A. In an action seeking the closure of a chronic nuisance property, the City shall have the initial burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is chronic nuisance property.
B. It is a defense to an action seeking the closure of chronic nuisance property that the owner of property at the time in question could not, in the exercise of reasonable care or diligence, determine that the property had become chronic nuisance property, or could not, in spite of the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, control the conduct leading to the finding that the property is chronic nuisance property.
C. In an action seeking civil penalties pursuant to 9.18.030.B, the City shall have the initial burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the conditions of that subsection are specified.
D. In establishing the amount of any civil penalty requested, the court may consider any of the following factors, as they may be appropriate, and shall cite those found applicable:
1. The actions taken by the owner(s) to mitigate or correct the problem at the property.
2. Whether the problem at the property was repeated or continuous;
3. The magnitude or gravity of the problem;
4. The cooperativeness of the owner(s) with the City;
5. The cost to the City of investigating and correcting or attempting to correct the condition;
6. Any other factor deemed by the court to be relevant.