HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4314
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4314)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/9/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Ordinance for Expired Permit Enforcement
Title: Public Hearing: Recommendation From the Policy and Services
Committee to Adopt an Ordinance for Penalties on Expired Permit
Enforcement for Residential Projects
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt the
attached ordinance, adopting penalties for maintenance of expired residential building
permits.
Executive Summary
The Palo Alto City Council, at its regular meeting of September 23, 2013, directed staff
to draft an ordinance imposing time limits on completion of residential construction
projects and daily penalties for projects that exceed the life of the building permit. On
November 19, 2013, staff presented a draft ordinance to the Policy and Services
Committee. The attached ordinance incorporates several amendments consistent with
the Committee’s direction. In general the ordinance requires property owners to
maintain progress on projects and to promptly renew expired residential building
permits. The ordinance imposes strict penalties for the failure to maintain an active
permit, and grants the chief building official limited discretion in modifying or waiving
accrued penalties. The ordinance requires Council approval for any waivers in excess of
$10,000 and whenever a property owner seeks more than three extensions of a
building permit. Finally, the ordinance allows the chief building official to require the
construction of a wood fence at the site of any stalled construction.
Background
The September 23, 2013 City Council colleague’s memo regarding stalled construction
outlined several negative impacts associated with construction delays, including visual
City of Palo Alto Page 2
blight and safety concerns. The memo noted that the City’s current building code does
not impose firm time limitations in which construction must be completed and does not
impose penalties for expired building permits.
The colleague’s memo called for an ordinance addressing both of these issues and
provided ordinances adopted by the cities of Atherton and San Bruno as examples.
While the Atherton and San Bruno ordinances are similar to each other, Atherton varies
the time limits for completion of construction by proposed square footage, while San
Bruno varies time limits by the estimated value of the project, as determined by the
building official.
At the November 19, 2013 meeting of the Policy and Services Committee, the
Committee directed: 1) that any waiver or reduction of penalties accrued under the
ordinance in excess of $10,000 require Council approval; 2) that the authority of the
chief building official be limited to granting three permit extensions, and that additional
extensions require Council approval; and 3) that staff provide an analysis of whether
the City may foreclose on or force the sale of a property that has stalled construction.
Discussion
The draft ordinance imposes strict penalties on projects that fail to maintain an active
building permit. For building permits that are expired for between 31 and 60 days, the
ordinance imposes a penalty of $200 per day. This penalty increases to $400 per day
for days 61 through 90 that a permit remains expired, and to $800 per day beginning
on the 121st day and for each day thereafter, with no upper limit. The ordinance
allows the chief building official to modify or waive the penalty in certain circumstances.
Staff intends to enforce these penalties on a complaint-basis.
The draft ordinance does not, however, create rigid time limits in which construction
must be completed. Staff recommends against adopting strict timelines based on
square footage or estimated value, as project complexity and the time required to
complete construction vary and are not always proportional to square footage or
estimated value. In addition, the staff time required to assign and enforce rigid time
limits on all residential construction would create a significant resource burden.
Instead, the draft ordinance preserves the City’s current requirement that projects
diligently advance construction to the next level of inspection to maintain an active
building permit. This approach is consistent with the ultimate goal of completing
construction once it has begun; it avoids imposing harsh penalties on minor delays
while ensuring that complaint-based enforcement is available to dissuade truly stalled
City of Palo Alto Page 3
construction.
In addition to imposing penalties, the ordinance declares that the maintenance of an
expired building permit is a public nuisance. Under the procedures set forth in Chapter
9.56 of the Municipal Code, in the event a property owner is non-responsive, the City
could theoretically complete construction or demolish a partial structure and impose a
tax lien on the property to recover the cost of abatement. If the tax lien remains
unpaid for more than five years, the County tax collector may initiate proceedings to
sell the property pursuant to the California Revenue and Tax Code. Alternatively, in the
event the City issues an administrative citation for violation of the ordinance, under
Chapter 1.12 of the Municipal Code, any penalty that remains unpaid for more than 90
days after the penalty becomes final may be converted into a lien with the force and
effect of a court judgment lien. In theory, the City could seek to foreclose on the
judgment lien. However, any approach seeking to force the sale of a property would be
very aggressive, dependent on remaining equity in the property, and certain to carry
high transaction costs. For this reason, the ordinance is crafted with the ultimate goal of
voluntary compliance in mind.
Resource Impact
Any revenue impact to the General Fund from the fines outlined in the ordinance will be
evaluated as part of the development of the 2015 Proposed Budget.
Policy Implications
The draft ordinance is consistent with the direction of the Policy and Services
Committee from November 19, 2013.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B: Policy and Services Report date Nov 19th 2013 (PDF)
Attachment C: Draft Excerpt Minutes for Policy and Services Minutes for Nov
19th 2013 (DOC)
NOT YET APPROVED
131204 dm 0160059 1
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 16.04.090 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Adopt Local Amendments to the California Building Code, Adopting Chapter
16.61 to Impose Penalties for Abandoned Construction and Related Findings
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as
follows:
Amendment of Section 105.5 of the California Building Code is justified on the basis
of a local geological condition. The City of Palo Alto is subject to earthquake hazard caused by
its proximity to San Andreas fault. This fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz
Mountains, epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, then on up the San Francisco
Peninsula, then offshore at Daly City near Mussel Rock. This is the approximate location of the
epicenter of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The other fault is Hayward Fault. This fault is
about 74 mi long, situated mainly along the western base of the hills on the east side of San
Francisco Bay. Both of these faults are considered major Northern California earthquake faults
which may experience rupture at any time. Thus, because the City is within a seismic area which
includes these earthquake faults, the modifications and changes cited herein are designed to
better limit property damage and risk to public safety as a result of seismic activity by
encouraging prompt completion of construction.
SECTION 2. Section 16.04.090 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
16.04.090 Section 105.5 Expiration
Section 105.5 of Division II of the California Building Code is amended to read:
105.5 Expiration. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work on the
site authorized by such permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance or if the work
authorized on the site by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after
the time the work is commenced. For the purpose of this section, failure to progress a project
to the next level of required inspection shall be deemed to be suspension of the work.
The chief building official is authorized to grant, in writing, no more than three
extensions of permits that would otherwise expire for periods not more than 180 days each and
may require: 1) that the construction documents be revised to comply with current codes; and
2) payment of all current and applicable fees. Extensions shall be requested in writing and
justifiable cause demonstrated. Additional extensions beyond three may only be granted with
the approval of the City Council.
NOT YET APPROVED
131204 dm 0160059 2
The chief building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more renewals of
the expired permits and may require: 1) that the construction documents be revised to partially
or fully comply with current codes; 2) payment of a fee; and 3) payment of a penalty pursuant
to Chapter 16.61 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as it may be amended from time to time.
SECTION 3. Chapter 16.61 (Expired Permits for Residential Construction and
Demolition) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is adopted to read as follows:
16.61.010 Application
This chapter shall apply to all residential construction and demolition, including, but
not limited to, all additions, alterations, modifications, repairs, and improvements, that require
a building permit or demolition permit.
16.61.020 Timely Renewal of Expired Permits
In the event a permit expires under section 16.04.090 for suspension or
abandonment of work, the property owner shall seek renewal of the permit within thirty (30)
days following its expiration.
16.61.30 Penalty for Expired Permits
A property owner shall be subject to the following penalties for violation of section
16.61.020:
Time from permit expiration Penalty
0 to 30 days $0
31st day through 60th day $200.00 per day (i.e., $6,000.00 maximum
penalty applicable to this 30-day period)
61st day through 120th day $400.00 per day (i.e., $24,000.00 maximum
penalty applicable to this 60-day period)
121st day and every day thereafter $800.00 per day
(a) For purposes of this section, if a renewed permit expires and the property owner has
not advanced a project to the next level of required inspection, the calculation of
penalties shall relate back to the date of the previous permit expiration.
(b) The chief building official may reduce or waive a penalty accrued under this chapter
upon finding that the property owner acted in good faith and either: (1) the delay
was attributable to circumstances beyond the property owner’s control; or (2)
imposition of the full accrued penalty would harm the public interest, provided,
however, that and reduction or waiver of more than $10,000 must be approved by
the City Council.
NOT YET APPROVED
131204 dm 0160059 3
16.61.040 Appeal of Assessed Penalty
A property owner may request a hearing to contest a citation issued under this
chapter in accordance with Chapter 1.12.
16.61.050 Construction of Fence
In the event a permit remains expired for more than thirty (30) days, the chief
building official may require the construction of a wood fence at least six (6) feet tall, if
necessary to secure the property from unauthorized entry and to minimize the aesthetic
impacts of the construction visible from the public right of way. Such fence shall comply with
the requirements of Chapter 16.24.
16.61.060 Public Nuisance Declared
Any violation of this chapter shall constitute a public nuisance and, in addition to
being subject to any other remedies allowed by law, may be abated as provided in Chapter 9.56
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or
sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the
Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the
fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
invalid.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA
Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance
will have a significant effect on the environment.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
NOT YET APPROVED
131204 dm 0160059 4
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Deputy City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4260)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 11/19/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Ordinance for Expired Permit Enforcement
Title: Recommendation to City Council to Adopt an Ordinance for Penalties
on Expired Permit Enforcement for Residential Projects
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee recommend that Council
adopt the attached ordinance, adopting penalties for maintenance of expired residential
building permits.
Executive Summary
The Palo Alto City Council, at its regular meeting of September 23, 2013, directed staff
to draft an ordinance imposing time limits on completion of residential construction
projects and daily penalties for projects that exceed the life of the building permit. The
attached ordinance requires property owners to maintain progress on projects and to
promptly renew expired residential building permits. The ordinance imposes strict
penalties for the failure to maintain an active permit, and grants the chief building
official limited discretion in modifying or waiving accrued penalties. Finally, the
ordinance allows the chief building official to require the construction of a wood fence
at the site of any stalled construction.
Background
The September 23, 2013 City Council colleague’s memo regarding stalled construction
outlined several negative impacts associated with construction delays, including visual
blight and safety concerns. The memo noted that the City’s current building code does
not impose firm time limitations in which construction must be completed and does not
impose penalties for expired building permits.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The colleague’s memo called for an ordinance addressing both of these issues and
provided ordinances adopted by the cities of Atherton and San Bruno as examples.
While the Atherton and San Bruno ordinances are similar to each other, Atherton varies
the time limits for completion of construction by proposed square footage, while San
Bruno varies time limits by the estimated value of the project, as determined by the
building official.
At the regular City Council meeting of September 23, 2013 the City Council directed
staff to: 1) draft an Ordinance that amends the Municipal Code regarding completion of
residential construction projects in a timely manner, to include the imposition of time
limits for building permits and daily penalties for projects that exceed the life of a
building permit, 2) return to the Policy and Services Committee with the draft ordinance
and an update and analysis of delays in commercial construction projects in Palo Alto, if
similar issues have arisen, along with potential solutions. The minutes from the
September 23, 2013 Council meeting are included as Attachment B.
Discussion
The draft ordinance imposes strict penalties on projects that fail to maintain an active
building permit. For building permits that are expired for between 31 and 60 days, the
ordinance imposes a penalty of $200 per day. This penalty increases to $400 per day
for days 61 through 90 that a permit remains expired, and to $800 per day beginning
on the 121st day and for each day thereafter, with no upper limit. The ordinance
allows the chief building official to modify or waive the penalty in certain circumstances.
Staff intends to enforce these penalties on a complaint-basis.
The draft ordinance does not, however, create rigid time limits in which construction
must be completed. Staff recommends against adopting strict timelines based on
square footage or estimated value, as project complexity and the time required to
complete construction vary and are not always proportional to square footage or
estimated value. In addition, the staff time required to assign and enforce rigid time
limits on all residential construction would create a significant resource burden.
Instead, the draft ordinance preserves the City’s current requirement that projects
diligently advance construction to the next level of inspection to maintain an active
building permit. This approach is consistent with the overarching goal that construction
not be permitted to languish, and avoids imposing harsh penalties on minor delays
while ensuring that complaint-based enforcement is available to dissuade truly stalled
construction.
In response to the City Council direction of September 23 staff has prepared an
ordinance for review by the Policy and Services Committee and subsequently by the
City Council an Ordinance that amends the Municipal Code regarding completion of
residential construction projects in a timely manner, to include the imposition of time
City of Palo Alto Page 3
limits for building permits and daily penalties for projects that exceed the life of a
building permit. During the staff presentation to the Policy and Services Committee on
November 19th City staff will provide an update and analysis of delays in commercial
construction projects in Palo Alto, if similar issues have arisen, along with potential
solutions.
Resource Impact
Any revenue impact to the General Fund from the fines outlined in the ordinance will be
evaluated as part of the development of the 2015 Proposed Budget.
Policy Implications
The draft ordinance is largely consistent with the Council’s direction from September 23,
2013.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Ordinance Amending Section 16.04.090 of the PAMC Adopting Chapter
16.61 (PDF)
Attachment B: September 23, 2013 Council Meeting Minutes (PDF)
NOT YET APPROVED
131105 dm 0160059 1
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 16.04.090 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Adopt Local Amendments to the California Building Code, Adopting Chapter
16.61 to Impose Penalties for Abandoned Construction, and Related Findings
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations
Amendment of Section 105.5 of the California Building Code is justified on the basis of a
local geological condition. The City of Palo Alto is subject to earthquake hazard caused by its
proximity to San Andreas fault. This fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz Mountains,
epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, then on up the San Francisco Peninsula, then
offshore at Daly City near Mussel Rock. This is the approximate location of the epicenter of the
1906 San Francisco earthquake. The other fault is Hayward Fault. This fault is about 74 mi long,
situated mainly along the western base of the hills on the east side of San Francisco Bay. Both of
these faults are considered major Northern California earthquake faults which may experience
rupture at any time. Thus, because the City is within a seismic area which includes these earthquake
faults, the modifications and changes cited herein are designed to better limit property damage and
risk to public safety as a result of seismic activity.
SECTION 2. Section 16.04.090 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as
follows:
16.04.090 Section 105.5 Expiration
Section 105.5 of Division II of the California Building Code is amended to read:
105.5 Expiration. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work on the site
authorized by such permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance or if the work
authorized on the site by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the
time the work is commenced. For the purpose of this section, failure to progress a project to the
next level of required inspection shall be deemed to be suspension of the work.
The Chief Building Official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of
unexpired permits for periods not more than 180 days each and may require: 1) that the
construction documents be revised to comply with current codes; and 2) payment of all current and
applicable fees. Extensions shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated.
The Chief Building Official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more renewals of
the expired permits and may require: 1) that the construction documents be revised to partially or
fully comply with current codes; 2) payment of a fee; and 3) payment of a penalty pursuant to
Chapter 16.61 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as it may be amended from time to time.
SECTION 3. Chapter 16.61 (Expired Permits for Residential Construction and
Demolition) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is adopted to read as follows:
NOT YET APPROVED
131105 dm 0160059 2
16.61.010 Application
This chapter shall apply to all residential construction and demolition, including, but not
limited to, all additions, alterations, modifications, repairs, and improvements, that require a
building permit or demolition permit.
16.61.020 Timely Renewal of Expired Permits
In the event a permit expires under section 16.04.090 for suspension or abandonment
of work, the property owner shall seek renewal of the permit within thirty (30) days following its
expiration.
16.61.030 Penalty for Expired Permits
(a) A property owner shall be subject to the following penalties for violation of section
16.61.020:
Time from permit expiration Penalty
0 to 30 days $0
31st day through 60th day $200.00 per day (i.e., $6,000.00 maximum
penalty applicable to this 30-day period)
61st day through 120th day $400.00 per day (i.e., $24,000.00 maximum
penalty applicable to this 60-day period)
121st day and every day thereafter $800.00 per day
(b) For purposes of this section, if a renewed permit expires and the property owner has
not advanced a project to the next level of required inspection, the calculation of penalties
shall relate back to the date of the previous permit expiration.
(c) The Chief Building Official may reduce or waive a penalty accrued under this chapter
upon finding that the property owner acted in good faith and either: (1) the delay was
attributable to circumstances beyond the property owner’s control; or (2) imposition of the
full accrued penalty would harm the public interest.
16.61.040 Appeal of Assessed Penalty
A property owner may request a hearing to contest a citation issued under this chapter
in accordance with Chapter 1.12.
16.61.050 Construction of Fence
In the event a permit remains expired for more than thirty (30) days, the chief building
official may require the construction of a wood fence at least six (6) feet tall, if necessary to secure
the property from unauthorized entry and to minimize the aesthetic impacts of the construction
visible from the public right of way. Such fence shall comply with the requirements of Chapter
16.24.
NOT YET APPROVED
131105 dm 0160059 3
16.61.060 Public Nuisance Declared
Any violation of this chapter shall constitute a public nuisance and, in addition to being
subject to any other remedies allowed by law, may be abated as provided in Chapter 9.56 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for
any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or
sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance
and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any
one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA
Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will
have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date
of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning & Community
Community Environment
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
ACTION
Page 1 of 4
Special Meeting
September 23, 2013
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:04 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss, Price, Scharff, Schmid,
Shepherd arrived at 5:10
Absent:
CLOSED SESSION
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene,
Pamela Antil, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Kathy Shen, Breena Rowe,
Rebecca Burnside)
Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union,
(SEIU) Local 521; Hourly Unit
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
The Council adjourned from closed session at 6:55 P.M. and Mayor Scharff
announced no reportable action.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2. Presentation by Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss
to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-6.
3. Approval for the City Manager to Purchase a Police Records
Management System (RMS), and Field-based Reporting Applications in
Partnership With the Cities of Mountain View and Los Altos for Palo
Alto’s Participation in the Tri-Cities CAD and RMS “Virtual
ACTION
Page 2 of 4
City Council Meeting
Final Action: 9/23/13
Consolidation” Project and Related Budget Amendment Ordinance in
the Amount of $100,000 in Contingency Funding from the Information
Technology Internal Service Fund.
4. Approval of Crescent Park - No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Trial
Program Resident Permit Application and Program Expansion.
5. Council Appointed Officers Committee Recommendation of
Appointment of Acting City Auditor.
6. Reauthorization to Engage in a Non-Binding "Smart Cities Alliance
Agreement" with the City of Heidelberg, Germany, and Direction on
Exploring Future "Smart City" Alliance.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
ACTION ITEMS
7. Colleague's Memo From Vice Mayor Shepherd, Council Members
Berman, Holman, and Price Regarding the Building Code and Stalled
Construction.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to
direct Staff to: 1) draft an Ordinance that amends the Municipal Code
regarding completion of residential construction projects in a timely manner,
to include the imposition of time limits for building permits and daily
penalties for projects that exceed the life of a building permit, 2) return to
the Policy and Services Committee with a brief update and analysis of delays
in commercial construction projects in Palo Alto, if similar issues have arisen,
along with potential solutions, and 3) this draft shall be reviewed by
Council’s Policy and Services Committee for final recommendation to
Council.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND THE SECONDER to also return with draft Ordinance revisions
to address improved fencing of stalled construction sites.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
8. Colleague's Memo from Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Shepherd, and
Council Member Price Regarding Electric Vehicles.
MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Shepherd to
direct Staff to: 1) review the Electric Vehicle (EV) permit process, and
ACTION
Page 3 of 4
City Council Meeting
Final Action: 9/23/13
procedures for station installations to streamline the process and insure that
it is customer friendly, 2) adopt code changes requiring that all new
construction of single family housing install the necessary circuitry for EV
chargers to come back to the Policy and Services Committee, 3) consider
ways to encourage and support EV use in the City of Palo Alto and the Bay
Area including the following concepts and return to the Policy and Services
Committee with recommendations to ensure that Palo Alto is one of the
most EV friendly Cities in America, 4) additional suggested recommendations
might include: a) ensuring that all new hotels are required to install EV
charging stations and to the extent feasible that all existing hotels are
required to install EV charging stations, b) that Staff review the permitting
fee structure for EV charging equipment to reduce costs, or develop cost
incentives for the permits in such a way that it is streamlined and efficient,
and 5) announce at the EV celebration to be hosted at Palo Alto City Hall on
September 25, 2013, that Palo Alto will be a leader in the nation in the
installation of EV stations by mandating that all new housing units be
required to install the necessary rough in circuitry.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF MAKER AND
SECONDER to: 1) direct Staff to return to P&S and subsequently to Council
with alternatives on a pilot residential curbside EV charging program, and 2)
direct Staff to return to P&S and subsequently Council with a draft program
to bring about greater implementation of EV charging stations at commercial
facilities, potentially including Utilities Department or City incentives.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF MAKER AND
SECONDER to change the latter half of 2 to “greater implementation of EV
charging stations and/or EV charging banks of stations.” And to add after
“including Utilities Department or City incentives” “to ask staff to consider
revising fee structure based on the number of stations at number of
potential EV station banks.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF MAKER AND
SECONDER to change number 5) in the original motion to read “announce
at the EV celebration to be hosted at Palo Alto City Hall on September 25,
2013, that Palo Alto will be a leader in the nation in the installation of EV
stations by mandating that all new single family housing units be required to
install the necessary rough in circuitry.” And to change 2) to read “direct
Staff to return to P&S and subsequently Council with a draft program to
bring about greater implementation of EV charging stations at commercial,
multi-family and mixed use facilities, potentially including Utilities
Department or City incentives.”
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
ACTION
Page 4 of 4
City Council Meeting
Final Action: 9/23/13
9. Approval of Response to Grand Jury Report on Law Enforcement Public
Complaint Procedures.
MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Shepherd to
approve the Staff recommended response, Attachment A of the Staff Report,
to the 2012-2013 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled, “Law
Enforcement Public Complaint Procedures” (“Grand Jury Report”).
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
EXCERPT MINUTES
Special Meeting
November 19, 2013
6:00 PM
4. Recommendation to City Council to Adopt an Ordinance for Penalties
on Expired Permit Enforcement for Residential Projects.
Peter Pirnejad, Development Services Director, reported the Council directed
Staff to present an Ordinance amending the Municipal Code to require new
residential construction projects to have time limitations with strict
enforcement of penalties and fines. The proposed Ordinance focused on
residential projects, imposed strict penalties for failure to maintain an active
building permit and allowed the Chief Building Official to require a fence be
installed around the property to prevent a visual impact to the public right-
of-way. In reviewing the commercial construction database, he found 11
permits that had expired since 2003. None of those projects were presented
as imposing a negative visual impact. The expired permit was on occasion a
residential problem. The California Building Code required building permits
to expire in 180 days. The new language would provide a list of tiered
penalties.
Albert Yang, Deputy City Attorney, indicated the graduated penalty schedule
was fairly similar to other jurisdictions with similar Ordinances. Staff chose
not to have a schedule of time limits based on size or estimated valuation of
a project.
Council Member Holman was unsure how the proposed Ordinance was an
improvement when it allowed the Chief Building Official to grant one or more
extensions. The proposed Ordinance did not provide examples of justifiable
cause for granting an extension. She was especially troubled by the
granting of extensions, because it appeared the project could go on for
years. She requested the proposed Ordinance include examples of
circumstances beyond the property owner's control under Section
16.61.030.
Mr. Pirnejad explained that Staff purposely kept the language of the
proposed Ordinance open, because there were many varieties of permits.
Staff wanted the Chief Building Official to have the discretion to determine
whether construction was proceeding at a reasonable pace and whether the
project impacted neighbors or the public right-of-way. Based on those
considerations, the City could impose fees, fines or penalties.
MINUTES
Council Member Holman felt the proposed Ordinance should provide
examples. She did not feel the proposed Ordinance would have an impact.
She did agree with Section 16.61.050 regarding construction of a fence.
She did not believe the language of Section 1, Findings and Declaration, was
relevant to the proposed Ordinance.
Mr. Yang indicated the language was included because the proposed
Ordinance amended the State Building Code in part, and the City was
required to make local findings.
Homer Maiel, Chief Building Official, reported the first 180-day period began
when the permit was issued. One inspection had to be performed before the
180-day period expired. Once the 180-day period expired, the builder could
request a second 180-day period. Typically, a second time period was
granted. When a third 180-day period was requested, inspectors requested
justification in writing from the builder. In the past few years, some cities
expanded the 180-day period to a total of 720 days because of economic
hardship. Normally when a builder requested a third 180-day period,
inspectors did not allow it without justifiable cause. As long as the builder
had a justifiable inspection within 180 days, construction could proceed, but
not forever.
Council Member Holman inquired about City actions if builders did not pay
the fines or penalties.
Mr. Yang stated a section of the proposed Ordinance declared an expired
permit to be a public nuisance, which would permit the City to place a lien
on the property. Section 16.61.060 referenced the Public Nuisance Chapter
of the Municipal Code.
Chair Kniss asked how often the public called to complain about an
incomplete project.
Mr. Maiel reported in the past year he had received fewer than 5 complaints.
Chair Kniss presumed the inspectors would grant extensions judiciously and
when necessary. It did not sound as though complaints were made
frequently.
Mr. Maiel agreed.
Council Member Holman felt the small number of problems was not the
issue. The issue was the ongoing problem with a few construction projects.
Chair Kniss believed an Ordinance existed concerning expired building
permits.
Mr. Yang noted the existing Ordinance did not provide a consequence for
having an expired building permit. In general, Staff attempted to encourage
MINUTES
completion of a project quickly and on time. Staff could review amendments
to the proposed Ordinance.
Council Member Price felt the proposed Ordinance provided penalties which
previously did not exist. Neighbors complained about two projects over six
to eight years with no results. She was comfortable with the proposed
Ordinance and suggested the Council review the Ordinance in 6-months to a
year to determine if it produced the desired outcome.
Council Member Klein remarked that the proposed penalties would amount
to $480,000 a year. He asked at what point the City would foreclose on the
property to collect the penalties and payoff liens.
Mr. Pirnejad explained the City would place a stop order on the project and
file an order to ensure a property owner applied for permits for all future
work. The City could place a restriction on the deed before the property
could be sold. The proposed Ordinance attempted to motivate progress of
construction. It was not intended to generate revenue.
Council Member Klein assumed only one or two cases would occur each
year; therefore, penalties would not generate revenue for the City. He
inquired whether the Ordinance could include language stating that once
penalties reached a certain dollar amount, the City would move against the
project.
Mr. Yang indicated there would be challenges to the City attempting to force
a builder to complete a project, beyond the imposition of penalties. The
main consequence for property owners was placing a lien on the property
under the proposed Ordinance.
Council Member Klein asked if the City could obtain a court order to sell the
property.
Mr. Yang did not believe so but would look into it further.
Council Member Klein suggested the proposed Ordinance state the City
Building Official could grant no more than three extensions of 180 days. If
the property owner requested an additional extension, it had to be presented
to the City Council.
Mr. Pirnejad reported that amendment was within the Council's discretion.
Mr. Maiel added that another motivation for completion of a project was the
implementation of new Building Codes. If a project's building permit expired
and a new Building Code was adopted before a new permit was obtained,
the construction under an old permit would have to comply with the new
Building Code; which could be costly.
Council Member Klein felt an extension beyond two years was unusual.
MINUTES
Mr. Maiel had not seen more than two extensions granted thus far.
Mr. Pirnejad would add that language if the Policy and Services Committee
directed.
Council Member Klein referenced Staff Report 4260 page 57 regarding
delays in commercial construction projects, and inquired whether the
proposed Ordinance would apply to both residential and commercial
projects.
Mr. Pirnejad reported it would only apply to residential projects because a
problem did not exist with commercial projects.
Council Member Holman believed several people complained about the 195
Page Mill Project.
Mr. Pirnejad explained that project was involved in litigation. Work on the
project halted because of a PG&E pipeline and compliance with new Codes.
The proposed Ordinance would not apply to that type of circumstance.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman that the Policy and Services Committee move to recommend Council
adopt the attached Ordinance, adopting penalties for maintenance of expired
residential building permits with the changed language to Section 2,
16.04.090, section 105.5 Expiration the second paragraph to:
The Chief Building Official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or
more no more than three extensions of unexpired permits.
Council Member Holman inquired whether the new language needed to be
included in the third paragraph as well.
Council Member Klein felt it was not necessary in the third paragraph.
Council Member Holman wished to correct Section 16.61.030(c) regarding a
reduction or waiver of a penalty, but could not provide appropriate language
but along the similar lines suggested by Council Member Klein regarding sale
of a property once the penalties reached a certain dollar amount.
Council Member Klein noted Staff would review that suggestion.
Council Member Holman requested Staff provide that information to the
Council.
Council Member Klein suggested adding "Provided however that the waiver
of any penalty in excess of $10,000 shall require the approval of the City
Council" to the proposed Ordinance.
Chair Kniss inquired whether penalties had ever reached $10,000.
MINUTES
Mr. Pirnejad noted penalties had not previously existed.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
1. City Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2013 and
the Revised FY 2014 Work Plan.
Houman Boussina, Acting City Auditor, provided written summaries of the
audit work in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Work Plan, other monitoring and
administrative assignments, and the Fraud, Waste and Abuse Hotline
administration cases. A revised FY 2014 Work Plan was compiled with
considerations for new staffing and priorities. The Policy and Services
Committee (Committee) requested Staff consider five areas for possible
audits. Those areas were listed on the Audit Horizon. The Committee could
direct Staff to prioritize those areas within the FY 2014 or FY 2015 Work
Plans. Audit Staff utilized a risk assessment process that selected the audits
to be performed.
Chair Kniss asked if the audits on the Audit Horizon could be accomplished in
FY 2014.
Mr. Boussina replied no.
Chair Kniss asked if the Committee should select which audits Staff
performed.
Mr. Boussina indicated the Committee could do that. The existing FY 2014
Work Plan was based on a risk assessment process and the number of hours
budgeted for audits.
Council Member Price inquired whether the risk assessment for the
Committee's proposed areas was not sufficient to warrant modification of the
Work Plan. The revised FY 2014 Work Plan included the audits with the
most risk and needed to be performed timely.
Mr. Boussina answered yes, to the best of his knowledge.
Council Member Holman inquired about the action Staff sought with respect
to the Audit Horizon.
Mr. Boussina noted the Committee requested Staff consider those areas for
audit. After speaking with departmental Staff, he felt those audits could be
accomplished. However, he asked the Committee to decide whether to
substitute one or more of those audits for audits in the FY 2014 Work Plan or
to add one or more to the FY 2015 Work Plan. Otherwise, he would proceed
with audits selected by the risk-based process.
Council Member Holman asked if Staff had insufficient time to accomplish
another audit.
MINUTES
Mr. Boussina responded yes. Audits would have to be substituted.
Council Member Holman inquired whether audits in the Work Plan were
based on existing evidence that they were the higher risk items.
Mr. Boussina answered yes.
Council Member Holman asked if the audit regarding Contract Oversight,
Trenching and Installation of Electric Substructure would be placed on the
Council Consent Calendar because of a unanimous vote by the Finance
Committee.
Mr. Boussina replied yes. He presented that audit to the Finance Committee
which voted unanimously to accept the audit.
Council Member Holman inquired whether Staff would add audits from the
Audit Horizon to the FY 2015 Work Plan unless circumstances changed.
Mr. Boussina explained the new City Auditor would include them as part of
the risk assessment model, unless the Committee requested they be
included in a Work Plan.
Chair Kniss indicated audits on the Audit Horizon did not fall into a risk
assessment category. She asked if the Committee could direct Staff to
substitute one of the audits.
Mr. Boussina replied yes.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Price
that the Policy & services Committee move the City Council accept the
Auditor’s Office quarterly report as of September 30, 2013 and the revised
FY 2014 Work Plan.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0