Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout052519655125!65 City Hall Palo Alto, C alifOTn May 15, 1965 date in this ana,djournved� ins at 7 of Pilo Alto met on convened the the City 1965 � Vice �.'i.ay orArnold The Cours4 il� of, 2� NLaY meeting from 45 �y RxbuC l+ (8:15` p• m. 7 Arnold,exs,- ee> Cooley x xbb Present: Debs, Dias' . Flint, R.odg Cornsto€k, Portex., 'Rust 'Woodward; Rbsc�?t �"ealis� 2weng• been continued from asked,:. since this meeting had dte and be recorded m u De_�s. change his Code (see recorded s Councilina if he co�ila . Alto Municipal the previous e r.ening. of the Palo was Cone objection, e against .codification 1965). Since there voting, the �,ir;ztes of May 24. the Chair i iied-"the request in order. Ap �eal_E,vina Bartle L.ot'Div °z' J�D 39i recommend- ing Z4 7 Louxa � Commission the Planning application of received from lot divi5ior. %gyp_ known report, was to 1, of the Louis road (otherwisepi tion a R irep a;, vote p 5 at 2567 Lo request of the ins denial, by _� , the property 5; • Un meeting orris fQ k 6, Seale No. April 12 El,vina 13 �. l,ot: 3G, -;,$lac from the Ap The P�,an_ s a portion o, been continued had. -�utes of that date). matter Pla applicant the (see page 296 of the Tn.. lit which does not Com- ocer t the proposed lot split the Planning o£ the Council ,• record, ning;,(>£fm r standards. For Cie Council. et ,rn, requrred itteri to the C minim' L tes hadbeen transm 'mother - m:n : in behalf of his •mo: Com- mission :king � property 7 Louis Road, spe� had lived on the p hes+ 257 stated she around the petex lug Elvit►a Hartle, of lot safes split. He in-law, N1r ', He reviewed the history proposed lot _p for forty and a map showin;S willing to tos l t. He and displayed Bartle would be both lots: that property Council. that Mrs $ could be built on first ally notified the C one-story building until the front lot had agree that only one lt, on the rear lot un orated in not be built aot easement: incorporated the would felt the 15_: the dimensions a 'house that he siting been cleared, and included in comp the driveway should be cil up- hold Dias, that the Counlengthy moved, seconded by the request. After Councilman Cooley and deay wing roll. mission 'rote' the Planning Comom mission a fo11a hold the motion carried on the discussion, Deb s, piss, Flint. Ayes: Arnold, Cooley, Noes: Rypebee, Rodgers, Rohrs. 361 5/25/65: :Zone Change - Unitarian Senior Hou;ing Association, Inc. 449 and 455 East Charleston Road (b 5 - ZC =4) �-' • The zone change application had b.eei continued at the request of the applicant from the May 10. meeting of the Council (see page 334 of the minutes'of that date). Vice Mayor Arnold noted for the record that the' Council had received and had studied the complete minutesof the Planning Commission hearing together with their Resolution No. 13, all drawings and complete details on the application. Lee Willson, 218 25th Street, San F rancisco, Executive Secretary of the Unitarian Senior Housing Aqs(•ciation, Inc.. , said that their architect, development director anr', members of the Board of Direc- tors were in the audience to answer any questions from the Council. - (Councilman Arbuckle arrived at the meeting at this time.) The Planning Officer pointed to vari pus exhibits on the chamber wall depicting the -proposed senior c,itizell housing development and re- viewed the application. Mr.. Fourcr;oy answered questions from the Courici about. density, site -location,: traffic, the proximity of the school to the project, and the parking space provided for residents and guests. Lee Willson reviewed the study coneucted by the. Unitarian Associa- tion, on the parking needs of the elderly in a lower -middle income range. These statistic: are contair.,ed in the Planning Commission minutes of March 31, 1965, page 54,. Mr. Willson noted that most of the housing projects had over ant cipated the reed for parking for residents and gueste. Councilman Flint stated he felt they could improve the parking ratio by going underground. Morton Scha£fran, 311 California Street, San - Francisco, development director foe the project., replied they felt underground parking unfeasible as t:iey hesitated to do anything that would increase development or mai,: tenance cost;s. He said their survey showed that people. ,in this age group tended to alou.gh off their cars; that as the project matured, s) would the population which would result -in fewer cars. Councilman Bohrs suggested it was not age that caused them to quit driving but inancial reasons. Mr. Schaffran pointed out that the nearby Uni.tarir Church had the parking capacity to supplement the project` s parking spaces and that it would be easily accessible by using -the footbridge o'•er Adobe Creek. Councilman Debs expressed concern about what would happen if the project should be sold to a private developer. The Planning Officer replied they would be subject to the same terms under P-C(planned community) zoning; that if it is a desirable facility, the question of whether it is a profit -making organization is not a legitimate basis for making a determination. Mr. Willson informed .,;.he Council that 362 5!2S65 that th,., iend'ing agency n%is .. tipulat `d that as lcr.g as the 50 year loan is in f.. ... the 'property couic not be t:ransfcrred; that if it is .disposed of, ; : ... , ,t b•. turned over to another nororcfi.t organization. ;In response- tb.questi on, Mo:J..s G;1 , 618 Grand Avenue, Oakland, 'the architect, called att:ntion to , arrangement of buildings on the land and no,t d thz^.t .all vehicular try ific circulat..on was away from ' the buildings' exposure; that the c..1(.'ol was t1sc' away .trum the ex-- posur,e; that they nave .included .n `.;,c it esti^nate!c, the planting of trees along the; c.npa:vec are ;a tigra i,., t the fc.; ri, e. The Planning Offi- cer pointed out that .the planting recuirements cc,..ld be imposed -at the time they .apply for' their use permit. Councilman' Bvxbcc rr!'-)ved that ',.:.1; 4, e) !^� y, ;:icc,:ypt th., recornm,;nd'.i- tiOn of the Pta"q'H.:tg Con^,rois$!.i r and approve t.C.+ project under P -C Deb ti: condect the rc)Otion-,.tnd suggested adding the f': owing_'wc.r l : du. to the unique fiat' and the lack of contiguity with _, le-'iarn;' homes." " C.:c�ur,c ilman Zi g � ti :_y y.uee• accepted this addition to his mo't:ion. Vice Mayor Arnold asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in opposition, bur no one came forward. Councilman Flint questioned the Planning Officer closely on the parking requirements and moved an. amendment that would require an additional ten parking spaces than that presently required, with an additional provision for ten future parking spaces. The motion died for lack of a second. The )3yxbee motion carried unanimously on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Arbuckle, Arnold, Byxbee, Cooley, Debs, Dias, Flint, Rodgers, Rohrs. :Noes: None. Use Permit Appeal (62 -UP -16) David F. and Mi_i cent G. Dillon This use permit appE'a: had been continued at the request of the Mid, Peninsula YWCA to: May Z4, 1965. When the matter was continued to May '45, the applicant, David F. Dillon, with the consent of coup_ sel for the -YWCA, rF cue d a le ,_er daiod May ?F, __. ;t the matter be co .t..i71race'' to-,: .•i, , "oS. : O the C o'ir 363 5/25/65 Duck Pond Councilman Flint requested a report from the staff on their plans to- improve the duck pond. (See page 338 of the minutes of May 10,1965.) Councilman Byxbee questioned whether the Citizens Committee on the .Saylands should also look into landscaping for the duck pond. Vice Mayor Arnold ruled that the duck pond would be discussed when item 31 ".came up on ;:he: agenda as this dealt with the charges given to the Citizens, Coznmittee. Financing for Palo Alto Hills Unit. 2 The Council considered the matter May 10 and requested a report from the staff. The Assistant City Attorney reported on the legal implications. He pointed out that the City Attorney had not been able to ascertain what the prospective lender was requesting from the City arid, therefore, was not in a ,position to make a recommen- dation. He suggested the. Council cou:.d give the City .Attorney the power to sign the agreement provided he found that there would be. no lessening of the City's ultimate rights in the matter. Dari Dana, developer of Palo Alto Hills Unit 2, referred to a letter from the lender which stated he would consummate the loan provided it is not subordinate to Mr. Dana's agreement with the City of Palo Alto. He also mentioned that an additional $5, 000 would be held in escrow in the City's contingency fund for protection and that the City is not giving up anything because they do not have a lien on the prop- erty. The Assistant City Attorney indicated that if the lender's concern was with the subdivision agreement, this could not be subordinated as it was not subject to subordination for lending purposes. Councilman Rodgers moved, seconded by Byxbee, that the matter be continued until the next regular Council meeting, with the pro- vision that it go to the staff for their recommendation. After dis- cussion the motion carried on a majority voice vote. •(The Council recessed at 9:._1S and reconvened at 9:20 p.m.) .State of -California Division of Hi- hwa s The Council had received letters from the Town of :Pcrtola Valley and from the Board of Supervisors of the County of .San Mateo which indicated their desire to qualify Skyline Boulevard as an official California scenic highway. Councilman Dias reviewed the Council's action on this matter (see Council minutes of December 14, 1964, page 20$), and that of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. x She moved that the 'Council comply with the request of the Town' of Portola Valley and address a letter to the Scenic Highway Advisory Committee reaffirming the Council's ;stand on Skyline Boulevard as a scenic highway. ' The motion was seconded by Councilman Debs, but after considerable discussion,the motion was withdrawn. Councilman Debs moved, seconded by Rodgers, that the Council individually be furnished with two things: !1) list oz members of the Scenic Highway Advisory Committee, and (2) copy of the stand- ards and proceduresadopted by the Scenic Highway. Advisory Com- rnittee, as soon as it is available. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. Councilman Arbnckle moved that the matter be tab'.ed until the Ad-. visory Committee had reported on standards. The motion died for tack of a second. General Plan - Baylands AMP - Councilman Dias had .requested that another charge be added to the two given to the Citizens Committee or the Baylands. (See Council minutes of ,April 26, page 313.) The Chair had ruled the duck pond would be discussed at this time on the agenda. The City Engineer reviewed the "housekeeping" improvements which had been effected at the duck pond and remarked that all of them could be removed, if the Council so wished. He also indicated that certain plantings and ;improvements were contemplated in the area of the duck pond where the birds nest and which is not accessible to the public. After discussion, Councilman Byxbee moved, seconded by Rodgers, that the duck.pond, tidal basin and the peninsula leading from the duck pond'up tJ the end' Of'the tidal -basin be incorporated. in the study to be developed by the' Citizens Committee on the Baylands. After lengthy discussion, Councilman Byxbee, with the consent of his See p. 367 second, withdrew the motion. Councilman Rohrs :roved, seconded by Dias, that the Council direct the Citizens Committee on the Bayland, to review the Santa Clara County park plan fora lake in the Palo Alto flood control basin. After .lengthy discussion, Counci1ni1n Rodgers moved the previous question. The motion was duly seconded and carried on a two- thirds show -of -hands' vote. The Rohrs motion then carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Arbuckle, Arnold, Byxbee, Dias, Rodgers, Rohrs. Noes Cooley, Debs, Faint, Counci.lr direct Councilman �SYxh �Ct t��� Ce the duck x Qualified u���fi moved] s a short lman yx ,. architect second, discussion, fie the, ge tect be hired Y' Rodgers,o area Council rhdz e,o thA �' rc ,: an .. Yxbe a to 4dt e clandscaping consent e i1 ma e °u' i jancs °unc mun?C.at i ebv with Psa for ment r �;: moved, the fond lnf the County' a th the $ba"dof seconded conaent `�f h,.s After and Parks t .s hit e and oa d of SuPervisoy lint, that south s `i e1. P`a`ve encourage then.) w o it o of Aalo, ni'mea:tiy d baYlands em to the ae Rthe ecreation co ed park l e -l0 riles csecifica ,` fo z:Iv investigate th a t + in t° znv `Y to s�blr' l other Depart ci�rcii arx �jls, s`� ate. ota�A1t.estl ate Ke development areas not tithe tiiCounSyCaffieza�l� ��rx;n�,ed �� e� areas ��� area ►o � $ic discussion ,lye amend ity. ueassiai a be'held - robe, present went that t e,7 `h" 'heldi a Committee discuss e he e session. e Council amendment died forre of the the , tter request th tiny �pxnCtn. c rr�a. `hies ryC�''m.Ztt 7'BC�er lack of hale .ses and that e but len Proctor, rnrf the Chamber representing a e Area sea After ttc sic' ed the the work hex cif Commerce, the native liked r : need .t- which h; mexcr Area pro e plant .t rough. `� improve �d been complimented ox eauri fica- inu trees, d the l e arid natural. the water to p'T z saying t d the a"te advising . s 'wee tu"al. �te:r fountain, duck the . be ae5thetiaa Zx in,th,�n hat�x; slid xddysecnrx;,t e saying Yin• Y pleasing lea nesting marshland etc, . instead theuse'of ; e aeSth i,n� tot areas, plants tend t f finion lost n the general public. food aoulci rovidlow- dY�v; ©oi n the-n2Jati`'in4 roll d would still Noes: �Y, �e.bss. "�~ins, l call vote: Arbuck1e Arnold, d, Gnun Yxt,�'�,y 1} ,� , Rodgers, c� jn. l Zs fox w1 peb� cnm ahxU s re- port . As3. so about t 'asp, , .. $ Oregon t1,,� Councilman for cars a sstOry r �Z crossing a ' Zxpxess`t'Yty a duration urcii, n had Z3 hi,zat,estiaas � timingfor reviewed askednfr traffic yin; In discus sha d Mrted and reported o ed the ffi ngineeZt; staff , sin t� ,LXo4 ted b� t Urcon dent xe a� they were followed, fan for the �c �"Y ;�� Zxpxrss Y discussion d oche llow d, Counci rn 1ggest d o at t o in Y Ce of flSi{�;raffic signal. igr? ifil er 5t' ��L , Z er'" °r� the that � frontage the roads /%S/6.5 67 366 5/25/65 APPROVED: Vice Mayor (Councilman Rodgers left the, meeting during the debate on the fol- lowing:matter and was not present for the final vote.) Yacht Harbor. The Director of the Parks and Recreation Department of the County. of Santa Clara had notified the Council by letter dated May 14 that preliminary engineering studies indicated that the area immediately >. nz.rth and west of the airport commonly known as the "mud fiat" would adequately serve as a spoils area for dredged materials. They requested formal approval for the use of this parcel as a spoils area. Councilman Rohrs moved,seconded by Byxbee, that the above area be designated. the -harbor spoils area. After discussion, the motion carried on a majority voice vote. Project 62-5 - Miscellaneous Street Improvements The Council had received a request from. Frederick W. Palmieri to review his assessment under Project 62-5. Councilman Rohrs moved, and it was duly'seconded, that the letter be incorporated into the total study under preparation by the staff. (Councilman Flint left the meeting at this time and did not return.) The Chair, finding a lack of a quorum, declared the meeting would be adjourned to June 14 and that the matters remaining on the agenda would be continued and heard prior to the commencement of the regu- lar Council meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. until 7730 p.m. Monday, June 14, 1965. ATTEST: City