08-02-1971 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PARK DEVELOPMENT Santa Ana Unified School District letter dated July 29, 1971, was ~ presented, suggesting that it would be beneficial to the public to build a neighborhood park at the McKinley School site at Second and Flower, an~t allow the School District to utilize the City's property at First and Flower for school purposes. Councilman Markel spoke against the proposal, stating that this would place the proposed temporary school buildings adjacent to the land used for the water works where 1 1/2 million dollars worth of electronic equipment is located; and that it would be jeopardizing the water facilities. Mr. Howard Harrison, Santa Ana Unified School District, 1405 French Street~ stated that the westerly portion of the property will be temporary school rooms for no longer than two years; that the school will build tennis courts on the easterly end for use in conjunction with the City; that the proposed trade would not in any way damage the water works. In reply to Councilman Villa's question, the City Manager stated that Staff does not see any problem with the water works; that the school must have an additional site by September and they can move onto the McKinley property and move again in two years, or they can move onto the City's property at First and Flower and r~ak~ it a permanent installation, allowing the City to use McKinley School property for a park; and that after a period of approximately two years~ the City and the School District would enter into a long-term agreement for use of the area. Councilman Patterson's motion, seconded by Councilman Villa, to approve the Lease Agreement and authorize its execution by the Mayor and Clerk, carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Patterson, Villa, Evans, Herrin, Griset, Yamamoto Markel None VA 70-23 Letter dated July 28, 1971, from PACIFIC INVESTMENTS Van Stevens, 1840 E. Seventeenth Street, requested clarification of the intent of Section 35-109 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, establishing park and recreation fees on the construction of residential units within the City. Reference was made to VA 70-23 which approved construction of a motel on east First Street, just west of Tustin Avenue, to include kitchenette units in a portion of the rooms. There was considerable discussion concerning the difference between a motel or apartment. Councilman Herrin stated that he believed the construction approved by VA 70-23 should be classified as a motel and moved to delete this kind of facility from the requirement of the park fee. The motion died for lack of a second. The Director of Planning stated that the primary difference is whether or not the unit contains a kitchen; that a motel's square footage is much less than that required in an apartment; and that the open space requirement is less for a motel. CITY COUNCIL -264- August 2, 1971