HomeMy WebLinkAbout0476.094City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Summary Report
"---------------.-------------------~--------"-.----.------
TO: HONOR.t.SLE CITY COUNCIL
FRO~!: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
DATE: On.b< r 20, 1994 CMR: 476:94
SUBJECT: 1994 R .. MI ... 1ia1 CI""D'.p Progn.m
REOUEll.
rnis is <1'1 int(,rrrI3tiQn.al rlT"Jil., and nn COlir;;it actiol"l i~ required. The 199-1 Rcsidenti.11
(!,;;<lI>up rr::'pa.m \',',1.:; (()nd\l.c1~':! h~' {r:e h;~(-.~lion Sen:lces DivL'JtOn from April 18,
i~J':;"~ '.'"'1 ::'cr~err.~r I. 19~'-L !'hi5 rtpc'rt :'oumm.!nz;;"s the tirlal r(;'sutts oflhe program.
~uc\' l~tPLlCAIIO.'S.
Thcre arc [10 J'XIli'C.\' impli,e.ti~5 3..SSc-.:iated v,'ith thi~ report
I;XEClillYl SUM~tARX
111<." lY9-t Re"i;Uelltlal Clean-up Program was irllcnded to improve the quality ofpro~rty
maintenance. thus enhancing the City'.., overall appearanct. All residential properties
in the City were inspected MairH.enance \,lola~ioos were initially noted at 1,19%
locations during the inspection process; but by the program '5 ending date, 01'f"r 99
pcrcall 0 f lh= had b«n wrrectod.
fiSCAL I!>IP ACT
There is no fi~ impact associated v.ith this report .
.EJ'l"lRONrdElITA!-. ASSESSMEln
There is. no r!T'.\"iroqfnent2J assessment reqiJiITd with this report.
PREPARED BY: Mike Baird, Supervisor, Building Inspection
.A/ /' i / :/. DEPART!lfi'~T HEAD REVIEW: r:..:.zw:v4t zi,A/h'L<-eu,;'
KENNETH R. SCHRElBER
Diredor (,I' Planning: and
Communit)" Environment
CMR:476:94
i ,
t ".
Page 1 of 5
City Manager's Report (In-Depth)
SUBJECT: 1994 Reside.lial Clean-up Prcgrtm
RECOMMENDATIONS
No recommendations are included in this repr.'J't.
!!AQS:GROUNP
The 1994 Residential Clean-up Program was c""minaled by the In>l"'ction Senices
OJ_i.ion from April 18, 1994 to September I, 1994. This repon summa,,"" the fInal
results of the program.
POLICY IMJ>LICAT10NS
Thcrl;! are no fl(llicy implication$ a...o,.sociated wit.~ lhis repwt
!)~gL~WN
The Residential Clean-up Program was a Cit)'wjd,~ campr:!ign ir;lefid .. d tl1 il1lr'I(l\ e thl'
quaHty of piOpe-rty maintenance and tr.ereby en.hanc~ the o\"(':"a!1 appC;VJJI'.:C of P;.ll<~
A!to. H \"'as timed ~o coincide \,'ith the City's Centennial and tilt" V/cr!d Cup ::-:C,":<:i
games at Stanford Stadium. A similar pmg..· .. am was conducted in 14f:2., by t\'O()
temporary employees using used bicycles 10 perform their )fu-pcC\!Ons. The 1994
program employed four t~!I1por.try property maintenance ins~cto!'S, '" hkh enabled th~
1994 program to proceed at a much faster pace than the 1982 prograa1 (he Polke
Department greatly a'isisted the program by providing bi~ydes, which weft: of gcxxl
qual ity and condition, a1 no cost
1be inspc.."'tion process commenced on April 18, 1994. Three inspections were
conducted of essentially all residential properties in the Cil)'. The program scope "'''''
later expaoded to include commercial properties along EL Camino Real, Alma Street.
California Avenue and San Antonio Road. The Imt inspe<:lion i<kntifled !hose
properties ,,11b property maintenance violations; and notices were issued, thai requested
the resident \0 make the needed <orreotions. The second iIlSpe<:tion in,'olver checking
those locations ~tberc the first notices were left to confinn whether or not the
corr~\ions were made, If not .corrected, a second notice was is.:i\jcd The thud cyc\e
involved reinspe<:tion of those properties where the second notilXs were !eft, Those
properties still not in compliance were documented and referred to the Code
Enforcement Officer (CEO). The CEO then sent letters to av.ners of tho", properties,
advising them of the Municipal Code violations existing on their properties and
spedrying the required corrective. action. This phase was completed on June j 7, 199-t.
CMR:476:94 Pag~ 3 of S
".
Between that date and September 1, 1994, the CEO conducted follow-up inspections,
writing additional letters and working with the ov-,rners to achieve comp-liano:c.
During the first inspection, 1,767 vloldtions were noted at 1,198 locations. By !.he time
the ~nd cyclt" was completed, 870 (1f those locations were in compliance, 'yielding
a compliance rate of 73 pcn:ent. At the end of the third cycle, c:mly 109 locations were
still in "olation, with 1 ,()9() having been brought into compliance giving a 91 percent
compliance rale, Between the end of the third cycle and September I. the CEO
achieved compliance on an but nine locations, yielding an overall compliance rate of
99,25 percent From the """peetiv. of compliance rate, the program has been vOf)'
successful. E1Torts ~ stil1 being made to resolve the. last Dine cases, sume of \vhich
may require iegal action,
In addition to the-residential property maintenance inspections, the progra.'ll included
the removal of unauthorized signs from p~Jblk property such as fem:i:s, felephone ~:des.
et\:. A total of 344 ~uch signs were removed and disposed of by the pruperty
maintemmc-e inspectors. Anothe( a\pect of the program ;nvo!vcd the recording and
rderral of rn-:tintenance/safety related conditions observed on City sUeets and rigllt-of
wa~'s during lr,e course of performing inspcctions.. A total of 66 referrals \Y{!YC made
10 the Public Works Department.
'lbe attached table shows the statistical resulL'5 of the program.
Early in the program's pl8.!l.liing phase. it was realized that enforcement of private
property maintenance regulations can he a very sensitive and personal issue for the
citizens involved. For thh. reas01l 1 substantial effort was made to adequately infonn the
public prior to commencing the program. Press releases were published in the Palo
Alto Weelcly and the San Jose Mercury News. Flyer:; were distributed at numerl)US City
facilities, and letters were sent to all knO'Ml netghbmhood organizations. These notices
were designed to present the program in a positive light and encourage public
participation. These efforts appear to have been fairly successful, since complaints were
re<:cived from only about 8 perc~t of the totai properties that were noticed, Another
reason for the low percentage of complaints is probably due to the excellent peep Ie
skills possessed by the: four tffllporary employees who served as property maintenance
inspectors. Not one complaint was received that reiated 10 the conduct of the
inspectors, They did an outstanding job,
The program received an unexpected amount of m('.dia attention. Newspaper articles
were printed in the Palo Alto Weekly, San Jose Mercury News and San Mateo Tim."
Television news segment' were aired on KNTV channel 11, KRON channel 4 and
KTVU channel 2. A radio interview was broadcast on KGO. Intervic\\p's were
conducted by a number oi other ne\ ... ·s ageilcies inciuding one from (Jermar .. y, but it is
CMR:476,94 Page 4 of 5
-~----'--'--'----"::.:--
'.
---..
not known whether or not these: et'c:r resulted in printed articles or broadcasts.
E\;dently the proacti,'e ..,f~ent of property maintenance standards, the program's
tie 10 the City's Centmniai and the World Cup, and the novelty of using bicycles 10
CO<Kiu<:I the inspc>cIions .11 contributed to make the program a newsworthy subj oct.
ALTER.'" ATIVES.
B~ the program discussed in this report has been completed, there are no
<ernatives in<:luded.
flK'AL IMfAl:i
The prognm was ~.mded from the City Manager's 93194 Contingency Fund (S20,[)()O)
II!ld the Pub!k Worl<s 93/94 Refuse Fund ($3,000), The inspection cycles were
completed ahead of schedule and tv,"(l of the property maintenance inspectors were
rele.a..o;ed -ear~y" The subsequent salary savings and lower than anticipated administratiYc
(.:cst.s ~u.!ted in the prograITl being -completed for less 1han the budgeted a.~noUI1t.
ApPfuximately S6,500 W3-s. rerume-d tv the General Fund at the (;nd of the. 93194 tlscal
year. me ongoing l:nforccme!1.t act;xitics relating to th¢ few significant ca'ies are
\'it'Yrcd as normal c'.hie enforcement activity and are being fu.nded from the Planning
Dcp3:4.me:::t's 94:11) o~~rating budget As s'Jcn, there i~ no fi~':o'll impact ,~ss',}Ciated \\'ith
this r~port
EJWIRONMf,NTAL ASSESSMENT
An en\-1.ronmental assessment is not required with this repi..1ct.
~TEPSI'Q.I,LQ\VING APPROVAL
No Council 3.:-tiun or appro".'sl is re'i'-lin.-o .
. A TI'ACHMENIS,IEXHIBITS
Tab!e of the 1994 Residential Clean-up Program's inspection statistics.
CMR:476:94 Page 5 of 5
'994 RESiDENTlAl CLEAN-UP PI10GRAAt FINAL RE?ORT
---Oobris -. l.<w~
SO<togo ., F_ ~
~. Fenoos., Fmol! 5eIt>O<l< v_
'-""""
S",?3011 P',-":-";c rJr'.'p.E-'t)'
F.:-!e!:::s tr; P 01:',~,!; 'th:', '0;
NQ. V""""" _~ @ End 01:
'II ..., 2nd Insp :M Insp.
'3<'
'77
'58
3'
79
79
9 e,
1 S 1