TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ryan Smoot, City Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to adopt Resolution No. 24-39 – A Resolution adopted pursuant to Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) Chapter 2.20 and Public Contracts Code § 20168 finding that a local emergency exists within the City and authorizing contracting without the need for bidding pursuant to § 22050 and Bellflower Municipal Code § 3.28.070(d) and finding that the nuisance abatement project at 17617-176329 Bellflower Boulevard is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act as an emergency project.
DATE: July 8, 2024
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
1. Adopt Resolution No. 24-39; and
2. Authorize funding up to $300,000 for the nuisance abatement project at 17617-176329 Bellflower Boulevard; or
3. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost to abate Bellflower Municipal Code violations at 17617-176329 Bellflower Boulevard is estimated to be $300,000 to be paid out of Code Enforcement (CDBG and General Fund).
BACKGROUND
On or about December 20, 2023, the City and DGSG Investment Properties, LLC (“DGSG”) entered into a Code Enforcement Compliance Agreement for 17617-17639 Bellflower Boulevard, which was amended on or about April 18, 2024 (together, the “Compliance Agreement”). DGSG is the current property owner of 17617-176329 Bellflower Boulevard in the City of Bellflower. The Compliance Agreement was entered into due to DGSG failing to maintain the Property in compliance with the Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”), including, without limitation, BMC Chapter 8.36 (Public Nuisances) and Chapter 8.40 (Registration and Maintenance of Vacant Properties). 12-A
Staff Report – Declaration of Emergency
July 8, 2024
BACKGROUND – Continued
The Compliance Agreement (Agreement File No. 1024) required DGSG to post a $100,000 surety in a form approved by the City Attorney to guarantee performance of DGSG’s obligations under the BMC and the Compliance Agreement. The Compliance Agreement notes that should DGSG fail to comply with the BMC, including without limitation, BMC Chapters 8.36 and 8.40, during the term of the Compliance Agreement or if DGSG is not carrying out the intent of this Agreement, the City may serve written notice upon DGSG and its surety demanding satisfactory compliance with this Agreement.
DGSG failed to comply with the BMC and is in breach of its Compliance Agreement.
Therefore, the City served DGSG with a written notice regarding the noncompliance on July 2, 2024. If DGSG does not bring the Property into full compliance with the BMC, including, without limitation, Chapters 8.36 and 8.40, within five business days (by July 10, 2024), then the City, at its sole discretion, will use reasonable force to enter the Property and perform any abatement necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the BMC, including, without limitation, Chapters 8.36 and 8.40. The costs of such abatement will be charged to DGSG on a time and materials basis.
In such event, the City may take possession of and utilize in completing said abatement, construction, any materials, appliances, and other property belonging to DGSG as may be on the site of the work without liability to the City. DGSG must reimburse the City for any costs or damages related to the CITY’s abatement efforts to bring the Property into compliance with the BMC, including without limitation BMC Chapters 8.36 and 8.40 as well as attorney’s fees and costs.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Public Contracts Code (“PCC”) § 20168, the City Council may, upon a four-fifths vote, declare that public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure of public money to safeguard life, health, or property because of an emergency. In accordance with PCC §§ 20168 and 22050, the City Council may repair or replace a public facility, take any directly related and immediate action required by that emergency, and procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes, without giving notice for bids to let contracts.
Based upon the current site condition of 17617-17639 Bellflower Boulevard and DGSG’s noncompliance of the BMC, a local emergency exists within the City’s territorial limits.
Subject to the limitations of Resolution No. 24-39, the City Manager, as the Director of Emergency Services, is empowered to carry out all emergency powers conferred upon him/her as the Emergency Services Director by local and state laws, and by all other lawful authority, as may be necessary to protect life and property.
During the existence of a local emergency, the powers, functions, and duties of the Emergency Services Director and the emergency organization of this City will be those prescribed by state law, by ordinance, and resolutions of this City approved by the City Council.
DISCUSSION – Continued
Staff Report – Declaration of Emergency
July 8, 2024
In summary, adopting Resolution No. 24-39 would:
1. Authorize the City Manager to take all steps necessary to protect public health, safety, welfare and property including, without limitation, awarding contracts in accordance with PCC § 22050 and BMC Chapter 2.20;
2. Direct the City Manager to take all steps necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare including, without limitation, awarding contracts in accordance with PCC § 22050 and BMC Chapter 2.20;
3. Direct the City Manager and the City Attorney to take all steps necessary to recoup all costs to abate the public nuisances on the Property, including, without limitation, utilizing DGSG’s $100,000 surety deposit, pursue nuisance abatement liens and/or special assessment against the Property pursuant to BMC Chapter 8.36, civil lawsuit, or by any other lawful means; and
4. Amend the 2024-2025 budget to establish a $300,000 appropriation from the CDBG and General Fund Code Enforcement including corresponding adjustments to revenues, to pay for property abatement at 17617-17639 Bellflower Boulevard.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Resolution itself and the projects anticipated by the Resolution were reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). Based upon that review, the Projects are exempt from further review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15269(a) because the protection of public and private property is necessary to maintain service essential to the public, health and welfare.1
ATTACHMENT
Resolution No. 24-39…………………………………………………………………………3
1 CEQA findings regarding an anticipated imminent emergency are valid (see CalBeach Advocates v. City of Solana Beach (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 529).