HomeMy WebLinkAbout0317.094., .
,.r--,~~_S_~~~IMKl ________ ~
Juno 9, 1994
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, california
Members of the council!
'I'his is an informational repol.'t on the ndd-proqran status of the
Residential Clean-up Program. All residential properties in the
City have been inspected. Inspectors issued 1 ,167 violation
notices and all violations have bCl';!l1 reinspected. Second not ices
have been issued to properties stIll not in co~pliance .
.!li_$cussio_t1
The statistical results of the program, through the conpletion of
the :initial inspections and the first reinspections, are sho"''!"1 on
the attached table. A total of 1,767 violations '.;ere noted during
the initial inspection process. Of thes(!, more than half wore for
tall grass or weeds. 'rhe predominance of this ,type of ':iolation is
attributed to the fact that the program has heen conducted durinCj
the spring when plants experience their most rapid growth. Aftot"
the second inspection of the notiGed properties ~as corn:plcted, tho
compliance rate was 73 percent.
The third inspection cycle is currently underway. It is
anticipated that by the end of the program the c01'11pl iance rate will
exceed 90 percent. Those properties that are still not in
compliance will be noted and referreel to. the Code Enforconent
Officer. The Code Enforcement Officer will then visit each
location for-the purpese of determining the seriousness of the
violations. The ownel.'S of those properties, with violations \wrthy
of formal abatement action 1 will bemailedlettersdescl.ibing the
violations and specifying the required cerrective action. This
process is anticipated to be completed by the progr.-tmls planned
termination date of June 17, 1994. The abatement process will J:'lost
likely continue for SOIne: time after the Resident ial Clean-up
Program has ended.
CNR:317:94
----------~-----
I
I I .,
...
o o
The 'response. 'to the Program by the Cityls rp.sidGnts has generally
been one of quiet cooperation. However, a number of phone call~,
and a few letters, have heen received by tho Inspoction Selvices
,Division. Th.e majority of the complaints were, understandably,
from individuals 'Who had rec::aived violation notices. Hany of the
callers who were supportive of the program also wanted to file a
complaint about a neighborls property.
The scope of the Program 'Was slightly increased to include £1
Camino Real, Alma street, Ca!ifoL"nia Avenue and San Antonio Road
which are prominent nonresidential arterials.
One unexpected aspect of the proqram has been the ~xtensive media
attention. To date, there have been newspaper articles in the Palo
Alto Weekly, San Jo'se Mercury and San Mateo Times. Television news
segments have been shown on KN'l'V channel 11, KRON challnel 4 and
KTVU channel 2. Also, a radio interview was broadcast on KGO.
Tlle Inspection Services Division '..till provide a complete report
after the program is completed.
Respectfully submitted,
~/--~"C---+-'t
FRED Ii ERHA II
Chief Building Official
'-1./ ? J ---'re--.c_,<,-t--c,{ '(, , '-cLv.~-f-,A-'d
l<ENNETIi R. SCHREIBER
~rector of 1
;';J~WG lj-:t y Man'ager i
MB:hs
Attachment
CNR: 317: 94
& Community Environment
June 9, 1994
-2-
. (,
.--
.......
.~
i
I
RESlDENnAl. Cl..E'Al'HIP PROGRAM: Status thru week 5
Violatloi'l'!Ype TotlUVlolatiOtls
Weeds 978
Bushes
Debris
Sidewalks
low Branches
Storage in Front Setback
Sheds, Fences in Front Setback
Vehicles
Leaves
Tolal1st Violations on Private Property
(some properties had multiple violations}
Refer/als to Public Works for Violations on
Cily Property
Signs Removed From Public Property
Total Private Property Sites with Violations
. No, 2nd Notices
Best on the Block Awards
,.':"
, >' \ ,
170
178
31
73
77
8
69
183
1767
66
344
1198
328
213
,'-.<"-, ••. ",.
73%
Compliance
Rate
.. f