Laserfiche WebLink
~- <br />r <br />OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY <br />OPINION N0. 76- $ <br />April 14, 1976 <br />SUBJECT: Lease between Santa Ana Vehicle Parking <br /> District No. 1 and Parking Co. of America- <br /> California. <br />REQUESTED BY: Tom Andrusky, Administrative and <br /> Support Services <br />OPINION BY: Keith L. Gow, City Attorney <br />By: James L. Conkey, Deputy City Attorney <br />QUESTION 1: Do the claims by Parking Co. of America- <br /> California that the federal government has <br /> increased the price of gasoline, that the <br /> Orange County Rapid Transit System has pro- <br /> vided a low bus fare, and that a conflict <br /> exists between property owners and the Santa <br /> Ana Redevelopment Project come within the <br /> provisions of paragraph 16 of the lease dated <br /> December 7, 1971 between the Santa Ana Vehicle <br /> Parking District No. 1 and the Parking Co. of <br /> America-California? <br />ANSWER 1: No. <br />QUESTION 2: Would Parking Co. of America-California have to <br />pay any monthly rental under the terms of the <br />above mentioned lease if facts could be <br />established that would come within one of the <br />provisions of paragraph 16 of the subject lease? <br />ANSWER 2: No, unless their gross monthly receipts were <br />in excess of $700. <br />QUESTION 3: Are there any defenses, outside of paragraph <br />16, that Parking Co. of America-California <br />could assert to avoid the terms of the lease? <br />ANSWER 3: Yes. <br />-1- <br />