⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
Our investigation revealed that “unpermitted” surface mining has been conducted intermittently on a particular property as early as 1984. Aerial photographs provided by Riverside County Flood Control taken in 1984, 1990, 1995 and 2000 confirm that mining continued during the entire period. a. The first citations on this property were issued April 6, 1994, including one for illegal surface mining. b. On August 17, 1995, the Office of County Counsel signed an agreement with the property owner that a surface mining permit would be required in order to continue operations. c. On March 18, 1996, an application was filed with the Riverside County Planning Department by the property owner. A permit was never issued because the applicant did not satisfy the requirements outlined in SMARA. d. From 1994 to present, multiple citations have been issued to the owner for lack of permits for motocross test tracks, buildings, grading, a landfill, model airplane paved runway and carports. e. On May 14, 2002 a meeting was held in a County Board of Supervisor’s Office with the property owner, a Deputy County Counsel, a Legislative Assistant to a Riverside County Board of Supervisor, and representatives from Planning and Code Enforcement. The purpose of the meeting was to update and clarify the requirements for the owner to legally continue operations. On September 25, 2002, a Planning Department employee representative hand-delivered detailed requirements to the property owner, which when implemented would bring the property into compliance. **Material overlying a useful mineral deposit. 2 f. From 2002 to June 2, 2005 the property owner has continued to operate without proper permits. Investigation by the Grand Jury revealed the Office of County Counsel has not enforced compliance as stated in the requirements given to the owner on September 25, 2002. g. A grading expert in surface mining estimated that over 30,000 cubic yards of overburden** have been removed from the site. h. During a Grand Jury interview a Code Enforcement Officer was directed by a Supervisor in Code Enforcement in 2002 to “Lay off the case.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Office of County Counsel must expedite cases in Code Enforcement and Planning as established by Board of Supervisors’ Policy A-57 (Attachment 1). When the Office of County Counsel negotiates an agreement with the property owner, staff must follow through to ensure that the terms of the agreement are strictly enforced.
F2
County Counsel does not have an electronic link to cases currently open in Code Enforcement and the Planning Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Office of County Counsel implement an electronic link from Code Enforcement and Planning Department to its office to provide oversight for legal enforcement on cases that have continued for an extended period of time. 3
F3
Properties, which have been improved, but remain unpermitted, continue to be assessed at a lower tax rate, thus depriving the County of Riverside of increased tax revenue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Office of County Counsel must identify and bring into compliance improved properties that remain unpermitted and have not been reassessed. Assessment at a higher value will generate more tax revenue to the County of Riverside.
F4
A review was conducted of random case files of properties that had been abated without the benefit of a lawful Seizure Warrant. A correspondence was discovered in which a Deputy County Counsel was advising a Code Enforcement Officer how to prevent the property owner from learning what happened and how to carry out further damage control options.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The primary duty of the Office of County Counsel is to provide legal advice to the County and its agencies. They must also exercise their responsibility to third parties as set forth in the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Report Delivered: 06/27/05 Report Public: 06/29/05 Report Response Due: 09/26/05 4 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY Subject: Policy Number Page REVIEW OF UNAUTHORIZED BUSINESSES A-57 1 of 1 OBJECTIVE: To provide policy guidelines for development departments to ensure the timely review of application materials for commercial and industrial uses which have been identified by the Code Enforcement Division of the Department of Building & Safety as operating without the required County approvals. POLICY: With the exception of commercial or industrial uses which qualify for Fast Track Processing pursuant to Board Policy A-32, all unauthorized uses which apply for County approval will be reviewed by the Unauthorized Business Review Team, which will consist of a representative from the Planning Department, Department of Building & Safety, and, when the unauthorized use is located in a Redevelopment Area, the Economic Development Agency. With the exception of the time line mentioned later in this policy and the “Team” identified for the case processing, these applications will follow the standard County procedure for case processing. All unauthorized businesses will be required to file an application for the appropriate County permit and pay all applicable fees. Any application for approval of an unauthorized business which is not accompanied by the applicable fee (or supplemental deposit) will be taken forward to the appropriate review body for immediate denial, after which the use will be subject to enforcement action pursuant to Board Policy F-5. TIMELINES: All applications filed pursuant to this policy will be brought forward for hearing to the appropriate hearing body of the initial application (except for those cases which are delinquent in paying the required fee) whether or not the applicant has supplied all of the necessary information or studies. The submittal of complete information and all necessary studies is the responsibility of the applicant, and a lack of necessary data will not prevent any case processed by the Unauthorized Business Review Team from being processed in accordance with these policy guidelines. Reference: Minute Order 3.23 dated 4/23/02 ATTACHMENT 1 5