My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
BOOK 26_1955-11-28 to 1957-06-17
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
1955 to 1957 Book 26
>
BOOK 26_1955-11-28 to 1957-06-17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 10:17:41 AM
Creation date
10/16/2017 10:00:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
11/28/1955
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
510
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
.441 <br />Councilman Spillers offered RESOLUTION 2210 BEING THE RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC <br />IMPROVEMENTS, KENTFIELD»PALM-VALOTA AND VICINITY IMPROVEMTNS and moved its adoption, seconded by Councilman <br />Weymouth and carried on roll call, Councilmen Stout and Weiss voting No. <br />Councilman Granger offered RESOLUTION 2211 FIXING THEMINIMUM WAGE SCALE, KENTFIELD-PALM-VALOTA AND VICINITY <br />IMPROVEMENTS and moved its adoption, seconded by Councilman Weymouth and carried on roll call, Councilman <br />Stout and Weiss voting NO. <br />Councilman Spillers offered RESOLUTION 2212 CALLING FOR BIDS, KENTFIELD=PALM-VALOTA AND VICINITY and moved <br />its adoption, seconded by Councilman Granger and carried on roll call, Councilmen Stout and Weiss voting <br />i <br />N0. <br />Councilman Weiss stated that he was voting no because of the reasons and answers given to his question in <br />regard to major changes being made to the project, especially if adding to the projedt. He feels that this <br />project is based on the fact that this was started one year ago, and, also at that time, they should have <br />taken,into consideration the Land Use Plan which was also being taken into consideration. Councilman <br />Spillers stated that the Land Use Plan was a guide only and would not establish zoning. <br />PUBLIC HEARING, MASTER LAND USE PLAN. Councilman Granger said that he wanted to let the public know that he <br />was not going to vote in,favor.of this tonight because he has not had sufficient time to study the matter. <br />He was going,to suggest that this be carried on the agenda to give the Council time to consider the matter. <br />The Mayor told the people that if the Council acted on this matter tonight they should keep in mind that <br />this would be a guide only and would not effect any of the present zoning. Councilman Spillers stated <br />,that he would go along with the Land Use Plan but he would consider the matter of each zoning on its own <br />merits. <br />The fpllowing people talked at great length over the matter of leaving Friendly Acres in an R-2 zone: <br />Walter E. Hohl, 919 Haven Avenue; Mr. Thompson, representing Mr. Delucchi; Ralph Gregory, 18th Avenue; Mr. <br />IN <br />l Thompson, Haven Avenue; and Francis Foley, 827 10th Avenue. These people favored the R-2 zoning to the <br />proposed R-1 zoning. Planning Commissioner MacDonald stated that the sewer facilities are not adequate for <br />R-2 .over all zoning. The sewage will not support R-2 building of the area. Mr. -MacDonald said the Planning <br />Commission did feel that there was a possibility that the area from 10th Avenue dews Page Street to Marsh <br />Road over to the railrpad tracks is suitable for R-2 zoning because the property is particularly suited <br />for R-2 use. Perhaps 10% of the Land could be R-2 zoning. 90%'of the area has R-1 residences. Councilman <br />Spillers stated that he did not quite agree with Mr- MacDonald. About 30% of the lots in Friendly Acres <br />are over 200 feet in depth and he did not feel that they should rezone the property back to R-1. This was <br />followed by discussion. <br />Councilman Weiss read the following prepared statemeist: <br />I am happy to pay due respect and give credit and consideration to the work and effort on <br />the part of the Planning Commission and the Plannint Advisor, yet I am constrained to state <br />that the interim report before use for consideration contains certain inconsistencies that <br />51 I am unable to reconcile - with the Mayors permission I shall later Askespecific questions of <br />lim our Planning Consultant, whose firm was employed for and prepared said report. <br />As for the proposed Land Use Plan, the preparation of which is to cost the city some <br />.63,000.00, and which will ultimately be incorporated in the Master Plan, fails, to my mind, <br />to provide for a logical development of the community, especially if we consider that such a <br />plan is supposed to envision developments for some twenty to forty years into the future. <br />As I understand it most authorities today recommend such long range planning. <br />This proposed land use plan, if adopted in its present form will create what I believe <br />will be the sorriest hodge podgq of development and will be thedeath knell of our present <br />central business area; and at the same time create a community that will be a wonderful checker <br />board for the benevolent speculators,in real estate. <br />The Land use plan before us does some of the following things: <br />1. In checker board fashion provides adequate commercially zoned areas, over and <br />above the central business area, to provide for thenneeds of a community of some 1000000 <br />people. <br />2. It provides for R-4 and R-3 areas to backup on R-1 areas - thps creating a <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.