The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05201986 - 2.1 2. 1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 20, 1986 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Abandoned Vehicles and Code Enforcement In response to the request of the Board on March 11, 19869 Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, presented a report (copy attached) on ways on which the Board could strengthen County Ordinance provisions prohibiting abandoned vehicles. Supervisor Fanden presented a report recommending that the County Administrator explore the feasibility of the County contracting exclusively with one firm to handle the hauling away of abandoned vehicles. She also submitted a report on staffing requirements for a code enforcement unit that would coordinate, investigate and follow-up on all departmental code violations. She recommended that this proposal also be reviewed by the County Administrator. Copies of Supervisor Fanden' s reports are also attached. Supervisor Torlakson recommended that the County Administrator be authorized to inquire of the county' s legislative delegation in Sacramento if they would be willing to reinstitute a surcharge on vehicle registrations to fund an abandoned vehicle abatement program. He noted that the California Highway Patrol has jurisdiction in this area. Mr. Batchelor recommended that concurrent jurisdiction for an abandoned vehicle program in this County be also given to the Building Inspection Department since that Department has expressed a willingness to assume this responsibility. Mr. Batchelor advised that staff in his office will be assigned to review the feasibility of contracting with a firm to dispose of these vehicles. Board members being in agreement, IT IS ORDERED that the Building Inspection Department is GRANTED jurisdiction to provide for the abatement of abandoned vehicles. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the reports of the County Administrator and Supervisor Fanden are REFERRED to the County Administrator and Resources Committee for further review. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the County Administrator is REQUESTED to contact the County' s legislative Delegation in Sacramento to determine their position on proposed legislation to deal with the problem of abandoned vehicles. 1 hereby certify that this Is a trap and of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Cc: County Administrator Booed of 5upervisom o t.lw, t:o Building Inspector ATTESTED: Resources Committee PML BAT CHE OR, C,'erk a` of Supervisors and County Administra"o,• By —4. 2&=Z=4ZL� , Deputy %. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator C ltra C DATE: May 15, 1986 lourty SUBJECT: Abandoned Vehicles SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION• Acknowledge receipt of this report and consider what further action the Board wishes to take. BACKGROUND: On March 11, 1986, the Board referred to our office, at the request of Supervisor Fanden, a request that we recommend ways in which the Board could strengthen the County Ordinance provisions prohibiting abandoned vehicles. County Counsel has filed a report with our office, a copy of which is attached to this report. County Counsel notes the following: 1 . Division 430. of the County Ordinance Code finds that "the presence of an abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicle, or r parts thereof, on private or public property, not including highways. . .constitutes a public nuisance which may be abated. . . 11 2 . The Ordinance provides that the County can request the CHP to remove the abandoned vehicle. 3 . The County does not impose a fine, per se, but does require the owner of the abandoned vehicle to pay the abatement costs. 4 . State law provides for a minimum fine of $50 for conviction of an infraction for a violation of State law which prohibits abandoning a vehicle upon public or private property without the consent of the owner of the property. 5. The maximum fine for a first offense would be $100; for a second offense within a year, $200; and for subsequent offenses within a year, $250. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT; YES SIGNATURE: X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE S : Page 2 6 . Since a State law already exists, there appears to be no reason for the County to try to impose a fine for abandoned vehicles. 7 . State legislation would be required to increase these fines. 8 . As a General Law county, Contra Costa County does not have the same powers a chartered city and county like San Francisco has to impose fines in excess of those authorized by State law. Based on County Counsel' s opinion, it would appear that the only recourse the Board of Supervisors has is to sponsor legislation to increase the fines provided for in Vehicle Code Section 42001. 5(a) as noted above in #5. If the Board of Supervisors wishes to pursue this course of action, the County Administrator should be directed to include this item in the Board' s 1987 Legislative Program. on COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY APR U `1986 MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA Date: April 17 , 1986 o ffi c�Y To: Phil Batchelor , County Administrator Attn: Claude L. Van Marter , Assistant Administrator John Gregory From: ,Victor J . Westman , County Coun6 By: Sharon L. Anderson , Deputy No ty Counsel Re: Abandoned Vehicles This responds to your memorandum of March 24, 1985 , requesting information pertaining to fines for abandoning vehicles in unin- corporated areas of the County. gUESTION I : Does Contra Costa County presently impose a fine for a vehicle~which is abandoned on private property? RESPONSE l : Division 430 of the Ordinance Code sets forth the "Abandoned Vehicle Ordinance of Contra Costa County." The ordi- nance makes the finding that : "The presence of an abandoned , wrecked, dismantled , or inoperative vehicle or parts thereof , on Private or public property not including highways . . . constitutes a public nuisance which may be abated . . . . " [ §430-2 . 002 , Emphasis added] . Section 430-2 . 006 sets forth certain exemptions . It states that the division will not apply to vehicles enclosed within a building or on the private property of licensed dismantlers , dealers or junkyards or where such vehicles are otherwise necessary to a lawfully conducted business . In essence , the ordinance provides that the County can request the CHP to remove the abandoned vehicles . The CHP, after following appropriate notice procedures , will remove the vehicle and provide its cost record to the County. If the abatement cost is not paid within 30 days , it will be assessed as a special assessment against the owner ' s land and transmitted to the County tax collector for collection with the same priority as other County taxes . The County does not impose a fine , per se , but it does require Phil Batchelor . April 17 , 1986 the owner of the abandoned vehicle to pay the abatement costs , which could , be fairly substantial . In many ways , if used , this procedure should be as effective as or more effective than the imposition of a fine , at least where the vehicle owner is in fact , the person who abandoned the vehicle and where he owns real property. The foregoing provisions were enacted in 1977 pursuant to Govt . C. 925845 and Vehicle Code. 9§22660 , 22661 and 22665 . 1CUUESTION_S II_&_III : Does the County have the authority to impose a7 I ine for abandoning a vehicle? If so , are there maximum limits on the fine? RESPONSES II & III : Ordinance Code 5430-2 . 010 provides that Division 430: " is not the exclusive regulation of abandoned, wrecked , dismantled or inoperative vehicles within the unincorporated area of the County. It supplants and is in addition to the other regulatory codes , statutes and ordinances heretofore or hereafter enacted by the county, the state or any other legal entity or agency having jurisdiction ." . There already exists a state law which prohibits vehicle aban- donment . Section 22523 (b) of the Vehicle Code states that : "No person shall abandon a vehicle upon public or private property without the express or implied consent. of the owner or person in lawful possession or control of the property. " Vehicle Code 542001 . 5 (x ) provides for a minimum fine of $50. 00 on every person convicted of an infraction for a violation of Section 22523 . It would appear that the maximum fine for a first offense would be $100. 00 ; for a second offense within a year , $200 ; and for subsequent offenses within a year , $250 . 00 Vehicle Code 942001 (a ) . Since a state law already exists , there would appear to be no reason for the County to adopt an ordinance imposing a fine for abandoned vehicles . If .you wish to increase the maximum fine , such action should be proposed to the State Legislature. -2- Phil Batchelor April 17 , 1986 It should be noted that Division 430 of the Ordinance Code applies to the owner of the abandoned vehicle . The Vehicle Code sections cited above apply to the abandoner . The owner and the abandoner will not always be the same person . In addition , in many circumstances it .may be impossible to establish the identity of the abandoner , making it difficult to impose the penalty authorized by the Vehicle Code . QUESTION IV : What latitude does the County have to make it more difficult or expensive to abandon a vehicle in the unincor- porated area of the County? RESPONSE IV: The procedures outlined above would enable the County to proceed administratively against the vehicle owner and obtain a special assessment against his property (Ord. C. Div . 430) , and/or to proceed against the abandoner in a criminal action for committing an infraction . We are not aware of any other proce- dures which apply specifically to abandoned vehicles . We contacted the City and County of San Francisco concerning the March 9, 1986 article in the Oakland Tribune about a proposed ordinance to increase the fine for an abandoned vehicle from $50 . 00 to $300 . We were informed that the City' s Police Code con- tained a provision imposing a $50 . 00 fine for abandoned vehicles . Supervisor Molinari ' s proposal was to increase the fine imposed by that code to $200 . 00 . San Francisco is a chartered city and county and- thus may have powers other than those granted to general law counties by the legislature . Contra Costa County is a general law county. As such , it may not impose fines in excess of those authorized by state law. An aide in Supervisor Molinari ' s office indicated that at the time this issue came before the Board , there was some discussion of punishing the abandoners under the littering laws , which authorize fines of up to $1 , 000 . See Vehicle Code 542001 . 7 ; Penal Code SS374 , 374b, 374b . 5 . Since there is already a statute which applies specifically to abandoned vehicles , whether a court would impose a fine based on littering is questionable. SLA/ jh cc: Board of Supervisors -3- r TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Contra Supervisor Nancy Fanden Costa DATE: County May 20, 1986 SUBJECT: HANDLING OF ABANDONED VEHICLES IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: That the County Administrator explore the feasibility of our contracting exclusively with one firm to handle the hauling away of abandoned vehicles. This recommendation would be contingent on the County' s ability to takeover the citation process for abandoned vehicles and provide staffing to supervise and oversee the program. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County has experienced a growing epidemic of abandoned vehicles. East County recently participated in a pilot project (cost $10,000) to clean up the numerous abandoned vehicles in West Pittsburg. The money ran out long before the abandoned vehicles. This problem affects not only the unincorporated areas of the county but the cities as well. We' re experiencing great difficulty in getting towing services to remove and store these vehicles. - In some cases reported vehicles will not be removed for months, due to a shortage of storage space and low financial return. On May 1, 1986 Mr. Phil Kikuruza, Bob' s Tow Service, met with Bill Martindale, Tony Bruno and my staff, to discuss his company' s handling of Contra Costa' s abandoned vehicles. His offer to provide his services to the County have resulted in this request to the County Administrator. Terms of the contract could be for a 6 month trial period. At the end of that time the contract would be reviewed, perhaps modified, expanded, put out to bid, or remain with the contractor for an extended 1 year period. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:Y_YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: supervisor Nancy Fanden Contra Costa DATE: May 20, 1986 County SUBJECT: IMPROVED CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: That the County Administrator prepare a full report to the Board of Supervisors on the concept on staffing a Code Enforcement Unit that would coordinate, investigate and follow-up on all departmental code violations: i.e. Health Department, Bu'ilding Inspection, Public Works, Community Development etc., BACKGROUND: The intent of consolidation is to streamline the present process which is inefficient. When code violations involve more than one department it is difficult to coordinate and identify the lead agency. This lack of coordination leads to delays, lack of follow-up, frustration and confusion between the departments, the violators, and the complainants. There are complaints on file that have dragged on for over a year, in some cases even longer. Letters have been sent giving violators 30 day notices and months later no follow-up action has been taken by the County. The County is sorely lacking in.. credibility, insofar as our enforcement of code violations are concerned. We need to correct this situation as soon as possible. A code enforcement unit, under the jurisdiction of the Building Inspection Department, or the Community Development Department, might very well provide the solution to this long-standing problem. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:_ YES SIGNATUREt - RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE -APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S)