HomeMy WebLinkAbout04111960City Hall,Palo Alto, California
April 11, 1960
The Council of the City of Palo Alto met: in regular
session on this date at7:30 P.M., with Vice Mayor Evans-: presiding.
Roll call; as follows:-
Present. Ball, : Bishop;; Byxbee, Evans, Giffin, Haight,
Marshall,,,/Viitchcil, Navis; Rodgers, Stephens,
Woodward,: Zweng.
The minutes ;of:the, meeting, of March Z8, 1960, .were
approved asdistributed.
Bayahore -San Antonio Annexation
At the last meeting the hearing on the proposed annexa-
tion of uninhabited territory designated as r'Bayshore-San Antonio
Annexation" was continued, and the matters of annexation, and
zoning of the area were referred to Committee No. 1. .A report was
received from Committee No, :1 recommending approval of an amend-
ment to:the Zoning Ordinance to create Zone District L -M-1. The
committee also recommended approval of the annexation, and the
zoning, of the area as L -M-1 There was also submitted a report
from the Planning Commission recommending approval of an amend-
ment to the Zoning Ordinance to add Article 15A, L -M-1 District.
A proposed ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance
by the addition of Article 15A, establishing, the L -M-1 District,.
Limited :Manufacturing -Small' Lot District Regulations, wa.a intro-
duced, and on motion of Mitchell and Woodward, was accepted 'for
first reading.
A` proposed ordinance establishing L -M-1 zoning for
the Bayshore-San Antonio annexation area was introduced, and on
motion of 'Mitchell and Byxbee, was accepted for first reading.
A proposed ordinance approving the annexation of this
area was introduced
The City Attorney advised that the annexation can not be
approved unless the protest filed at the last meeting by the
applicants is withdrawn, ; as it was a majority protest. As neither
of the' applicants, Robert H Taylor or Sunny Read, was present.
at this tixne, the matter was continued pending their arrival
•
-,Garden. Terrace- Annexation No. 3
This was the timefor a hearing on the proposed annexa-
tion of uni,ni abitedsterritory, designated as "Garden Terrace Annexa
tion No. 3", containing 2..,994 acres (seven lots). A certificate was
filed by the City Clerkcertifying that notice of the hearing had been
published as required by law, and that a notice had been mailed to.
allowners of property in_the area proposed to be annexed.
•
: �..�- have been
protests ha
cad that rio written p being b one
It was ann° was declared open. There
received. .The hoaxing � � ;.the matter, the hearing. wasre wished to ape.
present who
elosed. approving the annexation of motion
A Proposed Annexation
ath n
ce apP and o � x'c'
"Garden Texrace
ration No. 3" was introduced,
o seconded,' accepted for first reading•
f-Niitchell, duly second
'atioin of Taxes Flood Control District Protx
. Gancell _ the Santa Clara Conunty
ived. from the cancel
request was race istrict-fox
A .Conservation D the District for
and Water nixed by
"Flood Control. properties acquired
es on the following p
rofta� Does" 0.134 acre,
flood control puxp
t. gg' ;. Wooster. Subdivision,the O. Peninsula Bible
1} partaon o£. lr'° acquired from''
Cxeelc.,. No. 4,
T; .ellOwship. Inc • Crescent P'
Lot 234,, acquired from
2} port5"ier on •San..Frarleiequi:to Creek,
, 063 acx e.� ark addition
rank S, Bernstein. Crescent P eorbett.
�ot.l,'''1'xact 712►. from Arthur J•:
3}_portion. acquired irk Addition,
N. icaa 0t7 acre; Crescent P nit o
t 6, Tract 629., nits Creek, acq
4} portlah L° ' on,Sin. Francisq
David' F. Cre 'u
fxon? Lot.,1,1„: scent Park A 'eX'
ed
Tract 668,, re Creek, acquired
5),Por 41 on $an Francisq
0,.,.'041acre `Ste�vaxt. No. '��
ipx:om Clyde t 7 'Tract 234, Crescent Park
4, from
};,po07 Lo.. uito Creek,
acre, oil Saxe rxaaacisq
-'0,070 . ark No • . Z'
phil p'f1." Towle.
Crescent F'
Tract 712, aito Creek, acquired
0,;043,acre,,on..S¢n Fxancisq
fr'oni David A. Williams.
,ten motion: p f; Rodger's
and Bishop, the taxes- on said
ropexties were. cancelled
Wachharst mend^
Zone Chan_ e A • .lication recommend-
ing Committee No.
ceived the Planning
A xepc�rt w'�$ xe" recommendation of Eil:en
ho.1d.the recomm e�x tan E. Planning
.
the Gouxscal is lication of Newton
for the property
sngt�t, for, of xne aPn 1 to R�
Commission e of district from R- t 1 r the 17,
venue,. being, a portion of
'W'ach'hor at.for . cli.ang
'polo Alto: _A
'at 33x3 park. thatahe
University_ seconded
de by Woodward adopted and seconded
drezoning
p, 3xsotaGn was made o . 1 be
of'Gomrriittee N.
.�recommE'�datidxs - that
l�catioh be, denied. eating .
app' 'Dr . Wacialtiox st suggesting
t ng that
'read 'from " venue be not delay
A letter vvas area will be major
Lytton A a
of the axes,north of �'. of thi rpown Bolo Alto develop-
astudy .. .piit that rehabilitation , of Downtown anal or ciui th
£actior� in the-�
ecoxionaic 'Success
t project.
application was carried.
men p denial of the
develop -
The to uphold d,e�ni
Lot Divisions Ste hen G Moore
A report was received from. ; Committee No..1
recoinirmending that the Council uphold the following recommendations
of the Planning Commission:
a)
Approval of the lot division appeal of .Stephen G.
Moore for the property of Ralph S. Utter et al, on
the northerly de of Byron Street at San Antonio
Road, 'subject to furnishing evidence of payment of
all payable city and county taxes, and
b) Denial ofthe lot °division appeal of Stephen G. Moore
for the property of Sophie Girard West on the
southerly sideof 'Byron: Street 'near San Antonio Road.On .
motion of Woodward and Haight, the report of the
coxurittee was adopted and the recommend ons = - .
e
Commission on these lot division appeals were uphelofd Planning
Grove' Avenue Bridge
A report -was; received from Committee No. I recommend-
ing that a vehicular bridge be not constructed over Adobe Creek at
Grove Avenue, but that a pedestrian footbridge be constructed at that
location
The City Manager suggested that the matter of a
pedestrian bridge be investigated before definite action is taken on
this particular.,. question.
It was moved by Woodward, seconded and carried that
•
a vehicular bridge be not constructed over Adobe Creek at Grove
Avenue, and that the matter of a pedestrian footbridge at that
location be referred to, the staff for investigation and reportbefore
definite action' is taken.
Ordinances re Handling of Sewage
A report was submitted by Committee No. 1 recommend-
ing adoption of proposed ordinances relative to the handling of
sewage. The provisions of the proposed ordinances were reviewed:
briefly by the City .Manager.
Ordinance No. 1926, amending Section 6.25 of the Sub-
division Ordinance relating to sewers, and Ordinance No. 1.927
amending Article 30 of Codified Ordinance No.
;disposal facilities 5 relating to sewage
were given second reading, and on motion of
Woodward, duly .seconded., were adopted by unanimous voice vote.
Tentative. Subdivision Ma Froznhold
tension a o onia x;ane
A' report was received from Committee No. 1
recomunending approval of the tentative subdivision map submitted
by-Al.Froznhold for portion of Lot 25, Block 6, Seale Tract No. 5,
in accordance with recommendation of the Planning Commission,
subjett to:: -I) extension of Colonial Lane through the property with
a 40 -foot right=of..way.and a 5 -foot easement on each side, and
2) granting :public utility easements as shown on the map.
317
..,�_�.��..�__.�-•-�•�� :�� -�-r_�a.r-.+sue � ....�..���.._�.._...�._.� - �—� -�_ ..r.
motion was made by Woodward, seconded by Ball, that
this. tentative . subdivision map be approved in accordance with the
recommendations of the Flanning. Commission and Comrmttee No. 1.
Mr, Aubrey Fairfax,;. attorney for Mr. Fxomhold,
addressed the Council, stating that he would like to submit a sub-
stitute map in place of the tentative map as. recornmended; •that it
is the same .reap except that it would not provide for a dedicated
street but would -provide' for the reservation of a 40 -foot right-of-way
and 5 -foot easements, the; street to be developed if and when an.
assessment district for the extension of Colonial. Lane is established.
Mr. Fairfax advised that the cost of street improvements would make
it :economically unfeasible to develop the street at this time to serve
the four lots in the subdivision, and that it .would be a hardship on
the subdivider if he is required to put in the street now.
The City 'Manager ',pointed out that it would be a'drastic
deviation from the policy followed by the Council for many ye ars if
this subdivision. ,Map `i's approved on the basis requested, allowing the
street development to be postponed until an assessment district is
formed . It was noted that if there is a hardship in the requirement
for street improvements, it would be passed on to the purchasers of
the property.
During the, ensuing discussion, council members expressed
the view that the present policy should be continued. The motion to
approve the tentative map, in accordance with the recommendations
of the Planning Commission and Committee No. 1 was carried.
A report was also =received -in this connection from
Committee No.';.1 recommending that Colonial Lane be extended
through the Parker property, "portion of Lot 26, Block 6, Seale
Tract No 5, from its present -termination to connect with the portion
of Colonial Lane to -be developed in the Frornhola Subdivision, this
:street extension to be accomplished by an assessment district procedure.
On motion of Woodward and• Ball, the recommendation was adopted.
resswav System
A report was: submitted by Committee No. 1 recornmend-
ing that the Council adopt in principle the proposed expressway system
as approved by the County.:Trafficways: Committee. A motion was
made by ;Woodward and seconded that the recommendation be adopted.:.
The matter was discussed and reviewed' by Councilman Woodward,
Chairman of Committee Noy -1 and the City's representative on the
County Trafficways 'Committee..
Councilman Byxbee questioned the advisability of taking
act on•until a decision:has,.been inade,on the financing of the program.
The, City Manager reminded°:the Council that all of the cities in the
county contributed to; the coat, of the. De Leuw, Cather traffic '.study,
and;that the• ; County Trafficways_Comrnittee;has been working on the
•
, project over a.year. ` He advisedthat not much can be done about
• working out a financingprogram until` the County can get smite
expression from the cities ;" that;it,is proposed to carry out the
program:in stages and $70,000,000 is estimated to be the cost of
financing;: the,- first stage. It was pointed out that the .Citizens Traffic
Cor initteehas endorsed the general objectives of the County Traffic-
ways Plan.;
The City Manager advised that Councilman Woodward has
been asked to report the action of the Council at a meeting of the
County Trafficways'Committee on April 13, 1960. Mr. Woodward
commented that there are 16 cities involved • and spoke of the
problem in getting the cities to take action and present their views
to the County.
Afterfurther discussion, the •motion to adopt in principle
the proposed expressway system as approved by the County Traffic-
ways :Committee' was carried by the following vote on roll call:
es: Ball, Bishop; " Evans, Giffin, Haight, Mitchell,
Navas, Stephens, Woodward, Zweng.
shall, Rodgers.
a shore -San Antonio Annexation.
At this time the Council, continued consideration of this
item,' having been informed.that Mrs. Sunny Read, one of the
applicants and a property owner in the area, had arrived and wished
to:'speak ;:for herself and for Mr,., Robert H. Taylor, the other
applicant. Mrs.' Read told: the<.Council that she was authorized to
represent Mr Taylor," . andthat'both she and Mr. Taylor wish. to
withdraw :the protest filed at the.last meeting.
It was reported for the record that the City Assessor has,
filed a certificate on the assessed_ valuations of the properties.:
included in the Bayshore-San Antonio annexation area, as shown on
the Santa ClaraCounty Records; that the total assessed valuation
is $24,090 of which Mrs. Read has $9,830 and Mr. Taylor $6,940.
The'City .Attorney advisedthat with the withdrawalof their protest,
there is not a majority protest to the annexation and the Council is
free to proceed with the approval of the annexation if it so desires.
As the public hearing had been continued to thisdate,
opportunity was given to the public to be heard. There beingno one
else who wished to speak on the matter, the hearing was declared
closed
n motion of Mitchell and Woodward, the proposed
ordinance. approving the annexation was accepted for first reading
Yacht Club AryStorage- $pace
report was received from Committee No. 2 .recommend. -
ing that additional dry storage ,..apace be leased to. the Palo Alto:Yacht
Club as requeste d., provided that_�the club make the following
irnprovexxients;:• 1) erect a chain link fence around the area, and
2) move the",city gangplank to.a new appropriate location; both items
to be doneat the expense of.the: Yacht Club and with the approval of
the City; the Yacht Club to pay a nominal rental of $1.00 per month
ona'month-to-month. basis,; with the understanding the City receives
the rent for all the dry storage of boats.
The City Manager reported that the City of Palo Alto
receivesrental for the=present dry storage equipment at the Yacht
Club which amounted to $900.00 last year, and that the leasing, of
additional space will .increase the revenue from, this source.
On motion
of Bishop ;and Rodgers, the recommendation
20 f yet Wh
d.
Counox�a�, Zvrezx
and withdrew we consideration hat he lives within, t
and the zon
to uphold tI: xon of Bisl� n t lsmlatier
the,denial of the w Bishop.and Rodgers, the
in the d=scuie de that the
ar�d recommendation*
house w nce was: adopted. mznendatiozi
xthou;t a owners - .
can co It was pointed
variance, but not as large an
an addition to- ut
Usse ermit A sal ' =addition as they desired,
" +• � rie,ut Crusades
A report w
Appeals', p as' submitted by the Variance and
decision Cf.th� recornmendin
deny Zoning ;4dnlriistr g, by a vote of 4 to 3, Use Perma„t
a use Per' Z .to Orient ator be rev that
builden .d s p r Crusades orlon and that the building religious odes to allow location at the Council
g andigio missionary Missionary headquarters and cons
ieg and mrisio '_. Y"quarters consisting ruc::
• building g of azs.affice
R"1 ter n, at 3585 Middlefield ®n Portion of _Di q4,
Road, in Zane _District
Propose�� The ,Planrang Officer `, ?lien ing Officer
" reviewed the
proPoi for the' two by the Orient apsade Lion the
plane Azx th of proposed Crux and
Orient buildings. Mr. . Norman
s and the auppo�t of the Crusades uses
man. Cumming
develflp of t an use permit
the Council p s
is inter ,. d` the,, services He explained de t'andat a se v performed by the proposed.
fr in Yocaezior ins' ti a"advise the hasseveral
organization
a .. expressin d that he sev which.
and petition e- al
u szgned by`fifty local
and approval letters
phold" the on ,.s ici al residents urging of the un
:granting d n of the Zoning
the theroject,
the .Counc;� the use. permit,.. g Administrator Co to
by W e perms 1� Aletter was presented, approve d
behalf t,. Mr. Ro: X, 3833 Ross' addressed
W. -E.:Rogers, Road essd;d to
l of Property owner:" gets, 765 Christine approving the
4b'ect s stine Drive
J to: the uses pre and;:reaidents spoke in
uses posed, static of the adjacent
.are cat conduc;xv ' area- who
adjacent propcxtchic They R-i g theya feel. the detrimental
administrative
area d will be detb
Y asked' that the use iriental to
After discussion,
permit be denied;;
Mar.e�l,l� that the °n, it" was mays
Fermat be decision of,the d by Rod
The uhat t A. xoll.,ea Appeals Coin gets` secandedb
motion was ed b ll:.was by xxxittse to deny the -'u e
as carts requested
Ayes: . �' the following roll _all Vouz�+cilr�a� Mitchell,
Ball,
:f+tod a $yxbee, 'Giffix
Ha.iglat, !tar
g , Stephens Marshall,
Nees Bishops ► hell. Woodward, Zweh$_ ' Navas
any,"
Mxtbhell�
of Codninittee
N'o :" 2.for
Club was adapted; subject .easing of al 8
ions xarzal pace to t
the conditions as he yacht...
recommended.
372 ;.
Parkside Drive
.ire
Appeals Part: was received from
decision Committee recommending the Variance
Cf the ittee mmehding that theCouncil and Ilse per
Alason=�nt= and•Nita'M Admanis.trator to deny variance
n e requested
Permit
their residence' Jones .to.a a varif an rd
would residence
at 372 Parks. IIoW cozaatruction of quested by
other nc �he_,. 7 ado- Drive; in art. addition to
wise re coverage 36. - w e DistrictR-1:11=7,
setback quirdd, 'and �,.. �- 95g�d where 35% which
of l 7 f would allow a lid coverage is,
are otherwieere Yard of 8 feet azsd:
quire and fro a. front
front setback o#'.
of interest
'On naot voting o h e
A report was received from the Planring Commission
recorrunen.diag denial of the application of Youritan Construction
Company for change of district from R-1 to R.-5 for the property at
575 :Arastradero. Road; being approximately 1. Z5 acres of the Rancho
Rincon de San Francisquito
A letter' wasreceived from Cuthbert B. Currie, Attorney
for Youritan Construction Company, requesting that the matter be
referred to Committee No. 1`. Letters were presented from
Elizabeth St.. John, Boerke, 554 Arastradero Road, and from John
and; Emily ; Francesco, ,`560 Arastradero Road, favoring the zone
-change: requested by the. applicant :and approving his proposal for
the development of..an',apartxnent building on the property in question.
:During the ensuing discussion Councilman Stephens
stated that -he could not understand the Planning Coxxxmission's
reasons fox recornrnendang denial of the zone change; that he :believed
the proposed apartment building would be a real asset to the city.
He moved thatthe-application to rezone the property from R-1 to R-5
be approved: The motion was seconded' by ;Mitchell.
,..During further discussion Mrs.. Philip Towle, Chairman
of the Planning C,oriatiiission,7atiVisea.tYat the Commission feels that
.arastradero_Roadis bec`onsx'ng a major:traffic artery and there
should be careful':study-before the, proposed type of development is
permitted;. that ,the COmxnisson felt that it is possible to develop the
property; into residential. lots`
Mr. Frark,Hano.ig, representing Youritan Construction
,Company, spoke in supporta.f the application and advised that
the applicant xs �xr.illing,to withdraw the request to refer the matter.
to committee and-�hav'e:it ,considered at this time. He pointed out
that a, petition from people;in the zone of interest indicated that
90 per' cent are in favor of the development, which would be similar
to the Tar. Plaza across the street;, and that more parking than is
required by,. the ordinance would, be: proyi4ed.
-A. L. ":Caldwell; "422.9 McKellar Lane, spoke in
opposition to the requested zone change and the proposed apartment:
development.
A roll call: vote was, taken on the motion to overrule the
Planning Commission, and approve: the requested zone change from
R-1 to R-5'.: ; The vote was as follows:
, Ayes' Bishop, Giffin, Haight, Mitchell, Rodgers, Stephens.
Noes; Ball, Byxbee, • Evans, Marshall, Navis, Woodward.
Zweng..
A motion was made -,by Marshall, seconded by. Byxbee,
that the recornrnendatxon. of the Planning Commission. for denial of
the application' be upheld It was moved by Stephens and seconded
that the matter be ,referred to Committee No. 1, and the motion to
refer to 'committe'e 'was lost by the following voce or. roll call:
'Ayes: Haight, Mitchell, Rodgers, Stephens.
Noes: Ba.11„ ]3i shop, Byxbee, Evans, Giffin, Mar shall,
Navas, Woodward, Zweng.
A roll call vote was then taken on the motion to uphold the Planning Coxnanission and deny the zone change, and the motion
was carried by the ;following vote:
Ayes: Ball, Bishop, Byxbee, Evans, Giffin, Haight,
Marshall, Navis, Rodgers, Woodward, Zweng.
Noes: Mitchell", Stephens.
A recess was taken at this time, 925 P.M.,;
and: the. Council reconvened at 9:35 P.M.)
Zone` Change. Application (Whelan)
A report:was received from the Planning Commission
recommending deenial" ,the application of Joseph M. Whelan for
change of 'di.str ct from B —1:B-14 to R-3 for the property at 724
Arastradero Road, being 'portion of Lots 1, 7 and 8, .L'Herxxxitte,
Subdivision
A letter was received from Mr. Whelan calling attention
to the study being:rnade at the present time on annexation; and.
traffic problems in ;the: Stanford foothills.; He asked that the matter
of this "rezoning be continued until these problems are, resolved
so that' the- findings may be; reviewed and that he might have an.
opportunity to submit:additional information to tie Council:
Mr. Frank Grist, ,'attorney for Mr. Whelan, addressed
the Council with the request that the matter be referred to Committee
No. 1 for furth.er consideration after the hearing on the proposed
Stanford Annexation No: - 9 is held.
tatter` be
A motion`was:.. Made, by Mitchell and Marshall that the
referred to Committee No.. 1.
Mr . 'James .Herrick, ; 4188 Donald Drive, spoke in-
opposition to the requested zone change and urged the Council to
uphold the denial of the Planning Commission.
The rnotion to; refer` the matter to Committee No.
carried by the following vote on roll call
Ayes: Ba11', . Haight, -,Marshall, lvlitchell, Navis, Rodgers,
Stephens, Woodward.
Noes: Bishop, Byxbee, Evans, Giffin, Zweng.
It was rniderstood that Committee No. 1 would not proceed with its
consideration of the matter' until there is some solution to the
annexation and zoning problems in the foothills.
Zone Change asten and Boson)
A: report was: submitted by the Planning Commission.
advising that after reconsideration at the request of the applicant
and the Council, it recommended a change of district from R -1:B-8.
to. O -A for the property of George P. and Despina Casten and Sophie
Boson; known as Parcel 3, Monroe Subdivision, to be leased to the
Palo Alto Bowl. The; Planning Officer reported that :he zone change
would permit off -street parking on the lot in question with a use
permit;
It was moved, seconded and carried that a proposed
ordinance providingfor the zone change, as reconunendedbe
accepted for first reading.
P -C Development Plan Amendment
Peer
A report was received from the Planning Commission
recommending, amendment of the :P. C Development Plan for the
property "ofH. ' Taylor Peery at the southerly cornea of the inter-
section of SanAntoxuo and Middlefield Roads to allow a commercial
nursery and garden shop in accordance with plans presented,'„with
a development schedule requiring start of construction within six
months from Councilapproval and completion within one year from
Council :approval;
-:A proposed " ordinance amending this P -C Development.
Plane =as recommended was introduced, and on motion of. Rodgers
and Marshall, was accepted for first reading.
Zone Change and Devel2ment Plan (Park Royal Associates'
A report was submitted by the Planning Commiesioiz
recommending approval of the application anddevelopment plans of
Park Royal Associates for a change of district from R-1 to P. -C
for Tract 407,, Amarillo Village, subject to: 1) Density, setback
and building coverage of each site to be in accordance with Duplex,
R-3 and R 3::C usage for areas as indicated; 2) Maximum of two
stories,; for R-3 area, and 3) Development schedule calling for
start of construction' in October. 1960, with final completion by
December. 1963.
Reference was made on the agenda to a letter from
John 0. Bluett ofPazk-Royal Associates, asking that the matter be
held over until the next meeting so that representatives may appear
before the Council. Xt was reported at this time that Mr. Bluett,
was able to be present tonight and has withdrawn his request that
the matter: be held over.
The Planning Officer explained that the property involved
is a recorded subdivision; which was never developed; that the
proposal is to develop apartments on theportion of the property
nearer to the Bayshore Highway with a row of duplexes adjacent
to single > family residences. The proposed development plans were
presented.
Mr. Bluett addressed the Council in support of the
application and the proposed development„ He pointed out that
the proposal would eliminate the existing 5000 sq. ft. lots.'
Mr. Lyle' Gray, 869 `Garland Drive, and Mrs. Donald MacGregor,
705 Newell Road, spoke in favor of the project, while Mrs. Michael
Kevorkian,. 2495 Chabot Terrace, and Mr. Alan Peters, 1086
Moreno Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed development and
asked that there -be no change in the Xi. -1 zoning. Mr. George Monson,
speaking for' the Palo Alto Residents Association, opposed the
proposed.; apartment ;development andasked that the R-1 zoning
be not ,changed ; so: that low cost, single family dwellings could,be.
built on the property. He expressed the opinion that the apartment
units a.s :proposedwould cause an overcrowding problem in the
schools. Mr.- Frank Crist, representing Scoble, Inc., builders in
the adjacent subdivision, also opposed the apartment development
and urged thatthe area be not rezoned but left for small homes.
He suggested the matter be referred to committee for a thorough
study.
There had been refererzce in the discussion to considera-
tion of the matter by the Planning Commission over a three months'
period,- and: some of the speakers who objected to the proposed
zone.change and development stated that they felt they had not had
a fair hearing beforethe Commission. Mrs. Philip Towle, Chair -
Man of the':, Planning Commissionwas asked to explain. She advisee.
that the Cominissaon had held a public hearing, that every one who
wanted to speak was given an opportunity to be heard, and that the
public hearing was :closed. She stated that no definitive action was
taken at that meeting, and when the matter was considered further
at subsequent meetings, no notice of a public hearing was. given as
the ,public hearing. -had been closed but there was a news item in .the
paper that` the matter vas to be discussed again by the Commission.
Mrs Towle advised that all revisions made in the plans were made
by the Con inssion during discussion in public meetings, and that.
the:Cozmnission had requested several changes in the P••C plans
and had asked the Planning Officer to work with the developer on the
changes.
A motion was made by Byxbee, seconded by Marshall;' -
that the property be :zetaaried 'in° R.-1 zoning.
A motion Was then made by Stephens, seconded by
Rodgers, .and carried that the matter be referred to Committee No. 1
for further consideration.
Instructions re Future Agendas
The Co;xncil' directed that in the future, letters asking,
that rnaatters be held over or -referred to a committee are not to be.
included on the agenda.; but that such requests may be presented to
the Council at the time of the meeting either in person or in
writing.
Ordinance (R-DUP District
A report was subtn.itteri by the Planning Commission
recommending ;.anierxd:mzent to the Zorirg Ordinance to -give the
Duplex Districtthe designation of R •DUP. A proposed ordinance
amending .Article 2 and Article 6A of the Zoning Ordinance in regard
to designation of districts, to include R-DUP, Duplex District, was
introduced, and -on motion of Marshall, duly seconded, was accepted
for first. reading.
Pr ect �?_•-9� West .C.har1e.ston Road
Resolution' No. 3210; determining that the public interest:.
and necessity require the acquisition of easements for streets and
the taking of immediate possession thereof, Project 59-9, West
Charleston Road. was introduced, andon motion of Mitchell, and
Haight, was adopted by unanimous vote on roll call.
Palo Alto ':Izn irovernent Procedure Code Revision.
Ordinance No.,1928. entitled "An Ordinance providing
procedure in relation to the Acquisition or Construction of Local.
Improvements and the Levy of Assessments and Issuance of Assess-
ment Bonds therefor" was' givensecond reading, and a motion- was
made by Mitchell, seconded by Navis, for adoption of the ordinance.
There had been sent toeach council member a copy of a
report from Kirkbride,. ,Wilson, I-larzfeld & Wallace, the City's . .
bond attorneys who`;pre.pared;the ordinance, outlining the principal
differences `betweenthe present, Code and the proposed one, and
explaining the reasoris for the changes. The City Manager advised
that the modernization of the Code had been done at his request in
order to bring the code up to date and to provide the necessary
procedures for improvements in the foothills. Mr. Kenneth. Jones
of the firm of Kirkbride, Wilson, Harzfeld & Wallace, was present
to answer questions.
,"One_ point brought out in the discussion was the provision
in the proposed code;: authorizing assessment levies to be carried -by'
the, City until .services ire required, the City to receive a 5%
carrying charge for each year during which the assessment is
unpaid, in return for advancing funds for the project. It had been -
stated -that in the foothillsarea the imposition of assessments
and bonds for 'sewer and: water facilities not immediately required
would ianpo'se considerable hardship, as some people do not wish
to develop -their property now. The City Manager advised that it.
is important for the; Council to .take action in order that these --will
be .no delay in meeting .the`tixne schedule for extending utilities into
the foothill area.
After discussion, the ordinance was adopted by unanimous
voice vote.
Zoning.Garden Terrace No. 2
Ordinance No.' 1929, establishing the zoning for Garden
Terrace Annexation No. 2 as R -1:B-10 was given second reading,
and on motion of Rodgers and Navis, was adopted by unanimous voice
vote.
Zanily Garden .Terrace No. 3
Ordinance No. 1930, establishing the zoning of Garden
Terrace Annexation No. 3 as R -1:B--10 was given second reading,
and on motion` of Rodgers and Navis, was adopted by unanimous
voice vote.
Zone Ghange;Webster between Lytton and Everett
Ordinance No. 1931, rezoning certain property on Webster
Street between Lytton and Everett Avenues and a parcel having
frontage on Lytton Avenue adjacent to the parcel on the westerly
corner of Lytton and. Webster, from R-5 to R-4, was given second
reading, andon motion of Rodgers and Navis, was adopted by
unanimous voice vote
c _` A•1. eeib Mar xie ` Om
for
et�x at► do t° retired Gd f r
boas appreciation
who have d �glat.
pesolu re Bixi 'Dyer ame g
e olPerr expressing
ta d itubley of is retivetire iro
e intr t aria ox se P xis r • ig
,dopy intxo ions v vote • years
and gri�� ic$ were x�a�'g voice c�tt. 34 �
G*� service by sam service; Mrs, were 30 years °f
after
31 ���'� � • City p„ttax� ��x sae tea
Claim for 1)asr� iced from th v,�,t of $39.30 tie
was erw iv. the axta the � l 2.St• ,af
reP,xt a$exwad flooding axe e thief confident
S. a causing d that the is is al
clairn
l'Arce s • stoppage repoxte �, that of latex
f pled by wex�ity Attaxx�OY ez�t has advised.
the c x„a •
se e: e1e
age ,� tm
DePa'' s line and the claim b
as
cep;
x es%den 'The
-Gas -Sevier s ama recox `e�de N that the c12�isxi
the the " Xtt in -the they
,�. therefore leco�,ded b`�
thetAPPa At d by �y. t of
OA the �iiy.: is support " ed . ,.
�,,otio�;wae Council. �x
A ed the eaxxl i s she
be dev.ied" ddxe��er vlce
Est , • f th t he tt td-ro o the er City's li e • withdrawn, carried
her
claim' � �a� � that
`x'a� �$ xx�.at=� by-��"e+n�= ��� 'Oil,
previous de-
advi�ed he lion, the �' � and x°'�'
p,£tex discussion,
�°O �rth� y it''�e1�ti�at'�4'�
xotiox� was e
, and, � City Attorney
that the
gevir� q�, the . .
. attex .• �,ttaxne'1 50 fox..
ee 1{ax'�'
for pa ` City 300
ved from then t of to ► con the of.
Claim
cei, . .. - the axn fectiye
axi C a vitas io s o' ae Attorney
report r K z�aee dangetou The City trees
a o' �' axr, a11e8 � Cowper �,tx eet • te$ fx oxn palm e he S file from Cowp t da t eia
sex ed sxsuxy front a x711 laaixaea , that
of rv. ee
d
wa 'o fx ant coxes? to acc `�1�`a that tY�e Bide amt of
the ai°t Gla�xx► wed d
advised that the � � been allowed. ney r e.g:�xte of the occupant
•
aM�cvlay had:been City. At o it . the d xis. dirt and they '
in. ;�he�.•; � :and tha free of deb
the on oad r ePaix. eidewallt..x ,
in keep the of the claixxk• pttaxney
i�eelf i$ ex to.: . . the City the property
x'o ' end d din d Syitbee
e ecoxn de rs denied
x o ,°1. o he claim was
(?n , ted �,nd
was acaep �d�n;
of Saxr'e$ to et al. canGe x ?�S
entatio�. alo A � �.tt�?rney
Re xcs i a s ed by the Git' Ghadwxcic>
nt xt S. cage of
Was Pxeee yvixs bv�.abe� trial in , bi�.l
A xtpolt'+ 8ti Caod oil, :m thu Ch dlrac athe
on of, a Ca'iz` that xi o by
xe$, ntat ixed by the adviffiixxg t authorized
o for
the r P as authorized io vita ;et a1; tea,;Pxe"�au ed that desires,
attorney
i City' 0.0 : The
ith Attorney a.dyi the C'° 'oil 1,d foxtYsCT
Alters e$ ,n k; , :City a $uzzs�a that $h°
fax$exvic: i10. and t3�iI
00 e a x .
oil a �1, be made._ to represent
�° � trial � to CO court.
Mar shall, ao'
new x Gha,dwrsck the txaal seconded b earrangements-
'proceeding's
that Ni enffiue �yXbee • da tha
C;ove by; b 1. be pai
it. was Iskr dwiGk �
Ylb7a that ee`be ea�till�l
for' eervic
for his
AdministrativeCodsSections re Workmen's Compensation
w
A report was received from the City Attorney calling
attention to'the provisions of Section 252.2 of the Administrative
Code which state that "the: City Attorney ;shall be present atall
meetings (of the Board of Compensation, Referees) and advise the
Board", and to Section 252.4 which provides that "the City Attorney
shall aid applicants in,;presenting:.a proper claim to the Board."
The City. Attorney pointed out that in serious cases cif legitimate
dispute the employee and employer necessarily are on opposite:
sides, and it is an -impossibility' for one to s.dvise properly both
sides of sucha proceeding. He suggested the matter be: referred
to an appropriate committee for consideration as to whether these
provisions should not be changed.
On. motion. of Rodgers and Byxbee, the matter was
referred to: Committee No. 3.
,Liquor License> Application`
The City Attorney reported that notice has been received'
of an application for liquor license filedby Bridgeman Enterprises
Corporation for ;_acocktail lounge and restaurant to be located at:,,
San Antonio and Charleston Roads, and asked for instructions from.
the Council as to whether or not a protest should be filed against
the issuance of a license.` The City Attorney advised that he believes;
there are no legal grounds on which to base a protest in this case,
but if the Council wishes'him to protest he will, do so.
A motion was made by Marshall, seconded by Zweng,,:
that, the City Attorney be instructed to protest. After discussion,
the motion was lost by voice vote.
Old:' Ho spital•BuiidinA
Councilmman Zweng referred to the question of reopening
the old .hospital.builiiing, which was brought up at the last meeting
of Committee No': - 4, and pointed out that no firm figures were
available at that time on: the cost of rehabilitating the building.
He •asked the City Manager whether any report has been submitted:
by the Hospital: administration: The City Manager replied that
nothing has been ,heard from the Hospital a.dministration about the
matter; that the staff has met with two members of a sub -committee:
of the Hospital Board,: but to date no information has been received
A request was received from the City Controller for:
refund of overpayment of the following tax bills: $15.41 to Sterling
Bigbee for second installment, Bill No. 14579; and $8.36 to Eddie
and Yertie V. Walker for overpayment of second installment, Ban,
No.. 396. On motion of Byxbee and Ball, these tax refunds were
authorizedby unanimous voice vote.
Water :and. Gas Lasses
Attention „was ,called'by Councilman Mitchell to the fact
that the last monthly report of. the Water -Gas -Sewer Department
• shows a reduction of unaccounted loss in the Water Division for thee.
past year from 5.84% to 0.64%, and in the Gas Divisao:a from 8.94%
to 4..83%.. It was moved by Mitchell, seconded and carried that
Harold May, Chief. Engineer of the Water -Gas-Sewer Department
and his staff be commended for reducing the loss.
There being 110 further business to come before the .;
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 P.M.
APPROVED: ,f