HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD 2089L
..
"
•
._ /
,.
:. If'' 1,.-' ' • ·~ r "' • • t ' -' '
!; ..
ORDINANCi NC • ~-·
OF8INJ..NCi~ 0? TrlE COi{."iClL or: THJ:: C:JTY 0? PALO . .:..I .. TO
.~.J.,.li!:~DI:\G SECTION 9. Oj OF TE.l:: PALO AL'EO ;-IUNIC: I?A.L..
CODE R.t.:GIJLATING 3ILLIAR:) A!I:O POOL HOOM:3
Tne: Cow:cl.l of trlc: Clty o:· ?al') Alto ORD/\.INS r.s ~·o.llo...,:.:;:
\. SECTION l. Se~~lcn g.Oj o~ :h~ P:1lo Alto Munl~~p~l Code i.s \.
\ n' ·e,...~'lo 'ov ~ ~ .... ;j,..., (" l.:.~·~
• ~ .) J • .J,. .. II -" l \A...,,.....,. ::.o· re.?.u at-> ~·ollo'tlS:
''SEC. j. Oj BILLlAP..D AXD POOL_ ROOMS; ~U.'JOR.~
I~ sh~1ll c~;: at~la 1.v2ul :\or 8-ny person O}:J~z~a tini,;~ a bi.lli(::Or\.:.
roorn o.r pool r·oor:1 to sa:~:'cr-or iJCr~.i t l:l:1~v· r.rL~r1or ~nuer the
3.t:;E:: o~· lo ye:::.r:;, -::o ·c;e i.n or :;.p;)n ~l'le pr.::::r:~~:.t:S occ:;.pied ~~·
sue!::. ·o:Lll:L.::rd roo:;J or pool reo n i:' in :.3.<:.Li rcom or .rooms
~~ny alcoholi~; :leverc:.;,cs 2.r·c~ ::soLd or if :-m,y ,_;n.:ne or f:.'"!::J(-::~-;
of ~;arcls .::l..:rt: play•2ci ti'H::r~:·~n."
SECTION 2. This O!'C.i.~.:·~:-1ce si·itJll oc:c:on~~ (:~":'·c~~t.ivc Uf)Cn :.rl'":
explr.:-.:.ti<>n of thi.rty da::,-:s ~·rem j_ts ;).<:ssa;:_:t',
INTRODUCED: JuLy 9, I 962.
PASSED: July 23, 1.962 by unanime>us voice vote.
J..TTEST:
.,,
'/'"_ ) It/, ·~ -· ---d~o{
.\PPROVED:
.1
~
1 /1 _/· "\ -1C:.A•~~ ."l L 'G.,.-0_____... -I"V •L!::: . May or
· "'M~ROVED As ·T;;: ___ c~NTciNT: . ·u\ .___,_...
'-
',, """'ttll!!llti..,--~
vnlel O~ ~.:e ,_~
...
~
..
~-·
•
.& &•1-
~~~~~~;~~~j~ff~~~~fifil~~il~1~~;:~~~~;Mifl~~f~~;i~~i~~~~~i~En~~~;;~2i L
'""...-~ -·' .l'ol '' •' _ ..
/
///.
..
·~· ••
,.~· ,~ ... , ··'-' v·-• ,,.,.,,,,.. ........
//
f.!
•'
I I •. · • . .0. •• • • ·""
• ., , • ..... • • "" '" _., "" , J ,, ~ •• , ....... , .,._ ,. ·-· •• '••r· .,,,....,. :•••• ,. . """·' , ,., ., ,,, •····', ,. \···· '"''.'•"'"
'I\~
~· -
''!"''""~
CITY AT!'OR~EY 1 S .I~U\I.YSlS OF ORDINANCE NCl. 2090
'·•'"•'''
I have again reviewed Ordinance No. 2090 wit.h a view toward
advis:Lng you on the policies and procedures to be followed when
it becomes effective on Septetn.?er 12, 196.2. As you know t:he
ordinance cov.ers fo~;r .-distinct su!:>jects as folloto~·s:
1. A clarification of the duties of the Planning Cotn!lli.ssion
in general. (Subsection (a))
2. J?rocedures for adopt:i.on of the Master ?lan; adopting by
reference Sections 65460·-65516 of the Gove:r:n:cnent CodE!.
(Subsections (b) a:1d (c))
3. (a) A !"equirP.ment that the Planning Coamission submi.t
an annual report t:o the City Council regarding the
Capital Improvemer~t1s Program, reviewing each pro·
ject for conformity with the Master Plan anci
making suggestions. (Subsection (d))
(b) A r,ectuirement that the Planning Commiss:lon report
to :the City Council on all matter: affec:ting the
physical development of the City as to their
conformity to the Master Plan. (Subsection (e))
4. A provis:lon freezing the City Cour;.cil 1 s power to rezone
property for industrial or :nanufac:tu.ring uses not embraced
within the 1965 I~terim General Plan until the Planni:ng
CommissiC>n has prepared, adopted and presentE!d to the City
Council and the Council has approved pursuant: to the pro
c:edures e>f Art:!.cle 8, Chapter 3, Title 7 of the Govei'l:t
IJ:le:'lt CodE! a Cm:xpre~-ensivt= General PlarL
I will discuss each of these four points in order.
DUTIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIO~ (Subsection (a))
This subs.ection prese:-.ts no particular problem. It is
substantially t:he same as Sec·tio:t 251.3 of the Administrati~ve
Code as it exis:ted prior to amen~nt with the exception that
the statement "the Commission shall be advisory onlyn has been
omitted. The District Court, ho·;.;ever, pointed out in its
opinion that. this omission had n·:> signifi,cance as the dutiE:s
of the Planning Commission were 'by the charter made advisory 1 only. . /'
In this n::gard the following quotations from the Conrt}1s
opinion bear r•epeating: /
I
~'~WhilE: Appellants (the city) would convey to the /
Co1IIIlissio1m the :power to bind the Council to its /
flans, th~;: contention .ca·nnot: surmount the word ·
recot!lmend. 1 To recommend does not mean to bind. u
- 1 ·-
...
.·
.:
··~-·~-
,;
L•
..
··.-"o· .-:<"(•.<M~•'""·'·t"".''.'·i~~~ .. ·.'•]~·..',<>···i·;·~:: ·)./~··'· t,•;:,'.i '/.'"'·<"•''·'),;'!',lit,.,,,'4,;'•' ;l/,-,•:l·•.rf··:~·c. ~~~-;.·~,;~:::_·:~~~-t):~p~~-· &~~-~:P?.-.~~-,-.\. :: <}~-· •. -t~~.:;.1!.~~:~-~~~~·~;~}~~:r~\;~~~~-~~~· ..
t;~~~-)~{~ :~~~~J~;~f :j t;:e:~ ,·;~~~~~~:J (:! ~t t: -::· · · -~!::}~1 ::~~:~~:j~:-~~::-;?1: ~:t;~~Y __ p~J~~~~ tt):~:~:~{:f·~~~}~~f~~E\i1 ~;~~k~~l~~? .. , ., ~~Zi:;}~; ~=~t!.~l~~~~~:.J¥4M,"· .. 'j·1~~~~;~·t&~d;~~~.~ ' ',l''~1c~$jJE(#,i\:~.·$~->~.,:~~-·-;(~:.;,~d,
··~~~~r-?t:~-~'%f~··~· ,'"~~-· 'JJ·.~--;-!.f;l'~).:)~(~,~~~~~h7,~i-*IP~·!~', '"~:\.JT~-;:-·~~ .·11!···. , ... -
· n{L~~:1.}!~~;t:~%!'~$~~~~ ~:i"~~~~ :~li~~:i.i ~r-.~~~: .:~-~r~~ :~.~;: ~ .>.~: ~ ~ {~.~~·:~;, .· · .\~ \:::~· ~. ~ ~ · ~-· · I ,~. ·· .
"ol ~·'{' ~~·~,i 1·J", ~\'1)t..Jl~J~~· ''"l\)l•~~.·,;'r;l""·~'"'1 •~;.,.•"'>~ ;~·~'.,-~'~r,..l> ~,-\•""••·x"•r•jt ,-I ~-:~· 17.'~(1.:;-··r.,r~:t~~;:,t ·\·.:.MI~~~~,~:jl,r/": 1 ~~-;..~.(~: .~r~'/• ... '1 ~"." ···:·/ ... ',.~~~~-"lr:~ . ' ' : II: I :. r'
'' ·\~1 .... I• hW 1J ~+~~fi'~~~w_.;o,.,___;_, ..,j,,,. •1--~·• .. ~r;·.r: .. ,., ~-~
tl~
..
~
~-.. '.
<"·
: :;· .. ~
r,'o!;j.
"' '•o~~o,...,..
... ,.
.....
"The advocates of the prop:::>sal s~ate" the purpose of
the ordinance 1:o !:-e t~E! 'clarification of the duties
of the Plan.ning CO!IImission' :10t the enlargement of thE>
Commission's powers and certainly not the delegation
of a right to adopt binding Master Plans."
"'We not~ agair.. that tb2 sections grant to the Planning
:ommission only· the power of reco::nmendation not of '
adoption of Master Plans (Gove~nt Code Sections
65500-65516)"
"Su!:>divisions (c),. (d) anc~ (e) likewise speak i.n the
accents of ~ecommendatio:l ... ,since the Commission's
function is reconn:nendatory only subdivision (e) carries
no binding con.sequences''
"The proper inq,uiry must be whether or not the ordinance
endows the Com:nissio:t wit"·. powers -which ~~ill bind the
Council. As we have seen :he Cottlllission will receive
no suc't authori.ty."
"'We have t=!xplained t!':..at the proposal here does not
c~nflict with the charter: it does not take away frc...1
the Council th~ right to t~ke final determination as to
the subject matter as the Planning Commission's function
i -I 1 " s reco:mnem.a tory on y.
?ROCEDURE FOR THE ADOPTION OF 'l'HE MASTER PLAN (Subsection (b))
This paragraph also presents no particular pl.'ocedural
problem except that it should he borne in t:~ind that before ·the
Master Plan is approved by the Planning Commission two public
hearings must be held by the Planning Con:missic•n. One public
hearing must be held by the Cl::y Council ~~f~re its adoption
of the Master Plan. If the Ci·:·.y Co1..mcil makes any changes or
addi.tions to the Master Pl.::m the Plan must be referred back t•O
the Plar.ning Co'!ll!:aission for a l•.~aring and then returned to the
City Council for fUJrther hearing before it is adopted. l would
also like to point out that it has been said by proponents of
the ordinance that it requires that a Master Plan be adopted.
There is no such mandatory prcYJision in the ordinance. The
adoption of a Maste1r Plan :is d:Lscrt-~tionary 'with the City Council. ·
Here we do hav~~ problems of definition because the question
itDIDediately arise~s: "What ·Mast~~r Plan and what Capital Improv•~
ment Program?" In :ny argume:1t to the District Court I stated
that· these terms were vague, c<>nfusir..g and uncertain. Howeve1r,
the Court dispoSE!d of. my argu:nent by saying "Appellants other
arguments relate to a!'l alleged failure to dE?fine ternts. Words
... 2 -
....
'0
.•·t·
0
,.~,..,:oo.~·.--~ .. -~-.. ~~·l'':':""':·j~;w••l ~~ ~~~ .,t,=/~~"*1% £), ~IJ:i>::;t""\\,1*"! iW11.,f'?·' 1 nwwww....-' \~'7'T'I •.c ... --<~~~~'":';-:-.... ,;---I '\.r~t~.;ri-:,:·.. . ~-" IP~~~ ' ::§s/:~~.~~~ ~~~' ~~~r~ 1iw r 1 " • : ••• \ :.....~: ~ ., L ~ r' ~ ~;.' .~\ •.• :.~.;\I,~.~· r' ":; ~~~r~ ~ ;~"" :-·'~l~.t I :,r. ~-'' ~{ r~~ J:~·~·~:: :.~ ":·~:~.·?.(r;,f}·~~.-'·.) .. ~~·~;f~.'~:·~l\~~s~/''~.:; ~f~ ."> .' ~ v' "~·:J, .. ;· ~·.·.:;f-. :.nr~~~~·~~~·.;:.:rf.:~J··~; : ~11 .. ' • ,''\ :/~ ~~ ... :. :' "' :: ~ I ! ~ .~ " ".; ,. ' '•'~ \:~:l :J!:: ·: ',,..1~:.: '~ ··:-'• :, ' ;, .. ~ •• -r.,,. ~ ' .~·. \ ~f I. I ' 1 ' _, r I :"":· I' I' ~.~.II :" ; :'l~\ .. \ ~.~-'':'~-~~~ i\ t ! ~~· ''>'·/": I~~;..~~·::-~~ ,\ . ·~v.lt'l,•.r 1'~1\'',;~:-:-~~~-... ~~ ... t'~~~ I t
1 \~ \> •},ul, .~ .. ~~; :··,,·\:"(~ ... ~~; ~·: 1~~· .. ,,.~.~~~~ ~···t ,;_, -t'l I! :_, : •. ._ 1'1~ I' I \ ~ ... ~ .. ' i ~~~~.:.·:~.:rt.~lt£J~i~&:~~d:}i': <Ld..~-~~ .. 1,~~~.~-·~·-~.:~~.:.~::L.:~:y. j~.~~tj<-GJ.J ~~:·:~~&~~~~~,:~i.~:.i·(,. ·i5~~-~:t:~.~:;li:·t:~:Jli;]~~;.W;:~ ~~·:~~~~~~~~J~.---~~ . .::_.-... ·, .
....
(I
·.;
..
..
a
"
••
•• .. ..
.. ..
<i ..
..• ,,.
·~
~·
• . ..
..
' //
~
..
,/
,/J'~
. .... ·:~. , .
. ..
/,•'
' ' '.' .. . ·. ... . . "
...
,.., ..... ,,....,"'''""."/' ·• ,or··
....
su<:h as 1 Capital Impro·vement Program' 'Industrial and ~[anufactur
ing' ' embraced' and the like may 'De interpreted as the· need
arises and are not vague per se.n I thi"lk we will all agree
that the need has now arisen <9.nd the terms should be~ defined.
The author of the ordinan(..:e has stated in one of h.is press
conferences in discuss:f:.ng tl'le duty of the Planning Conmdssion
to review all projects for conformit:y to the General Plan that:
"there is most c:tdequate provision in the ordinance for review,
revision and control of the General Plan by t~e Council. Such
projects as the abandonment of. the presen.t. City Hall and possible
building of a new City Hall complex near the HP.wlett Packard
plant must under this new ordinance be compared publicly with .
the General Plan fCJr the City a1nd the comparison :reported public
ly to .the Council. The spending of one-half million dollars for
an athletic cente:-site now will have to be: C(Jmp~::~.red if Mrs.
Tmo1le and the Planning Commissi.on a::e on th:e job with the over
all recreaticm plan." ,,
"
Again the logical question: is "what GEneral Plan?" or
"what recreat:ior1 plan.''
·~
My first irlclination was to say that there is no Master or
General Plan to which various Capital Imprc1vement Projects a1:~d
matters affecting the physical development of the city ~:::an be
compared publicly or otherwise since we do not have a G1eneral
Plan which is or has been adopted in accordance with th1e pro
visions of the State Planning Act. Such .a position, hC"~ever,
would make the c>rdinance meaningless and of no fol:c3 and~ effect
until a Master C>r General Plan was adopted in accorcfancl~ '1ith
the provisions e>f the Governn:ent Code. We do however h•~ve a
General Plan which was adopted, at least in principle, by the
City Council in 1955 and which has been generally used and
referred to as a guide to the City's development. This is the.
1955 Interim General Plan .
Tbe only other alternative is to take the position that
there is no Master or General Plan in existence at the present
ti~ which could be used by the Planning Co:mmiSsion fo:-the
purposes of "review, revision and control." In such cas:e no
reference to th~~ Planning Cottmi:;sion would be necessary. ~ince
such reference would be merely an idle act .and \fould result in
every case in a statement by tht~ Planning Cmrmission that there
is no,.:. Master Plan which can b·e used for purposes of revi.e"o1.
Paragraph J!. in the pr.opcsed Statement ,of Policy covers·
this item and reads as folloloi·s:
"1. As us~~d in paragrat-:ts (d) and (4e) the terms
'GeneJ:al Plan' and '~faster Plan' :shall mesn
and refer to the 1955 Interim Gen~~ral Plan."
Another logical questiotl' is ttWhat Capi:l:al Improveme·nt Pro
gram?"
-3''-,_.
. i>
·,,_
'•
..
1·1-
•··
f~lr~~~~~;~hY~i(;~;Z.Jllli:~~~;:iir~~~~~litJg~~~~~~~i~i~~~~~~i~;:\:·J~;. y,::,~~:~c-.. ·-·-
j_.
"\
••
..
M
..
.. .•
..
-.. "
..
·~
..
~~
~
.,
..
..
','
/
I ..
,,
:~
•
•
//
I
..
...
i
,I
_,/
/.
·~
(I
' .
tj '
1'-, ....
..,~
In searchin~ our records I find that the City does have a
Capital Imprc>vement. Program adopted in May 1960, being a five
year Capital Impr•::>vement :r·rogram prepared by the Citizen:s'
Advisory Comrnitte•e on Capital Improvements headed by Mr. Arnold.
So, for the purposes of Paragraph (d) I r•econ:mend that this .
Capital Impr<)veme:nt. Program be deemed to be the Capital I::nprove
ment Program refe·rred to therein. To implement this reco:llknend
ation I sugg~~st that Item 2 of the Statem,e!nt or Policy be adopt,ed
which reads as follows:
"2. As used i.n paragraph (d) the term CaP.!tal !mprove
ment Pr()gram shall mean the Capital Improvement Program
1960-1965, being a report prepared by the Citizens'
Advisory Com:ni.ttee on capital improv,ements dated May,
1960 and any additiotls or supplements thereto."
A furtht~r logi.cal query arising from an examination of para
graph (e) is "What are matters affec'ting the physical deve-:lop
ment of the city?1
' The definition of thil; term presents a more
difficult prt::>p!,em. I argued to the Distr:Lct Court that in my
opiniot:~. anythin1g from a parking meter to 1:i~e construction of a
multi-million dollar City Hall or aeminist.ratior:1 building
constituted a !IIatte·r affecting the physical development of the
city.
The Court did not see·in to think that r..he definiti.on of the
term presented any problett. Th·e proponem:s of the ordinance in
one of their cirC'ulars stat:ed t~at this t<~rm means "anv maior
change which affects the physi.c.al development of the city. ·u I
believe cr~at it is imperative that some rE~asonable criterion be
established by the Council fot· the purpose of determining just
•·what matters will be referred t(> the Planning Conmission. Vario:.xs
artifical and arbitrary st.,lndards could bE~ established. However,
we find in referrin.g to th::! 1955 Inter:!.m. General Plan that
Tables 19-22 enumerate various Capital Improvement items which
in mx opinion would be an ·:~xcellent basis for determining what
are 'matters affecting the physical developmt:'!nt of the d.ty."
Tt~ble 19, for exa1:nple, l:!.s :s various streE~ts and highway improve
ments such as the Cal:lforn.ia-Oregon Grade Separation, bridges .
across various cr1eeks,. Cha:·~leston Road-Arastradero Road ll7idening,·
the Stanford Park1:o1ay and the Oregon AvenuE~ Parkway. UndE!r Parks
and Recreation iu T'able 20 we find a list of various parks atr.Vng
them a new athl~ttc f:!.eld 1:0 replace El Cclmino Park in th~ sum
of $420,000. Ut\d•er public buildings in Tc:lble 21 we find a
central library, a junior rruseum, a centr,!i:l police station and
new corporation yard and uhder Table 22, F'ire St~ti.ons, 'V:t: find
a drill tower, improvement~: to Fire Station No. 5 and items of
equipment such .as a pu:ropin~; engine and aerial truck laddE!r.
Items similar to these would certainly be reasonably com1idered
as matters affecting the physical developtnent of the: city. There·-
. fore, I would rec•:>mmend thE adoption c•f paragraph 3 iu the state ...
ment of poli.cy which reads as follows:
- 4 -
' •:' . ~\ .
..
..
..~ .. ,
•
..
··[~~lrl!!ff~~~f02~~~~~li~~~~~JI~t{~~gs&~D~:;;·~~~it~~;~~~;lS1!r:I:JG··~:=-.---· ···-..
'«·
••
"' ..
'
<P
..
•I ..
•• .. . .. ..
*
r: ll ••
.. ••
••
.. •• .. ••
••
~ .. .. .. .. ..
••
::
1.
·~ .
...
· .. ~
••
..
, ..
..
••
~·
*
•
.., c
.
~"/,.
-..
-/'
I
(
.• ::·
"
... r. .• -' ~ • . ~
..
"'
~7~~~·,~ M/~:.~ .. ~.···\''· I .'.'1•'!':·· !'.< ~.·I,,,, ·''.''.'"r>"J• q',•\H .,., ',J " "··~·' ·~ '. 'U' ,.,,.,
--" •..
~~ ' 1....-~
dj ..
~ ·•.: .......
"3. As. used i:'l. paragl~aph (e) the term "physical
development of t:!'le City" shall mean and include major
municipaJ. improvementH similar to but not n.ece:ssnrily
l"i:tdted to items list«!d in Tables 19-22, inc:h1sive,
of the 1955 Interim ~meral Plan. The conformity of
all projects in the Cnpital Improvement Program 11nd
all matters affecting the physical development of the
City "t,o the Master PJ.an", when roeferred to the
Planning Commission fo:: report as provided in sa:ld
Ordinance:, shall be d~:termined by their conformi·t:y
to the 19:55 Interim G~meral Plan until such time as
said Plan is supersedE!d by a Comprehensive Gener.al
Plan apiproved by the City Council pursuant to th•e
procedures of Article 8, Chapter 3, Title 7 of the
Governm,ent C-ode."
PROCEDURE
An important .l:~cet of the Ordinance is the procedure to
be followed by the City Cot,ncil and by the Plar.ning Comnission
under variou:s subsections c·f the ordinance. The following, I
"'believe, are the most impox·tant, not necessarily in order of
importance:
1. . The Plat1ning --Commissicn should continue with the pre
paration anC:.1
• adop,tion of a Master or General Plan and
recommendati·:>n to the City Council.
2. The Plauning Commisior. should annually review the
General Plan, and recc·tm1end to the City Council such
extensi<ms, changes ox additions to the Plan as the
Commission may considEr necessary in view of any
change :tn conditions .
3.
-~.
The Planning Conmissicn should submit to the City Council
an annual report on tl"·e Capital Improvements Program
which report will review each project for its conformity
t:o the Master Pla:1 anc; which will review the prc>gram as
a whole in order to s~,;·ggest any improvements in economy
or efficiency which might be affected through the com
bining of various projects, and suggest any needed
improvetJlents which do not appear in the program ..
All matters affecting the physical development of the
City shc~uld be submitted to the Plani:L:irig Coumis:sion
for a re:~ort to the C:f ty Council as tc:> conformi·ty to
the Mast:er Plan. Since the Court has held that the
Comm:i.ssi.on 1 s furc tion is recomenda tory only and· sub
division (e) carries r..o binding conse•quences, there
is no ma.ndatory requitement that such matters b-e
referred to 1:he Planning Commission before action is
takel'l. by the City Cour.cil. I would recomnend that
.such matters be rc~ferred to the Plann.ing Colllni.ssion
-.5 -
I 11!11-
..
•
1111
~
!:~~~Fm¥!~~~iE:.>::~~-,·:~:,{:';··:·· .:.,\~~1 :.::s.,,::;:~!:~<··.:~\~;~f~0r,~~F5JrT7f.:~~·:~j~~,;;:,:RT;~~~:>)'·f/.f~~::::v.j::~7/;~~:f~;"-1~f:·(,;~:-r;}~:~-;.:·'l\~~~~!FTr)·:::;,%~::·~~··-~,(·: ~~r"-.f:-:{:--.'7"~-.
1: .,,, .. :{;::\:; -1~,:.': \ ··:<'"·ltti·:lf, ': f ,,-,t._', :tf.: ~-:~·~"!!$".::_.,. .J; . .,., ~ ~., .• ·::._ ~~ ~. ·, ~.· >•·'''' ,,.~--·,:~'."''"· ·" ... ;-_'~ :-.; ~~:; ~·.·_,r. ·r· ·· ;/ . c ..• ~ v.: .. , ... ~ .. >· :1::-:~··~. :, ~~~.~ :·:.:~· , ... ,l_.~, ··~'~1 ·: ·:'·':!\, :..: ~:: -·~:1: i:~' 1.: ~; \, . . ·: ··· -:·. : .. :., ,. ; ~ 11 ~: _ · ·· ·: ~~~i~t1~illi~Ui~~6.~.:~.;~~~:?11t~.:.:.'~i.r~-.;· .. \;S:-~~:iL·i;i;~~~t~~:JL~:: .. 'f::.~~·; .. ·i,:i·~~ !~:.:j:~~~L·~·;.:·~~~Sl:i:J~~t.s~ ~·;t~::~::~J:iif:J!:ti1l~::i tP;t;:1'it~:(::Ji:£.~l;:~:J' :-. ::'.i: : ~.:J.~L .~~ ..... ::. .. J. ·-· ........ ..
••
,,
... ~ .... )
j. o;jl
,.
/
" . -~Jt
..
·~
;! ..
:. ..
:.c. ..
.,
•• ..
i
:t ..
~~
,,
·•
..
\ .~:;·/
··~..:::::~lL
,,
-. . \ . . . .. ._, ;. .. -~
1••·,·:1;";
0
·:'-'''" ·"' • ·"·'-.~:r .. ; ····•: '" '' :; -~·
;~"". ·iii>
l\' ·"'·'i; •····
~
""""
before act:ion by the Ci -cy Council wherever pc·s-sib-1-e.
However, I see·no necess·ity fot··this heing done in
every case ~dthout: exceptions, There may be .o.c.casions
when matters. clearly t~ot lvithin the scope
of the 1955 Interim Get,eral Pls1n shouj~d not be referred
to the Planning Commission sinc:e the GoDIIrl.ssion could
only report that there is no plan to which such matters
could confo1~. Or ther..e may bE! instances where matters
arise where delay would be cont::-ary to the bE!St interests
of the city.. I would, ·cherefot·e, suggest that the fol
lowing .fcem in the stat,~men.t of policy be adopted:
· "4. Since l':he Disr:rict Cc,urt ha!l ruled that
the .action <:if the P:anning Commi!>Sion is advisory
and reco::nroendatory only ar:d in nc, event binding on
the: City Council, tnatters design<1ted in paragraphs
(d) and (e) of said Ordin.!!:nce neE!d not necessarily
be referred to the Plannir1g Commtssion before
approval or adupticn by the City Council but may
be refer:red afterwB rd, pa:J:'ticula1:lv when a delay
would be contrary to the best inte~ests oi the
City .. "
FREEZE OF ALL INDUSTRIAl. AND MANUFACTURING ZON'ING
·------------------~-------~
Subdivision (f) of the ordin.a~c:e frec:;!:es all industrial or
manufacturing zoning not embraced within tbe 195·;; I:rterim
GP.-:-:.era l Plan until such time .:as .a Comprehensive Gtmeral Plan is
~"rt:~sented to the City Council. a:nd approved by th1~ _t;i:y Council
ftursuant to the procedures of the Governmerat Code. ·· The term
'etnbraced" is a novel one in tegislation~ but I believe we can
reasonably assume that it means '''include" and refers to those
areas which are, or hav~ been, i:n.cluded wit:hin the 1955 Interim
General Plan.
It is my opinion that we sh.ol.>ld interpret t~:is provision
to mean that the City Council may nc't zor::e for industrial or
man'.J.facturing uses an.y propert:y :not shown as such, that is, as
industrial or manufacturing, on the 1955 !Illterim General Plan.
Two recent examples of the .applicat:i.otl: of th:is ordinance
can be cited:
"
One is the action of: the City Council at i::s meeting
of September 11, 1962 in zonir..g to M-l:S certain
property on San Antonio Road. This ~ :r:·oper.ty was not
ftozen because, in t:he 1955 Interim General Plan, it
was in fact shown as: "employmer:tt ar~a::: -industrial,
professi,,:mal" which is the nearest classification in
the Interi~.m General Plan to "industrial or manufacturing 11
..uses.
Within the last few days an applicat:iCI'n was made by the
- 6 -
'
~~iil~~~~
I ~-
..
.. ,~ .:t ••
..... -'~
·,:"'
II
·~
. "
tlt
.:: 4t
"" "
.. .
II ..
_ .. ,:: ......... , •• ,c ...... HW' ..-"""
.
~
~
If
·~
...
,,
.
..
"
..
II ..
..
',(:
jl
'~
~~
'.:"':
A·
.~~I
I
/
I
·~;1\ ..
-
i . .1· --'~
, •.• ' ' ~ I '. ~: .":·
4»
......
owner of propercy on' Alma Screet who·s.e prop•erty was
zoned R-2 but which was inmediately adjacent to an
M•·l: S zon<e. Hie. appl:lcat:i .. on asked that his property
be rezoned.to M·~l:S. He l'.ad to be advised that
neither the Planning Conmdssion no.r tr..e Council
could receive such an application since that property
was not shown or "embt·acec" as industrial o·.r manu
facturing use in the 1955 Interim Gen.eral Plt.m. He
has, therefore, withdrawn his application.
Each application for industrial or manufacturing zoning
will have to be examir.E:!d as it is :nade. for a det•~rmination of
whether or not it is frozen by subdivision. (f) of. the ordinance .
. ,
. The question, therefor·e, a rises as to· how the freeze can
be thawed. The following alternativt~S are available to the
City Council to accomplish a thaw of the freeze:
1.
2.
Adopt the 1955 Interim General J?ls.n as the Cot11>r·~hensive
General Plar.. Objecticm n:.ay be raised to this alternative
on the ground that the 1955 Plan does not enconpass or
"embracen the entire d~ty. Such an. argument is based
on the assu:nption that a G·eneral Plan. must include the
entire city. Such assumption has n.o basis in fact or
law since Section 6550Cl of the Government Code, adopted
by reference by Ordinantce No. 2090 provides in pertinen;;.
part that "The planning co:nmission or the pla.nning depart
ment may prepare and the c~~mmission: may adopt. all or
any part of the master or general plan or o.ny subject
of it for :all or an~ ~art of the citv, county, a1·ea or
region·.11 Section 65 () further provlaes that the legis
lative body may adopt "a.i.l or any part of 19 a master or
general plan. The Plgn:r:ting Commission in 19$5 and 1956
held all of the hearings r~~quired by law fo·r the adoption
of such a plan. Ho-weve·.r, :t:he Cicy .Council did not adopt:
the plan, hut only a:9prove:i it jLn principle. Therefore,
bcfor•a it could be adopced~ · the City Counci-l would have
to h!:>ld at least one public hearing. If any change
would be made in t.~e 1.955 Plan tt would hav·e to be ·
referred 'back to the Planning Comm:J.ssion for an addi
tional hearing 'before it c-ould be adopted by the City
Council,
Adopt the 1955 Interim ·~:en:eral Plar. together with the
Foothills Plan, the Baylands Plan at.d perhaps some
aspects o.f the University .. \venue Plan as the City's
Comprehenstve General Plan. Tne difference between
this altern.ative and alter::'l.ative (1) is that this
would encompass the entire city as it presently exists.
However, in order foi' this }:lan to be adopted the
Planning Co:mmission would ~ave to hold two hearings
before it could be referred to the City Council which
in turn would have to hold an additional hearing.
- 7 -
~~if~~:~~~~~l1~~~~rJ:~~~~~~i~~~l~~t~~~~.~J\~~t.:~~~~i{~ '"'~~~ .... ...:.~~.,.-•r.•~~~~.Li...,~"*--~.ro.o~~ .w .... -.. ,--.....-'lo:.,_~ . .-.. .-.iM: ......... ~-~-...... ~'ojll • ·-~\liilhlll-
,, .,..,
...
...
"'
:~··
1"1; n ,~J~1tf ~<¥ tf 1 j!Mlf14~ r;-~ ~ 1__...7,. --.--r-
'r,~~fl~~~' "'~..:·.,,·.,, J~.~,;.,~~·· .. ,; '0 ~· ,i• I : ;~~,o.~,l .:£~::;._~ ~-:-·~1~~~~~~~~~; ~·P,,•)H I'(; ,I~
:;·~\~ •. ·1t'· •. ~~i~e-:.}.~7~~!ft)~;r~t+~:··~'~l~l.::. , :, ~
IJ,-ry ,__,,p..iMj_, .. ~ ... ~ ... .:........,a..-.AO ..... Oo l _ ..... ~-
·~.,
11
••
" .. ..
.. ..
.. . ~
u
.,
"
'~
.. ,,
~
· ... ~-
(~~ ..
e •0.
<V
3. The Council could wait: a'!lc adopt so:ne or· all of the
Comprehensive General Plan now under stu.dy by the
Planning Commission. l;oThat aspects ,,f the Comprahensive
Plan would have to be adop tE~d in orde:r to "treet the
requirements of the State l8<w for a Compr~hensive
General Plan is a quest.io~:. c1pen to some doubt, but
would have to be taken up at the t:lme the l?'lan is
recommend for adoption.
4. .Do nothing. In such E~vent the freeze would. continue
indefinitely.
In conclusion I wish to stress the necessity of the Council
adopting some statement of policy ar.:d some dei:ir.:itions as a
guid•~ for the Cc•unc.il and the Pla:n.ni.ng Conmtissio·n in handling
matt•~rs within the scope of the o·:rdinance. In the absence of
such gui.de lines each item appear:ing on thE! Coui11Cil 1 s agenda
at its '!)i-monthly meetings will h<ive to be individually
examined, analyzed and debated to determine: wh:et:her it is
subj«~ct to the ordinance 01~ not anci the Planning Commission
will be in the dark as to ~lhat maHter or genera!. plan should
be used as a 'basis of public co:nparison.
I cannot contend that this is the only form which such
statE~ment of policy should t.ake bt.:tt aft.::r care£u;l study and
"snalysfs ·I believe it to r.Je .l reasonably simple and wo::-kable
statE!ment of policy an.d definitiot1,s which will establish f·or
the Council and the Com:dssion :1elpful and sensible gui.de lines
to bE~ followed by both bodies i:t the implementatio":'l of the
ordinance. It sho•.lld also be e:nphasized that this· policy
statE!ment, or whatever policy statement is ultinat.ely adopted,
may be amended or modified as t:1e need arises and as we have more
experience with the actual operation cf the ordin.J.nce.
. Septe:mber 11, 1962
Rr)BERT E. MICHALSKI
C lty Attorney
- 8 ..
-~
•
..
~~·:t·~'":--:·~~~N~f~'r.iw1t~~~~----:-:, , ~·.. ~~~~~z.!!-0':'*.'"1~-4 , ... ~ +.;e.:,,.a, ,.u:~~·llt,.~~~~~~~, Ji?IA,.~t.:S•· ... _s s; ~,};:;~)~ •'· • ,>t ~., a.~.n,~ .. '(-;>-"~;:r, 'if.\" !,.~.i)..,.x .. .,..#jt:Jl~.f ~~!"'~~~::--·':!:""----· '1 ,;;~'\'; > £.: \,;:~-; .. ,:' .. ,.;.., 'j.J ,• ~.\'1 '• ,; ' ;,f ', '< ·,, ,. > • ,;,\ ••\'~,' ·'r:f'', ''" '• I ·~_i.,,;:, .'·•';\ \';(~e ;·,:~ .. ;.;;.~·/':C')~'''?·•>J ,;'' "',• •, ~ • •''' ": ~:: ',,, ··~ '' •! ·CI';'.~'":.,;,:.{ ~ :·~· •;' 0:.1 ~., ' ;;,,~ ' • ,: ' ·~'l\' '.' > • <'"'''" ,,., ·,'' •;h '· ·,i,: •. • i,:, I' ' ·:~~:~::.f:';i>~.?:~-~~lt5~\:.~·:t: .. :~:; ... ·\:,r.::~;:?;.;:;~ .. ·: :.:.-:· .. .?~:,·· ... · ·~~?;_: .. ::,:·~:.I::. :;.i:~0:,:;J;:~~~~t:~r~·~if1~~~~:!/"!;~_;·.: ~~ :.; .-:: ~~:.,~:.:·.~'·'):;: :~.::f1·::~;~·;eJ:i·i:f~;>~:~~;···?;. :<t:,;~):~T}~·~-;:.i:> .;~:·~:·;~· :·s;,;:~~~;;j:~·.;.) ::~:~-.~: i ·._·· · .. ~,.:
... :z.~..::.l'.o.._:,~i-'~~-;.t~:J.~~~c~:k~:A:..J~·:~~t.,;.j~~~f.t~~~~~::c.~~.:~~ .. ~-.:-.~.::.c~~~ .. ~.~.~:~ ... :::;.:,.~~~IJ.IUI~ ~~~~ . ..:...;~.;~.~-=.~.:u·+ ·~-b~' ~f~r··1 .~!' •• 1t~~~.il:~[~iJ~,~.::...:.' .... ~~!.-.::.:;,~~~~--... -.R· ·-~ ...... _ • .., ••
p·· ..._,