Laserfiche WebLink
Attorney Edmund Scott appeared' before the Council on behalf of his client, Mr. J. <br />Blackwood, owner and operator of -the Redwood Diner, xho had been cited to appear <br />before the Council and show cause why his license to operate should not be <br />revoked. Mr. Scott informed the Council that he did not ,know just what the <br />Council had in mind and that he would *like to know on what basis his client had <br />been cited. He said the letter referred to the building as being unsightly. <br />He asked in what respect it was considered unsightly and did not believe the <br />Council had the authority to object to the color, etc. of a building. He stated <br />that the building complied with all health and fire regulations. <br />Mayor Granger said the letter had been sent to Mr. Blackwood on the recommendation <br />of the Planning Commission and that the Diner was operated under a temporary <br />permit. <br />Mr. Scott asked the nature of the permit - whether it was a permit to operate <br />a restaurant or whether the permit covered the building on the property. He <br />stated there had been several owners of the business and that Mr. Blackwood had <br />bought the business a comparatively short time ago. He stated that his client <br />had purchased the building but not the real estate upon which the Diner is <br />located. Councilman McNulty was of the opinion that the permit had been grantedf <br />to allow the dining car to be placed on the property. <br />City Attorney McCarthy stated that at the time the permit was granted it was in <br />the middle of the depression and before E1 Camino Real had been widened. The <br />permit was granted to the owner of the property at that time to put the dining <br />car on the property for the purpose of serving meals but that the permit was <br />subject to revocation. He said that the Planning Commission did not believe <br />the building was a desirable type of improvement to have on El Camino Real and <br />that the Commission had voted to recommend to the City Council that the owmer <br />and tenant be notified of the nature of the permit and that as soon as the <br />opportunity presented itself to erect a building suitable to that location, the <br />Council might recommend that the dining car be removed. The Council had voted <br />to notify the owner and tenant of the temporary nature of the permit so that <br />they would have sufficient notice. <br />Mr. Scott said that was not the temper of the letter and that he did not know <br />why the permit should be revoked. He did not believe the burden was upon the <br />tenant to show cause Why the permit should be revoked unless some definite <br />action was taken at this meeting. City Attorney McCarthy stated that a re- <br />vocable permit could be revoked at the pleasure of the Council. Mr. Scott asked <br />if the permit had been recorded and, after City Attorney McCarthy replied that <br />it had not been, Mr. Scott questioned the legality of the temporary permit as <br />long as it had not been recorded. Mr. Scott stated his client had been given <br />no notice of the nature of the permit when he purchased the business. City <br />Attorney McCarthy believed the tenant should have appeared before the Council tc <br />ascertain the nature of the permit. <br />Councilman Armstrong asked if the structure was permanently attached to the real <br />estate. City Attorney McCarthy stated it originally was not but that lately <br />some brick work had been done around the building. Mr. Scott said that most of <br />r•'' <br />W <br />Q <br />AM <br />