City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 8, 2025
Agenda Item: 10.A
1 of 15
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Arminé Chaparyan, Director, Administration
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance Updating Public Nuisance Abatement and Administrative Citation Codes
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and
2. Introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending the text of the Santa Monica Municipal Code by amending Chapter 13.06, Abatement of Nuisances, to add new classes of violations which may be deemed public nuisances, and amend Chapter 1.09. Administrative Citations, adding a new definition of responsible party, making clear the requirements for certain steps to be taken to align with Government Code 53069.4, defining required service procedures for administrative citations, and providing new incentives for violators to bring correctable violations into compliance.
Executive Summary
At its February 13, 2024 meeting, the Santa Monica City Council directed staff to return with proposals to strengthen the City’s public nuisance laws, including addressing properties that are the source of repeated calls for service to the police and fire departments. While there are State laws prohibiting the use of calls for service as a basis for declaring a property a public nuisance, staff assessed the existing laws and recommend amending both Chapters 13.06 (Abatement of Nuisances) and 1.09 (Administrative Citations) to provide additional tools that can be used by staff to address nuisance properties through both voluntary and compelled compliance methods. 2 of 15
Background
Under California Civil Code Sections 3749 and 3480, a public nuisance refers to anything harmful to health, offensive to senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, that interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property and which affects an entire community or neighborhood or a considerable number of people.
However, the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal. It's a broad term encompassing many actions or activities that negatively impact the public's rights or interests. The critical aspect is the substantial and unreasonable interference with a common right of the public.
California Government Code Section 38771 authorizes a city legislative body to declare what constitutes a nuisance. However, Government Code Section 53165.1 prohibits a city from declaring certain conduct a nuisance as it relates to properties with residential tenancies, including any conduct that does not satisfy the definition of nuisance under Civil Code Section 3479 referenced above.
There are many types of violations that may rise to the level of a public nuisance:
• Excessive Noise: Regular, excessive noise, such as loud music at night from a venue, that disrupts the peace of a neighborhood. Another example includes a dog who barks excessively.
• Pollution: Discharging harmful substances into air, water, or soil in amounts detrimental to public health or comfort, like a factory emitting toxic fumes. • Obstruction of Public Ways: Blocking public roads or pathways intentionally, causing inconvenience to the public.
• Poor Property Maintenance: Neglecting property maintenance, leading to hazardous conditions for neighbors or passersby, like a building in danger of collapse.
• Uncontrolled Animals: Keeping animals that regularly escape and cause harm or distress to others in the community.
3 of 15
The fact that public nuisance violations substantially endanger or affect considerable numbers of people is reflected in the associated penalties. While approximately 80% of first violation administrative fines are for $750 or less, fines for violations of the City’s Public Nuisances Code (SMMC Chapter 13.06) start at $2,000 for a first violation within a 36-month period, $5,000 for a second violation within a 36-month period, and $10,000 for a third violation within a 36-month period. In addition to enhanced administrative fines aimed to compel compliance, any person, including the City can seek an injunction to prevent or remedy a violation of the Public Nuisances Code, and the City may recover any investigative and abatement costs in any action it brings.
Past Council Actions
Public nuisances have long been defined in both State law and the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Traditionally, at the local level, these violations were regulated through Chapter 8.96 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. In August 2023, the public nuisance provisions of the municipal code were moved to the Abatement of Nuisances Chapter (13.06) found in Title 13 (Neighborhood Preservation).
Meeting Date Description
August 22, 2023
(attachment B)
8.F. Introduction and first reading of an ordinance creating new Chapter 13.06 (Abatement of Nuisances) and moving
language found in Chapter 8.96 (Abatement of Nuisances) to new Chapter 13.06.
March 7, 2017
(attachment C)
First reading of ordinance adding property maintenance
requirements to Chapter 8.96 (Abatement of Nuisances)
November 1, 2016
(attachment D)
Vacant Property Study Session – Direction was given to staff to return at a future date with an ordinance including
additional requirements related to vacant buildings and buildings left in a state of partial construction.
Discussion
Staff proposes a number of changes to the Santa Monica Municipal Code that will provide staff more tools to better address public nuisances that are created and maintained in the City. These changes are found in SMMC Chapter 13.06 (Abatement of Nuisances) as well as in Chapter 1.09 (Administrative Citations). 4 of 15
Regulatory Context
California Government Code Sections 53165 and 53165.1 prohibit a local government agency from adopting or enforcing any policy that (a) penalizes any person, including designating their property a nuisance, as a consequence of contact with law enforcement or emergency services being summoned to the property by or on behalf of a crime victim or a person in an emergency; or (b) defines as a public nuisance contact with law enforcement or a request for emergency services, or any other act or omission that does not constitute a nuisance under state law. These laws were enacted in response to cities adopting ordinances that treat properties with a high volume of calls for service as public nuisances, finding such policies can discourage crime victims and people in need of emergency services from seeking assistance for fear of being penalized as a nuisance.
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development has cautioned that ordinances that define nuisances to include excessive calls for service can have discriminatory effects on protected classes that are more likely to be victims of crime, including women, racial minorities, and individuals with disabilities1. The California Task Force on Reparations report also noted that such policies disproportionately affect Black residents and contribute to housing segregation and called for the repeal of such ordinances2. Notably, while Government Code Section 53165.1 specifically prohibits defining residential properties with excessive calls for service as a public nuisance, Government Code Section 53165 more broadly prohibits a city from doing anything that penalizes any resident, owner, tenant, or landlord of any type of property as a consequence of law enforcement or emergency services being summoned by or on behalf of a victim of a crime or a person in an emergency.
Notwithstanding these limitations, public nuisance laws can reach the underlying conduct that leads to a law enforcement or emergency services response, to the extent that conduct is injurious to health or safety, offensive to the senses, or impairs the free use of property of a considerable number of people. The City’s existing public nuisances 1 https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/finalnuisanceordgdnce.pdf 2 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/ch22-ca-reparations.pdf 5 of 15
code does address much of this conduct, and the proposed amendments further strengthen these prohibitions.
The Community Development Department and Code Enforcement Division is and will continue to be primarily responsible for enforcement of violations of Chapter 13.06, and responsible for issuing administrative citations pursuant to Chapter 1.09. When administrative enforcement is inappropriate or ineffective, Code Enforcement staff will continue to collaborate with SMPD to identify nuisance properties and refer cases to the City Attorney’s Office for civil or criminal enforcement.
Chapter 13.06
Definitions (13.06.030) (change)
Two changes are proposed for the definitions found in Section 13.06.030. The first is the addition of “Director”, to indicate that the Director of Community Development is vested with the primary responsibility for the enforcement of public nuisances within the City. This is consistent with the definition of “Director” in the other chapters of Article 13 Neighborhood Preservation: Chapter 13.02 Property Maintenance, and Chapter 13.04 Vacant Properties. This does not limit the ability of the City to pursue other enforcement strategies using the Police Department or the City Attorney’s Office.
The second change is to the definition of “Responsible Party”, broadening the list of persons who may be held responsible for violations of the Public Nuisance code to include people who own and use property as well as business owners and managers, where a nuisance may not be tied to the operation of real property but the operation of a business. This change is also to keep consistent with proposed changes to Chapter
1.09 which governs the issuance of administrative citations for violations of this and other provisions of the municipal code.
Responsibility for maintenance (13.06.040) (change)
Amended language is proposed to reflect the changed definition of “responsible party” to make clear every responsible party with any interest in real property is responsible for ensuring the property is not a public nuisance.
6 of 15
Public Nuisances (13.06.050) (change)
Several changes are also proposed to Section 13.06.050, which lists those violations that constitute a public nuisance. A sentence is added to clarify that any of the conduct or conditions listed in Section 13.06.050, permitted or committed by any responsible person, is a public nuisance. A further sentence is added to clarify that each violation may be treated as a separate offense, to enable more meaningful enforcement of chronic offenders who allow nuisance conditions to occur habitually. This is consistent with the definition of public nuisance in SMMC Section 1.08.010(d) which describes penalty options for all municipal code violations.
Subsection “a” (change) updates the list of disruptive activity violations that may occur at a building or place to include violations that may take place at a business. The listed offenses are all considered “crimes against society” under the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Incident-Based Reporting System, the newest version of the Uniform Crime Reporting program used by the FBI. The proposed revisions list the currently used categories of such crimes against society to maintain consistency with current crime reporting terminology. The proposed revisions also add loitering and disorderly conduct to such disruptive activities that may constitute a nuisance. Some of these violations are moved from other locations within this section to this subsection.
Subsection “b” (change) expands animal-related violations to include those that are not solely found in Chapter 4.04 (Animals), such as ongoing and repetitive animal noise violations. The City has received complaints from neighboring properties regarding chronic disturbances from neglected dogs left to bark, and designating these disturbances as a public nuisance will allow for more effective enforcement.
Subsection “c” (change) extends the definition of properties where existing drug-related violations occur as public nuisances to business that engage in such violations. Existing language only holds the owner or manager of a building or place responsible for violations. The proposed language extends these responsibilities to the owners of a business that may be responsible for such violations.
7 of 15
Subsection “f” (change) is deleted in its entirety as it addresses public telephones used to facilitate unlawful activity, or the presence of which contributes to the commission of certain unlawful activity, as public telephones are no longer prevalent.
Subsection “j” (change) specifies that a public nuisance in the form of a violation of the City’s Property Maintenance Code (Chapter 13.02) or Vacant Properties Code (Chapter
13.04) may exist immediately if the violation poses an immediate risk to public health or safety, or if the violation remains for more than 48 hours after the responsible party has been notified by City enforcement personnel. These amendments are consistent with Code Enforcement practices of first notifying property owners of violations and imposing penalties when they fail to address conditions, as an effective way of achieving compliance, unless the condition is immediately hazardous in which case immediate penalties are necessary and appropriate to punish and deter similar violations in the future.
Subsection “k” (new) contains new language that makes it a public nuisance if a person or entity commits five or more violations within a rolling 12-month period of any combination of the Tenant Protection code (Ch. 4.27), Housing Anti-Discrimination code (Ch. 4.28), Tenant Relocation code (Ch. 4.36), Tenant Harassment code (Ch. 4.56), Housing code (Ch. 8.92), Property Maintenance code (Ch. 13.02), Vacant Property code (Ch. 13.04), or any other local or State law related to building construction or fire prevention. This language targets serial or repeated violators of other provisions of the Code and that impair the rights of residential tenants or neighboring property owners to peaceful and quiet enjoyment of their property and subjects such individuals to elevated penalties for doing so. This provision may be applied to property owners who commit the requisite violations across multiple properties, affecting a larger number of people.
There are entities in the City that have received more than four citations for violations of one or more of the above-mentioned chapters within a 12-month period.
Subsection “l” (new) makes it a public nuisance to illegally subdivide and/or offer for rent a dwelling unit in violation of building codes and occupancy standards. In recent years, 8 of 15
Code Enforcement and City Attorney staff have encountered several instances where dwelling units or entire residential buildings were illegally subdivided or were rented in a condition that does not meet the occupancy standards. These unlawful subdivisions can also be used to facilitate violations of Chapters 6.20 (Home-Sharing and Vacation Rentals) and 6.22 (Residential Leasing Requirements), and the zoning code, justifying their designation as a public nuisance.
Subsection “m” (new) makes it a public nuisance for any business or their employee or representative to employ harassing or unsafe tactics which endangers a significant number of persons. Staff has received reports of businesses that have threatened, intimidated, or harassed other businesses or individuals in the course of conducting their business activity, so as to interfere with others’ use of public spaces. The proposed language provides an effective means for the City to intervene in these situations.
Subsection “n” (new) contains new language which makes is a public nuisance for any responsible party not to comply with the City’s mandatory seismic retrofit program, as these violations threaten the safety of building occupants and other members of the public. Currently, violations of these chapters are subject to a $75.00 administrative citation. While staff will be proposing amendments to the City’s fine schedule in June to include higher fine amounts, staff recommends also adding violations of these chapters to the public nuisance code which would raise the penalties even higher than what staff will propose in June.
Subsection “o” (new) proposes new language which makes it a public nuisance if any person is found to have committed five or more violations within a 2-year period of operating any business in the City without first obtaining the required business licenses and permits or violating laws and regulations governing the operating of such a business. Staff has encountered situations where businesses are repeatedly found to be operating in the City and have been warned against doing so without first obtaining all necessary licenses, permits, and approvals. As these are sporadic and intermittent violations, violators appear to view citations for operating without a business license as a cost of doing business and are willing to take the chance that they will not get caught. 9 of 15
By classifying these violations as a public nuisance, this allows Code Enforcement and the City Attorney’s Office to engage in more forceful enforcement tactics, including heightened penalties and seeking an injunction if necessary.
Subsection “p” (new) makes it a public nuisance for any person to engage in construction without the necessary building permits or violating a stop work order more than three times in a one-year period. Government Code 53069.4 requires a written warning be issued for violations prior to the issuance of monetary penalties for these situations. Staff have encountered situations where the same property owner or manager repeatedly engages in work without a permit in different units or at different properties, after having been notified repeatedly at different properties that a permit was required for the work. Code Enforcement staff must first issue a Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order before imposing any administrative fines or penalties for doing work without the permit, in most cases. If the responsible party stops after the Notice of Violation and belatedly gets the permit, they face no consequence for having begun the work without a permit and no disincentive not to try the same tactic the next time. By defining the repeated failure to obtain permits before beginning work as a public nuisance, Code Enforcement staff can issue a public nuisance citation when a fourth or subsequent Notice of Violation is issued to a responsible party, which will help to deter the same party from engaging in work without a permit in the future.
Notice to Responsible Parties (13.06.055) (new)
This section proposes procedural due process language that specifies the contents of the notice that is issued to violators of Chapter 13.06 informing them of the existence of a public nuisance and the required remedies. The City has informally followed a similar procedure in some cases and found it useful to have proposed proactive steps to abate a nuisance rather than simply demanding that the nuisance cease. This revision will provide a formal mechanism for the City to issue these notices in future cases. The notice need not be given before a citation is issued and can be used in conjunction with administrative fines for greater effect.
10 of 15
The proposed revisions specify that no notice from the City will encourage or suggest that an owner of residential property evict a tenant for merely alleged unlawful activity or contact with law enforcement, or perform criminal background checks, as required by Government Code Section 53165.1.
Responsibility for Enforcement (13.06.095) (new)
The proposed language specifies that the Director of Community Development is tasked with primary enforcement of this chapter and is empowered to designate enforcement to other employees to assist in its enforcement. This section also makes clear that the Office of the City Attorney has authority to use all powers available to it to gain compliance with the chapter.
Severability (13.06.110) (new)
This proposed section provides language protecting the rest of the chapter if any provision should be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Chapter 1.09
Applicability (1.09.010) (change)
The proposed language makes clear that administrative citations may be issued for violations of Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 13, whether transitory or continuing, unless otherwise stated.
Definitions (1.09.020) (change)
Two definitions are added or amended.
The term “Correctable offense” is added, creating a classification of offenses that can be corrected by taking some positive action to legalize the violation (e.g. obtain a permit, fix a property maintenance violation, etc.). Correctable offenses do not include violations where, to comply, the responsible party would need to refrain from continuing to commit future violations (e.g. use a gas powered leaf blower, etc.). 11 of 15
The term “Responsible party” is amended to expand the definition to include any party that may be reasonably construed to be causing or maintaining a violation. The existing definition applies solely to those individuals who commits a violation and does not include those individuals or entities that may be supporting the commission of a violation.
Notice of Violation (1.09.025) (new)
This section is added to mandate the issuance of a notice of violation for violations pertaining to building, plumbing, electrical, or similar structural or zoning issues that do not create an immediate danger to health or safety prior to the issuance of monetary fines. This requirement is consistent with Government Code 53069.4(a)(2)(A), which requires that the person responsible for continuing such a violation be given a reasonable period of time to remedy the violation prior to the imposition of administrative fines or penalties. This is consistent with current Code Enforcement practice, but the amendments will codify the practice, including specifying the contents of the notice of violation.
Service Procedures for Issuing Administrative Citations (1.09.045) (new) This section establishes service procedures administrative citations. In order for an administrative citation to be considered properly served, it shall be served personally, via first-class mail, via posting of the property, or via publication. This is similar to the methods of service for compliance orders and administrative fines found in Chapter 1.10 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, and similar to methods of service for filings in civil legal actions. The code is currently silent as to acceptable forms of service. These amendments are consistent with and codify current Code Enforcement practices.
Compliance with administrative citations (1.09.050) (change) Language is proposed creating correctable citations for certain situations. The proposed language allows fine amounts to be reduced by 50 percent for citations where:
1. The citation is issued for the first such offense within a thirty-six-month period;
2. The violation is a correctable offense;
12 of 15
3. The violation is not deemed to be an immediate threat to the public;
4. The violation is corrected on or before the date indicated on the citation or any written extension granted by the City; and
5. The reduced fine is paid within 30 days of providing the proof of correction.
This program encourages and provides financial incentives for violators to correct the violation to achieve greater compliance, which ultimately reduces the need for further enforcement resources to be spent on the same violator or activity. The proposed correctable citation program is similar to one that is in use in West Hollywood with one exception. The West Hollywood program does not have the requirement that the reduced fine is paid within a specific time period. Staff’s experience with West Hollywood’s program demonstrated that it was effective at achieving compliance as desired, but the reduced fine often remained unpaid. The proposed Santa Monica program offers the reduced fine but conditions it on the payment of the outstanding balance in 30 days.
A correctable citation program may help elevate the City’s ability to collect outstanding fines. Currently, only 32% of citation dollars are collected and only 37% of citations are partially or fully paid. Shared mobility devices, short-term rentals, tenant relocation, and vending violations account for the overwhelming majority of uncollected fines. These four categories account for 73% of uncollected dollars and 49% of the total number of uncollected citations issued.
Uncollected Citations and Fine Amounts (2018 to date)
Issue # Citations Fine Amounts
Short-Term Rentals 263 $279,768
Vending 1284 $209,693
Shared Mobility Devices 390 $202,598
Tenant Relocation 71 $131,598
Other 2054 $300,674
13 of 15
There are some limitations to the City’s ability to collect fines for vendors as SB946 (2019) eliminated the possibility of suspending, revoking, or not renewing business licenses for vendors due to nonpayment of fines. Additionally, SB946 makes vendors responsible for only 20% of the fine amount if an approved ability-to-pay determination is submitted.
Violations of the City’s short-term rental or tenant relocation ordinances are ideal examples of the types of issues that would be eligible for the correctable violation program. Provided that the violator corrected the violation in time and paid the outstanding balance, the fine amount would be reduced by 50%. Both of these fine amounts were significantly elevated in 2023, thus providing more incentive to correct.
Hearing procedure (1.09.090) and Hearing Officer’s decision (1.09.100) (change) Procedural language is added mandating delivery of the notice of a hearing and a hearing officer’s final decision via email unless the appellant requests the decision be received by mail. This clarifies and is consistent with current practices and is designed to ensure that persons requesting a hearing will have prompt and verifiable notice of the hearing and Hearing Officer’s decision and puts parties on notice that they may request service by other means.
Recovery of administrative citation fines and costs (1.09.120) (new) Proposed language is included allowing the City to recover costs incurred by the City for investigating and defending any citation which is upheld on appeal or becomes final.
These costs may include investigative costs, hearing costs, and reinspection costs.
Certain investigations and enforcement actions are particularly time and resource intensive, including investigations related to violations. For instance, an investigation of an SMMC Chapter 6.20, Homesharing and Vacation Rentals violation may require booking and paying for a homeshare listing and considerable staff hours to verify the unit is not a lawful homeshare. Staff will add Code Enforcement investigative and inspection fees to the Master Fee Schedule that is coming before Council in June 2025.
Identification (1.09.170) (new)
14 of 15
This is a newly proposed section requiring persons responsible for a violation of the municipal code to identify themselves to an enforcement officer so that they can issue an administrative citation. This provision is modeled of a provision of the West Hollywood municipal code that their code enforcement staff rely on to facilitate enforcement.
Environmental Review
The amendments to Chapters 1.09, and 13.06 are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA guidelines. Section 15061(b)(3) states the CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this case, the proposed municipal code amendments will provide staff better tools to maintain order and address nuisances found throughout the City.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the proposed changes to the Code. Staff can incorporate these changes into their existing duties. The effect to the budget of the correctable citation program is unknown, although it may lead to an increase in the number of citations that are paid. The addition of Code Enforcement Investigation and Inspection fees to the upcoming Master Fee Schedule may also result in a small increase to City revenues. Staff will monitor revenues and return to Council in the future if any adjustments are required. 15 of 15
Prepared By: Daniel Mick, Code Enforcement Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Attachment A - Ch. 1.09 and 13.06 Ordinance
B. Attachment B - August 23, 2023 City Council Staff Report C. Attachment C - March 7, 2017 City Council Staff Report D. Attachment D - November 1, 2016 City Council Staff Report E. PowerPoint Presentation