3 Consider Adopting an Ordinance Declaring the Property at 31116 Ash Street to be a Public Nuisance

Home Browse Search

Public Nuisance Hearing Process April 27, 2017 Page 2 of 3 • Appendix J: Zoning Specialist letter to John R. and Barbara J. Derksen, dated April 24, 2017 The property owners have not responded to these repeated written notifications from City staff and the City Attorney,nor have they undertaken efforts to correct the code violations and nuisance conditions documented to exist on the Property. Consequently,the City Council will consider this matter on May 2, 2017 and be asked by City staff to declare the conditions at the Property to be a public nuisance and violations of City Ordinances and to authorize legal proceedings to abate the same and prosecute the property owner for such code violations. In considering this matter,the City Council will be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity,which means it will be receiving and reviewing evidence and interpreting and applying its ordinances as they exist to a specific situation(in contrast to the council's typical broader legislative role). In quasi-judicial situations such as this special meeting, due process and equal protection are key factors courts will review in the event of further legal challenge. Due process and equal protection under the law demand that similar applicants and appellants must be treated uniformly by the City. Due process requires that the Derksens be given adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard by the City Council prior to the City Council deliberating and rendering its decision, and you will note that the Derksens received notice of the special meeting and their opportunity to attend and present evidence and argument on their behalf in the form of the Zoning Specialists' letter dated March 28,2017 (Appendix I and J hereto). We recommend the City Council follow the procedure outlined at the conclusion of this memorandum, which procedure is intended to meet the legal standards for due process and equal protection, in considering whether the conditions on the Property constitute code violations and/or a public nuisance. Finally, City Council members should specifically note that as the judge in this case, Council members should state no opinion on the subject matter of this hearing until after the hearing and record on May 2 are closed, such that all evidence will have been received by the Council prior to the Council's deliberations on May 2 and subsequent decision-making. Whatever decision the City Council ultimately then decides to make,the City's decisions must be supported by legally and factually sufficient findings and an order. City staff and our office will propose findings for the Council's consideration at the May 2 hearing;however it is the Council's responsibility to determine if the evidence supports the proposed findings. In light of the above,we propose that the order of procedure for the City Council to hear this appeal on May 2,2017 should be as follows: 1. Open hearing—Mayor Adams. 2. Opening comments on process Mayor Adams and/or City Attorney. 3. City/Planning Department staff presentation of evidence that public nuisance conditions and code violations exist on the Property—5-10 minutes. 4. Property owners, John R. and/or Barbara J. Derksen,by themselves or through their legal counsel, shall have the opportunity to be heard by the City Council and to present evidence and/or argument on their behalf—5-10 minutes.