City Council Minutes
4/23/2008 10:55:20 AM
4/10/2008 9:57:19 PM
CC - Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
<br />5005 <br /> <br />(Hear ing - <br />Vacation of <br />Fifth Ave.) <br /> <br />/) <br />jlPlo ~ <br /> <br />INDEXED <br /> <br />ORDINANCE <br />No. 1087 <br />(Introduced) <br /> <br />i&~:'D <br /> <br />HEARING <br />(Ritter) <br /> <br />~Qt <br />Iv \:3';; <br />/) .:Ill.DEXED <br /> <br />The Director of Public Works added that in his op1n10n, however, the <br />public convenience and necessity require the reservation of permanent <br />easements and rights of way for the various structures enumerated in <br />Section 8330 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California <br />in order that the City may at any time or from time to time construct, <br />maintain, operate, replace, remove and renew sanitary sewers, storm <br />drains and appurtenant structures, or to enlarge pipe lines and other <br />convenient structures on any portion of said property. <br /> <br />Mayor Camphouse inquired if anyone in the audience desired to address the <br />Council in opposition to the above mentioned proceedings. <br /> <br />No one desiring to speak, Councilman Phillips moved that the hearing be I <br />closed. Motion seconded by Councilman Balser and carried unanimously. <br /> <br />It being the determination of the Council that the property hereinbefore <br />used for street purposes is unnecessary for present or prospective <br />street purposes and that the public welfare, convenience and necessity <br />and safety require and will be better served by the vacation thereof as <br />a public street in the City of Arcadia, the City Attorney presented for <br />the first time, explained the content and read the title of Ordinance <br />No. 1087, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF <br />ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, VACATING AND ABANDONING A PORTION OF FIFTH AVENUE, <br />A PUBLIC STREET IN SAID CITY AND RESERVING SPECIFIED EASEMENTS THEREIN." <br /> <br />Motion made by Councilman Phillips, seconded by Councilman Reibold and <br />carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of <br />Ordinance No. 1087 be waived: <br /> <br />AYES: Councilmen Balser, Butterworth, Reibold, Phillips, Camphouse <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br />Councilman Phillips further moved that Ordinance No. 1087 be introduced. <br />Motion seconded by Councilman Balser and carried on roll call vote as <br />follows: <br /> <br />AYES: Councilmen Balser, Butterworth, Reibold, Phillips, Camphouse <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br />Mayor Camphouse declared the hearing reopened on the application of <br />Dr. Emil R. Ritter and others for a zone reclassification from Zone R-l <br />to Zones C-3 and D (Architectural OVerlay) of property located at 623 <br />West Duarte Road (Planning Commission Resolution No. 367 recommending <br />reclassification) and requested the City Clerk to read a communication <br />she had received. <br /> <br />The City Clerk thereupon read said communication from the applicants, <br />which stated in substance that the original application had requested a <br />C-3 reclassification in view of the possible need for a prescription I <br />pharmacy; however, that their purpose could be equally served by having <br />the property zoned C-O with a variance for a possible pharmacy, and <br />requested that the original zoning request be amended to an application <br />for 623 West Duarte Road to be zoned C-O with a variance for a pharmacy. , <br /> <br />Mayor Camphouse then inquired if anyone in the audience desired to <br />address the Council either in favor of or in opposition to the requested <br />zone reclassification. <br /> <br />Councilman Phillips explained that this matter had been original+y set for <br />hearing May 3, 1960, at which time he had been absent, and the vote had <br />been two to one against the recommendation of the Planning Commission, <br />with one abstention; that due to this vote the matter had been placed on <br />pending agenda and at the Council meeting of May 17, 1960 he had requested <br />the matter be taken off pending agenda, the hearing reopened and placed <br />on agenda for this meeting. That as the matter now stands the applicants <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />6- 8- 60 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.