9�pW N_0,
�0S.GaIoS COUNCIL, AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MARCH 25, 2013
MEETING DATE: 04/01/13
ITEM NO: 9
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON CODE COMPLIANCE POLICIES AND PRACTICES
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept staff report on current code compliance policies and practices and provide direction to
staff regarding future compliance policies.
BACKGROUND:
On September 4, 2012, Council held a Study Session to review the Town's code enforcement
policies and practices. At this meeting, staff presented an overview of the Town's current code
enforcement program's process, along with data collected from code enforcement activities over
the last two fiscal years. Staff also presented information about the Town's Conditional Use
Permits (CUPs) process and explained how these permits are addressed through the
Administrative Citation Policy. There were three primary concerns that were identified with the
Town's current code enforcement procedures. These issues included the following:
No dedicated staff
The Town eliminated the Code Enforcement Officer position in 2009 as a result of budget
reductions associated with the economic downturn. These duties were re- distributed among
several staff within the Community Development Department. Although this approach helped to.
address some of the code enforcement issues on a limited basis, it resulted in some lack of
continuity and standardization in enforcement cases. Staff believes that with dedicated Code
Enforcement Officer staffing, service has been improved and responsiveness has been restored.
PREPARED BY: TODD CAPURSO
Acting Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
N APPW\MANAGEMENT\COUNCIL\COUNCIL REPORTS\2013 Reports \040113 \Update Code Enforcement Policies and Practices.docx ��N
PAGE 2
MARCH 25, 2013
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON CODE COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES
BACKGROUND (cont'd):
Response to current reactive service delivery model
Because of limited resources, most small to medium sized municipalities operate on a Reactive
Service Delivery Model, responding only to complaints received rather than staff initiated
enforcement. The Town receives an average of 300 complaints per year and approximately 1 to
2 percent have resulted in continuing neighborhood complaints; therefore, it appears the current
code compliance procedures are generally effective. There are some unique cases, however, in
which the process does not address neighborhood concerns within a timely manner.
Cases that have resulted in greater neighborhood concerns are often associated with businesses
that have CUPS that may be 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. In order to provide
more thorough monitoring, staff will continue to separate CUP violations from other code
enforcement cases. One strategy to address this is to assign a planning staff member who will be
responsible for conducting reviews of establishments and, if violations were identified, work
with the operator to secure compliance.
Existing Enforcement Process
A final concern with the current code enforcement process is the inability for the complaining
parties to have a public voice in the resolution of the issue. Most code enforcement issues are
remedied through staff working with the offender to resolve the issue. If a citation or fine is
imposed on an offender, the offender has the option to appeal the citation through the
Administrative Hearing Process. However, the Administrative Hearing Process is at the
offender's discretion and does not provide a public forum for other parties to participate.
There are no known code enforcement models that provide public hearing processes for
community input unless the case is so significant that it results in a revocation hearing. There are
contractors,_ however,. that provide neighborhood_ mediation services that allow for community
input. The Town presently contracts with Project Sentinel, which provides tenant /landlord
dispute resolution services. This service provider could potentially mitigate and /or provide
mediation services to resolve conflicts between adjacent residents and businesses. In addition,
there are community mediation and dispute resolution programs available through the County of
Santa Clara Office of Human Relations for low or no cost to community members for these types
of disputes.
Finally, as part of the Study Session Report, staff presented recommendations to the Council for
consideration and requested feedback as part of the Study Session. This report provides an
update based on the feedback received at the Study Session. In addition, it explains how staff
plans to address existing and future code enforcement cases and Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
issues.
PAGE 3
MARCH 25, 2013
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON CODE COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES
DISCUSSION:
Town staff presented recommendations to the Council to improve existing code enforcement
procedures and practices. At the Study Session, Council provided direction to staff. Since this
discussion, staff has implemented some plans to mitigate and address concerns raised. In order
to resolve some issues, additional resources will be required. This report will address these
seven issues in further detail.
1. In order to address code compliance issues in a more efficient manner, additional resources
have been allocated to re- establish a dedicated Code Compliance program in the
Community Development Department. As a result of rising revenues and community
requests, Council approved a $45,000 allocation at the February 19th Council meeting to
fund contractual resources for a part -time Code Compliance Officer. In addition to these
services, augmented hours from an in -house part-time employee have been combined to
develop a four -day per week Code Compliance program. As a result of these changes, staff
has been more responsive to code related complaints and has been able to mitigate
circumstances in a more efficient manner.
2. Another recommendation is to test new proactive code enforcement procedures.
Specifically, a complaint against one property could be proactively enforced on nearby
blocks to reduce the potential for comparable allegations. In addition, the Town could
initiate proactive enforcement Downtown regarding mobile signs and over - seating at
restaurants. Any proactive enforcement Downtown would only occur after prior notice to
businesses and the Chamber of Commerce. If Council wants to pursue limited proactive
enforcement as described, then the required resources will be included in the proposed
budget.
3. Another recommendation is to 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. Staff has taken preliminary steps towards
developing a system that will post this information online and make the information
available to the public. The process involves researching all establishments with a CUP,
creating a comprehensive electronic database of permits, then scanning and uploading a
copy of each permit to the website. Currently, the Town has this information available in a
non - electronic format. Cataloging this information into an electronic format will require
additional staff time and resources. Additionally, there are approximately over 70 CUP
categories that need to be recorded into a database format before they can be uploaded
online. Staff plans to have this information displayed on the Town's website under the
Community Development section of the website. This effort is currently in progress and
should be completed by approximately September.
PAGE 4
MARCH 25, 2013
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON CODE COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES
DISCUSSION (cont'd):
4. Another recommendation is to assign CUP condition monitoring to a planning staff
member, who will be responsible for monitoring and all related inquiries. A strategy to
address this is under review with staff. Currently there are limited planning staff resources
available to implement this plan. A part-time staff person could be hired to specifically
focus on this task because existing planning staff is working on new projects. As part of
this staff person's responsibilities, the CUP monitoring will involve conducting reviews of
establishments and, if violations were identified, working with the operator to secure
compliance or schedule for possible revocation. In order to remain current and tip to date
on CUPs, the permit reviews would be conducted on a biannual basis.
5. Staff has conducted preliminary research into the concept of establishing a community
mediation contract similar to the City of Los Altos that would address neighborhood
disputes and issues between consumers and businesses, in addition to the Town's existing
tenants and landlords mediation services. The costs for these services are unknown at this
time. It is likely that these costs could run as high as several thousand dollars per case,
depending on the complexity. Staff is continuing to research this issue and will report back
to Council on potential budget impacts in May.
6. Staff will update all code enforcement web and print public information materials as a way
to inform and educate residents and businesses about these issues. Staff has reviewed web
and printed information and will be taking steps to make this information more customer
service friendly. Staff will also update its printed information. This effort will be
completed by August.
7. Council consensus on September 4, 2012 was to limit abatement of a code enforcement
complaint to a maximum of 30 -60 days, if tangible resolution of the issue is evident.
However, abatement of planning and permitting issues (e.g., CUP violations) would not be
allowed without Council concurrence. Given the recent Woodshed issue, the Council may
want to consider alternatives.
CONCLUSION:
Staff is seeking Council comment and direction regarding future code compliance polices.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The recommended action is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required
at this time.
PAGE 5
MARCH 25, 2013
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON CODE COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES
FISCAL IMPACT:
The hiring of additional staff (part -time or permanent) will have impacts to the general fund. The current
staffing model, a mix of in -house staff and contractual resources, is being proposed for Council
consideration as part of the FY 2013/14 Operating Budget.
Attachments:
Code Compliance Bi- Annual Report for July through December 2012 and Total Violation
Statistical Comparison to Fiscal Year 12/13 Bi- Annual Report
TMs PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
DATE: JANUARY 30, 2013
SUBJECT: CODE COMPLIANCE BI- ANNUAL REPORT FOR JULY THROUGH
DECEMBER 2012 AND TOTAL VIOLATION STATISTICAL COMPARISON
TO FISCAL YEAR 12/13 BIANNUAL REPORT
DISCUSSION:
Table 1 indicates that the complaints reported for the 1St Bi- Annual Period of the current fiscal year
(2012/13) remained fairly consistent when compared to the complaints reported for the same period
last fiscal year (2011/12). The data shows that there were 56 more complaints reported in 2012.
Table 1 also shows that the number of telephone calls received for this 1St Bi- Annual Period
(2012/2013) was down by 47 compared to the same period last year, possibly due to implementation
of the Code Compliance Online Complaint form.
The complaints that were received covered a wide variety of Town regulations, including, but not
limited to, the following: 1) Sign violations, 2) Miscellaneous violations, 3) Building violations, 4)
Noise violations. It should be noted that staff spent a significant amount of time enforcing the Town
Code as it relates to the above referenced violations as these four items accounted for approximately
55 % of all complaints.
Table to Bi- Annual 11/12 and 12/13 Violation Status Comparison
_—�—_ _-----
VIOLATION STATUS
�:�xer:�,�;ara�xu�a�•�sfr��r �xavr��;s�crx�sc _
�aYcAT•�.ffi61� n=Ws`rfi'C.;m- mm.ms�
Complaints reported
_._
1St
Bi- Annual
FY -11/12
�iaw��:ry�� s3
aHA'
144
.
1St
Bi- •Annual
FY -12/13
.r,
ot3a4,"te��F;fl7!
200
Violations abated
107
1 20
Violations pending normal processing
16
25- ~�
Complaints determined not to be a violation
21
55 -
Citations issued � -�
5
S
Violations resulting in litigation
0 �A
0
Referred to Town Attorney
_ -- - 2 -�
0
Unlawful businesses
0
0
Attachment 1
VIOLATION TYPE
Unlawful accessory structures
]Bi- Annual
FY -11/12
0
Iii - Annual
FY-12/13
5
Animal complaints
4
2
Noise complaints
12
21
Garbage and rubbish
10
4
Building code violations
20
21
Unlawful dwelling units
0
2
Overgrown weed, bushes, etc...
4
3
Lighting complaints
1
0
Encroachment /Obstruction of right -of -way
7
11
Inoperative vehicles (boats, trailers, motor homes, etc...)
9
5
Sign violation (A- frames, banners, no permits, etc,..)
32
29
Certificate of Use & Occupancy- Approved
46
64
Sign Application Permit- Approved
54
41
Home Occupation Permit- Approved
33
47
Home Occupation Permit - Violation
5
2
Conditional Use Permit - Violation
4
0
Miscellaneous (refer to log sheet)
29
40
Sub Total
144
297
Total Number of emails
n/a
100
Total number of phone calls
'497
450
TC:AP:ct
C:\ Users \sangulo\AhpData \Local \Microsoft\Windows \Temporary Internet Files\ Content.Outlook \9T5V9B7D \CC2012 -2013 BI- ANNUAL
REPORT QTR 1 2.doc