Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes of the Regular Adjourned Meeting <br />Redwood City Council <br />May 14.. 1956, 8:00 P. M. <br />Invocation was lead by Reverend Ronald H. I`'hite, Pastor First Methodist Church. <br />ON ROLL CALL the following were noted present: Councilmen Carl A. Britschgi, Floyd D. Granger, Sidney D. <br />Herkner, Robert V. Spillers, Hiram S. Stout, Louis '.leiss, Mayor EATilliam H. Royer and Clerk Pro -Tem John J. <br />Brophy. Also present were City 14anager E. A. Rolison, City Attorney C. B. Currie, "Tater Superintendent <br />H. L. '.`linter, Building Inspector S. H. Kreiss, City Collector Paul E. Perrin, City Engineer Glenn M. Jain, <br />Assistant Vdater Superintendent Jarren 1.2itchell, Acting Police Chief Theodore Moudakas, Recreation Director <br />Alfred Morton, Fire Chief J. L. Lodi, Account -Clerk Vivian Holmquist and Kenneth Boscacci reporesenting the <br />rpm Chamber of Commerce. <br />PUBLIC HARING, CONI FNUATION CF HEARING ON OFFICI^L PLAN LIPTES, CARLOS AVENUE. There were no further protests. <br />Councilman Spillers moved that the public hearing be closed. Councilman 77eiss reported that so far as he <br />could see, and after personal inspection of the area, no compelling reasons for the necessity or the <br />immediacy of placing plan lines into effect on Carlos Avenue along is evident. In fact the most cogent <br />reason so far advanced is that the admittedly out dated Master Plan indicated same. In that connection we <br />must not forget that it has been stated number of times that said master plan does not reflect the situation <br />applicable today, that the revision of said master plan so as to more nearly reflect present rends, <br />standars, etc. is to be provided for by including funds for such action in the forthcoming budget. This it <br />appears clearly admitted that the propriety of the pattern contained in said master plan is highly question- <br />able. Also the evidence is indicative quite preponderantly that a big factor in this proposal as now <br />before us is the result of some sort of a disagreement between certain property mm.ers in the area of said <br />rpm proposed Carlos Avenue. <br />Therefor Councilman S'Teiss does not fee 1 justified in sanctioning or being a party to the taking of such <br />spot action when actually the orderly development of a much larger area should be considered. That the <br />Planning Commission recognizes the fact that long range planning involves much more than Carlos Avenue and <br />that such long range planning is advisable is evidence by the fact that they have actually given the <br />overall problem considerable thought and had in fact several alternative plans prepared considering the <br />ultimate development of the entire area. <br />Councilman Gneiss called everyone's attention especially to one of them labeled No. 2, which with some minor <br />corrections for the extension of Madrone Street to Oakwood Drive, would thus resolve the problem for the <br />benefit of the entire community and possible to the satisfaction of the majority of the residents of the <br />area. <br />Councilman ':'Zeiss called everyone's attention especially to one of them labeled No. 2, which with some <br />minor corrections for the extension of Madrone Street to Oakwood Drive, would thus resolve the problem for <br />.-M <br />the benefit of the entire community and possible to the satisfaction of the majority of the residents of <br />bo. <br />' the aria. <br />Councilman Granger wanted to reaffirm his stand that he couldn't see any reason why the street should be <br />widened from Oakwood Blvd. west to the City Limits. Councilman Spillers again moved that the public <br />�.. hearing be closed, seconded by Councilman Britschgi. Mr. James Fait, 543 Carlos, wanted to know if the <br />�.. plan lines included Madrone Street. He was of the opinion that Madrone should b e included to extend to <br />Oakwood Blvd. It was explained that this could not be done at this time. Motion carried. <br />Councilman Jeiss, in view of his former observations, moved that the Planning Commission's recommendation <br />for plan lines on Carlos Avenue be denied, and that the Planning Commission, if it deems the problem of <br />sufficient urgency, take under advisement or conside-ration the setting of plan lines for the development <br />of the entire area as delineated and provided for in their original plan No. 2, seconded by Councilman <br />