⚠️ 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 44 findings
F01
CE administration requires code enforcement training and experience. (FA-01–06, 10, 11, 14, 17–22, 25, 27, 28, 32–44) 6 City of Ventura Code Enforcement
No recommendations for this finding
F02
The City has a large number of older dwellings and second dwelling units that have unpermitted work. (FA-34)
No recommendations for this finding
F03
Many of the second units provide inexpensive (low-income) housing and rentals. (FA-34)
No recommendations for this finding
F04
―The 2nd Unit Dwelling Amnesty Permit Program‖ reduces permit fees and addresses zoning issue requirements for those who can afford impact fees and building construction upgrades to comply with the program. (FA-07, 08)
No recommendations for this finding
F05
Applicants not accepted into the Amnesty Program risk citations, higher fees, and possible demolition of their second dwelling units. (FA-08)
No recommendations for this finding
F06
Many property owners fear CE and the cost of permits, fees, and construction costs. (FA-01, 02, 06, 08–14, 18, 19, 21, 25-27, 29, 30, 32– 34, 36–44)
No recommendations for this finding
F07
CE and the City have shown preferential treatment in code enforcement to favored citizens. (FA-11)
No recommendations for this finding
F08
None of the levels of the City appellate process is by an independent third party and can become expensive to the property owner. (FA-27)
No recommendations for this finding
F09
The City holds the property owner responsible for the burden of proof for the existence of permits. (FA-02–05)
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The City holds the current property owners responsible for any and all prior work requiring permits. (FA-02)
Related Recommendations (1)
R08
That VCC place the burden of maintaining building and safety and code enforcement records or documents on the City, in compliance with current law. (FI-09) 8 City of Ventura Code Enforcement Responses Responses Required From: Ventura City Council (FI-01–17) (R-01–08) References Ref-01. Legislative Analyst’s Office, December 1996, ―Understanding Proposition 218‖ http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_prop218 _1296.html (accessed May 22, 2012) Ref-02. Legislative Analyst's Office, July 15, 2010, "Proposition 26 Increases Legislative Vote Requirement to Two-Thirds for State Levies and Charges. Imposes Additional Requirement for Voters to Approve Local Levies and Charges With Limited Exceptions. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2010/26_11_2010.aspx (accessed May 22, 2012) Attachments Att-01. The 2nd Dwelling Unit Amnesty Permit Program Att-02. City of Ventura Administrative Report Dated: November 16, 2009
F11
CE has been aggressive with property owners in personal contacts, paperwork, documents, and enforcement tactics. (FA-01–05, 14, 18–22, 25–34, 36–44)
Related Recommendations (1)
R05
That VCC rewrite policies, procedures and practices with the purpose of reducing conflict between Code Enforcement and property owners. This should include: editing forms that appear more threatening than informative prior to a determination of non-compliance (FI-11, 15, 16) describing violations and remedy options with reasonable detail and clarity (FI-11, 15, 16) 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) 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) retaining an inventory of low-income dwellings in Ventura for state reporting requirements (FI-02–06, 10–16) creating an independent third-party appeals process focusing on property safety issues and fairness (FI-08)
F12
CE is more aggressive and less helpful than a comparison city in the County. (FA-24)
No recommendations for this finding
F13
The VCC has raised fees for budgetary reasons. (FA-12, 13, 25, 26, 33, 38)
Related Recommendations (1)
R06
That VCC refrain from using non-safety code enforcement matters to raise revenue. (FI-04, 06, 13, 15)
F14
When the VCC approved shifting B&S permit fees to a cost reimbursable system, it resulted in higher fees. (FA-12, 13, 20, 25, 26, 33, 38)
Related Recommendations (1)
R06
That VCC refrain from using non-safety code enforcement matters to raise revenue. (FI-04, 06, 13, 15)
F15
The City's use of the term substandard is very broad, allowing the City to apply it to issues ranging from life-safety to nuisances. (FA-09, 18, 22, 28, 30, 34)
Related Recommendations (1)
R04
That VCC redefine ―substandard‖ as life safety issues in the code enforcement policies. (FI-15, 16)
F16
Inconsistent and confusing information is provided by the CE to property owners. (FA-06, 09, 10, 22, 28, 30, 42)
Related Recommendations (1)
R05
That VCC rewrite policies, procedures and practices with the purpose of reducing conflict between Code Enforcement and property owners. This should include: editing forms that appear more threatening than informative prior to a determination of non-compliance (FI-11, 15, 16) describing violations and remedy options with reasonable detail and clarity (FI-11, 15, 16) 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) 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) retaining an inventory of low-income dwellings in Ventura for state reporting requirements (FI-02–06, 10–16) creating an independent third-party appeals process focusing on property safety issues and fairness (FI-08)
F17
The VCC approved retaining the developer permit fees in excess of reimbursable costs. Though informed that collecting and retaining more than the costs to perform a service may be contrary to law, the VCC failed to lower these fee rates. (FA-36) City of Ventura Code Enforcement 7 Recommendations
Related Recommendations (1)
R07
That VCC return excessive fee rates previously collected from developers and lower these fee rates to a level compliant with the law. (FI-17)
F18
An administrative report informed the VCC that approximately 20% of the inspected second units met the City's definition as ―substandard.‖ Some were not life safety issues, but affected neighborhood livability, on-street parking, and increased demand for utility usage. The report also stated that many property owners either inherited unpermitted property or did not realize the need for permits for various repairs or additions. (Att-02)
No recommendations for this finding
F19
The VCC was advised that property owners expressed frustration regarding expenses, inflexible zoning and building laws, and the mandatory costs to legalize their unpermitted dwelling units.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
The City stated that finding more code violations does not have a direct financial impact on the CE group, but does significantly raise the permit fees for the B&S Department and likely saves CE jobs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R06
That VCC refrain from using non-safety code enforcement matters to raise revenue. (FI-04, 06, 13, 15)
F21
The CE has acted on complaints that appear to be retaliatory in nature against neighbors.
No recommendations for this finding
F22
The City’s use of the term ―substandard‖ is too broad and needs to be revised with specificity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R04
That VCC redefine ―substandard‖ as life safety issues in the code enforcement policies. (FI-15, 16)
F23
The previous CE fees were arbitrary and had little monetary relationship to the cost of services.
No recommendations for this finding
F24
A comparably sized city in Ventura County uses a very different approach to code enforcement. The comparable city works with property owners to find solutions to code enforcement issues. Most property owners have very little knowledge of code enforcement or building codes. Providing options, talking with and listening to property owner(s) creates co- operation and defuses conflict.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05
That VCC rewrite policies, procedures and practices with the purpose of reducing conflict between Code Enforcement and property owners. This should include: editing forms that appear more threatening than informative prior to a determination of non-compliance (FI-11, 15, 16) describing violations and remedy options with reasonable detail and clarity (FI-11, 15, 16) 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) 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) retaining an inventory of low-income dwellings in Ventura for state reporting requirements (FI-02–06, 10–16) creating an independent third-party appeals process focusing on property safety issues and fairness (FI-08)
F25
Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) was initiated in 2008 to increase efficiency and to refocus priorities. As the economy deteriorated, BFO was used to decrease ineffective spending and increase revenues. City of Ventura Code Enforcement
No recommendations for this finding
F26
The City considers that new code enforcement fees are not a tax. The B&S Department’s permit process had been funded by the General Fund. The same inspection activities are now performed, except the funding comes from the new permit fees, charged to individuals or companies that build or modify structures. This creates additional revenue for the City.
No recommendations for this finding
F27
There is an appeal process for property owners who dispute CE citations. The first review is by the CBO. The second review is with the Local Appeals Board. The Appeals Board has no City employees. The members are appointed by the VCC and usually have a background in architecture, engineering, construction, real estate, property management, or planning. There is a third appeal process which is administered by a company that is paid by the City to collect citations. There are significant costs to the property owner for the second and third appeals.
No recommendations for this finding
F28
A structure can be classified as ―substandard‖ for many reasons, ranging from life-threatening health and safety issues to not having a permit. This characterization subjects the property to citations, fines, penalties, civil actions, liens, and forfeitures. The City's written definition of ―substandard‖ was derived from several sources including the California Uniform Housing Code, the State Health and Safety Codes, and City ordinances.
No recommendations for this finding
F29
The issuance of a citation can result in fines of $426 per day. There are no waivers for financial hardship.
No recommendations for this finding
F30
Clouded property titles restrict borrowing against the property. After a Notice of Non-Compliance has been issued for any ―substandard‖ housing issue(s), ranging from safety to a missing permit, an inspection is required. The inspection will not be performed until a permit is purchased. After the inspection is completed, the City releases the clouding restrictions against the property.
No recommendations for this finding
F31
CE is associated with the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers (CACEO), an organization that shares code enforcement information and lobbies for code enforcement issues. CACEO shares information on solutions to problems, including how to increase revenues.
No recommendations for this finding
F32
When a complaint is received, it is CE policy to review permits on file prior to an inspection. The inspectors are trained to focus on the primary allegation, but they can deal with other unrelated issues, if they are life safety issues and in ―plain view.‖ In practice, CE looks for additional permit violations.
No recommendations for this finding
F33
The VCC directed City management to find budget reductions. CE recommended to the VCC that revenues could be enhanced if more inspections were conducted, creating more permit fees and potential fines.
Related Recommendations (1)
R06
That VCC refrain from using non-safety code enforcement matters to raise revenue. (FI-04, 06, 13, 15)
F34
In February 2009, CE was directed to conduct visual inspections, looking for unsafe second units and second dwelling units. The City staff estimated that there are over 6,000 older dwellings and about 2,100 City of Ventura Code Enforcement 5 unpermitted ―substandard‖ second dwellings. The City considers many of these second dwelling units as low-income housing.
No recommendations for this finding
F35
According to the City, taxes are for general population benefit and fees are for user service expense recovery. Fees may not be collected for more than the reasonable cost for the service(s) without becoming an illegal tax. The B&S Department is currently recovering costs via permit fees. The City's fee schedules are created by a consultant, with input from the affected departments. The reasonableness of the fees is reviewed by the consultant by comparing the fees for other cities. Many of these cities also have their fee schedules created by the same consultant.
No recommendations for this finding
F36
Proposition 218 allows for the collection of fees for providing services to individuals. The VCC was apprised of the effects of the new building permit fees, including that developers were paying more than what it cost to perform the inspections. The VCC voted to keep the collected excess fees and not reduce the rates.
No recommendations for this finding
F37
During inspections, CE takes property photographs, both exterior and interior, unless asked to stop by property owners. CE practice allows that, with legal access, anything that is in plain view may be photographed.
No recommendations for this finding
F38
In 2008, CE attempted to become revenue self-sufficient by trying to raise revenues and decrease expenditures. The goal was to become independent of the General Fund. CE began a cost-recovery plan. Citations increased and CE charged a fee for each visit after the first.
Related Recommendations (1)
R06
That VCC refrain from using non-safety code enforcement matters to raise revenue. (FI-04, 06, 13, 15)
F39
The CE badges were designed to look similar to the Ventura Police Department badges. CE inspectors are not peace officers.
No recommendations for this finding
F40
The term ―substandard,‖ as used by the CE, has many meanings including that a structure is unsafe.
No recommendations for this finding
F41
Citations and permits can be expensive and sometimes burdensome to low income owners. These costly citations and permits can lead to loss of income and sometimes force property sales.
No recommendations for this finding
F42
The citation forms and notice forms are intimidating or confusing to people. The forms are sometimes not completed with accurate, detailed information and descriptions.
No recommendations for this finding
F43
CE claims to have more power than police officers relative to property matters.
No recommendations for this finding
F44
Construction done without required plans and permits is deemed, by CE, to be hazardous and unsafe. Findings
No recommendations for this finding
Agency Responses 2
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.