Laserfiche WebLink
245 <br /> <br />are defined inadequately and certain provisions inconsistent. He <br />recommended serious consideration of the items about looking over <br />the fence to someone else's backyard and the reduction of property <br />value in the immediate neighborhood. He concluded that the <br />process of serving notice should ensure that the owner receives <br />the notification, and that the administrative fee charged by the <br />City should be fixed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Gloria Fredette, 3735 Oak Brook Court, stated that for <br />the past three years, she has lived next to an absentee landlord's <br />property where the house is in total disrepair and the yard <br />covered with tall weeds and bushes. She mentioned that they have <br />contacted the homeowners' relatives, the Police Department and the <br />Fire Department; the owners have said the property would be <br />cleaned up, but nothing has happened. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler asked the staff if there were an existing <br />ordinance that could take care of a situation like this. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush answered that the conditions mentioned would fall <br />under abatement procedures pursuant to the Uniform Housing Code <br />and the Fire Code. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mary Bautista, 4628 Carson Court, commented that she was <br />in favor of the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Harry Niedecken, 6708 Paseo Catalina, stated that it is <br />important for City residents to take pride in their neighborhood; <br />however, it would be difficult to keep items out of the neighbors' <br />sight or keep garbage cans inside a small garage. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bob Wright, 2538 Corte Bella, mentioned that the <br />ordinance was written to provide some guidelines and that when the <br />City responds to complaints filed by citizens, it would not act on <br />hearsay but would first send someone to investigate the situation. <br />He added that he was in favor of the ordinance as it would help <br />maintain the property values in the neighborhood should a property <br />owner decide to sell his home. <br /> <br /> Mr. Leo Heckathorn, 4202 Stanley Blvd., indicated that he was <br />opposed to the ordinance and suggested that it be put on a <br />ballot. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer replied that the citizens could referenda whatever <br />decision the Council makes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rathbone commented that the ordinance is not necessary as <br />there are safeguards in existing City ordinances. <br /> <br /> Mr. Jack Hovingh, 4250 Muirwood Drive, stated that he was <br />opposed to the ordinance because there are existing ordinances <br />that protect citizens which ought to be enforced even if they may <br />be cumbersome. He added that CC&Rs are an appropriate way to <br />handle neighborhood matters referred to in the ordinance. <br /> <br /> -15- <br /> <br /> 8-15-89 <br /> <br /> <br />