Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Otterman stated that the recommendations of the final report <br />will take into consideration the street designations contained in <br />. the General Plan, the Downtown Santa Ana Study and the Central <br />Santa Ana Study. He added that their preliminary study had shown <br />that there was some conflict between the street designations <br />contained in these studies. He stated further that Urban Futures <br />is in in the process of having meetings with business men from the <br />downtown project area in order to determine their feelings about <br />the area and to get their recommendations for inclusion in the <br />final report. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />'~ <br /> <br />Mr. Ward stated that staff had made an extensive report last year <br />on hazardous conditions in the project area which he felt would be <br />of great assistance to Urban Futures. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Luxembourger, Mr. Otterman said <br />that Urban Futures had worked with the Santa Ana Historical Society <br />to determine which structures would be considered "historical". He <br />added that the nomination of a structure to the National Register <br />would depend upon its historical significance and the support the <br />nomination received from the community. Staff added that, to date, <br />the City Council had not taken action to support or nominate any <br />structure to the National Register. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Serrato, Mr. Otterman said that, <br />because of the great cost of the services of a structural engineer <br />to make a determination regarding the seismic soundness of a <br />structure, seismic analysis had not been included in their study. <br />He added that the final report would stress the fact that the cost <br />of seismic analysis and rehabilitation would be an additional cost <br />to the property owner. <br /> <br />In response to a further question of Mr. Serrato's, Mr. Otterman <br />said that it had been found that it may not be economically <br />feasible to clear the three block area of structures, but that the <br />final report would have layouts of the area showing the removal of <br />all, as well as some of the structures. Mr. Otterman added that <br />they would recommend that the architecture of the new construction <br />in the area be coordinated with that of the existing structures. <br /> <br />Mr. Ward asked Mr. Otterman to amplify his remarks regarding the <br />Federal funding that was available. Mr. Otterman said that, if a <br />structure was placed on the National Register, there may be funding <br />from a number of Federal grants which could be tied into the <br />rehabilitation of this structure. <br /> <br />Mr. Serrato expressed concern regarding the ability of the <br />businessmen in the area to afford the higher rents which will <br />undoubtedly follow the rehabilitation of a building. Mr. Otterman <br />responded that Urban Futures felt that a program of tax deferment <br />might be one way to solve this problem. <br /> <br />Mr. Bricken stated that he had understood from Mr. Otterman's <br />presentation that Urban Futures was quite concerned about making <br />recommendations regarding demolition, the prospect of higher rents <br />and the impact on reinvestment in the area. In short, Mr. Bricken <br />said he had the impression that Urban Futures would be recommending <br />that the area be refurbished and that no major changes be made. In <br />response to his questions regarding the displacement of businesses <br />that are presently in the area, Mr. Otterman said that the final <br />report would definitely address this problem. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Luxembourger, Mr. Otterman said <br />that the consideration of street abandonment would be considered in <br />that part of the report having to do with street designation. <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />7 <br />