Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09141964City Hall Palo Alto, California September :4, 1964 The Council of the City of Palo .Alto met in regular session on this date at 7:,35 p.m., . Mayor Woodward presiding. Present: Arnold, Bybee, Comstock, Cooley, Cresap, Debs, Dias, Flint, Rodgers, Rohrs, Rus, Woodward and Zweng. Absent: Beahrs, Porter Minutes of'the August 17 and August 44 meetings Couacili,zar.Dias suggested the,' words "General Fund"' bedeleted from the minutes of August 24, page 115, under the item entitled "1964-65 Tax Rate," in thefirstparagraph. Councilman- Deb, requested the following additions to the minutes of August, .2.4.: under the item entitled, "Proposed Planning. Study on Effect '.f High-Rise:Apartments": add to the end of the second sentence in the first paragraph the words, "stating that no planning study;,,;ur h•as that proposed had been made. Th.e second should Paragrapl' �a read as one :sentence and be connected with the words, "and that, in addition. , The minutes were .approved with these amendments. Project No. 62-5; "Mis:w.ellaneous Street Improvements" The Mayor announced that this was the time and place se` to deter, :mine . whether the public convenience and necessity required the proposed acquisiti_gns and improver e ts, to hear fully a11 protests or endorse e ' t'. i the- project. ;rorr ti» property- owners directly ' concerned'', -aru from the to timony of the City administrative staff to determine whether Lhe,,properties wit"nrn the assessrne.nt district= will be beneiited'by the proposed acquisitions and improvements and whether the asses'srnents had beer' spread in proportion to estima.ted. benefits.., is advised that:anyone: ;nrert:sted might address the Council either" the question of general publ:ie.convenience and neces$'ity or on any, particular atetailed,pha,sE of the project; that objections or endorse- ments, under the ;atter item iyi,,y be to the ?oratior .,,r dF•s:gn of the. nr,:p.,oveinen s, to the location and extent of property to be acoiuiret to the question. of whet her the acquisitions are to be made or whether: the len_ rovt:rne,ntc are to be instalied at all, , to the i�xtr:nt !r; ;,^e assessment district proposed pay, either for the acquisitions or the improve:xents or both, to the Engineer's estimate of costs and expenses, to the methods used £r spreading the assessments, to the arnoun.t. of City contributions, or to any phase or detail of the project. It was noted that affidavits of publication, posting andmail- ing were on file in the City Clerk's office. He then declared the public hearing open and requested the staff to explain the project and the City Engineer to testify. Assistant City Manager Morgan stated this project was initiated in May; and explained that after the testimony of the City Engineer, who would review the origin of each part of the project and give his .find- ings insofar as it meets public interest and necessity, the City's bond counsel would reply to the written protests. The City Engineer described the proposed street improvements under this project and read intothe record his engineering testimony on the project, dated September 14, which was then filed with the Acting City Clerk. Mr. Kenneth 1. Jones, bond`' counsel for the City reported on various aspects of the project; He explained that the Maybell Way lighting cost had been spread on a uniform assessment per lot. He indicated that the opening and improving of Diablo Way presented an unusual feature in that the parcel at the ;southwesterly corner of Wilkie Way and James Road in the records of. the City and County assessor is a single parcel whichextends through the portion to be acquired to El, Camino Way; that the assessment in this project was spread against that parcel as a unit because that is the way it appears in the records; that the property owner applied for a split of the property into two parcels - one being the rectangle bound by Wilkie Way and Janes Road, and the second the small remaining stub; that this application had been denied; that the; assessment is a single lump sum figure; that this stub of land formed the: basis for three additional apartment units for the applicant. Mr. Jones indicated that the improvements proposed for West Bay. shore Frontage Road presented no problems; that the Horner Avenue acquisition involves, the acquisition of ten feet of right-of-way from one owner. but the cost;: and improvement of paving, curbs and gutters has been spread by the standard method against the frontage of this •'wner and the property'across the street. He cited court decisions in support of this assessment spread. Mr. Jones ex- plainedhow the Park Avenue assessments were made against three owners: the Sambuceto;.,;':an and City property. The proposed widening of Lytton and Hamilton Avenues from Cowper Street to Ivdiddlefield had prompted more protests than any of the other street i*nprovernents. Mr. Jones sta".ed the prime complaint seemed to be that it wasunfair and improper for the property owners to be assessed for the street widening when the street improvement would benefit the entire, City. To support the staff's opinion that abutting property would benefit and increase in value by the improvements. Mr. "Tones cited data °'wx trnn g A''oa ' under on this proposed e filed nor. did anyone Vq �y. improvement prQaem the audience written c e `. Pr see. th , Brat he n S d th,� �, e four .zng az,, t Council 4 tax�,rit t eedlirz the ,��;Rz ��z`nt5 against which oaus� two �'Y question F Cd e me la ar tr • indicated o gutter proposed e r ,y the 50 years het` t the °w• e Prape No. 19. ,one- considered ar this distributed P o property he azz ,r� , `�'t'a��zd J�'ct t�'a. Percy. a proposed d Clirk f and n which also E regulator against the au/ oauid constitute of cost a the rasa, �t xalls a pit adfac rzerS: /1 stztute a , . l ine h °so f nder the wa , J cost 1�jj a%f rzh4af.�, sid °oval their nigh r�r recon- structing sae ed. $I. 0' .f �'• Fin curband pressure favor of, ''Go though land two Ye zs l'r d ,� that tiZ ex area a�tah,;a � icy �f the net taken estimated value; discussion. and i rafgxry3 ti employed b qxr Prepay Mr, forte the prepy. ed, by Mr. F esul oy d hadtakenUnder questioning, ues 1:/rher Berliner, Hestated °rn the into riorzz:� ex. the on that the graphs consideration s,zdPratioa the Jones ���'•�'raisar a,, the ra es data. P?�s were population changes declared financeest the City t the 2 a h were r- l�erlihe8'rgtvth of the hick res Mr. Jonee had the right to esponse to question, n al cityt objective Pe clfl$t21... as Jones r4n general uSiCrig. that c� ��s observed eral airy funds assessment that t ids to zn cress eat of f. widening t projects only basis t on that t o Pro Jects the far an assLytt Avenues ' Staff property owner le the assessment th the formula c� felt the while was bas is beofwt would rr' a u, contained , improvements zae City based' an wo''to Pay one as changed higher el e ent o to paid fi a , Oc ld pay su 'half the cost and the t provide the other halal benefit Sarni/ton and remain- ing arid each sty city the ooh€ p 'yt ownersht and which e called for the duet improvement prove west Baysho were beinga udience t° corr�etlQrOleot be da separatel JZc>r oz� e � ed forward w �'Cusse 'ti x j La e>: s was h d; i 4 er c �q e. z$h. t�, Axote3s 4� inxz. s e th were 13Noev "War'' z�teh project. Drive, protests,. Apartments, were fired, artxa' ?eots, Mr. Paul de. Y�'z�th� properties a Fly o,{ the aw Fi��''dt atc Cja- ed that °Pertie� fr ` Pla,u to t1 th8p 1 Caxland e. �` uld that it would " ago and s fronting , Diablo may to their ��x �'�` this project bate assts cerz.: into edcv$t be �'E, that they that it 6 esrt t street ire did °thers;`f°ot streez�l,�e :wiper, thener waProi :atF�+ xty �r cars to i oarzl ezats cvqultPoint` d out on t, to wa"exot was educe the Pla 'eras parking from that the 12 9/1464 sufficiently they still t f '4u1 .'ai .r re';at beneficial; it In th.e discussion that followed, it was pointed out by the staff that the project wound make Diablo Way a public improved city street.; instead of an unimproved,private one, that the property owners were „protesting both "the design of the street and the assessment; that the principal reasons for proposing to make this a fully improved city street were to maintain established city standards in developed areas . nd to enure adequate public safety features. The .;Citylvlan ger gave a brief histor on this r� y and background to the Council project whzch ha d been .under consideration for 8 to 12 years. and suggested the Council might wish to review a previously pre- pared written reporton the subject. Homer .Avenue No written protests or endorsements were on file. Mr. R L. Reaves, 721 .�:'1 Carnino Real, and the omner of Reaves Roofing Cornpan.y, A ssmt. No:. 25, requested a thirty -day postponement until his attorney could attend the hearing; that he was opposed to the project. May -- :.. There were no written protests nor did anyone appear to speak in behalf of or in opposition; to the project. Park Avenue A letter from Kenneth E. Tingley, President of the Amaranta Home- owners' Association, was received opposing the proposed improve- ment of Park Avenue. Mr. S. T. Tan, President of the Tan F1 Cami� n R 1, Ass.rit. Nos. 29 and dated September 10; and appeared to attachmen's contained in that letter. Construction Company, 3630 30, filed a letter of protest amplify the statements and Litton Avenue - The following letters were received protesting the widening of Lytton Avenue: Palo Alto Unified School District, Assort. No. 104 Daniel K. and'Novia M, 'Hickey, 667 Lytton Ave.. Assrnt No. 38: Arthur Barney, .645..7-,9_61 Lytton Ave., A ssmt. No. 97 Mr: At, Mrs. C. P. Litterer, 556 Lytton Ave.. Assmt. No. 11k 1z3- 9/141,64 Richard and Beverley attorney resenting ded by l representing protest s"g indicated that one i,a , e, an resented P igr-ed 28 _non . ot:79, presented district; supply a tax bill pr property t �wfle of theassessment he could ind t owners yrithirl and lot: that pYd�erty of 1].4 ownership of this over 50°1a of CW Pa o Alto Lot ,owne rnt of the signaturesof Palo verifying Yepxes � were not City district,, would owners y from the school that the property the we t alloca- tion, list. plus the t felt zn�.the. project-, but ht to be venue the la�nd+area b,e widening ,°f. Lytton � assessment district ought to or that the a more proportionate Prate r; S sable and staff study ii a t;ar�,unxe�so . arid sug��stedth� tcrixiined• larger: could' be de explained equitable method the bond counsel, exP project, Mr. Jones, 'protested the xxa� uast assessed land• area P from the Council In response to question, of the- assesseci vats that if d be..neces to hs,ve a four -fifths it would be necessary ateated. to overrule the protest. p,Qsmt No. 98,p' discriminated 667 Lytton Avenue, been xro Avenue had Alto was Adrs• �Noie,Hicke 'she felt l,ttot►that doWntdwx, 'Palo mble • assessment as alleviate the problem. trecentcre�oiaing� would alle aganst�wi�,n.d that-one,.vvaY txaf�ic� �a• i�6, protested declining' Avenue, Assort• for 573 ,Lytton Ave b1, used to pay hfiehael assessment a d suggested gas tax money ssessxzx�nt.:.an �► his. a ,widening, ht Lytton and the entire 147, thong unfair ssn7L. �o• nt is 44 1. Webster, A that the 7, thought 1° d Sc � be one-way streets �aYz�+:xltoxr';shaulci felt ble:. N:,. g5, and: un.Teasona Byron), Assort. Iris Way (33v y t would benefit , felt Edward Ct would 300 1 o erty bu ,�d not benefit his property 'ect W�..: the <pr o3 4;�;ne r s mercial pro?ertY 11fot� a;vrnue received and are: onxecazd�`%t a.,..,n'�":, were The F�ll°W1Ii� , r tteri protests We Office.. z 60 the Clexk.s Road, As;nt �O� 626 Middlefield Avenue No �Ielen`3.Z^ds,'r, 651., amilto?x.A Avenue, As lvt,or .' Jasper W. an, . 664'Hamilton , A 4fl W _p�,ul�enj ,enue, Ass-mt. -,-at. No. 56 Mrs,' Jv. e 565 axr lton A' Avenue, Ass•. No. 41' Mabel 1''�x"', - ;651i Hamilton Venue, Assort. 36 pe�ulser `:,. 571, Hamilton A As snit.No.,. George S.' rt. .J FrapWell. � � �milton Avenue, Er.E• ,,and 505 l 5 nAven A, Ass ' ph.$Q�ey� 51p-5>�3 Ha ?Lauand' Mri Co.. Inc.', Laubia.an GriscQm'. Assmt. Now.' 72 and 73. 24 9/14/64 J. C. Britton, repre"sentin,g the Raymond Academy, Assmt. Nos. 5?.and 52, _questioned:wheilier i;t:was indeed a 50/50 split oh the assessment since his "assessment appeared to be 70/30; that the determination of benefit wa.s;arbitrary since the entire City would benefit fro'r i:'the widening of`Hamilton. Grace Bodley, owner a£ the property at the corner of Cowper and Hamilton Avenues, Ass:mt. No'. 36, stated she felt Hamilton needed:" to be widened because of -the;' many accidents. She endorsed the project, parti.cul_% ly.if,there were one-way traffic. Rudolph J .; Schoiz, 557 Hiamil.ton Avenue, Assrnt. No. 39, objected to Mr. Berlier'sgraphs as "guesses"; opposed the project because they had only found traffic congestion on Sunday mornings, and because of the loss of the trees 'and front yards. In a:nswer'to'quest„on, the City. Engineer indicated the magnolia trees on Hamilton were` too'large to move. Art Bosselrnan, ` development manager and representative for L. A. and R. C; A.11,en at 525 :Hamilton Avenue, Assmt„ No. 37; expressed Mr; Allen's' support for the project and praised the City and the-:Cjty:.Engireer in their endeavor to serve the needs of the City. However; Allen objected to the amount offered for t7tie lard'' feeling it •, is below a fair market value for the area and as-ced:that, this be re-evaluated and the appraisal include Property sales through_ 1964. Denny Babson, -,563 Byron, Assort. No. 45, objected to the project` because'vvith the present zoning and the loss of parking space Iron,' the street widening., his property would be adversely affected; that he also felt:the: appraisal for his` property was too love; and that . since this` was a project which would benefit the entire City, the co,5t should be borne by the City. Ruth krapwel:l, 571 Hamilton Avenue, Assrnt. No. 4l; believed over 50% of the Ow;ners of assessed 1a.nd area, had protested to the project via petitions 'and intimated that Mr_ Berliner's graph would': have reflected a' -:different concle:sion of it had been extended over a longer period :of time. A letter from Mrs: l ouise Pruitt, E_xe,cutive:; Director of Downtown Palo Alto Inc. endorsed the.rroposed widening of Lytton and Hamilton Avenues from Cowper to Middlefield. The following letters were received pretesting the street widening on Lytton and Hamilton. Avenues: George. S. Luckett, 419 Webster Street, A ss:nt. No. 109 Floyd h1:`; Schwartz, 401 Webster and 602-4-6_8 Lytton Avenues, Assort. No: 107 Rl.th . -, Elvis E. and Edward H. Frapwell, 542-8 Webster Street, ;A. s srn:t, No. 41 ?noise Gallert, 601B Webster Street, Assort. No. 60 Petitions are on file protesting the widening of Lytton and Hamilton. Avenues The' public hearing was declared. closed. Councilman' :Zweigmoved' the Council take the matter uncle: ad- visement in order to give the staff time to correlate and prepare; written data onthe; results :off .the testimony, and to consider the matter at .the last meeting in October. The motion was seconded by Dias and carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Arnold, Cresap,' Dias, Rohrs, Rus, Woodward, Zweig.. Byxbee, Comstock, Debs, Flint, Rodgers. Abstaining: (The meeting recessed at 9:50 and reconvened at 10:05 p.m.) Reports from .the Two Hospital Committees C;ouncilman'Ronrs stated he did not feel the Citizens' Committee Report was completely discussed at the meeting of the Committee of the Whole that there was a high degree of unanimity in the two hospital reports,' and he e'; reviewed the recommendations of the Citizens' Committee. He also submitted that two motions would accomplish the objectives of both committees and incorporate areas where both reports were in agreement:: (1) Recommend tothe meeting of the -hospital joint owners the drafting of a new operating agreement incorporating, so far as practical; the recornm,endations of the Joint Owners' Committee and also points 1 and 5 of the Citizens' Advisory Committee. (2) Recommend referring Items 2, 3 and 4 of th.e Citizens' Committee Report (which have not been discussed and' which point out long-range policy direction), to the Committee of. the Whole for full consideration. He explained that after the necessary investigation, the recommen- dations of the Joint Owners' Committee could be adopted and proper amendments to the operatingagreement could he made so the con- tractual legality would be in conformance with State laws. The motions were seconded by Councils -an Cresap. 126 9/14/64 Coun. ilrnan:'y lint moved, and. Comstock seconded, that the matter be carried river tot e at,es't regular Council meeting when it crud be diS,cussed Nar.iiNr, in the evening;, Councilman Zweng suggested ::l T1. -iding the,rv. %i:`,.:' to read Ito the next Council n`:c ting" to which -. C.O‘,lncilrren F1i,tzt:a;ld,; l:ornstock agreed. Councilman f3yx;cc, moved the, matter be continued to a meeting of. ; ti:e Corninitice of, she Whale, and was seconded by Councilman Rodgers. Because of, the Joirt,Own r,s' meeting in October, Cresap indicated it migtt be desirable, to vote on theoriginal motion of Rohrs. After. f urther discussion. Councilman .8yxoee observed that giving the Boarz.3 autonomy to run `:the hospital should not precede a full dis (: s,ion bf - p6l icy ;'iireetion., The Motion to continue the matter to a meeting of the Committee of the Whole c i ,rigid on the following roll call vote, > yx-b e, Comstock, Cooley. Debs bias Flint. Rod e.rs Fcii3, ficatic,;1.:or,, r x overrte' t Project No. 62-5 Mr..Layne req st>d"the privilege of addressing the Counuil re- garding; *ne po,;sible +:fkct of Sec. 10311 of the Streets and Hi.goway . Coda The City Attorney advised that the bond counsel had already .called,' t e Council's attention to the need for a four -fifths vote of the 'Council to overrule -a : ajori:ty protest of portions of Improve- ment Project 62'-5: Lot ,✓:iSi ier*Ap'3ea1 Midtown Gardens, Inc. 2721 and 2,727 2v;idtowrl r oust {t7.4-1,rJ-Z.i ) A report. \Vats received from the Planning Commission recommend 'denial Of t+.; - ppedil of the applicant, Midtow.n Gardens, Inc.. for the ol.vnel..s. ;i11p'f^xhv; 55+ lot al, fora lot division at 2721 and 272,7 Midtown Court "Known ::1s a portion of Lots 67 and 68, C M. Wooster Company's Subdivision). A letter had been rcceiv id from Dar,iel Leo pres: req ie ting this- matter be continued to an October- eet n,g bei use of his inability t: "c:presont his clients Septernber 14. Councilman Byx.bee's motion :o continue died for lack of a second. Vice Mayo:; Arnold spoke in opposition to continuing the item for scvcra1 re-a:,on a;rid :x owed th.at.it be considered as indicated on 'the agenda. "1 e rnotion was seconded by Woodward and carried on a voice vote. ViceMayor Arnold %?m Mayor ` to old moved to uphold the y the appeal of the a decision of the ]Planning :nc The na�it an abstaining. Was"`$conded t� r PPlicant, idtowr. taming, Dias and Tarr' Gardens, zed, with Flint Lot Di'viszor `A Pd. a Mill Road:: el - Ra ma:sd P. Weddle A report was received fro in repo l of s-th a m the Planning Commission Weddle, fo' Ppliratxon.bf Riley & Flo fission recomaymoin P _3=, a lot division: of a" yd for the own $ M D. B & portion of Section IG owner, Raymond any and a11: ele subject to the following ' �s: that a. ctrzc;_:and telephone service conditions: n uct�e�d underground,;,'the th ?', ce extensions are to be" con- st nt ructed IZ, Improvement Payment br segregation Plans .No. ,-62- ga�zon of As meat of all payable 8; furnishing evidence pay public utilities, ands .city and county taxes; granting g evidence t y ewers as show g ntin paY_ for Pale 1�i"11 R` - , it in re g easengents for oad s d. dedication of right-of-- way' measured from,tikze e>:isri�u.fficieat;oprovide :. a 30 -foot width sur- vey snap of this tlzvisi"hn • existing .center line, in ;th"e � and filing a record of office of the County Recorder. Because two longandnarrow serve the two " acJc l access r. cats-:: in the proposed rediv1 oadways were proposedcilm to BYYb�ee moved to deny. edivision the bee o the application. Councilman Councilman bias seconded' During the -discussion that follow Arnold d the as ,he foothillsfollowed it was observed Arnold t atato are developed by Vice on subdivide and there Myor a minimum.reque it was hi will be additional ��y desirable to keep roads to Me owned Little, to Log Altos realtor representing ca Oe Councils attentiontothe w l Mr. Weddle, ,present position of two ma cated the he road through houses w map indie a h the. hick seemed to preclude '� center line az the property. Councilman Dias minutes called attention to the Planning on the subject and remarked make exceptions was of theission ptions to the that this . Puns for the foothills. not time to The motion to' deny the application fo unanimously. x a lot division was carried Tentative and Final Subdivision Ma for RS ..s Unit No. 2 = Tract No. 3307 A report was received from approval of th` received rna m the Planning Commis as rp submitted b Commission recommending (and the engineer,' Y the owner an ending George S. Nolte d subdivider, ill Dan No. 2, since it conforms. substantially )for Palo Alto Hills Unit to the tentative map approved by the City Council July 10, 1961 and the final map approved August 12, 1963. Refiling this map is necessary because the State Subdivision Law requires that the final rnap must be recorded with the County Recorder's, office within one year after approval or con- ditionalapproval of the tentative "map, and the one-year period had '-apsed. Councilman Rodgers moved the Council uphold the recommendation of the Planning -Commission anti adopt Resolution No. 3766 entitled "'Resolution of the •Council o the City of Palo. Alto Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 3307, Palo Alto Hills Unit No. 2." Councilman Flint inqui,red about the size of the lots in the subdivi- sion and was advised by the. Planning Officer that those lots fronting on a golf course or on the City Foothill Park were not a full acre in. size because of the sizable green area around them. The motion to adopt the resolution was duly seconded and carried, Flint Voting no as a' matter of principle. Salary Schedule; Resolution No: 3767 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution. No. 3243 and No. 3750 Adopting a Compensation Plan" was: introduced and on motion made and du"aly- •seconded, was carried unanimously. Zone Change: 246 Palo Alto .Avenue Ordinance No 2212 entitled"'Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Arnending Section 3,02 of Ordinance No. 1324, the Zoning Ordinance,' Changing the Zoning of Certain Property Known as 246 Palo Alto Avenue from. HDA to R-5" was introduced for. second reading and, on "motion made and duly seconded was adopted unanimously. i. Zone Change - Portions; of 'blocks: 47 and'"48 _-Middlefield' Road After CouncilmanByxbee declared his objection to downzoning, Ordinance No. 2213 entitled'"Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 3,02 of Ordinance No. 1324, the Zoning: Ordinance, Changing. the Zoning of Certain Property Known' s 101, 125,. 133, 201," 2'11, 225, 235, 245, 25l„ 305, 311, 319, 325, 329, 335, 343 and :351 Middlefield Road from R-3: P to R-1-R" was introduced for sec,ond' read: ng. On motion made and duly seconded, the ordinance was adopted by voice vote, Byxbee voting no, Zone Charie 10 a5 nd :14ng-an,.Antonio`Avenue The City Attorney 'read :a letter from Richard M. Blois, attorney for Mr.' Rettig, the Owaicr of 105 and ;145 San Antonio Avenue, challenging• the validity of the proceedings before the Planning Commi:ssion:particularly with respect to the lack of findings sup porting the rezoning. He recommended that the matter be returned, to the Planning Commission for a rehearing so that these defi ciencies may .be ;corrected. During the ensuing discus-sionp Ballard French, 318 Ferne„Avenue, said the nearby _ho.ne0wnera feared the property would be turned into a commercial area, The City Attorney pointed out that if the matter were returned to the Planning Commission for a rehearing, it would give the property owners another opportunity to make ,heir wishes known in addition to eliminating the possibility that he rezoning might be declared invalid on a technicality. Councilman Flint' moved the previous question which carried by a two-thirds vote on.a- show of hands. ` The motion to return the matter' to the Planning'C=omrnission carried by a voice vote, Ras .voting no: Plan. Line :P ula.tiors Ordinance`' No. "2214 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 36, Division 4, to the Palo Alto Muni- cipal Code Establishing Official Plan Line Regulations' was intro duce'd'for second reading and on motion made and duly seconded, the ordinance was'adopted unanimously. Zoning for the Arastr.adero-Maybell Annexation Vice .Mayor'. Arnold introduced the ordinance entitled "Ordinance of the`Couricil of the City of Palo Alto Establishing the Zoning of Property Bein.g `Annexed to the City of Palo Alto and Described as Arastradero Maybell An' exatiorb as R-1, R -3-G and P -C" for second reading and,:rnoved its adoption. The -motion was seconded ,by Councilmans.Rohr;s-but lost on the following tie "Vote: Ayes: Arnold; Dias,Rohr s Rus, Woodward, Zweng, Noes: Byxbee; ,Comstock, Cooley, Debs, Flint, Rodgers. Councilman Debs moved, seconded by Byxbee, that the ordinance tee revised to,show R-1 zoning for : all the property in the annexation, axcept for the Tan property which would remain P -C, and that this .)rdinancebe introduced for first reading The motion carried on ;he iol)owing roll call vote: • Ayes Byxbee, Comstock, Cooley, Debs, Dias, Flint, Rodgers,' Rohrs, 'Rus, Woodward, Zweng. +~.stabllahrr erit'of Fire Zone No. 3 `or the AraMstrrad ry_xMaybe11 Annexation Ordinance No 2z•15;entitled 'Ordinance of the Council of the City of .Palo Alto A rraen�.i ng the Official Fire Zone Map of the City of Palo Alto,:, California (Section 1601 of the Uniforrn Building Code) +)v r:sta.blishing the Property. Kriown as Arastradero-Maybe.11 a♦nrsexat or. as Fire Zone No., 3" was introduced for second reading •trd on motion made and duly seconded was adopted unanimously. Street' Name Chan e: to Clerno Avenue Ord nanc. No.:22, 6 entitled "OrdirFance of the C' . nci.l of the City _` Pn1 Alto Desa.gnatur,g'chc,Street Along the Southerly Boundary, of Arastaradero-lvia,yheil : n.riexat .on a Clerno Avenue" was intro- duced. .for secondreading...On Motion rnade and duly seconded, ordinance was adopted by voice vote, Arnold and Zweng voting: ;no. State E intiloy. ent Retirement System Ordinance No 2.21 c entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authoriz;i an Amen,drnent to the Contract Between the: City Council ;.and the Board of Administration of the Chli.forr.,ia State, Employees' Retirement System Relating to Persons Com- pensaLed on an I ourly B si,s" was introduced for second reading and on motion made and, duly seconded was adopted unanimously` by voice vote. CouncilmanByxli(?t;'s rr;QT. on to adjourn lost for lack of a second. Award of Bids Under .ground n, stFn. The City Manager announced that proposalry were called for an underground dutc;,t system to serve the Dana subdivision, that he would recommend accepting the bid of Progress Electric in the amount aunt of $16. 5.90: that the engineering i gat g f ., etimate was $/7, 940; • 1 ghe.St bi'd was $27, 972. On :motion: by Byxb.ec, seconded by Rodgers and carried unanimously, the low bid was accepted an the Mayor authorized and directed to. execute the contract with Progress Electric. for �niverit park Architectural Flans , Ili the 'fvSay 1eld i —. .` of the proposed fire arid - that the model. a rsed f fix. :indicated,the Conferencedmodels and architect to pro- ceed CytYwere on dasplaY in and. dixect the ad statio�ss, were o ,rove plans a. orl P �eede�� Co al�� s would b , the, working drawing. • nar`I �:c�ed w t r, the preliminary ved the Council accept proceed with the Yx`�yee .acr�o architect to p xnan�` a.nd direct the a seconded ctand carried Councilman r al_ fans �' :arc kingtd = ,Tile motion,, was ,,�,pr'�:;,x�$ dxawi;ngs ct be amended, mow-Ay.. the architect's contract The Agsis - .. 'recommended budget required, O Manager .increase in the fire station, a which City of cost provide a r ,g sled breakdown " :n pr° �,fa'na�v�x gave. a detailed ;ant City' funds,. the ?vlayox to_ the additional ten the, the Council authorize the for a kiee moved contract top a co to �,p�ncn arri $ n the architect's and was: endmcnt to ration budget e stimz..te. The 'motion r sign an am , the, fire fee• �. in architect' s per CCnt..ro xeas in the rr,a.xirravm ncreaae dulyse , seconded and carried unaniYxiously. duly h econ . e Road ast:p�ayshore: yronta the ter, af� E had negotiated with Extension the City explained that ,hare ed wth t city e eof years rend East says. land without The Mana bex of .yea to e�' transfer Road that at r e solution" would de fence and the land wi ho theCi Proposed'. move �b�tta�.he City ,rho.would then c it of the City �y -aad tion of the Council Cit yh.titled "Resolution ef. t e Agreement of Wror' s, e ?68-r '.. Mayor to Ex not c>- public �:aaluAioa No. the , Department dtsl'i o n thorl.tin- li,f rnia, made and ,f Palo -Alto �, state of iCn and on motion Div S Cairo zrid tlw „ Wass introduced voti • z'" hwaY� ouzlY by voice i�:tco ie of 'F...g unarii ,;econ:�ec3. vas _apPS°vea: t 4,q.y Re ore with the Gourac:l 3..., -� rls �? " a Stud`? Report on vale at ,,ed the Gayland_ az ath Manager,.. * the Library report be dv ed that were on:file a� moved rep The Vice Arnoldfor detailed the eps t be r,�at copies r� A Mayor . :.n� advised office. on 's Qf the Whole l led discussion. rho* C`X.0 x•,tYT�,. i�ttu`"C,: Cax d to. the vmm n the inoti nn which �;t tt Flint src;:vridc d' Report be granted ,';��:znciiman Q �tu.dy liepo motion was. D s moved that the . a f e • dole. ''The b�_ ,,te.e o C.,,�t,�ilman.,,e Co;Y,r� vUte• thi. voice entire ay of �bV meeting c,osly <<n carried unanimously ':-..r.. ,t �Y4rE.d '-�.-t C' ��'' ;132. 9/14/64 Proposed Park at San Antonio Way. and Alma Street Dr. Gordon Newell declared he had read the staff report which had been prepazed;at:,.the:Counoil'e: requeet in their consideration of the ?ossibility of a; park site at: the corner of San Antonio Way and Alma Street;; ,that he "felt the 'report biased and unfair and asked for a urther. extension. Councilrnan Conistoc;'�k.moved that the matter of park use be con- sidered when: the Plann,ng;.'Gonaznission report is received on zoning. of the area.; The motion was seconded by Councilman Byxbee and carried unanimoi'::sly. ate' `ort oz:>A.ltt rna,te .rah nnnents for Page Mill...:Road: 'r'he City Manager pointed to wall maps and described three alter- nate alignments propcsed for; Page Mill Road between Foothill Expressway and the Junipero. Serra i`reeway; that in each case the, City of Palo Alto was being charged that the City is a part of Santa Clara Gounty.a.nd no explanation; -was given for this charge; that a ., 'ct� zzng wa:.s: being held, September 15 by the Board of Supervisors and it would be. desirable to have a representative there to indicate the. route preferred oy:the Council and to ascertain the need for the extra chargessince only, 250 feet of the roadway passed through lands in the City of Palo Alto. After discussion, , Councilman Byxbee moved the Council instruct a member of the; staff to attend the hearing to determine why the City is being -charged thatkind of money. The motion was seconded< by Dias and carried unanimously by voice vote. The City Manager remarked that if Alternate route II were selected the Council -might considersuggesting that a center island planter be provided. Vice Mayor Arnold. recommended Alternate II as being the most desirable route, that Alternate I was along an objectionable align- ment; that Alternate II costs less than 10% rnore than Alternate I; that Alternate III would not only cost more but would take too much_ land since' it 'rs divided;. He then :rnoved that the Council go on, record before the Board of. Supervisors as favoring Alternate II. Councilman Byxbee said he would second the motion if the Vice Mayor would, incorporate in his motion the recommendation of center islands to w)ch Vice Mayor Arnold readily agreed. Alter further discussion, the motion was carried by a voice vote, Debs, .Dias and Flint voting no.. urn ent ,he followi 8 a;e,a d -4 s Yep; vnt� ec°ded t° adjourn 1V° �' cooly ur the �'eerir��fai lint, �° le Ar ald,. �, d o act w tai a linb Rodgers, Rus Zw The ,.. Pacific C s, J7ia Qn$ �:t s and into t Mal?' per e. lylai l etr�r °rn Ro},rs, Woodward. could i the City;ere won ed that this Aa would t ` ric this ethat d t tlx would provide �3 soxird die; pro- vide in thC, third City would a to to enlarge the gas reeozservice to this h ildpointtof delivery; have to point ofd Pacific he area x�, erx el Y ofa' r" d that the axial Park and low- that this ae mains if it to ah red able third station rho, y cm ( u °xl �AArovp A er oothil� e City ta4 zed . - meeting ting the rh proposed are, '� a �,.bxaee o move Cou thatex e C: t�,, man ed 'o e c,ot d be b r.eefurther discus .411"t he rz�atio ew bring the e��"x CCU cy er contract was Sx recr `Imax� 1'a ka$ Laved Ora seconded and it. xc. Cb,� , hrs m°v ar ied r ur;; After further bze ed: that that the �imr3 , her azp... the contract mat uy , d" et y c sszar and the with the �° Aux fay srz�, bf the rx,ati° °r duthraCifiC Ca 2'hc,. ci4 a se, onded�a `° exerup "f d x"F`'`Gx '/ ta Cr �, carried f acid hit it a�A1a eh 0. State tJxe °uGi� eat}��exrabie t a S,reet ke Z•ii�h ay. fi d Fr4�x t sF tit a early b aS in need '': Ci �oeutian No. xn 19 4. 3 budget px0 Resolution wids as endtur o on t d fr. ° Alto Ada3769 entit.te ,� Posat for exAerxdinecessary zxaati°� made State ��Pitir`� $ud8 80.1uti°r' of � tszre °f Tait for e and duly sway,' une/ for Cit.exies" introducedhe uu. . l of �� `�8e� °°�ded} �,as2���Pt� a„� �d� ,BIZ' �he 11e Ci; u ariz�zo and Wulf, y Attorney ttorne Palo �©64 yrep°.rte recommended, � Ai al a Avenue, petition forA. 2'he filed by claim. was not filet, tee. City Attorney•C tither xt 1 within the �1��� 2m:: 1 'hat th;. Coun il'give the attorney authority to tile the �ultandou5iy the Council. deny the iiab,lit\' on the r 1 part :� the C..zty. NA, c,, . ar^.o'd r-.c,v;'6, and Councilr.:an 1.\i:cnt; s•econcied, th.. ;•t; eptc.d for. late filing but the, Clain-. be dr,•.;c? iC5 Carried unanimously on v,.0 e votC'. ;;n,1 !. !: .l C: C'. L.icen5e Indian 13oVwl c,u.n Stns c:t. C t.y Attorney 'reported.in an application frc,rn Willard V. Van 7)• . r, for an On -Sale. Beer License at the Indian Bowl at 735 that since there was no basis for a legal protest, :, , uniend"ed that the application be filed without action. moved, seconded and Carried unanimously to fiir: the applica- ,,w's,;,, ut protest. ci ing was adjourned'at'11:30 p. r n. APPROVED: l