HomeMy WebLinkAbout08081960City Hall, Palo Alto, California
August 8, 1960.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto met in regular
session on this ':date at 7:30 P.M., with Mayor Bali presiding.
Roll call as follows
Present: Bali, . Byxbee, Davis, Giffin, Marshall, Mitchell,
Navin Rodgers, Woodward, Zweng.
Absent: Bishop, Evans, Haight, Porter Stephens .
The .minutes of the meetings of July 25, 1960 and
August_1,, ;.1960 were approved as distributed,
Preject; 59-11, Emnbarcadesa Road Erect of Bayehox"e
Thiswas the time for hearing on. Resolution No. 3.236, of
Preliminary Determination and of Intention, adopted July 11, 1960,_'
for acquisitions' and improvements.
The .Mayor read a statement advising thatthe purpose of
the hearing, is to determine whether the public convenience and:
necessity in general require the proposed improveaxaents, and to
hear any and all protests or endorsements of the project from the
property owners directly, concerned, and from the protests or
endorsements and from the testimony of the city administrative
staff to determine whether the properties within the assessment
district will be benefited by the proposed improvements and whether
the assessments ; have been spread in accordance with such benefits.
An oral report was presented by the City Engineer who,
reviewedthe proposed, improvements and submitted information
relative to the project:. ' It was reported that no written protests.
or communications have been received.
Thehearingwas declared open. Mr. T. Kawakami,
2191 Bayshore,Highway, Mr. Ss Kanazawa, 2205 Bayshore Highway,
and Mr. Merle Sperry, 1095 Bayshore Highway, addressed the
Council. These property owners in the assessment district objected
particularly to the proposed storm drainage improvements, which
they felt were not needed, and objected to the assessment against
their properties. There being noone else who wished to be heard,
the hearing was declared closed.
A report was made by the City Manager on bids received
this afternoon on the project, advising that the low bidder was
the; Freeman Paving Company of Palo Alto who submitted a bid of
$168,978.25, The Engineer's estimate was $192,872.89.
Inasmuch as twelve votes were required to adopt the
necessary resolutions to proceed with the project, no further action
could be taken at this time. 'On motion of Byxbee and Marshall.
all matters, .in connection with the project were continued to the next
regular meeting on August,22, 1960.
Pro1ject 59-10, Foothills Annexation No. 2
. anitar • Sewers
.The City Manager advised that, inasmuch as this .project:
had been continued to September; 12, 1960, it is necessary to amend
the previous resolution which had provided for sealed proposals to
be received on August 8, 1960.
Resolution No:3260, amending Resolution No. 3235, .`
entitled "Resolution --Calling: for Sealed Proposals", by'eliminating
the last paragraph thereof, was introduced, and on motion of
Mitchell and Byxbee, was adopted by unanimous voice vote.
Closing Portion of Pepper Street
This was the time set for hearing on the proposed "
abandonment of a portion, of Pepper Street for a distance of 100 feet
northeast of Ash Street. The hearing was declared open,. There
being no one present whowished to speak on the matter, the hearing;
was closed:
It was ;reported :that all costs of the abandonment proceed-
ings are to be paid to theCity by the property owners to be benefited
by the street closing, Mr. and Mrs. Charles 0. Harris.
Resolution No. 3261, ordering, the abandonment of a
portion. of Pepper Street, was introduced, and on motion of Mitchell
and Woodward,.- was: adopted by unanimous voice vote.
Non -Resident Librar Fees
A letter was received from Mrs. Catherine Urban of
Saratoga referring to a letter she sent to the City Attorney on
June 18, 1960, objecting to the fact that she had been refused the
privilege of a library card without the payment of a nonresident :fee,
although she is stilla property owner and taxpayer of Palo Alto,: and
to -his -reply that the establishment of non-resident fees was a policy.
decision of the. City.. Council. ` Mrs. Urban stated in hex letter that
she. has been advised that the City does not have the authority to
restrict any taxpayer from participating without prejudice in the
privileges and use of anyfacilities supported by taxation. She asked
for clarification of the matter.
It was noted it has long been the policy of the City.
for non-residents to pay library :fees , and the staff was askedto
advise Mrs. Urban of the Council's policy in this matter.
Letter from P.A. Residents Assn. re Master Plan
A letter was received from Robert J. ; Debs, Chairman of
the Palo Alto Residents Association, referring to their previous
letter of July 11, 1960 requesting that there be no further major
zone changes before the revision of the Master Plan is completed.
The Associationrequested that the Council take all reasonable: steps
to assure that the Planning, COMMAS Si071 shall forthwith have both the
policy direction and financial means necessary to carry out the task:
required of it to prepare and recommend a. Master Plan.
The City Manager advised that from an administrative
standpoint the Planning Department .has ;been working continuously,
on studies relative :to the General Plan ,and the updating of the plan.
He, called attention -to: the public hearing to be held by Committee
No. 3 and,mtmbers of the Mayor °a Committee to Establish,Goals
and Objectives,; on August 10, -1960, when the goals and objectives
recommended by, the Committee will be presented and discussed,
and ;that, following that hearing the Council Committee should be
ready to make, a ,recommendation on goals and objectives for guidance
in planning. 'Councilman Byxbee pointed out that the Council and
Planning Commission: have been making studies for some time leading
up to�'the establishment Of Policy for design of the plan, and there -
was" no point'.n hiring a planner' until goals have been established.
At the suggestion of the Mayor the staff was asked to
respond to the letter from the Palo Alto Residents Association and
advise thern that; the Planning Department has been continually
working" on studies of the General Plan, and that the goals and
objectives for the City Will be discussed at a meeting or August 10,
1960, of Committee No. .3 and'the Goals Committee.
Cancellation of Taxes Flood Control District
A:request was received from the Santa Clara County Flood
Control District for cancellation of taxes on property acquiredby
the District for flood :.control purposes on San Francisquito Creek,
being.;: portion of Lot 5, Tract 234, Crescent Park No. 4, containing
0.127 acre, acquired from Fred B. Henghold.
It was moved". by Rodgers, seconded and carried that
the taxes on said property be cancelled.
A letter.w.as received froze Alf E. Brandin, Vice -
President for. Business Affairs, Stanford University, withdrawing
thetechnical protest filedby the University' on May 9, 1960, on the
annexation of the territory designated as "Stanford Annexation No.' 9',
and :requesting':that the Council take the necessary steps to adopt the
•
annexation, ordinance, .and, that the effectiveness of the ordinance be
made depend r. ent. upon appovai by the voters in November of the action
of the Council in establishingthe zoning for the area.
The :City Manager advised that Stanford requested this
action in order to save time in the event the voters approve the
zoning :ordinance at the November 8th election , so that the develop.
meat of the property could proceed without another, delay on the
passage of the annexation ordinance.` He pointed out that the University
would ;not want the property annexed to the City if the zoning is.
defeatedat the referendum.election.
A proposed.. ordinance approving the annexation of certain
territory designated as "Stanford Annexation No. 9" was introduced,
and on motion of Byxbee and Mitchell, was accepted for first
reading by majority Voice vote, with a provision in the ordinance that
the ordinance is to be effective only if Ordinance No. 1943>establish
ing the zoning of :Stanford Annexation. No. 9 is approved by a majority
of the voters at the November 8th election:..
Sea Scouts Lease Extension
The, City: Manager 'recommended extension of the lease
with the:Stanford Area Council of Boy Scouts of America covering.
the area leased ;by the Sccauts for a Sea Explorer Base at the Yacht
Harbor, until December,.31: 1960, He advised that the Scouts
understand that their.. facilities may have to be moved to another
area if the:devr,Zopznent, and proposed improvements at the Yacht
Harbor require such relocation.
It was moved by."Byxbee, seconded and carried that the
Mayor be authorized to execute: the Extension of Lease in behalf of
the City.
Clam of Pacific Teltphone
A report was made by the City Manager on claim filed
by the Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company in the amount of.
$843:01 for cost of repairing cable, damaged by a" City crew while
probing for a; gas leak:. He advised that by negotiation it had -been
agreed -that both parties would; share the cost of repairing the
damage,,: and he recoirsn ended the claim be settled in the amount of
$421.50.
It was ,moved by Mitchell, seconded and carried by
Unsetymous voice vote that settlement of the claim for $421.50 be
authorized.;
The City Managerfurther reported that the City utilities
personnel and the engineering staff of the Telephone Company are
working out a prograxn of coordination and feel that problems and
occurrences involving damage to equipment should be greatly
minimized in the future
The City :Manager ";presented the consolidation of municipal
fee ;schedules, combining; in one document the various fees and
charges established and in effect for general City activities, services,,
facilities and publications, exclusive of those pertaining to utilities.
He advised thatthe incorporation of these fee schedules in one
booklet : makes it feasible :for the Council, by reaffirming prior`'
approvals, to provide .uniform authority for all items not covered by?
specific ordinances, resolutions or other Council directives.
The City Manager further reported that he felt charges
for such items as ";maps, documents, and fees for special services
and activities, particularly in the Recreation Department, should_
be established by administrative action, and recommended adoption
of a resolution to thiseffect
It was .moved.by Byxbee, seconded and carried that the
consolidated fee ;schedules"'for general City activities be adopted,
and that the staff be commended for its work in preparing this
document.
Resolution° No.; 3262,. authorizing the City Manager to
establish .certain .Miscellaneous Fees, was .introduced, and on motion
of Byabee, duly seconded, was adopted by unanimous voice vote.
Abandonment of Easement A Amarillo Apt.. Corp.
The City Manager advised that it is m order to
execute a quitclaim deed to the Amarillo Apartment Corporation;
releasing an easement covering portion of Lot 17 and Lot 18
Block 6 Seale Subdivision No. 5, as the easement is, no longer
needed.
A resolution authorizing: the Mayor to execute :this
quitclaim deed was introduced, and on motion of Marshall, duly
seconded, was adopted by unanimous voice vote.
Relocation of Sewer Easement, Philco Corporation
Reference was made by the City Manager to the approval
of the Council at its last meeting of a request from Philco Corpora-
tion for relocation of a sewer easement. He advised that it is now
in order, toadopt a resolution authorizing execution of a quitclaim.
deed to complete the relocation of this easement.
"A resolution authorizing theMayorto executethis
quitclaim deed to California Pacific Title Insurance Company,
conveying interest `in.an :existing easement in order to realign a
15 -inch- sanitary --sewer, was .introduced, and on motion of Rodgers
arid Marshall, was ;adopted by unanimous voice vote.
A report was received from the Planning Commission
unanimously recoxnmending that the naxne "Wintergreen Way" be
given to the cul-de-sac in the 3000 block off Ross Road.
A _proposed ordinance designating a certain street as
"Wintergreen :Way": was introduced, and on motion of Nevis, duly
seconded, was accepted for first reading by unanimous voice vote.
Hospital _Budget
A:report was received from Committee No. 4
recommending approval of the final budget of the Palo Alto -Stanford
Hospital Centex for the fiscal year 19b0-61 as submitted by the
•
Board of Hospital Directors,
Councilman Byxbee reported in behalf of the committee
andadvised that nexnbers of the committee felt that themethod of
allocation of expenses and revenues between owners should, have
further study: He presentedthe following motion:
"Coxxaaixittee No. 4 recommends approval of the budget
the;Palo- Alto -Stanford Hospital' Center fox the fiscal year
1960.-61, as submitted to the Committee at its August 3, 1960,
meeting: This action is not meant to include approval ofthe
•
method' of allocation of expenses or revenues between owners,
and we request that the formula for determining room and'
ward patxent cots be "explored further sine we believe a
differential: exiats'between the cost of operating beds for the
partners, including the exception of intern and resident',
expenses We also question the use of this formula in
equipment.
ed
the $80,470.00 of (tong t�fe) b ia� tetab sb Est
fimat�'� :,. .. � the gQarct s au s � axid respec�`ty
recognise revenue It is asar.
of pees arid se xsraulas. 1w
allocationt of the theu hospital staff."
that continuedt this is; be done voice
�,aex st��8 d by �w� and adopted T� motion. was seconded
s..;talRam f'.'' ttce130• recommend-
,
e ceived . ras�ca
�Go u �, the ;
A r. n�,bi�en .x+c�ea � �;Ot?,"
date- for aewb reduced #� in
big
daily room . discharged be the hospital that ear. yotheiffi'�axe e�dbe rcmom
hospital after :,ac ce wi a reco
$13.,f10�,an:aacos:�
hoard. -- and wa; ;• this change in
rates.
motion a f. $ybee
rasous Voice. vote
Was adopted by
Election, November 8 1960
. �-. c1a1'Reg+�ren ervxsor�s
the Hoard of Supervisors
3263 requesting tioh of a
oYe�taoxa Na { the consolidation
State.
Res _ Clax a' to _:pr oxide: or o one with of - the 'fat of; Pal g 1960, e was '`
of the Gatixf r election of City
on November w t
al ire#ex Genet to be d Marshall, wag adopted y..
ape General Election, xis. an
of Galifornaa on ,motion of Na
cede: sand, , ..
xntxaiciv vote.
un ,mous voice br
Ballot -Measure re Downtown Ea1Aat .M o£ replacing,„
Fro. Deal #or to the questiar. for `
ax
�yubee referred improvement on o grogra i , ,
,Gout cal inaa� branch library if the, he attention::
t®�, bx�n proposed. sung aog ried cent as F the. relocationedtte of
the,, +� 1to;is ens a opposing t since one
sue i 9 receivedPalA several years ago
Vie. occurred to hi= that of the
et:tions. that: it occur the question
to. g __e .advised . 8th ballot, bavirig the
the; Ys ire - on the ,Noveett er d for all. by, onat "that
Walt -be settledkonce and bee proposed
r��asure: coiu�d be. Vic. "E�
da! ?m' vote
,on,i same election.. ballot:
vote:;axa lt;a the included on the 1.
voters. e be. in and
the following Ynea interest, policy and Palo Alto,;,
r of ,�;tsbtac � of Downtown, Pala
"As -a matte for the development. resent 7po'Pato
agl it a to replace the present aDear oin rder-to _.. different site toes to meet
Y1 it be ch Libxaxy at a alai# with tC
,stto",Br a doqua . siz.e �:
ecfa Vii 7
$eac�at necessary
?labile tea semen Rodgers,
sa seconded by
de by Ercbee, measure ot►the
atraasxa has Ito place the proposeai
ci:l ta'e actaassi.
t the...Council ballot. a to
eu*ber,gh ba atlas be referred 1
N that the secayztided by
moved �y �.we� The motion was '
It was consider y
3 for c, .s� M t e No. 3 was as ,ed to c the er the
v dreport carried, 1960.
Davis and a>n p,"g"
" at its:;�eetivag �sn.�'►hg�st �2•
qulasts t e . rneet>
at the a xe , '
._:�-'-^��r."^"' .-r:c•- - _ -. a-- '�'�--�-..�'^--...--xa�: __..._--� _�—�—�_.•�c��;._.�....r-:'_ �� W ^._tip.— � . . -
The City Manager. submitted four: alternative ;plans for
consideration in establishing the tax rate for 1960-61, ranging
from 75.centad. (.the :same :rate :as_ Last year) to 89'cents. 'The plans
contained information on the amount of funds required for the
Hospital .Working Capital and Hospital'Bond Payments-,; and on the
availability of funds: Headvised that the General City Tax Rate
can be established -at $0.621; and the rate for Bond Interest and
Redemption Fund at $0.063. These figures gores axe areeclusive•of
hospital considerations. The tax rates he proposed
sufficient revenues to finance the General City Budget and wthvide
supplementary financing would permit the City to meet its _
anticipated fiscal requirements anecessitated by the . operation" of the
Hospital. The City Manager advised -that all the rates suggested
axe predicated on the repayment by the Hospital of the bond interest
and redemption advances' needed to .meet 1960-61 obligations' totaling
$227,000.00s -.also that the; rates are based on the premise that the
City will contribute additional working capital (a maxinauxn of
$150,000, Plan A and a znaxi r
�tizn of $200, n04 in the other- plans)..
Councilman .Nevis advised that additional working capital is needed `
to: replenish the Working •.Fund afteractivation expenses were paid.
After considerable discussion and review of the various
proposals, a. motion was made by Zweng that. Plan A be adopted and
that the tax rate - for .1960 -61 beset at $0.75.
Mrs. Donald Reinke, 2707 Ramona Street, addressed the
Council protesting against any tax to help support the Hospital.
A substitute motion was made by Mitchell, seconded -by
Byxbee, that the rate be fixed at $0.80, with the understanding the
amount-ofwoaking capital to: be contributed by the City would be a
maximum of $150,000, A rollcall vote was as follows:
Ayes: Byxbee, Davis, Mitchell, Navis, Woodward.
Noes: Ball, Giffin, Marshall, Rodgers, Zweng.
The motion was declared lost.
A motion was';niade by Davis, seconded by Byxbee, that
the -matter of the tax rate'' be referred to Committee No. 3 for
consideration at its meeting on August 10, 1960, and report to the
Council on August 22, 1960.:: The motion to refer to committee
was lost by the following vote on roll call:
Ayes: Byxbee, Davis, Woodward.
Noes: Ball, Giffin, Marshall, Mitchell, Navis,
Rodgers,Zweng.
The ' original motion to recommend a tax rate of $0.75
was then considered.` Councilman Navis.
is a ei res pointed out that the Hospital
t!' ponsibility;and he felt it would be wise to provide
sufficient funds for contingencies he thought the rate should not;be
less .than $0,80. Councilman Zweng
excess: money ay��bler.. _ argued that there should: be no After discussion a roll call vote on the
proposed $0.75 tax rate was as follows:
Ayes • Giffin, Rodgers, Zweng.
Noes:; Ball, Byxbee, Davis, Marshall, Mitchell: Nevis,
Woodward..
426
A motion was then made by Byxbee, seconded by
Mitchell, that the'toxnmittee recommend a tax rate of $79.9.
The roll call on this motion was as follows:
Ayes: Ball, Byxbee,: Davis, Marshall, Mitchell,
Navin, Woodward.
Noes: Giffin, Rodgers, Zweng.
The motion was declared lost.
A motion was then made by Zweng, seconded by Byxbee
and carried that the, matter ofthe taxrate:, be referred to Committee
No. `3 to consider at its meeting of August 10, 1960, and report to •
the Council on Aug.st 22, 1960.
The City Manager was requested to submit a written
report on the plans and figureshe presented this evening: with
regard to suggested -tax .rates, funds arid hospital requirements.
Manager also reminded the Council that the
tax rates for the off-street parking assessment districts must be
established by the Council, and that information on the bond
requirements and funds needed will be submitted to Committee
No. 3.:
At this point a:motion was made by Marshall, • seconded
by Davis that ., the
1960-61 be fixed: at $0.80.:'A;roll call vote was as follows:
Ayes '::Ball, Byxbee, Davis, Marshall, Mitchell,.
Woodward.
oea.: Giffin, Rodgers, Zweng.
The :motion was declared lost, and the matter was
referred to Committee No. 3 'for consideration and report at the
next Council meeting
Ameadmenf. to Sec 33.30<.re Parkways
Ordinance No.: 1967. repealing Subsection 0) .of Section
33.,30:. of Codified Or.diY►a+ire No. 5 .respecting Work in Parkways,
was: given second :reading, and on motion of. Byxbee and Woodward,
wasadopted by un.animoiia voice vote.
Ordinance., Sec . 9B. 03
Ordinance .No. ,1968,,• amnending;Section 9B. 03 of the.
Zoning Ordman:ce regarding use permits for facti7.ities of public
utilit es, was gisren';second reading:. and on motion of. Woodwardi
and Navas, was adopted by unanimous voice vote.
Ordinance No. 1969, approving the annexation of certain
uninhabited territorydesignated as "Stanford Annexation No. 10",
was given second` reading, and on motion of Byxbee and Woodward,
was adopted by unanisnous<'voice vote.
Ordinance: No. 1970 establishingthe zoning of Stanford
Annexation No.: 10 was given second reading, and rex motion of
Byxbee and Woodward, was adopted by unanimous voice vote.
Ordinance No. 1971, ` amending- Section 109.2 of the
Administrative: Code_; to abolish the Variance axid Use Permit Appeals.
Committee, was given second' reading, and: on motion of Navis and
Byxbee, was adopted -by unanimous voice vote.
Ordinance No. 1972, : amending. Article 24 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for :hearing. of. Variance and Use Permit Appeals
by the Planning Commission, was given second reading, and on
motibn of Navis and. Byxbee, was adopted by unanimous voicevote.
Administrative Space Needs, rater
Councilman, Davis brought up a matter of. Old Business,.
stating .that about_. a _year. ago the question of utilization of space at
the Community,Center and,Recreation Department was referred to,
the staff to work out a► design foruse of the Facilities and
administrative space: He asked if there is a report on the matter.
The City Manager replied that tha staff made a report some time
ago to .Committee Na.; 2.
There being no further business to come before the;:
Council, the meeting was declared adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
APPROVED: