|
deed restrictions prohibiting commercial uses. A survey was made on the traffic
<br />flow, and it was found that there were 24~000 cars on a 2h-hour basis in this local-
<br />ity, and an increase of 25% to 50% is anticipated. Councilman Gould suggested a
<br />list of businesses for the use of this property, and the Attorney stated this would
<br />be discriminatory against Mr. Freeman. Attorney Philip J. Reilly, 401 ~. Eighth
<br />Btreet, representing approximately thirty persons, who stood in protest of the re-
<br />zoning, stated he owns property at 2247 No. Baker Street, which is a residential
<br />and there is considerable ingress and egress to Honer Plaza through 18th, 19th end
<br />22nd Streets. None of these streets cut through, with the possible exception of 1St
<br />Street. Many of the people are owners of R-2 homes, there are no multiple-family
<br />residences, and the properties are well cared for. It was good planning for a com-
<br />mercial street when the buffer strip was established. With the advent of Montgomery
<br />Ward, the problem of parking has extended to 18th Street and rezoning for one lot
<br />would not help the community or the neighborhood. The Attorney cited Section 25,
<br />paragraph 109 of McQuillin's Municipal Corporations, with reference to rezoning of a
<br />district. The hearing was closed. It was moved by Cou~c~lm~n Gould and seconded by
<br />Brewer that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be approved and ~mendment
<br />Application No. 312, filed by James A. Freeman, denied. Councilman Heinly stated:
<br />"I am not going to cite any cases. Having been on the Council for quite some time
<br />and having been through many of these zone changes and having indicated earlier on
<br />a zone change m~ feeling with respect to the overall planning of the City of Santa
<br />Aha, in reviewing the facts as I know them and possibly being as blind as the mice,
<br />I, inmy own mind, am going to vote on the following basis: That to change this
<br />zone at the present time would be absolutely inconsistent with the orderly progress
<br />of the area and inconsistent with the overall plan of the area. There is absolutely
<br />no reasonable relationship between the health, welfare and morals of the public
<br />require that there be a change of zone of this property at this time. And, I
<br />consider that there has been no change of circumstances since the original consider-
<br />ation of this property, warranting its change of zone at this time and on that basis
<br />! will cast my vote." Councilman Gould stated: "With the permission of the second
<br />I will incorporate that last speech in my motion."
<br />
<br />Comm.-Planning Commission
<br />II"Seventeenth and Wright
<br /> N. E. No. 2 ~J~uex"
<br />
<br />Roll Call Ayee~ Councilmen
<br />
<br /> Noes, Councilmen
<br /> Absent, Councilmen
<br />
<br />On motion of Councilman Hubbard, seconded by Gould and carried, the co~m~Anication fr
<br />
<br />Stanley C. Gould, Jr., Dale H. Heinly, Bob
<br />A. A. Hall
<br />Royal E. Hubbard
<br />None
<br />
<br />the Planning Commission was received and filed recommending approval of proposed
<br />
<br />annexation to the City of territory designated "Seventeenth and Wright N. E. No. 2
<br />Annex," consisting of approximately llO.h15 acres, located between Seventeenth
<br />
<br />and Santa Clara Avenue, extending from Wright Street on the west to Tustin Avenue on
<br />
<br /> .56
<br /> proceedings
<br />nnexation "Seventeenth
<br />and Wright N.E.No.2 Annex"
<br /> set hearing date)
<br />
<br />the east.
<br />
<br />The Council having unanimously waived the reading of the Resolution, on motion of
<br />
<br />Councilman Hubbard, seconded by Gould and carried, the following Resolution entitled
<br />
<br />"Resolution No. 60-156 initiating proceedings for annexation of
<br />territory to the City of Santa Ana, designating an appropriate
<br />name of 'Seventeenth and Wright N.E. No. 2 Aunex' for said
<br />territory and giving notice of protest hearing thereon"
<br />
<br />and setting hearing date on October 3, 1960, was considered and passed by the
<br />
<br />ing vote:
<br />
<br />forum. -Planning Commission
<br />~,treet name change
<br /> Lane to Monica Lane
<br />
<br />~yes, Councilmen Royal E. Hubbard, Stanley C. Gould, Jr., Dale H. Heinly,
<br /> Bob Brewer, A. ^. Hall
<br />Noes, Councilmen None
<br />Absent, Councilmen None
<br />
<br />Ccmm~uuication was presented from the Planning Commission recommending approval of
<br />street name change from ^nis Lane to Monica Lane, as it exists in new Tract 3637
<br />to the east, as there is already a "Skyview Drive" in Orange County, reference
<br />petition of fifteen property owners on Anis Lane. On motion of Councilman Hubbard,
<br />
<br /> P57
<br /> name of "Anis Lane"
<br />"Monica Lane"
<br />
<br />seconded by Heinly and carried, the communication was received and filed.
<br />
<br />The Council having unanimously waived the reading of the Resolution, on motion of
<br />Councilman Hubbard, seconded by Heinly and carried, the following Resolution
<br />
<br /> "Resolution No. 60-157 changing the name of 'Anis Lane'
<br /> to 'Monica Lane'"
<br />
<br />was considered and passed by the following vote:
<br />
<br />
<br />
|