Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1127109 BK <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 2009-010 <br /> <br />A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF <br />SANTA ANA TO VACATE (1) A PORTION OF THE WEST <br />SIDE OF ROSS STREET NORTH OF SANTA ANA <br />BOULEVARD, AND (2) A PORTION OF THE CITY'S "CIVIC <br />CENTER" WEST OF THE NEW COURT OF APPEAL <br />(ABANDONMENT NO. 09-01) <br /> <br />BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS <br />FOLLOWS: <br /> <br />Section 1: The City Council finds, determines and declares as follows: <br /> <br />A By adoption of Resolution No. 2009-001 on January 5, 2009, which was <br />adopted pursuant to and in accordance with Chapter 3 of Part 3 of Division <br />9 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, the City <br />Council declared its intention to vacate (1) a portion of the west side of <br />Ross Street north of Santa Ana Boulevard, and (2) a portion of the City's <br />Civic Center west of the new Court of Appeal and northwest of the new <br />parking garage. <br /> <br />B. The two proposed vacation areas are described on the legal descriptions <br />labeled Exhibit A (as "City to State Ross Street Parcel" and "City to State <br />Parcel", respectively) and shown on the maps labeled Exhibit B, <br />respectively, and attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. <br /> <br />C. Said resolution gave notice that, at the hour of 6:00 P.M. or as soon <br />thereafter as the matter can be heard on February 2, 2009, in the City <br />Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California, a public <br />hearing would be held by this Council at which time any and all persons <br />interested in or objecting to the proposed vacation hereinabove described <br />may appear and be heard. <br /> <br />D. This Council, at the time and place set for hearing, heard and considered <br />any and all persons interested in or objecting to said proposed vacation of <br />said alleys and received and considered all evidence submitted. <br /> <br />E. The Council finds that the proposed vacations are not necessary for traffic <br />circulation and are unnecessary for present or prospective public use. <br /> <br />F. Pursuant to the provisions of S 892 of the Streets and Highway Code of the <br />State of California, the proposed vacations are not useful as a <br />nonmotorized transportation facility, as defined in S 887 of said Code. <br /> <br />Resolution No. 2009-010 <br />Page 1 of 10 <br />