Escondido Planning Commission continues appeal over notice to abate public nuisance at 1004 N. Ash St.

The Escondido Planning Commission on April 8 continued an appeal of a March 5 notice and order requiring abatement of an alleged public nuisance at 1004 North Ash Street, giving the property owner time to work with city staff on inspections and permits before the commission takes final action.

Principal Planner Oscar Romero told commissioners that "staff recommends Planning Commission adopt resolution number 2025-05, denying the appeal and upholding the issued notice and order." The commission did not adopt that resolution on Tuesday; after extended questioning of staff, the code compliance officer and the property owner's attorney, commissioners voted 4-2 to continue the hearing to the commission's May 13 meeting.

The appeal centers on a code-enforcement case opened after city staff observed unpermitted construction and multiple safety and habitability concerns at a parcel developed with a primary residence, a detached garage and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Romero summarized the site's permitting history: a detached garage conversion to an ADU was approved in February 2018; a 2022 building permit approved an 854-square-foot ADU and conversion of the existing ADU back to a garage; code compliance activity began in December 2023 and culminated in the March 5, 2025 notice and order.

The property owner appealed the notice, arguing procedural defects and contesting the substance of 12 listed violations. Attorney Steve Aldaco, representing appellant Zaydo Properties, told the commission the March 5 notice lacked required proof-of-service documentation and said the certified-mail requirement in Escondido Municipal Code section 6-4-88 was not satisfied. "Reading that last paragraph on page 14... the building official shall issue a notice and order and mail a copy by certified mail. That didn't take place, so this is not properly in front of this planning commission," Aldaco said.

Code Compliance Officer Frank Sandoval testified he had mailed the notice by certified mail and provided commissioners with a proof-of-service document. Sandoval said his findings were supported by multiple inspections, including an inspection performed under an inspection warrant executed on Oct. 16, 2024, and that the notice and order reflects observations from code, building and fire-prevention staff who joined that inspection. "We executed that and went and served the inspection warrant. And that was on October sixteenth of last year," Sandoval said.

The appeal also turned on whether portions of the site had been converted into additional dwelling spaces beyond the allowed primary residence and ADU. Sandoval described photographs and a site visit that led him to conclude interior partitions, appliances and other features indicated use as separate habitable spaces. The owner and his attorney disputed many of those factual findings and submitted photos and written responses asserting that doors, egress, smoke detectors, receptacle covers and other safety items either were present or have since been corrected.

Building official Doug Moody and head building inspector John LaVey answered commissioners' technical questions about specific items identified in the notice, including whether replacement or relocation of a gas water heater required a permit and the needed elevation in garage settings. Moody told the commission that a water heater in a garage or near vehicle fumes normally must be elevated — typically 18 inches — and that installing or replacing a water heater requires a permit and inspection in Escondido.

Several commissioners said the central issue was not only whether the notice met technical service requirements but also whether the city had documented the initial inspections and whether the property owner had used the intervening time to pursue permits and corrective measures. Commissioners asked Sandoval to explain inspection procedures and to show photos and notes from his site visits; Sandoval described multiple site visits, tenant interviews and the warrant-supported inspection that included other city specialists.

After extended deliberations, the commission split on how to proceed. Some commissioners said the case had been outstanding long enough and favored upholding the notice; others urged giving the owner one more, finite opportunity to cooperate with staff to clear safety items and submit any needed permit applications. Chair Wyler proposed, and the commission adopted, a continuance to the May 13, 2025 meeting so the parties could work toward documented progress. Chair Wyler summarized the commission's intent when he announced the continuance: the applicant "has an opportunity one last time to sit down with the city, allow for whatever inspections need to be done... and get this resolved within that finite period of time."

The commission recorded several formal votes on related business earlier in the meeting: it approved minutes from the March 25 meeting with an added sentence about communication of commission opinions to city council (6-0), and, after a failed motion earlier to adopt staff's denial resolution, ultimately approved the continuance motion (4-2).

What happens next

The commission's continuance directs the property owner and city staff to coordinate inspections and to submit any required permit applications. Commissioners indicated they expect documented progress — for example, reinspection invitations, permit filings or visible corrective work — before the May 13 session. If significant progress is not shown at that hearing the commission can hear the appeal and decide to adopt, modify or reject the building official's notice and order; denial of the appeal would leave enforcement and potential further legal steps to city staff and the city attorney's office.

Quotes of record

"Staff recommends Planning Commission adopt resolution number 2025-05, denying the appeal and upholding the issued notice and order," Principal Planner Oscar Romero said during the staff presentation.

"That didn't take place, so this is not properly in front of this planning commission," attorney Steve Aldaco said of the March 5 notice and order's paperwork.

"We executed that and went and served the inspection warrant. And that was on October sixteenth of last year," Code Compliance Officer Frank Sandoval said, describing the warrant-supported inspection and multi-department site visit.

Commissioner and Chair Closing

Chair Wyler framed the commission's choice as an attempt to encourage a cooperative, documented path to compliance: "This is a gift. Use it well and good luck," he told the property owner as the commission continued the matter to May 13.

Background details

- Property: 1004 North Ash Street, parcel developed with a primary residence, a detached garage and an ADU. - Code cited by staff: Escondido Municipal Code §6-4-88 (notice and order to abate public nuisances). - Key dates in staff chronology cited at the hearing: Feb. 2018 (garage to ADU conversion approved), 2022 (building permit for 854-sq.-ft. ADU), Dec. 14, 2023 (notice of violation), Feb. 1, 2024 (notice of intent reinspection fees noted in staff packet), Oct. 16, 2024 (inspection warrant executed), March 5, 2025 (notice and order issued).

The commission's May 13 session will revisit the appeal if staff and the owner cannot document satisfactory progress by that date.