Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-10-28 City Council Summary Minutes1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting October 28, 1985 CITY aF PAIN ALTO ITEM PAGE Oral Communications Minutes of August 19, 1985 Minutes of August 26, 1985 Minutes of September 10, 1985 Consent Calendar Referral Action Item #1, Amendment No. 6 to Agrev,ment No. 2861 Item #2, Supervisory Control and Data Acoisition System Item !3, Earthquake Preparedness VidEo Training Item #5, Ord.inance Reading) Re Park Dedications (2nd Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Item #6, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation Re Appeal of R. David Martin for Property Located at 3045 Park Boulevard from the Decision of the Zoning Administrator to Deny a Use Permit Request for an Automotive Service (Car Ilea l ershi p and Rapair Facility) Item #6-A (Old Item #4), Ordinance Re Speed Zones Item X15. Reprogramming of Federal Jobs Bill Funds Item #8, Request of Counci lmermber Fletcher Re Resolution Supporting P?sage of a Bottle Bill Item 09, Request: of Councilmember Fletcher Re Proposal for a New Dumbarton Bridge Approach Road Item 010, Request of Vice Mayor Cobb, Mayor Levy, and Counc:ilhember Klein Re Investigation of a Mechanism to Assist the Palo Alto Unified School !istrict with the Leasing of the Jordan School Site in a way, *hat is ConS i stent with Neighborhood Protection 6 4 9 2 6 4 9 2 6 4 9 2 6 4 9 2 6 4 9 2 6 4 9 2 6 4 9 3 6 4 9 3 6 4 9 3 6 4 9 3 6 4 9 3 6 4 9 3 6 4 9 3 6 4 9 4 6 4 9 5 6 4 9 5 6 4 9 6 6 5 0 0 ADJOURNMENT: 8:25 p.nr. 6 5 0 2 6 4 9 1 10/28/85 Regular; Meeting October 28, 1985 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chamherc, 250 Hamilton _Ayar'ue, at. 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel (arrived at 7:45 p.m.), Witherspoon, Woolley ABSENT: Sutorius Mayor Levy announced that a Closed Session re F!i stow' c Resources Board Interviews was held at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room. Mayor Levy announced that Councilmember Sutorius was absent due to a meeting with underwriters re NCPA Geothermal Bonds. N ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None MINUTES OF AUGUST 19, 1985. Counci l mewber Bechtel said she would not vote on the item because she was absent from the meeting. MOTION: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of 'the minutes of August 19, 1985, as submitted. POTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel 'riot participating,' Renzel, Sutorius absent MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 1985. Councilmember Bechtel was not voting on the item because she was absent from that meeting. !MOTION: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the minutes of August 26, 1985, as submitted. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel *not participating," Renzel, Sutorius absent. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 101. 1985. MOTION: Mayor Levy mowed, seconded by Cobb, approval of the minwtas of September 10, 1985, as submitted, MOTION PASSED unanimously, 'teazel, Sutorius absent CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Levy removed Item 14, Ordinance re. Speed Zones (2nd Reading) MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the Consent Caleedae Referral None 6 4 9 2 10/28/85 Action ITEM #1, AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO AGREEMENT NO. 2861 (LEG 11) Staff requests Council approve the rnntreee amendment, -Book Publishing Company ITEM #2, SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM (UTI 1-8) (CMR:575:5) r Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with ECC, Inc. for consulting services for installation oversight of the SCADA system. CONSULTANT AGREEMENT ECC„ Inc. ITEM #3, EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS VIDEO TRAINING (SAF 2) (CMR:558:5 Staff recommends Council ,authorize the Mayor to execute the four - month contract between the City of Palo Alto and Stephan 3urckhardt in the amount of $20,000 for the production of an earthquake preparedness video tape. AGREEMENT Stephan Burckhardt ITEM #5, ORDINANCE RE PARK DEDICATIONS (2nd Reading) (PAR 2/PWK 6-2j ORDINANCE 3644 ent tied 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 22.08 (PAR DEDICATIONS) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO DEDICATE THE HOOVER, ORTEGA, AND DeANZA SCHOOL SITES AS `ADDITIONS TO HOOVER, RAMOS, AND SEALE PARKS AND TO DEDICATE THE FORMER TERMAN MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE AS TERMAN PARK (1st Reading 10/15/85, PASSED 6.0, Levy, Klein, Witherspoon absent) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Ronzel, Sute.-ius absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Mayor Levy said City Manager Bill Zaner and Assistant City Manager June Fleming were not present as they were attending a meeting in the East. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said that Item #4, Ordinance re Speed Zones (2nd Reading), would become Item #6-A. ITEM #6, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEM :TION RE APPAL OF R. DAVID MARTIN FOR PROPERTY LdC An045 PARK BOULEVARD FROM THE DECIS 6# OF THE TONIN6-XURMTRATUTf D Y USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN AUTOMOTIVE SERVI f (CAR QEAL SH P ND REPAIR ACfLITYL ('PLA 3-1) (CMR:57T:5) Planning Commissioner Ellen Christensen believed staff did agood job preparing the report. Toe Planning Commission was impressed with the sincerity of the applicant in pursuing with the City a compromise sized dealership in the sensitive location and was comfortable with the level of traffic generated by the particular dealership., or a similarly -operated dealership, as far as impact on the ramp at Oregon and Park Boulevard. It believed the City` would be protected frow any potential significant increase in traffic in the future by the conditions recommended by the Commission and staff. 6 4 9 3 10/28/85 Mayor Levy declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. NnT:^g: rnu cif- Sir nett l _Tat ----�_1 L Witherspoon, T2rwi� rwv.�.w, ��r4VHY6Y Yy AI{.i1C1 i` vuii, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the use permit request for an auto dealership at 3045 Park douievard with conditions suggested by the applicant (limiting employment to 35 persons, building size to 18,000 square feet znd service bays to 12), plus the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall have recorded a copy of Zoning Ordinance Section 18.90.080(b), which describes use permit revocation/ modification procedures, with a Memorandum of Lease for the site, including a statement putting any assignees on notice that significant, increases in traffic may result in modifica- tion of the use permit; 2. The interior automotive display area shall not exceed 1,800 square feet; and 3. Average daily traffic generated by the auto dealership shall not exceed ten daily trips per employee, or a maximum of 350 daily vehicular'. trips. The Zoning Administrator may request at any tine an independent traffic survey, paid for by the operator. Further, that verification of the number of employees shall be submitted to the City staff at the request of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. City Attorney Diane Lee suggested a change in condition °,1, to require the applicant to provide staff with data to substantiate the employment figure. Mr. Schreiber said the wording staff preferred to add to condition #1 would b?, "information verifying the number of employees shall be submitted to City staff at the request of the Director of Planning and Community Environment." MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO INCORPORATE, *INFORMAT O!i VERIFYING THE HUMBER OF EMPLOYEES SHALL b SUBMITTED TO CITY STAFF AT THE REQUEST OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT. Counciimember Fletcher pleaded the present pattern of parking on the sidewalk at the current BMW dealership not be repeated at the Park Boulevard site because the sidewalk on the Alma Street and Everett Street sides were constantly filled with cars waiting for :service. She did not believe it needed to be a condition because it was illegal anyway, but she would keep track of it as she went down Park Boulevard almost every day. Vice Mayor Cobb assumed from the silence of the applicant, staff, and Planning Commission, they were willing to abide by all the additional conditions attached. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Refuel, Sutorius absent. ITEM #6-A (010 ITEMS #4), ORDINANCE RE SPEED ZONES (2nd Reading, (SAF 306) Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the initial Council action was consistent with the staff recom- mendation. Peter Taskovich, 751 Gal len Avenue, agreed with the speed zones on most streets except- Alma. He believed 35 mph speed limit was inappropriate for that street. Staff said it should logically be 40 mph and that accidents caused by excessive -speed was the reason it could be kept at 35. He did not know what was considered to be. 5 4 9 4 10/28/85 excessive speed. If the cars going 50 mph caused the accidents, the speed would still be excessive if raised to 40 mph, He believed the portion from Oregon Expressway to San Antonio should be raiseu to 40 mph, and understood Oregon to Embarcaderu oeing kept at 35 -_ 1 had iert -- - because ,� ��a� Sri► left-4urh iane, which could cause problems with cars slowing down to pull into a driveway or street. However, from Oregon to San Antonio there were either left -turn lanes, the fifth lane in the middle, or separate left -turn lanes after East Meadow and San Antonio. He receimended Council not reaffirm the speed limit at 35 mph, which bred disrespect for the law,, Most cars presently traveled at 40 to 45 mph. He believed Council should have a public hearing to see what the right speed should be for Alma itself. Councilmember Fletcher believed 35 mph on A1:na Street was appro- priate. She understood up until Council passed the ordinance and it became effective, the police had not used radar there because it had not been verified in the past. There wnul d be more strict enforcement. She was not sure if it was . ti 11 true, but at one time, the intersection with the highest accident rate was Alma and Loma Verde where the cars needed to stop right in the traffic lane to make left turn S, The lanes were narrow, and if a 35 mph speed limit was appropriate for San Antonio which was a divided roadwu.°, it was appropriate for Alma. With a little enforcement, the cars might S1G4 down. Cars going over 35 would go five miles higher than the speed limit if it was raised to 40 mph. Mayor Levy was not present during the original discussion of the Ordinance on October 15, 1985 and would abstain from voting on the second reading. Councilmember Witherspoon also was not present, but the issue was an "old friend" and she would vote in support of the notion. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Bechtel approval of the ordinance. ORDINANCE 3645 entitled °ORD►NANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CrITY-4F PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 10.56 OF THE PALO ALTO. MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH AND CHANGE SPECIAL SPEED ZONES FOR CERTAIN STREETS OR PORTIONS OF STREETS (1st Reading 10/15/85, PASSED 7-0, Levy, Witherspoon absent) COUNCILMEMBER RENLEL ARRIVED AT 7:45 p.m. NOTION PASSED 7-0-1, Levy 'abstaining,° Sutorios absent. ITEM #7, REPROGRAMMING OF FEDERAL JOBS BILL FUNS (PLA 2-1) (CMR :578: & ) NOTION: Vice Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to adopt the staff recommendation to approve the reprogramming of tPe $9,(48 remaining Jobs Bill Funds to the C.A.R. Swim Center Energy Improvement Project. NOTION PASSED unanimously, Sutorlus absent ITEM 08, REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PASSAGE OVA BATTLE DILL /AE.{ 3) Councilmember Fletcher said Council consistently supported legis- lation for beverage container deposits to encourage their recyc- ling as well as reduce the amount of litter. The.: supporters of the bill lobbying in Sacramento urged cities to pass resolutions supporting the bill when it came up_ again next session. NOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Ren*el , to direct staff to draft an appropriate resolution in support of AB 2020 and forward it to the appropriate legislators. 6 4 9 5 10/28/85 Mayor Levy asked -for clarification about whether= it was- a resol u- tion for the Councils vote or a letter to be signed by the Mayor reflecting the vote of Council. Councilmember --F letcher repl ied. a- letter would- nut hurt, but• she was not sure whether it was the right time. The. request was to pass a resolution which would reflect the names of the Council - members who supported it. Councilmember Fletcher asked Irene Sampson, Chat's r of the Palo Alto War on Waste Committee, who made the request, `whether there were any time factors involved. Ms. Sampson., said as far as she knew, the bill would not be heard until the next session in •January. As soon as a resolution could be passed was fine, but there was plenty of time for it to return to Council. Mayor Levy said the item should continue to receive wholehearted support. NOTION PASSED unanimously, Sutorius absent. ITEM #9 REQUEST OF COUNC[LMEMBER FLETCHER RE PROPOSAL FOR A NEW DUMBARTON BRIDGE APPROACH ROAD (PLA 4-4) Councilmember Fletcher said again there was a push for a new road- way on the Bay side of the Bayshore Freeway, which was an exten- sion from the present termination of the harsh Road Dumbarton Bridge connection all the way into Redwood City. Redwood City wanted the road because it was seen as an integral factor in stim- ulating additional development on the Bay side of Bayshore Free- way. She was alarmed at the prospect of a new roadway because there was talk periodically of a Bayfront Freeway. She noticed the Redwood City reports talked about a six lane road, and the General Plan of Santa Clara said six additional lanes were needed at Bayshore Freeway. If the link was .built, it would not stay at two or four lanes, but eventually would be six _.Lanes, and then there would be a push to a tend it all the way through Santa -Clara County. The link would stimulate more development, and put more traffic on 101, which was already heavily impacted. Palo Alto took lead role years ago to scale down the access roadways planned by CalTrans. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to direct the Mayor to send a letter to CalTrans emphatically oppos- ing construction of a new roadway between the Marsh Road/Dumbarton Bridge connectiwa 4nd Redwood City and informing CalTrans, Atherton, Redwood City, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto that Palo Alto fully supports the limits agreed to in the 1977 court settle- ment, and that they be complied with. Further, the letter also go to our legislators. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said staff contacted CalTrans .for .the past several days to find out the status, but was only able to ascertain that it would be called a preliminary feasibility study. In other words, it was at the beginning of the CalTrans process for.reeyaluation. The specific Project Manager was not available, and staff was unable to obtain more :extensive information, Councilmember Woolley asked staff for some background on the matter and Palo Alto's concern. City Attorney Diane Lee said as a City Council, its involvement in the litigation was not as a party or as a -intervenor. In other words, Council was not party to the original .lawsuit, -nor did it ever -intervene .in that litigation. She- assumed- some residents of Palo Alto were involved in the lawsuit, but Palo Alto was not as a City. The City filed its own separate lawsuit alleging it had 6 4 9 6 10/28/85 control, veto power in essenca; over the University Avenue off - ramp. Before the case went to court, the legislators amended the section of the Streets and Highways Code to clarify that Palo Alto did not have a veto power. _ Therefore, Palo Alto lost its case in the Superior Court. Around the same time or a little later, the Town of Atherton, various ritizens groups and individuals filed two lawsuits, one in state court challenging the same issues as the City of Palo Alto, and another in federal court challenging the env i ronmeota1 impact statement - .-epared by the Coast Guard, which case was ultimately settled. Mr. Schreiber said from a planning policy standpoint, the City opposed the new bridge, basically the higher capacity bridge and approach roads, on the basis the project stimulated a substantial increase of traffic connecting up somewhat more affordable housing in the East Bay with people working in Palo Alto and other por- tions of the West Bay, and that traffic, using University and Willow, would go down to 101 and through various streets in Palo Alto. He joined the City in 1974 and was never extensively in- volved in the particular project. Councilmember Woolley clarified it was within the City of Palo Alto or connecting to streets within the City of Palo Alto. Mr. Schreiber clarified traffic within the City of Palo Alto, which facilitated more traffic within the surrounding area, had a variety of ripple effects through the City. Mere traffic on 101 encouraged more people to get off 101 and use the frontage roads, e.y. Middlefield. In that sense tithe City's positionewas not con- fined to the City boundaries, but rather about overall traffic in that part cf the Bay Area. Mayor Levy welcomed former Mayor of Atherton,,,Malcolm Dudley, who was currently a Councilmember and instrumental in the 1977 court settlement and action. Mr. Dudley said at the time of the action, the bridge was the major concern to most of the West Bay communities. The East Bay communities were not built out as much nor did they have the severe traffic problems like the West Bay. Unlike the West Bay where there was an imbal ante more toward jobs end less toward homes, on the other side it was reversed. There was some logie for providing opportunities for roving people from an area where there was more affordable housing to areas where there were job opportunities. On the other hand, they thought in terms of better long-range planning and trying to achieve better balances between Job 'opportunity and the population. With the severe problems already existing with traffic and congestion, the belief was they ought to work toward trying to reduce those impacts. It was not a matter of just opposing the bridge. In terms of Palo Alto's posi e tion, it loegg took a lead With its concern over the issue. It had early opposition, and the original design for the new bridge and approach roads had four approach roads in the West Bay, the southernmost one which would have connected with thee Oregon Expressway and Embarcadero Road; the center one with University; Wi l l ow Road which was the existing road; and the new one, Marsh Road, now •called the Bayfront Expressway. Palo Alt!, owned about 100 feet of the area the other side of the -Embarcadero/Oregon Expressway, and as a result, was able to veto the southerly approach road, ;which probably would have had a major impact or the PaltY Alto streets, certainly on University. Traffic increases were greater than, originally projected, up about 40 percent from what CalTrans originally projected. There was a large citizens' -° group including people active from Palo Al t4, East Pe10 Alto, Menlo Park, and Atherton, who took the lead-. One of the key figures from Menlo -Park was Bob Stephens, and the alternative plan was named, "The Stephens Alternative." It was supported by -the Palo Alto City Council-, and -the particular alternative included all four approach roads. It included the southerly approach road, 6 4 9 7 10128/85 which Council supported. he did not recall whether it was.a unan- imous vote, but it was a strong vote of support. The alternative plan included a two-lane bridge with pull -off lanes to provide for emergency vehicles to pass through, any disabled vehicles to pull off, and an upgrading -for the existing -brid i., � � r e.�.i,.,.,.y -bridge, saved ���, �l i(}n5--UT dollars, and provided four approachs on the (West side of the Bay, which better handled the traffic, and all roads were two lanes. It also addressed the problems of the West Bay communities, East Palo Aito particularly had some specific needs. They were able to include in the alternative plan, which was later adopted under the present plan, for 'storm drainage facilities, which was something not affordable to East,Palo Alto. A Bel l ehaven access road was not_ a part of the original plan, but was part of the present state plan as a result of the citizen input. The citizen effort was constructive as it attempted to deal with the problem, minimize the impacts on the communities, and had broad support. Unfortu- nately, at the time the Council in East Palo Alto was not support- ive. It hoped the new project would bring jobs in construction and, later, jobs in the area. It did not happen and was sti 1 '! not happening. The current East Palo Alto Council was concerned, per- haus more than any other Council, with the impact on its commu- nity, which was not 'a surprise to those who worked hard to come up with an alternative. The distressing thing presently, and the reason Atherton wrote a letter, was there were devious ways to get around agreements. Redwood City, several months ago, pushed through funding for an extension of the northernmost approach road. He was a member of the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) iri San Mateo County on the Transportation Subcommittee. The Commit- tee, which re ?,resented all 20 cities of San Mateo County, voted unanimously to remove it from EAU funding. Somehow it appeared back on after RPC unanimously voted to remove it And provide fund- ing for a San Mateo Road, Third Avenue. It went before the Board of Supervisors in San Mateo County as a Con`::ent item. Joan Stiff, Mayor of Woodside and the Chairman of RPC, was not notified of the change nor that it was going to be heard, and certainly not as a Consent Agenda item. The Board, not recognizing there was any concern, passed it, and it was not until it was passed RPC became aware of it. He believed they had a good settlement, one they all entered into in good.. faith, and it was important for al l on the West Bay side concerned about minimizing impacts to support the present plan and notify CalTrans of their concern, and to hol d them to what was agreed upon as the present set of two-lane roads. Lastly, two lanes were adequate- when one considered there were three two-lane approaches --University, Willow, and Marsh --a total of six lanes serving a four -cane new bridge. When CalTrans finally agreed, it was on the basis it met not only the needs of the time, bet of the future. He asked for Council support and a strong letter was important to minimize the impacts,.. Councilmember Renzel said in her conversations with the CalTrans representative on the Bay Commission, she asked when they expected to return to the Commission with something regarding the particu- lar connection, and the representative ,rid not know. When asked for the order of naynitude-,one year, three years, five years-- ne replied that it would be within a year . They expected to go before the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commis- sion (BCHC) to request ability to cut across lands within the Commission's jurisdiction. Furthermore, Councilmembers were aware of the letter from Redwood City (which is on ;.file in the City Clerk's office) requesting support from CalTrans to do the prelim- inary study. -She was shocked when the bridge opened to discover, as one entered the bridge, the big,. sign, "Highway 84 Redwood City," and -when the turnoff for University Avenue and subsequently the Marsh Road_ turnoff, it said "Bayfront Expressway." A big development was approved in Belmont, and their 'intersections were not yet improved. CalTrans looked toward a comprehensive solu- tion. There were" strong pressures to- do the connection and particularly to open 00 a -number of bayward properties north of Menlo Park. It was important for Council to register a strong 6 4 9 8 10/28/85 stand in order to keep with the spirit of the original agreements, and to crake sure there was not an inroad toward another Bayfront Freeway. Counc: du=mber Bech4e1 concurred with the prev uus ..um.iiefl1.5. She went to the East Bay about once a week and Palo Alto had adequate roadways at that point with University Avenue, Willow Road was under construction, and the Bayfront Expressway. If anyone used the road frequently, they might notice as they returned from the East Bay to the West, a roadway which stopped, but headed directly for mars lands, right before the Bayfront Freeway., which looked as if it might have been the plan at one point. She did not want it to be continued right through the marshlands toward Redwood City. Councilmember Witherspoon said it was an interesting subject which Council discussed for ten years. She was not convinced she wanted to yet into the fray at the other endtof town. She saw sorne argu- ments for that kind of road and was not saying it should be more than two lanes, but she saw an argument that said, "We blocked it and I'm glad we did," meaning the access between 101 and 280 on Oregon Avenue. Men)o Park and Atherton blocked it when it was pointed at Willow Road. One could make an argument to get the traffic off 101 and up to 280 where obviously some of it was trying to go, and Woodside Road access was the way to do it. She was not saying the timing was right, but did not want Palo Alto to go on record in opposition at that point. It was essentially a San Mateo County issue. She was more concerned about the environ- mental impact on the Bay than on the growth -inducing elements, or even the fact it might affect 101 traffic, which she did not believe it would. Redwood City, Belmont, and San Carlos were determined to grow and there was not much Palo Alto could do except suffer the traffic if those cities were not allowed to alleviate it somehow. Therefore, she would vote against the motion. Councilmember Fletcher said there was no question in her mind the Redwood City Port and immediate vicinity would change drastically if the road connection was built, which was why Redwood City pushed so hard for it. Redwood City wanted more empl.yment and commerce in the area and there was no way 101 through Palo Alto would not be impacted when it eventually happened. The cars would be so stymied from moving on 101 and would seek alternate routes and use Palo Alto's Alma Street and Middlefield Road and other streets through town to reach Redwood City. It was a Palo Alto issue. Palo Alto also was peripherally involved with the agree- ment. She spoke to Alan Henderson over the weekend who was on the Citizens' Committee and periodically got Council votes on various steps that went into the whole process, and the agreement spoke specifically to the termini s of that access, presently called Bayfront Expressway, which should end at Marsh Road. She believed it was a violation of the agreement and something which should be of vital concern to Pelo Alto. Mayor Levy supported the motion. He believed the settlement agreed to in 1977 was not as good as he would have liked because he preferred a restricted two-lane bridge across Dumbarton and not a four -lane bridge, but the court settlement was better than breaking it would be presently, Palo Alto was not an island and the world did not end at San Francisquito Creek. Ceueeil had to be sensitive to land use planning and _ traffic planning up and down the Peninsula. Councilmember Renzel asked Councilmember Fletcher if she was amen- able to a friendly amendment to have a copy of the letter sent to legislators cis well. Councilmember Fletcher slid yes. MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO INCORPORATE *THE LETTER ALSO GO TO OUR LEGISLATORS"' IN THE NOTION. 6 4 9 9 10/28/85 MOTION PASSFP S►utori us absent:. A yat*. of 7-1, Witherspoon voting "no," ITEM #1O RE UEST OF VICE MAYOR COBS MAYOR LEVY AND COUNCIL - M [TO UNIFIED SCHDIA DISTRICT WTTI'THE LEASING OF THE JORDAN SCHOOL SITE IR J WAY Tit ('RE 8-2) Vice Mayor Cobb said there were some important land use decisions left in the City which involved the schools. Two pieces of land which involved huge amounts of recreational space were Cubberley and Jordan. Cubberley was leased for some time into. the future, and the City had public use of it which was a good situation he hoped would continue. Jordan, on the other hand, recently closed and had not found a tenant and existing zoning made it apparently unlikely there would be a tenant in Lie nedr future if at dll. The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) approached the City/School Liaison Committee with the request to look at the zoning so as to make it possible to more easily lease the site. It ryes clear to him, and_ he oel ieved the PAUSD would be the first to confirm, if a lease was not s .ruck which made sense to the PAUSD in economic terms by spring of next ,year, the City could anticipate the Jordan site would be put up for sale. That would put some heavy burdens on the City in terms of financing, and how to protect the site, because the public wanted the City to make sure it did not lose the public uses. He believed the PAUSD pre- ferred to lease the property. He believed the Council should try and make it possible for them tc do so. - In the process of discus- sions at the last City/School Liaison meeting, an idea occurred to him the basic concept of which was the City create some kind of an overl ey zone which would define uses in terms of what they called "performance." It would define uses - in terms of impact on the neighborhoods so acceptable uses would be those things which were neighborhood -acceptable, which he defined broadly as those things which did not generate excess traffic, excess noise, bring 1..n hazardous materials, etc. The Committee talked about the idea of an overlay zone which would have, among its other qualities, that it would not change the basic zone, which should be left intact, and which would sunset out at any time the site stopped being a surplus school site, and t'he zone would also apply only to secondary school sites. Al uses would be on a Use Permit basis. MOTION: Vice Mayo Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, to direct staff to develop the concept oV an overlay "Performance Zone* for surplus secondary school sites and return to Council with an ordinance for its iaplementatlon. The elements of such a zone would br!: 1. It would be an overlay to the existing zoning, to be in effect only so long as the secondary school site was in a closed or surplus status. 2. All uses would be on a use permit bas1g,, with acceptability defined by a set of performance standards: tow traf'i c , minimum noise, no hazar+ ot.3 materials, etc. Counci lmember Witherspoon clarified in other words, an educational use was presently allowed; "Council found .it was not economically feasible, but an overlay zone wodld preclude even an educational use, i.e. even an educational use would have to obtain a Use Permit'. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said not necessarily. Many educational uses on the site presently needed a Use Permit; they were not permitted uses. Council€aember Witherspoon asked whether it was more .or; less re- strictive than what the City had presently. 6 5 0 0 10/28/85 Mr; Schreiber believed the concept would unfold such that: the range of uses might well expand, but within the context of parking, traffic, noise, and other parameters it tried to minimize in terms of impacts on the neighborhood. Councilmember Witherspoon complimented her colleagues. It was a creative approach and she hoped it would work. Councilmember Renzel agreed with -the principle of encouraging the PAUSO to lease the site rather than sell it 1 f at all possible. It was important for Council to investigate whatever means it could, and she supported the motion. When the ordinance returned, she would be looking to be sure the kind of zoning overlay would, in fact, be ieterim while the property was leased and _would not permit a sale with more extensive zoning than Council would otherwise permit In the area in order to protect the long-term public interest, Vice Mayor Cobb said one of the caveats he put in the motion was the whole concept would exist only so long as the secondary school site was in a surplus status and would automatically sunset out as soon as it. ceased to, be the case. If the PAUSO wanted to put the site up for sale, the ordinance would cease to exist. The PAUSD had a long laundry list of possible uses, some of which resulted from contacts they had, and ,he picked two extreme eeamples to illustrate his point. One of the obviously unacceptable examples was a printing company because it was noisy, involved hazardous materials, and a great deal of traffic. One of the obviously acceptable examples was an answering service which was quiet, had virtually no traffic, and would probably be far more benign than the previous uses. Those types of things precipitated the con- cept. The whole idea was to give every possible protection}.. whi ie at the same time enau i i ng Council to give the PAUSD the tools they needed to get some.economic leases on the property; Councilmember Renzel appreciated the sunset provision in the. motion. What Council did not know at that point was how legal it was for Council to set some sort of a temporary overlay zone on what went with a rental rather than a sale of the property. Her comments were raised because Council often lost sight of its original instructions when something returned and was more harsh than originally contemplated. Mayor Levy supported the concept of a performance zone. Council realized closed schools were going to change their use. If Council allowed them to be leased, it was possible for the change to take place over time, but it al so gave Council the opportunity to develop means of establishing a further use for. the site to be op.timumly compatible with the community. Generally the PAUSD found selling a piece of property more remunerative than leasing it, .and .therefore, moved as rapidly as possible` to sell it, which was ,against the interest Council saw as it planned- for the total comwmunity. The concept of a performance zone which might tempo- rarily increase the lease value of a site was beneficial in the long run for the community. Mayor Levy c;arified, the motion was that staff develop the .concept of an overlay ."Performance Zone" for surplus secondary school sites. The overlay to the existing zone would be in effect only so 1oeg as the secondary school site;: was in a closed or surplus status, and all uses._ would be on - a Use Permit basis with acceptability defined by .a set of performance stantiards which included,. but were :not limited, to low traffic, swinimum noise, no hazardous materials, etc. NOTION PASSED •nasimmusly. Sutorius absent, 6 5 0 1 10/28/85 AUJUURNMLN Council adjourned at 8:25 I TT 1•nT_ - - - - n 1 1 L J 1. i k4:-/ C ty Clerk i !1. • 6 5 0 2 10/28/85