Agenda Item - 2024-06-18 - Number 11.1 - Presentation - Code Enforcement Update 1 '1 .1
CIVIL VIOLATIONS
VA- ErN4,
•
OI
° REGO�
CODE ENFORCEMENT STUDY SESSION
June 18 , 2024
Presentation Outline
• Current approach to civil enforcement
• Enforcement considerations
• Compliance process (Community Development)
• Enforcement challenges
• Questions and Feedback
4tin ao
o s�
(18 nl
oR
Curr ntapproach — Civil
• Enforcement is decentralized Department Responsible Staff City Codes and
Ordinances Enforced
Police Community Service Officers Animals and Fowl (Ch. 31)
(CSOs) and Police Officers Traffic Code (Parking) [Ch. 32]
• Use both a Systematic and Nuisances (Ch. 34)
Sign Code (Ch. 47)*
Complaint-based approach Tree Code (Ch. 55)*
Fire Fire Marshal Fire Code (Ch. 15)
Parks and Recreation Park Rangers Park Rules (Ch. 34)
Encroachments in parks
• Goals: Community Building Official Building Code (Ch. 45)
Development Code Enforcement (CE) Nuisances (Ch. 34)
• Maintain community relations Specialists Sign Code (Ch. 47)
Community Dev. Code (Ch.
and provide good customer 50)
service . Tree Code (Ch. 55)
Republic Services (Ordinance)
• Achieve voluntary compliance Engineering Public Works staff StreNuisances d SS dews a ksks (Ch.
(Ch.42)
without punitive action or fee 34)
Erosion Control Specialist Erosion Control (Ch. 52)
when possible .
Considerations : Equity
• City enforcement is achieved by a combination of complaint-based
and systematic-based actions.
• Complaint-based (Reactive) :
• Respond to complaints when they are reported
• Systematic-based (Proactive):
• Education (e.g., workshops, handouts, public outreach)
• Routine inspections (e.g., tree mitigation inspections, fire inspections)
• License renewal notifications
• Enforcing violations encountered in the field
Equity : Community Development Cases May 2022 - May 2024
(--u— —I- 1—
Li
,4 f
— ._ —
0 •
17 •
' •
Mean Land Value
•- vinopop•3oo,oQn
•
7 i$340.000-S404, %
' — IP. (1) .000-mo.000
:7,000-.$1.$21. im0
l
i_Liiiir.9
Al
43
14 , • 1 t _
. • ' 1 5 ) i__j- --- _ ,
1'
I •i•
1
CD Code Enforcement Cases
• - Received May 2022 -- May 2024
By Neighborhood Association.
1 I
PALS
Equity
• Goal — achieve voluntary Community Development Code
compliance without punitive Violation Cases May 2022 to May
actions and fees. 2024
235 Total Cases
63 cases
Fee Charged Cases with a Fee
Cases Resolved
172 cases without a Fee
No Fee
Charged
Considerations : Priorities .,L,
„..il... _. .
i
f„. .k4. - ..-
---- ,-L„,, , _ ki i1 , .- w
--- -
v-- ,..--„- . \.,,,
High Enforcement Priority ;, •rM
• Safety or health issue: . 1 #.hi f•
r; ....ir Y. ■r.
'.
• Unsafe building — not structurally sound k a' t+s'I
• Unsecured basement foundation r,,5, ,v.:.:; ,.$1,17
• Unsecured vacant building a : . .- `• '-
. " s44*.iik. -..rA: +: o:
�_ 9riiffeigiNI.:{,
• Violation in progress:
F '�..
•
• Construction - no permit - , - • -
• Tree cutting - no permit - - 4Jti . f = _ �
• Tree protection - no permit .� �', `' 4 #-', .�t;.•-Y
Tree Protection Violation
Considerations : Priorities
„ ?
+o ..,
_ y s
Lower Enforcement Priority . . . .. f
�
• Static Violation r , A INA
• Occurred more than 6 months ago , :' _ `.4. ,...
• Improvement completed/not in process -.4 :� M_ ►r i
(e.g., fence, shed) ' R -
3 jT
• Limited Evidence . ,'
-R
• Responsible party unknown/No witness ' �_
• Requires long-term surveillance 7.
• Misuse of Enforcement Resources .,N - - , ...
• Serial complaints between neighbors 4 �, � -s 2021106104 14 44
Fence Height Violation
i r i : BalancingWork Tasks Cons eatnos
CD Enforcement staff perform a variety of inspections in addition to
enforcement tasks:
• Time (on average) spent by work task:
• New complaint Investigations/follow-up on existing violations - 55%
• Tree Protection inspections and Plan issuance - 35%
• Arborist reports, tree protection fencing, and issuing the Plan;
• Planning & Tree Code inspections for building permit sites - 10%
• Landscaping; mitigation trees, parking spaces, etc.
CommunityDevelopment Enforcement Process
Civil violation where compliance is possible without violation fee.
• CE staff provides in writing:
• Code text requirements and an explanation of why there is a violation;
• Options available and their actions needed to comply; and,
• Date by which progress toward compliance is needed.
• Examples: Illegal sign is displayed; shed built in a setback; grass too tall, etc.
Civil violation where compliance requires payment of a violation fee.
• CE staff provides in writing:
• Code text requirements and an explanation of why there is a violation;
• Explain payment of a violation fee and other actions are required to comply; and,
• Date by which payment and progress toward compliance is needed.
• Examples: tree removal — no permit; house demolition — no permit, etc.
CommunityDevelopment Enforcement Process
Citation :
• Issued when progress is not made toward compliance or when a violator states they
will not comply;
• Processed by the Lake Oswego Municipal Court:
• "Not Guilty" plea entered to Court
• Trial is held, Judge rules on guilt and fines
• If found "Guilty" - fines are paid to Court (except tree removal restoration fees are paid to Tree
Fund)
• If found "Not Guilty" — citation is dismissed, no fines are paid by defendant.
• "No Contest" or "Guilty" plea entered to Court
• Fines are paid to Court and the citation is closed.
• City violation remains without compliance;
• Additional citation(s) may be needed to gain compliance
• Process typically takes three months from citation issuance to a trial, but can take
many months or even years before a final verdict is issued.
r nChallenges
CD En ocemet
Code standards that are impractical or very difficult to verify:
• Short Term Rental (STR) use requires:
• Business license (Home Occupation); and
• Compliance with Home Occupation standards, which includes:
• The person who owns the STR lot must maintain that location as their primary residence.
• Primary Residence definition (summary): A dwelling where a person lives most of the
time...the City may consider whether the dwelling is the legal residence of the STR operator
by examining voter registration address, driver license address, income tax docs and other
such factors.
• CE is not able to determine if a STR operator spends the majority of the year at the residence.
Proposal : Develop and amend STR standard to be more verifiable
r nChallenges
CD En ocemet
I.,.
Ja1 .: .4,ii .
y .
Subjective Home Occupation code standards:vague
• 4 --
Home Occupation use has a standard about the � 4
use not altering "residential character". - • Oil . 4.
.10 • . !
• "The use does not alter the residential character ofthe k '4r UM . 1
neighborhood nor infringe upon the right of residents in the .9 _
pi
vicinity to the peaceful enjoyment of the neighborhood." la
• Residential character is not defined, and so is open to broad F.
interpretation of how a home business can or cannot
operate i.e. number of deliveries, number of visits, group
size, special events, etc.
Proposal : Amend Home Occ standards to be clear I n - •
,... 4 i
and objective ' 5
CD E } . � = • ' ��
Iiii rac.... : :.-''',-;'jicEl :.'1,11.1P941:31:;.: : ' .. ert. A..!:'41...-: .'..-.4 .". ....!._ .^ ..44,--5h", :1.'i.10.146.",...4:::74.: 4i,:-. . .ev : . .:...
i
Code standards impractical to enforce: ,4::y ;* Y4 : 4.1- 4� iY, . ¢ _ '
•
•
{ z L
• Code: Spreading vegetation must be cut back ##. _:{*_•• ' 4:_.: • ... r:r' ;r �.,_tip
10' or greater from property lines. �r • . `` . ° `•� '' - _
-T 44W0tift4
• Non-compliance is city-wide including city
properties; dr F • ,
i
• Currently a low enforcement priority that .� F� .� •- 1 . +` I
•
frustrates neighbors who want to use the code • ' i ,
enforcement process (rather than mediation) to , � ..., • . d . . . -
r • yrr J
resolve; and
i r
• Unlikely code enforcement would ever have L. - , • . . . r
sufficient resources to enforce. _ � 4 ti• rrr '
.ilt* • . ivy■
Proposal : Consider removingspreading :{ . • .1,
p p g :r
vegetation as a public nuisance violation . f : ,- 4 • lty pa. , '
k ...I ..I
.I 4. p. 1 id
Council Feedback Requested
• Is the current approach working in terms of priorities, considerations
and procedures?
• Are there specific violations to prioritize more or less?
• How can communication between code enforcement and the
community improve and staff be better engaged ?
• Please provide direction on the recommended code amendments
- STR owner occupancy requirement
- Home Occupation standard
- Spreading vegetation
Tree Code Violation Fees Calculation
.r... . .
• Example : Violation fees for removing a . .. . .. e • • ' .. : ...'1 ..1
•.
40" DBH healthy tree without a permit : _: } .• di F.; ,.:
•-- • --, . ..
Li
—. - r
• Type II Enforcement Fee = $787 . ! - �:
• $738 + ($49/Tree x 1 tree = $45) = $787 -f6 "�`' `� ` - �' "°
MU
• Enhanced Restoration Fees = $8,360 _ -
• ($209/caliper inch x 40 inches) 1.1 � . k '...t.".`pl& _. ,.. - ,��
• Douglas fir 40" DBH x $209/caliper inch = $8,360 �
Total Fees (2024 Master Fees & Charges) = $9,147 . „ -,. _�.�._.,. � •. =