CCMIN100290 - Laserfiche WebLink

33 authorization of the allocation of $85,303 from the North Pleasanton Assessment District No. 2 for Amendment No. 3. (SR 90:397) v. Adoption of Resolution No. 90-182, approving the vacation of an 850 square foot parcel, formerly a portion of Johnson Drive. (SR 90:398) The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Mohr, Tarver and Mayor Mercer NOES: Councilmember Brandes, on Item 4n ABSENT: Councilmember Butler ABSTAIN: None 5. MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Property Maintenance Ordinance Mr. Thurman Caudill, 4715 Augustine Street, stated that the City had cited him under the Property Maintenance Ordinance and had given him thirty days to clean up his property and lower a fence. He added that he was trying to make some improvements on his property but that thirty days was not enough time to clean everything up. Mr. Mercer asked staff if cases violating the Property Maintenance Ordinance are appealed to the Council, the City Manager or the City Attorney. Ms. Acosta replied that cases like this can ultimately be appealed to the Council. She explained that there are two different issues in this particular case: (1) With respect to the fence height, Mr. Caudill can apply for a variance; and (2) Some materials need to be removed from his property, for which he was given thirty days. A formal notice to abate would be issued after that time period, with additional time given to clean up. She indicated that all this information was given to Mr. Caudill, but he did not appear at the abatement hearing. She added that she would be willing to sit down with him, together with the Code Enforcement Officer, to explain the process. Mar. Brandes inquired if it has been more than thirty days since the original notification was made. Ms. Acosta replied that the first contact with the property owner was made in February and that the thirty-day provision to improve the property came after the abatement hearing. 10-2-90 - 5 -