05-02-1960 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

this matter be very carefully considered, and if our Ordinances are somewhat vsg~le then perhaps',ye should pattern them after the Los Angeles Code. The M, yet asked if there were any further comments; there being none, the hearing w.~s declared closed. Councilman Gould answered the question of whether we are attempting to repeal absolve laws and said "Yes," and' about four months ago Councilman Hubbard and I'mde a stud~l of these Sections, and we think the Ordinance is tunfair. Coureilman Hein~y stated that insofar as th~s Ordinance is concerned, it allowed the Police Department to ha~ an unwarrsnted invasion of the right of prtvacy~ end that is the .exp!snstion of the unconstitutionality of it. I am not attempting to srguc the constitutionality of ti Lo~ Angeles Code Sections as not binding on eny courts in California, and ~t does not answer the question as far ms we are concerned. No member of th~s Council has a~y desire tc open up this to~m for indecency in any respect. Comnci]man Hubbard stated his opinion ~s still the same as before. Councilman Brewer remarked he ori- ginally made the motion and still maintains he was misinformed. I do think our Ordinance was -~rong in part~ and since that time I have talked to other attor~eys~ not members of this Council. I still feel the same as I did t~.~o weeks ago~ but cannot do anything more to bring it back on the flOor. Mayor Hall stated the Cotrac~i. is aware of his thinking~ and that the people do realize the Ordinance h~s gone to ~! Reso.No.60-87 Agreement with State Improve Fourth Street Overcrossing Petition "Seventeenth and Wright Streets N.E. Annex" second reading, and it takes one of the majority to bring it back on the floor. City Attorney stated we are bound by the Roberts Rules of Order end that the motion must have been made th~ same day or the next regular business day thereafter, being Tuesday, April 19~ 1960. On motion of Councilmen Gou]d~ seconded by Hubbard and carried, a five-minute recess was declared. On motion of Councilman Hubbard, sec- ended by~Heinly and carried, the petitions containing approximately 83 signatures, in protest of the repeal of Sections 4231 snd 4239, were received and fi]ed. The Council having unanimously waived the reading of the Resolution~ on motion of Council~mn Heinly, seconded by Hubbard and carried, the following Resolution entit].~: "Resolution No. 60-87 authorizing execution of Agreement No. 965 with California Department of Public Works, Division of Highway~ for improvement of Fourth Street from Fourth Street overcrosslng structure to Tustln Avenue" at the estimated costs for right-of-way of $10,880.00 and for construction of $20,000.00, was considered and passed by the ~o]_l.o~ng vote: Ayes: Counc~lmen Royal E. Hubberd~ Stanley C. Gould, Jr., Dale H. ~einly, Bob Brewer, A. A. Hall Noes, Councilmen None Absent, Councilmen None A petition was presented signed by approximately 236 persons residing in the pro- posed "Seventeenth and Wright Streets N. E. Annex" protesting the annexation of their properties to the City of Sauta Ana, snd on motion of Councilmen Gouid, sec- onded by Helnly and carried., the petition was received and filed. Mm. E. E. Camp- bell, 16731 Fairhaven Avenue, stated his property is located between the Cities of Orange and Santa ~ma and was not desirous of being annexed to any City; that peti- tions were circulated by M. O. Dunston, O. F. Morricol, G. H. Bishop, John Brawley, J. Henry Mueller, C. Rohrs~ Lewis Young and himself, and there are two or three people in the area who wish to be annexed, but the majority of the property owners, who vere approached to sign the petition, ~ere unanimous in stating they did not ~i~h to come into the C~ty. Glenn Beckwith, 13231 Ethelby Way, stated they would prefer to remain in the County~ and if we are annexed to a City would prefer l~stiu. Mayo~