| Jo Ann Henrie Foreman |
 COUNTY OF MENDOCINO Grand Jury |
Telephone: (707) 463-4320 |
GRAND JURY |
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL INTERACTIONS The Grand Jury reviewed the procedures for industrial and commercial permits and code enforcement. Deficiencies were found in the Department of Planning and Building (DPB) operations and recommendations are made for corrections. REASON FOR INVESTIGATION The Grand Jury began a review of DPB as a result of a citizen complaint alleging the following irregularities: (a) DPB allowed a manufacturing facility to expand without proper review: (b) zoning use restrictions were not enforced at manufacturing facilities: and (c) DPB has acted to deny public access to selective documents. More than 50 building code violations and unpermitted construction with regard to the same manufacturing facility and questions about the adequacy of DPB oversight, led to a general inquiry into the industrial and commercial permit process and code enforcement procedures; METHODS OF INVESTIGATION Interviews were conducted with the DPB Director, building inspectors, the Code Enforcement Officer (Enforcement Officer), Deputy County Counsel± planners, Department of Environmental Health personnel. a Deputy District Attorney, citizens, and business representatives. Several visits were made to DPB to review department records including drawings and prints, applications, engineering reports, and the code violalions log. Use permit application forms, written code violation policies, selected documents pertaining to issues raised by the complainants, and code enforcement penalties from Sonoma County were reviewed. The organizational chart for the Building Section personnel and certifications for the past two years was reviewed. Clarification was obtained from the County Counsel byOpinion (Op.) regarding the role of that office in code enforcement. FINDINGS 1 The Director of DPB acknowledges that DPB is unable to adequately monitor commercial and industrial projects and code violations. 2. The building section of DPB is operating with a shortage of staff. The senior building inspector is used as an administrator and field inspector. One building inspector position has been vacant for more than nine months. 3. The code enforcement staff level is low in relation to Lake County. Mendocino County has one code enforcement officer. Lake County. a county one-half the size, has three full-time and one part-time code enforcement officers. 4. The position of "Code Enforcement Tech" was included in the 1997-98 budget. but has not been filled. In April 1998, the Personnel Office was preparing the job description for advertisement. The position continues in the proposed budget for 1998-99. 5. DPB "Violation Procedures" (undated) states several methods to respond to violations and enforce compliance. After investigation of a complaint from a building inspector or complainant, the staff will mail an "Official Notice of Violation' to the property owner. One enforcement option is to record a violation at the County Recorder's office The Enforcement Officer sends an initial letter to the property owner giving 30 days to contact the office and begin clearing violation. If there is no response. a certified letter is sent notifying the owner of a hearing date with a copy of the "Recorded Document." If there is still no response, a violation can be recorded after the hearing. Another method of enforcement is to issue citations. A Notice of Violation should be i'~sued prior to citation issuance. A citation must be issued to the owner. If the owner is not available to accept the citation, the it cannot be issued and must be processed through the County Counsel's office. 6. After the notice and citation procedure has been exhausted, the Enforcement Officer can send a case to County Counsel for further action. 7. The Enforcement Officer reported that he has only sent priority cases to the County Counsel. 8. The Enforcement Officer referred 27 cases to County Counsel from January 1994 through April 1998, an average of six per year. Of the 27 cases, legal action has been initiated on four, referral letters have been sent to eight. and no action has been reported on the 15 remaining cases. The Enforcement Officer reported that more cases would have been referred if County Counsel had been more responsive. 9. The Countywide Cost Allocation Plan for 1998-99 states that the Office of the County Counsel is allocated $67,164 for DPB services. The Deputy County Counsel stated that approximately 5% to 10% of the allocation is used for code enforcement. 10. County Counsel does not adequately support the Enforcement Officer. a. County Counsel does not inform the Enforcement Officer when no action is taken on a referral. b. County Counsel states in part, "In cases not requiring immediate court action, our general practice is to send the property owner a letter asking the person to contact Planning and Building Services to work out a compliance schedule before we institute court action. If we do not receive a response to the letter, we check with the Planning Department to confirm that they have not had any contact either. If the person has not responded to the letter, we then prepare and file a lawsuit in the Superior Court. The only other factor determining when and whether a lawsuit is filed is the time available to the attorney involved given his or her other work" (Op.#98-9 1). c. Since action is taken less than 50% of the time, it appears that the County Counsel cannot handle more referrals. d. The Enforcement Officer reported that no action is taken unless the County Counsel is reminded of the cases referred. 11. The Enforcement Officer's job description does not reflect the actual duties to which he is assigned. The "Job Title: Code Enforcement Officer" description states, "Under general supervision, directs and coordinates the receipt and investigation of zoning and building code violations, initiates enforcement actions, and performs related duties." However, the Enforcement Officer's time is allocated 75% for abatement of abandoned cars and 25% for code enforcement. 12. The violations log is represented to be accurate. The staff reported that it was difficult to keep the log current because of lack of personnel. and the current computer system is not used to track violation corrections. In May, 1998. the County requested bids for a computer "Integrated permitting, fee processing, and code enforcement system solution." 1 3. The violations' log is not made available to the public. The reason given by the staff was to protect complainant identities. However, nothing was found in the log that would indicate sources of complaints (private citizen, building inspector, or Enforcement Officer). That information is in the confidential violation files referenced by the log. 14. The manufacturing facility referred to in this report ("Reason for Investigation") had numerous code violations and unpermitted construction. Permits have now been obtained and most of the violations corrected. 15. The building violations' log for 1992 to December 31. 1997. was reviewed and over 40 uncorrected commercial and industrial facility violations were noted. By May, 1998, two of the violations had been corrected. Between January and April, 1998, 15 new violations were noted with four corrections. 16. Current penalties (double permit fees) for work done without required permits permit are insufficient to deter non-compliance. Information from interviews indicated that busir~esses proceed with both construction and repair projects without permits because the cost of penalties is less than the cost of time lost during the permitting process. To provide an adequate incentive to comply with building regulations. Sonoma County may assess up to 10 times the permit fee for each commercial violation. 17. It was reported that from 1992 to December 1996, fees totalling $70,000 would have been paid if appropriate building permits for residential and commercial construction had been obtained. 18. If all building permits which have expired were reinstated, the fees generated would total approximately $200,000. 19. DPB has allowed foundation-only permits and in at least one case subsequent construction followed of an entire commercial building without adequate review and permits. 20. Some industrial activities in the county involve technology that is beyond the expertise of DPB inspectors. 2 1. Building inspectors are required by state law to complete 15 hours per year of continuing education. In interviews, building inspectors reported that more continuing education would be valuable. 22. On two separate occasions, two members of the Grand Jury went to DPB and requested files. On neither of these visits was there any appearance of an attempt to provide less than the complete files. (It is impossible to know whether or not documents had been withheld without knowing exactly which documents were. or were supposed to be, in or associated with the requested file.) There is no basis to conclude that the DPB denies public access to applications for building permits and related documents. 23. The DPB Director is an at-will employee subject to removal at any time by the Board of Supervisors. 24. All of the building department employees interviewed reported a perception that the Director could be one vote away from losing his job. 25. The DPB Director has a planning background but does not have the professional certifications recommended for and held by current building inspectors. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. It is essential that DPB fill the open positions of Building Inspector I and Code Enforcement Tech. (See Findings 1, 2,4.) 2. Since the duties of DPB include code enforcement, the position of DPB Director should be given civil service status, so that the director could make enforcement decisions free of any political pressure. (See Findings 23. 24.) 3. DPB should computerize and allow public access to the violations log. (See Findings 12.13.) 4. The County should review and adopt methods to ensure code compliance that are feasible for businesses. Such methods should include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Develop a permit procedure whereby businesses take out an annual permit, with fee, which would cover non-structural, limited maintenance and repairs. Inspectors could then make inspections as called for or at will, at least once a year. b. Raise penalty fees for commercial and industrial code violations. (See Findings 1. 14. 15, 16.) 5. DPB should provide more training for building inspectors. (See Finding 21.) 6. DPB should use outside contract consultants for monitoring projects beyond the expertise of local building officials. (See Finding 20.) 7. The Office of the County Counsel must cooperate with the Code Enforcement Officer in actions against violators. County Counsel should notify the Code Enforcement Officer regarding the outcome of each referral. (See Findings 5 - 10.) 8. The DPB should review procedures, and reasons, for allowing foundation-only permits. (See Finding 19.) COMMENTS Failure to enforce building code requirements and permit violations for commercial and industrial construction makes a mockery of the planning process and public safety. This failure also results in a loss of public confidence in the Department of Planning and Building while encouraging further noncompliance by others. RESPONSE REQUIRED 1. Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building (Recommendations 1 - 8). 2. Mendocino County Counsel (Recommendation 7). 3. Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (Recommendations 2, 4, 7).
|