My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-25-1973
Clerk
>
Minutes
>
CITY COUNCIL
>
1952-1999
>
1973
>
06-25-1973
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2012 2:00:09 PM
Creation date
5/6/2003 3:00:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Minutes
Date
6/25/1973
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
Housing was to show that within the 320-acre Project Area, there <br />were buildings that were substandard and according to State law <br />it was necessary to show that the area had been inspected, and that <br />it was part of the General Plan; that the report showed block by <br />block the required information. <br /> <br />Mr. Joe Gilmaker, 308 West Fourth Street, inquired as to how <br />many buildings were found to be substandard. <br /> <br />The Director of Building Safety and Housing stated that out of <br />687 buildings inspected, 466 of them were found to be substandard <br />by the criteria which he had mentioned, which represented 67.9% <br />of the area; that inspectors had spent several days over a period <br />of four weeks or the equivalent of two inspectors, full-time, for <br />a month. <br /> <br />Janice Boer, 912 North Lowell, read from Section 33442 of the <br />California Health & Safety Code and stated that she would like <br />someone who was a logician to tell her how you could take build- <br />ings, have them determined substandard, and have them comply <br />with that section of the Code. <br /> <br />The City Attorney stated that the Code section referred to was not <br />germane to the question. <br /> <br />Mrs. Boer replied that the City Attorney had never found anything <br />germane to the issue when he was unable to answer the question. <br /> <br />The Vice Mayor stated that he did not believe tke question was <br />entirely fair; that he did not believe it was part of the particu- <br />lar issue at that time and that it could not be answered. <br /> <br />The Assistant City Manager stated that the Director of Building <br />Safety and Housing had mentioned that inspectors had walked all <br />of the blocks and looked at the buildings; that the Buildings <br />were not being condemned; that it was simply infol~matlen for <br />the General Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Edward Gafford, 330 West Washington, representing American <br />Legion Post 131, stated that the Post owned one half~ Bleck in <br />the Project Area; that he was not present te oppose anything, <br />but was seeking information; that if their building was seund, <br />fire proof and would not collapse with 7.6 on the Richter scale, <br />would it be subject to the demolition squad? <br /> <br />The Assistant City Manager stated that the American Legion build- <br />ing was not subject to any demoliton squad; that the~e were no <br />plans to take down any building at that time; that the pregram <br />was to get financing -- approximately $500,000.00 per year, and <br />that from there they would be working with the people to make <br />plans together. <br /> <br />Mr. Gilmaker read from Section 33321 of the California Health & <br />Safety Code, Article III. <br /> <br />The City Attorney stated that he thought Mr. Gilmakez's remarks <br />would be properly directed to the next item on the agenda. <br /> <br />Mr. Gilmaker stated that he was talking about substandard <br />buildings and that his remarks were pertinent to the present <br />hearing. <br /> <br />The Vice Mayor concurred with Mr. Gilmaker that the remarks were <br />pertinent. <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MINUTES <br /> <br />224 <br /> <br />JUNE 25, 1973 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.