1967 Jan to Dec - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

486 from making a new request for rezoning for one year but that Council could rescind action taken and make a new motion. Councilman Granger moved to rescind the previous motion denying request for rezoning, seconded by Councilman Rosselli. Councilman Granger felt this matter should be referred back to Planning Commission for further consideration in order property owner could be given every opportunity to utilize all of his property if possible, and felt another solution might result if considered further. Coun- cilman Henderson indicated her opposition to change of zoning and desire to uphold Council's action to maintain RH zoning in areas where grading necessitated such zoning. Councilman Rosselli stated his favoring further consideration of this matter as felt whole of area needs review because of similar circumstances prevailing, and felt Council could further this study by not taking action in this instance. Councilman Bury felt action taken by Council to deny the rezoning would react more favorably to encourage a study of the area if other residents affected similarly. Motion lost on roll call vote, Councilmen Granger and Rosselli voting yes, Councilmen Bury, Henderson, Keckley, Petersen and Mayor Herkner voting no. Mayor Herkner questioned whether special action should be taken to indicate Council's interest for a study to be made of this whole area. City Attorney advised Staff present could do this on their own initiative, but also advised hillside area now placed under moratorium by Council for a specific study to to be made and indicated this might be sufficient. Report and recommendation of Legislative Committee concerning Highway Beautifica- tion Act read by Councilman Rosselli, Chairman, in which it was stated a review had been made of the request of the California Roadside Council that City oppose provisions in the Federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965 relating to compensation for removal of billboards. Report called attention to present Redwood City Code which provides for the removal of nonconforming signs aftei allowing reasonable amortization periods, and of the extensive review made by City Attorney in which he advised that local ordinances requiring removal of nonconforming signs after reasonable periods of amortization are valid. He also advised the State Outdoor Advertising Act applicable in unincorporated areas does not provide for compensation nor does any other municipal ordinance of which City is aware. It was felt by Committee payment provision in the Federal law might establish a precedent that could be applied generally and might prolong life of objectionable billboards that otherwise could be removed under a City's general authority, and Committee, therefore, recommended Council — support the position of the California Roadside Council and adopt a resolution in opposition to the payment provision of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965