Laserfiche WebLink
There were no speakers on the subject, and the Mayor closed <br />the public hearing. <br /> <br />The Negative Declaration was approved and filed, and ordinance <br />No. NS-1539 as follows was placed on first reading on the <br />motion of Councilman Brandt, seconded by Councilman Ortiz, <br />and carried S:i, with Councilman Evans dissenting: <br /> <br />ORDINANCE NO. NS-1339 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY <br />OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. <br />?48 FILED BY LEVITT-WEST AND WILLIAM LYON COMPANY <br />RBZONING PROPERTY FROM THE C4 (PLANNED SHOPPING <br />CENTER) DISTRICT TO THE R2-PRD (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL <br />DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT, AND AMENDING SECTIONAL <br />DISTRICT MAP 27-5-10. <br /> <br />CA 10 <br /> <br />ORAL COMMUNICATION Mickey Madden of <br />TEMPORARY GREYHOUND TERMINAL 2319 North Rosewood <br /> expressed disapproval <br /> of locating the <br />temporary Greyhound Bus Depot on Seventeenth Street at <br />Poinsettia. She stated that there is no place for the <br />busses to park, no place for customers to park, no room <br />for busses to turn around; that the,location is in one <br />of our nicest medium priced residential areas; that she is <br />circulating petitions for signatures of other concerned <br />citizens; and that she is here to beg Council to do some- <br />thing to prevent this area from going down the drain. <br /> <br />Mr. Mike Green, 1818 North Poinsettia, also said he and <br />other neighbors were opposed to the proposed re-location <br />of the bus terminal. <br /> <br />Councilman Bricken asked the Planning Director whether the <br />Greyhound people were required to come in for approval of <br />the use and the plans they wished to implement for the use. <br />Mr. Zimmerman replied that there is a very subtle difference <br />between approval of use or appreval of site plans; that the <br />proposed use is allowed in the C5 zone which is applicable <br />to the property. Councilman Bricken continued by asking <br />whether Municipal Code Section 41-425 (e) is applicable to <br />this question. The City Attorney stated that it seemed to <br />be applicable, and that an appeal could be filed by citizens <br />for Planning Commission and Council review of the decision <br />of the Planning Director. CA <br /> <br />78 <br /> <br />ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Dan Sager, 3301 <br />PERSONNEL PROBLEM South Bristol, stated <br />DAN SAGER that he was a former <br /> City employee under <br />the CBTA Program; that he was terminated on January 19, 1976; <br />that he felt it was an unjust termination; that he referred <br />the matter to the Orange County Manpower Commission; that <br />after several months it was referred by them to the City <br />Attorney's Office; and that he was asking Council to expedite <br />tke handling of the complaint. CA S0 <br /> ~CA 131.11 <br />City Attorney Keith Gow stated that he is happy to discuss <br />it~at:any time; that the matter is complex and the office is <br />in process of obtaining information; that the case was received <br />by his office in late October and the matter is proceeding as <br />quickly as possible. <br /> <br />ADJOURNMENT <br /> <br />At 9:45 P.M. the meeting <br />was adjourned. <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MINUTES <br /> <br />458 DECEMBER 6, 1976 <br /> <br /> <br />