HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-City Administrator
el1. 'OF SAN BERNARDI 0 - REQUE T FOR COUNCIL ACl ~w
From: James C. Richardson, Deputy City
Administrator - Development
Dept: Administration
Subject: Set a public hearing on Encroach-
ments into right-of-way; Tract
No. 11118
Date: October 14, 1988
~
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
8/15/88 Mayor and Cornmon Council directed that encroachments into
the public right-of-way in Tract No. 11118 be removed.
Recommended motion:
That a public hearing be set for November 7, 1988, at 10:00 a.m. to
appeal an order to remove all encroachments into the public right-
of-way in Tract No. 11118 also known as Ridge Creek Estates.
cc:
James E. Robbins, Acting
City Administrator
Roger Hardgrave, Director of
Public Works/City Engineer
/..~
~ .
. .-)
~O/t?~
Signature
Contact person: Roger Hardgrave, Director of Public Phone: 5025
works/clty ~nglneer
Supporting data attached: Letter of Appeal Ward: 5
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0;>62
Agenda Item No.
3
Honorable Mayor and Members of
the Co~,on Council
City of San Bernardino
Clvie Center
c/o City Clerks Office
300 North rD' Street
3~n Ber~~rdino, California
REt'O. - ADMIN. OFF.
1988 OCT -3 PM 3: , 2
September 26, 198~
92418-0001
Re: Action Number 63. regular meeting of the Mayor
and Comrr;or. Council of August 15. 1988.
At the meeting of AU~Jst 15. 1988 under Action Number sixty-three (6~). the
Mayor and Common Council ordered the removal of all encroachments into the
public right-of-way in the Ridge Creek Ranch Estates subdiViSion. consisting
of the etreets. Meyers Court seVen (7) homes and Meyers Road twenty-seven (27)
hOlLes. The basis for the action was the complaint of' a property owner resi.d-
ing at 7035 Meyers Court pertaining to a fence constructed in the public right-
of-way by an adjacent property owner re~iding at 7005 Meyers Court.
Please accept this letter as a formal request to the Mayor and Members of the
Common Council fer appeal to Action Item, Number sisty-three (63) of the
August 15. 1988 meeting. Please advise us at the address and telephone
number listed below. regarding the hearing date and time.
Respectfully submitted.
(c:c r7.:,-'T~iZ Sv~
:3 7 /"3 /?/E jei(-f'
,-(H/'/ 1./ ci?lt/HRrll/l)0
7;) YD /'
r( () ~'L'
/1
c--.../
September 26, 1988
REC'O. - ADMiN. OFF.
1968 SEP 28 PM 3: 15
Honorable Mayor and Members of
the Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 North "n" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001
Subject: San Bernardino - Request for Council Action, File No. TR No. 11118
Reference: Letter dated July 27, 1988 to San Bernardino City Council from
the Law Offices of Andrew J. Gunn
Dea r Counc il ,
I am requesting reconsideration of the Council's action on encroachments of
fences into the public right-of-way along Meyers Road and Meyers Court in the
Verdemont area. I did not attend the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council
but I have a copy of your Staff Report and the letter from the Law Offices of
Andrew J. Gunn.
It is imperative that the Common Council review Attorney Gunn's client's state-
ment with scrutiny. Please follow along with me.
Page l--"Mr. Palmer put up a fence on Meyers Court approximately 2~ feet from
the curb, running from the easement line across the easement with two gates,
closed, and no access to or through the easement from the road or from my own
(Bill Nilsson's) property." "On November 13,1987 I (Bill Nillson) was using
the easement by JUMPING THE CURB to do some work on the other half of my (Bill
Nilsson's) property..." Now what Mr. Nilsson neglected to say was "by jumping
the curb IN MY VEHICLE".
Page 2--"Mr. Palmer came out and said in a very rude manner that I (Bill Nilsson)
could not go through here..." Again, Mr. Nilsson neglected to add "with your
VEHICLE because this is a NON-VEHICULAR access and bridal trail."
"If Lee Palmer gets animals or if he sells his house to people with animals,
then the animals would be sticking their heads over the fence and through the
fence into the street, and kids on bikes, people walking on the street, etc.,
would be in danger." As Mr. Nilsson previously stated, "this fence is 2~ feet
from the curb"--what animal has a neck that long besides a giraffe? NOTE: I am
the other homeowner whose "animals would stick out into the street" as mentioned
in Mr. Nilsson's letter; however, there are also several other homes on Meyers
Road with fences 2~ feet from the curb. (Make your story factual, Bill).
Page 3--"COMMON SENSE"--The Ridge Creek Ranch Estates Homeowners used the model
homes fencing as a guideline. The track contractor installed split rail fencing
around his model homes to "provide a more rural feeling to the area" (Staff Report
8-08-88, Page 1 of 2). The city signed off the models as is. Now the council
is seeking action to have the sidewalk which connected the two model homes
removed also.
So Mr. Nilsson takes Mr. Palmer to court and the judge reminds Mr. Nilsson that
"easements were reserved on the final map for bridal path, utility and drainage,
generally along the rear and side lot lines for NON-VEHICULAR access."
In June 1988, Mr. Nilsson was seen by Mr. Palmer and myself driving his vehicle
(small pickup truck) on the bridal path to gain access to his rear yard. Police
Officer Pancucci, Badge #D6, was called to the scene and a statement was taken
from Mr. Palmer and myself. The police report number is #C8816637. Since that
date, Mr. Nilsson has been seen numerous times driving his vehicle upon the
bridle trail and hence this case has been reopened and documented as such. Now
Mr. Nilsson is requesting from the council "for you to take the bull by the horns
and do it right, that's all it takes."
Mr. Nilsson's letter has me in stiches when he states "All this is deliberate on
his (Mr. Palmer) part and he has within himself deliberated, aggrevated attitudes
that a "normal" person would never do, this way." "This man has alienated this
neighborhood...believe me, just ask his neighbors...across the street..." (He
is referring to me, as Bill mentioned on page 2 of his statement.)
Page 4--1n the paragraph about visual safety, Council, I want to remind you that
the "Staff has reviewed the area and found that the fences are the split rail
type...and do not pose a serious obstruction to visibility. The Traffic Engineer-
ing section has reviewed the location at Meyers Road and Meyers Court and do not
consider it a traffic hazard in its present configuartion."
The Staff Report, Page 2 of 2, sums it all up for everyone; "It appears from Mr.
Nilsson's letter that access is his main concern." More correctly stated would
be "vehicle access"; Mr. Nilsson does not own a horse.
Let's look at some other statements Mr. Nilsson made in his letter--"non-caring";
"believe me" (thrice stated); "get away with whatever". It's obvious to me that
he has not considered the consequences of ordering the removal of all encroach-
ments. He has outraged the homeowners on Meyers Road and has exhausted a
considerable amount of city time and expense to unleash his vindictiveness upon
Mr. Palmer.
In conclusion, I request council to drop this action against me and the other
parties concernedo T cannot believe Mr. Nilsson's statement holds more weight
than the recommendation of the Public Works Department.
Sincerely,
/1 r; I
YI, /1 i --/1;-
~;,~~ ~;~:~~~:~ :::~::o:e'
San Bernardino, CA 92407-1721
September 26. 1ge~
Honorable Mayor and Members of
the Co~on Council
City of San Bernardino
Ci vie Cer.ter
c/o City Clerks Offico
~O~ North 'D' street
58n Bernbrdino, California
R!C'8. - ADM1M. OFF.
1988 SEP 27 AM to: 52
92418-0001
ReI Act:on Number 63, regular meeting of the Mayor
and Common Council of August 15, 1988.
At the meeting of AU~Jst 15, 19E8 under Action Number sixty-three (63), the
Ma.yor and Commen Council ordered the removal of all encroachments into the
public right-of-way in the Ridge Creek Ranch Estates subdivision, consisting
of the ~treete, Meyers Court seven (7) homes and Meyers Road twenty-seven (27)
homes. The basis for the action was the complaint of a property owner resid-
ing at 7035 Meyers Court pertaining to a fence constructed 1n the public right-
of-way by an adjacent property owner residing at 7005 Meyers Court.
Please acceFt this letter a~ a formal request to the Mayor and Members of the
Common Council for appeal to Action Item, Number siXty-three (63) of the
August 15, 1988 meeting. Please advise us at the address and telephone
number listed below, regarding the hearing date and time.
Respectfully submitted,
J "
/ J ~ r /l~.. -" ,
/1-( C j'(.Cf.t.'.1.J - - , ~",J..b_/1-
Gl -d~ S. Osten, Propert~ Owner
'-::;;/ ~ ~/) ~
~~",..._,-__ C!, <..--'- .-____,
ThOmas c. Osten, Property Owner
3727 W. Meyers Road
San Bernardino, CA 92407-1721
. .
Honorable Mayor Rod Members of
the Corr~on Council
City of san Bernardino
Civic Ceoter
c/o City Clerk s Of1'1 ce
,on North ID' Street
San Bern/;1rdino, California
RECtO.'- ADM'N. tiFF.
1988 SEP 2 7 AM In: 52
September 26, 19E:
92418-0001
Re: Action Nu~ber 65, regular meeting of the Mayor
and ::;vl:lJlLor. Counci 1 of August 15, 1988.
At the meeting of August 15, 1988 under Action Number sixty-three (63), the
Mayor and Common Council ordered the removal of all encroachments into the
public right-of-way 1n the Ridge Creek Ranch Estates subdivision, consisting
of the streets, Meyers Court seven (7) homes and Meyers Road twenty-seven (27)
homes. The basig for the action was the complaint of a property owner resid-
ing at 7C35 Meyers Court pertaining to a fence constructed in the public right-
of-way by an adjacent property owner residing at 7005 Meyers Court.
Please accept this letter a~ a formal request to the Mayor and Members of the
COlIllIion Council for appeal to Action Item, Number sisty-three (63) of the
AUl'nt 15, 1988 meeting. Please advise us at the address and telephone
number listed below, regarding the hearing date and time.
Respectfully submitted,
..--;' -. ,
.' / / /;. -
/" _ ,- 'f,. I /
/l--c'/c<-t., ,f LJ ~.~
" / - '/j
(
/"
/
,.I
/(C//
, ",
/J
l I
I
/
.. /
/ : ;./
,
I (j, I Ii
I I- f.
( I' ,'..l. \.. '"
, ..
".A',-(
',( i'
;<"'> I"
,; / / ,.r ~/tc:~ t> ? '( --C'/
L~e
" ./,.: .---:~- j ~/::/;' {
)
/
\
/1
Iv.
..t~
-)
September 26, 1988
HoncrMble M~yor And Members of
the Corr.mor. Cour.c i 1
City of San Bernardino
Civic Center
c/o Clty Clerks Office
~O( North 'D' Street
Sbn Bernbrdino, California
REC'D. - ADMIN. OFF.
1988 SEP 2 7 1J.f to: 52
92418-0001
Re: Action Number 63, regular meeting of the Mayor
and Commor. Council of August 15, 1988.
At the meeting of August 15, 19€8 under Action Number sixty-three (63), the
Mayor and Ccmn..on Council ordered the remova.l of all encroachments into the
public right-of-way in the Ridge Creek Ranch Estates subdivision, consisting
of the streets, Meyers Court seven (7) homes and Meyers Road twenty-seven (27)
homes. The basis for the actior. was the complaint of a property owner resid-
ing at 7035 Meyers Court pertaining to a fence constructed in the public right-
of-way by an adjacent property owner residing at 7005 Meyers Court.
Please accert this letter as a formal request to the Mayor and Members of the
Comulon Council for appeal to Action Item, Number sisty-three (63) of the
August 15, 1988 meeting. Please advise us at the address and telephone
nu~ber listed below, regarding the hearing date and time.
Respectfully submitted,
- .
. .~', .1(.1 )L( ((' r-/t.Jt'2/tZt.1L4J-1
' ~-'i --
'J"1 ^-....4 ' ,-r-' ,(' " (,..
. ! '- ,'" L-l}/ (,,'-C.L' IU:,~/ ~
f~4-',L~ '-JJ? ~LJ ~Ie.~
/~ / ,
,1f72t5L~~<~ 6L~~
(2a:'i~'~',-",~ '
~3 70:-'~'. '/J..)t! Vi' i,j./ /i~(.
~". /' . . ,( . fi,
- c..,,_ JC, /,;)12 'J.-.1"LA~1<' 1( ~,/'<<, C L-o// 9 c<! r I 7
\::1//.:.. ;!-'./::....r){..fl
,,-
~ '7./</) ~ P '7 n:J :7.5--?'
Honorable Mayor and Members of
the Oommon Oouncil
Oity of San Bernardino
Oivic Oenter
c/o Oity Olerks Office
~OO North 'D' Street
San Bernardino, Oalifornia
REC.I. - ADMIN. OFF.
1988 SfP 27 AM 10: 52
September 26, 1988
92418-0001
Re: Action Number 6~, regular meeting of the Mayor
and Common Oouncil of August 15, 1988.
At the meeting of August 15, 1988 under Action Number sixty-three (6~), the
Mayor and Oommon Oouncil ordered the removal of all encroachments into the
public right-of-way in the Ridge Oreek Ranch Estates subdivision, consisting
of the streets, Meyers Oourt seven (7) homes and Meyers Road twenty-seven (27)
homes. The basis for the action was the complaint of a property owner resid-
ing at 70~5 Meyers Oourt pertaining to a fence constructed in the public right-
of-way by an adjacent property owner residing at 7005 Meyers Oourt.
Please accept this letter as a formal request to the Mayor and Members of the
Oommon Oouncil for appeal to Action Item, Number si.ty-three (6~) of the
August 15, 1988 meeting. Please advise us at the address and telephone
number listed below, regarding the hearing date and time.
~0ect~ul s. _d,
-. . . \ c uk ....,J-l
i:~ . . 810 or Jr- J .
Property Owner
~/t/a,!~~ d t6~~
Barbara Lee B. Bicher
Property Owner
81:
;,.
.If
Address:
~749 Meyers Road
San Bernardino, Oalif. 92407
"
,.
e
Telephone:
(714) 887-1272
Fa
n
~
m
o
,
(")
:::i
-<
e
::Q
-:'lIt
September 26, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of
the Co~on Council
City of san Bernardino
Civic Center
c/o City Clerks Office
;00 North 'D' Street
San Bernardino, California 92418-0001
Res Action Number 6;, regular meeting of the Mayor
and Common Council of August 15, 1988.
At the meeting of August 15, 1988 under Action Number sixty-three (6~), the
Mayor and Common Council ordered the removal of all encroachments into the
public right-of-way in the Ridge Creek Ranch Estates subdivision, consisting
of the streets, Meyers Court seven (7) homes and Meyers Road twenty-seven (27)
homes. The basis for the action was the complaint of a property owner resid-
ing at 70;5 Meyers Court pertaining to a fence constructed in the public right-
of-way by an adjacent property owner residing at 7005 Meyers Court.
Please accept this letter as a formal request to the Mayor and Members of the
Common Council for appeal to Action Item, Number siaty-three (6;) of the
August 15, 1988 meeting. Please advise us at the address and telephone
number listed below, regarding the hearing date and time.
Respectfully submitted,
~Q~ 81 ::.
m
C')
7~~ m
~ ~ <:
m
'='
- I
K\ \<'J\ ~ N ("")
:::;
H .." -<
. C"')
r-
N m
~r'~ ^'
~ - ~
At>'D~~:
"?>b11 M~~S ~
~AtJ ~Ni>I~ J ~
<=t't.'io1
~
18I.e;~t
7/'1. 8e7-'l>')~
..
September 22,1988
~:";"
"
..
Mayor Ev\lyn Wilcox
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Dear Mayor Wilcox,
We, the under-signed, petition you and the Common Council for recon-
sideration of the action taken on August 15,1988 regarding our property.
(See the attached photocopy.)
First of all this action was taken without our knowledge and we were not
given the right to defend ourselves. It's as if we live in a communist
county and the city can take our property whether we like it or not.
Secondly, we are sure that the director or public works/city engineer
and the Department of Building and Safety had to approve the property
for construction along with the city planner before the developer cou}c
even begin to build. Subsequently, there is nothing in our title pol~cy
or C C and R's that would indicate our having to give up thirty-two(32)
feet of property frontage. It only mentions fifteen(15) feet of bridal
path in the rear of our property which we have complied with.
On June 6 193J \Ie applied for and were issued a ,ermit to build our
patios. At the same time we asked for a per~it to build our block wa11
fence and were told that \.e didn't need on as long as we stayed withil
three feet of the curb. We have complied with that regulation. Also,
the building of the patios coinsided with the building of the fence a~d
when the inspector from the Department of Building and Safety came ou:
for inspections we asked him if we needed a permit to build the fence
but he also said we only needed to stay within three feet of the curb.
We sincerely believe that we are not at fault since we evidently were
given the wrong informationand we obviously do not want to break any
laws. We hired a licensed contractor to construct the retainer wal~.
Finally,we feel that we have not been given due process of the law and
our constitutional rights have been violated. Even a criminal is giv~n
his rights before an arrest or any action is taken against him. Therefor
we ask that you and the council reconsider the aforementioned action.~S
we would be very grateful.
Copies: Congressman George E. Brown
Roger G. Hardgrave, Director of Public works/City Engineer
Councilman Minor
Rnhh;n~_ Arlm;n;~tr~tion
CITY OF
San Bernardino
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
R 0 G ERG. H A R 0 G R A V E
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
September 16, 1988
File No.: TR 11118
Donald & Marvice D. Woodson
3760 Meryers Road
San Bernardino, CA 92407
Re: Encroachment Into Public Right-of-Way
Dear Homeowner:
At the regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council on
August 15, 1988, the Mayor and Common Council took action
that directly affects your property and improvements. Acting
on a complaint, staff was directed to investigate a report of
encroachments into the public right-of-way and/or construc-
tion of improvements without permits.
This action was number 63 on the regular agenda for the
referenced meeting and two motions were offered by staff for
consideration. Motion one was to determine that the
encroachments were in violation of City Codes and to order
the removal. Motion two was to consider, on an individual
basis, the encroachments and to perhaps allow license agree-
ments for some of the encroachments. The text of the staff
report is available from the City Clerk's office. There was
an opportunity for public input but no special notification
was required to be made on this matter. It was published in
the regular agenda and made available to the public but no
letters were sent to the affected property owners.
The
from
all
was
the
action of the Mayor and Common Council, after hearing
some of the area residents was to order the removal of
encroachments into the public right-of-way. This office
directed to determine the encroachments and notify you,
property owner.
Attached is a copy of the survey notes taken by City survey
Crews and showing the curb line, the property line and all
encroachments into the right-of-way. Generally, anything
between the curb and the property line is an encroachment and
300 NORTH D STREET SAN BERNARDINO
CALIFORNiA 92418.0001 71./38.-5111
?Rf:'~ ~
~ i" :::=Jt'""~.';;"C;~
~;?---
Encroachment Into Public Right-of-Way
september 16, 1988
File No.: TR 11118
Page 2
must be removed. This includes walls, fences, walkways,
trash enclosures, retaining walls, ends of fences along your
side yards and large decorative objects.
This letter shall serve as your official notice to remove
such encroachments. You will have 45 days from your receipt
.of this letter to make the necessary removals or the city
forces will take action to accomplish the removal and recover
costs from you.
We understand your concern over this matter and realize that
you may have questions. Staff can and will discuss this with
you if you contact our office. However, the council Action
has already been taken and staff cannot alter that action or
modify the conditions established. only a reconsideration by
the Mayor and/or Council Members can alter the action already
taken. Should you have questions, please contact us at 384-
5125.
cordially,
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Director of,Public Works/City Engineer
~L~:~~
GENE R. KLATT
Assistant City Engineer
cc: Mayor wilcox
councilman Minor
Robbins, Administration
0 ~ "V
~ )10 0 ~
~\ . ~ ::u C.
'-
I'll ;:lli I'll
() ~ 0 n
cr ::u ~
0 z
32' '\ I'll )10
~ ::u ~
, I'll
20 ~ z
P
L. /ne 'tl ~
~
Blccl<. WOlil ~ 'i-.
..
~ U\ IJI "
:-:: Q;,
... ~
.:...-r. ~ J,
~~ i"\ "- CXl
'S'" ~ "V
)( h
.... )10
.... ..... . (j') ()
"I- I'll "-
~. n '-l:
~ ::u .
I'll "-
~ -1 ~ ~
l"l '"
~ 1 () ~
.'!I \:)
2 ~ ~ t
~ r\ ~ l ~
0 ~ 0
n r -+ ." "
~ - .....
< ~ N t'f'... ''"'I
"I -+ ~
z ~
;I Z ...
"i..
z "'\) ~ I VI "V (f',
"I 0 ~ I ::u r-
III 0 0
~ "" ... ...
III 'J C '- I.Il
7\ :t I'll
0 VJ \' n c
"I ~ ~
"I f\ a ~
~ ,
n \ }l' r- ...
~ "'" ",
-c ~ ~ ... ~ -<
'" '" (') ~ ;tI
.:>
:) "', '\ ~ en I'll
z ()) I n
0 ~ ~ ~ 0
I ::u
, I ~ 0
, C'
III l~
~ ~ ""
~ I,......... l..l
1'1 . oJ "+j
1'1 i~ c
~ 'J
III , ~ (;\
~ ~
Z
GI ~
III
:u
z
) n ~
II
... ::t
:z I'll III
0 n
.. ;:lli CD
.. ._-~---........-----.... I'll 0
. 0 0
;; CD ;:lli
-<
c " '.1._
~r::\"'CK. "" co" ,
rorer ty L; l'le --
J\
)
~ '.J'\
;:.. 't", 0
Q,-
". 0
itx. -
"\~.
r
"V
)10
(j')
I'll
-
Law Offices of
Andrew J. Gunn RtC~I'.:~-'-
36J 'HIestSi;(tA
-<'" ~''\ Z9
SQ1l 'Bmaanlinol 01 92401 '>:'." '--'-
1'fum& {714} 885.3251
July 27, 1988
~ c .,)",
- , ,
, .-
San Bernardino City Council
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA
Re: My client: Bill Nilsson
Dear City Council:
Enclosed please find a statement from my client, Bill Nilsson,
regar~ing- a problem he is having at his residence.
Please look into this problem and advise me as to any further
information that may be needed from me.
Ver~ truly yours,
40
AnrJifew J. Gunn
AJG/mg
8-08-88
The-pig problem all started when the oerson livin~ on the
corner, Mr. Palmer, put up a fence on Meyers Court approximately
2 1/2 feet from the curb, runnin~ from the easement line across
the easement with two gates, closed, and no access to or through
the easement from the road or from my own pro~erty. I said to
Mr. Palmer, "'fua t you did here is not according to plan and you
are violating CC and R's and the City olans and its rules
according to the way it should be." He said, "I can do anythin~
I want" and that this was his property. I said, "But Lee, you
should conform to the plans to keep up the best points of this
home tract, after all that is what keeps the value up." And
again he said, "I'm not going to change nothipg. If you don't
like it sue me." I said, "I'll have to call the City to have
you cooperate properly." He said, "Go ahead. They're not.
going to do nothing at all, I know what I can do, so leave me
alone."
So, two weeks went by and I had two City,'officer:s ifrom the
Engineering Dept. come out, one of them was a City official.
He came over and talked to Mr. Palmer about the fence and gates
blocking the bridal trail easement on City property and all I
was told by the official was "That by going through the easement
and having to open the gates was a hassle but it wasn't my resoon.
sibility to close or secure them" and that the "law was as far
as I want to take it", Now I could get no help from anybody
on the gates and fence.
On November 13, 1987 I was using the easement (by jumoin~
the curb) to do some work on the other half of my property, I
was in and out, so locking and securin~ the ~ates was to the
--'
point of ridiculous. (Please mind these gates are on City
pr6pert~2 1/2 feet from the curb.)
Then" suddenly, Mr. Palmer came out and said in a very
rude manner that I could not go through here any-more and it
was my problem that this is the way the situation is. He
reached to his back, with this look, and motion as if a weapon
of sort was to be used to solve the problem, he pulled out a
hammer and nailed the gates closed. (1 was ready todod~e
for cover, really)
So now I was faced with a non-carin~ person who thinks
he can get away with whatever he wants to do, not with what
is right according to the CCRls & City plans, but only what
is right for him, and believe me, this fence is 2 1/2 feet
from the curb and myself, my wife and family. and nei~hbors
are faced. 24 hours a day, with a hazard, having to go into
the street to use the easement. but now can't. If Lee Palmer
gets animals or if he sells his house to people with animals,
then the animals would be sticking their heads over the fence
and through the fence into the street, and kids on bikes,
people walking on the street. etc.. would be in danger. Then
there is the traffic. There is no need for this hazard. it
is there now and its not supposed to be, so eliminate the
problem. (There are only two homes, that if the owners had
animals, the animals would stick out into the street. These
owners are Lee Palmer and the peo~le in front of him. The
rest of the residents have their fences back where they should
be so that animals could not stick out into the street.) There
-2-
are people h~re who do have common sense, and that is all I'm
really asking for from the Council, is for you to take the bull
by the horns and do it right, that's all it takes.
A few days after Lee Palmer locked the gates, I made con-
tact with a lawyer, and arranged to have Lee Palmer served to
appear in court.
So now this problem that the City didn't want to handle
has cost me $1,800.00, the "law is as far as you want to take
it". Believe me, this really hurt me, personally and: financially.
So a while went by and a court date set in late January,
then a continuance and the typical game play, then finally the
judge said you cannot close the gates, that is an access ease-
ment, bridal trail and it cannot be blocked. (And mind please,
that this is on City property~)
So now he still has his fence on City prooerty, I am blocked
out from the easement-bridal trail, from my property, because the
back fence runs along the bridal trail~ starting 2 1/2 feet from
the curb down the side property line, and in turn, blocking me
out from the back of my property.
All this is deliberate on his part and he has within himself
deliberated, aggrevated attitudes that a "normal" person would
never do, this way.
My neighbors don't know what to say, they feel sorry for
me, they also have complained but to no avail. This man has
alienated this neighborhood and its not the nice neighborhood
we all really wanted it to be, believe me, just ask his neighbors
-3-
on his left or across the street. or in the cul-de-sac.
This guy is not fair. Oh yes. and the building foreman
for the tract even said that I would have problems with him.
he was right. this is really said. and its all deliberate
actions. somehow him knowing or knowing someone in City Hall
that he would be allowed to do what he wants. there is some-
thing wrong somewhere.
He is betting totally on the City not doing anything
about anything. because he knows somethin~ or somebody. be-
cause he said so. "I can do anything I want."
Also. my neighbors have called the Engineering Dept.. the
Code Enforcement. the City Attorney and I called Councilman
Minor.
The other problem is. the fence in front. on Meyers Rd.
Lee Palmer put the fence so close to the curb. that when pul-
ling out of Meyers Court to Meyers Road. you cannot see the
oncoming traffic, you have to pull the nose of the car way out,
and by the time you do. and when you catch your concentration
when to go or not, after a visual view for t~affic. it would
be too lace. there would be an accident. The fence should be
back 12 feet as stated in City plans. for cryin~ out loud,
this guy is not right, I feel he's doing this to see what he
can get away with, not caring about anyone's safety. There
are 10 children living on the cul-de-sac and they are at risk.
Then coming up Meyers Road to turn right into Meyers Court
there is a blind area because the fence is on the curb, I have
qad plenty of close calls with the children and people walking
-4-
-
in the stre~ because they can't walk on the curb because
the fence is right there. Please help this neighborhood
from this type of action. We love our neighborhood, believe
me. Help us, City Council, please we need your helo, because
believe me, these people are not haopy here, because there is
no enforcement.
Also, Lee Palmer let two or three City trees die, and
told me he was having it out with the City for them to replace
them. Its been this way for over a year, no trees, it looks
empty like a big hole on the side because everyone else did
not let their trees die. And he has no intentions of buying
any trees either. He let the trees die because he was too
lazy to water them, everybody else got a hose, walked it over
and watered them.
Let's make "Ridge Creek Ranch Estates" stand as a safe,
beautiful, friendly place to live and out smiles on ?eoples
faces around here. We just want it right. Please, City
Council, help us.
Thank you very much,
Si$~
Bill Nilson
Caring resident of Rid~e Creek EstatEs
of Lot 24