Venturacoun S Aug 2 9 2003 August 26, 2003 Office of the Presidingjudge

I n the different cities, code enforcement personnel reported to different departments. See Table 1.

Responses received from the cities indicated that did not track the data some requested and that there systems place from which to supply the data were no in requested.

Ofthe information received from the cities, sample of comparable information is a reOected Table 2. in PATRICKHUNTERKEtTHF. MILLHOUSE CLINT HARPER ROSEANN MIKOS JAMICES. PARVIN DrT-rnCCoouunncciillmmemebmebreCrouncilmember hA-.,-v 1 August 26, 2003

Some Enforcement Personnel reported to several different departments within the particular city. i F.5. City enforcement officers generally attempt to clear violations by phone call or a visit but those attempts failing, notice warning letterwill often be written. a I F.6. In notice warning letters, some cities supply detailed instructions on how to appeal the indicated violation though in some cities they do not give such instruction until legal action undertaken. is I

Most reported or discovered violations occur because the violators are not familiarwith code requirements. I

When documentation requested from Moorpark Code Enforcement that was would explain the public's right to appeal violation notices and how to accomplish such an appeal, no satisfactory response was forthcoming. Reason: Other than the building code for appeals of dangerous buildings, fhere is no codified process for appeal of a violation of the Municipal Code. We have implemented the practice of an office hearing to give fhe violator an opportunity to discuss the violation with the Code Enforcement OMcer's supervisor in efforl to gain compliance with the Municipal Code prior to an filing criminal action with the court by the City Attorney. The courl action a ailows the alleged violator thirdpartyreview which appeal. a serves as an

In response to the Jury's query on code violation appellate rights and procedures, the Jury received copies of various sections and pages from Moorpark Code Enforcementthat identified relevant material from the were as Moorpark Municipal Code. It not clear from this material what cited was a vioiator's appellate rights were. Reason: The information given the Jury for the abatement ofdangerous buildings was excerpted from fhe Uniform Building Code. Violations of fhe Municipal as Code not appealable, except in the instance of violations of the building are code. A Municipal Code violation is similarto a fraffic tickef. In ihe case of a Municipal Code violation the code enforcement officer issues the leler, instead of ticket, noting the violation and requesting compliance. The a process is ve~ystraight-fo~ward. Ifcompliance is achieved overa reasonable period of time, then the case is closed. If compliance is not achieved in the 1 August 26, 2003 I timeframe alloffed and after an ofhce hearing, then the case goes to the City Attorneyforcourt action.

Of the Municipal Code documents furnished the Jury, only section of the a code that covered The Federal Water Pollution Act indicated, uthat each order shall state thatthe recipient has rightto appeal." a I Reason: The Federal Water Pollution Act provides an appeal process by federal lSW. The Moorpark Municipal Code does not contain an appeal process relative to violations of the Municipal Code, except in the instance of abatement of dangerous unsafe buildings, which follows the Uniform Building Code or requirements. Also comments underF-9. see

On further inquiry, City of Moorpark personnel unable to further detail were the requested appellate rights information and reference made to the was Municipal Code the Internet. on Reason: See F-10.

A search of the Internet established that though set of the Municipal Codes a appeared to be available the Internet, downloading revealed that the on documents provided the Jury in the past not in the Internet Municipa! was Code nor did the Internet Municipal Code appearto be complete. Reason: As with all ciiies, fhe Municipal Code is updafed periodically and not every time there is adopted change is it immediatelyposted the Internet. In an on Moorpark, the Code is typically updated quarferly semi-annually based or upon the numberof new ordinances to be codified. There are times when the Code as it appears on the Internet, would not have all ofthe updates. In the future, the Intemet copy will have an additionalsecfion ofrecentlypassed, but notyet codihed amendments.

Copies obtained of typical letters sent by Moorpark Code Enforcement to violators revealed, with exception, that contained meaningfuI one none appellate information. I Reason: The procedure for office hearing is and has only recently been an new implemented staffpractice. See comments F-8. as a on

A visit to the Moorpark Building and Safety Department disclosed that though pamphlets describing code enforcement available at their location, were a similar visit to City Hall disclosed that personnel there were not Gertain of the availability of information explaining code enforcement and that the rack containing this type of information fairly empty. City Hall personnel was stated, "Things being redone." were Reason: We concur that pamphlets were available at both Iocations, even though the supply at City Hall not full, copies of the pamphlet available. We was were are in the process ofupdating thepamphlet.

In many cRies within the County, copies of the municipal codes were readily Buildin) available for the general public at either the relevant city hall the or and Safety department. This notthe in Moorpark. was case Reason: Copies of the Municipal Code available at the City Hall and Building and are SafetyffngineeringpubliG counterupon request.

Moorpark Code Enforcement provided the Jury "Board of Appeals a Application for Hearing" and, attached to it, Section 501, Chapter 5, a "appeals~N purportedly from the Moorpark Municipal Code. This section, apparently taken from 1997 "Abatement of Dangerous Buildings" section a indicated 30 days the time for appeal, and refers to section 401.3 of the as code. A search for relevant Section 4 of the code reviewed the Internet on revealed a blank page indicating that it is reserved. Reason: As is the in most cities the Uniform Building Code is adopted by case reference and is therefore not incorporated into the MuniGipal Code. The sections were provided to the Jury in response to the question of an appea/ process. There is only an appeal process for violations of the Uniform Building Code in reference to the abatement of dangerous buildings. The Uniform Building Code is not available the City's website due to copyright on restrictions.

A copy of Moorpark's Building and Safety "Building and Permit Fees," with many pencil changes within the document, was obtained. Reason: A copyofthe Building and Permit Fees was providedbut we are not aware of any pencil changes on the document. It is not the City's practice to make changes to fee schedules bypenciling in changes.

A comparison between fees indicated on documents provided the Jury to the fees charged to complainants not possible because most the was in cases y77- /fa r Hnorable Kudge Clark August 26, 2003 fees uvere based on the "official's" subjective estimales of construction costs, or his or her estimate of the cost of inspection and plan ceview, or in some fees negotiated. cases were Reasoa: Each code enforcement case is different and therefore a specific fee to cover all code.csses is nof possible. Correcfion of a code violaton may involve a number ofdiscretionary and non-discretionary items incfuding, but not limited to condifional permit, pfanned devefopmeril perrnit, change, a use a a zone a variance, generalplan amendment, zoning clearance, grading permft a a a or a buifding permit. Moorpark operafes on a depasif basis (fuff cast recavery) for most applications. ft is impossible ta give precise amounf for plan a a check, until the work has been submitted, that is why estrmates provided. are

Some of the obtained documents reOect estimated costs for investigations and "meetings` time.

Review of some documents provided indicated that no fee listing for such items grading ptan checks, improvement plan checks and geotechnical as report review, grading inspection or improvement inspection though such fees levied. are Reason: This statement is incorrect. The fees listed the Fee Schedule. are on Recommendalions: , We have reviewed the Recommendations section of the Report. Retommendations 2-5 were already in place at the time the Jury visited, Recommendations 11 and 12 have already been implemented. We will be implementing Recommendation 6 by the end of September 2003 when the City's websile Js revised. Recommendations 7, 9 and 10 will be implemented by the end of December 2003. Recommendations 1, S, and 13 will not be implemented. Below the for non-implementation. are reasons R-l That all cities establish programs to gather readily available code enforcement data in order to make possible their evaluation of the effectiveness of their enforcement programs vis a vis the programs of other comparable cities. Reason.* Moarpark does not have controf over whai othercities do with respect fo code enforcement. As mentioned earlier in this letter, each cify is different and enforces its Code on the basis ofcitypriorfties established by its Gity Gouncil. Effectiveness, therefore, of an individual city's code enforcement program is not necessarifybassd vpon a comparison ofcity to cify.

Attached to some of the documents received were pages identified as "clearance and approvals," but they were without any indication as to whether they approved by the city and fees listed. were no were Reason Handouts provided that indicated clearance and approvals. There is were no need to indicate on a handout listing what clearances and approvals are 1 August 26, 2003 needed fora project orpermit when the handoutis from the City. Thepoint of the handout is to inform the reader what is necessary in order to gain a clearance approval. oran

An exhibtt obtained by the Jury, titled "City of Moorpark Subdivision Final scheauie" Processing Fee indicated that homeowners being charged the are fees being charged major subdivision developers, these same as are i.e., gross fees are being charged to individual homeowners when improving their lots/homes etc. Reason: /t true that ihe City does not differentiate fees relative fo whether the is constwction is beingperformedby homeowner builder. The for a ora reason not differentiating is that the review is based upon a cost recovery system in orderto the costs forthe reviewofplans. recover

The California Government Code at section 6253 (b), section of the California a Public Records Act, states, "(b) Except with respect to public records exempt I from disclosure by express provision of law, each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees direct costs of duplication statutorv fee if applicable. Upon coverino or a request, an exact copy shall be provided unless impracticable to do so." (Emphasis supplied)

The California Government Code at section 6253 (d), further states, i,(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection copying of public records." or Concurrence Part: in

Citizens, when requesting copies of drawings are being charged exorbitant unpublished hourly rates to have the documents located within the department and are also being subjected to lengthy delays in receiving the requested drawings for duplication. I I Reason: The Cityis of instance where applicant charged the normal aware one an was hourlyrate, based upon an estimate ofhow /ong it would take to research the requested information. This is standard procedure for research, but this m particular the research fee should not have been charqed since it case was a request for information that should have been readily avai/able to the public. The City willreturn any overpayment made to this person. Non-concurrence: