12-17-1962 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

/i04 )LUTION 62-240 P~S OLUTI ON 62-239 Vice-Mayor Hubbard then requested the opinion of Mr. Hurwitz concerning the protest mad. by the Department of Public Works and the Irvine Ranch Water District. Mr. Hurwitz stated that for the purpose of determining whether the~was a majority protest by owner; of publicly o~ued property, the City Council was under no legal obligation to include the protest of the Department of Public Works pertaining to the freeway. Mr. Hurwitz further stated that in view of the relationship between the Irvine Ranch Water District ar~ the Irvine Company, and also the circumstances surrounding the conveyance of the property from the Irvine Company to the Water District, the City Council was under no legal duty to include the protest of the Water District for the purpose of determining whether there was a majority protest by owners of publicly owned property. Mr. Hurwitz stated that for the purpose of determining the existence of a majority protest by owner~ of publicly owned property, the City Council could disregard the protest of the Depart- ment of Public Works and the Irvine Ranch Water District, in which event there was no majority protest by public owners of publicly o~med property within the territory pro- posed to be annexed. Vice-Mayor Hubbard then asked al~ p~otestants, and their representatives, and any other interested persons who were present in the audience whether they desired to present any additional evidence or to object or to co~ent in any way upon any of the matters being heard by the City Council. No persons present responded in answer to the Vice-Mayor's invitation. Mr. Hurwitz then called the Council's attention to the fact that the area and extent of the territory proposed to be annexed was identical under Resolutions Nos. 62-110 and 62-122 and 62-145. He stated that after the adoption of Resolution No. 62-110 a pro- cedural error had been discovered and that for this reason Resolution No. 62-122 had been adopted. He further stated that after adoption of Resolution No. 62-122, a furthe~ procedural error had been discovered with respect to Resolution No. 62-110 and a simil~ procedural error had been discovered with respect to Resolution No. 62-122. Because of these procedural errers he stated that it became necessary to adopt Resolution No. 62-145. There being no further persons present desiring to hear or to be heard on the matters before the Council and the members of the City Council stating that they had no further questions and indicating that they were fully informed or~ the matters then being heard: the Vice-Mayor declared the hearing closed. The Clerk introduced by title RESOLUTION NO. 62-240 DECLARING THAT MAJORITY PROTEST HAS NOT BEEN MADE AGAINST THE ANNEXATION OF TE~RIT~Y UND~ THE NAME OF "NEWPORT AND DYER S. E. ANNEX", RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 62-122. It was mo~ed by Councilman Brewer, seconded by Gouncilman Gilmore, that further readin be waived and Resolution No. 62-240 be adopted. On roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Schlueter, Gilmore, Brewer, Hubbard Noes: None Absent: M~or Hall The Clerk introduced by title RESOLUTION NO. 62-239 DECLARING THAT MAJORITY PROTEST HA NOT BEEN MADE AGAINST THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY UNDER THE NAME OF "NEWPORT AND DY~ S. E. ANNEX", RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 62-145. It was moved by Councilman Brewer, seconded by Councilman Gilmore, that further reading be waived and Resolution No. 62-239 be adopted. On roll c~11 vote: