8B Consent 2009 1102 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CITY OF SAN LEANDRO STAFF REPORT DATE: October 19, 2009 TO: Stephen L. Hollister, City Manager Ian R. Willis, Chief of Police ~~~- ~~~~ FROM: BY: Bill Baptista, Community Compliance Specialist SUBJECT PROJECT/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPROVED AND FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL tephen L. Hollister City Manager AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 3-2 OF THE SAN LEANDRO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO WEED ABATEMENT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The current ordinance was revised in 2002 when the Code Enforcement Ordinance (Chapter 1- 12, Title 1 of the San Leandro Municipal Code) was adopted. After its adoption, weed abatement and enforcement were processed under the Code Enforcement Ordinance. Staff proposes to change the following: (1) Number of Notices of Violation necessary before moving to abatement proceedings; and (2) Transfer of hearing body from the Board of Zoning Adjustments to a hearing body composed of managers that could meet during business hours. The proposed language change was written by the City Attorney's Office. BACKGROUND Anal sis This proposed amendment would require that only TWO (2) Notices of Violation must be issued before staff moves to seeking forcible abatement. The first Notice of Violation notifies a violator of an impending administrative penalty and possible hearing date. If no corrective action is taken, then the fine is imposed and a hearing is scheduled. This change would reduce the time currently required to obtain the right to abate violations. The Hearing Body for Code Enforcement violations is the Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA). The BZA meets on the first and third Thursdays of each month. This meeting schedule affects when staff may enforce the weed abatement section of the Code Enforcement Ordinance because there are additional days staff must wait to present a weed abatement matter for hearing. Staff proposes to amend the Code Enforcement and Weed Abatement Ordinances to allow for a separate hearing body, composed of three managers, to be the hearing body for weed abatement cases only. All other Code Enforcement matters would continue to be heard by the BZA. Staff believes this will aid enforcement because such a body would have a more flexible schedule than the BZA while ensuring property owners receive their just due process rights. Staff believes this change is especially important to bring violations that appear to pose fire hazards or other public health and safety issues more quickly to abatement or resolution.