Scott Cunningham drove down the 400 block of California Avenue.

Manteca’s code enforcement supervisor rattled off the violations of municipal ordinances regarding property upkeep and public safety. The most obvious were vehicles parked on lawns — at one home a VW pickup truck  and across the street two Volvos.

Cunningham did not issue any notices of violations.

“No one complained,” Cunningham explained.

That hands-off policy, though, goes out the window if Cunningham or his fellow code enforcement officer Greg Baird drives by a code violation that is a blatant safety hazard. It may be a sign that blocks the sight lines of drivers at an intersection. It could be overgrown vegetation so thick that it forces pedestrians off sidewalks and into the street.

An average of

seven code

complaints a day

It’s how the City of Manteca enforces the spirit of the law in dealing with a staggering 2,500 annual complaints — the equivalent of almost seven complaints each and every day — about potential property maintenance violations. 

 Cunningham said the policy lets neighborhood residents decide the standard they want. If neighborhoods as a whole are comfortable with vehicles being parked on grass and don’t complain code enforcement doesn’t intervene. But if there is a complaint and a code enforcement officer verifies it, a notice of violation is issued to the property owner in question. At the same time they will issue notice of violations if they see other vehicles parked illegally on lawns near the house in question.

The city works with those that receive notices of violations. If the problem isn’t resolved, a citation is used. That happens in less than 4 percent of all cases. And among those, only a few make it before a judge before they are resolved.

Code enforcement exists not just for public safety and health issues but also to address broken window concerns. That is the theory that a “broken window” — or the failure to keep property maintained and presentable — helps spread blight that in turns attracts crime and other negative elements into a neighborhood.

And while the 2,500 complaints from citizens runs the gamut from recreation vehicles parked too long on the street to debris piles in front yards, arguably the biggest issue are fences.

A recent case involving a fence at the corner of Yosemite and Veach avenues was started after a motorist complained they almost struck a child because a corner fence significantly blocked their view.

The city investigated the complaint and determined it was a clear safety hazard and in violation of city rules. To make their case, the city dispatched an engineer that surveyed the corner to make sure that the violation was within the parameters that are spelled out in city ordinances.

The property owners disputed the city’s findings after receiving the notice of violation. Then, in keeping with city policy, code enforcement looked for other violations in conjunction with the front yard fencing. In this case they found two — a side fence next to an adjoining yard that exceeded city code for height within a specific setback of the sidewalk, and a front gate arch that exceeded city height limits.

Cunningham said that is done to avoid a situation after a property owner makes required adjustments that they don’t receive another complaint about something else about the property in question and are forced to issue another notice of violation. 

“We (the city) want to make (property owners) aware of all violations so they are not put in a situation of having to do additional work to comply (with city rules),” Cunningham said

City can’t legally

require permits for

fences under 7 feet

Cunningham said suggestions that the city issue fence permits — especially for corner lots where safety issues are more significantly — won’t legally fly. That’s because state law bars jurisdictions from requiring a permit for fences 7 feet or under.

Cities do have the right, though, to deviate from the state building code if they make a finding such as the safety issue for police officers chasing fence hopping suspects that led the City Council to max out residential fences at 6 feet unless they allow exceptions in planned unit developments.

Cunningham said property owners if they have a question about whether they are doing the right thing with a fence can contact him at scunningham@ci.manteca.ca.us or by calling 209.456.8281. He said it helps if people can sketch out what they want to do. Cunningham, who worked in a community development department in another city, said if he can’t answer a question about whether an improvement a property owner is making such as to a fence is legal under city rules, he will direct them to a city department that can give them a definitive answer.

The fence rule change also brings up another problem when it comes to residents dealing with code enforcement. Sometimes rules are different depending upon when homes were built or improvements put in place.

 Two of the subjects that applies to are RVs and fences.

Fences that are 7-foot that were put in place between January 1992 and December 2011 are legal. The council after rejecting a staff recommendation to allow 7-foot high fences to match a change in the state building code, decided in December to grandfather in any fence that is 7-foot that was out in place “illegally” between January 2012 and December 2015. That means any fence currently in place that was erected before 1992 cannot be replaced with a fence higher than 6 foot. All new fences going forward also have to be 6-foot.  

Cunningham noted that height limits for “fences” also applies to vegetation planted to act as a fence, He is dealing with one case where a neighbor complained that his next door neighbor’s Italian cypress acted as a de facto fence. Instead of forcing the owner to take the Italian cypress out, they are working with him to allow them to be trimmed down to an acceptable height.

As for RVs, different rules apply based upon the year the subdivision map for a home was recorded.

The city also has a longstanding policy of working with those that are faced with correcting a code violation.

Cunningham said property owners have been allowed to do corrective work in incremental stages if they can’t afford to do it all at once.

 To contact Dennis Wyatt, email dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com