Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1122196546 11/22/65 City Hall Palo Alto, California November 22, 1965 The Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in a regular meeting. Mayor Arnold convened the meeting at 7:32 p. m. Present: Arnold, Beahrs, Comstock. Cooley, Debs, Dias, Pearson, Rohrs, Rus, Sher (7:34 p. rn. ), Woodv ard, and Worthington. Absent: Flint (arrived at 9: 15 p.m.), Minutes of November 8, 1965 Councilman Rohrs stated that as chairman of the Committee on Pub- lic Works he had moved the committee recommendations but that the minutes should show on page 29, the first motion, and on page 30, the second motion, that he presented a ininority report in both cases. Councilman Pearson called attention to the first paragraph on page 45 and suggested that the minutes sow that Mr. Golick asked the Council for their support "in printing and mailing the questionnaires and the information sheets." Councilman Cooley advised that the first motion on page 35 should read "... that the application be protested." Councilman Dias called attention to her first motion ot page 31 and requested that the minutes show that the amendment also include a revision to paragraph (b) to state that the original proposals for the budget be presented to the Council by the "second Monday in April.". Councilman Dias stated that the motion on page 44 under the title "Police and Fire Protection" did not carry unanimously and indicated the paragraph shouldstate that Councilman Flint requested that the matter be continued "because he was not prepared." With these corrections, the minutes we/ e approved as distributed. Capital Improvement Fund Expenditures See p. 62 Vice Mayor Debt; referred to the minutes of November 9 of the Committee on Finance and to the proposals submitted by Council. men Cooley and Worthington which were $85, 000 apart in total ex- penditure. He moved, seconded by Sher, that the proposal of Coun- cilman Worthington, dated November 2; 1965, be approved by the Council as the CapitalImprovement Fund a..-.. ndit :_ _ _ _ . _ ___--- . _ t - .+a.a,. cs�rccar�Glf-�iVs-es -oi the Capital Improvement Program, 1965-70. Councilman Worthington explained his proposal, which had been alstributed to the f.nuilci a riier s.�.d .i+r revision: h ad _...443 -, -----_�_---�__�� v � r ��riVp� ho _-iM1[ 6V the proposal dated November 9. 1965. 47 11/22/65 After lengthy discussion, the motion lest on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Comstock, Debs, Pearson, Sher, Worthington. Noes: Arnold, Beahrs, Cooley, Dias, Rohrs, Rus, Woodward. Councilman Cooley moved, seconded by Beahrs, the adoption of the capital improvement program as presented, with the following ex- ceptions: (1) the $400, 0U0 for the A-1 Civic Center item be moved from 1965-66 to 1966-67; (2) delete the following:•A-3 ($200,000) for cultural facilities at the present City Hall site, P-4 ($180, 000) for the Baylands fire station, R-5 ($250,000) for a railroad system for Foothill Park, R-17 ($35, 000) for development of the bowling green, and R-18 ($175, 000) for improvements to the Esther Clark Park; (3) add the following: A-2 ($93, 000) which has already been appropriated for the Municipal Service Center, R -6A ($150, 000) for the Baylands improvements suggested by the Audubon Society; and (4) delete S-6 ($50, 000) for landscaping the Page Mill -El Camino Real grade separation. After discussion, Vice Mayor Debs moved an amendment, seconded by Comstock, to delete R-7 ($20, 000) for the acqui(iition of land for Rinconada Park and to state that it is the sense of the Council that the third house at the present time not be acquired. Councilman Sher moved an amendment to the amendment that the Council more the R-7 item of $20,000 out of that slot and add it to the Civic Center slot. The amendment died for lack of a second.. Councilman Rus moved, and it was duly seconded, the previous ques- tion. The motion failcd to carry the necessary two-thirds majority on a show -of -hands vote. - The Debs amendment lost on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Comstock, Debs, Pearson, Sher, Worthington. Noes: Arnold, Beahrs, Cooley, Dias, Rohrs, Rus, Woodward. After discussion, Vice Mayor Debs moved an amendment, seconded by Sher, to add to R-4 the sum of $165, 000 for the proposed addition to Mitchell Park and the sum of $175, 000 for a possible park in the Lambert--We4l Meadow -El Camino Real -railroad track area. After discussion: the Vice Mayor asked if his second would appro": add- ing the , ,ursa of $540, 000 for the downtown parks to the motion, but Councilman Sher replied that he would prefer to "do it separately." The amendment 'lost on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Comstock, Debs, Pear -non, Sher, Worthington. Noes! Arnold; Se hre, r'ycl:y, _ Dias, -Rc uro "UM. R oodwarc's .Vice Mayor Debs moved an amendment, seconded by Pearson, that R-4 be increased by $540, OOC fcr the downtown hark. Councain,a!: Rus Moved the previous question. The motion was duly seconded 48 11/22/65 but failed to carry the required two-thirds majority on a show -of - hands vote. After discussion the amendment lost on the fallowing roll call vote: Ayes: Comstock, Debs, Pearson, Sher, Wortaington. Noes: Arnold, Beahrs, Cooley, Dias, Rohrs, Rus, Woodward. Councilman Rus moved the previous question. The motion was duly seconded but failed to carry the required two-thirds majority on a show -of -hands vote. Councilman an Shcr moved an amendment, seconded by Comstock, that R-13, Mitchell Park building, shown as two items totaling $225, 000 be moved yip from 1967-69 to 1966-67. After a short discussion, the amendment was declared carried on a majority voice vote. Councilman Sher moved an amendment, seconded by Debs and car- ried on a majority voice vote, that those items on page 1 of the Cap- ital Improvement Program, 1965-70, which should be expended in 1965-66 should be included in the 5 -year total on page 2 in the column headed 1965-66. After discussion, the main motion as amended lost on a tie vote as follows: Ayes: Arnold, Beahrs, Cooley, Dias, Rohrs, Woodward. Noes: Comstock, Debs, Pearson, Rus, Sher, Worthington. Councilman Bus moved, seconded by Beahrs, that the Council adopt the Capitallmprov.nnent Program, 1965-70 as proposed by the staff. After a shor*, discussion, the motion lost on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Beahrs, Dias, Rohrs, Rus, .Woodward. Noes: Arnold, Comstock, Cooley, Debs, Pearson, Sher, Worthington. Councilman Rohrs moved, seconded by Rus, that the matter be re- turned to the Committee on Finance. The motion was declared car- ried on a majority voice ,ote. (The Council recessed at 9:10 and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Council- man Flint arrived at this time.) Downtown Parks The Planning Commission unanimously requested the City Council to authorise the 'employment of a planning consultant, or other qualifie.: person, to explore and develop concepts and schematic designs for downtown Palo Alto parks, who will work in conjunction with the Man- nino Cornrni irein as. a..� _ _,..: ,..� �..�.....ug si,aif for an amount not to exceed' $5, 000.00. 49 11/22/65 Planning Commissioner Leonard Ware stated that he and Commis- sioner Norton had studied the proposed acquisitions for future down- town parks and felt they fell short of the "sophisticated and grand development" that might conceivably be developed in downtown Palo Alto. Commissioner Ware and Planning Commission Chairman Strornquist answered questions from the Council. Councilman Beaters moved, seconded by Cooley, that the Council approve the employment of a qualified expert and authorize expend- iture of up to $5, 000 for his services. After lengthy discussion, Councilman Sher moved an amendment that the Council approve the plan and recommendation in principle and re- turn the matter to the Planning Commission for preparation of a gen- eral statement of what this consultant would do and then return it to the Council. The motion was seconded by Pearson., but Beahrs stated he would incorporate the amendment into his main mction. After further discussion the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. Palo Alto Hills Unit Planning Commissioner Strornquist reported that the Planning Com- mission has considered the City Council referral of the Bandera Court ext^nsion of Palo Alto Hills Unit 2, Tract 3307 (see p.42, min- utes of November 8, 1965); that it can see no immediate need for the development of the street; and recommends, by a vote of 5 to 2, that Dan Dana's cash deposit be released but that the City retain the right- of-way it now has by virtue of the subdivision map and that this right- of-way be retained by the City indefinitely with a view to the possible need of a City street at a later date. The Council bad previously re- ceived the Planning Commission minutes of November 10, 1965. Councilman Rohrs moved, and it was duly seconded, that the $8.000 bond put up by Dan Dana and Elizabeth Dana, pursuant to the provi- sions of paragraph 14 of that certain agreement with the City dated September 1, 1964, providing for the construction of certain improve- ments in Tract 3307 be exonerated and said sum be deposited with the City to guarantee faithful performance of all other provisions of said contract, and that Dan and Elizabeth Dana be relieved of all obliga- tions to improve Bandera Court beyond the turnaround as shown on the improvement plans of said Tract. - Mr. Dan Dana, 2795 Alexis Drive, stated, in answer to query, that he would like to have the right-of-way requirement rescinded but would be "reasonably happy" with the proposed solution. After discussion, the motion carried unanimouly on a voice -vote. Change Mayor Arnold asked for unanimous approval (see Sec. 2, 104 of the Palo Alto Municipal Cods) to 'change the order of buslz,ase on the agenda to hoar item No. 17 next; however, there were objections fiann Councilmen Comstock. Debi; and Sher. See p.62 50 11/22/65 School Board -City Council_ Liaison Committee Councilman Dias advised that the School Board -City Council Liaison Committee had held two meetings at which they discussed organiza- tion; the fact that the boundaries of the City and the Palo Alto Urified School District do not coincide; that there is a great need for planning with consideration of the school district by the City, that the revenue of both the City and school district comes from various sources; how future annexations would affect the school district; how improvements to the Embarcadero-E1 Camino Real intersection would affect the Palo Alto High School, with the suggestion that the City Traffic Engineer work at all times with the architect who is working on the plans to either rebuild the high school or build a new high school. Lytton School Grounds mow Councilman Dias reported that one of the items discussed by the School Board -City Council Liaison Committee was the lease between the City and school district relative to the Lytton School property. She read a letter from Dr. Harold T. Santee, Superintendent of the Palo Alto Unified School District, dated November 19, 1965, which notified the Council that as a result of discussion with legal counsel they wished to cancel the lease under the 30 -day terms of notification; that they were willing to cooperate in a recreational program under exactly the same terms as other recreation programs are operated in all schools; and that they were sorry that legal technicalities made the cancellation necessary. Councilman Dias moved, seconded by Rus, that the City conduct a recreation program on this property under exactly the same terms as other recreation programs are operated at ale schools in Palo Alto. (Councilman Worthington left the Council chambers at this time.) In the discussion that followed, the. Vice Mayor was interrupted on a point of order. The Chair ruled the question in order and was chal- lenged. The Chair's ruling was sustained on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Arnold, Comstock, Debs, Flint; Pearson, Suer. Noes: Beahrs, Cooley, Dias, Rohra, Rus, Woodws.rd. The Vice Mayor then moved that "these committees" report in writ- ing so '.he Council can discuss the matter from a definite base. The motion died for lack of a second. The Dias motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. (Councilman Worthington returned to the Council chamber at this time.) After discussion, Councilman Sher movt;d, seconded by Flint, that a letter be sent to the Santa Clara County Counsel stating that the Council understands he had occasion ta;., ansidetr the Palo Alto Charter • 51 11/22/65 amendment on property leased to the City, and the Council would be interested in his views on whether property subject to leases would See p. 62 endanger the rights of the lessee. The motion was seconded by Flint and after discussion carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Arnold, Comstock, Cooley, Debs, Flint, Pearson, Sher, Worthington. Noes: Beahrs, Dias, Rohrs, Rus, Woodward. Airport Lease Subcommittee Councilman Rohrs stated that the Council Subcommittee had two meetings with representatives of the County; that much work had been accomplished; that the County is drafting a statement embody- ing the suggested compromises and net effect of some of the sug- gested changes, and this report should be available within a month or so. Councilman Sher indicated that he had nothing to add to thy: progress report. Proposed Re ulation of "C" and "M" Properties "= "Adjacent djacent to Residential Property �..-. Councilman Comstock introduced Ordinance No. 2268 entitled "Or- dinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Ordinance No. 1324, the Zoning Ordinance, by Adopting Regulations Requiring Site and Design Control on 'C' and -''A' District Properties Adjacent to any R-1 and R-Dup District,'! which had been accepted for first reading November 8, 1965," and moved its adoption. The motionwas seconded by Beahrs, and the ordinance was passed unanimously on a voice vote. Park Dedication Ordinance w yr Councilman Comstock introduced Ordinance No. 2269 entitled "Or- dinance of the Council of the City of Path Alto Amending Ordinance No. 2252 (Park Dedication Ordinance) by Adding Thereto Section 21. 1 Esther Clark Park," which was introduced for first reading Novem- ber 8, 1965, and moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Debs, and the ordinance was passed unanimously on a voice vote. Zoninj Ordinance Amendment Requiri g tee erntit in the C-2 Centraf Business District Councilman Rohrs introduced Ordinance No. 2270 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 11.03 (Uses Requiring Use Pttrmits in the C-2 Central Business District) of Or- dinance No. 1324, the Zoning Ordinance, to Pertnit Gasoline Service Stations Under Certain Conditions," which $ra.s accepted for . fi t reading 24ovezz*er 8, 1965, and moved its adoption. Tine motioavras seconded by Dias and carried on a majorityvvice vote,, r with Dobs voting no. , , . . . . . .. , 52 11/22/65 Tax Deeded Properties The City Manager read his memorandum to the Council dated Novem- ber 18, 1965 entitled "Purchase and Disposition of Tax Deeded Prop- erty." He noted the County of Santa Clara took •.ax title to two parcels (County parcels No. 132-42-04'7 and No. 127-07-073) in July of 1965 and has offered to sell therm to the City for $1.50 each, plus advertis- ing costs. He recommended that the Council pass the proposed reso- lution which had been sent to the Council in their packets; that the ob- jective would be to combine County tax title and any City interest, and quitclaim these parcels to the appropriate abutting owners. He re- ferred to the exhibits on the chamber wall which depicted the property under consideration. Councilman Beahrs introduced Resolution No. 3858 entitled "Resolu- tion of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Man- ager to Acquire Certain Tax Deeded Land from the County of Santa Clara, Declaring Said Property to be Not Needed for Corporate or - Public Purposes and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Quitclaim Deeds Therefor" and moved its adoption. He also moved that the Council direct the M?.yor to execute the quitclaim deeds. The motion was sec- onded by Dias and, after discussion, was passed unanimously on a voice votc. Resort on Bids - Repair of Curbs, �rr� �.+�rri-r+ra�n�rdlFi �:a�., rs.rsn�r Gutters, Sidewalks and Drivewa. Aprons �rr.�. i r�.r�i� r�rerY�W.�Mri�r�r�W+.srww-..af wr�rti�.e.� The City Manager reported that four bids were received for the an- nual repair of hazardous sidewalks, defective curbs, abandoned drive- ways, etc.; that the low bid of Don L. Hagemann in the amount of $6, 472.88 was 24. 9% below the engineer's estimate; and that the staff recommend award of the contract to Don L. Hagemann. On motion of Comstock, seconded by Beahrs and carried unanimously on a voice vote, the Council awarded the contract to Don L. Hagemann and authorized and directed the May 2r to sign the contract. Underground_ Utilities The City Manager read his memorandum to the Council dated Novem- ber 18, 1965, which requested a policy determivaldon from the Council as to whether the Council wished the staff to undertake a pilot project to test the applicability of the Urban Beautification and Improvement Act to undergrounding of utilities. Since writing the =nemorandu:n,the City Manager advised he had learned that the federal agency was pri- rnarily interested in redevelopment where other types of beautification besides-undergrounding takes place, and that since the total budget for the urban beautification program is three million doilara the pilot project should be limited to around $100, 000. For this reason, he suggested that Palo Alto might submit the widening of El Camino Real, which has landscaping in the project and which totals aground $183, 700.00 as an estimate, for an underground program. This figure does not in- clude the increase in the cost of -copper or Labor that has been reflected in recent months. Councilman Beahrs moved, seconded by Dias, that as a matter of policy the City staff be empowered to explore the possibility of get- ting some of the tax money back for undergrounding of utilities in the El Camino improvement project. Councilman Sher moved, seconded by Comstock, to table the matter. The motion lost on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Comstock, Debs, Flint, Rus, Sher, Worthington. Noes: Arnold, Beahrs, Cooley, Dias, Pearson, Rohrs, Woodward. In the diccussion that followed, the City Manager reported that the staff recommendation would be to :request 50% of the cost of the El Camino Real undergrounding project for that portion of Ei. Camino within the City limits of Palo Alto between Matadero Creek and just below Adobe Creek. Councilman Beahrs incorporated this recom- mendation, with the consent of his second, into the main motion. After lengthy discussion, Councilman Dias moved the previous ques- tion. The mo .ion was duly seconded but failed to carry the necessary two- thirds majority on a show -of -hands vote. Councilman Rohrs moved an amendment that the Council direct the staff to make an application. Councilman Bez.hrs incorporated this amendment into his main motica. The Beahrs motion as amended then carried on the following r all call vote: Ayes: Arnold, Beahrs, Comstock, Cooley, Dias, Pearson, Sher, Worthington. Moen: Debs, Flint._ Rohrs, Rus, Woodward. Claim for Damages - Soren P. Sivertsen The City Attorney reported that Soren P. Sivertsen of 760 Webster Street filed a claim for personal injuries in the amount of $10,000.00 suffered when he fell in front of Ms residence. After investigation, the City Attorney advised that there had been no negligence on the part of the City; that this was not a proper charge against the City; and that he recomwnended the Council so find and d reject the claim in its entirety. On motion of Dias, seconded by Rohrs and carried unanimously, ; the Council denied the claim in its entirety. Claim for Doges - Robert O. Bauld The City Attorney reported that Robert O. Bauld of 2179 Williams Avenue fixed a claim in the` amount of $15.30 to cover a plumbing 54 L1/22/65 expense incurred in installing a new thermocouple on his water heater. After investigation, the City Attorney concluded that there had been no negligence or liability on the part of the City, and he recommended that the Council so find and reject the claim in its entirety. On motion of Rohrs, seconded by Woodward and carried unanimously. the Council rejected the claim in its entirety. Claim for Damages Donald A. Campbell The City Attorney reported that Donald A. Campbell, 435 Seale Avenue, filed a claim in the amount of $12.00 as reimbursement for plumbing expense incurred on August 27, 1965 in connection with a sewer stop- page at this 'ocation. After investigation, the City Attorney advised that there had been no negligence or liability on the part of the City and recommended that the Council so find and reject the claim in its en- tirety. On motion of Beahrs, seconded by Rohrs and carried unanimously, the Council denied the claim in its entirety. Liquor License - Z63 Universit Avenue (Councilmen Debs and Rus were not in the council chamber for the discussion and vote on this matter.) The City Attorney reported that on November I, 1965 the Larson Pizza Enterprises, Inc. filed an application for a retail on -sale beer license for the premises at 263 University Avenue. After reviewing the appli- cation, tince there are no legal grounds for protest, he recommended the application be filed without action. On motion of Sher. seconded by Beahrs and carried unanimously. the Council directed the application be filed without protest. Sewer and Storm Drainage Improvements The matter was discussed at the Council meeting October 25, 1965 (see p.24 of the minutes) and at the meeting November 8, 1965 (see-pp.40-1 of the minutes) . The City Manager referred to his memorandum to the Council dated October 20, 1965 which requested direction from the Council as to whether the staff should apply for federal grants for sewer and storm drainage projects under Public Law 89-117. After a short discussion, Councilman Comstock introduced Resolution No. 3859 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto De- claring its Intention to Improve Existing Sanitary and Storm Drainage Systems and Its Interest in Securing Federal Funds Under Public Law 89-117 to Accomplish Same" and moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Cooley. 55 1 i/z2/65 in the discussion that followed, Councilman Flint stated the Charter inferred that each utility should be operated from its specific revenue. Councilman Rohrs raised a point of order. The Mayor ruled Flint's question in order. and the ruling was challenged. The Mayor was reversed on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Beahrs, Cooley, Dias, Rohrs, Rus, Woodward, Worthington. Noes: Arnold, Comstock, Debs, Flint, Pear -son, Sher. The resolution was passed on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Arnold, Beahrs, Comstock, Cooley, Debs, Pearson, Sher, Worthington. Noes: Dias, Flint, Rohrs, Rus, Woodward. Police and Fire Protection The Council had received a copy of Councilman Flint's letter dated November 9, 1965 to the City Manager regarding the alleged inade- quacy of police and fire protection. Councilman Flint stated that he would restrict his questioning to po- lice protection as he did not have all his information on fire protec- tion; that he felt the police force and police budget should be expanded; that he was not criticizing the police chit:f and operation of the police department; and that since his criticism involved the City Manager, he would move that the Council go into executive session to discuss the matter. The motion was seconded by Dens. The Mayor ruled the motion out of order, and Flint appealed the de- cision of the Chair. In response to query, the City Attorney read Section 54957 of the Brown Act which states that an executive session is permissible in considering "the appointment, employment or dis- missal of public officer or employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against such officer... unless such officer or employee re- quests a public hearing." The City Manager requested that there be a public hearing of the charges made against him by Councilman Flint. After discussion, the Chair's ruling was sustained on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Debs, Flint. Noes: Arnold, Beahrs, Comstock, Cooley, Dias, Pearson: Rohrs, Rus, Sher, Woodward, Worthington. After consultation with the City Attorney, Councilman Bez.hrs moved, seconded by Rohrs, that the matter ti;' cc►ntinued until Mr. Flint brought forth his charges in writing and in a categorical manner. The City Manager indicated that be; understood the intent of the motion to con- tinue and agreed that the charges shon14 have been submitted in writ- ten form when the matter was first placed on the ,agenda of the Council 56 11/22/65 meeting October 25, 1965; that a month had elapsed and in that time no written statement, charges or remarks, other than generalities, had been forthcoming; that to submit him to a "so-called hearing at the wishes of one man at every Council meeting" was something to which he would not submit himself nor "the lowest city employee." Councilman. Rohrs moved, secondee -I y Beahrs, that the matter be tabled. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Arnold, Beahrs, Comstock, Cooley, Debs, Dias, Pearson, Rohrs, Rus, Sher, Woodward, Worthington. Noes: Flint. Tennis Courts Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Debs, that the question of the condition, number and location of city tennis courts be referred to the Fubi c Works Committee for consideration concurrently with a staff report on these matters; that the staff report should consider these matters as well as (1) past complaints, if any, (2) present status of the tennis program, (3) future plans; and that rnernb r a of the Palo Alto Tennis Club be invited to give their views. The motion was de- clared carried on a majority voice vote. Policy R.FAa.:rdinft Public Works Ass*stance Pro rams The Council had received a memorandum dated November 17, 1965 from Councilman Comstock supplementing his agznda request for a Council policy position regarding federal, state and county assistance programs in the area of public works in municipal operations. Coun- cilman Comstock requested that the matter be withdrawn at this time. Civic Center _ Proper t. Hopkins antPine Councilman Flint referred to hie memorandum dated November 7, 1965 to the Council on the subject "Staff's Refutation of My Statement at October 25th Council Meeting re Property at Hopkins Ave. &Pine St." He moved that the Council direct the staff to answer his memo- randum in writing and that the answer be returned at the next Council sheeting. The motion was seconded by Debs', After discussion, Councilman Worthington moved an amendment, seconded by Pearson," that the Council ask the City Manager for a written report and that in addition the Council receive a verbal re- port tonight. The City Manager declared that he was prepared to answer at this meeting. After discussion, Councilman Beahrs moved that the matter be con- tinued to the next Council meeting and that the signature of Mrs. Grace 0. Davis be authenticated or that sbe appear in person before the Council. The motion died for lack of a second. 57 11/22/65 After discussion, the Worthington amendment lost on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Comstock, Flint, Pearson, Sher, Worthington. Noes: Arnold, Beahrs, Cooley, Debs, Dias, Rohrs, Rus, Woodward. The main motion lost 071 the following roll call vote: Ayes: Comstock, Debs, Flint, Pearson, Sher. Noes: Arnold, Beahrs, Cooley, Dias, Rohrs, Rus, Woodward, Worthington. At the request of thf- ox or.May the Clerk was directed to provide v. r- batim minutes of the City Manager's oral report. MR. KEITHLEY: Members of the Council, speaking to the letter dated November 7 submitted to fellow councilmen from Philip S. Flint he states there that the "City Manager Jerome Keithley termed it 'innuendo' and asked the Mayor to not permit me to make such state- ments in the future,'° and my only remark is the fact that I did term the remark "innuendo," and I believe I have pretty good reason to have thought that innuendo and did ask the Mayor not to permit such statements as were made. Now it is too bad we are going to say one person said something and one, another •person, and we do not have a tape recording and could play them back and find out what was said. In relation to the policy of the City and in regard to acquisition of the property, and specifically the Davis property that has been referred to this evening, I turn the mike over to -Mr. Morgan, who handles our program of land acquisition and supervises the program, who will e:Lplain to us in detail how it is carried out. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Mayor and rr s of the c;our_cil, speaking to the same letter dated November 7, 1965 from Mr. Flint, I can say, number one that the nuestions towhich Mr. Flint raised objec- tion were riot answered in the context in which they are stated in the letter of November 7. The questions that were posed at an early date we:e to the effect that the staff was charged with contravening previous Council direction and being, in effect, i►x defianco of -instruc- tion, and this is contrary to the facts of the mater. As Mr. Flint's letter does state, and Mrs. Davis has concurred, Mrs. Davis and other property owners were contacted by the City staff in March, specifically on March 9, 1964. Asa matter of record, and as a mat- ter of past policy, the City Manager's office, in our judgment or in my judb,ment, has the authority, but in my opinion the responsibility, to advise or contact property owners directly affected by a plan or policy decision made by the City Council which affects their property. This policy has been in effect since I have had anything to do with the land acquisition program, and it has come particularly into focus with the off-street parking program, with the park acquisition programs, as well as the item under discussion. It is not uncommon for the staff to contact property owners to inform them of pending action or pending policy resolution of the City Council, particularly if it affects their property. P.r, outstanding example could be cited: the Hoover Park See p. 62 58 11/22/65 addition where the Ci'.y staff, City Manager's office specifically, was contacted by a property owner adviuing that his property would be available to the City for the expansion of the park. Because of the location of the particular property, it would be valueless to the City unless the abutting properties were also acquired. Prior to report- ing to the Council or any committee on the subject, we contacted the abutting property owners to determine their interest in disposing of their property and whether there were any special conditions or terms that would be appropriate to discuss preliminary to any policy resolu- tion. In this case, as a result of the review that was made, we rn.ade a recommendation to the Council that is incorporated in the prelim- inary capital improvement program that will contemplate, we hope, the ultimate acquisition of three parcels - an acquisition program, however, that can be tailored to meet the requirements of the prop- erty owners over the next few years. A comment that I would like to make, and I have been asked on many occasions, and I am sure the council members have been also, and that is, Why was I not con- tacted when this particular decision was made? and it was on the basis of that, that we have contacted property owners in the Pine and Hopkins area. In the Ebasco Report, the properties under discussion were designated and shaded and shown as a matter of future acquisi- tion. Council action on August 12, 1963, when the Ebasco plan was accepted by a 9 to 2 vote and 10 to 1 vote, gav further assurance to this particular plan. On August 12 the City Council by a unanimous 10 to nothing vote voted to buy the property at the corner of Newell and Parlknson as a future site acquisition. On January 27, 1964 an amended Ebasco plan was approved with the proviso that the public safety building be located on the powerhouse site and this vote was 9 to 5. Following that latter vote, the January 27; 1964 action of the Council, and this was the action that everyone will recall who was present at the present time, to end all subsequent actions, this was the definitive action, this was the action these property owners had long awaited because their property was on an on-again/off-again basis, and T think if you check the -record again, the City t ff_Was contacted by the property owners prior to the January 27 vote to de- termine whether the City was really interested or partially interested, or to what extent the, City had interest, and as a result of this action, the City staff made preliminary inquiries as to availability of property owners. Our contact to these property owners preceded the time when we had any formal appraisal,because our primary purpose was to inform them of the definitive action taken by the City Council. Ap- praisal would be prepared covering their property, and we would be in a position to discuss with them and not to consummate•- and any property owner will confirm this - but to di scues terms and condi- tions of acquisition. We have told the property owners from the be- ginning and T must say subsequent to the November action when the Council by motion, not by formal resolution, authorized the acquisi- tion. It was authorized entirely on a negotiated basis without giving the City staff rights of eminent domain or right to pursue any legal action if the property owner was adverse to selling and in each case that 1 personally contacted, and advised therm that such were the facts, and that we were attempting to buy the property but we had no dter- native to conclude the acquiRition, the property, owner had nothing to sell, other than report such fact to the City Council. If there is interest, we cat- e'ocument the times and places of the various meet- ings that started in March of 1964 and extended over au extended 59 11/22/65 period of time until the Council, by direct action on December 14, 1964, directed st:..ff to suspend all actions toward the acquisition of property at the corner of Pine and Hopkins pending the outcome of the March 2 election; and subsequent to December 14, we have been most conscientious in our observance of that particular Council di- rective. So the only thing I can say by way of summary is that in the context of the letter of November 7, 1965, the staff's denial was certainly, let us say, misunderstood, because the staff did contact these property owners and our record will show the nature of the contacts, the people who were present at the time the contacts were made, the subjects discussed and generally what actually transpired. That constitutes the report that I had, and if there should be wish for additional detail, I would be happy to provide it. Councilman flint read the letter from Mrs. Grace 0. Davis,, which is cont.ai'ed in his November 7 memorandum to the Council, and added that on March 26 Mrs. Davis stated that she was definitely made an offer of $ 16, 000 for her property. He indicated that if the staff was negotiating to that extent, they must have had in mind an actual program of construction in acquiring the land for a certain, definite purpose. Mr. Morgan replied that the 32,nuary 1964 action specified the public safety building should be given top priority for development and that this building should be lo,-ated at the power station site; thz.t a firm, definite offer was made to Mrs. Davis on April 20, after thy- appraiser's report was re:.eived on April 16, 1964; that on May 11, 1964 the matter of acquisition was introduced to the Council and that, he felt, "at this date the majority; if not all of the Council, was of the opinion that the subject had been disposed of by a rather definitive policy decision." He recalled that in August 1963 the City Manager was directed to proceed to hire the necessary tech- nicians and architects to develop plans; that nothing could be consum- mated without approval or{the City Council, and the securing of op- tions was prepay ato y to review by the Councii. Councilman Beahrs moved, seconded by Rus, that the matter be ta- bled. The motion carried on the following`'rbll call vote: Ayes: Arnold, Beahrs, Cooley, Dias, Rohrs, Rus, Woodward. Noes: Comstock, Debs, Flint, Pearson, Sher, Worthington. Council Procedure A letter addressed to Councilman Flint, dated November 5, 1965 with the subject "Project 52-13; City of Palo Alto -Simpson Motors Lease" had b'een distributed to the Council at the request of Coun- cilmen Flint. A letter from the City Attorney dated July 24, 1959 with the subject "Floyd Lowe, et al v. City of Palo Alto, et al No. 112025" had been distributed to the Council at the request of the City Attorney. Councilman Flint indicated that the November 5;`, 1965 letter war; "documentary evidence" that City Council actioi,s was taken outside Council chambers at; the Palo Alto C1 b. 60 11/22/65 After a short discussion, Arnold moved, seconded by Deba, that the letter be filed. The motio!,carried on a majority voice tote, with Flint voting no. Council Procedur4 Vice Mayor Debs moved that the Committee on Planning and Proce- dures consider the following proposal: (1) that the ad hoc committees, such as the School Board -City Council Liaison Committee, shall re- port to the Council in writing with minutes as is required with the three standing committees, and (2) that notice of the ad hoc commit- tee meetings be included in the Schedule of Meetings. The motion died for lack of a second. See p. 62 Council Polio. on Acquisition of Private Property Councilman Sher moved, seconded by Debs, that the Committee on Planning and Piocedures consider the question of whether the Coun- cil ought to adop` a policy to direct the staff not to make offers for property, even if subject to Council approtial, until such time as the Council directs the staff to do so. The motion was declared carried on a majority voice vote. Palo Alto Harbor The Council received a letter dated November 8,, 1965 from the Palo Alto Yacht Club which suggested six improvements to the harbor .area which they indicated would benefit all the users. On motion of Rohrs, seconded by Comstock and carried unanimously, the Council ordered the letter filed until the report is received from the Airport Least' Subcommittee. School Board -City Council Liaison Committee Mayor Arnold announced that the School Board -City Council Liaison Committee would meet on December 7, 1965 at the school board headquarters at 25 Churchill Avenue at 12 noon. Oral Communications Mr. Maurice Ledoyen indicated that he agreed with the newspaper article which said "this was the greatest show on earth." Adjournment in Memory o;; President Kennedy► 1r, Mayor Arnold announced t!et, because this date marked the second anniversary of the umfortuuat+e assassination of President Keaaedy, 61 1;./22/65 the Council would adjourn in his memory. The Council was adjourned at 1 l:5'8 p. m. APPROVEL: Mayor ATTEST: it Clerk �J Cy