Legislation Details

File #: TMP-2478    Version: 1 Name: Special Assessment for Weed and Nuisance Abatement at 0 Woodland Parkway
Type: Resolution Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 6/12/2026 In control: City Council
On agenda: 7/14/2026 Final action:
Title: RESOLUTION NO. 2026-9636 - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR WEED AND NUISANCE ABATEMENT AT 0 WOODLAND PARKWAY
Attachments: 1. RESOLUTION 0 WOODLAND PKWY, 2. EXHIBIT A - ITEMIZED COST REPORT 0 WOODLAND PARKWAY

MEETING DATE:                                          

JULY 14, 2026

 

SUBJECT:                                            

Title

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-9636 - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR WEED AND NUISANCE ABATEMENT AT 0 WOODLAND PARKWAY  

Body

 

Recommendation
Recommendation

ADOPT a resolution for the Weed and Nuisance Abatement Itemized Cost Report and AUTHORIZE City staff to deliver the same to the County of San Diego Tax Assessor and the Treasurer-Tax Collector to recover the same by way of special assessment and associated lien against the property located at 0 WOODLAND PKWY Assessor’s Parcel Number: 224-040-4000.

Body

Board or Commission Action

Not Applicable

 

Executive Summary

Consider any objections and approve costs and expenses associated with court-authorized weed and nuisance abatement at 0 WOODLAND PKWY, Assessor’s Parcel Number: 224-040-4000 and placement of the same as a Special Assessment on the County tax records for such real property.

Discussion

Each year the San Marcos Fire Department administers a weed abatement program to clear overgrown vegetation and related fire hazards from the City and Fire Protection District.

On January 7, 2025 the San Marcos Fire Department (“Fire Department”) inspected the property located at 0 WOODLAND PKWY, further identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number 224-040-4000 (the “Property”). According to the Official Records of San Diego County, the owner of record is N. Patterson (“Patterson”), a non-resident property owner. During the property inspection, it was determined that the Property was in violation of SMMC § 8.64.010(a) (Abatement of Weeds, Shrubs, Dead Trees and Certain Waste Matter) and California Fire Code (“CFC”) § 109.3.2 for accumulation of dry and dead weeds and other fuel existing on the Property.

On January 9, 2025, the Fire Department sent Patterson a 21-Day Notice to Clean Premises (“Initial Notice”), which required the abatement of any fire hazards and the removal of all dry and dead weeds and brush from the Property.

On March 5, 2025 the Fire Department inspected the Property and discovered that Patterson had failed to comply with the Initial Notice. 

On March 19, 2025 the Fire Department sent Patterson a 10-Day Final Notice to Clean Premises (“Final Notice”).

On April 16, 2025 the Fire Department inspected the Property and discovered that Patterson had failed to comply with the Final Notice. On that day, the Fire Department posted at the Property a 10-Day Notice to Clean Premises (“Posted Notice”).

On June 18, 2025, the Fire Department inspected the Property and discovered that Patterson had failed to comply with the Posted Notice.

On December 17, 2025, Deputy City Attorney Punam Prahalad prepared and sent a Weed Abatement Notice of Violation (“Notice of Violation”) to the property owner, which required abatement of the Property within ten days or the City would pursue further action against Patterson.

On February 4, 2026, the Fire Department inspected the Property and determined that the Property owner remained in violation, having failed to comply with the Notice of Violation. 

Since January 7, 2025, notices sent to the Property owner have been disregarded or not accepted by the owner and certified mail items have been subsequently returned to the City by the Postal Service. No abatement action has been performed by the Property owner, and the SMMC and CFC violations continue to exist on the Property and constitute a fire hazard.

On February 17, 2026, the City Attorney’s Office prepared the necessary paperwork and filed for an Abatement Warrant from the San Diego Superior Court (“the Court”). On February 19, 2026, the Abatement Warrant was approved from the Court. The abatement time period permitted by the Court was within 21 days of the granting of the Abatement Warrant which was March 12, 2026. The City Attorney’s Office caused a copy of this warrant to be served on the owner by sending the warrant via Certified mail, First Class mail, and via posting at the Property and at the property owner’s address.

The Fire Department staff solicited bids from contractors and selected the lowest bid.

On March 5, 2026, a copy of the warrant was posted on the Property and at the property owner’s address for a 24-hour period prior to start of cleanup work by the contractor.

On March 6, 2026, the weed abatement nuisance on the Property was abated by a contractor. Abatement was completed within the time permitted by the Court order.

In April 2026, it was discovered that the Property owner of record was deceased. and the Property was proceeding through the probate process. The Property owner’s heir, through the probate attorney, has been provided with notice of this hearing and with the opportunity to object to the proposed action or any component thereof. An Administrative Cost Hearing was held on April 27, 2026, where the City’s abatement costs in the amount of $5,733.67 (including $2500 in anticipated costs) were confirmed by the hearing officer.

The Fire Department mailed multiple notices to the Property owner and heir over a 14 month period, significantly extending the time frame available to the owner to clear the property. The abatement warrant was mailed via First Class Mail and Certified Mail to the Property owner and posted on the Property and the Property owner’s address for 24-hours prior to cleanup as required by law. The City Attorney’s office also communicated with the probate attorney who confirmed that the Property owner’s heir was aware of the Fire Department’s notices.

The majority of property owners willingly comply with notices and remove fire hazards within the time period allowed, or will contact City staff and request an extension be granted so they may clean their own property. In this case, the Property owner and/or heir did not take any action to abate the hazard and made no effort to contact staff or the City Attorney’s office to resolve the issue.

The attached exhibit details the final contractor cleanup costs, as well as specific administrative and legal fees incurred. The final cost incurred is $4,278.87. The owner’s name and address, along with cost to clean the Property are shown on the attached Weed and Nuisance Abatement Itemized Cost Report attached as Exhibit “A” to the accompanying resolution. Following Council’s approval of the Weed & Nuisance Abatement Itemized Cost Report and Resolution accompanying this agenda item, the approved documents will be delivered to the County of San Diego Assessor and Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Offices, with an authorization and request that they directly assess the Property owner on their next real property tax bill. When the lien fees are collected, they will be forwarded to the City of San Marcos. Upon receipt of the assessed amount, the funds will be deposited into the Fire Department’s weed abatement account.

Environmental Review

Not Applicable

 

Fiscal Impact 

Weed and Nuisance Abatement Itemized Cost Report was not included in the Nuisance Abatement/Code Enforcement Account (#606057-581012) budget for the fiscal year. Failure to approve the Weed and Nuisance Abatement Itemized Cost Report and authorized transmission to the San Diego County Assessor and San Diego County Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Offices will mean the funds expended by the City for this weed and nuisance abatement proceeding will not be recovered through the tax rolls.

 

 

Attachment(s)
Resolution

Exhibit “A” - Weed and Nuisance Abatement Itemized Cost Report

 

 

Prepared by:   Kenneth Kim, Deputy Fire Marshal

Submitted by:  Heather Todd, Fire/EMS Administrative Services Manager                     

Reviewed by:   Dan Barron, Fire Chief

Approved by:   Michelle Bender, City Manager