WGNA sitting tight on new city blight ordinance
Proposal targets homeowners with dirt-only yards
By Michelle C. Crowe
In an area of almost perfectly manicured lawns and trees, it's not too surprising that members of the 30-year-old Willow Glen Neighborhood Association (WGNA), with its 600 dues-paying members, has informally decided to "sit tight" on San Jose's new blight ordinance.
By creating a minimum landscaping standard for residential front and side yards, the intent of the ordinance is to eliminate dirt-only yards--which can create slippage, flooding and pollution hazards--as well as less attractive cement-only yards.
While residents at WGNA's May 8 meeting, held at the Willow Glen United Methodist Church, asked questions about the recently passed proposal, few appeared as impassioned as those who attended the San Jose City Council meeting and first hearing on April 30, when the proposal was passed.
At that meeting, the council voted 10 to 1 in favor of the proposal; San Jose City Councilman Chuck Reed cast the dissenting vote.
The second hearing will be held from 6 to 9 p.m., May 28, at San Jose City Hall, 801 N. First St., to allow residents to voice their opinions on whether boats, trailers, campers and recreational vehicles in front and side yards also constitute a blight issue, and if this should also be addressed in the proposal.
Part of the purpose of the WGNA meeting was to educate residents, as well as solicit their input for that next hearing. If there are no protests after the second hearing, the proposal will be formally incorporated 31 days later.
The main reason for the current proposal was to create agreement between wording in the zoning and code enforcement language, and to facilitate proactive compliance by making it complaint-driven.
"Most people don't realize that a lot of things were spelled out in zoning back in 1967 as to vehicles that can be seen in the front or side yards--they need to be registered, running, and not create a visual or physical blockage for others," said Jamie L. Matthews, code enforcement administrator with the city of San Jose.
Matthews told the 50 WGNA members attending the meeting, "Back in 1996, I wrote a policy that's either loved or hated about vehicles in driveways. Whether it was a car, boat, trailer or RV, it had to be on a fully paved surface that couldn't take up more than 50 percent of the yard. ... It also couldn't be on the sidewalk or be a sight obstruction, broken, covered with graffiti, unregistered or in disrepair.
"Last year's blight code consisted of four components: minimum landscape standards for single-family residential dwellings; minimum standards for strips; regulation of the storage of RVs, trailers, boats and other vehicles in front and side yards; and regulation of holiday lighting. When those four items were presented to community and neighborhood groups in November of 2001, the lighting component was taken out.
"With 125 square miles of city and 920,000 people, it's hard to reach consensus, but nothing galvanizes people like regulations," Matthews said. "I've been flooded with calls from organizations asking how they can help residents who don't have the financial ability to care for their yards.
"When we crafted the first blight code in 1986 to deal with severe health and safety issues such as illegal buildings, we had the same concerns then as now about the recreational vehicle issue--roughly 50 percent of residents don't like, appreciate or want to see them; 25 percent are passionate about them and love them; and 25 percent just don't like the government at all," Matthews said.
While many questions at the WGNA meeting dealt with the issues of litter, dumpsters, business signs on residences and abandoned shopping carts, the majority of concerns centered on all types of recreational vehicles and where they are allowed.
"Is there a time limit for parking an RV on the street?" asked longtime WGNA member and current association secretary Margaret Hardy. The answer is yes--it's 72 hours for any registered vehicle, and then the vehicle needs to be moved "a reasonable distance." If it's missing key parts or is more than six months overdue on registration, the city can tow it.
"Even if someone is lucky enough to find storage space for an RV, it's not only expensive, it's difficult to find insurance coverage that will cover off-site parking. If we force them off of their own property, they'll just park on the street, because it's legal. Yet we already have a terrible problem with parking issues," Matthews explained.
Matthews hopes the proposal will deliver benefits similar to those gained from the recent abandoned cart prevention ordinance. The city used to receive 1,400 calls per month about abandoned carts. They only receive about 99 complaints monthly now, which translates into an 86 percent reduction in the first year.
"In all honesty, the blight issue will not affect the majority of you here--only those with dirt-only yards, park strips and recreational vehicles," Matthews said.
Although several residents asked if boat and trailer parking could be prohibited in general or on a street-by-street basis, those actions would not solve the problem, according to Matthews. Prohibiting parking by size of vehicle is allowed if posted, but there's a cost and process for such signage--managed through the city's department of transportation--and the vehicles would likely be moved to surrounding streets.
One surprising fact revealed at the meeting is that the canopies and tents frequently used to cover recreational vehicles are considered noncompliant structures under the law.
"San Joseans are good neighbors. They don't want to have a long-term relationship with me," admitted Matthews. "Nearly 83 percent of the time, we bring an issue to someone's attention and they comply. In code enforcement, we handle over 58,000 complaints a year, and we resolve an average of 56,000 of those. The rest are resolved with what we call 'fiduciary incentives,' typically starting with $75 to $250 per day per violation for noncompliance after a given deadline. Usually it's resolved at the lower level, but we do have a process to exact a maximum of $100,000 and condemn the property. Voluntary compliance is our preference."
WGNA board member Sharon Fierro believes the proposal is a good idea. "We're considering incorporating some of what San Jose is doing in Campbell also," said Fierro, who serves as the community development director for the neighboring city. "San Jose is really a leader in proactive compliance."
Most residents agreed that a combination of neighborliness and consideration of others should remain the central focus of any action.
"I think the important thing to remember in this or any situation is to be good neighbors. A friend of ours had a rental next door where the lawn was growing really tall and nothing was being done. My friend's son was mowing their own lawn, and as the two properties adjoined, he decided to mow the neighbor's lawn, too. Afterwards, the neighbor came out and was very thankful. They were new renters who had just moved in; they didn't even have a lawnmower yet, and they were so thrilled," said WGNA President John Gibbs. "The lesson here is that no proposal should serve as a substitute for communication and consideration between neighbors."
The second hearing on the proposed blight ordinance will be held on Tuesday, May 28, 6-9 p.m., at the San Jose City Council Office, 801 N. First St. Information can also be found at www.ci.san-jose.ca.us/code/. To communicate concerns about the proposal with the city, call 408.277.4528, or email Jamie L. Matthews at jamie.matthews@ci.sj.ca.us. Recreational vehicle owners are invited to email octavia@familyrv.com.
Willow Glen, California Since 1992
