In a uniquely Malibu political style, the recently disbanded Code Enforcement Task Force continues to disagree on code enforcement policies and have submitted separate majority and minority reports to the City Council last month.
While the official task force finalized a majority report, six of the 16 members of the committee have come forward and voiced their opinions under separate cover because they feel the task force has not completed their duty.
The purpose of the minority report, said endorsers, is to establish a code enforcement policy that is receptive to concerns of the citizens of Malibu. While the majority may feel this was done, the minority did not agree in several instances.
One particular strong point of separation between the two reports was the differences about the role of Code Enforcement Officer Gail Sumpter. The majority felt the Code Enforcement Officer should primarily be responsible to encourage compliance rather than initiate criminal prosecution of any alleged violation, as has been the case. They suggested softening the title to Code Compliance Officer. However, the minority report recommends the elimination of the position completely. They suggested the responsibilities should be transferred to Building and Safety inspectors, who are more qualified, they said.
The minority emphasized that citizens have not come forward as the task force was preparing recommendations because they continue to fear retaliation by city building officials.
Owners of homes that were built prior to cityhood have expressed fear of prosecution for criminal violations and the purpose of the minority recommendations, said the report, is to restore public trust.
They also recommend having a part-time Community Services Specialist whose sole job would be to aid and assist homeowners, not prosecute.
There were many portions in which the majority and minority did agree, however, the minority felt the majority opinion followed the letter of the City Council mandate to them, but not the spirit of the mandate to make life easier for its citizens.
One of the goals of the task force’s recommendations was to minimize costs by eliminating unnecessary steps.
Except for sensitive areas, they recommend that city fees shall not exceed $1,500 for remodeling, additions and permitting of existing unpermitted structures consisting of small and medium size jobs, although there may be some exceptions.
But the minority of the Code Enforcement Task Force went even further, wanting homeowners to be able to perform minor maintenance and repairs to their residence without a permit. They indicated the council should determine the definition for “minor maintenance and/or repair” and to change the code to reflect this relaxed rule. Without it, virtually every homeowner in Malibu could be a lawbreaker.
But others, who endorsed the majority report, indicated that people want to change the rules instead of obeying them. As residents complain they fear reprisal if they come forward to obtain permits, balancing the needs and rights of property owners and allowing the law to operate to keep everyone safe continues to be a complicated matter.
“We have a whole segment of our population that has become dependent upon the rental of structures that don’t meet zoning requirements and they depend on them,” said Todd Sloan, an attorney who served on the Task Force.
“My view was that we enact a provision stating that as long as no safety and health requirements exist, the residents in those unpermitted structures could stay until transfer of ownership happened,” said Sloan.
But this stance did not pass as the majority of the task force did not agree with the idea, he said.
The task force also looked at the possibility of allowing nonpermitted structures and improvements built before cityhood as existing nonconforming, but chose to reject it because some of these structures violate health and safety codes that are mandatory, said Sloan.
Additionally, a proposed neutral mediation panel was part of a report prepared by a group of attorneys who were on the task force, but this recommendation was also rejected by the whole group on the theory that it added bureaucracy. “I would have been a minority in this case,” said Sloan.
Another touchy matter has been the recommendation by some to require inspectors who conduct inspections to look only at the improvements within the scope of a permit.
However, Sloan explained, if a property owner added 1,500 square feet to a home and they asked an inspector to come in and approve a permit for a water heater only, this could create a sticky situation for the official.
“This is one of the biggest philosophical matters between members,” said Sloan. “Some say if you can get away with it, it’s okay, but others contend this would encourage some homeowners to continue operating outside of the realms of the law.”
Anne Hoffman, a Malibu resident and code enforcement activist, said, “I believe that the recommendations of the task force supplemental report (as she calls the minority report) are more in keeping with the spirit of the purpose and the public’s intention in asking for an official study of the code enforcement issue.”
She stated the report provides more workable recommendations, especially for items like pre-city- hood permit requirements, and concurred that changing guest house titles to second units would be good because kitchens could then be permitted in them.
“I think it should replace the majority recommendations,” said Hoffman.
In the majority report, the lengthy process they have for permitting remains complex, she said. Hoffman also endorses a no-anonymous complaint policy stating that a building official cannot enter a property without the owner’s permission.
She believes that a neutral hearing officer should be appointed for all code enforcement disputes, evictions and notices of violations.