HomeMy WebLinkAbout0426.091~ ... ' .. ' . .
'~.: -,"
September 19, 199)
HONORABLE CI11 COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
/
ZONING MAP AIIENDM[NT. 4000 MIODLEFIElP ROAD
Members of the Counc1l:
REPORT IN BRIEF
On August 14, 19!11, the Planning COIlll1; ssion considered a Zone Map amendment to
change the zoning at 4000 Middlefie1d Ro;d from PF to PF(D), requiring Sit. and
De-sign appro .... al fer physical im.Qr~·/eme'nts. This application 'Was initiQ.~C'd
pursuant to the direction of the City (ouncil in ccnteptlJillly approving the
Cuhberley Mast!r P1an. A more detailed description of the project is inc1uded
in the attached ?lanniog Commission Jtaff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning (OlmlissiDn 'ioted 5-0 to recmmend approval Df the rezoning pursuant
to the Council rs request for a Site and Design reQvirement at 4000 Middlefield
Road~ Tne Commission al~Q recommended ~-o that the Council direct staff. when
fulfilling the Implementation PTan, to designate the athletic fields and land
s:ca.ping, and the parking and circ.u1itiol'l as Ma.jor Site and De-sign applications.
subject to final approyal by the City Councll. The Commission felt that these
elements ~ere ~ital tn the use and enjoyment of the community facility. fhey
recorrrnend tnat implementation of improveme~ts tha.t affect the function ()r
appearance of this highly 'Vi.sible public asset should be considered major
projects subject to the full Site and Design process.
RECIllttENDA TI ON
Staff conc~rs with the Plannin\j' (omission recolllflendation t~at the City Council
approve tlie Zoning Hap amendment ~ ... r ... Site and Oesign require:ment it 4000
Middlefield Road, and designa':e as Major ~ite and Design applications the
fc.l1owinq elements of the apprc.'~ed Cc.nc..ept\lil C\bberley Ma.ster Plan 1rnplel1Jent!#
tion Phase: athletic fieids.. landscaping. parkit>;' end circulatiof'.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~~;0(~>.
)t~'if,,",,>.' ~
i J~lI!: FWIlN
; A~si5tal1t City Han , ,
~~R:426: 91
. J. ,
--f':/. '.' .. ,// ~. -/;. !d/W
'-t: ""'.1--...,_1':' ~ . "",4:;,'. /
~ENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
•
\.
< . .. , .
Attachments: Ordinance
Planning Commission Staff R!port d~ted August 9, 1991
cc: Cubberley Master Plan Steering Comitt ••
PlIo Alto Tennis Club, P. O. Sox 50434, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Jack Hamilton, Vice President, Green Meado~ Community Association,
303 Plrkside Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306
louise Herrfng, Co-Chair, (ivic Affairs Comittee, Green Meadow
Commu~ity AssOCiation, 303 Parks ide Drive. Palo Alto, CA 94306
Sandy Snodgrass, Sa~e Cubberley Pari (ommlttee, 362 Parkside Drive,
Palo Alto, t~ 94306
tMR:426:91
p:\cmr\4000.cmr
~-.~.-;--:-------~----'.; "
9/19/91
Page 2
F.
ORDINANCE 110. __ __
ORDINANCE OF THE COIJNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAW ALTO
AKENOIN SECTION le.ce.O~o OF THE FALO ALTO
Mt,'NICIP;u;. CODE (THE r,~NING HAP) TO CMANGE THE ZOh'E
CLASSIFICATION Of PROPERT'i AT ~OOO MIIlDLEFIEl!l
ROAD FROM PF TO PF(D) (ctlBBERL£Y HIGH SCHOOL)
rhe council of the city of Palo Alto does ORDAIN
follow.:
SECTION l~ section 19.08.040 of ~;e Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Z.:lning Map", is hereby amended by chanqing the lone
classitica.'tion o'f property located at 4.000 Middlefield Road from
·PF FUblic Facilities' to ·PF(O) PUblic Facilities/Site and Design
Review Combining-, as shown on Exhibit alt.-, attacbed heret.o and
inco~rat.d herein by reference.
SECTION :2 ~ A Negative Declarat:iol1 determininq that the
project will have lto. significant eftect on the envirorucent was
approved by the city Council on May 6# 1991, in ccnnection with its
conceptual approval of the CUbberley High School Kaster Plan. Th~
Council finds that no further environmental assessment is
necessary.
StCTION 3. This orainance shall become effective ~pon the
commencement ot the thirty-first. day after 'the c.ate of its
adoption ..
INTROD!lCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSEN'I :
ATTES-r:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
,.
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Mana'3er
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
chief BuilQing Official
,~ EXHIBIT A
SITE LOCATION
SCALE: DA1E: Juu !~. 1111 ~ ~RAPHIC ATIACHMENT
TJ STAFF REPORT FILE NO. IO-EIA-U IIO-up-n t-:P:RO~J':'E~C::T~:_.;-:--_ .. ..:.:.:;,~.:!.::::.':'::._.:._:..l-,.!,;fO;";'::_,C~.::h:::':'':''''-'''-':'';;'-,-':::,':':::~::~:':P;:'F:'-,':'t:: • .!~::''P~F~.!:I~n;!..I~_~_!._-_-_-_-:.-_--I
.~ .
NURTH
L
"\~,;".
4,.,
August 9, B91
PLANNING COMMISSION
Pi'O Alto, C.lifornia
, ; ..
... ~
ZONING MAP AHENDMENT, 4000 MIDulfflflO ROAD
Members of the Commission:
Or. Jtlne 26. 1991, the Planning COlTlT1isSlon continued this. item beci"i!use of two
concerns. He first concern regarded the intent of the City Council Ht directing
the Cnmm;s$;on and staff to procass a zone change for the subject prJperty. At
t~e time of the last Planning Commission meeting ~~ this item 1 minutes fr~m th~
C<luncil meeting were not i'lai:1able. Therefore, the Commission .. as unable to
assess. whether the rezoning adeQuate1.Y addressed the Council's intention. Since
that time the lI1inutes of the May 6, 1991 City Council li1eeting have been produced
and are attached for your revlew. The final motion is contained on pages 66-162
through 66-16L
The second concern regardoad the effect of the reztlning on the Implementation
Plan, whi~h was approved by the Council on May 6. 1991. The Site and Design (D)
overlay district wi]1 Mt affect the execution of tho:! Implementation Pian,
because 1J the purpose of ~he rezo~ing was to have l~ter implementation pnas~s
return to City Council for re\liew and appro\lal, 2') the lI'lajority of the
improve~nts for Phase 1 are contained within existing buildings and would not
be slibject to design review, and 3} the Ci t.1 Co:.mctl has approved the
rmplementation Plan as part of its motion to adopt the Master Plan; therefore,
those changes (an be executed without necessity for further rev1e~. The items
that are subject to Site L.ld Design review are included in the attached staff
report.
STAfF RECOMMENDATIQN
SUff recomends that the Plann;i"".9 CommiSSion rr:-colTlTlend that the c.ity (Quncil
approve the Zoning Map amendment pursuant to the (our:cil's. request f~r a Site and
Design r~view requirement at 4000 Middlefield Road, Palo ~lto_
Respectfully submitted.
'~~~~~o.
Z~ning Administrator
Atta(hments:
p:\JC\4000B.JC
Planning Commissi~n Staff RepOrt dated June 211 1991
Minutes of the May 6, 1991 City Council Meeting
letters from the public regarding this item
08/09/91
Pal' )
•
o
cc: Senior Mlnagernent Group
Cubberley Master Plan Steering Comm~ttee
Palo Alto Tenois Club, P.O. Box 60434, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Jilek Hamilton. Viei! President, Green M.@ad'ow CO:m1t.1nity Association, 303
Parkside DrIve, 'al. Alto, tA 94306
louise H!rring. Co-Chair, Civic Affairs Committee, Green Meadow
Communit1 Association. 303 Parxs~de Drive, Pa10 ATto, (A 94306
Sand) Snodgras~ Save Cubberley Park. COl7lTlittee, 362 Pat~~ide Dri\le. Palo
Alto, tA 94306
Don West. City of Palo Alto Risk Manager
p: \JC VOOOB. JC 08/09/91
Page 2
June 2], 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION
Polo Alto. Califer"i.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT. 4000 MIDDIEFIELP ROAD
Members of the Commission:
At the meeting of May 6, 1;91, the City Council conceptually approvEd the
Cubberley High Sch~ul Master Plan and directed the Planning Commission and
staff to init1'te a lone Map amendment to change the zDning of 4QOO
Middlefield Rood fr .. PF to PF(D). The Site and De.ign Review Co,bining
District Regulations (D) are intended to provfde a process for review and
approval of development in environmentally sensitive areas. including
established community areas that may be negatively aff!cted by excessive
noise, fncreased traffic aesthetic factors or other disruptions.
The Site and Design process reQuires all proposed fmprove~ents on the site to
undergo a greater level of detail and review, th~n would otnerwise be
requfred. The P1anntng Conmission shall review all prc,posed development,
.hich is c~nsidered to be ~~jor in "ature, and maK! a recommendation to the
City Council. When the Planning Commission recommends approval of a project,
that recommendation will be forwarded to the Architectural Review Board {ARB}
prior to City Council action. When the Planning Commission recommends denial,
tnat recommendation is forwarded directly to the City Council for final
detennination. Projects that are considered to be minot' will be directly
submitted to the ARB for final determination. The Dir-ec-tor of Planning and
Community Environment shall detr~ine if a project is major or minor in
nature.
SA C KGROUrm
On May 6, 1991, the City Council conceptually approved the Cubber1ey Mastfr
Plan with some minor mDdifieations as ref1ected in the attached action
mjnutes. The City Council directed the Planning Commission and stiff to
initiate i lone Map amendment, which would add a Site and Design requirement
for t~e proposed improvements. The purpose of the zone map amendme~t is to
allow for Planning COOITliss1on and City Council re\iiew of future phases of
development beyond the Implementation Plan; includtng construction of ne~
buildings A and B, expansio~ of the multipurpose b~ildina and buildfngs C a~d
L, construction of a new gymnasium, addition of a 5~imming pao1 and any
removal of the co~ered walkways.
4000.pc
~-..... ---------..... -.-.",,-.,-.--.-
6/21/91
Page 1
" -• ;"k.,
/
\.
a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ~SSESSM[NT
The neg.tive declaration prepared for the Cubberley Master Pl.n and adopted by
th! Cfty CQu~c11 on May 6, 1991, sufficientlY address!$ any possible
sign1f1eant environmental impacts associated with this project.
RWl!9I[NOA Tl ON
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
appro~e the Zoning Map amendment pursuant to the (ouncil '5 request fOT a Site
and Desi9n review requirement at 4000 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto,
Resp!etful~y submitted,
7lva:z ,~f «dtif/ ¥GL
Zoning Administrator
Attachments: . 8: 8 iilaftee
heat j 8ft Ma,
Environmenta; Impact Assessment
cc: Senior Managl!JI'l'qt GrQup
CubberTey Master Plan Steering Committee
Pal. Alto Tennis Club, p, O. Sox 60434, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Jack Hamilton, Vice PreSident, Green Ml!adow Co~n1ty ASsO()itfen, 303
Parkside Drive, P,lo Alto, C4 94306
lo~ise Herring, Co·Chair. Civic Affairs Committee, Green Mead~
Community Association, 303 Parkside Drive, P,lo Alto, CA 94306
Sandy Snodgris, Save Cubberley ParK Committee, 352 Parksidt Drive
P.lo Alto, CA 94306
Don West, City of Pil0 ATto Risk Manager
4000,pc 6/21/~1
Page 2
,": .
=~:..::.'---':.....-----.... -----.,--..... ----.
---
En~ironmenta' Documents -City Df Pa~o Alto
tNYIRONMENTAL ASS£SSMENT
Project Description/Title: Mister Plan for (ommunitv use of th~ Cubberley
High Sc.hool site. including II net i"crease of 21.490 square-feet ('If building
additioos. addgd parkirlg. ne~ peel and 1iI,ndscapir1g. relccilted te!'Hi~s courts
and circu1ation changes.
L{)Clt i on/Addre 55 ~ 4000 Middlefi.ld Ro,d, P,lq Aitq
Sponsoring Agen.c.y/Applicant: ~i1L.of Pa'o A.lto ( Pau1 T"iit~",n _____ _
Address an~ Telephone of Applicant: 4000 Middr~fie1d Road. (415) 329-2188
Application for: ~roval of Master P1an
(e. g.. zon i ng c.hange, "'.""utod",;'· V~i'-:"-'1':'o~n"'O~f~p-':r-'o:"p'C!.r-::tc-y'-,--:-.-:rCOh'""'"'i t",","t"u"r-:-,l'--:r"."v"i-:.".-, "u"',",:--
permit)
Zoning at Project location: PF ----'
NOTICE Of DETERMINATION
Based upon review of the project fiTes, tne undersigned member of the Planning
Department has concluded:
IXI Neg.tive Decl.r.tion: Th. project h,s no ,ignificant environm.nt.l
impact. No En~ironmental !mpact Report 1S req~ired. The reasons for a
Dec1aratlon are:
[n the attached Initial Study. A record of project action ;$ avaj1able
for review at the Palo Alto Recreation Depat cment petween the hours of
8~OO AM to 5:00 PM. loqted at 400C-MiddlEneld Road. Pa10 .t..ito.
1=1 ,he project m'j h,v, , significant environment.l impact. An
En'llironmenta1 Impact Report \10'; 1 t,e prepared.
Flann~ng Department Official:
Planning Director: )'e::, "W-~
The project has bee~ ~
The project has been denied.
AMENDED JANUARY 31, 1990
Date:
Da.te:
File No.: 90-EIA-54
•
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS -INITIAL SD<QY
L Project Title/Address: 4000 Middl.fi.ld Ro.d. P.'o Alto
JI. Project Description: Master D1an for comrrrunlty US! of the 'vbbp.r~ey
High SchoQ' site. Plan cans for a net increase of 21.490 $Q. ft. of
building ddditiQ~$. 112 additional parking spa~es, re'o~ation of the
existing tennis courts, increased 1andscaping. circulation improvements
and building upgrades. The Plan ;s to be implemented over f numbpr of
years is funds are available. The current i~plementat;on plan calls for
all bynding upgrades, 141 new parking spaces. ne ... lar.dscapi!"ig ir.d' ,n
BOD sg.ft+ storage/restroQm buiJdjn9.
111. En~jronmentai Setting: 3&.4 icce $1te develpped ~it~ t~pica) H~gh ___ ___
~oQl facility. with 22 ~uildinqs totalling 181.990 s. ft .. 694.500 sq.
tt, of athletic fields and 715 eXisting parking 5paces. Sit~ is
}urrour'fded by sihgle family residential uses to Florth. soyth and eas~
anti shopping cer.te:r tp 'WEst.
rv. Environmental Impact Checklist ,Explanation of all -ies· ans ..... ers ar~ in
So<t;o, V)
I. l!r1h. Will the propos.l rosult in:
i. U"~tjble earth conditions or changes
in geolog~c substructures? -I-
b. Disruptions, displace~ents: compac-
tion or cvercove"';n9 of the Soi 1 -.!...
c. C~a"ge in topography or groun~
surface relief features? -X-
d. The destru~tlont covering or modi~
ffcation of any unique geologic or
Physical features? L
e. Any increase in wind or wate)-erosion
of so;] s? eHher 011 or off tne site? ....l...
f. Exposu~e of people or property to
geologic haz~rds such as earthquakes,
lands1ides t mudslides, ground failure
or s.imilar huards.? _1_
~. Changes in s;1tation, deposition, or
erosion ~hich may modify the channe1
of a river or the bed of i bay or
inTe-t? _L
iii I·e.;
~ .. ~ 2. lli.
I ,
3.
4.
90ElAS4S
./
C'> ,,> -'-"
Will the propos.l result ir;; ill
•• Substantial afr emiss10ns ~r de-
teriorat1on of ambfent lir quality?
b. The creation of cbjettfonable odors?
c. Alteration of air ~ovement, moisture
temperature. Or any changE in c1i-
mate, e;t~er locally or regior.ai?
l!illJ:. Will the prcposal re~lJ1t in:
l. Changes in ahscrptlon rates, drainage
patterns, or the rlte and amount of
surface wate-r runoff? _1_
b. Alterations to
flood waters?
the cotlrse or f1 ow of
c. Discharge into surface waters, or in
any alteration af surface ~ater
qual ity, i~cluding but not limited to temperature~ dissoTved oxygen or
t"rbidity?
d. Alteration of the direetlon or rate
~f flow of ground waters?
•• Exposure of people or property to
water related halards suc~ as flood-
ing or tidal wave?
f. Change i~ the qUintity of ground
waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals. Dr through
interceptf~ns of an aquife~ by cuts
or fxcavati ons?
llin1 ~if~. ~ill the-proposal re-suTt in:
a. Change in t~e diversity of speCies, Dr
n~er of any species of pla~ts (in
cluding trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
microflora and aquatic plants)? __ 1 __
b. Reduction!lf the numb2r·s of any
unique, rare Dr endangered species
of plants?
MAVS; !iQ
..!..
..!..
..!..
_X_
..!..
..!..
_X_
2-
Page 2
c. Introduction of new species of
plants into an area, or in I barrier
to the no~al replenishment of
existing species?
d. Reduction in ac~eage of any
agricultural crop?
5. Animal Ufe. Will the proposa.l result 1n:
a~ Cha.nge in the d'iversity of spe-t:ies,
or of any species of animals (birds.
land animals ir.cludi~g reptilss,
fis~ and shellfish, benthic organisms,
fnsects or microfauna)?
b~ Reduction of the nl~bers of ani
unique, rare or endangered species
of ani.ah?
c. Introduction of new species of
an,mals i~lto in area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or ~ve
ment cf animals?
d. Deterioration i" existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
6. Noise. Will the p~Qpnsa' res~lt in:
ill
a. Increases in existing noise levels? _x_
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
_1-
levels? _x_
7.
8.
light ind Glare. Will t~e proposal
~roduce new light glare?
land Use. Will the proposal result in
a sUbstanti.' alteration of the present
Dr planned land use of an area?
9. [neray/Natunl Resources. Will the
proposal rEsult in:
a. Use of subs~antlil amounts of fu~l
or energy:
b. Subst.ntia' increas! in deman~ upon
existing sources of energy. or
___ 1_
_x_
90EIA548 P'9' 3
.-
".
,!
o
requi~t the d!.elcp"~nt of new
sources {lr energy?
c. Incruse in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
d. Substantial depl etion of any nOTlre
newable nitural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Does th! propesal
inv~lye I risk of in explosion or the
release of hazardous ~1..:bstaf1ces (fn~
(ludin9, but not limited to, Oil.
p~sticfdes, chemicals or radiation) in
the event of an accident {IT upset~
II. Population(Housing.
•. ~;ll the prepes.l .lter the Teeatien,
distribution. density? or gro~n rate
of the human p~pulation of an area?
h. Will the pr;,poSiJ1 effect existing
housing, or ,reate a demand for
~ddltiDnal hG!Jsing?
12. T~ansportatiQn/Circylition. Will the
proposal result in~
i. Generatio.n of substantial additional
_x_
_x_
vehicular movement? ___ X ___
b. Effects on existi~g parkin~ faCili-
ties. or demand for new parking? ~
c. Alterati~ns to prese~t pitterns of
circulation or movement of people
ind/or goods? _X_
d. Jncrease in traffic hazards to ~t~r
.. --....
_x_
vehicles, bicyclists ~r pedestrians? ~
13. Public Services. Will the proposal have
90EIA54B
2n effect upon, or result in i need for new
or altered 90ver~~ental ser~ices in any of
the foll~~ing ar~as:
I. Fire protection?
-------""<';:-"""-
_X_
Page 4
•
b. Police protection?
e. Schc1Jh?
d~ Parks or other recreationa1
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facil ities.
including roa~s?
r. Other go~ernmentil services?
14~ Utll1tig5~ Will the proposal result in a
n~ed for new systems, or suhstantial
alterati~n5 to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tank?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
15. Hurttan Health. Wi 1 1 the proposal T'!Sul t
in;
i. Creation of jny health hazard Dr
potential health hazard (excluding
.enta1 healtil)?
b. Exposure of ~~~ple to potential
health hazards?
_x_
_1_
_1_
_x_
L
L
_x_
lEo Aesth-ti~5. ~ill the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the publiC, or will the
proposal result in the creati~n of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
pubic \liew? _1_
17. Recreation. Will t~e proposa) result
in an impact upon th~ qualit~ or quantity
of existi~g recr!ational opportunities? ~
90Er~.54B Peg. 5
.. , .
,."
.\
o
ill
18. Cyltural Resources.
a, Will the proposal rtsult in the
,lteration of/or Ue destruct ion
of a prehistoric or historic
:Io,'chaeological site?
b. Will tne proposal res:.i1t in ad·
verse physical or aesthetic effects
t~ a prahistori~ or historic
building, structure; or o~ject?
c. ODes the proposal ~""ie the potentia'
to caus! I physical Change wh1,h
would affect unique cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious Dr sacred uses withln the
potential impact .rei?
19. Mandatorv Findin9i of Significance.
a. Does the prGject have t~e potential to
degrade the Quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish Dr wildlife species. cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining le~e1s. threaten t~
eliminate a plant or anima1 community,
reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or enoangered plant or
animal or eliminate important eKamples
of the major periods of California
history cr prehistory'?
b. Does the project hl~e the potential
to achi~ve short-ttrm. to the dis·
adva~tage of long-term. environmental
gools? (A short-term 1mpoct on the
environment is one which ~ccurs in i
relatively brief 9 definitive period
of time ~nl1e long·term impacts ~i'l
endure well into the future.)
t. Does the proji!ct l'live l!T."acts wt1ic:h
are ind;vid~a'ly limited. but
cumulatively consfderlble? (A pro~
ject may impact on two or more
separate resources where the impact
_1_
_1_
_x_
_1_
9CEJA54B Page 6
em ead~ reSol,lrce is rS!l ativel,)'
.mall , but where the effect of the
total of tnD.e impact, on the
environment is significant.}
d. Ooes the prDje~t have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on ~uman beings,
either direct1y or 1ndir2ctly?
ill
Y. Expl~natfon of ·yes· ans~ers in environmEntal checklist.
5 •• attached.
90£IA54B Pa.e 7
Ub.f) £Irth. The buildil'l9 additions, demolitions, e)(pans",on of parking
areas and creation of new landscaped ireiS prap~sed in the Ma$ter Plan will
nave iii minoi impact {in sit! soils. Minfmal grading wn) be necessary as the
site is a 1evel developed site. The greatest amount of grading proposed will
be for creation of th! new pool at some future date. The currEnt
implementatinn plan will have a negliglble impact is only parKing l~t
improvements and one small BOO-s~uar~-foot building ~i1i be added. Fina1
gradjng plans f~r any site grading will be subject to review and approval by
t~e P~bli( Works Department.
The project site is located i~ a seismic area of moderate risk, and ~i1l be
subject to very strong ground shaking in tne event of an earthquake. EXisting
structures .. ill be upgraded, and new structures will be subject to compliance
.. ith the reQuireme:'lts of the current l.Jr.ifcrm Building Code~ portions of wf'iich
are directed at reducing 10ss of life or property in the event of an
~arthquake. These measures .. i1l reduce s~ism;c risk to an acceptable 1~vel.
3 Ca} Water. The site .urrently has approximately 683,000 squar€ feet of
impervious coverage. The Master rlan will r~duce impervious coverage by
60,OGO square fe~t due to the addition of substantial 1andscaping pricipally
due to planting of the previ~us paved courtyards. This cnange will have only
a negligible impact on s~te and area drainage. final drainage plans f~r any
slte changes will be subj~~t to the review and approval of'the Public ~o~s
DepartmenL
4 fa' Plant life. The conceptual landscape plan show~ on the site plan shows
tnat a substantial amount of new landscaping will be added to the site as part
of the initial implementation proposil for the ~aster Plan. New groups cf
trees and landscape planters wt1l be .dded within and bordering the existing
and expanded parking areas. The full Master plan also cills for the
replacement of much of the existing paving between buildings with new
landscaped areas and the creation of a ne\ll central (Courtyard between buildings
-A-and ~C·. The majority of the existing trees will be retained. The
exceptions ire the trees locatec' eist of the Pavilion whicn ~il1 be removed by
the circulation improvements proposed in this area, and west of Building "t·
for the proposed building expansion. The increased landscaping on the site
will have benefjcial impacts on the appearance a~d attractiveness of the
fi'!,="~ty. Detailed plans for all exterior changes on the site, including an
new land:icaping and ~)("terior lighting or architectural elements ...,ill be
subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board.
6 ia) Noise~ Site construction activities will increase ambient noise levels
temporarily. All construction act1vitie.s .will be subject to compliance with
the City's Nois. Ordin.nce lPAMC 9.10).
Future activities to occur o~ the sIte may also increase ambient noi5~ levels
for the du:~tion of the activity? 5~ch as u!e of the new outdoor pool and
outdoor stage and acoustical she1l ~ f~oi.se from numan voices is not addressed
in the C1t,.;5 Nois! Ordinance, but any amplified ~usic would be subject to the
ordinance. Such potentiill sources of noise w111 not t1a' .... e significant adverse
impacts on adjoining neighbors, but sensitivity should be employed tly the City
90flA548 Fage a
ill authorizing and control Hng the schedul1ng of iny outdoor icthit1es i!!nd
acttvit{~s uti~g amplified music. or other type of a~p1iffcition t~ ~inimiZf
potE~ti&l noise impacts. Such controls Cln be establi5h~d throu9~ the City's
leasi~g and use permit proc~~sin9.
7 light and Glare. The new parking 1~t improvements proposed may include new
11ghtin9 for security pu"poses. Such lighting ,hould not ad,ersely affect
surrounding uses, provided that it is ·row ~eve"t low illumination, directlonal
lightlng. Any proposed lighting cha~ges will require review and approval by
the Architectural Review Board.
IO Risk of Upset. Maintenance of the :new pool will requlre use or cnlorine
and there is potential that some of t~e artists may USe minor a~aunts of
mahrlals such iiIS soivents which Would be chssined as hazardous. T.":.e use
and storage af these types of materfa1s will be subject to compliance ~ith the
requirements of Title 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Coce (Storage of Hazardous
Moterials) .
i1 (bl Population/Housing. The communlty activHies which will occur on the
site may resuH 1.'1 a minor increase in local e~ployment opportl.,mities but any
such increase is expect~d to have on'! a .,egl igib1e impact on the loca'
hous~n9 demand.
12 'a.b] Transportation/Circulation.
TNffl c Impacts
The master pTan results in oil cna~,ge-of sc;:uare footage from approximately
182,000 squire feet exi~.tffl9 to 203,500 square feet--an increase of 21.500
square feet.
Trip generation rates from an earl fer study of the Jordon School Slte ~nd from
th~ Instit~t~ of Transportation (ngineers were apPlied to the net changes 1~
site uses as descr!~~~ on pages 14 and 15 of thE Master P}an. The following
impacts of the Haster Plan were found. relatlve to the use of Cubber1ey at the
beginnin9 of 1990:
Increase in daily trips to/from Cubberley:
Relative increase i~ Average Dai1y traffic (ADT)
on Mldd1efield north of (ubberley:
Reht;ve increase in ADT an Midd1efje1d
,outh of Cubberloy:
Increase in !vening (PM) peiK hour trips
to/from tubberley:
1,4]5 trips
5.5 percent
3.0 percent
76 trips
The increase in PM peak ho~r trips was distributed on ~iddjefie1d north and
south of the site for further detaPed in.:l1ysis it the three signalized
90EIA548 Page 9
lnti!rsec:t iOrls near.est the site (Char1estCin/M'fdd1efi el d, MOfltrose/Middl efiel d,
San Antonio/Middlefield). The year 200~ a.nd 2005 builr:lout vo""j.,'mes for t~ese
intersect;o;'Js were determined from the City,-,ide Land Use and Trarlsportatior:
Study and r~present construction of ill sQuare fcota~e under a ·rea1isti~~
buildO'ut scenario. The PM peak hour trips from the, master plan were added to
the year lOOO volu""" I,d compared to the lOOS bui1~out volume, for each
inter~Ection. The 2000 volumes ~;tn the ~dded traffic from the Master Plan
did not exceed the 2005 buildcut ~o1umes at any of the three intersections~
indicating n.a significant impacts at these intersections (Le., project
traffic does flot cause the intersections to e.xceed the 'lIolumes analyzed in tM.:!
City.ide Study E1Rj.
The increase 1n PM peak hour trips at project dri\leways is eqLJivalent to an
approximate lncre~se of onE vehicle ~er minute turning ieft into the site and
one vehicJe per minute t.urnin9 rignt into the ~ite dtJri ng the heaviest pat"t of
the PH peak hour. lhe increases in triffic exiting the site durin9 the PM
peak hour are minima1. The increased driveway activity 101;11 not create
significant traffic impacts. Tne increases 1n dai1y traffic en Middlefi~1d
will not be perceptible to the ayerage driver or resident. in summary, ther~
are no significant traffic impacts from the p'roposed master plan, and thus, 1'10
mitigation measures are required.
On-Site Circulatjon
The Master Plan calls fo~ a SUbstantial reorganization of the existing parking
areas and impro\led site circulation. The description of Circulation and the
parking ~lan ire provided on pages 20-21 of the Master Plan. The major
cnanges in~lude prov!sion of tw~-way circulation through the sit!. This will
be accCHllpl j shed by modi f,Ying the drop-off area to Greendell School to
eliminate i sharp one-way right angle turn ind by relocating the tennis CQwrts
to the SGuth allowin9 widening of the driveway for two-way tra\lel,
Th~ most common drop-off point us~J by parents of Greendell students ;s within
the Cubber1ey parKing lot at the northern corner of the schoo~. 7he proposed
changE to th~ Greendell School acc!ss is to modify the ~orthetn corner of tne
s't~, to impr~ve th~ sa~ety of the drop-off which is used and eliminate the
existing circular drop-off which is no'; used. Both of the circJJlation cnanges
proposed will ~ave beneficial impacts en sIte ,irculatlon and help reduce
areas of potential hazard and conflict. Architectcral Review Board approval
of iii; more detailed parkirl; and Circulation plar: will be required prior to
implementation of any parking or (irculation changes. The appro\lal precess
for any circulation changes which WD\l1d affect Green!:!e11 sr:hool must include
approval by the Falo Alto Unified Schoo1 District.
Parking
Parki~g requirements vary by type of use. Park;~g req~irements f~r office
~ses such as nonprofit cffices are based en one S~lce fer e~~ry 250 sqware
feet of gross floor are~. Parking requirements for school facilities are
based on tne number of t~aching stations, ParKing re~uirements for community
facilities .tre based on the maximum occupant load of the bui'lding. Parking
90tlAS4B Page 10
req~irments for bfcytles ire based on a percentage of vehicle spaces required,
ten percent of parking required f~r office uses and 30 percent of parking
required fCJ'r cOlmlunity recreation useL l,;nder current parking requiremer.ts~
the 181,990 ~qu~re feet of building area at Cubberipy ~ould require provision
of l,Ii8 vehicle parkir.g spaces and 262 bicycle parking spaces. The site now
bas 715 vehicle pirkin; spaces which means that the site 1S operitin9 with an
existing deficit of 463 spaces. The net increase of 21 ,500 squ~re fe~t of
additional building area and the new pool wou1d increas~ the ~enicle parki~g
requfrement by 476 spaces for a total of i,654 spaces, and increase the
bicycle parking requirement to 395 spaces.
Tne Master Plan will pro~idE a net increase of 112 spaces to the 715 parkin9
spaces currently existing on thE site f~r a total vf 821 spaces. The majority
of the new spaces ~ll be added by the reconfiguring of the existing parking
are~s and a minor parking lot expanSl0n 1nto the ~lajing fjeld. These
additional spaces will help to reduce the increased parking demand which cou1d
be 'generated by the proposed buj1ding expansions, but are not sufficient to
meet the fu11 parking requirement fvr the incremental increase in development
proposed.
Based on full occupan<:y of all facilit~es. ttH! site will operate ... ith a
deficit of 827 parking s~aces under the Master Plan. Parking under tne
Impl .... ntatio' Plan .ill be better as the addition,1 parkin-g .oul~ be added
but the new building and pool additions wouid not yet ~ave be~n added.
Parking under the Implementation Plan .. ould reduce the cun"ent deficit by 144
spaces.
Areas. for bicycle parking are s'h<lwn on hoth the Master PTan and Irr,plerr.entatior.
Plan. but the n~mbers of spaces to be provided are not specified. Additional
parkil"ig areas wnl he necusar,)' in order t.o provide the required nllmber of
bicycle parking spaces. Though the demand for bicycle parking is nat expected
to reach the levels specified by the zoning regulations) bicycle parking
opportunities should be maximized to encourage use of bicycles.
There 15 sufficient area to provide all required vehicular and bicyc1e par~ing
an the site, but at the loss of a substantial portion of the p1aying fields
which -..ou1d be considered a substantia.l loss to r~creat,of'\al opport'Jnities.
It is acknowledged that parklng demand may exceed par~in9 a~ailable duri0g
peak periods and some spill-aver parking will occur. Howeve~~ the amount of
potential spillover which ~culd be considered acceptabie to the City is a
polity issue~ involving consideration of the trade-offs of the ~arious parking
alternatives --providing parking and l':1oSil'",g turf. putting up with ~ome
spillover pa~king. or scaling back the pr~ject. T~roughout the developmer.t of
the Master Plan, interested residents have made it clear that the proposed
building additi~ns should bE constructed and playing fields should be
preserved even 1 f it means i shortage of parking d'..!r-ing peal:. use period's.
Community facilities such as Cubberley. present unique parking situations
which vary ho~rly, daily. and seasonally and for which fixed parking rates
difficult to determine. Though the Zoning Ordinan~e bases parking
90EIA54B Pag' II
are
requ1rements on full occupancy of III facilities, this situation is likely to
occur only fcr limited periods~ ar.d can be controlled through use limitations
incorpora.ted into lease agreements and use permits. Not all tluildings or
facilit'Tes will ~ used at the same tim~ or a.re fully cc:cupied ...,hen they are
used. For example the pooi gp.nerates a demand for 197 parking spaces, yet
will rarely be ut,lized to full capacity except during the summer months. and
weekends when other site facilities, such as Foothill cl?ssrooms. are not
heavily used. The tena~t ~cheduling i~formation fo. existing uses and the
Master Plan ~SES (pages 33 and 34 of the Master Plan) show that occupant
levels at the site vary throughout the day, are greatest between the hours of
6-10 PM and re.ch a peak between 6-7 PM Monday through Thursday. Ho.e,.r. the
estimated peak attendance on the site under the Master Ph:'! or Imp1ementatIon
Plan ~111 not differ significant1y frem existing conditions and falls roughly
between 1,100 to J,200 occupants.
Parking surveys t~ken by City (onsultants Spencer and ASSOCiates hav~ shewn
that peak parking demand is generated on Monday through Thursday bet~een 6:00
to 9:00 PM, due to FDothill Co1lege's evening classes. Howe .... er. the park.ing
survey aho Showed tha.t parking demand d.'ops off later i r'l the quarter be-::auSe
on average only 63 percent of t~e students enrol Ted actual1y attend class and
not all of them drive (92 percent). Using this informat10n it could be
con~Tuded tnat on average only 58 perc~~t of the registered Foothill students
would drive to the site. and 42 p~rcent would either Mt attend Cf' not dr..ive.
As these 42 percent of Foothill students are eQuivalent to 3;.8 percent of the
total Cubberley users. it can be estimated that 37.8 percent or 454 of the
1,200 estimated userS during peale. occupano:::y wvuld not drive to the site, and
prollides support for the poss1bility that the 827 parking spaces which ..... ill be
provided under tht Master Plan will be sufficient to meet the Site parkir.g
demand the majority of the time~
Pro .... is10r.S of t~e Zoning Ordinance allow the Director ~f Planning and
C~mmunity Env1ronment to adjust the pa~kir.g requirements [Section lS.83.070]
in certain instances where sue" an adjustment will not create u~due impact on
adj~ining uses. Examples of such ~djustments whicn could be considered for
this facility include: 1) allowing deferral ~f providing the f~11 parking
re~~irement (up to SO percent) where the expected need for off-street parking
or bicycle facilities is ~ncertain due tJ unknown or unus~al operating
characterist1CS cf the use, and where t~e remaining spaces are p1aced in
·landscaped reser .... e· and can b~ provided in the future if found necessary. 2}
allowing deferral of ~eti~g the full parxing requirment (up to 20 percent)
U:tHJn demonstration that effective alternati-.es to automobile transit are in
effect such as immediate proximity t~ publ;c transportation ~r use of car
pooling a~d other transportation demand management programs, or 3) zllowing a
reduction of the required parking (up to 20 percent) on sites with jOint
parki~g facilities and uses which generate pariing demand at different times.
Of the possible parking solutions a .... ail.ble, ~sing a landscaped rEser .... e to
allow deferral gf full parking require~ents 1S considered to best acnleve the
combi~ed community goals of issuring adequate park.ing yet improving ana
pres~rving a valuab1e community recreation resource. Tne following
90EIA546 Page 12
•
c'r~umstances SUPPQrt l11o~in9 for deferrll Df the full plr~lng reQuirements
for the CubberJey M.ster Plan:
Il
2)
3)
~)
5' ,
6)
7)
Addjti~nal parking will be provided OV!r existing (onditions;
1he maximum par~in9 demand ~il1 occur for l~mited perio~s and tin
be ~~nt~~11ed thr~ugh leases a~d scheduling;
Par~ing reqYlrements based on maximum occupancy of all faci'it~es
will provide more spaces than needed for average daily ~se;
Parkin9 surveys of existing uses have $h~wn that actyal parking
demand generated by Foothill C'llege students drops substantially
after the beg1nnir.g ~f each Quarter due to ~ drop in attendance;
Public Transportation to tnt site ;s available --Santa Clara
County Transit has three bus routes serving the Cubberley slte
(Routes 3S and 84 (In M~dd7eJi{!ld Road, arid Ratite ea on Charleston
Road) and additional carpooling of Foothill students couid b~
!r'l'cQuraged;
Provision of all normally required parking wii: require removaJ of
a substantial portfDn of the playing fields whic~ is not in the
public interest; a~d
Implementation of the full Master Plan will occur incrementally
over time as f~"ds are availab1e. better enabiing the City to
lI'Ionitor parking demdnd and. adjust scneduHng co.ntrols as needed.
The City win have ultimate control of He use of the site through the ;'laster
Use Permit and lease agreements and means are available to assure adequate
pnking is pro'lided to the site in the future.
13 (c.d,e) public Ser~jces
~ Master Plan for community use of tne vacated tubbe~iey High School site will
have a beneflcial impact on area sc.hoo1s by assuring retention of the site,
upgrading the existing structures and pn)viding rental income for th(2 Pa.lo
Alto Un;ffed School District.
Jmproving the site for community use wi11 increase re(reational opportur.ities
and ~ity maintenance resp~nsibilit1es~
IS fa,b} Human H"=ilt.k. Use and storage of pool c.I'tlQ:""il'1e .and solvents or ether
similar ~terials commonly used by artlsts could pose r1sks to human he 4 1tn.
The~e materialS are similar to those commonly found in a typical residential
garage ar.d will not present $ign; ficant risks of exposure if stored and
handled properly. All use and storage of ha~ardous materia's ~ill b~ subject
to c.ompliance wit~ the City's Halardo~s Materials Ordinance (PAMC Title 17).
17 Recreation. Tre building additiDns and site improvements ptoposed as part
of th@ M~5ter Plan ~il1 1nCr~a$e comm~nit) recr~ational opportunities and
improve existing recrea.tiona' facilities.
90,IA548 Page 13
•
EXCERPT
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 6. 1~91
4000 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD -CUBBE~LEY CO~JNITY CENTER
ZONING KAP AMENDMENT
KOrtO. PAB8BD e-1, Renzel ftno.-
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6. Master Plan for community cent~r reuse of the CUbberley Hiqh
School site located at 4000 Middlefield Road (continued from
4/22/91) (JOO) (C!!R:526:91)
Mayor sutor ius said the item was continued from the Council Meetinq
of April 22, 1991, after conclusion of the public hearing.
MOTIO.: Council Kember Ccbb moved, seconded by Levy~ to adopt a
neqative declaration and take the following action with respect to
the CUbberley Master Plan:
1~ Approve ths CUbberley Master Plan in concept as a policy of
the council, and incorporati!'Jg the concepts of the Alternative
Field design.
2. Approve the implementation of Phase 1 of the Master Plan (the
Implementation Plan), subject to the availability of fun..Is tor
that implementation~
3. Affirm that any implementation ot the Kaster Plan beyond Phase
1 will be subject to the r,ormal city review and approval pro
cesses.
4. Establish the policy that the existing open Epace at CUbberley
vill be. preserved in its entirety, and not be used as a
parking reserve.
5. Instruct staff to determine and report back to the council for
consideration and possible action: caJ the d.eqree to which
public/private partnerships can be used to generate financial
support for the Master Plan implementation, (b) potential
mechanisms for the creation and implementation of such
partnerships.
.".
66-140
5/06/91
"
" ".,~
eNDINGS
1. The Master Plan ~il1 ensure construction ~nd operation of the
use in a mannar that viII be orderly, harmonious, and compat
tible with the existing O~ p~tential uses of the adjoining or
nearby sites, in that the facility will be isproved and main
tained for co~unity center use for cultural and recreational
purposes, a desire exp::-essed iTI the Compreh.e!'l:sive Plan and
reaffirmed ~y the neig}}l)oring residents during the Master
Plan, a community outreach proceEs.
2. The Master Plan will ensure the desirability of invest~ent in
the same adjacent areas, bpcause it will allow for maintenance
and improvement of facilities, which would. otherwise be unable
to be properly maintained ar~ impraved.
3. Tbe Master Plan viII ensure that sound principles of environ
mental desigTl. and ecological balance shall be observed I as
documented in the attached environmental ~etermination~
4. The Master Plan will ensure that the use will be in accord
with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, particularly Policies 1
and 2, and. ProgralDS 1, 2 and 3 of the Schools and Parks
Element.
CQNPI'j'IONS
1. Any further proposals to require additional parking beyond
that indicated in the Master Plan shall be r"!ferr-ed by the
Director-of Planning and community Environment to the Planning
commission .for recommendation and City Council .tor .final
action. This condition is intended to prevent the conversion
of required parking, shown in the Master-Plan as land~cape
deferral in the field area, to be converted through an admin
istrative process to actual parking without benefit of a full
public heDring~ Any such additional parking shall be estab
lished by; (a) a reduction in the proposed new improvements,
Cb) further restTiction through the use permit on the simulta
neous use and occupancy of certain large-occupancy facilities~
or (C) a substitute proposal fo~ satisfying the parking
requirements ~th~r than a parking structure~
2. A ~erley Advisory committee shall b~ appolnted~ comprisec
of representatives of the Green Meadow Community Association,
existing and potential tenants of CUbberley, members of the
community at large, a =ember of the Planning Commission and
Community Services Department staff~ This committee shall
hold. open public meetings to develop recom.mend.ations for
future implementation phases of the CUbberley Master Plan
pri(lr to any application for the Master Conditional Use Permit
~eyand the Implementation Plan defined in the document~ The
recommendations af the CUbberley Advisory committee and a
summary of their process for deriving the recommendation will
be transmitted to the Zoning Adlllinistrator with any future
applications for future Conditional Use PerEits on the site.
66-141
5/06/91
•
The nature or any public/priv3te partnerships ~nc their rela
tionship to the Advisory Committee shall be determined et a
future date.
3. The alternative field desiqn shown on Exhibit A shall be sub
stituted for that included on the Implementation Plan and
Master Plan. This sul:lstitute design shall be conditioned with
either a) a reduction in the propcsed new improvements, i.e.,
the extra gymnasium: b) further restriction through the use
peait on the simultaneous use and occupancy of cert,ain larqe
cccupancy facilities; or-3) a substitute proposal for pro
viding additi~na! spaces on-site.
council Me:ber Cobb believed th~ city should bagin ~ith the larger
canvass of planning and vision that the Master Plan represented
because it vould be easier to make adjustments to it than to start
with a smaller vision and try to add to it should the results of
the potential public/private partnerships and fund-raising warrant
it. The approval wocld be for the first phase of the Implementa
tion Plan and subject to the a~ailability of funds. The lanquage
stated th~ city would not go beyond the Planning commission recom
menaations at the present time and recognized the serious funding
iS6ues ~hich must be dealt with. Under no circumstances would the
open space, which included the tennis courts. be used for parkinq.
If c~er parking solutions were required, they would not come out
of the existing open space and would have to be some kind of com
bination of conditions outlined. The entire community needed to be
involved in the process of determining the kinds of fundinq it
would take to Ilake a grand vision for CUbberley a realitY4 He
recognized the budget issues before the Ccuncil and the impact on
the City, but CUbberley was a ·once in a lifetime opportunity.
Cubberley bad been an issue for ten years, wi.th five years of
discussion with the Palo Alto Unified School District {PAUSD), and
several more years of difficult negotiations wrapped ~round the
utility user tax (OUT) measure. the result of which was ~ 25-year
lease with options. Approval of the motion woald take cautious,
prudent, and carefully-controlled first steps to see it the
community would rise to the occasion~
council Memb~r Woolley referred to Item 3 of the motion and queried
the city's review and approval p~ocesses beyond Phase 1.
council Member Cobb said the present or a futu~e Council would h~ve
to author-ize any subsequent steps. Item 3 was included in the
motion to reassure the public there would be an opportunity to
participate during further review process.
council Member Woolley understood the process consisted of
Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Zoning Administrator approval
but not Councilor Planning Commissic~l approval. The only way the
council would become involved was through the F,PW Committee and
the budqet process.
City Manaqer Bill Zaner said that was correct. The formal actions
outlined were correct but none of them made any sense without so~e
66-142
5/06/91
policy on the part of the Council as to wht!re the project should 90
'Which we.= the subject of council Membe.r Cobb's motion. With a
policy, the ARB and Plal"..ning cOU'Jl%.lission had quidance as to hoil' the
project should proceed.
council Member Woolley preferred to have some of the actions t~ken
through the Planning Comm,ission and the Council process.
Council Member Cobb said the broad peliey questions needed to be
addressed I,t council level, and the motion said the Council autho
rized the implementation of a certain portion if funds were avail
able but did not authorize anything else. The motion implied the
project would r~turn to council with proof that the next step could
be taken.
Co~~cil Member WOQlley said the motion authorized the Master Plan.
Council Member Andersen refe~ed to the staff report (CMR:240:~1)
and condition No. 1 (c) of the motion and queried whether the
parking requirements inclUded building a parking stz~cture which
would accommodate additional parking.
Zoning AdJllinistrator Nancy Lytle said the concept of a parking
strolcture vas not 'Well received with the community, but the option
vas not precluded tor the future. Staff vas looking at programs
wh.ich reduced the demand for parkinq eJr alternative means of
parking offsite.
council Member Andersen believed Condition No. l(c) should include
an incentive other than a parking structure.
Council Member Cobb disagreed. A fee structure or permit system
CQuid be devised for the college users; but for the people usi~q
the playing fields and the casual users, a permit system would be
B deterrent and a fee structure 'Would be extremely complex.
LAlIGUl.GI! IIICQP.PORA'l'E1) III'l'O IlAIII HOTIOII TO IIiCLODlI TIIZ ADDITIOII OF
'IO'rDJl nuur A PAR.J:IIIG BTRtJeTt1R.E 11 APTER PUIXHa: UQ1J'IJl.BXEllT8 IX
COIIDITIOII 110. 1 Ie).
Council Member Andersen referred to condition No. 2 and queried ~~e
change from -members· to ~representatives.·
Oirector ot Social and Community Services Paul Thiltgen said st~ff
'Was concerned because there were repr-esentatives from a broad
section of the community.
Mayor Sutorius clarified the term 'Would be used to connote a
representative and not all the members of an orqanizatjon.
Council Member Andersen believed the word representative meant a
person outs.ide of the orqanization ":llch 'Was not wl"'.at vas intended.
Mayor Sutor ius suqqested Council Members consider the concept that
council would be involved in the original Planned community or a
66-143
5/06/91
.
-----.... .. ---:
major modification to ill Planned community zone, and
cept could be applicable in a community center of
sugqested and vhere the special nature of site and
process was applicable.
the same c:on
the maqnitude
design review
council Member Kniss queried the language ~Gubje~t to the avail
ability of funds· referred to in Item 2 of the motion4
Council Member Cobo referred to the difficult budget decisions
facing the council and said the tounda.tion on 'Which the entire
CUb~rley question was ba~ed waG the lease which was driven in part
by the truT revenues 4 Without those re.venues, there was no
Cubberley proje.ct. The thrust of the motion 'Was to bring the
community together in such a way as to get everything necessary
clone to build on that foundation by raising money through the
public/private partnership. That meant qoing :beyond the basic
civil lease and the necessary code and conditions improvelilents
attached to it which would be handled by the public/private
partnership. He -",as not sur-e \iher-e one could draw a hard line
between those two areas.
Conneil Member Kniss referred to the staff report (CMR~256:91) and.
clarified qoin9 beyond code and condition repairs D1'!ant takinq
money tro5 a source other than the General Fund and not from the
UU~. She asked for clarification.
Mr. Thl1tgen said. fundinq currently existed only for the code and
conditions improvements ana then additi~nal funding would be
necessary. Staff work~d under the basic premise that if money was
not available. no buildinq would be done.
Council Member Kniss clarified as the need for funding went beyo~j
those funds allocated in what the public perceived to be UUT
revenues, building 'Would stop until another funding source was
found or until the funds were qener-ated through the public/private
partnership or some other donation. She queried whether that
needed to be spelle6 out in the motioh or whether it ~as inher-ent.
Mr. Zaner belie.vad council Member Kniss' understanding was built
into the motion in the sense that staff c~uld not spend money until
Council approved funds in the budget.
Council Member Renzel assumed the motion paralleled the statf
recommendation and queried whether it was the intent of the plan
that nothing beyond Phase 1 'Would be eione until Phase 1 was
completed4
Mr. Thiltgen said. staff's intent 'Was to proceed with the basic
funding level. As funds were generated, staff would move forward
in stages of the first phase because those were the areas of most
need4 However. if a donor was willing to donate fl:naing for
something not "included in the first phase. statf !liould like the
opportunity to take adv.!Intaqe of the donation and use it as an
incentive to qenerate more fundinq~
66-1-44
5/06/91
Council Member Renzel queried whether Foothill College had any
: i right to the parking.
Mr. Thiltgen said ~s a t~nant, Foothill college h~d a riqht to use
the parking. There was no designated p~rking tor any ~ne specific
use other than a cc~ple of reserved spaces for public safety and
handicapped.
Council Kember Renzal recalled a previous inrtication by the Dean of
Foothill College that at the beginninq of the semest_er, Foothill
college accounted tor 25 percent or some other high percentage of
the night pa~king which did not leave a lot of space for the City's
activities, and she queried to what extent the city had control
over the intensity of the Foothill College use.
~x~ Thiltgen said a cap was placed on the amount of space Foothill
College would use 80 that the rest would be available for community
use. Except f()r the first week of a semester, tllere was sufficient
parking to accommodate the other uses on the site~
Council Member Renzel said the Dean of Foothill College also
indicated Foothill would like to better utilize the space it had.
It seemed the City had leaSed so much square footage and the~e was
no control over how it 'Was used. She queried whether Foothill
College was limite~ in terms of not being able to use the space
after 10:00 p.m. or before 7:00 a.m.
Hr. Thiltgen said the comment by the Dean of Foothill College
reflected on the fact that Foothill Colleg"e basically used the
campus between 5:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. with some uses during th~
day. Their intent was to increase their proqrcaming and activity
use durinq the day so they could make better use of the space beinq
leased. The primary parking problem occurred between 6:30 p.m. and
7:30 p .. m. when the two sets of classe"s coincided. S'taf! worked its
scheduling around when Foothill College would use the site to avoid
the parking problems. The City's primary use of the property was
Fridays and Saturdays which worked well since Foothill's primary
use was Monday thlough Thu~sday. He believed the city had a good,
h~rmonious relationship with Foothill College.
Council Meml:ler Renzel referred to doing r:oomething beyo01d what was
included in Phase 1 of the Implementation Plan if a donor wanted to
provide ~~ney for it. The City had a first phase Implementation
Plan ~nd some other things recommen~ed by the Planning Commission
and ARB which would have parking demands and impacts not yet
tested. If a donor funded one of the intensive uses which remained
in the Master Plan before everything else 8nd it was later dis
covere~ that there was inadequate parking. she queried what Yould
happen to what was already included in the Implementaticn Plan.
Mr. Thiltgen said the Master Plan 'Was designed to include the
parking impacts. rt 'WhatQver was developed along the w~y created
a parking impact, staff's intent was always to look at different
ways to deal 'With the parking either throuqh different scheduling
or alternative methods.
66-145
5/06/91
Council :Member Renzel 'Was not sure that would always !::Ie possible
and she was concerned about underesti~atin9 the parking demand.
Mr. Thiltga:n said since most of the square footage and us.as
included in the. Kaster Pl&.n 'Wel.-~ already there, the only t ... ·o things
he could see that would create a problem were the additions ot the
~asium and the second floor. He did not even see the swimming
pool as a Major impact because of the scheduled and seasonal use of
the facility~ If the extra gymnasium was to be built, it would
require studying and monitoring present parking impacts before
proceeding.
council Member Renzel queried if staff estimated the building area
with 800 spaces to a co=p~rable facility in Palo Alto, 'What would
that approximate, i. e., equivalent to city Hall, Rinconda Park._ or
Palo Alto Square.
Ms. Lytle said Rinconda Park or the Terman community Center were
qood comparisons. She raferred to Attachment C of the staff report
(CMR:2.0:91) to the Planning Commission and the equivalent
calculation which compared the Master Plan for CUbberley with the
Terman facility and t.he p&rkinq provided there.. Tee CUbberley
Haste::" Plan would provide more than double the parking based on
square footage than what Terman provided although Tarman Yas not a
satisfactory parking situation. The Implementation Plan included
provision for 11.2 extra parking spaces and Yould decrease the
existing deficit. If the parking implementation was done in Phase
One as projected, there would be the ability to approve some ertra
development and experience what would happen befor2 moving ~n to
any other projects.
Council Member Renzel queried the percentage of time the fields and
the open areas yere scheduled durinq the daylight hours and the
opportunities for casual neiqhborhood use of the area~
Recreation Superintendent Anne Cribbs said the fields and open
areas had a full schedllle during daylight hours, but there were
spaces not cesignated for practice fields available.
Council Member Re~zel queried whether the track was available for
casual use.
M$. Cribbs said yes.
Council Member MCCown suggested the following two additional
para9~aphs be added to the motion after paragraph NO.4, and that
No. 5 would become No.7:
5. l'he highest priority shall be to rel10vate existing facilities,
including upgrading and enhancing th~ou9h additions of square
footaqe where .necessary for efficiency a.nd better utilization.
The policy "'as intended to encompass thf! elements of the
Implementation Plan.
66-146
5/06/91
. ~ --
. ,
., .
6. Additional renovations and major new uses proposed beyonQ the
Implementation Plan (swimminq pool, neW' gymnasium. neW'
Buildings A, B, and C, ne~ wing on 8uilding L j an~ the ~ulti
purpo~e expansion! would ~ a lower priority and would only be
pursued it they could be accomplished consistent ~ith the site
constraints defined by the p~rkir.q limitations and the
continued use of the renovated facilities. Befcre an, major
uses could be adde~, a parking analysis would be perto~ed to
evaluate whether additional uses could be added without
neqatively impacting existing-&i te uses in the surrounding
neighborhood..
1108. 5 AIIll 6 XIlCORpOlU\TED UITO '!'lIE KAlil 1I0'I"IOII BY IlADIl AND
SBCOIIDIIII nn OLD 110. 5 BZCOXlIllG 110. 7
Vice Mayor Fazzino asked Council Member McCown to list those items
of lower priority.
council Member McCown clarified the new swimmin; pool, the multi
purpose building expansion, the new qymnasium, the ~in9 on Buildinq
L t and the expansion of Buildinqs At B, and C were items in excess
of $1 zillion and the last item in excess of $3.5 million and ~ere
major capital projects. She listed ~hem as a loyer priority and to
be accomplished only if the parking situation permitted it and the
existinq use or facilities~ The highest priority would be to reuse
the site effectively.
Vice Kayor Faz!ino agreed with Council Member McCown but queried
what would happen if an investor came forward and wanted to provide
a neW' facility and whether staft 'Would return to Council for
approval to take the item off the lo~er priority list.
cOUT~il Member MCCown said her recommendation cid not change the
elements of Council Member Cobb I s J:lotion t>eyo.l"ld the Implementation
Plan and only clarified the priority. Staff 'Would be required to
return to Council to determine whether it could be done in a ~anner
consistent with the parking Gituation ana continue to maintain the
renovated site in existence. If the answer was yes, the oLfer tr~m
an investor could be considered. It the answer was no, i.e., more
p~rkinq would needed than could be provided, or a building would
need to remo,\'ed and eliminate some uses, then the policy 'Would say
it could not be done because the higher priority was to continue
with the reuse of the existing facility.
Vice Hayor Fa.zzino clarified all the items beyond the
Implementation Plan would be subject to city review~ He queried
whether th~ parkland co~ld be ~edicated and what kind of
flexibilJ,ty the City would have with respect to the Master Plan if
tho parkland was dedicated.
Mr. Calonne said the parklan~ could p~obably be dedicated, but he
neede~ to review, the Education Coce for areas which might creat~ a
problem.
66-147
5/06/91
•
Hr~ Thiltqen said the dedication w~s b~sed on a piece of property's
shape and di~ension~ If the property was dedicated, the ability to
reorganize would be restricted and the ite~ would have to return
for a vote of the people to be changed.
Vice Kayor Fl)zzino understood there 'Were
restraint.s and queried whether the baseball
Park could be moved.
different kinds of
field.s at El camino
Mr. Thiltqen believed the code referred to actual definitions of
what the sp~ce perimeters were of the fields~
Vice Mayor Fazzino said the uses would not be affected.
Mr~ ~aner said the uses could be affected and there 'Were procedures
tor makinq improvements to parks on dedic.ted land which involved
the adoption ot ordinances hy Council. He could not think ot a
more difficult and vexatious problem than £1 camino Park in terms
of its costing the city hundreds of thousanas of dollars a year all
because it was a dedicated park for lease. There was a difference
between decHcatinq a park wheri the city owned the property but the
city leas&d El camino Park, and it was a very difticclt problem fp~
the City to deal with and a solution had not been found. He could
not foresee wbat would happen with Cubberley in 10, 20 or 25 years,
and he urged Council not to dedicatp-a leased pie~e of property and
put Councilor its sUCcessors in the same kind o~ position as the
present council was in with regard to £1 Camino Park~ COUncil was
in complete control of the CUbbe.rley lease and dedication could
only serve to restrict the Council.
Vice Mayor Fazzino 5ai~ one difference
accountable to the same voters as the City
different situation than the Stanford Boa~d
was the PAUSD was
council and it 'Was a
of Trustees.
Mr. Calonne said the Palo Alto Municipal Code stated an ordinance
was required before any s~stantial building construction,
reconstruction or development could occur. He belieVed tl'lat
implied some insubstantial develo;::ment could occur without an
ordinance.
council Membe!, Levy queried the preser.c cash availability that
would be dedicated to the Implementation Plan.
Mr .. Zaner said the cash availability varied 'With the amount of
utility sales because it was tied to the ~JT. It was not so much
peqqed to rental income because the larqe bulk of the rental income
under the agreement passed through to the PAUSD. The key was how
much utility sales were made which determined how much the
particular percentage brought in, and what was left vent to the
CUbberley project. OVer the ten years~ staff estimated if sales
~ent as projected, there would be approximately SJ.5 million.
council Member Levy clarified the implementation phase based. on the
funds availahle would be approximately a 20-year plan.
66-148
5/06/91
•
Mr. Zaner said that was correct. Staff always !lnticipa"ted the
basic i.p~ovements at CUbberley, e.g., those things which had to be
done to malle the building safe for occupancy, a'ould he done liS
quickly liS possible. The money was ~ot -in h3nd-because the OUT
came in quarterly, and the plan had always been to Mborrow~ from
one of the city's funds and ~epay the fund over a period of time.
The COW'lcil would have complete control over how fast repayment was
to oc~r because it would need to be incl~ded in the budget.
council Member Levy clarified the City receivE'd some money from
rents and he queried Whether a policy eY-isted in terms of how much
the City charged for rents at CUbberley.
Mr. Zaner said Council adopted a policy which favored a far belov
market rate for nonprofit groups, e.g., artists, persons who were
not commercial endeavors, and the current rat~ was $.33 a square
foot.
Council Member Le .... -y queried 'Whether any policy existed which
precluded the r~nt being more than that.
Mr. Zaner sai~ nothinq precluded Council from raising the rent4
Council Me~r Levy clarified the policy did not set the figure but
rather stated the figure would bP. helow market rates.
Real Property Manager Bill Fellman said council set the rates at
$.l3 for artiste. and $.55 for nonprofi,ts. since that time, the
rent t~ artists was elevated to $437. There wers current tenants
who were under the original P.lt.USO le:ases until July, 1992.
Council Member Levy queriea. whether data existed which indicated
the costs for maintenance of the facility, and whether the $.37
would pay for maintenance in any ~ay.
Mr4 Zaner said no. Staff had the total costs for maintenance and
could compute a per toot cost.
council Member Levy queried ~hetner t~e a~~unt would still be well
beloW' Ilar-ket rates if Council set a policy which stated its
objective was to have the maintenance costs covered.
Mr. Fell~an said if the rates
would be about market rate.
about $1 per square foot.
covered the Maintenance costs, they
The market rates at CUbberley v~re
Council Member Levy said at some point he would like to pursue the
question of why reimbursing the city for maintenance brought the
rental figure up to market rate.
Mayor sutorius believed as of the close of the t~ird ~~arter of
Fiscal Year 1990-91, "dth one quarter to go, the City's rental
income at CUbberlcy was approximately $86e,OOO, which was a
satisfactory perfor.mance rate. It meant the city was assured it
would more than exceed that portion of the rental revenue which was
66-149
5/06/91
".
a pass ~~rou~~ of the CUbberley lease. Staff acco~plished what it
said at the outset, i.e, despite what needed to be done in taking
~ver ~~e Cubberley site ar.d some vacant spaces because the PAUSD
vacated the portion it occupied, i~ could cover the reven~e
obliqation and exceed it .
.AKDtDXBlIT1 CCUflcil Member Levy moved, seconded by Kr.iss, to amend
Item No. 3 to add at the end -and to include City council review
and approval."
council M~r Levy believed the additiDn would cover the concern
that any additions beyond: the Imple'llentation Phase to the Master
Plan return to the city Council.
council Member .Kniss believed tl'le addition helped to !!lake the
intent of the council's discussion more precise.
Mr. Calonna clarified the City Manager had indicated to the axtent
implementation meant budgeting it would return to the Council~ He
noted actions of the zoning Administrator were appealable to the
City Council, and ARB actions could be referred directly from the
Oirector ot Planninq and Community Environment to the Council. If
council wanted something more than budqetinq to return to Council,
it should be explicitly stated~
council Member Levy preferred for Council to approve the Implamen
tation Plan and the Master Plan ~o~ld De on the ta~le, but any part
of the Master Plan would have to return to the City council for
approval. For example~ Council was not approving a svimminq pool
simply because the fundinq was being mace available from a private
source. While. it was true the Zoning AdlIinistrator and ARB
decisions could be appealed to the City Council, the languaqe.
proposed in his amendment would require somethinq to return to the
CQuncil not merely because of the funding elements but other ele
ments as well~ He wanted th~ City council to have the opportunity
to be comfortable with the parking and whatever the community's
thinking was at the time.
Mr. Zaner clarified Council Member Le~i'S intent was those elements
of the Kaste~ Plan ~ould return to Council on a project-by-project
hasis for approval.
Council Kember Le.vy said tbe elements beyond the Implementation
Plan woul~ return to Council project-by-p~oject.
Mr. Zaner had no problem ~ith the amendment but clarified a project
had to return to the council regardless because they had to become
capital improvement projects and staff needed authority to budqet
the items and spend the money~ There vas no way for staff to do a
project without Council approval~
Council Member-Renze~ supported the amendment it it meant the
projects would return to council for revie~ as a matter of policy
and not just as a part of tt,e budget document~ The budget document
did not provide the kind of public exposure that a spe~ific policy
66-150
5/06/91
o
isau. did and i~ waa impcrtant for the ite~s to be a9~ndized and
clear to the pUblic.
Council Me:nber McCown understood what the amend.::ent. intended to
aocomplish. She referred to C~ndition No.2 regarding the process
tor future implementation phases and master use permit process and
queried whether any pursuit of a further project would return to
the Council before it went through any of the other proces5es.
council Member Levy envisioned a project co=ing before the Council
after it went through the zoning Administrator.
Council Member ~cCovn snqr,:ested wording be ad~ed to Condition
No. 2 that Whatever came out of the Zoninq Administrator's
processes would go throuqh the Planning Commission and city
council~
Mr. Zaner was concerned about qoing through the entire public
process, having the community group work on the project with staff I
going through the formal processes, and then the project qoinq to
cO\L~cil. I~ council wanted to make some judqeent about Whether a
project should move forward, it should happen at the beginning so
regardless of whether funds were received from a private party for
a swimming pool, Council could decide whether it wanted to pursue
a pool; and if so, the proces,ses coula determine how and ~lihere the
pool should be constructed.
Mr. Calonne sugqested the amendment to Item 3 read -and to include
City Council review and approval before Z~minq Administrator, Board
or Commission action. -If Ccuncil war.ted to include tbe lanquaqR
as part of Condition 2, the third sentence could reC!c, -The
recomaendations of the CUbberley Advisory Committee and a summary
of their process for deriving the recommen';iation will be trans
~itte~ to the City council and then the Zoning Administrator with
any future applications for future conditional Use Permits on the
site.-
Council Me~er Levy did not believe that was what he had in mind.
council was either approvinq a master plan, the elemen~s of which
were 20 years off, or it was approving some very big projects in
concept Which coul~ only materialize if private funding was
received. Since those projects wer~ envisioned to be very biq.
they needed to return to Council in detail because they Would
affect the entire use of the facility, e.g., parking and fields,
etc. Even thouqh Council believed a new swimming pool was an
acceptable concept on the site, the svizming pool detail would go
to the PlanniDq Commission, etc., and would re~urn to the Council.
While he did not belieVe Council needed to approve the concept of
somethinq twice. Council needed to review and approve the detailed
implementation plans at its level.
Mayor Sutorius believed what Council Member Levy des~ribed _as the
concept of a Planned Community (PC) zone ~odification where there
was an approved PC zone project and when a proposal vas made to
change it, it vent to the council for review.
66-151
5/06/91
Ms. Lytle believed if the intent ~as to have the Planning
Commission's and the council's revieW" of specific dp.:velopment
apprevals within the Master Plan, Council should impose a (OJ
overlay on the CUbberley property in order to acccmmodate a site
and design process. A minor project would go through the minor
site .and design appro\i'al process, which included ARB only; and a
major site and design project ..,ould r~q'.J.ire Planning Commission
review and recommendation and Council approval ~ Because of the ne.
stre.amlined process where any action 'Which ultimately required
council approval was accompanied by another action, such as a use
pentit, the use permit would go along with the site and design
application, and the use permit would also be a council decision.
Council Member Levy did not cOtlsider himself enough of an expert on
the details of site and design. He believed his oriQinal amendment
on Item 3 would provide for going through ~h3tever the normal city
review and approval process were and to include City Council reviev
and approva14
Ms. Lytle said the concern 'Was the abnormality of the process. She
'Was thinking About whoever was the Zoning Administrator ir. ten
years who looked at a PF designation and knew the process tor a
permitted or conditional use was ARB approval and Zoning
Administratcr approval, and that buried in an internal planning
document was a Il!.otion of the Council that he or she would not
remember. The -normal process including City Council review" was
an oxymoron.
Mayor Sutorius vas convinced the (O) overlay 'Was the way to qo.
council Member Cobb believed the (O) overlay as outlined by staff
and by the motion of Mayor sutorius 'Was the direction to go. The
protection 'Was in place already and. .nothinq could move fOr'Ward
without funds, and a vote 'Was needed to apply those funds. Major
projects would come back through that channel~ ae believed the (Ill
overlay was a qood solution. He did not want to se~d a messaga to
adopt the CUbberley Master Plan in concept as a policy of the
council and then add language that said the COI.l1lcil would not do
that, 'Which the original amer..dme.nt did.. The (D) overlay made it
clear that the project had to go through the process and return to
council whiCh gave the community the ability to enter into tl'.e
process, appeal directly to the Council to make their feelings
known, and for the Council to act accordingly.
Council Member Woolley supported the (D) overlay becal.lse the
process vas already in place and would distinguish b~tween major
and minor projects. Item No.3 indicated Many implementation-and.
then the projects ~ould have to come to Council. There W/!iS no
process set up to define what ~as a minor or major project.
council Kember Andersen queried the difference bet ... een a major and
minor project4
Ms. Lytle said a minor project ~as determined to have no physical
impact or Significant environmental affect, would not add square
66-152
5/06/91
'-•
footage which would be considered exemp~, and would be handled by
landscape or minor exterior change to an existing Duildinq or
reconfiquration of space.
Co~ncil HeaDer Andersen referred to L~e items on the Master Plan
not approved by the Planning Commission and queried which items
would be coneidErea ainor.
xs. Lytle said the items within tbe Implementation Plan would De
minor, e.9~, rest room and interior code renovations. M3jor items
would be the addition cf the theatre, multi-purpose room, swimming
pool, and nsw gymnasium.
council Member Andersen queried whether the covered walkway
renovation would be minor.
Ms. Lytle said because of the controversy over the project, it
would be sent through the major process unless resolved in a
previous review.
Council Member Renzel queried how the suggested (D) overlay would
tie into Council Member McCown's motion regarding additional
renov~tion beyond the Implementation Plan which would be a lower
priol'ity and. only pursued if the parking was adequate and there was
continued use of the acti .... ities. Ms. Lytle indicated a future
Zoning Administrator could say everything was all right if there
was a conditional use permit and master plan and would only ha .... e to
90 through the ARB. The design review allowed the council to look
at the swimming pool and decide what they wanted but did not<allow
a decision of yes or no. She understood Council Kember McCown's
amendaent and Council Member Levy's comments would ,,110\1 the review
and consideration of how those major items in the Master Plan ~ould
dovetail with what was on qround and how it would function, which
wa.s different than site and design review. The M.aster Plan
suqqestec1 those elements 'Were ready to be reviewed, but COW'lcil
needed a way to .interact. council Member M.cCown's motion dealt
with a certain amount of that, but she wanted a policy decision to
proceed vith the other processes _ She did not believe site and
design review would be the place. She would not support the (D)
overlay_
Mayor Sutcrius $aid there ~ould be difference of opinion r~9arding
the validity of the design revieW' for rejecting or changing a
project. There ~ere instances in the past ~ith regard to major
undertakinqs W.lere Council had determined whethEr to continu~ in a
given dir~ction or zake significant changes not previously
incorporated in the elements of master plans, e.9~, Byxbee P3rk or
the Baylands area. He was not uncomfortable ~ith the (D) overlay.
Council Member McCOwn said the project vould dovetail together by
not beqinninq the desiqn review unless the proj ect had already
passed tne basic policy sta~ement. ~he projects would have to be
consistent ~ith the uses ar.d parking_ If the proje~~ could not
pass that thresbolo, even vith money available, it vou:d not be in
front of the Council as a proposed project for design review~
66-153
5/06/91
~--------~
Council Member Woolley said Ms, Lytle referred to projects which
were in the Implementation Plan and she queried whether the (D)
o¥erlay would have Council review the design of all of the projects
listed on staff report (CHR:256:91J,
M&~ lytle said the projects listed in the r~plementation Plan were
examples of sinor site and desi9n.
Council Member Woolley queried whether the new theatre lobby vas
m.inor ~
Ms. Lytle said no. The thaatre lobby ~as added in the Planning
commission's recommendation as part of a follov up in the Master
Plan and 'Would be considered a major site and design" The
I.plementation Plan vas primarily code repair, and the only
expansion was a nev bathroom.
Council Member Woolley querie~ whether the theatre lobby would be
the only item reviewed by Council.
Ms. Lytle said yes, except through the budget. process~ The
existinq facilities were being upqraaed and were only code repairs
which were not considered major site and design applications ..
'i'her<e would. be no expansion of sq"lJare footage.. Th.e construction of
new buildings, 9vimminq pools, gymnasiums, and the covered walkway
r-enovation would be considered major ~lse changes.
Council Member Woolley clarified the attdetic fields and
landsc.aping-'Would not return to Council f and she was concerned
those items were as major as the covered walkway renovation.
Ms .. Lytle said the projects would not return to Council.
Planninq Commission Chairman Paa Mars.h clarified the Planning
Commission had used site and desiqn in a broad manner in recent
applications to successfully address policy issues. The site and
design was typically applied t~ the hill sides or the bay lands and
were looked at for intricacies of the desiqn, e.g., colors, tiles,
roof ~aterial. When multi-use Frojects came through I the design
vas placed on a secondary level. The prime concern would be ho~
the difi~r~~t elements within the project reacted ~ith the
surroundirl9 environment and whether the multi-use project
integrated ~ith the surrounding developments.
couTicil Ke%Dber Kniss queried if with the ID} overlay, in ten years
the Zoning Administrator would have the clarity needed since there
appeared to still be matter of interpretation.
Ms. Lytle said future zoning administrators would use their
discretion when deciding a minor and a major project. Some rules
came from ~he California Environmental Quality Act as well as how
the new development affected the surrounding community or the
co~unity center environment. Tne~R were so~e grey areas. The
disc~etion of the Planning Commission and COUncil of the findings
66-154
5/06jn
"""' .. ' .. -
through the r.vie~ process for the site and de8ign could bear on
the decision.
Council Member Kniss said Council Me.nber Levy's amendment 'Was a
Dore precise measure of the process returning to the Council.
Ms. Lytle said if the prcject was ~ajor and would change the site
significantlYt it 'Would go throuqh the Planning Commission and
Council. The other process recommended ~as not codified or adopted
in the Comprehensive Plan. There 'Would :be no lEiajcr reference
document to use in the day-to-day administration of land use in the
Planninq DepartJDent so applicants 'Would not: be advised unless there
was knDw~edge ot the specific clause in the motion ~hich could be
lost~
council Member Xniss cll!rified for long-tea clarification the
proces'iSo worked.
Ms. Lytle said that ~as correct~
Council Kembe~ Renzel queried ~hether a policy threshold ~ould ~
reached before any site and design revieW' went to Council.
Council Member McCOwn said the council ~ould give policy direction
for participants in the Dt~ges beyond the Implementation Plan if
the policy criteria bad bean met 4 Any further pursuit of those
major projects had to meet the criteria~ Something ~i9ht need to
be done with the earlier staqe~
Council MemJ:>er Renzel queried if there 'Was an adupted :master plan
and in the conditions of adoption there was Condition No.6 about
1ater projects baving a low~r priority which had to meet certain
th~esho~ds, how a subsequent Zoning Administrator would be flagged
for that_ and what needed to happen administratively for the
flaqging problem with respect to the ~ain motion.
y~~ Lytle said the high priority projects ~ould have been done and
staff would have moved on to the low priority projects. It the
staff had changed or the intent forgotten, ~dministration would
research the intent that was conveyed with every motion~
Council Member Renzel said her approval was contingent upon meetinq
the criterion outlined by Council MeQber McCown. She wanted to
ensure the public _as involved. and that the site would not be
overdeveloped without clear quidance~ The issues raised durin9 the
hearings needed to be addressed.
MS. Lytle said the concerns were compensated ~ith Condition No.2.
and the tOrlDla.tion of th.e CUbber'ley Advisory Committee, 'Which was
not a normal process for that type of projects and 'Would keep a lot
of the conditions alive.
Council Member Andersen queried how statf 'Would determine there ,,-,as
sufficient parking to proceed with the process; ~hether it vould be
at the outset and whether the procedure provided staff with the
.. -.
66-155
5/06/91
incentive to do the necessary research to knew there was sufficient
parking available.
Ms~ Lytle ~laritied the concern was whether the site and design
process WaS Rutlicient for incorporating a parkinq consideration.
council Member Andersen queried when the parking question would be
answered. He did not want the process to go forward and the~ the
data would show tbe!"e wes insufficieo . .nt parking~
Ms~ LytlE= said the policy makers were not comfortable with the
staff reco~endation to approve the parkinq as indicated in the
Master Plan~ They wanted to be more incremental, test the parkinq
as it went alo09, and not rely on the provision of new space~ as
the only solution but to rely on SOl!!e Transportation Demand
Manaqement proqrams which could be administered as another facet in
the 801ution~ Th9 staff wc~ld say enough was enough through the
public hearing process when the use permit came togethe'r with the
site and design. At each individual major project, a d:ecision
would have to .ade to determine vhethB~ t~ere was a significant
impact on parking: and if there was, the project vould he denied~
Council Member Andersen understood Council Member M~~own's
amendment suqqested the process would not even be started unless
the statf knew there was parking available~
Ms. Lytle said the Implementation Plan would provide 112 pa~Kin9
spaces and improve ~~e situation.
Council Member Andersen said 112 spaces would not improvoe the
situation unless Foothill Colleqe moved. Before starting anyone
of the Master Plan projects. the staff vould have a cle~r picture
if parkinq was available and queried whether the projects woul~ be
implemented without having the information.
Ms~ Lytle said the staff assumed the deficit of parking would not
be completely .filled, and the goal 'Was not to maxe the deficit
worse than it was nov. The Implementation Plan included 112 new
parking spaces as a cushion for any future development ~ The
existinq need was not at maximum and would not qet 'Worse until
square footage was added~
Council Member Andersen qu~ried ~hether the calculation considered
any growth on the part of Foothill College~
Ms. Lytle said maximum use of Foothill College was considered in
the parking calculations.
Mr~ Thiltqen said during peak parking times, Foothill Colleg~ was
at their maximum.
Council Member Andersen queried whether any part of the Master Plan
could be visualized beyond the existing square footage with only
112 ~dditional parking spaces.
66-156
5/06/91
' .
.Mr. Thilttlen Baid based upon the Implementation Plal"':, the Ufle
pattern would not change 5ubstan~ial1y from what currently existed.
The 112 pGrkinq apaces added spaces to al1'.:!viate the times ot
overtlov during 'those two-or three-week per-iods. Foothill College
w&s using all the square footage available during their peak times
with ma~imum cApa~ity.
Council Member Woolley said the council needed to make the policy
decision up tro~t, and Ms. Lytle said that when the design review
was before the council, then the parking would be reviewed.
Mr. Zaner said when a project was brought be£ore Council. the statf
did not present a project that did not meet the minimum
require1llents for parking 3.nd open space. The existing OVerlay
~echanism would trigqer a process that remin~e~ the staff that the
process needed to include a consideration by the council". The
projects would not be hrought to Council without adequate pa~kin9
because staff would lcnow it would not go through~ The protection
that Council 'Wanted was the.re ~ He urged council to put the
overlay into the project to triq-ger the right re6ponse and the
Council's opportunity to review the process at the proper time4
COl'f1c~i Member Woolley queried how the proce..;s ..... ould dovetail with
tht, CUlJberley Advisory Committee in Condition No.2.
Mr. Zaner said the CUhberley Advisory Committee was designed to
give the stat~ the opportunity to work directly with the community,
who would be heavily involved in th~ components oE the Master Plan.
The committee would have an opportunity to review all aspects~ The
CUbberley Advisory committ.aE happened before site and design and
was a conceptual, organizing phase.
Mayor sut::Jrius clarifilid the amendment included Item No. 3 of the
motion and affirmed that any implementation of the Maste.r Plan
beyond Phase One would be subject to City review and approval
processes as established by the (0) overlaY4
Mr~ Calorme suggested the motion be an instruction to staff to
prepare a zoning amendment to desi9~ate the site under the Site and
:Design Review COmbining District which could be accomplished by a
separat.e ~tem No. B. Item N04 8 W"ould read -instruct &taff to
initiate a rezoning action to desiqnate the site for the Site and
Design Review Combining Distr:ct.-
SUBST%TVTE AMENDMENT: Mayor Sutor ius moved# seconded by Cobb, to
add as Recommendation No~ 8 -Instruct staff to initiate a zoning
action to designate the site for the site and design process.
Council Member Levy 'Would not support the mot.i,on ~ He wanted a
policy stateme~t, and the amendment referred to the elements of the
zoning, etc., allot which could change. The facility would be
important, and he was uncomfortable with the staff indicating that
they might forget what the Council wanted as policy ten yea~s from
nov~ He believed staff could put into the process a way in which
they would not forqet that there vas a policy in place.
66-157
5/06/91
;"~'1
.'-;c:--
. ~
-...... -~---
council Member Renzel said Council Member Levy had raised another
issue.., which was that the wt~ole. rule of dol:!sign review could be
abolished by an~ther council and the int~nded impact would be lost.
She supported. the design re~.jie1a·. Wher.: the projects were brought
forward, the publJc would be told it was in the Master Plan and
that Council had approved the Master Plan. A solution could be to
take Council Member McCown's No. 6 and incorporate it into the
Master Plan eo that the Zoning Administr-ator at the time could
recognize that the approvals in the Master Plan vere condition~l.
Mayor Sutor ius said the (D) overlay would be on the property and
anything that fit the criteria would come back for site and design
review even though it was in the Implementation Plan~
Mr. Zaner said there was no problem because it was coming back
anywsy because the money needed to ~e appropriated for the
projects.
Mayor Sutor ius said the~e vere elements of the Implementation Plan
v1}ich people vere concerned about that. otherwise wo~ld .not. have
cc..me forward.
8U111BT.I'!U'rl!I MiOItIJ(lU''1'' PASSEl) B-1, Levy • no ••
RECESS Ie CLOSED SESSION -9:41 P,M. TO 10;20 P.M.
AKBWDNBB'l": council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Renzel, to
add to the end of condition No. J -The field layout shall retain
the track where it is. The bleachers on the north side .ay be
remaved to improve the visual appearance and integration of the
track area into the rest of the site, provided, however, they
should not be removed. until and unless there is a project to
replace them that is visually less Obtrusive.-
Council Member Andersen said the area and bleachers ~ere u$ed by
the community orqaniza~icns and were in as good a condition as the
bleachers at Palo Alto High School. The tr~ck provided a facility
for many of the unorganized athletes in the communitY4
Council Member Renzel concu~red with Council Member Andersen and
thanked Mr. Sandy Snodgrass for his efforts in detailing the amoun~
of use of the area. she did not believe the bleachers should be
removed unless replaced with other bleache~s less visually
obtrusive~
Council Member McCown supported the amendment. The impact on the
visual and aesthetic vie~ hnd the ability to integrate the feeling
and incorporation of the track area into site ~as important. She
~ould like to have the flexibility to move them ~ut reco~nized the
use which should be provided for in a way that accomplished the
visual goals without eliminating the use.
Vice Mayor Fazzino said response from members of the public clearly
showed both the track and the bleachers were used extensively~
There were very few tracks similar in the City~ He believed the
66-158
5/06/91
•
. ____ .-_.a:;:;;. £I
~leachers were sound. but was open to the pos.sibility th.at they
could be changed. There yas an emotional attachment to the current
placement of the track and bleachers.
Council Member Cobb queried whether council Member Andersen's
motion intended. that any bleachers removed be replaced in the exact
saae locat.ion.
Council Heaher Andersen did not see a qreat deal ot loss if the
ble.ac,;):ers were relocated to the same qeneral area. He was net
totally pe~su4d~d the bleachers Fhoulcl qo on the other side of the
field.
council Member Cobb suggested a language change -that the bleachers
should not be removed unless and until they have been functionally
replaced~· The function trying to be replaced was the protection
of the runners from flyinq balls. There might be som.e other 'Way-of
doing it without retaining old space-consuminq bleachers it the
seating could open the area more, provide all the screening and
protection, meet all the needs and desire.s of the people using t.he
track area, and give ~ore flexibility to the field for other users~
council Ke:m.b<er Andersen could not accept the suggestion as a.
frien~ly amendment~ He believed it gave the flexibility to staff
bat also gave a sense ot vagueness to the people concern~d about
the item~
~ TO TEE ADHP1UUft: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by
Levy, that the bleachers should not be removed unless and antil
they have been functionally replaced~
Vice Mayor Fazzino referred to the aaen~ent to the a~endment and
was concerned about the proposal because he did not want the main
bleachers beyond tile south side and close to neig-hboring homes.
The blea.chers on the present site could serve people using the
track as well as sBr-~in9 as observation post for events on the main
part of the turf. The a~endment would provide that the bleachers
would be torn down and nev bleachers constructed on the south side.
council Kember Kniss would leave the bleachers yhere t."ley wer", ~ Any
attempt to relocate or remove the bleachers yould be a consi~erable
azount of mcney.
Council Member Renzel was opposed to the amendm~nt to the
amendment. The bleachers served the community w'211 in their
current location and agreed with Council Member Ande:rsen~ She
would be willing-to look at repl~ce'!ne['lt .ith bleachers less
visually intrusive~ The movement of the bleachers vas very low
priority.
Mayor Sutorills believed Vice Mayor Fazzino's comme.nts regarding the
neighboring properties was the most significant to attend to in
design~ He opposed the amendment to the amendment.
/"';r
,/..-::-'.
-'/
66-15.
5/06/91
I
j
",
Council Member Andersen clarified the ameZlament would be under
Condition No. 3 at the end of the first sentence.
~ I'lIBSlII) 9-0.
AXBHDKZMT, Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Ander~en, to
incorporate the lanquage in No. 6 in the Master Plan so that those
items were in the Kaster Plan and conditional on the criteria.
Ccuncil Member MCCown queried hoI,{ all of the chanqes would be
in~orporated into the Master Plan and what the final document would
look like.
Kr.. Za.ner said thoe 40cument 'Would er.d up being: comparable to the
Terman XaatEl:r Plan document. The docw:rent liould have within it all
of the motions, the master conditional use permit. and site and
desiqn in pl&~e which were adopted by the Council.
Mayor Sutorius querie~ t.~e maker of the amen~ent that it the total
material as described .as in the Ma~ter Plan, then the condition
concerne~ about would alreaay be there without reference.
Council Member Renzel preferr~d the language be pa~ of Master Pl~n
which made it clear the Council's intent when adopting the Master
Plan that there be some incremental review as to whether the larger
projects needed the criteria.
council MeUber Cobb queried ~hy one item should be singled out and
not the others_
Hr. Zaner said the council had that option. All the parts of the
action would have equal ~ei9ht and would be n~ticed.
Council Kember Cobb queried whether they would be contained in one
common document_
Mr. Zaner said yes.
Council Membe~ Renzel querie~ the proposal which existed to move
the tennis ~ourts and whether there was an understanding thAt the
protection of all existing turf areas would preclude that and
whether council needed to specifiC that understanding_
Mr .. Thi~tgen said the Alternative Plan was agreed upon which
included not moving the tennis courts ..
council Member Levy said the term Master Plan implied a definite
which was not reflected in the project before Council. With the
money availabl£, the Master Plan was very long-term, which would
not take pla.ce unless private funding was secl:.red. He 'Was
concerned 'When talKing about the Master Plan, the community would
ass~e it 'Was in the ~orks and ~ithin a ~easonable amount of tim~
66-160
5/06/91
.\
, ,
o ' .. ,,'
the it .. s would happen. He wanted to add the word ~conceptual·
betore the words Master Plan in order to lower the publicts
expectations of what the funding ~ould ~ccomplish.
~z Council M~mber Levy moved, second~d by Renzel, to add
the word ·Conceptual-prior to "Master Plan-wherever it appears.
Council Member Kniss querled how the wording ~ould alter
expectations.
Mr. Calonne said there ~ould be no change.
Vice Mayer Fazzino supported the amendment and believed the Council
had created a conceptual Master Plan based upon all the actions
taken in order to implement any part of the Master Plan. He
belie~ed the word ·conceptual-would add credence to the philosophy
of the Council that many of the decisions with respec~ to resources
and use were yet to be made and was in keeping with the vote of the
people. The couneil needed to demonstrate to the voters that over
the 10 or 15 years that the resourees were in place to move forward
with different aspects ~t the plan.
council K~er Cobb opposed the amendment because of O~e effects
that is, Item No. 7 refarred to putting toqethe~ a public/private
partnership where the co~unity could go out and attempt to raise
the money to make the vision that the Master Plan defined reality.
'I'he Master Plan 'Was a marketing document and the more it was
qualified, the more it was weakened as e marketing document.
~ PASSED 6-), Cobb, Sutorius, Woolley nno.-
Council Kember Andersen said at the sou'th end of the property there
was a considerable number of redWood trees s and somE of the items
suggested, i.e.~ challenge course, could impact the tree$~ The
preliainary drawings indicated there might be some removal of
redill'ood trees. The trees ware on the perimeters and did not
intrude into the playing field area.
AXERDKEHTl Council Member ~~darsen moved, secondea by Renzel, to
retain the red'Wood trees qroves ii"l the south area around the track.
Council Member Andersen vas concerned about the impact of the
challenge COllrse and the play area on the redwood trees in the
southam area. One of L~e plans yould remQve some of those trees
and he encouraqed a statement of policy that Council was committed
to continue the development of the trees.
Council Member McCown said that level of detail was not necessary
in the Master Plan and was suited for the site and design process.
She dia not see any proposals contained 'Within the Master Plan
which suqqested the tr-ees removal. The specific details of the
play area without impacting the trees could be left to the site and
deSign process. She di~ not support the motion.
66-161
5/06/91
Council Member Kniss 6upported the retention of the tre~s hut if
Council got into 4 level ~iero~anagement, the removal of one tree
would be brought back to Council. She did not support that level
of detail.
MOTIOJJ1 Co",ncil MeIDber Fazzino moved, seconded :by Renzel, to
direct the City Attorney ana the City Manaqer to analyze the impact
of th@ park dedication on the Master Plan and to report back to the
ci ty C01.U'icil.
Vice Mayor Fazzino was not prepared to pro~s~ a dedication of the
property because there might be some limitation in use. He 'Was
interested in exploring the possibility which was the only yay the
City could qllarantee the open spa.ce area would remain in open
space. He concurred with Mr. Zaner 1 s comments and concerns
reqardinq F.:l camino Park negoti.ating difficulties. The PAl1SD 'Was
accountable to the same Bet of vct-ers as the council; and if the
property 'Was; dedicated or if and when the property reverted b3.ck. to
PAUSD~ the PAUSD Yould su.pport the community's 'Wish to pre~erve
open s~ce around closed schools. It was an important step to take
in order to see. whether dedication could provide the guarantee
needed to assure the property re~ained in open 8pace~
council Member Renzel ~oncurred with Vice Mayor Fazzino ana
believed tbere might be creative ways thr01.lqh the continu.ing
elections of onqoinq funding of CUbberley. The removal from park
dedication miqht be e portion of an election and a negative vote
could remove the park dedication which could be a companion measure
to the continuing funding measure.
Council Me~er McCown supported the motion, but th~ emphasis would
have to be on the long-term policy decision far :core tha.n the
legalities of whetl"Jer to dedicate or not dedicate. She 'Would
rather have the policy issue dealt with rather than the leg'al
technicalities.
Mayor Sutorius sa;id t.he lease 'f/ollld be reviewed carefully [or
descriptions and how the property .i.1ceded yould be ret.u.rned in the
event of termination. He directed staff to report back. to CounciL
MOTION .ABSBD 8-1, Woolley ~no~·
Mayor Sutorius said there were eiqht points in the m~in motion,
four findingsf and three condit.i.ons. 'l'he negative declaration
'Would be adopted and t.lle follo'oiing action would be taken 'With
respect to the CUbberley Master Plan:
l~ A?prove the CUbberley conceptu.al Master Plan in concept and
incorporate the concepts of the alternative field desiqn.
2 Approve the implementation of Phase One of the Conceptual
Master Plan (Implementation Plan) subject to the availability
of funds for that implementation.
66-162
5/06/91
"'------
3. Affira that any implementation of the Conceptual Master Plan
beyond Phase One would be subject to normal City revie~ and
approval procesges.
4. Establish a policy that the existing open space at Cubberley
would be preserved in its entirety and not tie used ~s a
park.ing reserve.
5. Tbe highest priority would be to renovate existing tacil ities,
includinq the upgrading and enhancement through additions of
squar.e footage where necelisary f",r efficiency and better
utilization. The policy was intended to encompass the
elemen~s of the Imple=entation Plan.
6. The additional ~enovations and major new uses proposed beyond
the Illplementation Plan (slIfimminq pool, new gymnasium, ne· ...
Buildings A, ~, and C, new wing on Building L, ~ulti-purpose
expansion) would be a lo~er priority and would only be pursued
if they could not be accomplished consi£tent with the site
constraints defined by the parking limitations and continued
use of renovated facilities. Before any major uses could be
added, a parking analysis would be performed to evaluate
whether additicnal use could be added without negatively
izapacting existing site use and. the surrounding neighborhood.
7 ~ Instruct staff to determine and. report be:ck to Council for
consideration and possible action: a) the degree to which
public/private partnerships could be used to generate
financial support for the Master Plan implementation; and b)
the potential mechanisms tor the creation and implementation
of such partnerships.
8. Instruct staff to initiate ~ zoning action to desiqnate the
site for the site and design review process.
Findings
The four findings were as proposed in the 5taff report {CMR:240:91)
and 'Were unch'ar.qed.
Conditions
There were sentence re~ovals, rearrangements, and some new wording.
1. Any furthe~ proposalF which require additional parking beyond
that indicated in the Master Plan should be referred by the
Director -of Planr.ing and cOllllllunity Environment to the Planning
Commission for recommetu~ation and City Council ror final
action. Any sucn additional parking should be. established by:
a) a reduction in the proposed new improvements; bJ further
restrictions for the use permit on the simUltaneous use and
occupancy of certain large occupancy facilities; or c) a
substitute proposal for satisfying the paLkinq requirements
(other than a parking structure).
56-163
5/06/91
" CUbber1ey Advisory COllUOittee (CAC) would be aPlX'intecl
cC3priaed of representa'tives of thE: Green Meadow Comm.unity
As-Bociation, existing and pctentia.l tenants of Cubberley,
members of ~ne comrounity-at-large, a Plannin9 Commission
.ember, and staff from Community Services. ~he CAe should
hold open public meeting's to develop recommendations for
future implementation ph.e.ses of the CUbberley Master Plan
prior to any application for the Master Conditional Use permit
beyond the 11Dpl8lDentat.ion Plan defined in the docU!rlent. The
recommendations ot the CAe and a summarl of the process for
deriving the reco1mll.endations would be transmitted to the
Zoninq Administrator with any future ~pplications for further
c01':lditional use permits on the site. The nature: of any
public/private partnership and their relationship to the CAe
should be determined at a future date.
3. The alternative field deSign shown on Attachment A of staff
report <CMR:240;91) should be substituted for that included on
the ImplelDentation Plan and Conceptual Master Plan. Field
layout should retain the existing track~ The bleacher& on the
north si~e could be removed to improv~ the vis~al appearance
and/or integration of the tr~ck area into the rest of the site
provided, however, they should not removed until and unless
there vas a project to replace them 'With ;risually less
1ntrusi ve Cdes.
Council ~ember Andersen queried the ofter received for volunteer
labor and materials with respect to the bleachers and the issue of
volunteer service or materials. He ~ould like Item No. C added to
~o. 7 at the ~otion which ~ould state "the use of volunteer labo.
or donated materials would also be explored by staff to dete~ine
what extent that could be accomplished4-
Council Kember Cobb said the issue 'Was implicit ylth the
public/private pa.rtnership and he 'Would only want the broadest
construction of L~at phrase.
Council Member ~~dersen said there was a difference betveen
fina.ncial sUFport and volunteer labor or donater:2 materii'2.1s and
could c~eate complications. He said under Item No. 7s N04 C wou:d
read, ftU&e of volunteer labor and/or aonated materials.~
BO. C 1OO)EJI 11'EII JlO. 7 IJiCORPORAUO Ul"l'O rKE KArll MOTION BY IlAUIl
1Jfl) IIECOIIDEIl
Vice Mayor Fazzino said he 'W&s deliqhted the community center would
become a reality ~fter four and one-half years4 He believed the
structu~e of the plan and the use of the UUT funds tor t~e Phase
One was keeping faith with the voter~. An election would n~ be
needed in tile Fall af 199~, but the City 'Would have the opportunity
in the future to qo to the voters for new sources of revenUE for
~~~ additional phase$ of the Master Flan. He believed softening
the Kaster Plan to a conceptu41 Master Plan was not enough of a
tangible item to qo to the voters fo= support. He comme~ded both
the staff and public4 The staff came up ~ith the plan, the public
66-164
5/06/91
" '
"'-
participated in the modificati'On of the plan, and then it C6me
before Council. He commended the preparation of council Members
Andersen, Cobb, and McCown on the motion.
council K~r Andersen said it vas i~portant for the community to
recognize that a Ma~ter Plan had been developed that so~~ people
believed would never happen. There yas a vision, but there was a
site that would not accommodate what was established. He did not
want people to believe that 20 years from now everything on the
Master Plan would be there because w~at W"~.s drivir:g the machine 'Was
parkinq .. There .. as not suf.ficient space provided for p.arkinq. The
parlc.inq area was accommodating a Foothill College system that
consisted of .,000 students ~ho drive and use 95 percent ot the
space available.. He did not want expectations raised unless some
major chanqe occurred in the driving pattern or Foothill College
left. He did not want nor did the community want Foothill College
to leave. The College was a tremendous asset to the community ..
The Master Plan vas visionary and wculd be a plan which would be
difficult to i.plement bacause of the demands for parking.. He
believed the Kaster Plan as originally conceived 'Was too intensive ..
Th~ Master Plan beto~e Council would establish priorities, allow
for the priorities to be set, with constraints, in a way Which
would not intrude on the community, and to have creative input from
the COlDlnunity 60 that alt.ernat.ives to tt'~e parking could be found.
He SUpported the proposal, but the reality w~s that it would not
happen without extraordinary amot!n~~ of contributions f~om various
$ourc:es.. 'fhe: priorities established did not allow for a State
contract with Foothill College to put in a swimming pool as a
hi~her priority or some other activity lo'Wer on the lista The.
Master Plan was prudent financially because there was a tiqht reiqn
on the funds and the parking ..
Council Me~er Kniss echoed Council Member ~~dersen's comments and
the partnership had preserved the relationship between the Schools
and. the cit.y. The original promise had heen delivered which va.s to
preserve open space, the facilities, and allow 1I.:nenities, e.qa,
child care, to continue on the site. The Council had provided an
excellent start, but the funds were in short; supply and the entire
Conceptual Haste~ Plan might ~ot be delivered.
Coun=il Member Woolley clarified ~ith allot the precautions, the
Master Plan was not that much differEnt than the Planning
commission recommendations.. The plan had accomplished the qoal to
transform an unattractive high school into ~ community center. The
sta.ff had endeavored to put in the Master Plan a sense that there
would be neighborhoods 'Within the Community Center 'Which would
provjde a center similar to the Lucie Stern community Center~ It
the property 'Was leased for 25 years~ a lot of thinqs could happen
and the .. flexibility ne-e.de;1 to be maintained in terms of park..
dedication. She hoped the driving patterns would chanqe so not as
ml,lcn parkinq would be needed to support all the uses in the
Conceptual Kaster Plan. She was grateful for the vision provided
by staff and hoped that most of them 'Would be accomplish@.d.
66-HiS
5/06/91
.. :tl" ~ -'.,," .c-,,-
-·'it
Council Member Cobb said to succeed, the vision must be a community
vision not a neiqhborhood \~ision, must be sensitive to the
neiqhborhood, but must serve the entire community. He had ~anted
to see CUbberley as a co~unity facility for over ten years. The
community had the beginning of something that could happen. There
~erE solutions to the problems~ The vision should not be
constrained. The victory was not tinal but a beginning, and it was
up to the cOZlllunity to make it happen. He believed out of the
structure would come something unique and special for Fal~ Alt~.
council Mambe4 MCCown said the Council needed to go forward ~ith a
positivoi! attitude and c,=,ntinue to have a successful project whether
or not allot the planned uses nf the Master Plan 'Were completed.
While there was no question there would be substantial constraints
on how fast or bow much the city could do on the site, there was ~
lonqer-te:t"ll vision of ~55i.bilities which mayor may not be
successfully pursued. The process was e~cellent be~ause Counc~l
did Bo~ething diff~rent than the P)annir.g Commission by endorsing
a concept of a half-full cup attitude.
Council :Member Levy .said even before beginning the M~ster Plan
process,. he was gratified to see the Wonderful ways tt'.e Cu..l:JDerley
site ~as beinq used, e.q., child care, youth and religious groups,
athletics, the~tre, F~thill Colleqe 1 and the artists. The Council
was fearful when schools were being closed that school sites would
be lest completely. It was a tribute to the many partnel'ships in
the community that th2 loss of open space had been stopped to a
large deqree. The partnership included not only the neighbor~ and
the users of CUbberley but the Planning Commission, the ARB, the
Recreation DiviSion, the Planninq Department, and City staff. He
commended the professionalism by everyone 'With regard to the
meetings with the community in working out all differences. Many
people fought hard for their own individual choices but at the same
tiBe kept the larqe:r purposes in mind. He commend.ed staff for
making the Council's decision so easy and fruitful.
Mayor Sutorjus said the process beqan four years ago, and the
program had been underta~en as a part of a covenant and. lease with
PAUSD. There was a lease for a firm 25 years and a likely
additioneo.l two five-year extension with only mutual agree.ment. He
Yould work to pursue further lease modifications as far as the term
0= even the acquisition of the ~ite. The amortization of the costs
associated 'With the undertakings would be justifiable over an
extended period. During the course of the discussions, there were
references to the. UUT and the council had an obligation to the
public which included the businesses, commercial, industrial, and
institutional c~stomers who pay the lion's share of the total OUT
revenues which made the thinqs possible" i. e., protected sites,
elemen~ary an~ middle schools, extended day care, and a significant
contribution to the coItUtlunity's first priority which 'Was the
education of the youth. Before the end of the month, there would
be a scheduled discussion regarding the stat.us of the UUT, the
amounts of moneys 'Which have been collected since inception, the
dispositi:m of those moneys, and a full opportunity for discussion.
1' ......
66-166
5/06/91
o
E.ND Of EXCERPT
66-l67
5/06/91
•
•
JrHIJ"t-~
303 PARKSIOE OR!VE, PALO Al TO, CALIFORNIA 94306 TELEPHONE 1415) 494-3157
Ju."le 26. 1991
Planning Co~ission
City of Palo Alto
Palo Al~o, CA 94303
Dear Commissioners:
We, in the Green.'!leadQw area surrcund the Cubberley 51 te on thrca
sides. The ~reer~eadow co~unity tco~ a poll of its residents in
the form of a petition in Au~st 1990. The tenth pojnt of that
petition, which was signed by 505 residents read ~Grant apprcval
only for present 5ite modification plans; re~uire additional
hearings for future changes". For this reason, we were delighted
that the City Caunai 1 t at its May 15th, 1991 mee-ting c1irectec. you,
the Planning COr.l!::!issiol1, to initiate a Zone !.~ap A.':1(?~::l;ner:t for the
Cubberley 3i te wb.ich would add a Site and Design reLluire:-nent fo!'
the proposed improve:nents i:1 the conceptually arpro'led MRster
PlaIl.
The material distributed for tonight I s meeting states u!":.der Back
ground that Council "approved the Cubberley f,:aster Plan wi th-
some minor modifi ca tions as reflected in the attached action min
utes". However, these i2.ctiQn minutes were not attached, and the
mater; als aistri b-<lted dia not spell out what the '"mino-r mo:lifica
tions" are.
One of the greatest concerns for the Gree~~e~acw residents has al
"lays been the preservation of the open sDa:ce and pJ._a.ying fields.
Thus we were initially dismayed to note the labeling of thi s en
tire ar-ea as "Parking Reserve" on p~26 of the existini;. t:aster
Plan book. Much to our relief, at the Cow.lcil m~eting of rt.a.y 6th,
a ~atiou was passed specifically preservir.g as open s~ace the
playir~g fields, te-nnis courts, and even the h COEpost area'" adjac
ent to th2 tennis courts. To us, this is not a ~ninor adjust
ment~~ To us, this motion also meant ~hat the fields were not to
be regarded as parking reserve, nor were the te~~is courts to be
moved further from the buildings.
The number of parking places sho~ in tonight's materials, pp.lO
and 11, namely 827 SIJac~s for the full Master Plan Ca.:1110t be found
.,Ii thout substantially encroaching on the fj_eld spaoe. 827 is the
number shown in the originally proposed Master Plan.
The Council :ninutes of May 6th vrere not part of tonight's packet.
However, it was our understanding while attending that particular
meeting that the Site ~~d Design Review was to apply to the whole
project from its inception, rather than be limited to the part
over and above the Implementation Plan.
GREENMEADOW COMMUNr:y ASSOCIATION, INC_
o
The Greelmeadow Association expected to see a revis~d and more
deta.iled final lI!aster Plan si te mal', correc ting par~in& spot num
bers, and reflecting all of the CotL'1cil ' s 1I:ay 6th actions, which
would then be Exhibit A in the ordi~ance before you. As presented,
the ordinance sneaks of ~Site and Design" but Exhibit A has no
details. .
We would like the formulation of a better Exhibit A mapt but in
any case. the Gre~~eadow ASEociation would be heartjly in favor
of the ordinance &~ending section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code {the Zoning Map) to chenge the zone classificatiD~
of property at 4000 Middlefield Road fro~ pp to ~(D). We ~~t
the project to go forwa:t'd.
Very truly yours,
Ken Crittender., Co-Chair
Civic Affai:r'£> Cor:.:ni ttee
;(~,,:u... ~J
I,ouise Herrin6, Co-Chair
Civic Affairs Co~ittee
"-
Save CubberJey Park Committee
.Tune 25, 1991
362 Pork.ide Dr.
PRlo Alto. CA 94306
To: Palo Alto Pl~nning Cammission
P.O. Box 10250
P~10 Alto, CA 94303
Subject: Zoninp: Map Amendment
Cubberley Commllni t.y Center
4000 Middlefield RMd
Palo Alto, Calif.
H~vin~ received a copy of the June 21. 1991~ Zo1ng Map Amend~ent for
Cubber:ey on Monday. June 24. 1991. through the ~il, it i8 difficult to eval
ua.te the amendment due to 8 lack of Bc-curate informl1.tion. Since the minute!
of th~ M~y 6 .. 1991. Palo Alto C1t,v Council meetirl8 on the conceptuFll approval '~~
of the Cubberley MA.9ter Pl~. h,live not been aVJii1l:lble fer review I 'We .... ould think '-~ ... '
thRt the city statt and the public h&s a similar problem .... ith the details of
thqt meeting. From OUT point of vie~~ the city council did addres~ tbe major
issues but there 8~ill are some loose ends tb~t concern us. Therefore. our
comments are mAde to exnress ~ viev point th~t the et~ff may vi~h to discuss
before the Pl~ing CO~isaion acts.
from vh~t ~e kno~ and undeT5tand. ve do not object to t~e changing of
zoning from Pf to PF(D). It is a procedure th~t allo~s fur revie~ that ~e
support ~nd it responds to the city counCil's raquest. We ~ot ~ sense 01 com
mitment from the city council th~t they ~8nted the opportunity to reviev Cub
berley items before action took place .. Ho .... eveT. this Z'Qni!l~ Map Amen6ment does
not apparently apply to work done dur1n~ the Implementation Ph~ge. !t aope~rs
to deal only vith ~ork done ef~er ~plementation Ph~ge. If th~t ie correct
ve disagree with this arrqngement.
~here ~re t~o key terms that trauble us in the Zoning M~p Amen~ment. The~
ere: m~jor and ~1nor. What is B minor development? Vbat is a mRjo~ develop
ment? It ie in tbe eye of the beEO!Oer vh~t these vords mean. -vII! items be
judged on e1ze. price, sp~ce etc.? !he Zoning Map Ame~dment statee: ~The
Director of Planning and Communi~y £nvironme~t shall aetermine if a project is
major or minor in nature-. Pl~cing anyone in the position of playing Solomon
is going to be dif~icult on that ind1v1du~1.
Since the ~cTk on toe athl~tic ~ield6 ~nd tr~ck h~e been estimRted to be
in the one million dollar r~e. and i9 to take place ~~ring the Implement~tion
Phase. it "Would be our .guess th;:tt the city cour..c11 would 'W.8.nt to revieTJ the
plane 'before any 'Work tA.kes p!ace. Needless to SB.v. 'We believe th.!!.t the 'Public
should h~ve ~~le o~~ortun1ty to be involved before the ARB. Planning Commissio1
GT the Citx Co~ncil t~kes a position. As ~e v1e~ it, the public appeqre to be
cut of tbA loop of lnvolv2ment ~nd the st~ff is able to move ahe~d on any of th~
projects until everything in the Implement~t1on Pl~n ie done. If thqt 18 true.
we feel adjustments muet be made to include the public before events move ahe~d~
. ---
" •
o
In view of the l~ck of fund 9 I ve may be looking at many ye~re before the
city 'Will be R..bl~ to m.t:tke im~rovements beyond the Implementl'ltiO!.1 Pllitn. Rovever
there 18 I'l gre~t de~l of York thp.t must be finished before the r~lementat1on
Ph~ge 1s com~leted.
The pri~r~ problems th~t hl'lve been deb~ted for over ~ ~el'lr h~ve revolved
around the use of the land ~nd ~~Tk1ng. Ye feel the focue at this point ~nd
time need'S to be on the wor-k outlined in the Implernent.l!tion PlIt.Tl. Ae ~ re~lllt
of the May 6. 1991, cit,v council action, the Implement.l'3.tion P1;1:1.l1 ha'5 be~m mod
ified. p;q,rking ~nd circulation of care h~9 been "iltered. the ble~chers are
retained. ~nd the tennis cDurts ;q,re not ~oin~ tc be moved. lr. sdd1ti~n. ~here
are other sitWliions thRt come to mind: 'Whl;i.t iO! the !!It"ltU9 of th~ Greendell
turn ~round? 'Will there be a h.lirdb~ll bJlseblill field? Ro .... !M.n~: lI!!occer fields?
How do we keep c~rs ~nd truck~ off the track? Indeed. there i9~a long list of
items ~hich ~ay eeem minor to eome. but they c~n h~ve m~jor consequence~ for
others ..
In short. ve t~ke the position that most of the things th~t viII OCcur
durin~ the Irnplement~tion Pl~n ~re m~joL con9ider~tion9. Ther~foTe. the pro
posed Zoning M~o Amendment taKes ue in the ri~ht direction for !!lome futu~e
events th~t ~y be many ye~rs from now, Howp.ver. there needs to be a p~oce~ure
th~t ~ndre88e8 those decision! th~t must be m~de vith1n our pre8~nt time fr~e
when l,Iork is oeiYip-; considered dUl"in~ the Impleme!'1t~tion Ph""se. 'We should not
h~ve to ~orry ~bout bulldozers ~rrivi~ t~ Tedesi~n tne athletic field without
prior kr.o~led~e ~nd community involvement with the pl~ne,
Recommendatiops~
1. Extend the PF(D) degign~tion to all considerations durin~ th~ I~nlement~tion
Ph~!'!!e ..
2. Est~blish methods and proceduTes th~t allo~s the public to be involved be
fore ~n item is considere~ m~jor or minora
3. The public should h~ve ample opport~~lty to reg~ond to rec~~nd~tions ~nd
design ch~es before they ~re presented to the-ARB. ~1~nn1p~ Commission.
or City Council.
Very Truly.
;:!;g=~
..•. _----