TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Talyn Mirzakhanian, City Manager
FROM:
Quinn M. Barrow, City Attorney
SUBJECT:Title
Conduct a Hearing to Consider: Approval of a Nuisance Abatement Cost Report; and a Determination that the Costs of Abatement Constitute a Special Assessment Against the Property Located at 1467 11th Street or Shall be a Lien on the Property for the Amount of the Assessment (City Attorney Barrow).
(Estimated Time: 15 Mins.)
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 25-0053
Body
_________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Conduct a hearing and provide an opportunity for the property owner, any representatives, and other interested parties to comment on the report of abatement costs and any other related matters; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-0053 to: approve the report of the nuisance abatement costs; and determine that the costs of abatement constitute a special assessment against the property located at 1467 11th Street or shall be a lien on the property.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Recovery of costs and legal fees previously incurred in connection with City efforts to abate nuisances at the subject property.
BACKGROUND:
The City has been involved in a several-years long attempt to abate several public nuisances at the property located at 1467 11th Street, Manhattan Beach, also known as Los Angeles County Tax Assessor’s Parcel Number (“APN”) 4167-001-025 (“Property”), owned by Douglass Aziz, until his death, and now by his estate. Mr. Aziz:
• Discharged paint and other non-storm water from the Property into the municipal separate storm sewer system (“MS4”) in violation of MBMC section 5.84.040(d);
• Caused unpermitted construction on buildings on the Property, including removing the railing on the second story balcony and constructing a makeshift kayak slide from the balcony over the garage and into the pool in violation of the California Building Code and MBMC section 9.02.010;
• Allowed unsafe or substandard conditions on the Property, including accumulating junk, trash, debris and several broken windows in violation of Municipal Code section 9.68.020; and
• Removed the City’s yellow tags placed on the Property to indicate that the Property was fit for “Restricted Use” only.
The City provided Mr. Aziz several opportunities for Mr. Aziz to voluntarily abate the Nuisance Conditions, at considerable staff time and expense to City taxpayers. Nonetheless, Mr. Aziz refused to abate the nuisances or even cooperate with the City. Accordingly, the City directed the City Attorney to file a nuisance abatement action to achieve compliance with the Code, including a prayer for a permanent injunction against Mr. Aziz. The complaint was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on May 3, 2021.
On March 23, 2022, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Gary Y. Tanaka granted the City’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (see Attached), which prohibits Mr. Aziz (and all persons acting in concert with him) from allowing and/or permitting any condition on the Property that constitutes a public nuisance under the Municipal Code or the laws of California, including all of the violations described above. Attached is the notice of ruling sent to Mr. Aziz on March 28, 2022. There was no appeal of the decision.
The City incurred substantial expenses and legal fees in an effort to obtain compliance with the Code. Even as of the date of this report, it is not clear whether all the corrections have been made. Accordingly, on March 5, 2025, the City provided notice of this hearing to recover the taxpayers’ costs incurred with respect to the Property. Thereafter, the City Attorney had a number of conversations with the Owner’s attorney to resolve this issue. However, as of early May, the Owner has been unwilling to offer anything more than a small portion of the costs and fees incurred by the City.
DISCUSSION:
Manhattan Beach Municipal Code Section 9.68.130 - Recovery of Costs provides that the City may recover the cost of abatement of any nuisance and related administrative costs, including but not limited to inspection costs, investigation costs, attorneys' fees and costs, and costs to repair and eliminate all substandard conditions, by recording a nuisance abatement lien or imposing a special assessment against the parcel of land on which the nuisance is maintained. As noted above, Judge Tanaka found the Property to be a public nuisance in March 2022 and prohibited Mr. Aziz (and all persons acting in concert with him) from allowing and/or permitting any condition on the Property that constitutes a public nuisance under the Municipal Code or the laws of California, including all of the violations described above.
MBMC Section 9.68.150 provides that after conducting a hearing and providing an opportunity for the owner, occupants (if any) and interested parties to comment on the report of abatement costs, the City Council may determine that the costs of abatement constitute a special assessment against the property, or shall be a lien on the property for the amount of the assessment.
MBMC Section 9.68.160 (Nuisance Abatement Lien) provides:
9.68.160 - Nuisance abatement lien.
A. A nuisance abatement lien shall be recorded in the Los Angeles County Recorder's office and from the date of recording shall have the force, effect, and priority of a judgment lien.
B. A nuisance abatement lien authorized by this chapter shall specify the amount of the lien, the City's name, the date of the abatement order, the street address, legal description and assessor's parcel number of the parcel on which the lien is imposed, and the name and address of the owner of the parcel.
C. In the event that the lien is discharged, released, or satisfied, either through payment or foreclosure, notice of the discharge containing the information specified in subsection (B) of this section shall be recorded by the City. A nuisance abatement lien and the release of the lien shall be indexed in the grantor-grantee index.
D. A nuisance abatement lien may be foreclosed by the City as a money judgment. The City may recover from the property owner any costs incurred regarding the processing and recording of the lien and providing notice to the property owner as part of its foreclosure action to enforce the lien or as a condition of removing the lien upon payment.
MBMC Section 9.68.170 (Special assessment) provides:
A. As an alternative to the procedures set forth in Section 9.68.160, the City Council may impose a special assessment.
B. The City shall provide the owner with notice of the imposition of the special assessment. The notice shall specify that that the property may be sold after three (3) years by the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments.
C. The assessment may be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary municipal taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for ordinary municipal taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of municipal taxes shall be applicable to the special assessment.
As of February 18, 2025, the City expended $112,445.15 in connection with its efforts to obtain compliance with the Code. As noted above, the City Attorney was unable to resolve the matter with Mr. Aziz’s estate. Accordingly, on March 5, 2025, the City provided notice of this hearing to recover abatement costs incurred with respect to the Property. As shown in the attached Supplemental Cost Report, additional cost and fees have been incurred so the amount of City costs and fees has grown to $121,887.74. Thus, staff recommends that the Council approve the Supplemental Cost Report attached to the Resolution. In the event there are additional costs after the preparation of this staff report, staff will provide a revised Cost Report on May 20,2025.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 25-0053
2. March 5, 2025, Letter Notifying Property Owner and Attorney of Record of Hearing (with Exhibit A - Court Order Granting Preliminary Injunction (March 23, 2022) and Exhibit B - Report of Abatement Costs
3. Supplemental Cost Report dated May 14, 2025
4. Notice of Ruling dated March 28, 2022