Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06111962City Hall, Palo Alto, California - June 11, 19621 The Council of. the City of Palo Alto rnetin regular session on this. date at 7:30p.m., with Mayor Haight presiding. Roll call as follows•. Present: Arnold, Bishop, By+cbee, Cresap, Debs, Dias Marshall,. Rodgers, Rus, Stephens. Absent: Porter, Ro:nrs, Woodward, Zweng. Presentation -to Startle R. Evans The Mayor presented a plaque to Judge Stanley R. Evans; former merx ber of the City Council , in recognition of hi:, service to the City,;:" as,a'-member of the Planning Commission from 1953 to 1957 and a Counci.rnan from 1957 to 1962. Judge Evans resigned from the Council in January 1962 upon his appointment as a judge of the Palo Alto -Mountain View Municipal Court, Reco nitiori',of.American Field Service Students Several American. Field Service Students, who have been living with Palo Alto families and attending Palo Alto schools during the as year, were present. The Mayor extended greetings and good wishes to them, andpresented them with letters to the mayors of the cities from which they came and to which they are returning shortly;` The students were from Norway, Argentina, Indonesia., Sweden, Turkey and Greece. A roval of Minutes The minutes of the meeting of May 28, 1962, were approved as distributed. Re uest for Extension of Finn.al _ Map a o AT�o I-silig - nit o3 A letter was received from Dan Dana requesting an extension of six months, from July 1, 1962 to January 1, 1963, for final approval of the map of Palo Alto Hills, Unit No. 2. On motion of Byxbe.e and Bishop, this was referred to the Planning. Commission. Pte;: on Air' R:iAhts A letter was ' received from Claude T. I,.indsay requesting information on the policyof the City Council in connection with the utilization of air rights over any publicly owned d propert; . The City Manager advised that Mr. Lindsay haci addressed. a similar letter in April to the Chairman of the Planning Corzim.zssio; which was referred ,to the City Manager for .reply; that he had sent a letter to Mr. Lindsay informing him that neither the City Council nor Planning Commission had adopted a policy relative toair rights, over publicly owned property, and that he doubted that either the Council or Commission would want to establish such a policy without having a specific proposal before them for consideration. i`n�. '"'? •-ter e. ",p • 39 It was moved by Byxbee, seconded by Stephens, and carried that .the Council accept the statement in the City Manager's letter to Mr Lindsay that it would not shfor t establish such a policy without having a specific proposal planaa 220 California Av_. —fie A letter was received from Ingalls scheme for architects,. cts,• requesting approval of a revised walkway requesting the 10 be10-foot granted walkway at. 2:20 California. Avenue, and also req S shade az1,encrozi.ch.xnent perranit-fardrainage nt d the the nlanrforetuYn office canopies. Patch was. Pr buildings on either id of the walkway which leads from California if Avenue to;the :City',parking lot.. He stated that the owner proposed, agreeable to the City,' to make the pathway more beautiful by using varied texture concrete, installing shade canopies op s at ether end 1 u of the walk, and putting in; plantings: and landscaping. trating the plan were $uiYxnitted. Mr. Patch devcommented development project. proposal ties in with the California Avenue The City Manager advised that the. staff feels that the request`is not Unreasonable and would recommend approval if the owner agrees to pay for improvements in excess of the normal walkway and to pay for: necessary maintenance of the landscaping.. He states that the.. -City Engineer has theright roe mat an encroach n went; permit anc .h as requested, but because ere . prerogative , requirements it.was thought he aught before snould not tithe Councercise il for d isien. but that the matter s On motion of Bishop n_.xbad the proposal was referred to Committee No: I. Lnt ,national. 51,1e aria L.a.aeanRequ�. to- _,__ venue 7uT 1-9- - A letter was received from the Merchants' Coxmnittee of Inc. concerning a three-day sales event to be Downtown Palo Alto, - called "InternationalSidewalk Days" on July 19, 20 and 21, 1862, : at to tie inwith the USSR -USA Track .and Field upMeet tables Stbaof ar ds n July :21 and 22,, 1962.. Itis :proposed to s• . le on the sidewalks.at the curb for merchandise and displays. The "Merchants' Committee requested that parking be eliniinated on University Avenue between High and Cowper Streets m.. on Thursday, July' 19th, from 9:00 a.m. tooixn 9 00 a. to n Friday, p.m. on and fron, 9:00 a.rn. to 5:30 p.m. on Saturday, July 21st. of Arnold and Bishop, the request was granted. IDowntawr Parkin Prosa ., A -letter was received from the taParking Co mittee o f g Downtown Fa10 Alto; Itn�c ::; :su'brn ti `for the Downtown Palo Alto in connection ,with the parking . program . Business, District, and proposing the esta.blisha:rs.ent of free off-street parking on all lots, -except for a certain number of spaces to be permit parking. The proposal included the available fox paid'1?e parking for customers, free ail -day. establishment of two -hoax. free p ties,and paid permit parking parking in certain areas for employ s for designated spaces to be,avaiIable for service -type businesses. The Downtown organization recommended that the program be put into: effect on July 1, 1962. Other points in their -. recommendations : included a plan for policing the lots, increase in the monthly .rate .`for permit parking, income from permits and overtime parking tickets to be retained by the Downtown Parking:. District Fund, signing of the lots and installation of new directional on -street signs The`Ass''istant City Manager advised that some of the points in the letter had.been reviewed by members of the Downtown group with the City staff. On, motion of Rodgers and Stephens, the matter was referred to Committee No __ 2 for consideration and report. United. Nations Festival A cornrnunicatiozi was received frorn Mrs. David Rose of. Saratoga, General Chairman of the United Nations Festival for Santa Clara County,," to be held on October 27, 1962, inviting the ( ity Coutcil,to "co: -sponsor the Festival along with other cities in the County and to Make a token .donation to help defray expenses. A motion was made by. Rodgers, seconded by Byxbee, that the request for a contribution be denied. It was then moved by Cresol), ; seconded by Debs, and carried that the matter be referred to Committee' No. 3. Letter from Davidli<r �e r�le�r A; letter was received from David Kriegler, 1607 Channing Avenue, criticizing certain council members for "lobbying a partisan point .ofview" in connection with the referendum election on Tune 5, 1962 (the: Oregon Avenue measure). The Mayor stated that all council members had received a copy of the letter, Several Council members made comments. Councilman Cresap remarked that hethinks there is a misconception regarding a referendum, -arid referred to. the. Elections Code which provides that legislators; a;ar:participate actively in referendumn issues. Council- man Debs differed with Mr. Cresap's views, stating that he considers a referendum to be a review of the actions of a legislative body. Councilman: Rus pointed out that people had a right to know the facts and make their own decision at the election. He thought the letter was out of order. A request was received from the Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for the cancellation of taxes on a 15 -foot strip of land adjacent to the northwesterly line of Tract 1816, containing 0.293 acres of land along Dry Creek. It was moved by Bishop, seconded and carried by unanimous voice vote, that the request be granted and the taxes on said property becancelled. 1 Annexations to !'4,o ,xnt3.in ,View Notices pi. the. following proposed annexations to the City of Mountain View' werereceived and filed: "Middlefield No 40 ',, "Eldora. No. 3'I, "Eldora No. 4", and "$ayshore No. 3". �3ids''on Park' Improva.n.)ents Project 61-7 A -re port: was submitted by the City Manager on the bids rec.eived'ori June, 6;'' 1962, for construction of facilities and iimprovements in, Mitchell Park,' Eleanor Park and Hampton Park. He•advised thatquestions have been raised by some of the people. in Col,lege Terrace :as to whether any improver: e t should be made to Hampton Park, 'and a Meeting has been arranged with residents of the area to discuss proposals with them, the meeri'(x to be held on 'June 19,': .0962. : In view of the impending meeting, it was recommended thatthe bid on the portion of the work affecting Hampton Park be held without action until the next meeting of the council on. June 1962. It was, recommended by the staff t! -,at Item B for .rnl??'ovc'rtle. nt's to l.' ier nor `r7'.(: Y1 {1t.C�1�.1� P.,1,-.71;;/.-; ..:tti'ttrdt'd to the lc:) v 131 r1.6.(„:. rc. a..t•. 1, ,� , ]"!; I t i) 11 [ :; t �.. r rev1ti;.yy r1; ( );t>,;�`-1-r' :ill' f:';1 i > > ... , 1 , ,.. to Com n. tic'. '\r.,.• I tr.)t ''l"i . The %: , \+, , ; , , l f!./;Cal. year ,V ' r tc • 'y 1. 1 ii ,r.' N:t:). ". .10.{' .'- Vdc.v.,. .i1+< l.'"t {t 1,t11),, - i ('1'!` 1,� ):1(� t�l .•II I ' la .1 1 ii1' I) 1 ,; t:;:1't for tilt? I..1' -T t / t,1Lif, ,Y_. .) t -v , ) i; f;t, '/ . ; ) '. _, ir`1`; t ;i• 11 1 't :4•rred - l l �� .1. Z. 1 Ili'R:.C'. .(Jb•, tl. lra i:;{-'' mot' irl,, .--.'� . az '. a -t— !'l:r t r>.t. „ t l_t :)t • t ' . 0',r , tr. i `.1 C' _ ".. A L-po t \^:'t; tt'cc: , e t [',- . .. (.t•t-; ,-, '� I; c' ;•. r� I, :'i;C.`r)/11 g app ova, >: the' tC'tlta,ivt•, ',,11;:,, 7 p , i11' th 1'-' 2t.t,.C. .ni:FJ. ' :.£'r ':T.,,, l 11 , • t..kbri1` .340"• S)4 ' i'..1k, Nr.). `QT., r' . . r ,or 1 w pr, 'i'OLts'ly r.e C' ':L"4 (1 z1. C 7 . t�tile E4'Lt ,',ti C. )1Y;rt). . _, 1 l) !I `7 rr, ID1,).:Li i'y . r 'corr r—eroling 7," ,ov,n,} of t.'nc 1. :1:'". t: ft...r.,., 1. - 11.11 ,- let's:C!lliY t) t,•.1:ti .ti` 1 �, + 'i',-..nL ?'l t ;y , ..:cr) C WAS_3`.:i„ vt.! C?c'C. Cr. mot ,,'. r,r ttI',ri,') 'ar Rodgers, the redo 1Z11K1�o'Xd tip?',� �'Sc4$. +� ¢��x2eYc'�.tip� � vozre vpt pted and Resolution f Cor No. N0 1 arz the Planning tan "�r --, - ffi passed by ing that, Luca:, ��pxt'was submitted vet b,,- a Cth �' 'xxtte ata�r $tretbaa kxied t'�,the' czo �Oti'ed street Committee No. d$`a and Aix n'P�vr contiguous er the e 1 reod foz c°ndi2ioz�s'teeA ' .end subject ok,ne s E t: extc3. va' adopted rndtic rz b� 2s rn nded by the CitYP ve +'xzt be us ed hnP a Manager-. i?zifi ?'hie. ` Stephens, the re cornmendatio P` ' b3" the •A, O2' th'e,City er a, v2 $ed that i t Wa at_t_... Pez•tY re afmCCe °` the street, necessary t d- t. the expenses a 3 1UizXt r Poxf �, iSa,.�ecl ecp,�m� �tcizn e as �,e` f;e. «• ale I g apprnv eived froaxa Committees thf> appropriate and ,Sehed,�i r Rate t+ -s No. Cyr - gust z • e ;��_ ehadule' schedule �� txxKz�ib of :�YS billing cycle, 1 �C%, tc hcl�, aPPxoved;b ..i'oP' arzd g Ci Y tzrixi;' Ybee th J 'mnss voice c L�`✓ V✓city, e4 r c0 met Port W; 3 es the mending that h s _received u t use nee ce in tli� old of aPPrnxi � hospital from Committees d �n ,�� it d hospital ?�zatel� 30 Board be advised 4,�*n• tex;,zyz bast building within square -rivised that the C`ztY ,`�, motion tn,e �a�1litiestin1rh�5the hospital � sPit� clays, snzto ��;�'f� need:for h'� r tnendat�ion ' ac3e by Bishop, old buz building. Board has �� adopted. seconded dene.. CztY�; Maya " `d by i31rXbec, that r 5 `3xzd.tri ,. gr r advised with the � understanding za] ad.the le City of Pa2o that the r •sed that writtenssei ha$'a lU A7tt Covering between this .a ity greed that. eking the e`''z Stanford is being the adopteds a of S at, i would Old His ea cI University takes. far approval by r.�.rzgar,d University, not assign Fitat site vcrsitY building of the the f 'Council versity, a gn the lease provides th attemporary and without of/easing Cn mac. of the city depart administrative d i�zi tra ill be made to Stanford recommenda- tion tr�asi `�nciJ tzzts, ve space fed hatf���e•� the property an � r� s,�p �'S d f N in t de ke by °r information additional WU d staff. a ;Z Camana as the nal recommended ce be about `nd the Assistant a , fans to the cost find e t thei,re expense moving $15,000 air City zq e nd atom builg.dings e f Or o ing and relo for a year, na er cent -ngs 'S'hich Manager be stated obi the staff with entae red Of After discus available Staff s departments in building `�'as es N°' 1 and an' the :notion at a lower renta./. to carried. Na- ,3 for use z ° adoptce the °' 'Pace, in th�e,�dn�Cndatspn �'osPital c�o�� Committee SA • �A�itg�'r"""e y � �' . � �dbr�itted b�-id� dos �. for the fiscal Yta'x recomme �' io thep itrs a. coU tsrand records f o • Y approval the GztY°g tot' fee of$5,500.00. r zaed that for the aut 3b 132: for secAndednd cxY be endixs� 3!��e ,b �.1Yxbee � ��� Montgomery ft , , oLybrand, Ybx � r m ittea °" 5 the audit proposal needed b� d xovcd as Gtaxa an a. ap �- the County °f t Oregon 4 x exx x�t b to improvement n1 wet' view ° Nti e the In 3#81 Thy �pttt pex�x� was presented. hen ate g°buti � Cavxat'`! City of p e elect on or. 3n e 5, 1qb� on n. Izte e Z.5 a So.t S ent the re ag a Gh election on `�T' t of Oreg voters, r the agreement �' to of the ele t2bAh ets arit� of the to execute " e. ig + establishment xea be re to d' approved by a authors seconded by a`r'c consenting� a�pFr4 .. , �'�°� be $ gec°�' $ aY; "'a tl t the _i� motion was provisions xbee was. �x a behalf the City. The t was -read andits the o 't in bC eAett� flan 'Alter the aaxtborix• execution °t;°" a� vote. of landscaping reviewed, b the n rnaus voice ba that a study o. 2, In carried. by fade by De Co,xnmit.e Supervisors has rrialcin A Motion e was be referred to of landscaping. indica p t e posts for Oregon ox. hillstated not spend bond money fay as the ping. been. gad that they w ity ger advis ent a :►axe has a.lways fast e st f f. is o CxeS o ,anti t t � to ` theGandsca �n b lity of he aid app :d.b t the s ff concexr .d b� the hav been prepa ,�sts Wpt ilable • bea.spos d to fa determine ust what the cost are will. e, was until vest plans uff unds f°x xxzittee the purpose A be ,� sib at s e Mot nt matter to C°n' believes * refer the r �;;ot�.on.�o er g:55 P•xx�,. The or�d. at this t�.� $t •OY want of a sec Councilxnan ?otter Ca zest °f the Meeting.) he tand,�as 'present for t on Sister 'Mess report the City` of • _-'-� a progress ode to a theited 3 t yd+� been th ,.,,., , a psis. at had t With City . - ctati nn r opos been M he C Co. tiC that,a proposal the subject waba.ssy h e a xep1Y Yogxa 'r eta sigma , the A erican f; reported that ho gh he City Pr exi'CA . c r the 1t was alt ',1+ p*ieC read. o Oaxaca., received the 1ettar. Oaxaca; t?X atiA a.Ga;.�'ag ayAr decei °Y. t7° ;. s no ox of,fax received from:, tYi that he had wez ` �nf d the'i'�'a9, 'isM massy send an re a .has. � xsc►t: Yet ba �e erx � �o aad would ub'mitteci by �r " � � g e Ax had l tIl '' is or. _off gate C:ice Were selecte cogs eke �aY ards.�.8 t i'1 a c�t,�_ �� wa'�td �'� teo: fY o tics x e.+ a it stated. od ti' ,1141. $tats a g:r advits rt iTi at x , ataxtedr ab of a the G� �;. is �',� �o get, tine px tine Gst�t'�g��nt Di. t, off. w itt� f' fee appoxt�te ontlne f°'� ;. � comx� rep�,x.d. ;ltia�e . aa, has t rr''• i 5 stex .,GitY pr Oir (A recess was taken at this time, 9:05 p.m., and the Council reconvened at 9:15 p.m.) Exteofiqn_pf LLuckmancontract There had been continued from the last meeting a re -port from the PlanningComriission recommending that the contract for planning services with_;Charles .Luckznan Associates be amended to extend the time within which the General Plan shall be completed to August 15, 1962. The Planning Officer recommended this item be carriedover to thee next meeting. It was moved, seconded and carried that consideration of this matter be continued to the next regular meeting on June 25, 1962. Zone Change Application, 1681-91 El gar/lino 1z.eal, A report w• as received from the Planning Commission unanimously recommending denial of the application of L. Burt Avery for a change of district from R -3-P to C -3:S for the property at. 1681-91 El Camino Real, being Lots 1, 2, 3, A, B, C, D, Block 19, Evergreen park;` aril Lot 17, Block E, Southgate. On motion of Bishop and Stephens, the recommendation of the Pl.annang. Commission was accepted and the zone change application denied. Zone. Chan e 2.750. PArj ulevard an age load A report was submitted by the Planning Commission unar.irnou:sly recninmendin.g,on the initiative of the Commission, a change of district` from M -2•S to M -1:S for the property at 2750 Park Boulevard and 216 Page Mill Road, being portions of Lots 4 and S. Block ,7, liawxhurst' Subdivision. A proposed ordinance amending the Zone Map to provide. for this zone change as recommended was introduced, and on motion of Byxoee, duly .;seconded, was accepted for first reading by unanimous voic=e vote. Develor r-iert -Plan .Amercimentt Mid., Pe a .a ~' oppers Worl.r . 34.40 z a.niona Street A report. was received from the Planning Commission recommending approval hy a vote of 3 to 1 of the application, of Mid -. Peninsula Saopper s World to amend the Development Plan for the P -C District at 3440 R,amona Street, consisting of approximately 24,500 sq. -ft. and bey ng"Lot 6 and portions of Lots 3, 4, 5 and. 7, Block 23, Stanford University Villa. Tract, subject to the following conditions: a) p'e lined Uses: Fourteen dwelling unit apartment. b) NatuM, 4f Develo n nt: Building setbacks. areas, heights, off-street parking, open green area and other improvements as indicated on the Development Plan. c) Signs: Tn accordance with the Sign Ordinance for It. -3-G Districts. el/ approval of �ynth,g ° Croval with ouCr an itnhoi d ,a `'t a a '�aiet �+n ' t SCtxa 3 Resauti g �fface,r O Lhe eVCa ShOiPe$$ �N �h ypx�a�a : 5k Ps�t,la tided , wad ?the exx re ' '�'rter . xa1 .�, .. e lnP g °I* that,t e e ` and a Nxat ' io e fl:-°. Igt1 n8' eet,. Pr t k was eso/ution bead was a d-�eninsu Afterletter Est as e read xxax. ape d, deb SteP'cns, yr v,ce �'C4$si posed a art )e xh° Aso vote, ar; 'I, tit i 33 4hw_ F s it g x'xcian No. deg-easnPxxierat, recd e 4 ,report �rt rC`wa n was R .w Ii and Ai/eem b b arnitt by r 47 `�hd .. fAx �:� R Y orb of he plann� exact 800, sub' X e pl.() aPer nY�r� 3 to 1 °x` t1i'na arn' iss s�1bJe0't 2t0' o a tanfoxd Vi t 3293 AI chanzXe t 6-sxcarian t. a) r ., he fUIl0 , C ract a t eet' 6- Cr f�wQrn. r .ndstibn ,t.at �� g �ot,�`. hj, ar -., 5 Seven s a 131°Ck 1� re °� dwelling. ixtaPr+ay4 f s e �'xz-`ear • 13 wit apartment. �n uitdin t• C�, i enxentS as in king. open g setharks Pax R,3s accordance diCared an t recn axed and /G /Districts. with the S1 �eyeioP d Ale d}s.� Sign a ty: clays r h,e Ordinance for rlin Ys. a:f �, Ie; n2aajths., unCi1 2 Construe for this A proposed kc� of unci PP2'ova, an r�°n to start b r . an x1lo is 'Zones use .o 'dire approval` d Co Ptet2 Within unanx�dus voice°Vatr a�d Stng rthe � � ��' the Zone tha� e, P.hens apnle ma, a was aCCCPteden s ay. x``�?t ?, ar .first xea�� introduced, leo ones g of 'George ug1Y recta report was tee �rid�e A. and ndin cezyo, fro , . / s/Partition, , u1xa g�.appro . the • zh n s��� � ��xr�sterl cav e ��dz�i g Conlin/salon a) Gx'�ti�= covering 3 portion aPPlic� an rx1a 8 af.PubYa dtiliti rzgxl of dot 7n bj 'uxrnlst es easement as show L, ta�es. 1d Ce of n in }fxopr�� t. Payment of alt txaxotoge to the and dedicatio Yabte city andof apublic ed and dedio din$ Po ovzdin ated street ec- i'ted The Piarning Corr,sxui;s' ion also unanimously recommended adoption, of.:a_ street patter 4or the area Vgen era,lly beteen located sate p' aadea ly d of the SoutYierrl Pacifxc: right-of'`�' h Planning Officer The Manuela Avenue, . as proposed.by Corrixnissi n further:recommended that: a) The"proposed streets be achieved by means of an assessrnent district, and b, Tha.t:;.consideration be given to znodification of street improvements .as suitable to the hilly terrain. The Planning Officer suggested that the lot division and the street pattern items be considered ogether. Ad and fter that discussion.,; it was moved by Por , he Planning the lot division _be,approved gas recommended by the as recommended Commission, and_-tratthe proposed street pattern by the Planning Commission and Planning Officer be adopted, to be achieved byan assessment district, with consideration given to. modification of street„impr+ovement standards as suitable to the terrain of the area. • The City ,Manager advised, with regard to the proposed for a n7eetiz:g with- people :,treet pattern, ';that'.the staff would'a,rrang. in advance tbe area' to review the recommendations for roadways, of any consideration of an assessment district. A report was received from the Planning Cornrnission unanimously recomineriding: approval of the final subdivision map for Tract No. 3220, being a subdivision of a portion of the lands of the'Santa'Clara County '`.loodControl andand xa w gta� Conservation District abuttang 'exact No. approving the final . map of Tract Resolution No. 3520,, pP No: 32,20, was introduced, and on motion duly seconded was adopted by uranirtious_ voice vote., • Amendment to Zoe>i-rti Ordinance Setbac�5 A report ,"w s submitted by the planning L ornmission e unanimously ,recor•'�r%�.cnding arnendmentof f the yonZoning setbacks Ord nano by 2 deletion "of Section ' 22..07(g) pertaining ` f A' proposed ordinance amending. Sec. 22.07 ontreduced, Zoning Ordinance .,by the deletion of subsection (g) w s for and on-�motiofl of Cresa.p, duly seconded, reading bY unanimous voicevote. Pao ectbQ�b �. r'astrael't:ro _oad et al -Resolution No. 3521, ".calling for sealed proposals on was introduced, and o�a e �>zo,;ecti bQ:.f�,: Arastradezo �OadYwas adopted by ur.3nir_'lous voice' r•aotiori dulj!'rxia.de and. seconded, vote. xanf - A e;14 3 4 " tT9. 12 Ordinance No 20.76, approving the annexation of one- half acre :.on, the easterly corner of Quarry Road and Arboretum, Road, designated as "Stanford. Annexation No. 12", was given second reading,and on motion of Byxbee and Porter, was adopted by .unanimous: voice vote. :distance No 2077, establishing C, -3:S zoning for ''Stanford Annexation'No. 12", was given second reading, and on motion of_Byxbee a.nd;Porter, was adopted by unanimous voice vote., A propoa.e.d .ordinance amending the Fire Zone Map to include the Stanford Annexation No. 12 area in Fire Zone No. 1, as recommended by the Planning Commission, was introduced, and on. motion of Porter and Bishop, was accepted for first reading by unanimous: voice vote Amendments to Orolinance re I,icens of Dotz.s rdinance<No Z078, .amending Sections 18.20 and 18.22 of -Codified Ordinance No. 5 regulating the licensing of dogs, was giver., second reading, and. on motion duly made and seconded, was adopted by'iina'riixxious'voice vote. Fi:Iins� of C._lairtis Ordinance No. 2079, repealing: Sections 408.5, 408.6 and 408.8 of the Administrative Code regulating the filing of claims against the City, was given second reading, and on motion of, Arnold, duly seconded, was adopted by unanimous voice vote. Petition of Initiative Case.. (Fletcher et at vs_,_ Porten, et an motion. was made by Debs, seconded by Mrs.. Dias, that the previous instructions given to the City Attorney to appeal, this case t6 the Supreme Court be repealed. The City Attorney reported that the decision of the District Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Superior Court; that pursuant to the authority granted by the Council on January 9, 1961, he had petitioned for a rehearing which, after modification of the decision, had been denied; that the League of California. Cities had recommended that the City petition for a hearing before the Supreme, Court and has advised that it would urge other Cities to join in the hearing if granted. The City Attorney stated, that the 'City has until June 18, 1962 to file a petition for hearing, and that the Supreme Court has until July 8, 1962 to determine whether it will grant the hearing, Mrs. Enid Pearson, one of the petitioners, read a statementto the Council urging the Council to drop any further appeal and place the initiative ordinance before the people. Mr. Walter Vidler spoke to the Council in opposition. to the petitioners, and in commendation of the City Attorney, the Planning Commission and the City administration. He urged the Council to, take the case to the Supreme Court. Mr. La.w erIce C. Baker addressed the Council, stating that,1 a wail -one of the signers of the initiative petition, but feels that the Council ^:liould abide by the City Attorney's opinion and permits im to petition the Supreme Court for :a hearing. It was'moved'.b Cresap, p, seconded by Stephens, that the motion to withdraw the .previous instructions to the City Attorney to appeal the case to the Supreme Court be tabled, was tabled by the following roil call vote: Ayes Arnold,:' Bishop, Byxbee, Cresap, Haight, Marshall, Porter, Rus, Stephens. Noes: _ Debs-`Dias, Rodgers. On motion of Cresap, the meeting was declared adjourned at 10:05 p.m. ATTEST: (:7/�L: c \ APPROVED:, Ll► L- City Clerk Mayor .�:... �•.. 4�+�-+-V �+O.S.,ad.r...u..�--sue... .�. �.._ ...�..