HomeMy WebLinkAbout02071973MINUTES
city of palo alto
Wednesday, February 7, 1973
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in a special
joint meeting with the Planning Commission to hear a presentation of the
Santa Clara County Planning Policy Committee's Urban Development/Open
Space Plan.
Council Members Present:
Council Members Absent:
Planning Commission Members
Present:
Beahrs, Berwald, Clark, Henderson,
Norton, Rosenbaum
Comstock, Pearson, Sedan
Brenner, Cody, Gordon, Klein, Powers,
Rect., Steinberg
The meeting was called to order by Vice Mayor Norton at 7:40 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
Mr. Don Weden, as Associate Planner for the County of Santa Clara Planning
Department, gave a slide presentation of the drafted plan for considera-
tion by the Palo Alto City Council and Planning Commission. He announced
that a similar presentation would be made to the Planning Policy Committee
at a public meeting the following evening at 8:30 p.m. in the County Board
of Supervisors chambers in San Jose.
Mr. Weden said that the plan was undertaken partly in response to state
legislation calling for such a plan, but he emphasized that there were
no legal means for developing a countywide plan which would be enforce-
able. The county is working through the Planning Policy Committee for
adoption of the plan by the 15 incorporated communities within Santa Clara
County.
Goals, background, findings and policies for both urban development and
open space and an outline for an open space action program are divisions
of the draft. Improvement of the quality of human life is a primary goal
for both open space and urban development considerations. Mr. Weden
explained that LAFCO urban development policies call for development only
in incorporated areas under the jurisdiction of cities, and it has asked
each city to define its urban service area. San Jose, for example, he
said, had decided that it had enough area within its urban service area
to accommodate population growth for the next 15 to 20 years.
Environmental considerations for urban development, according to the
UD/OS plan, include earthquake and landslide areas, high fire hazard
areas, airport approach areas and flood areas. Open space policy co1-
aiderations include protection of resources, parks and trails for recre-
ational purposes, preservation of scenic resources and scenic highways,
and regulation of hillside development. In addition, the preservation
of open space protects such resources as agricultural land, salt ponds.
and eater resources for domestic and recreational use and scenic enjoy-
ment, and protects wildlife and ve3eration. Protection of air quality,
preservation of historic and archeological sites, and maintenance of
utility and service corridors are other open apace considerations,
Mr. Weden said.
1 1 7
2/7/73
Development of an action program is the third part of the urban develop-
ment/open space plan. It will deal with the existing means and the
needed mewls for implementation, Mr. Weden declared.
Councilman Berwald commented on Mr. Weden's statement that there were
no legal means for countywide planning and wondered if the legal avenues
for countywide planning had been explored sufficiently. Mr. Weden said
that legislation proposed by Assemblyman John Vasconcellos for certain
joint planning methods had died in the state legislature before final
action could be taken. Councilman Beahrs noted that county action could
destroy the effect of San Jose's decision not to expand. Mr. Weden
responded that the Board of Supervisors had adopted a policy of not
allowing any further development in unincorporated areas.
Councilman Rosenbaum mentioned that Morgan Hill and Gilroy were the only
large areas of undeveloped land in the flatlands. Mr. Weden said that
Gilroy had followed the San Jose plan very closely, but Morgan Hill had
set boundaries for its urban service area allowing for a 50 or 60 year
development.
Vice Mayor Norton stated that he had attended a LAFCO meeting earlier in
the day and that LAFCO favored the cities' adopting growth policies for
a 5 -year period based on the past 5 years, but that Morgan Hill wanted
to grow much faster now.
Commissioner Steinberg asked if mention of the impact of continued growth
on open space meant that the county would undertake a population growth
policy. Mr. Weden said that the county staff was doing many studies now
and was overextended. Commissioner Steinberg stated that there seems to
be a reluctance to undertake studies relating to population growth. Mr. Weden
sair. it was felt that many cities were not politically ready to face a
growth policy at this time.
Commissioner Powers asked what the time schedule was for developing the
action program. Mr. Weden replied that June 30, 1973, is the deadline
for complying with state law, and the staff will be working right up to
the deadline gathering input for the action program.
Planning Commission Chairman Cordon noted that two county agencies are
asking for input or responses from the cities: LAFCO, which has given
Palo Alto another 90 days for its response, and the Planning Policy Com-
mittee. Councilman Clark said the PPC would take final actio.a on the
draft on March 22nd and would need recommendations, reactions, etc. by
six weeks from tomorrow.
MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Ce-incilman Henderson, that
the City Council refer the report and plan to the Planning Commission.
Councilman Berwald thanked Mr. Weden and complimented him and the county
staff for "a significant boost forward in land, planning and planning of
control and regional growth and preservation of open space." He expressed
concern for preservation of water courses, which was shared by other
councilmen and commissioners.,
Chairman Gordon asked if there was any use of trails for transportation
routes or non -auto commuter routes projected in the plan. Mr. Weden said
there was no mention of this in the report, that the recommendations '
necessarily had to be general. 09When we came to Palo Alto, you are always
several, jumps ahead of us," he declared. "Some of these things you have
already done, but we are working on a countywide baste. Palo Alto is
usually way ahead of us," he told the meeting.
The meeting was then opened to the public for comment.
1 1 8
2/7/73
Ms. Katherine McCann, 783 Garland Drive, Palo Alto, asked Mr. Weden what
would happen to Alviso with all its dikes in case of a bad earthquake.
Mr. Weden replied that it was recognized as an importr.nt problem but that
the baylands study dealt with.it more directly.
Chairman Gordon wa►'ted clarification on the map still to be prepared to
eccompiny the document. Mr. Weden answered that the boundaries would not
be precise, that they would change annually.
Ms. Sabine Sa'dei-Biermann, 3375 Alma Street, Palo Alto, observed that
limiting growth by limiting the area where it could take place could
create more problems because of urban concentration. Mr. Weden said that
the urban development plan did not call for concentrating population in
any greater density, that as areas fill up the boundaries will expand.
Councilman Berwald said this brought up a crucial point about the quality
of development on developable lands that are going to be somewhat more
concentrated for a number of years. He wondered if this would permanently
force a living area to become more restrictive.
Councilman Henderson said he felt that this plan is a more orderly way of
destroying our open space and he was not sure it would achieve a permanent
preservation of open areas. He also expressed doubts about the enforce-
ment possibilities of the policy and said work was needed at the legisla-
tive level for effective enforcement. Chairman Gordon responded that at
the present time the local jurisdictions had the responsibility for action
and were mandated to go ahead by June, 1973.
Vice Mayor Norton added that local communities had the tools for action
now, that before any urban areas can be developed they have to be annexed
to a city And that LAFCO cay say no to that. He said it was a matter of
using the power assigned to the agency by the legislature.
There being no further discussion, the motion to refer was voted on and
carried unanimously.
Adjournment
MOTION: It was moved, duly seccnded and carried unanimously to adjourn.
The joint meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
APPROVED:
City Clerk
(1
1 1 9
2/7/73