|
It was moved by Councilman Hubbard that the request be denied and matter be
<br />referred back to Commission for possibility of Pl-~ed Development suffix.
<br />The motion was lost, lackin~ a second.
<br />
<br />It was moved by Counc~l-,~ Harvey, seconded by Councll.~ Gilmore that the
<br />reclassification be approved and the City Attorney be requested to prepare
<br />an amending ordinance. The motion was carried, on roll c,11 vote:
<br />
<br />ATES, 00UNCILMEN: Warvey, Gilmore, Schlueter
<br />NOES, COUNCIl: Embbard, wA~ ~
<br />ABS~T, ¢OUNClW.2~: None
<br />
<br />~ECESS
<br />
<br />At 9:25 p.m. a 10 minute recess was
<br />declared. The meeting was reconvened
<br />at 9:35 p.m. with ~ Councilmen present.
<br />
<br />~EARING- Mayor ~A~ opened the continued hearing
<br />AMEND. APP. 435 - on ~n~nt Ap~ication ~5 filed by
<br />
<br /> ~ctiona~ ~strict ~ 17-5-R by
<br />reclass~y~ ~ ~e M i ~ t~ R 4 district ~y sou~ of ~Fa~n ~
<br />~st of ~n.
<br />
<br />Dale ~e~,,~ y, 611 N. Broadway, attorney representing the applicant, stated
<br />that a court reporter was present to record the hearings on A~ead~ent
<br />Application 435 and Amendment Application ~d~ (Hiskey ~_d 2k~ld) an~ that
<br />his remarks would apply to both applications.
<br />
<br />~r. ~einly noted that about five years a~o the City Council e~A-~d the
<br />or~*~nces permitting individuals to build in ~ 1, R 3, R 2 or R 1 zones to
<br />industrial use. The property owner, however, has not had buyers interested
<br />in M 1 zonim~. The chanse in zOmim~ would allow the owner to realize a profit,
<br />as he has buyers interested in It 4 property.
<br />
<br />Mayor Nell read a telegra~ fr~a Eerr Glass Nanufacturix~ Company opposing
<br />the rezonings in Amendment Applications 435, ):):):, and 471. Om motion of
<br />Cou~cil~an Habbard, seconded by Coun~i~ Schlueter and carried, the telegra~
<br />was received an~ ordered filed.
<br />
<br />J. 0~den ~rkel, 1~14 S. Parton, stattn~ his opinions were not representing
<br />amy organization to which he belonged, reviewed the rezoning of the Bristol
<br />and Warner area to M 1, commenting that residential develolmaent ~ been
<br />stopped in that area,-en~ that ~osta Mesa had then enn~ed lan~ Which was to
<br />have been ---~xed by San~a Ama. Hacanee a developer is interested in the
<br />area, ~r. Markel urged that the area be rezoned to R ~.
<br />
<br />~eorge Maxwell, 1110 N. Eastsid~, Industrial Co-or&inator for the Chamber of
<br />Cm~erce, reviewed the Background of industrial zoning in the area, noting
<br />that in 1957 the P~a-wimg Director, had proposed that the south Grand area
<br />be zoned to agriculture entil a pattern developed. Ne maimtained that a
<br />pattern of iadustr~-~ ~evelolm~nt now exists, and stressed the importance of
<br />keeping the area intact for industries. Ne also reviewed the history of the
<br />Zonin~ 0rd~nance, statin~ that industries that had moved into the area had
<br />been led to believe they would be protected from residential encroachment.
<br />
<br />l~obert Our~is, 121 E. 6th Street, Los Angeles, attorney for the Santa Fe
<br />Railway, spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning, stating that Santa And
<br />is ripe for industrial developaent. Mr. Stevens, Acting Pla-ning Director,
<br />stated ~t the p.l,,,~-4~ consultant did not propose any land
<br />
<br />After Mr. Neiuly spoke in rebuttal, ~ordon Cutler, 121 E. 6th Street, Los
<br />Angeles, representing the Santa Fe Railway, said that only certain types of
<br />industry could be developed along the railroad; that more than five industries
<br />
<br />CITY COL~CIL
<br />
<br />- 393 - May s~, ~96~
<br />
<br />
<br />
|