SR-202-001 (75)
PCD\SHARE\INFO ITEMS\CODE ENFORCEMENT # 2.WPD
June 19, 2001 Santa Monica, California
INFORMATION ITEM
TO: City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Code Enforcement Approach For FY 01/02
Introduction
The Planning and Community Development Department budget presentation for FY
01/02 outlined workload and staff capacity in the code enforcement section of the
Building and Safety Division. This report describes how the Planning and Community
Development Department will approach code enforcement and use budgeted resources
in FY01/02.
Discussion
The Department is prepared to initiate a new approach to enforcement within budgeted
resources. The approach consists of a combination of education, proactive
investigation (both targeted and random patrol) and complaint investigation to
maximize enforcement resources. For calendar year 2000, incoming complaints totaled
2,082. In addition to handling incoming complaints, staff anticipates expanding
proactive enforcement that will result in approximately 550 additional cases. Assuming
the incoming complaint volume remains constant, complaints could total 2,632 cases in
Page 1 of 7
FY 01/02.
With the hire of the two code enforcement officers authorized in the FY 2001-02
budget, a total of seven enforcement officers will be on board. Authorization for a
contact that provides temporary employees for these two positions will be brought
before the Council on June 26,2001.
Three year historical records show that one Code Compliance Officer resolves an
average of 275 complaints per year if his/her caseload consists of a mix of simple to
complex complaint types. Assuming this mix, seven code compliance officers could
resolve 1,925 of the 2,632 projected cases. The remaining 707 cases at year-end will
be unresolved unless alternate enforcement methods are employed but it is likely that
the conditions triggering some portion of these complaints will have abated prior to their
being handled.
APPROACH TO ENFORCEMENT
Historically, staff has investigated and tracked compliance for each individual complaint
using a full response method. Staff dedicates the same level of effort to over-height
fences as it does to substandard housing complaints. The approach includes
performing site visits, researching records, obtaining inspection warrants, issuing
Notice of Violations and citations, preparing cases for abatement or criminal
proceedings, testifying in court and board hearings and telephonic and written
Page 2 of 7
communication with the complainant. A new approach will be implemented during the
next fiscal year that combines education, proactive, and complaint driven enforcement.
Education
Instead of dedicating a full response method to certain types of violations, staff will
employ an educational campaign. Informational mailings, newspaper articles and
outreach seminars will be conducted to educate the community on common code
enforcement violations. The goal is to educate the community and encourage voluntary
compliance. Many violations exist simply because the public is not aware of the
regulations. By approaching some violations through education and outreach, staff
resources can be focused on the more severe violations.
Proactive Enforcement
More resources will be dedicated to proactive enforcement. Periodic short-term
proactive enforcement efforts commonly referred to as “sweeps” have proven effective.
These proactive efforts will be initiated by using complaint data to identify and target
areas of concern in selected or citywide locations in a limited concentrated effort to
address problems. Proactive enforcement of the final phase of auto repair and
initiating sign enforcement is also scheduled for FY 2001-02.
Complaints
With the significant increase in complaint activity, staff established priorities to address
Page 3 of 7
the more serious violations. The following chart shows the ranking system for typical
complaint types:
Rank Current Title Example Concerns
% Totals
?
1 15 Emergencies or “In the Act” Status
Dangerous Buildings
?
After-hours Work with
Violator Present
?
2 20 Life-Safety Concerns
Substandard Housing
?
Work without a Permit
?
3 30 Major Quality of Life Issues
Noise
?
Construction Related
?
Auto Repair Standards
?
4 30 Average Importance
Land Use Violations
?
Routine Building
Maintenance
?
5 5 Lowest Priority
Over height Fences
and Hedges
?
Outdoor Merchandise
Based on current trends, 1,500 (65%) of the projected cases will be categorized as
priority 1,2 & 3 cases. Due to their importance, staff will continue to use the full
response method of enforcement. Concentrating on the more complex violations,
which are more staff intensive, does limit the number of resolved cases per year. Staff
will continue to monitor and evaluate enforcement procedures to improve efficiency and
effectiveness.
Staffing
The proposed two new code compliance officers will increase responsiveness by 40%
allowing 550 additional cases to be processed, leading to the performance targets
Page 4 of 7
outlined above. The Code Compliance Section will consist of seven code compliance
officers and one supervisor. Clerical support is provided by existing resources within
Building and Safety. Adding more than two code compliance officers proposed would
require additional supervisory and administrative support. Given the nature of code
enforcement, supervision is critical. The acceptable staff to supervisor ratio is one
supervisor for every five to seven staff. Clerical staff support is equally important and is
currently at capacity.
Conclusion
Staff intends to address all type of complaints, varying the method as noted above. A
combination of informational mailings and newspaper articles, outreach seminars,
intense short-term and on-going proactive enforcement, and use of full response for the
balance of the enforcement efforts will be the approach to enforcement. This responds
in some measure to all types of violations, keeps the backlog from growing further and
will resolve the backlog by fiscal year end if complaint volume remains constant. The
Building Officer will use discretion to allocate enforcement resources as needed and
appropriate to achieve these goals and respond to any fluctuations in complaint
activity.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning and Community Development
Timothy P. McCormick, Building Officer
Page 5 of 7
ATTACHMENT A
Complaint Backlog
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
12/01/199606/19/199701/05/199807/24/199802/09/199908/28/199903/15/200010/01/200004/19/2001
6 Month Intervals
Number of Pending Complaints
Page 6 of 7
ATTACHMENT B
Trends by Calendar Year and Complaint Type
2000
Sign/Outdoor
Merchandise
Nuisance
1600
Page 7 of 7
Abatement
Noise
Fences/Hedges
1200
Investigations
CUP/DR
Inspections
Auto Repair
800
Other (B & Z)
# of Complaints
Residential Housing
400
Construction
Related
0
1997199819992000
Calendar Year