HomeMy WebLinkAboutV- D Public Nuisance Johnny and Margaret Urquiza 1
AGENDA ITEM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: DAVID E. RUDISEL, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT MANAGER
VIA: RICK COLE, CITY MANAGER
DATE: January 21, 2002
SUBJECT: PUBLIC NUISANCE APPEAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 227 N. AZUSA AVE.
(UNPERMITTED STORAGE YARD)
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct public nuisance appeal hearing pursuant to Section 14-419 Azusa Municipal Code.
BACKGROUND
This appeal is brought by the Property Owner(s) of record for the property located at 227 N. Azusa
Avenue, by Mr. John and Margaret Urquiza, who reside at 16361 E. San Bernardino Road, Covina, CA
91722.
The property at 227 N. Azusa Ave. was declared a Public Nuisance on May 8, 2002, due to
unpermitted construction of an 8 foot high plywood fence across the property, unlawful storage of
vehicles and equipment on unpaved surfaces, and failure to obtain a Precise Plan of Design for
intensification of land use involving the transition of a vacant unimproved property to a property
used for parking and storage of vehicles, equipment, and materials largely associated with “MJ
Roofing” owned by Mr. John Urquiza.
This matter was brought before the City Council previously on June 1, 2002, at which time the City
Council asked the property owner(s) to comply within 60 days. However, at that time the Council did
not formally vote on the matter, or provide written notice denying or approving the applicant’s
appeal, or advise the appellant of his right to Judicial Review under 1094.6 California Code of Civil
2
Procedure as required in Section 14-420 Azusa Municipal Code. Following the appellant’s failure to
comply with the City Council request for compliance, staff was required to provide a new
Administrative Hearing to the property owner(s) and once again afford them the opportunity to
appeal. The second Administrative Hearing was held on December 11, 2002, at which the
Administrative Hearing Officer once again declared several conditions on the property a Public
Nuisance (copy attached).
The appeal submitted by the property owner(s) does not provide specific reasons why the decision
of the Administrative Hearing Officer was in error and staff cannot address the grounds for appeal in
this matter. The appellants simply state that they want to meet once again with the City Council and
explain why parts of the decision made on December 11, 2002 are not correct.
The appellant’s property is currently Zoned “C-2” (Restricted Commercial) which allows the owner’s
to develop a parking garage, or surface parking lot for the parking of vehicles with an approved
Precise Plan of Design, however, the “C-2” Zone does not allow building materials or storage [Ref.
“Appendix A”, §88-2065 Azusa Zoning Code (Page(s) CD88:197 & CD88:193 respectively].
The property owners have also installed an 8 foot high plywood fence across the property interior
which bisects the property, however, the fence does not appear to violate §88-645 since the location
of the fence does not qualify it as a perimeter or lot line fence, and is not located in a required “front
yard” since the property is not improved with a building [Ref. § 88-630 Azusa Zoning Code]. The
fence does, however, violate §106.2 California Building Code (1998 Edition) as adopted in § 14-1 Azusa
Municipal Code which requires a building permit for all fences over 6 feet in height, and would be
regulated under Precise Plan of Design, if or when a legal use of the property is formally proposed.
In deliberating the appeal in this case, Council should consider long term goals and investments
made in the Azusa Avenue corridor, and what impact the proliferation of contractor storage yards,
or use of unimproved property will have on revitalization efforts. In deciding this issue, the City
Council should also consider the possible effect such yards will have on encouraging new retail
commercial development along this highly visible corridor. Accordingly, staff recommends that the
Declaration of Public Nuisance be sustained and the appeal be denied.
Staff further recommends that the City Council authorize the City Attorney to seek both a Temporary
and Permanent Injunction against the property owners for maintaining a public nuisance if it is not
abated by the property owners within thirty (30) days of adoption of a Resolution denying the
appeal as provided for in § 88-75 Azusa Municipal Code, and that a Declaration of Substandard
Property be immediately recorded against the property. Further, that the costs of abatement
including all Attorney’s Fees, court costs, and staff time be charged to the property owner(s)
pursuant to Section 14-421 Azusa Municipal Code.
FISCAL IMPACT:
To date staff time amounts to approximately $500.00, if Litigated legal costs are estimated at
$5,000 all of which are recoverable as an abatement cost and lien against the property.
3
The following photographs are presented for council review:
4