The 2^nd Unit Dwelling Amnesty Permit Program*

That VCC redefine "substandard" as life safety issues in the code 4. enforcement policies. (FI-15, 16) City Response: The City agrees that the traditional use of the work "substandard" in code enforcement notices is too general. In light of this and the upcoming adoption of the 2013 California Building Standards Codes in Fall of 2013, City staff will recommend that the City's Property Maintenance Code attempt to differentiate between "life-safety", "nuisance", and "administrative" code violations. That VCC rewrite policies, procedures and practices with the purpose of 5 reducing conflict between Code Enforcement and property owners. This should include: City Response: a Editing forms that appear more threatening than informative prior to a determination of non-compliance (FI-11, 15, 16) The City agrees and City Council has endorsed this approach with ongoing implementation by staff. Describing violations and remedy options with reasonable detail and clarity (FI-11, 15, 16) This has been in place since 2007. Developing a training strategy for Code Enforcement with the intent to assist owners through the process of making their properties safe (FI- 11, 12, 15, 16) The City has been and continues to do this. Providing equitable relief with respect to permit fees for successive owners who failed to discover prior code violations through their due diligence (FI-09, 10) This will be discussed in January 2013 during the next City User Fees Resolution City Council public hearing. Retaining an inventory of low-income dwellings in Ventura for state reporting requirements (FI-02-06, 10-16) This is already done and has been confirmed by the State of California via the City's, State approved, "Housing Element". Creating an independent third-party appeals process focusing on property safety issues and fairness (FI-08) This has been in place for decades. That VCC refrain from using non-safety code enforcement matters to 6. raise revenue. (FI-04, 06, 13, 15) City Response: The City will continue to recover the cost of enforcing City standards where legally and ethically appropriate. At no time has the City used code enforcement to raise revenue. 7. That VCC return excessive fee rates previously collected from developers and lower these fee rates to a level compliant with the law. (FI-17) City Response: At no time has the City collected more than the reasonable, estimated cost of services provided through the code enforcement program. Accordingly there is no legal basis for a refund. That VCC place the burden of maintaining building and safety and code 8. enforcement records or documents on the City, in compliance with current law. (FI-09) City Response: This has been, and remains, the current policy of City Code Enforcement. 23378 City Council Mike Tracy, Mayor Cheryl Heitmann, Deputy Mayor October 22, 2012 Neal Andrews, Councilmember Brian Brennan, Councilmember James L. Monahan, Councilmember Carl E. Morehouse, Councilmember Christy Weir, Councilmember The Honorable Vincent J. O'Neill, Jr. Presiding Judge of the Superior Court County of Ventura 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura CA 93009 Dear Judge O'Neill: Following recent discussions with members of the Grand Jury sub-committee on Code Enforcement, this letter is being submitted regarding the eight recommendations contained in the 2011-12 Grand Jury Report. The City is unequivocally committed to the continuous improvement of all our policies, procedures, and training programs. Complaints are taken seriously and changes are made with the goal of compassionately keeping our community a safe and clean place in which to live and work. Response to Grand Jury Recommendations: 1. Provide additional management oversight of the Code Enforcement Group along with requisite code enforcement and legal training. Over the past five years, the City believes it has provided considerable oversight and analysis of this important function but agrees to continue reviewing current methods and further explore other means of improving the code enforcement program and related staff training. 2. Implement policies and practices to instill public confidence in the Amnesty Program. In an effort to explain and clarify the Amnesty Program, the City has: (a.) Conducted in-person presentations to every Community Council in the City; (b.) Mailed hundreds of informational letters to licensed contractors who provide services within the City; (c.) Conducted public information outreach at the City Farmers' Market during the month of June; (d.) Facilitated training for 40+ interested contractors; (e.) Prepared a television informational short that will be aired over cable TV this Fall; (f.) Approved a one-year extension of the Amnesty Program and 501 Poli Street • P.O. Box 99 • Ventura, California 93002-0099 • 805.654.7827 • cityofventura.net asked staff to consider additional outreach methods to inform property owners about the program, and (g.) Designed program materials that explain a simple step-by-step process with a pre-initiation check-list to ensure those considering the program understand up front what they will be going through and the likelihood of a successful outcome. 3. Revise City and code enforcement policies, procedures, and practices relating to the reality or appearance of preferential treatment. The City recognizes the importance of not only being fair and impartial in the administration of the law but to be perceived as such. We will review and modify our procedures, methods and practices to promote both the perception of fairness as well as the reality in all that we do. 4. Redefine "substandard" as life safety issues in the code enforcement policies. The City agrees that the State Health and Safety Code (Section 17920.3) definition of the word "substandard" in this State mandated code enforcement process is general. The California Building Standards Code is under review for re-adoption next year. During this process, the City staff will propose local amendments to more clearly differentiate between "life-safety", "nuisance" and "administrative" violations that more clearly describe the urgency and severity of conditions being cited on a property. 5. Rewrite policies, procedure, and practices with the purposes of reducing conflict between Code enforcement and property owners. The City Council agrees and has directed staff to review, edit, and revise information and forms used prior to the determination of "non-compliance" in order to remove language that is perceived to be threatening in nature. The City believes that Code violations and remedy options have been described in reasonable detail and clarity since 2007, but agrees to be vigilant and emphasize this issue in both the training and supervision of the program. The City has been and will continue to emphasize the service aspect of assisting owners through the process of making their property safe and clean. The issue of equitable relief of fees related to undiscovered code violations by successive owners will be discussed during the City Council public hearing on user fees in January 2013. The City agrees with the Grand Jury as to the importance of keeping an inventory of low income dwellings in Ventura and is doing so. The State of California has confirmed this through its approval of the City's "Housing Element". The City supports the third-party appeals process and has one in place. However, it appears that the issues of concern are more related to the cost of the process and the authority of the Local Appeals Board. The City is examining the efficiency and effectiveness of the appeals process with the goal of keeping fees to a minimum. Fairness in the appeal process is a focus of the City, but there are legal limits on the authority and remedies available where equal protection under the law is involved. In October 2012, the Local Appeals Board was given a detailed orientation concerning its role, the laws governing deliberations and decisions, as well as the procedures by which they conduct themselves. 6. Refrain from using non-safety code enforcement matters to raise revenue. The City does not and legally cannot use code enforcement to "raise revenue". It may only recover the cost of providing the function, activity or service involved. As a matter of public policy, most communities including Ventura have adopted Codes that include non-safety code enforcement. The City agrees that code enforcement should not be used as an excuse to raise revenue but will continue to recover its cost only where legally and ethically appropriate. 7. Return excessive fee rates previously collected from developers and lower these fee rates to a level compliant with the law. The City believes its fee rates are in compliance with the law that limits them to no more than actual cost of enforcement. If excessive fees were to be collected, the City would refund them and correct the cause of any over charge. 8. Place the burden of maintaining building safety and code enforcement records or documents on the City, in compliance with current law. The City believes it has and continues to take responsibility for maintaining building and safety and code enforcement records under the law. However, where the violation being alleged involves work performed without permit, there may not be any record to maintain. Recognizing that it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative (absence of evidence that a permit was issued), the totality of the circumstance is taken into account by the City when placing the burden of proof for an alleged violation. I appreciate the Grand Jury's efforts to improve code enforcement in the City of Ventura and the opportunity to respond. Sincerely, óhn F. Johnstón Interim City Manager