Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1996 1104 CC SPC ITEM 04AA ­N 1TEM • �. AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developmeat� DATE: October 30, 1996 (CC Study Session of November 4, 1996) SUBJECT: Consider Issues and Staffing Levels Relating to Code Enforcement Program ► �� �1 Council Member- Brown had requested that the Council discuss the possibility of adding code enforcement staff specifically to address issues in the downtown area. The attached report was presented to the Council on October 16, 1996, at which time City Council scheduled a Study Session for November 4, 1996, to further discuss the Code Enforcement program. Included in the October 16 report was a rnemorandwn from August 28, 1992, which outlines the work program and priorities. 1 • ` Current Program and Staffing At present, there is one Code Enforcement Officer who is partially supported by a part -time clerical aide in the Community Development Department. However, the clerical aide has typically been mostly devoted to processing Home Occupation Permits and Solicitors Pernuts, which Code Enforcement adnurusters. The Code Enforcement Officer is scheduled to work two weekend days per month and one early morning, or late evening shift per week. These times are used to investigate issues, especially overcrowding, which may not be as apparent during the normal work week. Recently, the Code Enforcement Officer has also made a couple of presentations to Neighborhood Watch groups. Only about forty percent of the officer's time is spent in the field investigating and issuing notices of violation. Another forty percent of the time is spent in the office, doing paperwork, research and follow -up, phone calls, coordinating with other agencies, and meetings directly related to current cases. About five percent of the officer -s time is spent preparing for and going to court. The remaining fifteen percent of the officer's time is spent on training, other meetings (such as staff meetings, customer service task force, or emergency preparedness, or similar), preparing departmental reports, home occupations and solicitors permits, and other general tasks. In October 1990, a second Code Enforcement position was added to the one previous officer. In August 1994, one officer was transferred to housing programs in the Redevelopment Agency. Also in August 1994, a full -time secretary was transferred from the Community Development Department to the Redevelopment Agency. The secretary had been devoting ninety percent of her time to home occupations, solicitors permits, and code enforcement. She prepared and processed all of the home occupation and solicitor permits, after obtaining appropriate approvals. She also prepared and ;. i WPNN2 a4PUI ti -'PIS L i S I! 121. ,."VP!1 Code Enforcement Program October 30, 1996 Page 2 maintained logs and case files, prepared correspondence, prepared monthly and bi- monthly reports, took complaints, assisted in research of files and information, prepared information for the attorneys and officers for court, and transmitted and made copies of all correspondence. The part -time clerical aide was subsequently added to the Community Development Department. Following is a list of the number of code enforcement cases by year. Total Cases Cases Related to Overcrowdinu 1990 290 22 1991 380 68 1992 509 116 1993 1 5 1994 31 5 1995 347 56 1996 - +80 (Through 9/27/96) NA On the average, about six hours of officer time has been expended per case. A case is assigned to one property ownership, so one case may cover multiple violations, structures, and even several properties. However, averages are distorted by cases that consume significant hours, such as overcrowding cases. In 1992, when there were the most overcrowding cases the average was closer to eight hours per case. A couple of more recent cases, which have been to court several times have exceeded over 100 hours each. Two of these involved property maintenance and accumulations of materials. In 1996, the average has been closer to three hours per case. In 1995, $18,000 of the City Attorney's time was billed for code enforcement. About $14,000 of this was for one case, which is still not completely resolved. In 1996 to date, about $15,500 of City Attorney time has been billed for code enforcement. I`his covers several cases, with the largest being about $6,000 and is still ongoing. In Spring 1994, the City initiated a Neighborhood Preservation Program. A flyer regarding this program is attached as Attachment 2. The intent of this program was to target areas, one at a time, which would be canvassed for violations and public information approach would be emphasized, utilizing the attached flyer with the initial contact to encourage voluntary compliance. In mid 1994, when one officer was transferred to the Redevelopment Agency, the targeting of areas was no longer feasible. Since the reassignment of one officer, the program has been more reactive in nature, responding predominantly to complaints. However, the public information approach initiated in 1994, has continued to be utilized. All complaints and potential cases are thoroughly investigated, so that the officer has first hand knowledge of any violation, prior to first contact with persons in violation. It is also checked to see if there were previous similar violations on the same property. Frequently, the first contact with persons is a verbal warning with encouragement to resolve the violation. A Courtesy Notice (see Attachment 3) is also used to inform the public of the violations and corrective measures. For more serious violations a Notice of Violation form is used. A follow -up inspection is conducted and a second notice is issued if the violations are not corrected. The second notice is usually a letter, which is mailed to the violator and the property owner. The officer may also conduct Code Enforcement Program October 30, 1996 Page 3 follow -up inspections to verify that the violation continues to be corrected, rather than re- occurring immediately after the first inspection indicates it was corrected. Proactive investigation of cases has concentrated mostly on overcrowding and substandard housing and property conditions, including property maintenance violations. The above description is a brief overview of the current program and how it has evolved. Staff has not had an opportunity to do a detailed analysis of productivity and staffing levels. There has also been discussion regarding revised procedures, which would afTect both productivity and staffing. However, new procedures have not been yet implemented. Preparation and implementation of new procedures and processes will require some commitment of management resources to accomplish. Procedures Few infractions (only 2 -3 per year) have been written by the Code Enforcement Officer, due to an emphasis on resolving the situation, rather than payment of a fine. In addition, the process which has evolved, requires the review and approval of several layers of management with final approval by the City Manager. This process can take a couple of weeks for authorization to proceed. Initiation of misdemeanor complaints, which requires the involvement of the City attorney to file the case, requires authorization by the City Council. There are currently several cases pending which have been in process for several months. This is due, in part, to the complexity, uncertainty that prosecution would resolve the situation, and costs associated with the alternative of abatement as a public nuisance. In one case, it has been estimated to cost as much as $50,000 to clean up one property. If the City were to pursue this abatement, it would have to fund the costs of this. A lien may be placed against the property to recover these costs. However, it may take as much as seven years to recover these costs, which also typically do not include any interest. In several of these cases, there are also other legal actions occurring with respect to the persons or properties by other agencies. The Code Enforcement Officer has coordinated with the District Attorney's Office and Child Protective Services in hopes of resolving some of these cases along with the efforts of other agencies. Foreclosure is also pending on at least one of the properties by the mortgage holder. Modifications to the citation procedures have been discussed for potential adoption that would give the Code Enforcement Officer more authority to initiate citations, particularly for repeat offenders. Use of an attorney who specializes ui code enforcement cases has also been discussed as a possibility. One such attorney has lower rates and would have a local office, which might allow for more expeditious filings of misdemeanor complaints, once authorized. The City Attorney has also indicated that recently adopted legislation may offer the opportunity to use a process similar to what the City uses for parking violations. More emphasis on issuance of citations might generate more revenues to offset the costs of code enforcement. The issue of cost recovery for code enforcement has been discussed, however, the City Attorney indicates this may be difficult to achieve through court action. Furthermore, on the most difficult cases, a central issue is frequently lack of funds from the property owner to resolve the violation. This is definitely an issue with the previously mentioned $50,000 potential abatement. 1, ',N'1 \' \A'UI)i 1, 1; :' R2 Il( SI!PI?I �k 'NI) Code Enforcement Program October 30, 1996 Page 4 The priorities for the program, which emphasize abatement of overcrowding and substandard housing and property conditions, do not lend themselves to citations. Citations may be more effective relating to parking violations and solicitors and in coin nercial and industrial areas, relating to property maintenance, signs, outside storage, lack of business registration, and similar issues. However, this would be a change from the public information approach the City has followed. More emphasis on citations could potentially reduce average time on a case and potentially also increase cost recovery for the code enforcement program. Such an emphasis would probably not only involve a less public information, but also more emphasis on commercial and industrial activities. Priorities Council may wish to review the priorities indicated in the August 28, 1992, memorandum. One issue, which has been mentioned, is to focus on the exterior= of the property, visible from the street, and on potential symptoms of overcrowding, such as vehicles improperly parked, rather than directly on overcrowding. Focus on the exterior of the property might dinunish conflicts with persons with different standards they consider acceptable for living conditions, as long as it was inside the house. However, only dealing with the symptoms, rather than the causal situation, may result in just changing the location and type of symptoms. At present most of the emphasis of the Code Enforcement program is in residential areas, as indicated by the current priorities, and this is where most complaints are received. The following issues are identified for potential discussion. Priorities. Review priorities in August 28, 1992, memorandum which is part of Attachment 1. Should focus of efforts be modified to emphasize the exterior of the property? 2. Procedures. A. Should more emphasis be given to citations rather than public information? B. Should procedures be modified to provide the code enforcement officer greater latitude to issue infraction citations in the field for certain violations, such as repeat offenders, parking, trash, solicitors, and lack of business registration? C. Should other infractions be authorized by the Director of Cornmuruty Development rather than the City Manager? D. Should staff and the City Attorney investigate adoption of a process similar to the process used for parking citations, which do not involve filing with the court system? E. Should use of a separate attorney for code enforcement be investigated? F. Should the City Council continue to review initiation of all misdemeanor actions? G. Should abatement of public nuisances and dangerous structures be considered in lieu of prosecution of complaints" 3. Staffing. Should additional staff be allocated to code enforcement? What type of staff and how much additional staff? i 'I' F'k N LNP U S.i'.i. RF I,?(- 1.617- PIvzS'rV17 Code Enforcement Program October 30, 1996 Page 5 4. Role of others. A. Other City staff, including planning, solid waste, or business registration personnel? B. Building and Safety Contractor? C. City Attorney, or separate attorney'.` D. Other public agencies 1. Sherifl's Department`' 2. Fire Department? 3. Health Department? 4. f'lninial Control:' S `, ectol" C ontro Funding. A. What would be the source of funding for any additional staff or increased involvement of others? B. Should this be deferred to consideration with the budget to review other priorities as well, or should there be some interim funding (City Attorney time has already exceeded amount anticipated for code enforcement this _year)? C. Should there be all allocation of funds for abatement? There are already procedures available for declaring certain vlolatlons a public nuisance and allowing direct abatement of these by the City. This also potentially allows for the direct administrative costs related to the abatement This process still consumes a significant amount of staff and tune, at least 75 to 90 days, before the City can acquire authority to abate the nuisance. It may also involve substantial allocation of funds, which have the potential to be recovered, but several years in the future. As previously mentioned, one property may involve up to $50,000. If Council wishes to add staff to the Code Enforcement pi ograln, it is recommended that first priority be given to adding more qualified and greater amount of secretarial assistance to reduce the amount of time spent in the office by the Code Enforcement Officer. This could increase time in the field less expensively than adding another officer. The potential costs of options for adding staff are discussed in the October'-', 1996, staff report (Attachment 1 �. Staff can prepare appropriate documents for future action by the Council for any direction that results from this Study Session. RECOMMENDATION Review and discuss issues. Attachments: 1. October 2, 1996, Staff Report 2. Neighborhood Preservation Flyer 3. Courtesy Notice TO: FROM: DATE: AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK i The Honorable City Council ATTACHMENT 1 Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development September 30, 1996 (CC Meeting of October 2, 1996) SUBJECT: Consider Issues and Staffing Levels Relating to Code Enforcement Program BACKGROUND Councilmember Brown requested an agenda item regarding additional code enforcement staffing. This report provides an overview of issues and background related to Code Enforcement for Council consideration. As new Director of Community Development, I would prefer the opportunity to more fully review and evaluate the Code Enforcement program. However, if it is determined to add staffing there are several options Council may wish to consider. Attached is a report to the City Council dated August 28, 1992, (see attachment 1) outlining the Code Enforcement Work Program and on page two of that report the priority list for Code Enforcement Officers. These priorities may be summarized as follows: I. Investigate complaints within one working day. 2. Investigate overcrowding 3. Investigate and abate substandard and dangerous buildings. 4. Coordinate with other public agencies. 5. Assist police in abatement of abandoned vehicles and illegally Parked vehicles. 6. Investigate and abate illegal uses and signs. 7. Investigate and abate minor public nuisance violations. 8. Investigate Home Occupations and street vendors. C:\ OFFICE \WPWIN\WPDOCy\CCRPIS\CESIFPRG. WPD (1(1f11 A-k, Code Enforcement October 2, 1996 Page 2 9. Investigate Planned Development and Conditional Use Permit violations. In fiscal year 1994/95, subsequent to the 1992 report, the Code Enforcement staff was reduced from two officers, supported to a significant degree by a full -time secretary, to one officer supported by a part -time clerical aide. Prior to October, 1990, the City had operated with one Code Enforcement Officer. It is my understanding that after this reduction that Code Enforcement would become more reactive in nature, rather than proactive. That is, Code Enforcement would respond primarily to complaints or problems which came to their attention. There was much less opportunity for proactive patrol. In addition, Code Enforcement has also assumed additional responsibilities, such as issues related to mandatory refuse collection, Home Occupation Permits, and more stringent Sign Code enforcement. The priorities have remained the same as indicated in the 1992 report. Staff attempts to respond to complaints within one day. Due to vacations, heavy workloads (especially relating to court cases), other significant cases, and lack of clerical support staff (due a vacancy which has been difficult to fill), staff has at times fallen behind. In the last couple of months, some minor complaints had been delayed as much as two to three weeks. At present, staff generally initiates an investigation within one working day. However, actual notice of violation may still lag the initial investigation. Approximately seventy (70) percent of the Code Enforcement cases relate to overcrowding, Housing Code violations, and property maintenance violations. DISCUSSION The Code Enforcement program has several significant issues at the present time. The most significant is how the City deals with persons who do not comply with staff's request for correction. As the Council knows, we have a number of cases where people have not complied with requests for correction. In the past the City has prosecuted misdemeanor criminal complaints against such persons. In some of the pending cases, this may not be very effective, as this relies primarily on correction of the violation as a condition of probation. In addition, this process can be fairly expensive in terms of City Attorney and court costs as well as staff time. The City Attorney has advised there may be limited ability to recover C:\ OFRCE\WPWIN \WPDOCSICCRPT510EM"RG. WPD 000148 Code Enforcement October 2, 1996 Page 3 costs in these situations. Some of the most significant of the currently pending cases involve substandard and unsafe buildings, for which abatement, or demolition, of the structures may be the most appropriate method. However, this also may be very expensive. Demolition and removal of material to the dump could be in excess of $10,000 per structure, not including administrative and staff time. Although, a lien may be placed against properties for these costs, unless the property changes hands it can take seven years for the City to acquire the authority to directly recover these costs. Most of the structures identified for potential abatement involve absentee landlords who are collecting rent from persons living in these structures. However, there is very little in the way of alternatives for housing for people living in these units, because of the relatively high cost of housing in the City. If these structures were ordered vacated and abated, the people living in them may have nowhere else to live, without assistance from social services agencies. Another significant category is property maintenance violations. One time abatement of these may provide a temporary solution, however, the problem often reoccurs. We have used prosecution in some of these cases, however, we have found the problems still reoccur and violation of probation may result in incarceration, but not correction of the violation. One recent case staff has dealt with was an organization which occupied a commercial structure and made interior modifications without ever obtaining zoning clearance, building permits or building occupancy. Responding to a citizen complaint, staff investigated and notified the organization and the building owner of the need for appropriate permits. The organization has indicated they intend to relocate rather than make the necessary corrections and obtain the proper permits. The building owner will have to bear the cost of correcting any violations. The difficult economic times in recent years have increased these types of violations and also made obtaining compliance much more difficult. A comprehensive program structured to address different types of violations, including voluntary compliance, infractions Possibly using an administrative procedure similar to parking violation for lesser offenses, misdemeanor complaints for more serious offenses, and abatement for other violations would appear C:\OFFICE\VIPWTN\WPDOCWCRPTS\CESITPRG.WPD ()0(j io Code Enforcement October 2, 1996 Page 4 to be the most appropriate course of action. However, resolution of the long- standing and more serious violations may be very expensive in the short -term for the City. While abatement and perhaps administrative processes may offer cost recovery, this may take several years to recover these costs. In the meantime the City might need to budget an additional $40,000 - $70,000 annually to pursue physical abatement of these violations, plus staff costs. There are also social impacts associated with these courses of action. The foremost of these is displacing people from the residences in which they live. In addition, many of the violations, especially related to property maintenance and Housing Codes, involve persons who have a different standard of acceptable living than is generally acceptable in the community. This is particularly the situation with several of the pending cases involving elderly persons and persons who come from different cultures. One suggestion that has been discussed is changing the focus of the City's effort to concentrate only on those violations visible from outside the structure, specifically as it relates to residential uses. One concern with this approach is that the symptoms of the problem will simply be changed from one area to another, as we address the various symptoms, if the root cause of the problem is not addressed. We have also found in several instances, that the most severe property maintenance cases are also related to criminal activities, especially with drugs. Additional staff would provide assistance in more aggressively dealing with the symptoms of many of the violations in the City. However, it is recommended that this should be combined with a comprehensive review of the Code Enforcement Program priorities and the City's response to long- standing violations and persons who are unlikely to comply with City Codes whatever methods are followed. OPTIONS Council may wish to some of the following options in their considerations on this program: 1: Restructure of the current program: A. Review and revise priorities, including types of C:\OFHCE\WPWIMWPDOCS\CCRYrS\CESITPRG.ViPD 0003-al Code Enforcement October 2, 1996 Page 5 violations (i.e. emphasis on exterior of structure and property visible to the public) B. Procedures, especially with respect to enforcement actions where voluntary compliance is not successful. C. Authority for pursuit of alternative actions where voluntary compliance is not successful. 2. Amount and type of additional staffing: A. Hire additional Code Enforcement Officer. This would entail annual costs of about $55,000 for salaries and benefits. It is also recommended that additional clerical support be provided for greatest effectiveness. Hiring a full -time Secretary to replace the existing part -time Administrative Aide would add another annual cost of $25,000. This would return Code Enforcement to approximately the previous staffing level at a total additional expenditure for this fiscal year of approximately $41,000 and about $83,000 for next fiscal year. This is exclusive of start -up costs for training, purchase of a vehicle (or reassignment of vehicle which originally was purchased for Code Enforcement and was transferred to the Housing Program), related equipment, uniforms, and supplies. B. Another option would be to replace the part -time clerical aide with a full -time secretary. This could allow the Code Enforcement Officer to spend a far greater amount of time in the field, rather than so much time in the office. A secretary could also provide assistance and back -up in the Planning Department. This could be accomplished for an expenditure of about $22,000 this fiscal year and about $32,000 next fiscal year. C. A part -time officer could be contracted through the Building and Safety Department. This would provide stronger emphasis on Housing Code and other Building Code issues. A part -time officer might cost about $46,000 annually, or about $32,000 this year. There would also be the issue of additional clerical support, which if contracted might add $24,000 annually or about $17,000 this fiscal year. These costs do not include any C: \OFFICEIWPW M WPDOCS\CCRPTSICESIFPRG. WPD OWL - or TO: FROM: DATE: ITEM�I��, MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 M E M O R A N D U M The Honorable City Council ' )ORPARK, CAUFORNIA City Cou Meegng �r 199 2- ACTIOV "I William Phelps, Director of Community Development '-.-- August 28, 1992 (CC Meeting of 9 -9 -92) WP SUBJECT: CODE ENFORCEMENT WORK PROGRAM Background Staff is requesting City Council direction regarding the code enforcement work program and priorities. The City Council last considered code enforcement priorities at your meeting of November 21, 1990. At that meeting, the Council took action to receive and file a Code Enforcement Activity Report and to consider code enforcement priorities when the City addressed the issue of City goals and priorities. Subsequently, the City Council did adopt a Mission Statement, Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 1991 -92 and has reviewed a draft Mission Statement, Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 1992 -93 ((Council action was to table discussion on 1992 -93 goals and objectives until after the State budget is adopted). Attached is an excerpt from the draft for Fiscal Year 1992 -93 which identifies code enforcement objectives, The Code Enforcement objectives listed constitute specific work tasks to be completed during the next year, and do not establish priorities for standard code enforcement responsibilities suck as investigation work in response to complaints. Staff has, therefore, included in the Discussion section of this memorandum a draft list of priorities for consideration. For the Council's information, the Community Development Committee did discuss code enforcement priorities at a meeting on July 6, 1992. A memorandum addressed to the Code Enforcement Officers was subsequently prepared which outlined revisions to code enforcement procedures based on recommendations from the Committee (see attached memorandum dated August 5, 1992). The in that memorandum were not ranked numerical y ce nurorderstof priority, dst- o8 -18 -91 111;5 7 :\WP51\C6o\N9 -9CC PAUL W LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tem SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M,PEREZ Councilmember Councilmember oo0:,54 ROY E TALLEY JR Councilmember It is illegal to store operative or inoperative vehicles on any street for more than 72 hours. Storage of any unattached trailer, camper, or mobile home is prohibited on public streets for more than 72 hours at all times. 3. YARD MAINTENANCE All yards must be kept free of all dead, diseased, or hazardous trees, weeds or other vegetation which is unseemly or offensive to the senses. 4. SOLID WASTE ACCUMULATIONS It is prohibited to maintain accumulations of litter, dirt, debris, trash or household furniture or equipment which can be viewed from the Public Right of Way. 5. BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE All structures must be kept free of damage, neglect or from becoming an attractive nuisance. • • There are many more types of violations, such as ;onducting an illegal business from a home, [legal grading, loud noise, etc. Please contact 'ity staff if you need more information. SUGGESTIONS residents should attempt to maintain good relations with their neighbors through common courtesy, mutual respect, and understanding. Ba- sic differences in language and or culture should not be the cause ofproblems. What should not be tolerated is an actual violation of law. Here are some tips that you may wish to use when you encounter a violation or problem situation: 1. Establish a positive association with your neighbors. 2. Communicate. Language barriers can be overcome by obtaining the assistance of a mutual friend who speaks both languages. 3. Exercise common courtesy. Allow people to park in front of their own homes. Socialize discreetly, loud noise, parties, or unruly behavior only disturbs the peace and causes disputes. Ifyou have any questions, or would like to obtain further information, please call 529 -6864, exten- sion 230, 232 or 234 between 8:30 a.m, and 5:00 p.m. City of Moorpark Neighborhood Preservation 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 (805) 529 -6864 CITY OF MOORPARK NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION C� CrJ '-3 N CITIZENS AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER AS A TEAM, TO MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. The City of Moorpark is pleased to announce the initiation of the Neighborhood Preservation Pro- gram in March 1994, which will involve and assist residents in maintaining their neighborhoods in clean and safe conditions. ` WHAT IS THE PROGRAM ABOUT ? It is a Neighborhood/City Partnership. it is based on a cooperative effort between city staff and residents, working together, to identify areas in the City which either by lack of knowledge, or neglect are in need of upgrading and maintenance. The main focus will be to identify, and through volun- tary compliance, abate problems throughout the City. Code Enforcement October 2, 1996 Page 6 administrative costs, which could add another fifteen percent, or another $10,000 annually. This option could total $56,000 for this fiscal year and $78,000 for next fiscal year for a part -time officer and part -time clerical. If Council determines to proceed with any of these options they may wish to direct staff to proceed and attempt to find General Fund savings to fund the added costs, or fund from General Fund reserves and also commit to funding the positions for next fiscal year so that an adequate commitment could be made to either staff or a contract. There would be a training period and learning curve for any new staff, such that it would not be recommended for only a six month period. It is recommended that City Council schedule a Study Session to further discuss the Code Enforcement Program, priorities, processes and procedures. If this is Council's intent it would be helpful to provide direction as to issues to be further addressed. Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Attachment: Council Report dated August 28, 1992 C: \OFHCE\WPW N\WPDOCS\CCRFrS\CESTFPRG.WPD 000.53 The Honorable City Council August 28, 1992 Page 2 Discussion The purpose of establishing code enforcement priorities is to determine how the Code Enforcement Officers' efforts should be targeted. Obviously, some discretion is necessary to allow Code Enforcement Officers to move quickly to deal with dangerous situations to protect the public health and safety. Also, there is a need to accomplish day -to -day responsibilities including, but not limited to, the processing of Home Occupation Permits; Peddlers, Itinerant Merchants and Solicitors Licensing; updating the Bail Schedule; assisting in ordinance revisions; and developing policies and procedures. Following is a draft list of priorities. Priority List for Code Enforcement Officers: 1• Investigate all complaints received. Goal should be to initiate investigation within one working day from the time the complaint is reeceiv d. 2. Investi atif OverC r o LAi _and related violations in residential areas of the City. Residential areas where there is a history of overcrowding related complaints, such as the downtown and other residential areas of the City where there is no controlling homeowners association, should receive the most attention. 3. Investigate and abate substandard and dangerous buildings with assistance from Building and Safety to obtain compliance in situations where there are substandard and dangerous buildings as determined by structural hazards, inadequate sanitation, faulty weather protection, and other unsafe housing conditions. 4. Coordinate enforcement efforts with other ublic a encies to resolve unsafe and/or unsightly conditions such as hazardous materials storage or disposal violations, and improper solid waste disposal. 5. Ass i ct n; +.__ - -, abandoned vehicles and illle all sL arked veh c lesate Pa king enforcement shall be targeted in residential areas surrounding Moorpark College at the beginning of each semester. Parking enforcement in commercial shopping areas will be. done only if complaints are received, violations are observed while investigating other complaints or permit violations, or if determined necessary by the Director of Community Development. dst -08 -28 -92111 :57aW:\ 'P51\CBO\)f9 -9Cc 0 The Honorable City Counc...l August 28, 1992 Page 3 Directed enforcement of parking concerns may be periodically performed by Code Enforcement Officers to supplement City Police efforts. 6. Investigate and abate illegal uses and signs including abatement of illegal and unsafe signs in the public right -of- way should be targeted. 7. Investi ate and abate minor oublic nuisance violations including but - not limited to barking dogs and inadequate landscape -and property maintenance. 8. Investigate Home Occupation, Boutique Sale, Smokin Ordinance Newsrack and Peddler Itinerant Merchants and Solicitos violations. r 9. Investi ate Planned Development and Conditional Use Permit violations. Goal should be to conduct periodic reviews with the focus on businesses where there is a history of violations. Recommendation Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Attachments: 1• Excerpt from Draft Mission Statement, Goals and - Objectives for Fiscal Year 1992 -93 2. Memorandum to Code Enforcement Officers dated 8 -5 -92 WP /DST dsC- 08- 28- 92 111 :57,W : \WP51 \CS0 \X9 -9CC 000156 HOW WILL IT WORK ? Beginning in March 1994, Code Enforcement Officers will begin conducting inspections in des- ignated areas of the City. When violations are identified either through observance or a complaint, a notice of violation will be sent to the resident/owner advising them of the specific problem and requesting its remedy within a reasonable amount of time. When that date arrives another inspection will be conducted to confirm if compliance has been achieved. Depending on the status, other actions will be considered. These can include closing the case, extensions, office hearings, or as a last result, issuance of citations. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF SUCH A PROGRAM? Residents and property owners will reap all the benefits which consist of the following: 1. HIGHER PROPERTY VALUES. Keeping your property safe, clean, and in compliance with all applicable Municipal and Zoning Codes, will assure that you will receive the most out of your invest- ment. 2. A SAFE AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT. Many health problems and injuries are costly and avoidable. Proper landscap- ing, trash/debris removal and abatement of dangerous conditions on your property assures a minimal threat of you, your family or neighbors being exposed to unsafe situations. 3. A PEACEFUL/HARMONIOUS ENVIRONMENT When you and your neighbors' properties are clean and safe there are less disputes or misunderstandings. 4. PRIDE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD Residents and property owners have pride in the area where they live. You will be proud to invite friends and family to your safe and clean neighborhood. S. LEGAL COMPLIANCE The intention is to promote voluntary compliance. However, maintaining homes or properties in violation of applicable codes is against the law. Failing to comply with your obligations gives the City no choice but to take appropriate action. This may result in negative solutions such as fines, probation, or other such penal- ties. Your voluntary compliance will avoid this avenue of resolution. WHAT ARE COMMON CODE VIOLATIONS? Before you can abate illegal conditions and public nuisances, you need to know what is kfil legz violation of codes and ordinances. M citizen are not aware. that the City enforces various 6es o codes including the Municipal, Zoning, Health an( Safety, and Uniform Building Codes. This portion of the brochure advises you ofthe mos common types of violations found within the City o Moorpark. Hopefully, the information will familiarize you witl some bf our code restrictions and help you deter. mine if any apply to a problem you or a neighbor ma} have. 1. OVERCROWDING It is illegal for anyone to live in any area of a home or property which is not recognized under the Uniform Building Codes as habitable. Theseinclude garages, sheds, patios, campers, RV's, vehicles, basements, etc. In addition, a building permit must be obtained to structurally alter or construct new residentialbuild- ings, including the conversion of any garage, patio, room, storage shed, etc., into a dwelling unit. 2. VEHICLES, EQUIPMENT MACHINERY It is illegal to store any vehicles, ec machinery, either operative or inopera or unscreened side yards or any other visible from any public right of way. City of MOORPA►RK 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CA 93021 (805) 529 -6864 CODE ENFORCEMEI� 1 COURTESY NOTICE ATTACHMENT 3 DATE: TIME __ — - - - - -- -- ADDRESS. —_. __ - -- RESIDENCE ❑ BUSINESS ❑ OTHER ❑ IT HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION THAT YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE MOORPARK MUNICIPAL OR ZONING CODES. THE VIOLATION(S) CONSIST OF: WE REALIZE THAT CITIZENS ARE NOT ALWAYS AWARE OF CITY STATUTES APPLICABLE TO THEM. THEREFORE, WE WISH TO AFFORD YOU THIS INFORMAL OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM(S), BY CONDUCTING THE ABATEMENT ACTIONS DESCRIBED BELOW, BY THE DATE AND TIME SPECIFIED. BY DOING THIS THE MATTER WILL BE RESOLVED. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS MAT- TER PLEASE CALL 529 -6864 EXT. __ WEEKDAYS 5:00 P.M. THANK YOU AHEAD OF TIME FOR YOUR COOPERATION. REQUIRED CORRECTIVE MEASURES d manner. Your are requested to correct the violation(s) in the above prescribe —may subject Fyou to to comply with this notice by (date) _ ___. legal action and penalties as provided by law. Please refer to the case number in any communication with the city. Code Enforcement Officer Delivered to: -- Left at site: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Case No. _ Corrected Yes ❑ No ❑ Date: - -- Further actions initiated Yes ❑ No ❑ B} _ - - --