HomeMy WebLinkAbout02231960City Hall, Palo Alto, California
February"23,' 1960
The Council of the City of Palo Alto met in regular,
session on this date:at7:30. P M. , with Mayor Porter presiding.
Roll callas follows:-
Present: Ball, ' Byxbee,- Evans, Haight, Marshall, Porter,
Rodgers, Stephens, Woodward, Zweng.
Bishop,. Davis, . Giffin, Mitchell, Navis.
The minutes of the meeting of February 8, 1960, were
approved "as",distributed.
A letter wasreceived from Dr. Hugh A. Moran,,=.,
661 Waverley Street, calling attention to accidents which have•
occurred at the intersection of Waverley Street and Forest Avenue.
He stated that in hx' opinion the existing stop signs on Forest
Avenue are inadc4uate, and, urged that traffic lights be installed.
The City Manager pointed out that according to previous action,.of
the Staff Traffic Committee a and the City Council, this intersection
is not sufficiently high on the priority list for the establishment of
traffic signals at this time. It was agreed to keep the request on
file for consideration when the priority list for traffic signals is
reviewed.
Councilman Ball asked if study is being given to the
possible :removal of the traffic lights at California Avenue and
Middlefield Road. The City Manager suggested that the signals be
continuedat, that intersection because of its proximity to the junior
high school, but that consideration could be given to changing the
cycle to give priority to Middlefield Road traffic, with the signals.
beingactuated for California Avenue traffic. This suggestion met
with the Council's app oval.
Councilman Rodgers called attention to the traffic.
problem an El Canino" Real when, traffic is held up by the signals
at Hansen. ,Way,:which are often in operation when the industrial
plants` on Hansen Way are closed and there is no need for traffic
lights: at such times He suggested that blinking lights should be
used on Sundays and -,Holidays, and other tunes when people are.
not working inthat area, to allow traffic to flow smoothly along
El Camino. ='I'he City.Managerpointed out that these particular
signalsare not -the responsibility of the City; that the problem has
previously been called to the attention of State authorities,and::
that he would check: and remind them about the situation and report
back to the Council later.
A letter was received from the Board of Supervisors
of Santa Clara County transmitting a copy of resolution adopted by
the .Board -urging: each city councilto adopt the proposed Expressway
System, ;:as approved. by:the County Trafficways Committee as a
part of th'e circulation element of its general plan and to proceed,
- w ,.� .... -.......__ resswaY system within'
fi lines for the exp
_ _ . = official: plan
to adopt 'precise. expressway
theme' respective 3uxisdiction.s of the exp
Cr advised that no copy ins esswx :
:,ag t the Planning modified
The` ted nni aa. zn
•tte�} with the resolution: but tha. stern plan
of the expressway y the following
plain was submitted today tha,,
a .Committee. and Foothill follow away
had received a�x� icway Alto:. Tile F ExPxeasway;.
bybordering
expressways
d, affect Palo Street)
expressways wool the Central (A tee )
the ,city limits:
11• -Oregon" barcadero exp
and the. Page � d and Marshall, this was referred
. - On;rtotxan. of WQ°dwax
tteeNO.1.
to- CQm`�
;. : . e�cati:oii'N°• area
Garden Terrace Ann annexation of an
resented for the ann a under
petition woes." Annexation °. 3 parcel of
Ap 'Terrace "Garden, Texra reported that this is owners
designated as Act. It was p
ted Territory $even Lots, and all seven pro
J�rhabi annexation.
1.994 acres, cont�n�'' : :.
petition' favoring nn' Deed
have signed the p Notice of the prop
3198, giving of hearing was
Resolution Rio. _ ,1960, as date was. adopted by:
fixing April 11, and. Vote of hearing,
annexation and of: Zweng
introduced, :andori motion
unanimous voice vote.
water pros l{ennelle .
... , ., from, Mrs. Ruth E.
taken to ixrip� ove the
A lettez was xecexved ,
itieetixyg action be. vratex f
��exsxie,, xe�.,. fetch �
of th o t� urchaaing eteho£ well water 1646 .� water ._s�xppl���Y P e��csntag .
of the; u.sirg aaarge p
quali.t`�- » instead �oi` xaxxi
the entire supply attention to the water pr°g
celled a water :euppl
1viara.Sex s�oa�ceeof advised
The -.City arid:to the City anagex..
the State a with
by 1_.diacuseion, time, ,�a�clex Eter',infcsrma at the ap�rApriate s
t ate future. : furr.i :ed, to the various x�with
ca wi avai`Lable as that a riouson. may lass
that the Council and facts
y the, �ortatii atxon water , s°
alp dpurc►aee of
for importation axz .. lreznzie�ll
made. requested to send Mrs. The City' a ger.>wg
a; reply :to hex lettez .
merit p'lan's
El ,Ca�,sno, seal:_Develo to the hearing
b the City fiaragex _ on'
wan called Y s a,,t 2:Q0 l' - eed,
y the 5 n of : Tr%ghw ay the px °Y'°
Cate Division pull on 'Jose held,* t 196 Mountain View; City Alto to San 3.
t° be 19b�3 at the Real from �a.lo A ht of
Febxvary' 26,
El C o:- a Alt f oot tics 3
lmpxovexndnt at a fox already approved o Creek, an
to,as Avenue t°. Mstader
that the fr V e`x sity south of 3vieek, and.,
Xe ��,vn.aed fio� "Uni.. ,for the Section 100 -foot
`for proposed
section Plana "way and the other for a
rrvaY altern.atc, pe a and a:
hoe _ e' on ed ° right:of, traffic pa.scot
. one ; t ai,:120:-footo rovide for six provide for and a
G ente , that both g06- 1' plan does riot p
right of way; '
cexntex...is7�nd' .,but the 104'-fcot
^lute s .
•
h: ity CManager advised that, unless instructed other
T
wise, the City Engineer' Will represent, the City at the hearing -and
will speak iii' behalf of: a, 120 -foot right : of way within the limits of
the City: of -' Pa10 Alto
On motion of-Z`.!exig and Haight, Resolution No. 3199'urging
approval of 'the ,120 -foot plan: -for improvement of El Camino Real was
adopted by Unanlizaus voice vote.
Transfer of -Funds -:for Water Purchase
The City Manager' reported that in the first six months: of
is fie:cal. year,. beraUse.of dry "conditions, the revenue' of the Water
ivision exc.eeded''estYxna"tea:.by an, amount in. eke es s< of $100, 000;
:that thisir_equmred=the" purchase of;.additional. water from San Francisco
with' the result that'the. account for purchase of water is estimated
to be erdrawn .by'$7O, 000 .::by the close of this fiscal year.
He reconxineuded"that the amount of $70,000 be transferred from the
unappropriated'balance ;of the Water Fund to Account 2791.
It was moved by Byxbee seconded and carried by,
unanimousvoice:vote, that thistransfer of funds be authorized as
recommended.
Gift's :to Junior Hussain
The City Manager recommended the acceptance of two
gifts to the City from the Palo Alto Junior Museum Board, a
binocular microscope valued, at $155.00 and a grinding wheel for
lapidary equipment, valued at $45.00.
n motior:af Marahall and Byxbee, these gifts were
acceptedby the Council, and it was directed that an appropriate
letter, oftcarks- be sent to tbe. donors.
Foothills Develo �xxxezit Study
The City Manager stated it was his understanding that
several months ago the "Council and staff agreed that professional
help was needed to- assist in.`making an economic, engineering. and
planning study of the foothills area which has been annexed to the
City. He advised that it,is ;important to have an. economic study made
to determine how the.+:area can carry the required iz provemen°s., and.
to have engineering information: on, location of roadways and utility
'lines; that answers tomany problems which exist in the foothills
area are needed in order, to give facts and information to developers.
The City Manager reported that he has a list of r,axnes of
firms qualified: to make such studies, and suggested that the Mayor
be authorized ... appoint _ committee mittee of councilmen and planning _
, ,.
corn niSSion.ers:Who can meet in the daytime, to interview the
people and report backc.to the 'Council with a recommendation for
hiring of a firm tomake an overall study.
After considerable, discussion it was agreed to defer the
interviews'until a' decision, has>been made as to a possible revision
of the. General Plan which. is to .be considered by Committee No... 3
at a meeting next', week : ` :It was suggested the staff can look into :•
various firms and.their qualifications is the meantime.
Ernbarcadero;:and Seale Trian le of Land
A report was received frorr,.,Camxnittee No. 2 recommend -
ing that :no action be taken to acquire the unimproved triangular
parcel of land at the Junction of:Embarc'adero Road and Seale Avenue.
On motion of Marshall and Stephens, the recommendation was adopted.
Free. Saturday Parking on Parking. Lots
A report was received from Committee No. 2 recommend:-
ing that the experiment of free:'parking on the downtown parking lots
on Saturdays b.e extencled for another three months, to May 31, :1960,,
and that the Staff ;Traffic Coinm.ittee and the Traffic and Parking
Committee of Downtown' Palo Alto consider the "sleeper -parker"
problem, ,on. the downtown lots;
The City Manageradvised that one ofthe suggestions
made for controlling "sleeper-parkers" was that barricades be
provided at the entrance:to the lots in the early morning hours and.
not removed until 9:15 A. M. or an appropriate time which would
•
prevent: employees in downtown stores and offices from using such
lots for parking, but in':dis'.cussing the situation With the City
Attorney'h:e advised there would be a legal problem involved as to
whether or not the lots could be closed to the public. Mr. Joseph
O'Donohue; Executive: Director of Downtown Palo Alto, Inc.
told the: Council that representatives of their group are ready to
meet With the Staff Traffic Conirnittee at any time to discuss the
question.
'Resolution -:No 32.00, extending free unlimited Saturday .
parking on downtown' lots to ?%lay 31, 1960, was introduced, and on
motion of Marshal:) and. Zweng:, :was adopted by unanimous voice vete.
Pax.lcrng Regulations .North- of )Lytton Avenge
sr w �sMl�wrlaw'
A..report wa,s submitted -by Committee No. 2 advising that
-after consideration, of theparking> situation in the block between:
Lytton and- :Everett,Averueir on Alnia, High,,Emerson, Ramona;
Bryant' and Wayerley Streets,: the committee:recommends thattwo--
hour metered parking; be established for approximately one -half :blo .k
-nearest Lytton Ayenue,,<�with`unlimitcd parking for the rest of .the
block.
Resolution No 3.201, imposing: two-hour metered parking
on the one-half block of certain, streets north of Lytton Avenue, was
introduced, and on motion of ..Byxbee and. Evans, was adopted by
unanimous voice vote
Aereport was: -received from the Variance and Use Permit'
Appeals Coxxixnittee-recornrnending' that the Council uphold the
_decision of'the •Zoning.:Adxziinistrator to deny the variance application
of Elvisr E :. and R;.uth 3..., rapweitio allow location of an apartment:
;louse at 571`:,Haxrn.lton Avenue in Biock 38, University Park, in fire
R-4'.Distriet,_ wxth':a .front�•setback of 10 feet where 20 feet are other
•wise required, a :distance between: -.main buildings of 12 feet where
18 feet:-aze:otherwise requxred;;the.;location of 3 required parking
spaces; in the' front: yard; "and;the' location of 7 parking spaces without
the ecessary .aisle and accees. Space as required.
The Zoning Administrator reviewed the variance
application and his findings, and presented a sketch of the
applicant's proposal. Mrs.: Frapwell spoke in support of the
application, ":explaining briefly the plans for the proposed develop-
ment. She advised' that she and Mr. Frapwell intend to acquire
the adjoining property later and combine the development of that
lot with their existing property.
Councilman :Rodgers commented that the City: was
liberal .in granting -variances to the Methodist Church across the
street from the property in question; that the Frapwell property
is in, an R,-4 district and is a good location ,for apartments and:
he disagreed with the`decYsioi of the Variance and Use. Permit Appeals
Committee: to uphold denial of the variance.
Councilman Evans reviewed some points" brought out
at the meeting of the Variance and Use Permit Appeals Corramittee
which could not find that a 'hardship was involved in this case..:- He
advised that the :com itte sri e:felt .it may be feasible to cornbine.the
development of the two properties mentioned at some future time
which .would-reault in a'mor-e 'desirable plan, but the committee'
felt it was improper to grant a variance now.
it was mo'v-'ed'by Woodward, seconded by Ball, arid'.`
carried by'znajo'raty voice; vote, that the decision of the Zoning,
Administrator and the Variance and Use Permit Appeals Committee
for'. denial .of thee,: variance application be upheld.
=% 028 Caliper Street
Ordinance No:. 1-920, rezoning the property at 1028 -Cowper,
Street, _portion`of'Lot 4,, Block` 62, University Park, froin;"R-1:B 10,
to.R-2, 'w`as given, second- reading, and on motion of Marshall and
Haight, was adopted, by -unanimous voice vote.
e '.7:81-78:3`Loma -Verde Avenue
rdinance'.No:- 1921:i rezoning the property at 781-783
Lonna .Verde,Avenue,:'� being a portion of Lot 78, Wooster Subdivision,
from R -3`:.G to R-2;; was given second reading,and on motion of
Rodgers and Marshall, was adopted by unanimous, voice vote:
1040 Colorado: Avenue
Ordinance No. 1922,: rezoning the property at 1040 _._.
Colorado Avenue,? being'portion of Lot 148, Wooster Subdivision,
from R-1 :to R 3G, was given second reading, and on motion of
Evans ,.rid Marshall,' was adopted by unanimous voice vote.
Arr endrnent to P °C Develo went Plan
1 Pa-oPertY
Ordinance No. 1923: amending the P -C Developrnent Plan
for the Maggiora property, ' El Camino Real Annexation No. 3, in
accordance with :,pr evi;ous. recommendation of the Planning Commission,
was given second reading', `:andson motion of Zweng and Woodward,
was adopted by'unanirnous voice vote.
Streets and Sidewalks
Ordinance No.. 1924, amending- Section 33.20 of Codified
Ordinaaace.No.. 5, pertaining to permits. for opening streets, and
sidewalks in:cages of an erner.gency nature, was given second reading.
- .The. City Manager reported that the Manager of the
telephone company. has asked that consideration be given to including
the.words o£_ communication lines" in the ordinance,, but
the City Attorney.haa advised that it is not necessary td include such;
words. as the ordinance is written in, general terms and it is _ under �-
stood that, it would apply to -failure of communication lines as well
as. other :erner,gency's tuati:ons
On rcnoti:on of Woodward, duly seconded, the ordinance
was adopted by unanimous voice:
:vote.
Animals: or Fowl., 'Section 7.14
A.proposed ordinance adding a.ne.w section numbered
7.14' to Codified Ordinance No. 5 pertaining to noisy animals orfowl
was presented for' second reading'.
he City. Attorney reported that since the ordinance was
introduced he. had received two phone calls favoring the ordinance
and seven letters, six from persons favoring the ordinance and one
opposing it: , There•was also a letter addressed to the Council
from 1 C. Kremeri, 1835 Newell Road.: urging adoption of the
ordinance,:" and'aatelegram frorn ,Tames L. Davis opposing it.
Mr W C. Shyers, 3639 Bryant Street, addressed the
Council concerning the nuisance of howling and barking dogs, and
filed a petition with 24 signatures urging the Council to pass the
proposed ,ordinance:
During discussion the City Attorney advised that it would
be the intent that complaints would be issued only for flagrant
violations after repeated warnings had been given.
A motion was made: by Byxbee, seconded by Ball, for
adoption of, the -ordinance. After a voice vote was taken, a roll'call
vote was recnteeted, resulting` as follows:
Ayers Baali, Byxbee
Zweng .
Noes, Marshall,
Evans, Haight, Porter, Rodgers,
Stephens, Woodward.
The -ordinance was declared lost.
It was' then moved by Byxbee, seconded by Ball, and
carried by .majority voice vote,' that the proposed ordinance be
reconsidered at -the next regular', Council meeting on March 14,
Arnendmerit to Subdivision .Ordinance
Audition .o Sections 7.0 ;and 7.03 to Codified
Ordinance No. ILL •Ins.tallations
Under round Utilities'.
The proposed ordinance amending the Subdivision Ordinance
by the addition of a new Subsection -6.20 providing for underground." •
utility i:astailatioris was presented for second reading.
The City Manager .advised that he wished to bring two
pointsto the Council's attention before action is taken. He pointed
out that when this matter -was.diacussedby Committee No. I it
was their decision that utilities be placed underground in foothill
developments ,where `feasible. He zeported:'that the ordinance.
actually covers, the ,entire. city as the City Attorney has advised that
such'regulatxons' could notapply to only one section of. the City,:
so that any; future developments : ;Within the' city limits would be
required to have underground utilities unless the City Engineer
deems it wouldnot be feasible and directs -otherwise.
The::other point brought up by the City Manager involved
reference in the ordinance to t*ndeiground telephone installations.
The proposed ordinance as written states that utility and telephone
-: installations shall be .installed underground by the subdivider unless,
in the opinion of the City Engineer, special conditions require
otherwise...." The City Managernoted that it was not the intent to
have this .provision interpreted as requiring the subdivider to pay
100% of the cost, of telephone installations; that he thoughtthe
program could be worked out in a manner satisfactory to the telephone
company, but suggested a,:rcvision'in the wording might be advisable.'
On.'motion `of Rodgers and Byxbee, the proposed ordinance'
was referred back to :Committee No. 1 for furtrer considerationand
report.
The City Manager "presented another proposed ordinance
adding sections 3.7.02 and 37.03. to Codified .Ordinance No. 5
pertaining -to utility installations. It was moved by Ball, seconded
and carriedby unammnous ,'voice:: vote, that this proposed ordinance
be accepted for,first :reading, and referred to Committee No. 1
Claim -for. Damages SKornh and Fooks)
A report was received from, the City .Attorney in regard
to claim filed by LorettaKe:'lly Korch in the sum of $91.92 and a
claim:filed by Nelson I. Fooks'in-the sum of $203.69, for damages
arising out of a gas explosionet 86 Morton Way on January 10, 1960.
The City Attorney reconmiendedthese claims be allowed and paid.
On motion of Woodward and Rodgers, the report of the
City Attorney was accepted' and payment of these claims was,
authorized by.unanimous" voice vote.
Downtown Palo: Alto Plans Conflict of ,Interest
Councilrnan;Byxbee referred to the proposed plans:':of,
Downtown. Palo Alto, Inc. , for revitalization of the downtown area
and to the request for;:financial participation by the. City in the
project He advised that he is concerned with the possible conflict
of interest on the part of three members of the Council, Council.
man Zweng who .is a director of the organization, Councilman
Haight, a downtown merchant, and Councilman Byxbee himself who
as a property owner in the area. At his .suggestion, the. Mayor
asked the City Attorney, tostudy the question and report a.s to whether
or not a conflict, of interest is involved in this matter.
Lee purchase Contract. Title Policy
A report was received from the City Attorney stating
that the _sum of $200.000 due on the exercise of the, option under the.
•
contract -with Dr. 'and Mrs. Russel V. Lee for'purchase of property
had been sent to the Western Title Guaranty Company with instruc-
tions to deliver the money to Dr. Lee at. such time as they could
issue :theirgolicy in accordance with the terms of the contract, and
that thetitle > company hie said it will not issue a policy without::
including e; provision that it la -subject to the effect of the lawsuit,
Baker et al vs City of 'Palo Alto;et al; that theyare exploring the
possibility of el rr iriat ng-this exception but if they determine they
cannon eliminate it, they, will xneistthat this exception show in the
policybefore they will record the deed or pay Dr. Lee, the money:
The City. Attorney ,advised that this is a matter which ,the:
Council -could discuss and decide':in a non-public meeting, andthef
Council adjourned at.'This time;. 9:10 P.M., to the Conference Room
and met in closed 8e8$1Ot
The City'Attorney read his complete report to tbe-
council,- He pointed out that there is a clause in the contract
perrnittingthe City:'Manager-: to approve other items to show . in the
title policy besides those eiwnerated in the contract; however, he
- did not believe that _the legal;,effect of such a clause as the title
company Wishes to include in the policy would permit the City
Manager. to acceptthe exception; without the specific . approval 'of the
Council. :After 'discussion =of the problem, the City Attorney
advised that it as "bis;opinion that the Council could decide that
Dr -Lees` financial responsibility was sufficient protection and
authorize -the City Manager::to authorize the title policy on the
parcel to show the"City`stitle subject to the effect of the lawsuit:
After consideration of the matter, it was moved by
Byxbee, seconded byR.odgr_rs, and carried by majority voice vote,
that the advice>of the :City -Attorney be accepted and that the City
Manager -be authorized to authorize the title company to show on the
policy that the City's title is subject to the effect of the lawsuit'.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting w►as adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
APPROVED/' G�'L
ty Clerk
Mayor
sr)