Escondido hearing denies appeal of notice to abate unpermitted units; board upholds code officer findings

The Escondido Hearing Board voted 5-0 to deny an appeal of an amended notice and order to abate a public nuisance tied to a mixed-use property that the city says contains five unpermitted residential units.

The ruling, framed by a motion to adopt Resolution No. 202401 to deny the appeal, keeps in place a city finding that the property at the North Beach/Valley Parkway corner includes unpermitted conversions and multiple code violations the city says must be corrected or permitted.

The appellant, Tony Straub, identified himself as a managing member and shareholder of PRLFG LLC and said the property was purchased “about 3 years ago” and that he and partners cleaned and rehabilitated it for tenants. Straub told the board he believes the code officer, identified in the record as Steven Jacobson, “went on a campaign against the property” and that staff failed to follow procedural steps required by the city’s property-maintenance rules when issuing the notice.

Straub said the October 31, 2024 notice listed 16 violations and that items 1 and 2 (alleged unpermitted units and related zoning/permit questions) are the “driving force” behind enforcement. He told the board he submitted documentation and plans and that state ADU statutes cited in his materials — referenced in the hearing as Assembly and Senate bills — give property owners routes to legalize long-standing accessory units. “We submitted plans February 13, 2024,” Straub said, and he asserted the city neither accepted nor formally denied that submittal.

Deputy City Attorney Brenda Miller described the city’s timeline differently: the City Code Compliance Division received a complaint in July 2023, assigned the case to a compliance officer, and determined after inspection warrants in September and October that the site had seven residential units, five of which the city said were unpermitted. Miller told the board that city staff issued a notice of violation and that staff advised the owners how to pursue permitting or other remedies.

Planning staff explained they declined to “intake” the applicant’s ADU submittal because the plans showed existing unpermitted residential conversions; planning staff told the owner in an email that the application was incomplete and that the owners needed to either revert space to commercial, pursue a multifamily review, or otherwise resolve the unpermitted conversions before the ADU path could proceed.

Board members focused on two legal points: (1) the city’s municipal code treats failure to obtain required permits as evidence of a public nuisance, and (2) any changes made before a new owner purchased the property do not relieve the current owner of the obligation to permit or remedy unpermitted work. After deliberation the board concluded no sufficient legal ground to overturn the notice had been presented and approved the resolution denying the appeal.

Speakers and public commentators at the hearing included neighbors and associates who urged leniency and described the property owner’s investments and tenant services. Appellants raised procedural complaints: they said requested public records were delayed or redacted, that the city did not stay enforcement after an appeal was filed, and that staff did not follow every procedural step in the city’s property-maintenance code before issuing the amended notice. Appellants also said a gas leak reported by SDG&E had existed for weeks before any city notification; the record shows SDG&E responded after being contacted by the owner.

The Hearing Board’s formal action was recorded as: adopt Resolution No. 202401 denying the appeal of the building official’s amended notice and order to abate a public nuisance. The vote was recorded as 5–0 in favor of denying the appeal. The board did not rule on any alternate remedy at the meeting; staff and planning indicated options for the owners to pursue (ADU route, major plot plan/multifamily review, or permitting conversions) and said the owners must submit complete, formal applications to begin those processes.

The case record and the staff report referenced Escondido’s property-maintenance rules and municipal code provisions requiring permits for conversions; the notice at issue is dated October 31, 2024. The board meeting closed after the vote; staff and the deputy city attorney said implementation and follow-up would proceed under the city code and standard administrative processes.