09-08-1970 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS - (Continued) Museum Board as the two additional members authorized by Ordinance No. NS-1024, adopted August 3, 1970, for terms expiring June 30, 1973 and June 30, 1972, re spectively. The three appointees were introduced by Mayor Griset and were given the Oath of Office by the Clerk of the Council. PUBLIC HEARING Hearing was opened on Amendment AMENDMENT APPLICATION 670 Application 670, filed by W. L. and GORZEMAN G.J. Gorzeman, proposing amendment of Sectional District Maps 17-5-9 and 20-5-9 by rezoning from the A 1 District to the M 1 District property located on the south side of McFadden Avenue between Ritchey Street and Village Way. There being no response to the call for testimony, the hearing was closed. On motion of Councilman Herrin, seconded by Councilman Yamamoto, Amendment Application 670 was approved and the City Attorney was instructed to prepare an ordinance to reclassify the property according to Exhibit A, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Herrin, Evans, Markel, Patterson, Villa, Yamamoto, Griset None None PUBLIC HEARING - VACATION Hearing was opened on proposed PULLMAN STREET - RES. 70-84 vacation of a portion of Pullman Street between Deere and Garry. There being no response to the call for testimony, the hearing was closed. RESOLUTION 70-84 ORDERING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF PULLMAN STREET NORTHEASTERLY OF PROPOSED GARRY STREET was adopted, on motion of Councilman Herrin, seconded by Councilman Markel, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Herrin, Evans, Markel, Patterson, Villa, Yamamoto, Griset None None PUBLIC HEARING - VACATION SHERWOOD STREET - RES. 70-85 Hearing was opened on proposed vacation of Sherwood Street at Maple Street. Ernest Sigala, owner of Parcel 8, 528 E. Sherwood, residing at 1762 Roanoke, Tustin, spoke in opposition to the vacation, expressing the opinion that his parcel would be landlocked, and that it was his understanding when he purchased the parcel that it was a dedicated street. The Public Works Director explained that it was a private street; that the City had tried but had not been able to get dedication on the whole street, therefore the City was abandoning the right of way for street purposes on the parcels described in Resolution 70-85 ordering the vacation; and that Mr. Sigala's property was three or four lots away from the portions being considered for vacation and that the status of his property would be unchanged by this vacation action. Mr. Sigala explained that one of the property owners had recently put in a fence ~vk/icn landlocked his property. CITY COUNCIL -254- September 8, 1970