LEGISLATIVE ANALYST REPORT

TO: Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors

FROM: Louisa Chiang w/ Gabe Cabrera, Office of the Legislative Analyst

DATE: March 5, 2003

SUBJECT: Blight Ordinance (File No. 021615)

SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ACTION

Motion (sponsored by Supervisor Hall) requesting the Office of the Legislative Analyst (OLA) to compare and contrast San Jose's "Blight Ordinance" to San Francisco's Planning Code. In addition, the OLA should review enforcement procedures and enforcement capabilities of the two cities.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The anti-blight laws and their enforcement can be found in one code and under one agency in San Jose. In contrast, San Francisco scatters codes and enforcement over many different departments. Moreover, due in part to stricter language and a citation system overseen by an appeals board, San Jose is sometimes more stringent in its enforcement efforts. Overlapping jurisdiction and the lack of centralized case intake and tracking sometimes hamper San Francisco's enforcement procedures and make it difficult for city residents to report and correct blight problems in their community. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors may address these problems by choosing among a combination of code and procedure changes:

BACKGROUND

Comparing Blight Laws in San Jose and San Francisco

First known as the "Blight Ordinance" (later renamed "Community Preservation Ordinance," #26710), San Jose's Municipal Code Chapter 17.72 addresses the following major categories of blight problems:

While these categories are all covered by San Francisco's municipal codes, they are not all found in one body, but are scattered throughout the Planning, Building, Fire, Health, Housing, Police, Public Works and Traffic Codes. Indeed, sometimes the departments have overlapping jurisdiction over the same issues. Therefore, rather than focusing on just the Planning Code as requested by the Board, this analysis utilizes the categories laid out in San Jose's "Blight Ordinance" as a yardstick in comparing and contrasting the laws of the two cities.

PART I - Comparing the Codes

A comparison shows several notable differences between the codes of the two cities. The following analysis lays out these differences in more detail (please see Appendix A for summary and code abstracts.)

Overgrown, Decayed or Dead Vegetation. San Jose sets out specific height (no more than 12 inches) and coverage restrictions (no more than 50% dead grass covering the front area) for the front lawn. Moreover, the ordinance states that since the grass, weed, tree or vegetation in question "substantially detracts from the aesthetic and property values of neighboring properties," the property is considered blighted. San Francisco's Health Code is more vague. Rather than setting specific measurements, it merely prohibits the "accumulation" of vegetation "overgrowth," and the Department of Health (DPH) currently has the discretion to interpret these terms in practice.

Landscaping. San Jose is again quite specific in its landscaping requirements. For example, owners must use "live trees, shrubs, lawns, other live plant materials or Decorative Landscaping." Also, depending on the type of dwelling, owners must ensure that 25 to 50 percent of the unpaved portions of their front and side yard is landscaped. San Francisco has no such sweeping landscaping requirements. While both residential house and residential mixed districts are required to provide "no less than 30 percent" of their frontage to "windows, entrances for dwelling units, landscaping, and other architectural features that provide visual relief and interest," the code does not further specify what type of landscaping should be put in place, nor what percentage of the set-aside frontage area should be landscaped. However, there are areas of the city where landscaping requirements are as specific and stringent as those of San Jose's. For example, in certain residential areas (see Planning Code Section 132g) "not less than 20 percent of the required setback area shall be unpaved and devoted to plant material."

Outside Storage. San Jose prohibits the outside storage of household items (e.g. old appliances and furniture) where they are visible from any street (including in the rear yard area.) San Francisco only prohibits the outside storage of broken refrigerators for safety reasons, as some refrigerator models cannot be opened from the inside and pose a hazard to children who may get locked into them accidentally and suffocate. In addition, San Francisco's laws do not permit "visual blight" as a consideration in issuing citations. For example, a neighbor cannot complain about the accumulation of household items in an owner's backyard simply because he can see them from his own property.

Structure in Disrepair. In San Jose, so long as any part of the property is "broken or deteriorated to the extent that the disrepair is visible from a street or neighboring properties," the owner can be held responsible for property blight. While San Francisco's Housing Code allows the City to cite "general dilapidation or improper maintenance," the law does not define these conditions on the basis of whether they constitute property blight.

Home Auto Repair. The laws of the two cities are quite similar. The only difference is that San Francisco allows auto repair on residential premises so long as the auto owner is a member of the dwelling residents' household (e.g. not a commercial customer.) San Jose specifies that the auto owner must also own the property in order to be able to carry out repairs on the premises.

Why Are the Two Cities' Codes Different? More than one interviewee has also mentioned that, whereas San Jose undertook the Community Preservation Ordinance by consolidating, revising and supplementing existing codes, San Francisco's sprawling body of codes is the product of gradual development rather than comprehensive design. Vagueness in the language of San Jose's overgrown vegetation requirements may also be a roadblock in its adoption in San Francisco. According to Deputy City Attorney Rose Ellen Heinz, when City code enforcement staff were brought together to discuss San Jose's ordinances, the inspectors expressed reservation about the "aesthetic and property value" provision, since they felt that it was vague and arbitrary and could lead to court challenges. Finally, it should also be stressed that enforcement of San Jose's landscaping requirements will not begin until March 2003, so it remains to be seen whether legal challenges would be mounted against them and, if so, what the courts would ultimately decide.

PART II - Comparing Code Enforcement

Methodology

In evaluating the enforcement procedures and capabilities of both cities in anti-blight efforts, this analysis uses certain proxies in the case of San Francisco. Since San Francisco has a minimum of seven departments and commissions dealing with blight issues, and anti-blight code enforcement is often not separated out from the departments' other functions, it is difficult to gather an overall picture of the departments' anti-blight capabilities. Insofar as they are available, this analysis looks at annual caseloads and backlog as ways to measure a department's enforcement capability. Procedure is examined by looking at customer service that departments offer in terms of case intake, ease of information access for city residents, and case tracking and information sharing. In addition to the complaint-making mechanism, the citation and penalty procedures of the two cities are also juxtaposed.

Staff and Caseload Overview

San Jose

San Jose brings all blight enforcement under the Code Enforcement Division of the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. The Division processes 58,000 complaints per year and employs 104 persons, including 58 full-time equivalent (FTE) code enforcement officers and 13 vehicle abatement officers¹. The most recent San Jose "Code Enforcement System General Code Case Status Report" (October 23, 2002; Fiscal Year 2002-2003) identifies a total of 2,547 Assigned Cases, 3,505 New Cases (Year To Date), and 3,376 Closed Cases (Year To Date), with the Average Days to Closure of 125 days.

San Francisco

San Francisco's Code Enforcement Task Force is a multi-departmental forum that brings together personnel to build relations, share information and coordinate enforcement. However, each department retains its own staffing, operations and code enforcement arm. Please note that, since anti-blight code enforcement activities are not always separated out in each department, the following staff statistics are for reference only and not meant to be compared to those of San Jose.

The following analysis looks at the Planning and Health departments, for which some statistics are available, to give a snapshot of anti-blight enforcement in San Francisco.

Planning Department Caseload Overview

Currently, the Planning Department has two inspectors assigned to code enforcement. For administrative reasons, the Department divides the city into four geographical quadrants, and one inspector is to serve each quadrant. However, due to lack of funds, two of the four positions are currently vacant. Planning is responsible for enforcing many of the City's anti-blight laws. However, due at least in part to lack of personnel as well as procedural limitations, enforcement has not always been optimal. For example, laws such as landscaping requirements for certain areas (e.g. the Sunset) are only enforced at the time of construction. If some owners subsequently remove landscaping and fill the area with concrete, this may easily escape notice.

A management audit conducted by the Budget Analysts' Office in August 2002 on the Planning Department provides a good overview of the department's enforcement capabilities. According to the Budget Analyst, between "May 23, 2001 through October 9, 2001, the Code Enforcement Unit initiated an average of 48 new cases monthly and closed out an average of 23 cases monthly," or a rough annual total of about 275 cases were closed each year. At the same time, in calendar year 2000 the Department classified approximately 3,550 Planning Code complaint cases as inactive. In interpreting these numbers, it must be taken into consideration that 60 percent of "inactive" complaints are regarding the presence of "illegal dwelling units," which means that only a fraction of the cases would in all likelihood involve blight issues. However, this significant backlog gives a sense of the difficulty the Planning Department has had in its anti-blight efforts.

The Health Department Caseload Overview

According to Helen Zverina of DPH's Environmental Health Services, the Department logged approximately 1,300 blight-related cases during calendar year 2001. The breakdown of the complaints is as follows:

Overgrown vegetation/ weeds = 110

Trash/ debris/ illegal dumping = 400

Abandoned vehicles on private property = 50

Vacant building nuisance = 20

Human waste in public areas = 50

Animal waste = 400

Vacant lot nuisance = 15

Rodent Harborage = 250

Since the Department received about 3,000 complaints a year, this means that about 40 percent of DPH's workload is blight-related. According to Ms. Zverina, their backlog is about a month. Her section currently has seven (7) field technician positions allotted to performing inspections; however, two (2) of these positions are currently vacant.

Customer Service Procedures

Case Intake and Information Access

The fact that, in San Francisco, blight-related cases are not reported separately as part of the departments' performance, and that procedures vary between different departments, underlines a crucial difference between the anti-blight efforts of San Jose and San Francisco. Whereas in San Jose residents have a one-stop shop for reporting and addressing blight problems, San Francisco residents often must spend an extensive amount of time and effort to figure out who has jurisdiction over which part of the blight problem they are reporting.

The difficulty that residents who seek help may encounter, and the initiative it requires to see a blight problem through to its solution, can be gauged by looking at neighborhood self-help programs against blight. For example, a nonprofit organization based in the Mission, the "Free Print Shop", currently distributes a 16-page handbook called "San Francisco Neighborhood Fix-it Chart". It is an excellent resource that not only lists anti-blight services, but guides users through the various departments that deal with the diverse facets of the same problem. For example, under the listing Cars: how to close an illegal car repair shop, no fewer than four solutions and three agencies are described. Depending on whether the issue is classified as fire prevention, illegal construction, or changed use occupancy, residents can call the Bureau of Fire Prevention, the Permit Officer at the nearest police station, or the Department of Building Inspection.

Moreover, our office conducted an unscientific test of the City's response to requests for graffiti removal services. First, we called a "Graffiti Removal" hotline number listed on the City's main website and discovered that we had called SFPD's graffiti abatement (a public education program), rather than actual graffiti removal services. We were then advised to call DPW or DPT if the graffiti was on street signs. We then searched DPW's webpage, but could not find the appropriate number to call for graffiti removal services. Instead, we again found the above-mentioned graffiti abatement program. Finally, we called DPW's main switchboard, asked a graffiti-related question, and were referred to DPH since the operator was unsure as to which department had jurisdiction. After a couple of voice messages, we were finally referred by DPH to the appropriate DPW office. While the City personnel answering the telephone were always professional and friendly, they often did not know where to refer us.

The above examples clearly demonstrate the considerable difficulty city residents may have in accessing City anti-blight services. Unlike San Jose, no single point of intake exists, and even when departments share jurisdiction, customer service representatives are often not well informed about the division of labor between departments. The inadequate information given on the City's website shows that even the City's own personnel sometimes have difficulty keeping track of jurisdiction issues, which results in customers having to make numerous calls, becoming frustrated and, undoubtedly in many cases, giving up. By way of comparison, San Jose residents can find all anti-blight services under one roof (literally). For example, the online "Blighted Property Report Form" on the Code Enforcement Division's webpage allows residents to report any of the major blight issues covered in the code. Not only can San Jose residents look up all relevant anti-blight laws under the "Blight Ordinance" on the website, they can count on having a master fee schedule and consistent enforcement methods. Finally, San Jose is also developing a process flow chart to show owners who have received citations what the appeals process looks like.

Information Sharing Issues

While City departments work together on code enforcement, interviews show that improvement is needed in case tracking and information sharing. For example, currently Planning can access DBI's database, but has no access to that of DPW. Also, currently Planning reviews permits from both the Police and Health Departments, but cannot access their enforcement activities databases. Linkage is also needed between the Assessor's Office database and other code enforcement databases, since this would help departments to track down owners of blighted properties. Finally, since the Treasurer's Office does not share information with Planning, the former occasionally issues licenses to businesses in violation of zoning laws and creates more enforcement difficulty for the other departments once the business is set up.

Connecting the databases is only one step in improving collaboration between the different departments. The fact that there is no centralized case-tracking system leads to duplication of services and increases the likelihood that cases are not captured and followed up on. For example, a zealous resident who does not get immediate feedback from one department may end up filing a complaint with all departments whose jurisdiction touches on the problem at hand - a situation which, according to several interviewees, has occurred numerous times.

Administrative Citations versus Civil Notices

In order to get a complete and accurate picture of anti-blight code enforcement in San Francisco versus San Jose, how the codes are interpreted and enforced can be as important as what the codes call for. An illuminating case where the codes of the two cities are similar but the outcomes are different is that of inoperative ("junk") vehicles parked on private property. Both San Jose and San Francisco give the departments authority to correct unsanitary and hazardous conditions on private property. However, whereas San Jose is able to impose fees which quickly escalate in the case of intransigent owners, in San Francisco DPH often must first show "good cause" to a judge and obtain an inspection warrant; the process then must be turned over to the City Attorney's Office and can ultimately only be addressed in court. In practice, this means that San Jose may often be able to enforce its laws against junk vehicles on private property more easily and frequently than San Francisco does.

This difference springs from a difference in procedures. San Jose has a three-tier system. If owners ignore the administrative citations, Code Enforcement can take the case to the Appeals Hearing Board. The Board is given the judiciary power by the City Council, and issues administrative remedies where fines can be as high as $2,500 starting the first day that non-compliance is documented. Where Code Enforcement feels that it needs to abate blight on private property, it can also obtain permission from the Board to obtain entry and perform the work. Only the most egregious cases are referred to the City Attorney's Office for litigation. This system is therefore able to correct most blight problems quickly and avoid lengthy court proceedings. Owners who are unsatisfied with the Board's ruling can, of course, file a case in civil court. San Francisco departments, in comparison, have in the majority of cases only the authority to issue "civil notices," that is, notification that the occupant/owner has violated a law, without fines and other administrative penalties attached to them. (DBI, DPH and Fire do have the power to issue criminal citations, but those are usually reserved for safety violations rather than blight.) However, only a small number of cases are sent to the City Attorney's Office, and an even smaller fraction of them end up in court, where fines are sought. The same hurdles make it harder for San Francisco departments to recover blight abatement costs than it is for San Jose.

According to San Jose's Code Enforcement staff, administrative citations are better suited to anti-blight efforts than criminal penalties. Since the social consequences of blight are often not as pressing and deplorable as most criminal cases that judges hear, judges tend to be lenient toward offending property owners and more hesitant to impose penalties than a board set-up only to deal with blight issues. Some San Francisco personnel disagree with this assessment, while others concur. According to Ms. Heinz of the City Attorney's Office, the current S.F. system is quite effective at addressing the bulk of blight issues. Anecdotally, she believes that 80 to 90 percent of blight cases are solved at the departmental level, since by and large property owners comply once they are notified of the problem that needs to be corrected. The cases that the City Attorney's Office litigates usually involve egregious habitability violations. On the other hand, with respect to landscaping laws, Lois Scott of the Planning Department advises that they are often difficult to enforce in part because the Department lacks a fining mechanism. She believes that if Planning could impose graduated fines for violations, its enforcement efforts would be more effective. To conclude, an appeals board may indeed prove to be more sympathetic to anti-blight goals than the traditional court system. However, some people may argue that these goals intrude on private property rights. Ultimately, whether the City should process blight cases through an appeals board rather than the traditional court system is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.

Organizational and Budgetary Constraints

It has been argued that departments are often reluctant to perform enforcement duties with zeal, since this is often perceived as "bad cop" work which conflicts with, and may even sometimes undermine, their role as service and education providers to the community. Moving most code enforcement functions out of departments would solve this conflict of roles. While a high level of technical expertise is required for the work of some departments (e. g. Health, Building Inspections,) the vast majority of blight cases can be inspected and cited by generalists². This can be combined with an administrative citation system overseen by an appeals board to expedite the process.

Some City personnel think that another organizational problem, which may have hampered blight enforcement capability, is inadequate City funding. Ms. Scott of the Planning Department believes that many departments do not allocate enough money for code enforcement activities. As an example, she points to DPW's 16-member Environmental Control Officer (ECO) program, which enforces a variety of codes such as Health, Police, Public Works and California Penal Codes and conducts "eco-blitzs" to clean up certain locations. The ECO is currently facing substantial layoffs due to the City's budget deficit. From Ms. Scott's point of view, concentrating all code enforcement under one department would not necessarily make enforcement more effective, since the bulk of the problem lies in understaffing, not duplication of services and overlapping jurisdiction.

OPTIONS

If the Board wishes to adopt new and/or modify existing anti-blight law and/or to change the enforcement procedures currently in place, it can consider adopting the following options in feasible combinations:

Follow-up Assessment

To determine whether code enforcement funding is adequate, the Board may send out letters of inquiry to all department heads and request for a determination of the annual budget and FTE personnel devoted to code enforcement activities, and then ask the LAO to do a follow-up study to see whether San Francisco and San Jose spending and staffing levels are comparable.

Appendix

San Jose and San Francisco: Anti-Blight Code Comparison

The following is a comparison of San Jose and San Francisco anti-blight codes in tabular summary, followed by complete abstracts of the comparisons:

WEED AND VEGETATION

SAN JOSE

Municipal Code Ch. 17.72.525 Exterior Property Conditions

(A) The property contains overgrown, diseased, dead or decayed trees, weeds or other vegetation that:

SAN FRANCISCO

Health Code, Article 11, Sec. 581 Nuisance Prohibited

(2) Any accumulation of hay, grass, straw, weeds, or vegetation overgrowth;

LANDSCAPING

SAN JOSE

17.72.530 Single Family Dwelling Landscaping Requirements

A. A single family dwelling subject to a development permit shall be landscaped in accordance with the requirements of the development permit.

B. Subject to the paved surface limitations set forth in Section 20.30.440 of this Code, a single family dwelling, not subject to a development permit, shall have landscaping installed in the non-paved portions of the front and side yards that are visible from any street. For purpose of this subsection only, "landscaping" means live trees, shrubs, lawns, other live plant materials or Decorative Landscaping, have been installed.

C. If only Decorative Landscaping is used to meet the requirements of this Section, Weed Block shall also be used.

D. Failure to meet the landscaping requirements of this Section constitutes property blight.

17.72.535 Multifamily Dwelling Landscaping Requirements

A. A multifamily dwelling subject to a development permit shall be landscaped in accordance with the requirements of the development permit.

B. Subject to the paved surface limitations set forth in Section 20.30.440 of Title 20 of this Code, a single family dwelling, not subject to a development permit, shall have landscaping installed in the nonpaved portions of the front and side yards that are visible from any street. For purpose of this subsection only, "landscaping" means that:

C. If Decorative Landscaping is used to meet the requirements of this Section, Weed Block shall also be used.

D. Failure to meet the landscaping requirements of this Section constitutes property blight.

("Weed Block" means material that is installed over a dirt surface in order to prevent the growth of weeds and that does not prevent the infiltration or passage of water into the dirt surface.)

SAN FRANCISCO

Planning Code, Sec. 132(g) Landscaping. All front setback areas required by this Section 132 shall be appropriately landscaped, and in every case not less than 20 percent of the required setback area shall be unpaved and devoted to plant material.

Planning Code, Sec. 143 Street Trees, R, SPD, RSD, NC, C-3, SLR, SLI AND SSO Districts.

(a) In any R, SPD, RSD, NC, C-3, SLR, SLI, or SSO District, street trees shall be installed by the owner or developer in the case of construction of a new building, relocation of a building, or addition of gross floor area equal to 20 percent or more of the gross floor area of an existing building, and within the RED, SPD, RSD, SLR, SLI and SSO Districts, in the case of change of 20 percent or more of the occupied floor area of an existing building to another use.

(b) The street trees installed shall be a minimum of one tree of 15-gallon size for each 20 feet of frontage of the property along each street or alley, with any remaining fraction of 10 feet or more of frontage requiring an additional tree. Such trees shall be located either within a setback area on the lot or within the public right-of-way along such lot.

(c) The species of trees selected shall be suitable for the site, and, in the case of trees installed in the public right-of-way, the species and locations shall be subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. Procedures and other requirements for the installation, maintenance and protection of trees in the public right-of-way shall be as set forth in Article 16 of the Public Works Code.

(d) In any case in which the Department of Public Works cannot grant approval for installation of a tree in the public right-of-way, on the basis of inadequate sidewalk width, interference with utilities or other reasons regarding the public welfare, and where installation of such tree on the lot itself is also impractical, the requirements of this Section 143 may be modified or waived by the Zoning Administrator to the extent necessary.

(e) In C-3 and South of Market Districts, the Zoning Administrator may allow the installation of planter boxes or tubs or similar landscaping in place of trees when that is determined to be more desirable in order to make the landscaping compatible with the character of the surrounding area, or may waive the requirement in C-3 districts where landscaping is considered to be inappropriate because it conflicts with policies of the Downtown Plan, a component of the Master Plan, such as the policy favoring unobstructed pedestrian passage.

SEC. 144. Treatment of Ground Story on Street Frontages, RH-2, RH-3, RM-1 AND RM-2 Districts.

(a) General. This Section is enacted to assure that in RH-2, RH-3, RM-1 and RM-2 Districts the ground story of dwellings as viewed from the street is compatible with the scale and character of the existing street frontage, visually interesting and attractive in relation to the pattern of the neighborhood, and so designed that adequate areas are provided for front landscaping, street trees and on-street parking between driveways.

(b) Entrances to Off-Street Parking. Except as otherwise provided herein, in the case of every dwelling in such districts no more than 30 percent of the width of the ground story along the front lot line, or along a street side lot line, or along a building wall that is set back from any such lot line, shall be devoted to entrances to off-street parking, except that in no event shall a lot be limited by this requirement to a single such entrance of less than 16 feet in width. In addition, no entrance to off-street parking for a dwelling on any lot shall be wider than 20 feet, and where two or more separate entrances are provided there shall be a minimum separation between such entrances of six feet. The requirements of this Subsection (b) shall not be applicable where the lot has an upward or downward slope from the front lot line to the forward edge of the required rear yard, along the centerline of the building, of more than 20 percent; or where the lot depth and the requirements of this Code for dimensions, areas and open spaces are such that the permitted building depth is less than 40 feet in an RH-2 District or less than 65 feet in an RH-3, RM-1 or RM-2 District.

(c) Features To Be Provided. In the case of every dwelling in such districts, no less than 30 percent of the width of the ground story along the front lot line, along a street side lot line, and along a building wall that is set back from any such lot line, shall be devoted to windows, entrances for dwelling units, landscaping, and other architectural features that provide visual relief and interest for the street frontage.

TRASH, LITTER, DEBRIS

SAN JOSE

San Jose Municipal Code 9.10.280 Solid Waste.

"Solid waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid waste material including garbage, rubbish, demolition and construction wastes, industrial wastes, vegetable and animal solid and semisolid wastes, reusable or recyclable material, bulky goods, and other discarded solid and semisolid wastes.

San Jose Municipal Code 17.72.545 Inadequate Solid Waste Management

A. The accumulation of solid waste, as defined in Section 9.10.280, constitutes property blight in the following situations:

2. The accumulation of solid waste is being stored or disposed of in a manner that would allow the material to be transported by wind or otherwise onto or upon any street, or neighboring property, unless the method of storage or disposal is specifically allowed by this Code.

B. The accumulation of dirt, litter, or debris in vestibules or doorways of buildings constitutes property blight if it is visible from any street or neighboring properties and is present for more than seventy-two consecutive hours.

SAN FRANCISCO

Health Code Article 11, Sec. 581 Nuisance Prohibited

(a) No Person shall have upon any premises or real property owned, occupied or controlled by him,

or her, or it any public nuisance.

(b) The following conditions are hereby declared to be a public nuisance:

(1) Any accumulation of filth, garbage, unsanitary debris or waste material or decaying animal or

vegetable matter unless such materials are set out for collection in compliance with Section 283 of this

Code;

(3) Any accumulation of waste paper, litter or combustible trash unless such materials are set out for collection in compliance with Section 283 of this Code;

(4) Any buildings, structures, or portion thereof found to be unsanitary

(5) Any matter or material which constitutes, or is contaminated by, animal or human excrement, urine or other biological fluids;

(6) Any visible or otherwise demonstrable growth of mold or mildew in the interiors of any buildings or facilities;

(7) Any pest harborage or infestation including but not limited to pigeons, skunks, raccoons, opossums, and snakes, except for pigeon harborages that comply with Section 37(e) of this Code;

(8) Any noxious insect harborage or infestation including, but not limited to cockroaches, fleas, scabies, lice, spiders or other arachnids, houseflies, wasps and mosquitoes, except for harborages for honey-producing bees of the genus Apis regulated by the California Food and Agriculture Code Sections 29000 et seq. which are not otherwise determined to be a nuisance under State law.

(9) Any article of food or drink in the possession or under the control of any person which is tainted, decayed, spoiled or otherwise unwholesome or unfit to be eaten or drunk. The term "food" as used in this subparagraph includes all articles used for food and drink by humans, whether simple, mixed or compound.

OUTSIDE STORAGE OF HOUSEHOLD ITEMS, BOXES, LUMBER, DIRT AND OTHER DEBRIS

SAN JOSE

San Jose 17.72.570 Storing or Maintaining Household Items

A. No household Item shall be stored or maintained in an area visible from any street for a period of time in excess of seventy-two consecutive hours.

B. The storage or maintenance of a Household Item in a side or rear yard shall either be:

C. No Household Item shall be stored, or maintained within five feet of any required building exit, including exit windows.

D. This Section does not prohibit the storage, or maintenance of any of the following:

San Jose 17.72.575 Storing or Maintenance of Boxes, Lumber, Dirt and other Debris

A. No boxes, lumber, dirt, or other debris shall be stored or maintained in an area visible from any street for a period of time in excess of seventy-two consecutive hours.

B. The storage or maintenance of boxes, lumber, dirt, or other debris in a side or rear yard shall either be:

C. No boxes, lumber, dirt, or other debris shall be stored, or maintained within five feet of any required building exit, including exit windows.

SAN FRANCISCO

Police Code, Sec. 645 Abandoning Refrigerator Equipped with Locking Devices Prohibited.

It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to leave or permit to remain outside of any dwelling, building or other structure, or within any unoccupied or abandoned building, dwelling or other structure under his or its control, in a place accessible to children, any abandoned, unattended or discarded ice box, refrigerator or other container which has an air-tight door or lid, snaplock or other locking device which may not be released from the inside, without first removing said door or lid, snaplock or other locking device from said ice box, refrigerator or container.

In addition to this law, so long as items stored on any private property violates the Nuisance provisions of the San Francisco Health Code (Sec. 581 quoted above) or poses a public health hazard as defined under the Fire Code or the Planning Code, the City departments in question can intervene. However, there is currently no explicit prohibition of outside storage of household items, boxes, lumber and debris for the City of San Francisco.

Health Code, Sec. 581 (see above)

Housing Code, Sec. 103 Scope (excerpt.) All buildings and structures, both existing and new, and all parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition.

PROPERTY BLIGHT

SAN JOSE

San Jose 17.72.505 Unsecured Buildings or Structures

Any building or structure that is unsecured constitutes property blight. A building or structure is unsecured when either of the following conditions exist:

A. The building or structure is inhabited, occupied or used without the consent of the owner or the agent of the owner; or

B. Unauthorized persons can readily gain entry to the building or structure without the consent of the owner or the agent of the owner.

17.72.510 Abandoned Construction

A partially constructed, reconstructed or demolished building or structure upon which work has been abandoned constitutes property blight. Work is deemed abandoned when there is no valid current building or demolition permit for the work or when there has not been any substantial work on the building or structure for a period of six months or more.

17.72.515 Attractive Nuisance

Any property that is unsecured and constitutes an attraction to children or a harbor for vagrants, criminals or other unauthorized persons, or is in a condition such that persons can resort thereto for the purpose of committing a nuisance or unlawful act, constitutes property blight.

SAN FRANCISCO

Building Code, Sec. 100 Policy

It is found and declared that there exist in the City and County of San Francisco substandard and unsanitary residential buildings and dwelling units whose physical conditions and characteristics render them unfit or unsafe for human occupancy and habitation, and which conditions and characteristics are such as to be detrimental to or jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of their occupants and of the public.

It is further found and declared that there exist in the City and County of San Francisco residential buildings and dwelling units which were legally constructed according to standards now generally recognized to be obsolete and deficient in terms of current, modern housing standards for construction, use, occupancy, light and ventilation and sanitary facilities. The continued existence of these obsolete and deficient residential buildings and dwelling units is detrimental to or jeopardizes the health, safety and welfare of their occupants and of the public.

It is further found and declared that the existence of such substandard buildings by reason of being unsanitary, obsolete and deficient as dwelling units threatens the physical, social and economic stability of sound residential buildings and areas, and of their supporting neighborhood facilities and institutions; necessitates disproportionate expenditures of public funds for remedial action; impairs the efficient and economical exercise of governmental powers and functions; and destroys the amenity of residential areas and neighborhoods and of the community as a whole.

For these reasons it is hereby declared to be the policy of the City and County of San Francisco:

(1)That it is in the public interest of the people of San Francisco to protect and promote the existence of sound and wholesome residential buildings, dwelling units and neighborhoods by the adoption and enforcement of such standards, regulations and procedures as will remedy the existence or prevent the development or creation of dangerous, substandard, unsanitary or obsolete and deficient residential buildings and dwelling units.

Building Code, Sec. 106.3.7 Cancellation of application during processing. (Excerpt):

In the event an extension of time extends the life of an application beyond the effective date of the adoption of a new code, the Director may require that all or part of the application be subject to the provisions of the new code. In the event the corrections have not been made within 21 days before the end of the stated or extended time period, the Department shall notify the applicant by certified mail that the application will be canceled in 21 days unless the plans are made approvable within that time. An application which exceeds the stated or extended time period after such notice shall be deemed canceled without further action by the Department.

Planning Code, Sec. 202 Use Districts Sec. C: No use shall be permitted in any R District, C District or M-1 District which by reason of its nature or manner of operation creates conditions that are hazardous, noxious or offensive through emission of odor, fumes, smoke, cinders, dust, gas, vibration, glare, refuse, water-carried waste, or excessive noise.

Housing Code, Sec. 102. Purpose. The purpose of this Code is to provide for the maintenance of the minimum requirements for the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety and welfare of the general public and the owners and occupants of residential buildings in San Francisco. In case of any conflict between the provisions of this Code and other provisions of the Municipal Code, the most restrictive shall govern except as set forth in Section 104(a).

STRUCTURE IN DISREPAIR

SAN JOSE

San Jose 17.72.520 State of Disrepair

Any building that is in a state of disrepair constitutes property blight. A building or structure is in a state of disrepair when any of the following conditions exist:

A. Exterior walls or roof coverings have become deteriorated, do not provide adequate weather protection, or show evidence of the presence of termite infestation or dry rot; or

B. Broken or missing windows or doors that create a hazardous condition or a potential attraction to trespassers; or

C. Building exteriors, walls, fences, retaining walls, driveways, or walkways that are broken or deteriorated to the extent that the disrepair is visible from a street or neighboring properties; or

D. Any part of the property, including any building or structure located on the property that is visible from a street or neighboring property, that is defaced with Graffiti.

SAN FRANCISCO

Housing Code, Ch. 10, Substandard Buildings, Sec. 1001:

(a) Any residential building or portion thereof, as defined by California Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 1.5, State Housing Law, Sections 17920.3 et seq., including any dwelling units, guest room or suite of rooms, or the premises on which the same is located, in which there exists any of the conditions enumerated in this chapter to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof shall be deemed and hereby is declared to be a substandard building.

b(13) General dilapidation or improper maintenance.

Health Code, Article 26, Lead Poisoning Environmental Investigation, Management and Enforcement Program, sec. 1604. Authority of the Director.

(a)The Director is authorized to administer and enforce the provisions of this Article; to conduct a case management program for elevated blood lead level children; to conduct a program for the remediation of lead hazards in residential and nonresidential buildings, indoor or outdoor property or premises, and dwelling units; to order vacation of any dwelling unit; and to enforce the provisions of this Article by any lawful means. The Director's authority to abate nuisances under this Article shall be in addition to authority granted under other law, including Article 11 of the San Francisco Health Code, and the Director may combine all such authorities to protect persons from lead hazards and to seek collection or reimbursement of nuisance abatement costs. The Special Revenue Fund created under Section 599(e) of the San Francisco Health Code may be used to abate lead hazards in any structure, building or part thereof as provided in Article 11.

GRAFFITI

SAN JOSE

Chapter 9.58 Graffiti abatement.

SAN FRANCISCO

Public Works Code, Sec. 1300 Graffiti Removal and Abatement

ABANDONED OR JUNKED VEHICLES

SAN JOSE

Municipal Code Ch. 17.72.565 Parking, Storing, or Maintaining Motor Vehicles and Boats

A. No Motor Vehicle or Boat that has been wrecked, dismantled or disassemble, or any part thereof, or any Motor Vehicle that is disabled or may not be operated because of the need of repairs or for any other reason shall be parked, stored, or maintained in an area visible from any street for a period of time in excess of seventy-two consecutive hours.

SAN FRANCISCO

San Francisco Traffic Code, Sec. 227. Procedures for Abatement of Abandoned Vehicles.

The procedures for abatement of abandoned vehicles are set forth in Article 9 (beginning with Section 159) and Article 14 (beginning with Section 230) of the San Francisco Traffic Code. The Service Authority for the Abatement of Abandoned Vehicles shall administer the abandoned vehicle abatement program set forth in said Articles 9 and 14 for the abatement of abandoned vehicles located on public property, and shall be subject to all of their terms and provisions. The Service Authority may adopt all of the terms and provisions of said Articles 9 and 14 as the ordinance it is permitted to adopt by Section 22710 of the California Vehicle Code, but it may not amend any of said Articles 9 and 14 or delete from or add to them without first obtaining approval by ordinance of the Board of Supervisors. The Director of Public Health or his duly authorized agent shall administer the abandoned vehicle abatement program for the abatement of abandoned vehicles from private property pursuant to Article 14. (Added by Ord. 229-92, App. 7/14/92)

San Francisco Traffic Code, Article 14 Abatement and Removal of Abandoned Vehicles

Sec. 230. Public Nuisance Findings and Declarations.

In addition to and in accordance with the determination made and the authority granted by the State of California under Section 22660 of the Vehicle Code to remove abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof as public nuisances, the Director of Public Health or his duly authorized agent hereby makes the following findings and declarations:

The accumulation and storage of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof on private or public property is hereby found to create a condition tending to reduce the value of private property, to promote blight and deterioration, to invite plundering, to create fire hazards, to constitute an attractive nuisance creating a hazard to the health and safety of minors, to create harborage for rodents and insects and to be injurious to the health, safety and general welfare. Therefore, the presence of an abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicle or parts thereof, on private or public property, except as expressly hereinafter permitted, is hereby declared to constitute a public nuisance which may be abated as such in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance.

VEHICLES PARKED ON LAWN OR UNPAVED AREA

SAN JOSE

San Jose 17.72.600 Parking on Unpaved Surfaces Prohibited

A. No person shall keep, store or park any trailer, Boat or Motor Vehicle on any portion of a front yard or corner lot side yard facing a street or a property designed or used as a residence, except on an area that is paved.

B. No owner, tenant, manager, or occupant of property designed or used as a residence shall allow or suffer another person to keep, store or park any trailer, Boat or Motor Vehicle on any portion of a front yard or corner lot side yard facing a street, except on an area that is paved.

SAN FRANCISCO

Planning Code, Sec. 132(f) Permitted Obstructions. Only those obstructions specified in Section 136 of this Code shall be permitted in a required front setback area, and no other obstruction shall be constructed, placed or maintained within any such area. No motor vehicle, trailer, boat or other vehicle shall be parked or stored within any such area, except as specified in Section 136.

Planning Sec. 133(d) Only those obstructions specified in Section 136 of this Code shall be permitted in a required side yard, and no other obstruction shall be constructed, placed or maintained within any such yard. No motor vehicle, trailer, boat or other vehicle shall be parked or stored within any such yard, except as specified in Section 136.

HOME AUTO REPAIR

SAN JOSE

Sect. 17.72.585 Activities Prohibited on Property Designed or Used as a Residence

Subject to Section 17.72.585 the following activities on any property designed or used as a residence constitutes property blight:

A. Wrecking, dismantling, disassembling, manufacturing, fabricating, building, remodeling, assembling, repairing, painting, or servicing, in any setback area, of any airplane, aircraft, Motor Vehicle, Special Mobile Equipment, Boat, Trailer, machinery, equipment, appliance or appliances, furniture or other personal property.

Exclusions

This Chapter shall not prohibit the following:

A. An owner, lessee, or occupant of the property from repairing, washing, cleaning or servicing personal property that is owned, leased, or rented by the owner, lessee, or occupant of the property so long as any repairing or servicing performed shall be completed within a seventy-two consecutive hour period.

B. Repairing or servicing of a Motor Vehicle or part thereof within a completely enclosed building in a lawful manner where it is not visible from the street or other public or private property.

SAN FRANCISCO

Fire Code, Article 29, Sec. 2901.1.1 Vehicle Repair in Residential Premises.

Residential buildings and premises shall not be used for service and repair of motor vehicles.

Exceptions:

1. Work performed on a vehicle registered to a resident of the building if performed by the vehicle owner or a member of the immediate family.

2. Work performed by a mobile vehicle service.

¹ Pearl, Barry. Should San Francisco Create A Single-purpose Department to Enforce Public Welfare Regulations? Page 53. Master of Public Administration Thesis, San Francisco State University, December 2002.

² Pearl, Conclusions and Recommendations, pp. 74-76.