1967 Jan to Dec - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Councilman Petersen moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5475 ORDERING MODIFICATION OF ASSESSMENTS, OVERRULING PROTESTS, AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS AS MODIFIED, SIERRA STREET -PALM AVENUE EXTENSION IMPROVEMENTS, seconded by Councilman Bury and carried on roll call vote. Councilman Granger moved that the fire hydrant at the end of the cul-de-sac on Sierra Street reported by Mr. Marcelli, be referred to Staff for investigating the possibility of its being moved to another location in order that he might have use of a .driveway to his property, seconded by Councilman Keekley and carried. (MINUTE ORDER #67-185) PUBLIC HEARING, Abatement of dilapidated structure at 420 Avenue del Ora. declared open and affidavit of posting ordered filed. Chief Building Official, after being sworn in by City Clerk presented his testimony. Written evidence to substantiate his testimony was submitted. He also read in fullhis report reciting facts of inspec- tions made by County, meeting with the property owners, numerous damages occasioned by vandalism, complaints of neighboring residents because of open condition of building making it a hazard to children, and further reporting rehabilitation of the structure for conformance to minimum requirements of the Building Code would cost approximately $20,000 because of the numerous corrections required. Estimated cost for demolition of the structure and removal of foundations and debris was esti- mated at approximately $1,600 based on other recent similar demolitions. In conclusion, Chief Building Official recommended that the hazardous building be demolished and the proterty cleared of all debris. Council questioned demoli- tion procedures, particularly concerning the need for any fill as a result of the removal of the foundation, to which Building Official replied this could be included _ as a part of the demolition conditions, and cited a recent case where this had been done. Robert Williams, 1069 Alameda, owner of property and dwelling involved, asked for a continuance of public hearing for at lease one week in order he might deter- mine whether dwelling should be rehabilitated or not, and disputed $20,000 estimateuoted for reconstruction to Building Code as he estimated $4,000 would be sufficient. He also advised of financial problems which had arisen since his purchase of the property which had delayed rehabilitation of the property and of his efforts to protect the property from vandalism. He advised he was still in the process of settling insurance claim for recent fire damage to the property. Chief Building Official was asked by the Council if he would recommend a continuance and replied his recommendation as presented was firm. City Attorney advised abate- ment procedure did not become effective for thirty days and that during this time property owner did have time to take whatever steps he deemed necessary, making a — continuance of public hearing needless. He further advised within this thirty day period property owner, if inclined, could get a building permit to indicate his intentions to rehabilitate the dwelling or, if found not to be possible, time is still available for abatement by the owner, but jurisdiction would lie with City to proceed with abatement if owner did not. ft 11 B7