HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01161990 - IO.3 I.O.-3
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS --- --
�..�.. _ Contra
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE / Costa
County
DATE: January 8 , 1990 -_ .�Pti`��
sT,ycoun`�
SUBJECT: REPORT ON VARIOUS REFERRALS RELATING TO AN ENHANCED
CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOPDW-NDATIONS
1. Request County Counsel and the County Administrator' s office
to jointly prepare a Special Events Ordinance and return it
to the 1990 Environmental Affairs Committee as soon as a
final draft is ready for the Committee' s consideration.
2. Request the Board of Supervisors, as a part of its
consideration on the afternoon of January 16 , 1990 of AB 939
(Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989) , to direct that the
Community Development Director consider and report back to
the Board of Supervisors on what type of organization would
best meet the intent of AB 939 in terms of forming a Task
Force which would be charged by the cities and the County
with the responsibility of developing an Integrated Waste
Management Plan as is required by AB 939 .
3 . Request the Board of Supervisors, as a part of its
consideration on the afternoon of January 16 , 1990 of AB 939
(Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989) , to direct that the
Community Development Director, in preparing an Integrated
Waste Management Plan as is required by AB 939, to consider
including the County' s code enforcement responsibilities as
broadly as possible, thereby making it possible to raise
funds pursuant to AB 939 to cover as much as possible of the
County' s code enforcement responsibilities.
4. Request the County Administrator, County Counsel, Community
Development Director and Health Services Director to
Yes
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE -O Jp
SIGNATURE(S): TOM POWERS UNNE WRIGHT McPEAK
ACTION OF BOARD ON - January 16 , 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT r ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: ATTESTED 9 9 O
County Administrator pH ATCHELOR,CL K OF THE BOARD OF
County Counsel
Community Development Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Sheriff-Coroner.
.Health Services Director
M382 (10/88) Public., Works .Director BY -DEPUTY
Director of Building Inspection
-2-
continue consideration of all available means of fully
funding the County' s code compliance program without the use
of County General Funds.
5. Agree not to pursue further the concept of consolidating all
code enforcement activities administratively in a single
department.
6. Request the County Administrator to consider the creation of
a Code Compliance Coordinator position in his .office and to
recommend the creation of such a position at such time as it
is possible to identify a source of funding for such a
position.
7. Until such time as it is possible to finance a full-time
Code Compliance Coordinator position, request the County
Administrator to continue to provide the leadership in
addressing an enhanced code compliance program, within
available .staffing and funding constraints.
8. Refer all elements of this program to the Environmental
Affairs Committee and request all County staff to make all
reports on this subject to the Board of Supervisors through
the Environmental Affairs Committee.
9. Remove as a referral to our Committee the April 4, 1989
referral of issues relating to the continuing problem of
code enforcement in the Bethel Island area.
BACKGROUND:
On April 4, 1989 the Board of Supervisors referred to our
Committee issues regarding the continuing problems of code
compliance on Bethel Island. Our Committee has broadened this
referral out considerable to encompass a county-wide code
compliance program during 1989. We have made progress reports to
the Board of Supervisors on this subject on July 18, 1989 and
October 17 , 1989. The Board has previously assigned to the
County Administrator' s office the responsibility to coordinate
all code compliance complaints which cross department lines and
jurisdiction or which otherwise come to his office' s attention.
We have requested a study of the feasibility of combining all
code compliance activities in a single department and have
explored a variety of mechanisms for funding an enhanced code
compliance program. Action has been taken by the Board of
Supervisors to combine all of the County' s abandoned vehicle
enforcement activities in the Sheriff ' s Department.
On January 8, 1990 our Committee met with staff from the County
Administrator' s office and reviewed the attached report. It
appears clear to us that the County already had dedicated
considerable resources to code compliance activities and that
because of the varying responsibilities of different county
departments it is not appropriate to further consider an actual
administrative consolidation of code compliance activities in a
single department. It is, however, necessary to consider
additional coordination among the departments which have code
compliance responsibility. We . have, therefore, made the above
recommendations which we believe will further the goal of having
the most responsive, efficient and effective possible code
compliance program at the least cost.
The recommendations regarding AB 939 are made in view of the fact
that the Board of Supervisors will be considering this
significant piece of legislation on the same afternoon that it
considers this report from our Committee. We are currently faced
with a situation where we legally have no solid waste management
-3-
plan in the County and won' t have one in effect until a new
Integrated Waste Management Plan is drafted which is consistent
with the provisions of AB 939 and is adopted by the County and a
majority of the cities representing the majority of the
incorporated population in the County. In addition, the cities
and the County must form a joint Task Force to work on the
preparation of this Plan.
We had hoped that AB 939 might provide a mechanism for funding
some if not all of the County' s enhanced code compliance program.
Based on County Counsel' s analysis of AB 939 this does not seem
possible. We are, however, interested in insuring that the
Integrated Waste Management Plan which is finally adopted is
worded as broadly as is possible so that as many of our code
compliance programs as possible can be financed from fees imposed
pursuant to AB 939 . It the meantime, the Board of Supervisors
must quickly consider the composition of the Task Force which
will prepare this plan and get the concurrence of the cities on
whatever composition is acceptable to all affected parties. We
believes that the recommendations we have made will go a long way
toward accomplishing the goals of AB 939 as well as our goal of
having an efficient, responsive code compliance program.
z
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building. .
651 Pine Street `'Ilth Floor,
Martinez,- California
DATE: January 3 , 1990
TO: Supervisor Tom Powers
Supervisor Sunne W. McPeak
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
FROM: Phil Batchelor , County Administrator
by John T. Gregory, Management Analyst-*
SUBJECT: CODE COMPLIANCE
During the current fiscal year, the county' s system for code
compliance and violation has been under 'intensive. review by this
Committee and the County Administrator' s Office_ This subject
matter has been reviewed and discussed by county staff during the
last several years. As a result of the latest series of
discussions and meetings, a report was made by this committee to
the Board of Supervisors during its October 17 , 1989 meeting.
From that report, several issues were referred for a further
review and report. The following items were to be included:
1. Proposed Special Events Ordinance.
2. Funding alternatives under AB 939 (Chapter 1095 ,
Statutes of 1989 ) .
3 . Feasibility of consolidating County Code Enforcement
activities in one department/division, including
current personnel and budget.
4 . Report on conversations with Alameda County CHP
Office-
Special
ffice_Special Events Ordinance:
Attached is a copy of the draft ordinance on special events
composed by the County. Administrator' s staff (Attachment A) .
County Counsel review of the draft ordinance suggest that the
initial definition of special events is too broad in scope. This
would result in many persons or organizations being required to
apply for permits which have no impact on County property or
services. Upon Counsel' s advice, further discussions will_ take
place to revise and improve the proposed ordinance. , A report
will be forwarded for this committee' s attention upon completion
o a new draft _
AB 939
This California Integrated Waste' Management Act established state
mandated local integrated waste management programs. A summary
of this legislation key-points are as ,follows:
1. The Act replaces the current part-time California Waste
Management Board (CWMB) with a six-member full-time
California Integrated Waste Management Board.
2. The Act requires each county to establish a task force
to coordinate city source reduction and recycling
activities for countywide integrated waste management
plan.
3. By January 1, 1991, each county must prepare a source
reduction and recycling element for the unincorporated
area. By July 1, 1991, each city must prepare, adopt,
and submit to the county a source reduction and
recycling element_ The elements must include the
following components:
♦ a waste characterization study;
+ a source reduction component;
+ a recycling component;
♦ a composting component;
+ a solid waste capacity component;
+ a public information component;
♦ a funding component;
+ a special waste component;
+ a household hazardous waste component.
4 . Each county must prepare a countywide siting element
specifying areas for disposal or transformation sites
needed for the ensuing 15 years , to provide for
residual wastes which cannot be diverted through source
reduction, recycling, and composting.
5 . Each county must prepare, adopt 'and submit to the State
Board an integrated waste management plan which
includes the city and county elements for source
reduction and recycling and the countywide siting
element.
6 . Cities and counties are required to divert 25 percent
of solid waste from landfills through source reduction,
recycling`` and composting _by January 1, 1995. By
January 1, 2000, a 50 percent reduction is to be
attained where feasible.
7. The Board must ?appi6ve-or. disapprove'' a plan within 120
days of receipt. If a plan is disapproved,.. the local
jurisdiction must make corrections within 120 days. ' The
Board may impose administrative civil penalties of
$10, 000 daily for failure to submit an adequate plan.
8. The preparation and implementation of local plans are
to be funded by fees imposed by local jurisdictions on
generators of solid waste,
9 . The Board must adopt minimum standards for solid waste
handling and disposal.
10. The existing comprehensive system of permits,
inspection and site cleanup and maintenance for all
solid waste facilities in the state will be
strengthened_
11 . Funding for programs of the new Board will be
accomplished through a landfill surcharge set at 50
cents per ton beginning January 1, 1990 , and increasing
to a maximum of $1 per ton after January 1, 1991.
Attached under separate letter is an opinion by County Counsel
suggesting that a reworking of current County Code Compliance and
Enforcement activities will be necessary before being . able to be
funded by any fees from AB 939 (Attachment B)". It would appear
that further discussion is needed among county staff which
would include County Counsel, Environmental Health, Community
Development and the County Administrator. The purpose of this
discussion would be to define how code compliance activities can
meet the enforcement activities parameters of the language in
AB 939.
Consolidation of Staff
Problems with code enforcement have been a high visibility item
for some time in Contra Costa County. There have been numerous
discussions and alternative procedures suggested concerning
better county enforcement of code violations. Throughout these
discussions, a central question has remained on whether those
county departments charged with the responsibility of code
enforcement are doing a "good" job_ To assist in the evaluation
of that job, interviews were conducted of department heads and
their management staff who were engaged in code enforcement
activities, The department heads involved were:
Harvey Bragdon, Director, Community Development
Bob Giese, Building Inspector
Richard Rainey, Sheriff-Coroner
Mike Watford,' Public,Works. Director
William.Walker, M.D..,:, Di.rectbr," Environmental .Health
Vic Westman, County Couisel
Claude Van Marter, Ass istant'`County-Adminfstrator''
The following questions were asked of each person;
1. What statutory authority exists for your department' s
responsibility for litter control enforcement or solid
waste abatement activities.
2 . What is a brief description of your department' s
program.
3 . What is your present staffing or full-time equivalent
staffing for the operation of this program.
4 . What is the planned operational cost of this program
for this fiscal year 1989-1990.
5. What were the total expenditures in the previous two
fiscal years ( 1987-88 and 1988-89 ) .
6 . What are the funding sources for the program' s
operation.
7 . What would be your preferred staffing and operations
cost levels to administer a viable program_
8 . What problems exist because of the lack of coordination
or centralized authority for this area.
9. What areas within your department' s present effort in
this area might seem feasible to transfer or
consolidate within another department in order to
strengthen county response to the litter control, code
compliance and violation abatement effort.
10 . Do you feel it is necessary to deal further with
enhancing the county' s efforts on litter control, code
compliance and violation abatement efforts.
11. If yes , what efforts would you propose to accomplish
this .
12 . What priority does this program or activities have in
your department.
High Medium Low
Throughout discussions with County personnel charged with the ,
responsibility of code enforcement, several issues were repeated
from the past. one issue was repeat offenders who continue 'to
challenge and often use the. . established enforcement pro cessas a
protection for their violation. Secondly,.yspecific areas of code
enforcement require additional attention for- mproved ,eff-icie.ncy
Thirdly, better coordination of existing county code .enforcemeit
efforts needs to occur but not necessarily the consolidation `of
present staffs. The last issue is that allocation of more
resources to the current efforts.
Repeat offenders often are involved in code violations which
result in high visibility with the public and because of their
complexity may require excessive time-frames before correction of
the violation. This confuses the public because it appears that
county staff are very inefficient in pursuit of the correction of
the violation.
The specific areas of code enforcement which because of their
visibility with county residents generate the most referrals and
complaints are the land use and abandoned vehicle areas . At the
present time, in the land use enforcement effort a part-time
contract person is responsible for the entire county effort.
This results in delays in follow-up and response to citizens,
Board members, and staff complaints.
Recently, the abandoned vehicle abatement received what appears
to be appropriate attention-, with the transfer of the function to
the Sheriff' s Department. Because of the recent transfer, it will
be some time before a review can be made as to the anticipated
increased effectiveness of this move.
The next issue for discussion is that of coordination. This is
the most critical of the issue in this problem. Much criticism
has been expressed regarding allegations that code violations are
neither processed nor given ,appropriate follow-up. Another part
of the issue is that findings or progress on violations are not
relayed back to the complainant, alleged violator, concerned
community action groups or interested Board members.
Throughout the discussion with department heads, the support for
consolidation of staff was not overly enthusiastic. There was a
general feeling that each departments method of supervision and
interaction are so different as to make agreement on approaches
to potential problems difficult.
To address this problem, there should be an overall
administrative position established to coordinate effort and
communications between county departments . This person would be
called the Code Compliance . Administrator. It would be the
responsibility of the administrator to design and implement a
comprehensive database using the Land Information System. By
using the LIS database; information on code compliance should be
thorough, - uniform in input and readily accessible to the county
staff for use in their enforcement efforts . An organizational_
chart for the Code Compliance Administrator, is attached
( =.ttachment C) and a suggested budget is as follows :
STAFFING -
n„ _
Code Compliance Administrator $50;000 annually
Benefits at 25% of, salary , 12;500 '
Salary Total $62,500 annually
Clerical Support
2 Secretaries (Deep Class Level) $26, 500 annually
Benefits at 25% of salary 6 , 625
Salary Total $33 , 125 annually
X 2 persons = Grand Total $66 ,250 annually
UNIT SUPPORT
Services and Supplies
Office Expenses $ 1,500
Communications 4,000
Minor Equipment 2, 200
Publish Legal Notices 2, 500
Computer Software 1, 250
Transportation/Employee Travel 5,280
Professional/Specialized Services 37 , 500
Contracts for:
Abatement action 15,000
Abandoned Vehicle
Control : : -' 7, 500
Code Violations
Corr. Action 7, 500
General Cleanups 7, 500
Data Processing Services $ 1 , 200
Other Special Dept. Expenses 2 ,500
Total Services and Supplies $57,930
Capital Expense $16 ,800
Two IBM PS/2 Model 50' s
Program Costs $203 ,480
Also, this individual would coordinate the - issuance of citation
as allowed by County ordinance. This would mean organization
an appropriate training course to follow an agreed upon uniform_-
procedure in issuing citations and, as needed, recquesting filing
of a criminal complaint. Other activities would include chairing `
a Code Compliance Review and Report Committee. This committee
would meet weekly to review all code complaints and determine
what would be an appropriate course of action to handle the
complaint without duplication of effort and ensure swift
follow-up. Also, this committee would review present activities
to determine what areas or situations need multi-jurisdictional
attention and/or further communication among staff to head off'
problems.
Serious consideration needs to be given to an overall
coordinator. Otherwise, the issue of code compliance will
continue to be the source of frustration and complaints without
resolution_
FUNDING
Funding for the administrator and staff will be derived
from the following sources;
Permit Fees from Community Development and Building
Inspection, through cost applied charges.
Community Development Block Grant Program funds.
Special District Augmentation Funds.
AB 939 Permit Fees (Chapter 1095 Statutes of 1989) .
Productivity Investment Fund for establishment of
revolving abatement trust fund.
County General Fund.
The problem of code enforcement is an on-going consideration_
The problem is one which often involves multiple county
departments and requires close coordination of the efforts of
various departments. Creation of the administrator position would
enhance the various county department enforcement functions and
supply visual proof that the County is responsive to community
concerns on blight and solid waste.
A remaining issue is whether funding is adequate. From review of
the interview of the department heads, there is approximately
$800 , 000 spent and the full time equivalent of 18 people employed
in various -activities concerned -with code compliance. Following
is a breakdown of their respective activities:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Division: Maintenance
program Name: -. Debris Pickup, Sheriff and Workfare
Assistance_
Program Description.
Activities of this unit focus on providing ,support to the
Workfare Units or the weekend Sheriff alternative ' work y
crews. In instances where a cleanup job is either too large
or hazardous for the crews, Public Works provides equipment
and/or personnel. In all cases, such support is provided in
response to specific requests from General Services or the
Sheriff. In the normal course of road maintenance
activities, Public Works personnel will remove large items
found dumped along County roads .
Statutory Authority:
None, only upon request by Board and the County
Administrator _
Staffing: Varies in consideration of job scope_
Staffing Preferred_ Current staffing is acceptable.
Program Cost:
Fiscal Year 1987-1988 $21,080
Fiscal Year 1988-1989 24, 225
Fiscal Year ' 1989-1990 40 , 000
Roads 15 ,000
Drainage 25 ,000
Funding Sources: Road Fund
HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Division: Environmental Health
Program Name: Health Services Solid Waste
Program Descri tion:
Litter control activities by the Health Services Department
concentrate on the abatement of Public Health nuisances on
private property. Health Services, under State Law, may
deal with junk and garbage that accumulate on private
property and become a public health nuisance. on the basis
of a complaint, notices are sent to the involved property
owner indicating that the nuisance must be abated within a
certain period of time. Actions are taken up to and
including a court imposed fine in order to resolve the
matter_ Discussions with Health Services staff indicate
that :the real problem is illegal dumping, not littering.
_9
.Statutory Authority:
Title 14 California Code of Regulations
Title 4 Contra Costa County Code
2 aides full time.
Up to 250 of a Health Inspector' s time.
Staffing Preferred:
2 aides
A full time Management Coordinator
2 Environmental Health Inspectors
Program Cost:
Fiscal Year 1987-1988 $140 , 000
Fiscal Year 1988-1989 179 ,000
Fiscal Year 1989-1330 247, 000 includes cost of
inspecting solid
waste disposal sites
and other local
enforcement
activities
Funding Sources: Tonnage fee at solid waste disposal sites_
SHERIFF
Division: Patrol
Program Name: Landfill Enforcement
Program Description:
This division is responsible for enforcement load ordinance
at County landfill sites, litter complaint investigation and
joint effort with Martinez Police Department to combat
litter on Carquinez Scenic Drive_
Statutory Authority:
♦ California Vehicle Code 5 different codes
♦ County Ordinance 4 different codes
♦ Penal Code 11 different codes
Staffing: Part time duty of off-road vehicle enforcement unit.
Staffing Preferred:
1 full time officer
Program Cost:
Fiscal Year 1987-1.988 $10 , 000
Fiscal Year 1988-1989 10 , 000
Fiscal Year 1.989-1990 . 0
ura in r Sources : Done
SHERIFF
Division: Detention t
Program Name: Work Alternative
Program Description:
Litter control activities performed by the Sheriff's
Department are conducted under its Work Alternative Program.
This program is used by the courts as a means of allowing
convicted drunk drivers to work off court fines. Monthly,
Sheriff' s personnel interview an average of 1,000
individuals referred by the court for work assignment. Work
assignments are made to a variety of public agencies such as
school districts , park districts , city parks and recreation
departments , etc . All costs for administering the program
are covered by the fines ,
Statutory Authority:
f California Penal Code
Staffing:
1 full time Coordinator - Sergeant
Secretary ,
2 Deputies, Sheriff Specialist, Sheriff Aide
Staffing Preferred: Depends on program utilization.
Pram Cost:
Fiscal Year 1987-1988 $120 ,000
Fiscal Year 1988-1989 175 ,000
Fiscal Year 1989-1990 150,000
Funding Sources:
Covered by fines structure of Section 4024 . 29 California
Penal Code.
SHERIFF
Division: Patrol
Program Name: Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program (AVAP)
Program Description:
Removal of inoperable vehicles and parts from private
property.
Statutory Authority:
Ordinance 86-58 (Abandoned Vehicles)
-11- .
Staffing-
1 Abatement Specialist
1 Clerical
Staffing Preferred:
2 Sheriff Specialists
1 Clerk
Program Cost:
Fiscal Year 1987-1988 $75 ,000
Fiscal Year 1988-1989 50, 000
Fiscal Year 1989-1990 80, 000
Funding Sources:
No net county cost - Cost Applied Charges
BUILDING INSPECTION
Division: Housing
Program Name: Housing Rehabilitation
Program Description:
Inspection of new construction. Also responsible for
abating substandard structures and conditions by repair or
demolition.
Statutory Authority:
Ordinance 81-27
Health and Safety Code Section 17910 , 17951 and 17952
Government Code 50022. 1
Title 7 Building Regulations CCC
Staffing:
2 Building Inspectors (FTE)
1 Clerical
Staffing Preferred:
2 Building Inspectors (FTE)
1 Clerical
Program Cost:
Fiscal Year 1987-1988 $ 66 , 000
Fiscal Year 1988-1989 69 , 000
Fiscal Year 1989-1990 70,000
Fundina Sources : Permit Fees Building Inspection
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Division: Current Planning
Program Name: Code Compliance and Zoning Investigation `
Program Description:
Program is designed to enforce existing regulation
concerning county requirements on code and zoning.
Investigate complaints pertaining to illegal use of private
land within County jurisdiction. Mechanism exists for
citing of offender.
Statutory Authority:
County Ordinance Code 82-2 , 82-2 . 006
Staffing
1 Zoning Inspector
Staffing Preferred:
2 Zoning Investigators
1 Clerical
Program Cost:
Fiscal Year 1987-1988 $55, 000
Fiscal Year 1988-1989 57 ,500
Fiscal Year 1989-1990 60,000
Funding Source:
Fees/General Fund
COUNTY COUNSEL
Program Description:
County Counsel also provides legal support in the processing
of letters sent to property owners concerning the abatement
of violations_ Staff also presides at site hearings where
the nature of a violation is discussed and a timeline agreed
upon for the clearing of the violation. At the expiration
of the deadline, a field check is conducted, and should the
violation still exist, County Counsel prepares a criminal
complaint.
Staffing:
. 5 Deputy County Counsel (FTE)
-13-
Staffing Preferred: ."
1 Deputy County Counsel (FTE)
Program Cost:
Fiscal Year- 1987-1988: $20,000
Fiscal Year 1988-1989 25,000
Fiscal Year 1989-1990 27,000
Funding Sources:
60d permit fees/40o general fund
Although there is still a shortage of funding , this is a theme to
be repeated throughout county departments. More to the point is
that there is little coordination or follow-up performed on
activities surrounding this area. What results are those
problems or situations which require mul.t:i-jurisdictional
attention but because of the lack of communication and follow-up
grow into an emergency condition. it is under those conditions
that force the public to go to media as a means of pressuring the
county to take corrective action.
Examples of these conditions are 80 Loftus Road, Water Front
Road, Carquinez Scenic Drive, Flannery Road, North Richmond and
West Pittsburg, etc. The list is one that grows but all are
areas which require coordinated enforcement activity_
CHP
Recently the Alameda County CHP assumed jurisdiction over
portions of West County. Conversations with its Patrol Commander
indicate a willingness to cooperate with county staff in
abandoned vehicle abatement activities. As a part of the general
clean-up planned for North Richmond, a specialized sweep by the
CHP 'is being developed as a new year assault on abandoned
vehicles is conducted. On-going discussions and coordination
with the CHP will be part of code violation activities in the
West County area.
it is with regard to the aforementioned comments that your
committee is asked to consider the following:
Recommendations
1. Acknowledge receipt -of this report on various code
compliance activities.
2 . Direct the staff of County Counsel and County
Administrator to forward the revised draft of the
special events ordinance to the Committee ' s attention.
3 . Direct staff of the County Counsel, County
Administrator , Corroiunity Development and Health
Services Department to continue discussion on use of rD
939 funding for all code compliance activities ..
-14-
4. Authorize the County Administrator to recommend to the
Board of Supervisors that it consider creation of a
code compliance administrator given appropriate funding
sources.
5. Authorize the continuing effort by the County
Administrator to take the lead in addressing enhanced
code compliance activities within the county.
JTG:nrl
iocompli
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. 89-
SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT PROCEDURES
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the
parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended
provisions of the County Ordinance Code):
SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance adds Chapter 89 to the County Ordinance
Code, to require that special events held within the County comply with all
r.equi-rements deemed necessary by the County of Contra Costa and that the event-
site
ventsite is cleared of all trash, litter and garbage which originated from the
execution of the event, and to post security and pay administrative fees to
guarantee compliance with these procedures.
SECTION II. Chapter 89- is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read:
CHAPTER 89-
89- Findings and .Intent. Many special events are held in the County_ These
events, while for the general good of the public, have the ability to create
nuisance, litter and/or enforcement problem within a neighborhood, community or
County area. This may be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of
the County; and can, with repeated events have a negative effect on nearby
property values. Although organizers of special events cannot totally govern the
direction of an event as to noise, litter, public demeanor, and/or traffic flow,
they must assume some responsibility for the governance of the event and
compliance with" vehicle code standards and safety and health requirements. It is
therefore the intent of the Board by having a special events permit procedure and
fee to defray and minimize costs of possible-code enforcement, litter abatement
and/or public protection activities necessitated by the occurrence of an event.
89- Definitions. "Special events" means any event which is deemed annual,
special., or does not occur in a regular part of the operation of the County. This
will cover all events havi.ngthe following titles of: concerts, festival, parade,
games, gathering, jamboree, confab, feast, Mardi Gras, merrymaking celebration,
circus, exhibition, entertainment, ceremony, event, performance, march, dance,
celebrity roast, seminar, or symposium.
89- Permit Required. No person shall establish, maintain or conduct a special_
event without obtaining a special events permit therefore pursuant to the
provisions of this Chapter.
89- Permit r,ocedure. Any person or organizer seeking to conduct an event in
the County must fill out the attached form form.
89- Conditions. A special events permit for occurrence of a special event shall
require the permittee and/or event organizer to comply with the following
conditions of approval:
a) That the event will comply, throughout its duration, with all County codes to
include safety, health, and litter control. requirements.
b) That upon conclusion of an event,' all trash, litter, and damage to any County
property shall be either removed, or reported for further investigation as to
full restoration of the prope•-4-y.
C) That if an event is to involve food sales, it must adhere to the following
requirements:
1) Obtaining a permit from nea�,h Services for '1'empvLary Food Sales_
2) Meet Health Services Department sanitary requirements for food, water
and beverage storage, preparation and disposal.
89- Security Required. A cash deposit, or certified check and/or bond will be
required to ensure timely processing of this form and compliance with the
conditions required by this Chapter_ This will generally be in an amount of
$100.00 of which $25.00 is non-refundable and will pay for the processing of the
permit and help defray County costs associated with the occurrence of the event.
Should the County, because of the event's specialty, deem it necessary, a bond may
be required to provide an amount of money sufficient to pay for the pick-up and
disposal of trash, litter, and garbage and the time of any public protection
personnel deemed appropriate by County due to the nature of the event.
89- Alternative Reoulre,,,ents. Upon a ne,__rminati,on by the County that payment
of the fee or establishment of bond will place an unanticipated or unintended
burden or economic hardship on the event organizers to carry out the event, the
County Administrator may modify the cash requir,ments imposed by Section uy-
provided such modified requirements are consistent.with the intent of this
Chapter.
89- Requirements Nonexclusiv,-. The requiremenL-1 of this Chapter are in addition
to all other requirements imposed by law. Compliance with this ChapL--r does nou
authorize the occurrence of an e,ent without complying with all o`her applicable
requirements of this title a.ld code as to the provisions for a conditional land
use permit.
89 Enforcement. In addition to any other rer,,,---y available under the law, a
violation of any requirement of this°.Chapter, or any condition imposed pursuant to
this Chapter, is a-�- enforceaoie pursuant to the provisions of Sections 26-
through 26-2. inclusive.
SECTIO,: lli. EFFECTIVE DAit,. This oraina..ce becomes effective 30 days aster
passage, and within 15 days of n--sage shall be published once with the names of
the supervisors voting for ana a8ainst it in the ,ontra Costa Times, a newspaper
published in Leis County.
PASSED on by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: rn,l Batchelor, Clern f the boaru
of Supervisors ana .,ounty Administrator
By:
Deputy Board Chair
' APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT
IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
(This application must be occupied by a certified check of $100; $25 of which is
non-refundable. )
EVENT DATE: EVENT NAME:
APPLICANT APPLICATION:
Organization Contact Person(s)
Address Address
City, State City, State
Phone (�) Zip Phone (�) Zip
NATURE OF EVENT (Reasons. Being Held)
WILL THE EVENT INVOLVE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING? PLEASE CHECK AS APPLICABLE.
More than 100 persons expected — Amplified music.'
to gather.
_ Temporary structures.
Food for sale/specify type. Specify
Specify type
Printed publicity.
Liquor for sale. Specify type and location
_ Road(s) being blocked.
Money exchanged for services .
Specify
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE:
APPLICANT DO NOT FILL IN
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
REFERRAL':.TO:
HEALTH SERVICES _ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING INSPECTION PUBLIC WORKS
SHERIFF FIRE DISTRICT
OTHER
REFERRAL BY:
APPROVED REJECTED (Reason) :
PERMIT ONLY BOND REFUND?
r ATT ACHr7tiv
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE Contra Costa County
RECEIVED
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
-MARTIN$Z- -CALIFORNYA DEC 28 1989
Date: Decembe 8, 1989 Office of
COIJn!y Administr?;p.
To: Internal Opera 'ons Committee
From: Victor J. Westman,' Coun'ty Counsel
By: Lillian T. Fujii, Deputy County Counsel
Re: AB 939 fees not available for most code compliance program
activities
SUMMARY.-
Assembly
UMMARY:Assembly Bill 939 (Stats. 1989 , ch. 1095) allows the County
to collect fees to prepare, adopt and implement a countywide
integrated waste management plan (Pub. Resources Code, 5 41901) ,
and to fund the Health Services Department's enforcement
activities required by AB 939 (Pub. Resources Code, S 43213) . At
this time, fees collected to fund preparation and adoption of the
integrated pian may not be used to fund code compliance
activities . However, enforcement fees collected by the Health
Department may result in the funding of code compliance
activities, provided such activities are the same as enforcement
activities which must be undertaken pursuant to AB 939 (i.e. ,
enforcement of regulations concerning the environment and public
health) .
DISCUSSION:
On October 17, 1989 , the Board of Supervisors requested the
County Counsel's Office to analyze AB 939 to determine whether
revenue recovery options from that legislation are available to
pay for various elements of the code compliance program. This
matter is tentatively scheduled for Internal Operations
consideration on January 8, 1990.
Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan
AB 939 significantly changes the solid waste planning,
management and recycling laws of this State by requiring cities
and counties to prepare, adopt and implement a countywide
integrated waste management plan ( "integrated plan" ) . To fund
such activities, AB 939 allows cities and counties to impose
fees . New Public Resources Code section 41901 (effective January
1 , 1990 ) provides :
- r
Internal-.,.Operations.- Committee -2- December 28, 1989
4
".41901. A city, county, eor city and
county may impose fees in amounts sufficient
to pay the costs of preparing, adopting, and
implementing an integrated waste management
plan prepared pursuant to this chapter. The
fees shall be based on the types or amounts
of the solid waste, and shall be used to pay
the actual costs incurred by the city or
county in preparing, adopting, and
implementing the plan, as well as in setting
and collecting the local fees . In
determining the amounts of the fees, the city
or county shall include only those costs
directly related to the preparation,
adoption, and implementation of the plan and
the setting and collection of the local
fees . "
In short, Public Resources Code section 41901, added by AB
939, authorizes the county to collect only so much as is
necessary to pay for the preparation, adoption, and
implementation of the integrated plan, and setting and collecting
fees therefor. Any cost not falling in the category of plan
preparation, adoption or implementation may not be funded with
section 41901 fees .
The first step that the county must take under AB 939 is the
preparation of the integrated plan. The process of "preparing"
the plan, includes adopting a source reduction and recycling
element (of the plan) by January 1, 1991 (Pub. Resources Code, 5
41300) , and submitting the integrated plan to the State
Integrated waste Management. Board -.by January 1, 1994 , assuming
the County has secured over eight years' capacity by December 31,
1991 (Pub. Resources Code, S 41791(c) ) . Until the integrated
plan has been prepared and adopted, there doesn't appear to be a
plan to be to "implemented" under AB 939 .
We are informed that code enforcement activities basically
consist of office and field investigations to determine whether
violations of Ordinance Code provisions are taking place, and
subsequent efforts to achieve code compliance, including formal
(legal ) enforcement proceedings. Unless such code compliance
activities are appropriately part of an adopted integrated plan,
they can ' t be funded by these fees .
Enforcement Fees
While AB 939 completely changed solid waste planning and
management laws , solid waste enforcement laws remain the same in
many respects . In particular, AB 939 continues to provide that
the "enforcement agency" (the County Health Services Department,
Internal Operations Committee -3- December 28, 1989
formerly called the "local enforcement agency" ) will enforce
regulations pertaining to the minimum standards for solid waste
handling and disposal for the protection of the environment and
public health. (Pub. Resources Code, 5 43209(e) . ) For the time
being (and unless and until new regulations are established) ,
these standards continue to be set forth .at Article 5 (5 18301 et
seq. ) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, and
include regulations for the storage, removal and collection of
solid waste. (See Stats . 1989, ch. 1095, § 32(b) . )
Further, AB 939 continues to allow the enforcement agency to
collect fees to fund solid waste enforcement activities . (Pub.
Resources Code, 5 43213 . ) To the extent that enforcement
activities required to be performed by the Health Services
Department under AB 939 are the same as code compliance
activities, the Health Services Department' s costs continue to be
fundable with enforcement fees (to be collected pursuant to
Public Resources Code section 43213 from January 1 , 1990 ) .
LTF/jh
cc: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
Attn: John Gregory
Mark Finucane, Director of Health Services
Attn: Jim Blake
Harvey Bragdon, Director of Community Development
Attn: Sara Hoffman
Attn: Ron deVincenzi
J-5:\l�f\neWo�internal.F
o o
O C C
CD— n
= A� cn
m '<',-' m
o. ID, _
O j (D
� � m _x. ' >
n. '
m
CD CD <
Lai cv CD CD 0
= C7 � 3
N CL
D) CD fD
(1
O
0
O
10-
CD CD
o Cf) o n
N CD <D CD —- C� o A7
m a a C7 o C7
O PJ O O
o <D n.
m
CD 70
O �p —
_ —
<
ni
c�D D n c 0
a D
co a m a
3 o� `n n
D � C-) m �.
t0 O CD Ln
CD O 'a
O O
O
N p -n 7o
O CD CD
O < _
— CD to —
n — C (D
O O
O G Z5
CD n
O_
CD
O
A)
cn
C
0
O
> < —
0 CD U — CD
(D n Q
� � O
CD a
� cD
OO c
ma CY
o — —
C, A
pJ O
O
O