Fines for Building and Zoning Violations
OK’d
• Council Nixes Proactive Enforcement
A majority of the Malibu City Council, with
Councilmember John Sibert absent and Councilmember Andy
Stern dissenting, agreed this week to go forward with an
ordinance that would establish fines for violations of the
municipal code.
However, in a companion measure, the
council on a 2-2 vote with Stern and Councilmember
Jefferson Wagner voting no, failed to change council policy to
give greater enforcement power or direct the staff to take a
proactive stance in enforcing building and zoning codes.
The council agreed to have the staff return
with a separate agenda item to establish the fine amounts for
administrative penalties.
Gail Sumpter, division manager-permit
services/code enforcement, indicated fines could be used for
such violations typically including building codes, zoning,
animal nuisance, noise and other violations that “do not
constitute immediate threats to public health or safety,”
as a means to establish compliance, rather than referring the
matter to the city prosecutor for criminal violations.
However, the head code enforcement officer
failed to convince a majority of the council to expand the
procedure for code enforcement. Currently, the code enforcement
staff does not have the ability to pursue violations that they
see in the field unless they have already been reported in
writing by a complainant. “Technically we cannot take a
proactive stance. It is something we need to take up,”
she added.
Councilmember Sharon Barovsky
initially said she thought a change in policy would take the
city back to the days when anonymous complaints were taken
that did not have to be in writing. There are some exceptions
to the rule, such as immediate threats to health and safety,
but Sumpter emphasized no calls are taken anonymously. “I
have to have a name and phone number,” she insisted.
Sumpter said in no case would any complaint
be handled anonymously, even if the policy were changed.
“This would be something we could enforce on our own
without a written complaint,” she countered.
Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich was swayed to
vote for the policy change when she was convinced there was
still a matter of due process involved in the policy changes.
Stern did not say why he voted against
making any changes. “I don’t understand
it,” he tersely replied. Wagner said the policy
needed something “with teeth in it,” but did not
elaborate.
When the motion was offered, Barovsky was
willing to make changes with amendments, and so was the mayor,
but with council the property was inappropriate for
institutional or recreational use since it is so close to a
residential neighborhood. The property is currently zoned rural
residential. Most of the speakers said their property lines
abut the subject property.
The announcement that the city might
acquire the acreage currently operated as a plant nursery
located north of the intersection of Heathercliff Road and
Pacific Coast Highway has already generated considerable
controversy.
Critics contend the rural nature of the
property is not conducive to municipal or institutional uses,
and that the mayor’s efforts are detracting from the
proposed plans for other city projects.
However, supporters, including the Boys and
Girls Club, suggest the site would be ideal for a teen center
or a satellite library.
The financial realities suggest a library
or city hall might be more feasible since there is money
already set aside for those two uses in the city coffers, and
both uses come with an annual revenue stream.
