Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/21/1938 (2)Y:S M� F.MOI2RY8 BHbRSRIND R bltTEW X89 Note N VIWAI)WX , -'Cos 1 =1-y t 8'XPCRTBRIs TRaSOUPT C9 PRfl GS �i 0013 UCTRD BY THR CITY PI 0000401 ING CC�©B . a Op, Tffi GiT7C 08 NMORT MACH 04310 i$I'A ¢ I$ RR 'THS APPLICATION` OF VARti�RiTil L.: 1�C6�7.CCRt SDAYr. 21t 1S38tat 7s3P; P.R.. I „ sP €"RAIRs In xe the application of` iS3srueriBe L. 10 lc.Coli.00h. That has been properly, adverts 4`4 11 .? t13B °SBCPxTARY: That bas been advert a" pine . Post .T 12 cards gave been sit. With reference to bSt, ., Ya the 1a written protest that I bad aloe before. It is fromm P. 1 14 Britton Bpaonnellt 1727 'feat'Seventh Streets ;the, Roosevelt ; 15 Building, Las Angeles, California, dated December thm � 16 20th} ]RU. ., 17 "Planning Commission and the City , Council 18 of the Clay of :Newpolit Bea,ah -. 19, City Hall- 20 Sewport 30aeh, California 21 G*utlemsni 22 T am int ormed thet`an agglieUOU has bWM tiled 23 with you to raz Lot lSt Block 261, in-.the ,eaetaide 24 addition to the Balboa Tract, Bewport Beacht from a single 25 family rosidence use to commercial use, I am also informed 26 ,that you would be interested to &now the attitude Of' s Chairusc* (Reading) y *,Rmm 'd w. Eger* secretaryt 1P City, planning Co iae:on* 11 Newport Teacht Callrvi a. , 12 Der Dr. s$ajer,� 13 ;: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter I ' 14 of the Gth regarding preparation of an ordiumnoe for 1b regulation of bub"Viston I xi I have sent you* under �. 16 separate oover, a copy of the ordissanee which I drew up 17 for San Diego County. I ragard this as a good model. 18 Please let xelknow if' you would like. to have me • 19 assist in the preparation of an ordinance of this i. 20 for ' Newport doh. I. 21 As I erpIAined by wire and 1W telaphene'to �ft 22 Hopkiust it w&P not sSible for me ter reach Newport for 23 your getting on the '10th4• in facto, it will be. b%I rd for we u to come to arq, W your mestingm when they are held at 25 times which do not fall within the period of tW regular 26 Venthly visits ` to Orange County. { JAMES F. MORNB.•BHORTHAND REPORTER..299 NORTH BROADWAY, LOS AN6ELSL8, OALIP Nfti 6E8 1 when I talked to Mr. $E/pkias about your. last 2 meeting he informed se that an application was before .3 the Cosssnission for •spot zoning* and asked for advice on - 4 We problem. npot zoning is not city planing and I I hope your Comm ssion will not give the slightea:t encourages s mint to this practice. If you have read the Los angels: 7 papers lately you will note that spot a oning,hao.rsaeabad I s the proportions of a major scandal in that mit9.," If the +s ty planning Commission and council begin gRassti,ng I 9 sapeoial favors,' to individuals, there is danger ahead. 11 The law under which': Newport Sma" does, its I 12 planning and the Court decisions which support Bush work 1s all contepplate'the regulation of private property uses. 14 by districts► each such district embracing all property 1s having similar Cbaraoteristics„ If a single lot in a Is residential district is spotted and claeasified:as < 17 colskoftial, the question ismmedSately ®►rises: what special Is conditions apply to this lot that do not apply tot any others 19 in,tha,vioinity? IN* the arbitrary aetionv Nhy the 20 epeole l favor? If theare is a genuine need for a 21 Commercial center ill the t ighborhood, not create a commercial district at a point abere several L eornerles or 23 several' lots, all substantially alike, can develop in tislls 24 ( for commere lal purposes? 25 The zoning ordinance whioh is now in effect in 26 Newport was prepared with great care by a conscientious a a 3 � Ya :x ..a .: .. �.r .t e,vr r.; Ir x t * r< < x e e a - c. Bc y�, ,r. ' a, .,aa e. : r au aT w e °r r e :.} 4 # Y 4 Lid ) �' { ° ♦ i A )- � t 6 e.Ya i y C# ��t} ! tai � �! i 5 F - i 4 tl i i.t 1 � r 1x_, e 4 t # t+ f r x :�' �:- < x S> at'� ? 2 f n .�. j 3 3r 4 Yry ...� .. ,....a . _. c:; os ,: >.. 'o-. t ,;. >: � - a0.. a a a ! f r 3 Ie4 a' #if F= Y L b A I f :- 9 s3 `;t )a' (, ii j ..lAM1Bi p..MbRnK Qtf012'f'HxND R6p0l�ER.yaa9 xoiRfi+ gRowaWny. GCe� "/4.tU®.75e3.`�.• •.. �'� `' "'R 1 evMUQp*2Y* business in the heart of a residential i 2 xleighbor31004. This spot business Will only out awe deep - 2 llr into %be s2 ready jusdeqmte revenues of OvUbliahed. � 4 eoncerso operating is soiled venters. s, And It the ow4ors of property in 00 aeigU'"hood g wbere the *relief'' toning is sought andoret*nd: hew` these 7 : factors operate, they too *rill file vigoroae #4tm. & Their whole ataruetwo, of residential vssluess is 'threatened ski , invasion ar thia kind.. 0A by am 10 ill, single stet%* or oeektail bar cannot eelual the 11 values that will, be destroyed in an otherwriew harmonious 12 sad attraotive residential lahborheod s I hope the planning aawdenten will do its part to 14 help an istain the high soaleof residential values which 16 to being created t r the soniug restriotions, 16 _ Sincerely yours, 17 I+. Deming Tilton# Conaultant." 19 39 .A XOMMs - Is that letter signed? ' 20 TEX UCMART L go, it is a typed signature. . 21 TUN MWRMXz I tonight explain that it se* sett to so ; 22 by special delivery. 23 A =IMMi In other ®Cards, since, that. is a *_ there 24 should be some, evidence es to wbT the origival is not here. 25 TM , RMWARYt The original may bave oomo to ;tee tedlrq y _ JAMES F. MORRIS.- OHORTHAND R&ORTM- A" NORTH NNOADWAV, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.-- MU. .:88R6 1 THE CHA MOt Did you look is your filet . 2 TM S110WARYs Z haven't boon howe all day tov . s The letter is addressed w mwely to Newport Beach, Calif- 4 ornla: 6 TM CH&MMs Thin *am In the wall, today,:,, Asy, 6 furtbor communications in thle tier? , 7 TH$' s Thane are the only commmalosti ons. 8 with reference to , this vatter, m'r. Chaim, 8 TIM CHAT ; Wore I take lip any disesnselon on 10 the #'lour, Is there ai# discussion that the Commission u rata,- tefore;we proceed atitEa the'tloor flrst'4' I 2 A pi lot it, come from the floor first. 18 TIM OnAlMass I will be glad to hear anyone ,who 14 ]Fishes to speak on thin matter, 16 MR.. SiODWs.21saloers of the Planning g CC1M.iistO$ of .. 16 iFeUgart' ,l3eaah! vass to �lon B10dg"t and I ate appearing 17 before you s>u''attornesy for ,the people echo reside In thq 18 Immediate neighborhea$ of the l.ot, in question: 1 am , 19 speaking an behalf lsts X* R Herreya 458 Los Angaies, lot d, S, 89 8, 101 Sarah PO $eetous , -. 21 Lot 11 tn�81k # *' 2232 .RovaA y S. MacKay, acKay�,� - 22 �Re Bldg- .der, Bldg., - L. A. %eta 9 :& 7% *lack 2-61 Sarah tat• stou"'. . . 28 19€ 9 B. �' Rent, Lots 6 5q,,, Block 265 John' X. Leakersh ae 24 Bldg :,- :l+ate 1 -2+ 056 Roc+ 'volt 1q-2q, Sleek 28; (icy Bdward 26 V. Arslonder his atty -in -rant ):i,xorma 0, ITOurae, SS3 d.' 26 St. i Ra1'boa, Lot 14, Nook d; , Rarer A. Isrusbowt iW.A R. JAj,F$@F. MORRRI•• @11ORTFMND REPORYER' -44® NORTH BROAbWAY CDB:.:iKH66t'E'CJSL w" V- `@ ®4�' 1 Central, late 13 12, Block 25; 'Hugh L. Loew, ; 1805 39. Bally, 2 Lot 3, ,Block 27; Vay Beatty Neighbors, 1619 B. Bey, Raster- 3 ly 30 feet, Lots 81 9, 10, ,.,11, Block 25.;. Mary Seal 4 Staunton, 1803 B. Bay Front, Lot 29 Blk. 27 11 ; elene H. 6 Griffith, 1903,8. Bey Front, Lots: 8, 9, 10, ilv, Lot 1 and 9 Westerly 20 feet of Lot'2, Block 28; Arthur W. Colby, ,1609 7 B. Bay Front, Lots 4 - I5, B1ook 25, 8 A1800 I have been handed by Hr. Nourse a copy of the 9 letter sent to the Councll,: -- to the Co»iasi�l here by { ; 10 F. Britton McConnel3s and which has already been read to u the Commission. The : signaturea -and the names of the '. 12 people I read, I can show to you at this,time• attached to 1s a petition which is as followsz (Reading):. • 14 16 "Balboa,, Calif. 16. December 249 1938' 17 Tot ' VBE CITY" ;PLANNING COMUS, iC3H� 18 THE CITY- COUNCILO 19 Clay of Newport..:. Beach'; 20 Newport Beach, Calif s 21 Honorable Sirar 22 . 28 We have boon advised that there is an application 24 before the Planning Commission and the City Council of 2s Newport Beach for the re- zoning'of Lot 15, Block 26,; i 26 Bastside Addition to the Balboa Tract, for co orcial use. E T.JAMCB � `?`.,'"�.��z.� ".pr .a.• --; , y= •^�'aar5'�"S ;�'" 'Fxs`�3i.'"-r`, F. MORR18 ..8Hi'S4!`lHI�Nq'RBPORTiR -•2'?9 N64RT H BROADWAY-, CAL /M'�•.!!''.'8889`. 9 i Suoh re- zoning would be injurious to our property and 2 we do hereby protest any action by your .honorable bodies s tending to establish commercial zoning for the above mention - 4 ed lot." 6 1 would like to offer this for your inspection. How- "• 6 ever, Z do not wish to bane it marked filed at this time. 7 The names of the people whom I nave mentioned.driow that s in Block 26, the block in which this Lot 15 is mentioned, 9f all of the property is represented except tbat,whiah is I 10 •owned by the proponent, being the entire block surrounding 11 lot.15, as I Say, with the exception of the property owned 121 b Br. Hopkins, and I believe Mr. Hopkins can speak for • is hmself.in regard to'this matter, ,and I happen also to 14 represent Mr. Hopkins in the matter which you gentlemen. 15 know is now pending in the Supreme Court. It "also includes 16 a number of lots in ;Block 27, which is Immadiate3y. adjacent,. 17 across J Street. Tbat ii Ute 8, 9, 10 and Ill, and 1, 2, o2 18 39 ,i, end 59 In Block 27. It also: includes considerable 19 'property in Lot 25,, -- Block 259 including the property 20 facing on the street adjacent to this property. , As 21 you gentlemen know,. this Is not a new matter before 22 this commission, This is merely another. way of 23 � attempting to 'accomplish that which this Commission has 24 already decreed should not, be done. And, also, another 25 way of an attempt to circumvent the courts In this 26 matter. If you gentlemen ere not alreactr familiar with 1 V ./awLY r, wVxx4n - nNLiKI'MAXY x¢r4lx rnx..rLL en xVn� �.w -. �^w !+Rry• ° ,• 1 the tact; I will state to you that after this 2 Commission refused permission to continue a non- confQ=ing a c this lot an attempt was. made to go ahead with it use upon s �p 4 and to use the lot for non - conforming purposes' to -nits i 5 :a. commercial business an$,the matter -was taken into the I Superior Court, before grudge, Scovel, who granted an 7 injunction against the use of the lot for a commercial i a purpose. An appeal was taken from that decision and due _ I i° this is an attempt to go into a residential district, and '. 17 there single out one lot and convert theft one lot to a la commercial purpose to thaj detriment and;. damage of ali the is ,surrounding residential property: A rostdentiai district 20 is only a residential district so'long,as it continues to 21 remain exclusively such. The minute you begin to spot 22 through a residential district commercial activities, it 23 loses its character and the property loses value, both as 24 a commercial and a residential" district. Eventually., it reaches the condition where the property is valued 26 neither for commercial purpoees nor for residential I JAM= Ri iNOneas- AMORTI#Yi0 IfYfPCRiHiC..$89:NORTH BWQAIIW*Y 4+� � 4a i'G.A�T/ ••M +'lYB$ �x>".,z, :� ,. °; e, n! 1.2 <. i 1 gentlemen, that, as your consultant says, tb%t this i 2 district should be kept awake, and that you should not a permit one single lot to be singled out in a district of 4 this kind and say, "upon this single lot you can conduct 5 j a• business* but upon -scone of the other lots an you do so.' 6 The ordinance proscribes that when the matter comes before:- j 7 the City Council that if twenty per cent of the owners of a property within 300 feet of this proposed area which is 91 proposed to be oboaged protests against it that any such 1011 application obaii be denied except by a :four- fifths HI vote of the membership of this Council, It brig quite I 12 1 apparent that it was the ,intent of the City Council and 181 the drafters of Ordinance 440. that if the people in the 141 neighborhood diduft want such a change to be made, that 15 the City Council would not grant such a change or should 16 not grant such s change unless there were some other, 17 extraneous reasons Wby a particular hardship was being IB worked upon some one person: pow, in this case, this 19 lot 15 is improved with a single family residence 20 constructed upon this lot;. Your protes%ant#'do not n see vby that property should nor be continued to be used 22 as a single-family residence lot in the manner as it was designed 'by the ordinance, and we particularly protest E4 against attempting to breakip the residential district which has been establinhediin that neighborhood. I think that is about all I have to say, gentlemen. I want 1 1 # ; MTl ,. ..... dAMEB F. MORRIS•- 4NOR7balCNb R�IbRT8R - -3Y¢ HOkTH BRdADWAY, LOS: AN a. :.. 1 1you to know that we respectfully request you to report 2 unfavorably upon this petition to your reply to the 3 City Council. Mould any other members like to.look over 4 this petition ?? 5 A MMMER € Is this matter before the Supreme Court 1 61 at this time? `< C3 7�. i TBE SBCMARYz What is the purpose of this thing 81 before the Supreme Court -- is that for'the continuance , 9II of a non-conforming rise, or ghat? 1 101 BAR. BLODGET a The matter 'before the Supreme Court 11 f is upon the question ' of whether or not the injunction. 12f against the Change in this property for a non- conforming • is use should stand or fall. In other words, there is an 14 f injunction against this change for non - conforming purposes 16I and there is an appeal taken from that injunction arcking 16 the Supreme Court to reverse it, As soonass the matter is 17 `decided, a writ of enforcement will be issued by the court «. 18 for the continuous use of it, and it will then; be adapted is to residence purposes. 20 THE'SECRETAHYi Then, as far as I am con.ceerned, I 21 would like to ;see this matter placed on the table until 22 the Supreme Court decides it. 23 JAR. BIDDGE°T: May I suggest that the State law under 24 which this complaint proceeds requires that you mast reply 25 to b1e City Council, reporting either unfavorably or favor- 26 ably within a specified time or it will be deemed by the ... , .: JAdI� F. MOf1rtt8 •ifi6YtTt4Al7� 1l14P0 ld 1 City Council that you have acted favorably upon the i s request. Thle, too, is not an entirely different matter. s This is an attempt to circumvent that. If theg ` are able 4 to get this througb, then the case in the Supreme Court 5 w0+.11d L die, because the question involved would become a 6 moot question because the City Council has3egislated I 7 otherwise, that it has now changed it to a ComWrcial I 8 district, and then it would not be a non - conforming use. s i TER SISCRETARYs Wouldnst it work the other: "y, too? III to MR. BibDt'rsT s How do you mean? .. 11 TIM STCRAli3i's Well, if we go ahead and unite, 12 wouldn*t it have the some weight, too? I T8 MR, SIODGM lot in the Supreme Court. The Supreme T4 Court is not involved in this procedure.. This is an 15 entirely new procedure, and if the City Council lawfully 16 grants this Permit* this change of zone,, then the question 17 before the Supreme Court becomes what we know in law as' 18 a moot question. In other 'words, there is merely a 1e question that there is no rights involved in, because the 21 City Council has, inef`fect, repealed that portion of the E1 ordinance which made it unlawful to conduct the business 22 in that 'district, The Council, by going ahead and changing as the wdinanoe after the cases was being trteds by changing Y4 the ordinance they no longer make it unlawful, and from 25 that time forward It would be based upon the ordinances and it then stands. I JAMOS P. MORR164HORTNAND RE,FORTM -228 NORTH OROAOW", LOS AN06LMB. CAI:MLNU. 6828 W `t 1 THE °„BCRBTARYS Hr. Blodgett it this Comwission 2 reoo=Wnds to the City Council its approval Of this s application or aatiou, Then it does not affect in any manner 4 whatsoever the status of the ,..case as pending in :court ?.. I 6 MR. BIDDGRT No. that* action would not U any aiasner 7faffect the TER SECEWARY: It leaves the property as it was 8 that action is court was commenced? 91 MBS STANIAY: You recommend dises"roval, and if 10 the, Council takes the application, the property.remans i l l the same as it was when it was commenced ?` 12 TIE aCMARY. Them, disapproval by this Commission • 1a would not affect the legal status? 14 MR. BIDDM i Ho..: 15 THB.SBCR'RTARYs But,to the contrary, - .approval of this 16 application would make the ease a moot question? 17 VR. BLODWs Provided it was approved ty the Council 1a and the ordinance was amended. However, I will make it 19 clear -- 20 A X3MM: In other worde, if we were to approve it 21 and the Council approved itq it would become a C -1 zone. 22 and there would not be any argument in the Supreme Count 28 about the injunction.' 24 ANOTHER a I cannot see why, if we would 25 disapprove of it -- 26 TBX SBCRBTART% If the Injunction is denied in the s n .- .- -rsv, - AUMti *', wome- •DNORTFfAAQC a�O'CRt89 -2$9 M9RTN BNfiAnWAV, tA'}!"A14ti�L'ii8; „E*Y1F •.$*tl.'68�! - i1supreme Courts it automatically comes back to the same -.. .�'. 2 category it was before. s Mt, BIDDGET: If you. deny its the ease stands in the i 4) Supreme Court as it is! buts if you change t ordinance 6 so as to make it lawful* they -• s A MMUMs What Would happen if this were left on the. 7 table and the Council would lay it on the table at a a� Certain time until the matter cams on in the Supreme Court? s 11A. =DOE: I am afraid that under the State law !.n 10 regard to the planning Commission and the statement of the 11 ordinance* that the Commission must take final action 121 Within ninety days *. 1s�THE SECRETARY. Then, that would fix it within the 14 ninety days* and thean if the Council lays it an the table -- 1s t, 1310DGBf'# Your question w .iZ be an- the table 16 indefinitely, - 17 TBB SBCRTs'PAttYi Yes, that,is vdmt I;mean *' 1a BLODUTTs Yest but. the Planning Commission Must 1a act, or their failure <`to act .will be d ' d to 'be. an 20 approval* 21 THE SECRETARY: But the 4ouucil can lay it on the 22 table then until the Supreme Court rules? zs MR. BIODGET: Yes, but this Commission cannot* ' c4 24 THE Ci&MgAN: Will it 'be true, Mr* Blodgett that if 21) the Council should.take that procedures that it then i 26 could not advertise for the hearing as required by the I 0 J1LiFB$ K N0R#It#AN1S#THAXb t98DORT6R.rR 29,N"TH RROADWA9. LC9 AN U. 11684 14 { 1 Statute until they had again lifted it fsoa: the 'table3 2 s XnMRRz They could not do tbat, could they? l an 8 asking that of Mr. Blodget. 4 THE SEZRBTARY& Would they have to advertise that they e( as going to lift it from the table? i 6 M. DIO : sell, it they had already given the f i T required: noticed taking it under - submission, I presume 8 they could decide it at eM time, but, If they dcl so,; 9 1 think that in Laying if upon the table that they do not . 10 again list it from the table until notice of proper i 11 hearing be given as required by the Statute* but if they 12 conform to all the legal requirements, perhaps they would 11 have the right to lay it on the table and take it up 14 again azW time they decided to. l didn't check the 15 statute as to whether there was any protection against II Is that. Under ordinary ciroumstances, L they oould,.unless Izthere Was some special provision in the Statute, and I } 18 do not recollect inches provision being them'.. ..) la TER GHU ^ : Any fur%her questions azW ember would like to ask Mr Bla 21 (Bo response) . 22 TER GRA : S would like to ask this question, .. JA!!la9 R MORRIS-- YHORTNANR. RHPORTHR.20 NZIRTWOROAQWAY {0 #M<:4f , L1iLYF. Wii. $Ht<9 1 through the courts, now -- presuming that'the Council 2 refuses to re- zone,'through the courts -- 1f1at is the a attitude of the courts upon similarl y locating other, 4 property? 5� Bat. BIApGXTs I don't believe I get your question, 1 s TAB CHAIR : Assuming that there has been a favor- 7 able action and the re- zoning is accomplished, end a lot 'I a similarly .located should come,in and mare an applicat ion sI ant! be refused by the legislative bogy, what has been the toi attitude of the courts in & question of that sort if, the n property owner took the ;protest to the courts and tried 12 to enforce the re- zoning of his lot? 1s MR, BWDGETs Well, that is a.rather difficult 14I question to answer, because, under those circumstances. 15 it would depend entirely upon the Question of fact,,aad 16 I don *t believe there has been any hard: and fast rule .laid 17 down that the courts would &sterfe e, if there was Any 18 apparent or radical difference shown as 'between the .; 19 owners of the various lots in the same position. There ao- sometimes is granted through the courts of equity a 21 .remedy where'City Councils have acted arbitrarily in 22 re- zoning, but, so far as expressing an opinion as to what 23 they would do in a general case$ I coule loot do so without 24 having tie particular facts rich would concern that 26 particular case. However, it would probably become more 26 or leas of a policy which would be established, and the ■ 1 i! I 9�4 I sl 71 s 9 19 u 12 18 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 CALIF ... MU. 5829 19 members of the Council theaselt+es would be placed in a peculiar position with their oonstituents. It also would open the door to granting these perseits by the City oommi 1, which is ready spot Zoning, and putting It In the siddle of the residence district •- these single; lots, to be used For commercial. purposes* may: You are going to absolutely nullify your entire planning situation. This to perhaps out of touch with the situation, but,ae YOU g4atlomen knew, we are working in Santa Am a i have -,just Cosstpletesl a new Zoning ordina:30e1, and that VOL axe endeavor- jug to arrange it so that there will not bo any spot Zoning. We have i - - __JAMHffi F.'1tORRiD-- YNOR7S91LNei $&POR4BR- $2$' NO' R4H DR6Affi1N#Y. 1,:OS' A s n'. 1) it is prematurely brought and M that your denial is 2 without prejudice to the filing of a like ,application, f s when the Supreme Court has finally decided one way or the 4, other. b j THE CRAIRXWt Does anyone else wish to speak in tIAa { a] matter, either for or against? Is there anyone present 7[ representing the applicant? Hr. Hummphreyss do you 81 represent the applicant? a MR. RMAPHFWS& 'yes, but I wish to make no statement., 10 f THg CHAIRMANz Any further discussion? That to IV 11 If the members of the planning Commission? What is your 12 pleasure in this regard? is THE SRCUTARYs Mt. Chairman, Is as one Commissioner, 14 am most deoidedly opposed to taking any action that would 16 Interpose er }nave a bearing, upon a case now pending in the 16 courts. From my viewpoints it would be poor ju t'on, 17 the part of this Commission to take such actions ands ' la ;therefores I move you that the applioation be denied* F 05 T9 A Ri I second the motion. TER CHAIRMANs You have heard the motion on the 21 resolution. Is there any .further discussion? 22 THE S OMMARYs sr. Chairman,. may I modify vy 28 motion's I would incorporate the thought that this action is taken without prejudice to the filing of the application when the latter has been final ly 8djtidlcatsd. . . 26 A Supposing this motion carries and it goes i JAt1»t f /. MOHRIB.A"O"THAND BfiPORT6" -•828 NORTH 81QbAIMAY, 608 AW6EZ Bi aAE1R:, =M�7" �$ 21 I i to the City Council and it is laid on the table until go u 2 action comes from the Supreme Court. It is not necessary s for those present --will it be necessary to smoke a new 4f application and put up their money for the application, s and so on and so forth? s 1 A s Tot unless the matter is finally disposed 7 of or until the Council disposes of it. s i ANOTHER MEN= i That is what I moan, mien it 9' goes to the Council, the City Council lays it on the table. 101 A ME R1 Then she will not have to file any agw 11 application whatsoever . 12( 'T BE, CHIF2 OF POIaC&s What would be the use T- suppose 13 the supreme court idles that the injunction is to be 14 ''enforced and that they order that the injunction is to be, 15 ,enforced from now on? Are we to assume that the City 16 Council will be governed by that action of the supreme 17 Court, or that they will grant it, or what? 13 A a Is as one member of the City" COUACJ'l, would 19 say 11at I would be governed by the Supreme Court. ' . 20 TM MIXFt But if they said, "Ho," that would be not 21 snoUgh? 22 A =MMs I would say so. 23 THE CHIXF: Thant it would not aal�e any difference whether you said "No" -- even thougG it were voted down, 25 It would still have the seas status, because., if the zs Supreme Court ays "ho, we are going to leave the injunction;{ i x dApipY F NORiWAF4 D "8PoRT6R.- 8$8 "NO@4H`El ROADWAY ,C(i8'kN6ti6$,�KALIA.. =�1 eeyylI�� 44. 1 whyq, You would be in the same position, if we denied it I 2 as it will be here, now. s A NEMEM x I don't get wbat you mean- 4 TIM CHIEF% Supposing this application is recommended 5I to the City Council and it is denied and it dies right S there. All right, you have refused to zone it'for C -1, G 7 and the Supreme Court cotes along and says, "We are going j s toiift this injunction, and they can continue their 9 business there, and that 1u one way. Suppose,' Y9,114 pass it 10 to the City Council and they delay, it or they, lay it on the 111 table and the Supreme Court says, ' "we are going to lift 12 the iujunction?" 18 A MOMBRi Then the City Council would baae to dispose 14 of it 16 TEE CHIEF: If it is allowed to remain as' it is it 16 is just being.olasolfied as hating bees in that use before' 17 that ordinance is passed, and it is much better off than 1e 'it would be to zone it as a C -1 zone. 19 T11t ` CHAIRB t Of course, we cannot decide what the 20 City Council is going to -del, but', if it should, be laid on. , , 21 the table 'it would be telling the applicant, "You wait 'until 22 we hear from the Supreme Court. "; That would be the.offeet. 23 of it. Call the roll. 24 (Roll called by the Asaistant Secretary} 25 THE CHAIRMIs Carried-and so ordered. And further 26 latter, gr. Secretary? THE SRCMARYt That is all.