Previous Council Item

 Next Council Item Corresponding Agenda
List of Council Meetings List of Reports to Council Sunnyvale Home Page

 

RTC#02-075

March 5, 2002

SUBJECT:

Neighborhood Preservation Program Update and New Schedule of Fines

REPORT IN BRIEF

On May 8, 2001, the City Council approved a Budget Supplement for the Community Development Department adding one full-time Neighborhood Preservation Manager position, and one additional Neighborhood Preservation Specialist position. As stated in the Budget Supplement, the success of the program would be carefully monitored and a progress report would be filed with Council prior to adoption of the FY2002/2003 budget. This report provides the progress information stipulated in the May 8, 2001 Report to Council.

This report also recommends broadening the authority of Neighborhood Preservation to issue citations for code violations and recommends a new schedule of progressively increasing fines.

BACKGROUND

The mission of the Neighborhood Preservation Program, as reflected in its proposed restructure to Council in March 2002, is as follows:

Preserve and enhance the long-term stability and viability of all City neighborhoods, including residential and nonresidential, by:
  • Forming community partnerships and supporting neighborhood-based goals and objectives;
  • Assisting neighborhoods to create and maintain viable neighborhood associations;
  • Educating citizens about City, County, and non-profit resources available to meet their needs;
  • Achieving and ensuring compliance with property maintenance, building, and zoning requirements through a systematic process of education, assistance, and, when necessary, progressive enforcement.

Neighborhood Preservation Specialists are responsible for working with neighborhood residents to help maintain and strengthen their neighborhoods. They are "geographic specialists" within the Community Development Department. Each is assigned full-time to a geographic area, where they are expected to have intimate knowledge of the area's physical characteristics and its community organizations and leaders. The geographic areas are not equal in size, but rather are based upon relative need. For example, one Specialist is exclusively assigned to the Lakewood Village and San Miguel areas, which tend to have more complex neighborhood issues, whereas another Specialist is assigned to the significantly larger residential area south of the railroad tracks where neighborhood issues are less complex.

The Neighborhood Preservation Program is comprised of two components: Code Enforcement and Neighborhood Partnerships. Approximately 87% of the current budget is appropriated to Code Enforcement, which is the subject of this progress report.

On May 8, 2001, the City Council approved a Budget Supplement to strengthen the Code Enforcement component of the Neighborhood Preservation Program. It made the Neighborhood Preservation Manager full-time (by assigning Housing responsibilities to a new Housing Manager), and added one additional Neighborhood Preservation Specialist position in order to address chronic code violators. The Neighborhood Preservation Program is now budgeted for six positions: one manager, one administrative position, and four Neighborhood Preservation Specialists.

The increased annual cost of this expanded Neighborhood Preservation effort was $93,665, bringing the total amount budgeted to $534,272. The rationale behind the increase in staffing, together with the undivided attention of the team to Neighborhood Preservation, was to achieve the goals set by the City Council in the June 20, 2000 report.

On June 20, 2000, the City Council identified 11 code enforcement priorities and ranked them by "highest priority," "second priority," and "third priority." The City Council then directed staff to undertake a survey of active neighborhood associations, the Planning Commission, and the Housing and Human Services Commission to ascertain their priorities for code enforcement. The results were presented to the City Council on October 2, 2001, giving the Council the opportunity to amend their original list by incorporating the community’s priorities into their own.

On October 2, 2001. the City Council, with input from neighborhood associations, the Planning Commission, and the Housing and Human Services Commission, established the following code enforcement priorities:

Highest Priority

  • Repeat Offenders
  • Property Maintenance
  • Vehicle Problems
  • Illegal Businesses posing immediate health and safety concerns
  • Levying Fines/Citations

Second Priority

  • Car Tents
  • Property Alteration
  • Excessive Front Yard Paving
  • Special Needs
  • Shopping Carts

EXISTING POLICY

The quality and vitality of the community is directly associated with the preservation and enhancement of residential, commercial, and industrial properties. The policy for code enforcement in Sunnyvale is located in the Housing and Community Revitalization Sub-Element and the Land Use and Transportation Element of the General Plan.

Housing and Community Revitalization Sub-Element

Neighborhood Conditions

GOAL B: Ensure A High Quality Living And Working Environment.

Policy B.1 Continue to encourage property owners to maintain existing developments in a manner which enhances the City. Properties should be aesthetically pleasing, free from nuisances and safe from hazards.

Action Statements

B.1.a. The City should continue to offer technical assistance to homeowners to aid them in maintaining, upgrading and improving their property. Such assistance shall be provided by staff and a free manual on maintenance and improvement.

B.1.b. The City should continue to evaluate its outreach efforts for rehabilitation and conservation programs. Current outreach efforts involve utility stuffers, advertising, staff visits with community groups and free pamphlets describing the programs.

Policy B.2. Continue to implement the Neighborhood Preservation Program.

Action Statements

B.2.a. The City should review existing codes, ordinances and use permit conditions with the possibility of increasing enforcement or developing new codes where neighborhood and community preservation issues are involved. The emphasis, however, will be on promoting voluntary compliance.

B.2.b. For residential planning areas and defined neighborhoods having 10% of the structures rated below an "A" (sound) rating or areas with a majority of its structures over 30 years old, the City shall, if staff is available, continue its concentrated rehabilitation and code compliance program by identifying target areas, involving a strong community participation component, and using both its code enforcement powers and its rehabilitation resources.

B.2.c. The City shall coordinate the Neighborhood Preservation Program with other programs, in order to avoid duplication of activity and maximize efficiency.

B.2.d. The City should continue its Home Business Ordinance which permits businesses that do not affect the primary residential character of the neighborhood and that do not involve retail sales, large inventories, hazardous materials or traffic problems. Such businesses may not be operated in the yard or garage.

B.2.e. The City should study the impacts of the aging of its housing in order to plan for services needed.

B.2.f. The City should continue to develop and implement a citizen­oriented, pro­active education program regarding neighborhood preservation.

Policy B.3. Continue to participate in the Community Development Block Grant and other rehabilitation programs.

Land Use and Transportation Element

Policy C1.1 Recognize that the City is composed of residential, industrial and commercial neighborhoods, each with its own individual character; and allow change consistent with reinforcing positive neighborhood values.

Action Statements

C1.1.1 Prepare and update land use and transportation policies, design guidelines, regulations and engineering specifications to reflect community and neighborhood values.

C1.1.2 Promote and achieve compliance with land use and transportation standards.

C1.1.3 Require appropriate buffers, edges and transition areas between dissimilar neighborhoods and land uses.

C1.1.4 Require that commercial activities be conducted primarily within a building.

Policy C2.1 Provide land use categories for and maintenance of a variety of residential densities to offer existing and future residents of all income levels, age groups and special needs sufficient opportunities and choices for locating in the community.

Action Statements

C2.1.1 Ensure consistency with the City’s Housing and Community Revitalization Sub-Element.

C2.1.3 Promote the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing housing.

Policy N1.1 Protect the integrity of the City’s neighborhoods; whether residential, industrial or commercial.

Action Statements

N1.1.1 Limit the intrusion of incompatible uses and inappropriate development into city neighborhoods.

N1.1.2 Foster the establishment of neighborhood associations throughout Sunnyvale to facilitate community building.

N1.1.5 Establish and monitor standards for community appearance and property maintenance.

Policy N1.4 Preserve and enhance the high quality character of residential neighborhoods.

Action Statements

N1.4.3 Encourage and support home businesses that accommodate changing technologies and lifestyles, while remaining secondary to the nature of the residential neighborhood.

Policy N1.13 Promote an attractive and functional commercial environment.

Action Statements

N1.13.2 Support convenient neighborhood commercial services that reduce automobile dependency and contribute positively to neighborhood character.

N1.13.3 Provide opportunities for and encourage neighborhood-serving commercial services in each residential neighborhood.

N1.13.4 Encourage the maintenance and revitalization of shopping centers.

DISCUSSION

The Neighborhood Preservation Program is comprised of two main components, Code Enforcement and Neighborhood Partnerships. Approximately 87% of the current budget is appropriated to Code Enforcement and 13% is appropriated to Neighborhood Partnerships.

The Neighborhood Preservation Program is budgeted for six positions: one manager, one administrative position, and four Neighborhood Preservation Specialists. Three of the four Neighborhood Preservation Specialists are assigned to specific geographic areas within the City; the fourth Specialist is assigned to handle chronic code violation cases. The current budget for the program is $534,272.

One of the most critical outcome measures within the Neighborhood Preservation Program is "Code compliance cases are brought to resolution within an average 30 calendar days". For FY2001/2002, as of January 31, 2002, the year-to-date average number of days to close a case was 25. Furthermore, cases are now closed when complete compliance has been met, rather than partial compliance, as was practiced in previous years.

From July 1, 2001 to January 31, 2002, or 7 months of FY2001/2002, Neighborhood Preservation received 1,006 complaints, approximately 144 per month. The year-to-date average number of days to close these cases was 25. Also, 165 of the cases closed were chronic code cases (open for a period longer than 45 days). On average, it took 94 days to close the chronic code cases. Furthermore, as of February 15, 2002, Neighborhood Preservation had 37 chronic code cases active/open, 17 of which had been active/open for a period longer than 100 days (3.3 months) and of these cases, 6 had been active/open longer than 200 days (6.5 months).

Virtually all of the 37 chronic code cases active/open had multiple code violations. These cases involved the following list of violations: illegal garage conversions; rat harborage; debris; electrical wires exposed; accumulation of garbage; fences higher than allowed; dead trees, bushes, and plants; overgrown vegetation; dilapidated structure; roof extension; vehicles parked on an unpaved surface; inoperable vehicles; illegal sheds; unpermitted accessory utility buildings; etc.

This fiscal year, Neighborhood Preservation staff has issued 14 Administrative Citations for the following: garbage cans in public view (8), sidewalk obstructions (3), car tents (2), and a vehicle parked on an unpaved surface (1). All fines issued were in the amount of $25. Compliance was achieved in all 14 cases. After compliance is achieved, staff monitors the property for repeat violations.

07/01/2001 TO 01/31/2002
ALL CASES

Month Cases Opened Cases Closed YTD  Days to Close YTD
Cases Opened		 YTD Cases Closed  Days to Close 
July 147 171 22.8 147 171 22.8
August 139 161 40.8 286 332 31.5
September 190 156 17.9 476 488 27.2
October 135 172 20.0 611 660 25.3
November 156 148 23.9 767 808 25.1
December 113 113 24.6 880 921 25.0
January 126 127 23.7 1006 1048 24.8

CHRONIC CODE CASES

Month Cases Open Cases Closed Average Days to Close YTD Average Days to Close YTD Cases Closed % resolved in < 10 months
July 68 19 104.5 104.5 19 100.0
August 28 55 97.6 99.4 74 100.0
September 31 17 82.0 96.1 91 100.0
October 44 18 78.8 93.2 109 100.0
November 32 25 88.8 92.4 134 100.0
December 32 13 128.3 95.6 147 92.3
January 44 18 79.8 93.9 165 100.0

Over the past seven months, 80% of the code enforcement cases originated through complaints. The number of cases initiated through proactive enforcement has been constrained by the large number of complaints received. The number of proactive enforcement cases is expected to increase in the second half of the year due to the recently initiated proactive enforcement of the sign ordinance.

Beginning in February 2002, staff has been proactively enforcing the sign ordinance, initially along El Camino Real. By April 2002, all businesses along El Camino Real with illegal signs will have been informed of the requirements of the City’s sign ordinance. If compliance is not met, violators will be issued Administrative Citations until compliance is achieved.

Furthermore, since December 2001, staff has been enforcing the existence of unpermitted car tents (accessory utility buildings) on a complaint basis only. We have received approximately 30 complaints and 96% have been resolved.

The Neighborhood Preservation Program has experienced a significant transition from a predominately educational approach to a more aggressive approach. This more aggressive method first includes education, and if necessary, subsequently utilizes the Compliance Order, Abatement Order, and Administrative Citation processes to achieve compliance. Furthermore, cases are closed more effectively; cases are now closed only when complete compliance is achieved, rather than partial compliance. Staff believes that a broadening of the citation process will result in more expedited compliance. Also, staff will utilize the Administrative Citation process more frequently, thus reducing the need to issue time consuming and costly Compliance Orders and Abatement Orders.

Compliance Order:

Compliance Orders are typically issued in cases where zoning and/or building code violations exist. These violations are mostly structural and are not easily remedied by the City hiring a contractor to abate/clean-up the property. Compliance Orders are mostly punitive in nature where repeated efforts to achieve compliance have failed. Common examples included illegal garage conversions, accessory living units, walls, additions, etc. An example is a case where an owner of two deteriorated properties, in an effort to house multiple tenants in both homes, constructed (without permits) walls, additions, bathrooms, electrical wiring, kitchen appliances in the garage, etc. in an effort to collect rent from as many people as possible. Through the Compliance Order process, this property owner was assessed $4,231 in penalties and costs.

The Compliance Order process is costly and time intensive because of the procedural requirements that include: writing a detailed report to the property owner listing all of the violations (in addition to the normal procedure of issuing a courtesy notice, courtesy letter, and final notice); holding a Board of Building Code Appeals hearing with the property owner, staff, and affected neighbors in the area; issuing Administrative Penalties and Administrative Costs by the Board; the Office of the City Attorney potentially defending the Board’s decision in court if the property owner files a Writ of Mandate (objection to the fines) with the Superior Court, and finally collection.

Abatement Order:

In cases where a property owner fails to remedy the ordinance violations present at the property, and the violations are mostly non-structural, the Neighborhood Preservation Division has the authority to abate the property. The abatement procedure includes the City hiring a contractor to "clean-up" the property and the property owner is charged for the full cost of the contractor’s services. An example is a property that had excessive debris (including piles of used tires) in the rear yard, overgrown vegetation in the front yard that completely obscured the view of the house, and excessive junk and debris throughout the property. The City hired a contractor to abate the situation and charged the property owner for the abatement cost of $3,450.

Abatement Orders are typically issued when properties have numerous exterior violations that could include weeds, excessive debris, excessive front yard storage, etc. The abatement process is also costly and time intensive because of the procedural requirements that include: writing a detailed report to the property owner listing all of the violations (in addition to the normal procedure of issuing a courtesy notice, courtesy letter, and final notice), holding an Abatement Hearing with the property owner and staff, providing the property owner with a written statement of the Hearing Officer’s decision, arranging for the abatement/clean-up with a contractor and other City staff when necessary (Public Safety for example), obtaining an Inspection and Abatement Warrant (with the assistance of the Office of the City Attorney), actual abatement (a Neighborhood Preservation Specialist is present during abatement which can be multiple days), and finally arranging for collection of the costs incurred with the Finance Department.

Administrative Citation:

One of the most effective and efficient methods for achieving compliance is the use of the Administrative Citation. Prior to the issuance of an Administrative Citation, staff will attempt to achieve compliance with the property owner by issuing a courtesy notice, courtesy letter, and final notice. If compliance is not met, staff will issue a citation. This procedure is more effective and efficient than the Abatement Order and Compliance Order processes because it is not as time intensive and only requires that the property owner have the right to refute the citation with the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer’s decision is final.

There are only eight ordinance violations that Neighborhood Preservation has the authority to cite. These include: debris, home businesses, front yard storage, trash cans, vehicles on lawn, fences, signs, and sidewalk obstructions. This limits staff’s ability to cite for ordinance violations not included in the current schedule of fines. (Weeds and illegal garage conversions, for example, are not listed in the current fee schedule.)

This report recommends that the authority to issue citations be broadened to permit Neighborhood Specialists to cite for all violations, under their purview, which include chapters 6.30, 8.16, 8.20, 9.26, 9.28, 9.60, 16.20, 16.44, and Title 19 (described below).

6.30 Maintenance of Beehives

  • No person shall keep or maintain any hive of bees in the city unless they meet certain City requirements.

8.16 Solid Waste Management and Recycling

  • All containers shall be maintained at all times in a sanitary and tidy condition. All materials shall be placed inside the containers and shall not be placed outside nor allowed to spill out of such containers. (Garbage refuse must be in container)
  • Solid waste created, produced, or accumulated on private property situated anywhere in the city shall be disposed of or removed from the premises at least once each week. (No accumulation of garbage)
  • It is unlawful to permit any solid waste or recycling container to remain in public view from any public right-of-way except as is necessary to accommodate scheduled curbside pick-up. (Garbage containers shall be screened after pick-up)

8.20 Weeds

  • No owner, agent, lessee or other person occupying or having charge or control of any building, lot or premises within the city shall permit weeds to remain upon the premises, or public sidewalks, or streets, or alleys between the premises and the centerline of any public street or alley. (Weeds that bear seeds of a downy or wingy nature or are a fire hazard must be removed)

9.26 Abatement of Nuisances

  • The existence of any diseased, infested, dead or dying tree, shrub or any other plant on private property that may constitute a danger to such trees.
  • The existence of any vines, climbing plants, trees or shrubs growing into or over any city tree or any public hydrant, or pole.
  • The existence of any tree that is infested infected or in danger of becoming infested or infected with objectionable insects, scales, fungus or growth injurious to trees.
  • The accumulation of waste paper, hay, grass, straw, weeds, litter or combustible trash upon any roof or in any building, court, yard, vacant lot or open space that can be a fire hazard. (Items that may be a fire hazard)
  • The existence of any accumulation of litter, junk, machine parts, scrap material, plant cuttings or similar matter which constitutes a threat to the health or safety or is unsightly and detrimental to the general welfare. (Accumulation of junk in public view)
    •
  • Any fence on private property visible from any public street, sidewalk or place, which is in a sagging, leaning, fallen, decayed or other dilapidated or unsafe condition. (Dilapidate fence)
  • Any condition that violates any provision of the currently adopted uniform building, housing, mechanical, plumbing, or national electrical code, the uniform code for the abatement of dangerous buildings, or any other federal, state or local codes.
  • Any condition which is in fact a menace to the public peace, health, or safety. (Discretionary)

9.28 Regulation of Smoking

  • It is unlawful for any person to smoke in a public place where smoking is prohibited such as restaurants, hospitals, bars, etc.
  • Sixty percent of outdoor eating areas for all eating establishments shall be reserved for nonsmokers.

9.60 Advertising and Printed Matter

  • No distribution of handbills, dodger, circular, newspaper, paper, booklet, poster, printed matter, and advertising literature on any automobile, or other vehicle, in the city of Sunnyvale without first having obtained permission of the owner. (Need permission from owner of vehicle to leave a handbill on vehicle)
  • Distribution of commercial advertising literature on private property without permission is unlawful.
  • It is unlawful for any person to create or have graffiti on private property.

16.20. Uniform Housing Code

  • Lack of hot and cold running water to plumbing fixtures in a dwelling unit.
  • Dwelling units shall be provided with heating facilities capable of maintaining a room temperature of 70 degrees.

16.44 Swimming Pools

  • Any portion of water, such as a pool or a fish pond that is sixteen inches, or more, in depth, shall have a fence, wall, or other structure not less than five feet in height.

Title 19. Zoning

  • Accessory utility buildings not conforming to City code. (Car tents)
  • Home occupation not conforming to City code.
  • Noise. (Nighttime delivery and leaf blowers above the maximum allowed decibel)
  • Signs not in compliance with City code. (Signs posted on the public right-of-way)
  • Vehicles parked on an unpaved surface.
  • Fences not in conformance with City standards. (Fences that are to tall or are in a vision triangle)
  • Hedges within the required front yard that is over 3 feet without a permit.
  • Illegal garage conversions and additions without permits that are not in conformance with city code.
  • It is unlawful to damage or kill any protected tree without a protected tree removal permit.

This report also recommends that fines be assessed as follows in progressively increasing amounts to encourage compliance:

  • $50 for the first violation.
  • $100 for the second violation occurring within 36 months of the first citation date.
  • $200 for the third violation occurring within 36 months of the first citation date.
  • $500 for the fourth and any subsequent violation occurring within 36 months of the first citation date.

Neighborhood Preservation staff will issue Administrative Citations only when repeated attempts to achieve voluntary compliance have failed.

 

FISCAL IMPACT

Undetermined increased revenue due to the collection of fines in the broader range of Administrative Citations.

PUBLIC CONTACT

Public contact was made through posting of the Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, posting of the agenda and report on the City’s web page, and the availability of the report in the Library and the City Clerk’s Office.

Staff received a total of 275 surveys from members of active neighborhood associations, the Planning Commission, and the Housing and Human Services Commission in order to determine code enforcement priorities. Furthermore, at neighborhood meetings throughout the City, staff has been asked by residents to increase the use of the Administrative Citation.

ALTERNATIVES
  1. Adopt the resolution establishing a new schedule of fines.
  2. Adopt the resolution with modifications.
  3. Do not adopt the resolution.

 

RECOMMENDATION

Alternative 1, Adopt the resolution establishing a new schedule of fines.

Prepared by:
Christy Gunvalsen
Neighborhood Preservation Manager

Reviewed by:
Robert Paternoster
Director, Community Development Director
Approved by:
Robert S. LaSala
City Manager

Attachments

  1. Administrative Citation Schedule of Fines

 

Previous Council Item

 Next Council Item Corresponding Agenda
List of Council Meetings List of Reports to Council Sunnyvale Home Page