HomeMy WebLinkAbout05281951City Hall, Palo Alto, Californ'La,
May 28, 1951.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto met in regular
session on thi:S.date at 7:30 P.M., with Mayor Gaspar;presiding.
Roll call as follows:
Present: Blois, Bolander, Bowden, Cashel, Cathcart, Drysdale,
Freedman, Gaspar, Hill, Linder, Miller, Mitchell,
Montrouil; Wickett.
Absent: Mrs. Bower.
The minutes oY the meeting of May 14, 1951, were
approved.
Project 49-10, Amarillo Avenue et al
On motion of Freedman and Montrouil, the hearing on
Resolution No. 2089 and all other matters In connection with
Project 49-10 were continued to the next regular meeting on
June=11, 1951.
Project -51-1, Third Street et al
This was the time for a hearing cn Resolution No. 2093
of Intention to make acquisitions and improvements, Project 51-1.
The hearing was declared open to the public.
Mr. D. P.'McKelvey spoke in favor of the rroject.
Among the property owners who spoke .in protest to the
project were the following: W. E. Pence, J. W. Clifford,
E. W. Braman; Lorenz Costello representing Lillian D. and Howard
Weston, Frank B. and Helen Wightman, and Patrick andTilda
Pearson; Prank 0. Rogers, Arthur V. Olsen, Hideo Furukawa'
representing the Japanese Methodist Church, and Claude L. DeLong.
Most of the objections were based on the high cost of the work.
Mr. William E. Schmidt stated he was in favor dr the
improvement in general, and of the improvement of Lambert Avenue
in particular, but asked a number of questions regarding the.
work and assessments. Mr. Wolf of the Southern Pacific Company
objected to the amount of the assessment and thought that
certain lots owned by the railroad company should not be assessed.
Questions in regard to the proposed improvement,
the street lighting, street widening, and costs were answered by
the City Engineer and -Kenneth Jones, attorney.
Written protests were received from the Palo Alto
Unified School District, Dr. Granville Wood who objected to the
proposed alley between College Avenue and Cambridge Avenue,
and from the Southern Pacific Company. A letter was received
from the College Avenue Church advising that its Board has had
no opportunity to consider the matter of the proposed alley.
A letter was also received from William E. Schmidt of the
Schmidt Nursery, expressing approal of the projectin general
but asking that all but the most necessary work be eliminated
on First and Second Streets. Communications were received
from Mrs. R. W. Pritchard, William Smith, and Cole Richmond
approvingthe project. Mrs. S. M. Cuthbertson spoke in oppositi
to the alley between College Avenue and Cambridge Avenue.
There being no others who wished to speak on the matter,
the hearing was closed.
p � 1� ✓rt$�.�'�tj�0. •' v t.. + �. .�,.� �` � v:,�y .. i� f a -Mf ) tt •rte -.
14
The City Manager pointed out that the project was
promoted by property ownex's in the area and that there was very
little protest at the hearing on the preliminary proceedings.
He called attention to the fact that it costs money to carry a
project to this stage and that over.n$2,500.00 has been spent
on Project 51-1 to date not including attorney's or appraiser's
fees.
A motion was made by Mitchell, seconded by Blois,
that the resolution overruling protests be adopted.
Councilmen Freedmen, Miller and Bolander,, who are
property;=owners in the area involved in Project 51•-1, disqualified
themselves from voting on the question and left the room.
The Council took.a five-minute recess at this time
and reconvened at 8:30 P.M.:
Councilman Hill suggested that the motion to overrule
protests be tabled until there is an opportunity to send out
post cards and take a survey to find out what percentage of
the property owners are in favor of the project and to determine
whether or not any particular portions of the project should be
deletes.; :ry Ernest Wilson, attorney, suggested that the matter
be referi•:d to the City Engineer to make a report on the ratio
of protests in order to determine whether it is necessary to send
post cards. He pointed out that notices have been sent out as
required by law,and it is possible,that information to be obtained•=
by the Engineer's report on the protests may make it unnecessary
to send out further cards.
On motion of Hill and Linder, the motion•to overrule
protests was tabled and the matter was referred to the City
Engineer to make an analysis and report on the protests.
,On motion of Montrouil and Bowden, all matters in
connection with Project 51-1 were continued to the next regular
meeting on June 11, 1951.
Project 48-9, California Avenue Alleys
A letter was received from Kirkbride, Wilson, Harzfeld
& Wallace concerning Parcel 43, owned by C. B.,Hensley,.
recommending that Mr. Hensley -be paid the awe. prior to
completion of the alterations -of his.building The letter
also -referred to the problem of altering the building which,.
Must be done t& provide a:clear easement for the improvement
of=the alley included in Project 51-1. Mr. Wilson advised
that Mr. -Hensley wishes to do the work immediately of either
removing the building -Or making changes to it, and the Council
must decide whether or not he will be permitted to make the
improvements which he desires. This matter was referred to
Committee No. 1.
(Councilmen Bolander, Freedman and Miller returned
at this time, 8:50 P.M., and were present for
the rest of the meeting.
Grade Crossing Survey
A letter was received from the Public Utilities
Commission concerning statewide grade crossing survey instituted
in 1947 for the purpose of recommending measures to improve the
safety of street and highway crossings with railroads. They
advised that a progress report shows that the City of Palo Alto
has completed 94 per cent of the recommended improvements and
they commended Palo Alto for its cooperation.
lGM
.11111.
Letter from R. E. Hackley re Zoning Ordinance
A letter from Robert E. Hackley asking the Council to
answer certain questions as to the legal status of the new
zoning and subdivision ordinances was referred to the -City
Attorney. -
Bid on -Crusher Run Base
A report was received from the City Manager on 'bids
received on May 18, 1951, on crusher run base (subgrade type),
advising that the only bid was received from Sondgroth
of Mountain View,at'unit price 'of $1.69 per cubic yard, or a
total of $4,563.00. He recommended that this bid which was
3.4 per cent below the Engineer's estimate be accepted.
On motion of Mitchell and Hill, the recommendation
was adopted and the bid accepted by unanimous vote on roll eall.
Bid on Voltage Regulators (Improvement Plans 51-9)
A report was received from the City Manager on bids,
received on May 25, 1951, for one set of three 2,400 -volt,
single phase, step -type regulators, with the recommendation that
the bid of the General Electric Company in the sum of $3,348.00
be accepted.
On motion of Bowden and Freedman, the bid of the
Genexv. Electric Company was accepted as recommended.
Use Permit for Nursery School, 567 Melvil.le,'Denied
, A report was received from the Planning Commission
recommending that the application of Dorothy I. Durrell for
a use permit to conduct a nursery school at 567 Melville.
Avenue, which is not licensed at 544 University Avenue by
the Welfare Department of Santa Clara County, be granted for
one year, for children under the age of five years, the school
to be limited to 15 children.. Committee No. 1 recommended
that this use permit be granted in accordance with the
recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Leland Brown of 1235 Webster Street addre:;sed
the Council protesting the issuance of this permit, and
,submitted a petition with 79 signatures of property. owners
:in the vicinity asking that 'he permit be denied. The
petition:point.ed out that the property owners in the area
had had no opportunity to appear before the Planning Commission
as they had not been notified by the Commissionof the
application. Mr. Brown informed the Council that the
nursery school had already moved into the house at 567 Melville
Avenue.
It was pointed out that if they have moved in, they
did so in violation of the ordinance.
Col. L. D. Davis of 1350 Tasso Street also spoke
in protest to the nursery school at the proposed location.
Oh' motion of Drysdale and Freedman, the application
for a use permit to eperate a nursery school at 567 Melville
Avenue was. denied.
16
CA
Cold
Amendment to Zone Map, C -2-"S" - Alleys
A report was received from the Planning Commission
recommending that the Council take proper procedure to acquire
alleys in the area northeasterly of Cowper Street which was
recently zoned C-2.
In regard to the proposed"S" zoning after the designation,
C-2 on that portion of the C-2 Zone northeasterly ofCowper
Street, the Planning Commission explained that the "3" Zone is,
recommended as an interim measure and that as rapidly as adequate
parking is arranged for any area or a general parking policy is
worked out, the "S" designation will be remc"ved.
Committee No. 1 recommended the adoption of the ordinance
amending the Zone -Map by adding the suffix "S" after the designation
"C-2" on that portion of the C-2 Zone northeasterly of Cowper
Street, on second reading, and the taking ot`steps immediately
to open alleys in the same area.
Ordinance No. 1343,amending Section 3.02 of the Zoning
Ordinance to provide for the zoning of the C-2 area northeasterly
of Cowper Street as'C-2-"S", was given second reading, and a .
motion was made by Montrouil, seconded by Rill, that the ordinance
be adopted.
Mr. John MacDonough, representing the Estate of
Joseph F. MacDonough, addressed the. Council objecting to the
passage of the ordinance.
After discussion the ordinance was adopted on roll call
with 13 Ayes, Cashel voting No.
(Councilman Linder left at this time, 9:30 P.M.,
and was absent for the rest of the meeting.
Use Permit Legislation
The general question of use permits -'was discussed, and
the suggestion was.made that the City Attorney prepare some
modifications to the zoning ordinance -to restrict or eliminate
the use'permit provisions. The City Attorney advised that in
his opinion' use permit regulations as now set up -constitute
spot zoning and ,are poor legislation; that consideration should
be given to amending -the -ordinance to provide for specific uses
in particular zones, with provision for unusual or hardship cases
to be considered as a variance.
The matter was referred to the City Attorney to study
and report, with the suggestion that he confer with the Planning
Officer on the question...
Variance Application; Mrs.Creech
A report was received fromCommittee No. 1 recommending
that the application of Mrs. Harry M. Creech for a variance of
the -.Zoning Ordinance to permit an additional kitchen for servants'
quarters on her property at 215 LowellAvenue be granted.
On: motion of Montrouil and Hill, the recommendation
was adopted and the permit granted.
Variance. Lacey & White
A report was received from the Planning Commission
recommending that the application of Lacey & White for a variance
17
with respect to Lot 26, Avalon Terrace, be granted. It was
pointed out that the request is for permission to have the
dwelling on Lot 26 face on Loma Verde Avenue whi1h is the sideline-
of- the lot, and whi .h is a variance of Section 22.07 (h) of the
Zoning Ordinance. Committee No. 1 also recommended that
this application be approved.
On motion of Montrouil and Hill, the recommendation
of -the Planning Commission and Committee No. 1 was adopted and
the variance permit granted.
Variance, G. F. Schubert
A report -was received from the Planning Commission
recommending that the application of G. F. Schubert for a variance
in Block 59, south Palo Alto, be granted. It was explained that
the request is for reduction of setback line from 24 feet to,
16 feet on the frontage of the lot facing on Washington Avenue.
Comnittee:No. 1 also recommended that the application be.granted.
The recommendation was adopted and a proposed ordinance
changing the setback line as requested was accepted -for first
reading.
Variance, John E. Dodds
A report was received from the Planning Commission.
recommending that the application of John E. Dodds, 1509 Portola
Avenue, for a variance in Block C,,Southgate, tie granted.
This request is for permission to reduce the setback line from
16 feet to 10 feet along the side of his property on Manzanita_
Avenue. Committee No. 1 also recommended that the application
be granted.
The recommendation was adopted and a proposed ordinance
changing the setback line as requested was accepted for first'
reading
Use Permit, Medical -Dental Clinic
A report, was received from the Planning Commission
explaining its reasons for recommending denial of the use permit
for a medical -dental clinic at Middlefield Road and Forest Avenue.
The Commission advised that it feels•that Middlefield Road
should be maintained primarily as a residential street, and:
although the plan shows. -the amount of parking space required for
this zone, the Commission fe t that the proposed parking area
is not sufficient for this particular use.
Committee No. 1 recommended that the use .ermit for the
c?,i,nic be granted. The committee reported that it felt the
reasons given by the Planning Commission are not sufficient
to.justify denial of the permit in view cf the provisions of the
Zorang Ordinance.
A motion was -made by Montrcail, seconded by Hill, that
the recommendation of Committee No. 1 be approved and the permit
granted.
Mr. John Bartrug, 628 Middlefield Road,;and
Mrs. Samuel li. Durand, 640 Middlefield Road, objected to a clinic
at the proposed location because they felt it would create a
serious parking`•problem. Mr. Robert Cummings, member of the,
Planning Commission,.felt that insufficient parking area is
proposed and that a large number c' parking spaces would be
required to take care of the doctors and their staff and the
patients. Mr. G. E. Crrey explained that there will be only
18
CA
four suites of offices and in his opinion there would not be:any
parking -problem.
After discussion, the motion to approve the recommendation
of Committee No. 1 and grant the permit was adopted on roll call
by the following vote:
Ayes: Blois, Bowden, Cashel; Cathcart, Freedman,
Gaspar, Hill, Miller, Mitchell, Montrouil, Wickett.
Noes: Bolander, Drysdale.
Extension of Use Permit, Parents' Nursery.School
A report was received from the Planning Commission
recommending that the Parents' Nursery School be granted a one-year
extension of the use permit granted by the Council on June 12, 1950,
for their building to be built on Louis Road. Committee No. 1
also recommended extension of this permit for one year.
On motion of Mitchell and Montrouil, the recommendation
was adopted and the permit extended.
Final Map:of Tuolumne Park Tract No. 866
A report was submitted by the Planning Commission
recommending approval of the final subdivision map of Tuolumne Park,
Tract No. 866, being a portion of Lots 29 and 30, C. M. Wooster
Subdivision, in accordance with recommendation of the City Engineer
as set forth in Engineering BulItin No 51-45. Committee No. 1
also recommended approval of this final map.
Resolution No. 2111 approving map of Tuolumne Park, Tract
No. 866, was read, and on motion'of Blois and Bo?ander, was adopted
by unanimous vote on roll call.
Final Map of:Channing Park) Tract No. 883
A report was received from the Planning Comission
recommending approval of the final map of Channing Park, Tract
No. 883, Unit Noz. 1, subject to improvements in accordance with'
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance as recommended in Engineer-
ing Bulletin No. 51-46. Committee No. 1 also recommended approval
of this map.
Resolution No. 2112, approving map of Channing Park, Unit
No. 1, Tract No. 883, was read, and on motion of Montrouil and
Freedman, was adopted by unanimous vote on roll call.
Final Map of Loma Vista Park, Tract No. 885
•
A report was submitted by the Planning Commission
recommending that the final map_of Lama Vista Park, t ornerly Kelso
Terrace, Tract No. 885, be approved, subject to the recommendations
of the City Engineer as set forth in Bulletin No. 51-48 that
Cipling Streetodbe widened to 60 feet and that provision be made
for a pole line easement on the rear of the lots. Committee No. 1
also recommended approval of this map subject to these conditions.
Resolution No. 2113, approving map of -Loma Vista Park,
Tract No. 885, in accordance with therecommendation was read,
d a motion was made by Hill, seconded by Montrouil, that the
resolution be adopted.
Mr. Nathan Finch, attorney, addressed the Council, stating
that the final map, showing Kipling Street as a 50 -foot street,. had
`been prepared in conformance, with the tentative map previously
fi
19
approved by the Planning Commission, and asked that the map -be
approved without the condition that Kipling Street be widened
to a 60 -foot street. Mr. Lacey of Lacey & White, developers
of this tract, also requested that the map be approved with
Kipling Street as 50 feet in width.
It was pointed out that the tentative map was submitted
almost a year ago, and since that time the Council has adopted'',
the policy that the minimum street width shall be 60 feet.
A motion was made by Mitchell, seconded by Cathcart,
that an amendment be made to the resolution to provide for
Kipling Street as a:50 -foot street. The vote on the, amendment
was as follows on roll call:
Ayes: Cashel, Cathcart, Miller, Mitchell.
Noes: Blois, Bclander, Bowden, Drysdale, Freedman,
Gaspar, Hill, Montrouil, Wickett.
The motion was declared lost.
Resolution No. 2113, approving the map on condition,'
that Kipling Street be established as a 60 -foot street, vasythen
adopted by unanimous vote on roll call.
Tentative Map of Frank's Tract
A report was received from,the Planning Commission
recommiendingthat the request of Frank Gaili for an extension -of
time on the tentative map of Frank's Tract, Tract No. 515,
be denied because the lot sizes do not meet the requirements of
the new Zoning Ordinance: Conmiittee No. 1 concurred in the
recommendation.
On motion of Montrouil and Hill, the recommendation was
adopted and the request for extension of time on this tentative
map was denied.
Mar of Sterling Gardens, Unit No. 1
A report was received from the planning Commission
recommending that the tentative subdivision map of Sterling
Gardens, Unit No. 1, be rejected for the reason that it is not
subdivided in the best manner; that the elevation is lower than
the Commission would like it, and that no provision has been
made for school or park sites. Committee No. 1 concurred: in
the recommendation of the Commission that this tentative map be
rejected.
Mr. Andres F. Oddstad, Jr.,. representing Sterling H.
Terrace Corporation, addressed the Council asking that the Council
give adecision on the point of elevation. He advised that the
,City Engineer considers that a minimum curb grade elevation of
5 feetmould be sufficient to give adequate drainage to the land
whereas the Planning Commission recon2thends 6 feet as the minimum
elevation. Mr. Oddstad presented some revised plans whioh had'`
tot yet been'before the Planning Commission, showing certain
areas for park, s•1:tes and an area of 5 acres reserved for a school
site,'and.explalned the development contemplated. He advised
that if a 6 -foot elevation is required they will give up the
project as it,•would be uneconomical to develop the area at this
elevation, which would require two feet of fill:
The City Engineer read Engineering Bulletin 51-4k
in which he discussed certain features of t c proposed development,
including the proposal for storm drainage, with his recommendation
that a minimum nurb grade elevation of 5 feet be required.
•
20
(Councilman Wickett left at this time, 10:40 P.M.,
and was absent for the rest of the meeting.)
It was moved by Mitchell, seconded by Freedman, that the
Council approve the elevation of 5:feet as recommended_ by the
City Engineer, and refer the map of Sterling Gardens, Unit No. 1,
back to the Planning Commission to resolve the other questions.
After discussion, the motion was carried on roll call
by the following voter
Ayes: -Blois, Bolander, Cashel, Freedman, Kill,
Miller, Mitchell and Montrou11
Noes: Bowden, Cathcart, Drysdale, Caspar.
(The Council took a recess at this time and
reconvened at 10:50 P.M.) =
Tentative Map of Charleston Gardens, Unit No. 2
A report was received from the Planning Commission
recommending that the_ tentative map of Charleston Gardens, Unit
No. 2, be rejected for the. reasons that a dedication or easement
along Adobe Creek has not been provided, provision has''not been
made for dedication of right of way along Middlefield Road and'
Charleston Road, the lot areas do not conform to the requirement
of 8,000 square' feet, and the lots do not vary in design.
Committee No. 1 reported that it concurs in the
recommendation of the Planning Commission that this tentative
map be rejected.
Mr. Floyd Lowe addressed the Council in regard to the
map which, he stated, now provides for the widening of the'streets
and an easement along the creek. He objected to the requirement
of 8,000 square feet for lot areas, stating that -plans for the
development of this. tract had been started about a -year ago, based
on a minimum lot area of 6,000 aquare:feet, and it would work a
hardship on him if :the map is rejected.
It was pointed out by the City Manager that the main
objection of the Planning Commission was that the lots do not vary
enough In design and size.
It•was also pointer;out that the area in question is
designated on the zone map as 7!..1:B-8, which was established as
interim zoning, and:would require an amendment to the ordinance
if lot:areas of leas than 8,-000 square feet are to be permitted..
Reference Was made to the elimination of the B-8 designation
on Unit No. 1 of Charleston Ga=rdens'.
On motion.of Montrouil and Hill, the map was referred
back to the Planning Commission and Committee No. 1.
A question was then raised as to whether or not there is
time;for further consideration by the Planning Commission and
action by the Council, within' the period required by law. A motion
was madeby Bowden, 'seconded by Drysdale, that the matter be
reconsidered.
At the suggestion of the City Attorney, Mr. Lowe
withdrew the map for the purpose of re -submitting it to the
Planning Commission.
The motion to reconsider the matter was then withdrawn.
•
21
Resubdivision in Block 76
=A report was received from Committee No. 1 recommending
approval of the resubdivision of Lot 4, Block 76, into four
parcels, and that the requirement for a map of record of.survey
or final map be omitted. Committee No. 1 also concurred with
the Planning Commission in recommending a reduction of setback
line, in connection with this resubdivision, on the southwesterly
side of Cowper Street from 35 feet: to .16 feet for a distance
of 120 feet southeasterly from Lincoln Avenue, and a change in
setback for the adjacent 80 feet from 35 feet to 24 feet.
approved.
On motion of Blois and Miller, the resubdivision was
Ordinance No. 1344, changing the setback lines as
recommended, was given second reading, and on motion of Mitchell
and Bolander, was adopted by unanimous vote on roll call.
Minimum Curb Grade Elevation
A report was received from the Planning Commission
recommending- that any proposed subdivision within the city limits
be required to have a minimum curb grade elevation of 6 :feet
above mean sea level.
At its request, Committee No. 1 was; granted further
time for consideration of this recommendation.
Rezoning of Middlefield Business District, C -2-"S"
A report was submitted by the Planning Commission
recommending the adoption of an ordinance changing, the
Middlefield Business District from Zone C-1 to Zone C-2, adding
the suffix "S",,and including the following provisions in this
new C -2-"S" Zone: Front setback line of 20 feet, rear yard
of 15 feet,and height limitation of 2 stories, not to exceed
25 feet.
Committee No. 1 was granted further time
tion of this matter.
for c& ,,sidera-
Alleys in College Terrace
A report was received from the PlanningCommission
recommending that steps be taken to open alleys in Blocks
46, 47 and 50, College Terrace, approximately parallel to
El Camino Real, and also that similar procedure be taken in
Block 48, College Terrace, for analley parallel to College
Avenue.
Committee No. 1 requested further time on this matter
pending further information and report from the City Manager
and the: Engineering Department. The request of the committee
for more time was granted.
Certificates of Use and Occupancy
A report was received from the Planning Commission
recommending that Article 26 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to
Certificates of Use and Occupancy be retained and that provision
be made `for enforcement of these regulations.
Action was defers=zd pending a report from Committee `
No. 5 which has this matter under study.
22
''Refund of Variance ;Fee
A report was received from the Planning Commission,
recommending that the sum of $10.00 paid by Mrs. Winifred
McIntyre for an application for .variance be refunded: for the
reason that the request was improperly filed and does riot come un
the variance provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
On motion of Montrouil and Bolander, the recoamendati:on
was approved and the Pefund:authorized.
Ordinance on Trees and Shrubs
A report was received from Committee No. 1 recommending
adoption of an emergency ordinance amending Codified Ordinance
No. 5 regulK:ing the planting, maintenance and removal of _street
trees, hedges and shrubs.
The City Attorney advised that the proposed ordinance
was not prepared In his office and that he would like to check
it over and discuss it further with Committee No. 1 before
action is taken.- The City Manager pointed out that at present
there is no regulation in regard to hedges at intersections
and it is important that at least this section of the proposed
ordinance be adopted immediately. It was agreed to adopt
this portion of the ordinance and postpone action on the rest of
the ordinance.
Ordinance No. 1345 relative to trees and shrubs at
intersections, providing that it shall be unlawful to permit
trees, shrubs or plants to exceed a height f :Wore than 3 feet
within the 30 -foot trianglea.t intersections, except tree trunks
having:no limbs, lower than 9 feet above curb grade, was read,
and on motion of Mitchell andDryscgale, was adopted by unanimous
vote:on roll call, as an emergence ordinance.'
Design Control Plan, Block 13, ,Stanford City
A report was received from the Planning Commission
recommending approval of plans submitted by John Krysiak for
Lots 19 and 20, Block 13, Stanford City, under the provisions of
Article 20�"D",.Design Control District Regulations, of the-
Zoning Ordinance. This- was referred to Committee No. 1.
Project 47-5, Loma Verde Annex Sewers
Resolution No. 2114, directing the making of amended
assessment of Assessment No. 60, Project 47-5, was read, and
on.motion`of Freedman and Montrouil, was adopted by unanimous
vote on roll call.
Change of Setback Lines, Millwood Subdivision
Ordinance No. 1346, changing setback lines in the
resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Millwood Subdivision, on
Byron Street, was.givensecond;- reading, and on motion of Mitchell
and Bolander, was adopted by unanimous vote on roll call.
Committee Appointment
The Mayor:announced that he had appointed Councilman
Raup Miller as a member'of Committee No. 2.
On motion of Montrouil, the Council adjourned.
• 1�PF.'2�0VED:
ATTEST: �� �c Mayor
y Ole
r
1
.{
•
;'Y