12-04-1972 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PUBLIC HEA-~ING - (Continued) Councilman Patterson, after inquiring about the possibility of realigning north of McFadden and receiving a negative response from the Director of Public Works, stated that he could see no alternative other than to adopt the proposed alignment, and that he Believed the added tra£flc to the area would increase business activity. RECESS all Councilmen present. At 8:30 P.M., a recess was declared. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 P.M. with PUBLIC HEARING The Mayor opened the public ORD. NS-il48 hearing for t.he consideration DANGEROUS BUILDINGS of ORDINANCE NS-1148, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ADDING TO CHAPTER 8 OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING VOLUME IV OF THE UNI- FORM BUILDING CODE, DANGEROUS BUILDINGS 1970 EDITION, which was ready for adoption, and requested staff to make recommendations. The City Attorney stated that there were about 17 specific designations to describe an unsafe:building in the proposed ordinance; and that in his opinion, and ha the opinion of the Director of Building, the definitions, while more explicit, were not more effective than the present building code, and provide land owners with precise definitions which eliminate confusion. He further stated that once the building official determines that a particular building is substandard according to precise code, then if the land owner does not agree, he can appeal to a five-man board which, ideally, would be composed of people in the building industry who are not employees of the citY; and that he recommended the adoption of the ordinance. Billy C. Hall, Executive Director of the Santa Ana City Center Association, stated that there had been much misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about the proposed ordinance; that to educate their people, a comparison between the old ordinance and the proposed ordinance had been made and forwarded to their Board of Directors; that the Board was satisfied with the proposed ordinance and withdrew any request for further extension of its consideration. Mayor Griset inquired of the City Attorney if the decisions of the five-man board would be subject to appeal to the City Council. The City Attorney responded that appeal to City Council would be from repair costs and demolltion costs only; for example, if the board would sustain the order of the Building Department that certain repairs be made and the owner refused to make the repairs, the Director of Public Works would have the right to have the work done and assess the owner for the charges. He further stated that the five-man board would be appointed by the City Council; that there was no provision in the code for appealing the board's decision to Council; and that people improperly treated by the board would have some recourse to Council through the process of Council Oral Communications. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 451 DECEMBER 4, 1972