09-09-1974 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Dale Elsberry, VEHICLE ABATEMENT Attorney, 12550 Brookhurst, Garden Grove, representing Mr. Ginger Nerison, 1008 North Jackson, stated that Mr. Nerison's automobile, a 1955 De Soto, considered more or less a classic, had been removed from his residence property following its citation as an inoperable vehicle; that Mr. Nerison had been in the process of re-building it and await- ing parts; and that it had been taken to a wrecking yard where some damage had been done. He requested Council assistance to forestall wreckage and to restore certain parts which had been removed by the wrecking company. Mr. Nerison stated that his car had been parked in front his garage, in his driveway, on his property and had been licensed for 1974. Staff was instructed to initiate the necessary contacts to prevent further damage to the automobile pending its report and recommendation to Council at the September 16 meeting, on the unanimously approved motion of Councilman Garthe, seconded by Councilman Yamamoto. (CA 11.3) PUBLIC HEARING At 8:50 P. M., the APPEAL FROM BUILDING Mayor announced that CODE REQUIREMENTS this was the time and place for the Public Hearing to consider the Appeal dated August 15, 1974, from Robert Battin and Larry Kirk from the findings and determinations made by the City Staff concerning the con- ditions and the occupancy of 825 North Ross Street, Santa Ana; that the petitioners are the owners of 825 North Ross Street, and wish to use the property as a law office and a residence; that the City staff has determined that the use of the premises prior to ownership by the petitioners was residential; that the staff has determined the new use--a law office--is not less hazardous than its former use; that the City staff, in applying the Uniform Building Code, has found that the structure is of such nature that it cannot be lawfully converted to the new use; and that the City staff has found that a number of other violations exist at the property irrespective of use. He further stated that the property owners, by letter dated August 15, 1974, have appealed the decision of the Director of Building Safety, set forth in his letter dated May 29, 1974, to the property owners, and are re- questing relief from the requirements for improvements of the property. The issues were presented by Mayor Patterson as follows: Is the proposed use in fact less hazardous than the former use, as is contended by the property owners? Do the Code violations, as cited in the letter dated May 29, 1974, from the Director of Building Safety, currently exist? Mr. Lawrence Kirk, appellant, stated that the question is whether or not the use of the property as a law office is less hazardous than its use as a residential premises or boarding house use, which it had been previously. He maintained that the present law office use is less hazard- ous because cooking facilities have been completely CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 337 SEPTEMBER 9, 1974