|
452
<br />
<br />Rearing
<br />Amend. Appl. No. 365
<br />Harold T. Segerstrom
<br />Ordinance
<br />
<br />Rearing
<br />Amendment Appl. No. 382
<br />Ralph J. Cover
<br />
<br />Amendment Appl. No. 38~
<br />Hygiene Products Co.,
<br />Inc.
<br />
<br /> Douglas Cla~k, 1510NorthM~r-Less Drive, representing residents in the area sout]
<br /> of Bolsa Avenue, west of the River, stated the general feeling of the people he
<br /> contacted in regard to Study 19, was this plan should enc~ass the entire City ~
<br /> a Master pla~ and a financial study should be a forerunner to the Plan. ~r. Clark
<br /> asked those in the audience who were in favor of a f~a~cial study to stand and
<br /> approxtw~tely 20 persons stood. Mr. Clark further stated that due to the popula-
<br /> tion increase various ~ities realize a Master Plan that would project to 1980 is
<br /> necessary, and cca~ended the City Officials for doing an excellent Job. Arturo
<br /> Mirano, 630 Corta Drive, presented a letter fr~n Mr. and Mrs. O. D. Mulanox, 1205
<br /> South Elliott Place, opposing reclassificatiou of the corner of Sugar Avenue and
<br /> Newhope Street; and a petition signed byapprc~tm~tely 103 persons and stated the
<br /> petition had been read and circulated in the area as a follow-up to a letter from
<br /> the Planning C.-.-.~ssion to the Council, and pl~t~ C~=~sion's Resolution 55~7,
<br /> which states any introduction of c~..-ercial or R-3 apartment zoning, other than as
<br /> shown on the attached map, would be adverse, destructive, and incompatible with
<br /> the people of the area and of the City of Santa Ana. On motion of Councilw~-
<br /> Brewer, seconded by Hubbard and carried, the petition and letters were received
<br /> and filed.
<br />
<br />This being the date set for hearing on Amendment Application No. 365, filed by
<br />Harold T. Segerstrom, amending Sectional District Map 12-5-10, to reclassify fram
<br />the C-2 District to the C-3 District, property between Main and Sycamore Streets,
<br />located apprc~imately 125 feet north of Tenth Street, all as shown on Exhibit A.A.
<br />365A; no protests were received and the hearing closed. The Council having unani-
<br />mously waived the reading of the Ordinance, on motion of Councilman Hubbard, sec-
<br />onded by Brewer and carried, the following Ordinance entitled:
<br />
<br /> "Ordinance amending Article IX of the Santa Ana Municipal Code to
<br /> change district classification on ~m_~ndment Application No. 365
<br /> and amending Sectional District Map 12-5-10 (Exhibit AA 365A)"
<br />
<br />filed by Harold T. Segerstrom, reclassifying from the C-2 District to the C-3 Dis-
<br />trict, property between Main and Sycamore'Streets, located apprextmately 125 feet
<br />north of Tenth Street, was introduced, considered and placed on file for second
<br />reading.
<br />
<br />This being the date set for hearing on Amendment Application No. 382, filed by
<br />Ralph J. Cover, amending Sectional District Map 16-5-10, to reclassify from the
<br />R-2 and A-1 Districts to the R-3 and C-1 Districts, property at the northeast cor-
<br />ner of Sugar (McFadden) Avenue and Newhope Street (a parcel approximately ~37 feet
<br />on Sugar Avenue by 371 feet on Newhope Street), all as shown on Exhibit A.A. 382A;
<br />at the verbal request of the applicant and on motion of Counc~lma~ Brewer, second-
<br />
<br />ed by Hubbard and carried, the hearing was continued until the next meeting.
<br />.
<br />This being the date set for hearing on Amendment Application No. 38~, filed by
<br />Hygiene Products Co., Inc., amending Sectional District Map 15-5-10, to reclassif
<br />from the C-2 and R-2 Districts to the M-1 District, property at 2926 West First
<br />Street, which is appr~xtm-tely 100' x 385' (this parcel is approximately 260 feet
<br />east of the Santa Ana River Channel on the south side of First Street), all as
<br />shown on Exhibit A.A. 38~A; Jack Hall, Civil Engineer, 219 East 17th Street, repre
<br />senting the applicant, stated ~-1 zoning was requested, the Planning Department
<br />recommended C-2 zoning and the Planning C~...fssion recommended denial. The appli-
<br />cant would prefer to have C-M zon.i~g, which would allow the present use of the
<br />
<br />
<br />
|