HomeMy WebLinkAbout02081960City Hall, Palo Alto, California
February 8, 1960
:The Council of the City of Palo Alto met in regular
session on thus date at 7:30 :P M,. , with Mayor Porter presiding.
Roll call as „follows:
,Present: Ball, Byxbee, Davis, Evans, Giffin, Haight Mitchell,
Navis,'Porter , Rodger s, Woodward, Zweng,
Absent ' Bishop, Marshall, Stephens.
The, minutes of the meeting of January 25, 1960, : were
approved as distributed. •
Baylaiads Development Pro
The City Manager called attention to the action of the
ouncil: at its -last meeting referring back to Committee No. 3 for .;
reconsideration ;the proposed -program for. development of the bay
•
lands in.Santa Clara' County for industrial and commercial purposes
and the .proposaf, of the•Utah: Construction & Mining Company, with
the proviso that the.c,ommittee report back to the Council on
February 23, ;1960, as to its ;:views with respect to the development.
of the property by the Utah Construction Company. In view of the
limited Mane inavhich to study the matter, the City Manager asked .•`
that the comrriittee be given further time to report, at either. the`•
',,
March 14th or Marsh: 28th'rrneeting. an motion of Byxbee and
Woodward, it was, so:.ordered.
Proect 59 Birch Street
At the last meeting on..Tanuary 25, 1960, the hearing and' ;.
all matters in connection with Project 59-3 were continued to this
date. The Mayor declared, the hearing still open, and asked if any
one wished to be heard.
Mr. Hideo Furukawa, 2705 Birch Street, read and filed`
a statement regarding the project as it affects his property and the
neighboring;:property at 27.23:. Birch Street, as an expression of his
viewpoint in the matter, and stated for the record that if the amount
to be acquired from these properties is more than ten feet he would
like to submit a protest. The City Manager reported that the plan
does not provide -for acquiring more than ten feet of the property.
There being no one else present who wished to be heard,
the hearing was declared closed.
Resolution No - 3190, overruling protests and determining
to _proceed without :.compliance with the Investigation Act, was
introduced, ; and on -motion of Mitchell and; Haight, was adopted by
unanimous:' voice vote.
Ressolu.tion No. 3191, directing preparation of engineering
docuxnent's, was introduced, . and on motior. of Mitchell and Haight,
was adopted'by:'unanimous voice vote.
in
and analysis. l7 tests had Project 59 -9 improvements referred to continued this.
the staff for computation
reviewed City
Ma:zagtx.
weal an
proper t. discussed with reported that the matt
uas
re Y °wirers h Mr. William.
client ° Charleston • Sauers,
had been
odiert oWn Barrens rl ,n.Road, and t s, art
by ,eliminating in made that after attorney for
his
sidewalk's g the five of propose./ ig that conferring th wit
rrient 'ta t foot Plantirt tkie Plans �;� h
inside curb, and h strip,
owners sidewalk in p, ,t�lacir, t
ow, o have ew hich: having thefive-foot g he :..
original plan. ve a. deeper fw c`o'uld, irz ef� e_rcot unlit,
ont la.wr `ec'b al.law f Pose=:
than wcaixld be possibtPoperty
une,e r tkie
(Couaic.i lxxaa
n Bishop
and was present for a ived he estat this time, 7:50
of pka
addressed
Roger A. he meeting.
�., sF�d the Count: Parkinson,2 r 5 1aaad
lien esthe ed h this" time. questioned W. necessity
f
efitted bar the , me,: lie the recess.a on Road,
proposed improvement
widening of Charleston that his pro pr estundertaking
p; z
and Stan Raced �' 'Nizt not be
•
assessment. and protested eu the
9
Action
had,bezn deferred
Birch ion of efe,. red at
ch Streetand
Comrriittee No. Previous
seed meetings an. the-
. the fii��nci I regard: he eet carried rig= program. ng the street
aec and dtl n follows':that the recommendations
iss of thmoved by Woodward,
b
the committee ark,
I e be
The 70 foot; street plan to providmov
e far fain, 11 -foot'
each side center island •
parking, ch' for sidewalk -and 9 -foot
leaving it, up to the staff to work out
further
et: ..
details any.. as to .placezraent of sidewalks rk °ut f anon
and side planting
• The financing
Uu `°f$IOn S00} fox the project e q aZerzt to the - as follows; The (estimated total
;.
of ama
to be to be assessed
street urat
on a fro estimated
wither: front footage. bas.is
abutting property', -half black �s and on Perty
(those with on either Pirch ties.
frontage side of
and the others g °n Birch to 7 Birch Street
bnd'tce to ers to pa pay ; S% of t
be assessed Solo of the cost); % he cost
from • of th
to be s m` Birch to over a storm drainage e
hared betty El. Cantina district -
extending ..
Avenue shared
between the Cit. and the
Parking District, 37. a+ and the paid
theainder . . .
:strict and 6Z. S%a
5/a to be a
to be contributed band by the
ft was e by City,
i7ip'basized that
and theas'" California the contributions
on percentage
AvenueParking
ions of the City
a p.erce ge basis and at /District are to
.Pro' a fixed amount.. be
ect 59-9, West Charleston
Road
Resolution At tlae` xiaeeti
all matters o Ithertieetio of S nitary I 1, r
I9b0 th
date, and the xo ect�n with F;z �quisitions and i the nearing on the
, a been refer "`ere caa7ta nxents and.:
c.)
Mr: Sauers also addressed the Council, advisingthat
he represents.a majority= of the property owners on West
• Charleston Road, that they have had'several discussions on the
proposed; widens g'. that they do not wish to stand in the way of,'.
progress and<have agreed, rather reluctantly, that the street has
to be widened. Re: stated that they will withdraw the protests .
made against the-initial'plan if thecompromise proposal agreed
upou.with the;city staff, as, previously outlined by the City Manager,
is approved. Mr Sauers stated; that the property owners would
like to snake it -:.a .a -condition of approval that the speed limit of
25 males; per hour r:emain;, and that the lots along Charleston Road :.
remain- as legal lots ,although; their size might be reduced by the
widening' of the; street:. He also asked that consideration be given
to setbacks for future development.
Mrs: Eugene;.Bourdette, 380 Edlee Avenue, filed a
petition aigned::by 46 pax:efats-of Ventura School children requesting
additional traffic :control Measures for the safety of ,children'
after Charleston Road .is. widened, such as a traffic officer to
assist the •children: in Crossing, the street or the installation of
traffic signals.`;' The City: Manager reported that a sirnilar request
has been Made by the Ventura Parent Teacher Association in a
letter received today:,.: This matter was referred to the Staff
Traffic Coznnxittee.
Mr.;'P,hilhp Gardner 4183 Park Boulevard, told the
Couricil that he:cou-ld, see no benefit to property on Park 'Bou.levard
and ;objected to having his`propexty assessed for any of the
improvement Mr. ,Kenneth Jones of Ki:kbride, Wilson, Harzfeld -.
and Wallace, the attorneys on these proceedings, explained that
it has •been standard practice for many years to spread the inter -
,section 'charges for one-half block on either side, and that it has
also: been customary for Many year to spread the cost of acquiring..:
property for street ,widening over a larger district, 25% of such
cost being 'spread for approximately one-half block or 250 feet
frornthe street being widened.
Mr. K. R. Rickey, 365 West Charleston Road, stated
that, an easement of ten feethad been granted in 1951; that the
building on his property was so designed that when an additional
ten feet is .taken for the proposed street widening, automobiles in
the ',driveway would project over the sidewalk. He advised that he.
does not object to the widening of Charleston Road, but felt the
width is; a little exces sive .,`
As there was no one else present who wished to speak
on the subject, ;:t� "'hearing was declared closed.
Mr. Jones advised that if it is the desire of the Council
to implement the compromise proposal agreed upon by the staff acid"
a majority: of the property owners, it is necessary to hold a public
hearing on ;the modified plans
Resolution No. 3192 of Intention' to make changes and
modifications, and setting a hearing on theproposed changes. for
March 28, 1960, at 7:30 P.M., was introduced, and on motion of
Mitchell, and I3yxbee, was adopted by unanimous voice vote.
4
nM
+ti
There had also been continued to this date the recommend-
ation of Committee No. _1 that therebe no change in the fence
ordinance, and that the request of"Mrs. G. W. Monroe,305 W.
Charleston Road, for permission to move the existing 6 -foot fence
to a new location' between the house and the new property line be
not granted. It: was:reportedtha.t the Assistant City. Manager will
discuss with MrsMonroe a plan for reconstruction of the fence
which May be possible inview, of the proposed modifications in the
project, .;
ouncilrnan Evans asked that the staff make report's' to;
the Council, when themodified project conies up for hearing on
March 28,, 1960, regarding the relocation of the fence on the lvdonz oe
property, the question of the size of lots after acquisition of the
widening easements, .on the number ofsub-standard lots which might .`
be created, and on the Problem. of cars in driveways pro jecting over
the sidewalks.;'
Abandoninent Portion. of Southern Pacific Line
Reference was made to the request of the Board of
Supervisors for a formal recorrxxnendation from the Council with
respect to -the proposed abandonment of the portion of the Southern
Pacific right-of-way: from Arastradero. Road to Simla Junction in%
order to facilitate the location and construction of the Foothill
Expressway. When an informal hearing was held on this matter. on
January 11, 1900, a suggestion was made by the City Manager that
if the line is to be abandoned, consideration be given to making the
cutoff at El. Camino. Real. A decision. on the matter was deferred
at that time, fora month at the request of Mr. C. R. Antz of Eastman
Kodak -Companywho wished to ascertain the needs of his company for.
spur track facilities..
A petition was filed by Allan Reid, similar to the
statement he read to the Council on January 11. 1960, with the
signatures of 32property owners and residents, against the abandon-
ment of the Southern' Pacific lime and opposing the proposed express-
way in the area.
The City Manager reported that he had received a letter
from Mr Ant7 advising that Eastman Kodak Company will haveno:
use for the spur track, and is agreeable to discontinuance of the
railroad right-of-way.
After brief .discussion, it was moved by Woodward,
seconded: by 3ali, ,and.carried that the Council favors the continuance:
of the Southern Pacific line until` the expressway is constructed.
Bayshora-San: Antonio Annexation
A petition was."received from property owners for the
annexation ,to .the' City of Palo Alto: of certain uninhabited territory
containing' 32 2 acres, designated as "Bayshore-San Antonio Annexa-
tion", located onthe northerly corner of Bayshore Freeway and San
Antonio Road
Resolution No. 3193, giving notice of the proposed
annexationand setting March 28, 1960 as date of hearing, was
introduced, and on. motion. of Byxbee and Rodgers, was adopted by
unanimous voice vote.
The City Manager advised that the staff may recommend
that this property, i#':a .n.exed,; be authorized to obtain sewer service
from the City of, Los Altos, as it is adjacent to the Los Alt os
sewage treatxnent plant; that it is agreeable to the City of Los Altos
to make such an arrangement. He stated. that other utilities would
be provided by Palo Alto.
Cancellation of Taxes, Flood Control District
A letter,;was received from the Santa Clara County Flood
Control District requesting cancellation of taxes on property along
Adobe Creek, acquired from Joseph and Lillian Eichler for flood
control purposes (two parcels, one containing .00752 acre and the
other containing .00017 acre, portion of Lot 3, J. J. Morris Real
Estate Ccmpa _y':s Subdivision of the Louck's Tract.)
On motion of Bishop and Navis, the taxes on said property
were cancelled.`.
Office of Ct :Assessor
League of. Women: Voters Study
A letter was recetved'fro-n Mrs. Arthur Spar, President
of the League of Worrier Votes, advising that the League has made.
a study to .determine whether the City Assessor's office should. be
continued`as a•municipal function; that their study shows that
elimination OPthe CityAssessow's department and contracting with,
the County`�for assessment of properties, billing and collection' of.
taxes would res^a1t in`grea.ter economy to the citizens of Palo. Alto
that the League Supports _use of the services of the County Assessor's
office for city purpose -s, and urges the Council to place the
necessaryssay charter amendment or an early ballot.
The City Manager called attention to the consideration;
of this matter by'Comrnittee No..: 3 about a year ago, when it was
understoodthat`the League of Wornen Voters would file a copy of
their 'study and report With Cor_imittee No. 3, and the committee
had deferred fur:the:r consideration pending receipt of the report.;
that the report: has not been been filed to date.
Counc lma n Navin, Chairman of Committee No. 3,
advised that the .question is on the committee's agenda and he would'
like to have. the corn-nittee consider it at a meeting next month.
He suggested that the City' Manager contact the League of Worrieri
Voters and;'obtaina copy of their study which wo'. ld be helpful to
the committee in 'i;ts discussions.
Reference was made by Councilman Bishop to the fact`,
that information: was .obtained some time ago to the effect that there'.
would be'no branch 'Assessor's office in the North County Building:
soon to be constructed; and suggested the County offices be
contacted to see if there is any change in their plans. The City
•
Manager advised that he has heard unofficially that there is a good.
possibility there will :be'a,,branch.<Assessor's office in the new
building. He was -asked to check on the rnatte.r and have the -.nforma-
tion available for Committee :No. , 3 when it has a meeting to consider
the question of the Assessor's office and the request of the League
' of Women. Voters for a charter amendment to eliminate this depa:rtxne:nt.
Dowrtow:i Palo Alto Plans
:A letter was received from Ryland Kelley, President of
Downtown Palo Alto, Xnc ;asking permission to discuss the
procedure for presentation'ofplans for the revitalization of Downtown
Palo Alto The C;xtg Manager advised that sketch plans have been
prepared by:`the organization and they would like to seta date for
full presentation of the .details of the program to the Council or a'
committee.
On motion of Zweng and Haight, the matter was referred
to Committee NO.,- 3 and all council members were urged to attend:
the meeting: =of the corxirrzittee v✓hei: the plans are to be considered.
•
In making the motion,, _Councilman Zweng noted that the plan is,
a fairly aetaaledone and will require a great deal of study. He
suggested that Committee No. 3 plan to devote an entire evening to
the pr.esen;tatior,. and discussion of the plans.
Anne*ation :of Matadero and LaDonna Well Sites
A letter wa_s'received.from Richard Olson, Clerk of the
Board; of Supervisors, advising that the Board had denied the petition
of the Council requesting annexation of the Matadero and LaDonna
Well Sites to the.City.'of Palo Alto.
The CityManager pointed out that the City had exercised
its right in petitioning: forthe annexation of these well sites, which
are city owned properties _ ]ocated in Barron Park but not contiguous
to the >city,lirxxxts, n view of, the increased a.ssessra.ent and taxes
on the p operties,, and'that the County has approved siznilar annexa-
tions by other cities, such as the annexation of the Lo:, Altos sewage
treatment plant to the City of Los Altos The City Manager advised
that costs' have increased and the City will have to investigate the
•
overall cost` of supplying water in that area.
The Cii v atorziey suggested the matter be taken to court:;
It was moved by;'.13yxbee, seconded by Mitchell, and carried that the
City Attorney be authorized,.to:take legal action against the County
in an •effort to have the well sites annexed to the City.
Gas Tax nix/de for EngineerinE
The City Manager :,submitted a letter from the Assistant
State Highway Engineer, with Budget Proposal and Master Agreement
for the expenditure of engineering allocation for city streets under
Section 2;107.5 'of the Streets and Highways Code. He advised that
the amount budgeted for engineering purposes is $13,500.00.
Resolution Np.` 3194, authorizing the City Manager to
execute and. submit to the State the proposed budget, was introduced
and on motion of Byxbee and Zweng, was adopted by unanimous
voice .vote;
Resolution No. 3195, approving the Master Agreement
for expenditure of engineering allocation, under Section. 2107.5of
the Streets and Highways Code, and authorizing execution of the
agreement by the Mayor, was introduced, and on motion of Byxbee
and Zweng, was adopted by unanimous voice vote.
Axrmndxneut to Article 33- Streets and Sidewalks
The,CetyMaazager .presented a; proposed amendment to
Section 33 20 of "Codified Ordinance No. 5 tomakeunlawful any work
done withina .street x:ight of way, without first obtaining a perxxut
froze: the ,City Engineer,` except that in cases of an emergency nature
such as leaking gaer or water lines, it shall be sufficient compliance
if the necessary permit is obtained on the next succeeding business
dayafter an emergency opening has been made, provided the person
making the Opening has provided barriers and lightizig adequate to
protect`the public -in the meantime. The City Manager advised that
the emergency feature was overlooked when the original ordinance
was "adopted."
•
A proposed ordinance amending Section 33.20 of Codified
Ordinance No. 5 was 'introduced, and on motion of Mitchell and
Woodward, was accepted for firstreading by unanimous voice vote..
Re ue•st of Citiz ne Cornznittee on Public Transportation
The City: Manager "presented a letter from Jack Bennett,.
Chairman of the Citizenst Advisoxy Committee on Public Transporta
tion, requesting_ an appropriation of funds not to exceed $1,000, 00
for the purpose of paying. expenses of out-of-town bus operators and
other experts who will be. invited to address the committee.
The City Managersuggested that this could be handled
as an administrative matter, with the city staff making the arrange-
xnents for ,brirgu g the;, experts to Palo Alto to meet with the
coxnmittee`a'nd providing for their necessary expenses .frorn city
' funds.
Mr. Bennett, Chairman of the Citizens' Committee, _
addressed the Council briefly, advising that in their investigation
into the., transportation; problem, they have received suggestions to
contact various experts in public transportation to invite them to
come and talk eh, the group, and it was for this purpose that expense
money wasrequested.'; Mr. Bennett stated that he appreciated the
City Manager's suggestion and felt that handling this on an
administrative'- level would be entirely satisfactory to the committee.
On rnotior. of Mitchell and Evans, the suggestion of the
City Manager was accepted and he was authorized to take the
necessary action to carry out the committee's wishes in this regard. ,.
Street'- Pattern for 2990, 3040 and -3060:Middlefield Road
A report was received from Coxxxmittee No. 1 advising
that it has c°onside.ed the. timing and financir.g of the street develop-
-
znent for the; property, at ;2990, 3040 and 3060 Middlefield Road, and
recommending that the costs be allocated on the basis of normal
accepted assesarnent proceedings;:for street improvements, and that
the 'project'be included in the next assessment district program.,
On motion 'of Woodward and Mitchell, the recommendations
of the committee were"adopted.'
msµ—
_ _ - ex�ta
Flood Control District Docum 1 advising
t was received from Corr nittee No.
A repox ordinances .and resolution 59-1)
ro osed; c2 mod. Resolution No. n
that it has reviewed the. :No - 59 "
nce-•Na <54 -1., Ordinance .. trot and Water Conservation
(Orthe
Flood Con
ttee, does not recommend the acceptance
or str Sang', Clar County
District, end that the `�ornzn,%
of these ord uanCea and the;reaolvtion.
Woodward and Rodgers,
the report was
; On Motion
. ;-of aaxd.af Supervisors of the
rected that the P
advisethat the Council does not
ad,�ted' or,d z8
st�;ict lse,;� ants.
•loom Caxxtxol" Di .- Lanes 'of the locum
xecrsxn:nend the accep
Z Chaii:e, 1028-Cow•er'Street Cotnzzxxssion
.zed application of Valerian
report was received froth the Planning "1:B-.14 to R-��
royal of the app'
1 ecoxics7men3sng apP .
'zaid l ous y change of district from R t 4t
oxstov�zch %x being: portion of I,.o
and e -,pr ha t vi ez Street,
- rapexty at��lOZBf�Ca ,p.l,he-Coaxisr�ission-advised that it the ed
for th P Park.
•to go Cord -t t any request for variance
fr should be
on recs+rd that.; "in, gen,ae, particular parcel
ton tain to this' p
zoning xegulatians�,`a8 they Fax,
denied.' to provide
ending the Zone Map otion
ro 'ose:d oxdi:aaace'axxa. and or►.xx� _ .
e; 1'.e. ended. was introduced, unanimous: gores;
fox this. zone;cl,ll;-waa�zceept d
o£ Nava and_:T',a1�,
was accepted fox first reading by
vote.
78:1 783 Lorna Verde Avenue
Zone Chan , � _ Ca�?aa�sion
rt was submitted by the Plan 1i ation of Barnett
Y repo a r o�c al of the app r o arty . .
en3l.�ag� pF 3..G to'R"2 for the 'p F
u e nim�+usly recam o 78, caster;'
Change' Hof dx�atxic�ti�-from R- onion of Ls>
1Lernoff foz: a Venue, being p
at *.i.-8'.1,,,, 7,,,8:3: Lo4%a Vex_de A.
SubdiViBxan the "Lo provide
Ce 'amending yvlitne map to pr and
' pr;oF. .- ordanaz? . and on motion of
't
or this ;zOe change was .introduced, unanimous voice vote.
Ball.; was acce.lsted:£oz first reading by
Zone
e 1.040 Color ado' Avenue
Chan e;-1.040
Was from the Planning application of
A'r report 2 of the apP
a cova.l by a,;vote Hof 3 to for change a of district of a
recoxnrxx -- Bar Pp. Wxiliam,'M .B,ropbY. known asc -
Barry-ana otherwise kn
portion -of
fit. t 148,._. Wooster Subdivision,
o
.- .4 L.' �fxom;R 1 to p
1040 Colorado Aveisue, G.
provide,
ending the Zone Map to Or d
A-Pr�°paasd,:oxdl�aa�`c� am and on motion of R�odg
s zone change 'vas xntraduced, b unanimous voice vote
for this tad `for.fxrst reading y
}3a11, wasaccep .
Zone Chane 445 455 Char'lestan Road
: . .ad
Pro ., sed AC•uisition of Pro b ; •er Commission,
from `the Planning
it
Was presented Kernoff for a
ng de i lica,tion of Barnett Ker of the
ending denial, of the: B 14 to Duplex for portion.
R3.-1:
Change fxos?
1
Rancho':Rincon de San. Francisquito, known as 445-455 East
Charleston<Road. ' It was further recoznmended'by the Commission
thatthe City.CoixnciI in.vestigate:possible procurement of this
ixroperty as an -addition to MitchellPark.
It; w.as moved by Byxbee, seconded and carried that
this zonechange ,ppLLcat1on be denied' as ;recommended by the
Planning Commission.'
-Councilman 13yxbee advised that some time ago the
desirability af..having>.an entrance to Mitchell Park from Charleston
Road was called to: his;eattention, and he felt the acquisition of this:
:property* should be considered: He moved that the recommendation
of..the;Planning Commission that the Council investigate the
possible aceu sition_:of the property be referred to Committee No.
The City Manager advised that the staff had intended to
bring this matter ,to the Council's`attertionin connection with the' -
1960 -'61, budget. - He stated:ti at: he:would like to get inforrno,tion on,::
costs and:also see;: how this particular property would fit intothe
design of the park, and suggested the staff be given some time to
study, the matter and then report to Committee No. 2. This was,
agreeable .to. the Council, and the Motion to refer the matter to
,ComrnitteeNo 2 was seconded and carried.
licatiiini,` 245 San. Antonio Road
A, report was r:eceivedfrom the Planning Commission
uiaanimously:r;ecomrnex ding .denial (with one member not voting) of
the apphcation'of A. . E.' Stenbit and R. Bill Hardin for the change
of district from R-1;. :B -8:A to'M-1°of about two acres on the north-
westerly side of San Antorxo`Road approximately 620 feet northeast
of Alma. Street,being portion of Lot 8, S. 3, Morris Subdivision,
otherwise known. as' 245. San Antonio Road.
It was moved by. Byxhee, seconded by Ball, and carried
that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be adopted' and
the zone change application be denied.
Zone Change ' Application, 4169 Oakhill Avenue
The Planring Commission unanimously recommended
denial of the applicatxon of ;Mrs. Norma Ray Hansen for change of
district from R -E to;R-1:B-10.for the property at 4169 Oakh.11
Avenue, being Lots 5 and 8, Oakhill Tract. The Commission pointed
out that the area is well developed with one -acre sites at the present
time.
It wasernoved by: Byxbee, seconded and carried that the
zone apphcation of Mrs. Hansen:be denied as recommended by the
Planning Corrimission.
Zone. Change'.Application, 330 Palo. Alto Avenue
r�w.wr�s,�in�w�r�+ri►
A report was submitted by the Planning Commission
unanimously recommending denial of the application of Newton E.
and Ellen:::Wachhorst for change of district from R-1 to R-5 of the
property at 3;30 Palo Alto Avenue, being a portion of Lot 1, Block 17,
University Park. The Commission advised that it felt no additional
parcels in the downtown -area should be rezoned to R-5 until such
�_�__ ._ .. - -. = time as a gericxel glen
and,zonizig have been eats%lisped for re- .:
",
development.of these' narrow logs .
A letterwas received from Dr
Wacliliaxst, the applicant,1
attention to: studies previously
protesting the action. "of the planning tmmission. in recommending -
d
denial of;:hxs- application. �e calla. zonings of 11:,, 5'
made regarding the zoning of the: area, and to, spot ro ext
granted during 'the last iwo yearee dhscridiscriminatory to deny y.
Dr. Ihia:chhorst: advised that he feels it s was reviously zoned
his application, when hi-neighbox ,s: property P -
asIt 5
After, some disensssion, it was ,moved by Navis,
g secondissi d ;
byMitclietls that the ree°m oe t�at 330 Paloon of the Avenue be
disregarded :and that the p perty
rezonedin.accordance with the applicant's request.
After further discussion, a motion.referred to CommitteeEvans
and seconded. by Byxbee that the. matter be voice vote,
No. 1 for studyaad. report., The motion was carried by
Zweng voting No During discussion, Councilman ZwC gnhrai ssitsn.
favored upholding the recoxnrnendation of the Planning
on
p report was received -from of�an amended Phe Planning o De eilop-
unax�i:mously. r.ecozxirx�endixsg pF the '.via fora
ment_Plan for E1 Camino Real. Annexation No. 3,
gg
property,.. subject to:
a) Development Schedule: roved fax a use
1) Plans to be; submitted and app
permit by May 3, 1960.
Z) ConSt Ct0fl to be started within 8 months et dfr n
the date' of Council approval and completed
omp
18months of'the same date.
b) Landscaping.,
p screen planting, maintenance of trees,;
fencing;(in‘particular, installation of a solid fence
along the R-1 'property lines) to be in. accordance with
sent Plan (Ordinance No.
tlie original ; P -C Develop
18140.. adopted October 13, 1958).
c No exit or entrance to the development other than via
El Camino :Real
Ball, seconded by Rodgers and carried
Xt,�w�.s Moved by Comm
that for approval
that the ;cec•ornmend tion "of -,the: Planning ted.
amendedof the 'P=C` Development t plan be a -o
p proposed ordinance amending the recommendation- was velopment Plan in
accordance with the Planning. Cgmmisaian s
introduced, and on motion of Byxbee,
duly seconded, was accepted
for firstreading by unanimous; voice vote.
Lot Divisiai al, 518-520 Everett Avenue.
rt was submitted by the Planning Commission
Axepo appeal of
uilanimonsly .x-ecaznmend.ing denial of the lot division
981.
W. G. Yourieff -Construction: Company covering a portion of Lot :1,•
Block 36, University -Park, known as 518-520 Everett Avenue.
The Commission advised that it feels the property can be readily
developedwithout further`: division into substandard lots.
On inotuonof Byxbee and Navis, the Planning Commission's.
recommendation was -;adopted 'and the lot division appeal was denied.
Councilman Davis commented that it was the under-
standing of the Council last, year that reports would be submitted
from Committee No. 4.one e a month in, regard to the hospital's
transition,problems and the operation of the new Palo Alto -Stanford
Hospital Center He pointed out that Committee No. 4 has not Met`
for three. months and -;suggested that the Council ask the' committee.
for: 'a report
•
The City Manager advised that it was agreed Committee
No. 4 and."the Hospital Boardwould meet quarterly,, and that the
committee and staff have been waiting for an invitation from the
Board ."before calling a meeting. Councilman Mitchell, Chairman
Committee No. 4, -advisedthat there has not been any business 'to
meet`; about .until:.the study on the use of the old hospital is ready.
The'Cety Manager ; stated that until supplemental material is
•
submitted: by the hospital adzninustration, the staff can not do the
detailed work necessary to analyze the report.
There Was no action taken, but it was the general: under_
meeting of Committee No. 4 will be called at the. proper
Designation of Controller'to -l:'zle Street Report
• Resolution 'No,. 3;196! `designating the. City Controller as
the officer responsible for-; filing. with the State Controller. the Annual
Street'Report'required by Section 2151 of the Streets' and Highways
Code of the.'State�of:California, was introduced. It was explained
that thus resolution was requested" by the State Controller•,., that "a':
.previous •resolution.iad designated.Maurice H. Moore, former`.
Controller ;.as the officer'.to; file this report, and the new resolution
will designate'the Controller by title, and not name.
On motion of Mitchell and Haight,
adopted by unanimous voice vote
Pro`ect 55-5, A,merdment. to Resolution re Bonds
the resolution was
Resolution No. 3197, amending Resolution No. 3166
providing for issuance of bonds, Second Division, California Avenue
District Off -Street Parking= Project. No. 55-5, was introduced.
It was explained that the arnendrr ent substitutes the words "Supple-
mental Issue" in place of the words "Second ]division", and was
recommended for adoption by the bond attorneys.
On motion of Byxbee and Woodward, the resolution was
adopted byunanimous voice vote.
Qxation Aio .
Garden Terrace Ansa.
Ordinance No., 1916, app
xovixsg. the annexation of;, certain
rra
e
untnhabited territory designated_ as „Gard a t on co1Axt ex ti0U
No.• and
� V.',was :giver�anzconai'�reasiissge arid
Zweng,'was ;adopted.by unanixnpus .voice vote.
Seed Limit for Ba shoreFronta e Roads
amending Section /9.151 of',CO i'ed,
Ordinarsce'No. , I9IT,. per hour on
speed limit of 35 miles p
Ordinance No.' 5 to tstabtis'n`a shore load, was given second
shore Road" and - West_ Bay was adopted by. u�nanimou
reading,.
Bay ht;
xeading,:sand nr�:motion ;af Ball and �i�
vPciice .vo
eircial .Axnuseznenta, Re eal of Ordinances
Board - on Gomm 253.1 and 253.2
Ordi ance No 1918,. repealing Sections 253,
•
stxative=Code, and Subsection C ofSection
Se Coxx 6. rc of
os the a dx d o 5 relating to the Bow
Codified Ordinance N and on motion of Rodgers
al
was given second reading, voted Rodgers
yxbie,i, majority voice vote. Bishop
and o
By?chec < was;; adopted by J
on the. mot on
Amendment to Zonin Or dittanc e , , Sec. 24.03
•
Ordinance No. I919,,
amending Section 24.03 of the
last ion
Zoning Ordinance to correct, an error in the wording of the last
was -. given second reading, and
amendment this sectiwas adopted by unanimous voice vote..
of:R.odgexs and 2weng,
Animals or Fowl, Section 7.14 of Codified Ordinances
Nois .A�
The City Attorney presented a proposed ordinance adding.
a new se
ction to be numbered 7.14 to Codified Ordinance rt advising
:
pertaining to noisy , animals or fowl. txrH�tsare the recipients of
that his office- and the Police Dep concerning dogs; that it was his
recurrent caxzip lainta , ,particularly prosecuted
d
opinion that matters of ;th�.Gesunder the Penacould be l Godeld be af the State, but
as distuxbance�s,of:the:pea orney disagrees and has be
the local office of\'the. District AAttoxney suggested the adoption. of
refusing Complaints. The City
the proposed-ordinancetofurbish a method of control of these
problems.
After some discussion of the problem of enforcement of
it was moved by Byxbe�e,
g to control of' dogs, vote that the
s ordinances pertaining and.carriedsby unanimous voice
seconded by Rodgers,
ordina d,.. be accepted for first reading.
Claim for Darna_ ee Riti enbach
A report was received from the e amount t of Attorney
the
e,�p,
claim filed sby Mildred M. Ringenbach in th
ama es ,resultarg from fall. over that he be au hoxiewa.l.k. defect ned, to,
fox g endin
of 1180'College Avenue,, recomxxi g
settle this claim for $1;972.00.
bee, seconded and.
Aftex_discusston, it was moved by Byx seconded
be
carried , and that
as voice vote, that the City Attorney's �2.p'0.
accepted,: adthat he be aut�iariz:ed to settle the clam for $`i,9
Claim for- Da=maes (L:i,.
A ,report was', submitted by the City Attorney on the, claim.
of Jalrner M. Laiho in the amount of $61.46 for damages to car
which struck a hole in the street. The City Attorney advised that
barricades and lights at the site were adequate, in his opinion,; to
prevent damages to one who was driving with due care, and he
recommended the claim; be denied.
Itwas moved by Mitchell, seconded by Na►irie, and
carried that the, City Attorney's report be accepted and the claim
be. denied.
Acre, tance of Pa ment for Mama es:;(Ott
zl
The City Attorney made a reporton the claim of the City
of Palo Alto against Lee H. Otto and Joseph.: D. Pilkington et al,
for damages to grounds at Stcicktori Park, estimated to be $100.16,
caused by racing'. homemade car and motorcycle over the newly
constructed paths and lawn in October, 1958. The City Attorney
recommended that $40.00 be accepted from the parents of Lee Otto
in full';: settlement of his share of the damages.
It was moved by Navis, seconded and carried that the
City Attorney's;, recomrnendation: be adopted and that the sum of
$40.00 be accepted in full settlement of Lee Otto's share of the
damages.
The monthly report of the Controller for January, 1960,
was received and filed;.
The monthly report of the Planning Officer on action taken
in January on applications for lot divisions, and the monthly; report
of the Zoning A.dminiatrator, on action taken in January on applications
, for variances and use permits, were received and filed.
Rapid•:Trarisit Plan"
Councilman Byxbee expressed concern over the proposed
location of the terminal arid staging area for the Bay Area Rapid
Transit D ,strict on San, Antonio Road near Alma Street, pointing out
that it would be near` the -Monroe Park residential area and across
from the: Greene eadow tract. He thought the location of the terminal
near these residential areas -would cause problems, and moved that
the Rapid Transit District.'be; notified that the Council is not in favor
of locating: the southerly. staging area at the location proposed.
ter discussion, the rnotion was withdrawn, and the
' City, Manager. was requested to., discuss the problem with officials
of the Rapid Transit District and get more facts before any definite'
action is, taken on the matter:: ;.
Arnendxr ent to Subdivision Ordinance (Underground. Utilities
Councilman Ball called; attention to the fact that the
proposed ordinance adding a new Subsection 6.20 to the Subdivision
Ordinance to provide ,for underground utility installations had been
deferred at the last meeting to this date, and was not on the agenda.
The City: Manager advised that the ' btaff is considering
this matter and was not able to :make;a report this evening. He asked
that it be continued until• the next Council meeting on February 23,
1960. ' It was so ordered
Therebeing no further business to come before the:.
Council, the meeting was declared adjourned at 9:05 P.M.
APPROVF.f}`:,