Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 06241997 - D1-D5
D. 1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 24 , 1997 by the following vote : AYES :Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla, DeSaulnier NOES :None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:None ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Report From County Counsel And The District Attorney On The Board of Supervisors ' Legal Authority On Gasoline Zone Price Fixing By Oil Companies . On this date the Board of Supervisors considered written memos from County Counsel and the District Attorney and an oral report from Arthur Walenta, County Counsel ' s office, on the legal authority of the Board of Supervisors on gasoline zone price fixing by oil companies . Supervisor Canciamilla suggested that the Board address concerns to the Attorney General, Dan Lundgren, and request a determination on whether or not enough evidence exists to take action. Supervisor DeSaulnier concurred and expressed concern with the explanations of why pricing is done in manner in which it is done . Supervisor DeSaulnier also advised that he would continue to monitor what is happening in other jurisdictions, and he expressed agreement with Supervisor Canciamilla ' s suggestion and he moved to accept the reports and continue to monitor the situation as it develops in other jurisdictions . IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the reports from County Counsel and the District Attorney regarding the Board' s legal authority on gasoline zone price fixing by oil companies is ACCEPTED; monitoring of this issue is DETERMINED to continue; and County Counsel is DIRECTED to write to the Attorney General to determine if there is enough evidence to take appropriate action. i hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the CC : County Administrator Board of Su isors on the date shown. County Counsel ATTESTED. Q4 IqU District Attorney PHIL BCHELOR, CIerl of the Board of ' per ors County Ad i strator BY ---- - - ,Deouty COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINET, CALIFORNIA Date: June 18, 1997 To: Board of Supervisors From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel Arthur W. Walenta, Assistant County Counsel Re: Board of Supervisors' authority re gasoline pricing This responds to the Board's May 20, 1997 Order on"Inquiry Into the Authority of the Board of Supervisors Regarding Oil Company Gasoline Zone Price Fixing." 1. Primary responsibility to protect Contra Costa County and other areas in the state from discriminatory oil company pricing policies rests with the California Attorney General. Business and Professions Code section 21200 provides that it is unlawful for any refiner of motor vehicle fuels engaged in business in this state to discriminate in price between different purchasers of motor vehicle fuels, where the effect of such competition is to lessen competition. The Attorney General has charge of all legal matters in which the state is interested (Gov. Code § 12511)and special funding for antitrust actions (Gov. Code § 12526). 2. It has been suggested that under the United States Supreme Court decision in Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland(1978)437 U.S. 117 and their police powers under article XI section 7 of the California Constitution, counties in California may attack gasoline zone price fixing by (a) prohibiting the ownership of retail gasoline stations by companies which refine gasoline and (b) imposing nondiscriminatory maximum gasoline price limitations on refiners. We agree that subject to the limitations of the United States Constitution and the Constitution and statutes of the State of California, Contra Costa County has police power authority to regulate the retail sale of gasoline within its unincorporated area. (Candid Enterprises, Inc. V. Grossmart Union High School Dist (1985) 39 Ca1.3d 878, 885. Compare Ordinance Code Chapters 52-3 (Cardrooms) and 56-4 (Solicitors and Peddlers). Absent statutory limitation, a county ordinance prohibiting the ownership in the unincorporated area of the county of retail gasoline stations by companies which refine gasoline,might defended under the Exxon Corp. v. Governor ojMaryland decision of the United States Supreme Court. But action to require the divestiture of retail stations owned by refining companies could lead to Board of Supervisors 2 June 18, 1997 County liability for inverse condemnation of the personal property interests represented by such ownership. (City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders(1982) 32 Cal.3d 60.) The Exxon Corp. decision could also support county action to impose nondiscriminatory gasoline price requirements on refiners doing business in the unincorporated part of Contra Costa County. But there is a substantial likelihood that the County's right to impose such regulation has been preempted by the provisions of the Business and Professions Code which prohibit discriminatory prices in gasoline refinery sales. (Bus.& Prof. Code § 21200, supra) See People ex rel Deukmejian V. County of Mendocino (1984) 36 Ca13d 476. As noted above, the California Attorney General has authority to institute anti-trust litigation. AWW:fjb h:\fbent\aww\gasoline.mem CONSIDER WITH OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA GARY T. YANCEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Gary T. Yancey, District Attorney Curtis R. Hoffman, Deputy District Attorney DATE: June 19, 1997 SUBJECT: Board of Supervisors' Authority Re Gasoline Pricing ----------------------------------------------------------------- We have reviewed the memo from County Counsel responding to your inquiry re "zone pricing" and concur with their response. It would appear that, absent legislation, anti-trust litigation by the California Attorney General would be an appropriate method to attack zone pricing, assuming the necessary facts exist. CRH:j i VICTOR J. WESTMAN OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL DEPUTIES: PHILUP S.ALTHOFF COUNTYCoUNSELCONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANDREA EA I.W.ANDERSON AY VICKIE L DAWES ARTHUR W.WALENTA,JR. COUNTY ADiMtASTRATIONBUILDING MARKES.ESTIS ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL651 PINE STREET,9th FLOOR MICHAEL D.FARR LILLIAN T FUJI! SILVANO B. MARCHESI MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA 94553-1288 CAROLS.GORDON DENNIS C.GRAVES ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL GREG REGT.KERRORY C.HARVEY G EDWARD V.LANE,JR. GAYLE MUGGLI VIVIAN LILY OFFICE MANAGER MARY ANN MASON ADAM D.MILLER PHONE 510 335-1800 PAUL R. R ( VALERIE J,.RANCHE FAX(510)646.1078 July 11, 1997 DAVID F.SCHMIDT DIANA J.SILVER WILLIAM E.SIMMONS JACQUELINE Y.WOODS MARY E.WRIGHTSON Attorney General Dan Lungren 13001 Street, I I"'Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Attorney General Lungren: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has held hearings on the evident inequity in gasoline prices which result from zone pricing practices by gasoline refining companies in California and indicated current company practices should be reviewed by your office. The existing gasoline pricing practices of oil refining companies which do business in California are clearly anti-competitive. By common agreement, the oil companies price gasoline by zones which increases the price which Bay Area consumers must pay. Nothing justifies this price differential but the interest in excessive profits and concerted conduct of gasoline producers. Business and Professions Code section 21200 provides that it is unlawful for any refiner of motor vehicle fuels to discriminate in price among purchasers of gasoline when the effect of such discrimination is to lessen competition. This statute appears to be violated every day by oil refining companies in California. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has directed that this letter be sent, asking you to enforce the state's anti-trust laws against the oil companies. Nobody but the Attorney General can protect the public against such improper price practices taking place in Contra Costa County. Very truly yours, JJJJ �I%�V� I� r►M Vector J. We an, County Counsel cc: Board of Supervisors H:IGROUPSITORTILETrERSIATTNYGEN.W Pb PZ RECORDING REQUESTED BY: Building Inspection Department 651 Pine Street, 4th floor Martinez CA 94553 RETURN TO: Building Inspection Department 651 Pine Street 4th floor Martinez CA 94553 FOR BENEFIT OF COUNTY D.2 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on 24 June. 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla & De Saulnier NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Abatement of Public Nuisance ) RESOLUTION 97/333 and debris at: 1265 Juanita Drive ) Contra Costa County Code Walnut Creek, CA ) Div. 712; Sec. 712-4.006 OWNER: Sawyer Elizabeth Casey Trust ) APN: 185-352-037 ) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County Resolves That: It appears from evidence presented by the County Building Inspector the above subject property is of a substandard condition that constitutes a hazard to and endangers the health, safety and welfare of the public. The property is hereby declared substandard and a public nuisance. The owner of the subject property is hereby ordered to clear the site of all debris and leave it in a clean condition. Remove utilities from travel trailer and screen said trailer from view from public roadway or thoroughfare. If the subject property has not been cleared as ordered within thirty (30) days from the date of this hearing, the Board hereby grants authority to the Building Inspection Department to contract for the clearing of the subject property. In the event the County must contract for the work to be done, a Gen shall be placed against the subject property for the cost of the abatement. The Building Inspection Department is directed to post and mail notices of this resolution directing abatement of the nuisance in the manner required by law and for the period required prior to any actual abatement. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken Orig. Dept.: Building Inspection and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. cc: Building Inspection (8) ATTBSTED June -24 , 1997 Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Superviso s ad 'ounty Administrator RESOLUTION 97/333 By Barbara S. -no n o eputy Clerk D. 3A and D. 3B THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 24 . 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla, DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Building Improvements at Fire Station No. 15, 3338 Mt. Diablo Blvd. , Lafayette The Board Considered the bid proposals relative to the award of contract for Building Improvements at Fire Station No. 15, 338 Mt. Diablo Blvd. , Lafayette, and after consideration DETERMINED to reject all bids. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 24 , 1997 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Deputy cc: General Services Dept. . Architectural Division County Administrator - Contract Compliance Officer Auditor-Controller County Counsel Dell File: 245-9501(F)B.4.4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AS EX OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Adopted this Order on June 24, 1997, by the following vote: AY NOES: ABSENT- SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Building Improvements at Fire Station No. 15, 3338 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Lafayette Budget Item No. 7115-4907 Authorization No. 0929-WH90713 Bidder Total Amount Bond Amounts Taber Construction Co. $79,372.00, including Payment: $39,686.00 4861 Sunrise Drive, Suite 107 $52,477.00 Base Bid, Performance: $79,372.00 Martinez, CA 94553 $25,015.00 Add. Alt. No. 1 $1,260.00 Add. Alt. No. 2 $620.00 Add. Alt. No. 3 Gary Fabian Albrecht Santa Rosa, California Duka General Construction Oakland, California Blythe and Associates Fairfield, California Patrick M. Donaghue Benicia, California Pacific Coast Reconstruction &Bldg., Inc. Concord, California Rightway Construction, Inc. Oakley, California Younger-Wunar, Inc. El Cerrito, California The above-captioned project and the specifications therefor having been previously approved, Addendum No. I having been issued and approved, and bids having been duly invited and received by the Director of General Services on May 15, 1997; and The Director of General Services having determined that the lowest monetary bidder, Gary Fabian Albrecht ("Albrecht") submitted a bid which was non-responsive in that it purported to modify the specifications and was incomplete, and the Director of General Services recommending rejection of said bid; and The second lowest monetary bidder, Duka General Construction ("Duka") having notified the County that it is unwilling to perform the work because of its workload and having requested to be relieved of its bid, and the Director of General Services recommending that Duka be relieved of its bid; and The Contract Compliance Officer having reported that the third lowest monetary bidder, Taber Construction Co. ("Taber"), has attained MBE participation of 20.2% and WBE participation of 11.03%, which exceeds the MBE and the WBE goals for this project and complies fully with the M/WBE requirements for this project; and Page 1 of 2 %D .3 h AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR 245-9501(F)B.4.4 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS AT FIRE STATION June 24, 1997 NO. 15, 3338 MT. DIABLO BLVD., LAFAYETTE The Director of General Services recommending that the bid submitted by Taber is the lowest responsive and responsible bid, and this Board concurring and so finding; NOW, THEREFORE, the Board finds, determines, and orders as follows: The Board DETERMINES that the lowest monetary bidder, Albrecht, has submitted a bid which purported to modify the specifications and was incomplete, and the Board DETERMINES that said bid is non-responsive and REJECTS said bid on those grounds; and As requested by the second lowest monetary bidder, Duka, the Board RELIEVES said bidder of its bid pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 5101; and The Board FURTHER DETERMINES that Taber, as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, has met or exceeded the MBE and WBE goals for this project (i.e. 14% and 6% respectively) and has otherwise complied with the M/WBE requirements for this project; and The Board ORDERS that the contract for the furnishing of labor and materials for said work is awarded to Taber at the listed amount submitted in said bid, and that said contractor shall present two good and sufficient surety bonds as indicated above, and that the Director of General Services shall prepare the contract therefor; and The Board FURTHER ORDERS that after the contractor has signed the contract and returned it, together with the bonds as noted above and any required certificates of insurance or other required documents, and the Director of General Services has reviewed and found them to be sufficient, the Director of General Services is authorized to sign the contract for this Board; and The Board FURTHER ORDERS that in accordance with the project specifications and/or upon signature of the contract by the Director of General Services, any bid bonds posted by the bidders are to be exonerated and any checks or cash submitted for security shall be returned; and The Board FURTHER ORDERS that the Director of General Services is authorized to sign any escrow agreements prepared for this project to permit the substitution of securities for moneys withheld by the County to ensure performance under the contact, pursuant to Section 22300 of the Public Contract Code; and Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 4114, the Board DELEGATES its functions under Public Contract Code Sections 4107 and 4110 to the Director of General Services or his designee; and The Board DECLARES that should the award of the contract to Taber be invalidated for any reason, the Board would not in any event have awarded the contract to any other bidder, but instead would have exercised its discretion to reject all of the bids received. Nothing herein shall prevent the Board from reawarding the contract to another bidder in cases where the successful bidder establishes a mistake, refuses to sign the contract or fails to furnish required bonds or insurance (see Public Contract Code Sections 5100-5107). N;;K- Orig. MU h a true erM earrect entered on the minute tlN on Ne Q .:hown.ELCA M the boenln ounty IelRlef Orig. Dept.- General Services Dept. - Architectural Division cc: General Services Dept. - Architectural. Division County Administrator Contract Compliance Officer Auditor-Controller County Counsel Gary Fabian Albrecht Taber Construction Co. (Via Arch. Div.) Surety (Via Arch. Div.) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (Via Arch. Div.) HAI 995\2459501\5K00127B.W PD GBAs Page 2 of 2 10 File: 245-9501(F)B.4.4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AS EX OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT A ed this Order on June 24, 19971 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSEN SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Building Improvements at Fire Station No. 15, 3338 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Lafayette Budget Item No. 7115-4907 Authorization No. 0929-WH907B Bidder Total Amount Bond Amounts Duka General Construction $70,000.00, including Payment: $35,000.00 2112 Damath Street $55,200.00 Base Bid, Performance: $70,000.00 Oakland, CA 94602 $10,600.00 Add. Alt. No. 1 $1,200.00 Add. Alt. No. 2 $3,000.00 Add. Alt. No. 3 Gary Fabian Albrecht Santa Rosa, California Taber Construction Co. Martinez, California Blythe and Associates Fairfield, California Patrick M. Donaghue Benicia, California Pacific Coast Reconstruction & Bldg., Inc. Concord, California Rightway Construction, Inc. Oakley, California Younger-Wunar, Inc. El Cerrito, California The above-captioned project and the specifications therefor having been previously approved, Addendum No. 1 having been issued and approved, and bids having been duly invited and received by the Director of General Services on May 15, 1997; and The Director of General Services having determined that the lowest monetary bidder, Gary Fabian Albrecht ("Albrecht') submitted a bid which was non-responsive in that it purported to modify the specifications and was incomplete, and the Director of General Services recommending rejection of said bid; and The bidder listed first above, Duka General Construction ("Duka"), having submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid; and The Contract Compliance Officer having reported that Duka has attained MBE participation of 17.75% and WBE participation of 7.6%, which exceeds the MBE and the WBE goals for this project and complies fully with the M/WBE requirements for this project; and Pagel of 2 U • 38 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR 245-9501(F)B.4.4 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS AT FIRE STATION June 24, 1997 NO. 15, 3338 MT. DIABLO BLVD.,LAFAYETTE The Director of General Services recommending that the bid submitted by Duka is the lowest responsive and responsible bid, and this Board concurring and so finding; NOW,THEREFORE,the Board finds, determines, and orders as follows: The Board DETERMINES that the lowest monetary bidder, Albrecht, has submitted a bid which purported to modify the specifications and was incomplete, and the Board DETERMINES that said bid is non-responsive and REJECTS said bid on those grounds; and The Board FURTHER DETERMINES that Duka, as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, has met or exceeded the MBE and WBE goals for this project (i.e. 14% and 6% respectively) and has otherwise complied with the MJWBE requirements for this project; and The Board ORDERS that the contract for the furnishing of labor and materials for said work is awarded to Duka at the listed amount submitted in said bid, and that said contractor shall present two good and sufficient surety bonds as indicated above, and that the Director of General Services shall prepare the contract therefor; and The Board FURTHER ORDERS that after the contractor has signed the contract and returned it, together with the bonds as noted above and any required certificates of insurance or other required documents, and the Director of General Services has reviewed and found them to be sufficient, the Director of General Services is authorized to sign the contract for this Board; and The Board FURTHER ORDERS that in accordance with the project specifications and/or upon signature of the contract by the Director of General Services, any bid bonds posted by the bidders are to be exonerated and any checks or cash submitted for security shall be returned; and The Board FURTHER ORDERS that the Director of General Services is authorized to sign any escrow agreements prepared for this project to permit the substitution of securities for moneys withheld by the County to ensure performance under the contact, pursuant to Section 22300 of the Public Contract Code; and Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 4114, the Board DELEGATES its functions under Public Contract Code Sections 4107 and 4110 to the Director of General Services or his designee; and The Board DECLARES that should the award of the contract to Duka be invalidated for any reason, the Board would not in any event have awarded the contract to any other bidder, but instead would have exercised its discretion to reject all of the bids received. Nothing herein shall prevent the Board from reawarding the contract to another bidder in cases where the successful bidder establishes a mistake, refuses to sign the contract or fails to famish required bonds or insurance (see Public Contract Code Sections 5100-5107). Orig. Dept.-General Services Dept. -Architectural Division cc: General Services Dept. -Architectural. Division County Administrator Contract Compliance Officer Auditor-Controller County Counsel Gary Fabian Albrecht Duka General Construction(Via Arch. Div.) Surety(Via Arch. Div.) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District(Via Arch. Div.) H:V 1995\24595011.5K001268.W PD GB:1s Page 2 of 2 IOC - 04 -TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE L � Costa Aa` June 17, 1997P County DATE: STATUS REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BOARD SUBJECT: AGREEMENT APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JULY 23, 1996 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. ACCEPT this status report from the Internal Operations Committee on the status of the implementation of the "billboard agreement' which was approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 23, 1996. 2. CONCUR with the general direction being taken by the Internal Operations Committee as reflected in the following discussion. 3. REQUEST the Internal Operations Committee to make a further report to the Board of Supervisors following its July 15, 1997 meeting with all interested parties. BACKGROUND: After a great deal of discussion and many meetings about the wisdom of restricting the exposure of billboard advertising of alcohol and tobacco products to young people who are not legally able to purchase such products, the Board of Supervisors on July 23, 1996 entered into a voluntary agreement with Gannett Outdoor (now Outdoor Systems, Inc.) and Eller Media. Under the terms of the agreement, certain billboards were identified that were in the unincorporated area of the County and were within 1600 feet of a public or private school. The agreement provides that CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: —YES Si,iHArURE: _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —___RECOMMENDATION OF 040 COMMI EE _APPROVE —OTHER iAr SIGNJIM RO ER DONNA GE R ATURE_ (S_� �.F_ ACTION OF BOARD ON __ APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X_ OTHER SEE ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAI THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVIPHIATCHELOR. ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED Contact: CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Cc: VISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR See Page 3 0 BY ,DEPUTY IOC - 04 these billboards will be removed and that the County will work with the companies to process requests for land use permits to replace these billboards with billboards in other unincorporated areas of the County which have a "rough equivalency" to the former billboards in terms of square footage, sign faces, traffic and general location. The agreement provides that the new locations should not increase the exposure of minors to alcohol or tobacco advertising over what was present in the former locations. On April 15, 1997, the Board of Supervisors received and referred to our Committee the report from the Tobacco Prevention Coalition. The report provides an update on the Board's request to make tobacco-free youth a public priority and to develop policy recommendations for reducing the impact of tobacco on young people. Supervisor Rogers asked that .the report be scheduled for discussion by the Committee on May 20, 1997. Following the discussion on May 20, 1997, staff was asked to invite Eller Media and Gannett Outdoor (now Outdoor Systems, Inc.) to meet with the Committee on June 17, 1997. The Community Development Department was asked to provide a progress report on the submission and processing of applications for land use permits by the two companies. The County Counsel's office was asked to review the legal consequences of the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to grant petitions for review of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' 1996 decisions in the "Baltimore" cases. On June 17, 1997, our Committee met with staff from the Community Development Department, County Counsel's Office, Health Services Department, representatives from Outdoor Systems, Inc., Eller Media, the Tobacco Institute, and members of the Tobacco Prevention Coalition. Diana Silver, Deputy County Counsel, summarized her attached memo regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to grant petitions for review of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' 1996 decisions in the "Baltimore" cases. Dennis Barry, Deputy Community Development Director, summarized his department's contacts with both Eller Media and Outdoor Systems, Inc. (See attached memo). Steve Shinn, representing Outdoor Systems, Inc. referenced the attached correspondence between his firm and the Community Development Department. Julie Kim, representing Eller Media, expressed her firm's views regarding the manner in which they value a billboard and noted that their methodology is different from that used by the Community Development Department. She noted that a number of variables such as the speed of travel past a billboard, the presence of stop signs, the presence and amount of pedestrian traffic, and whether the billboard is in a residential or freeway location all influence the value of the billboard and therefore what the firm charges for an ad on the billboard. Dr. Joel White, a radiation oncologist and representative of the American Cancer Society and Tobacco Prevention Coalition, noted his impatience with what appeared to him to be an unnecessary delay in submitting land use applications and getting them processed. He urged the immediate enactment of an ordinance banning all outdoor advertising of tobacco products where they can be seen by minors who are unable to legally purchase tobacco products. -2- IOC - 04 Supervisor Rogers noted that he would be prepared to pursue an ordinance at such time as he is convinced that the voluntary agreement is not being implemented in good faith. He suggested that the billboard companies consider voluntarily agreeing not to put alcohol or tobacco advertising on the billboards in question. Mr. Shinn responded that the billboard companies are concerned about setting a precedent. The products which are being advertised are legal products and the billboard company does not want to be involved in infringing on the free speech rights of advertisers to advertise their legal products. Supervisor Gerber then suggested that the billboard companies agree to voluntarily drop alcohol and tobacco advertising on the billboards which have been identified that are within 1600 feet of public or private schools while the billboard companies and the County move ahead with the implementation of the voluntary agreement. This would have the advantage of taking some of the pressure off both the billboard companies and the County in terms of the time required to process a land use permit of this type, would accomplish the objective of getting alcohol and tobacco advertising off these particular billboards and would not establish a precedent which applied to any billboards other than those which have already been identified. She suggested that the failure to reach such an agreement would send a message to the Board of Supervisors that the agreement was not, in fact, being followed and might cause the Board to consider what other options it had available. Joe Escher, representing the Tobacco Institute, indicated that his clients would be opposed to such an arrangement because it amounts to coercion by government to restrict the first amendment rights of his clients. The representatives of the billboard companies indicated that they would need a few days to think over this proposal and discuss it with their firms. After further discussion of this possibility, our Committee asked the billboard companies to respond in writing to the County by June 27, 1997, whether they were willing to voluntarily remove all alcohol and tobacco advertising from the billboards in question pending the removal of the billboards and their replacement with roughly equivalent replacement billboards pursuant to the terms of the July 23, 1996 voluntary agreement. If the billboard companies find that they have contracts with advertisers which cannot be broken by June 27, 1997, they are asked to advise the County of that fact. Our Committee plans to meet with all interested parties again on July 15, 1997 to review the written responses of the billboard companies and determine what we will recommend to the Board of Supervisors. cc: County Administrator Community Development Director County Counsel Eller Media (Via CAO) Outdoor Systems, Inc. (Via CAO) Julie Freestone, HSD -3- ' C10ix1e• Van- Nary COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFF/CE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA Date: June 11, 1997 To: Internal Operations Committee: Supervisors Donna Gerber and Jim Rogers From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Diana J. Silver, Deputy County Co sel Re: June 17, 1997 meeting: tobacco/alcohol billboard advertising SUMMARY: At the May 20, 1997 Internal Operations Committee meeting, this office was asked to review the legal consequences of the United States Supreme Court's refusal to grant petitions for review of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' 1996 decisions in the "Baltimore" cases.' The Supreme Court's action means that the Fourth Circuit decisions upholding Baltimore's ordinances banning stationary outdoor advertising of alcoholic beverages and tobacco in certain areas of the city where children are likely to,walk to school or play remains the law in that circuit. It may also mean that similar ordinances might be upheld in other parts of the country, e.g., California state courts and the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes California). DISCUSSION: The two Baltimore cases involved challenges to two city ordinances which banned stationary outdoor advertising of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products with specified exceptions, including residential and business zones in which children would not normally be found. The federal district courts found that the ordinances were constitutional and did not violate the First Amendment under the four prongs of the Central Hudson test:' "At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest." (Penn Adv. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al., 862 F. Supp. 1402, 1406, (1994), quoting the four-part test for assessing the constitutionality of restrictions on commercial speech established in the Central Hudson case). 'Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Schmoke, 101 F. 3d 325 (4th Cir. 1996) and Penn Advertising of Baltimore, Incorporated v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 101 F. 3d 332 (4th Cir. 1996). 'Central Hudson Gas & Elec. v. Public Serv. Comm'n (1979) 447 U.S. 557. Intemal Operations Committee 2 June 11, 1997 Both decisions were upheld on appeal to the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals? The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Fourth Circuit court decisions, and remanded the cases back to the Fourth Circuit court for reconsideration in light of its decision in 44 Liquormat, Inc. v. Rhode Island, U.S., 116 S.Ct. 1495 (1996). In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a state prohibition on all advertising throughout Rhode Island "in any manner whatsoever" of the price of alcoholic beverages, except for price tags or signs displayed with the beverages and not visible from the street (116 S.Ct. at 1501). On November 13, 1996, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the 44 Liquonnat decision did not require its earlier decisions in the Baltimore cases to be changed (Penn Adv. v. Mayor of Baltimore (1996) 101 F. 3d 332, 333; Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Schmoke (1996) 101 F.3d 325, 327). The court held that the city ordinances merely restricted the time, place and manner of the tobacco and alcoholic beverages advertising, and, applying the four-prong Centnal Hudson test set forth above, found that such restrictions did not violate First Amendment guarantees (Id at 326). Specifically, the court affirmed its previous holding that 1. The ban on outdoor advertising of alcoholic beverages in limited areas directly and materially advanced Baltimore's interest in promoting the welfare and temperance of minors; 2. The city's legislative finding that there is a "definite correlation between alcoholic beverage advertising and underage drinking was reasonable"; 3. The regulation of commercial speech by the ordinance was not more extensive than necessary to serve the governmental interest; 4. And "no less restrictive means may be available to advance the govemmenfs interest." (Id at 327). The court restated its earlier conclusion that Baltimore's "efforts to tailor the ordinance by exempting commercial and industrial zones from its effort renders it not more extensive than is necessary to serve the governmental interest under consideration." (Id a.+ 328). The court found the distinction between Rhode Island's blanket ban on price advertising and Baltimore's restriction merely of the time, place and manner of outdoor advertising through an ordinance which targeted minors who could not be legal users of the product (as they could be in 31'enn Adv. of Baltimore v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (1995) 63 F. 3d 1318; Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Schmoke (1995) 63 F. 3d 1305. Internal Operations Committee 3 June 11, 1997 Rhode Island) to be significant in upholding its earlier decisions.' Following the 1996 Fourth Circuit decisions, the appellants again sought review by the United States Supreme Court. On April 28, 1997, both petitions for writs of certiorari to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals were denied by the United States Supreme Court without explanation.' As a result, the denial of certiorari by the Court does not in and of itself establish or create any legal decision which can be relied on as a precedent in future cases. The 1996 Fourth Circuit decisions, however, remain the law in that circuit. Although they provide guidance, these decisions are not determinative of either the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' or the California state courts' future rulings should similar ordinances be adopted and challenged in California courts. DJS/ds cc: Dennis Barry, Community Development Department 'Citations from the more recent Fourth Circuit decision in Anheuser-Busch, supra, apply equally to the 1996 holding in Penn Advertising, supra, in which the same court reaffirmed its earlier decision based on the reasoning and holding in the 1996 Anheuser-Busch companion case cited here (see Penn Adv. of Baltimore v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al. 101 F. 3d 332, 333 (1996)) 'Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Schmoke No. 96-1428 (1997) 65 USLW 3723, 65 USLW 3727 (1997 Westlaw 120533 (U.S.)); Penn Adv. of Baltimore, Inc. v. Schmoke, et al. No. 96- 1429 (1997) 65 USLW 3723, 65 USLW 3727 (1997 Westlaw 120537 (U.S.)). CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Internal Operation Committee DATE: June 11 , 1997 FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICP1 Deputy Director J SUBJECT: Status Report on Implementation of Agreements with Eller Media and Gannett Outdoor Company Regarding Relocation of Billboards. — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On August 26, 1996, Contra Costa County, Eller Media and Gannet Outdoor Company entered into agreements providing for the eliminationof billboards within 1600 feet of schools which advertise alcohol and tobacco products. The agreements also required that within 30 days of execution, the billboard companies submit at least one (1 ) application for a land use permit for relocation for those signs identified within the agreements. Prior to execution of the agreement, Eller Media requested review by the Community Development Department for thirteen (13) proposed locations along the 1-680 corridor in the Martinez area. Of those identified locations, the Community Development Department supported the filing of land use permits on the Mountain View Sanitation property, adjacent to Shell Oil Refinery. At that time, the remaining sites were located within 2,000 feet of Las Juntas Elementary School and were rejected. The agreements in their final form, changed the distance limitation from 2000 feet to 1600 feet so as not to create an exception for the Pacheco 1-680 billboard. On January 21, 1997, Eller Media filed two land use permit applications, one for the Mountain View Sanitary District Property, adjacent to Shell Oil Refinery and the second south of the existing Pacheco/1-680 billboard. The applicant was notified on May 22, 1997 of staff's concerns over the proposed billboard locations. In particular, the billboard proposed for location in close proximity to the Pacheco/1-680 billboard was within 1600 feet of the Las Juntas Elementary School. Based on this determination, this application has been withdrawn. No alternative site has been proposed. Staff has expressed concerns to Eller Media regarding the relative comparabilit of the proposed signs, as provided in the agreement. Eller Media is currently providing additional information in this regard. On March 24, 1997, Outdoor Systems (formally Gannet Outdoor Advertising) submitted two locations within the North Richmond Redevelopment Area for review by staff. In discussion with the County Redevelopment Agency, staff determined that the proposed billboard locations would potentially be inconsistent with the intent and policies of the North Richmond Specific Plan. Staff recommended that Outdoor Systems meet with the North Richmond Municipal Advisory Council to identity any concerns they might have. Furthermore, on June 5, 1997 staff received one additional proposed location which has yet to be evaluated. DB/DC:dc j:/debbie/billboar.mem oukl= ADVERTISING June 10, 1997 New York New Jersey Philadelphia New Haven Los Angeles Claude L. Van Marter San Diego Assistant County Administrator San Francisco Contra Costa County Sacramento 651 Pine Street, 11th Floor San Jose Chicago Martinez, CA. 94553-1229 Detroit Grand Rapids Dear Mr. Van Marter: Flint Atlanta For review by the Internal Operations Committee of the Board of Supervisors, I am Columbus enclosing copies of the correspondence I have had with the Community Development New Orleans Louisville Department staff, which is pertinent to the billboard relocation agreement. St.Louis Kansas City Please note, that on August 22, 1996, Outdoor Systems, Inc. acquired the assets of the Houston Gannett Outdoor Co. of Northern California. I will attend the committee meeting on Denver June 17, 1997 to answer any questions and update them on our future plans. Phoenix Tucson Thank you for you consideration. Canada Mediacom Toronto Sinc Hamilton Montreal Ottawa Quebec City Stipten R. Shin Winnipeg Public Affairs/Real Estate Manager Regina Saskatoon Halifax WN1RA"TA G'OUN 'F' REGERD JUN 101997 P,)dN7Y AWNS MIATOR 1695 Eastshore Highway Berkeley, California 94710 (510) 527-3350 • Fax (510) 527-7041 SYS ADRTISIJ G OUW June 2, 1997 New York New Jersey Philadelphia New Haven Deborah J. Chamberlain Los Angeles Senior Planner San Diego Community Development Department San Francisco 651 Pine Street Sacramento 4th Floor - North Wing San Jose Chicago Martinez, CA. 94553-0095 Detroit Grand Rapids RE: Billboard Relocation Agreement Flint Atlanta Dear Debbie: Columbus New Orleans We are looking at the possibility of a location on the following described property: Louisville g p y g p p y' St.Louis Kansas City Assessors Parcel Number Property Description Property Owner Houston 358-010-008-3 I-80 South/Line, .6 MI. Tosco Refining Co. Denver West of Cummings Skyway Phoenix Tucson For your review, I have enclosed copies of a couple of maps which depict the proposed Canada location on this very large parcel of land. Mediacom 1. Toronto After you have had the opportunity to review this proposed location, I would appreciate Hamilton hearing your comments, so we can begin the next steps in the land use process. Montreal Ottawa Quebec City Thank you for your consideration. Winnipeg Regina Saskatoon Si Zefelyf Halifax Stehen R. Shinn Public Affairs/Real Estate Manager Cc: Jill M. Brumleve - Tosco Refining Company/Rodeo Douglas Heckle - Tosco Investment Properties 1695 Eastshore Highway • Berkeley, California 94710 (510) 527-3350 • Fax (510) 527-7041 OUWM ADVERTISING June 2, 1997 New York New Jersey Philadelphia New Haven Deborah J. Chamberlain Los Angeles Senior Planner San Diego Community Development Department i San Francisco 651 Pine Street Sacramento 4th Floor -North Wing San Jose Martinez, CA. Chicago Detroit Grand Rapids RE: Proposed Billboard Locations Flint Richmond Parkway Atlanta Columbus Dear Debbie: New Orleans Louisville St.Louis I am disappointed to hear that the Redevelopment Agency has some concerns over the Kansas City proposed locations. Do both of the proposed locations fall within the redevelopment Houston area? If not, then we would be willing to pursue one of the locations, but not both of Denver them. Also, could I get a copy of the North Richmond Specific Plan?, or the sections of Phoenix the plan which address billboards and their inconsistency with the intent and policies of the Tucson plan. Canada Mediacom The existing signs we have in North Richmond are in or near residential neighborhoods. Toronto We feel that billboards belong in commercial or industrial zoned areas where other Hamilton businesses are located. This is why we secured agreements for potential locations along Montreal the Richmond Parkway. Ottawa Quebec City Winnipeg Lastly, you should note and pass along to the Redevelopment Agency that it is not our Regina intent to prevent the property owner from utilizing their property for a better use. In our Saskatoon standard lease agreement, the property owner has the right to cancel the contract and Halifax require us to remove our sign in the event the sign would interfere with the construction of a new building or development. Thank you for your assistance. I will be looking forward to hearing you. Sin er�l /tep�ren . Shln Public Affairs/Real Estate Manager 1695 Eastshore Highway - Berkeley, California 94710 (510) 527-3350 - Fax (510) 527-7041 E. Community Contra Harvey of ommun Director of Community Development Development Costa Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street SE � 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 945530095 ` Phone: (510) 335-1213 9- COU May 27, 1997 Outdoor Systems Advertising 1695 Eastshore Highway Berkeley, California 94710 Dear Mr. Shinn: RE Proposed Billboard Locations. This is in response to your subject letter dated March 24, 1997 and our follow-up phone conversations on the matter. As we discussed, I have meet with the Redevelopment Agency to identify any potential concerns over the proposed locations. The Agency felt that the proposed billboards would be inconsistent with the intent and policies of the North Richmond Specific Plan. They recommend that you meet with Supervisor Jim Rogers and the North Richmond Municipal Advisory Council to determine if there is support for the proposed sites. The North Richmond Municipal Advisory Council can be reached at 4505 MacDonald Avenue, PO Box 471 Richmond California, 94806. Supervisor Jim Rogers' office can be reached at 374- 3231. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, 1 �- Debbie Chamberlain Senior Planner DC: j:\outdrsys.ltr OUWM ADVERTISING March 24, 1997 New York New Jersey Philadelphia New Haven Mr. Dennis M. Barry Los Angeles Deputy Director San Diego San Francisco Community Development Sacramento Contra Costa County San Jose 651 Pine Street Chicago 4th Floor -North Wing Detroit Martinez, CA. 94553-0095 Grand Rapids Flint Atlanta RE: Billboard Relocation Agreement Columbus New Orleans Dear Dennis: Louisville St.Louis We have secured land lease agreements on two different parcels in unincorporated Contra Kansas City Houston Costa County. They are as follows: Denver Phoenix Assessors Parcel Number EroptM Des ri tion Property Owner Tucson 408-090-0345 2701 `B" Goodrick Tom Rose Canada 408-190-044-3 Southwest Comer of Forrest Simoni Mediacom Toronto Central & Brookside Hamilton Montreal Both locations are in the North Richmond area and are zoned industrially. The signs we Ottawa propose to build would face the Richmond Parkway. I do not believe there are any Quebec City schools within I600' of either of these proposed locations. Winnipeg Regina Saskatoon After you have had the opportunity to review the proposed locations, I would appreciate Halifax hearing your comments, so we can begin the next steps in the land use approval process. Thank you for your past and continued cooperation, concerning this matter. I will be looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely " 1 ryrj lam/ Step en R.-Sbfr"n Public Affairs/Real Estate Manager 1695 Eastshore Highway • Berkeley, California 94710 (510) 527-3350 • Fax (510) 527-7041 ADDENDUM TO ITEM D. 4 JUNE 24, 1997 On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered the status report on implementation of the billboard agreement approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 23 , 1996 . The following persons presented testimony: Steve Shinn, 1695 Eastshore Highway, Berkeley, representing Outdoor Systems, Inc . , advised that his company would voluntarily remove any tobacco or alcohol ads in place from the three signs owned by the company that are within 1600 feet of schools in the interim period while going through the land use permit process; Julie Kim, 1601 Maritime Street, Oakland, representing Eller Media, advised that Eller Media Company would comply with the voluntary request of the Internal Operations Committee to cease tobacco and alcohol advertising on the billboards in question and that they would comply by July 14 , 1997 . The following person presented testimony in opposition to alcohol and tobacco advertising on billboards : Lisa Korpus, 2444 Cherry Hills Drive, Lafayette; Stacy Brandle, 3019 Phillips Court, Richmond; Kedi Seyoun, 1234 Temple Drive, Pacheco; Sandria Cheney, 2410 Greenwood Drive, San Pablo; Brandy Galloway, P.O. Box 3222 , Martinez; Latisa Cheney, 2410 Greenwood Drive, San Pablo; Somphone Silapasay, 160 Corte Linda, Pittsburg; Stacey Morgan, 2922 Groom Drive, Richmond; Kirti Magndia, 780 Pagosa Court, Walnut Creek; Clarence James, IV, 2410 Greenwood Drive, San Pablo; Diahann James, 2410 Greenwood Drive, San Pablo; Maria Saucedo, 816 E1 Pueblo Avenue, Pittsburg; Arian Rahini, 299 Mercury Way, Pleasant Hill; Colleen Floyd-Carroll, 597 Center Avenue, Ste 115, Martinez , representing the Tobacco Prevention Project ; Ayanna Autrey, 2211 Greenridge Drive, E1 Sobrante; Lisa Bautista, 310 Water Street #B, Bay Point ; Cheng Saechin, 595 8th Street, Richmond; Delene Bliss, 2121 N. California Boulevard #220 , Walnut Creek, representing the Tobacco Prevention Coalition/American Cancer Society. The Board discussed the matter. Supervsior Gerber commended the speakers for their passion and activism, and she moved to adopt the recommendations of the Internal Operations Committee, to accept the billboard companies ' agreement to comply with the Board' s request to remove tobacco and alcohol ads that they have on now no later than the week of July 14 , 1997, and that they continue not to use alcohol and tobacco ads on those billboards while other relocations for those boards are found, and she moved that if the County is notified that, following the week of July 14 , 1997, there are any tobacco and alcohol ads that appear on the billboards in question, that matter be brought directly to the attention of the Board of Supervisors so that appropriate action may be taken as the Board deems necessary at that time . Supervisor Gerber also commented that if there was lack of compliance, she would sponsor a Board action to deal with the overall issue . Supervisor Rogers seconded the motion and proposed an amendment that the Board would send a letter to each of the cities in Contra Costa County advising of the Board' s actions and indicating the community support for protecting children in this area, and requesting that the cities take similar action. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations of the Internal Operations Committee on the status of the implementation of the "billboard agreement" approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 23 , 1996 , are APPROVED; the agreements by Outdoor Systems, Inc . , and Eller Media to remove alcohol and tobacco ads from certain billboards by July 14 , 1997, are ACCEPTED; and if these agreement are not followed, that the matter be brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors for appropriate action; and the County Administrator is AUTHORIZED to send a letter to the cities in the County advising of the Board' s actions taken today and the community support for those actions, and requesting the cities to take similar actions . . ,ps TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY JOHN GREGORY, DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE DATE: NNE 24, 1997 SUBJECT: CODE ENFORCEMENT SURVEY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: ACCEPT report and REFER to finance committee to consider options for financial restructuring of code enforcement. FISCAL IMPACT: Currently, the cost of code enforcement comes from overhead on building permits. Should the options found within the survey be followed, other revenue stream and sources need to be considered to take the financial pressure off Building Inspection and Community Development fees. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: On May 13, 1997,the Board of Supervisors requested that a survey be conducted of several similar jurisdictions involved in code enforcement. Those jurisdictions included the cities of Pittsburg, Richmond, Concord, San Mateo, Modesto, Fresno,Vallejo,Oakland, and San Jose, as well as the counties of Solano, San Joaquin, Sacramento, San Mateo, Riverside, Marin and Alameda. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: k YES SIGNATURE: _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _APPROVE _OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON June 24, 1997APPROVEDASRECOMMENDED R OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ----- 1 ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. AYES: NOES: ATTESTED June 24, 1997 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PHIL BAT E CLERK OF THEBOA OF SUPERV COUN ADMINI To VA:dg BY DEP T codeent2.bo Contact: Val Alexeeff(646.1620) CC: County Administrator County Counsel GMEDA Departments Code Enforcement Survey June 24, 1997 Page 2 BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: (continued) These jurisdictions were chosen because they were proximate or had notable programs. Results are shown on the attached matrices. The survey supported the following expectations: 1. In all cases,the general fund provided support for code enforcement activities. 2. In all cases, except Marin, budgets were several times greater Contra Costa County's. 3. In no cases was code enforcement supported by building permit fees or department overhead. 4. The following sources were used. General fund support ranged from 15% in Sacramento County to 50% in Riverside County. JURISDICTION BUDGET FTE CITIES Richmond $944,744 12 Concord $305,586 3.5 San Mateo $895,000 7 Modesto $680,029 9 Fresno $2,546,000 30 COUNTIES Contra Costa $120,000 2 Solano $950,000 15 San Joaquin $350,000 5 Sacramento $2,176,200 10 San Mateo $895,000 7 Riverside $2,754,171 10.5 Marin $202,479 3 Notes: When comparing jurisdictions, it is important that similar activities are compared. Code enforcement is a generic term that can mean any code any enforcement. If a jurisdiction includes "meter maids" as part of their program, it is not comparable to strictly zoning code enforcement. For this reason, abandoned vehicle programs with state abandoned vehicle dollars are excluded since all jurisdictions receive the same revenue by the same formula. Building code compliance is covered by building permit fees. � .5 GENERAL GENERAL JURISDICTION AMOUNT FUND% FUND AMOUNT FRESNO $ 2,546,000.00 20% $ 509,200.00 MODESTO $ 680,029.00 10% $ 68,002.90 CONCORD $ 305,586.00 37% $ 113,066.82 SOLANO $ 950,000.00 60% $ 570,000.00 SAN JOAQUIN $ 2,176,200.00 40% $ 870,480.00 SACRAMENTO $ 315,000.00 15% $ 47,250.00 SAN MATEO $ 716,000.00 25% $ 179,000.00 RIVERSIDE $ 2,754,171.00 56% $ 1,542,335.76 RICHMOND $ 944,744.00 25% $ 236,186.00 § U) e § § § f 0 \ 0 f 0 f m ) } k ) k } / } \ _LL Q| . °| 00 | S 0 § C5 S C) � \ 0 c C4 69 k L o OR > v oa voo k o| �|°|c) o | |C)| |^|�| co|�| (n wE E E 2 E E 0 a C) � 2 � p � k LL E � � � J-4 \ 2) kJt . k £ .2 £ ; e \ § � © § km § & m ; o ( k mo Io 0 (9 { f0 ca) SS2 § 66\ ta2N0) § § £ c e = E Zit 0) § k + � ) § \ � § $ Q-k ƒ2k § CD ] � # 0w � � C 3 � 2 ■ a)E c8 $ \ &_% 2 � f0 k 7 § / � \ 24 $ »$o } £ k § Q ] \22 § 6 k « )2 / £ k a oct & k - z o 2 2 c � ) \ k I o % k » % % >1 & >1 > ± R o G G 0 P5 Z d N N d o and E o Eo E o E o O IL li w li w li w Li w LoI of rl 0 0 0 6 00 0 0 O N O m M co U) V). N N U7 U3 V � Ne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 10101 0101 NI MINIMI TIMI W C C � d N Z E E +� > p p 0. E W d 0 p C CLL U- p C CI m LL O LL 2 ca p N N N N p N a> a) N E m d C d C C E m a) C C c N U u°1.. C9 LL � U LL (9 CO (9 im ca as Z a) O c a c - aa) U aciE om hm oa Z c E i o um Ems .. c a ago C - () mcom LL m m o Co m o � m n Q — C 0 < W " < � U U W N t 0 m •' v t � t ZHe Q a) J m In 7 c N- m Z ca a) ca O O E a) F C > (� co of E (aw 0 co O � C 7 C 7 0 O 0 U U U D.6 z N o P T O rA w O_ O d li w LL O NI O O V n W W o 6 0 �Ra o 0 NN OI I Ir MI LLI C z N �W731 Ol O L 1 1 2 C L O. 3 C m LL C C 7 VO v W m O_ 4) N 7 () 0 m N C U U lL C7 O J C N z w E O C 0 C _ O ~ N O a V OoCa LL 0 .0 m W C Wp m Q 0: v F- U0« Um D J 7 U O C9 C N = CCL Q O z C O O U v CO) o U TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: vAL ALMEFF,DMECIPOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: MAY 13,149? SUBJECT: BOARD TO CONSIDER REVIEW OF CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES AND FUNDING SPECTRE RF.QUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)A BACKGROUND AND RiSTUWATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. ACCEPT four procedures for responding to code violations. Procedure I -Ticket citations for code infractions Procedure 2-Cite hearing/criminal infraction complaint Procedure 3-Nuisance abatement process(COC Ord Code Ch 14-6) Procedure 4-Title 25 abatement process 2. CONSIDER means for funding code enforcement that does not reduce revenue for current planning operations. FISCAI.IMPACT• Currently,no general funds supplement the $120,000 received from Community Development and building permit fees. Fees are not collected for enforcement. Additional responsibility will require predictable revenue and expanded revenue sources. Cost recovery and timeliness of compliance will be monitored,and a report will be provided on benefits of alterative enforcement procedures. Alternative methods of cost recovery will continue to be researched. BACKGROUND/IZACONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: (See page 2) /,Vf\ CONTINUED ON ATPACHMENT. ,X.—YES SIGNATURE: _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE ,OTHER CCNTMA E1SITADCOUNTY MAY 2 3 1997 EE��,,nry��vUo DukUeQEMAGRiCy ACTION OF BOARD ON May, 3. 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED 47IHERX IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the report from the Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency (GMA), on code enforcement procedures, operations and' finsncing is ACCEPTED: and further discussion of the matter, includize ^,sd; conolTlic alternatives is' teJune 3,' 1997'."` " f "` VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAUN AND ENTERED X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT,._) ON THE MINUTTS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN, AYES: NOES: ATTESTED &y l3, 1927- ASSENT 927ABSENT: ABSTAIN• PHn.BATCHELOR CLERIC F HE BOARD OF SUF 'ORS COUN MINlSTRATOR T�� O DEPUTY VA-4g � codeentbo Contact: Vat Ale:eeN(646•I62a) CC: Canty Admialstrator Canty Caumal GMEDA De"rtmeats CODE ENFORCEMENT MAY 13, 1997 PAGE 2 BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR F O NDATION : On November 19, 1996,the Board of Supervisors directed the GMEDA Director to prepare a report regarding sources of funding for Building Inspection code enforcement. The item has grown into an analysis of existing and potential procedures, as well as an analysis of fimding. This item was presented to the Board on April 8 and continued for fiu-ther information. Two items were needed: (1)additional detail on alternatives(included below),and(2)a comparison of funding methods for other jurisdictions(to be provided once sufficient jurisdictions respond to survey). The Building Inspection Department(BID)currently pursues a variety of methods to resolve code enforcement issues such as talking to property owners,holding informal meetings with participants, using dispute resolution. The Board is seeking greater speed,certainty,reliability,and ability to get costs reimbursed Alternatives Alternative approaches revolve around several issues. What is the level of BID efficiency and what mechanism can be set up to demonstrate efficiency? BID currently seeks compliance. How does BID balance compliance with cost recovery? What is the agreed upon cost of the program? Where should the fimds come from? These are questions that are important to the final resolution of the program. Four procedures are identified and discussed. In addition to the procedures identified below for`routine,cases,the county has additional approaches for situations such as Morehouse, including civil action for damages,injunctive relief as provided by(CCC Ord Code §14-6.202). Procedure 1 -Ticket Citation Ticket citations for code infractions are authorized under Chapter 14.8 of the CCC Ordinance Code. Court fines may be imposed at$100 for the first offense,$200 for the second offense,and$300 for subsequent offenses within a twelve month period, additional penalties are imposed by the court. These fines do not accrue to departments issuing citations. Benefits of Citation Process Citations represent the most rapid response to a code enforcement problem that is relatively easy to correct or is recurrent Autos on blocks,junk in front yard, and mobile vendors in inappropriate locations are examples of violations suitable for citation enforcement. A citation requires the violation to be visible and the owner or tenant accessible. An absentee landlord with derelict building would not be suitable if his/her signature on the citation promising to appear in court could not be obtained Staff time spent in preparation of citation,preparation for court,and time in court must be monitored and predicted Procedure 2-Cite hearingleriminal infraction complaint Upon the request of the involved county departments,counsel issues a 10 day letter in preparation for a cite hearing. This enables counsel to meet with parties,wade through issues, meet with the involved department and citee,and develop a plan for correction. Where the plan is ignored by the citee,counsel at its sole discretion,may file a criminal infraction complaint. Any such complaint filed is done in the name of the People of the State of California with District Attorney authorization. This procedure does not allow cost recovery. CountNy Counsel fees are charged to the department. �,- D s CODE ENFORCEMENT MAY 13, 1997 PAGE 3 Benefits of Cite Hearing Process On occasion,code enforcement issues become extremely complex Mobile home permits that have expired where elderly people reside and have nowhere else to go, landlord tenant disputes, claims of discrimination or harassment,and similar types of issues that may involve multiple parries,may require the dispute resolution skills of counsel and the formation of some multiparty cooperative agreement to solve the problem. Procedure 3-Nuisance Abatement by County Ordinance Nuisance abatement is authorized under Chapter 14-6 of the CCC Ordinance Code. It receives its authority from the state Goverment Code. The approach is highly procedural if the owner keeps appealing, but allows greater cost billing which can be placed as a supplemental tax on the next assessment role. While this does not guarantee recovery of costs,it provides the most rapid method for cost recovery from properties with sufficient value or tax paying incentive by tax role collection. Benefits of Nuisance Abatement This approach imposes a mounting cost element to the pressure of enforcement. The owner is periodically notified of mounting costs that may make continued violation unprofitable. There is also a potential cost recovery benefit,though the budgeting potential is unknown. This approach may be difficult if multiple parties are involved,a misunderstanding can be claimed,a long standing problem has just come to light,or grandfathering can be asserted It could work well when someone has begun an illegal use. Cost Recovery Under Nuisance Abatement Recoverable Costs: ' 1. Preparation of notices 2. Correspondence 3. Contract specifications for abatement 4. Contract preparation 5. Cost of all inspections 6. Printing costs 7. Mailing costs 8. Preparation of inspection warrants 9. Office hearings 10. Court costs • Costs may not be recoverable where compliance occurs prior to notice to abate. Non-recoverable Costs: 1. Board of Supervisors time at hearing. 2. When court rules against county. r CODE ENFORCEMENT MAY 13, 1997 PAGE 4 Sequence of cost accrual: 1, At receipt of complaint provided that field inspection verifies complaint- costs begin to accrue. 2. Accrual occurs with every action and notice sent to owner with periodic cost updates. 3. At completion of abatement final costs are submitted The property owner may dispute the costs and have them appealed. A hearing by a department such as County Administrator may wish to hear disputes of costs charged in order to reduce workload for the Board. 4. The CCC Ordinance Code may need to be amended if the approach in#3 is selected. Cost Waiver: Some specific waivers should be identified 1. Abatement prior to field visit or within two weeks of notice of violation when there is no previous record of violation. 2. Property owner living on limited fixed income or disabled when plan for clean up takes longer or may involve community assistance but owner is cooperative and makes every effort to comply as expeditiously as possible. 3. Under resolution adopted by the Board recognizing the cost absorbed by the department, CCC Ordinance Code amendment may also be required. Procedure 4-Title 25 Title 25 is part of the California Code of Regulations. It is linked to the state Health and Safety Code most familiar to building inspection. The cost recovery is tied to actual abatement costs following Board of Supervisor's abatement order.Preliminary administrative costs are not included. While the completion of this procedure allows a lien to be recorded on the involved property, it does not provide for tax roll collection. Benefits of Title 25: This approach can be used when it appears that the removal of the structure or debris is inevitable, but the nuisance procedure may not be suitable such as when the property is in probate. Lien inay be placed on the property. Steps 1 1 WCWpbbmm EXHWITA ' Reim Coda Fatornm utPm Om%iw of Paxsdam 2 Rmfam Pablkw°du Piowebmst MY id D'4m� Odia3 dhde 1h 1. Lfmpeb M m"Mbcmd 3 id rmmmmd u 4 v- tkmRd Ramch No—ao Ns�Vld,tlmn ]aeddimpmdmo 5 Pidt7 Or NoVblma� VbIWaoCaraW{ NOS CmmmPdm Ckel+a y DsysbmMmmm Deoambmsppmgaam DnamOml[ Nmis cmaap� 7 Ram fa Dmm braes ayamybrolvad a 3 smff w 3Ddmydedbmfa f:a ASa 7 mmDmbdof ' oppdede cmqcw" = bsddoimamlm a RglRmbfameae samamml4b a Samatlkwa "pWtlDs A 2 vlWmea xavkcjda ama edm 7RYlf 7 dviowim m1a1mYI Coq vbWmCmmaed INe�oemadcm O=Fgo 3wwL idq Pmeeduro I Procedure 2 Procedure 3 Pmcedore 4 mof ROWOO M PI Ide 2 CU" Retbdmemmt tiKieeedmmam warm mqb 8 Oi 3mEIT ma3. OR dm7m OR 3 OR-�A P-00-www"Nowa OR—! ybtlary tlm� np idly i fboMy Carnal umm tode3bda. ImemDoeb mbq e 10drym 7re dmbmbs. sae e3W3m4mafw rcpm�o'Wel d7e Atpmbaeert bbRhdyCa bhmmdby Ca Mm l b3amiymaam3 mry .. X�d0m Camad wAv""d imk�toad. a OO bww 30 wotindoOebd .Imelrk I BoadM ONIa m NNW of moat 30 7dm Cea dam fa M swim 3Ob43 uoapmidw4w. mp�tm9'fovti ~mwlmmma ebemenm 4 7 3Ddrymbefad 3D m 763m UpmoepYYlaad 4. . 767m 1>PNofumr. mbammtRsl aodpemuasa ho 4a a M -{rfi D,5 <i t > � a Fo- z r � � -t All O „ w cw A � o a � � H 14 v w o w v x tin g .S A+ so- It w N o G U N wJ O r- SA m y+,Py A6SG?? c6��A1 33 51 u, cn cs Dom` 6 Soo tot C-A 00 ° 6o d✓ ez- > . �nQ d i •p 5� 5 11 *%tit o' � •� N �� r $5 � G -Ar.D ¢ o v O � 'O f� F •�jt �vyy,,vc �O�fl" r O PP cF � W n � A •Ar+ � O J �; .+ 'y Gpp �TjY ° �y ° N �''•` 'S C4 r cN MIN d' t)k- so a o � A�l t cngamN Q cn V a Oy' ✓°�, ' N � W IIWW N W ©moo o r d v � U N �o� a re foUSA N 00 Id cl, p n r j {� y V 11IINil,�T T�c� p'" 6 x 0 a COs � as � to Go H � t o , ^' o b 78 la 0 -0 4j y �I L° $ o F Cbu 50 8 S Cd a � oo 5w 00 00 7 � A �• �S y U w y a a w o o � U J d o cad a ��'�. 4 rZa PA CA .% N ch 4 b O d � rz F •� �� •N N � p' bo T [ ti on b z3 HBb � n w a � ac � A � h T W.....,: C 00 ov ov o O � O b e 'E e 0414 G d 0 x d � ° n ti � c � � ��•' � w E � c� o a� C a o 102 "oFhb oo �N • .E � 8 � '�g .ra � w a ¢� � � v ��1� � T .� A �•� � � a x •°3' •°3' c o �? � o � � E