Ventura County Grand Jury • 2003-2004

Moorpark Excessively Aggressive Code Enforcement and Development Process

Published: June 14, 2004 10 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 57 findings

F01
There is an apparent inconsistency (i.e., written correspondence or oral communication in the method) by which the code enforcement field staff develops a code violation citation that is then forwarded to City residents.
No recommendations for this finding
F02
The code enforcement officer is required to attend a seminar every year concerning customer service and other matters to improve the level of performance.
No recommendations for this finding
F03
There are particular areas of the City that appear to be more vulnerable to code enforcement violations than others, i.e., Peach Hill, Mountain Meadows, and Westwood Campus Park West appeared more vulnerable to citation than others.
No recommendations for this finding
F04
The City does not have a formal code enforcement violation appeal process other than a brief hearing before code enforcement managers where full compliance is requested. Residents are placed on probation during the interim and the payment of a fine is necessary to finalize the process.
No recommendations for this finding
F05
The code enforcement department provides the City council with monthly reports concerning code enforcement activity.
No recommendations for this finding
F06
At the present time, the field staff is limited to one code enforcement officer. There does not appear to be any contingency plan to address potential code enforcement activity in the event that the sole employed officer is either on vacation or away from the City.
No recommendations for this finding
F07
The current code enforcement officer has extensive interaction with the Sheriff's Department, including conducting training sessions for the Sheriff’s Department personnel regarding code enforcement activities.
No recommendations for this finding
F08
The current code enforcement officer conducts code enforcement activities on the weekends, while the main activity occurs Monday through Friday.
No recommendations for this finding
F09
The current code enforcement officer has been quoted as referring to the Westwood Campus Park West Neighborhood as "disability row.”
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Residents of the community have indicated that with respect to the inoperable vehicle 72-hour requirement, there is no consistency with respect to the marking of tires to determine the commencement of the prescribed timeframe of that violation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R01
The City code compliance department continue its efforts to improve its level of community outreach to residents through community meetings, improved communication, and a sincere effort to promote cooperation and fairness in addressing code enforcement violations.
F11
The current code enforcement officer has requested sheriff backup on numerous occasions in the conduct of his code enforcement duties.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The current code enforcement officer has been observed possessing and displaying handcuffs during the conduct of his duties. Moorpark Excessively Aggressive Code Enforcement & Development Process
No recommendations for this finding
F13
There is some credible evidence that the current code enforcement officer was witnessed being rude and aggressive to a resident in the administration of his code enforcement duties.
Related Recommendations (3)
R01
The City code compliance department continue its efforts to improve its level of community outreach to residents through community meetings, improved communication, and a sincere effort to promote cooperation and fairness in addressing code enforcement violations.
R02
The City, in adhering to the above recommendation, adopt and follow the ethics and professional conduct outlined in the rules and procedures advocated by the Statewide California Association of Code Enforcement Officials, Inc.
R06
The City institute a periodic sensitivity training program for all code enforcement personnel as well as other staff who interface with the citizenry.
F14
Complaining residents assert that current code enforcement officer has not provided residents copies of pertinent sections of the municipal code handbook or extracts thereof despite requests to provide such information.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
The City's code enforcement violation fine process is not a major revenue generator for the City though additional cost assessments may provide significant revenue.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
Multiple assertions from City residents of harassment by the code enforcement field staff in the conduct of his duties, including the confrontational brandishing of apparently citizen-related paperwork, have been made to the Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (3)
R01
The City code compliance department continue its efforts to improve its level of community outreach to residents through community meetings, improved communication, and a sincere effort to promote cooperation and fairness in addressing code enforcement violations.
R02
The City, in adhering to the above recommendation, adopt and follow the ethics and professional conduct outlined in the rules and procedures advocated by the Statewide California Association of Code Enforcement Officials, Inc.
R04
In connection with R-03, the City institute a mediation process for citizens complaining of code enforcement abuse or abuses that utilizes mediators not under the control or influence of the City manager or any City staff and who files his or her report through the City council for appropriate action by the City manager.
F17
The code enforcement department appears to be unreasonably supportive of the present code enforcement officer in the conduct of his duties in the light of numerous resident complaints concerning excessively aggressive code enforcement tactics.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05
City council become more personally active in assuring that City staff, including the City manager, adheres to the spirit as well as the letter of City ordinances.
F18
The Sheriff's Department has no record of complaints from City residents concerning the code enforcement officer’s interaction with residents, despite the assertion of City residents that they have submitted multiple complaints.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
Resident complainants say that the current code enforcement officer does not appear to employ positive customer service alternatives to residents in an effort to amicably resolve code enforcement complaints.
Related Recommendations (3)
R01
The City code compliance department continue its efforts to improve its level of community outreach to residents through community meetings, improved communication, and a sincere effort to promote cooperation and fairness in addressing code enforcement violations.
R02
The City, in adhering to the above recommendation, adopt and follow the ethics and professional conduct outlined in the rules and procedures advocated by the Statewide California Association of Code Enforcement Officials, Inc.
R06
The City institute a periodic sensitivity training program for all code enforcement personnel as well as other staff who interface with the citizenry.
F20
The code enforcement department does not prominently display a hard copy of the Municipal Code at City Hall for review by residents.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
Field observations at City Hall suggest that while efforts to provide information on the code enforcement process to residents is being considered, code enforcement literature is regularly found in limited supply or occasionally "out-of-stock" in the brochure racks adjacent to the public information counter.
No recommendations for this finding
F22
The Grand Jury ride-alongs with code enforcement officials of two other comparable cities revealed a philosophy of cooperatively working with residents and business owners to achieve amicable compliance.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
The code enforcement officers of two cities where ride-alongs took place rarely required or requested law enforcement backup in the administration of their duties.
No recommendations for this finding
F24
City officials who review and take final action on citizen complaints regarding the code enforcement officer are his supervisors who appear to give little or no credence to citizen complaint testimony.
Related Recommendations (2)
R04
In connection with R-03, the City institute a mediation process for citizens complaining of code enforcement abuse or abuses that utilizes mediators not under the control or influence of the City manager or any City staff and who files his or her report through the City council for appropriate action by the City manager.
R05
City council become more personally active in assuring that City staff, including the City manager, adheres to the spirit as well as the letter of City ordinances.
F25
The City Council Resolution 2004-2165 dated February 4, 2004, established improvements and renamed the former Code Enforcement Program as the Code Compliance Program. The program objective as contained in the resolution, a positive step to address code compliance issues addressed in last year’s Grand Jury report, was designed to promote code compliance through Moorpark Excessively Aggressive Code Enforcement & Development Process 5 public awareness. The code compliance work program was divided into three categories: administration, public awareness, and prosecution.
No recommendations for this finding
F26
The City council provided testimony that the code enforcement activities within the City are not large revenue generators, and its mission is not to collect fines from City residents.
No recommendations for this finding
F27
The City council stated that a primary objective of code compliance is the maintenance of property values and the promotion of health and safety.
No recommendations for this finding
F28
The City council was unaware of reports that the City code enforcement officer had allegedly carried and displayed handcuffs in the performance of his field duties.
No recommendations for this finding
F29
The City council stated that the community development department has developed a public relations program with community residents with respect to code enforcement.
No recommendations for this finding
F30
The Grand Jury learned that the City community development department has decided that the code enforcement field staff is to no longer wear a military or police type uniform. The new dress code includes a polo shirt with the City logo and an ID badge.
No recommendations for this finding
F31
Code violations are primarily the result of both City staff observations and citizen complaints as provided for in other comparable Ventura County cities.
No recommendations for this finding
F32
Two of Ventura County’s ten cities have not established an appellate process for citizens who are the subject of a code violation notice or citation.
No recommendations for this finding
F33
Moorpark was the leader for calls for police backup by code enforcement.
No recommendations for this finding
F34
The cities within the County are almost equally divided with respect to the requirement that a uniform be required. If civilian attire is the preferred dress mode, then the code enforcement officer is required to wear a city ID badge on his or her shirt in the conduct of his or her duties.
No recommendations for this finding
F35
The City has developed new pamphlets for the citizens of the community in an attempt to explain the objectives of the code compliance process. City Development Review Process
No recommendations for this finding
F36
The City's permit review and plan check process are arbitrary, inconsistent and result in long delays and costs with respect to development projects.
No recommendations for this finding
F37
The City development fees and exactions, improvement plan fees and special study fees associated with flood control and other engineering or planning studies are considerably higher than those charged by other cities in Ventura County.
No recommendations for this finding
F38
The City plan check review process for improvement plans is considerably longer than in other Ventura County cities.
No recommendations for this finding
F39
The City does not have any clearly established fee with respect to the recording of a final subdivision map or other permit requirements necessary to development within the City but appears to operate on a demand “all that the market will bear” and let economic duress take care of the bargaining. Moorpark Excessively Aggressive Code Enforcement & Development Process
No recommendations for this finding
F40
The Grand Jury has received testimony from a number of individuals subject to regulation and licensing in connection with the City development process indicating they were repeatedly and persistently solicited for money in the amount of $500 for the City's annual employee appreciation fund, to offset a portion of the City's costs associated with the program, and for other gifts, such as tickets to professional sporting events. Community development staff has reportedly received benefits from these gifts and donations, e.g., tickets to professional sporting events.
Related Recommendations (1)
R08
The City not permit the persistent and aggressive solicitation of money and gifts from anyone and require that it be made clear to everyone that when solicitations are made giving is on a voluntary basis and that no repercussions will follow a failure to give. Responses Responses Required From: Moorpark City Council (R-01 through R-08) Mayor of the City of Moorpark (R-05, R-08) 10 Moorpark Excessively Aggressive Code Enforcement & Development Process
F41
The City also actively pursued donations from residential developers currently engaged in construction, one in the amount of $5,000 to fund the City's Youth Scholarship Program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R08
The City not permit the persistent and aggressive solicitation of money and gifts from anyone and require that it be made clear to everyone that when solicitations are made giving is on a voluntary basis and that no repercussions will follow a failure to give. Responses Responses Required From: Moorpark City Council (R-01 through R-08) Mayor of the City of Moorpark (R-05, R-08) 10 Moorpark Excessively Aggressive Code Enforcement & Development Process
F42
The Grand Jury has received testimony indicating that excessive amounts of Quimby fees were demanded and settlement agreements associated with those fees were required from the City manager’s office and the community development department prior to permit approvals for residential developers.
No recommendations for this finding
F43
Under the Quimby Act, by local ordinance, the City may require the dedication of land or impose fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative map or parcel map. (Govt. Code §66477)
No recommendations for this finding
F44
There must be an ordinance with particularity in effect 30 days before the plan map is filed and Quimby fees may be assessed. The ordinance must detail the standards for the fees. Quimby Act land dedication or fees or a combination of both are permitted if, inter alia, all of the following requirements are met: • The ordinance for them has been in effect 30 days prior to the filing of the tentative map or parcel map. • The ordinance includes definite standards for determining the proportion of a subdivision and the amount of fee to be paid in lieu thereof. • The dedication of land or payment of fees, or both, shall not exceed the proportionate amount necessary to provide three acres per thousand persons (as further defined in the code).
No recommendations for this finding
F45
The City’s Quimby ordinance is the relevant Ventura County code provision incorporated by reference by the City under City Ordinance No. 6 in September of 1983.
No recommendations for this finding
F46
The City’s community development department is hopeful of adopting a revised ordinance of its own later this year.
No recommendations for this finding
F47
Testimony was taken that detailed that the demands for excessive Quimby fees were made on a bargaining basis of what can best be described as “whatever could be extorted under the pressure of the economics of construction costs.”
No recommendations for this finding
F48
It was reported to the Jury that in one instance a Quimby fee of $8,000 per unit was demanded and allegedly became the City’s stated basis for yet higher arbitrary per unit demands.
No recommendations for this finding
F49
Except for the basic calculation of acres to be dedicated under the Act, the Quimby fees referred to below are reputed by the developers to have been arrived at arbitrarily without reference to the strictures of the Act. Moorpark Excessively Aggressive Code Enforcement & Development Process 7
No recommendations for this finding
F50
In a second case a Quimby fee in the amount of $12,000 per unit (nearly double the typical maximum fee level) was demanded based on the premise that more than the prior $8,000 per unit Quimby fee must or should be paid.
No recommendations for this finding
F51
In the second case the City also demanded the dedication of the land first proposed as setoff to Quimby fees without consideration of setoff as provided for in the Act.
No recommendations for this finding
F52
The City manager refused to discuss the matter with one builder by informing the builder before a meeting that the City manager would not discuss the issue. The City manager terminated the meeting and walked out when the issue was raised by the builder.
No recommendations for this finding
F53
In another instance the City agreed to a request for discussions of these matters, but the builder was informed the City could not meet with the builder until two months from the requested date.
No recommendations for this finding
F54
In yet another instance a builder was told that having its attorney accompany it to a meeting with the City had been “a mistake” and the builder should not bring its attorney to any future meeting.
No recommendations for this finding
F55
The City later legitimized or regularized these excessive Quimby fees and exactions by requiring as a condition of City approval that the builders enter into settlement agreements with the City.
No recommendations for this finding
F56
The long-term building and economic conditions usually present for entering into such settlement agreements were not apparent in these particular cases.
No recommendations for this finding
F57
The Jury received testimony from a public utility concerning demands for excessive extraction fees and extraordinary improvement plan approval delays, as compared to other Ventura County cities, for development of its existing site, the cost of which (including possible forced relocation of the site for economic reasons associated with the City’s demands) would be required by State regulation to be passed on to the rate paying public of the county. Conclusions City Enforcement Practices C-01. The City's code enforcement department is excessively aggressive in its code enforcement program in efforts to force total compliance by community residents. (F-11, F-12, F-13, F-16, F-19, F-33) C-02. The code enforcement department’s approach to code enforcement is proactive and, for the most part, is not based on citizen complaints of code violation. (F-03, F-04, F-07, F-08, F-10, F-16, F-31) C-03. The code enforcement department's community outreach program, while lately enhanced, does not seem to fully address citizen concerns. A substantial number of residents have expressed fear of retaliation by the City if they complain against the code enforcement officer to either the City or to the Sheriff's Department. (F-04, F-14, F-16, F-17, F-19, F-20) 8 Moorpark Excessively Aggressive Code Enforcement & Development Process C-04. The community development department is overly supportive of the code enforcement officer, despite the number of complaints offered by residents of various neighborhoods within the community. (F-17, F-24, F-28) C-05. The code enforcement officer appears to present a "peace officer demeanor" in the conduct of his duties based on handcuffs in his possession and frequent calls for Sheriff's Department backup. (F-07, F-11, F-12, F-33) C-06. Interviewed residents believe and assert that the code enforcement officer does not demonstrate sensitivity or effective customer service techniques when interacting with community residents and conflict resolution. (F-09, F-11, F- 12, F-13, F-16, F-19) C-07. The residents of the community interviewed by the Jury have minimal respect for the code enforcement department or its personnel. (F-01, F-09, F-13, F-16,
No recommendations for this finding

Conclusions 3

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Moorpark City