Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout041319591, Paio °n this Tile C April. a/959 is fol date, at c`iIof ►,195.9 1��'ws 7.; 3p p.. ehe city of Ar _ with $y$12, or ?� ta in r went ieh°P, x• Presiding. all session h By beep 11 a a` all, luz t Corcoran, tha"I'• Ste c'hell, t'an, Davis t'yJlen� '3V2a , , aexzt: axe$ "WoodwardY' 1P�or fet.y fiodns, Gxffiu, A s, I{uAFzx �PPx °Ved mute as zetrlbUtd, "tbe -meeting of March 31, 39gg+ were atih + a 2 This ;against tha:P�,a was t`2�= tixr °thxli8. �° d an a"fob continuation g a k t t r o;, tnn exation of the ha o the he Iast x�tib . was inhabited hearing of :protests date, ie Called area date, It'u,s which official" p aethe fact that szgnated as eats L�tcran Arz1 13D 19:S reported that written ° sts could be Pril 10, The l• 'i fte filed. Se CIA ri1.13 xer,, owner 'rt'4 11i'axnie btul/en, 419 were consider heY advised °f the L' en, 19z received considered' official$ep that this ejette l Canli:xa.lton this , :protests. these were filed a1, ar, On �otx° °f "Rodgers$, a too late ado�Y. d an d not ,,,�n��ade, $nd �utlon;.N�Y �4$ d BYxbee, the hear rail nation No. calling o. el 85, finding, that hearing Was closed. value of llin an tion:in`th no..tna . been An that the value ,aka Incl r introduced. Thig territory erx /utio clecl res rity protest has °r veto °f #h uded wit err avis $708,750.00, as called for �° APz•iI -lp a land fxo Within thc. -err tlution'declax s F°othill8; On or Jerre ri , '1959; °i,s, 0 w�hic,h thatt,a speo.rycial l election n that the and to x•s the 1959,, k, $p, pn- errs h the city Propoeitb "Shall " a s ave been, " z es0lttt Y of palo n Shall'' territory, Pecial ele received ele xa was ado Altos?,� c>csthills Y, submixtin ctzon is Pted b motion .Annexation 8 to the $a front by a irate, zt�hell and $` 2 be annexe �attla,� - a roll call. 28hoP, this d raC Ian In S Mat hearing o t as '�$a eo Co he proposed .•to th'$_ datnt cxt © °wed byh annexationCity of 819 act" continued 1° Alto es of and 'o . e advi� ued from J'an designated i �goers,::; thia:.m� ��,the CxtY Atto ary 26� l9S 5 R d �r xn az.. eY 2Sy' 1959, at 7:3� continued' to the an mctxor� �, de P. reuiak f yxbee � xerr��� meeti io hjo ng of the the iota ' : 1tesPzutxo to cue of, Intention e. lido, . 3O8 x�kt°t"Y .Qe n at2 to ac no affidavit off:; II'?Iatc,d a$ cIrculate s'`'1edf te, Pub1i Garda IaetitxAn g receiiion N t of tx�n, -was intr d� � ther�Ofn Terrace for .e annexation of' of -A arid col. apPro�;iri Annexation ?�o o f. pet A•rnotiOn wait ,*lade the circulation it c //;' +e by ,'z tc,h a txoaz f the ,. eII,' seCon e ii In reply to a question from Councilwoman: Corcoran regarding plan for access to the area, Councilman Woodward, Chairman of Committee No. 1, and the City Manager advised that it was their understanding as a. result of the discussion by the committee that consideration of a bridge across Adobe Creek would bets dropped inasmuch as annexation of the Monroe Park area has :berth' eliminated from proposed annexation proceedings, and it was feltthat access to the Garden terrace area can be had from El Camino Real as at present. Mrs. Corcoran stated that she was concerned that other adjacent, areas might be taken into Palo Alto later, and felt that it would be advisable to make a condition that if access by a bridge iio provided later, the property owners in the Garden Terrace area would be required to pay their share of the cost. Mr. Frank Madison,, spokesman for the proponents of the Garden Terrace 1-A annexation, was present and told the Council that he does not believe the matter of a bridge concerns. the people in Garden Terrace, :pointing out that the location of the proposed, bridge was outside the Garden Terrace area and that the people in "that area should riot . asked' participate - -- After discussion,. itVwas moved by Mrs. Corcoran, .seconded 'by Rodgers,' and carried by a voice vote, that it be the intention- of this; Council that if::additional territory is annexed in this general area or adacent to the Garden Terrace 1-A annexation, the colt of a bridge for'access`:to the entire area be:shared=by both the ,present°Garden .Terrace 1-Aannexation and future annexation areas. Resolution' No. 3086 approving the circulation of the petition in theGa.rden Terrace No. 1-A area was then adopted by the following : -vote on roll call: Ayes: Bishop, Davis, Evans, Giffin, Mitchell, Porter, Rodgers , Stephens , Woodward . Noes: Byxbee, Corcoran, Marshall, Nevis, Ruppenthal. Councilman Evans asked if there is a report on discussion. with officials of the City of Mountain View regarding annexations in the Monroe,Park area. The City Manager advised that this matter had been discussed with Mountain View representatives; that Mountain View has taken inseveral small portions of the Monroe Park area and plans other' annexations inthatterritory under the Uninhabited Territory Act, Stanford Annexation No. 7 A petition was received from Stanford University request- ing the annexation of a parcel of uninhabited territory of 1.:395 acres locatedat: V�lillow Road :and Pasteur; Drive. ` It was explained that these roads' have been 'widened and the annexation involves oily the roadway.` Resolution No. 308.7,giving notice of the proposed annexation of ;this area, b be designated as !'Stanford University Annexation. No 7", and setting May 25, 1959, as date of hearing, was introduced, and on;motion :of;Nevis and Byxbee, was adopted by unanimous vote- on roll call: Annexations to Mountain View Notices were received from the .Santa Clara County Boundary Commission of proposed annexations to the City of, Moozitaxn View, "_designated' as San Antonio No. 12, Orrnonde No: Or/sic/tide No Z'and 1vlirldlefield No. 10. Annexation to Menlo: Park A notice was received; from the San Mateo County Boundary 'Commission of the proposed annexation to the City of Menlo Park of an area north and west of the Santa Clara.County line lying northeast- erly of lands of the City of Palo' Alto, East Palo Alto, and Menlo Park, to the Alameda County line. A claim was filed by Paul H Brink, Treasurer of the Palo Alto Friends Meeting, for refund of taxes paid under protest in 1956,-1957 and 1958 in the total amount, of $200.26. It was moved `by Rodgers, seconded and carried that this matter be referred to the City Attorney. The City Manager reported that communications have been received from the Governor's Office, Senator Thompson, Assembly_, man Bradley, Assemblyman Allen and the Director of the Department of Water -Resources, acknowledging receipt, of a copy of Resolution No. 3083 adopted by the Council on March 23,' 1959, requesting allocationof monies; for .extension of the South Bay Aqueduct.. Senator Thompson's, letter advised that he had, been able to secure an;, allocation of $99,000 in the Senate, and Assernbly budgets to continue the work on the'South Bay Aqueduct. The letters from, the Director of the Department of Water Resources and the Assemblymen expressed support of the request for allocation of funds for this project. Rea ortionment of Su ervisorial Districts Communications were received from the. City of. Mountain View and the City of Los Altos with copies of revolutions adopted by their City Councils relating to the reapportionment of supervisorial representation andexpressing their desire for such reapportionment, and: urging the City Council of Palo Alto to adopt a similar resolution. It was, noted`that this subject has been given a great deal of publicity in the newspapers, and .that the Chambers of Commerce of the various cities have beenurged to cooperate in studies and recommendations as to the proper realignment of the supervisorial districts. Councilwoman Corcoran pointed out that two proposals have been -made, - one is to realign: the boundaries of the five districts and the other is :toelect two members at large. She advised that she is. i,n Favor of a reapportionment or realignment of the boundaries of the districts_ but notthe other proposal. After` discussion, it was moved by Navis, secondedand carriedthat the ,City Attorney draft an appropriate resolution representation in the 'supervisorial should,.be a re "` .. districts and belief that there,,: districting � of the boundaries so that the population of the districtswould be ;approximately ,equal. the resolution to ' presented to the Council for action at its next meeting. be APL -CIO Atthis time, .. Mr. John. E. Thorne, an attorney of San ' Jose, spoke to the Coun�cal representingPalo Alto Local Nos 1319 of the international Association of Firefighters, that he had sent a letter. to City Co the AFL - CIO. : He Stated to addreea•t.he;-Council this' evenxng. The Mayor u:a¢il requesting an opportunity replied to Mr.. Thorrie`s.Ietter`ad sing him of the1 ©ns�stan;li d that he had policy of the Council not to recognize `outside representation.for its employees, but to channel all recommendations and requests through the' Palo Alto M"inicipal Employees'. Association., and calling attention to the procedures available to employees g Association, the Personnel -',Officer and the hCity $M Mathe nager, and suggest- ing that. i£ he had `anything to submit for, the bere#i't of the City that g arrange for an appointment with the City Maz,ager. he Mr. Thorne stated that he felt he should discuss the matter with the 'legislative body itself. Councilman Navis advised that at isnot proper for him to approach. the Council without following the established procedures, and that .Mr. Thorne should be -asked to discuss the pr,ahlezxi with the: Cit. � Manager and Personnel Officer. Mr:. Thorne stated that he wishes of the union, organization being recognized by he Council discuss the question at"can represent the firemen in discussion of their so that it represents all the local firefighters' unions in Santa Clara Cou nty. antt he y. It was moved by Navis, seconded by Mitchell, and carried; that Mr. Thorne be asked to discuss this matter with the City Manager, and that the City Manager., after that discussion report to`Coxnrnittee No. 3 so that an a 'can be made, to the Cit Ppropriate recommendation y C.ounci 1. Bids on Boat Launchin Ram A report was made by the City Manager on bid received on April 10, 1959 for the construction of a boat launching ramp for the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor`, with the recommendation that the • low bid of $16,492.00 from R W. Stutz of Palo Alto be accepted. The City Manager called attention' to the available funds from Coup and City sources for work at the Harbor) and advised that the; Count is agreeable to awarding the contract to the low bidder , y On motion of Bjxbee and; Bishop, the bid of R. W. Stutz was accepted and the Mayor was authorized to sign the contract. Bids for Sale of Bualdin The City Manager reported that no bids were received on April 10, 1959 at the tame set for the. sale of the building::'or- building materials. at 983 �An1irzl;lr, Avenue -building has-been condemned as a public nuisance, and explained that��'tCrt was required to take bids �o s � and that the; City. can now take steps tohave the building ;demoY demolng been ished. the City the �'hQ; Staff 'City College wl fic 'Co Mager PreSe <•� _ , Ourbetween qua:between mzttee �ted tf '9:700.4.k. fic A °erz'tte toCarrestrict a o ° x and ino Real parking ax, t eod com making the c0 '9:7 . 4 6:40 P.M., Sun Stauat d� north side i Court to e e y ' considered a s ax t time 1 witArv ' :: fl8 days and Consideration a ewe f the h Avenue for rCh u a it, Re also o hours instead f of irni/ r given the matter Ir ��s t 1'atweer� Coll �� � that s � 1ar ag m $to. x��lude .8b��� to the agreed� defer i d Can�$ridgeaCtx°n het d to the diet for further consideration atioluti tb.Q�e�Q�� : C�lle�'e �tl'�d�exatiah and investigation* and to refer to on x4 m 3955 PaZ.k aaa�. Cambridge in �}zesti c '. $atio e ev .-x study. eat C �z II the `Council �f Kitchell ark p �ect � d bez'�r 8 ., ace adopts. at' glut X24 Th =1�ort�pre d c�nv d � ;::; ' °f ��i.tt ,. er t o,z.i io x°, s ','t t property �' svas tract property at 3955 ' thy. a rt3' was at th �,s Park ed }or to? R'�1oariou $l3, 5p. ©" that t� price rxy a evxd, at to' ,,budgeted Th y Cad" .Tra received by the $'a� �+e��� for the city '�axz� �� gszr,,� of tie ahsmxssi rzel catz der reported that Seale lire f the at a8 Ca s'Y1n Waoste '�° that Y X?aci fi,C , e a4 n present,$=£aPac=i� ' . Oster' ranad � �''`zll �Q G,a�, and z, present/y.' .e ' t th Whz.c le°7 e Elect, . ntly or cat� ci -u a near f x t° be, r be � he l zc Co h . , ti4�1; 44 Under the ut��.e; that z�Pravc � the ch Company's relaca a ' and that bridge W, at to low d fax x ax0,; 1° 8 th'e' 1�nQ . the Co °uld ca p the eatbr A1tfl►g 3 m cost line wails i shat,,. in. ,�°��� Pazzy proposes an estimated in zts ci e/Ocated t oftl'e co easement Pose$ to solve $d3, E�eCtr ha.ta, st estimated aid, Iva 444: o,bt ;o A fozc C° re letter'had been mated to be $°inb" over the Arable . (1l he 'niP.e dot ggestang that received 'frorn the 5p4� a4. the rcrcbe gum.o :: t40 -Noy Pxeizm.inax acifzcaa$°nCxi subjectto negotiation � e'eC��d 3a8$, a orizatxan . be, to r�:xzttea : $°tza o $8, ; 4p. OQ agreeing ir, $ecanded C°tract; fo ° details' a' the City's to Was Ct;:foanI, !�!,s introduced, nt odu ed, an s ,share of the payment agreement e G°lde Cats by iinay� auuv4 d, a or, d reducingproject, '�Itztlar, � on motion, tl,er ea:f;' roll ca//. 'duly ,asked guidance b rThe IrY Manager 41ah e eC $rte ale to leile fro eived zegar Ported that x'a�tttr "• It was � the Cot .dx�g� the . a great mov 2cil 'ow these man be nd carriec? that the referred ed b. as to n fat y cd red_to Co 3' Rodgers', , how tbes e Aat�Qri ' xzca: 4an Zone Ch xZxytt�e `sec°ztded � �ettcxs h_Y, and. �an' 3. 24 Rinconada A report Avenue ., ,a f ..x�ouej Port was be, , Y re a a received tol-"� and, lW rter. at-144,hdY�'B that from the ,, It ,ll- tner 4g .tiincaaadathe rear 75 ing a portion Cam tie '� Pro ,. South . ,,4t,ao IOp mis i ..c��,e:rhianR� wed oxdr��P'�1c ,qlt° Ad@� berg a fe�t of the o,� as aCcePted afo zFe e d'n$ t} be rez °f L t propqty first xeadig°z'e MaP tad from.lt-i: ..,,., Axpvide f . ► 1°"` Ganszx�xssiof from the Planning . a „ ceea and: report was xeGe� dc appeal of .s of the Bonin$ xe. ending that d bat peatheldecision o Odell. =' 1`and: i ,sly itioney.b denied ee Permit dran dox1 . be rant i g:.a`u Grant Monde" e Mrs. " Julia held Yx► g: , +� 291. Gx a to all w the or be ,' or tuary a to allow the location af'a ' Avenue area d from the California. at the 1�xopose s 'received f out that a mortuary ,terue A letter `�'a oi;nting rtuar rat h request ssociation ' stpr plan for the had made 'kxls - iyaxat � " ihe�:�''a .. . , licari x�y in. 1area; p contrary to: that the app of the property tidn. ie xea%xed t rezoning e . ter plan be,. Coca they recent as $r area; however = xiax, . °� to the,use, pexmit, p : that strict adhe�r th fax :They. aaed , ls in8• the,, queatian.., 3lfuture p �a srs, that c e 1 t1 aed wlth n :a �aded by. consideration. %bee= sesc� they C0 It wawa:roved by m,ittee No• 1 for fi the nside ati gyred to Committee Mr . McClure, been pexxdl'o8°fox tier ,be' f a attorney fax ;�,ttex has a and -not ma x vin a Coo ' = that the at this time for e x<; a tit, stating L be acted �n to Goxnxn -addressed , Months s and that it the question s anasSkii► to refer . eral ,onth The motion' aev cd further be d;;e1�y � a voice vote . Mitchell, Ne. 1 was lost by all. seconded �y the Planning Quad' by z<'iax shall, endaton at then z?r` . te that ,the recozn� granted. e- b" a voice ° that: the use permit be ,d.caxxx. Go issicsn be upheld an • Sichlex 8ornes Ma , sion Tentative ,Subdivision aLei issaon. poxtiOn,' Lo . , the.. Planning Gax division:. ' ��,s submitted of the tent o£ Latg 80 through. A report endingapproval ;� ions off. in portions Middlefield R recommending ec Inc.covering tween unanimously - generally be Creek, r`xom�e ° haCated�: g venue and ray map of Eichler �,; 'Verde A Wooster �1 T between $7 = 'wQO$ d betweGt' 1-'a and and Ross R seine g these e stibject to: dad an nts for electric easements to yea ° a) Providing servic detailed layout hs ee chooses between be't`F► vsce ► the subdivic,er telephone service, wor'�d out service. to be underground sex overhead it'd axd setbacks d 10 -foot sidey Alternate 6 an e W back cu - Lots 47 , 8 Lots �5f 16, 17t 23, 24, 2.5 n 72, 73 and 74. Lots 14= .15, to 61, 68= ,iq, 50 and 5 �. Lots it was moved. and .discussion, it wa moved, nce with After review of the map be appxOved 'lr ' . tk►.st"the map g Commission. carried the the rather a"1.5 -foot . x following x than b) f ontyar d setback de Sac lots: e -c) Allowing standard nand and ca. of the Planning et and emendation Alms, Stx e.. xeca of Eichler Iloxn.e s eyelo•.mex►tplan. Gamxxrisstian.. xeenm ea • ow- Planning Plan received. £xQ�, thG p �G Development fez of A:report as -,} to 2 that the the evelo xly . . a voce of property an of Lot cr 'Ka by Inc. for the. prop eit,g a portion with a Almarn d ea.ao`� 'Way, wilts, and s of of 'Eichler 'Karnes, Gse�� fox a total of �7 'An within g0 �'�' Ada Street -and a be ,approved. to Mart Tract= . :.:. le for const7resction Y;;oicks k1edu development .sc Council approval and completion 'within one year thereafter. The proposed plan was reviewed by the Planning'Officer.. On motion of Mitchell and Woodward,: the plan and development. schedule were approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Planning Cormniasion Lot:.Division 3121 Rosa Road A report' was submitted by the Planning. Commission unanimously reco=nrnending :approval of the application of Edith 'Elmore ,for -a division of a,, portion of Lot 113, Wooster Subdivision known as 3,121 Ross- Road, thereby overruling the Planning 'Officer's: technical denial, .;subject' to the following: a) Grantingpublk utilities easement as shown in red on the ;nap. b) Pro'c:iding;new water service to existing house c) Furnishing evidence of payment: of all payable city and county taxes; . also that the owner be required to pay or segregate .Assessment s. No. 665A, Bond Series "UU", and No. 278A, Bond Series "YY". On motion of Nevis- and Bishop, this lot division was approved in accordance with therecommendation of the Planning Commission Amendment to _Zonn Ordinance Sec..9C. 15 and 9C. 17 A report was received from the Planning Comrnission. unanimously recommending that Section 9C. 15 of the Zoning. Ordinancepertaining to sideyards in an HDA District be amended by deletingthe following: "Twenty per cent of the average width ,of tue lot but in no case .less than ten feet. The minimum sideyard on the street; side of corner lots shall be twenty, feet. "; and adding the following provision: "Sideyards shall total not less than twenty per cent of the lot width and no sideyard;may be less than six feet.; Three feet of setback at the ground level shall be added to each required sideyard foreach story after the first story of any building,. except that the sideyard on. the .street side of each corner lot shall be twenty" feet." It was pointed`. out that the proposed amendment is the result of a request 'of the council for further consideration of the inclined plane provisions of. the Zoning, Ordinance. The PlanningCorurnssion alsounanimously recommended ',.hat Section `9C.17 -of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to.au.tomobile parking in. an HDA District be amended by adding the, following: 1°Such space may not be provided in the required front yard or in any 'required side yard which abuts a, street." It was rnovec b• y.Byxbee and seconded that a proposed Ordinance airiending Sections 9C.`15 and 9C 17 of the Zoning Ordinance be-accepted>for' first reading. The City Manager' called attention to the importance-; of givinga great deal of thought and consideration to these questions, :pointing :out that property owners interested in the California Avenue area,and the .University Avenue area hope to encourage the ;develop C 5c and r;egulations for high-rise,buildings in these areas. The proposed ordinance was accepted for first reading 'and referred to Committee No. 1. Flood Baaizi Entarement Annexation Ordinance No. 1843, approving the annexation of certain uninhabited: territory designatedas"Flood, Basin En1argerrent.. Annexation", was ,given. second reading, and on motion of. Navis and 1tuppenthal, - was adopted by' unanimous vote on. roll call. 27.13 of__Zoriin .Ordinance ,Ordinance -No. 1844, 'amending .Section. 27.13 of ,the =Zoning rdinance:regardir g•resubrnittal of zone change applications,was a.ven s:econd.,reading, and on --motion. of Navis and Marshall, was. adopted: by unanimous- vote; or roll call. Amendthezit,to Buildin `Code xe Fences A report was rec•eived; from. the; City Attorney advising- that, -when an ainendzrxent was made to Section 1506 of the Building Code in October, • 195'7; the Councilinadvertently had repea•led the entire ordinance except for an exception per-mitting.8 ft. fences on frontage roads. In order to g.et the fence. regulations back into.the code, the City Attorney submitted ;a proposed ordinance in emergency. • form re ,enacting the .entire. Section1506. , The , City Attorneyiilaide particular reference' to' the provision in effect for znan}, years prohibiting a --fence more than,4 :feet in height within the 30 feet of , an intersection ori _a •triangle_ basis, and to the provision of Section 32.13 of Coelvfied Ordinance` No5 prohibiting: hedges and shrubs. over 3`,feet'in heigl't within.30.feet of intersection.s. He asked!the Council; whether it wsshed,,to= consider whether the two regulations shouldbe 'uniform.; Ordinance NO:. 1845, az'"'ending Section; 1>-506 of the Building_Code re-enactingthe fence regulation.s',,and providing: that, the, height_ of fenc'es,,at intersections shal.l'not exceed 3 feet, was _ introduced, 'and a motion was inade by Marshall and seconded that. it be _adopted"as an emergence ordinance: The vote was 13 Ayes' and 1 -'No .(Byxbee- voting No), and the ordinance was declared lost as an emergency ordinance.. There was .further discussion, and the City Manager pointed out the _importance of having an ordinance on the books to -regulate •fences. He adv,sed that safety councils have uniformly requested that fences at intersections, be eliminated or kept:at a minimum height, and most.:of-the cities are reducing the height: requirements .to 3 feet: A motion was then,made;by Byxbee, seconded by Rodgers, that -Ordinance No 1845 beadopted, as an emergency ordinance,; to provide that the height _of fences within 30 feet of intersections shall not exceed 4 .feet, and theordinance was passed by unanirnous vote 'on:`roll call. Arkumente For and Against Ballot Proposition It was reported" that April 14, 1959, at 5:00 F.M. is the deadline for submitting arguments for or against the proposition on �-.i-7 �ly:�k. " "�'T^.Y`C�^�.']r�'F'N..�:.�t�C:��.:C• .�..�k'u�'�'�" Z..TJHv-� .�']C.:.. ^'^ r 5.. � 'S�1..+—C T".i :.+d.."?3�t �..� M--.���.-.-�:.�_:�.—JY_r...�c�,. *1e ,> y 12t aITot; ei prig: aix s - fa` a dti vd a�"i s- rY i sample;billots, as .provided in.Secti:ons" 1820-1824 of the Elections Code'.. report on the pxovsions Of these sections had been 'submitted by` the: City Attorney to councilmembers. motion of Mrs. Corcoran and Byaxbee, Vice ;Mayor: Marshall was authorized to, prepare: an argumentfor the propos-_ tion which:is entitled -"Referendum on Resolution Authorizing, Acquisition of Foothill Lands,". On recommendation of the Controller, it was moved, seconded and carried -by unanimous vote on roll call that the following duplicate tax payment be refunded: Tax Bill No. 8785, Second Installment,' $30.30= Enforcement of aubre ation. i hts 'report from the City Azttorney concerning the enforce- ment of :subrogation rights, against employeeswho cause damage to.. third -persons for which the City is responsible was received and referred to Committee' :No `3: Monthly. Reports The monthly report of the Controller for March, 1959, was received and filed. The monthly report of the Planning Officer on action taken in March -on applications for lot divisiccns, and the monthly report of the Zoning Administrator on action taken in March on applications for variances and use permits, were received and filed. Personnel Classification and Salary Review Mrs. Corcoran brought up the question o£ a personnel classification and salary review and called attention to references to this subject in :the minutes of the Council and Committee No.. 3, pointing out that the last reference was in the meeting of Committee No. 3 of March 3, 1959• when the Personnel Officer recommended. that Louie J. Kroeger and, Associates be authorized to meet with Committee No. 3 to :disc'uss the matter. Mrs. Corcoran noted that the budget for 195.9-60 will be considered shortly and felt that action' on the pereonnel;,atudy should be taken. The City Manager .:advised that early action is important, and that he would like to have the Councilat this meeting authorize the hiring of Kr'oeger and Associatesso that the classification and salaryreview could proceed immediately.' It was moved•by Mitchell,: seconded and carried by unanimousvote on roll; 'call that the City Manager be authorized to hire. Louis J. Kroeger and Associates and proceed with the study.' arid Newsletters The. Mayor suggested that consideration be given to the feasibility of installing a large lighted map in the Council ROOM, and to the publication of a quarterly newsletter of city activities to be cent to'residents. 1 ''..,-7,7-.-%- —";: . r :$ to Gore b'� °x be �- rryie e:. deetaxe a aa,3o,3xtL, he