Agenda Item   

AGENDA STAFF REPORT

 

                                                                                                                        ASR Control  14-001149

 

MEETING DATE:

08/12/14

legal entity taking action:

Board of Supervisors

board of supervisors district(s):

All Districts

SUBMITTING Agency/Department:

OC Public Works   (Approved)

Department contact person(s):

Robyn Uptegraff  (714) 667-3255 

 

 

Shane Silsby (714) 667-9700

 

 

Subject:  Installation of Holiday Lights Over County Right-of-Way

 

      ceo CONCUR

County Counsel Review

Clerk of the Board

Concur

No Legal Objection

Discussion

 

 

4/5 Vote

 

 

 

    Budgeted: No

Current Year Cost: $101,500

Annual Cost: N/A

 

 

 

    Staffing Impact: No

# of Positions:

Sole Source: N/A

    Current Fiscal Year Revenue: N/A

  Funding Source: GF: 100%

County Audit in last 3 years No

 

Year of Audit

    Prior Board Action: N/A

 

RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

 

 

1.

Find that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 1, (Existing Facilities) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301.

 

2.

Receive and file the OC Public Works Holiday Lights After Action Report.

 

3.

Approve the OC Public Works recommended application review and inspection process for holiday lighting over County of Orange roadways.    

 

4.

Request increase of appropriations offset by a corresponding increase in Net County Cost (NCC) in the amount of $101,500 to OC Public Works, Building and Safety General Fund 100-080-071-5820-1400 to subsidize the estimated costs associated with review and inspection of holiday lighting to ensure public health and safety. (Requires four-fifths vote)

 

 

SUMMARY:

 

Receipt of the Holiday Lights After Action Report, approval of the recommended review and processing procedure, and subsidy approval will serve to provide residents with a path to compliance for holiday lighting over County of Orange right-of-ways in the unincorporated areas of Orange County; provide a no-cost option for residents through a funding mechanism to cover the associated costs; and enhance public safety through the establishment of installation guidelines and inspection procedures.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

 

In 2013, a representative of the Wagon Wheel Community contacted OC Public Works, Operations & Maintenance to report cracks in the roadway and other maintenance concerns. In response to the citizen's report, the area inspector visited the neighborhood and, while there,  observed 23 properties with lights extending from house to house over County of Orange (County) roadways without appropriate authorization.  The following day, courtesy notices were mailed to the 23 property owners requesting removal of the lights due to violation of the California Streets & Highways Code Sections 1450 (b) and 1460, and Orange County Codified Ordinance Section 6-3-28.

 

After working with the involved community groups and Board of Supervisors' offices, a temporary approach was developed that would allow residents to keep their holiday lights in place if properly permitted. OC Public Works agreed to expeditiously process “no fee” encroachment permits to residents upon application and acceptance of the permit provisions to protect the County from liability.  By the end of the first week in December 2013, OC Public Works was issuing no-fee permits to individual homeowners who had completed a Right-of-Way Permit application and had signed a modified version of our Standard Provisions for encroachment permits to cover liability and hold the County harmless. As a result, 48 homes obtained permits and were deemed compliant.  However, 22 homes remained unpermitted even after the department made all of the described accommodations.

 

In early 2014, a committee was established representing the OC Public Works divisions of Operations & Maintenance, Permit Inspection Services, Development Services/Permitting, and CEO/Risk Management.  The committee was tasked with developing recommendations concerning holiday lighting which is both responsive to the community and which addresses public safety issues.  Key public safety issues were requiring clearance for emergency and service vehicles; ensuring proper electrical connections; and avoiding sag in the lighting lines that could create a hazard for public traffic on County roadways. 

 

A comparison of regional jurisdictions was conducted to determine regulations and requirements.   The comparison included all 34 incorporated cities within the County.  A total of 26 cities responded that an encroachment involving the extension of lights across city streets would be declared a nuisance and code enforcement would require removal if they received notice.  The remaining cities did not respond or had no policy in place to allow placement over streets.  At the County level, contacts were made with Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.  None of the three counties stated that they had issued this type of permit and reported that the lights would be declared a nuisance and noticed for removal.   Overall, the jurisdictional comparison revealed no standard permitting process for this type of encroachment over public roadways.  However, some jurisdictions allow lighting to be extended across sidewalks and parkways without crossing roadways.  Finally, there may be instances where lighting is extended across private streets that are not regulated by public agencies.   

 

The committee developed necessary installation specifications to ensure that the lighting, if allowed, would be safe for residents and for occupants of the right-of-way.  The proposed installation specifications address the following key issues:

 

1.

Timing of installation (maximum of 21 days prior to the designated holiday) and of removal (no more than 7 days after the designated holiday).

2.

Restriction of lighting to local residential streets only.

3.

A minimum vertical clearance of 16.5 feet to ensure that there is no conflict with emergency, trash, delivery, and County maintenance vehicles.

4.

Lighting used must be rated for wet conditions.

5.

No decorations of other flammable items may be suspended from the lighting.

6.

Restrictions on the use of extension cords.

 

In addition, the committee developed a public outreach plan, a notification process for violations, and an inspection process for use if holiday lighting is approved. 

 

Finally, the following are the four different County review/permitting/inspection options considered by the committee:

 

Option 1:  Education Campaign 

 

a.

No permit is required;

b.

Homeowner or unlicensed installer performs the work;

c.

No insurance provided to the County;

d.

Reactive enforcement to ensure protection of public safety;

e.

Resident compliance likely high; County risk of unsafe condition and potential liability likely high.

 

Option 2:  Self Certification 

 

a.

Homeowner certifies installation in accordance with set guidelines, completes the application, and provides the County an indemnification;

b.

Homeowner or unlicensed installer performs the work;

c.

County subsidizes cost of service to ensure public safety including processing the application, issuing the permit, and inspecting installation and removal;

d.

Resident compliance likely moderate; County risk of unsafe condition and potential liability likely moderate.

 

Option 3:  Encroachment Permit (Unlicensed Installer)

 

a.

Homeowners Association, or another insurable entity, serves as applicant for the entire neighborhood;

b.

Unlicensed installer performs work;

c.

Fees based on time and material for inspection to ensure proper installation;

d.

Resident compliance likely moderate; County risk of unsafe condition and potential liability likely low.

 

Option 4:  Encroachment Permit (Contractor)

 

a.

Homeowner or licensed contractor serves as applicant and provides $1 million insurance and $1,000 surety to County;

b.

Licensed contractor performs work;

d.

$583 fee for encroachment permit;

e.

Resident compliance likely low, County risk of unsafe condition and potential liability likely low.

 

After a full analysis of the review/permitting/inspection options, and to achieve the goals described above, OC Public Works recommends implementing Option 2, a self-certification and indemnification process.  This proposed option generates a higher level of resident compliance; enhance public safety; and increase customer service (due to the absence of permitting fees, ease of application, and flexibility to hire a non-licensed installer).  This proposed option will also increase protection of the County from liability through an indemnification agreement signed by the applicant.  Implementation will also include the public outreach plan, inspection, and the notification process discussed earlier. 

 

The proposed funding for option 2 includes staff time necessary to process the homeowner’s application, issue the permit, inspect installation/safety, inspect proper removal of holiday lights, and proactive public information outreach in advance of holidays.

 

 

COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA: 

The proposed project is categorically exempt (Class 1) from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, because it is installation of holiday lights over County right-of-way involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond the existing use.

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

 

Implementation of this recommendation at no cost to the applicant will require subsidy from County General Funds to cover costs associated with application processing and inspection.  The estimated annual cost is $101,500. The recommended actions include a request to increase the OC Public Works appropriations and offset by a corresponding increase in Net County Cost (NCC) in the amount of $101,500. 

 

 

 

STAFFING IMPACT:

 

N/A

 

ATTACHMENT(S):

 

Attachment A - Holiday Lights After Action Report
Attachment B - CA SHC Section 1450 (b)
Attachment C - CA SHC Section 1460
Attachment D - OC COS 6-3-28