SunnyvaleRTC

January 13, 2004

SUBJECT: Neighborhood Preservation Program Update – Information Only

On March 5, 2002, the City Council received a Neighborhood Preservation Program Update during a regular City Council meeting. At the meeting, the City Council requested that a subsequent update be provided to the City Council in 2003. Staff waited to present this report until now so that the new City Councilmembers would have the opportunity to learn about the purpose, role, and outcomes of the Neighborhood Preservation Program.

This report will provide the City Council with a brief overview of the Neighborhood Preservation Program’s history, including: past problems warranting major changes; a description of the functions of the Program; and highlights from Fiscal Year 2002-2003. It will also provide information about the new concentrated code enforcement effort, called the Neighborhood Enhancement Program, occurring in the Lakewood Village area.

A PowerPoint presentation of before and after photographs of code enforcement cases throughout the City and specific improvements made as a result of the Neighborhood Preservation Pilot Program will be presented at the conclusion of the presentation.

BACKGROUND

Neighborhood Preservation is responsible for a variety of activities including, but not limited to, the following:

Responding to and resolving property-maintenance nuisances throughout the community
Achieving compliance with building and zoning requirements through education, assistance, and, when necessary, progressive enforcement
Assisting code violators with compliance strategies and practices
Conducting code enforcement in accordance with City Council priorities Supporting community property maintenance and improvement goals and objectives
Supporting neighborhood enhancement and clean-up programs and events
Educating citizens about City, County, and non-profit resources available to meet their property maintenance and improvement needs

The purpose of the Neighborhood Preservation Program is to improve the quality of neighborhoods through a combination of educational and enforcement activities. The educational approach is essential to the success of the program since code violators are often unaware of City codes, resources available to correct violations, and consequences for noncompliance. A large majority of code violators correct the problem soon after they are informed that a City code violation exists on their property.

Prior to 2001, the Neighborhood Preservation Program was primarily a reactive program, responding to citizen complaints of code violations. It served the residents and business owners satisfactorily at the time; however, it became increasingly apparent that the program was not as effective as it could be due to three major problems. First, the program did not have well-developed code enforcement priorities. Instead, resources were allocated and priorities were established primarily by a few citizens who routinely called in complaints. Second, staff did not have the enforcement tools necessary to achieve code compliance. The one tool available, the administrative citation, was limited to only a handful of Sunnyvale Municipal Codes, and the fine was so small that often people ignored the fine and did not correct the violation. Third, resources devoted to code enforcement were so limited that staff could not launch an effective proactive enforcement effort. Staff was aware that there were geographical areas within the City, particularly Lakewood Village, with significantly more code violations than other areas; however, resources were insufficient to initiate a concentrated proactive code enforcement program.

Beginning in 2001, the Neighborhood Preservation Program began developing methods for resolving these major problems.

In mid 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. In 2001, the City Council, with input from all of these groups, established the following code enforcement priorities for staff to follow:

Highest Priority

Repeat Offenders
Property Maintenance
Vehicle Problems
Illegal Businesses
Levying Fines/Citations

Second Priority

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

In order to provide the enforcement tools necessary to address chronic and repeat offenders, staff from the Neighborhood Preservation Program, with assistance from the Office of the City Attorney, implemented the Abatement Order, Compliance Order, and Administrative Citation processes.

Abatement Orders are typically issued in cases where a property owner fails to remedy the ordinance violations present at the property and the violations are mostly non-structural and exterior, such as weeds, junk, and/or debris. The abatement procedure involves 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.

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.

One of the most effective and efficient methods for achieving compliance is the use of the Administrative Citation because this process is not as time intensive as Compliance Orders and Abatement Orders.

On March 5, 2002, the City Council significantly improved the effectiveness of the Neighborhood Preservation Program by broadening staff’s authority to issue administrative citations for code violations under their purview and approving a new schedule of progressively increasing fines. Previously, staff only had the authority to issue citations for eight ordinance violations. This meant that staff was prohibited from issuing citations for many of the violations they were responsible for resolving. Furthermore, the fines were too small to be an effective deterrent. On, March 5, 2002, the City Council unanimously approved the following schedule of progressively increasing fines:

$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.

In Fiscal Year 2002-2003, the Neighborhood and Community Services Program, operating under the auspices of the Office of the City Manager, took over the majority of responsibility for supporting neighborhood associations. Prior to Fiscal Year 2002-2003, this function was primarily the responsibility of the Neighborhood Preservation Program. This change allowed for a redistribution of staff time from the administration of neighborhood associations to proactive code enforcement. In particular, it allowed staff to establish a Pilot program of concentrated code enforcement in a small area in Lakewood Village. The Pilot Program will be described in detail in the following section of Discussion.

In Fiscal Year 2003-2004, 1,150 hours of a Building Inspector position were added to the Neighborhood Preservation Program. This change, along with the change in neighborhood association responsibilities, allowed for the expansion of the Pilot Program into the new Neighborhood Enhancement Program, with the goal of addressing code enforcement issues throughout Lakewood Village and adjoining neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Preservation budget is currently in the process of being restructured and will reflect these changes in resources, outcome measures, activities, and products beginning in Fiscal Year 2004-2005.

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

Late in 2001, the Community Development Department initiated the preparation of Community Development Strategy for Sunnyvale. One of the first steps in the preparation of the Strategy was a comprehensive “windshield” survey of all the single-family homes throughout the entire City, recording code violations such as weeds, overgrown vegetation, vehicles parked on an unpaved surface, trash and recycling bins stored in public view, and illegal additions. As a result of the survey, City staff identified specific geographical areas with a high concentration of code violations. The Lakewood Village area revealed a much higher concentration of properties with code violations than any other area in the City. Approximately 8% of the residential properties throughout the City had more than one code violation; however, 39% of the residential properties in Lakewood Village had more than one code violation.

Furthermore, in November of 2001, the City mailed out a satisfaction survey to residents. One question on the survey asked residents to rate how serious of problem code enforcement is in their neighborhood. City-wide, 22% of residents believed that their neighborhood had serious code violations; however, within Lakewood Village, 33% of residents cited code violations as a serious neighborhood problem. Lakewood Village residents responded with the fewer positive ratings than any other area within the City. This information revealed that not only staff witnessed more code violations in Lakewood, but also the residents of Lakewood Village thought there was a problem with code violations.

In response, the Community Development Strategy recommended that a new approach to code enforcement be created for areas like Lakewood Village. The program would have to be proactive, concentrated in a relatively small area, and heavily involve the property owners and residents of the area. Staff recognized that the program would have to be designed and refined through experience, and decided to launch a Pilot Program in an area of no more than 100 homes in Lakewood Village. In 2002, Neighborhood Preservation staff met with the Lakewood Village Neighborhood Association Board of Directors, and together chose a 95-household area to institute the Pilot Program. The goal was to design and implement a program which would successfully improve the overall maintenance, appearance, and safety of the properties in the area.

The Pilot Program area consisted of 95 properties on Lakehaven Drive between Lawrence Expressway and Meadowlake Drive and all of Lakenoll Drive. This area was chosen because many of the residents of the area stated that they wanted the program on their street and because this area serves as the gateway into the west side of the Lakewood Village neighborhood.

One of the main functions of the Pilot Program was conducting monthly meetings, from August 2002 through June 2003, with residents and property owners of the area. The meetings were critical to the success of the program because they provided staff the opportunity to develop one-on-one relationships with residents and property owners and share with them valuable information about ways to improve the appearance of their properties and resolve code violations.

The following occurred at the monthly meetings:

The group discussed local property maintenance priorities as identified through a survey by the entire Lakewood Village neighborhood. These priorities included: garbage, debris, furniture and equipment stored in public view; vegetation obstructing the sidewalk and/or street; weeds in the front yard; inoperable vehicles; and vehicles parked on an unpaved surface.
The group learned what constitutes a code violation and how to correct a violation.
Staff presented photographs of each property in the Pilot Program area and identified code violations, such as “vehicle parked on an unpaved surface”, and also made recommendations for improvements which did not involve a code violation, such as “house needs painting”.
Attendees voiced concerns over specific properties in their neighborhood where code violations were not visible from the street. For example, two properties adjacent to each other were searched based upon complaints about numerous chickens in the rear yards. The Department of Public Safety and the Animal Control Division obtained a warrant, searched the two houses, and discovered evidence of illegal activity including cock fighting and drug possession. The search resulted in the euthanization of 154 chickens and roosters, and the arrest of the property owner and his son for an illegal cockfighting business, animal cruelty, and drug possession. Neighborhood Preservation staff processed an Abatement Order to remove all of the illegal sheds, debris, junk, inoperable vehicles, chicken coops, and illegal roof extensions. The property owner complied with the Abatement Order and corrected all violations at both properties. The City would not have known about this problem if the residents had not reported it.
The residents were offered free recycled paint available in the colors of white, beige, and off-white to be used for painting the exterior of homes or fences in the Pilot Program area. And, a resident of Lakewood Village, who is a painting contractor, attended a meeting and provided the residents with tips and recommendations about preparation work and painting.
In response to expressed needs of the residents and property owners, a free weekend dumpster clean-up event was scheduled exclusively for the Pilot Program area so that residents could get rid of any junk or debris they had inside or outside of their properties. Many outstanding code violations were resolved as a result of the clean-up event.
In February of 2003, the enforcement phase of the Pilot Program began by hand delivering a letter to each resident and/or property owner identifying the violation(s) and providing a compliance deadline. 39 out of 95 households in the program area had at least one code violation. The violations ranged from junk and debris stored in public view to illegal (non-permitted) garage conversions.
Informational brochures for home improvement projects were distributed at the meetings. The following brochures were provided: Painting Your House, Seeding Your Lawn, Planting Sod in Your Front Yard, and Drought Tolerant Plants.
Staff from the Parks and Recreation Department attended a meeting to provide information and suggestions for weed control and landscaping front yards and park strips using low maintenance, drought tolerant plants. They also conducted a demonstration for the residents at two properties and planted low maintenance, drought tolerant, low cost plants in the park strips.
Staff from the Housing Division attended a meeting to discuss paint grants and loans, and housing rehabilitation loans provided to property owners by the City using federal funds.
A landscape architect was hired utilizing Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to provide six detailed designs for front yard landscaping for three styles of homes, and three detailed designs for landscaped park strip improvements. The landscape architect met with residents and incorporated their input into the designs. Funding for the landscaping was provided utilizing the CDBG funds. Property owners must have resolved all existing code violations at their property and actively participated in the regular monthly meetings to receive assistance. They were also required to sign a waiver stating that they would maintain the landscaping after it was installed.

The Pilot Program proved to be successful. The following is a list of positive results that occurred within the 15 months that the Pilot Program existed:

53 properties were improved by correcting code violations that existed at any time during the Program’s existence. Some properties had multiple violations. The following is a list of the code violations corrected:

3 non-permitted (illegal) garage conversions were converted back to garages
9 non-permitted (illegal) roof extensions and patios were removed
13 properties cut or removed weeds from the front yard
11 properties with overgrown vegetation obstructing the sidewalk or within the vision triangle cut or removed the overgrowth
3 inoperable vehicles were removed from public view
5 vehicles parked on an unpaved surface were moved to pave surfaces
13 properties with trash and recycling containers stored in public view removed them from public view
8 properties with trash, junk, and debris stored in public view, removed the items from public view
2 fences exceeding the city’s height requirement were removed or reduced in height
4 properties with leaning, broken, or dilapidated fences were removed or repaired

34 properties were improved. The following is a list of improvements:

13 houses were painted (220 gallons of free paint was distributed to the residents)
12 twelve dumpsters were filled during the free dumpster clean-up weekend
3 properties were cleaned-up in a coordinated effort by several members of the neighborhood during the dumpster weekend event
5 property owners installed new driveways or expanded their existing driveways to prevent vehicles from parking on unpaved surfaces
9 front yards and 12 park strips were landscaped, including the installation of irrigation systems, CDBG funds at no cost to the property owners.
Many damaged sidewalks were repaired by the Department of Public Works
Many city trees were pruned by the Department of Public Works

By the end of the Pilot Program, 71 Sunnyvale Municipal Code violations were corrected and 34 properties were improved.

The success of the Pilot Program led to its continuation and expansion as the Neighborhood Enhancement Program. With the increased resources available to Neighborhood Preservation, staff believes that the Neighborhood Enhancement Program can improve 200 properties a year, so that the entire Lakewood Village neighborhood can be assisted over an eight year period.

Staff recently met with the Lakewood Village Neighborhood Association Board and selected the new boundaries and doubled the number of properties in the Program area. The new area is located between the borders of Lawrence Expressway, Fairwood Avenue and the Hetch Hetchy Greenbelt and will consist of 187 properties. Staff has already held two meetings with the Neighborhood Enhancement Program area residents and property owners. The attendance rate was extremely high and the residents are very excited about having the Program in their neighborhood because they have observed the accomplishments and property improvements in the original Pilot Program area.

In addition to the successful completion of the Pilot Program, Neighborhood Preservation achieved the following in Fiscal Year 2002-2003:

Issued 73 Administrative Citations, Compliance Orders, or Abatement Orders resulting in $4,757 in fines and costs

Developed two new tools for more aggressive code enforcement including a “Warning – You May Be Issued an Administrative Citation/Fine” letter and a “Standing Order Warning” letter
Condemned four properties with severe health and safety violations
Together with the Office of the City Attorney and the Department of Public Safety, closed several illegal massage and/or prostitution businesses. Issued 17 notices to abate, or warning letters, to businesses conducting illegal massage and/or prostitution resulting in ten businesses leaving the City
Responded to 51% more information requests than budgeted
Closed an unprecedented number of cases, 2,243, 25% more cases than planned and 44% more than in Fiscal Year 2000-2001
Developed and implemented an aggressive marketing campaign including a comprehensive informational brochure describing the program, significantly expanded and updated the Neighborhood Preservation website, created a display board with before and after pictures to show to the community, and designed and purchased pens and magnets to distribute to the public with Neighborhood Preservation’s contact information. These marketing efforts were successful in encouraging more residents than ever before to report code violators and to ask questions pertaining to codes
Conducted an aggressive sign education and enforcement campaign, particularly along El Camino Real, Lawrence Expressway, and throughout the downtown

FISCAL IMPACT

This progress report recommends no specific action; therefore, it has no fiscal impact.

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.

RECOMMENDATION

Information only, no recommendation.

Prepared by:

Christy Gunvalsen
Neighborhood Preservation Manager

Reviewed by:

Robert Paternoster
Director, Community Development

Approved by:

Amy Chan
Acting City Manager