- 1 -
RESOLUTION NUMBER 23-0119
A RESOLUTION OF THE MANHATTAN BEACH CITY
COUNCIL DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AT 116 9 TH
STREET, MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 -5691 (LOS
ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 4179 -
014-017, LOT 16 OF TRACT NUMBER 38987 , BLOCK 9 )
AND ORDERING ABATEMENT
THE MANHATTAN BEACH CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES, DETERMINES AND FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. On July 29, 2022, the multi-family residential structure (“Structure”) located at 116 9th Street, Manhattan Beach (the “Property”) was significantly damaged by a fire.
The Property is owned by William Victor as Trustee of the William Victor Revocable Trust (“Owner”). On August 2, 2022, the Manhattan Beach (“City”) Senior Building Inspector performed an exterior inspection of the property and posted a “red tag” on the Property.
Section 404.2 of Chapter 4 of the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings provides:
404.2 Compliance - Whenever such notice is posted, the building official shall include a notification thereof in the notice and order issued under Section 401.2, reciting the emergency and specifying the conditions which necessitate the posting.”
The red tag recited the emergency and spec ified the conditions which necessitate the posting. In addition, the red tag required a structural assessment, prepared by a licensed engineer, and prohibited all unauthorized entry into the building.
Section 2. As indicated in this Section 2 , City staff spent months seeking voluntary compliance from the Owner.
A. Initially, the Owner demonstrated progress in attempting to make the Property safe. On August 15, 2022, a licensed engineer submitted a structural fire damage evaluation for the property. This evaluation recommended an inspection by the engineer after removal of all debris to further assess the condition of the structure. The Owner never provided a subsequent engineer’s report.
B. The City facilitated several conversations with the Owner, the Owner’s representatives, and the Owner’s insurance company to discuss the Structure. Prior to November 22, 2022, the Owner informed the City that the Owner had engaged the services of an engineer and a contractor to submit plans to make the Pro perty safe .
Thereafter, the Owner submitted plans, and the City expeditiously performed plan check.
C. On January 31, 2023, the City returned the plans with corrections. The City informed the Owner that the Owner’s contractor needed to make the indicated corrections and submit corrected plans prior to receiving the necessary permits. The City reminded the Owner on several occasions, including on April 25, April 26, May 11, and May 18, that - 2 -
the City was still waiting for the corrected plans. As of August 31, 2023, the City has not received any additional plans from the Owner or any of the Owner’s engineers.
Accordingly, the property remains red-tagged.
D. In light of the worsening condition of the Structure due, in great part, to the uncharacteristically extreme winter rains and intense summer conditions, the City sent several notices to the Owner in April and May to remedy the condition of the Property.
Pursuant to Chapter 9.70 (Abandoned Property Abatement) of the Manhattan Municipal Code (“MBMC” or “Municipal Code”), the City sent a notice on April 17, 2023 notifying the Owner that the City determined the property to be abandoned. In additional notices sent in May, the City notified the Owner that, as a result of the damages sustained to the Property, the Property is in a dangerous and defective condition. The notices stated that the City’s Building Official and Fire Marshall deemed the remaining remnan ts of the Structure to be unsafe.
E. The April 17, 2023 notice enclosed a ‘Statement of Intent” form. The letter quotes MBMC Section 9.70.010:
“The purpose of the Abandoned Property Abatement Ordinance is to supplement the City's police power and autho rity to declare a nuisance by providing additional remedies for the abatement of abandoned properties.”
MBMC Section 9.70.020 defines “Abandoned property" as any property upon which one or more of the following conditions exist: “1. A vacant lot upon which one (1) or more code violations or a public nuisance exists as determined by the Director.”
The instructions provided on the Statement of Intent Form state:
“The Statement of Intent shall include the following information: 1. Expected period of vacancy; 2. A plan for regular maintenance during the period of vacancy; 3. A plan and time line for the lawful occupancy, rehabilitation or demolition of the vacant structure.”
MBMC Section 9.70.110 provides that i t is unlawful for the owner to fail to submit a Statement of Intent within 30 days. The Owner did not return the Form.
F. On May 11, 2023, the City Building Official visited the Property and observed the exterior of the building and the remaining portions of the Structure. The structure had continued to deteriorate. The structural damages include loss of the continuity of the roof diaphragm, loss of the lateral resisting structure, failing guardrails, inadequate means of egress, exposed timber, fire hazards, and evidence of continued falling debris.
G. On May 11, 2023, the City Fire Marshal inspected the exterior of the structure to determine the then -current status. During the inspection, the Fire Marsha l noted that the structure had suffered additional damage to the roof, exterior walls, interior walls, and that vegetation abutting the structure had grown to a dangerous level due to the unprecedented rain over the winter.
- 3 -
H. On May 16, 2023, the City’s Code Enforcement Department issued and delivered to the Owner a notice of violation of MBMC Section 9.70.110 for failure to file the statement of intent within the statutory deadline. In the notice, the City graciously provided the Owner with more time to complete the one page form. The Notic e of Violation concludes with the following: “The City of Manhattan Beach is desirous of obtaining voluntary compliance in this matter.” As of August 31, 2023, the Owner has not submitted a completed form.
I. Based upon his May 11 inspection , the City Building Official delivered a letter to the Owner on May 18, 2023 notifying the Owner that, pursuant to California Building Code Section 116, the Building Official has deemed that the Structure is unsafe within the meaning of the California Building Code. The letter quotes Section 116.1:
“Structures or existing equipment that are or hereafter become unsafe, insanitary, or deficient because of inadequate means of egress facilities, inadequate light and ventilation, or that constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life or public welfare, or that involve illegal or improper occupancy or inadequate maintenance, shall be deemed an unsafe condition. Unsafe structures shall be taken down and removed or made safe, as the building official deems necessary and as provided for in this section.”
J. Based upon his May 11 inspection, the City Fire Marshall sent a letter to the Owner on May 18, 2023, notifying the Owner that pursuant to California Fire Code Section 114, the Fire Marshall has deemed that the Structure is unsafe. The letter quotes California Fire Code Section 114.1.1:
“unsafe structures shall be taken down and removed or made safe as the fire code official deems necessary.”
The letter states that the condition of the structure, with unprotected and degrading wood elements, along with the large amount of dry vegetation adjacent to the structure, presents a fire hazard to any potential ignition source. These ignition sources include arcs and sparks from the overhead power l ines and a nearby transformer, temporary power from unregulated generators used by contractors and homeowners, cigarettes and other open flames from the passing general public, and hot particles from moving vehicles in close proximity to the structure. Th e City trimmed the vegetation on City property adjacent to the Owner’s Property, but the vegetation on the Owner’s P roperty remains.
The letter concludes that, in light of the condition of the structure, the ease of accessibility to trespassers, the abil ity to easily ignite another fire to the structure and the abutting vegetation, and the danger to the surrounding residents, the general public, and responding emergency personnel, the Structure is unsafe.
K. Due to the Owner’s lack of responsiveness, th e City scheduled several meetings at City Hall in an effort to assist the Owner in making the Property safe . First, the City scheduled a meeting on May 25, 2023. At the Owner’s request, the meeting was rescheduled several times, first to May 30, then to June 6, and then to June 8. The Owner - 4 -
told staff the Owner wanted to be re presented by legal counsel. D espite growing concerns about the deteriorating state of the Structure, Staff graciously provided the Owner additional time to procure legal counsel. However, without notice, or further rescheduling requests, neither the Owner nor legal representation appeared at the meeting, re-scheduled for June 8 at the Owner’s request.
L. By letter dated August 15, 2023, the City Attorney’s Office requested consent from the Owner to enter the property and demolish the Structure. The letter states:
“Based upon recent events discussed below, the threat to the public health and safety has been exacerbated to a level that requires prompt demolition, without any furth er delay. The property is in a dangerous and defective condition and constitutes a nuisance within the meaning of Manhattan Beach Municipal Code (“MBMC”) Chapter 4.60.”
The letter further states:
“To protect the public health and safety, and you from potential liability, the City seeks permission to enter the Property to demolish the Structure, at no out-of-pocket expenses to you. With your permission, the City would engage the services of a contractor and demolish the Structure. All the costs associated with the demolition, including additional costs associated with asbestos found on site, would be placed as a lien on the Property, payment of which can be deferred until such time (and in the event), the Property is conveyed to a third party. In such instance, the costs would be reimbursed directly from escrow. Thus, there would be no out -of-pocket expenses for you.”
Once again, the letter sought voluntary compliance from the owner:
“In the alternative, you may hire a contractor or demolition company to undertake the demolition yourself, but the demolition must be completed no later than September 1, 2023. However, you would incur considerable out- of-pocket expenses. Further, the City would not indemnify you from any liability arising from the demolition.”
The letter requested a response by August 22, 2023. In a phone call on August 17, 2023, the Owner requested an extension of time to August 31, 2023, to reply to the City’s request for consent to enter the property and demolish the Structure. The City graciously extended the time to respond to August 31, 2023. As of the closed of business on August 31, 2023, the Owner failed to respond to the letter, and the unsafe Structure remains on the Property.
M. Due to the continued deterioration of the dilapidated Structure , the forecasted climatic conditions, and incursions into the property by unauthorized trespassers, the threat to public health and safety has increased to a critical level.
- 5 -
Section 3. Pursuant to the Mun icipal Code and state law, the City may abate nuisances, pursuant to the following provisions:
A. MBMC Chapter 9.68 . MBMC Section 9.68.010 defines a public nuisance as follows:
“Anything injurious to health, indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property … so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by a neighborhood or by a considerable number of persons in the City[.]”
MBMC Section 9.68.020 - Public nuisance; substandard or dangerous property conditions provides, in relevant part, that t he following conditions are unlawful and constitute a nuisance:
“A. Any condition constituting a public nuisance or unsafe or substandard building as defined in state codes, common law and the City's b uilding regulations.
B. Any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of this Code.
C. Any building or structural component thereof, which is partially destroyed, or otherwise structurally unsound.
D. Any building that has dry rot, warping, or termite or similar infestation.
E. Any building that increases the danger of fire or other calamity because of conditions including but not limited to:
1. Dilapidated condition
2. Deterioration.”
MBMC Section 9.68.090 provides that after conducting a hearing and providing an opportunity for the owner and interested parties to comment on the alleged public nuisance and on proposed abatement measures:
“The City Council shall determine whether the property, or any part of the property, constitutes a public nuisance. If the City Council finds that a public nuisance exists, the City Council shall adopt a resolution declaring that a public nuisance exists at the subject property and order that the nuisance be abated by rehabilitation, repair, d emolition, or any other measure, manner or method required to abate the nuisance.”
B. MBMC Chapter 4.6 0 Miscellaneous Offenses – Dangerous and Defective Conditions. MBMC Section 4.60.030, provides that:
“The Council, pursuant to the power and authority vested in it so to do under the provisions of Section 38771 of the Government Code of the State, does hereby find and declare that any dangerous or defective structure, accumulation, pile or arrangement of any material, excavation, growth, instrumentality, condition or means of any kind, which by reason of its existence, location, accessibility, nature, concealment, construction, - 6 -
weakness, arrangement, position or character, is apt or liable to cause injury or d amage to persons or property, or which constitutes a then present menace or threat to life or property, constitutes and is a nuisance and shall be subject to abatement as such by civil action or summarily as provided by law.”
C. MBMC Chapter 9.70 - Abandoned Property Abatement. Pursuant to MBMC Section 9.70.010:
“The purpose of the Abandoned Property Abatement Ordinance is to supplement the City's police power and authority to declare a nuisance by providing additional remedies for the abatement of abandoned properties.”
D. California Civil Code Section 3494 . Section 3494 authorizes the City to abate the public nuisance:
“A public nuisance may be abated by any public body or officer authorized thereto by law.”
Section 4. On September 6, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed hearing to consider whether the Property, or any part of the Property, constitutes a public nuisance.
The City provided the Owner with a written notice of the hearing in full compliance with the Municipal Code, and posted the Property. In addition, as a courtesy, the City informed the Owner a number of times, both orally and in writing, of the hearing date , as early as August 17, 2023. At the hearing, the City Council provided an opportunity for the Owner and other interested persons to comment on the alleged public nuisance and on proposed abatement measures.
Section 5. Based upon substantial evidence, including the facts in Sections 1-3 of this Resolution, and pursuant to Manhattan Beach Municipal Code Chapter 9.68, the City Council hereby finds:
A. The Property contained a three-unit multi -family structure that was significantly damaged by a fire occurring on July 29, 2022. On August 2, 2022, the City Senior Building Inspector performed an exterior inspection of the property and posted a “red tag” on the Property. Initially, the Owner took steps to volunta rily abate the dangerous condition of the Property, including submitting construction plans. However, after the City returned the plans and requested corrections on January 31, 2023, the Owner did not submit corrected plans. The City reminded the Owner on several occasions, including on April 25, April 26, May 11, and May 18, that the City was still waiting for the corrected plans. As of August 31, 2 023, the City has not received any additional plans from the Owner or any of the Owner’s engineers. Accordingly, t he property remains red-tagged.
B. As was true with other parts of Southern California, Manhattan Beach suffered extreme winter rains . Th us, the condition of the Structure grew progressive worse, creating a n even greater threat to the public health and safety. T he City sent several notices to the Owner in April and May to remedy the condition of the Property. In - 7 -
April 2023, the City sent a notice on April 17, 2023 notif ying the Owner that the City determined the property to be abandoned . In additional notices sent in May, the City notified the Owner that, as a result of the damages sustained to the Structure, the Property is in a dangerous and defective condition . The notices stated that the City’s Building Official and Fire Marshall deemed the remaining remnants of the Structure to be unsafe.
C. For over a year, the City has sought voluntary compliance . However, the Owner has resisted City assistance , and the remnants of the Structure remain on the Property, posing a threat to public health and safety.
D. MBMC Section 9.68.020 identifies 22 specific conditions that are unlawful and constitute a nuisance. The Community Development Director, Building Official, and Fire Marshal each determined that the current state of the Property qualifies as a nuisance based several of the subsections in Section 9.68.020. These include:
Any condition constituting a public nuisance or unsafe or substandard building as defined in state codes, common law and the City's building regulations;
Any building or structural component thereof, which is partially destroyed, or otherwise structurally unsound;
Any building that has dry rot, warping, or termite or similar infestation;
Any building that increases the danger of fire or other calamity because of conditions including but not limited to: dilapidated condition; deterioration; or defective wiring, switches, gas lines, pipes or any component parts of the electric, gas, water, or plumbing systems;
Trees, weeds or other vegetation, which are dead, decayed, diseased or hazardous, or which protrude over or across a street or sidewalk so as to obstruct the clear passage of vehicles or pedestrians; and
Any other condition which adversely affects the public health, welfare, and safety.
Section 6. Based upon the hearing and on substantial evidence in the record, the City Council here by finds and declares that the P roperty is a public n uisance pursuant to MBMC Chapter 9.68. The Property constitutes a nuisance because, inter alia:
The Structure is unsafe, dilapidated and substandard as defined in state codes, common law and the City's building regulations;
The Structure is partially destroyed, and otherwise structurally unsound;
The Structure has dry rot, warping, or termite or similar infestation;
The Structure increases the danger of fire or other calamity because of conditions - 8 -
including but not limited to its dilapidated condition and deterioration;
Dead, decayed, diseased or hazardous vegetation is on the Property and is a fire hazard; and
Other conditions which adversely affects the public health, welfare, and safety.
Section 7. The City Council hereby orders that the nuisance be abated by demolition, on or before October 10, 2023. If the owner chooses to abate voluntarily, the owner must comply with any and all requirements, guidelines, and permitting as determined by City officials. If the nuisance has not been voluntarily abated by that date , the Director of Community Development is authorized and directed to cause the nuisance to be abated, pursuant to a valid warrant issued by a court of com petent jurisdiction, if required . The Director of Community Development, or designated representative, is expressly authorized to enter upon the property for the purposes of abating the nuisance, pursuant to a valid warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, if required.
Section 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
ADOPTED on September 6, 2023.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
RICHARD MONTGOMERY
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
LIZA TAMURA
City Clerk