12-17-1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RES. 73-157 REPEALING RES. 73-81 AND FIXING SALARY OF CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA was Yamamoto, seconded by Councilman Ward, following vote: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA REPEALING RES. 73-81 AND FIXING THE SALARY OF THE CITY ATTORNEY adopted on motion of Councilman and carried on the AYES: Yamamoto, Ward, Griset, Patterson, Garthe NOES: Markel ABSENT: Evans A prior motion by Councilman Yamamoto, seconded by Councilman Ward to adopt RES. 73-157 by title only carried unanimously (6 - 0); the Mayor read the title of the resolution, which was not on the public agenda. (CA 50.1; CA 81) BOND ACT 1974 On motion of Councilman PLAN FOR EXPENDITURE Griset, seconded by COUNTY OF ORANGE Ward, and unanimously carried on a 6 0 vote, Council referred the letter dated December 1, 1973 from County Administrative Officer, R. E. Thomas, requesting adoption of Resolution ratifying Priority Plan for Expenditure for the County of Orange under the State Beach, Park, Recreational and Historical Facilities Bond Act of 1974, to the Board of Parks and Recreation and to the Planning Commission for their prompt consideration and coordination with the City's Open Space Priorities Plan and requested reports back in time for Council to respond to County's deadline of January 18, 1974. (CA 57.2b) MINOR EXCEPTION Council considered the NO. 73-25 letter from Raymond Rangel, RAYMOND RANGEL 209 E. 4th Street, dated December 11, 1973, request- ing Council to reconsider its action on December 10, 1973, to receive and file the Zoning Administrator's Findings of Fact denying EX 73-25. Mr. Rangel spoke in favor of the request for reconsideration, stating that he had not known of his right of appeal to Council, and asked that Council approve EX 73-25 to rebuild a retail clothing store which had burned, with 30% reduction in required parking. The Director of Planning stated that the applicant had received notice of the Findings of Fact denying the Minor Exception; and had been notified of his right to appeal the denial to Council. The consensus of Council was that downtown parking problems are critical; that it would favor relief of any kardship, but that the lot was too small for the proposed development; that reduction in parking would not be in the interest of the value of the property; that substandard, piecemeal development would be in the disinterest of the entire Redevelopment Area; that parking requirements should be uniform. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 472 DECEMBER 17, 1973