Laserfiche WebLink
'.' NBU BUSINESS: <br />1. State of California.- Freeway Maintenance Agreement --E1 <br />Moxite. Road. <br />' The City Clerk 'submitted proposed Freeway Maintenance Agree- <br />ment and Exhibit "A" for Council's perusal. Following dis- <br />cussion, it was deemed not to be feasible to assume mainten- <br />ance of a partially constructed road and that further clari- <br />fication was needed. <br />ACTION: <br />That the matter of the proposed Freeway Main- <br />tenance Agreement <br />ain- <br />tenanceAgreement be deferred until further <br />advice and recommendation is received from the <br />City Manager. I_ <br />MOTION: Fowle; SECOND: Bowler; VOTE:- Passed unanimously. <br />2. County -of Santa'. Clara - Deletion of Portion of Median at <br />Voorhees Driveway. <br />Mr. ChalmersSmith, representing Mx. Voorhees, stated the <br />removal of-the25 feet of median on E1 Monte Avenue in order <br />to allow proper access to Mr. Voorhees'driveway has been <br />approved by the County and State, since all previous con- <br />demnation negotiations were based on the premise of proper <br />entry, and merely needed the approval of the Town. <br />The Council was concerned whether this change would conflict <br />with the path and signalization planned in this area. The <br />Mayor called a five minute recess at 8:45 P. M., in order to <br />contact Deputy Mayor Aiken, who has been in close contact with <br />this project. The meeting was reconvened at 8:50 P. M. , <br />ACTION: <br />That the removal of the 25 feet of median on <br />E1 Monte Road, as shown on blueprint enclosed <br />with letter dated August %, 1964 from the County <br />of Santa Clara (R. M. Shields, Project Engineer), <br />be approved. <br />NOTION: Fowle; SECOND: Henley; VOTE: Passed. unanimously.' <br />VARIANCES: <br />1. Clarke,. Wm. D. (V-199-64) - Request for Reconsideration. <br />The City Clerk reviewed the Council Minutes of August 3, <br />1964 pertaining to Mr. Clarke's request for variance and <br />Council action wherein the Motion for approval was lost for <br />lack of a majority vote. Mr. Clarke stated he had not <br />(J <br />-3- <br />