HomeMy WebLinkAbout01241955City Hal 1, Palo .Alto, Ca:l,i:fornia.
January 24, 1.955.'
The;- Counci? Of 'the. City of Palo Alto met its regular.
session on t"r s dates at . 7':.3„ h .. with t.. Mayor
Rofl: call as follow
Bishop,:Byxbee, Cashel, Cummings, Drysdale,
Hanley, Huston, Marshall, Mitchell, Porter,
Rodgers, Simpson, Wi kett'.
Mrs.' Corcoran, Rupaenthal.
The minutes of the meeting of January 10 1955, were
approved.
Resolution for Retiring Assessor
A resolution of appreciation to Mr. L. E. Taylor on his
retirement after eighteen years of service as City Assessor: wad
introduced, and on motion of Drysdale and Rodgers was adopted by'
unanimous vote on roll call.
(Mrs. Corcoran came at this time, 7:40 P. M,, an
was present for the rest of the meeting.)
California Avenue Off --Street Park g. ?ro_iect
A .report was received From Committee No. 2 recommending
employment of -a: negotiator to contact property owners in the
California Avenue business district concerning acquisition of
property in that area for off-street parking.
-0.n.motion of Marshall and Mitchell, the City Manager
was authorized to engage a negotiator for the project, the expense
of`emnloying the negotiator to be charged to to Revolving Fund
and this :fund, to be reimbursed when the assessment district is
established.
Offer to''. xcharge Property
A report;ias.received from Committee No. 2 advising that
ithas considered a letter. from Mr. N. Perry.Moerdyke,; Jr offering
to exchange a :lot.'. on the northwesterly side of Hamilton . Avenue in.
Block 21: for the lot on -the;; westerly corner of Hamilton -and
Waverleydin tie same block recently purchased by the City_ The
committee recommended that a reply be sent to Mr. Moerdyke stating
that; the -'Council, s:pprecis.tes` his offer but declines it with thanks.
:On= motion `of. Marshall and Bishop, the recommendation was
accepted and theoffer declined, Rodgers voting No.
..A• epor as reoe1ved from Committee No. 2 recommending
that the S Zone be removed from portions of Blocks 12, l4, 19,
.20 ano..30' in •t -he di'str1 t ir:.cluded in Project 52-1#-, northeast.of
Ramona Street,;`; as: designated on man submitted.
Resolution No... 2595, removing the "S'° Zone from portions.
of Blocks . 12, -l4, . 1.9, 20 :and 30 of P o iect 52-14, was introduced,
' on -motion and on n of 'Marshall'and Drysdale, was adopted on, roll call
with 13 Ayes,_ Cummings;�voting No.
0n motion.of Marshall and Rodgers, the matter Of removing
the "S" Zone `from the balance of Project.52-14 district was re-
ferred to Committee No. 2;, for' consideration and report':
u den �-j' C - - t o, rttr'' t o Crath�noe ��o
- a o.
o eel d" e
�er.< '; �aht atA:%rangs vot nna N
r�ss� cci s.
Y�3 rr ;sae$ ar`� r C m '
,Car ee,
1.1: c '' o w 1tyi. '3 ends r r
ed vn `° � Co ' tee ' o • the �G dihr�Jh
va„aS ed by ;,Committee
orns ee oas arner,ded dim
submitted Y ry Section , , r sir:
ant w.a ce amending districts tand� fig
an ordinance
to residential
eu�de on fore ,atd.rr
Cott o" ti n sit --e 11,e prevision Cis the 'and �,d:o p"�eru?-� de��=te Section11,601
� �,c,o��. �' � �� ��te
Cp �` �� 2 r^fir m�d� 5 slyer �T anrn
aCode ` • No. , Committee No. . , *asminst, *as
�
Cr,d�.Yi�n
aendd r and, .Cm cc � . ,1 ,
T ow.
Code ate. . ?orter �araa vx -o
C� �iatc' �'� �J tic dt,
C?•• ca- - - t; -7't1 r xr>r "�, 1,.. C,OR1 T1
roll
�rn r ,,fie} �� �� from Come ee No • Ikeroo�cern5n`"
<.t he received .. h. (3)nd teLl an fo1�-o�' o e
report z,�ce:.c Ott es. lei ed to re�'a.crasort ! concerning,
main-
tenance. Chahr the operation meet taro 'last ,ab3 c service, be . teoom , fax moved to me ,,
u.lation No.
t t" S gate e of row.l xtc ge 1l installation shall taco n . h or m t a ofthe
expense.
e yCi is d e a 11 respon bP.Qn1arB�customer �'
utenan d rrro same n, m� done re e
�t
C Nance xegui and �.�
oast o. ut,a ...�-
ra ,�r, a ti" w.. a„ 4
e ,�t�-1. $� a1.�a't�'° �. �e endure � �xeco�'-
S wCn �h�,ce � first � t s�a� the am o,�e�, a`'
mended
v �_ Tf tYme reraeats'' - ' Cummings , the men
to Qrnert Homer tion No " ved a _--.
On motion
and ge
eadv4 r.. -==T. ea ,d aril
• ry ��� Ka�z�" Committee N0. 2 A��'a. Street
Commi �, or 'Road, t,,
b� stop signs Charleston wi
submittedbli;shi v,� and ,n .A.Ir e. second
report vas
eta e for
ordinance
'East Meados. ���� at adopted
�' can Q .vriti ' foru e 1'pt nax,ce was thatit be stop_
adoptionth�erae a�► Drive.proposed ordinance
tsars- � installation �' Street
Vest Mead The P as made the fit that pted
on a wag C) w .� o r st of en' stop
�� Camino
�. motion A a�ec'��d pointing out . also tee
reading e pod recommended, the e-eC 3,c x sty ;tree
Councilman eat is recommended,'
andi he of ratan os`d
1, \ 11.
1 Strnd eet
,�Y.,aak t, to the . on Charleston signs on al , an tlea . ,ve end Porter; is teat
'�� ng,.v�o��d �� �a��°��ti b�'a�'�tc � seconded ��e No, 2M� Marshall
the
era d to : ;arra ,Sere t odge 'g , to Committee
e and or
compared � made . red hack 'with p
Camp motion T n� °' b referred.
ordinance- anon
proposed. The � Ge :
the py.... sttxd�J " a�,.dj,t".�-t�
I.
further Yo," \48 -vet -1, of tlnri *It
vci Vls Vl aye au reeommended the adoptionAsenue at Its �terseG
-Committee` ;o . Seale ort
n�,. Drysdale,
the
d1�g`
n:
;op ���'�� on . proposed
i.
fE; gg.,,Te ley S fiat Mar all
N tin r>►ot?�on for: ��'rs��, re recommending
g accepted, Vi. . o $Q3
Hance w LLdyr, mttee X205 explained d. tom, Com s wax mm
P.y.ne.,c meats 4 *as e "� i S Sections
t9 Q d e e
,rec_
rep°rt f an r,at.ce rimer' The bro ott. Committee a " s " d edp3
adoption ° pu �d x�BC >a roan ct}ran C{yUX1G'L og17";
{. n . Ito vorte r etd n$. ins.
on "� C
ke ma am .ead 5ectt :
by Co i°' xd3 ante was' 8tve the -amendment � 7.dtrr a
Z=one Change on Alma . and Greenmeadow (Eienie ).
A report was received from Committee No. 1 reporting that
it conciro -with the previous ` recommendation of the Panning' Com-
mission,, for approval of the application of Eichler :'Homes ' Construc-
tion ; Company for the_ rezoning of portion of Lot 3, '.M S Loucks
`Tract., .corner-. of Alma Street and Greenmeadow Way, from.R-1:A`:B--8
to P -C, . Plenr ed Community,, :subject to adherence to the architec-
ture, proposed in the .plan submitted for a market and accessory
ahoxss, coverage by. the proposed structure not to. exceed 20% of the
total available area, provision for parking at a ratio:.of not less
'than 3:1 and egress and ingress to the shopping center restricted
to greenmeadow Way.
Ordinance No. 15.65' rezoning portion of Lot' 3, Ma S.
Loucks ,Tract, to P -C in acCerdance with the recommendation, was
given second"reading, and.a Motion was made by Porter,. seconded
by Cashel,: that the ordinance be adopted -
Councilman Porter,. Chairman of Committee No. 1, reported
that 'it' was the. feeling of -a majority of the committee that the
development proposed by .Mr; ;Eichler was a neighborhood shopping-
center.rather ;=than a district shopping center and that .there waa a
reed for..auch fac11ities in that area. Mrs Corcoran -And -Bishop
stated that they.`d.id not; agree with the rest of the .co:nmittee
that they;- would not object: to a small neighborhood shopptngi cil1ty
=out felt -tha't the`'de'telopment, planned, including a market. -of-
10,000 square'.feet, 'was' too:: large.
1585
ping
After" discussion, the roll call vote on Ordinance No.;
providing; for. the change of -zone as recommended by. the Plan-
Commission _and,"Committee No. 1 was as follows:
Cashel, Curnrnings, Huston, Marshall, Mitchell,
Porter., Simpson, Wlckett .
Bishop,.Byxbee, Corcoran, Drysdale, Hanley,
Rodgers:
The ordinance was declared adopted.
Zro : Cii6n)s. • M:i dd1ef.el Road a; ci soma Verde Avenu;;
A report.wa,s submitted by Committee No. 1 advising that
it has considered? the application of Enrico and Evelyn: Ni si for
the rezoning. of the .rorthwe-st corner of Middlefield Road and Loma
Verde: Avenue from R--1, to .C-3, and the application of Martindale,
Farrar and Christensen for the rezoning of the southwest -corner of
the same intersection from R-1 to R -3-P- The committee referred
these .mattersback to, the --Council without recommendation.- It was
explained, that the Planning Commission previously recommended
denial of both' applications,; and that the vote in the committee to
concur in the recommendation for denial was 3 Ayes, 2 Noes and 1 -
Not Voting.
Councilman sorter called attention to the problem of
zoning' along ,arterial streets, particularly Middlefield Road, and
to thedifferenCesHoTOpinion on' the matter. He suggested that
the Council and..P,lariring Commission get together and see if they
oar, :came to a solut'ionof the zoning, problem on heavily traveled.
streets:. He.::intormed the Council that Committee No.- 1 had .met
with : the' applicants who` requested :zone changes at the intersec-
tion.: of Mi;ddlef,eld and; Loma` Verde, and also with the attorney
represent.ing'-neighboring residents who opposed the request for a
service station on one: corner'bbut had no particular objection -to
Ft -3-° zoriirg: ira .the :area
It wasmoved by; Porter, seconded by Mitchell, thatthe
application :of :-Martindale et al for the rezoning of the southwest
corner . of: Middlefield Road and Loma: Verde. Avenue from R-1 to
R -3=P 'be .approved and that a proposed ordinance providing for this
rezoning be accepted for first reading. The motion was carried by
the following vote -on rolls call:
Aye`s:. -Byxbee, Cashel, Corcoran, Hanley, Huston, Mar-.
ghat; M,Stciiell, Porter,,Rodgers, Simpson
Wiekett:
Bishop, :Cummings, Drysdale.
A ;motion was then made by.:` Por;ter,' seconded by Mitchell,
that the application :o'f. Ehri co ;z nd eiyn Nisi ` for the rezoning
of the :northwest :corner of Middlefield and Loma Verde from t -o.
C-3 be:atIproved arad a.;proposed ordinance providing for this re-
zoning- be accepted for' first reading: After discussion the vote
on' roll call was as -follows
Ayes:. Cashel,: Mitehe11, . Porter, Simpson, Wickett .
Noes` Bikshop;.Byxbee, Corcoran, Cummings, Drysdale,
Hanley, Ruston, Rodgers .
Not 'Voting:
motion ' was declared- lost.
xt wasy then moved by £',or ter, seconded by Huston, that an
oxdi:narce rezoning the..Nisi property from R-1 to R -3-P be accepted
for -first reading.; This, was,carrried by the following vote on roll
c.11:
Ayes:: Syxbee,. Cashel, Corcoran, Hanley, :Huston, Mar-.
shall, Mitchell,, ?orter, Rodgers, Simpson,
W.i ckett.:
'Bishop, -Cummings, Drysdale.
Mona cation :.or Zone` C',.art e,779 Lo a 've.7oe .Yvcr;ue
A report was' recei ed`..fro,m the Planning Commission re=-
commerding denial;of the atplication of William Cooper and Chester
C.: ' :enn for rezoninga :portionof Lot 78,'Wooster Subdiv,. .ion, at
779 oma Verde Avenue, from R 1:A,; to R-4, General Apartment Dj s.-
trict. The C_omrission :stated that their denial was based on them -n.
policy decisions; tnadein the past, to maintain R-1 zones and be;-
cause no definite case.` of .hardship has been demon trated by the
applicants
0n motion of: Huston and_ Bishop, this was referred to
Committee No.
USe ?er;; it, for Allibular,ce`'Servic-e'
A xePort `,was` received froth: the Planning Commission moo-
commending tl'at -.,7e:-
.- Adm'inistrator's decision to deny t"e
anb ica.tion filed by, .john .?.. Balcon for a use permit to allow.the-,.
use :of 2361siig� Street; as the principal location of an arnbu'1ance ;``
b service :e upYield, and _therefore recoinraendirg denial of the appeal'
filed..by Mr BalcOn ..against, the Zoning Administrator's decision.—
,
The Planning ,officer reported on the hearings held or.
:the 'matter acid the ; ob j�ections raised' 'by property owners in the
zone of.'`interest:
Councilman Porter expressed -the opinion that the loca-
tion proposed -by Mr Balton^.was ,ideal for an ambulance service,
and moved that the use -permit be granted, as requested in the a0-
plication. The motion was seconded by Marshall and carried by
voice vote...,
Mr. Hoyt Rohrer, 2290 Emerson. Street, speaking on behalf -
"Of residents in the area,: who 'had appeared at , hearings held by the,
• Zoning Administrator and the Planning CoMmission .,.and presented
their objections, asked if . they will: have any Opportunity to ao:-
- peal : -the :Council's decision or what step they Can take. to have the
Council's action resc1zded'.
The;Ci:ty'Attorney advised that the action: o.f the
Council j.s,iinal.
A motion was then made by Byxb.ee, seconded by Drysdale,
that the action just taken. by the Council to grant the use permit
be r-eeonsidered:.; The vote on ,r. oll call was as follows :
;7
Ayes: Bishop,;Byxbee, Drysdale, Hanley, Rodgers.
Noes Cashel, Corcoran,. Cummings, Huston,, Marshall,
Mitchell, Porter, :impson, W'ickett
The motiont;o reconsider was lost.
Lot Div Lcion; (Ledo ren )
A retort. wa's received from the planning- Commission' re-
commending denial of the. appeal filed ,by Maurice. Ledoyen.` against
the Planning 0ffi.cer:'.s d:eeision to deny a lot division in Ever-
green .Park, Block Lot. 6, and portion of Lot 7, and that the
Planning Officer'sHdeeislon.be upheld in order to maintain the
Zoning Ordinance ;requirement' for 6,000 sq. ft. lots in this area.
A 'motionwas..:'made by Bishop, seconded -by Rodgers,_ that
matter be referred - to. Cozmittee No. 1 for consideration.
Council.man Porter stated that he felt this Was a hard -
"shin case,'that -:the. applicant; is asking for a di vision' of his
property into tw;o parcels : each having an area of 5,000a Q : '.f t . , ,
the size of other.lots in` the block. Mr. Ledoyen, tne applicant,
spoke;- briefly, s:tating, that he did not believe there -is any. lot:
'in the block: which`.has'an:area of 6,000 sc. ft. although that it -
the present. requirement ' _The Planning Officer pointed` out . that
the Planning.Commission did not wish to establish a precedent by.
granting. this applicatlon.;when the .requirement for 6,.400" q. ft
lots' has : beery: es"tab.lisYed by ordinance.
It was -moved: by Porter, seconded by Mitchell.,: that the
lot.:.dtvision: be ,approved as. requested by the applicant; The
rotio7 .was carried by the" following vote on roll call.'
Ayes Bishop Cashel, Corcoran, Hanley, Huston,
Marshall, Mitchell, Porter, Rodgers,, -Simpson,
Wi:ckett.
:Noes Byxbee, Cummings, Drysdale.
(A x_eces,s was. taken at thi'S time, 8:50 P. M..,,= and''
the Council reconvened at 9:00 P. M.)
Wocdhams Prvoerty)
A report was received : from the Planning Commission re-
-commending approval of .t'he Final Record of Survey of a portion of
the :Boyce -Ashby 'Tract, being, the property of C. H. Woodhamz 10-
cated'at_1023'"Forest Avenue:, subuect to granting of easements for
public utilities _:along the exterior boundary of the tract and
,along the:. 20 -foot roadway; the payment or segregation of 'assess-
ments,, aratd. furnishing: evidence of payment of 1954-55 city and
county'taxes,.
Or motion of Mitchell and Drysdale, this Record of Sur-
'ey was approved in,accordance with the recommendation,of the
Planning Commission.
Design -Contr o1..
A report was received from the Planning Commission re-
commending design .control approval of plans submitted by I?. J.
Kazakes and Company': for the addition of a four -apartment unit to
the residence: at' 2361' Alma Street,, Lots 8 and 9, Block 2, Stan-
ford City.
;s
T
in motion' -of •"arshalt. and Drysdale,
was accepted and the plans approved'.
he recommendation
eCity Attorney reported -that the proponents of the
annexation of ,Barron ..Park to the. City, of Palo Alto have filed an
affidavit of the" publ'ication of the ;Notice of Intention to circu-
late petition, 'for. the annexation of the area to the City of Palo
Alto under 'the Annexation...A;ct .of' 1.91.5 He advised that this, is
the. last .opportunity _the. Co.un;cil haas to terminate proceedings,
andthat if the Counci"l wises to" .;continue with the proceedings
the _ next ste is to -adopt" a resolution permitting the circulation
of the petit'1en;
Resolution. No: (2,596, acknowledgir.1g receipt of a copy'.of`
Notice of , int.enti'on ,to` circu3at:e: pe ition for the annexation of:
territory de'signat'ed eas: "Barron Park Annexation" and an affidavit
of pub:ication thereof.,. and approving-- the circulation of the ;ae-
titi"on, .was introduced, and:'on. mot.i"on of Mitchell and Drysdale,
was adopted on',"roll :call 'w*ith ,13 Aye', Hanley voting No.
Lon.ng..'.c± El` Cary i o ,Rrea . Annexation h o .
Ordinance No, 15&6, establishing the zoning of the
territory designated as "E1`Camino Real Annexation No. 1" recently
annexed to the, City of ' Palo _Alto, :was given second reading, and
on motion; of , Bishop and. Marsha.11,' was adopted by unanimous vote on
rolh �:a'll ,
ZiiJ 'J ow Road Extension
Counc3:lman .Rodgers called attention to Resolution No.
2535 passed .by ,tne _Council on ' De;comber, 23, 1954, adopting as a
principle the need to 'connect-the:Willow Road-Bayshore Freeway
Interchange with. the Alpine=Sandhi11 Road Extension on the Stan,.
ford_lands", in: order. to provide a"through route, and stating that
this end'can best.be served by the inclusion of this route in the
State ..Highway system Mr. Rodgers stated .that in his opinion the
present r ezo'l.ut.ion - is equivalent to telling the State Highway, De-
partment that the Council.does not care where the road is located
and gives t'he;State the right to select any route, to which he ob-
jected.'
it was'moved'by. Rodgers, seconded by Hanley, and carried
that the reso:?utio`n adopted, on December 13, 1951r, be referred to
Committee No. 1 for further study'and consideration of a possible
amendment or substitute motion, at the next meeting.
At this time Assemblyman Clark L. Bradley addressed the
Council __in regard.to the Willow Road problem, calling attention to,
the b11i ,just_ introduced in the. Legislature which was co-authored
by Assemblymen-Dolwig.2nd Bradley, asking that the Willow Road
extension:be included in the State_Highway system. Mr. Bradley
stated that. the bill: as introduced ;does net specify any particular
locationfor the route; that if an. agreement can be readied for the
establishment of the`:route'so that it will :not damage people of
Palo Alto .by taking" their.: homes he,;would support the bill and work
fore. its passage. ' He: said that he would like to be advised by the
City of; Palo Alto of any further "action the City wishes him to
take: i:n 'thhe matter, and would .be glad :. to hear at any time from the
City Council ororanyOther40,Vernmentali,ageney interested in the
bill.
Uniform Sales Tax
Assemblyman Bradley also called attention to the Uniform
Sales and Use TaxBill, before: the': Legislature, advising that he
has undertaken sponsorship, of the bill.:whith has been proposed by
the League of` California Cities:; Mr...Bradley said he would send
copies or the bill as soon as;it is.printed"to the mayor or city
clerk, aid: stated that he would like to receive opinions and views ;
on the bill.
A report was received from the Controller recommending.
a refund of duplicate payment of the second installment of Tax
Bill No: 10718,1n,the amount of $19.93. On motion of Mitchell
andByxbee,- the refund was authorized by unanimous vote on roll
call.
Leave to Mayor Simosors
Mayor Simpson requested permission to leave the State
for two. weeks beginning February 7, 1955. On motion of Marshall
and Porter, the request was granted.
There being no further business to come before the
Council-, the meeting was declared adjourned at 9:35 P. M.