CITY OF SIGNAL HILL 2175 Cherry Avenue Signal Hill, CA 90755-3799 AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SCOTT CHARNEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF A NOTICE AND ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2017 Summary: The City Council will consider an appeal of a Notice and Order for a code violation requiring the termination of an unpermitted outdoor storage yard and the submittal of a restoration plan to address slope stability and stormwater requirements. The subject property is a previously vacant site located on the south side of East 29 th Street between Atlantic Avenue and California Avenue in the Atlantic/Spring neighborhood. The appeal was submitted by Mr. Ben Agarwal, agent of the property owner, New Mesa Partners LLC. Recommendation: Waive further reading and adopt the following resolution, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIGNAL HILL, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE DETERMINATIONS MADE IN A NOTICE AND ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2017, FOR A PREVIOUSLY VACANT SITE IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 7207-008-012, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO COMMENCE ABATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SIGNAL HILL MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 8.12.110 IF THE NUISANCE IS NOT ABATED Fiscal Impact: The fee for an appeal is $315.00, which has been paid by the appellant.
Page 2 Strategic Plan Objective: Goal No. 5: Ensure an enhanced quality of life for residents of the City. Background: On July 11, 2017, staff received information from the Signal Hill Police Department of reported illegal dumping and burial of construction debris on a previously vacant site on the south side of East 29 th Street, west of California Avenue. On July 14, 2017, the Assistant Planner (staff) contacted the complainant who reiterated his concerns regarding the dumping and burial activities on the site. On July 17, 2017, the Senior Building Inspector conducted an initial site assessment and reported there were three violations on the subject property: 1. The site appeared to be operating as an outdoor storage yard; 2. There had been unsafe grading activity; and 3. There was uncontrolled soil erosion. On July 20, 2017, based on the scope of the violations, staff conducted a follow-up inspection to prepare the violation notice. At that time, there was no one on site to interview. On August 11, 2017, staff conducted a third site inspection. Staff documented that the previous three violations were outstanding and observed that new soil had been imported onto the site, covering most of the original construction debris. On August 14, 2017, staff sent out a Notice and Order, which included provisions regarding the City abatement process and the appeal process, by certified mail to the property owner of record, New Mesa Partners LLC, informing them of the three violations and instructing them to terminate the illegal storage yard use and submit a restoration plan to address the unstable soil and stormwater violations within the standard 15-day timeframe, consistent with Signal Hill Municipal Code (SHMC) 8.12.080. On August 21, 2017, Ben Agarwal contacted staff by phone and identified himself as the authorized agent for New Mesa Partners LLC. Mr. Agarwal verified that he was operating a storage yard and that he had not previously obtained City permission to do so. Staff sent a follow-up email to Mr. Agarwal on the same day explaining that the SHMC does not permit new outdoor storage yards anywhere in the City, and that dumping and burial of construction debris is a health and safety hazard and is not permitted. On August 23, 2017, Mr. Agarwal sent an email requesting that he be allowed to use his previously vacant site in some manner and suggested options including boat or RV storage, a campground, a farm stand or produce farm. Staff responded to the email
Page 3 confirming that none of the proposed uses were listed as permitted in the use classification chart outlined in SHMC 20.20.020. Mr. Agarwal then replied to staff s email indicating his intent to appeal his case to the City Council; however, the email did not explicitly state the basis of the appeal. On August 25, 2017, staff received a follow-up call from the original complainant reiterating his safety and stormwater hazard concerns about the site. On August 29, 2017, staff conducted a fourth site inspection, accompanied by both the Senior Building Inspector and an inspector from the City s stormwater consultant, John L. Hunter & Associates, who confirmed the site was in violation of stormwater regulations. Staff observed and documented that the previous three violations were outstanding. On August 31, 2017, staff sent a second Notice and Order, which included provisions regarding the City abatement process and appeal process, by certified mail informing the property owner that a subsequent inspection had been conducted and that the previous outstanding items had not been addressed. Lastly, the Notice and Order requested corrective actions within the standard 15-day timeframe, consistent with SHMC 8.12.080. On September 8, 2017, while in the area, staff conducted a fifth site inspection and observed that all non-operational vehicles had been removed, but trailers, trash dumpsters, storage containers, RVs and other storage yard items still remained. An email was sent to Mr. Agarwal the same day acknowledging the limited progress and confirming staff s intent to continue monitoring the site for additional progress. On September 28, 2017, staff conducted a sixth site inspection and documented that the previous three violations were outstanding. On October 12, 2017, staff conducted a seventh site inspection and documented that the previous three violations were outstanding. On November 3, 2017, staff conducted an eighth site inspection and was granted permission to enter the property by an individual who identified himself as one of several tenants occupying the site. Staff informed him that the site was not approved as an outdoor storage yard and that all storage items must be removed from the site. Staff also noted a large amount of fresh gravel had been laid down on the site and the tenant reported that it had been laid to stabilize the ground and control dust caused by vehicular activity. Staff observed and documented that the previous three violations were outstanding. On November 14, 2017, staff conducted a ninth site inspection accompanied by the acting City Engineer, who corroborated the previous determination that unsafe grading and burial of construction debris had recently occurred, and that soil conditions were unstable. He also determined that there was soil erosion and soil encroaching onto the
Page 4 adjacent property to the east, and that no grading permit had been issued for the site. Staff observed and documented that the previous three violations were outstanding. On November 20, 2017, staff sent a third Notice and Order, which included provisions regarding the City abatement process and appeal process, by certified mail informing the property owner of the City Engineer s determination that the site was unsafe due to unstable soil, reiterating the three violations, and requesting corrective actions within the standard 15 day timeframe, consistent with SHMC 8.12.080. (Attachment A). On December 4, 2017, staff received an acknowledgement email from Mr. Agarwal confirming that he received the third Notice and Order dated November 20, 2017. He included a signed appeal request letter as an attachment dated November 29, 2017, stating that the responsible property owner would like to appeal the determinations of the November 20, 2017 Notice and Order (Attachment B). On December 6, 2017, the Deputy City Clerk received a hard copy of the appeal request letter by regular mail. On December 15, 2017, staff mailed a letter acknowledging receipt of the appeal letter but noted that the required $315 appeal fee had not been included. On January 2, 2018, the Deputy City Clerk received a check for the required $315 appeal fee. On January 4, 2018, staff sent an email to Mr. Agarwal confirming receipt of the appeal fee and notifying him of the date and location of the appeal hearing. On January 26, 2018, staff conducted a tenth site inspection and observed that additional soil and grading activity had occurred on the site. Staff observed and documented that the previous three violations were outstanding. On February 9, 2018, staff sent a confirmation of public hearing letter by certified mail informing the property owner that the appeal was officially scheduled as a public hearing at the City Council meeting. On February 12, 2018, staff received a certified mail return receipt signed by Daisy Alamillo, acknowledging that the property owner received the confirmation of a public hearing letter. Analysis: This is an appeal of a code enforcement action. The subject site is a sloped parcel on the south side of an unimproved segment of E. 29 th Street between Atlantic and California Avenues. The identified violations include: Land use violation unpermitted outdoor storage yard; Building Code violation grading without a permit; and
Page 5 Stormwater violation uncontrolled runoff and discharge of pollutants. Staff has sent out three Notice and Orders, with the final Notice and Order dated November 20, 2017, included as Attachment A. In conversations with staff, the appellant has not denied responsibility for the activity described in the Notices. Instead, he has expressed that he is entitled to use his property irrespective of City regulations. Site Inspections Based on a complaint, staff conducted ten site inspections between July 2017 and January 2018. Observations include the following: Inoperable vehicles Recreational vehicles (RVs) Trailers Trash dumpsters A boat Storage containers A semi-truck Construction equipment Dumping of construction debris Evidence of recent grading activity Following are photos taken during the site inspections to document conditions on the site: Exhibit A: Site Inspection Photos
Page 6
Page 7 Land Use Violation Unpermitted Outdoor Storage Yard During the initial site inspection, it appeared that the site was operating as an outdoor storage yard. Staff confirmed this determination by referencing the following section of the SHMC: SHMC 20.22.015(B), a storage yard means any property used for the primary purpose of storing, keeping, or maintaining, whether on a temporary or permanent basis, durable goods, materials, equipment, vehicles, stockpiles, or other similar items outside. Outdoor storage yard has not been listed as a permitted use in any zoning district since April 5, 2011, when the City Council approved a Zoning Ordinance Amendment prohibiting all new outdoor storage yards. At that time, staff created an inventory list of grand-fathered, legal, non-conforming storage yards within the City. Staff reviewed the inventory and confirmed that the subject site is not listed. Staff reviewed the City s business license database to confirm that no active or expired business license is associated with the subject site. Staff also utilized aerial satellite
Page 8 images to research historic conditions of the site. Following is an aerial photo from 2008. Staff also reviewed more recent aerial photographs from a variety of resources to confirm that the site was vacant at the time of the adoption of the prohibition of outdoor storage yards. Exhibit B: 2008 Aerial Photo of Subject Site E 29TH STREET CALIFORNIA AVENUE Building Code Violation Grading Without a Permit The Senior Building Inspector and City Engineer conducted site inspections to corroborate that grading activity (including dumping of construction debris and importing of soil) has occurred. Per the SHMC, this type of activity requires a grading permit as stated below: SHMC Section 15.04.090(C), No person shall do any grading without first having obtained a grading permit from the Building Official.Restricted grading permits may be issued when the application has been approved by the City Engineer. Upon review of City records, no plans have been submitted for City review and no grading permit has been issued. The extent of the grading activity is also a health and safety hazard pursuant to provisions outlined in Appendix J of the California Building Code. The work was completed without the benefit of City review. As such, staff observed and documented
Page 9 evidence of construction debris which does not meet the required fill material, compaction density, slope grade and slope protection standards. As such the site is subject to high probability of slope failure, especially in a rain event, which would endanger life and property both on the subject site as well as those adjacent to the site. Stormwater Violation Uncontrolled Runoff and Discharge of Pollutants An inspector from the City s stormwater consulting firm, John L. Hunter & Associates, conducted a site inspection and determined that the site was in violation of stormwater regulations. The unpermitted grading activity results in uncontrolled runoff which transports pollutants such as trash and debris, bacteria and viruses, oil and grease, sediments, nutrients, metals, and toxic chemicals to the ocean by means of the municipal storm drain system. This uncontrolled runoff of pollutants constitutes an illicit discharge that negatively affects the ocean, plant and animal life, and public health which is in violation of the City s MS4 stormwater pollution control regulations contained in SHMC Chapter 12.16. Staff reviewed City records and confirmed that there was no stormwater mitigation plan submitted for such activity. As such, the work was completed without the review and/or inspection of a stormwater pollution control expert. Staff also observed and documented exposed and un-compacted fill which is neither contained nor treated onsite resulting in drainage occurring across property lines. Due to the lack of proper drainage control measures that either contain runoff onsite or properly route it to an approved draining facility, the site has the potential to discharge pollutants into the municipal storm drain system and ultimately to the ocean during a rain event. Code Enforcement Actions A total of three Notice and Orders were sent by certified mail to the property owner of record, NEW MESA PARTNERS LLC, who has owned the property since December 20, 2005. Staff has engaged in numerous telephone conversations and email correspondence with the authorized agent for the property owner, Mr. Agarwal. Despite this dialogue, the property owner has neither terminated storage yard operations nor submitted the requested restoration plan to address the building code and stormwater violations. It is important to note that additional grading activity has occurred on site without a grading permit. Appeal Pursuant to the provisions of SHMC Chapter 8.12, appeals of Notice and Orders are a matter to be considered by the City Council at a public hearing. The Council shall consider all relevant evidence, information and testimonies. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Council shall confirm, modify, or reject the determination made in the Notice and Order.
Page 10 Mr. Agarwal has submitted an appeal letter (Attachment B) and paid the required appeal fee to contest the City s findings made in the Notice and Order dated November 20, 2017; however, the request letter did not explicitly identify the basis of the appeal. Based on conversations with staff, the appellant stated his belief that he is entitled to reasonable use of the property without City interference. Conclusion: Staff is recommending that the City Council confirm the determinations made in the Notice and Order. In doing so, the property owner will be directed to: Terminate storage yard operations on site by removing all vehicles, RV trailers, trash dumpsters, storage containers, other construction equipment, etc. from the property; and Submit a restoration plan to address all building code and stormwater violations. Approved: Charlie Honeycutt Attachments