HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 8715• 0
RESOLUTION NO. 8715
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF AZUSA AFFIRMING THE
ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS FOR
ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR
AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 780 N. LOREN
AVENUE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 15.08 OF
THE AZUSA MUNICIPAL CODE (CASE NO.
89-278)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Azusa
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On September 6, 1989, a duly noticed hearing
was held pursuant to the provisions of Section
15.08.110 to confirm the costs for abatement
of a public nuisance by the City of Azusa at
the subject property located at 780 N. Loren
in the City of Azusa ("subject property").
The City Administrator, Julio Fuentes,
confirmed that the total cost of $21,778.15 be
assessed against A -ABA Cellophane Products,
Inc. and Felix Alvarez ("appellants"); $948.75
was confirmed for City costs and $20,829.40
was confirmed for attorneys' fees and costs.
B. On September 11, 1989, appellants by Daniel
McMeekin, Esq., filed a timely appeal from the
September 6, 1989, decision of the City
Administrator.
C. On September 26, 1989, a duly -noticed hearing
was held before the City Council of the City
of Azusa pursuant to the provisions of Section
15.08.110 of the Azusa Municipal Code on the
appeal. Evidence was received from the City
through staff report and staff testimony
relating to the abatement of the subject
property. Appellants were also provided with
an opportunity to present evidence.
SECTION 2. Having considered all of the oral and
written evidence presented to it at the hearing held on
September 26, 1989 the City Council specifically finds that:
A. The City made repeated efforts for more than a
year to work with and accommodate appellants
in cleaning up the subject property before
authorizing the City Attorney to file a civil
action in order to gain compliance with the
zoning provisions of the Azusa Municipal Code,
the conditions of the applicable Precise Plans
of Design, and the order of abatement. More
specifically the City Council finds that:
1. On August 4, 1986, notice of a public
nuisance hearing on August 27, 1986, was
sent to appellants regarding violations
of the Azusa Municipal Code.
2. On August 26, 1986, appellants and their
then counsel approached the City and
after the zoning requirements were fully
explained, appellants agreed to submit an
additional Precise Plan of Design; the
public nuisance hearing was taken off
calendar.
3. On September 26, 1986, the City's
Planning Department approved and
appellants accepted Precise Plan of
Design P-2252.
4. In November, 1986, an inspection revealed
that appellants had not complied with the
conditions of Precise Plan of Design P-
2252.
5. On December 3, 1986, a duly noticed
public hearing was held; the subject
property was declared a public nuisance
and an order of abatement was issued. At
this time appellants again agreed to
comply with the applicable requirements.
6. Appellants never filed an appeal to the
City Council of the decision made on
December 3, 1986, that the Property was a
public nuisance or of any of the
conditions imposed by the order of
abatement issued on December 3, 1986.
7. In February, 1987, the City staff
requested City Council authorization to
file a civil action against appellants.
8. At the City Council meeting of February
17, 1987, appellants asked for a 90 day
extension.
9. On May 17, 1987, at the end of the ninety
day extension, an inspection revealed
that appellants still had not complied
with the applicable conditions and
requirements.
a. In November, 1987, the City Council authorized
the City Attorney to file a civil action
against appellants in order to obtain
compliance with the zoning provisions of the
Azusa Municipal Code, the conditions of
Precise Plan of Design P-2252, and the order
of abatement.
C. A civil action is one of the methods of
abatement specifically authorized by Chapter
15.08 of the Azusa Municipal Code.
D. The term "costs of abatement," as used in
section 15.08.100 of the Azusa Municipal Code
includes attorneys' fees and costs.
-2-
lek/RES7652
• 0
E. The costs incurred by the City, including
attorneys' fees and costs, in the abatement of
the public nuisance of the subjecc property
were incurred solely due to appellants'
failure in complying with the City's zoning
provisions, the conditions of Precise Plan of
Design P-2252 and the order of abatement.
F. On July 17, 1989, the Los Angeles Superior
Court, Eastern Division, granted the City's
motion for summary judgment, and on July 31,
1989, the court made an order setting forth a
time frame in which appellants were to comply
with that order.
G. For the purpose of assessing the cost of
abatement on the subject property, the
abatement of the public nuisance was concluded
on July 31, 1989, when the court made its
order setting forth a time frame for
compliance.
H. The amount of $948.75 incurred by the City is
the actual and reasonable costs that the City
has had to expend in the abatement of the
nuisance of the subject property.
I. The amount of $20,829.40 for attorneys' fees
and costs incurred by the City Attorney and
Burke, Williams and Sorensen is the actual and
reasonable amount that had to be expended in a
civil action in order to enjoin appellants
from violating the zoning provisions of the
Azusa Municipal Code, the conditions of
Precise Plan of Design P-2252, and the Order
of Abatement.
SECTION 3. Based upon the findings set forth in
Sections 1 and 2 of this resolution, the City Council of the
City of Azusa does hereby deny the appeal of A -ABA
Cellophane Co. and Felix Alvarez and specifically affirms
the decision of the City Administrator of September 6, 1989,
that the cost of $21,778.14 is an appropriate charge to
appellants for the costs of abatement on the subject
property and that said costs shall be assessed against the
property and shall become a lien on the property pursuant to
the provisions of Section 15.08.120 of the Azusa Municipal
Code.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall send a certified
copy of this resolution to: Daniel McMeekin, Esq., legal
counsel for appellants at 211 South Citrus, Covina,
California 91723; A -ABA Cellophane Co. at 780 N. Loren,
Azusa, California 91702; and Felix Alvarez at 1289 So. E1
Molino, Pasadena, California. A copy shall also be sent by
regular mail to Felix Alvarez at P.O. Box 92530, Pasadena,
California 91109-2530. Such mailing shall constitute notice
to A -ABA Cellophane Co. and Felix Alvarez in accordance with
Code of Civil Procedure Section 15.08.090 that any action to
review this decision of the City Council shall be commenced
not later than the ninetieth (90) day allowing the adoption
of this resolution.
-3-
lek/RES7652
C,
•
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the
adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th
of September , 1989.
r
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was
duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Azusa at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 26th day
of September 1989, by the following votes the
Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS AVILA, STEMRICH, NARANJO, MOSES
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
j
160
-4-
lek/RES7652