S. Sesssion 2W N O,c
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: August 29, 2012
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
MEETING DATE: 09/04/12
STUDY SESSION
ITEM NO:
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES
BACKGROUND:
Code enforcement, often called neighborhood preservation, is an integral function of a municipal
government. Originating from the need to enforce public health and safety regulations, such as
building, adequate housing, and fire codes, in contemporary times municipal code enforcement
programs have expanded to include zoning enforcement, which .typically involves property -
related nuisance violations, illegal signs, storage of hazardous waste, development without
permits, accumulation of garbage, overgrown vegetation, dilapidated or abandoned buildings, the
storage of unlicensed vehicles, eta. Some municipalities use code enforcement to also monitor
requirements on land use permits, such as Conditional Use Permits (CUPs), Architecture and
Site (A &S) conditions, etc.
Municipal code enforcement is based on civil or municipal codes, and the offenses are
infractions or misdemeanors. Many municipalities avoid lengthy and expensive court procedures
to remedy the infractions or misdemeanors through the use of Administrative Hearing processes
that are administered by the local government and expedite the enforcement of the local
ordinances and laws. The Town's Administrative Hearing Process is outlined in Attachment 1.
Municipalities use various techniques to gain compliance with adopted regulations, such as land
use and zoning ordinances, health and housing codes, sign standards, and uniform building and
fire codes. While every municipality and its governing body has its own procedures to remedy
violation of local regulations, it is common to first work towards compliance by issuing notices
of violation to the property or business owners. If there is no cooperation within a given time
frame, either abatement processes commence or fines are imposed. However, given that the
overall purpose of a code enforcement program is to improve the safety and health of all citizens
living within the community, municipalities often will work towards compliance rather than
punitive measures that could end up in lengthy legal actions.
Xendie a PREPARED BY: R. Rooney, Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager
Town Attorney Finance
N :\DEV \TC REPORTS\2012 \Code Enforcement Report 9 4 12,docx Reformatted: 5/30/02
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Code Enforcement Procedures
August 29, 2012
A Code Enforcement Officer can be a sworn or non -sworn inspector, officer, or investigator,
employed by the municipality, who possesses specialized training in, and whose primary duties
are, the prevention, detection, investigation, and enforcement of violations of laws regulating
public nuisance, public health and safety, public works, business activities and consumer
protection, building standards, land -use, or municipal affairs. Sworn Code Enforcement Officers
have limited Peace Officer status, including the powers of arrest. Generally in medium to
smaller municipalities, Code Enforcement Officers are non -sworn positions and accordingly
work closely with the local police department in the more severe cases.
Finally, code enforcement programs generally operate under one of two models. The most
common model, particularly in medium to smaller jurisdictions with limited resources, is a
Reactive or Complaint -based Model. In a Reactive Model the following steps typically occur in
the enforcement process:
• Residents or interested parties call to complain about a potential violation.
• The Code Enforcement Officer visits the property where the alleged violation is occurring
and documents any compliances issues.
• The Officer sends out a violation notice asking the offender to fix the problem.
• The Officer re- inspects the property; and if it is not resolved, legal action occurs generally in
the form of an administrative citation being issued.
A Reactive Model is commonly used when addressing issues associated with personal property
or businesses. It is based on the more customer- conscious premise of working with the violators
to rectify the problem as long as they respond and work towards compliance at a reasonable
pace.
The less common approach is the Proactive Code Enforcement Model. In this model, code
enforcement has an increased and deliberate presence in the community on an ongoing basis.
Proactive enforcement also occurs in situations where staff is responding to a complaint and
other violations in the area are observed. This type of model requires more staffing, is more
costly, and can be negatively portrayed by the community since it elevates code compliance to a
comparative level of law enforcement.
Finally, some communities use a hybrid approach whereby the life safety violations, such as
dangerous buildings, working without a permit, substandard housing, etc., are addressed in a
proactive manner; more minor violations such as signs, aesthetic conditions, etc., are responded
to on a complaint basis.
While the majority of violations are subject to infraction or misdemeanor citations and an
administrative or court hearing, CUP compliance follows a different process. Municipal Code
Section 29.20.310 outlines the procedures for revocation or modification of zoning approvals,
such as a CUP. CUPs are required to conform to the terms of the approval. The Municipal Code
sets procedures for the "Planning Commission on its own motion or on the recommendation of
the Planning Director may, and if requested by the Council," hold a public hearing to consider
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Code Enforcement Procedures
August 29, 2012
modifying or revoking a CUP that has been granted pursuant to this chapter or any prior
ordinance. After the hearing the Planning Commission may modify or revoke a CUP if it finds
that one or more of the following grounds exist:
(1) That the zoning approval was obtained by fraud;
(2) That any person making use of, or relying upon,
violated any conditions of such zoning approval
which the zoning approval was granted is being,
terms or conditions of such approval; or
the zoning approval is violating or has
or of section 29.10.095, or the use for
or has been, exercised contrary to the
(3) That the use for which the approval was granted is so exercised as to be detrimental to the
public health or safety, or to be a nuisance.
Although a very important municipal function, code enforcement programs are generally not cost
recovery through the fines raised and, therefore, may be one of the first programs to be reduced
or eliminated during economic recessionary times, particularly in smaller, suburban communities
that do not have the typical enforcement issues of the larger, metropolitan areas.
Within Los Gatos, the Code Enforcement Program is administered primarily through the
Community Development Department, with some limited assistance from the Police Department
and Parks and Public Works. The Town had one full -time Code Enforcement Officer until 2008,
when the position was eliminated due to budget constraints, and the duties were distributed to a
variety of staff, including building inspectors, planners, Attorney's Office, and the Building
Official. Given the limited resources, the Code Enforcement Program operates on reactive basis
to complaints from the community, the elected and appointed officials, and the Town Manager's
Office.
Based on the Department's customer - service philosophy, the staff expends significant resources
working with the violators as long as they respond and work towards compliance at a reasonable
pace rather than using administrative remedies, since that often does not resolve the issue on a
permanent basis. This strong commitment to work towards a solution rather than a punitive
approach often results in the Town temporarily suspending enforcement action if the property or
business owner is working towards a reasonable solution. For example, in the case of violations
of zoning approvals, such as CUPs, the Town has temporarily suspended the formal revocation
processes as long as the offender is working towards a solution with a revised CUP application.
Most customer - driven municipalities use a similar approach to non - health and safety violations.
While this approach can be successful, it often takes longer than a revocation or citation
approach.
Attachment 2 contains the Town's current Administrative Citation Policy that was adopted in
2005. Attachment 3 is the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance that was adopted in 2010 and
intended to provide stronger guidance in enforcement of residential and business nuisance issues.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Code Enforcement Procedures
August 29, 2012
Three primary issues have been identified with the Town's current code enforcement procedures,
which are as follows:
• No dedicated staff.
® Mixed community reaction to the current reactive service delivery model. The Town has
received complaints that zoning violators are allowed too much time to remedy their
violations through revised CUP applications.
• Inability for complaining parties to publicly express their concern with the enforcement
process and results.
Each of these issues is further discussed in the following section, and recommendations to
improve the code enforcement process are included in the final section of the report.
DISCUSSION:
No Dedicated Staff:
In 2008, the Town's prior Code Enforcement Officer resigned, and as a budget reduction
measure during the economic recession, the Town froze the position, along with most vacant
positions at that time. The position was ultimately eliminated in 2009. Since then the code
enforcement duties have been distributed to a number of staff members, including the Building
Inspectors, Planners, and the Chief Building Official, The Police Department, Town Attorney's
office, and Parks and Public Works staff have also assisted in certain enforcement cases.
One of the primary disadvantages to this approach has been the lack of accountability and
standardization in enforcement cases, particularly with the continued follow -up or monitoring of
compliance that is often necessary. Moreover, the staff members that are currently involved in
code enforcement activities have neither the necessary training nor thorough understanding of
the various Town codes and relevant county, state and federal codes to effectively perform this
function. The staff members do their best to respond to the complaints; but due to- lack of
sufficient time (due to their primary duties) and training as well as the customer service
orientation of the Department, there is a lack of consistency with the enforcement, and the
follow- through or continued monitoring is not as thorough as it would be with a dedicated
enforcement staff.
With the recovering economy, the Department's revenues have increased and staff is now
pursuing a temporary Code Enforcement Officer through staff augmentation, reassigning Town
staff, or on a contractual basis. If revenues maintain, the Department will submit a proposal to
reinstate a permanent position with the FY12 /13 Mid -Year budget adjustments. The cost of a
single Code Enforcement Officer is approximately $115,000 a year. This does not include
associated costs for legal assistance, administrative support, and materials and supplies.
However, even with the filling of the position, the code enforcement workload may still prevent
the Town from adopting a more proactive approach. Based on discussions with other
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Code Enforcement Procedures
August 29, 2012
jurisdictions, most agencies use the reactive model due to lack of sufficient financial resources
and community concerns, particularly the business community, of stronger regulatory
approaches. Attachment 4 is a summary of the code enforcement case workload for the past two
years. As noted in Attachment 4, of the 311 cases in FY10 /11 and 295 in FY11 /12
(approximately six new complaints per week each year), the majority are related to property
nuisance, noise, abandoned vehicles, building code, and illegal signs. It is important to
recognize that each complaint involves multiple steps, and often compliance is not achieved until
considerable time and effort is expended.
Although it appears that the level of activity warrants a full time Code Enforcement Officer, it is
probably not sufficient to necessitate two positions. However, staff believes that with the
permanent filling of the code enforcement position some changes to the service delivery model
can be achieved. For example, one of the problems staff typically encounters when responding
to property nuisance issues is that the offender will point to other related property maintenance
issues in the surrounding neighborhood and claim that he /she is unfairly targeted. While one
officer cannot proactively maintain a continuing and deliberate presence in all neighborhoods
where violations occur, the officer can address the larger neighborhood when a violation is
reported to reduce the potential for comparative allegations.
Mixed Community Reaction to the Current Reactive Service Delivery Model (The Town
has received complaints that offenders are allowed too much time to remedy their
violations):
As noted in the Background Section of this report, most small to medium sized municipalities
operate on a Reactive Service Delivery Model due to limited financial resources as well as the
orientation towards securing compliance rather than using punitive measures. Accordingly,
municipalities will work with property and business owners to remedy their violations rather
than issue citations or hold revocation hearings. For example, in the past 20 years, the Town has
only held approximately two hearings for revocation of CUPs, and probably less than five
property nuisance cases have been referred to the court system.
In the past few years, the Town has received complaints from a number of neighborhoods that it
is not expeditiously or proactively abating violations, such as illegal uses, lack of compliance
with CUP conditions, and property maintenance issues. In some cases this was due to the very
lengthy time involved in the abatement process through the legal court system. In other cases,
based on the Town's philosophy of trying to mediate or resolve issues rather than use punitive
measures, the Town has suspended action on abating the illegal use to allow the business owner
time to relocate the business. Finally, in other cases, the Town has suspended enforcement while
trying to facilitate a resolution by working with the business owner to process a modification to
their CUP. In each of these examples the process has taken considerable time and resulted in
increased surrounding neighborhood complaints.
Considering that the Town receives an average of 300 complaints per year and only
approximately 1 to 2 percent has resulted in continuing neighborhood complaints, it appears the
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Code Enforcement Procedures
August 29, 2012
current code compliance procedures are generally effective. However, as noted, there are unusual
circumstances when the process does not mitigate neighborhood concerns within a timely
manner.
Although these unusual cases are infrequent, they are nevertheless legitimate concerns to
affected parties, which are generally portions of neighborhoods. While staff will continue to
recommend using the approach of securing compliance rather than penalizing offenders, in cases
where the process is taking an extraordinary amount of time or is affecting a larger group of
people such as a neighborhood, staff recommends taking a more proactive role and not allowing
a temporary suspension of the abatement process. While this approach is uncharacteristic of the
Town's service philosophy, in these more extreme cases it may be warranted. It is further
recommended that the temporary suspension should only be used for a very limited period of
time, such as three months, and that it be based on a verifiable unique situation, such as a binding
lease or agreement.
Finally, through the evaluation of the current practices and procedures, it appears that the cases
that have resulted in greater neighborhood concerns are often associated with businesses that
have CUPs and are either operating outside of the conditions imposed on the use, or the CUPS
are older and do not have well defined conditions to mitigate all concerns. While the Town is
limited in correcting the latter example, there are some recommendations to address the former
example. In order to provide more thorough monitoring, staff is recommending separating CUP
violations from the other code enforcement cases.
The Town could monitor CUPs within certain categories that tend to be more problematic for the
community, such as restaurants that serve late night alcohol, bars, entertainment venues, late
night uses in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, etc. The CUP monitoring would be
assigned to a planning staff member who would be responsible for conducting reviews of the
establishments and, if violations were identified, working with the operator to secure
compliance. These CUPs would be reviewed on a biannual basis and all inquiries regarding the
businesses would be maintained to ensure a comprehensive review of them and any subsequent
complaints. Staff would recommend continuing with the current philosophy of securing
compliance over penalizing the business, but this process would allow for a faster and focused
response to concerns raised by the community as well as establish a record of the business's
overall compliance history.
Inability for Complaining Parties to Publicly Voice their Concern with the Enforcement
Process/ Results:
The final issue identified with the current code enforcement process is the inability for the
complaining parties to have a public voice in the resolution of the issue. As noted in this report,
most of the code enforcement issues are remedied through staff working with the offenders to
resolve the issue. In limited cases, citations or fines are issued to gain compliance. In these
cases, the offender has the option to appeal the citation through the Administrative Hearing
PAGE 7
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Code Enforcement Procedures
August 29, 2012
Process. However, the Administrative Hearing Process is at the offender's discretion and does
not provide a forum for other parties to participate.
Complaining parties are able to voice their opinions and concerns to the staff; however, the
existing process does not accommodate the ability for these parties to participate in or influence
the resolution of the case such as through a public hearing. Often the only other recourse for
these parties is to express their concerns to the Council, which has limited jurisdiction over
individual cases. While this is a forum for general comments and concerns, it does not usually
help resolve the ongoing code or CUP compliance issue.
There are not any known code enforcement models that provide hearing processes for
community input unless the case is so significant that it results in a revocation hearing.
However, there are contractors that provide neighborhood mediation services which would allow
community input. The Town presently contracts with Project Sentinel, who provides
tenant /landlord dispute resolution services. Project Sentinel also provides community mediation
programs. The communities of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View and Palo Alto use
Project Sentinel for a variety of community mediation efforts. For example, Project Sentinel
contracts with the City of Los Altos for:
... a mediation program that provides free conciliation and mediation services to residents,
property owners and businesses in Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. Typical cases include
disputes over property lines, fences and trees, as well as other neighbor issues such as control
of pets. The program also addresses issues between consumers and businesses and between
tenants and landlords.
Staff believes that this service can be a viable option for the Town since most code � enforcement
issues involve either residents within a neighborhood setting or conflicts between adjacent
residents and businesses.
In addition, improved community outreach and education regarding code enforcement, including
limitations on the Town's ability to access or control private property, may assist residents in
better understanding the steps required for enforcement, as well as their own rights to pursue
private public nuisance actions.
Recommendations to Augment Town's Existing Code Enforcement Response Procedures:
As noted in this report, the Town's existing approach to code enforcement is generally effective
in the vast majority of cases. With an average of 300 cases per year, less than 2 percent result in
the concern that the process is taking too long or complaining parties are unsatisfied with the
results. However, due to concerns expressed regarding some recent code enforcement issues,
staff recommends a number of changes to the existing policy and or procedures:
PAGE 8
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Code Enforcement Procedures
August 29, 2012
• Retain a permanent full -time Code Enforcement Officer (to be considered at Mid - Year).
• Modify the code enforcement procedures to require the officer to proactively review and
address all code violations within neighborhoods where an original violation is reported.
This will reduce the potential for comparative allegations.
• Develop a monitoring system for CUPs, including restaurants that serve late night alcohol,
bars, entertainment venues and late night uses in close proximity to residential
neighborhoods.
• Assign CUP condition monitoring to a planning staff member who will be responsible for
monitoring and all related inquiries. The CUP monitoring would involve conducting reviews
of the establishments and, if violations were identified, working with the operator to secure
compliance or schedule for possible revocation. The CUP review would be conducted on a
biannual basis.
• Establish a community mediation contract similar to the City of Los Altos that would address
neighborhood disputes, issues between consumers and businesses in addition to the Town's
existing tenants and landlord's mediation services.
• Update all code enforcement Web and print public information materials.
CONCLUSION:
This report identifies problems associated with the current code enforcement procedures as well
as recommendation to improve the program. While these recommendations may not address all
cases, they will provide greater accountability, more prompt and focused enforcement, and
provide the Town with additional tools to address the more unique neighborhood disputes or
issues that can arise.
FISCAL IMPACT:.
The addition of the Code Enforcement Officer and augmentation of the Project Sentinel contract
would increase annual expenditures by approximately $175,000 per year.
Attachments:
1. Town of Los Gatos Administrative Hearing Process
2. Administration Citation Policy
3. Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance
4. Summary of Code Enforcement Activity (FY 10/11 and 11/12)
..
Municode
Page 1 of 5
Los Gatos, California, Code of Ordinances >> - CODE >> Chapter 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS >>
ARTICLE III. - ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS >>
ARTICLE 111. -ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS u
Sec. 1.30.010. -Applicability.
Sec. 1,30.015. - Definitions.
Sec. 1.30.020, - Administrative citation.
Sec. 1.30.025. - Amount of penalties.
Sec. 1.30.030. - Payment of penalty,
Sec. 1.30.035. - Hearing request.
Sec. 1,30.040. - Hearing procedure.
Sec. 1.30.045. - Hearinq Officer's decision.
Sec. 1.30.050. - Late payment charges.
Sec. 1.30.055. - Recovery of administrative citation penalties and collection costs
Sec. 1.30.060. - Right to iudicial review.
Sec. 1.30.065. - Notices.
Sec. 1.30.070. - Advance deposit hardship waiver.
Sec. 1.30.010. -Applicability.
Sections 1.30.010 through 1.30.070 herein provide for administrative citations which are in
addition to all other civil legal remedies and which are an alternative to any criminal legal remedies,
which may be pursued by the Town to address any violation of this Code except for violations of
Chapter 15 (Motor Vehicles and Traffic).
(Orel. No. 2127, § 11, 3 -1 -04)
Sec. 1.30.015. - Definitions.
For purpose of this article, the following definitions shall apply:
Enforcement officershall mean any Town employee or agent of the Town with the authority
to enforce any provision of this Code, including, but not limited to, the Town Manager, Town
Attorney, Director of Community Development, Director of Parks and Public Works and any police
officer and code enforcement officer.
Hearing Officer shall mean any person designated by the Town Manager to hear appeals of
administrative citations and to hear administrative compliance hearings. The Hearing Officer shall
not be the citing Enforcement Officer. The employment, performance evaluation, compensation and
benefits of the Hearing Officer shall not be directly or indirectly conditioned upon the amount of
administrative citation penalties upheld by the Hearing Officer.
(Ord. No. 2127, § 1l, 3 -1 -04)
Sec. 1.30.020. -Administrative citation.
Attachment 1
http://Iibrary.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientlD=1 1760&HTMRequest=http%3 a %2f... 8/27/2012
Municode
Page 2 of 5
(a) Whenever an Enforcement Officer charged with the enforcement of this Code determines
that a violation of that provision has occurred, the Enforcement Officer shall have the
authority to issue an administrative citation to any person responsible for the violation.
(b) Each administrative citation shall contain the following information:
(1) The date of the violation;
(2) The address or a definite description of the location where the violation occurred;
(3) The section of this Code violated and a description of the violation;
(4) The amount of the penalty for the code violation;
(5) A description of the penalty payment process, including a description of the time
within which and the place to which the penalty shall be paid;
(6) An order prohibiting the continuation or repeated occurrence of the code violation
described in the administrative citation;
(7) A description of the administrative citation review process, including the time within
which the administrative citation may be contested and the place from which a request
for hearing form to contest the administrative citation may be obtained, and,
(8) The name and signature of the citing Enforcement Officer.
(c) Prior to the issuance of an 'administrative citation for a violation which pertains to building,
plumbing, electrical, or similar structural or zoning matters that do not create an immediate
danger to health or safety, the Enforcement Officer shall provide a reasonable period of time
not less than five (5) business days to correct or otherwise remedy the violation.
(Ord. No. 2127, § ll, 3 -1 -04)
Sec. 1.30.025. - Amount of penalties.
(a) The amounts of the penalties for code violations imposed pursuant to this article shall be set
forth in the schedule of penalties established by resolution by the Town Council.
(b) The schedule of penalties shall specify any increased penalties for repeat violations of the
same code provision within thirty -six (36) months from the date of an administrative citation.
(c) The schedule of penalties shall specify the amount of any late payment charges imposed for
the payment of a penalty after its due date.
(Ord. No. 2127, § fl, 3 -1 -04)
Sec. 1.30.030. - Payment of penalty.
(a) The penalty shall be paid to the Town within thirty (30) days from the date of the
administrative citation.
(b) Payment of a penalty shall not excuse or discharge any continuation or repeated occurrence
of the code violation that is the subject of the administrative citation.
(Ord. No. 2127, § ll, 3 -1 -04)
Sec. 1.30.035. - Hearing request.
(a) Any recipient of an administrative citation may contest the citation by completing a request
for hearing form and returning it to the Town within thirty (30) days from the date of the
administrative citation, together with an advance deposit of the total penalty amount or an
advance deposit hardship waiver application form as described in section 1.30.075.
(b) A request for hearing form may be obtained from the department specified on the
administrative citation,
littp:Hlibrary.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&ctientID=l 1760&HTMRequest=http%3 a %2f... 8/27/2012
Municode
Page 3 of 5
(c) The person requesting the hearing shall be notified of the time and place set for the hearing
at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing.
(d) If the Enforcement Officer submits an additional written report concerning the administrative
citation to the Hearing Officer for consideration at the hearing, then a copy of this report also
shall be served on the person requesting the hearing at least five days prior to the date of
the hearing.
(Orel. No. 2127, § ll, 3 -1 -04)
Sec. 1.30.040. - Hearing procedure.
(a) No hearing to contest an administrative citation before a Hearing Officer shall be held unless
the penalty has been deposited in advance in accordance with section 1.30.035(a) or an
advance deposit hardship waiver has been filed with and accepted by the Town pursuant to
section 1.30,070
(b) A hearing before the Hearing Officer shall be set for a date that is not less than fifteen (15)
days and not more than sixty (60) days from the date that the request for hearing is filed in
accordance with the provisions of this article.
(c) At the hearing, the party contesting the administrative citation shall be given the opportunity
to testify and to present evidence concerning the administrative citation.
(d) The failure of any recipient of an administrative citation to appear at the administrative
citation hearing shall constitute a forfeiture of the penalty and a failure to exhaust his or her
administrative remedies.
(e) The administrative citation and any additional report submitted by the Enforcement Officer
shall constitute prima facie evidence of the respective facts contained in those documents.
M The Hearing Officer may continue the hearing and request additional information from the
Enforcement Officer or the recipient of the citation prior to issuing a written decision.
(Orel. No. 2127, § ll, 3 -1 -04)
Sec. 1.30.045. - Hearing Officer's decision.
(a) After considering all of the testimony and evidence submitted at the hearing, the Hearing
Officer shall issue a written decision to uphold or cancel the administrative citation and shall
list the reasons for that decision. The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be final.
(b) If the Hearing Officer determines that the administrative citation should be upheld, he or she
shall impose a penalty not to exceed the maximum provided in the schedule of administrative
penalties adopted by the Town Council resolution in effect on the date when the violation
occurred. The Town shall retain the penalty amount on deposit with the Town. If the Hearing
Officer determines that the administrative citation should be upheld and the penalty was not
deposited pursuant to a waiver under section 1.30.075, the Hearing Officer shall set forth in
the decision an order for payment of the penalty and a payment schedule for the penalty.
(c) The Hearing Officer may assess administrative costs against the violator when the Hearing
Officer determines that a violation has occurred and that compliance was not achieved.
Administrative costs may include any and all costs incurred by the Town (both direct and
indirect costs) in investigating and commencing administrative proceedings for the violation
as well as any and all costs incurred by the Town in connection with the hearing before the
Hearing Officer, including but not limited to costs the Enforcement Officer incurred in
preparation for the hearing and for participating in the hearing itself, and costs of the Town to
conduct the hearing.
(d)
http://Iibrary.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientlD=l 1760&HTMRequest=1-Atp%3 a %2f... 8 /27/2012
Municode Page 4 of 5
Failure to pay administrative penalties and administrative costs in the amounts specified in
the administrative Hearing Officer's decision on or before the date specified in that decision
shall constitute a violation of this Code punishable as a misdemeanor and shall further be
subject to collection and late charges as otherwise provided for administrative penalties
herein.
(e) If the Hearing Officer determines that the administrative citation should be cancelled, the
Town shall promptly refund the amount of the deposited penalty.
(f) The recipient of the administrative citation shall be served with a copy of the Hearing
Officer's written decision.
(Ord. No. 2127, § Il, 3 -1 -04)
Sec. 1.30.050. - Late payment charges.
Any person who fails to pay to the Town any penalty imposed pursuant to the provisions of
this article on or before the date that penalty is due also shall be liable for the payment of any
applicable late payment charges set forth in the schedule of penalties.
(Ord. No. 2127, § ll, 3 -1 -04)
Sec. 1.30.055. - Recovery of administrative citation penalties and collection
costs.
The Town may collect any past due administrative citation penalty, late payment charge and
costs of collection by use of any and all available legal means.
(Ord. No. 2127, § Il, 3 -1 -04)
Sec. 1.30.060. - Right to judicial review.
Any person aggrieved by an administrative decision of the Hearing Officer on an
administrative citation may obtain review of the administrative decision by filing a petition for review
with the Superior Court in S.anta Clara County in accordance with the time lines and. provisions set
forth in California Government Code section 53069.4.
(Ord. No. 2127, § fl, 3 -1 -04)
Sec. 1.30.065. - Notices.
Whenever a notice is required to be given under this article, unless different provisions are
otherwise specifically made, such notice may be given either by personal delivery to the person to
be notified or by deposit in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid,
addressed to such person to be notified at the last -known business or residence address as the
same appears in the last equalized county assessment roll or to the records pertaining to the matter
to which such notice is directed. Service by mail shall be deemed completed at the time of deposit
in the United States mail receptacle is made. Failure to receive any notice specified herein does not
affect the validity of proceedings conducted hereunder.
(Ord, No, 2127, § ll, 3 -1 -04)
Sec. 1.30.070. - Advance deposit hardship waiver.
http://library.mtinicode.com/print.aspx?h=&cliciatlD=l 1760&HTMRequest=http%3 a %2f... 8/27/2012
Municode
Page 5 of 5
(a) Any person who intends to request a hearing to contest an administrative citation, and who is
financially unable to make the advance deposit of the penalty as required in section 1.30.035
(a), may file a request for an advance deposit hardship waiver which shall include a sworn
affidavit as described in subsection (c) below.
(b) The request shall be filed, along with the request for hearing form, with the Town Attorney's
Office on an advance deposit hardship waiver application form, available from the Town
Clerk's office, within thirty (30) days of the date of the administrative citation.
(c) The Town may waive the requirement of an advance deposit and issue the advance deposit
hardship waiver only if the cited party submits to the Town a sworn affidavit, together with
any supporting documents or materials, demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Town
Manager the person's actual financial inability to deposit with the Town the full amount of the
penalty in advance of the hearing. In determining the cited party's financial ability or inability
to deposit the full amount of the penalty in advance, the Town Manager shall consider the
amount of the penalty imposed, the income of the cited party, the expenses of the cited
party, and any other factors that are reasonably related to the cited party's ability to deposit
the full amount.
(d) The requirement of depositing the full amount of the penalty as described in section 1.30.035
(a) shall be stayed unless or until the Town makes a full determination not to issue the
advance deposit hardship waiver.
(e) If the Town makes a determination to deny the advance deposit hardship waiver application,
a written determination listing the reasons for said denial shall be issued. The written
determination to deny the waiver shall be final.
(f) The written determination of the Town's denial of the advance deposit hardship waiver shall
be served by mail upon the person who applied for the waiver,
(Ord. No. 2127, § 11, 3 -1 -04)
FOOTNOTE(S):
(1) Editor's note— Ord. No.2127, § fl, supplied provisions to be added to the Code as Article 11, Administrative
Citations. In order to preserve the style of the Code, and at the editor's discretion, these provisions have been set
out as Article l/l, Administrative Citations, to read as herein set out. Back
http://library.municode.com/priiit.aspx?h=&clientID=I 1760&HTMRequest=http%3 a %2f... 8/27/2012
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT POLICY
TOWN Or LOS GATOS
Subject: Administrative Citation. Policy - :Protocol
A•ppr� '---' Effective Date:
s �._
Bud N. Lortz, rrect f Camrnumty Development August 4, 200
PURPOSE
This policy is intended to provide Town staff with. a standard procedure for handling staff. observed
code violations or complaints received from the public about code violations pursuant to the
Administrative Citation Ordinance. The.goal of the Administrative Citation Program. is to abate the
violation(s) and obtain compliance with Town Code. In most cases, this can be accomplished by
contacting the violator and informing them. of the violation. The following protocol will provide for
a process that will achieve compliance in the shortest time possible while allowing a reasonable
period of time for the violator to abate the violation.
PROTOCOL
Upon receipt of a complaint, or upon observation of a violation by Town staff, the Code Compliance
Officer (CCO) will. determine if there is a violation of the Town Code. Town staff will make such
a determination by conducting a field inspection of the property in question and identify therelevant
section of the Town Code. Once the CCO has established that a violation of the Town Code exists,
it shall be the CCO's duty to identify and notify the responsible party of the violation.. The CCO
will identify the responsible party through, interviews with business owners, members of the public,
staff, and by researching Town records and databases.
The CCO will first attempt to contact the responsible p,,uly in person. If the CCO is, for any reason,
unable to discuss the violation with the violator in person, it shall be the CCO's duty to inform the
responsible party of the violation in writing. The CCO will inform the. responsible party of the
violation by issuing an administrative citation "WARN INI G" and it shall include a specific date by
which the violation. must be abated. After the established time has lapsed and the violation has not
been abated, aja. "ADMI11N,11STRATIVE CITATION" or an "ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
(CORRECTION N0110E)" may be issued to the responsible party and it too shall include a date
by which the violation must be abated.
Attaelment 2
When the CCO is unable to identify a violation, no action will be taken and the reporting party will
be. notified that no violation exists, This notification will be made in- person, over the phone or via
correspondence. No anonymous complaints will be accepted unless it concerns a life, health or
safety issue.
The amount: of time given to abate any violation and the type of citation that is issued will be
determined based on the type, frequency and seriousness of each violation at the discretion of the
Code Compliance Officer, For example, a life, health or safety issue will take precedence and will
.require the need for abatement in an expedient manner. Violations that do not include a life, health
or safety issue will be considered less serious violations. Therefore, the violator of such an offense
will. be given a .minimum of five (5) days to abate the violation. Less serious types of violations
include, but are not limited to, inoperative vehicles, overgrown weeds, rubbish, signs and other non-
life and safety building and zoning violations.
If the CCO contacts the violator and finds that compliance will be obtained in a reasonable period
of tirn.e, then the CCO has the discretion to allow the violation to be abated and postpone or withhold
issuance of a citation. All correspondence, photos and notices shall be placed in. the file.
N: \DEV\ROY1CodeCompliance\2005\A1 iyn- CIUPROT000I.,wl)d
O RD I�i_�ty CE 2191
ORDIN. NCE. ADllI`i G A iIZW CHAPTER 30 TO THE LOS (7ATOS TOMS CODE
ENTITLED "NE•IGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION"
'l'it+-i" TOW,,I COL,C.IL OF THE Tolwi or LOS GATOS DOES OP -- TN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 30, entitled `' - eiJ:bcrhood Prose rat en" is hereby added to the Los Gatos
Town Code, and shall read as f�liows;
See. 30.10.010 Purpose, T hs cha te: is adopted fo promote the health, safz.�j, a,d welfare or
the residents of the Town of Los Gatos. T his Chapter v-I1 'Cu --they irrpletnerit the goals o= the
General Plan, the Zoning Chapter, and the e :ensive protectiors•ircluded within the Tow-r- Code
ai,°red at enhancing and preset -wing the quality of life and property values in the Town, These
reg'}lati0ri5 a e neGeSSarV to ssaeilize and protect the aesthetic appearances and the quality and
character of the Tow-'s residential neighborhoods, as well as its con,--ylercial districts, and
industrial properties, and to prevent tl:e' i.npairment of propeily values,
See. 30.10,020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, h follorng ses e v rsa
shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them b;� this section.
A. Fire Marshal, The_ Santa Cla a County Fire Marshal or his or her designet-,
B. Tmwn Engineer, The Los Gatos Town Eng'_neer or his or her designee.
C. f-fi�hyva,.. may er place of whatever rabire, publicly maintained and open to
the use of the public for purposes o!!f''vehicular travel'T'Lighway" includes "st.eet," "right -of-
way,' �thoroughfa:re" and "si':ewalh•" .
D. U)'JP.2Y. Any perSCn Olirn'ng OCC' p itng, least o, or oche; vvl_e ha vino cor:t3'O1 0f
r .al propert;, or uses thereon,
E. OW? er of vehicle. The rooster er and 1e C, 3! o,,' er C' rpCv:d Of t:ZB
su ble..t 've1 Iicle,
Attachment 3
Any -) :ai Ira: ,^•,: sopi :—m, %Ss ocicatior:, org .niza tion, parr- ,---s ip, tr :5 of
C. t' ?cf.
sSC` i'µk t'r1 ofpn—sons, joint Vel"_'Wre, corpo:atior or co:1,)G^rt , aru iii officer Or it eii` :1C:
G, ijeh , —I , A dinice by v hicl, ar_v person or prove ty Inc y be propeller?, inovec:, or
h,xa,I,, st,—.,t or t:toro�:Iglifare, except
h- a device moved by human power or usei:
ikon staoli ^at `f r3._'s oI' ` ac: «.
4 c, Q.1 Q ((l;?10 Conclitirins of l'ropei t't'• Pv ovmerl o'real pr' perry sh it not allow o, n aLr.L,-.ii
a:ly 0` trfe folio;virg on his cr her proper: y:
a. Oyer-rown, diseased, dead or d- Icra;,'ed treCS, weed's or ot'ner vegeea:iell, Which:
r
(i) in the opinion of tl:e Fi:•e 4T�arshal cons"it.itcs a :ire hazard; or
(ii) in the opinion of the Town Engineer constitutes a danger to those usirg (he property
or adjacent >vubiic or private property.
b. 111C:Jstorn(Ye or equipL`lerlt, rn terials, standing FJa`.e "• mrid {or vegetaiioi'_ oti %e3g'o'a l wlucll
`t,^ li'': 1 .t :;�+ 1 ? :anij„ for rats verz nln, mcsqui:oes, iii,d oCl:e pests;
y tc; lln;,, ur or rc , " P
C. Garbage reFllse, trash., debris or waste., except as stored in accordarce witn the provisions
of Chapter 1 l of rile To %gym of Los Gatos Nlmicipal Code;
d,
'Garbage receptacles in view from la public right of way, except within twenty fora (24)
Lours of the designated day- and time the garbage is scheduled to be collected;
c. Gruf'iiti which remains for a period longer than t,-.n (1 0) days;
f.
Cone wh
itions ich, dale to t eC i acussi ility to the public, may prove hazardous or
(11`;sf._t :oli5, hnclu,,7;Cg, but not 11rI11teC. to:
( P Unused a -n6'or broken eCuipr:men,.
t:
11, On residentially zor--d properties: any construction, commercial, or other equipment
machinery, or materials except that constraction equipmert, maclinery or material which is
temporarily kept within or upon the property for and during the time such ecuioll,e.nt mach,.ulery
or material is required for the construction or installation of improve -ments or facilities on'lat
property, However, in no evjcht shall the constilletion egtl.lpnient I'nelCllinery or n,ater.als be in
the front or side yard areas visible from a public street for any period of time in excess of twelve
(12) consecutive months or twelve (12) nonconsecutive mon' the in any eighteen (18) month
period,
i, Any of the following when located in the front or side yard and. visible from public right -
of -way: refrigerator, waslun, machine, sink, stove, heater, boiler, tank or any other household
appliances, equipment, machinery, ftimiture (other than furniture designed and used for outdoor
activities), firewood, lumber, salvage materials, building materials, unmounted, campers,
unmounted camper tops, unmounted camper shells, vessels not on trailers, boats, trailers, or any
part of any of the listed items for a. period of time iJn excess of seventy -two (72) consecutive
hours, except as specificallyprovided herein;
j. Ariy of the following when located ill the front or side yard and visible from public ri-ba-
of -way; boxes, ca rg0 containers, storage containers, containers, or durnpsters, in eaccess of
seventy -two (72) consecutive hours, or for more than two (2) occasions in a calendar year,
except as otherwise, permitted by this Cade, or w.1erL engaged in ongoing const action activity,
pursuant to an active building permit;
k. Any storage unit or shed in. the front yard or in the side yard and visible from a public
right -of -way;
1. On residentially zoned grope ty, any business or activity which dismantles, disassernbies,
builds, remodels, assembles, crushes, repairs, paints, washes, cleans or services motor vehicles,
aircraft, inotorcycle.s, recreational Vehicles, boats or trailers owned by - peson o —her than the
property o,vhler;
Ill, Any tent, temporary shelter, car canopy, or collan.sibie structure in the front or sloe yard
and visible from a public right- of-,vay for a period in excess of seventy -iwo ( 72) hours or for
more tilan two (2) occasions in a calendar year;
n. Any use of a parking let, driveway{, carport, or park-..nn Stmuurp for other than: ve;licala r
axkiiq, ingress and ezress exc °pt as expre; "/ :Le
I ., r sl, autll�rl d b; permit;
3
^ "\
—
n 'A���»rn�s�o���U�oc��u���i: .��'
el�-J":uooxiL 1Lot'le public hgh''of-wsy,exnt�p[onui�tmhzed' pcc it;
7hcuocofoxLdoncharbccoouoroffi�-,- ue0hod;oFuooldngfbnd, Outdoors tnheuo\db
^x!'e-'t us 0, f��S,:vo1ycr� orayerc�i ixoued pursuant to
7onn of Los Oa'ooMuzdc\pal Cod�.
Q. The pur'j�z0o1s(ory�eo-4, On iucdocupod,xuvfaopoo'uupnvndo'Aa��:x.
r. Th,* ped/inQorstncoou,- Of inoperable v�aio1cnnu resid_endo£y'zonn- Dropcbes w'aoo
visih1 c from o Public sidewalk, ztro"aLnrUhnrougb{ur:.
x. /\xy000s�cuobou'docooUbouorr:znod�}b�Quo�vi�y�o��:cxto��o�uf�o�ructnrnp/�iob in
no(compin-led mitliiu eighteen (118') months of000-m:ao:meuL
r�ection 31) 10,040 Sign Enforcement. No person cr owner obel1orootorponnbaxi8ctobn
\ocuk:�} ou��\do o�obui\d�o8 o� buc�o�oa`un}ouu ectboriz�d byuTown-issued p�rmi1. The to�cz
''s�gn"xbo}�iu�|u6�'`�'�sm�`'ui�ns,uaodv/iubbomdo'6unoox.uruuyo[bo���ou[o��pr�rn�a�
Sicn);»,,_,i:daoyv/bc��'Outside tb-1 bo/|ding.'F6o uzcu"ootSido^ u business bnolndos 0aor,:ia:/s'
d(1--xolks' and dcivowoyx\vudino toward '�-ie entiuuoeofabusiness.
Section 30,10A50 Nfer-chandise. No bcxiooss notobUz}oneutx6o)l nnu!ntuio oxuliov/ any display
o�cxcrobuodis:notaidC thobboUdiogp/bbout.aTowr -issued yeimit. A"dinylu`/'irclndoohntin
rjot ijm�ted to a clothes rack, table ,vith r-nerChajjd;Se, or any other p1hvs:Cal S'FuctUr-, that may
block the pub\io 6Xbt'of-nu�.
Yio|ahenc�tbinC�a�1orx�o! bcanoisdomronor uu�000
Pellalfv for Viol
nb�zcd*ooniufiacdno. 2ucb day uv�du1ionocxo�sor�ondouoymuybvuhur��dux��d
Pill snopuzx1c o1f�-ooc.
Iotbcov�nt "a�anyy��o���uo,dizux:�i�bdd�o��i/n/aUd,d�:
invalid pc�or uhuD be xevorcd from. Ln-� ��ouiaing. portions w6idz u�uU 7cneio in fu'}| force
This ordirnrce was imroduced at a regular meeting of the To vn. Council of the Town of
Los Gatos on May 17, 2010 and adopted by the following tote as an ordinanca of the Tov/n of
Los Gatos at a regu €ar meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los. Gatos on June 7, 2010,
This ordinance tapes effect -10 days after, it is adopted.
COUNCIL IVIEIMBEERS:
AYES: Joe Pirz.ynski, Steve Rice, Barbara Spector, Mil-ce Wasse: pan, Mayor DiWrc imc�y�tz
NAYS:
ABSENT:
kB.STAIN:
SIGNED;
Awipat
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFOPUNIA
'TEST:
�TEPRK A `Yf1NISTR.ATOR OF THE TMV�T OF LOS GATOS
S, CALIFOR1iL4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Code Enforcement Activity FY 10/11 and FY 11/12
VIOLATION STATUS
Total YTD
Total YTD
FY -10 /11
FY -11/12
Complaints reported
311
295
Violations abated
235
236
Violations pending normal processing
27
25
Complaints determined not to be a violation
48
34
Citations issued
4
3
Violations resulting in litigation
1
1
Referred to Town Attorney
4
4
Unlawful businesses
2
0
Unlawful accessory structures
5
8
Animal complaints
9
8
Noise complaints
35
33
Garbage and rubbish
24
21
Building code violations
41
42
Unlawful dwelling units
1
3
Overgrown weed, bushes, etc...
14
14
Lighting complaints
3
2
Encroachment /Obstruction of right -of -way
27
19
Inoperative vehicles (boats, trailers, motor homes, etc...)
28
22
Sign violation (A- frames, banners, no permits, etc...)
50
72
Home Occupation Permit - Violation
1
1
Conditional Use Permit - Violation
6
5
Miscellaneous (refer to log sheet)
64
52
Total number of phone calls
1173
972
N: \DEV \TC REPORTS \2012 \Code Enforcement Activity FYI 0111 and 11_12.docx
Attachment 4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank