TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: David Chantarangsu, AICIP, Development Services Director
SUBJECT:
title
Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapters 1.04, 1.32, and 8.20 of the Murrieta Municipal Code Providing the City with the Authority and Flexibility to Recover Costs Incurred in Abating Nuisances
end
RECOMMENDATION
recommendation
Introduce and conduct the first reading on Ordinance No. 608-24 entitled: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Murrieta, California, Amending Sections 1.04.010, 1.32.050, 8.20.020, 8.20.090, 8.20.100, and 8.20.130 of the Murrieta Municipal Code to Define “Responsible Party,” Clarify Nuisance Abatement Options for the City, Update Provisions Relating to the Costs of Abatement Including Attorney’s Fees and Costs, and Establish Lien and Special Assessment Procedures for the Recovery of Nuisance Abatement Costs.
body
PRIOR ACTION/VOTE
The sections to be revised were generally adopted to replace ordinances of the County of Riverside after the City’s incorporation between 1991 and 2004. Murrieta Municipal Code (MMC) Chapter 8.20 (NUISANCES GENERALLY) was amended in 2019 to update the provisions of MMC Chapter 8.20. (Non-Action).
CITY COUNCIL GOAL
Maintain a high performing organization that values fiscal sustainability, transparency, accountability and organizational efficiency.
BACKGROUND
The City has the authority to abate public nuisances pursuant to its police power and State law. Sections 36901, 38771, and 38773.5(a) of the Government Code authorize the City to enact ordinances declaring what constitutes a public nuisance and the procedures for abating nuisance conditions, as well as providing for the recovery of costs and attorney’s fees to abate the nuisance and for the collection of civil penalties. The City must have a public nuisance abatement ordinance and follow its procedures to secure the right to recover its costs in enforcing the ordinance.
Nuisances can also be abated pursuant to Civil Code Section 3479 et seq. Civil Code Section 3480 defines a public nuisance as “one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.” When a legislative body has declared an act or condition to be a nuisance, the act or condition becomes a nuisance per se. (Gov’t Code § 38771, Beck Dev. Co. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co. (1996) 44 CA4th 1160, 1206.) A cause of action based on nuisance per se requires only that the offending condition, in fact, exists; no independent assessment of the danger caused by the violation is required. (City of Bakersfield v. Miller (1966) 64 C2d 93, 100 (hotel in violation of building code); City of Corona v. Naulls (2008) 166 CA4th 418, 425 (medical marijuana dispensary's operation as nonpermitted, nonconforming use); City of Costa Mesa v. Soffer (1992) 11 CA4th 378, 385 (vehicle abatement).
The proposed ordinance updates the Murrieta Municipal Code to be consistent with modern public nuisance abatement ordinances and to include clear procedures to guide both staff and the public. Without adopting this ordinance, the City will be precluded from recovering its attorneys’ fees incurred in any action, administrative proceeding, or special proceeding to abate a nuisance. This includes nuisances abated via civil litigation. Ordinance No. 608-24, if adopted, will also provide opportunities for the City to recover its attorneys’ fees and enforcement/abatement costs via special assessment, and provides clearer and more defined procedures to that end.
FISCAL IMPACT
The ordinance provides for cost recovery in connection with nuisance conditions.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 608-24