Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10101960City Hall, Palo Alto, California October 10 _1960 The -Council :of the City of Palo Alto met in regular:. session on; this- date:at , 30 P. M. , - with Mayor Ball presiding. Roll call as follows:' Present. Bail, >Bishop, .Byxbee, Frans, Giffin., Marshall., Mitchell, Porter, Stephens. T?avis,'_ Haight, Navis, Rodgers, Woodward, Zweng. The Mayor asked .if there were any errors noted in the , :minutes of September, 12, -1960,-' or anycorrections to be made. The City, Manager' :suggested that the minutes under the itexn "Street Pattern-liablo Way".be corrected by changing the last `. paragraph to read'that the iniprovement of the cul-de-sac be included in'a future assessment` district; in place of the words "that,proceedin.gs -for .the- assessment districtbe initiated":. With .this correction the minutes of September 12, 1960, were approved.", The ;minutes of the meeting of September 26, 1960, were: approved asdistributed. o Road and Embarcadero Road, This --was the time set for a public hearing on the proposed vacation of portions of Arroyo: Road and Era„barcadero Road easterly of the Ba-yshore Freeway. A map showing the three parcels to be abandoned was displayed. " The City Manage:: explained that the land involved is no longer needed for street purposes, and that the required access : easement over Parcel 3 has been received. The hearing was declared open. There being no one present who wished` to speak on the matter, the hearing was closed. Resolution No. 3286, ordering the abandon ne^t of portions of Arroyo and Embarcadero Roads, was introduced, and on motion of Mitchell and Bishop, was adopted b) unanimous voice vote. Zonin '._Stanford Annexation No. 9 A letter was read from C. J. Keenan, President of the Palo Alto Real Estate Board, advising that the Board of Directors o£ this organization have unanimously endorsed the Council's action designating L -M-.5, zoning for Stanford Annexation No. 9. Annexation' to Los Altos A notice of the proposed annexation of area designated as "Grant -St. Joseph, No6" to the City of Los Altos was received and filed:: (Councilman Navie carne at this time, 7:50 p.m., andwas present for the rest of the meeting.) Petition. of z tiative Thee -was presented to the Council the petition of initiative fixed o: September 26, 1960, by Robert 3. Debs, Londa S. rletcher,;:Eldred F. _Tubbs, 'Enid Pearson and R. P. Nicolson, petitiouir g "the- Council to adopt :or submit to a vote of the people an ordinance aniendi g '.Section251'".3 of the Administrative Code relating to planning.",and the duties or the Planning Commission, and to'kestrict certain. ,zoning ;pendingthe adoption of a comprehensive General or MasterPl:,,.n. A report was received from the City Attorney which he read intoethe record, :a.s: follows:, "I have e,axru' ed the. Petition. of Initiative filed with the City Clerk.: on September 26, 1960 which petition requires. the Connell to pass_ or submit to a vote of the people at a , special election. an ordinance amending Section 251.3 of the Adzrii,nistrati.ve ,Code. ;. The ordinance purports to clarify the 'duties: of the Planning Commission and City Council relative to�the adoptionof-a co:x:iprehe; swe General or Master Plan, to, include in -the Code -certain provisions of the Government Code relating;to:loc.ai planning and to restrict certain zoning pending :adoption: of a Comprehensive Genera. or Master Plan. The petition issignedby 3,070 registered voters which is izz'excess of the 20% of the entire vote cast at the last' preced. g. ge.•:era.l rnunicipa.. election, to wit: 10,786 votes. "It.. s rmy o iiion that the proposed ordinance is not a proper doeuzneritto be Submitted to the people as an ordinance under the irr.iti,at. e provisions of the City Charter and 1 have,: therefore, advis :d the City Clerk to submit .he petition to the City Co' *'icu wA;,hout checking the names es o:' the petition. "The orris na-.c:e is deS'e rive on two specific grounds. azaoig others. First, it attempts to amend the City Charter by delezatii .g govern*renta? a.ad a.drninistrative powers to the Planning cernr.rii s o; , contr,a;ry to the provisions of Secticn 22 of Ar c'e 1Z:a the C: wy Charter which specifically declares that:''' 'all boards, cos emissions ax d committees appointed by the council .... shall be advisor;i<only ai.id shall exercise no govern- rn.enta1 or administrative powers.' "7.'he'coi rt. z. e repeatedly held that any at•cera.pt'to amend: a' charter other -than by the method prescribed in Article XI, Section. 8 of the California Constitution is void. Secondly; the :proposed",ordi:tance attempts to 'freeze' the COU. cil's:Legislative power to tore or rezone for industrial or x ufactiz ing uses all lands not embraced within the 1.955 interim General Plat; pending presentation by the P. 1an.ning Commission. of.a. Comprehensive General Plan to the City Cou cil and'its" adopti: n' by the Council. A z.onirg ordinance car-iot be adopted by. the initiative procedure without com- pliance with the provisions of Article 22 of Ordinance 1324 requiring notice and hea ing by the Planning Commission. Such, statutory r.otice.and hearing is necessary in order -to satisfy the require.merts of due process and may not be dispensed with.` • 451 "The prep osed.ordinance is otherwise confusing, indefinxtee uncertain: and in direct conflict with other existing ordinances- of the City. "It ghould be understood that electors by the mere filing of .a petition otherwise sufficient proposing an ordinance for adoption,have not the right to compel either the adoption of the ordinance or the .submission of the same to a vote of the electorate, regardless::of the subject matter therein. .In deterrn,ining whether an initiative ordinance shall be placed on the bat of ;the City Council has not only the right but the duty to consider "the effect of the proposed ordinance and if it determines that:the heritable result would be greatly to impair or wholly destroy the -efficacyof some other governmental power: which 1 s- indispensable to: the convenience, welfare and well-being of the inhabitants of -the City, then it may and should refuse to put,such air o_ dinance:on the ballot. The proposed ordinance falls in this category. ''It is, .therefore, my" recommendation that the docuiin.ent. be filed and that the. Council take no action thereon, f0 It was moved by Mitchell, seconded by Stephens, that the petition be filed and that the "Council take no action thereon. Several council members commented that it was unfortunate that over 3000 people had signed a petition without being advised as to its legality and then find that it is not legally possible for the Co-uxicd to action: the mater, Councilman Porter stated that he believes: the matter is important enough that it would be in order for, a xx_ayoris committee to consider the advisability of making some changes, in the charter Councilman Byxbee agreed that the question should be reviewed, either by a citizens' committee or ,a committee of the Counci.". He noted that a revised General Plan is now under study and that such a plan appears to be the most important thing in the minds of the petitioners. The Mayor stated that he -would take under advisexnent the suggestion for a mayor's- committee to :i cluire farthere into the matter. The motion to file ,:the petition and take no action was carried by unanimous voice vote. ;Cats Tax Allocation for San Antonio Road L-nprovernent The. City Manager presented the First Supplemental Memo randurn of Agreement for allocation of Gas Tax Funds for the improvement of San Antonio Road (Project 59-4). It was reported that the amount of the allocation is $276,400, it connection with the improvement of San Antonio Road between Alnia Street and the Bayshore °Freeway. Resolution . No. 3257,: approving the First Supplemental Agreement the gas tax allocation for major city streets, and authorizing execution of the agreement by the Mayor was introduced, and on motion of B,r bee and Bishop, was adopted by unanimous voice vote. A reernent_with. Southern. • Pacific re WideningGrossar at e stonTctoad A proposedagreement with the Southern Pacific Company relative to widening "ofthe; crossing at Charleston. Road was reviewed; by the City Manager'.'Aresolution authorizing the Mayor to execute the agreemen* ire; behalf of the . City was iaztroduced, and on motion of Byxbee-ard.. Bishop,: was adopted by unanimous voice vote. Arreement.with PG&E for Purchase of le tric .. Facilities ' c Faca at es an Foothills Annexation 1-A. The .City. Manager presented an agreement with the Pacific Gas &;Electric Company for the purchase by the City of certain electric'edastribution facilities in the Foothills Annexation No. ` 1 •A area.` .Or. motion. of Porter and Marshall, the agreement was approved and the<;Mayor =was authorized to execute it in behalf of the City. Selec.tion4o(`Planring Consultants The City Manager requested advice from the Council as to the techrque 'o be used in selecting the planning consultant or firm for the -General Plan. revision,. He advised that proposals have been received in accordance with the Council's previous authoriza- tion to invite gua1ifiedfirss or individuals to submit proposals. He also advised that proposals have been received for the revitaliza- tion of Downtown Palo Alto, and that he has devised the technique for reviewing the proposals by the Chairman of the Planning Commission, the Mayo:-, the City Engineer, the Planning Officer and a representative of Downtown Palo Alto, Inc., before making his recommendation to the Council relative to the hiring of a firm. The City Manager caked attention to the fact that the Council' minutes' do not state specifically the method of selection of. the firm or individual to revise the General Plan and wring it up to date, although there was reference to having the members of the Goals Committee consider the proposals and make a recommendation. He pointedout that some of. the .members of the committee are not available for meetings and interviews in the daytime. After some discussion., it was moved by Byxbee, seconded by Bishop, and carried that the Mayor and City Manager be authorized to establish a <committee to screen the proposals for both the General Plan revision and the revitalization of the downtown area. Pro'ect 59-1, San itary Trunk Sewers and Water Su S stein, oot x s nexataon-No T -A This was the time set for a public hearing on the Resolu- tion of Preliminary Determination and of Intention for the construction of sanitary trunk sewers and a water supply system in the Foothills No. 1-A Area. The City Manager advised that some of the property owners in ths area which. was annexed to the City have been anxious to receive utility service so they can develop their property; that the project was initiated in an attempt to comply with their wishes, and that the xnatter has been before the Council on a :lumber of occasions. f The Mayor read, an opening statement on the purpose o to determine whether the public rt-the hearing which.;xstwo-fold: I,) proposed sewer �" „ and all protests or convenience and necessity in general require the pro and water project; and :2) to fully hear any owners directly o ehdor 5ements of>.the project from the property' ,concerned, and from these protests or endorsements and from ex the testimony of the City ad-riinistrative staff to d herb mine wrd hbye the ' properties withicx'the assessment district o se`d-improvement s and;whether the assessments have been prp° spread in.' accordance with sl.ch bens _ts. t 'pointed out that a rni = .um of twelve The City.Ato-:�eY Po project and there should be votes is required to proceed with the pro j that number>of councilmen present at the hearing. As there were at this time, zhe City Attorney recommend- _ only ten' mer�.be r s ;present' ed that the .hearing: be continued. The. City Manager recommended that fight resolutionaffirnative calling for sealed-_ proposals, which only requires q , adopted so, that olds may be called for and votes for passage; •be adop reported ou at the t'rn.' of the. hearing. K for see . Cd proposals, was R,esol :tt.lo �. Nos, 328.8, calling fo adopted b v%bee and M rche' 1, was adop by ,.,,�,Q•Ziow aw 2; un1n moils. voice .vote. d Mir shall, the hearing on On �:ota° �* �y:�o„e an�,�,.,,��.� xY�eet;..�t °� November z Project 59,.1 vs cor+.7.nr� ed to r�;.:: regular 1960, : at 7:30 p. rn eting, r Oliver Johnson, 1831 the ;�,ff,,cted by Project � , - wre a f� �F','.�, �, �,w LTjarx..y o the opC- v invited S accompany him to ins,pec:t pr invited car%! c�1 =embers to a.cc � ard get ,m°rem i -°' o:7 the project. ;•_ehrneier, et a r(.pc »i vvas:received f'.rora. 'the Planning Co sio of the application, anp,rci'vas, by a, vote of 3 to 2, � . r ier, Rita G. Schz�<=`aaz arau. dj �s . „oseph G_eorne RtRolf, k esje , f of drat ic'c fro:r. R -1:T3 -3:A to 1Z -3 C of.r�'� R,'tr�,Cl '���Sa4 , fc. achange . n_ .�_2C is a. > ^:he_wise icriown'.. as 4:130;':.414&':J a.nd 4;1S,0.1,11dd ez5eicl Road. 1yn, and displayed a xnap wedhe pr pose. a a.r merit development ra�rzc ' : ° p of the p- ope•. r ty in, question.' ` Tlie Mayor .painted Out , tha t M bathis is not a pt_'•lichea ax.ringng; w ' that the hearing was e•d y the Pla^nirg Go.�.._rni.sa^Aq;,: - e.- e in the matter an if there is no objection by • of ;the p ublic interest p the Coi::icsl., .he g wold al.'••OW the propnrents and the opponents toCoLrcil' speak fo fifteen mi,.utes each.,There being no objection by � sted that those in favor of the proposed zxiernkier s , the Mayor � ,gg r - zone change speakjf rut'.. eser4:.: g the applic-ants, addxe.ssed'. ..s' p.. r ep. reviewed their re�.sax.s" . of tthe.;�.pp ;.cation arts the �Golir�cxi.:is+ in:' -support : ... «. t3:�.ent:� could he for �dee r-ng. there7c. zw1,, so•that,g,_rde.. type apa•r constructed. the There beil.g no oth.ers who wished to7speo pak osfaion vor .tot tpe: k app9ication, ,.he Ma, ` o:•; ave .opportunity to ,hose ti p., Mr.:.Gordon Newell., :representing the Fairfield Home- . owr»ers Association,; addressed the Commission opposing apartment, zoning for the area in question. He called on those in the audience. who were opposed to :the proposed development to stand, and around; thirty people responded. Mr. Newell ,displayed a map of the general areaindicating the zoning of adjacent properties and the surrounding area.. E Others who; spoke briefly in objection to, any rezoning for apartments were LaCi M8 Johnson, 439 San Antonio Road, President! of the G •eende11'Homeownera AssocYa:ion;. Mrs. Soh- Kennedy , 264Fazrfie d .Cot t; R. E. Bayrses, 4193 Mackay Drive; John Allan, 438.Ferne'Avenue; and Milton Kei1s, 465 San Arionio Road. A motion was made by Byxbee, seconded by Marshall t'r_at. R �:<B��a. 4 zoning be, retained in this that -..� v. s particular area and the ,application be de ::ied. ,-Mr. Waite: Strom..quist, Vice Chairman of the Planning Corzxznissior,., advised that a majority of the commissioners felt tnat:.he request i fir R: -3:G zoning was proper in view of the:fact that a school. a-d.apa.rtm,e-:ts are adjacent to theme property and that there are o4:r.er non-'es;,de"tia1 uses tile vicinity. He stated that the cor^riznissior_E:: s who voted against the zone change felt that the past aCtions, of •r:"e Planning Cnmmissionirdica.ted ths.t the. zoning: s_hoi:.1.d r emi.irt: as R. 3 . After "discussion, a 'c'_? Ball vote was taken on the motion to retaz:. R-i:B•-3:A zonir.i.g, as follows: Bishop, Byxh4'e, 'AVZc'z7's x'1i Navis, Porter. Bail'; Ears, 'Giffin., Mitchell, Stephea.s. The in_otion wa.s declared lost. A moti :•ri, w' S t'iiezz x nade by. Porter, seconded by Marshall, }''at the bF; deferred" :,:he Z.ext regular rn ee• �r• ., xg o No-ie.-Tiber 24, ;19x.,0, xnd.'''he ntotr,or.. was ca.r. red by the following, ,rote or. roll call: Ayes: B:i.sh•op, B:j:Ci^ee F.va .s, Marsha:C., Navis .Stephens . Not Voting: Giffin.. (A..r eces s was take.- t',is time, 3:45 p.rn., and tr,e _Council reconvened at 9:00 p-xn, Pro'cct=52_13; ,Acuis t on of Sc' ,e Estate Proper} I:E'2t.Se wlt:2'Slil3.ps0Z1 btD2;'3 `The Gitiy" Mar..ager reported that the case involving the acquisition of the Seale -Estate property !Project 52-13) for off- street parking was to go to trial on October. 24, 1960. He advised that negotiations took place on Octcber 7, .1960 between representa- tives of the Grace':P.oss Seale Estate, Simpson Motors, lessees of the -property,. and:the; City; that the City Attorney and the Assistant City Managet'rep=ese ted the C r,r and an agreement was reached :regarding acquisition .of,the property-, 0 The Assistar.t Ci v MMaeage- naae a further report, advisang`tha:t as a .result of the negotiations the City has received executed stipulationsfrom. the. -Trustees of the Grace Ross Seale Estate arid. from: Sampson Motors, providing for the sale of the property: for -x.$135, -0Q0 representin g payment in full, He also reported that:Sir xpsori"Motors,?xave been attempting to locateanother site and :_plan to build new facilities in Menlo Park; that .the, staff recozrAmends that . they :be: allowed to remain on the present property until June 1,-1961 upon pa.yzrxent of $875,00 per month rental to the City that -this. time, is necessary for them to prepare plans and construct the new facilities It was -znoved by Porter, seconded by Byxbee, that the City's attorneys be instructed to execute a stipulation on behalf of the .Ci'7y with the American Company, a corporation, and:: Duncan A. McLeod, Co -Trustee of the Grace Ross Seale Trust, and SimpsonMotors, a copa.r tnership; composed of C. H. Simpson and R A. Schmitt, °;providing for the pv-chase of Parcel No. 8 (Project 52-13; Parcels .1A and 1C) for the sum of $135,000, and that the Mayor be authorized to execute a lease agreement covering the above property with Simpson Motors, terminating June 1, 1961, providing fora monthly :rental of $875.00. The > City:Manager advised that if this motion is passed:, the City Engineer would be ,instructed to proceed with the design of the parking lot so that it could be developed right after the property is vacated on June .1, 1961. Mr. 3oseph;O'Do: ohue; Executive Director of Downtown Palo Alto, Inc., spoke to the Council calling attention to the fact that the a.cg isi`io ..-of t.Lzs property has been pending for a long tinie and: that there ]ad" Seen a p_ e ,rio;.. s arrangement that the property was to be available by' November 3., 1960; in behalf of Downtown Palo Alto, Inc. Mr...Orponohue o +jec e.d to the further delay in; the development of;this lot for off-street parking. lands Deven carried by majority voice vote. s a.l, Utah -Construction 4 -ll ciirx t.RCoxri-aria i��b�IWOw�UYS�4��� �7C� ■. �[�' A report was received f'rorn Committee No, 1 recommending=a.pproval of the,.lproposal of the Utah Corxstrtction Mining •Con pa».j for developMent of the Baylands, as modified b the City. Manager's eedornmended changes, the City Attorney's comments, and points broa.g'•.t='ou.t i . committee discussion, and that an:,agreeM,e t s car o:aang these provisions be drawn up b' the City Attorney for app Oval by the Council. - A zxotioe was made Coancilma.n Nevis: that the matter be held over unit the meeting. of November 14, 1960, and that the staff be instructed to get information on the value of the land.. Mir, Joseph Allen, representative of the Utah Construc- tion & Mining Company, was preseeit and told the Council it would be agreeable, e to the firm to exterd the time for action on their proposal to November 14, 1960. motion was -seconded and. carried. Proposed maZz Arnendmerrt A rear. -t was received from Committee No. 1 recommending that -study; be given;to the advisability of submitting to the voters at .an appropriate time a proposed charter amendment of the provigxon.regarding leasing or sub -leasing of property owned or leased by the City. It was moved,by Mitchell, seconded and carried that this be referred to the staff for further study and report, Tentative %tap of Tract No. 2684 A report was .submitted by the Planning Commission unanimously recommending approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map as presented by Robert B Taylor for Tract No. 2684, being a portion,of l ayshore-San Antonio Annexation, and including a: variance £ror the .sideyarci setback requirements for Lots 1 and 2, subject to granting easement's as shown on the reap. A motion was made by Mitchell, seconded by Byxbee, that the map be. approved in accordance with the recomrneodation. of the, Plann.rg Cc ±iissi;o:�, T e''C. ty Managercali'ed attention to the fact that the rn,ap provides fo : the sidewaik.- to be .adjacent to the curb, ,and questioied the advisability of this type of in.stallaticn, without a plant-s.ns str ip between the c:ur'o and sidewalk, which might establish a pre,cedent along ths.;:frontage road where the proper; ty is located He pointed out that it' has been the general `policy .in industrial and cornrx erci :1 areas v/licre er possible, to have the side>rai'k set back i.froxii •the rnatio : was made by Byxbee, seconded by Navis, that -, thematterbe re t a ecl.to Corn .itte,c No, 1 to consider this question as a 'matter of polio,-, biz:: after discussion. the motion was withdrawn: lc was th.enrnoveci by Marshall to amend the :notionby approving the map wx :h the rnodificatio;n that the lots frontirg on the frontage; road r;e .reduced in the amount required to provide a planting strip be wEe'. the curb and the sidewalk of approximately 7 feet. T ne .aniendniert was seconded and carried, and the motion - as arnended.'was carried by voice vote. '`Jarzar'ce.to Stanford -Sport Shoff A repo t was received from the Planning Cornrna,ssio unanimously rec©rrnmendirg granting of a variance to the Stanford. SportShop'for the property at 20?8 El Camino Real, Zone Distract C 3:S, to permit` construction of a new one-story building as .shown on the plot. plan,- but with a 2.0 -foot rear yard and a 20 -foot wide access' driveway from E1 Camino- Real. The proposed .plans were reviewed by the Planning Officer. It was nioved,by'Navis, seconded by Marshall, that the reconamen.dation of the Planning Commission be adopted and the variaroe grated accordingly. • 4 if Mr. C H,.Millington, owner and operator of the Stan- ford Sport Shop, spoke br iefly to; the Council, stating that an 8 -foot rear yard. would be ample, and a.sking that he not be required to have a -20-foot. rear yard A notion. was made by Porter that the recomrnendation of thePlanning Con-irxL.s sion be :.adopted with the amendment that an 8 -foot rear yid be allowed instead of 20 feet. l eze Stromquist, Vice Chairman of the Planning 'Cozmitsion,. advised that the.Plannirg.C;o'mmission had given a' great deal of study to,.the matter and felt it was possible that the` 20 feet: might later become an alleyway: After discussion the motion to adopt the recommendation of the Planning:Commission. amended to provide for are 8 -foot rear yard, was seconded, and carried -by unanimous voice vote. A eat of Al Witt, Location of Laundr Use Permit e -UP -1 a , 0.1 ./vI:dd1e ield Road report : was received from the Planning Commission unanimously recommending (one member not voting) approval of the, appeal of :Al W..tt=fr• oni the decieion of the. Zoning Administrator ',requiring relocation of a partially completed laundry building and provision of a sax -foot plantingarea, for the P -C District on the easterly corner of Charleston a.nd Middlefield Roads. It was further recommended by the Corimissio:n that the approval be subject to the following conditions a) :That :the ::p'1an.e n,g plan for the rear perimeter area ce,resubmitted to the Planning Commission for review, and aey requirements for additional platting be rnet; b). That:the developer be required to obtain a building permit and pay any penalty involved, and c) Thee',:he . Building Inspector not give final inspection to the entire project until all these requirements have been rnet.. The matter was reviewed by the. Planning Officer who advised that protests had been received from adjacent property owners to ,a planting area of less ;than six feet at the rear of the laundry building; that he had ordered the relocation of the building and his decision had been appealed to the Commission. After discussion, it was moved, seconded and carried by the following roll call vote that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be adopted Ayes: Ball, : Evans,: Giffin, Mitchell, Porter, Noes Byxbee, .Marshall, Nevis, Stephens. Not Voting:. Bishop: Zone. Ch �n e - Amaro Dor shad Sevilla Potion Lots 151- , - an o-ostee Subdivision 1011, .1031 and 1039 Co'1o: ado Avenue 4 report wasreceived from the Planning Commission unanimously recommending denial (one member not voting) of the application of Rosa Amara, Charles E. and Maxine Doran, and ,Rcibin M,- and Macaria T. Seva,lla„for change of district froxrn R-1 to R-3 of a portion of Lots 150 ,and 151, Wooster Subdivision, otherwise known .as 1011, 1031 and 1039 Colorado Avenue. On motion. of Potter: and Navis, the recommendation of the Planning Commission was adopted and the application denied.: Zone Chan e - Fred Sirnonini et al ortions B oc s 7 an 1.1 Bartle Tract Mata: ero Avenue A report was submitted by the Planning Commission unanimously recommending denial. of the application of Fred Sirxonini: et al for change of district from R-1 to R-2 of Lots 38 through 47 of Block 7 and Lots 7 through 18 of Block 11, Bartley Tract, .otherwise known as 399, 412, 421, 426, 431, 441, 444, 450, 451, 460 and 461 Matadero. Avenue. On motion of:Byxbee. and Bishop, the recommendation of the Planning Commissionwas adopted and the applications denied. e Howard R. and Agnes L. Ten Broeck oadt_ Lots 10 an Layvie'w Home sites A:report was, received from the Planning. Commission recommending " denial, by a vote of 5 to 1, of the application of Howard R.'and Agnes : L. Ten Broeck for a change of district from R -1:B 8 to R-3:0 for the 'p.ope:r y" at 3801 Middlefield Road, other- wise known as Lots: 10 and,; 11, Mayview Horn.esites, Or. xxo;,ion;of Navis and Marshall, the recommendation of the Planning Carrim.i.ssioia was adopted and the application denied. Zone Chaznge. A. Shifrin Portion Lot 75, Wooster Subdivision Areport was received from the Planning Commission unanimously recommending erding denial of the application of A. Shifrin for a change -of distrct from R -3;G to R-4 for a portion of Lot 75, Wooster Subdivision, otherwise known as 3085 Middlefield Road:, It was moved by Porter, seconded by Bishop, that the recommendation of the Planing Commission be adopted and the application be denied. Mr. Frank B. Cliff, attorney .representing the applicant,; ,Mr. ;Shifrin., addressed the Commission in support of the request 'for the zone change. He pointed out that the property is presently zoned as R -3:G but. that the owner wished to build a luxury apartment development with a larger number of units.: He advised that the applicant would'. like to explore R-3 zoning for the property and asked that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission. A motion was made by Stephens and seconded that the matter, be referred backto the Planning Commission for further consideration. " The vote on roll call was as follows: -.,. w--= '_- .: -�' ��� jacii 8 r Stephe�2s"d - a Giffin. Stephens,. Noes: ' es: Bzsl; Byxbee' pea: Ball; ter declared lost. Planning The motion was � 3ati°n of.the oxity to uphold the recommendation ec n carried by ma3 The motion . , application was, s"sicsn and deny the apP C0 fission e Grote"` gtan�' = . sra;a" a of : x cis. to �, � �,-,,Initiative tncan .e" an w�ticxe va" Zone -�h o nus , p� - _ prtian o - „b West x ex'* . between. p_ oot t' w D1vt o ,xssion rt� a st" � as ® nine; ar from the.pta ange.of was received wn.nitativea anch0Rin"�,n ,di A. rcporpmending; On its o portion °£ the ' between i:e xeco 7.:A for a p land tying una in'°"$t ,�3 toe t:F 30. foot strip of •Drive., �roxn being a. 30.-foot do`x etrxte me S- cif. 4, Vlay'and. the Zone mapto-provide de St to Janus.. bf : W ye tchelt and ,rent t ce mondxx+ otion °f ' ,crflpaaewas .introd`u'ced' anbO rsi m4us voice vote. for thx ` acs pled for fix st" reading Bit,cbee'' Chan e. _T.. 1.(extZ Seale 1So. Zone Roc portaana�.ti share on. a Road ng do ss gl to Wiest B Planning bitted `�Y the e °f. district fro g xt v of of to 3 a change portion of Let A x£1?° a to _of .. -Ate z, being a P°" Raad- xec -..p for e-. roper of 1,.; <er .y West Bay shore on Map xovide � f 4x the- P Vis34n l� to.provide i� -3 Su'd' .- Zone d a o�: b Seale ending the of p to. ro nsnG W ' o.. Vote. ox and on voice ploposd introduced, a �r,�irn°us. e change. ws '' th.r, wa fox.fir.st rpa.ding'`�� ° was ccpted porter $ids on Bonds 5g _ .* ; 'lli f oz µ_ _... ... for bids on the sate °f 4 p 0 ect calling was Street, 4. 32$9, 3s 'lair Ch S led by. 'Resolution ct �;o . 59 - adop j bonds, Pr°�e . aid Gruff tre 1!! ent 1i - of Nayis impra"�xn d °h ,°tsar voice �a�.imous the City d �gud et ., �h an •e s s an ..: were made by Transfer .... endations 4wi g e� am ' The fol�. x: :ving t entries g' Sg, 1p C4ntxolTx: wind, jou;na xo 6Ct xoval of .the folpx pxovexazenva ce to the l- Approval osng p d +2A' s s an advance effect to the gtransfe 50 a�o. appt.pvirg project: d Sewer 1'1-= o OOp $,e$exve ADO Credit:. C } Debit: $,sxpl s q0, as balance to Sewer Fund 'Transfer Sewer" :Fund ) Debit: Credit: Cash $90, 000 Reserve for Capital Additions 90,000 Establish" Reserve for Capital Addition Credit:. Cash Advance to Project 59-10 Re serve for Capital Additions $ 24,500 24,500 ImprovementProject 59-10 Construction Fund ) Debit:, Cash $24,500 Credit: Surplus 24,500 Advance from City (Sewer Fund) 2.- Approval to terminate the following Special Assess- ment District Bond Interest and Redemption. Funds and to transfer the indicated balances.; to the General Fund: Bond Series MMM Balance $ 12.56 Bond Series NN - Balance 790.63 Thebond issues for which these funds were established have been redeemed in full, 3 :Permission to increase the following Expenditure Appropriation :Accounts by the amounts indicated: -Water Expenditure Acct. 2347A - Mains $670.00 Fund ' Accts 2348A - Hydrants 300.00 Acct 2351A - Services 250.00 $1,220.00 Gas Expenditure Acct.. 4347A - Mains $291.00 Fund Acct, 4351A - Services 335.00 626.00 $1,846.00 It was: explainedthat the above appropriations are for the installation of,the water and gas systems in the Loma Verde Estates subdivision and are supported by an advance for construction in the amount of $1,846.00 received from Mr.` Charles Baer. On motion of Mitchell and Bishop, the above recommenda- tions and requests of the Controller were approved by unanimous voice vote. -:Liquor License; The Lod e 998 San Antonio Road � ITIl33�Il1lIR'I p1d+��1�MMar,Ir11WYi�M.O� The City Attorney reported that the City has received noticeof the filing of an application for an on sale general liquor license" for The Lodge at 998 San Antonio Road. He advised that?. on the basis of the ,City's experience in such cases, he could see no valid reason for filing a protest and recomxxaended that the applica- tion be "filed.: It was moved, seconded and carried that noprotest be made and that the application be filed. 461 The -monthly report of the Planning Officer on action taken in. September on applications for lot divisions, and the monthly report of the Zoning Administrator on action taken in September on applications for variances and use permits, were received .and placed;on file. Council Tours of City The Mayor reminded council members that the City Manager has circulated to all councilmen a schedule of tours to be made of city facilities; that only seven members have responded and eight have not replied. He asked that those who have not responded do so and let the City Manager know their wishes, and recommended that each councilman make the tour. Noel E. Porter Dax. Councilman Porter stated at this time that he wished to thank publicly every one who participated in the community dinner and pxograin on Noel E. Porter Day October 4, 1960, and expressed his gratitude." for thee recognition and honors extended to him nn this occasion. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was declared adjourned at 10:00 P.M. APPROVE