Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enforcement Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney: Surfside Motel owner signs compliance agreement after council gave litigation direction
Summary
Port Hueneme’s city attorney reported the city and the owner of the Surfside Motel entered a legally binding compliance agreement after a prior council vote directed staff to seek an agreement or commence litigation; the agreement requires construction work to be completed within a year and includes a receiver appointment if terms are breached.
PORT HUENEME, Calif. — The Port Hueneme City Attorney reported during closed‑session remarks that the city and the owner of the Surfside Motel have signed a legally binding compliance agreement that, under its terms, requires construction to be completed within a year and authorizes appointment of a receiver if the owner fails to comply.
The city attorney told the council that at the April 17 meeting the council, in a 4‑0 vote with one councilmember recused, had directed staff to attempt a compliance agreement with the owner and to commence litigation if the owner refused. “I’m pleased to report that we did enter into, as of this morning … a legally binding compliance agreement with Mr. Peony, the owner of the Surfside Motel, and that pursuant to the terms of this agreement, the construction will be completed within a year,” the city attorney said.
The attorney said specific enforcement provisions were not suitable for public discussion but noted the agreement includes a provision by which the city can seek appointment of a receiver should the owner breach the terms — an outcome the city had previously sought in litigation.
Recusal noted
At the closed‑session roll call, a councilmember disclosed living within 1,000 feet of the property and recused themself from the matter; the city attorney recorded that recusal in the closed‑session item. The city attorney also said that if there were “any reportable action at the conclusion of the closed session,” the council would be informed — the compliance agreement was reported out in open session.
Why it matters
The report resolves a long‑running compliance and enforcement issue raised by staff and the council: the agreement attempts to secure completion of construction and gives the city a streamlined enforcement remedy (receiver appointment) if the owner fails to perform, rather than immediate protracted litigation.
What’s next
The city attorney did not disclose operational details of the schedule or construction milestones in open session. Staff said they will report back if there are reportable developments or enforcement actions triggered by the agreement.
