Going into last night’s meeting, the unsuspecting City Council perhaps should have been braced for residential pushback on an ordinance that sought to clarify and update home/commercial/industrial property maintenance standards.
Especially since the influence of communal objections has mushroomed in recent months.
An unexpectedly strong fight was staged before the refined ordinance squeezed through.
The so-called “nuisance” or common-sense ordinance updated language written more than half-a-century ago, which City Hall said was vague. The revised ordinance, with 30 changes, “modifies property maintenance standards,” and it specifically targets severely derelict properties.
What seemed to be a one-step change ran into stiff resistance from no fewer than10 residents who may have misunderstood the intent of the updating.
Most if not all of the residents appeared to have received a flyer that suggested certain types of landscaping — among them, due process, fruit trees, rose bushes and drought-tolerant gardens — would be prohibited by the ordinance.
“The principal idea behind the changes,” said Mayor Scott Malsin, “is only to allow neighbors to quietly enjoy their properties.”
Maintaining tidy, manicured grounds is the goal of the ordinance., he said.
Although a City Hall spokesperson listed line-by-line instances of “misinformation” in the leaflet, speaker after speaker referred to the flyer contents as a basis for his or her objections.
Resistant residents immediately found an ally in Vice Mayor Gary Silbiger.
Even though a city attorney explained that the Culver City changes were based on a “model ordinance” followed by more than 50 California communities, some going back more than 30 years, Mr. Silbiger said he wanted to delay adoption until he learned what laws other cities used.
He also said that the due process provided by the ordinance was insufficient.
In Greater Los Angeles, Monrovia, Bellflower, Lancaster and Downey — all traditional communities — use this ordinance.
Mr. Silbiger said that if Culver City residents want to hang laundry on a clothes line in the front yard, this should be permissible. This was not allowed under the original or the revised ordinance.
“I can’t emphasize enough,” said Mayor Malsin, “that the ordinance does not add restrictions. It just clarifies what has been required for more than 50 years, such as placing trash barrels behind the house instead of out front.”
After applying several tweaks, the Council passed the ordinance 3 to 1 to 1, with Mr. Silbiger voting “no” and member Chris Armenta abstaining.
