My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 17958
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
RES 17958
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2017 2:50:31 PM
Creation date
7/20/2017 1:38:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
7/18/2017
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
DOCUMENT NO
17958
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
RESOLUTION NO. 17-958 <br /> A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> CONFIRMING THE IMPOSITION OF A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ON THE PROPERTY <br /> AT 4719 ORANGEWOOD COURT, PLEASANTON (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER <br /> 941-1001-047-00) FOR THE COSTS OF ABATEMENT, INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES, <br /> ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND COSTS, ALL INCURRED IN A NUISANCE <br /> ABATEMENT ACTION ON SAID PROPERTY <br /> WHEREAS, from 2009 to 2012, responding to citizen complaints, the City inspected the <br /> property at 4719 Orangewood Court (the "Property") and discovered various Pleasanton <br /> Municipal Code and state law violations; and <br /> WHEREAS, administrative citations that addressed the violations were issued to the <br /> property owners but the property owners failed to address the nuisance conditions and/or health <br /> and safety violations described in the citations or pay the administrative fines; and <br /> WHEREAS, due to the continued substandard condition of the property, on August 3, <br /> 2012,the City filed a petition for appointment of receiver in the Superior Court of California, County <br /> of Alameda (City of Pleasanton v. Spitzer, Case Number RG12642206); and <br /> WHEREAS, after a court hearing on September 12, 2012, the Court found that the <br /> Property was substandard, a public nuisance, and maintained in a manner that violated state <br /> building standards, Health and Safety Code and Pleasanton Municipal Code; and <br /> WHEREAS,the Court further found that the violations were extensive and of such a nature <br /> that the health and safety of any occupant of the Property, the neighboring residents, and the <br /> general public was substantially endangered; and <br /> WHEREAS, the Court held that the City properly issued the Property owners a notice to <br /> repair and abatement order and the Property owners failed to comply with the notice and <br /> abatement order; and <br /> WHEREAS, the Court further held that the Property's substandard conditions were likely <br /> to persist unless the Court appointed a receiver to take possession of the Property and rehabilitate <br /> it and the Property owners were given notice of the City's intent to file a petition for a receiver's <br /> appointment; and <br /> WHEREAS, the Court's orders included the reimbursement to the City for its enforcement <br /> costs, including but not limited to inspection costs, investigation costs and attorney fees, costs in <br /> bringing the receivership action, and unpaid administrative citations; and <br /> WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code §38773.5, Health and Safety Code <br /> section 17980.7, and Pleasanton Municipal Code sections 1.04.110, 9.28.180 and 20.32.020 <br /> (Chapter 9), the attorney fees, investigation costs, prosecution costs, and enforcement costs can <br /> be made a special assessment upon the property once confirmed by the City Council and <br /> thereafter recorded with the Alameda County Recorder's Office; and <br /> WHEREAS, in accordance with Pleasanton Municipal Code section 20.32.020, Section <br /> 9.05 (Chapter 9), immediately upon its being placed on the assessments roll, the assessment <br /> shall constitute a special assessment against and a lien upon the Property; and <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.