Laserfiche WebLink
the existence of blighted areas within the City of Santa Ana <br />Community Redevelopment Project Area. <br /> <br />Councilman Ward's motion to receive and file the negative <br />declaration pertaining to the Amendment to the General Plan, <br />was seconded by Councilman Yamamoto, and carried on the <br />following vote: <br /> <br />AYES: Ward, Yamamoto, Evans, Garthe, Griset <br /> <br />NOES: None <br /> <br />ABSENT: Markel, Patterson <br /> <br />The Director of Building Safety and Housing presented the <br />following documents to Council: 1) The Building Inspection <br />Summary by the Director of Building Safety and Housing of the <br />City of Santa Ana dated May 15, 1973; 2) The Building Condition <br />Summary accompanying said Building Inspection Summary; 3) A <br />map pertaining to the Building Condition Summary. He stated that <br />each building in the Project Area had been inspected and that <br />an inspection survey sheet had been filled out for each one; <br />that the inspections had been of the exterior of the buildings <br />only; that there had been no attempt to determine the extent of <br />Code violations, but only to determine condition of buildings <br />with respect to obvious structural, aesthetic or deterioration <br />features. He placed a map of the Project Area on the overhead <br />projector, identified the boundaries of the Project Area, and <br />stated that the survey had merely been to determine the percentage <br />of all sub-standard buildings within the Project Area. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Councilman Griset as to w~at part <br />the age of a building had played, the Director of Building <br />Safety and Housing stated that it had played none in itself <br />unless some structural deficiency had been reflected; that some <br />of the older masonry buildings were sub-standard; that they <br />had made more careful inspection than just a windshield driving <br />by survey; that each building had been examined from the exterior <br />by someone walking around the building; that the records had been <br />consulted regarding age of buildings where such record~ had <br />been available; that detailed engineering surveys had not Been <br />made. <br /> <br />Councilman Ward asked what major areas had been considered ~rhen <br />a building had been declared sub-standard. <br /> <br />In response, the Director stated that the problem of fire <br />resistance had been considered, as well as the general condition <br />of the properties; and that they had been considered suB-standard <br />if there had been a number of minor Code violations or one major <br />deficiency. <br /> <br />Councilman Yamamoto's motion to receive in evidence the documents <br />presented by the Director of Building Safety and Housing, was <br />seconded by Councilman Griset, and unanimously carried on a 5 - 0 <br />vote. <br /> <br />Mr. Mick Conway, 2520 N. Linwood Avenue, stated that he did not <br />know what Council had done in the preceding action. <br /> <br />The Vice Mayor asked the Assistant City Manager to clarify <br />the action. <br /> <br />The Assistant City Manager stated that he would be happy to provide <br />Mr. Conway with a copy of the report; that the main purpose of <br />the information provided by the Director of Building Safety and <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MINUTES <br /> <br />223 JUNE 25, 1973 <br /> <br /> <br />