Police Serve Eviction Notice for Wed. 5pm on Occupy Santa Cruz in San Lorenzo Park

Get the facts right. It's an EVACUATION ORDER.

It is my impression that the Evacuation Notice does not contain sufficient information nor follow the procedures outlined in the City code and so lacks legality.

Regarding, the City's most recent attack on the Campground in San Lorenzo Park and its threat to attack and seize the property there at 5 PM on Wednesday. The "Evacuation Notice" refers to certain specific code sections.

Specifically Section 4.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is mentioned. It reads:

Chapter 4.16
SUMMARY ABATEMENT
Sections:
4.16.010 Declaration of purpose.
4.16.020 Summary abatement.
4.16.030 Authority.
4.16.040 Procedures.
4.16.010 DECLARATION OF PURPOSE.
The city council finds that its purpose in adopting this chapter and Chapter 4.18 is to establish a procedure for the summary abatement of public nuisances and code violations. The procedures established herein are in addition to any other legal remedy, criminal or civil, established by law which may be pursued to address Santa Cruz Municipal Code or applicable state code violations.
(Ord. 2000-17 § 2 (part), 2000).
4.16.020 SUMMARY ABATEMENT.
This chapter governs the procedures relating to summary abatement of public nuisances.
(Ord. 2000-17 § 2 (part), 2000).
4.16.030 AUTHORITY.
Whenever an enforcement official determines that an imminent life safety hazard exists that requires immediate correction or elimination, the enforcement official may exercise the following powers without prior notice to the responsible person:
(1) Order the immediate vacation of any tenants and prohibit occupancy until all repairs are completed; or
(2) Post the premises as unsafe, substandard or dangerous; or
(3) Board, fence or secure the building or site; or
(4) Raze and grade that portion of the building or site to prevent further collapse and remove any hazard to the general public; or
(5) Make any minimal emergency repairs as necessary to eliminate any imminent life safety hazard; or
(6) Take any other action as appropriate under the circumstances.
(Ord. 2000-17 § 2 (part), 2000).
4.16.040 PROCEDURES.
(1) An enforcement official shall pursue only the minimum level of correction or abatement as necessary to eliminate the immediacy of the hazard. Costs incurred by the city during the summary abatement process shall be assessed and recovered against the responsible person or property owner through the procedures outlined in Section 4.18.040.
(2) The enforcement official may also pursue any administrative or judicial remedy to abate any remaining public nuisance.
(Ord. 2000-17 § 2 (part), 2000).



Note that section 4.16.040 PROCEDURES refers to Section 4.18.040.

That section and the broader section of which it is a part reads:

Chapter 4.18
ADMINISTRATIVE ABATEMENT
Sections:
4.18.010 Declaration of purpose.
4.18.020 Authority.
4.18.030 General procedures and appeals.
4.18.040 Abatement of a public nuisance by the city.
4.18.010 DECLARATION OF PURPOSE.
The city council finds that its purpose in adopting this chapter and Chapter 4.16 is to establish a procedure for the abatement of public nuisances and code violations. The procedures established in these sections are in addition to any other legal remedy, criminal or civil, established by law which may be pursued to address Santa Cruz Municipal Code or applicable state code violations.
(Ord. 2000-17 § 2 (part), 2000).
4.18.020 AUTHORITY.
Any condition caused, maintained or permitted to exist in violation of any provisions of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code or applicable state codes which constitutes a public nuisance but which does not constitute an imminent life safety hazard may be abated by the city pursuant to the procedures set forth in this chapter.
(Ord. 2000-17 § 2 (part), 2000).
4.18.030 GENERAL PROCEDURES AND APPEALS.
(1) Abatement Notice.
(a) Whenever an enforcement official determines that public or private property or any portion of public or private property is a public nuisance as generally defined in Chapter 4.01 or as declared in a specific section of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code or applicable state codes, an abatement notice may be issued to the responsible person or property owner to abate the public nuisance.
(b) The abatement notice shall contain a description of the property in general terms reasonably sufficient to identify the location of the property. It shall refer to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code or applicable state code violations which render the property a public nuisance.
(c) The abatement notice shall describe the action required to abate the public nuisance which may include corrections, repairs, demolition, removal, obtaining the necessary permits, vacation of tenants or other appropriate action and shall establish deadlines by which each action must occur.
(d) The abatement notice shall explain the consequences should the responsible person fail to comply with the terms of the notice.
(e) The abatement notice shall identify all applicable hearing and appeal rights.
(2) Service of Abatement Notice. The abatement notice shall be served by any one of the methods of service listed in Chapter 4.03 of this code.
(3) Time Frame For Compliance.
(a) The enforcement official shall establish a reasonable time frame for compliance based on the nature and severity of the nuisance. The time frame shall normally be ten days for a nuisance that does not involve an imminent threat to public health and safety.
(4) Right to Appeal.
(a) The responsible person may appeal the abatement notice within ten calendar days from the date of service of the abatement notice by filing a written request to appeal to an enforcement official.
(b) Upon receiving a written request to appeal an abatement notice, an enforcement official shall follow the procedures set forth in Chapter 4.20 and request the enforcement hearing officer to schedule a hearing to hear any objections why abatement should not be ordered and effected.
(c) Abatement shall not proceed until the enforcement hearing officer issues an order after an appeal by the responsible person or an appeal has not been timely filed, unless the enforcement hearing officer concludes that an imminent threat to the public’s health and safety exists.
(d) If the enforcement hearing officer issues an order confirming the existence of a public nuisance, the city may immediately abate the public nuisance pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 4.18.040 of this chapter. The hearing officer’s decision is the final administrative decision and shall become effective upon the date of issuance by the enforcement hearing officer.
(Ord. 2000-17 § 2 (part), 2000).
4.18.040 ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY THE CITY.
(1) Once an enforcement official follows the procedures set forth in Section 4.18.030 of this chapter and obtains authorization to abate a public nuisance, the public nuisance may be abated by city personnel or by a private contractor.
(2) City personnel or a private contractor can enter upon private property in a reasonable manner to abate the public nuisance as specified in the abatement notice or abatement order. Interference with the city’s abatement of the public nuisance by a property owner or responsible person shall constitute a misdemeanor.
(3) When abatement is completed, a report describing the work performed and an itemized account of the total abatement costs shall be prepared by the enforcement official. The report shall contain the names and addresses of the responsible persons or property owners of each parcel, the tax assessor’s parcel number and a legal description of the property.
(4) The enforcement official shall request the hearing officer to schedule a confirmation of costs hearing pursuant to Chapter 4.24, unless waived in writing by all responsible persons.
(5) All administrative and actual costs incurred by the city in abating the public nuisance may be assessed and recovered against the responsible person pursuant to the provisions set forth in Chapter 4.24.
(Ord. 2000-17 § 2 (part), 2000).


Note that the time frame is normally ten days (not three as stated in the City's ultimatum)--see Section 4.18.030(3) above. Moreover any time during that the threatened party may appeal. See Section 4.18.040 above.

I suggest the City may be attempting to scare us without going through the required legal procedures, in order to get OSC to decamp before there is a federal decision in early January in San Jose.

What do others think? See you at the Supervisors at 9 AM today.

...you display your ignorance. Section 4.18 does not apply to Summary Abatements. The City can remove the camp and there's no appeal from that because the mininum work allowed under that section is removal (see the last part). Byebye.

NEW PARK AT SPRUCE AND PACIFIC BEING FENCED OFF NOW! COME DOWN ASAP!

and leave the outside areas to the elements?

If there are scheduled hearings (in Santa Cruz County and in Federal Court), is it legal for legislators and law enforcement to act autonomously?

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/12/04/18701767.php?show_comments=1#18701935

Yes. No court order has been issued. So officials may still act. Judges universally have been taking a dim view of Occupy Whatever and ruling in favor of the government, as legal precedent requires them to do.

After chatting with some of the OSC legal team, I've learned that there might be a procedural 'race to judgment' now, between the two jurisdictions.

Long before that, I knew of legal decisions protecting Occupy protests (e.g. Boston), so your 'universality' assertion appears to be blatantly false.

There also sees to be legal flaws in the current threat from the City but I should let others prove that (in court).

Clearly, section 4.16 is cited in the City threat.

Clearly, section 4.16.040 (1) references 4.18.040.

There are subtle implications buried in the Municipal Code that might cause embarrassment for the City...

I just spoke with Ed Frey, who's filing for an emergency TRO in a 1 PM hearing today in Santa Cruz court against Shoemaker's bogus administrative "evacuation order."

He also attempted to appeal it using the processes outlined in MC 4.18. But Dannette Shoemaker refused to accept the appeal, saying her action was a summary one under MC 4.16. She alleges that the campground is an "imminent life safety hazard" for which there is no appeal.

I'm not aware that she presented any new evidence of the hazard.

Those at the camp and those supporting them should be prepared to deal with the kind of police force that hit and removed Occupy San Francisco early this morning.

If they want to, folks should remember, police can always use the Camping Ban (MC 6.36.010c) which bans setting up a campsite with intent to remain overnight--anywhere in the city. Not to mention the park closing law which bans being there after sunset.

I looked at Sections 4.16 and 4.18. There are two references to Section 4.18 in Section 4.16. One is a cross reference to 4.18, but it does not state that the citation and appeal process in 4.18 applies to actions taken pursuant to Section 4.16. The other reference is to Section 4.18.040, and states that cost recovery for abatement actions under Section 4.16 will follow the guidelines set down in Section 4.18.040. NOWHERE in Section 4.16 does it say that the appeal process laid out for actions under Section 4.18 also applies to actions under 4.16.

Robert, you need to get real attorneys, who know something about municipal law. Otherwise, you're gonna show your bare behind.

...followed the rest of the country. Judge there yesterday refused to grant a permanent injunction barring the removal of Occupy Boston. The authorities can now clear that camp.