My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0013416
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
F
>
FRENCH CAMP
>
2771
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
LA-85-37
>
SU0013416
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2020 12:19:57 PM
Creation date
6/16/2020 11:40:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0013416
PE
2600
FACILITY_NAME
LA-85-37
STREET_NUMBER
2771
STREET_NAME
FRENCH CAMP
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
MANTECA
Zip
95336-
APN
17710022
ENTERED_DATE
6/10/2020 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
2771 FRENCH CAMP RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\gmartinez
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
BOARD OF HOUSING APPEALS <br /> Page 2 <br /> January 9 , 1986 <br /> Specifically, the Code in the occupancy definition does not <br /> speak in terms of "hazardous" , does not address amount of dust <br /> and does not deal with whether or not a specific operation <br /> creates a "dangerous situation . " Consequently, these are not <br /> issues to be determined by the Building Official or your Board. <br /> As the appeal is framed, the Board has no authority to grant <br /> the appeal for to do so would constitute an amendment to the Code <br /> itself not merely an interpretation of it. The Board does not <br /> have jurisdiction to amend or rewrite the Code or to change its <br /> terms . In effect , the appeal is requesting something of the Board <br /> that is beyond its power . <br /> Simply stated, the only proper inquiry is whether or not the <br /> operation in question generates combustible dust. If so, there <br /> is no authority to do other than classify the building where the <br /> operation is carried out as an "H-3" occupancy. Such issues as <br /> degree of hazard, amount of combustible material , etc . , are an <br /> attempt to misdirect a proper review of the occupancy classifica- <br /> tion into potentially debatable areas irrelevant to the deter- <br /> mination to be made. <br /> Occupancy classification is not a discretionary matter , but <br /> mandatory with fairly rigid inflexible criteria. The Building <br /> Department' s classification of the structure in question as "H-3" <br /> is based on the factor of combustible dust generation . If fac- <br /> tually correct , there is nothing further to be explored or <br /> debated. <br /> While your Board has a role in interpreting the Code, the <br /> role is solely and specifically limited to interpretation, not an <br /> analysis of the wisdom or advisability of definition, criteria, <br /> restrictions , etc . , contained in the Code. Those matters are for <br /> legislative determination , not administrative interpretation , and <br /> while your Board might on appropriate occasion recommend legisla- <br /> tive amendment or modification , barring such amendment or modifi- <br /> cation, the limitations and restrictions of the Code are to be <br /> mandatorially applied. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.