02-22-1972 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RECESS At 5:05 P.M.. the meeting was recessed to 7:30 P.M., at which time it was reconvened with all Council members present. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the Invocation was given by Chaplain Herman Baerg~ Orange County Medical Center. AiVIENDMENT APPLICATION #696 The Mayor opened the public hearing ROA4AN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP on Amendment Application #696 filed OF LOS ANGELES by Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles to prezone property located on the north side of Main, (Chestnut Street) between Pasadena and Williams Streets from R 4 (County) to R 4 (City of San~a Ana)o The Director of Planning stated that staff and the Planning Commission had recornrnended denial because theproposal is not ~onsistentwith the General Plan; access to the property is inadequate; and the parcel will be bisected by a proposed ramp connecting the Newport and Santa Ana Freeways; that although construction of the ramp is not scheduled until after 1978, the remaining economic life of an apartment project in this location would require a high public expenditure for acquisition of the land. There were ~-proponents or opponents in the matter, and the Clerk reported no vJritte~communications had been received. The Mayor closed the public hearing° After discussion, Councilman Patterson's motion, seconded by Councilman Herrin, to deny Amendment Application #696, carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Patterson~ Herrin, Evans, Griset, Villa None Yamamoto, Markel WARNER AVENUE-SOUTH The Mayor opened the public hearing COMMUNITY PLAN STUDY on the Warner Avenue-South Community Plan Study interim report dated January 28~ 1972, from the Planning Commission° The Director of Planning reviewed the work program currently in progress in connection ~with the area consisting of approximately 2,000 acres bounded by Warner Avenue, Sunflower Avenue, Bristol Street, and Fairview Street. A large map of the area was projected on the screen, and overlay maps showing proposed Alternates A, B~ and C were also presented. The Planning Director reviewed the original proposed zoning under the General Plan and explained each alternate proposal in detail, stressing that there were many more combinations that could be considered; that Alternate A would limit the development to 1Z, 640 dwelling units for approximately 45,600 people; that Alternate B would provide 15,652 dwelling units for approximately 53, Z00 people; and that Alternate C would provide 16~ 536 dwelling units for approximately 53,000 people; that these three plans have been presented to the Planning Commission, but no action has been taken. The Director of Planning also presented a graph projecting capital improvement costs for each proposal. He further stated that in an analysis made by staff approximately eight months ago, the actual existing development CITY COUNCIL -86- February 2Z, 1972