City of Manhattan Beach
1400 Highland Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Mayor Richard Montgomery
Mayor Pro Tem Joe Franklin
Councilmember Amy Howorth
Councilmember David Lesser
Councilmember Steve Napolitano
Meeting Minutes - Final
Wednesday, September 6, 2023
4:00 PM
City Council Chambers and Zoom
City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting
September 6, 2023City Council Adjourned Regular
Meeting
Meeting Minutes - Final
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CITY ARCHIVES THE VIDEO RECORDINGS OF ALL
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND THE VIDEO FOR THIS MEETING IS HEREBY INCORPORATED BY THIS REFERENCE. ALSO IN SUPPORT OF MORE
TRANSPARENCY AND THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
COMPLIANCE, THE CITY OFFERS CLOSED CAPTIONING FOR REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. FOR A COMPLETE RECORD OF THIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING, GO TO:
https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/government/city-council/city-council-me etings-agendas-and-minutes CALL MEETING TO ORDERA.
Mayor Montgomery called the meeting to order.
PLEDGE TO THE FLAGB.
ROLL CALLC.
Mayor Pro Tem Franklin led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call by City Clerk Liza Tamura.
Additional Staff Present
Community Development Director Mirzakhanian Fire
Chief Lang
Police Chief Johnson
Public Works Director Lee
Assistant City Clerk Alvarez
Assistant to the City Manager Gabriel
Planning Official Heise
City Engineer Doherty
Police Lieutenant Benjamin
Fire Marshal Bass
Police Officer Presgraves
Principal Civil Engineer Quijada
Code Enforcement Officer II Murphy
Mayor Montgomery, Mayor Pro Tem Franklin, Councilmember Howorth, Councilmember Lesser, and Councilmember Napolitano
Present: 5 -
September 6, 2023City Council Adjourned Regular
Meeting
Meeting Minutes - Final
HEARINGD.
23-03731. Conduct Hearing, Determine Whether the Fire-Damaged Property at 116 9th Street, or Any Part of the Property, Constitutes a Public Nuisance, Order Nuisance Abatement Accordingly, and Make a Determination of Exemption Pursuant to Section 15301(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines (Community Development Director Mirzakhanian and Fire Chief Lang).
(Estimated Time: 30 Mins.)
A) STAFF PRESENTATION
B) PUBLIC COMMENT (OPPORTUNITY FOR THE OWNER AND
OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS TO COMMENT ON THE
ALLEGED PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ON THE PROPOSED
ABATEMENT MEASURES)
C) CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 23-0119,
DECLARING PUBLIC NUISANCE, ORDERING ABATEMENT OF
PUBLIC NUISANCE AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF
EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO CEQA
Mayor Montgomery made a brief statement regarding the hearing for the property located at 116 9th Street.
Community Development Director Talyn Mirzakhanian provided the PowerPoint staff presentation on behalf of the Community Development Department and Fire Department.
Councilmember Howorth arrived at 4:09 PM.
Councilmember Lesser asked for staff to clarify the provisions referenced, specifically with how City Council might find nuisance under Section
9.68.010, for the record.
Community Development Director Mirzakhanian provided the following findings:
September 6, 2023City Council Adjourned Regular
Meeting
Meeting Minutes - Final
1) Any condition constituting a public nuisance or unsafe or substandard building as denied in the state codes, common law, and the City's building regulations.
2) Any building or structural component thereof, which is partially destroyed or otherwise structurally unsound. Where a building permit has been issued for the repair, construction, or reconstruction of such building, it shall be a violation of this chapter for the building to remain in such condition at any time beyond one month. Additionally noted, the earlier part of this statement actually applies to this property.
3) Any building that has dry rot, warping, or termite or similar infestation. The fourth is any building that increases the danger of fire or calamity because of conditions including but not limited to: dilapidated condition, deterioration, or defective wiring, switches, gas lines, etc. The next is 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 pedestrian. Next is personal property including but not limited to, sporting equipment, toys, junk, trash, or debris, installed, deposited, abandoned, dumped, ditched, or left within the public right-of-way without the express written permission of the Director of Community Development. 4) Any other condition which adversely affects the public health, welfare, and safety.
Mayor Montgomery invited the Property Owner William Victor to provide any comments.
Attorney, Stephen Goldberg provided the following comments on behalf of his client and Property Owner William Victor. The property consists of three units but the fire only damaged one-unit and the fire transferred throughout the property. The fire occurred on the top floor and that caused some impact on the ceiling of the unit below and the third unit sustained virtually no damage. Noted that the City has a structural engineering report dated August 15, 2022, from G&G Structures, Inc., where it states that two of the units appears to have no significant structural damage. Added, that the problem is that the Property Owner has not done a good job in reacting to the situation and is not excusing his behavior. The Property Owner has a responsibility but wanted the City Council to understand and keep in mind the Property Owner's age and the loss of his dog during the fire. The Property Owner has lived in a hotel for a year and has submitted some plans with some corrections. Those are hired to assist with the project decide not to work with the Property Owner anymore and that means he has to start all over. The Property Owner needs to act but a 30-day deadline is unrealistic.
The City has done everything correctly by working with the Property Owner in reviewing the property plans submitted. The Property Owner needs assistance in many ways, just as an example, anyone that has a conversation with him and asks a question, can receive responses about 15 other things unrelated to the question. But asks for the City Council and the Community to assist the Property Owner through this process.
September 6, 2023City Council Adjourned Regular
Meeting
Meeting Minutes - Final
Property Owner Victor provided the following comments. That he had a number of address changes since the fire and some of the City mailings were sent to the wrong address. Had a situation where someone else was signing his receipts and that was not much of a notice. Mentioned his absence for the June 8, 2023, meeting but never received notice and probably did not attend a June 9, 2023, meeting either. Is asking for communication to be improved.
Councilmember Napolitano asked if the Property Owner has a contract with a contractor, if so, for what services.
Attorney Goldberg confirmed that the Property Owner has a contract with a contractor for repairs subject to approved plans.
Councilmember Napolitano asked from staff regarding the total loss of the property based on the earlier comments of two-thirds of the property being fine.
Planning Official Ryan Heise responded that the two-thirds reference came from the engineer's report, but the engineer also mentioned that a reassessment was needed after the abatement. During the abatement, much of the drywall was removed from the inside due to damage or contamination. The plans will need to be approved and that includes anything that needs to be repaired and they must meet the current code requirements. The majority of the consultants that have provided plans for review propose soft-story retrofits. The property needs lateral elements throughout from the top to the bottom and the foundation needs to be replaced and repaired. Some of the structure may be saved, a lot of the property will need to be upgraded to meet current code requirements regarding insulation, structural improvements, and other requirements.
Councilmember Napolitano asked about the expected submission of those plans from the consultants.
Planning Official Heise clarified that staff does not have a timeframe at this time and plans have not been submitted for review.
Attorney Goldberg clarified that the engineer's assessment that was submitted specified certain elements that need reparation. Preliminary plans were submitted for review need corrections, but the corrections have not been made. The Property Owner needs assistance in finding someone that can assist in making those corrections.
Councilmember Napolitano asked for a timeline as needed by the Property Owner to provide the corrected plans.
Attorney Goldberg stated that probably 90-days are needed to submit the plans and have them approved. Further noted, that staff has assisted in trying to get the plans approved quickly due to the circumstances. But, once the plans are approved there is the time frame for the construction to take place.
September 6, 2023City Council Adjourned Regular
Meeting
Meeting Minutes - Final
Councilmember Napolitano stated that nothing has happened since January 30, 2023, why would there be any confidence that anything will be done moving forward. What assurances can the City Council have that the Property Owner will take care of everything if an extension is granted.
Attorney Goldberg agreed that the Property Owner has stopped since January 30, 2023, but he needs the assistance in repairing his property.
Property Owner Victor asked Viking Environmental Group, President and Contractor Charles Morris to answer the City Council questions regarding what has been done since the fire.
Contractor Morris confirmed that his company did some initial work such as the decontamination of the property around August 2022. He was not aware that the engineer that designed the plans did not want to continue with the project.
Councilmember Napolitano asked if the Property Owner received a reason as to why the engineer did not want to continue with the work.
Property Owner Victor explained that the engineer stated that they did not want to do the job, there was some amount of money due. The engineer received the comments from the original submission in December 2022, and he received the comments about the plans from a third party.
Councilmember Lesser asked for clarification from the Community Development Director and City Attorney in regards to the City Council's role for this discussion.
Community Development Director Mirzakhanian clarified that, based on the language in the code, if the City Council wanted to purse an alternative course of action than what the City has experienced to date, it would be for the City Council to declare a nuisance. The City Council’s role this evening would be to evaluate the circumstances, all of the information provided in the staff report, the images, the letters that were documented by staff, and to make a determination based on the list that staff provided. If the property in question, in its current state as of today, qualify under the provisions stated earlier qualify as a public nuisance. If so, the next step would be for the City Council to dictate how staff should go about abating that nuisance. If the City Council decides to go down that path, the code says that the City Council would also have to give an opportunity for the Property Owner to have a certain amount of time to essentially abate the nuisance themselves.
After they have exhausted that amount of time if nothing has happened, then the City may move forward with abatement.
Mayor Pro Tem Franklin asked Attorney Goldberg how long has the Property Owner retained him for his legal services.
Attorney Goldberg confirmed that it has been about two and a half hours regarding this matter. Has not seen the Property Owner since the fire but has worked with him on a previous occasion.
September 6, 2023City Council Adjourned Regular
Meeting
Meeting Minutes - Final
Mayor Pro Tem Franklin asked about the June 8, 2023, meeting and the noticing to the Property Owner about the meeting.
Planning Official Heise confirmed that the notices were hand-delivered to the current residences for the Property Owner and that there was verbal communication with him as well. The abatement meeting was rescheduled multiple times to accommodate the Property Owner's schedule. The meeting eventually took place with the absence of the Property Owner. An confirmed that communication with the Property Owner took place in person, over the phone, and via email and letters were sent by registered mail.
Mayor Montgomery opened the floor to public comments. The following individual(s) spoke:
Paul Thompson
Kristi Frye
William Victor
Diane Giacuenta
Seeing no further requests to speak, Mayor Montgomery closed the floor to public comments.
City Attorney Barrow confirmed that the City received the email from Kristi Frye as part of public comments earlier in the day.
Community Development Director Mirzakhanian clarified for the record that the letter received from the engineer that was referenced earlier in the discussion, was issued August 15, 2022, just after the fire. The insurance company did perform abatement of asbestos and upon that abatement process is where other things were discovered at the property as mentioned by Planning Official Heise.
Councilmember Howorth asked about the asbestos and if the City Council would be considering a hazardous abatement in order to keep the rest of the neighborhood safe.
Community Development Director Mirzakhanian responded that the hazardous abatement was already conducted, if it was not completed that would be included now as part of the scope. Further noted, that some of the images from the inside of the property were provided by the insurance agent but staff did receive confirmation that the review had concluded.
Councilmember Howorth asked about the proposed resolution declaring a public nuisance and the 30-day period for the Property Owner.
Community Development Director Mirzakhanian confirmed that the Municipal Code requires that the City gives the Property Owner a certain timeframe by which they would have to abate the nuisance themselves. The timeframe is up to the City Council's discretion. Staff's recommendation is 30-days.
September 6, 2023City Council Adjourned Regular
Meeting
Meeting Minutes - Final
Councilmember Lesser stated that the circumstances are sad but it is the City Council's duty to proceed with what has been put before them, which is a threshold finding of whether the property, in its current state constitutes a nuisance. Based on the criteria provided by the Community Development Director, there is no way around that. Asked for the City Attorney's confirmation what decisions they would be making and what should be combined or separated.
City Attorney Barrow confirmed if the City Council adopts the resolution, then that would be the declaration. Recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution with the understanding that they would further discuss the allotted time for the property owner.
Mayor Pro Tem Franklin stated that the Property Owner has been given plenty of time to take care of the necessary steps and has not done so. The City Council owes an obligation to the neighbors.
A motion was made by Councilmember Howorth, seconded by Councilmember Lesser, to adopt Resolution No. 23-0119 declaring a public nuisance at 116 9th 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 motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 5 - Montgomery, Franklin, Howorth, Lesser and Napolitano Nay: 0
City Attorney Barrow asked the City Council to focus on Section 7 of the resolution. The abatement gives the Property Owner until October 10, 2023, to abate the nuisance, which would constitute 30 days.
Councilmember Lesser asked if Community Development Director Mirzakhanian could provide some criteria that the City Council should use to de determine if the date is reasonable.
Planning Official Heise clarified that on a typical fire damage repair, it would take somewhere between four to six months for the plan check portion of the permit to take place. Once the permit is issued it can take up to a year of construction based on the estimates for this specific project.
Commissioner Lesser inquired about the commitment of the Property Owner in order to at least secure the appropriate building standards for the property so it does not pose a threat to its neighbors.
September 6, 2023City Council Adjourned Regular
Meeting
Meeting Minutes - Final
Planning Official Heise clarified that from the building standpoint the top floor has lost its structural capacity. As mentioned in the engineering report, it would need to be re-evaluated. Due to the weather, there is now unsupported condition on the top floor. An assessment would be needed that would require shoring to be installed to keep it safe as well as ensure that there are no other structural hazards involved. There were some units that were not previously damaged and all had the interior surfaces removed which would expose more damage from dry rot and other weathering types.
Fire Marshal Kevin Bass stated that the building in its current condition is deteriorating. The embers from the fire were shown during the spreading of the fire. The building as it stands now can catch on fire with a mere spark.
A visualization would be the Lahaina fire in Hawaii. The town had old wooden buildings similar to the discussed property tonight. Due to the longevity of the properties they just easily catch fire. Along with the easiness of catching fire, there is also a lot of ignition sources in the neighborhood, mainly the overhead power lines that are next to the building. All that is needed is a spark from the transformer and with prevailing winds blowing from the ocean towards the house that can ignite a major fire.
Pedestrian access to the property from three sides and someone could accidentally start a fire. There are also construction activities in the area that can spark and start a fire. One of the worst fires came from the hot embers of a catalytic converter that started a wildfire that took out about 400 homes in the Anaheim Hills. Not much is needed to start a fire.
One of the major issues is the building is dilapidated that has removed a lot of its protection. The drywall actually stops or holds the fire down.
Currently the building is equivalent to a dry barn and with the vegetation around the property it is just not a safe conditions in terms of fire hazards.
Councilmember Howorth commented that the questions and concerns from her colleagues were understandable and that the worry was about giving more time because of the nuisance due to what was described by the Fire Marshal and all the public safety hazards. The property owner would have 30 days to get something started. Asked from the City Attorney what were the options within the 30 day window regarding plans approved or if it would have to be abated.
City Attorney Barrow confirmed that it would have to be abated if the property is not fully in compliance within the 30 days. Further noted that the concern of the City Council is understandable since it is the primary home of the property owner and that everyone has tremendous sympathy for what happened. As stated by the Fire Marshal, all the risks and concerns regarding the property are real. Additionally mentioned that the property owner has been informed that he will be liable should someone gets hurt or houses burn. This is one of the ways to protect the property owner from liability.
September 6, 2023City Council Adjourned Regular
Meeting
Meeting Minutes - Final
Community Development Director Mirzakhanian noted that the property owner does not have to do the abatement himself and the City can pay the abatement and put a lien on the property.
City Attorney Barrow confirmed that the property owner was informed over a month ago about the abatement process. If the City Council grants the 30 days and the property owner has not abated the nuisance within the 30 days, the City will go into court to get a warrant to enter the property and demolish it. The City's cost including the attorney fees and all the costs associated with abating the nuisance would be placed as a lien on the property after another hearing.
Councilmember Howorth asked if the property owner or the City Council decides to demolish the property if the property owner could still submit plans and build a home there.
Community Development Director Mirzakhanian clarified that the City Council is being asked to define what abatement would mean for this particular nuisance. Then the property owner would be given a certain amount of time to abate the nuisance himself, after which City staff would certify that the nuisance would have been abated. Should that not take place, the City staff would abate the nuisance and then that nuisance would no longer exist.
Councilmember Howorth asked for confirmation if City staff was recommending for the abatement to mean demolishing the structure.
Community Development Director Mirzakhanian confirmed that it would be demolishing and then securing the property.
Mayor Pro Tem Franklin commented on the plan check process by noting that the property owner would take the plans for reconstruction approval, the process can take about four to six months for the plan check and permits to be issued, and the a one year construction. Asked if there was a way to develop a timeline with due dates so that those dates are met. A concern would be to give additional time such as four to six months and have nothing happen as previous history has shown.
Community Development Director Mirzakhanian clarified that the timeline that City Council would be identifying would be for the demolition and securing of the property. Additionally noted that in the event that the City Council wanted to not require the demolition in a certain time frame and allow for the property owner to abate the nuisance via reconstruction and then provide a timeline for the reconstruction.