Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01261959
atV..y.v. ss.7,M City Hall, Palo Alto, ,' California January 26, 1959 The Council of the City of Palo Alto met in regular session on this date at 7.30 P. M. , with, Mayor>."Porter presiding. Roll call, as. follows: �ishop, Byxbee, Cresap, Evans, Giffin, Marshall, Mitchell, Navas, Porter, Rodgers, Ruppenthal, Stephens, Woodward. The minutes of the meetings of January 7 and January' 12, 1959, were approved as distributed.• ,Pro'ect 58-13 -El Camino Real -Monroe Drive Sanitar Sewers This was the time for hearing on the question of increasing assessment under Resolution No. 3063 of Preliminary Determination and of Intention to make Changes and Modifications. The City Clerk reported that one written protest had been received frorn Oscar F. Zebal, who stated that he had originally expressed willingness to approve the project :when he thought the cost would be nominal, but in view of the increase in the: estimated assessment he wished to register his objection to any action until the Monroe Park area is a part of the City of Palo Alto, when sewers might be constructed toserve the whole area at less cost. It was reported that other communications received include a letter frorrx' C. W. Ballay who favored proceeding with the installation of the sewers in spite of"thehigh cost. Mr. Ballay stated in his letter that he also favors the annexation of the'Monroe Park area to the City of Palo Alto. A petition was presented from, James Cesano, George P. Casten and C. W. Ballay consenting j to the installation of sewer service in accordance with the low bid previously received for the work, stating that immediate installation is urgently desired. The Council was informed that a communication has been received from the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors forwarding a copy of a resolution 'adopted by theBoaid on January 12, 1959, granting consent to the project. The City. Manager: reported that the assessment district for this project ;involves eight assessments and six separate property owners, and that all the: ;owners had been notified by letter of the necessity to increase assessments if ithe low bid is accepted, that replies were received from the owners'of 'seven ;parcels; the owner of one parcel did not reply; the one owner objecting to going. ahead with the project owns two parcels; the owners of all other parcels are in ' !favor of proceeding on the: basis of the increased assessment. Those in favor represent 76% of the assessed.frontage, 91% of the assessed area and. 82% of the 'total assessment cost: ,Opportunity was given to' People in the audience to speak.- There being no one who wished_ to speak on the' matter, the hearing was closed: Resolution No. 3066, ordering changes and modifications, was introduced, and on motion of Mitchell and. Navis,' was adopted: by unanimous vote. "on roll call. Resolution No. 3067, overruling protests on the Resolution of Intention, was introduced and. on motion of Mitchell and Navis, was adopted by unanimous 'vote on roll call; Resolution No.. 30.68, ordering improvements and confirrningassess- tnent,• was introduced. and on motion of Mitchell and Navis, was adopted by unanimous vote on roll call. �- - awarding the contract to the low bidder, the o :3069,, amount of h low b dd was Resolution N .. , in the wvas adopted by unanimous Oakland ed, Gon motion of Mitchell and Navis, introduced, and on motion vote on roll call. Davis came ;7:35 P.M. and Councilwoman Corcoran ;,ovxsciiman Da at sn o£ the next item.) arrived at 7:45 P.M. during discussion. Demolition of Buildin • f42 Sherman - Avenue ven e xin � on De .- _----�'- of the Building 4r� the. order set a,hearinS venue owned by This was the time at 429 Sherman A n ector, olition, of the'ouilding, wilding Inspector .fax demolition. S ,Stewart: Bottexna. Robert Pallez`xari, were sworn•. Albert mbninini. - ,The Mr • Sincanini: and Mx • g the statement concerning is in -an Inspector read a prepared which in his op - The $itibuild gap 429. Sherman Avenue. and electrical codes. condition of the of dil building at the dilap� , .. , way to abate state. 1dation and' �e feels there theana ent is on file in I advanced ctor advised that -he Nia written statement The Building Tnape thown to council t by complete demolition. , t were nuisance except ' 'Pictures: of the building p k� s office:) . .we. City Cl. r ezzaxi, members. At to Siznonini x all ortunity was .given to Mr and M. Plain M P No this time. ° to, ask.'question.s of the Building and also to council members,ber;a, questions were asked. as spokesman for Mr Council, which' is also _ residence address as 415 Lambert Avenue, Mr palle��ars then addressed the Caun bstan.ce Mr. �oallezarxi. stated that Mr. giving ]izzv Si i could al pug into Siznoniel a home hous�_s.,. Mr house at 429 Sherman. that at the time of its i gim.oaainl'feela that the needed in.that area; that. lvix • occupancy, that icompli are badly building code in effect at that tm , a large complied,with the ent in the hawse and. it represents three years co Sirrionin tion is airl ood, investor portion has .a n��riY.; g had made some alterations lessPallthanari statedree that; that improvements. M in the portion of re income; fete new. wiring ago but. agreed it tried stone a permit to put in comp et; a permit permit; that he believed demolish Mr.. but a had taxed to .g issue. him a p e ddrn t the City had refused to, made without having hou+ie.`but the ovements to make, the house. safer could be imps _ ke the it completely. spent to zr�a spent between $500.00 Councilman, Stephens asked how much vras that he p Cozen ears ago. The reply uat rent the between was alterations. about three years asked .how much. month. 600.00. Councilman 75.00 P�% and and the ,swrer was }�, `house. take action nawv w advised that the Council may The: City Attorney bmissian. getting forte ether or take the .matter index : au at 429 Sherman Avenue a the building and a nation 3070r decl tng was introduced, Resolution ngNo: c ineidirecting the o�xnser to "abate same, the resolution be adopted' n as maw a seconded bye BYXbee,.. t'ii-vas made by Mitchell, Councilman. Evans asked if the property xilding, es in the building.if. The Building, During further date ake G any Chang ring. r . could be replied that fed to make changes in the electrical and plum Giffin. workn. owner c could ?� n es. Councilxn lied that h structural cha g rmit n. but c uld rep to make any ref could not - be permitted; a. statement that he had asked for an lectric advised . that owner. Permit. 'The Building errnit- refexred to the but,was iiexu+cd a pe psfa new vri n.o owner had not applied for an electrical p a,,,la the -awn with 12' Ayes,- Rodgers as far as he kn vote, : this edonrollcall The resolution was then adept Bishop was absent during on the .motion. voting Na and Davis not voting _..,,,__..,� ...r.-------�. roll call. ----•�--w- -_'_ _ r 0 Hearii______ rxrolitirin of Boddie s San Antonio Road and Middlefield Road This was the time 'set for hearing on the , order of the Building Inspector for.' deznailihon- of buildingsowned: by Road u Mr. Paul Laming at 628632 San. Anton o I 6z0 San' Antonio Road, 636 San Antonio Road, 4260 Middlefield Road; 4262-4264 Middlefield Road and 4266 Middlefield Road. The witnesses, J. Stewart Bottetna,: Building Inspector, and Paul Laning, the owner, were sworn,_ `Mr: Laning addressed the Council stating that he had planned to rernovel the old buildings when he-Constructsa. mew building, and. had. been Working -with } the Planning Corrsmission and the Planning Department in an; develop satis"arto;ry puns Ear the use" of the pro y. ' requested nacire time in which to complete his plans, and asked for. an extension eof time of six xnontlhs in whzcb to rernoVe:;the buildings.. (A more detailed -summxzarization'of Mr.. Laning's staterrienta is on file in the City; Clerk's office.) - In answer" to aquestion froze`+ Councilman Cresap as to the length of time required to accornplish the demolition procedure, the City Attorney advise that the City has sixty days in which to post the abatement notices on the buildings;,' and the property owner has thirty days after that in which to file an action in court-to'test the -validity of the demolition order; if no court, action is filed'and the owner does. not remove the -buildings in the specified time limit, then the City has the right to demolish the buildings and charge the owner for the coat. The Building Inspector read prepared statements regarding each of the buildings in question, and presented photographs of the buildings for inspection by the Council niernbers. He advised that action to demolish the buildings and sheds on the Laning property was started by the Building Department in May, 1957, at which- time structural and sanitary deficiencies were called to the owner's attention; that since then extensions of time had been granted at the request of the owner." The Building -Inspector recommended that the Council take action to bring about 'corrxplete demolition of all buildings on the property and a general clean-up of the entire 13 -acre parcel. (The written statements of the Building Inspector regarding each of the buildings are on file in the City Clerk's. office.) It was brought out in the report and discussion that the building at 4262-4264 Middlefield Road, a duplex structure, could remain occupied if adequate electrical connections are provided and if it is connected to the City• sanitary sewer. • M. Laning indicated that he planned to move this building to an adjoining city. It was moved by Navis, seconded by Woodward, that with the exception of the building at 4262-64 Middlefield Road, all the buildings on the Laning III • property be declared a nuisance end their demolition be ordered, and that Resolution No. 3071 declaring the buildings at 628-632 San Antonio Road, 620 San Antonio Road, 636 San Antonio. Road, 4260 Middlefield' Road and 4266 Middlefield Road to be a 'nuisance and directing the owner to abate same, be adopted. Councilman Marshall moved to amend the nnotion by giving If six months in which to demolish the buildings. The amendment was sl seconded Laning 1 by Rodgers, 'The 'City Attorney advised that such action •.would require the proceedings to be started over, as" the Iaw provides that if a nuisance is ` declared, it must be abated immediately. He stated, however, that the Council 1 j could instruct the Building Department not to post the notices until the end of i the 60 day .period. Several council members opposed any deli of the buildings, and by a voice vote the amendment was lost. Yin the clemolitio� Resolution No. 3071 was then adopted on roll call, with 14 Ayes, Evans! not "voting on the motion, Resolution No. 3072,: declaring the building at 4262-.4264 Middlefield Road to be a nuisance :and directing the owner to abate same, was introduced and; adopted by unanimous vote- on roll call It was suggested that the Building Department delay the posting of the notice on said building until the endof. the 60 -day period, which would in effect give the owner 90 days in which to remove the building, Parking Meter Moratorium Attention was called to the report of Committee No. 2, presented to the Council on December 22, 19'58,recommending that the Council follow the recommendation of Downtown Palo Alto, Inc. and defer the parking meter moratorium until such appropriate time as,may be desired upon the conclusion of the organization's study and new plan of approach to the downtown Palo Alto problem, and further recommending that the refund of the off-street parking district tax assessments be considered at the end of the fiscal year. Action had been deferred by the Council until this meeting on January 26, 1959, . to give merchants and property owners an opportunity to be heard. Mr. Jess Sammon, a merchant on University Avenue, addressed the Council urging that the parking meter moratorium be started on March 1, 1959, as previously planned. He presented a petition which he stated contained 57. signatures of merchants who favor proceeding with the meter moratorium. Mr. Ryland Kelley, President of Downtown Palo Alto, Inc., also spoke on the matter, urging the Council to postpone the meter moratorium and adopt the recommendation of Committee No. 2. He submitted a list of members of Downtown Palo Alto, Inc. which included merchants and property owners of the downtown area, stating that there are 170 members in the organization. Mr. Kelley stated that the group had requested a postponement of the meter moratorium after a thorough study and review of the question; that their objective is the ,ultimate elimination of meters, but they feel that their removal should be deferred until such time as they can submit a new program for the financing and control of parking in the downtown area, and they feel that they can complete their study by,the end of the year. It was moved by Mitchell and seconded that the recommendation of Committee No. 2 be adopted and thatany further action be delayed until January 1960. Councilman Ruppenthal commented on the question, stating that every merchant he has talked to is in favor of the meter moratorium. He moved that the motion be tabled, This was lost byy'a. voice vote. After further discussion, it was moved by Cresap, seconded by Rodgers, that the motion be amended by striking out the date. This amendment was carried. Mr. Harvey Nixon, 430 Kipling Street, spokw briefly to the Council, suggesting that the parking meter moratorium be tried. A roll call vote was then taken on the motion to adopt the recommenda- tion of committee No. 2, which was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Bishop, Byxbee, Cresap, Davis, Evans, Mitchell, Navis, Porter, Rodgers, Stephens. Woodward. Noes: Corcoran, Giffin, Marshall, Ruppenthal. Contract for Purchase of Boronda Farm - Tax.a ers' Suit - Estairagairatitssa The Mayor called attention to the taxpayers' suit filed in the Santa War County Superior Court on January 23, 1959 by Fred A. Baker, Prentiss Cole, George _C. Dankwerth, Harold Kay, Gordon A. Lyons, John. G. Olson, Dean Weller and J. R. Stalder, Plaintiffs, against the City of Palo Alto, Council Members, the City Manager and Treasurer,. Defendants, for an injunction restraining the City from performing the contract with Russel V. Lee and Dorothy W. Lee for the purchase of the Boronda Farm property, and from proceeding with the annexation of, said land to the City of Palo Alto; also for an injunction restraining the defendants from using city funds to promote the,,. acquisition of said land, and compelling them to account for monies expended in the purchase and promotion of said property and requiring them to pay into the city treasury, any : sum, of money found to have been illegally expended. The City .Attorney advised that as far as he knows no one has yet been served but that he had obtained a copy of the Complaint from the Court today,. He read the allegations.,in the Complaint and commented on the charges, advisin that in his opinion the contract for the purchase of the property and the annexa- tion proceedings are entirely legal; that there is no violation of the Constitution 1. or General Laws of the State, and that the whole matter will bedetermined at the election which will be held on the referendum. The City Attorney advised that all the City can do now is to answer the allegations in Court at the time and place set by the Court for the purpose. Councilman Cresap made a statement on the question, saying that he thinks it should bo made perfectly clear that the purpose of the land acquisition is to provide park and recreation facilities for the people of Palo Alto; that at • the same timeeveryone should recognize that there is a possibility that all of the land may not be deemed suitable for the park and that there is a possibility that in the future it might be deemed desirable to relinquish a portion of the land for sale to the public for residential purposes, but the prime purpose is to acquire a site for a mountain park; that the exact size of the park and the kind of recreation facilities that are to be installed can not possibly be determined without careful, planning and consideration in public discussions. Mr. Cresap referred to the announcement previously made that the Lucie Stern Estate •has pledged $30.000 for financing a planning study. He noted the criticism made by the plaintiffs of the tours conducted by the City for citizens to see c.ne proposed park property, and stated that in his opinion it was proper ;for the City to make lands being considered for purchase available for inspection by citizens. He. remarkedthat it is interesting to note that some o.: the plaintiffs have taken the e tours. He advised, however, that he feels they should be discontinued as the City should be careful not to expend city funds in connection with a political campaign. As to the lawsuit, Mr. Cresap commented that some of the friends of the plaintiffs have stated that they are not opposed to the parkbut to the procedures;:, that he can respecttheir concern over procedures but at the same time it is hard not :to view the, suit as an attempt to deprive thepeople of Pilo. Alto of a park. Councilwoman Corcoran asked the City Attorney if it is true that individuals who make allegations in lawsuits which are false can not be held liable for slander or libel. The City Attorney replied that it is his impression that such matters alleged in a suit are privileged. Councilman Evans, noting that it was apparent that the matter would be placed on the ballot before the suit was filed, stated that the filing of the suit has to be construed as a harassing maneuver and is no credit to the people who have filed it. At this time the referendum petition filed on January 5, 1959 was presented to the Council, the petition protesting against the passage of the resolution on December 8, 1958 approving the agreement between the City. of Palo Alto and Russel V. Lee and Dorothy Womack Lee for the purchase of d requesting, that the Council repeal said nresolution municipal lor election oit zero propertyof t qualified electors at the next` general Clerk submitted a it'll the palVotelection the purpose. , The City at a special electioxx to be called for that e certifying' that, tae petition contains the signatures of more than ten per cent erta ent of the numbex:of q ualified and j egis ered" electors voting at the last . tition contained 35. sections bearing :. 1 lb5 general xxxunicipal election, ghat the�pe qualify were registered voters; that 112 signatures were signatures, of which 10 3:. insufficient, ` and that 774 signatures of registered voters were needed toq the cetition for the, ballot On:motion of Marshall and BY xbee, and by unanimuus vote on roll call,1 dthat'the: matter be placed one the ballot at the next general it was dixecte municipal election -to be held on, May 12, 1959. Letter from Central Palo Alto Residents Association A letter, was received from Ernest H. Norback, President of the oftheCentral Pal o Alto Residents: Association, stating that the Executive Committee 0 f the Association had :directed hi to inform and it is their opinion that the Council that they fully support ttse acquisition of the; Foothills Parkproject, voters will support the`: actions of the ttncorits wben att he and actioe thisted on : The Mayor commended the Association d b Ruppenthal, seconded and carried that the Mayor thank It was moved by Norback for his letter• asked why the At<this.point, Mr. Richard Towle, 3863 Nathan Way, property. ouncil. did not use a bond is B' sue for. acquisition of the oronda Farm C " Be was informed that the -city ha the funds to finance the purchase on ,a as -you -go beers, acquiring the property without over a period of several years having to pay interest. A recess was taken at this time, 9:05 P.M. , and the Council reconvened at 9:20 P.M. ) Porter left .at this time and -did not return. Vice Mayor (Mayor g• - Councilman Davis Marshall pre4ided for the rest of the xneetin also left the meeting during the recess and did not return.) Bayfront Annexation was the time set for hearing on the proposed annex'a`tion to the This City of Palo Alto of approximately 819 Acres of land in San Mateo County owned `. b the City of Pala Alto, designated` as "Bayfront Annexation". t Y that the A report was received from the City Districgt Court of City has been served with a Writ of Certiorari issued by the Appeals, Appellate. " District, ordering he Cityto be continued and for two sitfrommonths, App ested that the g further proceedings. He Bugg stating that if there has not been a court. be necessary by the continued date, a further continuance will :undoubtedly., `motion of Rexppenthal and Navis, the hearing was continued. to On April a 3, 1959 at 7:30. P. M. California Avenue Redevel ram - Amendments to ni A report was received from the Planning Commission making the recommendations its connection with the redevelopment program for following,:rcca the California Avenue area: '. _ - ... ._. a) Approval of the -, following additions to. the Zoning Ordinance: 1) Article 8C. R-5 (General Apartment District --Limited). Amendment of Sections 8C. 02 and 8C. 11 to require, all -new construction for multiple dwelling units and to establish the minimum lot area requirement. 2) Article 9C. HDA (High. Density Garden Apartment District). 3) . Article 11A. C -2-F •(Commercial Food District) 4) Article 1IB. C -2-H (Commercial Services District) 5) Article 11C.. C -2 -GM (Commercial General Merchandise Dist.) 6) Article 11D. C -2-J (Commercial Financial District) 7) Article 11E. C -2-K (Con', nercial Thoroughfare District} b) Apply zone districtsas indicated on the map entitled "California Avenue District. Zoning as Recommended by Planking Commission January 21, 1959." The. Council was informed that this report was forwarded to the Council with the unanimous recommendationof the Commission with but one exception;: that Conimi.ssionerRus voted No on the proposal to retain the M -1:S zoning for the property fronting on Page Mill Road.,;; TheCommission presented proposed ordinances amending Sections '8C:02 and 8C,11of the Zoning Ordinance and adding new Articles 9C,, 11A, 11B 11C, I ID and IlE;to.the Zoning Ordinance, and amending: the Zone Map to include zone:district$ for the California' Avenue area as recommended. motion was made by Byxbe.e, : seconded by Rodgers, that the whole matter be referred to-Committee'No. 1. The City Manager' pointed out that the construction "freeze" in the California Avenue district expires on February 1, 1959. A motion was made by Byxbee.that itbe extended;fo.r"another sixty days. There was no second to the motion. Tn, this connection.a letter addressed to the Mayor was read from 'Charles A Park,- Jr , ;'written in behalf of R. H. Appleby, Jr. ownerof the California Appliance and Electric :Sales Company of Palo Alto now located at 225 California Avenue,''stating that,Mr. Appleby bas received notice to vacate the building and hasarranged topurchase property on the north side of Birch Street east of California Avencre cin .wbichto construct a new building for his busine.ss, "and requesting:that 7irriniediate consideration be given to an application for a permit for- a -new building. Reference was made to the original ordinance (Ordinance No. 1801), declaring; an ernergency and:suspending the issuance of, building ,permits' in the California Avenue-:Developmrrent:Area which was adopted on August 1I, 1958. to• c be effective. for 120 days., and to a .subsequent :amendment extending the termi- nation date to February Y, 1959.. Several council members'_ favored proceeding with consideration of the 4. matter ' at this. time. - .A roll: call vote on the motion to refer the whole matter to Committee No. 1 was as follows:: Byxbee, Cresap, Evans, Marshall, Rodgers, Ruppenthal. Noes: Corcoran, Giffin, Mitchell, Navis, Stephens, Woodward. The motion was declared lost. 491 ♦Ned -r: +Irv„ .K.4yr._. .MM1rti::•r`wSce'::11C1^;p ... ,`1�.�'..,.. �"/M�n,"'M .. . �t .: , . .. . It was moved by ,Mitchell, seconded and carried that the Council proceed to.consider Item 27 on the agenda,the recommendations of the Planning Commission in connection with the redevelopment program. for the California Avenue area, and proposed ordinances to carry out these recommendations: It was moved by Mitchell, seconded and: carried that the proposed ordinance amending Sections 8C.02 and 80.11 and adding Articles 9C, 11A,, 11B, I I C` 11D and 1;1E of the Zoning Ordinance, and,:a proposed ordinance amending the Zone Map to apply the zone districts as shown on reap° entitled "California:. Avenue District Zoning", be accepted for first reading and, referred to Committee No. 1. It was moved by Byxbee, seconded and carriedthat the Planning Commission be invited to sit in with Committee No... 1 when it considers the matter. Councilman Woodward, Chairman of Committee No. 1, indicated that the meeting of the committee would probably be held on Tuesday evening, February 3. 1959. Councilman' Byxbee moved that the suspension of building permits in the California` Avenue Development Areabe extended from February, 1, 1959 to March 1, 1959. The City Attorney advised that such action would have to be taken'by an emergency ordinance: , Councilwoman Corcoran ;and Councilman Navis opposed the extension of the ,"freeze" to March 1, 1959, but indicated they would not --be opposed to extending it through the next Council meeting which will be held' on February 9th. Ordinance -,.No. 1828 declaring.an emergency and amending Ordinance No. 1801 to extend the termination date thereof to February 10, 1959, was introduced Of the 12 .council members present on roll call, 11 voted Aye, Evans not •voting on the motion. The City Attorney ruled that the. fact that . Councilman: Evans abstained from voting prevented a•`unanimous vote, on the ordinance which is required:; for adoption of an emergency ordinance. Council- man Evans then left the room fair a few mini.ites, and another roll call on. Ordinance No. 1828 was' taken, resulting in the unanimous vote of the 11 `Council members present, and the ordinance'was declared adopted as an emergency ordinance. (Councilman Evans returned:to the meeting at this ,time. Councilman Bishop, ,who had been absent during the entire discussion of the preceding item, also :returned and was present for the rest of the meeting.) Monroe Park Annexation A letter ;was received from the. City of Mountain View concerning annexation of the Monroe Park area and submitting maps showing the portion of the Monroe 'Park area which lows' requested permission to commence proceed- ings for the annexation to Palo Alto, the Garden Terrace area which has requested annexation to Palo Alto, the area designated as "San Antonio No. 9" adjacent to the railroad.:which the City Council of Mountain View expects to annex at its meeting this evening,- and the area along Del Medic* Avenue designated as "San .Antonio No., 10" which .is being considered: for annexation to Mountain View. The map also showed an area north of Silva Avenue and south'and west of "San Antonio -No. 9" and it was .stated in the letter from the City -Manager of Mountain View that it is understood people in this particular area wish to come into the tity of Mountain View and will probably start the circulation of petitions for annexation to Mountain View in the near future. It was noted that some of this area overlaps the area involved.in the Monroe Park Annexation now being considered for annexation to Palo Alto. . • It was "moved by "Creaap, seconded by Rodgers, and carried that this matter be referred, to Committee No. l • 491 Corrirnuter Parkin Agiletter was received from the Peninsula Commuters Club opposing the =proposal of the Southern Pacific Company to ;:barge commuters, for parking in.. the station parking lots,: and asking City and County officials to take a definite stand toprevent this action. The City -Manager advised that the City has received.no information from, the Southern Pacific Company on the proposal. It was moved by Ruppenthal, seconded by Byxbee, and carried that the matter be referred to Committee No. 2," with the request that the City Managerask the Southern Pacific Company to notify the City in advance if they decide to take some action' relative to charging commuters for parking. Willow Roae-Sand Hill Road Highway A letter was -received from the County Manager of San Mateo County transmitting copy of resolution adopted by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors urging the•addition of the Sand Hill -Willow Road,connectiorr to the State Highway Systemon a new State Highway. route. This letterwas placed on file. A communication was receivedfrom the County Executive of Santa Clara County advising that the presentation of the final report of the Santa Clara County Trafficways Survey by De Leuw, Gather ,and Company will be made on Tuesday, February 3, 1959, : at 7:30 P.M. in the Chambers, of the Board of Supervisors in San Jose and suggesting that one or more representatives of the. City attend the meeting. The City Manager advised that some staff members expect to attend. Sow -Cost Housing. Letters were received from the Women's Alliance of the Palo Alto Unitarian Church and from the United Church Women of Palo Alto and Menlo Park, recommending that a survey be made to determine the housing needs of low-iricozne>groups,: including .senior citizens and minority groups; that a housing , inve;tory'be made to determine; availability of adequate housing units, and that the Mayor's Committee on Low -Cost Housing be re -activated and that its membership be:`broadened. The City Manager' advised that the block statistics information. authorized -:by the Council last November to be acquired in connection with the 1960 Federal census Will provide such information on housing at_that time. • Reference was made to, previousauthorization given to the Mayor to enlarge theCommittee on LowCost Housing, and to the fact that the Inter -City Council, had been requested to study the, matter as an area -wide problem. Councilman Ruppenthal suggested that the Mayor be:,asked to:give a report on the status of the question at the next Council meeting. It was pointed out that the Mayor's Committee had, not been dismissed. it; was agreed after brief discussion;, to request the Mayor to give a report on this matter at the next meeting. 1;iCliar A,iCeYlBe; I.aw: A letter • was received from Dr._ and Mrs. J. R O ermiller, 104 Loma Verde Avenue, requesting the Council to oppose' any change in the State "law prohibiting the sale ,of liquor within one and one-half miles of a university` campus, and stating- that -they fe:el::the:xequest of liquor license holders ,who. will be affected; 'by the expansion of the Stanford campus boundaries should not be: granted. It was zxzoved by Rodgers, seconded and: carried that the 'letter be filed: Cancellation of Taxes on State Property A communication was received from the State Division of Highways requesting cancellation oftaxes on portion of Lot 9, Block 6, Seale Subdivision No. 5, acquired by .the State for highway purposes. It was moved by Byxbee, seconded and carried that the taxes on said property be : cancelled. Cancellation'of Taxes on .Flood Control District Property, A request was received from the Santa Clara County Flood Control District for cancellation of taxes on the Peters property on Barron (Dry) Creek, acquired by the District for flood control purposes..; It was moved by Mitchell, seconded by Bishop; and carried that the taxes on said property be cancelled. Fencing of Creeks Councilman Byxbee stated that hP °ha:s noticed that the Flood Control District has novas yet fenced some of the creeks or canals. He referred particularly to Matadero Creek between. Cowper Street and Middlefield Road which is an unfenced area. He moved that the City: Manager be directed to contact the Flood Control District to determine their program forfencing the canals., The motion was seconded by .Bishop. The City Manager reported that he had contacted officials of the Flood Control District some weeks' ago; that it takes some time to carry on the required procedure ' of writing: -;specifications taking bids and having the fence. construction work accomplished, and that Mr. Donald Currlin, Manager of the. Districthad assured him that the_, work is beingdone as fast as they can expedite it. In view of.'.. -his report, ;the:inotion.was withdrawn. Annexations to Mountain='View' Notices from the County;:Boundary Commission of proposed annexations of Middlefield, No. 9. Stierlin No. 1,3 -and San Antonio No. 10 to the City of Mountain View, were receiver and filed. Letter from City of -Sunnyvale re.Fire Services A "letter,: was received froth. Mayor Frederick A. Boomer of Sunnyvale expressingappreciation for the cooperation received from the Palo Alto Fire Department during the;; recent fire at the Libby plant in Sunnyvale. Transfer' of -Funds ::The Assistant City Manager, advised:= that a transfer of funds in the amount of $16,,500 from, the unappropriated balance of the Equipment Fund to Account:901-99:.is recornmended::for.the reason that police cars are to be purchased at this time instead'of -'acquiring. the. cars ;on a contract basis. On rnotion of,Mitchell ;and ~_Byxbee, this transfer of funds was authorized by unanimous vote. on roll call. Flood:''Basin Enlarsement Annexation '. The. City Manager presented a proposal for the annexation to the City of Palo Alto: of X1..77 acres ;.of uninhabited territory at the south end of the .flood basin, for the purpose of.enlarging the flood basin, advising that the property involved was recently transferred from. Los Altos to Palo Alto. A report has b en received front :the "County Boundary Commi s sion as to the definiteness and certainty of the' boundaries. Resolution No.' 3073 giving 'notice of the proposed annexation of certain uninhabited territory to the City of Palo Alto, designated as "Flood Basin Enlargement Annexation" ,and giving_ notice of hearing to be held on March. 23, 195% was introduced, andan rnlotion of Mitchell, duly seconded, was adopted by unanimous vote on', roll ::call. ;.. 493 Permit to FloodCentral District for Matadero Bypass througrh Stanford Lands The City Manager: recommended approval of a' permit to the Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; to use .nd,occupy for ,atorzn drainage purposes a certain easement granted by Stanford University to: the :City of Palo. -Alto lying between El Camino Real and, the lands of the ;Southern'Pacific Company, construction to be accomplished.only after prior approval of .the plans"by the City Engineer. A resolution authorizing the xnayor to execute this permit was introduced,: and on motion of Mitchell and Byxbee, was adopted by unanimous vote on roll call: Agre'enlent with State Division of Highways he City Manager presented a:'Utilities Agreement between the City of Pa]o Alto ad the State Division of Highways covering the cost of relocating a portion of the City's water and gas facilities adjacent to the Embarcadero- Oregon-Bayshore interchange. " A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute the agreement was introduced, and on motion of Byxbee and Mitchell, was adopted by .unanimous vote on roll call. Purchase'of Boronda Farm Property Attention was called to a recommendation on the agenda from Committee No.' 3: that no action be taken on the letter from John A. Sinclair and Ervin. S. Best, attorneys representing a group of taxpayers, demanding that the Council rescind the contract for the purchase of the Boronda Farm property. Action to place the matter -on the May ballot was taken by the Council earlier in this meeting. Councilman Ruppenthal commented on the matter, and moved that Committee No. 3 be requested to study the possibility of putting a bond issue, at no interest, on the May ballot for the purpose of completing the entire purchase of the property, the bonds which would bear no interest to be given to Dr, and Mrs. Lee for payment in full of the contract. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Corcoran; but was lost by the following vote on roll call: Ayes: Bishop, Corcoran, Evans, Giffin, Rodgers, Ruppenthal. Noes: Byxbee, Cresap, Marshall, Mitchell, NaVis, Stephens, Woodward. Organization Memberships and Conference Attendance A report was received.'froxn Committee No. 3 recommending that the City of Palo Alto take out"xnembership in the American Municipal Association, the United States Conference of. Mayors and the National Municipal" League in the "next fis,cal;year, and further recammending that six council".members and the mayor; be authorized to attend; the nationalconference of the American Municipal Association, 'than six council xnernbers, and the mayor be authorized to attend the;`aniiiaa,l meeting of the .United; States Conference of Mayors, and that t o co ncil-members be authorized to attend the annual conference.of the' National Municipal ,League;transportation expense for attendance at . such conferences to be figured it the equivalent of first class air fare. On motion of Cresap and Woodward, the recommendation was adopted. A report_ was received from Committee' No. 3 recoznznending that an Assistant City' A.ttorneybe employed, at the discretion of the City Attorney, whenever he can reasonably obtain one: On City Doti°�of C;. Att, me xesa' an. iii$° Y «'a8 authp d Rodgers, ,, Tz+nca stud xlzed toe she rnployean:ass recommendation u'as a McLauxiri x m'ttee t, adopted and a Mr recommendations A o. on their it Charles �.., of the .Palo ax insiirarzc had review, Flinn, of servicing t b Insurance Ass, and the ed the submitted of A4ri 1? That th o e A a y, an i th nalysis Mid, :e e,rage if tx zeal substati nd recommended a by at tie ° fire Bete, ioed foll nsura 00. would-be �"� f: substations included in $o,ff a insurahcer an purposes. electrical the fire insurance the sewage Puxposes. Thexcfalls thitc@ rha ��'► at prey 8 disposaliLatl plan dual pxe�zusn the 3) That to $5 bodily injury $183..00, per year. be tredwith exA10 00 Y liability szOn insurance 4) T OJO/$1 Opp+ 00. Y limits on nee hat false chicle damage e limits e''�ir li of $25, 000/$50,000. pp covexage b b zxzCrea$e ) That the limit" /$S0, 000; a not increase beyon d. $50, 000 �'°z1�x c4ve,.•� d the present increased from $25, 000 'Gtz y.eax* in t}e. on af:Gx with l �. esaA and ourzt of S10. 0 ayes' a an , kitchell� t 0' at rite t e to"�nzn,` r�, $ not voting orecommendations recd report. zna motigntl were m�en,d• sSubm itted by the s,mzla�. be ame�ded" -. x`on $; p2 t Plan .. ac to { i of • nzra �+� axip,�e �cs$oxy �, �e9�axrb the Muni �' Com�.xlzssi e sidec iciaing8 b tha.t stab ` ng Ordzn �'�' aai ndd accordingly, a1a�c a n4. cl les, ba= aace +vug; c z8li. hat $oct;azi g 44th 40 feet chi ce 4usn� * to'� , `P� arn Zamng O ff,°posed `ordi Pert i A tb?`H a � prQAert d all. E s : oax�ce nonce x?i tz,ict Y line. .accepted for fi t reading.': atxoduced amending Sections s be Zvarzn. of �� hills � �1n8 � � on n7`at�b� ,�� � pAexz and 18' 04 °,f A tlzal the A "�'"`", �exatian and $Yxo , A zoned P Aortian of , s received �,`''` t that this ' and the ;xeoot e A 2 O the 1P4I, z.ec i3 z° g be $7 zaza; n ire taon iwta; n,8 Cc, . s dAr nsz er �t8 b,� .. _; being , oned..ee z axe. ith-;. ed`as an zoned .- g ai it ii- xaco e s Ct t s t h azb . # espeet to ; inteeit ie re axad ; , otninit1 nding +eweg� ci cider s Me a Aortia,.the lzaesxbil$asoty f a g}i he re Q City be a Aosak lac sizes 'hnich naa ,area and iuir d b u a$in z1 p Vining No. 1 -dl A propoac ¢ Y re9uir� b 1t -respect ;'� agriculture O first eaa g introduced, z ahcc ea abli.$h. y the i»obie d r d. referred. , n d on motion f . thty zo z corrimitts of &" of °°thins Ta, i. zdNavisi w A nezWti as acccPted for Rich univex sit park '� lliatiVe 1,A. portion."Block bl mending �.....-,- Commission recommending Tc �.... the Pla ng Gomm $, Bach covexm� submitted by Pa° sal report was :xeceiued" fzarzi a s the prop° A. _ subdivision p ark. 'axrluch. tend to of, the;te?�tativt.. University Park, which ward �sapprava.L.. 3, Block' u.l � sidey vote was a atbs 'substandard lots with insufficient explained that .the d creete substan commission exp } wain _ area. The Planning 1 downgrade :the carried. that 6' to.t' far denial. b Byxbee► and nthal► seconded y held and carried that ved by 13.uPF'� Comsnisaion be up It was:? 'o Planning mendatao�a of the ,,,the,recaxn disapproved nCe �e g adding new 'p - �_�- the; Building Code by d on emotion of 1829 ending aecc+nd .ream&' call. Inca : o. was given,second aril • Ord. A,srdaxnes ,u;ayaa,s�caua.vote_Q3?,. ,te.r 61 ry' cored s adopted by Gapers, seconded, •'�'!a.. i Rodgers; duly rnielr.a a �s., Mellish and. Me cl;�,ixn £i1ed. 1 Claims for n'am Attorney concerning 00, b reason. C e po _' c the city t o f $42 i g from the asnoun � pool and:: ark was. �receivedll damages in _ at cony A yep �.ell,ish for dressing room did not appear ark,. ell in ,the that,there re_ Onchipped behalf two , e-, Vie C Attorney advised tha d knowledge t tae. slxpp .: e' City of :the fa Vie City which the' a ' d fxcrnt',teraor _: condition of denim. chipp emus or defective recommended to is ca sed _ .. d he t filed by he inah�.ry, . an " claim f2►11 which Gaused t submitted a report regarding In a.: also subxn damages. incurred � there l The City pho ney of $200, 00 for that in his rred.n fall the:amount ,. Alder enu in: 233. fie advised he recommended AP[xa uo 3n opposite No. tram of public property, and Avenue i an � apo. or defective ,condition was ria dangexaus City Attorney o claim reports of the denial :f the enthal, the On motion .of. g,odge r,s :and RuPF accepted„and both claims denied. were Ge13itti of Dams e s claim of the Sct, fax Gollectic+n Attorney concerning of $288.13 i the City light ey in the concerning c Allstate io art was received from a to: p carrier, A . sep Cellitti for . datnaB her insurance , 11.?. 33 in f'il'l . �,as, n t Rosemary p d. 14e adv�,sed that ft in the amount of are City against a their : dsa in his opinion they which has, not "been: Pa tendered. stated that to its former ny► hie.. Attorney 1]ation he be Innuranc� Gaxor The City restoring the insta ended that claim. coat .of settlement of the comp1etG' 285. I3. �,e recommended' be further condition,: responsible valued. at ,$of the full amount. and the fairly" insurance coznpanY• , Which:is callcction to the condition► t for in settlement authorizedto file. $ draft offered + s report was to return the the City Attorney and to file suit - authorized d Byxbee, t offered of� Rodgers an the amours Or.h,atian to return he .mss ;e;uthoxiyed. acceptedn�- af the' claim • t for collection" I in the i o f Helm Git . relative tO the trig, 1 Gase City Attorney with the in connection submitted .bY the vin a claim s indicated ° was that the Court h been elarri.report s. city, N° I0422$' advising has not y of g . oad in 19'49, s and judgment have cast of ,M. efiel�d however finding in the near future. dead o 'in. nt orb ', but he rriattexwshOuld be concluded ; . $ec�s d but t , signed or •esitexe• +' The City Attorney presented a report relative to the case of Talbot vs: ;; y, No: :1©1642:, in:whichthe .plaintiff,claimed that the City, in connection with the California: -Avenue parking .diatrict, acquisition;' had interfered with parking rights which, the plaintiff had -acquired as a declaration of restriction under the "SU District parking regulations. The City' .Attorney advised that Judge Menard has indicated agreement that. the City did not interfere with any rights of the" plaintiff but formal findings' and judgment have not yet been entered. Upon:. recommendation of the City Attorney, it was moved, seconded and carried that the City:Attorney be authorized to waive costs in return for a stipulation waiving findings of, fact and conclusions of law. BeerLicense,, Lee Bros.. Market A report was received from the City Attorney advising that the Alcoholic •Beverage Control Appeal Board has issued a decision affirming the decision of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control granting a license to Lee'Bros. Market for the sale_of beer in their market in Town and Country Village Shopping Center. The City Attorney advised that in his opinion there are :no.grounds upon which the City; could effectively attack this decision in court, and unless he is instructed ..otherwise by the Council, he would not attempt to proceed any further in the matter. The Council accepted this report and took 210 further action. Cancellation of Taxes' - Palo Alto Society of Friends A report was submitted by the City Attorney recommending that the Commercial Officer be directed to cancel the outstanding tax in the amount of $169.'88;upon .the current tax bill of the Palo Alto Society of Friends, on the grounds that this tax was illegally assessed in view of the fact that the Supreme Court; of the United States has held unconstitutional the California law requiring thesigning of loyalty oaths by churches claiming tax exemptions. On motion of Byxbee and,Ruppenthal, the Commercial Officer was authorized to cancel said taxes by unanimous, vote on roll call. Claim of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation for Refund of Taxes. The claim of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation for refund of taxes in the sum of.$788. 13 was referr.'ed' at the last meeting to the City Attorney. He submitted a• report advising that the Mate Supreme Court has recently ruled that.a. county or city::i.s prohibited frorn taxir:g''a possessory interest in personal, property owned"by the Federal Government, and inasmuch as the taxes collected from-;Lockheen" :Were:,on'equipment leaped from the Federal. Government, the Citv'Attoxney "recornrnended:that the claim for refund in the sum of $788.13 be allowed And..paid ;> " On'motion of Byxbee and Rodgers; the recommendation was accepted and the refund of taxes vas authorizes by unanimous vote on roll call. 'Left T�iYn:'Sarynals, Embarcadero:and El ,Camino Real Councilwoman Corcoran asked what procedure is necessary to obtain the installation Of lef -torn=signal's at Embarcadero Road and El Camino "Real. It was pointed out.thatthe State hac: jurisdiction over this intersection, but the Matter could`be' investigated by the Traffic Committee. It was tnoverl":by Mrs.- Corcoran, seconded and carried that this matter he referred to the Traffic Committee 491 Council, to pox befp a t1le ss x�o.uxthex bu�x��35'. e d rie t � 0 ��cr .besn� a ed aQu� d � meeting was • 1 • ,MICROFILM.: REPRODUCTIONS CONSTITUTE THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MZ� MUTES: OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO. (AUTHORITY: GOVERNMENT CODE 34090.5) 9 .S)