business moving in without the required permits and
approvals. They also investigate tenant complaints related to safe housing, respond to certain
noise complaints, and monitor the City’s code enforcement hotline (805-594-8188) and
complaints received via the City’s website (www.slocity.org/codeenforcement).
Overall, these violations take time to resolve. The most effective resolution is rarely self-evident,
and time is necessary to identify and coordinate a response. At all times, the objective is to move
the property towards compliance as quick and as economically as possible. Nevertheless,
resolving a violation can require substantial time and money by the property owner, which
creates a very challenging dynamic when the property owner has limited resources to deal with
the problem. This requires that code enforcement officers work closely with the complainant, the
potential violator, and staff in other City programs (e.g. building inspectors, fire inspectors,
Packet Pg 153
10
planners) to identify the best solution. Community-based code enforcement takes time and
attention to help a property owner through the necessary processes and requirements. In this
context, clear priorities enable CDD management to allocate staff time in a manner that ensures
limited resources are applied to the community’s most important code enforcement problems.
Neighborhood Services
The City of San Luis Obispo has been engaged in Neighborhood Wellness activities since the
passage of the first Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance (“NEO”) in 1995. Neighborhood
Wellness is the coordinated effort on the part of the City and the community to evaluate, develop
and implement initiatives that support the health, well-being and vitality of the neighborhoods
that make up our community.
Neighborhood Wellness brings together residents, visitors, businesses, and institutions who have
a shared interest in making San Luis Obispo a special place to live, work and visit.
Neighborhood Wellness has been a Major City Goal or Other Important Objective in five of the
past seven financial plans, with the goal of improving neighborhood quality and engagement.
Neighborhood Services can be distinguished from other code enforcement activities in that it is
proactive. Code Enforcement Technicians are responsible for routine patrols in neighborhoods
and business districts throughout the City to identify violations, then contact residents, property
owners, and business owners as the case may be, and work to resolve those violations. They are
looking for exterior maintenance issues such as parking on the lawn, furniture on the roof, trash
cans in the street and overgrown weeds.
Overall Workload Measures
The current workload2 covered by code enforcement staff is illustrated in the following table.
Avg. per month Active Cases Requests Rec’d Cases Closed New Cases
2 Code Officers
1st Qtr 2017 124 24 14 18
2nd Qtr 2017 139 17 14 14
3rd Qtr 2017 141 24 8 9
2 Code Technicians
1st Qtr 20173 57 16 69 77
2nd Qtr 2017 49 26 84 73
3rd Qtr 2017 49 38 53 40
*- One position vacant until Mar 2017
Measuring Success
Staff recommends the development of performance measures to gauge the effectiveness of code
enforcement activities. For example, the International City Management Association maintains a
2 Although this metric is helpful, it should be emphasized that, in terms of assessing true workload, the reality is that
some more complicated code enforcement cases take a considerable amount of time and resour ces (i.e. hoarding
cases) and others are relatively straightforward (i.e. fence height violation).
3 One position vacant until March 2017
Packet Pg 154
10
set of performance measures. A few examples of these measures are listed here.
1. Average calendar days, inspection to forced compliance
2. Average calendar days, inspection to voluntary compliance
3. Percentage of cases resolved through forced compliance
4. Total cases available for resolution during the reporting period.
To accomplish this type of measurement, investment in the Energov module specific to code
enforcement is required. It is anticipated that a contract will be necessary to provide
programming that cannot be done in-house at a cost of $10,000, which can be funded utilizing
existing department resources. With the implementation of an integrated workflow, individual
activities and process results can be recorded and extracted for reporting as performance
measures. This will result in considerable time savings over the hand collection and tabul ation of
data that is currently required. In the end, this small investment will allow officers to handle
some of the additional workload identified in this report.
Proposed Priorities
The following table summarizes proposed code enforcement priorities, including a few
examples. A more exhaustive classification of priorities is attached (Attachment A).
Timeframe for Response Activities/Situations Covered
Priority 1:
Immediate Response
• Dangerous Buildings
• Dangerous Utilities or Materials
• Examples include car accidents that damage a building,
structure fires or assessment after an earthquake,
unpermitted construction that poses an immediate public
safety risk to occupants or surrounding properties.
Priority 2:
24 Hour Response
• Active construction without a permit
• Substandard housing- no water, heat, unsafe use
• Illegal/Unsafe sewage/electrical/gas/discharge/dumping
• Unsecured buildings- accessible to unauthorized persons
• Public Nuisance- refrigerator with doors on left outside
• Unsafe Occupancy
Priority 3:
48 Hour Response
• Illegal/Unpermitted construction (completed)
• Garage conversion/non-habitable space used for
occupancy/commercial use in residential space/zone
• Grading without a permit
• Interior infestation of vermin
• Unsafe Occupancy- i.e. living in commercial building
Priority 4:
72 Hour Response
• Noise and odor violations
• Business License/TOT/Vacation Rentals
• Polystyrene/Straws/Water bottles
Packet Pg 155
10
• Signs
• Animals & waste
• Fence heights & locations
• Exterior infestation of vermin
Priority 4 (Proactive):
72 Hour Response
Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance (NEO) violations:
• Overgrown weeds
• Visible storage/abandoned vehicles/furniture on roof
• Front yard parking
• Screening of refuse containers
• Graffiti
• Premise identification
Priority 4 (Complaint
only): 72 Hour Response
Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance (NEO) violations:
• Front yard paving
• Fences
• Deteriorated Paint
• Parking lots
• Planning Permit violations
• Deteriorated pavement or pathways on private property
The City’s ability to have an effective code enforcement program requires alignment between the
priorities, the resources available to address code violations, and enforcement tools applied
consistent with the priorities (e.g. stop work orders, orders to vacate unsafe buildings, liens and
notices recorded against a property, citations and fines for specific violations). Once the
priorities are established, the tools for resolving violations can be effectively implemented. To
the extent that additional issues may be added to this list, the response times may need to be
extended to continue to enforce all codes currently under the program’s responsibility.
Tools for Resolving Code Enforcement Violations
Staff works daily with property owners and tenants to identify and achieve resolution of
violations of the municipal code. It is normally much easier to resolve a code enforcement
violation in the moment than one that is uncovered years later. When a code violation such as
construction without a permit is discovered in progress, it is normally straight-forward to resolve.
The facts are easier to ascertain, and property owners are normally willing to cooperate to either
remove the unpermitted construction or submit plans so that a permit can be issued.
The construction codes adopted by the State change about every three years and include
provisions that require the use of the most current code for any building permit issued. This
means that work done without a permit in 2009 cannot receive a construction permit today under
the codes in effect in 2009, it must comply with the code in effect on the date of the permit
application, regardless of when the work was actually done. This requirement of the building
code can make it especially difficult to correct a code violation after the fact because in some
instances, a new code renders the previous work obsolete even when the prior work was done “to
Packet Pg 156
10
code” at the time. The Building Code does not authorize the City to issue “retroactive” permits.
Code enforcement cases are discovered though a variety of ways other than direct complaints
from the community. Sometimes they come up when a property is researched by a resident,
owner or realtor. Other cases are discovered during routine safety inspections such as business
inspections and bar checks conducted during operating hours to understand operational safety
issues like overcrowding. And some are found incidentally by staff working in the community
performing other tasks such as neighborhood parking enforcement, investigation of official
police complaints, and other business activities of the City.
In most cases, the Administrative Citation Process (Attachment B) is the primary tool that is used
to communicate with the property owner, identify the corrections that need to occur and establish
the penalties associated with non-compliance. This procedure relies on noticing, education, and
face to face contact to avoid the need to escalate a problem to a citation and fine whenever
possible. The property owner can contest the City’s allegation of a code violation us ing a multi-
part appeal process. The appeal process for disputing the alleged violation is spelled out in
Section 1.24 of the City’s Municipal Code and includes a review by the Department Head
(“Director’s Determination”), and progresses to a review by a hearing officer, administrative
review board or the Construction Board of Appeal (CBOA) as specified. There is also a process
for court action that the property owner may elect. Any changes directed to the Administrative
Citation Process will be brought to Council for implementation at a later date.
The following discussion addresses timeframes and fine amounts, which staff recommends
modifying to achieve better compliance. In addition, staff is recommending more consistent and
regular use of the process of recording notices of violation so that existing code enforcement
cases that are not corrected are identified on the property title to notify future owners in advance
of acquiring a property with outstanding code violations.
1. Administrative Citation Process
A City is authorized to develop an administrative citation process per Government Code section
53069.4. If a notice of violation is issued and there is no response, or the property owner
responds but is unwilling to make the required corrections even after a formal appeal is denied,
then code enforcement officers have the discretion to issue an administrative citation to achieve
compliance. Citations are issued as a written letter and are posted at the building site and sent by
regular and certified mailing. The citations are due to be paid within 10 days. A property owner
has the right to appeal a citation. There is currently no explicit penalty for failure to pay within
10 days, however, a subsequent citation for an increased amount can be issued at the expiration
of that 10-day period after staff confirms that the violation still exists. Eventually, a violation that
is ignored could result in daily citations, however, most cases are resolved before getting to this
point, or the underlying problems are financial in nature making fines an ineffective method to
achieve compliance.
Sometimes code violations are resolved, but the citations remain unpaid. Unpaid citations at least
60 days past due can be annually processed for collection through the property tax rolls. Each
May the Council approves the forwarding of a list of unpaid citations to the County Assessor’s
Packet Pg 157
10
office for inclusion in the subsequent years’ property tax billing and staff recommends
continuing with this process.
NEO Violations
The majority of citations issued are for Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance (SLOMC 17.17)
violations. Citations for property maintenance violations under SLOMC 17.17 such as yard
parking or furniture on the roof and as further detailed in Exhibit A, are issued in three amounts.
NEO Citations Minimum Timing Amount
1st Citation 10 days after notice $50.00
2nd Citation 10 days after 1st citation $100.00
3rd Citation 10 days after 2nd citation $200.00
Repeat within 12 months Immediate issuance Restart @ 1st citation
As a number of these violations occur at rental properties that are in the control of the tenant and
are related to behaviors (e.g. unscreened trash cans, parking on the lawn), staff ensures that both
the tenant and the property owner are fully aware of the violations. Posting at the site and
mailing to the owner accomplishes the notification goal.
Building, Health and Safety, and Zoning Code Violations
Citations issued by the code staff for violations of the codes adopted by SLOMC Title 15,
portions of SLOMC Title 8 and those SLOMC Title 17 zoning code violations exclusive of
SLOMC 17.17 are currently issued in three amounts.
Building Code Citations Minimum Timing Amount
1st Citation 10 days after notice $100.00
2nd Citation 10 days after 1st citation $200.00
3rd Citation 10 days after 2nd citation $500.00
Repeat within 12 months Immediate issuance Restart @ 1st citation
SLOMC Title 8 is the Health and Safety code for the city and includes the regulations for
expanded polystyrene, offensive odors, plastic water bottles and plastic straw regulations.
SLOMC Title 17 is the zoning code crafted and adopted by the City and regulates the use and
construction of property in the City. SLOMC Title 15 includes the following State adopted codes
as modified for local use:
California Building Code California Energy Code
California Residential Code California Green Building Standards
Californian Fire Code California Historical Code
California Electrical Code California Existing Building Code
California Mechanical Code 2016 International Property Maintenance Code
California Plumbing Code 1997 Uniform Housing Code
1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings
Packet Pg 158
10
2. Increasing Fines to Achieve Better Compliance
During previous discussions of how code enforcement could be more effective in achieving
compliance with standards for safe housing in the community, several suggestions were made to
enhance the citation process to deter illegal construction and expedite resolution of code
enforcement cases. Of course, citations are not issued until after initial contact has failed to elicit
an appropriate response and the time for the property owner to address the issues covered in the
citation have been exhausted.
Staff is not recommending an increase to fines for NEO violations because outreach and
educational efforts, proactive patrols, and the fine amounts currently levied appear to be
successful in achieving compliance in these areas. However, the issue of illegal construction is
prevalent in the community and increased fines are appropriate for the City Council to consider
as a way to deter violations and assess an appropriate penalty when violations occur.
The recommended fine increases for building code violations include:
Adjustment Potential Impact
Increase the base fine amount $100, $200, $500 to $100, $500, $1000
Double unpaid fines at 30 days $100 citation is $200 if unpaid at 30 days
Repeat violations by same owner, whether
same or different property
Double base fine amount
Repeat of a violation within one year at a specific property may be cited without any warning
period under the current regulations. Staff has noted that this would be a more effective tool if a
property owner who repeats a violation at a second separate property could be cited immediately.
The City of Fresno has found that an owner who performs construction work without a permit in
one location may also conduct unpermitted construction on other properties they own. The
ability to cite immediately at a higher rate would hold the property owner accountable for all
work performed without a permit within one year of a violation. Staff is recommending this
change as an additional tool to help deter repeat violations.
In addition to these fees, the building codes adopted by the City provide the authority to charge a
“special investigation fee” equal to double the inspection fee for any permit issued for
construction after the fact (i.e. to resolve a code enforcement violation). Staff currently uses this
tool infrequently, but intends to make this an automatic fee that would apply in all cases where
the permit is covering construction done in the past. This fee covers the extra effort required to
inspect work after the work is completed, which can be far more complex than inspecting while
the work is in progress and readily available for observation. In addition, since January 2017, a
fixed code enforcement fee of $345.12 is charged to some cases to cover a portion of the costs
associated with the investigation and management of the code enforcement case and collected
with the building permit. Regular implementation of these fees is expected to improve cost
recovery for the program and deter violations.
Packet Pg 159
10
3. Recording the Notice of Violation
In some cases, citations are not appropriate (e.g. when a code violation is inherited through the
acquisition of a property). In other cases, financial hardship may be a contributing factor and
citations do not motivate the property to comply or have the opposite impact of creating financial
hardship that impairs the ability to make corrections. An alternate resolution methodology exists
that allows violations that are not an imminent health and safety threat to be resolved at a later
date. Recording the notice of violation against the title of the property is recommended in these
cases because it gives staff the ability to “triage” the problem and avoid wasting time working
towards compliance on a matter that is not a health and safety priority.
The notice is recorded with the County Recorders’ Office, which acts as an alert to anyone
performing due diligence prior to purchasing a property. At the time of purchase of a property,
most financing agencies (banks, credit unions, savings and loans, etc.) require that these types of
notices be removed from title before providing financing. This has the added benefit of
compelling compliance at a time when the property owner can provide sufficient resources to
correct the violation in question. It also removes the argument that the property owner did not
know about a code violation if they went forward with a property purchase despite the notice.
A variety of typical code enforcement cases are appropriate for recording a notice, including:
• Expired building permit- no life safety concerns
• Unpermitted construction- no life safety concerns
• Unresolved/open code cases
• RHIP violation cases- no life safety concerns
• Properties listed for sale with life safety violations
With the notice recorded and appropriate due diligence performed, a new owner has knowledge
of existing code violations and is free to assume that obligation if they choose, or to require the
violation to be resolved prior to purchase of the property. There may be circumstances where the
seller will not resolve the violations, but the buyer is willing to assume the liability voluntarily.
In that case, the City would work with the new property owner to accomplish compliance
through an abatement agreement. This can be helpful in a case where the violations are
significant and require a large investment in construction costs to resolve the violations. The new
owner purchases the property knowing the scope of violations to be resolved and is typically
better able to reach resolution in a timely fashion. Further, the new owner may be in a better
position to finance the improvements with the purchase of the property.
Overall, staff is recommending that the City Council provide direction to more fully utilize the
process to record notices of violation for appropriate code enforcement cases. If this direction is
supported by the City Council, staff will return with the appropriate implementing ordinances
and resolutions. Staff will use the priorities established by Council to prioritize the handling of
these notices, starting with the RHIP cases, as there are a significant number that need to be
processed. There is a substantial effort associated with identifying and recording the notices
initially, but this is a more productive use of staff time than pursuing an owner unwilling or
unable to immediately resolve the violation. This change in practice is expected to be an
efficiency measure overall that will result in greater compliance over time, particularly as
Packet Pg 160
10
property’s change hands. This effort is expected to generate additional short-term workload of
approximately .25 FTE, and on-going net additional workload of 0.05 FTE.
4. Other Tools for Resolving Code Enforcement Violations
In addition to the tools mentioned above, the City has other options at its disposal to address
municipal code violations. A violation of the City’s Municipal Code can be charged as either a
misdemeanor or an infraction. Some violations can only be filed as an infraction. Historically,
the City has not used criminal enforcement as a code enforcement tool for violations of Title s 15
or 17 of the Municipal Code, however, the option exists. In addition, the City Attorney’s office
can file a civil complaint for nuisance abatement, which can include injunctive relief – such as a
restraining order. For more immediate and dangerous conditions, the City may file a court action
seeking the appointment of a receiver, which the City has utilized on a few occasions with
demonstrable success.
Proposed Safe Housing Program
During public input on the RHIP repeal, there were many suggestions made about how an
effective safe housing program could be structured without a mandatory inspection component.
The ideas range from cooperative efforts to provide access to legal service for tenants to focused
and enhanced investigation of complaints. Finding the right balance within the resources
available, and making an effective investment in safe housing is the delicate balance to be
achieved.
Staff has identified two options that the City Council may wish to pursue with the goal of
improving the safety and quality of the City’s rental housing stock.
1. Education, including referrals and transparency of information through increased
availability of city records online.
2. Voluntary inspection and certificate program, with options for the inspection to be
performed by the City or a third-party, and including a self-certification option.
Both approaches are recommended to establish an effective program to support safe housing in
the community. Funding and staffing for implementation of the selected program features would
be brought forward consistent with the Fiscal Health Response Plan discussions as part of the FY
18/19 supplemental budget.
1. Education, including referrals and transparency of information
There are several opportunities to provide greater transparency and to educate the public in the
area of safe housing. One of the goals of the education program should be to engage and involve
community members as ambassadors to those that need to understand the basic requirements of
safe housing so that they can make informed decisions. The minimum standards of safe housing
are concepts that are familiar and easily communicated to those that want to learn.
There are many successful programs that use a “train the trainer” model of education to
distribute information to a network of people who are capable of outreach to a wider population
Packet Pg 161
10
base in the community. Opportunities exist to identify and educate ambassadors in a variety of
groups, including Cal Poly students, Cuesta students, the Chamber of Commerce, and U40, as
well as interest groups like the Realtors Association and the local American Institute of
Architects chapter. Development of an education model that can be flexible for different
audiences and addresses the needs of tenants, landlords, home buyers and sellers can be
accomplished with a relatively minor investment. The goal of the education effort would be to
empower residents to protect their own interests by giving them tools to appropriately engage in
the housing marketplace.
Transparency of information is another key aspect of this approach. The City of San Luis Obispo
previously offered permit history online, but over the past few years that functionality was
removed from the website pending implementation of the City’s new permitting software. That
work has now been completed and public access to permit history is being restored to the City’s
website. By providing access to information about properties, empowered tenants can review and
make more informed decisions when choosing a property for their home.
Development of Educational Materials
Item Audience Timeframe Other Costs
Safe Housing Brochure Residents 450 staff hours $10,000
PowerPoint
Presentations
Renters, property managers,
social groups
100 staff hours $1,000
Website with links to
external resources
General public- all audiences 200 staff hours, ongoing
maintenance
$1,000
TOTAL COST 0.40 FTE $12,000
In total, staff estimates the cost of startup of the information and education component of the
program to be $12,000 in one-time printing and equipment costs and approximately 5 months of
full time effort to develop the program materials, rework the inspection program materials to
provide a guidebook for performing a self-certification inspection, share those materials for
public feedback and testing of effectiveness, and printing the materials for the educational effort.
The workload associated with this effort would be approximately .4 FTE.
2. Voluntary inspection and certification program
Providing the public information that they can use to evaluate the quality of housing offered for
rent can be augmented by a voluntary safe housing certification program. There are a variety of
ways to implement a certificate program that would help renters locate safe housing, and help
property owners and managers attract educated tenants. Such a program may be offered in
different ways. For instance:
1. The City can provide a program that allows landlords to receive an inspection of their
property by a city staff member with certification issued by the City. The program
would be operated on a cost-recovery basis. Staff would be involved in managing the
program and providing the field inspections.
2. Alternatively, the City may be able to contract with a third-party to perform
inspections if there are concerns about the City entering and inspecting the property.
Packet Pg 162
10
A city-issued certificate could still be the outcome if the City pre-qualified the
inspector. Staff would be involved in managing the program and managing and
approving the third-party inspectors.
3. A program can be developed that allows a landlord to self-certify without prior
verification by the City, but the certification would have to include an inspection
report with joint signatures by the tenant and landlord to demonstrate compliance
with the minimum habitability standards established by the State. Staff would be
involved in managing the program and conducting spot verifications of the self-
certifications to maintain the integrity of the program.
Staff estimates the cost of startup of the inspection and certification portion of the program to be
similar to the education component, with $12,000 in printing and equipment costs and
approximately 6 months of full time effort to develop the program materials. The workload
associated with this effort is expected to be approximately .6 FTE, although this varies
depending on the option chosen. If the City Council is interested in prioritizing this effort, staff
would recommend the conversion of an existing Neighborhood Services Officer (Code
Enforcement Technician I) to a Safe Housing Specialist (Code Enforcement Technician II)
position. Ultimately, such a proposal will have to be developed in conjunction with the City’s
Fiscal Health Response Plan and staff would return to the City Council with an implementation
plan in conjunction with the 2018-19 Financial Plan Supplement. In total, the cost estimate for
implementing a safe housing program would be $24,000 in one-time costs, and $10,000 in
ongoing costs associated with the conversion of an existing position to this new role.
Other Program Activities to Prioritize as Resources Permit
The following activities are areas that may be appropriate and cost-effective areas for code
enforcement involvement. Enforcement in these areas is either not currently managed by CDD’s
Code Enforcement Program, or resources are insufficient to perform enforcement effectively. If
the City Council is interested in accomplishing additional enforcement in these areas, direction
should be provided to staff to prioritize these areas as resources permit. This direction would
allow staff to identify the appropriate proposals and associated resources as part of future
financial planning activities.
Packet Pg 163
10
1. New Business License Enforcement Workload
The City has contracted for assistance in identifying and contacting businesses operating in the
community without a business license. Finance is currently implementing this contracting effort
with HdL Companies. It can reasonably be anticipated that some percentage of businesses
identified by these efforts will result in code enforcement cases for follow up. The City collects
business license fees when a business license application is received; however, there are
numerous reasons why a business may not be issued a business license, including due to a
pending code enforcement action. In some cases, a business may not be able to obtain approval
in the location selected because of limitations associated with the zoning of the property. In other
cases, the City and business benefit from highlighting work that needs to be done to
accommodate the new business. For example, operating a bar in a warehouse building is an
example of an operation that cannot get an “over the counter” business license in the location
selected because a building permit and zoning clearance would be required.
The impact on code enforcement of the effort to identify unlicensed businesses is unknown at
this time but is potentially significant. Currently, an educational outreach and a pilot program is
being implemented through HdL. This program involves outreach to businesses that are
identified as unlicensed. In June 2016, the Council approved the business enforcement program.
The pilot program will help the City determine if the enforcement program should include
retroactive enforcement based on data obtained by HdL. Staff will continue to evaluate this effort
and will return to Council with further recommendations if it is determined that outside business
license enforcement is not financially viable without collecting previ ously unpaid business
license fees.
2. Homestay Enforcement and Transient Occupancy Tax
Code Enforcement staff is also supporting the contract with a consultant to identify vacation
rentals operating in the community. Vacation rentals are prohibited in the City, and there is a
permit process available for Homestays (which are exclusive to owner occupied homes and so
presumably do not impact the availability of housing supply). Approximately 200-300 properties
are currently advertising short term (less than 30 day) rentals in the City, yet there are only 49
properties approved for a homestay. The City recently entered into a contract with Host
Compliance Services to identify and contact illegal vacation rentals and homestays. This is an
important work effort that is expected to drive additional resource demands on code enforcement
staff.
The primary goal of this effort is to have the properties come in to compliance with the City’s
homestay regulations. Secondarily, payment of the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is
required for any short-term rental regardless of whether or not the homestay is permitted
(vacation rentals cannot be permitted). It is a significant competitive advantage to operate a
business without paying the local taxes and not potentially adhering to applicable homestay
regulations. Code enforcement staff will assist as needed to support this effort.
Recently, the County of San Luis Obispo negotiated an agreement with Airbnb to collect TOT
taxes for properties operating as short-term rentals throughout the unincorporated County. The
Packet Pg 164
10
success of this effort has caused a group of local cities to discuss a joint effort to obtain a similar
agreement. Staff is currently in discussion with other cities about an approach to work together to
negotiate a similar agreement.
Staff recommends that all applicable TOT taxes be collected that are due under City Ordinance
regardless of whether the use is permitted or not. Paying applicable TOT taxes does not convert
an unpermitted homestay or vacation rental into a legal one. Rather, the collection of the fee
levels the playing field until such time as 1) the property is permitted, or 2) enforcement
proceedings are concluded and the property is no longer being rented as a short term rental.
It is anticipated that Host Compliance Services will be able to identify up to 300 properties that
are operating as illegal short-term rentals. Since only owner-occupied homes can be approved for
homestays, it is anticipated that most of vacation rentals identified will be unable to come into
compliance with the City’s regulations. Once the properties are identified and initial contact by
the consultant is made, all instances of non-owner-occupied vacation rentals will become code
enforcement cases for follow up by code enforcement staff. It is also likely that some of these
owner-occupied properties will not be able to meet other requirements of our Homestay
ordinance, such as parking and inability to rent detached bedrooms. These situations may lead to
additional code enforcement cases for resolution.
It is estimated that this work effort will generate approximately $50,000 in additional TOT
remittance to the City. The additional staff work associated with resulting code enforcement
cases is estimated at approximately 0.25 FTE.
3. Polystyrene, Plastic Bottles, Straws Upon Request
The City has recently moved forward with a variety of new ordinances associated with the
Climate Action Major City Goal that are important and valuable to the Council and community.
These include a ban on use and sale of expanded polystyrene products (Styrofoam), plastic
straws upon request, a ban on plastic bottles and single-use cups at City facilities and events on
City property (e.g. Mission Plaza, Farmer’s Market).
When these regulations are developed and go into effect, City staff gets “the word out” in a
variety of ways. For example, the polystyrene ban that went into effect in 2016 included outreach
through business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, news stories in the Tribune, New
Times, and on the City website, and through individual business visits. Through this process,
staff has been able to get most businesses to adopt new practices and comply with the
requirements. Over time, employees change, and enforcement of the regulations is sometimes
necessary. Code enforcement staff deals with violations to these regulations on a complaint
basis.
For example, it was recently reported that the Target began offering a variety of polystyrene
products on their shelves for sale. Once this was reported to the City, code enforcement staff
investigated the complaint by making a site visit, spoke with the store manager, and responded to
the complainant. In total, this one complaint took approximately 10 hours of code enforcement
staff time to resolve. Ongoing efforts in this area are expected to generate a workload of
Packet Pg 165
10
approximately 0.05 FTE on an annual basis.
4. Recreational Marijuana Enforcement
The scope of the City’s regulations for recreational marijuana are unknown at this time.
However, in other communities that have regulations, code enforcement plays an important role
in ensuring compliance. Locally, the County of San Luis Obispo has allocated one code
enforcement officer to work exclusively on enforcement of marijuana regulations. It is expected
that any regulatory scheme approved by the City Council would include regulatory and
administrative fees that would cover the cost of administering the program. Costs may include a
portion of an FTE (full-time equivalent) for code enforcement, as well as law enforcement
resources and other staff needed to properly implement ongoing regulations. It is clear that code
enforcement will play a role in this effort, but it is too early in the process of developing
regulations to know what the scope of that role will be. Staff expects to publish the first set of
regulations by the end of the calendar year, and to potentially adopt regulations in Spring 2018
along with the Zoning Regulations update. As part of that process, staff will recommend that cost
recovery for enforcement of marijuana regulations be included as part of any applicable
regulatory fees.
Organization and Supervision
Following the repeal of the RHIP, the position of the Code Enforcement Supervisor was
eliminated. This has created a significant challenge with respect to program oversight and
management. The supervisor role has been assumed by the Chief Building Official, and the
Community Development Director has been engaged as a resource for staff by participating in
weekly meetings and providing additional oversight for day to day decision-making.
While it may be ideal to have a working supervisor for the code enforcement program, a more
efficient alternative would be for one of the Code Enforcement Officer positions to be
reclassified as a Lead Code Enforcement Officer. Within this structure, supervision is still
exercised by the Building Official, but day to day operations are managed by the Lead.
Additional costs will be approximately $10,000 overall. The City Council does not need to
authorize this change because it would not change the number of Full Time Equivalent
employees. However, the budgetary impacts of reorganizing to accommodate workload will be
considered by the Council as part of the 2018-19 Financial Plan Supplement.
Public Engagement and Notification
The implementation and ultimate repeal of the RHIP included a substantial amount of public
engagement and notification.
Following the February 2017 workshop and the eventual repeal of the inspection program, City
staff conducted a series of individual community interviews to gather feedback and input on code
enforcement priorities and the focus of the program post-RHIP. The following word cloud was
generated from the notes that staff took during these interviews.
Packet Pg 166
10
Seventeen interviews were
conducted by members of the
public who signed up for the
opportunity to have a one on
one discussion with members
of City staff on the subject.
Exhibit D includes the list of
eight questions that were
asked. Exhibit E includes the
anonymized responses to the
questions.
In general, the responses are
supportive of the staff’s
recommendation to develop a
program that focuses on safe
housing, and prioritize code
enforcement activities and
responses related to unsafe
occupancies. The guidance
provided by Council will be
used to conduct further
outreach to the community to
fully develop a safe housing
program that meets the
community needs within the
resources available for those services.
CONCURRENCES
Community Development coordinates code en forcement activities with several other City
departments to accomplish its work program. Fire, Police, Public Works, Utilities,
Administration and the Attorney’s Office concur with the information included in this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project qualifies for a “general rule” exemption under CEQA, pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which covers activities “where it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on
the environment”. The proposed action is a policy decision regarding implementation of existing
regulations. This action does not change existing regulations, nor does it introduce the potential
for any new environmental impacts. Additionally, the enforcement of regulations is categorically
exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15321(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines,
enforcement action by regulatory agencies.
Packet Pg 167
10
FISCAL IMPACT
The current Code Enforcement program generates approximately $50,000 in citations, fines and
fee revenue annually. In addition, because of the investigations conducted by the code staff,
building permits with total costs more than $100,000 are issued annually to correct a variety of
violations. The recommendations included in this report include both enhanced revenues and
additional costs, and introduce more efficient ways of conducting the program that may free up
resources to accomplish other objectives.
Accepting all recommendations could result in a $121,000 ongoing increase to annual revenues,
a one-time cost of $72,481, and an ongoing cost of $69,189 for a total one-time cost of $72,481
and net ongoing revenue of $51,811. No new FTE are being recommended for these programs.
Resources would have to be reallocated from current efforts, or efficiencies obtained, to execute
the programs as described in the report. The following outlines the fiscal impacts associated with
the proposed code enforcement priorities. Exhibit F summarizes this information.
Positive Increases to Revenue:
1. Increasing fines for Building and Zoning Code violations – Over $21,000 per year
2. Increased use of special investigation fee (double inspection permit fees for any
permit issued after the construction has already occurred) – Over $24,000 per year
3. Increased use of Code Enforcement Fee – Over $25,000 per year
4. Increased focus on vacation rental, homestay license enforcement – Over $50,000 per
year
5. Increased business license compliance – Unknown, but potentially significant
Potential Program Expenses:
1. Safe housing education and outreach materials – approximately $12,000 and 0.4 FTE
2. Safe housing inspection program - approximately $12,000 and 0.6 FTE
3. Reclassification of one FTE to “Lead” Code Enforcement Officer - approximately
$10,000
4. Programming EnerGov software for code use - approximately $10,000
New Workload:
1. Safe housing education and outreach activities (reassign existing staff)
2. Safe housing inspection program (reassign existing staff)
3. Polystyrene, plastic bottle/cup ban, straws upon request (prioritize with existing staff)
4. Business license compliance (third-party contract expected to generate additional
workload to be accommodated by existing staff)
5. Homestay, vacation rental compliance (third-party contract expected to generate
additional workload to be accommodated by existing staff)
6. Marijuana regulations compliance (revenue and expenditure estimate not included in
this analysis)
Packet Pg 168
10
ALTERNATIVES
1. Maintain the status quo. The City Council could direct staff to not make any changes to
the current priorities and allocation of resources within the Code Enforcement Program.
This alternative is not recommended because new priorities will ensure that the division is
able to focus on the issues that are most important to the City Council and community.
2. Provide different direction to staff. The City Council may wish to pursue alternative
direction on matters such as code enforcement fines, the safe housing education and
outreach program, use of code enforcement resources for vacation rental enforcement, or
other areas covered by this report.
3. Continue consideration of this item and provide direction to staff. If additional
information is needed to make a decision, direction should be provided to staff, and the item
should be continued to a date uncertain so that additional research, public outreach, or other
work can be completed before returning to the City Council for a decision.
Attachments:
a - Code Enforcement Priorities 2017 update draft to CC
b - Distribution of workload
c - Administrative Guidelines- Resolution 10347 (2012 Series)
d - Code Enforcement Interview Questions
e - Stakeholder Meeting Responses
f - Code Priorities Chart
Packet Pg 169
10
Draft Code Enforcement Priorities
November, 2017
Attachment A
All investigations are conducted in response to a complaint, except those priorities noted as
“Proactive”. Proactive investigations are conducted as a routine part of staff’s daily workload.
Complaints are received and responded to from a variety of sources including the public, other local
agencies and city staff.
Life Safety
Hazard
Priority Response Timeframe
Critical 1 Upon receipt
Immediate 2 24 hours
Potential 3 2 Days
None 4 3 Days
Priority 1- Immediate Response- Proactive
• Buildings damaged by accident, fire or earthquake. Any structure that may fully or
partially collapse whether from damage or accident including those under active
construction. Examples include car accidents that damage a building, structure fires or
assessment after an earthquake.
• Unsafe and/or dangerous utilities or materials require a coordinated response to any
damaged utility infrastructure including water, wastewater, natural gas, propane gas,
electrical wiring, or other utilities or hazardous materials with potential to endanger the
public, including active illegal dumping. Examples include discovery of hazardous
materials improperly stored in a residential garage such as excessive amounts of gasoline,
damaged propane tanks, unknown chemical spills or abandoned unknown liquid
containers.
Priority 2- 24-hour Response
• Active construction without a permit: Immediate assessment of the hazard to the public
from unpermitted construction activity. Assessment is focused on whether the building
can remain occupied based on the nature and type of work performed
• Unsafe occupancy: Assessment of the hazard to the public from unpermitted occupancy
or activity to properly identify necessary protections to put in place. Assessment focused
on if the building can remain occupied based on the nature and type of occupancy found.
Examples include persons living in a structure not approved for occupancy as a residence,
business using equipment or materials (e.g. welding, vehicle repair) in a location not
approved and permitted for the use.
• Unsecured buildings – accessible to transients or unauthorized persons
• Substandard housing – no water, heat, living/sleeping in areas not designed for habitation
(garage/shed/crawl spaces)
• Illegal/unpermitted construction (in progress)
• Discharge of sewage
• Faulty/hazardous electrical
• Gas leaks/smell
• Hazardous waste/illicit discharge
• Public nuisances (refrigerators w/door on left outside)
• Hoarding
• Illegal dumping (in progress, otherwise Priority 4)
Packet Pg 170
10
Draft Code Enforcement Priorities
November, 2017
Attachment A
Priority 3- 48-hour Response
• Illegal/unpermitted construction (completed)
• Garage conversions/non-habitable space to residential use
• Unpermitted residential in commercial building
• Automotive repair/commercial business in residential zone
• Grading without a permit
• Interior infestation of vermin
• Minimum housing standard violations- violations of State or local codes
• Noise- operating noises from a business or conduct of an outdoor activity without a permit
due to noise limitations (example; outdoor band without a nightclub or special event permit
or conducted in violation of such a permit) Parties, loud stereos and other personal conduct
related noise violations are referred to Police Department.
Priority 4- 72-hour Response
• Living/sleeping in vehicles (on private property)
• Operating a business without a license
• Commercial Business in a residential zone
• Illegal signage
• Vacation rentals & unpermitted homestays
• Animals (chickens/roosters)
• Animal waste accumulation
• Fence height or location
• Exterior infestation of vermin
• Styrofoam sales or use
• Water bottle sales or use at City property or events
• Plastic straw use at restaurants and bars
Priority 4- 72-hour Response- NEO Proactive
• Visible storage of various materials (trash, boxes, furniture, equipment, etc.)
• Indoor furniture used outdoors
• Furniture on the roof of any kind
• Waste containers (storage/time on street)
• Parking on unapproved location or surface
• Overgrown vegetation
Priority 4- 72-hour Response- NEO Complaint only
• Abandoned/inoperable vehicles (on private property)
• Stored vehicles in front yard- cars/boats/RV’s (on private property)
• Excessive front yard paving
• Deteriorated fencing
• Graffiti or abandoned & deteriorated building
• Violations of a planning permit (CUP, Use, development or other)
Packet Pg 171
10
WORK LOAD DISTRIBUTION
2 FULL TIME CODE OFFICERS SPLITTING WORKLOAD EVENLY
EXISTING WORKLOAD *
Avg. % of
Daily Work
Priority 1 1
Priority 2 30
Priority 3 35
Priority 4 34
*See Exhibit A for detailed description of
workload inlcuded in each priority category.
% of Work
Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4
Attachment B
Packet Pg 172
10
WORK LOAD DISTRIBUTION
2 FULL TIME CODE OFFICERS SPLITTING WORKLOAD EVENLY
EXISTING WORKLOAD WITH ADDITION OF NEW ORDINANCES
Avg. % of
Daily Work
Priority 1 1
Priority 2 30
Priority 3 35
Priority 4 15 *
Business License 5
Homestay 12
PolyStyrene,etc.2
*Existing Efforts under Priority 4 reduced by
new workload without additional resources
% of Work
Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3
Priority 4 Business License Homestay
PolyStyrene,etc.
Packet Pg 173
10
WORK LOAD DISTRIBUTION
2 FULL TIME CODE OFFICERS SPLITTING WORKLOAD EVENLY
EXISTING WORKLOAD WITH ADDITION OF NEW ORDINANCES AND
SAFE HOUSING PROGRAM
Avg. % of
Daily Work
Priority 1 1
Priority 2 30
Priority 3 27 *
Priority 4 3 **
Business License 5
Homestay 12
PolyStyrene,etc.2
Safe Housing 20
*Existing Efforts under Priority 3 reduced by
new workload without additional resources
**Existing Efforts under Priority 4 reduced by
new workload without additional resources
% of Work
Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3
Priority 4 Business License Homestay
PolyStyrene,etc.Safe Housing
Packet Pg 174
10
RESOLUTION NO . 10347 (2012 Series )
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDIN G
ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE AN D
PROCESSING OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1 .2 4
OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING THE AMOUN T
OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINES PAYABLE UNDER CERTAIN CITATION S
WHEREAS,on October 1, 2002, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obisp o
adopted Ordinance No . 1426, which added new Chapter 1 .24 to Title One of the San Lui s
Obispo Municipal Code, entitled "Administrative Code Enforcement Procedures", pertaining t o
the issuance of administrative citations for San Luis Obispo Municipal Code violations ; an d
WHEREAS,Chapter 1 .24 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code provides that the City
Council shall by Resolution prepare and promulgate administrative guidelines consistent with th e
goals and policies of Chapter 1 .24 which establishes, among other things, the requirements fo r
the contents of a Notice of Administrative Citation and the requirements for proper service o f
such a Notice ; and
WHEREAS,on April 10, 2012, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obisp o
introduced for first reading Ordinance No . 1576 (2012 Series) which amends Chapter 1 .24 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code an d
WHEREAS,California Government Code Section 53069 .4 and San Luis Obisp o
Municipal Code Chapter 1 .24 enables the City, acting as a charter city pursuant to Article XI ,
Sections 5 and 7 of the State Constitution, to impose and collect civil administrative fines i n
conjunction with the abatement of Municipal Code violations ; an d
WHEREAS,on September 17, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No . 9366 ,
effective October 1, 2002, establishing a Fine Schedule setting forth amounts of administrativ e
fines to be imposed pursuant to Chapter 1 .24 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, an d
adopting Administrative Guidelines ; and
WHEREAS,Resolution No . 9366 was subsequently amended by Resolution No . 9677 to
increase the fines for violations of Chapters 9 .12 and 9 .20 ; and
WHEREAS,the City Council desires to amend the current Administrative Guidelines t o
bring them into conformance with the amended Chapter 1 .24 and to lower the fine schedule fo r
certain violations that do not present an immediate threat to the public health and safety .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Lui s
Obispo as follows :
SECTION 1 . Amendments to the Administrative Guidelines for Chapter 1 .24 of the
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code dated April 10, 2012, attached hereto as Exhibit A, ar e
hereby approved .
R 10347
Attachment C
Packet Pg 175
10
Resolution No . 1034 7
Page 2
SECTION 2 .The Fine Schedule established by the City Council on September 17, 200 2
by Resolution No . 9366, amended by Resolution No . 9677, for administrative citations issue d
pursuant to Chapter 1 .24 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows :
A.For a first violation of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Chapter 17 .17, excepting
sections 17 .17 .075(B) and 17 .17 .075(I), the administrative fine shall be the sum of Fifty Dollar s
50 .00) for each such violation .
B.For the second violation of the same Code section occurring within twelve (12 )
months of the prior violation, the administrative fine shall be the sum of One Hundred Dollar s
100 .00).
C.For the third violation, or additional violations thereafter, of the same Code sectio n
occurring within twelve (12) months of the first violation, the administrative fine shall be the
sum of Two Hundred Dollars ($200 .00).
SECTION 3 .This Resolution shall go into effect upon the final passage and effectiv e
date of Ordinance No . 1576 amending Chapter 1 .24 entitled "Administrative Code Enforcemen t
Procedures" to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code .
Upon motion of Council Member Smith, seconded by Council Member Ashbaugh and o n
the following vote :
AYES :Council Members Ashbaugh, Carter and Smith, Vice Mayor Carpente r
and Mayor Marx .
NOES : None
ABSENT : None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this lo th day Of April 2012 .
Sheryll Schroede r
Interim City Clerk
Packet Pg 176
10
EXHIBIT A
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION GUIDELINE S
Updated April 2012 )
The following Guidelines have been compiled as the basic structure for implementatio n
of the Administrative Citation Program (Chapter 1 .24 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code).
Individual Departments and Divisions may vary slightly in their specific application of th e
Citation Program so long as the application complies with Chapter 1 .24 .
1 .REQUESTS FOR INVESTIGATIO N
All requests for investigation of a code enforcement matter are to be processed through a
designated staff person . This staff person will create an enforcement case, and if appropriat e
schedule a field investigation, and forward a field investigation report (FIR) form to th e
appropriate supervisor/coordinator or staff.
2 .INVESTIGATION
Upon receiving a field investigation report form, investigating staff when necessary ma y
review Permit Plan, the City's Records File(s), and Archive Plans (as needed) in order to prepar e
for their site investigation . Site investigations will be conducted with staff's safety as a hig h
priority . If there is any indication of a possible hostile or confrontational environment on th e
part of the property owner or other present party, City staff should consult with their superviso r
and should not hesitate to request assistance from the Police Department for the purpose o f
keeping the peace .
Additionally, all investigations will be conducted pursuant to the requirement of law, an d
in an efficient and courteous manner . Photographs/images will be obtained as needed based on
the judgment of the investigators .
Each field investigation report form will contain the following information :
a.Date of investigation ;
b.Name of investigator;
c.Code sections violated ;
d.Plain non-technical description of the violation ;
e.Statement of remedy (what needs to be done); and
f.Time frames for follow-up investigations and for final abatement .
3 .NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION PREPARATIO N
Digital images/photos, when obtained, will be organized, numbered, and indexed as t o
date, time and exact location and photographer . This will allow the City the proper foundationa l
basis for using the photograph as evidence at a later time, if necessary . The identified violation s
on the field investigation report form shall reference the appropriate image/photo numbers that
depict the violation . The field investigation report form and the photos/images will be forwarded
Packet Pg 177
10
to the designated staff person who shall be responsible for preparing the Notice of Violation
and/or Administrative Citation . Once these documents are prepared and reviewed,a final copy
will be prepared for posting and/or mailing to the appropriate individual or property or busines s
owner.
4 .SERVICE OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIO N
The Notice of Violation and/or Administrative Citation and any amended Notice o f
Violation and/or Administrative Citation, shall be served by the following method :
a.Personal or Mailed Notice . Personal service or certified mail, postage prepaid ,
return receipt requested, to each owner as required pursuant to the provisions of Chapte r
1 .24 of the Municipal Code at the address as it appears on the last equalized assessmen t
roll of the County or as otherwise known to staff . The address of the owner shown on th e
assessment roll shall be conclusively deemed to be the proper address for the purpose o f
mailing such notice . Simultaneously, a copy of the same notice shall be sent by first clas s
regular) mail to the same address . If a notice that is sent by certified mail is returne d
unsigned, then servile shall be deemed effective pursuant to the regular mail, provide d
the notice that was sent by regular mail is not returned .
b.Failure to Receive Notice . The failure of the person with an ownership (title )
interest in the property to receive any notice served in accordance with these guideline s
or Chapter 1 .24 of the Municipal Code shall not affect the validity of any proceeding s
taken under this Code . If the address of the owner of record, after diligent search, canno t
be found, the notice may be served by posting a copy thereof in a conspicuous place upo n
the property for a period of ten (10) days .
5 .SERVING A NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIO N
Clerical staff may be designated to process all certified mail requests while investigatio n
staff will process all property posting requests themselves . Certified mail returned due to
inaccurate addressing will have the mailing information confirmed and be mailed onc e
more . Posting will be used in the event service by mail is unsuccessful . Posted notice s
will be considered served 10 days after posting on the property in a conspicuous location .
Proper posting shall consist of enclosing the Notice in some form of sealed plastic an d
either securely taping it to the property or stapling or tacking the Notice to a stake and
staking the property with the Notice .
6 .PROOF OF SERVIC E
Proof of service of the Notice of Violation and/or Administrative Citation shall b e
documented at the time of service by a declaration under penalty of perjury executed by the staff
person effecting service, declaring the time and manner in which service was made and filed i n
city records.
Packet Pg 178
10
7 .CONTENTS OF NOTICE OF VIOLATIO N
The Notice of Violation shall consist of the basic form, attached hereto as Attachment 1 ,
and should contain the following information :
a.The correct full name of the owner or owners .
b.The date on which an inspection established the Code violation .
c.The Municipal Code section violated .
d.The City address where the Code violation occurred .
e.A narrative description of the violation established by the inspection stated i n
plain, simple, non-technical language . Photographs of the violation are
encouraged .
f.A narrative which describes the remedies for the abatement of the identifie d
violation .
g. For a Notice to Correct, a statement (warning) advising the individual, property
owner or business owner that if the described conditions are not abated within th e
time frame specified, the City may proceed, as authorized by law, to assess an
administrative fine as authorized by Chapter 1 .24 of the Municipal Code .
h.A summary and statement of the procedures necessary to pay the administrative
fine .
i.For a Notice to Correct, a statement advising that any person having any titl e
interest in the property may contest the Notice to Correct by submitting
information on a form to be approved by the Director issuing the Notice t o
Correct. The form must be received by the Director's Department within ten (10 )
days from the date of the Notice to Correct . The statement shall also includ e
notice that failure to contest the Notice to Correct shall deem either the Buildin g
Official or the Director's interpretation of any code as final .
j For a Notice of Violation and/or Administrative Citation, a statement advising
that any person having any title interest in the property may appeal the
Administrative Citation to a Hearing Administrator . The statement shall als o
include instructions has to how to request an appeal .
k .A statement that the Code violation is a public nuisance and that collection o f
unpaid administrative fines may, at the City's option, be enforced as a n
assessment or lien against the real property .
1 .The signature of the staff person issuing the Notice of Violation and/o r
Administrative Citation .
m.The date the Notice of Violation and/or Administrative Citation is issued .
n.Any other information deemed necessary by the City for due enforcement or fin e
collection purposes .
8 .RECORDS AND RECORD KEEPING .
All final City staff work documents (except those documents identified as "Confidential –
Attorney/Client Communications") pertaining to the business of an enforcement case should b e
immediately sent to the records division of the appropriate City Department for filing in the
street files . Incoming correspondence, reports, surveys, etc . should be immediately sent to the
Packet Pg 179
10
records division for filing in the street files . Enforcement staff may keep duplicates of thes e
documents in their personal files if they wish . No original public records should be kept i n
places other than the records division .
9 .FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATIONS .
Follow-up investigations may be scheduled by staff upon completion of the preparatio n
of a Notice of Violation and/or Administrative Citation . Investigating staff will keep their cod e
enforcement follow-up current . Follow-up investigations maybe scheduled as follows :
a For violations which do not need permitting, at the end of the prescribed time
frame ;
b.At time of permit application ; and
c.At time of permit issuance dates .
10 . CLOSING CASES .
Enforcement cases will be closed once all applicable fines and fees have been paid in full ,
and the violation has been abated or a building permit has been finally inspected and approved
for occupancy .
11 . APPEALS AND HEARINGS .
A Notice to Correct and an Administrative Citation may be appealed in accordance with
Sections 1 .24 .090 through 1 .24 .130 of the Municipal Code .
12 . PAYMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINES .
All fines may be paid in person at the Finance Department located at 990 Palm Street .
Mailed payments are to be addressed to City of San Luis Obispo, Finance Department, 990 Pal m
Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 .
Packet Pg 180
10
Attachment D
Code Enforcement Interview Questions:
1. What do you think should be the most important, highest priority, areas of concern for City
code enforcement (e.g. illegal construction, unsafe dwellings, illegal occupancy)?
2. What is your experience with code enforcement? (Complaining party, property owner,
tenant)
3. Of the listed violations, which do you think is the highest priority per grouping?
a. Zoning violations
i. Sign regulations
ii. Businesses operating without the correct permits/licenses
iii. Noise complaints
b. Typical code enforcement complaints?
i. High occupancy (e.g. six or more adults in a single-family home)
ii. Garage conversion (without permits)
iii. Vacation rental (these are not allowed anywhere in the city).
c. Property maintenance violations?
i. Yard parking (e.g. parking on a lawn or in a yard that is not an approved parking
space).
ii. Overgrown weeds, unkempt landscaping in the front yard.
iii. Indoor furniture in the front yard.
iv. Garbage cans unscreened.
4. What do you think are some ways for the City to improve renter and property owner
understanding of their rights and responsibilities with respect to safe housing?
5. Based on your understanding or knowledge of the City’s housing stock, how serious of an
issue is safe housing in our City, on a scale of 1-10?
6. What are your thoughts about a safe housing certificate program that the City could offer to
tenants and owners who want to have their dwelling inspected to ensure it meets minimum
health and safety standards? If you are a property owner would you participate?
7. Fines for code enforcement violations progressively increase from $100 to $200 to $500 in
thirty day increments if a property owner is not responding to, or actively working to correct,
violations that are identified on their property. Do you think these amounts are sufficient to
gain compliance (eventually, fines can go to $500/day if no action is taken by the property
owner?) Do you think these amounts are sufficient to deter illegal construction/occupancy in
the first place?
8. Compliance deadlines for property maintenance violations are 14 days and for
building/zoning violations are 30 days to obtain a permit and 90 days to complete the work
once the permit is issued. Do you feel these are adequate or should they be changed? If
so to what?
Packet Pg 181
10
STAKEHOLDER MEETING RESPONSES
MAY & JUNE 2017
Attachment E
1. Highest Priority
for CE
2. Experience
with CE
3a. Zoning
Violation s
3b. CE Complaints 3c. Property
Maintenance
Violations
4.Renter/Property
Owner
Rights/Responsibilities
5. Rate Safe
Housing in our
City
6. Thoughts on Safe
Housing Certificate
Program
7. Fines for Code
Enforcement
8. Compliance
deadlines
Other Comments
Safety Tenant Business
Operating
without permits
or license
Garage Conversion Visible Storage Property Owner must
obtain a certification
before renting their
house
Not answered There is a need for a
program.
Fines should be
higher
Current
compliance
deadlines are
fair.
Unsafe dwellings,
illegal occupancy
Complaining
party, property
owner
Noise
Complaints
Garage Conversions Overgrown weeds Require landlord to
provide at lease signing
and city send out every
year
Likes the idea. If he owned
rentals he would participate
Fines should be
higher currently
not enough to get
compliance.
1st week $250
2nd week $500
3rd week $1000
4th week $2000
$500 daily after
that
Seems fair Allow property mgmt.
companies to self certify.
Focus on
education for
realtors/tenants
and even
enforcement
throughout city.
Illegal
construction less
of a concern with
increasing home
prices/new buyers
Property
owner and
property
manager. Feels
enforcement is
inconsistent.
Noise
complaints
Vacation rentals Overgrown weeds Outreach/education for
tenants. Utilize Cal Poly.
Provide education for
property management
companies and for
tenants through property
management companies.
Rated as 3-4.
Stated that is
also depends on
definition of
“serious”.
As a property owner, would
not pay for
inspection/certificate. A
certificate in itself would
have no value. Possibly
integrate into Cal Poly’s
educated renters program
Support higher
fines but doesn’t
think it will deter
any illegal activity.
14 day for NSS
violations is
adequate. 30
day for to
obtain a permit
is not realistic.
Unsafe dwellings,
foolish to ignore
with high
percentage of
rentals
Neighborhood
advocate,
walking tours,
etc.
Noise High Occupancy, Garage Weeds, yard
parking
Work with Poly and
Cuesta
Overall good,
but pockets are
horrible where
there is high
density of
student rentals
Put criteria on business
license
Three months is
very generous,
$500 a day after
three months
should get their
attention
Revoke business
license, in
conjunction
with fines,
might ring a bell
Neighborhood services
and parking patrols have
been successful. Anything
we can do to get to the
heart of the safety
problem
Unsafe dwellings
along with more
housing. Students
want to live off
campus but the
supply doesn’t
meet the demand
Tenant who
has lived in
substandard
housing
Noise
complaints
Garage conversions. With
the high cost of rent in the
city, tenants have to get
extra tenants just to make
affordable
Overgrown weeds Cal Poly needs to step up
and get involved with the
city. They are increasing
the enrollment every
year but doing nothing to
help or educate the
students/tenants
About 70% are
not up to code
Landlords are bad and will
not participate in a
certificate program. Each
house has 50-100
applications once available
Keep the same.
The landlords will
just pass on the
costs to the
tenants
No take on this
at all
The student population
has no protection against
landlord without the RHIP
or any mandatory
program. The owners will
retaliate if the tenants call
the city.
Packet Pg 182
10
STAKEHOLDER MEETING RESPONSES
MAY & JUNE 2017
Attachment E
1. Highest Priority
for CE
2. Experience
with CE
3a. Zoning
Violation s
3b. CE Complaints 3c. Property
Maintenance
Violations
4.Renter/Property
Owner
Rights/Responsibilities
5. Rate Safe
Housing in our
City
6. Thoughts on Safe
Housing Certificate
Program
7. Fines for Code
Enforcement
8. Compliance
deadlines
Other Comments
Unsafe dwellings,
educate
homeowners of
their rights
regarding tenants
Works in law
and is a
homeowner
Businesses
operating
without correct
permits/licenses
High Occupancy & Garage
conversions
Overgrown
vegetation
Neighborhood outreach
meeting with landlords,
tenants and owner
occupied
About 70% Hated to see the RHIP go.
Would be involved as
something is needed. The
City, Cal Poly and Cuesta
need to build together an
inspection program that will
make owners want to be a
part of a bigger picture.
Parents of students could
also get involved.
Fines too low. At
least double the
fines and add
large fines for
illegal
units/rooms
14 days are too
soon to get
something
accomplished
especially if you
are out of town.
Change 30 – 45
days and 90 –
120 days.
Tenants need to be
protected from landlord
retaliation if they come
forward. Neighborhood
outreach programs to air
out problem and educate.
Cal Poly and Cuesta
should fund an
educational program.
Sub-standard
housing, over
occupancy, lack of
information about
who’s responsible
for repairs
(ten/land)
Professional,
give out City
information to
clients for
help.
Noise
Complaints
High Occ Not a priority
really, if she had to
choose overgrown
vegetation
because of fire
hazard
Make information more
accessible. Some
handout that says exactly
what code can and
cannot help with More
communication & follow
through so that tenants
trust the system.
7, from their
experience they
field calls from
students who
want to work
with landlord to
get issues fixed
that are
immediate life
safety but done
care if they are
living in an
illegal unit.
Sounds good, but
concerned that landlords
will abuse the certificate
program so they can charge
more. The result would be
that the only people who
can live in safe housing are
those that can afford it.
Widens the gap.
No opinion Seems
adequate as
long as tenants
are being
directly notified
about them. If
not, more time
needs to be
given.
Handouts to third parties
to hand out like “code
enforcement: What we
do/what we don’t do,”
mold, or civil property
issues. There is a missing
piece in the whole
process: legal advocacy
for tenants/legal advice
for people in bad
situations to support
tenants and landlords. All
parties (City, CP, Cuesta,
County) can subsidize.
Illegal
construction. Was
opposed to getting
rid of RHIP due to
ability to find
unpermitted
construction.
Did code
enforcement
for county and
various local
cities.
Noise
complaints-
related to high
occupancy and
too many
people at one
place.
Garage conversions Overgrown
vegetation
Make PDF of common
dangerous situations that
people may not know are
dangerous (sleeping
close to a water
heater/garage living,
etc.)
10- feels we
need to be more
proactive in
searching for
code violations.
Feels we should
be constantly
patrolling.
Thinks it is a good idea.
Upset that the RHIP was
repealed.
Thinks they are
sufficient. Feels
that monetary
fines are the only
way to have
people come into
compliance.
Adequate
unless it is life
safety.
Feels we need to enlist
citizens to be looking for
illegal construction and
code violations. They can
know what to look for
and if there is not a
permit they can call us.
Feels we should have an
online permit process
with reduced fees for
minor permits (water
heaters, shower pans,
etc) and we should be
requiring permit for
landscaping to make sure
it meets state
requirements.
Packet Pg 183
10
STAKEHOLDER MEETING RESPONSES
MAY & JUNE 2017
Attachment E
1. Highest Priority
for CE
2. Experience
with CE
3a. Zoning
Violation s
3b. CE Complaints 3c. Property
Maintenance
Violations
4.Renter/Property
Owner
Rights/Responsibilities
5. Rate Safe
Housing in our
City
6. Thoughts on Safe
Housing Certificate
Program
7. Fines for Code
Enforcement
8. Compliance
deadlines
Other Comments
High occupancy. If
that is addressed a
lot of issues
(noise, parking,
illegal
construction)
would lessen.
Reporting
party.
Confidence
level in CE is
low due to
previous
experience.
Now relies on
PD for
enforcement.
Informed him
we have more
CE staff and
are able to
handle higher
caseload.
Noise
complaints.
Related to high
occupancy and
too many
people at one
place.
High occupancy Garbage cans/beer
pong tables
Revisit reasons for
starting RHIP in the first
place. Address those
deficiencies with another
program. Felt Educated
Renters Guide is a good
start. Have property
management monitor
property more.
10- Feels we
need to be more
proactive in
negotiating with
Cal Poly
regarding their
projects.
Challenge their
environmental
review. Student
to population
ratio has a huge
impact on the
City.
Would be good with
condition of re-inspection
after specified time.
Feels they are
adequate. Doesn’t
think that there
would be a huge
response until
daily citations due
to ability to pull in
more rent.
Property
maintenance:
Yes
Building/zoning:
Depends on
how serious
conditions are
Feels we need to make
conditions in planning for
follow up inspections if
plans show areas that will
likely be converted.
Property ownership and
absentee owner flyers to
outline proactive
property management.
All are important Complaining
party
Noise
complaints
High Occupancy Overgrown weeds,
unkept
landscaping in
front yard
Mass mailing to all
properties
Don’t know Too low to make
people comply
Seem fair City should look into rent
control.
Safety. Illegal
occupancy not a
high concern to
him. He has
previously lived in
a garage and
didn’t feel it was
dangerous/unsafe.
No experience
with CE. Only
building.
Noise
complaints-
They have the
most impact on
neighbors.
Vacation rentals- it takes
away housing stock. Feels
enforcement of high
occupancy and garage
conversion s could be done
away with. Doesn’t feel it is
a big concern.
Overgrown weeds
and indoor
furniture in the
front yard. It
creates a blight for
the neighborhood.
Mailer to City residents
that outlines the rights/
responsibilities of
tenants/landlords/as well
as owner occupied
residences. General
conduct that should be
followed by everyone
should be mailed to
every residence.
3-No major
concerns unless
there is
dangerous
electrical.
Reluctant due to
requirements of RHIP
checklist. Felt they were a
little extreme. Would not
participate in voluntary
certification program due to
ease of finding renters.
Depends on
violation, but
seems to be
reasonable.
Depends on
violation, but
seems to be
reasonable.
Packet Pg 184
10
STAKEHOLDER MEETING RESPONSES
MAY & JUNE 2017
Attachment E
1. Highest Priority
for CE
2. Experience
with CE
3a. Zoning
Violation s
3b. CE Complaints 3c. Property
Maintenance
Violations
4.Renter/Property
Owner
Rights/Responsibilities
5. Rate Safe
Housing in our
City
6. Thoughts on Safe
Housing Certificate
Program
7. Fines for Code
Enforcement
8. Compliance
deadlines
Other Comments
All important Neighborhood
rep.
Businesses
Noise (PD)
Signs
High and Garage
Vacation
Yard Parking worst
and most difficult
to enforce
Encourage owners to
give priority to
educated
owner/renter
certificate holder and
encourage Cuesta to
adopt/implement the
program
Overall housing
stock unsure but
okay in our
neighborhood
City inspection prior to
certification, but until there
is more supply (e.g. Cal Poly
builds more housing) this
will make little difference.
These fines are
sufficient. If no
action is taken
there needs to be
follow up to see if
there is a valid
reason.
But the fines are
not sufficient to
deter new illegal
construction
As long as it
allows for time
to coordinate
with
appropriate
trades
More coordination with
half-time parking person
needed in neighborhoods.
Code should be out on
weekends. Front yard
parking and widened
driveways still an issue. If
house has ongoing
problems then suspend
Business license so they
can’t rent. All rentals
need to have business
licenses. Figure out how
to enforce the High
Occupancy Ordinance!!!
Coordinate with Poly to
advise parents of problem
properties. Criteria to
qualify for business
license similar to home
occupation permit.
Identifying and labeling
nuisance houses.
Unsafe dwelling +
high occupancy
(due to obnoxious
rent)
Rental
property
owner, real
estate broker
Business
Licenses, Noise
due to high
occupancy.
Garage conversions without
permits, Vacation rentals,
high occupancy
Overgrown weeds Education, pamphlets,
hot line handouts,
marketing
About 20% not
safe
All rental housing should be
inspected for free to renew
business license. If there
was a charge the rents will
increase to cover the
expense
Eliminate the
$100 and go to
the $200. Needs
to be paid from
whomever caused
the problem. NSS
$50. Fine is
useless and needs
to be eliminated
Depends on the
project.
Point of sale inspections.
Cal Poly needs to build
more on campus housing
directed at married
couples, Soph., juniors.
Price accordingly.
Unsafe Dwellings
Illegal
Construction
Complaining
Party
Rental
Property
Owner
Noise
complaints.
Businesses
licenses for
rental
properties not
enforced
Vacation rentals (there is a
minimum of 150 right now
in city limits).
High Occupancy
Overgrown Weeds
Indoor furniture in
front yard
Yard parking
Work more on a
neighborhood outreach
program concentrating
on different section of
the city as the different
areas have their own
issues.
8-10 Bring back the RHIP and I
will participate
The first fine after
the warning
should be no less
than $300.00
Use common
sense
depending on
the problem.
Some project
cannot be
completed in 90
days but
overgrown
vegetation
Need either NSS or Code
enforcement on
weekends. That is when
the parties happen and
yard parking, noise etc.
Hire a person dedicated
to vacation rentals,
business license. This city
needs more affordable
housing and not for the
Packet Pg 185
10
STAKEHOLDER MEETING RESPONSES
MAY & JUNE 2017
Attachment E
1. Highest Priority
for CE
2. Experience
with CE
3a. Zoning
Violation s
3b. CE Complaints 3c. Property
Maintenance
Violations
4.Renter/Property
Owner
Rights/Responsibilities
5. Rate Safe
Housing in our
City
6. Thoughts on Safe
Housing Certificate
Program
7. Fines for Code
Enforcement
8. Compliance
deadlines
Other Comments
should be
completed
within 7 days
homeless. Cal Poly needs
to build affordable
housing on campus.
Unsafe dwellings Complaining
party.
(CEO officer in
other city)
Business
licenses
Garage conversions Yard parking
Overgrown weed
Focus on community
outreach. Perform
door to door “walk and
talks,” participate in
farmers market, work
with realtors, HOAs,
neighborhood watch
10 (Most of
which is
unknown)
Thinks is it a good idea. Not sufficient – go
up to $1000/day
City of SLO is
too lenient. In
general, shorter
time frames get
better
compliance.
Emphasis on improving
interaction with
community.
Unsafe dwellings Complaining
party
Business
licenses
Garage conversions Yard parking
Visible storage
Annual mailer to tenants.
Provide tenant/landlord
guide. Sign statement at
time of business license
to verify safe housing
requirements are met.
1 (95% of
houses in good
condition)
As a property owner, would
not participate. No good
outcome for PO, no value in
certificate.
Possibly value in certificates
if it can be tied into calpoly
or cuesta.
Current checklist is too
detailed.
Not sufficient to
deter illegal work
or for cost
recovery.
Adequate Recommend enforcing
business license w/signed
certification from PO
stating basic health and
safety need are met –
increased fines for
violations. Take firmer
stance on known, repeat
offenders. Current NSS
enforcement is uneven
throughout city. Work
w/property managers and
realtor to inform of
regulations and
permitting process.
Only issue for
comment is
unsafe student
housing
Property
owner, bought
seriously
dilapidated
houses and
doing repairs-
some
complaints
received, good
working with
CE
NA Garage conversions NA Lack of student
engagement- doesn’t
think City can achieve
engagement, must rely
on Cal Poly & Cuesta.
Charge fee on rental
business license to
support tenant education
program. Owner
certification on business
license with severe
penalties for violations
found after certification.
Extremely
serious
Not used unless enhanced
benefits- private contractor
ale to make small repairs as
part of inspection- similar to
gas co inspection of furnace.
Extreme lack of
contractors/service people
to do small work in current
market
Maybe- getting
inside the unit is
most important
30 days is not
sufficient to get
a permit.
Packet Pg 186
10
STAKEHOLDER MEETING RESPONSES
MAY & JUNE 2017
Attachment E
1. Highest Priority
for CE
2. Experience
with CE
3a. Zoning
Violation s
3b. CE Complaints 3c. Property
Maintenance
Violations
4.Renter/Property
Owner
Rights/Responsibilities
5. Rate Safe
Housing in our
City
6. Thoughts on Safe
Housing Certificate
Program
7. Fines for Code
Enforcement
8. Compliance
deadlines
Other Comments
HVAC units are
unsafe
None Na Na Na Hire specialty inspectors No response NA NA NA Extensive discussion
about new program they
want implemented
regarding HVAC
installation and
inspection
Packet Pg 187
10
Exhibit F - Fiscal Impact
one time ongoing one time ongoing one time ongoing one time ongoing
Increase citation amounts
0.02 $21,000 $2,955 -$2,955 $21,000 incentive to respond and resolve issues sooner
Increase citation amounts unpaid at 30 days
0.02 $10,000 $2,955 $200 -$2,955 $9,800 incentive to respond and resolve issues sooner
Increase use of Special Investigation fee
0.02 $14,000 $2,955 -$2,955 $14,000 incentive to obtain permits prior to construction work
Increase use of Code Enforcement fee
0.02 $25,000 $2,955 $200 -$2,955 $24,800 incentive to respond and resolve issues sooner
Recordation of notice of violation
0.27 0.1 $1,000 $26,661 $4,941 -$26,661 -$3,941
staff addresses highest priority cases until optimum time for
lesser priority cases
Increase enforcement of homestay and
collection of TOT 0.25 $50,000 $23,906 $0 $26,094
equity for competing businesses, reduction in businesses
operating without approval or oversight
Programming Energov software for code
use -0.05 $10,000 -$10,000 $0 Increased staff efficiency and better management tools
Safe housing education/outreach and
Inspection & Cert program Convert
NSS $0 $24,000 $10,977 -$24,000 -$10,977
Improves quality of City housing stock and educates owners
and renters about minimum health and safety standards for
safe housing
Polystyrene, Plastic Water Bottles & Straws
0.05 $0 $4,741 $0 -$4,741 general public benefit
Recreational Marijuana Enforcement
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD potential cost recovery to address negative impacts
Reclassify (E) staff position to Lead Code
Enforcement Officer position 0.15 $24,224 $0 -$24,224
consistent day to day supervision to allow CBO to focus on
higher priorities
Totals 0.35 0.5 0 $121,000 $72,481 $69,189 -$72,481 $51,811
Cost ImpactProgram Proposals Positive Impact to CityFTE Required Revenue Impact Total Impact
Packet Pg 188
10
Code Enforcement PrioritiesA discussion of the community priorities for enforcement of local ordinances November 21, 2017Presented by the Community Development Department11-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
Recommendation2That the Council provide direction to staff for:1.Overall code enforcement priorities2.The use of new tools for enforcement3.Safe Housing Outreach & Education Program4.Additional activities to pursue as resources permit.11-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
Background & NeedBackgroundRepeal of Rental Housing Inspection ProgramDirection to propose replacement program to promote safe housing Update of Priorities due toStaffing ChangesNew regulationsNew housing program311-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
Staffing2 code officersComplaints & referrals2 code techniciansProactive neighborhood enforcementNew housing programResponse TimesWorkload managed by response timelinesImmediate to 24, 48 or 72 hours 411-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
PRIORITIES511-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
PrioritiesPriority #1-Imminent life safety hazardBuilding damage or collapse Car into buildingEarthquakeFireInfrequent occurrenceImmediate response, day or night611-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
PrioritiesPriority #2- 24 hour response- life safetySubstandard housing-no water, heat, unsafe useActive construction without a permitIllegal & unsafe-Sewage/electrical/gas/discharge/dumpingUnsecured building- unauthorized accessUnsafe occupancyPublic nuisanceHoarding711-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
PrioritiesPriority #3- 48 hour responseUnpermitted construction (completed)Garage conversionOccupancy of non-habitable spaceGrading without a permitInterior vermin infestationUnsafe occupancyNoise811-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
PrioritiesPriority #4- 72 hour responseOdor violationsSignsAnimals & wasteFence height and locationsExterior vermin infestationBusiness license/TOT/homestayPlanning permit violations- (CUP, Use, Development, etc.)911-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
PrioritiesNEO violations-72 hour responseProactiveOvergrown weedsVisible storage/abandoned vehiclesFurniture on roofFront yard parkingScreening of refuse containersGraffitiPremise identification1011-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
PrioritiesNEO violations-72 hour responseComplaint onlyFront yard pavingFence repairsDeteriorated paintPrivate parking lot & sidewalkstrip hazards & maintenancePlanning permit violations- sandwich board or A frame signs1111-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
Current Tools1211-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
Current ToolsRequest for voluntary complianceVerbal and written contactNo costs incurred by offenderAdministrative Citations- due in 10 daysNeighborhood Wellness- $50, $100 & $200Code Enforcement- $100, $200 & $500Abatement AgreementCivil and Criminal Prosecution1311-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
Current ToolsSpecial Investigation fee on permitIncrease use to support cost recoveryReduce General Fund subsidy of inspectionCovers extra effort to inspect work already doneCode Enforcement FeeCovers code officer time spent pursuing resolution after initial contact fails to resolveReduce General Fund subsidy of enforcement actionsCollected on permits or invoiced if no permit required 1411-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
NEW TOOLS1511-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
Revised & New ToolsIncrease Code Citation fines$100, $500, $1000Double fine for unpaid CitationsDue upon receipt, currently late after 10 daysProposed doubled at 30 daysRepeat violations by owner at same or new property within one year- double fine amountNo changes proposed to NEO citation amounts1611-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
New ToolsNotice of violationNotice on property title- buyer and seller awareUsed for expired permits where inspections refused or failed; work not inspectedActive code case where property is for saleCode case where resolution can be achieved at a later dateProposed-Notice to be recorded after two attempts at resolution, concurrent with second citation, unless property being marketed at discover of violation1711-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
New ToolsNotice of violation, cont’dOpen violations from RHIP program will become code cases to be resolvedMajority of violations will be addressed with notice on titleApproximately 90 cases will be pursued for resolution through normal code case activities and notice on title.Proposed-Notice to be recorded after mailed notification to property owner of outstanding violations from RHIP inspections.1811-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
New Tools- SummarySpecial Investigation fee- increased use for cost recoveryRevise Code fines to $100, $500 and $1000Double unpaid citations at 30 daysDouble citations for repeat offendersRecord notice of violation for future resolutionFocus on cost recovery for enforcement actions 1911-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
SAFE HOUSING2011-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
Proposed Safe Housing ProgramEducationTrain the trainerCommunity groupsTenant groupsProfessional OrganizationsOnline permit records and inspection reportsPrior permit history: # of units on property, # of bedrooms, garage size, etc.Code Case complaints- closed cases Inspection reports2111-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
Proposed Safe Housing ProgramOnline permit records and inspection reports2211-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
Proposed Safe Housing ProgramOnline permit records and inspection reports2311-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
Proposed Safe Housing ProgramInspectionVoluntary- by City StaffFull Cost RecoveryThird party contractorPotential for reduced costsAudit sampling for verificationSelf Certification- Landlord & TenantAudit sampling for verification2411-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
Other Program Activities25For consideration as resources permit11-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
Other Program Activities- as Resources PermitBusiness License- Proactive enforcementHDL ContractRental housing unitsNew & Relocated businessesHomestay & TOT- Proactive enforcementHost Compliance ContractHomestay Use Permits & Business LicenseTOT License2611-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
Other Program Activities- as Resources PermitPolystyrene, Plastic Bottles & Straws upon request- ComplaintOutreach by othersGoal- Education & Voluntary ComplianceRecreational Marijuana- Potential ImpactsUnpermitted businessesOperating outside the approved license2711-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
PRIORITIES2811-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
PrioritiesPriority #1-Imminent life safety hazardBuilding damage or collapse Car into buildingEarthquakeFireDangerous utilities and/or materialsInfrequent occurrenceImmediate response, day or night2911-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
PrioritiesPriority #2- 24 hour response- life safety30Substandard housing- no water, no heat, living/sleeping in unsafe space (shed, attic, crawl space, etc.)Illegal & unsafe electrical- faulty or hazardousActive construction without a permitIllegal construction (no permit possible)Public nuisance- (refrigerator w/doors on) Unsafe gas- leaks & unknown smellsHoardingIllegal & unsafe dischargeUnsecured building- unauthorized access Illegal dumping- in progressUnsafe occupancy- immediate vacation of building requiredIllegal & unsafe sewage dischargeHazardous waste spill, contamination or improper useIllicit discharge and/or storm water violations11-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
PrioritiesPriority #3- 48 hour response31Unpermitted construction (completed) Grading without a permitMinimum housing standards violations State and local codesConversion of non-habitable space to residential use Occupancy of non-habitable space Unsafe occupancyInterior vermin infestation Noise- operations or activitiesAutomotive repair/ high risk commercial business in residential zoneUnpermitted residential in commercial buildingGarage conversions11-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
PrioritiesPriority #4- 72 hour response32Odor violationsIllegal SignageAnimals (chickens/roosters) Animal waste accumulationExterior vermin infestationOperating a business w/o a licenseWater bottle sales or use at city property or eventsPlanning permit violations- (CUP, Use, Development, etc.)Living/sleeping in vehiclesCommercial business in residential zoneFence height and locationsStyrofoam sales or useVacation rentals & unpermitted homestays Plastic straws upon requestFailure to pay TOT on rentals Violations of planning permit- CUP, Use, Development, etc.11-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
PrioritiesNEO violations-72 hour responseProactiveOvergrown weedsVisible storage/abandoned vehiclesFurniture on roofFront yard parkingScreening of refuse containersGraffitiPremise identification3311-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
PrioritiesNEO violations-72 hour responseComplaint onlyFront yard pavingFence repairsDeteriorated paintPrivate parking lot & sidewalkstrip hazards & maintenancePlanning permit violations- sidewalk signs3411-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
RESOURCES & ORGANIZATION OF DIVISION3511-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
Resources36% of WorkPriority 1Priority 2Priority 3Priority 4WORK LOAD DISTRIBUTION2 FULL TIME CODE OFFICERS SPLITTING WORKLOAD EVENLYEXISTING WORKLOAD *Avg. % of # ofDaily WorkCasesPriority 115Priority 23045Priority 33556Priority 43444*See Exhibit A for detailed description ofworkload included in each priority category.11-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
Resources37% of WorkPriority 1Priority 2Priority 3Priority 4Business LicenseHomestayPolyStyrene,etc.WORK LOAD DISTRIBUTION2 FULL TIME CODE OFFICERS SPLITTING WORKLOAD EVENLYEXISTING WORKLOAD WITH ADDITION OF NEW ORDINANCES Avg. % of Daily WorkPriority 1 1Priority 2 30Priority 3 35Priority 4 15*Business License 5Homestay/TOT 12Polystyrene. 2*Existing Efforts under Priority 4 reduced bynew workload without additional resources11-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
OrganizationSupervisionNew job description for Lead Code OfficerReclassification of Code Officer I/II FTE toLead Code Enforcement OfficerReclassification of Code Technician I FTE toCode Technician II forSafe Housing Program assignment3811-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
Organization3911-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
RecommendationsUpdate Code Enforcement PrioritiesIncorporate any new initiativesIncrease Use of Special Investigation FeeIncrease cost recovery/decrease subsidyIncrease Code Enforcement Citation FinesCode Enforcement- $100, $500 & $1000Double unpaid fines at 30 daysRepeat violations subject to immediate citation at double base fine amount- same owner, same or different property.4011-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
RecommendationsRecord Notice of Violation on PropertyOwner & Buyer aware of code caseSafe Housing ProgramEducation EffortsInspection EffortsReclassification of one FTE to Code Technician IIPropose adjustments to FY 18/19 budget to fund program4111-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
RecommendationsAllocate resources to support contract initiatives and proactive enforcementBusiness licenseTOT collectionHomestays & Vacation RentalsAllocate resources to support new regulationsStyrofoam Plastic Water Bottles Straws upon request4211-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
Next StepsStaff will return to Council with appropriate documents to implement directions receivedNew Fees and FinesOrdinance to be adopted by CouncilNew ProceduresResolution to be adopted by CouncilNew Priorities & ProcessesCommunication to be provided to CouncilSafe Housing ProgramTo be addressed in FY18/19 Budget 4311-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation
PERFORMANCE MEASURES44Average calendar days, inspection to forced complianceAverage calendar days, inspection to voluntary compliancePercentage of cases resolved through forced complianceTotal cases available for resolution during the reporting period11-21-2017 Item 10, Staff Presentation